PRO*MDD Study Protocol: Effectiveness of Outpatient Treatment Programs for Major Depressive Disorder: Metacognitive Therapy vs. Behavioral Activation a Single-Center Randomized Clinical Trial

Childhood maltreatment as predictor and moderator for treatment outcome in patients with major depressive disorders treated with metacognitive therapy or behavioral activation

BACKGROUND

Childhood maltreatment (CM) is a risk factor for developing and maintaining depression. It is unclear whether CM influences the effect of treatments for depression. This study examined CM's predictor and moderator effect in Behavioral Activation (BA) and Metacognitive Therapy (MCT).

METHOD

CM was analyzed in a trial comparing a six months treatment program of either BA or MCT for 122 outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Depression was assessed by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-24). CM was assessed using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ).

RESULTS

Linear mixed models showed no predictor or moderator effects for the CTQ total score (all p > .58) but revealed a moderator effect for 'sexual abuse' on the reduction of depressive symptoms (β = 10.98, SE = 4.48, p = .015) indicating that patients with experiences of childhood sexual abuse benefited more from BA. There also was a predictor effect for 'physical neglect' (β = -3.35, SE = 1.70, p = .049): patients without the experience of physical neglect benefited more from treatment regardless of condition. Exploratory analyses indicated no predictor or moderator effects for the onset or persistence of depression, comorbid anxiety disorders or Cluster-C PDs (all p > .28).

LIMITATIONS

Limitations include small sample sizes for some of the subsamples.

CONCLUSION

Childhood sexual abuse seems to moderate treatment effectiveness in a sample of severely affected outpatients with MDD treated with MCT or BA. If confirmed in further trials, a history of sexual abuse might guide the choice between MCT and BA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00011536 (retrospectively registered on February 13, 2017, without changes to the study protocol).

The mediating effect of difficulties in emotion regulation on the association between childhood maltreatment and borderline personality disorder

BACKGROUND

Childhood maltreatment and difficulties in emotion regulation are common in patients with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and Depressive Disorders (DD).

OBJECTIVE

This study examines differences between patients with BPD and patients with DD, regarding childhood maltreatment and difficulties in emotion regulation as well as the mediating effect of different aspects of emotion regulation deficits on the association between childhood maltreatment and BPD-symptoms.

METHOD

A total of 305 participants, 177 with BPD and 128 with DD completed an assessment including the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ), the Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID). Data was analyzed using multiple analyses of variances and mediation analyses.

RESULTS

Patients with BPD reported more childhood maltreatment and more difficulties in emotion regulation than patients with DD. When general symptom severity, age, and gender were included in the analysis as covariates only group differences regarding 'impulse control difficulties' (F(1,299) = 38.97, p < .001, η_p² = .115), 'limited access to emotion regulation strategies' (F(1,299) = 4.66, p = .032, η_p² = .015), and 'lack of emotional clarity' (F(1,299) = 9.38, p = .002, η_p² = .030) remained statistically significant. A mediation analysis, including above-mentioned covariates, indicated an association between emotional abuse and BPD-symptoms, which was mediated by difficulties in emotion regulation (indirect effect B = .012, 95% CI [.001; .031], R² = .429). Subscale analyses revealed 'impulse control difficulties' as the aspect of difficulties in emotion regulation that has the greatest impact on this association (B = .021, 95% CI [.003; .045]).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with BPD display more childhood maltreatment and difficulties in emotion regulation than patients with DD. Difficulties in emotion regulation, especially difficulties in impulse control, seem to play an important role in the association between childhood emotional abuse and BPD-symptoms.

Behavioural activation therapy for depression in adults

BACKGROUND

Behavioural activation is a brief psychotherapeutic approach that seeks to change the way a person interacts with their environment. Behavioural activation is increasingly receiving attention as a potentially cost-effective intervention for depression, which may require less resources and may be easier to deliver and implement than other types of psychotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with other psychological therapies for depression in adults. To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with medication for depression in adults. To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with treatment as usual/waiting list/placebo no treatment for depression in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CCMD-CTR (all available years), CENTRAL (current issue), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 onwards), Ovid EMBASE (1980 onwards), and Ovid PsycINFO (1806 onwards) on the 17 January 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of 'behavioural activation', or the main elements of behavioural activation for depression in participants with clinically diagnosed depression or subthreshold depression. We did not apply any restrictions on date, language or publication status to the searches. We searched international trials registries via the World Health Organization's trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished or ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioural activation for the treatment of depression or symptoms of depression in adults aged 18 or over. We excluded RCTs conducted in inpatient settings and with trial participants selected because of a physical comorbidity. Studies were included regardless of reported outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all titles/abstracts and full-text manuscripts for inclusion. Data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments were also performed by two review authors in duplicate. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for more information.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three studies with 5495 participants were included; 51 parallel group RCTs and two cluster-RCTs. We found moderate-certainty evidence that behavioural activation had greater short-term efficacy than treatment as usual (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 1.78; 7 RCTs, 1533 participants), although this difference was no longer evident in sensitivity analyses using a worst-case or intention-to-treat scenario. Compared with waiting list, behavioural activation may be more effective, but there were fewer data in this comparison and evidence was of low certainty (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.90 to 5.09; 1 RCT, 26 participants). No evidence on treatment efficacy was available for behavioural activation versus placebo and behavioural activation versus no treatment. We found moderate-certainty evidence suggesting no evidence of a difference in short-term treatment efficacy between behavioural activation and CBT (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07; 5 RCTs, 601 participants). Fewer data were available for other comparators. No evidence of a difference in short term-efficacy was found between behavioural activation and third-wave CBT (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.33; 2 RCTs, 98 participants; low certainty), and psychodynamic therapy (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.99; 1 RCT,60 participants; very low certainty). Behavioural activation was more effective than humanistic therapy (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.95; 2 RCTs, 46 participants; low certainty) and medication (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.76; 1 RCT; 141 participants; moderate certainty), but both of these results were based on a small number of trials and participants. No evidence on treatment efficacy was available for comparisons between behavioural activation versus interpersonal, cognitive analytic, and integrative therapies. There was moderate-certainty evidence that behavioural activation might have lower treatment acceptability (based on dropout rate) than treatment as usual in the short term, although the data did not confirm a difference and results lacked precision (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.31; 14 RCTs, 2518 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence did not suggest any difference in short-term acceptability between behavioural activation and waiting list (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.93; 8 RCTs. 359 participants), no treatment (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.09; 3 RCTs, 187 participants), medication (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.16; 2 RCTs, 243 participants), or placebo (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.67; 1 RCT; 96 participants; low-certainty evidence). No evidence on treatment acceptability was available comparing behavioural activation versus psychodynamic therapy. Low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in short-term treatment acceptability (dropout rate) between behavioural activation and CBT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.25; 12 RCTs, 1195 participants), third-wave CBT (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.10; 3 RCTs, 147 participants); humanistic therapy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.20 to 5.55; 2 RCTs, 96 participants) (very low certainty), and interpersonal, cognitive analytic, and integrative therapy (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.20; 4 RCTs, 123 participants). Results from medium- and long-term primary outcomes, secondary outcomes, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses are summarised in the text.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review suggests that behavioural activation may be more effective than humanistic therapy, medication, and treatment as usual, and that it may be no less effective than CBT, psychodynamic therapy, or being placed on a waiting list. However, our confidence in these findings is limited due to concerns about the certainty of the evidence. We found no evidence of a difference in short-term treatment acceptability (based on dropouts) between behavioural activation and most comparison groups (CBT, humanistic therapy, waiting list, placebo, medication, no treatment or treatment as usual). Again, our confidence in all these findings is limited due to concerns about the certainty of the evidence. No data were available about the efficacy of behaioural activation compared with placebo, or about treatment acceptability comparing behavioural activation and psychodynamic therapy, interpersonal, cognitive analytic and integrative therapies. The evidence could be strengthened by better reporting and better quality RCTs of behavioural activation and by assessing working mechanisms of behavioural activation.