Search

Background: Almost eight million Americans suffer from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Current PTSD drug therapies rely on repurposed antidepressants and anxiolytics, which produce undesirable side effects and have recognized compliance issues. Vasopressin represents a promising and novel target for pharmacological intervention. Logistical issues implementing a clinical trial for a novel PTSD pharmaceutical are relatively uncharted territory as trials concerning a new agent have not been published in the past several decades. All published trials have repurposed FDA-approved psychoactive medications with known risk profiles. Our recruitment challenges are discussed in this context., Methods: An 18-week proof-of-concept randomized crossover clinical trial of a first-in-class vasopressin 1a receptor antagonist (SRX246) for PTSD was conducted. All participants received SRX246 for 8 weeks, the placebo for 8 weeks, and the drug vs. placebo arms were compared. Participants were assessed every 2 weeks for PTSD symptoms as well as other medication effects. Results were expected to provide an initial demonstration of safety and tolerability in this clinical population and potentially clinical efficacy in SRX246-treated patients measured by Clinician Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) score changes, clinical impression, and other indices compared to placebo. The primary hypothesis was that SRX246 would result in a clinically meaningful 10-point reduction in mean CAPS score compared to placebo., Discussion: This study is the first to investigate an oral vasopressin 1a receptor antagonist for PTSD. As a wave of PTSD clinical trials with new pharmaceutical compounds are beginning now, lessons learned from our recruitment challenges may be invaluable to these endeavors., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: The authors, with the exception of Dr. Difede, Dr. Simon, Ms. Damiano, Ms. Itzkowitz, Dr. Lu, Dr. Brownstein, and Dr. Spielman, declare no conflicts of interest. Dr. Difede has funding from Department of Defense Clinical Trial Grant (No. W81XWH-18-1-0262), and Weill Cornell Medical College. Dr. Difede serves as a member of the advisory board at Pear Therapeutics, Inc. Dr. Simon and Dr. Brownstein serve as officers at Azevan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and hold equity in the company. Dr. Spielman served as a paid consultant to Azevan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for this project. Dr. S. Lu is an employee, holds equity, and receives compensation. Ms. E. Damiano is an officer and receives compensation; Ms. D. Itzkowitz is an employee and receives compensation., (©2023PublishedbyElsevierInc.)

The live donor assessment tool (LDAT) is the first psychosocial assessment tool developed to standardize live donor psychosocial evaluations. A multicenter study was conducted to explore reliability and validity of the LDAT and determine its ability to enhance the psychosocial evaluation beyond its center of origin. Four transplant programs participated, each with their own team of evaluators and unique demographics. Liver and kidney living donors (LDs) undergoing both standard psychosocial evaluation and LDAT from June 2015 to September 2016 were studied. LDAT interrater reliability, associations between LDAT scores and psychosocial evaluation outcome, and psychosocial outcomes postdonation were tested. 386 LD evaluations were compared and had a mean LDAT score of 67.34 ± 7.57. In 140 LDs with two LDATs by different observers, the interrater scores correlated (r = 0.63). LDAT scores at each center and overall stratified to the conventional grouping of psychosocial risk level. LDAT scores of 131 subjects who proceeded with donation were expectedly lower in LDs requiring postdonation counseling (t = -2.78, P = .01). The LDAT had good reliability between raters and predicted outcome of the psychosocial evaluation across centers. It can be used to standardize language among clinicians to communicate psychosocial risk of LD candidates and assist teams when anticipating postdonation psychosocial needs., (© 2018 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Objective: The primary aim of this study is to examine medical students' use patterns, preferences, and perceptions of electronic educational resources available for psychiatry clerkship learning., Methods: Eligible participants included medical students who had completed the psychiatry clerkship during a 24-month period. An internet-based questionnaire was used to collect information regarding the outcomes described above., Results: A total of 68 medical students responded to the survey. Most respondents reported high utilization of electronic resources on an array of devices for psychiatry clerkship learning and indicated a preference for electronic over print resources. The most commonly endorsed barriers to the use of electronic resources were that the source contained irrelevant and non-specific content, access was associated with a financial cost, and faculty guidance on recommended resources was insufficient. Respondents indicated a wish for more psychiatry-specific electronic learning resources., Conclusion: The authors' results suggest that a demand exists for high-quality electronic and portable learning tools that are relevant to medical student education in psychiatry. Psychiatry educators are usefully positioned to be involved in the development of such resources.

Patients often communicate emotions through their bodies and physical symptoms; the skin commonly serves as a means of expression in the patient-doctor relationship. It is important for the dermatologist to be able to indentify psychological issues that manifest in the skin and the interplay between psychiatric and dermatologic conditions. Delusional parasitosis, dermatitis artefacta, trichotillomania, and somatoform disorders all represent dermatologic conditions with underlying emotional causes. Many chronic dermatoses, such as psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and acne, modulate and are influenced by psychosocial factors. Special issues, including significant medication interactions and the treatment of the "difficult" patient, are reviewed., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Doctors diagnose and treat disease; illness is the experience of, and response to, a disease by patients and the people in their lives. Discrepancies between disease and illness (eg, adjustment to the sick role, treatment-related difficulties, denial of medical illness, and psychiatric comorbidity) are prevalent, as are somatoform disorders and other conditions in which patients are invested in being understood as medically ill. This article reviews suggestions for physicians' responses to these patients and their dilemmas., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)