Therapist-guided remote versus in-person cognitive behavioural therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has been shown to be effective for several psychiatric and somatic conditions; however, most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have administered treatment in person and whether remote delivery is similarly effective remains uncertain. We sought to compare the effectiveness of therapist-guided remote CBT and in-person CBT. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to July 4, 2023, for RCTs that enrolled adults (aged ≥ 18 yr) presenting with any clinical condition and that randomized participants to either therapist-guided remote CBT (e.g., teleconference, videoconference) or in-person CBT. Paired reviewers assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently and in duplicate. We performed random-effects model meta-analyses to pool patient-important primary outcomes across eligible RCTs as standardized mean differences (SMDs). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance to assess the certainty of evidence and used the Instrument to Assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) to rate the credibility of subgroup effects. RESULTS: We included 54 RCTs that enrolled a total of 5463 patients. Seventeen studies focused on treatment of anxiety and related disorders, 14 on depressive symptoms, 7 on insomnia, 6 on chronic pain or fatigue syndromes, 5 on body image or eating disorders, 3 on tinnitus, 1 on alcohol use disorder, and 1 on mood and anxiety disorders. Moderate-certainty evidence showed little to no difference in the effectiveness of therapist-guided remote and in-person CBT on primary outcomes (SMD -0.02, 95% confidence interval -0.12 to 0.07). INTERPRETATION: Moderate-certainty evidence showed little to no difference in the effectiveness of in-person and therapist-guided remote CBT across a range of mental health and somatic disorders, suggesting potential for the use of therapist-guided remote CBT to facilitate greater access to evidence-based care. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/7asrc).

Treat-and-extend dosing of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a meta-analysis.

Intravitreal injections of antiangiogenic agents are pivotal in treating neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). The comparative efficacy and safety of treat-and-extend (T&E) versus bimonthly, monthly, and pro re nata (PRN) dosing remains unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language RCTs reporting on efficacy and/or safety outcomes of dosing regimens of anti-VEGF agents in nAMD was performed. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA, ETDRS letters) at last follow-up represented the primary endpoint, while central subfield thickness (CSFT, µm), injection burden, and ocular adverse events were secondary endpoints. A random effects meta-analysis was performed, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Across six RCTs, 781 T&E-, 663 monthly-, 130 PRN-, and 123 bimonthly treated eyes were included. Mean changes in BCVA and CSFT at last follow-up were similar between T&E versus monthly (WMD, -0.62 letters; 95% CI, -2.12 to 0.87; P = 0.41; WMD, 5.30 microns; 95% CI, -10.67 to 21.26; P = 0.52, respectively), bimonthly (WMD, 1.68 letters; 95% CI, -3.55 to 6.91; P = 0.53; WMD, -18.91 microns; 95% CI, -46.41 to 8.60; P = 0.18, respectively), and PRN (BCVA WMD, 1.08 letters; 95% CI, -2.95 to 5.11; P = 0.60) regimens. T&E was associated with a reduced injection burden versus monthly (WMD, -4.52 injections; 95% CI, -6.66 to 2.39; P < 0.001) but higher injection burden versus PRN (WMD, 1.81 injections; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.51; P < 0.001) dosing. There was no significant difference in safety outcomes amongst comparators. There was no significant difference in efficacy and safety between T&E, bimonthly, monthly, and PRN dosing. T&E resulted in fewer injections versus monthly and fewer clinic visits versus PRN.