The Pharmacologic and Psychological Treatment of Obsessive—Compulsive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".