[German S3 guidelines on borderline personality disorder]. / S3-Leitlinie Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung.

Research on the understanding and especially on the treatment of borderline personality disorder (borderline PD) has made considerable progress in recent years, so that evidence-based German treatment guidelines have now been produced for the first time. This article highlights the development as well as the main content priorities and recommendations of the guidelines: first, the recommendations on the diagnostics are presented and in this context the upcoming changes to the International Classification of Diseases 11th reversion (ICD-11) are also explained. Subsequently, the most important recommendations on guideline-compliant psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy and treatment settings are presented. Finally, the recommendations concerning relatives (or other significant persons for people with borderline PD) as well as parenthood and borderline PD are presented.

Transdiagnostic psychosocial interventions to promote mental health in forcibly displaced persons: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: People forced to leave their homes, such as refugees and internally displaced persons, are exposed to various stressors during their forced displacement, putting them at risk for mental disorders.Objective: To summarize evidence on the efficacy of psychosocial interventions aiming to promote mental health and/or to prevent mental symptoms by fostering transdiagnostic skills in forcibly displaced persons of all ages.Method: Four databases and reference lists were searched for randomized controlled trials on interventions in this population on 11 March 2022. Thirty-six studies were eligible, 32 studies (comprising 5299 participants) were included in random-effects multilevel meta-analyses examining the effects of interventions on mental symptoms and positive mental health (e.g. wellbeing) as well as moderators to account for heterogeneity. OSF Preregistration-ID: 10.17605/OSF.IO/XPMU3Results: Our search resulted in 32 eligible studies, with 10 reporting on children/adolescents and 27 on adult populations. There was no evidence for favourable intervention effects in children/adolescents, with 44.4% of the effect sizes pointing to potentially negative effects yet remaining non-significant. For adult populations, our meta-analyses showed a close-to-significant favourable effect for mental symptoms, M(SMD) = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.69], which was significant when analyses were limited to high-quality studies and larger for clinical compared to non-clinical populations. No effects emerged for positive mental health. Heterogeneity was considerable and could not be explained by various moderators (e.g. type of control, duration, setting, theoretical basis). Certainty of evidence was very low across all outcomes limiting the generalizability of our findings.Conclusion: The present review provides at most weak evidence for an effect favouring transdiagnostic psychosocial interventions over control conditions for adult populations but not for children and adolescents. Future research should combine the imperative of humanitarian aid in face of major crises with studying the diverse needs of forcibly displaced persons to improve and tailor future interventions.

This review is the first to examine the efficacy of transdiagnostic interventions for mental health promotion and prevention of mental disorders in forcibly displaced persons of all ages.Overall, we found no favourable effect of transdiagnostic interventions in both children/adolescents and adults. Excluding studies at high risk of bias, there was weak evidence for a small favourable effect in adults, but not in children and adolescents. Thus, so far, there is weak evidence for transdiagnostic interventions in forcibly displaced persons.Research efforts need to match care needs: While most people live and need care in low-income countries, the majority of research has been conducted in high-income countries.

Clinical trials in personality disorders: Recommendations for study design and conduct.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a highly studied condition. During the last 3 decades, the understanding of the disorder has substantially changed, based on thorough, accumulating research. At the same time, the interest in BPD is still not decreasing but continues to grow. This article aims to critically discuss research trends in clinical trials of personality disorders in general and BPD in particular, to highlight topics that deserve closer attention, and to give recommendations for the design and conduct of future psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy studies in the field. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Pharmacological interventions for people with borderline personality disorder.

BACKGROUND: Among people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) who are engaged in clinical care, prescription rates of psychotropic medications are high, despite the fact that medication use is off-label as a treatment for BPD. Nevertheless, people with BPD often receive several psychotropic drugs at a time for sustained periods. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological treatment for people with BPD. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers up to February 2022. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatment to placebo, other pharmacologic treatments or a combination of pharmacologic treatments in people of all ages with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were individual BPD symptoms, depression, attrition and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 46 randomised controlled trials (2769 participants) in this review, 45 of which were eligible for quantitative analysis and comprised 2752 participants with BPD in total. This is 18 more trials than the 2010 review on this topic. Participants were predominantly female except for one trial that included men only. The mean age ranged from 16.2 to 39.7 years across the included trials. Twenty-nine different types of medications compared to placebo or other medications were included in the analyses. Seventeen trials were funded or partially funded by the pharmaceutical industry, 10 were funded by universities or research foundations, eight received no funding, and 11 had unclear funding. For all reported effect sizes, negative effect estimates indicate beneficial effects by active medication. Compared with placebo, no difference in effects were observed on any of the primary outcomes at the end of treatment for any medication. Compared with placebo, medication may have little to no effect on BPD symptom severity, although the evidence is of very low certainty (antipsychotics: SMD -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 0.08; 8 trials, 951 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.65 to 1.18; 2 trials, 87 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.57; 4 trials, 265 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on self-harm, indicating little to no effect (antipsychotics: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.84; 2 trials, 76 participants; antidepressants: MD 0.45 points on the Overt Aggression Scale-Modified-Self-Injury item (0-5 points), 95% CI -10.55 to 11.45; 1 trial, 20 participants; mood stabilisers: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.48; 1 trial, 276 participants). The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on suicide-related outcomes, with little to no effect (antipsychotics: SMD 0.05, 95 % CI -0.18 to 0.29; 7 trials, 854 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.26, 95% CI -1.62 to 1.09; 2 trials, 45 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.36, 95% CI -1.96 to 1.25; 2 trials, 44 participants). Very low-certainty evidence shows little to no difference between medication and placebo on psychosocial functioning (antipsychotics: SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.00; 7 trials, 904 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.06; 4 trials, 161 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26; 2 trials, 214 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests that antipsychotics may slightly reduce interpersonal problems (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.08; 8 trials, 907 participants), and that mood stabilisers may result in a reduction in this outcome (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.02; 4 trials, 300 participants). Antidepressants may have little to no effect on interpersonal problems, but the corresponding evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.55; 2 trials, 119 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about dropout rates compared with placebo by antipsychotics (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.38; 13 trials, 1216 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference in dropout rates between antidepressants (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.76; 6 trials, 289 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.15; 9 trials, 530 participants), compared to placebo. Reporting on adverse events was poor and mostly non-standardised. The available evidence on non-serious adverse events was of very low certainty for antipsychotics (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.29; 5 trials, 814 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; 1 trial, 276 participants). For antidepressants, no data on adverse events were identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review included 18 more trials than the 2010 version, so larger meta-analyses with more statistical power were feasible. We found mostly very low-certainty evidence that medication may result in no difference in any primary outcome. The rest of the secondary outcomes were inconclusive. Very limited data were available for serious adverse events. The review supports the continued understanding that no pharmacological therapy seems effective in specifically treating BPD pathology. More research is needed to understand the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of BPD better. Also, more trials including comorbidities such as trauma-related disorders, major depression, substance use disorders, or eating disorders are needed. Additionally, more focus should be put on male and adolescent samples.

Perspectives on Dialectical Behavior Therapy and Mentalization-Based Therapy for Borderline Personality Disorder: Same, Different, Complementary?

Current evidence suggests that individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD) are likely to benefit from specialized, or BPD-specific, treatments. Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and mentalization-based treatment (MBT) are currently the most intensively researched BPD treatments. Reviewing the current research, this paper highlights similarities and differences between the two treatments, and discusses possible ways they could complement each other. As the effectiveness of specialized treatments for BPD in general has been determined with some certainty, research now tends towards individualized approaches, identifying predictors of optimal treatment response. However, it is still to be settled who might profit from a combination of or sequential treatment with DBT and MBT.

Mental health problems and needs of frontline healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain: A qualitative analysis.

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) from COVID-19 hotspots worldwide have reported poor mental health outcomes since the pandemic's beginning. The virulence of the initial COVID-19 surge in Spain and the urgency for rapid evidence constrained early studies in their capacity to inform mental health programs accurately. Here, we used a qualitative research design to describe relevant mental health problems among frontline HCWs and explore their association with determinants and consequences and their implications for the design and implementation of mental health programs. Materials and methods: Following the Programme Design, Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation (DIME) protocol, we used a two-step qualitative research design to interview frontline HCWs, mental health experts, administrators, and service planners in Spain. We used Free List (FL) interviews to identify problems experienced by frontline HCWs and Key informant (KI) interviews to describe them and explore their determinants and consequences, as well as the strategies considered useful to overcome these problems. We used a thematic analysis approach to analyze the interview outputs and framed our results into a five-level social-ecological model (intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, community, and public health). Results: We recruited 75 FL and 22 KI interviewees, roughly balanced in age and gender. We detected 56 themes during the FL interviews and explored the following themes in the KI interviews: fear of infection, psychological distress, stress, moral distress, and interpersonal conflicts among coworkers. We found that interviewees reported perceived causes and consequences across problems at all levels (intrapersonal to public health). Although several mental health strategies were implemented (especially at an intrapersonal and interpersonal level), most mental health needs remained unmet, especially at the organizational, community, and public policy levels. Conclusions: In keeping with available quantitative evidence, our findings show that mental health problems are still relevant for frontline HCWs 1 year after the COVID-19 pandemic and that many reported causes of these problems are modifiable. Based on this, we offer specific recommendations to design and implement mental health strategies and recommend using transdiagnostic, low-intensity, scalable psychological interventions contextually adapted and tailored for HCWs.

Interventions to foster resilience in nursing staff: A systematic review and meta-analyses of pre-pandemic evidence.

BACKGROUND: Given the chronic work-related stressors experienced by nursing staff in today's healthcare systems, international evidence suggests an elevated risk of developing stress-related mental symptoms. Therefore, identifying effective methods to foster resilience (i.e., maintenance or fast recovery of mental health despite stressor exposure) seems crucial. To date, little is known about the efficacy of these interventions in nurses. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed at summarizing the evidence on the pre-pandemic efficacy of psychological interventions to foster resilience, to improve mental symptoms and well-being as well as to promote resilience factors in nurses. Based on training programs with evidence for positive effects on resilience and mental health in meta-analyses, we aimed at identifying important and helpful intervention techniques. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses based on a Cochrane review on pre-pandemic resilience interventions in healthcare professionals. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and 11 other databases were searched until June 2020 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials. Trial registers, reference lists and contact with authors were additional sources. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias of included studies. We conducted random-effects pairwise meta-analyses for five primary outcomes, including resilience. The intervention contents and techniques were narratively synthesized. RESULTS: Of 39,794 records retrieved, 24 studies were included in the review (N = 1879 randomized participants), 17 in meta-analyses (n = 1020 participants). At post-intervention, we found very-low certainty evidence of moderate effects in favor of resilience training for resilience (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.39; 95% CI [confidence interval] 0.12-0.66) and well-being (SMD 0.44; 95% CI 0.15-0.72), while there was no evidence of effects on symptoms of anxiety, depression and stress. The improvement of well-being was sustained in the short-term (≤3 months), with additional delayed benefits for anxiety and stress. There was no evidence of effects at later follow-ups, with the caveat of only three available studies. Among nine programs with evidence of positive moderate effect sizes, intervention contents included mindfulness and relaxation, psychoeducation, emotion regulation, cognitive strategies, problem-solving and the strengthening of internal and external resources. CONCLUSIONS: Given the chronic stressor exposure in nursing staff, our findings may guide both the design and implementation of nurse-directed resilience interventions. To improve the certainty of evidence, more rigorous high-quality research using improved study designs (e.g., larger sample sizes, longer follow-up periods) is urgently needed. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017082827.

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.

Borderline personality disorder.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a mental disorder with a high burden on patients, family members, and health-care systems. The condition was previously regarded as untreatable, but progress in understanding and management has resulted in earlier diagnosis and better treatment outcomes. A coherent syndrome of BPD typically onsets during adolescence (after age 12 years). BPD is often preceded by or co-develops with symptoms of internalising disorders (depression and anxiety), externalising disorders (conduct problems, hyperactivity, and substance use), or both. BPD is associated with various poor outcomes, including low occupational and educational attainment, lack of long-term relationships, increased partner conflict, sexual risk-taking, low levels of social support, low life satisfaction, and increased service use. Psychotherapy is the main treatment for BPD; drug treatment is only indicated for comorbid conditions that require medication, or during a crisis if psychosocial interventions are insufficient. Awareness of BPD by non-specialists, as well as specialists, is key to appropriate early intervention.

Individual participant data systematic reviews with meta-analyses of psychotherapies for borderline personality disorder.

INTRODUCTION: The heterogeneity in people with borderline personality disorder (BPD) and the range of specialised psychotherapies means that people with certain BPD characteristics might benefit more or less from different types of psychotherapy. Identifying moderating characteristics of individuals is a key to refine and tailor standard treatments so they match the specificities of the individual participant. The objective of this is to improve the quality of care and the individual outcomes. We will do so by performing three systematic reviews with meta-analyses of individual participant data (IPD). The aim of these reviews is to investigate potential predictors and moderating patient characteristics on treatment outcomes for patients with BPD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We performed comprehensive searches in 22 databases and trial registries up to October 6th 2020. These will be updated with a top-up search up until June 2021. Our primary meta-analytic method will be the one-stage random-effects approach. To identify predictors, we will use the one-stage model that accounts for interaction between covariates and treatment allocation. Heterogeneity in case-mix will be assessed with a membership model based on a multinomial logistic regression where study membership is the outcome. A random-effects meta-analysis is chosen to account for expected levels of heterogeneity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The statistical analyses will be conducted on anonymised data that have already been approved by the respective ethical committees that originally assessed the included trials. The three IPD reviews will be published in high-impact factor journals and their results will be presented at international conferences and national seminars. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021210688.

[What do we know about borderline personality disorder? Current aspects of etiology, diagnostics and treatment]. / Was wissen wir heute über die Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung? Aktuelles zu Ätiologie, Diagnostik und Therapie.

BACKGROUND: Borderline personality disorder (BPS) is considered as a severe mental disorder with a high burden for patients, family members and the healthcare system. Recent years have brought significant advances in understanding and treating BP, leading to an earlier diagnosis and better treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This article outlines the current state of knowledge on the epidemiology, diagnostics, psychopathology and treatment of BPD and identifies open questions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Based on a literature search in the PubMed, PsycINFO and EMBASE databases, the latest developments in the topic of BPD for the areas of diagnostics, epidemiology, etiology and treatment are illuminated in a narrative review. Where possible systematic review articles, meta-analyses and evidence-based practice guidelines were also considered. STATE OF THE SCIENCE: At the core of BPS are disorders of emotion regulation, self-image, and interpersonal interaction. The suicide rates range from 2% to 5% and life expectancy is significantly shortened compared with the general population. The effectiveness of differentiated, disorder-specific psychotherapy (especially dialectic behavioral therapy, DBT) is well established. Psychotherapeutic care in the outpatient sector, especially in the field of pediatric and adolescent psychiatry, is still insufficient. PERSPECTIVES: Questions about the etiopathology, especially genetic and postulated neurobiological parameters that determine affective hypersensitivity, are largely open. Nosologically, the differentiation from comorbid complex posttraumatic stress disorder (cPTSD) is certainly an important issue, which also has therapeutic consequences.

Mental burden and its risk and protective factors during the early phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: systematic review and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Mental burden due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been widely reported for the general public and specific risk groups like healthcare workers and different patient populations. We aimed to assess its impact on mental health during the early phase by comparing pandemic with prepandemic data and to identify potential risk and protective factors. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analyses, we systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from January 1, 2019 to May 29, 2020, and screened reference lists of included studies. In addition, we searched PubMed and PsycINFO for prepandemic comparative data. Survey studies assessing mental burden by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the general population, healthcare workers, or any patients (eg, COVID-19 patients), with a broad range of eligible mental health outcomes, and matching studies evaluating prepandemic comparative data in the same population (if available) were included. We used multilevel meta-analyses for main, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses, focusing on (perceived) stress, symptoms of anxiety and depression, and sleep-related symptoms as primary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 2429 records retrieved, 104 were included in the review (n = 208,261 participants), 43 in the meta-analysis (n = 71,613 participants). While symptoms of anxiety (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.40; 95% CI 0.15-0.65) and depression (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.07-1.27) were increased in the general population during the early phase of the pandemic compared with prepandemic conditions, mental burden was not increased in patients as well as healthcare workers, irrespective of COVID-19 patient contact. Specific outcome measures (eg, Patient Health Questionnaire) and older comparative data (published ≥5 years ago) were associated with increased mental burden. Across the three population groups, existing mental disorders, female sex, and concerns about getting infected were repeatedly reported as risk factors, while older age, a good economic situation, and education were protective. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis paints a more differentiated picture of the mental health consequences in pandemic situations than previous reviews. High-quality, representative surveys, high granular longitudinal studies, and more research on protective factors are required to better understand the psychological impacts of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and to help design effective preventive measures and interventions that are tailored to the needs of specific population groups.

Mental health and psychosocial support strategies in highly contagious emerging disease outbreaks of substantial public concern: A systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Acute disease outbreaks such as the COVID-19 pandemic cause a high burden of psychological distress in people worldwide. Interventions to enable people to better cope with such distress should be based on the best available evidence. We therefore performed a scoping review to systematically identify and summarize the available literature of interventions that target the distress of people in the face of highly contagious disease outbreaks. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science (January 2000 to May 7, 2020), and reference lists were systematically searched and screened by two independent reviewers. Quantitative and qualitative studies investigating the effects of psychological interventions before, during, and after outbreaks of highly contagious emerging infectious diseases, such as SARS, MERS, Ebola, or COVID-19 were included. Study effects were grouped (e.g. for healthcare professionals, community members, people at risk) and intervention contents at the individual and organizational level summarized. We assessed the level of evidence using a modified scheme from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. RESULTS: Of 4030 records found, 19 studies were included (two RCTs). Most interventions were delivered during-exposure and face-to-face, focused on healthcare workers and crisis personnel, and combined psychoeducation with training of coping strategies. Based on two high-quality studies, beneficial effects were reported for resilience factors (e.g. positive cognitive appraisal) and professional attitudes of healthcare workers, with mixed findings for mental health (e.g. depression). Across all studies, there was positive qualitative feedback from participants and facilitators. We identified seven ongoing studies mostly using online- and mobile-based deliveries. CONCLUSIONS: There is preliminary evidence for beneficial effects of interventions to enable people to better cope with the distress of highly contagious emerging disease outbreaks. Besides the need for more high-quality studies, the summarized evidence may inform decision makers to plan interventions during the current pandemic and to develop pandemic preparedness plans.

Psychological therapies for adolescents with borderline personality disorder (BPD) or BPD features-A systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To review the effectiveness of psychological therapies for adolescents with borderline personality disorder (BPD) or BPD features. METHODS: We included randomized clinical trials on psychological therapies for adolescents with BPD and BPD features. Data were extracted and assessed for quality according to Cochrane guidelines, and summarized as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data and as Odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI for dichotomous data. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool for each domain. When possible, we pooled trials into meta-analyses, and used Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to control for random errors. Quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: 10 trials on adolescents with BPD or BPD features were included. All trials were considered at high risk of bias, and the quality of the evidence was rated as "very low". We did TSA on the primary outcome and found that the required information size was reached. The risk of random error was thus discarded. CONCLUSION: Only 10 trials have been conducted on adolescents with BPD or BPD features. Of these only few showed superior outcomes of the experimental intervention compared to the control intervention. No adverse effects of the interventions were mentioned. Attrition rates varied from 15-75% in experimental interventions. The overall quality was very low due to high risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency, which limits the confidence in effect estimates. Due to the high risk of bias, high attrition rates and underpowered studies in this area, it is difficult to derive any conclusions on the efficacy of psychological therapies for BPD in adolescence. There is a need for more high quality trials with larger samples to identify effective psychological therapies for this specific age group with BPD or BPD features.

Psychomorbidity, Resilience, and Exacerbating and Protective Factors During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused mental stress in a number of ways: overstrain of the health care system, lockdown of the economy, restricted opportunities for interpersonal contact and excursions outside the home and workplace, and quarantine measures where necessary. In this article, we provide an overview of psychological distress in the current pandemic, identifying protective factors and risk factors. METHODS: The PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for relevant publications (1 January 2019 - 16 April 2020). This study was registered in OSF Registries (osf.io/34j8g). Data on mental stress and resilience in Germany were obtained from three surveys carried out on more than 1000 participants each in the framework of the COSMO study (24 March, 31 March, and 21 April 2020). RESULTS: 18 studies from China and India, with a total of 79 664 participants, revealed increased stress in the general population, with manifestations of depression and anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and sleep disturbances. Stress was more marked among persons working in the health care sector. Risk factors for stress included patient contact, female sex, impaired health status, worry about family members and significant others, and poor sleep quality. Protective factors included being informed about the increasing number of persons who have recovered from COVID, social support, and a lower perceived infectious risk. The COSMO study, though based on an insufficiently representative population sample because of a low questionnaire return rate (<20%), revealed increased rates of despondency, loneliness, and hopelessness in the German population as compared to norm data, with no change in estimated resilience. CONCLUSION: Stress factors associated with the current pandemic probably increase stress by causing anxiety and depression. Once the protective factors and risk factors have been identified, these can be used to develop psychosocial interventions. The informativeness of the results reported here is limited by the wide variety of instruments used to acquire data and by the insufficiently representative nature of the population samples.

Pharmacotherapy for Borderline Personality Disorder: an Update of Published, Unpublished and Ongoing Studies.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: We aim to identify the most recent evidence of randomised controlled trials evaluating continued drug treatments in people with a diagnosis of BPD, review the most recent findings, highlight trends in terms of currently ongoing studies and comment on the overall body of evidence. RECENT FINDINGS: We identified seven new RCTs, plus newly available data for an older RCT. Only three of these RCTs have been published in full text, while we found study data posted at trial registry platforms for the others. The new findings do not support fluoxetine as a treatment option for suicide and self-harm prevention. A large effectiveness study did not detect beneficial effects of lamotrigine in routine care. The prevalent use of medications in BPD is still not reflected or supported by the current evidence. More research is needed regarding the most commonly used substances and substance classes, i.e. SSRIs, and quetiapine, but also with respect to people presenting with distinct comorbid conditions.

Non-Pharmacologic Multicomponent Interventions Preventing Delirium in Hospitalized People.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Delirium is a common neurobehavioral complication in hospitalized patients with a high prevalence in various clinical settings. Prevention of delirium is critical due to its common occurrence and associated poor outcomes. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of multicomponent interventions in preventing incident delirium in hospitalized patients at risk. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: We included a study if it was a randomized controlled trial and was evaluating effects of coordinated non-pharmacologic multicomponent interventions in the prevention of delirium. MEASUREMENTS: We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed and CENTRAL (PROSPERO: CRD42019138981; last update May 24, 2019). We assessed the quality of included studies by using the criteria established by the Cochrane Collaboration. We extracted the measured outcomes for delirium incidence, duration of delirium, length of hospital stay, falls during hospital stay, discharge to institutional care, and inpatient mortality. RESULTS: In total, we screened 1,027 eligible records and included eight studies with 2,105 patients in the review. We found evidence of an effect (ie, reduction) of multicomponent interventions on the incidence of delirium (risk ratio = .53; 95% confidence interval = .41-.69; I2 = 0). We detected no clear evidence of an effect for delirium duration, length of hospital stay, accidental falls, and mortality. Subgroup analyses did not result in findings of substantial effect modifiers, which can be explained by the high homogeneity within studies. CONCLUSION: Our findings confirm the current guidelines that multicomponent interventions are effective in preventing delirium. Data are still lacking to reach evidence-based conclusions concerning potential benefits for hard outcomes such as length of hospital stay, return to independent living, and mortality. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1864-1871, 2020.

Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder.

BACKGROUND: Over the decades, a variety of psychological interventions for borderline personality disorder (BPD) have been developed. This review updates and replaces an earlier review (Stoffers-Winterling 2012). OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of psychological therapies for people with BPD. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing different psychotherapeutic interventions with treatment-as-usual (TAU; which included various kinds of psychotherapy), waiting list, no treatment or active treatments in samples of all ages, in any setting, with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. There were 11 secondary outcomes, including individual BPD symptoms, as well as attrition and adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 75 randomised controlled trials (4507 participants), predominantly involving females with mean ages ranging from 14.8 to 45.7 years. More than 16 different kinds of psychotherapy were included, mostly dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) and mentalisation-based treatment (MBT). The comparator interventions included treatment-as-usual (TAU), waiting list, and other active treatments. Treatment duration ranged from one to 36 months. Psychotherapy versus TAU Psychotherapy reduced BPD symptom severity, compared to TAU; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to -0.33; 22 trials, 1244 participants; moderate-quality evidence. This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -3.6 (95% CI -4.4 to -2.08) on the Zanarini Rating Scale for BPD (range 0 to 36), a clinically relevant reduction in BPD symptom severity (minimal clinical relevant difference (MIREDIF) on this scale is -3.0 points). Psychotherapy may be more effective at reducing self-harm compared to TAU (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.14; 13 trials, 616 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -0.82 (95% CI -1.25 to 0.35) on the Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory Scale (range 0 to 34). The MIREDIF of -1.25 points was not reached. Suicide-related outcomes improved compared to TAU (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.11; 13 trials, 666 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -0.11 (95% CI -0.19 to -0.034) on the Suicidal Attempt Self Injury Interview. The MIREDIF of -0.17 points was not reached. Compared to TAU, psychotherapy may result in an improvement in psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.22; 22 trials, 1314 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -2.8 (95% CI -4.25 to -1.38), on the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (range 0 to 100). The MIREDIF of -4.0 points was not reached. Our additional Trial Sequential Analysis on all primary outcomes reaching significance found that the required information size was reached in all cases. A subgroup analysis comparing the different types of psychotherapy compared to TAU showed no clear evidence of a difference for BPD severity and psychosocial functioning. Psychotherapy may reduce depressive symptoms compared to TAU but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.17; 22 trials, 1568 participants; very low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -2.45 points on the Hamilton Depression Scale (range 0 to 50). The MIREDIF of -3.0 points was not reached. BPD-specific psychotherapy did not reduce attrition compared with TAU. Adverse effects were unclear due to too few data. Psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment Greater improvements in BPD symptom severity (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.05; 3 trials, 161 participants), psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.11; 5 trials, 219 participants), and depression (SMD -1.28, 95% CI -2.21 to -0.34, 6 trials, 239 participants) were observed in participants receiving psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment (all low-quality evidence). No evidence of a difference was found for self-harm and suicide-related outcomes. Individual treatment approaches DBT and MBT have the highest numbers of primary trials, with DBT as subject of one-third of all included trials, followed by MBT with seven RCTs. Compared to TAU, DBT was more effective at reducing BPD severity (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.14; 3 trials, 149 participants), self-harm (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.07; 7 trials, 376 participants) and improving psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.03; 6 trials, 225 participants). MBT appears to be more effective than TAU at reducing self-harm (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.80; 3 trials, 252 participants), suicidality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04, 0.30, 3 trials, 218 participants) and depression (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.22 to 0.05, 4 trials, 333 participants). All findings are based on low-quality evidence. For secondary outcomes see review text. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our assessments showed beneficial effects on all primary outcomes in favour of BPD-tailored psychotherapy compared with TAU. However, only the outcome of BPD severity reached the MIREDIF-defined cut-off for a clinically meaningful improvement. Subgroup analyses found no evidence of a difference in effect estimates between the different types of therapies (compared to TAU) . The pooled analysis of psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment found significant improvement on BPD severity, psychosocial functioning and depression at end of treatment, but these findings were based on low-quality evidence, and the true magnitude of these effects is uncertain. No clear evidence of difference was found for self-harm and suicide-related outcomes. However, compared to TAU, we observed effects in favour of DBT for BPD severity, self-harm and psychosocial functioning and, for MBT, on self-harm and suicidality at end of treatment, but these were all based on low-quality evidence. Therefore, we are unsure whether these effects would alter with the addition of more data.

Interventions to Promote Resilience in Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Resilience is the ability to maintain or rapidly regain mental health during or after stressful life experiences. Cancer is a major risk factor for stress- associated mental illness. In this review, we attempt to identify effective resilience- promoting interventions in adults with cancer. METHODS: The analysis was restricted to randomized, controlled trials of resilience- promoting interventions in adults with cancer in which training was provided for at least one psychosocial resilience factor. A selective search, with systematic compo- nents, for relevant publications was carried out in the PubMed and CENTRAL data- bases. Effect sizes (Hedges' g) were calculated wherever a fully reported dataset for resilience or post-traumatic growth was available. RESULTS: Twenty-two trials with a total of 2,912 patients were included in the analy- sis; the intervention was provided in an individual setting in five trials and in group format in 17. Beneficial effects on resilience and post-traumatic growth, some of them large, were observed in patients who were acutely ill with cancer and after in- terventions that were provided in more than 12 sessions. The effect size ranged from g = 0.33 to g = 1.45. Largely beneficial effects were achieved by interventions based on the concepts of positive psychology, supportive-expressive group therapy, behavioral therapy, or mindfulness, with considerable variation in individual effect sizes. CONCLUSION: Interventions that promote resilience should be made available to inter- ested and motivated cancer patients. These interventions should be provided, in as soon as the diagnosis is made and should ex- tend over more than 12 sessions whenever possible.