Longer term outcome of cognitive-behavioural and psychodynamic psychotherapy in routine mental health care: Randomised controlled trial

Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder

BACKGROUND

Over the decades, a variety of psychological interventions for borderline personality disorder (BPD) have been developed. This review updates and replaces an earlier review (Stoffers-Winterling 2012).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of psychological therapies for people with BPD.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals.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 different psychotherapeutic interventions with treatment-as-usual (TAU; which included various kinds of psychotherapy), waiting list, no treatment or active treatments in samples of all ages, in any setting, with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. There were 11 secondary outcomes, including individual BPD symptoms, as well as attrition and adverse effects.

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 75 randomised controlled trials (4507 participants), predominantly involving females with mean ages ranging from 14.8 to 45.7 years. More than 16 different kinds of psychotherapy were included, mostly dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) and mentalisation-based treatment (MBT). The comparator interventions included treatment-as-usual (TAU), waiting list, and other active treatments. Treatment duration ranged from one to 36 months. Psychotherapy versus TAU Psychotherapy reduced BPD symptom severity, compared to TAU; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to -0.33; 22 trials, 1244 participants; moderate-quality evidence. This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -3.6 (95% CI -4.4 to -2.08) on the Zanarini Rating Scale for BPD (range 0 to 36), a clinically relevant reduction in BPD symptom severity (minimal clinical relevant difference (MIREDIF) on this scale is -3.0 points). Psychotherapy may be more effective at reducing self-harm compared to TAU (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.14; 13 trials, 616 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -0.82 (95% CI -1.25 to 0.35) on the Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory Scale (range 0 to 34). The MIREDIF of -1.25 points was not reached. Suicide-related outcomes improved compared to TAU (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.11; 13 trials, 666 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -0.11 (95% CI -0.19 to -0.034) on the Suicidal Attempt Self Injury Interview. The MIREDIF of -0.17 points was not reached. Compared to TAU, psychotherapy may result in an improvement in psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.22; 22 trials, 1314 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -2.8 (95% CI -4.25 to -1.38), on the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (range 0 to 100). The MIREDIF of -4.0 points was not reached. Our additional Trial Sequential Analysis on all primary outcomes reaching significance found that the required information size was reached in all cases. A subgroup analysis comparing the different types of psychotherapy compared to TAU showed no clear evidence of a difference for BPD severity and psychosocial functioning. Psychotherapy may reduce depressive symptoms compared to TAU but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.17; 22 trials, 1568 participants; very low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -2.45 points on the Hamilton Depression Scale (range 0 to 50). The MIREDIF of -3.0 points was not reached. BPD-specific psychotherapy did not reduce attrition compared with TAU. Adverse effects were unclear due to too few data. Psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment Greater improvements in BPD symptom severity (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.05; 3 trials, 161 participants), psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.11; 5 trials, 219 participants), and depression (SMD -1.28, 95% CI -2.21 to -0.34, 6 trials, 239 participants) were observed in participants receiving psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment (all low-quality evidence). No evidence of a difference was found for self-harm and suicide-related outcomes. Individual treatment approaches DBT and MBT have the highest numbers of primary trials, with DBT as subject of one-third of all included trials, followed by MBT with seven RCTs. Compared to TAU, DBT was more effective at reducing BPD severity (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.14; 3 trials, 149 participants), self-harm (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.07; 7 trials, 376 participants) and improving psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.03; 6 trials, 225 participants). MBT appears to be more effective than TAU at reducing self-harm (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.80; 3 trials, 252 participants), suicidality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04, 0.30, 3 trials, 218 participants) and depression (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.22 to 0.05, 4 trials, 333 participants). All findings are based on low-quality evidence. For secondary outcomes see review text.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our assessments showed beneficial effects on all primary outcomes in favour of BPD-tailored psychotherapy compared with TAU. However, only the outcome of BPD severity reached the MIREDIF-defined cut-off for a clinically meaningful improvement. Subgroup analyses found no evidence of a difference in effect estimates between the different types of therapies (compared to TAU) . The pooled analysis of psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment found significant improvement on BPD severity, psychosocial functioning and depression at end of treatment, but these findings were based on low-quality evidence, and the true magnitude of these effects is uncertain. No clear evidence of difference was found for self-harm and suicide-related outcomes. However, compared to TAU, we observed effects in favour of DBT for BPD severity, self-harm and psychosocial functioning and, for MBT, on self-harm and suicidality at end of treatment, but these were all based on low-quality evidence. Therefore, we are unsure whether these effects would alter with the addition of more data.

Biases in research: risk factors for non-replicability in psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy research

Replicability of findings is an essential prerequisite of research. For both basic and clinical research, however, low replicability of findings has recently been reported. Replicability may be affected by research biases not sufficiently controlled for by the existing research standards. Several biases such as researcher allegiance or selective reporting are well-known for affecting results. For psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy research, specific additional biases may affect outcome (e.g. therapist allegiance, therapist effects or impairments in treatment implementation). For meta-analyses further specific biases are relevant. In psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy research these biases have not yet been systematically discussed in the context of replicability. Using a list of 13 biases as a starting point, we discuss each bias's impact on replicability. We illustrate each bias by selective findings of recent research, showing that (1) several biases are not yet sufficiently controlled for by the presently applied research standards, (2) these biases have a pernicious effect on replicability of findings. For the sake of research credibility, it is critical to avoid these biases in future research. To control for biases and to improve replicability, we propose to systematically implement several measures in psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy research, such as adversarial collaboration (inviting academic rivals to collaborate), reviewing study design prior to knowing the results, triple-blind data analysis (including subjects, investigators and data managers/statisticians), data analysis by other research teams (crowdsourcing), and, last not least, updating reporting standards such as CONSORT or the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR).

Psychodynamic therapy meets evidence-based medicine: a systematic review using updated criteria

Psychodynamic therapy (PDT) is an umbrella concept for treatments that operate on an interpretive-supportive continuum and is frequently used in clinical practice. The use of any form of psychotherapy should be supported by sufficient evidence. Efficacy research has been neglected in PDT for a long time. In this review, we describe methodological requirements for proofs of efficacy and summarise the evidence for use of PDT to treat mental health disorders. After specifying the requirements for superiority, non-inferiority, and equivalence trials, we did a systematic search using the following criteria: randomised controlled trial of PDT; use of treatment manuals or manual-like guidelines; use of reliable and valid measures for diagnosis and outcome; adults treated for specific mental problems. We identified 64 randomised controlled trials that provide evidence for the efficacy of PDT in common mental health disorders. Studies sufficiently powered to test for equivalence to established treatments did not find substantial differences in efficacy. These results were corroborated by several meta-analyses that suggest PDT is as efficacious as treatments established in efficacy. More randomised controlled trials are needed for some mental health disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Furthermore, more adequately powered equivalence trials are needed.

The effectiveness of psychodynamic psychotherapies: An update

This paper provides a comprehensive review of outcome studies and meta-analyses of effectiveness studies of psychodynamic therapy (PDT) for the major categories of mental disorders. Comparisons with inactive controls (waitlist, treatment as usual and placebo) generally but by no means invariably show PDT to be effective for depression, some anxiety disorders, eating disorders and somatic disorders. There is little evidence to support its implementation for post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bulimia nervosa, cocaine dependence or psychosis. The strongest current evidence base supports relatively long-term psychodynamic treatment of some personality disorders, particularly borderline personality disorder. Comparisons with active treatments rarely identify PDT as superior to control interventions and studies are generally not appropriately designed to provide tests of statistical equivalence. Studies that demonstrate inferiority of PDT to alternatives exist, but are small in number and often questionable in design. Reviews of the field appear to be subject to allegiance effects. The present review recommends abandoning the inherently conservative strategy of comparing heterogeneous "families" of therapies for heterogeneous diagnostic groups. Instead, it advocates using the opportunities provided by bioscience and computational psychiatry to creatively explore and assess the value of protocol-directed combinations of specific treatment components to address the key problems of individual patients.

The effectiveness of short- and long-term psychotherapy on personality functioning during a 5-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Only few randomized trials comparing sustained effects of short- and long-term psychotherapies in personality functioning are available. In this study we compared the effects of two short-term therapies and long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy on patients' personality functioning during a 5-year follow-up.

METHODS

Altogether 326 patients of the Helsinki Psychotherapy Study, with anxiety or mood disorder, were randomly assigned to either short-term psychotherapy of about six months (solution-focused therapy (SFT, n=97) or short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (SPP, n=101)), or to long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (LPP, n=128), lasting on average three years. Outcomes in personality functioning (i.e., self-concept, defense style, interpersonal problems, and level of personality organization) were assessed five to seven times using, respectively, questionnaires (SASB, DSQ, IIP) and interview (LPO) during the 5-year follow-up from randomization.

RESULTS

Personality functioning improved in all therapy groups. Both short-term therapies fared better than LPP during the first year of follow-up, by faster improvement in self-concept and decrease in immature defense style. SFT also showed more early reduction of interpersonal problems. However, LPP thereafter showed larger and more sustained benefits than SFT and SPP, through greater changes in self-concept. Additionally, LPP outperformed SFT at the end of the follow-up in IIP and LPO, after adjustment for auxiliary treatment. No differences were noted between the short-term therapies at any measurement point.

LIMITATIONS

Auxiliary treatment was used relatively widely which limits generalization to exclusive use of short- or long-term therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

LPP seems to be somewhat more effective than short-term therapies in facilitating longterm changes in personality functioning.

Comparative effectiveness of cognitive and dynamic therapies for major depressive disorder in a community mental health setting: study protocol for a randomized non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

There is substantial evidence that cognitive therapy is an effective intervention for the treatment of major depressive disorder. Although dynamic psychotherapies have been widely studied and are commonly practiced worldwide, there are few randomized comparisons of cognitive therapy and dynamic therapy for major depressive disorder.

METHODS

We are completing data collection on a randomized non-inferiority trial comparing the effectiveness of cognitive therapy and short-term dynamic psychotherapy in the treatment of major depressive disorder in the community mental health setting. Therapists employed in the community setting have been recruited for training in either short-term dynamic psychotherapy or cognitive therapy. Patients seeking services at the community site who meet criteria for major depressive disorder based on a blind independent diagnostic interview are randomized to 16 sessions of treatment. All patients are assessed at baseline and months 1, 2, 4, and 5 utilizing a comprehensive battery.

DISCUSSION

This study adds to the growing literature evaluating the effectiveness of short-term dynamic psychotherapy for specific diagnostic groups. These results will have implications for the dissemination of effective interventions for major depressive disorder in community mental health settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, a service of the United States National Institute of Health. NIH Identifier: NCT01207271. Registered 21 September 2010.

A dimensional approach to assessing personality functioning: examining personality trait domains utilizing DSM-IV personality disorder criteria

BACKGROUND

This study compared a dimensional, trait domain approach to characterizing personality pathology with the traditional polythetic approach with respect to their associations with interpersonal functioning and personality traits from the five factor model.

METHODS

Psychiatric inpatients (N=1476) were administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II personality disorders. Dimensional representations of trait domains were derived from reorganizing DSM-IV criteria into personality trait domains from DSM-5 Alternative Model. Dimensional scores and personality disorder (PD) total criterion scores served as independent variables in predicting interpersonal profile clusters, as well as extraversion, agreeableness conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness from the five factor model traits.

RESULTS

Trait domain scores and PD criteria totals were significantly correlated with submissive interpersonal style yet none proved significant in regression analyses. Avoidant and borderline PD total criteria were negatively associated with a normative interpersonal style. Combined trait domain of detachment and avoidant PD total criteria predicted a hostile/withdrawn interpersonal style. The trait domain of detachment was negatively associated with five factor traits of extroversion, whereas borderline PD total criteria were negatively associated with conscientiousness. Avoidant and borderline PD total criteria were positively associated with neuroticism.

CONCLUSIONS

The cross-cutting dimensional approach provided useful information in predicting a hostile/withdrawn interpersonal style as well as extroversion. Importantly, PD criterion scores and dimensional trait scores combined to predict this interpersonal style providing support to the alternative model of personality diagnosis in DSM-5. Clinicians are encouraged to assess dimensions of personality traits as these are related to interpersonal problems frequently encountered in psychiatric settings. While potentially useful, the dimensional approach articulated here did not yield substantial prediction of behavior.

Interpersonal Change Following Intensive Inpatient Treatment

OBJECTIVE

Persons admitted for inpatient psychiatric care often present with interpersonal difficulties that disrupt adaptive social relations and complicate the provision of treatment. Whereas domains of psychosocial functioning in this population demonstrate clear growth in response to intervention, the impact of treatment on more complex patterns of interpersonal behavior has been largely overlooked within the existing literature. Interpersonal profiles characteristic of psychiatric inpatients were identified in the current study to determine rates of transition to adaptive functioning following hospitalization.

METHODS

Personality disturbance was assessed in 513 psychiatric inpatients using the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Scores were analyzed within a series of latent profile models to isolate unique interpersonal profiles at admission and at discharge. Longitudinal modeling was then employed to determine rates of transition from dysfunctional to adaptive profiles. Relationships with background characteristics, clinical presentation, and treatment response were explored.

RESULTS

Normative, Submissive, and Hostile/Withdrawn profiles emerged at both admission and discharge. Patients in the Normative profile demonstrated relatively moderate symptoms. Submissive and Hostile/Withdrawn profiles were related to known risk factors and elevated psychopathology. Approximately half of the patients who had been identified as Submissive or Hostile/Withdrawn transitioned to the Normative profile by discharge. Transition status evidenced modest associations with background characteristics and clinical presentation. Treatment engagement and reduction of clinical symptoms were strongly associated with adaptive transition.

CONCLUSION

Maladaptive interpersonal profiles characteristic of psychiatric inpatients demonstrated categorical change following inpatient hospitalization. Enhanced therapeutic engagement and overall reductions in psychiatric symptoms appear to increase potential for interpersonal change.