Shying away: An observer-based microprocess analysis of experiential avoidance and resource activation in outpatients with generalized anxiety spectrum disorder

Despite long-standing calls for patient-focused research on individuals with generalized anxiety spectrum disorder there is little systematized knowledge about the in-session behaviors of these patients. The primary objective of this study was to describe of in-session trajectories of the patients' level of explication (as an indicator of an elaborated exposure of negative emotionality) and the patients' focus on their own resources and how these trajectories are associated with post-treatment outcome. In respect to GAD patients, a high level of explication might be seen as an indicator of successful exposure of avoided negative emotionality during therapy sessions. Observers made minute-by-minute ratings of 1100 minutes of video of 20 patients-therapists dyads. The results indicated that a higher level of explication generally observed at a later stage during the therapy sessions and the patients' focus on competencies at an early stage was highly associated with positive therapy outcome at assessment at post treatment, independent of pretreatment distress, rapid response of well-being and symptom reduction, as well as the therapists' professional experience and therapy lengths. These results will be discussed under the perspective of emotion regulation of patients and therapist's counterregulation. It is assumed that GAD-Patients are especially skilled in masking difficult emotions. Explication level and emotion regulation are important variables for this patient group but there's relation to outcome is different.

How nice is good for patients and for therapy outcome? The role of confrontation in the process of psychotherapy

It is well established that the therapeutic relationship contributes about as much to therapy outcome as 'technical' intervention. Furthermore, it follows clear prescriptive concepts in the same manner as technical interventions do. 'Motive Oriented Therapeutic Relationship' is such a concept for establishing a solid basis for whatever therapeutic work the patients' problems require (Grawe, 1980, 1992; Caspar, 1996). Yet, the therapeutic relationship doesn't explain everything because other factors play a significant role too. Previous studies showed that outcome is clearly better when therapists achieved a generally high quality of a therapeutic relationship when they did not shy away from possibly threatening interventions such as confrontations. This ratio of a fruitful alliance and marginally present confrontations in the same session also showed significant correlations with patient's assessment of alliance and progress in therapy (Figlioli et al., 2009).Aim: The current state of research in the field does not give any answers to questions like how good and bad confrontations can be characterized or what role does the intensity, respectively frequency of confrontations play in the process of psychotherapy. Methods: A sample of 80 therapies of 3 sessions each representing either good or bad outcome was judged moment by moment by independent raters if and how therapists used confrontative interventions. Results: Preliminary analyses show that successful confrontations are explicitly uttered, short but intense, related to important patients goals in therapy and embedded in prior complementarity. Discussion: The results will be discussed in terms of their implications for the clinical daily work.

Clinical usefulness of gene-expression profile to rule out acute rejection after heart transplantation: CARGO II.

AIMS A non-invasive gene-expression profiling (GEP) test for rejection surveillance of heart transplant recipients originated in the USA. A European-based study, Cardiac Allograft Rejection Gene Expression Observational II Study (CARGO II), was conducted to further clinically validate the GEP test performance. METHODS AND RESULTS Blood samples for GEP testing (AlloMap(®), CareDx, Brisbane, CA, USA) were collected during post-transplant surveillance. The reference standard for rejection status was based on histopathology grading of tissue from endomyocardial biopsy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC), negative (NPVs), and positive predictive values (PPVs) for the GEP scores (range 0-39) were computed. Considering the GEP score of 34 as a cut-off (>6 months post-transplantation), 95.5% (381/399) of GEP tests were true negatives, 4.5% (18/399) were false negatives, 10.2% (6/59) were true positives, and 89.8% (53/59) were false positives. Based on 938 paired biopsies, the GEP test score AUC-ROC for distinguishing ≥3A rejection was 0.70 and 0.69 for ≥2-6 and >6 months post-transplantation, respectively. Depending on the chosen threshold score, the NPV and PPV range from 98.1 to 100% and 2.0 to 4.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION For ≥2-6 and >6 months post-transplantation, CARGO II GEP score performance (AUC-ROC = 0.70 and 0.69) is similar to the CARGO study results (AUC-ROC = 0.71 and 0.67). The low prevalence of ACR contributes to the high NPV and limited PPV of GEP testing. The choice of threshold score for practical use of GEP testing should consider overall clinical assessment of the patient's baseline risk for rejection.