Pharmacological interventions for people with borderline personality disorder

Development of a Clinical Guideline for Suicide Prevention in Psychiatric Patients Based on the ADAPTE Methodology

OBJECTIVE

Suicide is a significant public health issue, with South Korea having the highest suicide rate among Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. This study aimed to develop clinical guidelines for suicide prevention in psychiatric patients in Korea using the ADAPTE methodology.

METHODS

The development process involved a comprehensive review of literature, expert consultations, and consensus-building using the Nominal Group Technique and Delphi method. The guidelines focus on evidence-based psychiatric treatments, including both pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches, tailored to the Korean context. Key findings underscoring the need for standardized treatment protocols for patients with major psychiatric disorders, including bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and schizophrenia.

RESULTS

The guidelines incorporate treatments like lithium, clozapine, atypical antipsychotics, electroconvulsive therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy, which have shown effectiveness in suicide prevention. Applicability and acceptability within Korea's healthcare system were addressed, ensuring feasibility given the country's medical insurance coverage and accessibility. The guidelines were validated through expert reviews and Delphi rounds, achieving consensus on the final recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The developed guidelines provide a structured, evidence-based approach to reducing suicide rates among psychiatric patients in Korea. Future research will focus on expanding these guidelines to include screening protocols for high-risk groups.

Gender differences in borderline personality disorder: a narrative review

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe and complex mental disorder that traditionally has been found to be more frequent in the female gender in clinical samples. More recently, epidemiological studies have provided conflicting data about the prevalence of borderline disorder in the two genders in community samples. In order to explain this heterogeneity, some authors hypothesized the presence of a bias in the diagnostic criteria thresholds (more prevalent in one gender than another), in the population sampling (community versus clinical), in the instruments of evaluation (clinician versus self-report measures), and in the diagnostic construct of BPD. Beyond the question of the different prevalence of the disorder between genders, the debate remains open as to how personality and clinical characteristics, and attitude toward treatments express themselves in the two genders. This narrative review is aimed to provide an updated overview of the differences among genders in BPD in terms of diagnosis, temperamental and clinical characteristics, comorbidities, findings of neuroimaging, and treatment attitudes. Studies that specifically investigated the gender differences in BPD patients are rather limited. Most of the investigations did not consider gender as a variable or were characterized by a significant imbalance between the two genders (more commonly in favor the female gender). The main results indicated that men were more likely to endorse the criteria "intense and inappropriate anger" and "impulsivity," whereas women endorsed the criteria "chronic feelings of emptiness," "affective instability," and "suicidality/self-harm behaviors." These findings reflect differences in temperament and symptoms of the two genders. Other relevant differences concern pattern of comorbidity, specific neurobiological mechanisms and attitude to treatments. Main limitations were that only one database was searched, time of publications was limited, non-English manuscripts were excluded, and the quality of each paper was not commented.

Pharmacological interventions for people with borderline personality disorder

BACKGROUND

Among people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) who are engaged in clinical care, prescription rates of psychotropic medications are high, despite the fact that medication use is off-label as a treatment for BPD. Nevertheless, people with BPD often receive several psychotropic drugs at a time for sustained periods.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological treatment for people with BPD.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers up to February 2022. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatment to placebo, other pharmacologic treatments or a combination of pharmacologic treatments in people of all ages with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were individual BPD symptoms, depression, attrition and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 46 randomised controlled trials (2769 participants) in this review, 45 of which were eligible for quantitative analysis and comprised 2752 participants with BPD in total. This is 18 more trials than the 2010 review on this topic. Participants were predominantly female except for one trial that included men only. The mean age ranged from 16.2 to 39.7 years across the included trials. Twenty-nine different types of medications compared to placebo or other medications were included in the analyses. Seventeen trials were funded or partially funded by the pharmaceutical industry, 10 were funded by universities or research foundations, eight received no funding, and 11 had unclear funding. For all reported effect sizes, negative effect estimates indicate beneficial effects by active medication. Compared with placebo, no difference in effects were observed on any of the primary outcomes at the end of treatment for any medication. Compared with placebo, medication may have little to no effect on BPD symptom severity, although the evidence is of very low certainty (antipsychotics: SMD -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 0.08; 8 trials, 951 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.65 to 1.18; 2 trials, 87 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.57; 4 trials, 265 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on self-harm, indicating little to no effect (antipsychotics: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.84; 2 trials, 76 participants; antidepressants: MD 0.45 points on the Overt Aggression Scale-Modified-Self-Injury item (0-5 points), 95% CI -10.55 to 11.45; 1 trial, 20 participants; mood stabilisers: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.48; 1 trial, 276 participants). The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on suicide-related outcomes, with little to no effect (antipsychotics: SMD 0.05, 95 % CI -0.18 to 0.29; 7 trials, 854 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.26, 95% CI -1.62 to 1.09; 2 trials, 45 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.36, 95% CI -1.96 to 1.25; 2 trials, 44 participants). Very low-certainty evidence shows little to no difference between medication and placebo on psychosocial functioning (antipsychotics: SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.00; 7 trials, 904 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.06; 4 trials, 161 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26; 2 trials, 214 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests that antipsychotics may slightly reduce interpersonal problems (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.08; 8 trials, 907 participants), and that mood stabilisers may result in a reduction in this outcome (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.02; 4 trials, 300 participants). Antidepressants may have little to no effect on interpersonal problems, but the corresponding evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.55; 2 trials, 119 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about dropout rates compared with placebo by antipsychotics (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.38; 13 trials, 1216 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference in dropout rates between antidepressants (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.76; 6 trials, 289 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.15; 9 trials, 530 participants), compared to placebo. Reporting on adverse events was poor and mostly non-standardised. The available evidence on non-serious adverse events was of very low certainty for antipsychotics (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.29; 5 trials, 814 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; 1 trial, 276 participants). For antidepressants, no data on adverse events were identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review included 18 more trials than the 2010 version, so larger meta-analyses with more statistical power were feasible. We found mostly very low-certainty evidence that medication may result in no difference in any primary outcome. The rest of the secondary outcomes were inconclusive. Very limited data were available for serious adverse events. The review supports the continued understanding that no pharmacological therapy seems effective in specifically treating BPD pathology. More research is needed to understand the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of BPD better. Also, more trials including comorbidities such as trauma-related disorders, major depression, substance use disorders, or eating disorders are needed. Additionally, more focus should be put on male and adolescent samples.

Crisis interventions for adults with borderline personality disorder

BACKGROUND

People diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD) frequently present to healthcare services in crisis, often with suicidal thoughts or actions. Despite this, little is known about what constitutes effective management of acute crises in this population and what type of interventions are helpful at times of crisis. In this review, we will examine the efficacy of crisis interventions, defined as an immediate response by one or more individuals to the acute distress experienced by another individual, designed to ensure safety and recovery and lasting no longer than one month. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane Review examining the evidence for the effects of crisis interventions in adults diagnosed with BPD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of crisis interventions in adults diagnosed with BPD in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and three trials registers up to January 2022. We also checked reference lists, handsearched relevant journal archives and contacted experts in the field to identify any unpublished or ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing crisis interventions with usual care, no intervention or waiting list, in adults of any age diagnosed with BPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies with 213 participants. One study (88 participants) was a feasibility RCT conducted in the UK that examined the effects of joint crisis plans (JCPs) plus treatment as usual (TAU) compared to TAU alone in people diagnosed with BPD. The primary outcome was self-harm. Participants had an average age of 36 years, and 81% were women. Government research councils funded the study. Risk of bias was unclear for blinding, but low in the other domains assessed. Evidence from this study suggested that there may be no difference between JCPs and TAU on deaths (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 14.14; 88 participants; low-certainty evidence); mean number of self-harm episodes (mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% CI -36.27 to 36.87; 72 participants; low-certainty evidence), number of inpatient mental health nights (MD 1.80, 95% CI -5.06 to 8.66; 73 participants; low-certainty evidence), or quality of life measured using the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D; MD -6.10, 95% CI -15.52 to 3.32; 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study authors calculated an Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio of GBP -32,358 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), favouring JCPs, but they described this result as "hypothesis-generating only" and we rated this as very low-certainty evidence.  The other study (125 participants) was an RCT conducted in Sweden of brief admission to psychiatric hospital by self-referral (BA) compared to TAU, in people with self-harm or suicidal behaviour and three or more diagnostic criteria for BPD. The primary outcome was use of inpatient mental health services. Participants had an average age of 32 years, and 85% were women. Government research councils and non-profit foundations funded the study. Risk of bias was unclear for blinding and baseline imbalances, but low in the other domains assessed. The evidence suggested that there is no clear difference between BA and TAU on deaths (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.29; 125 participants; low-certainty evidence), mean number of self-harm episodes (MD -0.03, 95% CI -2.26 to 2.20; 125 participants; low-certainty evidence), violence perpetration (RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.13; 125 participants; low-certainty evidence), or days of inpatient mental health care (MD 0.70, 95% CI -14.32 to 15.72; 125 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study suggested that BA may have little or no effect on the mean number of suicide attempts (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 125 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We also identified three ongoing RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. The results will be incorporated into future updates of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive search of the literature revealed very little RCT-based evidence to inform the management of acute crises in people diagnosed with BPD. We included two studies of two very different types of intervention (JCP and BA). We found no clear evidence of a benefit over TAU in any of our main outcomes. We are very uncertain about the true effects of either intervention, as the evidence was judged low- and very low-certainty, and there was only a single study of each intervention. There is an urgent need for high-quality, large-scale, adequately powered RCTs on crisis interventions for people diagnosed with BPD, in addition to development of new crisis interventions.

The ICD-11 classification of personality disorders: a European perspective on challenges and opportunities

The 11th revision of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) includes a fundamentally new approach to Personality Disorders (PD). ICD-11 is expected to be implemented first in European countries before other WHO member states. The present paper provides an overview of this new ICD-11 model including PD severity classification, trait domain specifiers, and the additional borderline pattern specifier. We discuss the perceived challenges and opportunities of using the ICD-11 approach with particular focus on its continuity and discontinuity with familiar PD categories such as avoidant PD and narcissistic PD. The advent of the ICD-11 PD classification involves major changes for health care workers, researchers, administrators, and service providers as well as patients and families involved. The anticipated challenges and opportunities are put forward in terms of specific unanswered questions. It is our hope that these questions will stimulate further research and discussion among researchers and clinicians in the coming years.

Antipsychotic Use in Pregnancy: Patient Mental Health Challenges, Teratogenicity, Pregnancy Complications, and Postnatal Risks

Pregnant women constitute a vulnerable population, with 25.3% of pregnant women classified as suffering from a psychiatric disorder. Since childbearing age typically aligns with the onset of mental health disorders, it is of utmost importance to consider the effects that antipsychotic drugs have on pregnant women and their developing fetus. However, the induction of pharmacological treatment during pregnancy may pose significant risks to the developing fetus. Antipsychotics are typically introduced when the nonpharmacologic approaches fail to produce desired effects or when the risks outweigh the benefits from continuing without treatment or the risks from exposing the fetus to medication. Early studies of pregnant women with schizophrenia showed an increase in perinatal malformations and deaths among their newborns. Similar to schizophrenia, women with bipolar disorder have an increased risk of relapse in antepartum and postpartum periods. It is known that antipsychotic medications can readily cross the placenta, and exposure to antipsychotic medication during pregnancy is associated with potential teratogenicity. Potential risks associated with antipsychotic use in pregnant women include congenital abnormalities, preterm birth, and metabolic disturbance, which could potentially lead to abnormal fetal growth. The complex decision-making process for treating psychosis in pregnant women must evaluate the risks and benefits of antipsychotic drugs.