Impairment in pure and comorbid generalized anxiety disorder and major depression at 12 months in two national surveys.

OBJECTIVE: Generalized anxiety disorder might be better conceptualized as a prodrome, residual, or severity marker of major depression or other comorbid disorders than as an independent diagnosis. The authors questioned whether generalized anxiety disorder itself is associated with role impairment or whether the impairment of patients with generalized anxiety disorder is due to depression or other comorbid disorders. METHOD: The authors assessed data from the National Comorbidity Survey and the Midlife Development in the United States Survey for generalized anxiety disorder and major depression at 12 months by using the DSM-III-R criteria with modified versions of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. RESULTS: The prevalences of generalized anxiety disorder at 12 months were 3.1% and 3.3%, respectively, in the National Comorbidity Survey and the Midlife Development in the United States Survey; the prevalences of major depression at 12 months were 10.3% and 14.1%. The majority of respondents with generalized anxiety disorder at 12 months in the National Comorbidity Survey (58.1%) and the Midlife Development in the United States Survey (69.7%) also met the criteria for major depression at 12 months. Comparisons of respondents with one versus neither disorder showed that both disorders had statistically significant independent associations with impairment that were roughly equal in magnitude. These associations could not be explained by the other comorbid DSM-III-R disorders or by sociodemographic variables. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that a substantial amount of generalized anxiety disorder occurs independently of major depression and that the role impairment of generalized anxiety disorder is comparable to that of major depression.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of venlafaxine extended release and buspirone in outpatients with generalized anxiety disorder.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this randomized, double-blind study was to compare the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine extended release (XR) and buspirone in outpatients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) but without concomitant major depressive disorder. METHOD: Male and female outpatients at least 18 years old who met the DSM-IV criteria for GAD and had scores of 18 or higher on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) were randomly assigned to treatment with either venlafaxine XR (75 or 150 mg/day), buspirone (30 mg/day in 3 divided doses), or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy variables were changes in anxiety as determined by final on-therapy HAM-A total and psychic anxiety scores and Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI) scores. Other key efficacy variables were HAM-A anxious mood and tension scores and the anxiety subscale scores of the patient-rated Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HAD). RESULTS: The efficacy analysis included 365 patients and the safety analysis, 405. At week 8, adjusted mean HAM-A psychic anxiety, anxious mood, and tension scores were significantly lower for venlafaxine XR-treated patients than for placebo-treated patients. On the HAD anxiety subscale, venlafaxine XR, 75 or 150 mg/day, was significantly more efficacious than placebo at all time points except weeks 1 (both dosages) and 2 (150-mg/day dosage only) and significantly more efficacious than buspirone at all time points except week 1. On the CGI-Improvement scale, scores for venlafaxine XR (both dosages) and buspirone were numerically superior to those for placebo at all time points, and statistical significance was observed at weeks 3, 4, 6, and 8 for venlafaxine XR and at weeks 6 and 8 for buspirone. The adverse events were not essentially different between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Venlafaxine XR is an effective, safe, and well-tolerated once-daily anxiolytic agent in patients with GAD without comorbid major depressive disorder. This agent was significantly superior to buspirone on the HAD anxiety subscale. Buspirone demonstrated statistical significance versus placebo on a measure of anxiolytic response.

Twelve-step and mutual-help programs for addictive disorders.

Psychiatrists may wonder why both addiction treatment and the 12-step programs recommend abstinence. In his 50-year follow-up of two groups of alcoholics, Vaillant compared those who established secure abstinence with those who continued to drink. Secure abstinence was associated with: Living longer Better mental health Better marriages Being more responsible parents Being successful employees In considering the various routes to secure recovery, Vaillant recommended that clinicians: Offer the patient a nonchemical substitute for alcohol Remind the patient ritually that even one drink can lead to pain and relapse Repair the social and medical damage that the patient has experienced Restore the patient's self-esteem The preponderance of the research data now available indicates that the 12-step programs of AA, NA, Cocaine Anonymous, and Al-Anon are most helpful for alcohol-dependent and other drug-addicted patients as they seek to achieve secure, long-term abstinence. A growing number of clinicians is recommending that physicians become more knowledgeable and skilled in referring and supporting patients in working 12-step programs of recovery. Specific recommendations include: 1. Be familiar with 12-step activities and tools. These include meetings, home groups, sponsors, the Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, books, pamphlets, and slogans. To be able to discuss the meanings and applications of these tools for recovery is useful. Physicians can select those that are most suitable for the individual, recognizing that meeting attendance might not be the most important activity. 2. Support referral by facilitating a meeting between the patient and a temporary contact from the 12-step program. This means becoming familiar with local 12-step programs. Phoning the local AA or NA central office or hot line makes connecting patients to someone who will take them to a meeting that same day possible. AA and NA have committees whose members are interested in working with physicians to help get patients to meetings and to get information to physicians. These are the Cooperation with the Professional Community, Treatment Facilities, and Hospitals and Institutions committees. 3. Work with the resistance of patients. Many addicted patients are resistant to the idea of attending 12-step or mutual-help programs. Reminders of their painful personal database associated with the use of alcohol or other drugs can help break through denial. Involvement of family members and friends in the network therapy developed by Galanter can be effective in reducing resistance. Being patient and persistent in developing the therapeutic alliance helps to maintain contact during the first difficult year of recovery. Physicians should be prepared to work with patients as long as necessary to stabilize their sobriety. Zweben has suggested ways psychotherapy can help deepen work with the steps. 4. Help dual diagnosis patients understand AA's and NA's singleness of purpose. These programs work only with addiction; they do not try in any way to deal with other mental disorders. All patients have to say is, "I want to stop drinking or using drugs," and they will be welcomed and accepted at meetings (see Tradition 3). If they talk only about their psychiatric symptoms or medications, someone may suggest that they go elsewhere for help. Occasionally, well-intentioned AA or NA members tell patients to stop taking their medications. The authors always direct patients to the pamphlet The AA Member: Medications and Other Drugs. This pamphlet tells AA members not to play doctor and to take the medications their doctors prescribe. Copies of the pamphlet are widely available at many AA meetings, or they can be ordered by physicians from Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, General Service Office, Box 459, Grand Central Station, New York, NY 10163 (212-870-3400). 5. Get comfortable with the spiritual dimensions of healing. Zweber and Brown offer good suggestions for getting com

The origins of the Minnesota model of addiction treatment--a first person account.

The Minnesota Model, also known as the abstinence model, of addiction treatment was created in a state mental hospital in the 1950s by two young men, one who was to become a psychologist, the other who was to become a psychiatrist, neither of whom had prior experience treating addicts or alcoholics. The model spread first to a small not-for-profit organization called the Hazelden Foundation and then throughout the country. The key element of this novel approach to addiction treatment was the blending of professional and trained nonprofessional (recovering) staff around the principles of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). There was an individualized treatment plan with active family involvement in a 28-day inpatient setting and participation in Alcoholics Anonymous both during and after treatment. The education of patients and family about the disease of addiction made this a busy program from morning to night, seven days a week.

Examining the debate on the use of medical marijuana.

The opium poppy and the coca leaf offer useful perspectives on the current controversies over medical marijuana. In both cases, purified synthetic analogues of biologically active components of ancient folk remedies have become medical mainstays without undermining efforts to reduce nonmedical drug use. A decade ago, a campaign strove to legalize heroin for the compassionate treatment of pain in terminally ill patients. Like the current campaign to legalize medical marijuana, many well-meaning people supported this effort. The campaign for medical heroin was stopped by science when double-blind studies showed that heroin offered no benefits over the standard opioid analgesics in the treatment of severe cancer pain. Scientific medicine requires purified chemicals in carefully controlled doses without contaminating toxic substances. That a doctor would one day write a prescription for leaves to be burned is unimaginable. The Controlled Substances Act and international treaties limit the use of abused drugs or medicines. In contrast to smoked marijuana, specific chemicals in marijuana or, more likely, synthetic analogues, may prove to be of benefit to some patients with specific illnesses. Most opponents of medical use of smoked marijuana are not hostile to the medical use of purified synthetic analogues or even synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which has been available in the United States for prescription by any licensed doctor since 1985. In contrast, most supporters of smoked marijuana are hostile to the use of purified chemicals from marijuana, insisting that only smoked marijuana leaves be used as "medicine," revealing clearly that their motivation is not scientific medicine but the back door legalization of marijuana.

Addiction: a new paradigm.

The older view of addiction was that people became addicted because they were ignorant of the risks of addiction, they were unhappy, or they lacked healthy opportunities. Once addicted, they were hooked by physical dependence, causing them to continue use despite wanting to quit. The new paradigm of addiction focuses on reward and the powerful experience of falling in love with the feeling that addictive behaviors produce. Potential addicts seek brain reward and are heedless of the risks, of which they are seldom ignorant. Withdrawal is largely irrelevant. The problem of addiction is the power of brain reward. The new view of addiction has important implications for prevention, treatment, public policy, and medical treatment with controlled substances.

Panic disorder and addiction: the clinical issues of comorbidity.

Panic disorder and addiction are occasionally comorbid--4.5% of addicted patients have panic disorder, and 16% of panic disorder patients are comorbid for addiction to alcohol and other drugs. Despite these relatively low rates of comorbidity, the treatment of these two disorders is commonly confounded by issues of comorbidity, as many physicians avoid using benzodiazepines to treat panic disorder out of inappropriate fear of addiction, and not a few physicians treat panic disorder thinking that they will thereby end comorbid addiction. Sound clinical practice calls for clear identification of both panic disorder and addiction and fully effective treatments of the diseases from which the patients suffer.

Harm reduction and decriminalization in the United States: a personal perspective.

Harm reduction, an alternative to both drug legalization and drug prohibition, seeks to preserve prohibition by keeping the supply of drugs illegal while softening some of the harsh consequences of prohibition. Typical harm reduction proposals are needle exchanges for intravenous drug users to reduce the spread of HIV infection and the medical use of marijuana for a variety of illnesses including AIDS, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, and cancer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. While attractive as a reasonable-sounding compromise, harm reduction carries a high price because it undermines the social signal of prohibition. This signal is a vital public health strategy, especially when it comes to primary prevention of use of alcohol and other drugs by youth. A personal experience with harm reduction, leading to rejection of this approach, is described. Harm reduction, enjoying a minor comeback in the United States, is a favored policy in much of Europe today. Harm reduction is not new, and it is a failure as a public health policy.

Economic costs of anxiety disorders.

Anxiety disorders are estimated to affect 26.9 million individuals in the United States at some point during their lives. This study used the human capital approach to estimate the direct and indirect costs of these highly prevalent disorders. In 1990, costs associated with anxiety disorders were $46.6 billion, 31.5% of total expenditures for mental illness. Less than one-quarter of costs associated with anxiety disorders were for direct medical treatment; over three-quarters were attributable to lost or reduced productivity. Most of these indirect costs were associated with morbidity, as mortality accounted for just 2.7% of the total. Greater availability of effective, relatively low-cost outpatient treatment could substantially reduce the economic and social burden of these common and often crippling disorders.

Drug legalization, harm reduction, and drug policy.

The current U.S. policy options on drug use are reviewed in the context of the history of drug policy in the United States. A restrictive drug policy is a deterrent to drug use and helps reduce drug-related costs and societal problems. Although legalization or decriminalization of drugs might reduce some of the legal consequences of drug use, increased drug use would result in harmful consequences.

Economic costs of obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), classified as a severe mental illness by the National Advisory Mental Health Council, affects 2.1% of the population annually, as shown by the Epidemiological Catchment Area surveys. This study, using the human capital approach, estimated the direct and indirect costs of OCD. The total costs of OCD were estimated to be $8.4 billion in 1990, 5.7% of the estimated $147.8 billion cost of all mental illness, and 18.0% of the costs of all anxiety disorders, estimated to be $46.6 billion. The indirect costs of OCD, reflecting lost productivity of individuals suffering from or dying from the disorder, were estimated at $6.2 billion.

Drug testing by urine and hair analysis: complementary features and scientific issues.

Hair analysis and urinalysis are complementary tests for establishing drug use. Hair analysis provides long-term information, from months to years, concerning both the severity and pattern of drug use. In contrast to this, urinalysis can indicate only drug use, and then generally only that which has occurred within the last 2-3 days. Field studies have demonstrated that hair analysis is considerably more effective than urinalysis at identifying drug users. This difference is due to the wider surveillance window of hair analysis and to the susceptibility of urinalysis to evasive maneuvers. The main concerns with urinalysis are endogenous evidentiary false positives caused by passive drug exposure, e.g., ingestion of poppy seed. This problem arises from the hypersensitivity of the urine test, i.e. the need to use low cut-off levels in order to compensate for the temporary recording of drug use. This problem does not occur with hair analysis since its wide window of detection and permanent record of drug use ensure that the detection efficiency of the test is not compromised by the use of more effective cut-off levels guarding against passive endogenous drug exposure. On the other hand, exogenous evidentiary false positives due to external contamination of hair by drugs present in the environment (e.g., smoke) are the main concern of hair analysis. This problem, however, can be effectively avoided by washing the hair specimen, by kinetic analyses of the wash data, and by measurement of metabolites. The possibility of bias due to race and/or hair color is avoided by the exclusion of melanin from the analysis of hair. The safety and effectiveness of hair testing has been established by extensive field studies with over 400,000 specimens.

Anxiety and addiction: a clinical perspective on comorbidity.

Substance use disorders and the anxiety disorders, the two most prevalent mental disorders in the United States, are often comorbid, undiagnosed, and poorly treated. Confusion and controversy over comorbidity can complicate the treatment of both disorders. The author reviews the connections between addiction and anxiety and offers four practical guidelines for clinicians dealing with this comorbidity.

Random drug tests at work: the probability of identifying frequent and infrequent users of illicit drugs.

Random drug testing in the workplace has become more common since federal guidelines were issued in 1988, despite the criticism that most positive tests are the result of occasional use of illicit drugs. In order to determine the relative probabilities of detecting frequent versus infrequent users of illicit drugs, a survey of 15 experts in the drug abuse field was conducted. Based on the responses, it was estimated that 55% of employed people who used any illicit drugs in the prior year were annual drug users, 37% were monthly users, and 8% were daily users. Analysis using probability theory indicated that among workplace drug users who test positive, 52% will be daily users, 41% will be monthly users, and only 7% will be annual users. At a 50% testing rate, random drug tests identify 40% of daily users, 8% of monthly users and only 1% of annual users during the course of a year. The estimated rate of illicit drug use among employees is approximately eight times the average random testing positive rate. Random drug tests in the workplace are effective in identifying near daily users of illicit drugs, but they are less effective at identifying infrequent drug users. Employers have found that random drug testing is a deterrent to both frequent and occasional use of illicit drugs.

Benzodiazepines, addiction, and public policy.

The understanding of prescription drug abuse is important in medicine, especially for the most widely used controlled substances: benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines treat anxiety and insomnia, two of the most common problems for which patients seek treatment.