The effect of twice-weekly versus once-weekly sessions of either imagery rescripting or eye movement desensitization and reprocessing for adults with PTSD from childhood trauma (IREM-Freq): a study protocol for an international randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Trauma-focused treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are commonly delivered either once or twice a week. Initial evidence suggests that session frequency affects treatment response, but very few trials have investigated the effect of session frequency. The present study's aim is to compare treatment outcomes of twice-weekly versus once-weekly sessions of two treatments for PTSD related to childhood trauma, imagery rescripting (ImRs) and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR). We hypothesize that both treatments will be more effective when delivered twice than once a week. How session frequency impacts treatment response, whether treatment type moderates the frequency effect, and which treatment type and frequency works best for whom will also be investigated. METHODS: The IREM-Freq trial is an international multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted in mental healthcare centers across Australia, Germany, and the Netherlands. We aim to recruit 220 participants, who will be randomized to one of four conditions: (1) EMDR once a week, (2) EMDR twice a week, (3) ImRs once a week, or (4) ImRs twice a week. Treatment consists of 12 sessions. Data are collected at baseline until one-year follow-up. The primary outcome measure is clinician-rated PTSD symptom severity. Secondary outcome measures include self-reported PTSD symptom severity, complex PTSD symptoms, trauma-related cognitions and emotions, depressive symptoms, dissociation, quality of life, and functioning. Process measures include memory, learning, therapeutic alliance, motivation, reluctance, and avoidance. Additional investigations will focus on predictors of treatment outcome and PTSD severity, change mechanisms of EMDR and ImRs, the role of emotions, cognitions, and memory, the optimization of treatment selection, learned helplessness, perspectives of patients and therapists, the network structure of PTSD symptoms, and sudden treatment gains. DISCUSSION: This study will extend our knowledge on trauma-focused treatments for PTSD related to childhood trauma and, more specifically, the importance of session frequency. More insight into the optimal session frequency could lead to improved treatment outcomes and less dropout, and in turn, to a reduction of healthcare costs. Moreover, the additional investigations will broaden our understanding of how the treatments work and variables that affect treatment outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NL6965, registered 25/04/2018.

Trauma-focused treatments for depression. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Trauma-focused treatments (TFTs) have demonstrated efficacy at decreasing depressive symptoms in individuals with PTSD. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of TFTs for individuals with depression as their primary concern. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted for RCTs published before October 2019 in Cochrane CENTRAL, Pubmed, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and additional sources. Trials examining the impact of TFTs on participants with depression were included. Trials focusing on individuals with PTSD or another mental health condition were excluded. The primary outcome was the effect size for depression diagnosis or depressive symptoms. Heterogeneity, study quality, and publication bias were also explored. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs were included (n = 567) with ten of these using EMDR as the TFT and one using imagery rescripting. Analysis suggested these TFTs were effective in reducing depressive symptoms post-treatment with a large effect size [d = 1.17 (95% CI: 0.58~ 1.75)]. Removal of an outlier saw the effect size remain large [d = 0.83 (95% CI: 0.48~ 1.17)], while the heterogeneity decreased (I2 = 66%). Analysis of the 10 studies that used EMDR also showed a large effect [d = 1.30 (95% CI: 0.67~1.91)]. EMDR was superior to non trauma-focused CBT [d = 0.66 (95% CI: 0.31~1.02)] and analysis of EMDR and imagery rescripting studies suggest superiority over inactive control conditions [d = 1.19 (95% CI: 0.53~ 1.86)]. Analysis of follow-up data also supported the use of EMDR with this population [d = 0.71 (95% CI: 1.04~0.38)]. No publication bias was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that EMDR can be an effective treatment for depression. There were insufficient RCTs on other trauma-focused interventions to conclude whether TFTs in general were effective for treating depression. Larger studies with robust methodology using EMDR and other trauma-focused interventions are needed to build on these findings.

A randomized controlled trial examining the impact of individual trauma-focused therapy for individuals receiving group treatment for depression.

OBJECTIVES: Adverse life events are associated with increased likelihood of depression and poorer prognosis. Trauma-focused treatments (TFT) appear to be effective in decreasing comorbid depressive symptoms. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a TFT on the memories of aversive events for individuals with a primary diagnosis of depression. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 49 participants recruited from a 10-day outpatient group programme. All participants showed symptoms of depression with a subgroup (80%) meeting the DSM-5 criteria for a major depressive episode. Participants received treatment as usual (TAU); three additional individual trauma-focused sessions; or three additional individual assertiveness training sessions. Participants were assessed with regards to depression diagnosis and related symptoms. RESULTS: For participants with a major depressive episode, the addition of trauma-focused sessions significantly increased the likelihood of remission when compared to TAU, or additional assertiveness training. While no significant treatment difference was noted in depressive symptom change post-treatment, six weeks after treatment those who received an adjunct treatment were more likely to maintain treatment gains than those who received TAU. Furthermore, at 12-week follow-up, participants who received a TFT reported significantly fewer depressive symptoms than those who received assertiveness training. CONCLUSIONS: While differences in outcomes were minimal immediately post-treatment, differences among treatment groups increased over time. Thus, as few as three additional TFT sessions may impact positively on symptom change for people completing a group programme for the treatment of depression. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Depression is the greatest cause of disability worldwide. Adverse experiences are linked with an increased likelihood of depression, more severe symptoms and poor treatment outcomes following evidence-based interventions. As few as three trauma-focused sessions can improve treatment outcomes in terms of depression diagnosis and related symptoms for individuals receiving group cognitive behavioural therapy.

Errors in the 2017 APA Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of PTSD: What the Data Actually Says.

The American Psychological Association (APA) Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) concluded that there was strong evidence for cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), cognitive processing therapy (CPT), cognitive therapy (CT), and exposure therapy yet weak evidence for eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR). This is despite the findings from an associated systematic review which concluded that EMDR leads to loss of PTSD diagnosis and symptom reduction. Depression symptoms were also found to improve more with EMDR than control conditions. In that review, EMDR was marked down on strength of evidence (SOE) for symptom reduction for PTSD. However, there were several problems with the conclusions of that review. Firstly, in assessing the evidence in one of the studies, the reviewers chose an incorrect measure that skewed the data. We recalculated a meta-analysis with a more appropriate measure and found the SOE improved. The resulting effect size for EMDR on PTSD symptom reduction compared to a control condition was large for studies that meet the APA inclusion criteria (SMD = 1.28) and the heterogeneity was low (I2= 43%). Secondly, even if the original measure was chosen, we highlight inconsistencies with the way SOE was assessed for EMDR, CT, and CPT. Thirdly, we highlight two papers that were omitted from the analysis. One of these was omitted without any apparent reason. It found EMDR superior to a placebo control. The other study was published in 2015 and should have been part of APA guidelines since they were published in 2017. The inclusion of either study would have resulted in an improvement in SOE. Including both studies results in standard mean difference and confidence intervals that were better for EMDR than for CPT or CT. Therefore, the SOE should have been rated as moderate and EMDR assessed as at least equivalent to these CBT approaches in the APA guidelines. This would bring the APA guidelines in line with other recent practice guidelines from other countries. Less critical but also important, were several inaccuracies in assessing the risk of bias and the failure to consider studies supporting strong gains of EMDR at follow-up.

Barriers to Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy Regarding Treatment of High-Tone Pelvic Floor Dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic pelvic pain is a prevalent and debilitating condition with a wide range of etiologies. An estimated 30% to 70% of chronic pelvic cases involve musculoskeletal component pain including high-tone pelvic floor dysfunction (HTPFD). Pelvic floor physical therapy has been shown to be a beneficial treatment for HTPFD, yet many patients do not have access to this treatment. The objective of this study was to identify the barriers preventing patients from following through with the first-line management, physical therapy. METHODS: Participants with a diagnosis of HTPFD (n = 154) were identified from the list of referrals sent from the obstetrics and gynecology department to an affiliated PFPT center. Participants were contacted and asked to complete a phone survey addressing demographics and perceived barriers to care. Responses were collected in REDCap. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed using a statistical analysis software. RESULTS: Seventy surveys were completed. The top barriers identified by participants were financial constraints (51.4%), perceived lack of utility (37.1%), time constraints (30.0%), and travel issues (18.6%); 84.4% of participants had 1 or more comorbid pain condition. Whereas 51.4% expressed some level of anxiety regarding the PFPT option, only 9.6% of participants did not start treatment because of fear of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of treatment barriers identified were concrete restraints, with insurance noncoverage and time constraints being the top issues. A fair number of participants expressed anxiety about the treatment or felt they received unclear explanations of the treatment. These are areas in which providers can potentially alleviate some barriers to care.