1 / 19

EABCT 2002, Maastricht Comorbidity as a challenge for treatment guidelines Frank Jacobi

EABCT 2002, Maastricht Comorbidity as a challenge for treatment guidelines Frank Jacobi Jürgen Hoyer Hans-Ulrich Wittchen Dresden University of Technology, Germany Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy Epidemiology and Health Care Service Research. Focus on treatment guidelines in.

barb
Download Presentation

EABCT 2002, Maastricht Comorbidity as a challenge for treatment guidelines Frank Jacobi

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. EABCT 2002, Maastricht Comorbidity as a challenge for treatment guidelines Frank Jacobi Jürgen Hoyer Hans-Ulrich Wittchen Dresden University of Technology, Germany Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy Epidemiology and Health Care Service Research

  2. Focus on treatment guidelines in... • Therapies in controlled studies: Methodologic demands in etiologic and psychotherapy research: (“integrity” of tested intervention) • Health care politics: quality control, allocation of treatment funding, cost-benefit calculations • Practitioners: “evidence based” help for diagnosis, (differential) indication, and application (effectiveness and efficiency)

  3. Limitations of disorder-specific guidelines and treatment manuals: Comorbidity is a fact (in the “DSM world”) • High comorbidity found in epidemiological studies (high sensitivity of standardized interviews) • High comorbidity seen in clinical settings (comorbidity as a strong risk factor of impairent and helpseeking)

  4. Limitations of disorder-specific guidelines and treatment manuals: Comorbidity is a fact (in the “DSM world”) • High comorbidity found in epidemiological studies (high sensitivity of standardized interviews) • High comorbidity seen in clinical settings (comorbidity as a strong risk factor of impairent and helpseeking) • and: substantial association mental vs. somatic disorders (e.g. Hoyer, Jacobi, Höfler & Wittchen, 2002); particular importance in GP and inpatient settings

  5. Comorbidity of mental disordersin the general population: Prevalence Cross sectional (12 month) comorbidity very common in many diagnoses (GHS-MHS, N=4181; Jacobi, Wittchen etal., 2002; Jacobi, Wittchen et al., submitted): • Comorbidity by subjects: 40% with a DSM-IV mental disorder received more than one, and 10% more than three diagnoses • Comorbidity by disorders: ranging from 44% (alcohol abuse/dependence) to 94% (GAD); mean: 66%

  6. Comorbidity of mental disordersin the general population: Prevalence Cross sectional (12 month) comorbidity very common in many diagnoses (GHS-MHS; Jacobi, Wittchen et al., submitted): • Comorbidity by subjects: 40% with a DSM-IV mental disorder received more than one, and 10% more than three diagnoses • Comorbidity by disorders: ranging from 46% (alcohol dependence) to 94% (GAD); mean: 66% #grafik • Even more comorbidity when taking into account lifetime and subthreshold diagnoses (+ interpersonal problems, Axis II disorders etc.)

  7. comorbidity mood disorders: 39%-82% comorbidity anxiety disorders: 38%-94% comorbidity substance disorders: 41%-83% comorbidity somatoform disorders: 39%-75%

  8. Comorbidity of mental disordersin the general population: Correlates 1. Sociodemographic variables: no therapeutic heuristics • Females 15% more disorders (if at least one disorder) than males • Low social class (Winkler-Index) 25% more disorders (if at least one disorder) than high social class 2. Comorbidity as a predictor for impairment and health care utilization • Highly comorbid (>3 disorders) 15x more impairment days due to mental health problems than in “pure” cases • 75% of highly comorbid (>3 disorders) have received at least minimal health care intervention due to mental health problems vs. 30% of the “pure” cases

  9. Comorbidity of mental disordersin the general population: Correlates 3. Associations mental and somatic health • Highly comorbid (>3 disorders) elevated risk to have poor somatic health status compared to “pure” cases (OR=4.1; 95%ci: 2.2-7.7) • Subjects with somatic conditions had 80% more mental comorbidity than physically healthy subjects 4. Specific comorbidity patterns: elevated risk of developing secondary mental disorders • Example: Anxiety and depressive disorders

  10. Cumulative hazard rate for (comorbid) anxiety and depressive disorders (NCS data) Anxiety % age

  11. Cumulative hazard rate for (comorbid) anxiety and depressive disorders (NCS data) Anxiety MDD-total % age

  12. Cumulative hazard rate for (comorbid) anxiety and depressive disorders (NCS data) Anxiety MDD-total % MDD-pure/primary age

  13. Disorder specific manuals: Do they ever fit? Sceptical conclusions • It doesn´t make sense to use disorder-specific manuals if I never see a “pure” patient • Comorbidity is too complex to be include into decision making • Variety of comorbidity patterns underline that patients are individuals and therefore shouldn´t be treated standardized • and: Reservation towards manuals designed by scientists (“Lack of external validity in controlled studies”)

  14. Optimistic conclusions:Strenghts of evidence based heuristics • Manuals that contain information about comorbidity can be helpful in generating hypotheses about concrete patients • Even in highly comorbid patients at least parts/modules of manuals can be applied • Prevention of negative therapy outcome

  15. Using manuals in clinical practice: How to deal with comorbidity • Pure diagnosis: use manual • Comorbidity of “similar” conditions: use rational of manual(s) • Comorbidity of “dissimilar” conditions: • rationals different but not incompatible: consecutive use of respective manuals (e.g. primary first) • rationals incompatible: decision for one of the conflicting rationals in order to at least reduce comorbidity, or completely nonmanualized case formulation • “diffuse” multimorbidity or unclear interpersonal problems: don´t use manuals

  16. Using manuals in clinical practice: Examples for “comorbidity rules” • Don´t neglect (lifetime) comorbidity assessment and prediction • Comorbidity is a risk factor of impairment and further negative development ( measure for severity) • Knowledge about risk factors should have consequences for prognosis even when potential secondary condition not currently present • Even “non-severe” comorbid conditions (e.g. panic attack without diagnosis of panic disorder, specific phobia) can be vulnerability markers for future problems • Treat primary anxiety disorders first (Caveat: Exceptions; e.g. substance related disorders, severe depression) • Assess comorbidity systematically as a check for counter- indication of certain manual interventions (e.g. suicidality, psychosis)

  17. Developing empirically based guidelines for comorbidity treatment • Identification of common/significant comorbidity patterns that potentially conflict with disorder specific manualized treatment • Test of epidemiologically found possibly significant comorbidity patterns in clinical treatment datasets • Refinement of diagnostic features in disorder specific manuals with differential suggestions for interventions (e.g. severity/amount of comorbidity, functional vs. interpersonal, personality/Axis II features, course, primary vs. secondary etc.)

  18. Developing empirically based guidelines: General perspectives • Developing guidelines for the management of common/significant comorbid conditions • Developing process guidelines in addition to disorder-specific manualized techniques • Caspar (1997): “What goes on in a psychotherapist´s mind?”: How to teach “intuition vs. cook-book” in comorbid cases • Lutz (2002): “Patient focused psychotherapy research”: Taking comorbidity-process-interactions into account when predicting treatment outcome

  19. Developing empirically based guidelines: General perspectives • Consensus on “good” guidelines possible? • “Guidelines on guideline development” • Local adaptations but not idiosyncratic manuals for every country or profession • manualizing goals rather than techniques • Still a long way to go: The fine line between simplifying vs. being sophisticated • e.g. some psychiatric guidelines: ”first line=SSRI, second line=adding CBT” very vague • determined by empirical base, practical application, politics, scientific community...

More Related