Eighteen months post-treatment naturalistic follow-up study of mentalization-based therapy and supportive group treatment of borderline personality disorder: Clinical outcomes and functioning

Impact of clinical severity on treatment response in a randomized controlled trial comparing day hospital and intensive outpatient mentalization-based treatment for borderline personality disorder

This study examined the impact of clinical severity on treatment outcome in two programs that differ markedly in treatment intensity: day hospital mentalization-based treatment (MBT-DH) and intensive outpatient mentalization-based treatment (MBT-IOP) for borderline personality disorder (BPD). A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted. Participants include the full intention-to-treat sample of the original trial of N = 114 randomized BPD patients (MBT-DH n = 70, MBT-IOP n = 44), who were assessed at baseline and subsequently every 6 up to 36 months after start of treatment. Outcomes were general symptom severity, borderline features, and interpersonal functioning. Clinical severity was examined in terms of severity of BPD, general symptom severity, comorbid symptom disorders, comorbid personality disorders, and cluster C personality features. None of the severity measures was related to treatment outcome or differentially predicted treatment outcome in MBT-DH and MBT-IOP, with the exception of a single moderating effect of co morbid symptom disorders on outcome in terms of BPD features, indicating less improvement in MBT-DH for patients with more symptom disorders. Overall, patients with varying levels of clinical severity benefited equally from MBT-DH and MBT-IOP, indicating that clinical severity may not be a useful criterion to differentiate in treatment intensity.

Effectiveness of outpatient and community treatments for people with a diagnosis of 'personality disorder': systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Quality of care and access to effective interventions have been widely criticised as limited for people diagnosed with 'personality disorder' or who have comparable needs (described in some recent papers as "Complex Emotional Needs" (CEN). It is important to identify effective interventions and the optimal context and mode of delivery for people with CEN. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions delivered in community and outpatient settings in treating symptoms associated with 'personality disorder', and the moderating effects of treatment-related variables.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, HMIC, ASSIA for articles published in English, from inception to November 23, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials examining interventions provided in community or outpatient settings for CEN. The primary outcome was 'personality disorder' symptoms, while secondary outcomes included anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, and global psychiatric symptoms. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted for each outcome, and meta-regression analysis was performed to assess the moderating effects of treatment characteristics. The quality of the studies and the degree of publication bias was assessed.

RESULTS

We included 54 trials (n = 3716 participants) in the meta-analysis. We found a large effect size (g = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.01, p < 0.0001) favoring interventions for 'borderline personality disorder' (BPD) symptoms over Treatment as Usual or Waitlist (TAU/WL), and the efficacy was maintained at follow-up (g = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.65, p = 0.002). Interventions effectively reduced anxiety symptoms (g = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.95, p = 0.002), depressive symptoms (g = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.83, p < 0.0001), and global psychiatric symptoms (g = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.66, p < 0.0001) compared to TAU/WL. The intervention types were equally effective in treating all symptom categories assessed. Treatment duration and treatment intensity did not moderate the effectiveness of the interventions for any outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

People with a 'personality disorder' diagnosis benefited from psychological and psychosocial interventions delivered in community or outpatient settings, with all therapeutic approaches showing similar effectiveness. Mental health services should provide people with CEN with specialised treatments in accordance with the availability and the patients' preferences.

Current state of the evidence on community treatments for people with complex emotional needs: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Improving the quality of care in community settings for people with 'Complex Emotional Needs' (CEN-our preferred working term for services for people with a "personality disorder" diagnosis or comparable needs) is recognised internationally as a priority. Plans to improve care should be rooted as far as possible in evidence. We aimed to take stock of the current state of such evidence, and identify significant gaps through a scoping review of published investigations of outcomes of community-based psychosocial interventions designed for CEN.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review with systematic searches. We searched six bibliographic databases, including forward and backward citation searching, and reference searching of relevant systematic reviews. We included studies using quantitative methods to test for effects on any clinical, social, and functioning outcomes from community-based interventions for people with CEN. The final search was conducted in November 2020.

RESULTS

We included 226 papers in all (210 studies). Little relevant literature was published before 2000. Since then, publications per year and sample sizes have gradually increased, but most studies are relatively small, including many pilot or uncontrolled studies. Most studies focus on symptom and self-harm outcomes of various forms of specialist psychotherapy: most result in outcomes better than from inactive controls and similar to other specialist psychotherapies. We found large evidence gaps. Adaptation and testing of therapies for significant groups (e.g. people with comorbid psychosis, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance misuse; older and younger groups; parents) have for the most part only reached a feasibility testing stage. We found little evidence regarding interventions to improve social aspects of people's lives, peer support, or ways of designing effective services.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with other longer term mental health problems that significantly impair functioning, the evidence base on how to provide high quality care for people with CEN is very limited. There is good evidence that people with CEN can be helped when specialist therapies are available and when they are able to engage with them. However, a much more methodologically robust and substantial literature addressing a much wider range of research questions is urgently needed to optimise treatment and support across this group.

Day hospital versus intensive outpatient mentalization-based treatment: 3-year follow-up of patients treated for borderline personality disorder in a multicentre randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Two types of mentalization-based treatment (MBT), day hospital MBT (MBT-DH) and intensive outpatient MBT (MBT-IOP), have been shown to be effective in treating patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). This study evaluated trajectories of change in a multi-site trial of MBT-DH and MBT-IOP at 36 months after the start of treatment.

METHODS

All 114 patients (MBT-DH n = 70, MBT-IOP n = 44) from the original multicentre trial were assessed at 24, 30 and 36 months after the start of treatment. The primary outcome was symptom severity measured with the Brief Symptom Inventory. Secondary outcome measures included borderline symptomatology, personality and interpersonal functioning, quality of life and self-harm. Data were analysed using multilevel modelling and the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

Patients in both MBT-DH and MBT-IOP maintained the substantial improvements made during the intensive treatment phase and showed further gains during follow-up. Across both conditions, 83% of patients improved in terms of symptom severity, and 97% improved on borderline symptomatology. No significant differences were found between MBT-DH and MBT-IOP at 36 months after the start of treatment. However, trajectories of change were different. Whereas patients in MBT-DH showed greater improvement during the intensive treatment phase, patients in MBT-IOP showed greater continuing improvement during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in both conditions showed similar large improvements over the course of 36 months, despite large differences in treatment intensity. MBT-DH and MBT-IOP were associated with different trajectories of change. Cost-effectiveness considerations and predictors of differential treatment outcome may further inform optimal treatment selection.

Mentalization-Based Treatment Versus Specialist Treatment as Usual for Borderline Personality Disorder: Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial With 36-Month Follow-Up

The authors present an economic evaluation performed alongside a randomized controlled trial of mentalization-based treatment in a day hospital setting (MBT-DH) versus specialist treatment as usual (S-TAU) for borderline personality disorder (BPD) with a 36-month follow-up period. Ninety-five patients from two Dutch treatment institutes were randomly assigned. Societal costs were compared with the proportion of BPD remissions and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) measured using the five-dimensional EuroQol instrument. The incremental societal costs for one additional QALY could not be calculated. The costs for one additional BPD remission with MBT-DH are approximately €29,000. There was a 58% likelihood that MBT-DH leads to more remitted patients at additional costs compared with S-TAU, and a 35% likelihood that MBT-DH leads to more remissions at lower costs. MBT-DH is not cost-effective compared with S-TAU with QALYs as the outcome, and slightly more cost-effective than S-TAU at 36 months with BPD symptoms as the outcome.

Mentalization-based treatment in groups for adolescents with Borderline Personality Disorder: 3- and 12-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

Mentalization-based treatment in groups (MBT-G) has never been tested in adolescents with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) in a randomized controlled trial. The current study aimed to test the long-term effectiveness of MBT-G in an adolescent sample with BPD or BPD features (≥ 4 DSM-5 BPD criteria). Hundred and eleven patients with BPD (n = 106) or BPD features (n = 5) were randomized to either (1) a 1-year modified MBT-G program comprising three MBT introductory sessions, five individual case formulation sessions, 37 weekly MBT group sessions, and six MBT-Parent sessions, or (2) treatment as usual (TAU), defined as at least 12 individual monthly treatment sessions with follow-up assessments at 3 and 12 months post treatment. The primary outcome was the score on the Borderline Personality Features Scale for Children (BPFS-C), and secondary outcomes included clinician-rated BPD symptoms and global level of functioning as well as self-reported self-harm, depression, externalizing and internalizing symptoms, and caregiver reports. There were no statistically significant differences between MBT-G and TAU on the primary outcome measure or any of the secondary outcomes. Both groups showed improvement on the majority of clinical and social outcomes at both follow-up points, although remission rates were modest with just 35% in MBT-G and 39% in TAU 2 years after inclusion into the study. MBT-G was not superior to TAU in improving borderline features in adolescents. Although improvement was observed equally in both interventions over time, the patients continued to exhibit prominent BPD features, general psychopathology and decreased functioning in the follow-up period, which points to a need for more research and better understanding of effective components in early intervention programs. The ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT02068326.

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.

Day hospital versus intensive out-patient mentalisation-based treatment for borderline personality disorder: multicentre randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Two types of mentalisation-based treatment (MBT) have been developed and empirically evaluated for borderline personality disorder (BPD): day hospital MBT (MBT-DH) and intensive out-patient MBT (MBT-IOP). No trial has yet compared their efficacy.

AIMS

To compare the efficacy of MBT-DH and MBT-IOP 18 months after start of treatment. MBT-DH was hypothesised to be superior to MBT-IOP because of its higher treatment intensity.

METHOD

In a multicentre randomised controlled trial (Nederlands Trial Register: NTR2292) conducted at three sites in the Netherlands, patients with BPD were randomly assigned to MBT-DH (n = 70) or MBT-IOP (n = 44). The primary outcome was symptom severity (Brief Symptom Inventory). Secondary outcome measures included borderline symptomatology, personality functioning, interpersonal functioning, quality of life and self-harm. Patients were assessed every 6 months from baseline to 18 months after start of treatment. Data were analysed using multilevel modelling based on intention-to-treat principles.

RESULTS

Significant improvements were found on all outcome measures, with moderate to very large effect sizes for both groups. MBT-DH was not superior to MBT-IOP on the primary outcome measure, but MBT-DH showed a clear tendency towards superiority on secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although MBT-DH was not superior to MBT-IOP on the primary outcome measure despite its greater treatment intensity, MBT-DH showed a tendency to be more effective on secondary outcomes, particularly in terms of relational functioning. Patients receiving MBT-DH and MBT-IOP, thus, seem to follow different trajectories of change, which may have important implications for clinical decision-making. Longer-term follow-up and cost-effectiveness considerations may ultimately determine the optimal intensity of specialised treatments such as MBT for patients with BPD.

A Series of Meta-Analytic Tests of the Efficacy of Long-Term Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy

Abstract. Recent meta-analyses come to conflicting conclusions about the efficacy of long-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy (LTPP). Our first goal was to reproduce the most recent meta-analysis by Leichsenring, Abbass, Luyten, Hilsenroth, and Rabung (2013) who found evidence for the efficacy of LTPP in the treatment of complex mental disorders. Our replicated effect sizes were in general slightly smaller. Second, we conducted an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing LTPP (lasting for at least 1 year and 40 sessions) to other forms of psychotherapy in the treatment of complex mental disorders. We focused on a transparent research process according to open science standards and applied a series of elaborated meta-analytic procedures to test and control for publication bias. Our updated meta-analysis comprising 191 effect sizes from 14 eligible studies revealed small, statistically significant effect sizes at post-treatment for the outcome domains psychiatric symptoms, target problems, social functioning, and overall effectiveness (Hedges’ g ranging between 0.24 and 0.35). The effect size for the domain personality functioning (0.24) was not significant ( p = .08). No signs for publication bias could be detected. In light of a heterogeneous study set and some methodological shortcomings in the primary studies, these results should be interpreted cautiously. In conclusion, LTPP might be superior to other forms of psychotherapy in the treatment of complex mental disorders. Notably, our effect sizes represent the additional gain of LTPP versus other forms of primarily long-term psychotherapy. In this case, large differences in effect sizes are not to be expected.

Is mentalization-based therapy effective in treating the symptoms of borderline personality disorder? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This review sought to systematically review evidence on the efficacy of mentalization-based therapy (MBT) for the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD), in particular, in decreasing psychiatric symptoms associated with BPD and its comorbid disorders.

METHOD

Fourteen papers were included in the review which examined the effectiveness of MBT in the context of BPD; these included 11 original studies and three follow-up papers.

RESULTS

Mentalization-based therapy was found to achieve either superior or equal reductions in psychiatric symptoms when compared with other treatments (supportive group therapy, treatment as usual/standard psychiatric care, structured clinical management, and specialized clinical management).

DISCUSSION

Mentalization-based therapy can achieve significant reductions in BPD symptom severity and the severity of comorbid disorders as well as increase quality of life. However, caution is required, as the need for better quality research such as randomized controlled trials is pressing. Research is also needed on the proposed mediators of MBT.

PRACTITIONER POINTS

Mentalization-based therapy (MBT) is increasingly being considered as a treatment for people with borderline personality disorder (BPD), and a systematic review was required to investigate its effectiveness. MBT was found to be equally as effective or superior to well-established comparison treatments of BPD, however, the majority of studies was of unsatisfying quality. Little is known about the mechanisms of MBT. Further, better quality trials are needed to investigate its efficacy in treating BPD.

Mentalization-based treatment and its evidence-base status: A systematic literature review

PURPOSE

This study reviewed the evidence-base status of mentalization-based treatment (MBT), its quality, strengths, and limitations. The aim was to pave the way for further MBT research.

METHOD

An electronic database and reference lists search identified MBT outcome papers, and these were systematically reviewed. The quality of the studies and the risk of bias were determined using two validated checklist tools.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included in the review. This included nine randomized controlled trials, seven uncontrolled pre- and post-effectiveness studies, three retrospective cohort studies, two uncontrolled randomized trials, and two case studies. The methodological quality of almost half of the papers was assessed as fair (43%), followed by good (34%), poor (17%), and excellent (4%) ratings. Nevertheless, the review identified risk of confounding bias across the majority of studies (60%) and fidelity to treatment was poorly reported in almost half of the studies (47%). Most of the studies focused on borderline personality disorder (BPD), showing positive clinical outcomes for this population but the evidence-base for other presentations was still developing. The treatment of adolescents who self-harm and at-risk mothers in substance abuse treatment showed particularly promising results, as these are client groups that have previously shown limited positive response to psychological interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Mentalization-based treatment is a potentially effective method across a wide range of clinical presentations but further research should focus on increasing the quality and the quantity of the MBT evidence outside the treatment of BPD.

PRACTITIONER POINTS

MBT can be a particularly effective intervention for the treatment of adults with a diagnosis of BPD and of adolescents who self-harm and mothers enrolled in substance abuse treatments. MBT can be an effective intervention for depression and eating disorders but the evidence is currently limited. Professionals supporting mothers of children at risk may benefit from receiving training in the principles of MBT.

WHEN IS TRUTH RELEVANT?

The authors argue that the experience of knowing and having the truth about oneself known in the context of therapy is not an end in itself; rather, it is important because the trust engendered by this experience (epistemic trust or trust in new knowledge) opens one up to learning about one's social world and finding better ways to live in it. The authors consider the consequences of a lack of epistemic trust in terms of psychopathology.

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.