A randomized trial of interpersonal therapy versus supportive therapy for social anxiety disorder
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.
- [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
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: 129 p. Podeu consultar la versió anterior a: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/359 Se abordan diversos aspectos de la fobia social: naturaleza, edad de comienzo y curso, frecuencia, problemas asociados, génesis y mantenimiento, métodos e instrumentos de evaluación, y eficacia y utilidad clínica del tratamiento psicológico y farmacológico. Además, se ofrecen guías para aplicar los tratamientos psicológicos más eficaces.
- Zeitschrift für Psychiatrie Psychologie und Psychotherapie 07/2009; 57(3):149-159. DOI:10.1024/1661-47220.127.116.11 · 1.99 Impact Factor