A randomized trial of interpersonal therapy versus supportive therapy for social anxiety disorder

Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, Anxiety Disorders Clinic, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, New York, USA.
Depression and Anxiety (Impact Factor: 4.29). 06/2008; 25(6):542-53. DOI: 10.1002/da.20364
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Seventy patients seeking treatment for social anxiety disorder (SAD) were randomly assigned to 14 weekly individual sessions of interpersonal therapy (IPT) or supportive therapy (ST). We hypothesized that IPT, a psychotherapy with established efficacy for depression and other psychiatric disorders, would lead to greater improvement than ST. Patients in both groups experienced significant improvement from pretreatment to posttreatment. However, improvement with IPT was not superior to improvement with ST. Mean scores on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale decreased from 67.7 to 46.9 in the IPT group and 64.5 to 49.8 in the ST group. There were also no differences in proportion of responders between IPT and ST. Only for a scale measuring concern about negative evaluation (Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale) was IPT superior. Limitations of this initial controlled trial of IPT include a nonsequential recruitment strategy and overlap in the administration of the two therapies. It is recommended that future studies of IPT for SAD include a more carefully defined control therapy condition, different therapists administering each therapy, a larger sample, and a more rigorous strategy for long-term follow-up assessments.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anxiety and related disorders are among the most common mental disorders, with lifetime prevalence reportedly as high as 31%. Unfortunately, anxiety disorders are under-diagnosed and under-treated.
    BMC Psychiatry 07/2014; 14(Suppl 1):S1. DOI:10.1186/1471-244X-14-S1-S1 · 2.24 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Comparing the overall and differential effects of psychodynamic psychotherapy (PDT) versus cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for social anxiety disorder (SAD). Patients with a primary SAD (N = 47) were randomly assigned to PDT (N = 22) or CBT (N = 27). Both PDT and CBT consisted of up to 36 sessions (average PDT 31.4 and CBT 19.8 sessions). Assessments took place at waitlist: pretest, after 12 and 24 weeks for those who received longer treatment: posttest, 3-month and 1-year follow-up. Changes in the main outcome measure self-reported social anxiety composite, as well as in other psychopathology, social skills, negative social beliefs, public self-consciousness, defense mechanisms, personal goals, independent rater's judgments of SAD and general improvement, and approach behavior during an objective test, were analyzed using multilevel analysis. No improvement occurred during waitlist. Treatments were highly efficacious, with large within-subject effect sizes for social anxiety, but no differences between PDT and CBT on general and treatment-specific measures occurred. Remission rates were over 50% and similar for PDT and CBT. Personality disorders did not influence the effects of PDT or CBT. PDT and CBT are both effective approaches for SAD. Further research is needed on the cost-effectiveness of PDT versus CBT, on different lengths PDT, and on patient preferences and their relationship to outcome of PDT versus CBT.
    Depression and Anxiety 05/2014; 31(5). DOI:10.1002/da.22246 · 4.29 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To our knowledge, no previous meta-analysis has attempted to compare the efficacy of pharmacological, psychological and combined treatments for the three main anxiety disorders (panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and social phobia). Pre-post and treated versus control effect sizes (ES) were calculated for all evaluable randomized-controlled studies (n=234), involving 37 333 patients. Medications were associated with a significantly higher average pre-post ES [Cohen's d=2.02 (1.90-2.15); 28 051 patients] than psychotherapies [1.22 (1.14-1.30); 6992 patients; P<0.0001]. ES were 2.25 for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (n=23 study arms), 2.15 for benzodiazepines (n=42), 2.09 for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (n=62) and 1.83 for tricyclic antidepressants (n=15). ES for psychotherapies were mindfulness therapies, 1.56 (n=4); relaxation, 1.36 (n=17); individual cognitive behavioural/exposure therapy (CBT), 1.30 (n=93); group CBT, 1.22 (n=18); psychodynamic therapy 1.17 (n=5); therapies without face-to-face contact (e.g. Internet therapies), 1.11 (n=34); eye movement desensitization reprocessing, 1.03 (n=3); and interpersonal therapy 0.78 (n=4). The ES was 2.12 (n=16) for CBT/drug combinations. Exercise had an ES of 1.23 (n=3). For control groups, ES were 1.29 for placebo pills (n=111), 0.83 for psychological placebos (n=16) and 0.20 for waitlists (n=50). In direct comparisons with control groups, all investigated drugs, except for citalopram, opipramol and moclobemide, were significantly more effective than placebo. Individual CBT was more effective than waiting list, psychological placebo and pill placebo. When looking at the average pre-post ES, medications were more effective than psychotherapies. Pre-post ES for psychotherapies did not differ from pill placebos; this finding cannot be explained by heterogeneity, publication bias or allegiance effects. However, the decision on whether to choose psychotherapy, medications or a combination of the two should be left to the patient as drugs may have side effects, interactions and contraindications.
    International clinical psychopharmacology 04/2015; DOI:10.1097/YIC.0000000000000078 · 3.10 Impact Factor