Ministry of Health Clinical Practice Guidelines: Anxiety Disorders

The Ministry of Health (MOH) has developed the clinical practice guidelines on Anxiety Disorders to provide doctors and patients in Singapore with evidence-based treatment for anxiety disorders. This article reproduces the introduction and executive summary (with recommendations from the guidelines) from the MOH clinical practice guidelines on anxiety disorders, for the information of SMJ readers. Chapters and page numbers mentioned in the reproduced extract refer to the full text of the guidelines, which are available from the Ministry of Health website: http://www.moh.gov.sg/content/moh_web/healthprofessionalsportal/doctors/guidelines/cpg_medical.html. The recommendations should be used with reference to the full text of the guidelines. Following this article are multiple choice questions based on the full text of the guidelines.

1.1 Background information

Anxiety disorders are known to be one of the most prevalent of psychiatric conditions, yet they often remain under-diagnosed and under-treated. Their chronic, disabling symptoms cause considerable burden not only to sufferers but also to their families, and contribute to poorer quality of life and considerable economic burden on society.In many instances, there is a delay in seeking treatment and in some cases such delay may stretch up to nearly ten years. This may result from ignorance of the condition, fear of taking medications, and the stigma of receiving a psychiatric diagnosis, and or having to accept psychiatric treatment.The anxiety disorders include panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, social anxiety disorder, specific phobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, generalised anxiety disorder, acute stress disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. In the clinical evaluation of anxiety disorders, it is important to ascertain the type of anxiety disorder present. This would allow treatment to be targeted at the specific type of disorder.These guidelines are developed to provide practical, evidence-based recommendations to primary care physicians and specialists in psychiatry for the diagnosis and management of the anxiety disorders.The first edition of the guidelines was published in 2003. In this edition, we present data from newer research as well as older data not previously reported in the earlier guidelines.For example, we examine the efficacy of combining medications with psychological therapy over medications alone, or psychological therapy alone. In view of the majority of anxiety sufferers being female we have made recommendations for pharmacotherapy during pregnancy and breastfeeding. As these guidelines are intended for use in the Singapore context, we have omitted treatments that are currently not available in Singapore.

1.2 Aim

These guidelines are developed to facilitate the diagnosis and assessment of the anxiety disorders, and to ensure that their management is appropriate and effective.

1.3 Scope

These guidelines will cover the management of anxiety disorders in adults and address the issues of medication use during pregnancy and breastfeeding.

1.4 Target group

The content of the guidelines will be useful for all doctors treating patients with anxiety disorders. Efforts have been made to ensure that the guidelines are particularly useful for primary care physicians and specialists in psychiatry, including all those involved in the assessment and management of patients with anxiety disorders in the community. The doctor treating the patient is ultimately responsible for clinical decisions made after reviewing the individual patient’s history, clinical presentation and treatment options available.

1.5 Development of guidelines

These guidelines have been produced by a committee of psychiatrists, a clinical psychologist, pharmacist, patient representative, and family practitioners appointed by the Ministry of Health. They were developed by revising the existing guidelines, reviewing relevant literature, including overseas clinical practice guidelines, and by expert clinical consensus of professionals with experience in treating patients in the local setting.The following principles underlie the development of these guidelines:

• Treatment recommendations are supported by scientific evidence whenever possible (randomised controlled clinical trials represent the highest level of evidence) and expert clinical consensus is used when such data are lacking.
• Treatment should maximise therapeutic benefits and minimise side effects.

1.6 What’s new in the revised guidelines

This edition of the guidelines contains updated recommendations based on latest evidence, as well as detailed discussions and recommendations on the management of anxiety disorders in adult populations.The following represent changes to the revised guidelines

• An extensive review of the literature, including new evidence. This involved the re-writing and extensive revision of the chapters.
• Length of treatment, which provides answers to a pertinent question.
• Use of medications during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Given that females are more likely to be at risk of being diagnosed with anxiety disorders, this is an important subject.

We are aware that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5) was released in 2013. In DSM-5, post-traumatic stress disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder have been removed and classified separately from the rest of the anxiety disorders. If we were to adhere strictly to DSM-5, this would entail omitting discussion on post-traumatic stress disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. As it is our aim to provide an update on the 2003 guidelines, post-traumatic stress disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder have been included in this edition of the guidelines.In addition, anxiety conditions in children are included in DSM-5. Since the present guidelines are meant to address only adult anxiety disorders, guidelines on children’s anxiety conditions are not included here.Hence, for purposes of these guidelines, we will continue to use classifications based on the International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) and DSM-IV-TR criteria.

1.7 Review of guidelines

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are only as current as the evidence that supports them. Users must keep in mind that new evidence could supersede recommendations in these guidelines. The workgroup advises that these guidelines be scheduled for review five years after publication, or when new evidence appears that requires substantive changes to the present recommendations.     

Causes of crises and appropriate interventions: The views of people with dementia,carers and healthcare professionals

The aims of this study were to identify which factors may lead to crisis for people with dementia and their carers and identify interventions these individuals believe could help in crisis. Qualitative study using focus groups to compare the perspectives of people with dementia, family carers and healthcare professionals on causes of crises and crisis interventions. To help in a crisis, people with dementia were favourable towards support from family and friends, access to mobile phones and home adaptations to reduce risks. Carers were keen on assistive technology and home adaptation. Both carers and staff valued carer training and education, care plans and well-coordinated care. Staff were the only group emphasizing more intensive interventions such as emergency home respite and extended hours services. In terms of causes of crises, people with dementia focused on risks and hazards in their home, whereas family carers emphasized carer stress and their own mental health problems. Staff, in contrast were concerned about problems with service organization and coordination leading to crises. Physical problems were less commonly identified as causes of crises but when they did occur they had a major impact. Practical interventions such as home adaptations, assistive technology, education and training for family carers, and flexible home care services were highly valued by service users and their families during times of crisis and may help prevent hospital admissions. Specialist home care was highly valued by all groups.     

Human herpesvirus 6 DNA levels in cerebrospinal fluid due to primary infection differ from those due to chromosomal viral integration and have implications for diagnosis of encephalitis

The prevalence and concentration of human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6) DNA in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of the immunocompetent in primary infection was compared with that in viral chromosomal integration. Samples from 510 individuals with suspected encephalitis, 200 young children and 310 older children and/or adults, and 12 other patients were tested. HHV-6 DNA concentration (log(10) copies/ml) was measured in CSF, serum, and whole blood using PCR. Serum HHV-6 immunoglobulin G antibody was measured by indirect immunofluorescence. Primary infection was defined by antibody seroconversion and/or a low concentration of HHV-6 DNA (<3.0 log(10) copies/ml) in a seronegative serum. Chromosomal integration was defined by a high concentration of viral DNA in serum (>/=3.5 log(10) copies/ml) or whole blood (>/=6.0 log(10) copies/ml). The prevalences of CSF HHV-6 DNA in primary infection and chromosomal integration were 2.5% and 2.0%, respectively, in the young children (<2 years) and 0% and 1.3%, respectively, in the older children and/or adults. The mean concentration of CSF HHV-6 DNA in 9 children with primary infection (2.4 log(10) copies/ml) was significantly lower than that of 21 patients with viral chromosomal integration (4.0 log(10) copies/ml). Only HHV-6B DNA was found in primary infection, whereas in viral integration, 4 patients had HHV-6A and 17 patients HHV-6B. Apart from primary infection, chromosomal integration is the most likely cause of HHV-6 DNA in the CSF of the immunocompetent. Our results show that any diagnosis of HHV-6 encephalitis or other type of active central nervous system infection should not be made without first excluding chromosomal HHV-6 integration by measuring DNA load in CSF, serum, and/or whole blood.     

Impact of positive surgical margins and their locations after radical prostatectomy: comparison of biochemical recurrence according to risk stratification and surgical modality

Purpose

We investigated the influence of positive surgical margins (PSMs) and their locations on biochemical recurrence (BCR) according to risk stratification and surgical modality.

Methods

A total of 1,874 post-radical-prostatectomy (RP) patients of pT2–T3a between 2000 and 2010 at three tertiary centers, and who did not receive neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy, were included in this study. Patients were stratified according to BCR risk: low risk (PSA <10, pT2a-b, and pGS ≤6), intermediate risk (PSA 10–20 and/or pT2c and/or pGS 7), and high risk (PSA >20 or pT3a or pGS 8–10). The median follow-up was 43 months.

Results

PSMs were a significant predictor of BCR in both the intermediate- and high-risk-disease groups (P = .001, HR 2.1, 95 % CI 1.3–3.4; P < .001, HR 2.8, 95 % CI 2.0–4.1). Positive apical margin was a significant risk factor for BCR in high-risk disease (P = .003, HR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.2–3.3), but not in intermediate-risk disease (P = .06, HR 1.7, 95 % CI 0.9–3.1). Positive bladder neck margin was a significant risk factor for BCR in both intermediate- and high-risk disease (P < .001, HR 5.4, 95 % CI 2.1–13.8; P = .001, HR 4.5, 95 % CI 1.8–11.4). In subgroup analyses, robotic RP provided comparable BCR-free survival regardless of risk stratification. Patients with PSMs showed similar BCR-free survival between open and robotic RP (log-rank, P = .897).

Conclusions

Post-RP PSMs were a significantly independent predictor of disease progression in high-risk disease as well as intermediate-risk disease. Both positive apical and bladder neck margins are also significant risk factors of BCR in high-risk disease. Patients with PSMs showed similar BCR-free survival between open and robotic surgery.