Salum Giovanni A, Petersen Circe S, Jarros Rafaela B, Toazza Rudineia, DeSousa Diogo, Borba Lidiane Nunes, Castro Stela, Gallegos Julia, Barrett Paula, Abend Rany, Bar-Haim Yair, Pine Daniel S, Koller Silvia H, Manfro Gisele G
1 Child and Adolescent Anxiety Program, Department of Psychiatry, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul , Porto Alegre, Brazil .
2 Center of Psychological Studies on at Risk Populations, Institute of Psychology , Porto Alegre, Brazil .
J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2018 Nov;28(9):620-630. doi: 10.1089/cap.2018.0022. Epub 2018 Jul 3.
The objective of this study is to assess group differences in symptom reduction between individuals receiving group cognitive behavioral therapy (G-CBT) and attention bias modification (ABM) compared to their respective control interventions, control therapy (CT), and attention control training (ACT), in a 2 × 2 factorial design.
A total of 310 treatment-naive children (7-11 years of age) were assessed for eligibility and 79 children with generalized, separation or social anxiety disorder were randomized and received G-CBT (n = 42) or CT (n = 37). Within each psychotherapy group, participants were again randomized to ABM (n = 38) or ACT (n = 41) in a 2 × 2 factorial design resulting in four groups: G-CBT + ABM (n = 21), G-CBT + ACT (n = 21), CT + ABM (n = 17), and CT + ACT (n = 20). Primary outcomes were responder designation as defined by Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale (≤2) and change on the Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale (PARS).
There were significant improvements of symptoms in all groups. No differences in response rates or mean differences in PARS scores were found among groups: G-CBT + ABM group (23.8% response; 3.9 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.3 to 8.1), G-CBT + ACT (42.9% response; 5.6 points, 95% CI 2.2-9.0), CT + ABM (47.1% response; 4.8 points 95% CI 1.08-8.57), and CT + ACT (30% response; 0.8 points, 95% CI -3.0 to 4.7). No evidence or synergic or antagonistic effects were found, but the combination of G-CBT and ABM was found to increase dropout rate.
We found no effect of G-CBT or ABM beyond the effects of comparison groups. Results reveal no benefit from combining G-CBT and ABM for anxiety disorders in children and suggest potential deleterious effects of the combination on treatment acceptability.
本研究的目的是采用2×2析因设计,评估接受团体认知行为疗法(G-CBT)和注意力偏差修正(ABM)的个体与各自的对照干预措施(对照疗法(CT)和注意力控制训练(ACT))相比,在症状减轻方面的组间差异。
共评估了310名未接受过治疗的儿童(7至11岁)的 eligibility,79名患有广泛性、分离性或社交焦虑症的儿童被随机分组,接受G-CBT(n = 42)或CT(n = 37)。在每个心理治疗组中,参与者再次按照2×2析因设计被随机分为ABM组(n = 38)或ACT组(n = 41),从而形成四组:G-CBT + ABM组(n = 21)、G-CBT + ACT组(n = 21)、CT + ABM组(n = 17)和CT + ACT组(n = 20)。主要结局指标为根据临床总体印象改善量表(CGI-I)(≤2)定义的反应者判定以及儿童焦虑评定量表(PARS)的变化。
所有组的症状均有显著改善。各治疗组间在反应率或PARS评分的平均差异方面未发现差异:G-CBT + ABM组(反应率23.8%;3.9分,95%置信区间[CI] -0.3至8.1)、G-CBT + ACT组(反应率42.9%;5.6分,95% CI 2.2至9.0)、CT + ABM组(反应率47.1%;4.8分,95% CI 1.08至8.57)以及CT + ACT组(反应率30%;0.8分,95% CI -3.0至4.7)。未发现证据表明存在协同或拮抗作用,但发现G-CBT与ABM联合使用会增加脱落率。
我们发现G-CBT或ABM除了具有与对照组相似的效果外,并无其他额外效果。结果表明,G-CBT与ABM联合用于治疗儿童焦虑症并无益处,且该联合使用可能对治疗可接受性产生潜在有害影响。