<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has proven its efficacy in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). <b><i>Objective:</i></b> To test generalizability to routine care settings, we conducted an effectiveness study to provide naturalistic outcome data and their predictors. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Pre-post changes in symptoms and impairment as well as response rates were determined in a naturalistic OCD sample (intention-to-treat, ITT, <i>n</i> = 393). Patients received individual CBT for OCD adopting an exposure-based, non-manualized treatment format. Linear and logistic regression analyses were applied to identify associations of sociodemographic and clinical variables with symptom change. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Effect size in ITT patients amounted to <i>d</i> = 1.47 in primary outcome (Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale, Y-BOCS). Remission rates were 46.3% (ITT), 52.0% (completers), and 18.2% (non-completers). The rates of treatment response without remission, no change, and deterioration in the ITT sample were 13.2, 38, and 3%, respectively. Initial symptom severity, comorbid personality disorder, and unemployment were associated with a poorer outcome, and previous medication with a better outcome. Comorbid depressive and anxiety disorders as well as other clinical or sociodemographic variables showed no effects on symptom change. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Outcomes in this large observational trial in a naturalistic setting correspond to available RCT findings suggesting that CBT for OCD should be strongly recommended for dissemination in routine care. Targets for further research include early prediction of non-response and development of alternative treatment strategies for patients who respond insufficiently.

No abstract

Background Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and may afford stable long-term improvements. It is not clear, however, how stability or symptom recurrence can be predicted at the time of termination of CBT. Method In a 1-year follow-up intention-to-treat study with 120 OCD patients receiving individual CBT at a university outpatient unit, we investigated the predictive value of international consensus criteria for response only (Y-BOCS score reduction by at least 35%) and remission status (Y-BOCS score ≤ 12). Secondly, we applied receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves in order to find an optimal cut-off score to classify for deterioration and for sustained gains. Results Response only at post-treatment increased the likelihood of deterioration at follow-up compared to remission at an odds ratio of 8.8. Moreover, ROC curves indicated that a post-treatment score of ≥ 13 differentiated optimally between patients with and without symptom deterioration at follow-up assessment. The optimal cut-off score to classify for any sustained gains (response, remission, or both) at follow-up relative to baseline was 12. Importantly, previous findings of generally high long-term symptom stability after treatment in OCD could be replicated. Conclusion The findings highlight the clinical importance of reaching remission during CBT, and suggest that a recently published expert consensus for defining remission has high utility.

Background Exposure and response prevention is effective and recommended as the first choice for treating obsessive-compulsive disorders (OCD). Its mechanisms of action are rarely studied, but two major theories make distinct assumptions: while the emotional processing theory assumes that treatment effects are associated with habituation within and between exposure sessions, the inhibitory learning approach highlights the acquisition of additional associations, implying alternative mechanisms like expectancy violation. The present study aimed to investigate whether process variables derived from both theories predict short-term outcome. Method In a university outpatient unit, 110 patients (63 female) with OCD received manual-based cognitive-behavioral therapy with high standardization of the first two exposure sessions. Specifically, therapists repeated the first exposure session identically and assessed subjective units of distress as well as expectancy ratings in the course of exposure sessions. Based on these data, individual scores for habituation and distress-related expectancy violation were calculated and used for prediction of both percentage change on the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) and remission status after 20 therapy sessions. Results In a multiple regression model for percentage change, within-session habituation during the first exposure was a significant predictor, while in a logistic regression predicting remission status, distress-related expectancy violation during the first exposure revealed significance. A path model further supported these findings. Conclusions The results represent first evidence for distress-related expectancy violation and confirm preliminary findings for habituation, suggesting that both processes contribute to treatment benefits of exposure in OCD, and both mechanisms appear to be independent.

Inter-individual differences in antidepressant drug concentrations attained in blood may limit the efficacy of pharmacological treatment of depressive disorders. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) enables to determine drug concentrations in blood and adjust antidepressant dosage accordingly. However, research on the underlying assumption of TDM, association between concentration and clinical effect, has yielded ambiguous results for antidepressants. It has been proposed that this ambiguity may be caused by methodological shortcomings in studies investigating the concentration-effect relationship. Guidelines recommend the use of TDM in antidepressant treatment as expert opinion. This reflects the lack of research, particularly systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, on the relationship between concentration and effect as well as on the benefits of the use of TDM in clinical practice. In this study, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been performed to investigate the relationship between antidepressant concentration, efficacy, and side effects. It is the first meta-analytical approach to this subject and additionally considers methodological properties of primary studies as moderators of effect in quantitative analysis. Our results identified methodological shortcomings, namely the use of a flexible dose design and the exclusion of concentrations in lower- or subtherapeutic ranges, which significantly moderate the relationship between antidepressant concentration and efficacy. Such shortcomings obscure the evidence base of using TDM in clinical practice to guide antidepressant drug therapy. Further research should consider these findings to determine the relationship between concentration and efficacy and safety of antidepressant treatments, especially for newer antidepressants.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=246149, identifier: CRD42021246149.