Comparing the efficacy of electronic cognitive behavioral therapy to medication and combination therapy for generalized anxiety disorder: a quasi-experimental clinical trial.

Background: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is a debilitating mental health disorder with first-line treatments include cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and pharmacotherapy. CBT is costly, time-consuming, and inaccessible. Electronic delivery (e-CBT) is a promising solution to address these barriers. However, due to the novelty of this intervention, more research testing the e-CBT efficacy independently and in conjunction with other treatments is needed. Objective: This study investigated the efficacy of e-CBT compared to and in conjunction with pharmacotherapy for GAD. Methods: This study employed a quasi-experimental design where patients selected their preferred treatment modality. Patients with GAD were enrolled in either e-CBT, medication, or combination arms. The 12-week e-CBT program was delivered through a digital platform. The medications followed clinical guidelines. The efficacy of each arm was evaluated using questionnaires measuring depression, anxiety, and stress severity, as well as quality of life. Results: There were no significant differences between arms (N e-CBT = 41; N Medication = 41; N Combination = 33) in the number of weeks completed or baseline scores. All arms showed improvements in anxiety scores after treatment. The medication and combination arms improved depression scores. The e-CBT and Combination arms improved quality of life, and the combination arm improved stress scores. There were no differences between the groups in depression, anxiety, or stress scores post-treatment. However, the combination arm had a significantly larger improvement in quality of life. Gender and treatment arm were not predictors of dropout, whereas younger age was. Conclusion: Incorporating e-CBT on its own or in combination with pharmaceutical interventions is a viable option for treating GAD. Treating GAD with e-CBT or medication appears to offer significant improvements in symptoms, with no meaningful difference between the two. Combining the treatments also offer significant improvements, while not necessarily superior to either independently. The findings suggest that all options are viable. Taking the patient's preferred treatment route based on their lifestyle, personality, and beliefs into account when deciding on treatment should be a priority for care providers.

Comparison of online and in-person cognitive behavioral therapy in individuals diagnosed with major depressive disorder: a non-randomized controlled trial.

Objective: The increased prevalence of major depressive disorder (MDD) amid the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in substantial growth in online mental health care delivery. Compared to its in-person counterpart, online cognitive behavioral therapy (e-CBT) is a time-flexible and cost-effective method of improving MDD symptoms. However, how its efficacy compares to in-person CBT is yet to be explored. Therefore, the current study compared the efficacy of a therapist-supported, electronically delivered e-CBT program to in-person therapy in individuals diagnosed with MDD. Methods: Participants (n = 108) diagnosed with MDD selected either a 12 week in-person CBT or an asynchronous therapist-supported e-CBT program. E-CBT participants (n = 55) completed weekly interactive online modules delivered through a secure cloud-based online platform (Online Psychotherapy Tool; OPTT). These modules were followed by homework in which participants received personalized feedback from a trained therapist. Participants in the in-person CBT group (n = 53) discussed sessions and homework with their therapists during one-hour weekly meetings. Program efficacy was evaluated using clinically validated symptomatology and quality of life questionnaires. Results: Both treatments yielded significant improvements in depressive symptoms and quality of life from baseline to post-treatment. Participants who opted for in-person therapy presented significantly higher baseline symptomatology scores than the e-CBT group. However, both treatments demonstrated comparable significant improvements in depressive symptoms and quality of life from baseline to post-treatment. e-CBT seems to afford higher participant compliance as dropouts in the e-CBT group completed more sessions on average than those in the in-person CBT group. Conclusion: The findings support e-CBT with therapist guidance as a suitable option to treat MDD. Future studies should investigate how treatment accessibility is related to program completion rates in the e-CBT vs. in-person group. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.Gov Protocol Registration and Results System (NCT04478058); clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04478058.

Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Antipsychotics for Juvenile Psychotic Disorders: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psychotic disorders produce important morbidity and disability in children and adolescents. There have been few relevant treatment trials, encouraging assessment of research aimed at testing efficacy and safety of antipsychotics for juveniles. We aimed to compare the short- and long-term efficacy and safety of antipsychotics to treat psychotic disorders among children and adolescents. METHODS: Four major bibliographic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE) were searched for clinical trials of antipsychotics in children or adolescents, from database inception to May 2021. We searched for clinical trials comparing antipsychotics with control conditions for juvenile psychosis based on blinded review by 2 independent investigators (C.S.Y. and M.L.). We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and applied the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to appraise study quality. One reviewer (A.B.) performed data abstraction which was confirmed by 2 independent, blinded reviewers (C.S.Y. and M.L.). Primary outcomes were scores rating psychosis symptoms and dichotomized retention in treatment protocols versus dropouts because of adverse events. Effect sizes were pooled using frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis modeling to generate summary rate ratios (RRs) and Cohen d standardized mean differences. RESULTS: Systematic searching generated 1330 unique records. Of these, short-term (n = 15, for 6 [3-12] weeks) and long-term (n = 10, for 12 [6-60] months) treatment trials involved 2208 (39.2% females; median age, 15.3 years), and 1366 subjects (35.0% females; median age, 15.6 years), respectively. Short-term reduction of psychosis scores ranked clozapine (d = -1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.97 to -0.73]), molindone (-1.22; 95% CI, -1.68 to -0.75), olanzapine (-1.12; 95% CI, -1.44 to -0.81), and risperidone (-0.93; 95% CI, -1.22 to -0.63) as the most effective agents. In longer-term treatment, only lurasidone was effective. Clozapine (RR, 12.8) and haloperidol (RR, 5.15) led to more all-cause and adverse event-related dropouts. There were few trials/drug (1 each for aripiprazole, asenapine, lurasidone, molindone, paliperidone, and ziprasidone, short term; aripiprazole, clozapine, haloperidol, lurasidone, and molindone, long-term). Heterogeneity and inconsistency were high, especially in long-term trials, without evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Some antipsychotics were effective and tolerated short term, but longer-term evidence was very limited. The overall paucity of trials and of adequate controls indicates that more well-designed randomized controlled trials are required for adequate assessment of antipsychotic drug treatment for juveniles. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021232937.

Feasibility and Efficacy of Delivering Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Through an Online Psychotherapy Tool for Depression: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a prevalent and debilitating mental health disorder. Among different therapeutic approaches (eg, medication and psychotherapy), psychotherapy in the form of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is considered the gold standard treatment for MDD. However, although efficacious, CBT is not readily accessible to many patients in need because of hurdles such as stigma, long wait times, high cost, the large time commitment for health care providers, and cultural or geographic barriers. Electronically delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (e-CBT) can effectively address many of these accessibility barriers. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the efficacy and feasibility of implementing an e-CBT program compared with in-person treatment for MDD. It is hypothesized that the e-CBT program will offer results comparable with those of the in-person treatment program, regarding symptom reduction and quality of life improvement. METHODS: This nonrandomized controlled trial intervention will provide e-CBT for MDD through the Online Psychotherapy Tool, a secure, cloud-based, digital mental health platform. Participants (aged 18-65 years) will be offered 12 weekly sessions of an e-CBT program tailored to MDD to address their depressive symptoms. Participants (n=55) will complete predesigned modules and homework assignments while receiving personalized feedback and interacting with a therapist through the platform. Using clinically validated symptomology questionnaires, the efficacy of the e-CBT program will be compared with that of a group (n=55) receiving in-person CBT. Questionnaires will be completed at baseline, at week 6 and week 12, and at a 6-month follow-up. Focus groups will be conducted to investigate personal, cultural, and social factors impacting the accessibility and feasibility of implementing a web-based psychotherapy tool from a patient and care provider perspective. Inclusion criteria include diagnosis of MDD, competence to consent to participate, ability to speak and read English, and consistent and reliable access to the internet. Exclusion criteria include active psychosis, acute mania, severe alcohol or substance use disorder, and active suicidal or homicidal ideation. RESULTS: Ethics approval was obtained in January 2019, and recruitment of participants began in June 2019. Recruitment has been conducted via social media, web-based communities, and physician referrals. To date, 52 participants have been recruited to the e-CBT group, and 48 patients have been recruited to the in-person CBT group. Data collection is expected to be completed by March 2021, and analyses are expected to be completed by June 2021, as linear regression (for continuous outcomes) and binomial regression analysis (for categorical outcomes) are still being conducted. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study can provide valuable information for the development of more accessible and scalable mental health interventions with increased care capacity for MDD, without sacrificing the quality of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04478058; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04478058. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/27489.

Determining the Efficacy of Electronic Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Generalized Anxiety Disorder Compared to Pharmaceutical Interventions: Protocol for a Quasi-Experimental Study.

BACKGROUND: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is an extremely prevalent and debilitating mental health disorder. Currently, the gold standard treatment for GAD is cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and/or pharmacotherapy. The most common medications used to treat GAD are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. While CBT is the gold standard treatment for GAD, it is costly, time-consuming, and often inaccessible. Fortunately, the electronic delivery of CBT (e-CBT) has emerged as a promising solution to address these barriers. e-CBT has shown to offer comparable results to in-person CBT while improving accessibility for patients and time efficiency for clinicians. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the treatment efficacy of e-CBT compared to and in conjunction with pharmacotherapy for GAD. METHODS: This study will use a quasi-experimental design to allow patients the freedom to choose which treatment modality they would like to receive. Participants with a diagnosis of GAD will be enrolled in 1 of 3 possible treatment arms: (1) e-CBT, (2) medication, or (3) a combination of e-CBT and medication. The e-CBT program will include a 12-week psychotherapy program delivered through the Online Psychotherapy Tool-a secure, cloud-based, digital mental health platform. The treatment efficacy of e-CBT will be compared with that of medication alone and medication in combination with e-CBT. RESULTS: The study received ethics approval in April 2019 and participant recruitment began in June 2019. Participant recruitment has been conducted through social media advertisements, physical advertisements, and physician referrals. To date, 146 participants (e-CBT: n=53; medication: n=49; combination: n=44) have been recruited. Data collection is expected to conclude by June 2021, and data analysis is expected to be completed by October 2021. Linear regression (for continuous outcomes) and binomial regression (for categorical outcomes) analysis will be conducted using interpretive qualitative methods. CONCLUSIONS: If either the efficacy of e-CBT is shown to be comparable to that of medication or the effects of both treatments are augmented when used in tandem, these findings could have major implications on the mental health care system. e-CBT is a more accessible and affordable treatment that could increase mental health care capacity 4-fold if proven viable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04478526; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04478526. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/27772.

Long-Term Treatment of Bipolar Disorder with Valproate: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analyses.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE: After participating in this activity, learners should be better able to:• Evaluate the evidence regarding the effectiveness of long-term treatment of bipolar disorder with valproate. BACKGROUND: Prophylactic treatment is critical for bipolar disorder (BD) patients. Valproate is commonly used for this purpose but lacks regulatory approval and carries appreciable risks. METHODS: Systematic literature searching through June 2020 sought prospective trials lasting ≥12 months with adults diagnosed with BD to support comparisons of risk of new illness episodes with valproate versus placebo or other agents. RESULTS: Included were 13 reports involving 9240 subjects treated for an average of 29.1 months (range, 12-124) in 21 trials: 9 were blinded, randomized trials (RCTs) of valproate versus placebo (n = 3), lithium (5), or olanzapine (1); 2 were unblinded RCTs versus lithium (1) or quetiapine (1); and 10 were open-label trials versus lithium (5), quetiapine (2), carbamazepine (1), lamotrigine (1), or olanzapine (1). Random-effects meta-analysis found valproate superior to placebo in 3 trials (odds ratio [OR] = 0.42 [95% confidence level (CI), 0.30-0.60]; p < .0001). In 11 trials, protective effects with valproate and lithium were similar (OR = 1.20 [CI, 0.81-1.79]; p = .36), as well in 5 comparisons versus antipsychotics quetiapine and olanzapine (OR = 0.96 [CI, 0.66-1.40]; p = .84), and 2 versus other mood-stabilizing anticonvulsants (carbamazepine and lamotrigine) (OR = 1.30 [CI, 0.75-2.26]; p = .34). Valproate was nonsignificantly more effective versus new mania than depression (χ2 = 3.03; p = .08). CONCLUSIONS: Valproate was more effective than placebo in preventing new BD episodes of mania or depression, and not significantly different from lithium, second-generation antipsychotics, or other anticonvulsants. Overall benefits were nonsignificantly greater versus mania than bipolar depression.

Maintenance Pharmacological Treatment of Juvenile Bipolar Disorder: Review and Meta-Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for maintenance treatment of juvenile bipolar disorder rely heavily on evidence from adult studies and relatively brief trials in juveniles, leaving uncertainties about optimal long-term treatment. We aimed to systematically review long-term treatment trials for juvenile bipolar disorder. METHODS: We analyzed data recovered by a systematic literature search using the PRISMA guidelines statement, through 2018, for peer-reviewed reports on pharmacological treatments for juvenile bipolar disorder lasting ≥24 weeks. RESULTS: Of 13 reports with 16 trials of 9 treatments (18.8% were randomized and controlled), with 1773 subjects (94.4% BD-I; ages 6.9-15.1 years), lasting 11.7 (6-22) months. Pooled clinical response rates were 66.8% (CI: 64.4-69.1) with drugs vs 60.6% (53.0-66.7) in 3 placebo-control arms. Random-effects meta-analysis of 4 controlled trials yielded pooled odds ratio (OR) = 2.88 ([0.87-9.60], P = .08) for clinical response, and OR = 7.14 ([1.12-45.6], P = .04) for nonrecurrence. Apparent efficacy ranked: combined agents >anticonvulsants ≥lithium ≥antipsychotics. Factors favoring response ranked: more attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, polytherapy, randomized controlled trial design, nonrecurrence vs response. Adverse events (incidence, 5.50%-28.5%) notably included cognitive dulling, weight-gain, and gastrointestinal symptoms; early dropout rates averaged 49.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacological treatments, including anticonvulsants, lithium, and second-generation antipsychotics, may reduce long-term morbidity in juvenile bipolar disorder. However, study number, quality, and effect magnitude were limited, leaving the status of scientific support for maintenance treatment for juvenile bipolar disorder inconclusive.