Are recommendations for psychological treatment of borderline personality disorder in current U.K. guidelines justified? Systematic review and subgroup analysis

Recovery-focused self-help intervention using vodcasts for patients with personality disorder: feasibility randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Availability of long-term psychological interventions for personality disorders is limited because of their high intensity and cost. Research in evidence-based, low-intensity interventions is needed.

AIMS

This study aimed to examine the feasibility, acceptability and potential impact of a low-intensity, digital guided self-help (GSH) intervention that is focused on emotion regulation, recovery-oriented and provides in-the-moment delivery for patients with personality disorders.

METHOD

We conducted a single-blind feasibility trial. A total of 43 patients with a personality disorder were recruited and randomly assigned to either a GSH arm (n = 22) or a treatment-as-usual arm (n = 21). The GSH intervention included a series of short videos offering psychoeducation and support, personalised feedback using text messages, and supportive telephone calls, for 4 weeks in addition to treatment as usual. Outcomes of emotional disturbance, emotion dysregulation, self-harm behaviours and decentring ability were measured at baseline, 4 weeks (end of intervention) and 8 weeks (follow-up).

RESULTS

All patients who attended the first session continued until the last session. There was an interaction effect between time and group on anxiety (P = 0.027, Δη2 = 0.10), where the GSH group showed a significant reduction in anxiety at follow-up (P = 0.003, d = 0.25). The GSH group increased in decentring ability at the end of intervention (P = 0.007, d = -0.65), and the decrease in self-harm behaviours continued until follow-up (P = 0.02, d = 0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that a personalised digital GSH with a focus on recovery could reduce anxiety and self-harm behaviours at short-term follow-up.

Effectiveness of Psychological Treatments for Borderline Personality Disorder and Predictors of Treatment Outcomes: A Multivariate Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Data from All Design Types

We examined the effectiveness of psychotherapies for adult Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) in a multilevel meta-analysis, including all trial types (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020111351). We tested several predictors, including trial- and outcome type (continuous or dichotomous), setting, BPD symptom domain and mean age. We included 87 studies (N = 5881) from searches between 2013 and 2019 in four databases. We controlled for differing treatment lengths and a logarithmic relationship between treatment duration and effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by excluding outliers and by prioritizing total scale scores when both subscale and total scores were reported. Schema Therapy, Mentalization-Based Treatment and reduced Dialectical Behavior Therapy were associated with higher effect sizes than average, and treatment-as-usual with lower effect sizes. General severity and affective instability showed the strongest improvement, dissociation, anger, impulsivity and suicidality/self-injury the least. Treatment effectiveness decreased as the age of participants increased. Dichotomous outcomes were associated to larger effects, and analyses based on last observation carried forward to smaller effects. Compared to the average, the highest reductions were found for certain specialized psychotherapies. All BPD domains improved, though not equally. These findings have a high generalizability. However, causal conclusions cannot be drawn, although the design type did not influence the results.

Brief psychological interventions for borderline personality disorder. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

People with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) have limited access to long term psychological therapies. Briefer interventions have been developed but trial evidence to support their use has not been reviewed.

AIMS

To examine whether psychological interventions for adults with BPD of six months duration or less improve symptoms, mood, self-harm, suicidal behaviour, and service use.

METHODS

The protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42017063777). Database searches were conducted up to April 2020. Inclusion, data extraction and risk of bias were assessed in duplicate. We identified 27 randomised controlled trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses sub-grouping data into delivery method, additional support, and comparison type.

RESULTS

High levels of bias were found for attrition and reporting. Heterogeneity was high in some pooled data. Borderline symptom reductions were greatest for interventions including additional support (SMD. -1.23, 95% C.I. -2.13, -0.33). Planned generic support may be as effective as specialist interventions for borderline symptoms (SMD = -0.11, 95% C.I. -0.51, 0.29) and social functioning (SMD = -0.16., 95% C.I. -0.65, 0.33). Follow-up was limited and direct comparison with post-intervention results was unreliable.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term interventions may be effective. Access to additional support has an impact on outcomes. It is unclear if symptomatic change is sustained.

Structured Psychological Support for people with personality disorder: feasibility randomised controlled trial of a low-intensity intervention

BACKGROUND

National guidance cautions against low-intensity interventions for people with personality disorder, but evidence from trials is lacking.

AIMS

To test the feasibility of conducting a randomised trial of a low-intensity intervention for people with personality disorder.

METHOD

Single-blind, feasibility trial (trial registration: ISRCTN14994755). We recruited people aged 18 or over with a clinical diagnosis of personality disorder from mental health services, excluding those with a coexisting organic or psychotic mental disorder. We randomly allocated participants via a remote system on a 1:1 ratio to six to ten sessions of Structured Psychological Support (SPS) or to treatment as usual. We assessed social functioning, mental health, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with care and resource use and costs at baseline and 24 weeks after randomisation.

RESULTS

A total of 63 participants were randomly assigned to either SPS (n = 33) or treatment as usual (n = 30). Twenty-nine (88%) of those in the active arm of the trial received one or more session (median 7). Among 46 (73%) who were followed up at 24 weeks, social dysfunction was lower (-6.3, 95% CI -12.0 to -0.6, P = 0.03) and satisfaction with care was higher (6.5, 95% CI 2.5 to 10.4; P = 0.002) in those allocated to SPS. Statistically significant differences were not found in other outcomes. The cost of the intervention was low and total costs over 24 weeks were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SPS may provide an effective low-intensity intervention for people with personality disorder and should be tested in fully powered clinical trials.

Personality disorder co-morbidity in primary care 'Improving Access to Psychological Therapy' services: A qualitative study exploring professionals' perspectives of working with this patient group

A high prevalence of people present to 'Improving Access to Psychological Therapies' (IAPT) in England with common mental health disorders and co-morbid personality disorder. This group have suboptimal treatment outcomes in IAPT. Whilst new short-term treatment approaches are advocated, no solutions or guidance have been provided. This qualitative study explored IAPT health-care professional (N = 28) perspectives of working with people who present to IAPT with co-morbid personality disorder. Individual semi-structured interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a framework analysis approach. Results identified a lack of skills and confidence in working with this patient group, restrictive service constraints and a treatment gap between the interface of primary and secondary services. Insight into acceptable adaptions to practice are identified that have transferable utility to a wider international audience who can identify people outside of specialist mental health services with common mental health disorders and co-morbid personality disorder traits. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Lower versus higher frequency of sessions in starting outpatient mental health care and the risk of a chronic course; a naturalistic cohort study

BACKGROUND

An adequate frequency of treatment might be a prerequisite for a favorable outcome. Unfortunately, there is a diversity of factors that interfere with an adequate frequency of sessions. This occurs especially in the first phase of treatment, while the first phase seems vital for the rest of treatment. The aim of this naturalistic study was to explore the impact of the initial frequency of treatment sessions on treatment outcome in a diverse mental health care population.

METHODS

Anonymized data were analyzed from 2,634 patients allocated for anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, and personality disorders to outpatient treatment programs in a large general mental health care facility. Patients' treatment outcome was routinely monitored with the Outcome Questionnaire-45 (OQ-45.2), every 12 weeks. Frequency of sessions was assessed for the first three months of treatment. Using Cox-proportional-hazard models, we explored the associations between initial frequency and improvement (reliable significant change) and recovery (reliable and clinically significant change).

RESULTS

Improvement and recovery were associated with symptom severity and functional impairment at start of treatment, the year the treatment started, number of measurements, the treatment program (anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, and personality disorders) and receiving group therapy other than psychotherapy. In all diagnostic groups, both improvement and recovery were associated with a higher frequency of sessions during the first three months of treatment. For improvement, this effect diminished after three years in treatment; however, for recovery this association was sustained.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to severity at start of treatment and other predictors of outcome, a low frequency of initial treatment sessions might lead to a less favorable outcome and a more chronic course of the mental disorder. This association seems not to be limited to a specific diagnostic group, but was found in a large group of patients with common mental disorders (depression and anxiety disorders) and patients with a personality disorder. Despite organizational obstacles, more effort should be made to start treatment quickly by an effective frequency of session.

European guidelines for personality disorders: past, present and future

Personality disorders (PD) are common and burdensome mental disorders. The treatment of individuals with PD represents one of the more challenging areas in the field of mental health and health care providers need evidence-based recommendations to best support patients with PDs. Clinical guidelines serve this purpose and are formulated by expert consensus and/or systematic reviews of the current evidence. In this review, European guidelines for the treatment of PDs are summarized and evaluated. To date, eight countries in Europe have developed and published guidelines that differ in quality with regard to recency and completeness, transparency of methods, combination of expert knowledge with empirical data, and patient/service user involvement. Five of the guidelines are about Borderline personality disorder (BPD), one is about antisocial personality disorder and three concern PD in general. After evaluating the methodological quality of the nine European guidelines from eight countries, results in the domains of diagnosis, psychotherapy and pharmacological treatment of PD are discussed. Our comparison of guidelines reveals important contradictions between recommendations in relation to diagnosis, length and setting of treatment, as well as the use of pharmacological treatment. All the guidelines recommend psychotherapy as the treatment of first choice. Future guidelines should rigorously follow internationally accepted methodology and should more systematically include the views of patients and users.

Psychological Support for Personality (PSP) versus treatment as usual: study protocol for a feasibility randomized controlled trial of a low intensity intervention for people with personality disorder

Background

Previous research has demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of long-term psychological treatment for people with some types of personality disorder. However, the high intensity and cost of these interventions limit their availability. Lower-intensity interventions are increasingly being offered to people with personality disorder, but their clinical and cost effectiveness have not been properly tested in experimental studies. We therefore set out to develop a low intensity intervention for people with personality disorder and to test the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial to compare the clinical effectiveness of this intervention with that of treatment as usual (TAU).

Methods

A two-arm, parallel-group, single-blind, randomized controlled trial of Psychological Support for Personality (PSP) versus TAU for people aged over 18 years, who are using secondary care mental health services and have personality disorder. We will exclude people with co-existing organic or psychotic mental disorders (dementia, bipolar affective disorder, delusional disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or schizotypal disorder), those with cognitive or language difficulties that would preclude them from providing informed consent or compromise participation in study procedures, and those who are already receiving psychological treatment for personality disorder. Participants will be randomized via a remote system in a ratio of PSP to TAU of 1:1. Randomization will be stratified according to the referring team and gender of the participant.

A single follow-up assessment will be conducted by masked researchers 24 weeks after randomization to assess mental health (using the Warwick and Edinburgh Well-Being Schedule), social functioning (using the Work and Social Adjustment Scale), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L), incidence of suicidal behavior, satisfaction with care (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire), and resource use and costs using a modified version of the Adult Service Use Schedule. In addition to this, each participant will be asked to complete the patient version of the Clinical Global Impression Scale.

Feasibility and acceptability will primarily be judged by study recruitment rate and engagement and retention in treatment. The analysis will focus principally on descriptive data on the rate of recruitment, characteristics of participants, attrition, adherence to therapy, and follow-up. We will explore the distribution of study outcomes to investigate assumptions of normality in order to plan the analysis and sample size of a future definitive trial.

Discussion

Most people with personality disorder do not currently receive evidence-based interventions. While a number of high intensity psychological treatments have been shown to be effective, there is an urgent need to develop effective low intensity approaches to help people unable to use existing treatments. PSP is a low intensity intervention for individuals, which was developed following extensive consultation with users and providers of services for people with personality disorder. This study aims to examine the feasibility of a randomized trial of PSP compared to TAU for people with personality disorder.

Trial registration

ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN14994755. Registered on 18 July 2017.

Specialized psychotherapies for adults with borderline personality disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Borderline personality disorder affects up to 2% of the population and is associated with poor functioning, low quality of life and increased mortality. Psychotherapy is the treatment of choice, but it is unclear whether specialized psychotherapies (dialectical behavior therapy, mentalization-based treatment, transference-focused therapy and schema therapy) are more effective than non-specialized approaches (e.g. protocolized psychological treatment, general psychiatric management). The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the effectiveness of these psychotherapies.

METHODS

PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched from inception to November 2017. Included randomized controlled trials were assessed on risk of bias and outcomes were meta-analyzed. Confidence in the results was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method. The review has been reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies with 1375 participants were included. Specialized psychotherapies, when compared to treatment as usual or community treatment by experts, were associated with a medium effect based on moderate quality evidence on overall borderline personality disorder severity (standardized mean difference = -0.59 [95% confidence interval: -0.90, -0.28]), and dialectical behavior therapy, when compared to treatment as usual, with a small to medium effect on self-injury (standardized mean difference = -0.40 [95% confidence interval: -0.66, -0.13]). Other effect estimates were often inconclusive, mostly due to imprecision.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate quality evidence that specialized psychotherapies are effective in reducing overall borderline personality disorder severity. However, further research should identify which patient groups profit most of the specialized therapies.

Psychoeducation with problem-solving (PEPS) therapy for adults with personality disorder: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a manualised intervention to improve social functioning

BACKGROUND

If effective, less intensive treatments for people with personality disorder have the potential to serve more people.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychoeducation with problem-solving (PEPS) therapy plus usual treatment against usual treatment alone in improving social problem-solving with adults with personality disorder.

DESIGN

Multisite two-arm, parallel-group, pragmatic randomised controlled superiority trial.

SETTING

Community mental health services in three NHS trusts in England and Wales.

PARTICIPANTS

Community-dwelling adults with any personality disorder recruited from community mental health services.

INTERVENTIONS

Up to four individual sessions of psychoeducation, a collaborative dialogue about personality disorder, followed by 12 group sessions of problem-solving therapy to help participants learn a process for solving interpersonal problems.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was measured by the Social Functioning Questionnaire (SFQ). Secondary outcomes were service use (general practitioner records), mood (measured via the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and client-specified three main problems rated by severity. We studied the mechanism of change using the Social Problem-Solving Inventory. Costs were identified using the Client Service Receipt Inventory and quality of life was identified by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions questionnaire. Research assistants blinded to treatment allocation collected follow-up information.

RESULTS

There were 739 people referred for the trial and 444 were eligible. More adverse events in the PEPS arm led to a halt to recruitment after 306 people were randomised (90% of planned sample size); 154 participants received PEPS and 152 received usual treatment. The mean age was 38 years and 67% were women. Follow-up at 72 weeks after randomisation was completed for 62% of participants in the usual-treatment arm and 73% in the PEPS arm. Intention-to-treat analyses compared individuals as randomised, regardless of treatment received or availability of 72-week follow-up SFQ data. Median attendance at psychoeducation sessions was approximately 90% and for problem-solving sessions was approximately 50%. PEPS therapy plus usual treatment was no more effective than usual treatment alone for the primary outcome [adjusted difference in means for SFQ -0.73 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.83 to 0.38 points; p = 0.19], any of the secondary outcomes or social problem-solving. Over the follow-up, PEPS costs were, on average, £182 less than for usual treatment. It also resulted in 0.0148 more quality-adjusted life-years. Neither difference was statistically significant. At the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds, the intervention had a 64% likelihood of being the more cost-effective option. More adverse events, mainly incidents of self-harm, occurred in the PEPS arm, but the difference was not significant (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.64).

LIMITATIONS

There was possible bias in adverse event recording because of dependence on self-disclosure or reporting by the clinical team. Non-completion of problem-solving sessions and non-standardisation of usual treatment were limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to support the use of PEPS therapy alongside standard care for improving social functioning of adults with personality disorder living in the community.

FUTURE WORK

We aim to investigate adverse events by accessing centrally held NHS data on deaths and hospitalisation for all PEPS trial participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70660936.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Psychoeducation and Problem Solving (PEPS) Therapy for Adults With Personality Disorder: A Pragmatic Randomized-Controlled Trial

We compared psychoeducation and problem solving (PEPS) therapy against usual treatment in a multisite randomized-controlled trial. The primary outcome was social functioning. We aimed to recruit 444 community-dwelling adults with personality disorder; however, safety concerns led to an early cessation of recruitment. A total of 154 people were randomized to PEPS and 152 to usual treatment. Follow-up at 72 weeks was completed for 68%. PEPS therapy was no more effective than usual treatment for improving social functioning (adjusted difference in mean Social Functioning Questionnaire scores = -0.73; 95% CI [-1.83, 0.38]; p = 0.19). PEPS therapy is not an effective treatment for improving social functioning of adults with personality disorder living in the community.