Effectiveness of Psychotherapy in Personality Disorders Not Otherwise Specified: A Comparison of Different Treatment Modalities.

OBJECTIVE: Although personality disorder not otherwise specified (PDNOS) is highly prevalent and associated with a high burden of disease, only a few treatment studies in this patient group exist. This study is the first to investigate the effectiveness of different modalities of psychotherapy in patients with PDNOS, i.e., short-term (up to 6 months) and long-term (more than 6 months) outpatient, day hospital, and inpatient psychotherapy. METHOD: A total of 205 patients with PDNOS were assigned to one of six treatment modalities. Effectiveness was assessed over 60 months after baseline. The primary outcome measure was symptom severity, and the secondary outcome measures included psychosocial functioning and quality of life. The study design was quasi-experimental, and the multiple propensity score was used to control for initial differences between treatment groups. RESULTS: All treatment modalities showed positive outcomes, especially in terms of improvements of symptom severity and social role functioning. At 12-month follow-up, after adjustment for initial differences between the treatment groups, short-term outpatient psychotherapy and short-term inpatient psychotherapy showed most improvement and generally outperformed the other modalities concerning symptom severity. At 60 months after baseline, effectiveness remained but observed differences between modalities mostly diminished. CONCLUSION: Patients with PDNOS benefit from psychotherapy both at short-term and long-term follow-up. Short-term outpatient psychotherapy and short-term inpatient psychotherapy seem to be superior to the other treatment modalities at 12-month follow-up. At 60-month follow-up, treatments showed mostly comparable effectiveness. KEY PRACTITIONER MESSAGES: The effectiveness of different modalities of psychotherapy in patients with PDNOS (i.e., short-term vs long-term; outpatient versus day hospital versus inpatient psychotherapy) has not yet been compared. Different modalities of psychotherapy are effective for patients with PDNOS, and positive effects remain after 5 years. In patients with PDNOS short-term (less than 6 months) outpatient psychotherapy and short-term inpatient psychotherapy seem to be superior to the four other treatment modalities at 12-month follow-up. At 60-month follow-up, treatments showed mostly comparable effectiveness.

Economic evaluation of day hospital versus intensive outpatient mentalization-based treatment alongside a randomized controlled trial with 36-month follow-up.

Mentalization-based treatment (MBT) has demonstrated robust effectiveness in the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD) in both day-hospital (MBT-DH) and intensive outpatient MBT (MBT-IOP) programs. Given the large differences in intensity and associated treatment costs, there is a need for studies comparing their cost-effectiveness. A health economic evaluation of MBT-DH versus MBT-IOP was performed alongside a multicenter randomized controlled trial with a 36-month follow-up. In three mental health-care institutions in the Netherlands, 114 patients were randomly allocated to MBT-DH (n = 70) or MBT-IOP (n = 44) and assessed every 6 months. Societal costs were compared with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and the number of months in remission over 36 months. The QALY gains over 36 months were 1.96 (SD = .58) for MBT-DH and 1.83 (SD = .56) for MBT-IOP; the respective number of months in remission were 16.0 (SD = 11.5) and 11.1 (SD = 10.7). Societal costs were €106,038 for MBT-DH and €91,368 for MBT-IOP. The incremental cost for one additional QALY with MBT-DH compared with MBT-IOP was €107,000. The incremental cost for 1 month in remission was almost €3000. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000 for a QALY, there was a 33% likelihood that MBT-DH is more cost-effective than MBT-IOP in terms of costs per QALY. Although MBT-DH leads to slightly more QALYs and remission months, it is probably not cost-effective when compared with MBT-IOP for BPD patients, as the small additional health benefits in MBT-DH did not outweigh the substantially higher societal costs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care. A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of collaborative care for patients with major depressive disorder in primary care has been established. Assessing its cost-effectiveness is important for deciding on implementation. This review therefore evaluates the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for major depressive disorder in primary care. METHODS: A systematic search on economic evaluations of collaborative care was conducted in Pubmed and PsychInfo. Quality of the studies was measured with the Cochrane checklist and the CHEC-list for economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness and costs per depression-free days were reported. RESULTS: 8 studies were found, involving 4868 patients. The quality of the cost effectiveness studies, according to the CHEC-list, could be improved. Generally, the studies did not include all relevant costs and did not perform sensitivity analysis. Only 4 out of 8 studies reported cost per QALY, 6 out of 8 reported costs per depression-free days. The highest costs per QALY reported were $49,500, the highest costs per depression-free day were $24. CONCLUSIONS: Although studies did not fulfil all criteria of the CHEC-list, collaborative care is a promising intervention and it may be cost-effective. However, to conclude on the cost-effectiveness, depression research should follow economic guidelines to improve the quality of the economic evaluations.

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for chronically ill patients with comorbid depressive disorder in the general hospital setting, a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorder is one of the most common disorders, and is highly prevalent in chronically ill patients. The presence of comorbid depression has a negative influence on quality of life, health care costs, self-care, morbidity, and mortality. Early diagnosis and well-organized treatment of depression has a positive influence on these aspects. Earlier research in the USA has reported good results with regard to the treatment of depression with a collaborative care approach and an antidepressant algorithm. In the UK 'Problem Solving Treatment' has proved to be feasible. However, in the general hospital setting this approach has not yet been evaluated. METHODS/DESIGN: CC: DIM (Collaborative Care: Depression Initiative in the Medical setting) is a two-armed randomised controlled trial with randomisation at patient level. The aim of the trial is to evaluate the treatment of depressive disorder in general hospitals in the Netherlands based on a collaborative care framework, including contracting, 'Problem Solving Treatment', antidepressant algorithm, and manual-guided self-help. 126 outpatients with diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or cardiovascular diseases will be randomised to either the intervention group or the control group. Patients will be included if they have been diagnosed with moderate to severe depression, based on the DSM-IV criteria in a two-step screening method. The intervention group will receive treatment based on the collaborative care approach; the control group will receive 'care as usual'. Baseline and follow-up measurements (after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) will be performed by means of questionnaires. The primary outcome measure is severity of depressive symptoms, as measured with the PHQ-9. The secondary outcome measure is the cost-effectiveness of these treatments according to the TiC-P, the EuroQol and the SF-36. DISCUSSION: Earlier research has indicated that depressive disorder is a chronic, mostly recurrent illness, which tends to cluster with physical comorbidity. Even though the treatment of depressive disorder based on the guidelines for depression is proven effective, these guidelines are often insufficiently adhered to. Collaborative care and 'Problem Solving Treatment' will be specifically tailored to patients with depressive disorders and evaluated in a general hospital setting in the Netherlands.

Cost-utility of collaborative care for the treatment of comorbid major depressive disorder in outpatients with chronic physical conditions. A randomized controlled trial in the general hospital setting (CC-DIM).

PURPOSE: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is highly prevalent in patients with a chronic physical condition, and this comorbidity has a negative influence on quality of life, health care costs, self-care, morbidity, and mortality. Research has shown that collaborative care (CC) may be a cost-effective treatment. However, its cost-effectiveness in this patient group has not yet been established. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of CC for the treatment of comorbid MDD in chronically ill patients in the outpatient general hospital setting. The study was conducted from a health care and societal perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 81 patients with moderate-to-severe MDD were included; 42 were randomly assigned to the CC group and 39 to the care as usual (CAU) group. We applied the TiC-P, short-form Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaire, and EuroQol EQ-5D 3 level version, measuring the use of health care, informal care, and household work, respectively, at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up. RESULTS: The mean annual direct medical costs in the CC group were €6,718 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3,541 to 10,680) compared to €4,582 (95% CI: 2,782 to 6,740) in the CAU group. The average quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained were 0.07 higher in the CC group, indicating that CC is more costly but also more effective than CAU. From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €24,690/QALY. CONCLUSION: This first cost-utility analysis in chronically ill patients with comorbid MDD shows that CC may be a cost-effective treatment depending on willingness-to-pay levels. Nevertheless, the low utility scores emphasize the need for further research to improve the cost-effectiveness of CC in this highly prevalent and costly group of patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Short-Term Inpatient Psychotherapy Based on Transactional Analysis in Patients With Personality Disorder.

Short-term inpatient psychotherapy based on transactional analysis (STIP-TA) in patients with personality disorders (PD) has shown to be more effective than comparable other specialized psychotherapies (OP). The aim of this study was to assess whether the higher effectiveness of STIP-TA also results in a better cost-effectiveness. Patients treated with STIP-TA were matched with patients treated with OP by the propensity score. Healthcare costs and lost productivity costs were measured over 3 years and from the societal perspective. Cost-effectiveness was represented by costs per quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Uncertainty was assessed using bootstrapping. Mean 3-year costs were €59,834 for STIP-TA and €69,337 for OP, a difference of -€9,503, 95% CI [-32,561, 15,726]. QALYs were 2.29 for STIP-TA and 2.05 for OP, a difference of .24, 95% CI [.05, .44]. STIP-TA is a dominant treatment compared to OP: less costly and more effective. We conclude that STIP-TA is a cost-effective treatment in PD patients.

Tailoring psychotherapy in patients with personality disorders: Matching the level of psychological strengths to the level of stabilizing versus destabilizing psychotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Clinical evidence suggests that patients high on psychological strengths profit more from destabilizing psychotherapy, whereas patients low on strengths profit more from stabilizing psychotherapy. This matching hypothesis was tested. METHODS: This quasi-experimental study was conducted between 2003 and 2008 in 735 patients with personality disorders from 6 psychotherapy centers in the Netherlands. Patients were assigned to different levels of stabilizing and destabilizing psychotherapies. Levels of psychological strengths were measured. We used multilevel modeling to estimate outcome at 12 months after baseline. The propensity score controlled for initial differences at baseline. RESULTS: The findings show that destabilizing psychotherapies have slightly better outcomes than stabilizing psychotherapies. Patients high on psychological strengths improve slightly more than patients low on psychological strengths. The observed interaction effect contradicted our hypothesis. CONCLUSION: The results imply that destabilizing psychotherapies can be considered as first treatment option for patients both high and low on psychological strengths.

Effectiveness of Short-Term Inpatient Psychotherapy Based on Transactional Analysis With Patients With Personality Disorders: A Matched Control Study Using Propensity Score.

Controlled studies on the effectiveness of inpatient psychotherapy with patients with personality disorders (PD) are rare. This study aims to compare 3-month short-term inpatient psychotherapy based on transactional analysis (STIP-TA) with other psychotherapies (OP) up to 36-month follow-up. PD patients treated with STIP-TA were matched with OP patients using the propensity score. The primary outcome measure was general psychiatric symptomatology; secondary outcomes were psychosocial functioning and quality of life. In 67 pairs of patients, both STIP-TA and OP showed large symptomatic and functional improvements. However, STIP-TA patients showed more symptomatic improvement at all time points compared to OP patients. At 36 months, 68% of STIP-TA patients were symptomatically recovered compared to 48% of OP patients. STIP-TA outperformed OP in terms of improvements in general psychiatric symptomatology and quality of life. Superiority of STIP-TA was most pronounced at 12-month follow-up, but remained intact over the course of the 3-year follow-up.

Therapeutic assessment promotes treatment readiness but does not affect symptom change in patients with personality disorders: findings from a randomized clinical trial.

The field of clinical personality assessment is lacking in published empirical evidence regarding its treatment and clinical utility. This article reports on a randomized controlled clinical trial (N = 74) allocating patients awaiting treatment in a specialized clinic for personality disorders to either 4 sessions of (a) therapeutic assessment (TA) or (b) a structured goal-focused pretreatment intervention (GFPTI). In terms of short-term outcome, TA demonstrated superior ability to raise outcome expectancies and patient perceptions of progress toward treatment (Cohen's d = 0.65 and 0.56, respectively) and yielded higher satisfaction (d = 0.68). Moreover, patients reported marginally stronger alliance to the TA clinicians than to GFPT clinicians (d = 0.46), even though therapists perceived the alliance as equally positive in both groups. No differences in symptomatic ratings were observed. Results are discussed with reference to treatment utility in this particular patient group.