A Randomized Trial of Dynamic Deconstructive Psychotherapy in Iran for Borderline Personality Disorder

Psychosocial and pharmacological interventions for personality disorders in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

Personality disorders (PDs) have a global prevalence of 7.8% and are associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality. Most research on PDs has been conducted in High Income Countries (HICs). We conducted a systematic review to investigate the effectiveness of psychosocial and pharmacological interventions for personality disorders (PDs) in individuals from Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs.) We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and The Cochrane Library from inception to January 5, 2023. Inclusion criteria were quantitative studies and grey literature where participants received a psychosocial or pharmacological intervention for PD. Exclusion criteria were qualitative studies, review articles, studies in which PD was not the primary condition, and articles not available in English. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2.0 and Joanna Briggs Institute instruments were used to measure risk of bias. Studies were pooled by type of study, PD investigated, type of intervention, assessment methods, and outcomes. Sixteen studies met inclusion criteria and were included. Fifteen were intervention studies related to borderline PD. Only one studied mixed PDs. Twelve studies were of psychotherapy, one pharmacotherapy, one combination of both, and two neurostimulation. Most of the studies showed improvement in symptoms though data was largely collected using self-report measures. There were only six RCTs. There is a dearth of literature on interventions for PDs in LMICs and funding bodies should prioritize research in LMICs. Systematic Review Registration Number: PROSPERO CRD42021233415.

Which psychotherapy is most effective and acceptable in the treatment of adults with a (sub)clinical borderline personality disorder? A systematic review and network meta-analysis

A broad range of psychotherapies have been proposed and evaluated in the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD), but the question which specific type of psychotherapy is most effective remains unanswered. In this study, two network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted investigating the comparative effectiveness of psychotherapies on (1) BPD severity and (2) suicidal behaviour (combined rate). Study drop-out was included as a secondary outcome. Six databases were searched until 21 January 2022, including RCTs on the efficacy of any psychotherapy in adults (⩾18 years) with a diagnosis of (sub)clinical BPD. Data were extracted using a predefined table format. PROSPERO ID:CRD42020175411. In our study, a total of 43 studies (N = 3273) were included. We found significant differences between several active comparisons in the treatment of (sub)clinical BPD, however, these findings were based on very few trials and should therefore be interpreted with caution. Some therapies were more efficacious compared to GT or TAU. Furthermore, some treatments more than halved the risk of attempted suicide and committed suicide (combined rate), reporting RRs around 0.5 or lower, however, these RRs were not statistically significantly better compared to other therapies or to TAU. Study drop-out significantly differed between some treatments. In conclusion, no single treatment seems to be the best choice to treat people with BPD compared to other treatments. Nevertheless, psychotherapies for BPD are perceived as first-line treatments, and should therefore be investigated further on their long-term effectiveness, preferably in head-to-head trials. DBT was the best connected treatment, providing solid evidence of its effectiveness.

Borderline Personality Disorder: Updates in a Postpandemic World

Progress in understanding borderline personality disorder has unfolded in the last decade, landing in a new COVID-19-influenced world. Borderline personality disorder is now firmly established as a valid diagnosis, distinct from its co-occurring mood, anxiety, trauma-related, and behavioral disorders. Further, it is also understood as a reflection of general personality dysfunction, capturing essential features shared among all personality disorders. Neuroimaging research, representing the vast neurobiological advances made in the last decade, illustrates that the disorder shares frontolimbic dysfunction with many psychiatric diagnoses but has a distinct signature of interpersonal and emotional hypersensitivity. This signature is the conceptual basis of the psychotherapies and clinical management approaches proven effective for the disorder. Medications remain adjunctive and are contraindicated by some guidelines internationally. Less invasive brain-based therapeutics show promise. The most significant change in the treatment landscape is a focus on briefer, less intensive formats of generalist management. Shorter variants of therapies, such as dialectical behavior therapy and mentalization-based treatment, are in the process of being shown to be adequately effective. Earlier intervention and greater emphasis on functional improvement are needed to more effectively curb the disabilities and risks of borderline personality disorder for patients and their families. Remote interventions show promise in broadening access to care.

Psychotherapies for borderline personality disorder: a focused systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A recently updated Cochrane review supports the efficacy of psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder (BPD).

AIMS

To evaluate the effects of standalone and add-on psychotherapeutic treatments more concisely.

METHOD

We applied the same methods as the 2020 Cochrane review, but focused on adult samples and comparisons of active treatments and unspecific control conditions. Standalone treatments (i.e. necessarily including individual psychotherapy as either the sole or one of several treatment components) and add-on interventions (i.e. complementing any ongoing individual BPD treatment) were analysed separately. Primary outcomes were BPD severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were remaining BPD diagnostic criteria, depression and attrition.

RESULTS

Thirty-one randomised controlled trials totalling 1870 participants were identified. Among standalone treatments, statistically significant effects of low overall certainty were observed for dialectical behaviour therapy (self-harm: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.54, P = 0.006; psychosocial functioning: SMD -0.51, P = 0.01) and mentalisation-based treatment (self-harm: risk ratio 0.51, P < 0.0007; suicide-related outcomes: risk ratio 0.10, P < 0.0001). For adjunctive interventions, moderate-quality evidence of beneficial effects was observed for DBT skills training (BPD severity: SMD -0.66, P = 0.002; psychosocial functioning: SMD -0.45, P = 0.002), and statistically significant low-certainty evidence was observed for the emotion regulation group (BPD severity: mean difference -8.49, P < 0.00001), manual-assisted cognitive therapy (self-harm: mean difference -3.03, P = 0.03; suicide-related outcomes: SMD -0.96, P = 0.005) and the systems training for emotional predictability and problem-solving (BPD severity: SMD -0.48, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

There is reasonable evidence to conclude that psychotherapeutic interventions are helpful for individuals with BPD. Replication studies are needed to enhance the certainty of findings.

What Research Evidence Is Valid for Psychotherapy Research?

Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) have contributed to improved clinical practice with increased use of effective and life-saving treatments for severe diseases. However, the EBM model is less suitable for psychotherapy research than for pharmacological research and somatic medicine. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) design is an example of experimental methodology, which inevitably has more imperfections in psychotherapy research because psychotherapy RCTs cannot use double-blinding and the treatments tested are composite treatment packages. Long-term psychotherapy for severe and complex mental disorders is especially difficult to study with an RCT design. During the last decades, advanced analytic methods have been developed in psychotherapy process research, which enables investigation of causal connections regarding change mechanisms in psychotherapy. Therefore, we propose that the top of the research evidence hierarchy for psychotherapy should encompass: (1) RCT for circumscribed disorders, (2) cohort studies for complex disorders, and (3) advanced process studies for change mechanisms.