Dysthymic disorder: integrating research findings into clinical treatment

The Effectiveness of an Intensive Inpatient Psychotherapy Program for Chronic Depression: A naturalistic comparison with wait list

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic depression (CD) typically have an early symptom onset, more psychiatric comorbidities, more treatment attempts, and more frequent and longer inpatient hospitalizations than patients with major depressive disorders. The main purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of an intensive inpatient psychotherapy program for patients with chronic depression (CD). The primary research question was whether two intensive psychodynamic inpatient treatments, affect phobia therapy (APT) and VITA, were superior to an outpatient wait list condition, receiving treatment as usual (TAU), at completion of treatment. To investigate if a potential difference between the intensive treatment and the wait list control group was dependent on a specific psychotherapeutic model, the study contrasted two therapies with similar intensity, but different theoretical rationales.

METHODS

Two hundred eighty patients with CD were included in a naturalistic study. Patients were assessed at four time points; assessment, start of therapy, end of therapy and 1-year follow-up. Three comparisons were performed with patients matched across groups; Intensive inpatient treatment program (APT + VITA) vs wait list during treatment, APT vs VITA during treatment and APT vs VITA during follow-up. The outcome measure was the BDI-II.

RESULTS

Intensive inpatient treatment program vs. wait list showed a significant difference in favor of the intensive treatment. No significant differences were found between APT and VITA during therapy or follow-up; but both groups had large effect sizes during treatment, which were maintained during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The intensive inpatient psychotherapy program showed superior effect on chronic depression over an outpatient wait list condition receiving treatment as usual (TAU), but no significant differences were found between the two intensive inpatient psychodynamic treatments. The results provide support for the effectiveness of an intensive inpatient psychotherapy program in treatment of chronic and severe disorders, such as CD, which could be of benefit for policymakers and the health care sector as they are allocating recourses efficiently.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study has been retrospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05221567) on February 3rd, 2022.

Improving work outcomes of dysthymia (persistent depressive disorder) in an employed population

OBJECTIVE

To test the effectiveness of a work-focused intervention (WFI) on the work outcomes of employed adults with dysthymia.

METHOD

This subgroup analysis from a randomized controlled trial compares an initial sample of 167 employees (age: ≥45 years), screened for dysthymia using the PC-SAD without current major depressive disorder randomized to WFI (n=85) or usual care (UC) (n=82). Study sites included 19 employers and five additional organizations. Telephone-based WFI counseling (eight, twice monthly 50-min sessions) provided work coaching and modification, care coordination and cognitive behavioral therapy. Adjusted mixed effects models compared the WFI vs. UC group preintervention to 4-month postintervention change in at-work limitations measured by the Work Limitations Questionnaire. Secondary outcome analysis compared the change in self-reported absences and depression symptom severity (Patient Health Questionnaire PHQ-9 scores).

RESULTS

Work productivity loss scores improved 43.0% in the WFI group vs. 4.8% in UC (difference in change: P<.001). Absence days declined by 58.3% in WFI vs. 0.0% in UC (difference in change: P=.09). Mean PHQ-9 depression symptom severity declined 44.2% in WFI vs. 5.3% in UC (difference in change: P<.001).

CONCLUSION

At 4 months, the WFI was more effective than UC on two of the three outcomes. It could be an important mental and functional health improvement resource for the employed dysthymic population.

Escitalopram versus placebo in the treatment of dysthymic disorder

Numerous studies have assessed the acute efficacy of antidepressants, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, in treating dysthymic disorder; however, escitalopram, the S-enantiomer of citalopram, has not been studied. Thirty-six outpatients with Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R-diagnosed dysthymic disorder, aged 23-65 years (mean±SD=44.7±11 years), were randomly assigned to double-blind escitalopram (maximum dose 20 mg/day) versus placebo for 12 weeks. Inclusion criteria included age 18-65 years and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score≥12. We hypothesized that escitalopram would be superior to placebo in the HDRS-24 item total score at week 12. We also hypothesized the superiority of escitalopram over placebo for secondary measures, including the percentage of participants classified as responders and remitters, as well as social functioning (Social Adjustment Scale), clinical global impression-improvement, Global Assessment of Functioning Scale. Participants' baseline HDRS-24 averaged 23.4±5.9. Final HDRS-24 scores at last observation carried forward did not differ significantly between escitalopram-treated (mean±SD=10.88±5.83) and placebo-treated individuals (mean±SD=16.4±6.34) (F=2.82, degrees of freedom=1,32, P=0.10). Significant differences favoring active medication were found on the Social Adjustment Scale and the Clinical Global Impression Severity and Global Assessment of Functioning Scale, but not in the percentages of responders or remitters. A larger study sample or higher escitalopram dose may show more significant placebo-medication differences.

Citalopram in the treatment of dysthymic disorder

This study aimed to provide preliminary data on the tolerability and effectiveness of citalopram for patients with dysthymic disorder. Twenty-one adult subjects meeting DSM-IV criteria for dysthymic disorder were enrolled in this 12-week open-label study, of whom 15 had pure dysthymia (e.g. no major depression in the past 2 years). Citalopram was initiated at 20 mg/day, and increased to a maximum of 60 mg/day. Response was defined as 50% or greater drop in score on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and a Clinical Global Impressions-I score of 1 ('very much improved') or 2 ('much improved'). Of these 15 pure dysthymic disorder subjects, all completed the trial, and 11 (73.3%) were treatment responders. All paired sample t-tests were highly significant, demonstrating significant average improvement on all measures of symptomatology and functioning. Scores on the 24-item HDRS decreased from 22.3+/-4.3 at baseline to 9.1+/-7.8 at week 12 [t(14)=6.1, P<0.001]. In addition, improvement was noted in self-reported measures of temperament and social functioning. The average final dose of citalopram was 39 mg/day. Side-effects were reported by nine of 15 subjects (60%), most frequently gastrointestinal symptoms (n=5), dry mouth (n=5) and sexual side-effects (n=3). These findings suggest the effectiveness and tolerability of citalopram in treating dysthymic disorder. Double-blind prospective studies are needed comparing citalopram both to placebo and to other medications, assessing both initial and sustained response to treatment.

The work impact of dysthymia in a primary care population

Physicians regard individuals with dysthymia as having relatively normal levels of functioning. This study examines in detail the work impact of dysthymia in a population of employed primary care patients. As part of an observational study conducted between 2001 and 2003 in clinics associated with three health plans in Massachusetts, we compared 69 patients diagnosed with DSM-IV dysthymia without concurrent major depressive disorder to 175 depression-free controls. Patients were employed at least 15 h per week, had no immediate plans to leave the labor market, and no major comorbid medical conditions. We assessed work absences and productivity loss due to on-the-job performance limitations ("presenteeism"). Patients with dysthymia, compared with controls, had less stable work histories and a greater frequency of significant problems at work. While absence rates were not significantly different (1.2 vs. 0.74 days, P<.09), individuals with dysthymia experienced significantly greater on-the-job productivity loss (6.3% vs. 2.8%, P<.0001). Dysthymia is an unrecognized cause of work impairment that has long-term negative consequences for individuals and their employers. The persistence of dysthymia with its serious impact on work functioning calls out for the development of new interventions.