Barlow David H, Farchione Todd J, Bullis Jacqueline R, Gallagher Matthew W, Murray-Latin Heather, Sauer-Zavala Shannon, Bentley Kate H, Thompson-Hollands Johanna, Conklin Laren R, Boswell James F, Ametaj Amantia, Carl Jenna R, Boettcher Hannah T, Cassiello-Robbins Clair
Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Division of Depression and Anxiety Disorders, McLean Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 Sep 1;74(9):875-884. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.2164.
Transdiagnostic interventions have been developed to address barriers to the dissemination of evidence-based psychological treatments, but only a few preliminary studies have compared these approaches with existing evidence-based psychological treatments.
To determine whether the Unified Protocol for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders (UP) is at least as efficacious as single-disorder protocols (SDPs) in the treatment of anxiety disorders.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From June 23, 2011, to March 5, 2015, a total of 223 patients at an outpatient treatment center with a principal diagnosis of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or social anxiety disorder were randomly assigned by principal diagnosis to the UP, an SDP, or a waitlist control condition. Patients received up to 16 sessions of the UP or an SDP for 16 to 21 weeks. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, after treatment, and at 6-month follow-up. Analysis in this equivalence trial was based on intention to treat.
The UP or SDPs.
Blinded evaluations of principal diagnosis clinical severity rating were used to evaluate an a priori hypothesis of equivalence between the UP and SDPs.
Among the 223 patients (124 women and 99 men; mean [SD] age, 31.1 [11.0] years), 88 were randomized to receive the UP, 91 to receive an SDP, and 44 to the waitlist control condition. Patients were more likely to complete treatment with the UP than with SDPs (odds ratio, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.44-6.74). Both the UP (Cohen d, -0.93; 95% CI, -1.29 to -0.57) and SDPs (Cohen d, -1.08; 95% CI, -1.43 to -0.73) were superior to the waitlist control condition at acute outcome. Reductions in clinical severity rating from baseline to the end of treatment (β, 0.25; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.75) and from baseline to the 6-month follow-up (β, 0.16; 95% CI, -0.39 to 0.70) indicated statistical equivalence between the UP and SDPs.
The UP produces symptom reduction equivalent to criterion standard evidence-based psychological treatments for anxiety disorders with less attrition. Thus, it may be possible to use 1 protocol instead of multiple SDPs to more efficiently treat the most commonly occurring anxiety and depressive disorders.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01243606.
已开发出跨诊断干预措施以解决循证心理治疗传播的障碍,但仅有少数初步研究将这些方法与现有的循证心理治疗进行比较。
确定情绪障碍跨诊断治疗统一方案(UP)在治疗焦虑症方面是否至少与单障碍方案(SDP)同样有效。
设计、地点和参与者:2011年6月23日至2015年3月5日,门诊治疗中心共有223例主要诊断为伴有或不伴有广场恐惧症的惊恐障碍、广泛性焦虑症、强迫症或社交焦虑症的患者,按主要诊断随机分配至UP组、SDP组或等待名单对照组。患者接受长达16次的UP或SDP治疗,为期16至21周。在基线、治疗后及6个月随访时评估结果。本等效性试验的分析基于意向性治疗。
UP或SDP。
对主要诊断临床严重程度评分进行盲法评估,以评估UP和SDP之间等效性的先验假设。
在223例患者(124例女性和99例男性;平均[标准差]年龄,31.1[11.0]岁)中,88例随机接受UP治疗,91例接受SDP治疗,44例接受等待名单对照。与SDP相比,患者更有可能完成UP治疗(优势比,3.11;95%CI,1.44 - 6.74)。在急性结局方面,UP(Cohen d,-0.93;95%CI,-1.29至-0.57)和SDP(Cohen d,-1.08;95%CI,-1.43至-0.73)均优于等待名单对照组。从基线到治疗结束时临床严重程度评分的降低(β,0.25;95%CI,-0.26至0.75)以及从基线到6个月随访时的降低(β,0.16;95%CI,-0.39至0.70)表明UP和SDP之间具有统计学等效性。
UP在减少症状方面与焦虑症的标准循证心理治疗等效,且损耗更少。因此,有可能使用1种方案而非多种SDP来更有效地治疗最常见的焦虑和抑郁症。
clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT01243606。