Medical presentations can be designed as a data dump or as a story. One effective communication strategy is to organize a lecture as a three act play, starting with previews as the first act and ending with reviews as the third act. Previews facilitate learner achievement and may help learners view a medical instructor more positively. Reviews also help consolidate audience learning and ensure that messages have been clearly delivered and received. The main act is in the middle and is the content itself. Delivering this content in small multiples gives learners manageable packets of information and can help them to see the differences and similarities between conditions, deepening their understanding of what was presented.

Applying principles of adult learning can enhance the effectiveness of a medical presentation. A previous “Trends in Psychopharmacology” presented an overview of these principles and discussed targeting the learner rather than the content or the lecturer as the focus for a medical presentation. Here we cover the concept of presenting content to a learner as a story and show how to organize or “storyboard” it as a three act play.

Lectures can be arranged as a dull recitation of facts or as a story that makes the facts come alive. Generally speaking, a participant is less interested in hearing the facts that a lecturer has to present than in listening to a story the lecturer has to tell. Organizing content into a “three act play” can make a lecture memorable and its lessons practical. Classically, teachers have explained the three parts as: “Say what you are gonna say; say it; then say what you said.” More specifically, the previews are the first part, the presentation itself is the second part, and the reviews are the third part of this structure.

Jerome M. Siegel, PhD, is professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, former president of the Sleep Research Society, and the recipient of Merit and Javits awards from the National Institutes of Health and the Distinguished Scientist award from the Sleep Research Society. His laboratory has made discoveries concerning the role of hypocretin in human narcolepsy and Parkinson's disease. He has studied the phylogeny of sleep as a clue to sleep function, discovering that the primitive mammal platypus has rapid eye movement sleep and that marine mammals can go without extended periods of sleep for long periods without ill effects.

Introduction: Once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) monotherapy was evaluated in major depressive disorder (MDD).

Method: This was an 8-week (6-week randomized-phase; 2-week drug-discontinuation/tapering phase), double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study. The primary outcome measure was Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score randomization-to-Week 6 change. Other assessments included the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety, and adverse events (AEs).

Results: 723 patients were randomized: 182, 178, 179, and 184 to quetiapine XR 50, 150, 300 mg/day, and placebo, respectively. At Week 6, significant reductions occurred in MADRS score with quetiapine XR 50 mg/day (−13.56; P<.05), 150 mg/day (−14.50; P<.01) and 300 mg/day (−14.18; P<.01) versus placebo (−11.07); at Day 4, reductions for quetiapine XR (titrated to 50 or 150 mg/day according to dose group) versus placebo (−2.9) were: −4.7 (P<.01), −5.2 (P<.001), and −5.1 (P<.001), respectively. At endpoint, MADRS response (≥50% reduction in score) was 42.7% (P<.01), 51.2% (P<.001), and 44.9% (P≤.001) for quetiapine XR 50, 150, and 300 mg/day, respectively; 30.3% for placebo. Overall, quetiapine XR 150 mg/day provided consistently more positive secondary efficacy results than 50 mg/day and 300 mg/day versus placebo. The most common AEs in quetiapine XR-treated patients were dry mouth, sedation, somnolence, headache, and dizziness.

Conclusion: In patients with MDD, quetiapine XR monotherapy (50/150/300 mg/day) is effective in reducing depressive symptoms, with improvement from Day 4 onwards. Safety and tolerability were consistent with the known profile of quetiapine.

Introduction: Although obsessions and compulsions comprise the main features of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), many patients report that their compulsions are preceded by a sense of “incompleteness” or other unpleasant feelings such as premonitory urges or a need perform actions until feeling “just right.” These manifestations have been characterized as Sensory Phenomena (SP). The current study presents initial psychometric data for a new scale designed to measure SP.

Methods: Seventy-six adult OCD subjects were probed twice. Patients were assessed with an open clinical interview (considered as the “gold standard”) and with the following standardized instruments: Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Axis I Disorders, Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale, Dimensional Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale, Yale Global Tic Severity Scale, Beck Anxiety Inventory, and Beck Depression Inventory.

Results: SP were present in 51 OCD patients (67.1%). Tics were present in 16 (21.1%) of the overall sample. The presence of SP was significantly higher in early-onset OCD patients. There were no significant differences in the presence of SP according to comorbidity with tics or gender. The comparison between the results from the open clinical interviews and the University of São Paulo Sensory Phenomena Scale (USP-SPS) showed an excellent concordance between them, with no significant differences between interviewers. The inter-rater reliability between the expert raters for the USP-SPS was high, with K=.92. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the SP severity scores given by the two raters was .89.

Conclusion: Preliminary results suggest that the USP-SPS is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the presence and severity of SP in OCD subjects.

Introduction: Recent data suggest that escitalopram may be more effective in severe depression than other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

Methods: Individual patient data from four randomized, double-blind comparative trials of escitalopram versus a serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) (two trials with duloxetine and two with venlafaxine extended release) in outpatients (18–85 years of age) with moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder were pooled. The primary efficacy parameter in all four trials was mean change in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score.

Results: Significantly fewer escitalopram (82/524) than SNRI (114/527) patients prematurely withdrew from treatment due to all causes (15.6% vs. 21.6%, Fisher Exact: P=.014) and adverse events (5.3% vs. 12.0%, Fisher Exact: P <.0001). Mean reduction in MADRS score from baseline to Week 8 was significantly greater for the escitalopram group versus the SNRI group using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach [mean treatment difference at Week 8 of 1.7 points (P <.01)]. Similar results were observed in the severely depressed (baseline MADRS score ≥30) patient subset (mean treatment difference at Week 8 of 2.9 points [P <.001, LOCF]). Observed cases analyses yielded no significant differences in efficacy parameters.

Conclusion: This pooled analysis indicates that escitalopram is at least as effective as the SNRIs (venlafaxine XR and duloxetine), even in severe depression, and escitalopram treatment was better tolerated.