BackgroundCognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) is the treatment of choice for generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), yielding significant improvements in approximately 50% of patients. There is significant room for improvement in the outcomes of treatment, especially in recovery.AimsWe aimed to compare metacognitive therapy (MCT) with the gold standard treatment, CBT, in patients with GAD (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00426426).MethodA total of 246 patients with long-term GAD were assessed and 81 were randomised into three conditions: CBT (n = 28), MCT (n = 32) and a wait-list control (n = 21). Assessments were made at pre-treatment, post-treatment and at 2 year follow-up.ResultsBoth CBT and MCT were effective treatments, but MCT was more effective (mean difference 9.762, 95% CI 2.679–16.845, P = 0.004) and led to significantly higher recovery rates (65% v. 38%). These differences were maintained at 2 year follow-up.ConclusionsMCT seems to produce recovery rates that exceed those of CBT. These results demonstrate that the effects of treatment cannot be attributed to non-specific therapy factors.Declaration of interestA.W. wrote the treatment protocol in MCT and several books on CBT and MCT, and receives royalties from these. T.D.B. wrote the protocol in CBT and has published several articles and chapters on CBT and receives royalties from these. All other authors declare no competing interests.

BackgroundOslo University Hospital, Norway, had by autumn 2016, accumulated a waiting list of 101 patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) who had a legal right to receive treatment by a specialized OCD team. In this challenging situation, the Bergen OCD-team suggested to solve the problem by offering all patients an option for the rapid Bergen 4-day treatment (B4DT). The B4DT is an individual treatment delivered during four consecutive days in a group of six patients with the same number of therapists. The approach has previously shown a post-treatment response rate of 90% and a 3-month remission rate of 70%.MethodsNinety-seven of the wait-list patients were available for the scheduled time slots, and 90 received the 4-day format during 8 days (45 patients each week). The therapists were recruited from 22 different specialized OCD-teams from all over Norway, and 44 (68%) had not previously delivered the 4-day format.ResultsPost-treatment; 91.1% of the patients were classified as responders, and 72.2% were in remission. At 3-month follow-up; 84.4 were classified as responders and the remission rate was 67.7%. Oslo University Hospital now offers the 4-day treatment as standard treatment for OCD.ConclusionsWe conclude that the B4DT is an acceptable and potentially effective OCD-treatment.

IMPORTANCE Evidence is lacking for viable treatment options for patients with difficult-to-treat obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). It has been suggested that D-cycloserine (DCS) could potentiate the effect of exposure and response prevention (ERP) treatment, but the hypothesis has not been tested among patients with difficult-to-treat OCD. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether DCS potentiates the effect of concentrated ERP among patients with difficult-to-treat OCD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The study was a randomized placebo-controlled triplemasked study with a 12-month follow-up. Participants were adult outpatients with difficult-to-treat OCD. A total of 220 potential participants were referred, of whom 36 did not meet inclusion criteria and 21 declined to participate. Patients had either relapsed after (n = 100) or not responded to (n = 63) previous ERP treatment. A total of 9 specialized OCD teams within the public health care system in Norway participated, giving national coverage. An expert team of therapists from the coordinating site delivered treatment. Inclusion of patients started in January 2016 and ended in August 2017. Data analysis was conducted February to September 2019. INTERVENTIONS All patients received individual, concentrated ERP treatment delivered during 4 consecutive days in a group setting (the Bergen 4-day treatment format) combined with 100 mg DCS, 250 mg DCS, or placebo. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Change in symptoms of OCD and change in diagnostic status. Secondary outcomes measures included self-reported symptoms of OCD, anxiety, depression, and quality of life. RESULTS The total sample of 163 patients had a mean (SD) age of 34.5 (10.9) years, and most were women (117 [71.8%]). They had experienced OCD for a mean (SD) of 16.2 (10.2) years. A total of 65 patients (39.9%) were randomized to receive 100 mg DCS, 67 (41.1%) to 250 mg of DCS, and 31 (19.0%) to placebo. Overall, 91 (56.5%) achieved remission at posttreatment, while 70 (47.9%) did so at the 12-month follow-up. There was no significant difference in remission rates among groups. There was a significant reduction in symptoms at 12 months, and within-group effect sizes ranged from 3.01 (95% CI, 2.38-3.63) for the group receiving 250 mg DCS to 3.49 (95% CI, 2.78-4.18) for the group receiving 100 mg DCS (all P < .001). However, there was no significant effect of treatment group compared with placebo in obsessive-compulsive symptoms (250 mg group at posttreatment: d = 0.33; 95% CI, −0.10 to 0.76; 100 mg group at posttreatment: d = 0.36; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.79), symptoms of depression and anxiety (eg, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score among 250 mg (continued) Key Points Question Does D-cycloserine potentiate the effect of concentrated exposure and response prevention in difficult-to-treat obsessive-compulsive disorder? Findings In this randomized clinical trial of 163 participants, D-cycloserine did not significantly affect treatment outcomes. Most patients responded to the concentrated exposure and response prevention treatme...

No abstract

Background: Individual metacognitive therapy (MCT) for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is well established, but only one study has investigated the effectiveness of Group MCT (g-MCT) for GAD. The aim of the current study was therefore to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of g-MCT for GAD within a community mental health setting whilst addressing limitations evident in the previous study. Methods: The study used an open trial design, and 23 consecutively referred adults with GAD completed 10 sessions (90 min) of g-MCT, delivered by two therapists trained in MCT. Diagnoses were assessed by trained raters using the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule-IV. All patients but one had previous psychosocial treatment, and 17 (73.9%) had at least one comorbid axis-I disorder. Self-reported symptoms were assessed using the Penn State Worry Questionnaire, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 at pre- and post-treatment as well as 3-month follow-up. Feasibility was assessed using rates of patients who declined group treatment in favor of individual treatment, patients not able to attend due to pre-scheduled dates for sessions, and drop-out rate. Results: Of 32 eligible participants, six patients (19%) declined g-MCT in favor of individual MCT, and three (9%) were unable to attend due to scheduling conflicts. No patients dropped out during treatment, but two patients did not complete the self-report questionnaires at 3-month follow-up. g-MCT was associated with significant reductions in worry, anxiety, depression, metacognitive beliefs, and maladaptive coping. According to the standardized Jacobson criteria for recovery, 65.3% were recovered at post-treatment, whereas 30.4% were improved and 4.3% showed no change. At 3-month follow-up, the recovery rate increased to 78.3%. Moreover, recovery rates were comparable for patients with- and without comorbidity. Number of therapist hours per patient was 6.5 and the treatment has now been implemented as a standard treatment option at the clinic. Conclusion: g-MCT for GAD is an acceptable treatment which may offer a cost-effective alternative approach to individual MCT. Recovery rates and effect sizes suggested that g-MCT could be just as efficient as individual MCT and cognitive behavioral therapy.