Search

Classification of hypochondriasis as an obsessive-compulsive and related disorder in the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11) has generated new heuristics for treatment of this common, chronic and disabling disorder. Standard treatment involves cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), but no meta-analysis has so far considered hypochondriasis as a structured diagnosis or assessed the role of medication. A clearer understanding of the relative effectiveness of these interventions and identification of clinically relevant factors moderating the treatment response is needed for clinical guideline development.The current systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions for hypochondriasis was preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42020185768) and follows PRISMA guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases until July 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for patients diagnosed with hypochondriasis (or historical diagnostic equivalents). We assessed aspects of study quality using: the CONSORT Checklist for evaluation of RCTs, the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, researcher allegiance and treatment fidelity. The primary outcome was improvement in hypochondriasis symptoms, comparing intervention and control groups at trial endpoint. Moderator variables were assessed using subgroup and meta-regression analyses.Searches identified 13 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (N = 1405); 12 included CBT (N = 1212) and three included SSRI (N = 193) arms as the experimental intervention. Random effects meta-analysis yielded a moderate-to-large effect size for CBT versus all controls (g = -0.70 [95% CI -0.99 to -0.41], k = 18, ICBT and SSRIs are effective in the acute treatment of hypochondriasis, with some indication that intervention at a younger age produces better outcomes for CBT. In the case of CBT, effect sizes appear to have been significantly inflated by the use of wait list controls, and researcher allegiance bias. We recommend that a definitive, adequately controlled trial, designed with respect to the methodological issues raised in this meta-analysis, is needed to determine the magnitude effects for CBT and SSRIs with confidence and the long-term effect of treatments, to inform mental health service provision for this overlooked patient group.

Introduction: Despite promising results from several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses, the efficacy of r-TMS as a treatment for OCD remains controversial, at least in part owing to inconsistency in the trial methodologies and heterogeneity in the trial outcomes. This meta-analysis attempts to explain some of this heterogeneity by comparing the efficacy of r-TMS in patients with or without resistance to treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), defined using standardized criteria. Methods: We conducted a pre-registered (PROSPERO ID: 241381) systematic review and meta-analysis. English language articles reporting blinded RCTs were retrieved from searches using MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies were subjected to subgroup analysis based on four stages of treatment resistance, defined using an adaptation of published criteria (1 = not treatment resistant, 2 = one SSRI trial failed, 3 = two SSRI trials failed, 4 = two SSRI trials failed plus one or more CBT trial failed). Meta-regression analyses investigated patient and methodological factors (age, duration of OCD, illness severity, stage of treatment-resistance, or researcher allegiance) as possible moderators of effect size. Results: Twenty-five independent comparisons (23 studies) were included. Overall, r-TMS showed a medium-sized reduction of Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) scores (Hedge's g: -0.47; 95%CI: - 0.67 to -0.27) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 39.8%). Assessment of publication bias using Trim and Fill analysis suggested a reduced effect size that remained significant (g: -0.29; 95%CI: -0.51 to -0.07). Subgroup analysis found that those studies including patients non-resistant to SSRI (stage 1) (g: -0.65; 95%CI: -1.05 to -0.25, k = 7) or with low SSRI-resistance (stage 2) (g:-0.47; 95%CI: -0.86 to -0.09, k = 6) produced statistically significant results with low heterogeneity, while studies including more highly resistant patients at stage 3 (g: -0.39; 95%CI: -0.90 to 0.11, k = 4) and stage 4 (g: -0.36; 95%CI: -0.75 to 0.03, k = 8) did not. Intriguingly, the only significant moderator of the effect size found by meta-regression was the severity of baseline depressive symptoms. All trials showed evidence of researcher allegiance in favour of the intervention and therefore caution is required in interpreting the reported effect sizes. Conclusion: This meta-analysis shows that r-TMS is an effective treatment for OCD, but largely for those not resistant to SSRI or failing to respond to only one SSRI trial. As a consequence, r-TMS may be best implemented earlier in the care pathway. These findings would have major implications for clinical service development, but further well-powered RCTs, which eliminate bias from researcher allegiance, are needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn.