Skip to main content
Full access
New Research
Published Online: 1 October 2014

Effects of Post-Session Administration of Methylene Blue on Fear Extinction and Contextual Memory in Adults With Claustrophobia

Abstract

Administering methylene blue, a memory-enhancing agent, after successful exposure therapy promoted the retention of fear extinction in claustrophobic patients, but clinicians should carefully consider what level of fear reduction was achieved in session to avoid harmful effects.

Abstract

Objective

Preclinical studies have shown that low-dose methylene blue increases mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase activity in the brain and improves memory retention after learning tasks, including fear extinction. The authors report on the first controlled experiment to examine the memory-enhancing effects of posttraining methylene blue administration on retention of fear extinction and contextual memory following fear extinction training.

Method

Adult participants displaying marked claustrophobic fear were randomly assigned to double-blind administration of 260 mg of methylene blue (N=23) or administration of placebo (N=19) immediately following six 5-minute extinction trials in an enclosed chamber. Retesting occurred 1 month later to assess fear renewal as indexed by peak fear during exposure to a nontraining chamber, with the prediction that the effects of methylene blue would vary as a function of fear reduction achieved during extinction training. Incidental contextual memory was assessed 1 and 30 days after training to assess the cognitive-enhancing effects of methylene blue independent of its effects on fear attenuation.

Results

Consistent with predictions, participants displaying low end fear posttraining showed significantly less fear at the 1-month follow-up if they received methylene blue posttraining compared with placebo. In contrast, participants displaying moderate to high levels of posttraining fear tended to fare worse at the follow-up if they received methylene blue posttraining. Methylene blue’s enhancement of contextual memory was unrelated to initial or posttraining claustrophobic fear.

Conclusions

Methylene blue enhances memory and the retention of fear extinction when administered after a successful exposure session but may have a deleterious effect on extinction when administered after an unsuccessful exposure session.
Over the past four decades, research on exposure therapy has shifted from demonstrating therapeutic efficacy toward the study of change mechanisms and augmentation strategies to improve short-term efficacy and reduce the return of fear (1, 2). Significant advances in cognitive and behavioral neuroscience have led to a better understanding of fear extinction and have ushered in a new era of “translational” research focusing on the integration of findings from these basic science disciplines to improve extinction-based therapies for anxiety disorders (3, 4).
A recent development in exposure therapy research is the use of memory-enhancing pharmacological agents to boost fear extinction during exposure therapy. The most widely studied of these is d-cycloserine, an N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor co-agonist. Based on early preclinical data demonstrating that d-cycloserine enhances fear extinction in rats (5), a series of randomized clinical trials have examined the clinical efficacy of exposure therapy with d-cycloserine augmentation across a range of anxiety disorders (for a review, see reference 6). Overall, findings have been mixed, with some showing strong augmentation effects (710), others showing weak (1113) or negligible effects (1416), and one study showing detrimental effects (17).
Another promising pharmacological agent that has received significant support in preclinical studies is methylene blue. Available in every emergency department as an antidote against metabolic poisons, methylene blue has been used safely for well over 100 years (18). Methylene blue is a diamino phenothiazine drug that at low doses (0.5–4 mg/kg) has neurometabolic-enhancing properties (19). Preclinical research with rodents has shown that at low doses, methylene blue is a metabolic and cognitive enhancer that improves brain oxygen consumption, brain glucose uptake, cerebral blood flow, functional MRI (fMRI) responses, and memory consolidation by induction of cytochrome oxidase, the respiratory enzyme found within nerve cells (1921). By enhancing cytochrome oxidase activity, methylene blue increases oxygen consumption and the amount of ATP available in neurons during memory consolidation. Although methylene blue has the potential to enter any nerve cell, it preferentially accumulates in neurons with higher energy demand, such as those involved in memory consolidation after extinction training (22). Hence, by acting as a mitochondrial electron cycler and antioxidant, low-dose methylene blue increases cellular energy production and enhances memory consolidation in key brain regions associated with memory processing (19).
Posttraining administration of low doses of methylene blue in rodents has been shown to improve memory retention in a variety of tasks, including inhibitory avoidance (23, 24), spatial memory (2427), discrimination learning (28), and, most relevant to the present study, retention of conditioned fear extinction (22, 29). The Gonzalez-Lima et al. research group (22, 29) found that memory retention of extinction after Pavlovian fear conditioning using an animal model could be improved with the administration of 4 mg/kg of methylene blue postextinction. Moreover, the rate of cytochrome c oxidation in brain homogenates of these animals showed a 38% increase in absolute brain metabolic activity, compared with that for a comparison group administered saline. Cytochrome oxidase histochemistry revealed the largest effect on the prefrontal cortex (22), a brain region that is clearly implicated in fear extinction (3032).
Based on these preclinical studies, we sought to test whether postextinction methylene blue administration enhances the retention of pathological fear attenuation in individuals with claustrophobia receiving extinction training. Given recent findings suggesting that the facilitative effects of other cognitive enhancers, such as d-cycloserine (33) and yohimbine (34), may depend on the posttraining clinical status of the patient, we hypothesized that methylene blue would enhance fear extinction retention at the 1-month follow-up in participants who achieved low levels of fear at posttraining. In contrast, we predicted that methylene blue would be less effective than placebo at follow-up in participants who continued to display higher levels of fear at posttraining.
A second aim of this experiment was to address a significant limitation of all previous studies of cognitive enhancers and exposure therapy, namely, the lack of indexing cognitive enhancement independent of differences in fear responding. Toward this aim, we administered an episodic contextual memory test, with incidental encoding and free recall, 1 and 30 days after completion of extinction training. We predicted that participants who were administered methylene blue would display enhanced memory performance compared with those receiving placebo, irrespective of clinical status at posttraining.

Method

Participants

Participants (N=42) reporting marked claustrophobic fear (peak fear score >50 on a 100-point scale) while performing two consecutive behavioral approach tests and meeting DSM-IV criteria for claustrophobia (excluding the requirement of functional impairment, criterion E) were recruited from a large participant pool of undergraduate students (N=1,163) through a two-stage screening process. Detailed information on exclusion criteria is presented in the data supplement accompanying the online version of this article.
Randomly assigned participants ranged in age from 18 to 36 years (mean age=19.3 years [SD=1.46]) and were predominantly female (82%), white (76.19%), and non-Hispanic (71.43%). A detailed description of the sample characteristics is presented in Table 1 (35, 36).
TABLE 1. Baseline Characteristics of Participants With Claustrophobic Fear
VariableMethylene Blue Plus Extinction Training (N=23)Placebo Plus Extinction Training (N=19)
 MeanSDMeanSD
Claustrophobia Questionnaire scorea70.9110.6468.4212.88
Claustrophobic Concerns Questionnaire scoreb    
 Training context78.2616.7179.4712.71
 Generalization context72.5020.3171.4514.89
Behavioral Approach Task (peak fear) score    
 Training context77.3917.3868.9516.96
 Generalization context66.0916.7263.6815.35
Age (years)19.041.4619.583.66
 N%N%
Gender    
 Male521.74526.32
 Female1878.261473.68
Race/ethnicity    
 White1773.911578.95
 African American14.3500.00
 Asian521.70315.79
 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander00.0015.26
 Other00.0000.00
 Hispanic730.43526.32
a
The total and subscale scores (i.e., suffocation and restriction) for the Claustrophobia Questionnaire (see reference 35) are reported in Table S2 of the online data supplement.
b
The data represent total scores for the Claustrophobic Concerns Questionnaire (see reference 36).

Study Design and Procedures

Potential study participants completed a brief online assessment of claustrophobia (stage 1). Those reporting marked fear of enclosed spaces were invited to the laboratory for a face-to-face screening visit (stage 2), which also served as their formal pretreatment assessment. This consisted of 1) the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (37), 2) completion of self-report patient-rating scales, and 3) behavioral approach tests involving exposure to two distinct claustrophobia chambers. Eligible participants were stratified on gender and pretreatment claustrophobia severity and randomly assigned in double-blind fashion to one of two treatment arms: extinction training plus postsession methylene blue or extinction training plus postsession placebo. All extinction training was completed in one session and was identical in the two treatment arms. Ratings of peak fear and end fear after each of six 5-minute exposure trials were obtained. Outcome assessments identical to the pretreatment assessment were obtained immediately after extinction training and at a 1-month follow-up visit (for a graphical depiction of the experimental design and participant flow chart, see Figure S1 in the online data supplement). All study procedures were approved by the institutional review board at the University of Texas at Austin.

Extinction Training Paradigm

The extinction training paradigm we utilized has been used in several published basic studies evaluating the mechanisms of change in exposure therapy (3842). In brief, the paradigm consists of the following elements: brief education about the nature of claustrophobia; presentation of a therapy rationale emphasizing the fear-reducing effects of direct confrontation with the feared target; six 5-minute in vivo exposure trials in which the participant enters a tightly enclosed wooden chamber and remains inside in a supine position for a duration of 5 minutes; and completion of self-report rating scales after each exposure trial.

Medication

United States Pharmacopeia-grade methylene blue powder (ScienceLab, Houston) was put into gelatin capsules, which were identical in appearance to the placebo capsules that contained food dye indigo carmine powder (FD&C blue no. 2, ScienceLab, Houston). Capsules were provided to each participant in a sealed, numbered envelope prepared by an unblinded pharmacist at the University of Texas at Austin. All other study personnel were blind to the drug condition. The 260-mg methylene blue dose corresponds to the 4-mg/kg dose shown to be effective in previously published preclinical studies of object recognition memory and fear extinction (22, 24, 29). Methylene blue and placebo were administered on three occasions, at a dose of one 86.66-mg capsule each. One capsule was administered immediately following the completion of extinction training. The participants were instructed to take the second capsule before going to bed that night (6–10 hours later) and to take the last capsule after waking up (another 6–10 hours later). This divided dosing schedule was intended to reduce possible urinary tract irritation sometimes associated with methylene blue excretion through the urine. Participants were instructed to take the capsules with a large glass of water in order to further minimize the chance of urinary tract irritation and to reduce the intensity of urine discoloration. Since the average half-life for urinary excretion of methylene blue is 6.6 hours (43), our administration procedure served to maintain methylene blue in the circulation throughout the critical memory consolidation period following extinction training.
Twenty-four hours after completing extinction training, participants were administered a telephone interview to assess medication adherence and side effects.

Measures

In vivo fear responding to behavioral approach tests.

Two behavioral approach tests were performed at each of the three assessment points (preextinction training, postextinction training, and 1-month follow-up). These tests were procedurally identical but used different stimuli (claustrophobia chambers), both of which were located in a darkened room in our laboratory. As reported elsewhere, participants’ fear responding 1 month later when placed inside the nontraining chamber (generalization context) served as the primary index of clinical efficacy. More detailed information on the behavioral approach tests is presented in the online data supplement.

Assessment of fear extinction.

Every 5 minutes during extinction training, participants rated their peak fear on the same 0- to 100-point scale used during the behavioral approach tests. Consistent with our previous research (33), fear ratings obtained at the conclusion of the final exposure trial served as the primary index of fear extinction, with lower ratings indicating greater, and higher ratings indicating less, extinction learning success.

Assessment of episodic contextual memory.

Inside the extinction training chamber and secured at each corner of the inner upper surface of the door were four 2-inch single-digit glow-in-the-dark numbers positioned in direct sight of the participants as they lay on their back inside the chamber. These numbers and their locations served as the target stimuli for our context memory test. Memory encoding of the numbers was incidental. No instructions were provided to participants to attend to the numbers, nor did the experimenter make reference to the numbers during extinction training. One and 30 days after completing extinction training, participants were provided a sheet of paper with a proportionally equivalent outline of the chamber and were asked to recall and record the numbers in their correct locations. The number of correct responses, defined as the sum of correctly recalled numbers in their correct locations, served as the primary index of contextual memory. Similar tasks have been used to investigate contextual memory deficits in depression (44), dyslexia (45), and Williams syndrome (46).

Data Analysis

Consistent with recommendations outlined by Kraemer et al. (47) for testing putative moderators in clinical trials, we performed a multiple regression analysis in which peak fear at the 1-month follow-up was predicted by drug condition (methylene blue compared with placebo), end fear (fear level at the last exposure trial), and their interaction. To enhance confidence that end fear was responsible for this effect and not other third variables associated with end fear, we followed the suggestions of Steiner et al. (48) and controlled for other relevant variables that may be related to both end fear and peak fear at follow-up. These control variables were initial fear at the first exposure trial, postexposure fear in the generalization context, and the presence (at baseline) of other axis I disorders.
To test the hypothesis that methylene blue would enhance contextual memory at the 1-month follow-up, we performed two additional regression analyses in which drug condition (methylene blue compared with placebo) was the predictor of participants’ scores on our context memory index (modeled separately for posttest and follow-up). For consistency with our analyses of peak claustrophobic fear at follow-up, the presence of another axis 1 disorder was dichotomously coded and included as a covariate in the model.

Results

Effects of Methylene Blue on Fear Extinction

The mean fear level was 73.0 (SD=20.0; range: 20–100) at the first exposure and 23.5 (SD=23.3; range: 0–90) at the last exposure (end fear). As hypothesized, there was a significant drug condition-by-end fear interaction (b=−0.74; t=2.71, df=34, p=0.01; Cohen's d=0.93). We probed this interaction using procedures recommended by Aiken and West (49). This entailed two follow-up analyses, with end fear centered alternatively at low (end fear=0; 1 standard deviation below the mean) and high (end fear=47; 1 standard deviation above the mean) levels of fear. These analyses showed that for participants with low end fear (end fear=0), those given methylene blue had significantly lower levels of fear at the 1-month follow-up (peak fear=10.7) compared with those given placebo (peak fear=29.8) (b=19.2; t= 2.21, df=34, p=0.04; Cohen's d=0.76) (Figure 1). For those with higher levels of end fear, the opposite finding was observed; those given methylene blue had marginally higher levels of fear at the 1-month follow-up (peak fear=33.0) compared with those given placebo (peak fear=17.4) (b=−15.6; t=1.78, df=32, p=0.08; Cohen's d=0.63).
FIGURE 1. Effects of Methylene Blue on Peak Fear at the 1-Month Follow-Up Moderated by End Fear at the Last Extinction Triala
a The graph shows the effects of methylene blue on peak fear in the generalization context at the 1-month follow-up in participants with low (end fear=0), average (end fear=23.5), and high (end fear=47) end fear levels at the last extinction trial. For participants with low end fear, those who received methylene blue had significantly lower levels of fear at the follow-up than those who received placebo (p=0.04). For those with higher levels of end fear, those who received methylene blue tended to show marginally significant higher levels of fear at the follow-up compared with those who received placebo (p=0.08). *p<0.05.
We used this same procedure to examine the model-based relation between end fear at the last exposure trial and peak fear at the 1-month follow-up for those given methylene blue compared with those given placebo. For those who received methylene blue, end fear at the last exposure trial significantly predicted peak fear at the 1-month follow-up (b=0.48; t=2.43, df=32, p=0.02; Cohen's d=0.86), with higher end fear associated with higher fear 1 month later. However, for those who received placebo, there was no significant relationship between end fear and peak fear at the 1-month follow-up (b=−0.27) (t=1.10, df=32, p=0.28; Cohen's d=0.39).

Effects of Methylene Blue on Contextual Memory

We also hypothesized that scores on our incidental contextual memory test given at the 1-day and 1-month follow-up assessments would reveal enhanced performance for those who received methylene blue compared with placebo. Although those in the methylene blue group did not have greater recall 1 day after completing extinction training (p=0.40), they did demonstrate better free recall performance at the 1-month follow-up (recall score=1.4) compared with those in the placebo group (recall score=0.7) (b=0.69; t=2.06, df=37, p<0.05; Cohen's d=0.68) (Figure 2).
FIGURE 2. Effects of Methylene Blue on Contextual Memory Performance at Posttraining and the 1-Month Follow-Upa
a The graph shows the effects of methylene blue on contextual memory performance at posttraining and at the 1-month follow-up. Memory index scores depicted on the y-axis were derived by summing the total number of items for which participants correctly recalled both the number and its location (in the surface of the chamber). As shown, participants who received methylene blue posttraining demonstrated significantly better contextual memory performance at the 1-month follow-up (p<0.05) but not at the posttreatment assessment. *p<0.05.
We next attempted to verify that recall assessed by our incidental context memory recall index was not merely a result of lower fear among participants in the methylene blue group. We found that peak fear at posttreatment was unrelated to incidental recall at posttreatment and at follow-up, across drug conditions (all p values >0.26) and within drug conditions (all p values >0.12). Similarly, peak fear at follow-up was unrelated to free recall at follow-up, both across drug conditions (all p values >0.57) and within each drug condition (all p values >0.23). The reverse possibility also received no support, since incidental recall at posttreatment was unrelated to peak fear at follow-up, both across (p=0.88) and within (all p values >0.33) drug conditions.
Furthermore, because incidental recall could be associated with overall memory functioning and hence could be related to emotional memory of end fear at the last exposure trial, we investigated whether memory recall moderated the effect of end fear on peak fear at follow-up (i.e., end fear could be highly related to peak fear at follow-up for those with greater recall but less related to peak fear for those with poor recall). No evidence was found for this possibility (all p values >0.24). Thus, it appears that the memory facilitation effects of methylene blue at follow-up were independent of any differential changes in fear between the methylene blue and placebo groups.

Side Effects and Adverse Reactions

The frequency and mean severity of side effects reported during the study are summarized in Table 2. Minor side effects were reported in each drug condition. The three most commonly reported side effects in the methylene blue group were urine discoloration, increased frequency of urination, and dizziness, whereas the three most common side effects in the placebo group were urine discoloration, headache, and fecal discoloration. These side effects were generally mild, and no serious adverse reactions were observed. No problems with medication adherence were reported.
TABLE 2. Reported Side Effects for Each Drug Condition
Side EffectMethylene Blue GroupPlacebo Group
Reporting Side Effect (%)Mean Severity (Range: 0–4)Reporting Side Effect (%)Mean Severity (Range: 0–4)
Urine discoloration95.63.321.12.9
Fecal discoloration4.33.015.83.0
Increased frequency of urination21.72.610.53.0
Indigestion13.02.05.32.0
Diarrhea8.72.50.0
Vomiting4.32.00.0
Headache13.02.021.12.3
Heart racing4.31.00.0
Stomach cramps0.05.33.0
Sensitivity to light0.05.31.0
Trouble sleeping8.71.50.0
Dizziness17.42.00.0
Bladder irritation4.32.00.0

Discussion

Based on a fundamental assumption that the outcome of administering a memory-enhancing agent in combination with psychotherapy depends on what is learned during therapy, we hypothesized that methylene blue, compared with placebo, would promote the retention of fear extinction at a 1-month follow-up in individuals achieving marked fear attenuation during extinction training. In contrast, we hypothesized that for those showing minimal or no fear attenuation during training, methylene blue would show a less favorable outcome at the 1-month follow-up, compared with placebo, because of the potential strengthening of threat associations.
As predicted, end fear at posttraining significantly moderated the effects of methylene blue on claustrophobic fear in the nontrained, generalization context at follow-up. Specifically, participants displaying low end fear at posttraining showed significantly less fear at follow-up if they received methylene blue posttraining. The opposite pattern was observed for those displaying high levels of posttraining fear; that is, participants with high posttraining fear who received methylene blue posttraining tended to fare worse at follow-up compared with those who received placebo. These findings are consistent with preclinical studies in which methylene blue administered after fear extinction improved the retention of extinguished fear memories (22) and with later clinical studies using other cognitive enhancers, such as d-cycloserine (33), glucocorticoids (50), and yohimbine (34). Although the implications for those achieving average posttraining reduction in fear are less clear, the data underscore the importance of considering individual differences in patients’ response to exposure therapy as an important factor in deciding when to use cognitive-enhancing agents in combination with psychotherapy.
Consistent with previous preclinical studies in rodents (19, 2224, 2729), our findings provide the first demonstration, to our knowledge, that low-dose methylene blue administration improves memory retention in humans. To determine whether the enhanced context memory performance observed in participants receiving methylene blue was a consequence of lower fear levels or differences on other clinical status variables (e.g., presence of comorbid axis I pathology), we controlled for these variables when testing the effects of drug condition on context memory performance. Results showed that the increased memory retention among methylene blue-treated participants was unrelated to individual differences in fear responding or history of other axis I disorders and thus supports the direct memory-enhancing effects of methylene blue. There is no literature indicating whether the efficacy of methylene blue is affected by age or physical activity or by other factors affecting neurobiological oxygen uptake. However, the neurobiological efficacy of methylene blue has been demonstrated in both normoxia and hypoxia conditions in vivo (21).
We also considered the possibility that methylene blue’s enhancement of contextual memory could have detrimental effects on later fear responding by enhancing the context dependency of fear extinction learning. For example, if the contextual associative links formed in the extinction context are especially strong, methylene blue augmentation could serve to circumscribe the inhibition of fear to select extinguished contexts (51, 52). However, our results suggest that the opposite occurs. Methylene blue appears to promote generalization of the learning that occurs during extinction training, for better or for worse, depending on the degree of in-session fear attenuation.
We assessed the effects of methylene blue on contextual memory independent of participants’ fear responding. As mentioned, previous investigations of cognitive-enhancing agents in combination with exposure-based treatments have inferred cognitive enhancement based on greater symptom improvement among those receiving the cognitive enhancer compared with those receiving placebo. However, if the goal for using a cognitive enhancer with exposure therapy is to facilitate memory-related neuroplasticity so as to facilitate neural adaptations brought about by new learning occurring during exposure therapy (53), it is reasonable to expect enhancement of memory for context-relevant information unrelated to emotional responding. Thus, incorporating contextual memory tests, which have special relevance for fear extinction learning, provides an independent corroboration that memory-related neuroplasticity has indeed been enhanced.
Our findings should be interpreted in light of the neuropharmacological mechanisms governing the metabolic enhancement effects of methylene blue (19). Methylene blue enhances brain energy metabolism in two ways. The first mechanism is global. Methylene blue produces a global increase in brain cytochrome oxidase activity above baseline levels, which leads to enhanced capacity for oxidative energy production (22). This global action has been confirmed by increased baseline glucose uptake and cerebral blood flow using positron emission tomography and fMRI (20). However, this global effect is widespread and nonspecific. The second mechanism shows regional activational specificity. That is, methylene blue selectively potentiates cytochrome oxidase activity and evoked fMRI responses in brain regions activated by a specific task or stimulus (21, 22). Relative to the global effects of methylene blue, this activational effect is more pronounced and is specific to the neural networks demanding more energy utilization. In the case of fear-related neural networks, for example, memory for fear expression in humans activates a network that includes the amygdala and the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, whereas memory for fear extinction activates a different network involving the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and hippocampal formation (31, 32). Therefore, among participants with high fear expression at the end of training, methylene blue would be expected to facilitate the “fear-expression network”; whereas in participants displaying marked fear extinction, methylene blue would be expected to facilitate the “fear-extinction network.” Thus, administering methylene blue at the conclusion of exposure therapy may lead to opposite psychological outcomes depending on whether fear-expression or fear-extinction neural networks are potentiated. In contrast, since all participants were exposed to the same claustrophobia chamber, they may have shown the same contextual memory-enhancing effect from methylene blue irrespective of their level of fear activation because of the more global brain action of methylene blue, a hypothesis consistent with knowledge of the wide distribution of neural networks involved in context memory (51, 54, 55).

Study Limitations

Our study includes some limitations. First, our sample was relatively small and largely comprised of young, female university students. Thus, replication with a larger, more diverse sample is warranted. Second, conclusions as to whether methylene blue enhances exposure therapy in other anxiety disorders await further investigation. Third, single-item fear ratings (i.e., self-reported subjective units of distress) are a ubiquitous measure of fear responding in the phobia treatment literature. However, additional indices of fear, including physiological measurements, would have strengthened conclusions drawn from the present findings. Fourth, extinction training was delivered in a single session. Although single-session extinction-based treatments have been shown to be efficacious (42, 56), it remains unclear as to whether methylene blue enhances exposure therapy when delivered in a multisession treatment format. Fifth, a 4-mg/kg posttraining dosing strategy was selected because it has been shown to be the most reliable in rats for enhancing posttraining fear extinction memory retention (22, 29), as well as long-term behavioral habituation and object memory recognition (24). Future studies are needed to determine the optimal methylene blue dosing strategies for enhancing exposure therapy. Finally, given the small sample size, it is unclear how effectively the control variables corrected the potential differences between groups and between participants with varying levels of end fear.

Clinical Implications

Our findings have several implications for clinical practice. First, because methylene blue appears to strengthen the memory for fear extinction learning (or lack thereof) that occurs during exposure therapy, administration of methylene blue at the beginning of a therapy session should be avoided, given the inability to predict whether a session will be successful. Second, our findings suggest that postsession methylene blue administration should be done judiciously, after careful consideration of the patient’s level of fear attenuation achieved insession. Based on our findings, patients who continue to show moderate to high levels of fear at the conclusion of an exposure therapy session may have their fear inadvertently strengthened by methylene blue administration, thus leading to a less favorable therapeutic outcome. Finally, these findings highlight the need for research on the development of empirically based decision rules for administering methylene blue and other cognitive enhancers in the context of exposure therapy.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Anushka Pai and Alicia Herbison for their assistance.

Footnote

Supported in part by NIH grant R01 MH-076847 to Dr. Gonzalez-Lima.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material (1091_ds001.pdf)

References

1.
Neudeck P, Wittchen H-U: Exposure Therapy: Rethinking the Model–Refining the Method. New York, Springer, 2012
2.
Telch MJ, Cobb AR, Lancaster CL: Exposure therapy for anxiety disorders: procedural variations, clinical efficacy, and change mechanisms, in International Handbook of Anxiety Disorders. Edited by, Emmelkamp PM, Ehring T. Ames, Iowa, Wiley-Blackwell, 2013
3.
McNally RJ: Mechanisms of exposure therapy: how neuroscience can improve psychological treatments for anxiety disorders. Clin Psychol Rev 2007; 27:750–759
4.
Craske MG, Kircanski K, Zelikowsky M, Mystkowski J, Chowdhury N, Baker A: Optimizing inhibitory learning during exposure therapy. Behav Res Ther 2008; 46:5–27
5.
Davis M, Ressler K, Rothbaum BO, Richardson R: Effects of d-cycloserine on extinction: translation from preclinical to clinical work. Biol Psychiatry 2006; 60:369–375
6.
Hofmann SG, Sawyer AT, Asnaani A: d-cycloserine as an augmentation strategy for cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders: an update. Curr Pharm Des 2012; 18:5659–5662
7.
Ressler KJ, Rothbaum BO, Tannenbaum L, Anderson P, Graap K, Zimand E, Hodges L, Davis M: Cognitive enhancers as adjuncts to psychotherapy: use of d-cycloserine in phobic individuals to facilitate extinction of fear. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2004; 61:1136–1144
8.
Hofmann SG, Meuret AE, Smits JAJ, Simon NM, Pollack MH, Eisenmenger K, Shiekh M, Otto MW: Augmentation of exposure therapy with d -cycloserine for social anxiety disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2006; 63:298–304
9.
Guastella AJ, Richardson R, Lovibond PF, Rapee RM, Gaston JE, Mitchell P, Dadds MR: A randomized controlled trial of d-cycloserine enhancement of exposure therapy for social anxiety disorder. Biol Psychiatry 2008; 63:544–549
10.
Otto MW, Tolin DF, Simon NM, Pearlson GD, Basden S, Meunier SA, Hofmann SG, Eisenmenger K, Krystal JH, Pollack MH: Efficacy of d-cycloserine for enhancing response to cognitive-behavior therapy for panic disorder. Biol Psychiatry 2010; 67:365–370
11.
Kushner MG, Kim SW, Donahue C, Thuras P, Adson D, Kotlyar M, McCabe J, Peterson J, Foa EB: d-cycloserine augmented exposure therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Biol Psychiatry 2007; 62:835–838
12.
Wilhelm S, Buhlmann U, Tolin DF, Meunier SA, Pearlson GD, Reese HE, Cannistraro P, Jenike MA, Rauch SL: Augmentation of behavior therapy with d-cycloserine for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Am J Psychiatry 2008; 165:335–341, quiz 409
13.
Hofmann SG, Smits JAJ, Rosenfield D, Simon N, Otto MW, Meuret AE, Marques L, Fang A, Tart C, Pollack MH: d-cycloserine as an augmentation strategy with cognitive-behavioral therapy for social anxiety disorder. Am J Psychiatry 2013; 170:751–758
14.
Storch EA, Merlo LJ, Bengtson M, Murphy TK, Lewis MH, Yang MC, Jacob ML, Larson M, Hirsh A, Fernandez M, Geffken GR, Goodman WK: d-cycloserine does not enhance exposure-response prevention therapy in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2007; 22:230–237
15.
Guastella AJ, Dadds MR, Lovibond PF, Mitchell P, Richardson R: A randomized controlled trial of the effect of d-cycloserine on exposure therapy for spider fear. J Psychiatr Res 2007; 41:466–471
16.
Tart CD, Handelsman PR, Deboer LB, Rosenfield D, Pollack MH, Hofmann SG, Powers MB, Otto MW, Smits JAJ: Augmentation of exposure therapy with post-session administration of d-cycloserine. J Psychiatr Res 2013; 47:168–174
17.
Litz BT, Salters-Pedneault K, Steenkamp MM, Hermos JA, Bryant RA, Otto MW, Hofmann SG: A randomized placebo-controlled trial of d-cycloserine and exposure therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder. J Psychiatr Res 2012; 46:1184–1190
18.
Wainwright M, Crossley KB: Methylene blue: a therapeutic dye for all seasons? J Chemother 2002; 14:431–443
19.
Rojas JC, Bruchey AK, Gonzalez-Lima F: Neurometabolic mechanisms for memory enhancement and neuroprotection of methylene blue. Prog Neurobiol 2012; 96:32–45
20.
Lin A-L, Poteet E, Du F, Gourav RC, Liu R, Wen Y, Bresnen A, Huang S, Fox PT, Yang S-H, Duong TQ: Methylene blue as a cerebral metabolic and hemodynamic enhancer. PLoS ONE 2012; 7:e46585
21.
Huang S, Du F, Shih Y-YI, Shen Q, Gonzalez-Lima F, Duong TQ: Methylene blue potentiates stimulus-evoked fMRI responses and cerebral oxygen consumption during normoxia and hypoxia. Neuroimage 2013; 72:237–242
22.
Gonzalez-Lima F, Bruchey AK: Extinction memory improvement by the metabolic enhancer methylene blue. Learn Mem 2004; 11:633–640
23.
Martinez JL, Jensen RA, Vasquez BJ, McGuinness T, McGaugh JL: Methylene blue alters retention of inhibitory avoidance responses. Physiol Psychol 1978; 6:387–390
24.
Riha PD, Bruchey AK, Echevarria DJ, Gonzalez-Lima F: Memory facilitation by methylene blue: dose-dependent effect on behavior and brain oxygen consumption. Eur J Pharmacol 2005; 511:151–158
25.
Medina DX, Caccamo A, Oddo S: Methylene blue reduces aβ levels and rescues early cognitive deficit by increasing proteasome activity. Brain Pathol 2011; 21:140–149
26.
O’Leary JC, Li Q, Marinec P, Blair LJ, Congdon EE, Johnson AG, Jinwal UK, Koren J, Jones JR, Kraft C, Peters M, Abisambra JF, Duff KE, Weeber EJ, Gestwicki JE, Dickey CA: Phenothiazine-mediated rescue of cognition in tau transgenic mice requires neuroprotection and reduced soluble tau burden. Mol Neurodegener 2010; 5:45
27.
Callaway NL, Riha PD, Bruchey AK, Munshi Z, Gonzalez-Lima F: Methylene blue improves brain oxidative metabolism and memory retention in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2004; 77:175–181
28.
Wrubel KM, Riha PD, Maldonado MA, McCollum D, Gonzalez-Lima F: The brain metabolic enhancer methylene blue improves discrimination learning in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2007; 86:712–717
29.
Wrubel KM, Barrett D, Shumake J, Johnson SE, Gonzalez-Lima F: Methylene blue facilitates the extinction of fear in an animal model of susceptibility to learned helplessness. Neurobiol Learn Mem 2007; 87:209–217
30.
Barrett D, Shumake J, Jones D, Gonzalez-Lima F: Metabolic mapping of mouse brain activity after extinction of a conditioned emotional response. J Neurosci 2003; 23:5740–5749
31.
Quirk GJ, Garcia R, González-Lima F: Prefrontal mechanisms in extinction of conditioned fear. Biol Psychiatry 2006; 60:337–343
32.
Milad MR, Quirk GJ: Fear extinction as a model for translational neuroscience: ten years of progress. Annu Rev Psychol 2012; 63:129–151
33.
Smits JAJ, Rosenfield D, Otto MW, Powers MB, Hofmann SG, Telch MJ, Pollack MH, Tart CD: d-cycloserine enhancement of fear extinction is specific to successful exposure sessions: evidence from the treatment of height phobia. Biol Psychiatry 2013; 73:1054–1058
34.
Smits JAJ, Rosenfield D, Davis ML, Julian K, Handelsman PR, Otto MW, Tuerk P, Shiekh M, Rosenfield B, Hofmann SG, Powers MB: Yohimbine enhancement of exposure therapy for social anxiety disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Biol Psychiatry 75:840–846 2014
35.
Rachman PDS, Taylor PDS: Analyses of claustrophobia. J Anxiety Disord 1993; 7:281–291
36.
Valentiner DP, Telch MJ, Ilai D, Hehmsoth MM: Claustrophobic fear behavior: a test of the expectancy model of fear. Behav Res Ther 1993; 31:395–402
37.
First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, Williams JB: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID). New York, New York State Psychiatric Institute, Biometrics Research, 1994
38.
Powers MB, Smits JAJ, Whitley D, Bystritsky A, Telch MJ: The effect of attributional processes concerning medication taking on return of fear. J Consult Clin Psychol 2008; 76:478–490
39.
Powers MB, Smits JAJ, Telch MJ: Disentangling the effects of safety-behavior utilization and safety-behavior availability during exposure-based treatment: a placebo-controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol 2004; 72:448–454
40.
Sloan T, Telch MJ: The effects of safety-seeking behavior and guided threat reappraisal on fear reduction during exposure: an experimental investigation. Behav Res Ther 2002; 40:235–251
41.
Telch MJ, Valentiner DP, Ilai D, Petruzzi D, Hehmsoth M: The facilitative effects of heart-rate feedback in the emotional processing of claustrophobic fear. Behav Res Ther 2000; 38: 373–387
42.
Kamphuis JH, Telch MJ: Effects of distraction and guided threat reappraisal on fear reduction during exposure-based treatments for specific fears. Behav Res Ther 2000; 38:1163–1181
43.
Peter C, Hongwan D, Küpfer A, Lauterburg BH: Pharmacokinetics and organ distribution of intravenous and oral methylene blue. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56:247–250
44.
Corrêa MS, Balardin JB, Caldieraro MAK, Fleck MP, Argimon I, Luz C, Bromberg E: Contextual recognition memory deficits in major depression are suppressed by cognitive support at encoding. Biol Psychol 2012; 89:293–299
45.
Vicari S, Finzi A, Menghini D, Marotta L, Baldi S, Petrosini L: Do children with developmental dyslexia have an implicit learning deficit? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005; 76:1392–1397
46.
Vicari S, Bellucci S, Carlesimo GA: Visual and spatial long-term memory: differential pattern of impairments in Williams and Down syndromes. Dev Med Child Neurol 2005; 47:305–311
47.
Kraemer HC, Kiernan M, Essex M, Kupfer DJ: How and why criteria defining moderators and mediators differ between the Baron and Kenny and MacArthur approaches. Health Psychol 2008; 27(suppl):S101–S108
48.
Steiner PM, Cook TD, Shadish WR, Clark MH: The importance of covariate selection in controlling for selection bias in observational studies. Psychol Methods 2010; 15:250–267
49.
Aiken LS, West SG: Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Thousand Oaks, Calif, Sage Publications, 1991
50.
Soravia LM, Heinrichs M, Aerni A, Maroni C, Schelling G, Ehlert U, Roozendaal B, de Quervain DJ: Glucocorticoids reduce phobic fear in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006; 103:5585–5590
51.
Maren S, Phan KL, Liberzon I: The contextual brain: implications for fear conditioning, extinction and psychopathology. Nat Rev Neurosci 2013; 14:417–428
52.
Orsini CA, Kim JH, Knapska E, Maren S: Hippocampal and prefrontal projections to the basal amygdala mediate contextual regulation of fear after extinction. J Neurosci 2011; 31:17269–17277
53.
Krystal JH: Neuroplasticity as a target for the pharmacotherapy of psychiatric disorders: new opportunities for synergy with psychotherapy. Biol Psychiatry 2007; 62:833–834
54.
Eich E, Context, memory, and integrated item/context imagery. J Exp Psych Learn 1985; 11:764
55.
Hintzman DL: Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychol Rev 1988; 95:528
56.
Wolitzky-Taylor KB, Horowitz JD, Powers MB, Telch MJ: Psychological approaches in the treatment of specific phobias: a meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 2008; 28:1021–1037

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
American Journal of Psychiatry
Pages: 1091 - 1098
PubMed: 25018057

History

Received: 25 October 2013
Revision received: 3 March 2014
Revision received: 16 April 2014
Accepted: 24 April 2014
Published online: 1 October 2014
Published in print: October 2014

Authors

Details

Michael J. Telch, Ph.D.
From the Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.; the Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas; and the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Texas at Austin.
Aleksandra K. Bruchey, Ph.D.
From the Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.; the Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas; and the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Texas at Austin.
David Rosenfield, Ph.D.
From the Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.; the Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas; and the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Texas at Austin.
Adam R. Cobb, M.A.
From the Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.; the Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas; and the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Texas at Austin.
Jasper Smits, Ph.D.
From the Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.; the Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas; and the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Texas at Austin.
Sandra Pahl, Ph.D.
From the Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.; the Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas; and the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Texas at Austin.
F. Gonzalez-Lima, Ph.D.
From the Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.; the Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas; and the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Texas at Austin.

Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Telch ([email protected]).

Funding Information

NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience Research10.13039/100000135: R01 MH076847
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Supplementary Material

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format
Citation style
Style
Copy to clipboard

View Options

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Get Access

Login options

Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.

Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens login
Purchase Options

Purchase this article to access the full text.

PPV Articles - American Journal of Psychiatry

PPV Articles - American Journal of Psychiatry

Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now / Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share