Integrated treatment for patients with comorbid depression and personality disorders

Dosage effects of psychodynamic and schema therapy in people with comorbid depression and personality disorder: four-arm pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Higher intensity of psychotherapy might improve treatment outcome in depression, especially in those with comorbid personality disorder.

AIMS

To compare the effects of 25 individual sessions (weekly) of two forms of psychotherapy - short-term psychoanalytic supportive psychotherapy (SPSP) and schema therapy - with the same treatments given for 50 sessions (twice weekly) in people with depression and personality disorder. Trial registration: NTR5941.

METHOD

We conducted a pragmatic, double-randomised clinical trial and, over 37 months, recruited 246 adult out-patients with comorbid depression/dysthymia and personality disorder. A 2 × 2 factorial design randomised participants to 25 or 50 sessions of SPSP or schema therapy. The primary outcome was change in depression severity over 1 year on the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II). Secondary outcomes were remission both of depression and personality disorder.

RESULTS

Compared with 25 sessions, participants who received 50 sessions showed a significantly greater decrease in depressive symptoms over time (time × session dosage, P < 0.001), with a mean difference of 5.6 BDI points after 1 year (d = -0.53, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.882, P = 0.003). Remission from depression was also greater in the 50-session group (74% v. 58%, P = 0.025), as was remission of personality disorder (74% v. 56%, P = 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

Greater intensity of psychotherapy leads to better outcomes of both depression and personality status in people with comorbid depression and personality disorder.

Group schema therapy versus group cognitive behavioral therapy for patients with social anxiety disorder and comorbid avoidant personality disorder: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with social anxiety (SAD) and comorbid avoidant personality disorder (AVPD) are severely impaired. Group cognitive behavioral therapy (GCBT) is considered an effective treatment for SAD. More knowledge on treatment of SAD with comorbid AVPD is needed. Schema therapy, developed for personality and chronic mental disorders, may be a promising treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial in an outpatient population (n = 154) with both SAD and AVPD. Group Schema Therapy (GST) and GCBT were compared on SAD symptoms (Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale) and manifestations of AVPD (Avoidant Personality Disorder Severity Index).

RESULTS

Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant differences between treatments at 3 months post-treatment and one-year follow-up. Both modalities led to significant and substantial improvements. No significant between-differences were found in depressive symptoms (Inventory of Depressive Symptoms) and quality of life (World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF). Per-protocol analysis showed similar outcomes and no significant differences in recovery from SAD and AVPD. Significantly more patients completed GST.

CONCLUSION

GST and GCBT are valuable treatments for SAD with comorbid AVPD. The higher treatment retention in ST indicates ST is more acceptable than GCBT. Future studies should focus on enhancing treatment effects and improving retention to GCBT.

How can the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders advance understanding of depression?

BACKGROUND

The DSM-5 introduced an alternative model of personality disorder (AMPD) that includes personality dysfunction plus maladaptive-range traits. This study clarifies relations of depression diagnoses and symptoms with AMPD personality pathology.

METHOD

Two samples (Ns 402 and 601) of outpatients and community-dwelling adults completed four depression (criteria met for major depressive disorder and dysthymia; dysphoria and low well-being scales), ten trait (two scales for each of five domains-negative affectivity, detachment, disinhibition, antagonism, psychoticism), and eight dysfunction (four scales for each of two domains-self- and interpersonal pathology) measures. Diagnoses were made using a semi-structured interview; other measures were self-reports. We quantified cross-sectional relations between depression and personality pathology with correlation and multiple regression analyses.

RESULTS

Collectively (median R²; ps < 0.0001), the trait (0.46) and dysfunction (0.50) scales predicted the depression measures strongly, with most predictive power shared (0.41) between traits and dysfunction. However, trait and dysfunction scales altogether predicted depression (median R² = 0.54) more strongly than either domain alone, ps < 0.0001. Participants with depression diagnoses showed elevations on all nonadaptive trait and personality dysfunction measures, particularly negative temperament/affectivity and self-pathology measures.

LIMITATIONS

Generalization of findings to other populations (e.g., adolescents), settings (e.g., primary care), and measures (e.g., traditional personality disorder diagnoses) is uncertain. Cross-sectional analyses did not test changes over time or establish causality.

CONCLUSIONS

The AMPD is highly relevant to depression. Assessment of personality pathology, including both personality dysfunction and maladaptive-range traits, stands to advance understanding of depression in adults.

The relationship between distress tolerance and symptoms of depression: Validation of the Distress Tolerance Scale (DTS) and short-form (DTS-SF)

OBJECTIVE

Distress tolerance (DT) has been found to be implicated in the development and maintenance of depressive symptomatology and various other significant psychological conditions. As such, it is critical to have measures of DT that are effective and easy to administer. This study aimed to examine the factor structure, psychometric properties, and clinical utility of the Distress Tolerance Scale (DTS) and the short-form version, the Distress Tolerance Scale Short-form (DTS-SF), in a large population of individuals with varying levels of self-reported depressive symptoms.

METHOD

A total of 959 participants completed an online battery of questionnaires which included an assessment of depressive symptoms as well as the DTS and related measures. Results: Confirmatory factor analyses validated the four-factor structure of the DTS and the one-factor structure of the DTS-SF. Good construct validity and good internal consistency were observed across both the DTS and DTS-SF.

CONCLUSION

Overall, this paper provides new evidence for the validity, reliability and discriminative ability of the DTS and the brief version of the questionnaire, the DTS-SF.

Contemporary psychological perspectives of personality disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study was to review the recent literature on contemporary psychological perspectives of personality disorders, including novel psychotherapeutic interventions aimed at these vulnerable individuals.

RECENT FINDINGS

Among the various psychological theories and models of personality disorders, still the most popular and researched are psychodynamic, cognitive and interpersonal perspectives. More specifically, object relations theory, cognitive schema conceptualization and interpersonal circumplex model have produced the most empirical investigations of personality disorders in recent years. Latest work has suggested that all three perspectives have contributed to and are compatible with the dimensional personality disorders framework in DSM-5-AMPD and ICD-11 (including level of personality functioning and personality traits). These models have yielded specific psychological treatments of personality disorders; although most psychotherapies have been constructed for patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD), there is an increasing number of treatment modalities aimed at individuals with other forms of personality disorder, such as those with narcissistic or antisocial traits/disorders. More research into their effectiveness and long-term benefits is necessary.

SUMMARY

Novel research keeps updating our knowledge on the cause, manifestations and psychological treatments of personality disorders, particularly from psychodynamic, cognitive and interpersonal perspectives.

Real-World Treatment Costs and Care Utilization in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder With and Without Psychiatric Comorbidities in Specialist Mental Healthcare

BACKGROUND

The majority of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) have comorbid mental conditions.

OBJECTIVES

Since most cost-of-illness studies correct for comorbidity, this study focuses on mental healthcare utilization and treatment costs in patients with MDD including psychiatric comorbidities in specialist mental healthcare, particularly patients with a comorbid personality disorder (PD).

METHODS

The Psychiatric Case Register North Netherlands contains administrative data of specialist mental healthcare providers. Treatment episodes were identified from uninterrupted healthcare use. Costs were calculated by multiplying care utilization with unit prices (price level year: 2018). Using generalized linear models, cost drivers were investigated for the entire cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 34,713 patients had MDD as a primary diagnosis over the period 2000-2012. The number of patients with psychiatric comorbidities was 24,888 (71.7%), including 13,798 with PD. Costs were highly skewed, with an average ± standard deviation cost per treatment episode of €21,186 ± 74,192 (median €2320). Major cost drivers were inpatient days and daycare days (50 and 28% of total costs), occurring in 12.7 and 12.5% of episodes, respectively. Compared with patients with MDD only (€11,612), costs of patients with additional PD and with or without other comorbidities were, respectively, 2.71 (p < .001) and 2.06 (p < .001) times higher and were 1.36 (p < .001) times higher in patients with MDD and comorbidities other than PD. Other cost drivers were age, calendar year, and first episodes.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychiatric comorbidities (especially PD) in addition to age and first episodes drive costs in patients with MDD. Knowledge of cost drivers may help in the development of future stratified disease management programs.