Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is frequently associated with depression and anxiety, but the nature of the relationship is unclear. By removing mood and anxiety diagnostic criteria, the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) aims to delineate a distinct PTSD phenotype. We examined the effect of implementing ICD-11 criteria on rates of codiagnosed depression and anxiety in survivors with recent PTSD. METHOD/METHODS:Participants were 1,061 survivors of traumatic injury admitted to acute care centers in Israel. ICD-10 and ICD-11 diagnostic rules were applied to the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-IV. Co-occurring disorders were identified using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID). Depression severity was measured by the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II). Assessments were performed 0-60 ("wave 1") and 90-240 ("wave 2") days after trauma exposure. RESULTS:Participants identified by ICD-11 PTSD criteria were equally or more likely than those identified by the ICD-10 alone to meet depression or anxiety disorder diagnostic criteria (for wave 1: depressive disorders, OR [odds ratio] = 1.98, 95% CI [confidence interval] = [1.36, 2.87]; anxiety disorders, OR = 1.04, 95% CI = [0.67, 1.64]; for wave 2: depressive disorders, OR = 1.70, 95% CI = [1.00, 2.91]; anxiety disorders, OR = 1.04, 95% CI = [0.54, 2.01]). ICD-11 PTSD was associated with higher BDI scores (M = 23.15 vs. 17.93, P < 0.001 for wave 1; M = 23.93 vs. 17.94, P < 0.001 for wave 2). PTSD symptom severity accounted for the higher levels of depression in ICD-11 PTSD. CONCLUSIONS:Despite excluding depression and anxiety symptom criteria, the ICD-11 identified equal or higher proportion of depression and anxiety disorders, suggesting that those are inherently associated with PTSD.

BACKGROUND:Projected changes to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnostic criteria in the upcoming International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11 may affect the prevalence and severity of identified cases. This study examined differences in rates, severity, and overlap of diagnoses using ICD-10 and ICD-11 PTSD diagnostic criteria during consecutive assessments of recent survivors of traumatic events. METHODS:The study sample comprised 3863 survivors of traumatic events, evaluated in 11 longitudinal studies of PTSD. ICD-10 and ICD-11 diagnostic rules were applied to the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) to derive ICD-10 and ICD-11 diagnoses at different time intervals between trauma occurrence and 15 months. RESULTS:The ICD-11 criteria identified fewer cases than the ICD-10 across assessment intervals (range -47.09% to -57.14%). Over 97% of ICD-11 PTSD cases met concurrent ICD-10 PTSD criteria. PTSD symptom severity of individuals identified by the ICD-11 criteria (CAPS total scores) was 31.38-36.49% higher than those identified by ICD-10 criteria alone. The latter, however, had CAPS scores indicative of moderate PTSD. ICD-11 was associated with similar or higher rates of comorbid mood and anxiety disorders. Individuals identified by either ICD-10 or ICD-11 shortly after traumatic events had similar longitudinal course. CONCLUSIONS:This study indicates that significantly fewer individuals would be diagnosed with PTSD using the proposed ICD-11 criteria. Though ICD-11 criteria identify more severe cases, those meeting ICD-10 but not ICD-11 criteria remain in the moderate range of PTSD symptoms. Use of ICD-11 criteria will have critical implications for case identification in clinical practice, national reporting, and research.

A timely determination of the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prerequisite for efficient service delivery and prevention. We provide a risk estimate tool allowing a calculation of individuals' PTSD likelihood from early predictors. Members of the International Consortium to Predict PTSD (ICPP) shared individual participants' item-level data from ten longitudinal studies of civilian trauma survivors admitted to acute care centers in six countries. Eligible participants (N=2,473) completed an initial clinical assessment within 60 days of trauma exposure, and at least one follow-up assessment 4-15 months later. The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-IV (CAPS) evaluated PTSD symptom severity and diagnostic status at each assessment. Participants' education, prior lifetime trauma exposure, marital status and socio-economic status were assessed and harmonized across studies. The study's main outcome was the likelihood of a follow-up PTSD given early predictors. The prevalence of follow-up PTSD was 11.8% (9.2% for male participants and 16.4% for females). A logistic model using early PTSD symptom severity (initial CAPS total score) as a predictor produced remarkably accurate estimates of follow-up PTSD (predicted vs. raw probabilities: r=0.976). Adding respondents' female gender, lower education, and exposure to prior interpersonal trauma to the model yielded higher PTSD likelihood estimates, with similar model accuracy (predicted vs. raw probabilities: r=0.941). The current model could be adjusted for other traumatic circumstances and accommodate risk factors not captured by the ICPP (e.g., biological, social). In line with their use in general medicine, risk estimate models can inform clinical choices in psychiatry. It is hoped that quantifying individuals' PTSD risk will be a first step towards systematic prevention of the disorder.

Background: Understanding the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a precondition for efficient risk assessment and prevention planning. Studies to date have been site and sample specific. Towards developing generalizable models of PTSD development and prediction, the International Consortium to Predict PTSD (ICPP) compiled data from 13 longitudinal, acute-care based PTSD studies performed in six different countries. Objective: The objectives of this study were to describe the ICPP's approach to data pooling and harmonization, and present cross-study descriptive results informing the longitudinal course of PTSD after acute trauma. Methods: Item-level data from 13 longitudinal studies of adult civilian trauma survivors were collected. Constructs (e.g. PTSD, depression), measures (questions or scales), and time variables (days from trauma) were identified and harmonized, and those with inconsistent coding (e.g. education, lifetime trauma exposure) were recoded. Administered in 11 studies, the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) emerged as the main measure of PTSD diagnosis and severity. Results: The pooled data set included 6254 subjects (39.9% female). Studies' average retention rate was 87.0% (range 49.1-93.5%). Participants' baseline assessments took place within 2 months of trauma exposure. Follow-up durations ranged from 188 to 1110 days. Reflecting studies' inclusion criteria, the prevalence of baseline PTSD differed significantly between studies (range 3.1-61.6%), and similar differences were observed in subsequent assessments (4.3-38.2% and 3.8-27.0% for second and third assessments, respectively). Conclusion: Pooling data from independently collected studies requires careful curation of individual data sets for extracting and optimizing informative commonalities. However, it is an important step towards developing robust and generalizable prediction models for PTSD and can exceed findings of single studies. The large differences in prevalence of PTSD longitudinally cautions against using any individual study to infer trauma outcome. The multiplicity of instruments used in individual studies emphasizes the need for common data elements in future studies.

BACKGROUND: Open-label trials suggest that escitalopram (up to 20 mg/d) is an effective treatment for some, but not all posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) patients. Higher doses of escitalopram effectively reduced major depression symptoms in patients who had not responded to regular doses. The current study examines the efficacy, tolerability, and adherence to high-dose escitalopram in PTSD. METHODS: Forty-five PTSD patients received 12 weeks of gradually increasing doses of escitalopram reaching 40 mg daily at 4 weeks. Among those, 12 participants received regular doses of antidepressants at study onset including escitalopram (n = 7). The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) evaluated PTSD symptoms severity before treatment, at 3 months (upon treatment termination), and at 6 months (maintenance effect). A 20% reduction in CAPS scores was deemed clinically significant. RESULTS: Adverse events and medication adherence were monitored at each clinical session. Linear mixed-models analysis showed a significant reduction of mean CAPS scores (11.5 +/- 18.1 points) at 3 months and maintenance of gains by 6 months (F2,34.56 = 8.15, P = 0.001). Eleven participants (34.3%) showed clinically significant improvement at 3 months. Only 9 participants (20%) left the study. There were no serious adverse events and few mild ones with only 2 adverse events (diarrhea, 11.1%; drowsiness, 11.1%) reported by more than 10% of participants. CONCLUSION: High doses of escitalopram are tolerable and well adhered to in PTSD. Their beneficial effect at a group level is due to a particularly good response in a subset of patients.Variability in prior pharmacological treatment precludes a definite attribution of the results to high doses of escitalopram.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a frequent, tenacious, and disabling consequence of traumatic events. The disorder's identifiable onset and early symptoms provide opportunities for early detection and prevention. Empirical findings and theoretical models have outlined specific risk factors and pathogenic processes leading to PTSD. Controlled studies have shown that theory-driven preventive interventions, such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), or stress hormone-targeted pharmacological interventions, are efficacious in selected samples of survivors. However, the effectiveness of early clinical interventions remains unknown, and results obtained in aggregates (large groups) overlook individual heterogeneity in PTSD pathogenesis. We review current evidence of PTSD prevention and outline the need to improve the disorder's early detection and intervention in individual-specific paths to chronic PTSD.

BACKGROUND: Food intake of the adult fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, an intermittent feeder, is attributed to several behavioral elements including foraging, feeding initiation and termination, and food ingestion. Despite the development of various feeding assays in fruit flies, how each of these behavioral elements, particularly food ingestion, is regulated remains largely uncharacterized. RESULTS: To this end, we have developed a manual feeding (MAFE) assay that specifically measures food ingestion of an individual fly completely independent of the other behavioral elements. This assay reliably recapitulates the effects of known feeding modulators, and offers temporal resolution in the scale of seconds. Using this assay, we find that fruit flies can rapidly assess the nutritional value of sugars within 20-30 s, and increase the ingestion of nutritive sugars after prolonged periods of starvation. Two candidate nutrient sensors, SLC5A11 and Gr43a, are required for discriminating the nutritive sugars, D-glucose and D-fructose, from their non-nutritive enantiomers, respectively. This suggests that differential sensing mechanisms play a key role in determining food nutritional value. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, our MAFE assay offers a platform to specifically examine the regulation of food ingestion with excellent temporal resolution, and identifies a fast-acting neural mechanism that assesses food nutritional value and modulates food intake.