Votre recherche
Résultats 3 ressources
-
Epigenetic research in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is essential, given that environmental stressors and fear play such a crucial role in its development. As such, it may provide a framework for understanding individual differences in the prevalence of the disorder and in treatment response. This paper reviews the epigenetic markers associated with PTSD and its treatment, including candidate genes and epigenome-wide studies. Because the etiopathogenesis of PTSD rests heavily on learning and memory, we also draw upon animal neuroepigenetic research on the acquisition, update and erasure of fear memory, focusing on the mechanisms associated with memory reconsolidation. Reconsolidation blockade (or impairment) treatment in PTSD has been studied in clinical trials and, from a neurological perspective, may hold promise for identifying epigenetic markers of successful therapy. We conclude this paper by discussing several key considerations and challenges in epigenetic research on PTSD in humans.
-
Abstract Several studies have reported the factor structure of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The results show models with different number of factors, high correlations between factors, and symptoms that belong to different factors in different models without affecting the fit index. These elements could suppose the existence of considerable item cross-loading, the overlap of different factors or even the presence of a general factor that explains the items common source of variance. The aim is to provide new evidence regarding the factor structure of PTSD using CFA and exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM). In a sample of 1,372 undergraduate students, we tested six different models using CFA and two models using ESEM and ESEM bifactor analysis. Trauma event and past-month PTSD symptoms were assessed with Life Events Checklist for DSM-5 (LEC–5) and PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL–5). All six tested CFA models showed good fit indexes (RMSEA = .051–.056, CFI = .969–.977, TLI = .965–.970), with high correlations between factors ( M = .77, SD = .09 to M = .80, SD = .09). The ESEM models showed good fit indexes (RMSEA = .027–.036, CFI = .991–.996, TLI = .985–.992). These models confirmed the presence of cross-loadings on several items as well as loads on a general factor that explained 76.3% of the common variance. The results showed that most of the items do not meet the assumption of dimensional exclusivity, showing the need to expand the analysis strategies to study the symptomatic organization of PTSD.
-
Abstract Background Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been hailed by some as the emblematic mental disorder of the COVID-19 pandemic, assuming that PTSD’s life-threat criterion was met de facto. More plausible outcomes like adjustment disorder (AD) have been overlooked. Methods An online cross-sectional survey was launched in the initial stage of the pandemic using a convenience sample of 5 913 adults to compare the prevalence of COVID-related probable PTSD versus probable AD. The abridged Impact of Event Scale – Revised (IES-6) assessed the severity of trauma- and stressor-related symptoms over the previous week. Demographic and pandemic-related data (e.g., receiving a formal diagnosis of COVID-19, job loss, loss of loved one, confinement, material hardship) were collected. A Classification and Regression Tree analysis was conducted to uncover the pandemic experiences leading to clinical ‘caseness’. Caseness was defined by a score > 9 on the IES-6 symptom measure and further characterized as PTSD or AD depending on whether the Peritraumatic Distress Inventory’s life-threat item was endorsed or not. Results The participants were predominantly Caucasian (72.8%), women (79.2%), with a university degree (85%), and a mean age of 42.22 ( SD = 15.24) years; 3 647 participants (61.7%; 95%CI [60.4, 63.0]) met the threshold for caseness. However, when perceived life-threat was accounted for, only 6.7% (95%CI [6.1, 7.4]) were classified as PTSD cases, and 55% (95%CI [53.7, 56.2]) as AD cases. Among the AD cases, three distinct profiles emerged marked by the following: (i) a worst personal pandemic experience eliciting intense fear, helplessness or horror (in the absence, however, of any life-threat), (ii) a pandemic experience eliciting sadness/grief, and (iii) worrying intensely about the safety of significant others. Conclusions Studies considering the life-threat criterion as met de facto during the pandemic are confusing PTSD for AD on most counts. This misconception is obscuring the various AD-related idioms of distress that have emerged during the pandemic and the actual treatment needs.