Comparison of cognitive-behavioral treatments for tics and Tourette syndrome in youth and adults: A randomized controlled trial

IF 1.7 Q3 PSYCHIATRY
Julie B. Leclerc , Kieron P. O'Connor , Bruno Gauthier , Ilana Singer , Douglas W. Woods , Pierre Blanchet , Marc E. Lavoie
{"title":"Comparison of cognitive-behavioral treatments for tics and Tourette syndrome in youth and adults: A randomized controlled trial","authors":"Julie B. Leclerc ,&nbsp;Kieron P. O'Connor ,&nbsp;Bruno Gauthier ,&nbsp;Ilana Singer ,&nbsp;Douglas W. Woods ,&nbsp;Pierre Blanchet ,&nbsp;Marc E. Lavoie","doi":"10.1016/j.jbct.2024.100491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Current guidelines recommend the Comprehensive Behavioral Intervention for Tics (CBIT) to manage tics, which aims to reverse tic habits. Though CBIT has shown significant tic reduction in many, some patients remain non-responders. The Cognitive Psychophysiological treatment (CoPs) offers an alternative approach, focusing on modifying cognitive, behavioral, and physiological processes. Previous studies highlighted CoPs' effectiveness in reducing tics and improving neurocognitive performance. This paper presents the first direct trial comparing CoPs and CBIT.</p></div><div><h3>Aims and hypotheses</h3><p>Our goal was to compare CBIT and CoPs in children and adults. We hypothesized that the CoPs group would show superior clinical improvement than the CBIT group.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Ninety-eight participants were randomized into each of the two modalities, including 61 children and 37 adults</p></div><div><h3>Procedure</h3><p>Participants were evaluated pre-post, and at one- and six-months post-treatment using standardized scales. The manualized treatments included 12 to 14 sessions for an average duration (from randomization to follow-up) of 41 weeks.</p></div><div><h3>Analyses</h3><p>A linear mixed model was used to test treatment effects on outcome measures.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 120 initial participants, 98 were randomized to CBIT or CoPs. About 23% shifted to teletherapy due to COVID-19. Both treatments lowered YGTSS scores, with no modality differences. The CoPs group showed significant GAF score increases, and teletherapy participants had higher scores than in-person. Clinical change between CBIT and CoPs was similar.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Both CoPs and CBIT effectively address tic severity. While CoPs offer a holistic restructuring approach, it was not found superior to CBIT, underscoring the need for continued research for tic treatment.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36022,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy","volume":"34 2","pages":"Article 100491"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258997912400009X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Current guidelines recommend the Comprehensive Behavioral Intervention for Tics (CBIT) to manage tics, which aims to reverse tic habits. Though CBIT has shown significant tic reduction in many, some patients remain non-responders. The Cognitive Psychophysiological treatment (CoPs) offers an alternative approach, focusing on modifying cognitive, behavioral, and physiological processes. Previous studies highlighted CoPs' effectiveness in reducing tics and improving neurocognitive performance. This paper presents the first direct trial comparing CoPs and CBIT.

Aims and hypotheses

Our goal was to compare CBIT and CoPs in children and adults. We hypothesized that the CoPs group would show superior clinical improvement than the CBIT group.

Method

Ninety-eight participants were randomized into each of the two modalities, including 61 children and 37 adults

Procedure

Participants were evaluated pre-post, and at one- and six-months post-treatment using standardized scales. The manualized treatments included 12 to 14 sessions for an average duration (from randomization to follow-up) of 41 weeks.

Analyses

A linear mixed model was used to test treatment effects on outcome measures.

Results

Of 120 initial participants, 98 were randomized to CBIT or CoPs. About 23% shifted to teletherapy due to COVID-19. Both treatments lowered YGTSS scores, with no modality differences. The CoPs group showed significant GAF score increases, and teletherapy participants had higher scores than in-person. Clinical change between CBIT and CoPs was similar.

Conclusion

Both CoPs and CBIT effectively address tic severity. While CoPs offer a holistic restructuring approach, it was not found superior to CBIT, underscoring the need for continued research for tic treatment.

青少年和成人抽动和图雷特综合征认知行为疗法的比较:随机对照试验
背景目前的指南推荐使用抽搐综合行为干预(CBIT)来控制抽搐,其目的是扭转抽搐习惯。虽然许多患者的抽搐症状已明显减轻,但仍有一些患者对此无动于衷。认知心理生理学疗法(CoPs)提供了另一种方法,侧重于改变认知、行为和生理过程。之前的研究强调了 CoPs 在减少抽搐和改善神经认知表现方面的有效性。我们的目标是在儿童和成人中比较 CBIT 和 CoPs。我们假设,CoPs 组的临床改善效果将优于 CBIT 组。方法98 名参与者被随机分配到两种治疗模式中,其中包括 61 名儿童和 37 名成人。方法使用标准化量表对参与者进行治疗前、治疗后一个月和六个月的评估。手动治疗包括 12 到 14 个疗程,平均持续时间(从随机分配到随访)为 41 周。结果在 120 名初始参与者中,98 人被随机分配到 CBIT 或 CoPs。约 23% 的人因 COVID-19 而转为远程治疗。两种治疗方法都降低了 YGTSS 分数,没有模式差异。CoPs组的GAF得分显著增加,远程治疗参与者的得分高于面对面治疗。CBIT 和 CoPs 的临床变化相似。虽然 CoPs 提供了一种全面的重组方法,但并没有发现它比 CBIT 更优越,这突出了继续研究抽搐治疗的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy
Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
审稿时长
60 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信