Search

Objective: To describe the burden of Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), a common anxiety disorder in older adults.Design: Cross-sectional.Setting: Late-life depression and anxiety research clinic in Pittsburgh, PA.Participants: One hundred sixty-four older adults with GAD and 42 healthy comparison participants with no lifetime history of psychiatric disorder were recruited from primary care and mental health settings as well as advertisements.Measurements: Participants were evaluated with the Late Life Function and Disability Index to assess disability, the MOS 36-Item Short Form Survey Instrument to assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and the Cornell Service Index to assess healthcare utilization.Results: Older adults with GAD were more disabled, had worse HRQOL, and had greater healthcare utilization, than nonanxious comparison participants, even in the absence of psychiatric comorbidity. After controlling for medical burden and depressive symptoms, higher severity of anxiety symptoms was associated with greater disability and poorer HRQOL in several domains. The greatest decrements in HRQOL and function were observed in measures assessing role functioning, including social function.Conclusion: This study, the largest ever of GAD in older adults, provides evidence of the significant burden of this disorder in late life. Given the high prevalence and chronicity of GAD in the elderly, these data provide a public health imperative for finding and implementing effective management strategies for this typically undiagnosed and untreated disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common psychiatric disorders in older adults; however, few data exist to guide clinicians in efficacious and safe treatment. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are efficacious for younger adults with GAD, but benefits and risks may be different in older adults.Objective: To examine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the SSRI escitalopram in older adults with GAD.Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized controlled trial in primary care practices and related specialty clinics in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, of 177 participants aged 60 years or older with a principal diagnosis of GAD randomized to receive either escitalopram or placebo and conducted between January 2005 and January 2008.Interventions: Twelve weeks of 10 to 20 mg/d of escitalopram (n = 85) or matching placebo (n = 92).Main Outcome Measures: Cumulative response defined by Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement score of much or very much improved; time to response; and anxiety and role functioning changes measured by the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Penn State Worry Questionnaire, Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument activity limitations subscale, and the role-emotional impairment and social function subscales of the Medical Outcome Survey 36-item Short Form.Results: In the primary analytic strategy in which participants (n = 33) were censored at the time of dropout, mean cumulative response rate for escitalopram was 69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58%-80%) vs 51% (95% CI, 40%-62%) for placebo (P = .03). A conservative intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference in mean cumulative response rate between escitalopram and placebo (57%; 95% CI, 46%-67%; vs 45%; 95% CI, 35%-55%; P = .11). Participants treated with escitalopram showed greater improvement than with placebo in anxiety symptoms and role functioning (Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale: effect size, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.50-1.36; P < .001; Penn State Worry Questionnaire: 0.30; 95% CI, 0.23-0.48; P = .01; activity limitations: 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01-0.63; P = .04; and the role-emotional impairment and social function: 0.96; 95% CI, 0.03-1.90; P = .04). Adverse effects of escitalopram (P < .05 vs placebo) were fatigue or somnolence (35 patients [41.1%]), sleep disturbance (12 [14.1%]), and urinary symptoms (8 [9.4%]).Conclusions: Older adults with GAD randomized to escitalopram had a higher cumulative response rate for improvement vs placebo over 12 weeks; however, response rates were not significantly different using an intention-to-treat analysis. Further study is required to assess efficacy and safety over longer treatment durations.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00105586. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: Few data are available concerning the utility of augmentation in late-life depression treatment. The authors examined likelihood, speed, and predictors of recovery in older adults receiving augmentation pharmacotherapy after inadequate response to standardized treatment with paroxetine plus interpersonal psychotherapy. METHOD: Depression levels were monitored during open treatment in 195 adults age 70 or older. Patients were grouped by whether they required augmentation (bupropion, nortriptyline, or lithium) and compared on likelihood, time, and predictors of recovery. RESULTS: Augmentation was required for 105 patients (53.8%) because of inadequate treatment response (N=77) or response followed by relapse (N=28). Of these patients, 69 received augmentation and 36 did not (primarily because of consent withdrawal or comorbid medical conditions). Patients receiving augmentation showed lower recovery rates than patients never requiring augmentation: recovery occurred in 50.0% of patients receiving it because of inadequate response, 66.7% of those receiving it after early relapse, and 86.7% of patients never requiring augmentation. Patients receiving augmentation because of inadequate response recovered more slowly, with modestly more side effects than other patients. Greater medical burden and anxiety predicted slower recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a lower likelihood of recovery in elderly people receiving augmentation, the recovery by over one-half of such patients suggests the value of augmentation for those able to tolerate it. Need for augmentation presages slower recovery in patients showing initial inadequate response; those requiring it after early relapse recovered more quickly. Strategies to further improve the likelihood and speed of recovery after initial treatment failure are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the treatment of depression, there is considerable interest in the time course of response and, in particular, the speed with which individuals recover from depressive episodes. Examination of the time course and speed of response is critical for assessing the usefulness of specific treatments. However, while this issue has received attention in mid-life adult populations, it has received little consideration in the context of late-life major depression. The synthesis of empirical reports indicates that, while older adults with depression seem to respond with the same speed as mid-life adults, several factors have consistently been associated with reduced speed of response to antidepressant treatment, including greater severity of depressive symptoms and co-occurring anxiety symptoms. Limited evidence suggests that sleep impairment and genetic factors (e.g. presence of the s allele of the serotonin transporter gene promoter region) may also be associated with reduced speed of response. Some factors have consistently been found to be unrelated to speed of response (demographic characteristics, nonpsychiatric physical illnesses) whereas other factors have only mixed evidence supporting any effect (psychosocial and other clinical factors). While there is little work available to date, some evidence suggests that time course and speed of response affect longer-term outcomes of depression pharmacotherapy; thus, older adults with more rapid versus slower patterns of response may differ in the types of maintenance treatment needed to avert additional depressive episodes. None of potential strategies for accelerating speed of response have been clearly shown to be effective in late-life depression. Future treatment studies for late-life depression should routinely consider not only overall efficacy of a given pharmacotherapy (i.e. total rate of response), but time course and speed of response. To this end, new investigations must be designed to overcome the methodological limitations of prior studies that have examined time course and they should include a range of potential covariates and outcomes of between-patient differences in speed of response. Better understanding of factors related to such differences may suggest new intervention strategies to accelerate response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]