| Literature DB >> 22182346 |
Hannah Adenauer1, Claudia Catani, Hannah Gola, Julian Keil, Martina Ruf, Maggie Schauer, Frank Neuner.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the neurobiological foundations of psychotherapy for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Prior studies have shown that PTSD is associated with altered processing of threatening and aversive stimuli. It remains unclear whether this functional abnormality can be changed by psychotherapy. This is the first randomized controlled treatment trial that examines whether narrative exposure therapy (NET) causes changes in affective stimulus processing in patients with chronic PTSD.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22182346 PMCID: PMC3258226 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2202-12-127
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Neurosci ISSN: 1471-2202 Impact factor: 3.288
Changes of PTSD and depressive symptoms through NET
| pre-test | post-test | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PTSD symptoms | ||||
| CAPS score | ||||
| NET (n = 11) | 88.0 (12.5) | 52.8 (18.8) | < .001 | |
| WLC (n = 8) | 72.0 (13.8) | 87.9 (18.5) | n.s. | |
| Depressive symptoms | ||||
| HDRS score | ||||
| NET (n = 11) | 25.8 (7.9) | 14.9 (5.5) | < .001 | |
| WLC (n = 8) | 27.4 (5.6) | 27.9 (7.4) | n.s. | |
Note: Change scores were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVAs.
Figure 1Difference maps (PTSD minus healthy controls) of cortical activity following aversive (upper panel) and pleasant picture presentation (lower panel). The right panel indicates statistically significant brain regions revealed by permutation statistics. Cortical activity following neutral picture presentation was used for normalization. We found significantly reduced activity following aversive picture presentation in the left occipital cortex in PTSD patients compared to healthy controls. No differences of the cortical activation were found between healthy controls and PTSD subjects in following pleasant pictures.
Figure 2Threat effect (cortical activation following aversive picture presentation) for all patients at pretest. Color bar indicates minimum norm source strength (left). Permutation statistics revealed no significant difference between the NET and the WLC group (right). Cortical activity following neutral picture presentation was used for normalization.
Figure 3Threat effect (cortical activation following aversive picture presentation) group differences in pre to post treatment change. Color bar indicates minimum norm source strength (left). The circle marks significant interaction between the NET and WLC group and pre to post treatment time as indicated by permutation statistics (right). Cortical activity following neutral picture presentation was used for normalization.
Figure 4Pre to post treatment time course of threat effect (cortical activation following aversive picture presentation) in parietal regions (left) and occipital regions (right) for NET and WLC patients. Ordinates indicate minimum norm source strength. Cortical activity following neutral picture presentation was used for normalization.
Figure 5Pre to post treatment time effect for NET (left) and WLC (right) patients. Color bar indicates minimum norm source strength following aversive picture presentation. The circle marks significant difference between pre and post treatment time as indicated by permutation statistics. Cortical activity following neutral picture presentation was used for normalization.
Figure 6Flowchart of study participants. NET indicates Narrative Exposure Therapy, WLC indicates waitlist control condition.
Pre-treatment demographic and clinical characteristic of study participants
| Intention to Treat | Study Completer | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic Data | |||||||
| Sex | 0.97 | 0.31 | |||||
| female | 7 (43.8) | 8 (44.4) | 3 (27.3) | 4 (50.0) | |||
| male | 9 (56.3) | 10 (55.6) | 8 (72.7) | 4 (50.0) | |||
| Age | 30.3 (9.2) | 36.4 (9.9) | 0.09 | 28.6 (8.6) | 33.6 (9.8) | 0.25 | |
| Education (ys school) | 8.7 (3.3) | 7.8 (3.3) | 0.51 | 8.9 (3.4) | 7.9 (2.7) | 0.51 | |
| Regions of Origin | 0.15 | 0.65 | |||||
| Middle East | 8 (50.0) | 11 (61.1) | 6 (54.6) | 4 (50.0) | |||
| Central East | 2 (12.5) | 1 (5.6) | 1 (9.1) | 1 (12.5) | |||
| The Balkans | - | 3 (16.7) | - | 1 (12.5) | |||
| Africa | 6 (37.5) | 2 (11.1) | 4 (36.4) | 2 (25.0) | |||
| Asylum Status (insecure) | 14 (87.5) | 18 (100.0) | 0.12 | 9 (81.8) | 8 (100.0) | 0.20 | |
| Clinical Data | |||||||
| Events (numbers) | |||||||
| CAPS Event-Types | 7.4 (2.3) | 6.6 (2.0) | 0.31 | 7.0 (2.3) | 6.5 (2.1) | 0.71 | |
| War&Torture-Types | 11.3 (5.6) | 9.4 (4.7) | 0.29 | 11.4 (6.7) | 7.6 (4.9) | 0.16 | |
| Clinical Symptoms | |||||||
| CAPS Score | 89.5 (14.7) | 80.1 (16.5) | 0.16 | 88.0 (12.5) | 72.0 (13.8) | 0.04 | |
| HDRS | 27.3 (8.1) | 27.3 (6.9) | 0.74 | 25.8 (7.9) | 27.4 (5.6) | 0.77 | |
Study Completers were called only those participants, who completed therapy and produced MEG data sets (pre and post) of good quality that could be included in the final analysis.
Note: For pair-wise group comparisons of continuous variables, Mann-Whitney U Tests were used; differences of categorical variables were evaluated by applying χ2-Tests for independence.
Figure 7Four cycles of the 10 Hz steady state response of the 148 MEG channels for one representative participant.