Little Doubt That CBT Works for Pediatric OCD

Potential for Harm in the Treatment of Pediatric Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Pitfalls and Best Practices

Pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) can be debilitating and chronic unless treated early with efficacious intervention. The past several decades of intervention research have identified cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) with exposure and response/ritual prevention (ERP) as the first-line, evidence-based psychological intervention for pediatric OCD. Yet, many youths with OCD unfortunately remain inadequately treated. In well-meaning but misguided efforts to treat this complex disorder, clinicians holding misconceptions about ERP may fail to apply evidence-based treatments, misapply generic CBT techniques and ERP principles, or turn to non-evidence-based interventions. Potentially harmful treatments may worsen symptoms, while ineffective treatments can waste resources, impede patient access to efficacious treatment, and weaken public confidence in psychotherapy. The overarching goals of this review paper are to describe potentially harmful and ineffective practices in the treatment of pediatric OCD and to offer recommendations aligned with evidence-based practice. First, we dispel common misconceptions about ERP that may underlie its underuse among clinicians. We then describe potentially harmful and ineffective interventions for pediatric OCD, starting with misapplication of generic CBT techniques and ERP principles. We also identify non-evidence-based treatments for pediatric OCD that have limited conceptual or empirical foundations. Finally, we conclude with recommendations for clinicians who treat pediatric OCD, intervention researchers, training programs across mental health-related disciplines, and policymakers.

Efficacy of stand-alone digital mental health applications for anxiety and depression: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Anxiety and depressive disorders affect 20% of the population, cause functional impairment, and represent a leading cause of disability. Although evidence-based treatments exist, the shortage of trained clinicians and high demand for mental health services have resulted in limited access to evidence-based care. Digital mental health applications (DMHA) present innovative, scalable, and sustainable solutions to address disparities in mental health care.

METHODS

The present study used meta-analytic techniques to evaluate the therapeutic effect of DMHAs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for individuals experiencing anxiety and/or depressive symptoms. Search terms were selected based on concepts related to digital mental health applications, mental health/wellness, intervention type, trial design, and anxiety and/or depression symptoms/diagnosis outcomes to capture all potentially eligible results. Potential demographic, DMHA, and trial design characteristics were examined as moderators of therapeutic effects.

RESULTS

Random effects meta-analyses found that stand-alone DMHAs produced a modest reduction in anxiety (g = 0.31) and depressive (g = 0.35) symptom severity. Several moderators influenced the therapeutic effects of DMHAs for anxiety and/or depressive symptoms including treatment duration, participant inclusion criteria, and outcome measures.

LIMITATIONS

Minimal information was available on DMHA usability and participant engagement with DMHAs within RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

While DMHAs have the potential to be scalable and sustainable solutions to improve access and availability of evidence-based mental healthcare, moderator analyses highlight the considerations for implementation of DMHAs in practice. Further research is needed to understand factors that influence therapeutic effects of DMHAs and investigate strategies to optimize its implementation and overcome the extant research-to-practice gap.

What Is the Added Benefit of Combining Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors in Youth with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder? A Bayesian Hierarchical Modeling Meta-Analysis

Background: Treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in children and adolescents frequently involves cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), or their combination. However, how adding CBT to SSRIs affects the trajectory and magnitude of improvement has not been evaluated meta-analytically. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis using weekly data from prospective randomized parallel group trials of CBT and SSRIs in pediatric patients with OCD. Response was modeled for the change in the Child Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS) using a Bayesian hierarchical model over 12 weeks. Results: Fourteen studies included pharmacotherapy arms, 4 studies included combined pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy, and 10 studies included a placebo or control arm. The studies included 1146 patients (mean age 12.7 ± 1.3 years, mean 42.1% female). In the logarithmic model of response, statistically significant differences in treatment effects for CBT+SSRI and SSRI monotherapy were observed compared with placebo (SSRI β = -3.59, credible interval [95% CrI]: -4.13 to -3.02, p < 0.001; SSRI+CBT β = -4.07, 95% CrI: -5.05 to -3.04, p < 0.001). Adding CBT to an SSRI produced numerically (but not statistically significantly) greater improvement over 12 weeks. Greater improvement was observed in studies with more boys (p < 0.001), younger patients (p < 0.001), and in studies with greater baseline symptom severity (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In children and adolescents with OCD, compared with placebo, both SSRIs and SSRI+CBT produced early and sustained improvement over 12 weeks, although the improvement was also related to sample characteristics. Longer term studies are needed to determine when the additive benefit of CBT emerges relative to SSRI monotherapy.

Parent Management Training Augmentation to Address Coercive and Disruptive Behavior in Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Pediatric Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

Coercive and disruptive behaviors commonly interfere with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) trials among youths with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Although evidence supports parent management training (PMT) for reducing disruptive behavior, no group-based PMT interventions exist for OCD-related disruptive behaviors. We studied feasibility and effectiveness of group-based adjunctive PMT among non-randomized, OCD-affected families receiving family-based group CBT. Linear mixed models estimated treatment effects across OCD-related and parenting outcomes at post-treatment and 1-month follow-up. Treatment response for 37 families receiving CBT + PMT (M_age = 13.90) was compared to 80 families receiving only CBT (M_age = 13.93). CBT + PMT was highly accepted by families. Families who received CBT + PMT had improved disruptive behaviors, parental distress tolerance, and other OCD-related outcomes. OCD-related outcomes did not significantly differ between groups. Results support CBT + PMT as effective treatment for pediatric OCD that may not provide incremental benefits beyond CBT alone. Future research should determine feasible and effective ways to incorporate key PMT components into CBT-based interventions.

Things that make you go Hmm: Myths and misconceptions within cognitive-behavioral treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder

The past four decades have yielded a robust body of evidence supporting the efficacy and effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) as a gold-standard treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) across the lifespan. Exposure and response prevention (E/RP) has been identified as a key component of this approach. Despite robust research support for CBT with E/RP, several myths and misconceptions continue to proliferate in both research and practice settings. Such myths and misconceptions are concerning, as they lack empirical basis, may hinder widespread dissemination and implementation of CBT for OCD, and run contrary to the practice of evidence-based psychological medicine. Focusing on the importance of promoting evidence-based practice and generative clinical science, the present review article synthesizes relevant research within the field of treatments for OCD to address the following myths / misconceptions: (a) uncertainty exists concerning the evidence base supporting CBT for OCD, (b) E/RP attrition and dropout rates are unacceptably high due to excessive risk and perceived patient intolerability, and (c) alternative treatments for OCD need to be expeditiously developed due to major limitations of E/RP. Recommendations for future research and clinical dissemination and implementation to further advance a generative clinical science of OCD treatment are discussed.

Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: 2021 Update

In this update of a previous review, the authors discuss cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) with exposure and response prevention for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). This efficacious modality avoids side effects common to psychotropic medication and reduces risk of relapse once treatment has ended. Psychotherapy involves identification and ranking of stimuli that provoke obsessions, exposure to these stimuli while preventing compulsions, and cognitive restructuring. The family of the OCD patient plays a significant role in treatment. This article includes expanded research on family-focused CBT and treatment of pediatric OCD. The family's accommodation and emotional response to a patient's symptoms may interfere with therapy and perpetuate the disorder. The treatment of pediatric OCD involves the same considerations. However, the form of obsessions and compulsions may differ and therapeutic techniques are modified to make them age appropriate.

Cognitive behavioural therapy with exposure and response prevention in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), incorporating exposure and response prevention (ERP) is widely recognised as the psychological treatment of choice for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Uncertainty remains however about the magnitude of the effect of CBT with ERP and the impact of moderating factors in patients with OCD.

METHOD

This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed randomised-controlled trials of CBT with ERP in patients of all ages with OCD. The study was preregistered in PROSPERO (CRD42019122311). The primary outcome was end-of-trial OCD symptom scores. The moderating effects of patient-related and study-related factors including type of control intervention and risk of bias were examined. Additional exploratory analyses assessed the effects of treatment fidelity and impact of researcher allegiance.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies were included, involving 2020 patients (537 children/adolescents and 1483 adults) with 1005 assigned to CBT with ERP and 1015 to control conditions. When compared against all control conditions, a large pooled effect size (ES) emerged in favour of CBT with ERP (g = 0.74: 95% CI = 0.51 to 0.97 k = 36), which appeared to diminish with increasing age. While CBT with ERP was more effective than psychological placebo (g = 1.13 95% CI 0.71 to 1.55, k = 10), it was no more effective than other active forms of psychological therapy (g = -0.05: 95% CI -0.27 to 0.16, k = 8). Similarly, whereas CBT with ERP was significantly superior when compared to all forms of pharmacological treatment (g = 0.36: 95% CI 0.7 to 0.64, k = 7), the effect became marginal when compared with adequate dosages of pharmacotherapy for OCD (g = 0.32: 95% CI -0.00 to 0.64, k = 6).A minority of studies (k = 8) were deemed to be at low risk of bias. Moreover, three quarters of studies (k = 28) demonstrated suspected researcher allegiance and these studies reported a large ES (g = 0.95: 95% CI 0.69 to 1.2), while those without suspected researcher allegiance (k = 8) indicated that CBT with ERP was not efficacious (g = 0.02: 95% CI -0.29 to 0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

A large effect size was found for CBT with ERP in reducing the symptoms of OCD, but depends upon the choice of comparator control. This meta-analysis also highlights concerns about the methodological rigor and reporting of published studies of CBT with ERP in OCD. In particular, efficacy was strongly linked to researcher allegiance and this requires further future investigation.

Dr. Uhre et al. Reply

In a recent letter to the editor, a group of clinician-researchers posit that the conclusions in our published systematic review¹ on cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are based on inappropriate methodology. In this reply, we address the concerns expressed by Storch et al.².

When Science Challenges Our Long-Held Assumptions About the Robustness of Evidence for Standard of Care

In this issue of the Journal, we publish two letters pertaining to the article "Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder in Children and Adolescents" by Uhre et al.¹ Their protocol employed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions to evaluate risk of bias (selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting biases) in the included 25 trials, contacting trial authors to obtain missing data where possible. They controlled for random errors owing to sparse data or multiple testing using Trial Sequential Analysis and evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation approach. They concluded that cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) (versus no intervention) is effective for pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but that the certainty of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes and that moderator analyses could often not be completed for lack of data. The authors made the point that blinding is always possible, even in CBT trials.