Long-term outcomes of once weekly v. twice weekly sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy for depression.

BACKGROUND: Twice weekly sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for major depressive disorder (MDD) lead to less drop-out and quicker and better response compared to once weekly sessions at posttreatment, but it is unclear whether these effects hold over the long run. AIMS: Compare the effects of twice weekly v. weekly sessions of CBT and IPT for depression up to 24 months since the start of treatment. METHODS: Using a 2 × 2 factorial design, this multicentre study randomized 200 adults with MDD to once or twice weekly sessions of CBT or IPT over 16-24 weeks, up to a maximum of 20 sessions. Main outcome measures were depression severity, measured with the Beck Depression Inventory-II and the Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation. Intention-to-treat analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Compared with patients who received once weekly sessions, patients who received twice weekly sessions showed a significant decrease in depressive symptoms up through month 9, but this effect was no longer apparent at month 24. Patients who received CBT showed a significantly larger decrease in depressive symptoms up to month 24 compared to patients who received IPT, but the between-group effect size at month 24 was small. No differential effects between session frequencies or treatment modalities were found in response or relapse rates. CONCLUSIONS: Although a higher session frequency leads to better outcomes in the acute phase of treatment, the difference in depression severity dissipated over time and there was no significant difference in relapse.

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy is feasible for people with acquired brain injury: A process evaluation of the BrainACT treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for people with acquired brain injury. DESIGN: A process evaluation of the BrainACT treatment was conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Psychology departments of hospitals and rehabilitation centres. SUBJECTS: Tweny-seven participants with acquired brain injury and 11 therapists. INTERVENTION: BrainACT is an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy adapted for the needs and possible cognitive deficits of people with acquired brain injury, provided in eight one-hour face-to-face or video-conference sessions. MEASUREMENTS: The attendance and compliance rates, engagement, satisfaction, and perceived barriers and facilitators for delivery in clinical practice were investigated using semi-structured interviews with participants and therapists and therapy logs. RESULTS: 212 of the 216 sessions in total were attended and 534 of the 715 protocol elements across participants and sessions were delivered. Participants were motivated and engaged. Participants and therapists were satisfied with the intervention and participants reported to have implemented skills in their daily routines acquired during therapy. Key strengths are the structure provided with the bus of life metaphor, the experiential nature of the intervention, and the materials and homework. Participants and therapists often preferred face-to-face sessions, however, when needed video-conferencing is a good alternative. CONCLUSION: BrainACT is a feasible intervention for people with anxiety and depressive symptoms following acquired brain injury. However, when the content of the intervention is too extensive, we recommend adding two extra sessions.

Acceptance and commitment therapy for people with acquired brain injury: Rationale and description of the BrainACT treatment.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of anxiety and depressive symptoms following acquired brain injury is complex and more evidence-based treatment options are needed. We are currently evaluating the BrainACT intervention; acceptance and commitment therapy for people with acquired brain injury. RATIONALE: This paper describes the theoretical underpinning, the development and content of BrainACT. Acceptance and commitment therapy focuses on the acceptance of feelings, thoughts and bodily sensations and on living a valued life, without fighting against what is lost. Since the thoughts that people with acquired brain injury can experience are often realistic or appropriate given their situation, this may be a suitable approach. THEORY INTO PRACTICE: Existing evidence-based protocols were adapted for the needs and potential cognitive deficits after brain injury. General alterations are the use of visual materials, summaries and repetition. Acceptance and commitment therapy-specific adaptions include the Bus of Life metaphor as a recurrent exercise, shorter mindfulness exercises, simplified explanations, a focus on experiential exercises and the monitoring of committed actions. The intervention consists of eight one-hour sessions with a psychologist, experienced in acceptance and commitment therapy and in working with people with acquired brain injury. The order of the sessions, metaphors and exercises can be tailored to the needs of the patients. DISCUSSION: Currently, the effectiveness and feasibility of the intervention is evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. The BrainACT intervention is expected to be a feasible and effective intervention for people with anxiety or depressive symptoms following acquired brain injury.

Acceptance and commitment therapy for individuals with depressive and anxiety symptoms following acquired brain injury: A non-concurrent multiple baseline design across four cases.

Patients with acquired brain injury (ABI) often experience symptoms of anxiety and depression. Until now, evidence-based treatment is scarce. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) for patients with ABI. To evaluate the effect of ACT for people with ABI, a non-concurrent multiple baseline design across four cases was used. Participants were randomly assigned to a baseline period, followed by treatment and then follow-up phases. Anxiety and depressive symptoms were repeatedly measured. During six measurement moments over a year, participants filled in questionnaires measuring anxiety, depression, stress, participation, quality of life, and ACT-related processes. Randomization tests and NAP scores were used to calculate the level of change across phases. Clinically significant change was defined with the Reliable Change Index. Three out of four participants showed medium to large decreases in anxiety and depressive symptoms (NAP = 0.85 till 0.99). Furthermore, participants showed improvements regarding stress, cognitive fusion, and quality of life. There were no improvements regarding psychological flexibility, value-driven behaviour, or social participation. This study shows that ACT is possibly an effective treatment option for people experiencing ABI-related anxiety and depression symptoms. Replication with single case or large scale group studies is needed to confirm these findings.

Showing True Colours: EMA Case Descriptions of Narcissistic States.

Traditionally, narcissistic characteristics are considered relatively stable, although clinical accounts and recent research show that additional narcissistic states are variable and fluctuate in actuality. Narcissism research tends to focus on cross-sectional, group-based, trait approaches. Momentary ecological assessments allow one to discover individuals' true colors by observing narcissistic experiences while they unfold in real-time and real-world settings. Within momentary ecological assessments, inspecting single cases enables insight into individual dynamics and presentations. Consequently, this research collected grandiose and vulnerable narcissistic trait and state data 10 times a day for 6 days. Based on the highest trait scores, two individual cases are presented per category: predominantly grandiose narcissistic, predominantly vulnerable narcissistic, and combined narcissistic. Overall, the descriptions provide evidence for the dynamics within and between grandiose and vulnerable narcissistic states. Further, broad patterns for each narcissistic dimension were uncovered, in which the grandiose subdimension experienced mainly grandiosity, and the vulnerable and combined subdimensions experienced both grandiosity and vulnerability. Out of the three, the combined subdimension experienced the highest instability and levels of daily vulnerability. However, each individual case showed unique fluctuation patterns that highlight the importance of personalized, real-life assessments in research and clinical care.

Daily dynamics of negative affect: indicators of rate of response to treatment and remission from depression?

More instability (MSSD) and variability (SD) of negative affect (NA) have been related to current and future depressive symptoms. We investigated whether NA instability and variability were predictive of the rate of symptom improvement during treatment and of reaching remission status. Forty-six individuals with major depressive disorder completed six days of ecological momentary assessments (10 beeps/day) before starting a combination of pharmacotherapy and supportive therapy. During and after treatment, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) diagnostic interview was performed monthly for 18 months. The rate of change in HDRS scores over five months (during treatment) and remission status (HDRS ≤ 7) over eighteen months were predicted by the SD, MSSD and Mean of NA, and relevant baseline predictors. Higher Mean NA and baseline symptom severity, but not NA variability or instability, predicted stronger depressive symptom reduction during treatment. Higher odds of remitting were only associated with lower Mean NA. Higher mean NA may indicate more room for improvement and thus for a steeper rate of symptom change, while lower mean NA levels may imply that remission status is more readily reached. To resolve the inconclusive findings for instability and variability as predictors of symptom improvement replication in larger samples is required.

Does psychological process change during psychotherapy predict long-term depression outcome after successful cognitive therapy or interpersonal psychotherapy? Secondary analysis of a randomized trial.

Objective Psychotherapies for depression are similarly effective, but the processes through which these therapies work have not been identified. We focus on psychological process changes during therapy as predictors of long-term depression outcome in treatment responders. Method: Secondary analysis of a randomized trial comparing cognitive therapy (CT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) that focuses on 85 treatment responders. Using mixed-effects models, changes during therapy (0-7 months) on nine process variables were associated with depression severity (BDI-II) at follow-up (7-24 months). Results: A decrease in dysfunctional attitudes was associated with a decrease in depression scores over time. Improved self-esteem was associated with less depression at follow-up (borderline significant). More improvement in both work and social functioning and interpersonal problems was associated with better depression outcomes in IPT relative to CT, while less improvement in work and social functioning and interpersonal problems was associated with better outcomes in CT relative to IPT. Conclusions: Less negative thinking during therapy is associated with lower depression severity in time, while changes during therapy in work and social functioning and interpersonal problems appear to predict different long-term outcomes in CT vs. IPT. If replicated, these findings can be used to guide clinical decision-making during psychotherapy.

Precision medicine for long-term depression outcomes using the Personalized Advantage Index approach: cognitive therapy or interpersonal psychotherapy?

BACKGROUND: Psychotherapies for depression are equally effective on average, but individual responses vary widely. Outcomes can be improved by optimizing treatment selection using multivariate prediction models. A promising approach is the Personalized Advantage Index (PAI) that predicts the optimal treatment for a given individual and the magnitude of the advantage. The current study aimed to extend the PAI to long-term depression outcomes after acute-phase psychotherapy. METHODS: Data come from a randomized trial comparing cognitive therapy (CT, n = 76) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT, n = 75) for major depressive disorder (MDD). Primary outcome was depression severity, as assessed by the BDI-II, during 17-month follow-up. First, predictors and moderators were selected from 38 pre-treatment variables using a two-step machine learning approach. Second, predictors and moderators were combined into a final model, from which PAI predictions were computed with cross-validation. Long-term PAI predictions were then compared to actual follow-up outcomes and post-treatment PAI predictions. RESULTS: One predictor (parental alcohol abuse) and two moderators (recent life events; childhood maltreatment) were identified. Individuals assigned to their PAI-indicated treatment had lower follow-up depression severity compared to those assigned to their PAI-non-indicated treatment. This difference was significant in two subsets of the overall sample: those whose PAI score was in the upper 60%, and those whose PAI indicated CT, irrespective of magnitude. Long-term predictions did not overlap substantially with predictions for acute benefit. CONCLUSIONS: If replicated, long-term PAI predictions could enhance precision medicine by selecting the optimal treatment for a given depressed individual over the long term.

Cognitive therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy reduce suicidal ideation independent from their effect on depression.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines suggest that psychological interventions specifically aimed at reducing suicidality may be beneficial. We examined the impact of two depression treatments, cognitive therapy (CT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) on suicidal ideation (SI) and explored the temporal associations between depression and SI over the course of therapy. METHODS: Ninety-one adult (18-65) depressed outpatients from a large randomized controlled trial who were treated with CT (n = 37) and IPT (n = 54) and scored at least ≥1 on the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) suicide item were included. Linear (two-level) mixed effects models were used to evaluate the impact of depression treatments on SI. Mixed-effects time-lagged models were applied to examine temporal relations between the change in depressive symptoms and the change in SI. RESULTS: SI decreased significantly during treatment and there were no differential effects between the two intervention groups (B = -0.007, p = .35). Depressive symptoms at the previous session did not predict higher levels of SI at the current session (B = 0.016, p = .16). However, SI measured at the previous session significantly predicted depressive symptoms at the current session (B = 2.06, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Both depression treatments seemed to have a direct association with SI. The temporal association between SI and depression was unidirectional with SI predicting future depressive symptoms during treatment. Our findings suggest that it may be most beneficial to treat SI first.

Measuring psychological flexibility and cognitive defusion in individuals with acquired brain injury.

PURPOSE: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is used increasingly for individuals with psychological distress following acquired brain injury (ABI) in different countries. However, questionnaires measuring ACT-processes are often not validated for this patient group and need cross-cultural validation. This study investigated the psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire for Acquired Brain Injury (AAQ-ABI; measuring psychological flexibility related to thoughts and feelings about ABI) and the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire (CFQ-7; measuring cognitive defusion). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Score distribution, reliability, and convergent validity of the AAQ-ABI and the CFQ-7 were examined in Dutch individuals with ABI. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients with ABI were included. The AAQ-ABI showed good reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.87) and the CFQ-7 excellent reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.97). Both did not show a floor or ceiling effect, nor a skewed distribution. There were strong to moderate correlations between the questionnaires and measures of psychological flexibility, mood, quality of life, and value-driven behavior (AAQ-ABI: r = -0.70-0.81; CFQ-7 = -0.67-0.84). Inter-item total correlations indicate that the questions within each questionnaire measured the same construct (AAQ-ABI: r = 0.40-0.78; CFQ-7: r = 0.84-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: The current study shows that the Dutch AAQ-ABI and CFQ-7 have acceptable to good psychometric properties when measuring psychological flexibility and cognitive defusion in patients with ABI.

Patient Choice in Depression Psychotherapy: Outcomes of Patient-Preferred Therapy Versus Randomly Allocated Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Patient choice is recognized as a factor that influences clinical outcomes and treatment evaluation in mental health care. However, research on how having a choice affects patients with depression has been rare. This Dutch study examined whether patients randomly selected to choose between two types of depression psychotherapy benefited more from treatment than patients randomly assigned to an intervention. METHODS: Data were derived from a trial of outpatients with depression who were randomly assigned to cognitive therapy (CT), interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT), or a 2-month waitlist control condition followed by the patient's choice of CT or IPT. Treatment groups were combined into a no-choice condition (N=151), with the waitlist as the choice condition (N=31). Multilevel regression was used to compare depression severity (measured with the Beck Depression Inventory-II [BDI-II]) and general psychological distress (measured with the Brief Symptom Inventory [BSI]) posttreatment and at the 5-month follow-up. Differences in patients' pretreatment expectations, beliefs about treatment credibility, and posttreatment evaluation were examined. RESULTS: No significant differences in clinical outcomes were found between the choice and no-choice conditions (mean difference: BDI-II posttreatment=-0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]=-5.25 to 4.15; follow-up=2.10, 95% CI=-4.01 to 8.20; BSI posttreatment=-1.89, 95% CI=-15.35 to 11.58; follow-up=3.13, 95% CI=-12.32 to 18.57). Patients in both groups reported comparable scores on pretreatment expectations, credibility beliefs, and posttreatment evaluation. Neither expectations nor credibility beliefs were predictive of clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings did not support the value of patient choice. Considering the exploratory nature of the trial, future studies designed to examine the effects of choice in depression treatment are recommended.

Patient Choice in Depression Psychotherapy: Outcomes of Patient-Preferred Therapy Versus Randomly Allocated Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Patient choice is recognized as a factor that influences clinical outcomes and treatment evaluation in mental health care. However, research on how having a choice affects patients with depression has been rare. This Dutch study examined whether patients randomly selected to choose between two types of depression psychotherapy benefited more from treatment than patients randomly assigned to an intervention. METHODS: Data were derived from a trial of outpatients with depression who were randomly assigned to cognitive therapy (CT), interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT), or a 2-month waitlist control condition followed by the patient's choice of CT or IPT. Treatment groups were combined into a no-choice condition (N=151), with the waitlist as the choice condition (N=31). Multilevel regression was used to compare depression severity (measured with the Beck Depression Inventory-II [BDI-II]) and general psychological distress (measured with the Brief Symptom Inventory [BSI]) posttreatment and at the 5-month follow-up. Differences in patients' pretreatment expectations, beliefs about treatment credibility, and posttreatment evaluation were examined. RESULTS: No significant differences in clinical outcomes were found between the choice and no-choice conditions (mean difference: BDI-II posttreatment=-0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]=-5.25 to 4.15; follow-up=2.10, 95% CI=-4.01 to 8.20; BSI posttreatment=-1.89, 95% CI=-15.35 to 11.58; follow-up=3.13, 95% CI=-12.32 to 18.57). Patients in both groups reported comparable scores on pretreatment expectations, credibility beliefs, and posttreatment evaluation. Neither expectations nor credibility beliefs were predictive of clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings did not support the value of patient choice. Considering the exploratory nature of the trial, future studies designed to examine the effects of choice in depression treatment are recommended.

Cross-trial prediction in psychotherapy: External validation of the Personalized Advantage Index using machine learning in two Dutch randomized trials comparing CBT versus IPT for depression.

Objective: Optimizing treatment selection may improve treatment outcomes in depression. A promising approach is the Personalized Advantage Index (PAI), which predicts the optimal treatment for a given individual. To determine the generalizability of the PAI, models needs to be externally validated, which has rarely been done. Method: PAI models were developed within each of two independent trials, with substantial between-study differences, that both compared CBT and IPT for depression (STEPd: n = 151 and FreqMech: n = 200). Subsequently, both PAI models were tested in the other dataset. Results: In the STEPd study, post-treatment depression was significantly different between individuals assigned to their PAI-indicated treatment versus those assigned to their non-indicated treatment (d = .57). In the FreqMech study, post-treatment depression was not significantly different between patients receiving their indicated treatment versus those receiving their non-indicated treatment (d = .20). Cross-trial predictions indicated that post-treatment depression was not significantly different between those receiving their indicated treatment and those receiving their non-indicated treatment (d = .16 and d = .27). Sensitivity analyses indicated that cross-trial prediction based on only overlapping variables didn't improve the results. Conclusion: External validation of the PAI has modest results and emphasizes between-study differences and many other challenges.

Impact of Comorbid Personality Disorders on Depression Treatment in Routine Outpatient Care.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of personality disorder on treatment effectiveness for depression has been debated, and study results have been inconsistent. However, studies that report a negative impact of personality disorders on depression treatment outcomes are often characterized by uncontrolled treatment designs. Within such contexts, individuals with depression and personality disorders are at risk to receive suboptimal treatment. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to investigate whether and to what extent comorbid personality disorders were associated with the type and amount of depression treatment received in routine outpatient care. METHODS: Retrospectively extracted data from electronic records of 1,455 outpatients treated for depression at several sites of a nationwide mental health provider in the Netherlands were included. The type and number of treatment sessions and visits were analyzed by using regression models. RESULTS: Individuals with depression and comorbid personality disorders received more psychotherapy sessions than individuals without personality disorders, irrespective of depression severity. The number of pharmacotherapy sessions and supportive and crisis visits did not differ between individuals with and without comorbid personality disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with depression and personality disorders received more intensive treatment than individuals without comorbid personality disorders. These results conflict with treatment guidelines and recommendations from high-quality studies and may be indicative of overtreatment among this large group of patients.

Impact of Comorbid Personality Disorders on Depression Treatment in Routine Outpatient Care.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of personality disorder on treatment effectiveness for depression has been debated, and study results have been inconsistent. However, studies that report a negative impact of personality disorders on depression treatment outcomes are often characterized by uncontrolled treatment designs. Within such contexts, individuals with depression and personality disorders are at risk to receive suboptimal treatment. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to investigate whether and to what extent comorbid personality disorders were associated with the type and amount of depression treatment received in routine outpatient care. METHODS: Retrospectively extracted data from electronic records of 1,455 outpatients treated for depression at several sites of a nationwide mental health provider in the Netherlands were included. The type and number of treatment sessions and visits were analyzed by using regression models. RESULTS: Individuals with depression and comorbid personality disorders received more psychotherapy sessions than individuals without personality disorders, irrespective of depression severity. The number of pharmacotherapy sessions and supportive and crisis visits did not differ between individuals with and without comorbid personality disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with depression and personality disorders received more intensive treatment than individuals without comorbid personality disorders. These results conflict with treatment guidelines and recommendations from high-quality studies and may be indicative of overtreatment among this large group of patients.

The effects of once- versus twice-weekly sessions on psychotherapy outcomes in depressed patients.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear what session frequency is most effective in cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for depression. AIMS: Compare the effects of once weekly and twice weekly sessions of CBT and IPT for depression. METHOD: We conducted a multicentre randomised trial from November 2014 through December 2017. We recruited 200 adults with depression across nine specialised mental health centres in the Netherlands. This study used a 2 × 2 factorial design, randomising patients to once or twice weekly sessions of CBT or IPT over 16-24 weeks, up to a maximum of 20 sessions. Main outcome measures were depression severity, measured with the Beck Depression Inventory-II at baseline, before session 1, and 2 weeks, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 months after start of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Compared with patients who received weekly sessions, patients who received twice weekly sessions showed a statistically significant decrease in depressive symptoms (estimated mean difference between weekly and twice weekly sessions at month 6: 3.85 points, difference in effect size d = 0.55), lower attrition rates (n = 16 compared with n = 32) and an increased rate of response (hazard ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.00-2.18). CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice settings, delivery of twice weekly sessions of CBT and IPT for depression is a way to improve depression treatment outcomes.

Interpersonal Psychotherapy Versus Cognitive Therapy for Depression: How They Work, How Long, and for Whom-Key Findings From an RCT.

OBJECTIVE: Although the effectiveness of interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) and cognitive therapy (CT) for major depression has been established, little is known about how and for whom they work and how they compare in the long term. The latter is especially relevant for IPT because research on its long-term effects has been limited. This overview paper summarizes findings from a Dutch randomized controlled trial on the effects and mechanisms of change of IPT versus CT for major depression. METHODS: Adult outpatients with depression (N=182) were randomly assigned to CT (N=76), IPT (N=75), or a 2-month waitlist control group followed by patient's treatment of choice (N=31). The primary outcome was depression severity. Other outcomes were quality of life, social and general psychological functioning, and scores on various mechanism measures. Interventions were compared at the end of treatment and up to 17 months follow-up. RESULTS: On average, IPT and CT were both superior to waitlist, and their outcomes did not differ significantly from one another. However, the pathway through which change occurred appeared to differ. For a majority of participants, one of the interventions was predicted to be more beneficial than the other. No support for the theoretical models of change was found. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of IPT and CT did not appear to differ significantly. IPT may have an enduring effect not different from that of CT. The field would benefit from further refinement of study methods to disentangle mechanisms of change and from advances in the field of personalized medicine (i.e., person-specific analyses and treatment selection methods).

Effectiveness of psychotherapy for treatment-resistant depression: a meta-analysis and meta-regression.

Despite substantial advances in treatment and management strategies for major depression, less than 50% of patients respond to first-line antidepressant treatment or psychotherapy. Given the growing number of controlled studies of psychotherapy for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and the preference for psychotherapy of depressed subjects as a treatment option, we conducted a meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis to investigate the effectiveness of psychotherapy for TRD. Seven different psychotherapies were studied in 21 trials that included a total of 25 comparisons. In three comparisons of psychotherapy v. treatment as usual (TAU) we found no evidence to conclude that there is a significant benefit of psychotherapy as compared with TAU. In 22 comparisons of add-on psychotherapy plus TAU v. TAU only, we found a moderate general effect size of 0.42 (95% CI 0.29-0.54) in favor of psychotherapy plus TAU. The meta-regression provided evidence for a positive association between baseline severity as well as group v. individual therapy format with the treatment effect. There was no evidence for publication bias. Most frequent investigated treatments were cognitive behavior therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, and cognitive behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy. Our meta-analysis provides evidence that, in addition to pharmacological and neurostimulatory treatments, the inclusion of add-on of psychotherapy to TAU in guidelines for the treatment of TRD is justified and will provide better outcomes for this difficult-to-treat population.

Long-term outcomes of acute treatment with cognitive therapy v. interpersonal psychotherapy for adult depression: follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although equally efficacious in the acute phase, it is not known how cognitive therapy (CT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for major depressive disorder (MDD) compare in the long run. This study examined the long-term outcomes of CT v. IPT for MDD. METHODS: One hundred thirty-four adult (18-65) depressed outpatients who were treated with CT (n = 69) or IPT (n = 65) in a large open-label randomized controlled trial (parallel group design; computer-generated block randomization) were monitored across a 17-month follow-up phase. Mixed regression was used to determine the course of self-reported depressive symptom severity (Beck Depression Inventory II; BDI-II) after treatment termination, and to test whether CT and IPT differed throughout the follow-up phase. Analyses were conducted for the total sample (n = 134) and for the subsample of treatment responders (n = 85). Furthermore, for treatment responders, rates of relapse and sustained response were examined for self-reported (BDI-II) and clinician-rated (Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation; LIFE) depression using Cox regression. RESULTS: On average, the symptom reduction achieved during the 7-month treatment phase was maintained across follow-up (7-24 months) for CT and IPT, both in the total sample and in the responder sample. Two-thirds (67%) of the treatment responders did not relapse across the follow-up period on the BDI-II. Relapse rates assessed with the LIFE were somewhat lower. No differential effects between conditions were found. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who responded to IPT were no more likely to relapse following treatment termination than patients who responded to CT. Given that CT appears to have a prophylactic effect following successful treatment, our findings suggest that IPT might have a prophylactic effect as well.

A prognostic index for long-term outcome after successful acute phase cognitive therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy for major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) has a highly recurrent nature. After successful treatment, it is important to identify individuals who are at risk of an unfavorable long-term course. Despite extensive research, there is no consensus yet on the clinically relevant predictors of long-term outcome in MDD, and no prediction models are implemented in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to create a prognostic index (PI) to estimate long-term depression severity after successful and high quality acute treatment for MDD. METHODS: Data come from responders to cognitive therapy (CT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) in a randomized clinical trial (n = 85; CT = 45, IPT = 40). Primary outcome was depression severity, assessed with the Beck Depression Inventory II, measured throughout a 17-month follow-up phase. We examined 29 variables as potential predictors, using a model-based recursive partitioning method and bootstrap resampling in conjunction with backwards elimination. The selected predictors were combined into a PI. Individual PI scores were estimated using a cross-validation approach. RESULTS: A total of three post-treatment predictors were identified: depression severity, hopelessness, and self-esteem. Cross-validated PI scores evidenced a strong correlation (r = 0.60) with follow-up depression severity. CONCLUSION: Long-term predictions of MDD are multifactorial, involving a combination of variables that each has a small prognostic effect. If replicated and validated, the PI can be implemented to predict follow-up depression severity for each individual after acute treatment response, and to personalize long-term treatment strategies.