The Pharmacologic and Psychological Treatment of Obsessive—Compulsive Disorder
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) continues to present a particular challenge to clinicians. As opposed to other anxiety disorders and, to some degree, to depression, the results of therapies, be they pharmacologie or psychological, are at best less than optimal. Indeed, when one reads articles reporting randomized controlled trials, patients are said to be responders when a 35% reduction of symptoms occurs (as if reducing rituals from 6 to 4 hours were clinically meaningful). Moreover, when one takes into account those who drop out of studies because of medication side effects or because of fear in the exposure-response prevention (ERP) studies-often in the 25% to 30% range-and add to those numbers the nonresponders, then we are looking at a 35% to 50% response in about 50% of patients. Additionally, few patients attain full remission-hardly satisfactory outcomes! The one redeeming finding is that most gains achieved by cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) seem to be stable. The longest study to date spans 7 years but has few subjects (1). In it, the 41% improvement was maintained (45% at follow-up). Hence the continued effort to develop new strategies. Foa reports an intensive regimen of daily, prolonged exposure sessions (over 2 hours) for 3 weeks (2). The dropout rate was extremely high in the New York site (over 40%), as opposed to the Philadelphia site, which may indicate that in Foa's clinic the cognitive preparation for treatment reduced apprehension and induced better compliance. Dr Foa's comparator to ERP was clomipramine, which we know has a high side effect profile that may explain patient resistance. The ERP therapy was superior to clomipramine alone, and the combination of behaviour therapy and medication did not, in that study, improve outcome. Foa feels that ERP was so powerful that there was little room for the medication to show added improvement. However, in children and adolescents, the combination of CBT and sertraline has been shown to be superior to either treatment alone (3). Another strategy has been to add the components sequentially. For example, Kampman added 12 sessions of CBT to continued treatment with fluoxetine in nonresponders (defined as those showing less than 25% improvement after 12 weeks of medication) (4). There was a 41% improvement rate in these resistant patients. A recent review and 2 case illustrations have outlined in which patients the combinatory approaches may be best indicated (5). In his review in this issue, Abramowitz summarizes the comparative results of CBT and ERP and shows that the indispensable component of the psychological approaches seems to be exposure, even in the soi-disant pure cognitive group (individuals often expose in imagination and indeed, at times, spontaneously in vivo without therapist intervention). Abramowitz also mentions that cognitive therapists have developed strategies that look more deeply into the schemas of patients-a core belief of enhanced responsibility for the patient's own and others' well-being (6), an increased sense of vulnerability (7), and thought-action fusion (IfI think it, it means I want to do it) (8). Integrating ERP, traditional CBT, and schema-focused cognitive therapy has been proposed as a strategy to enhance response in treatment-resistant patients (9). Subtypes identified according to symptoms (such as checking, washing, or symmetry) may also explain some of the differential responses encountered in treatment (10) Augmenting regimens have also been proposed in pharmacology: in Blier's review, he states that the most promising approach seems to employ the atypical antipsychotics. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».