Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder in Children and Adolescents.

To assess benefits and harms of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) versus no intervention or versus other interventions for pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). We searched for randomized clinical trials of CBT for pediatric OCD. Primary outcomes were OCD severity, serious adverse events, and level of functioning. Secondary outcomes were quality of life and adverse events. Remission from OCD was included as an exploratory outcome. We assessed risk of bias and evaluated the certainty of the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Nine trials (N = 645) were included comparing CBT with no intervention and 3 trials (N = 146) comparing CBT with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Compared with no intervention, CBT decreased OCD severity (mean difference [MD] = -8.51, 95% CI = -10.84 to -6.18, p < .00001, low certainty), improved level of functioning (patient-rated: standardized MD [SMD] = -0.90, 95% CI = -1.19 to -0.62, p < .00001, very low certainty; parent-rated: SMD = -0.68, 95% CI = -1.12 to -0.23, p = .003, very low certainty), had similar proportions of participants with adverse events (risk ratio = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.93-1.22, p = .39, GRADE: low certainty), and was associated with reduced risk of still having OCD (risk ratio = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.37-0.67, p < .00001, very low certainty). We had insufficient data to assess the effect of CBT versus no intervention on serious adverse events and quality of life. Compared with SSRIs, CBT led to similar decreases in OCD severity (MD = -0.75, 95% CI = -3.79 to 2.29, p = .63, GRADE: very low certainty), and was associated with similar risk of still having OCD (risk ratio = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.66-1.09, p = .20, very low certainty). We had insufficient data to assess the effect of CBT versus SSRIs on serious adverse events, level of functioning, quality of life, and adverse events. CBT may be more effective than no intervention and comparable to SSRIs for pediatric OCD, but we are very uncertain about the effect estimates

Atypical neurocognitive functioning in children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

Atypical neurocognitive functioning has been found in adult patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). However, little work has been done in children and adolescents with OCD. In this study, we investigated neurocognitive functioning in a large and representative sample of newly diagnosed children and adolescents with OCD compared to non-psychiatric controls. Children and adolescents with OCD (n = 119) and non-psychiatric controls (n = 90) underwent psychopathological assessment, intelligence testing, and a neurocognitive test battery spanning cognitive flexibility, planning and decision-making, working memory, fluency, and processing speed. The MANOVA main effect revealed that children and adolescents with OCD performed significantly worse than the control group (p < .001, [Formula: see text] = 0.256). Atypical patient performance was particularly found for indices of cognitive flexibility, decision-making, working memory, and processing speed. We found no evidence of differences in planning or fluency. Moreover, we found no significant associations between neurocognitive performance and OCD symptom severity or comorbidity status. Our results indicate that children and adolescents with OCD show selective atypical neurocognitive functioning. These difficulties do not appear to drive their OCD symptoms. However, they may contribute to lifespan difficulties and interfere with treatment efficacy, an objective of our research currently

Family-based cognitive behavioural therapy versus family-based relaxation therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder in children and adolescents (the TECTO trial): a statistical analysis plan for the randomised clinical trial.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a debilitating psychiatric disorder which affects up to 3% of children and adolescents. OCD in children and adolescents is generally treated with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), which, in more severely affected patients, can be combined with antidepressant medication. The TECTO trial aims to compare the benefits and harms of family-based CBT (FCBT) versus family-based psychoeducation/relaxation training (FPRT) in children and adolescents aged 8 to 17 years. This statistical analysis plan outlines the planned statistical analyses for the TECTO trial. The TECTO trial is an investigator-initiated, independently funded, single-centre, parallel-group, superiority randomised clinical trial. Both groups undergo 14 sessions of 75 min each during a period of 16 weeks with either FCBT or FPRT depending on the allocation. Participants are randomised stratified by age and baseline Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS) score. The primary outcome is the CY-BOCS score. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life assessed using KIDSCREEN-10 and adverse events assessed by the Negative Effects Questionnaire (NEQ). Primary and secondary outcomes are assessed at the end of the intervention. Continuous outcomes will be analysed using linear regression adjusted for the stratification variables and baseline value of the continuous outcome. Dichotomous outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables. The statistical analyses will be carried out by two independent blinded statisticians. This statistical analysis plan includes a detailed predefined description of how data will be analysed and presented in the main publication before unblinding of study data. Statistical analysis plans limit selective reporting bias. This statistical analysis plan will increase the validity of the final trial results. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03595098. July 23, 2018

Family-based cognitive behavioural therapy versus family-based relaxation therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder in children and adolescents: protocol for a randomised clinical trial (the TECTO trial).

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is the recommended first-line treatment for children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but evidence concerning treatment-specific benefits and harms compared with other interventions is limited. Furthermore, high risk-of-bias in most trials prevent firm conclusions regarding the efficacy of CBT. We investigate the benefits and harms of family-based CBT (FCBT) versus family-based psychoeducation and relaxation training (FPRT) in youth with OCD in a trial designed to reduce risk-of-bias. This is an investigator-initiated, independently funded, single-centre, parallel group superiority randomised clinical trial (RCT). Outcome assessors, data managers, statisticians, and conclusion drawers are blinded. From child and adolescent mental health services we include patients aged 8-17 years with a primary OCD diagnosis and an entry score of ≥16 on the Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS). We exclude patients with comorbid illness contraindicating trial participation; intelligence quotient < 70; or treatment with CBT, PRT, antidepressant or antipsychotic medication within the last 6 months prior to trial entry. Participants are randomised 1:1 to the experimental intervention (FCBT) versus the control intervention (FPRT) each consisting of 14 75-min sessions. All therapists deliver both interventions. Follow-up assessments occur in week 4, 8 and 16 (end-of-treatment). The primary outcome is OCD symptom severity assessed with CY-BOCS at end-of-trial. Secondary outcomes are quality-of-life and adverse events. Based on sample size estimation, a minimum of 128 participants (64 in each intervention group) are included. In our trial design we aim to reduce risk-of-bias, enhance generalisability, and broaden the outcome measures by: 1) conducting an investigator-initiated, independently funded RCT; 2) blinding investigators; 3) investigating a representative sample of OCD patients; 3) using an active control intervention (FPRT) to tease apart general and specific therapy effects; 4) using equal dosing of interventions and therapist supervision in both intervention groups; 5) having therapists perform both interventions decided by randomisation; 6) rating fidelity of both interventions; 7) assessing a broad range of benefits and harms with repeated measures. The primary study limitations are the risk of missing data and the inability to blind participants and therapists to the intervention. ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03595098, registered July 23, 2018