Short-Term versus Long-Term Mentalization-Based Therapy for Borderline Personality Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial (MBT-RCT).

INTRODUCTION: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe and prevalent psychiatric disorder. Mentalization-based therapy (MBT) is an evidence-based intervention for BPD, and several countries offer treatment programs for BPD lasting for years, which is resource demanding. No previous trial has compared short-term with long-term MBT. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of short-term versus long-term MBT for outpatients with BPD. METHODS: Adult outpatients (≥18 years) with subthreshold or diagnosed BPD were randomly assigned (1:1) to short-term MBT (5 months) or long-term MBT (14 months). The primary outcome was BPD symptoms assessed with the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder. Secondary outcomes were functional impairment, quality of life, global functioning, and severe self-harm. All outcomes were primarily assessed at 16 months after randomization. This trial was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03677037. RESULTS: Between October 4, 2018, and December 3, 2020, we randomly assigned 166 participants to short-term MBT (n = 84) or long-term MBT (n = 82). Regression analyses showed no evidence of a difference when assessing BPD symptoms (MD 0.99; 95% CI: -1.06 to 3.03; p = 0.341), level of functioning (MD 1.44; 95% CI: -1.43 to 4.32; p = 0.321), quality of life (MD -0.91; 95% CI: -4.62 to 2.79; p = 0.626), global functioning (MD -2.25; 95% CI: -6.70 to 2.20; p = 0.318), or severe self-harm (RR 1.37; 95% CI: 0.70-2.84; p = 0.335). More participants in the long-term MBT group had a serious adverse event compared with short-term MBT (RR 1.63; 95% CI: 0.94-3.07; p = 0.088), primarily driven by a difference in psychiatric hospitalizations (RR 2.03; 95% CI: 0.99-5.09; p = 0.056). CONCLUSION: Long-term MBT did not lead to lower levels of BPD symptoms, nor did it influence any of the secondary outcomes compared with short-term MBT.

Treating Avoidant Personality Disorder With Combined Individual Metacognitive Interpersonal Therapy and Group Mentalization-Based Treatment: A Pilot Study.

ABSTRACT: Avoidant personality disorder (AvPD) is a severe but understudied condition. The current pilot project reports data on acceptability and outcomes of a novel treatment combining biweekly individual metacognitive interpersonal therapy (MIT) and weekly mentalization-based therapy (MBT) group therapy. A total of 30 patients with AvPD were consecutively included in the program. The primary outcome was AvPD-specific personality functioning measured by self-report after treatment. Secondary outcomes were symptom distress, interpersonal problems, quality of life, and psychosocial functioning. Twenty-two patients completed treatment, with a mean duration of 13 months. On the primary outcome, effect sizes were generally moderate to large (effect size range: 0.59-1.10). On secondary outcomes, effect sizes were large (effect size range: 0.77-2.3). Both in terms of acceptability and outcomes, results are promising for the combination of MIT and MBT for AvPD. The approach is a strong candidate for further investigation in future large-scale randomized controlled trial.

The in-session discourse of unresolved/disorganized psychotherapy patients: An exploratory study of an attachment classification.

The Unresolved/disorganized (U/d) attachment classification has generated considerable interest among clinicians. This is in part based on its empirical associations with adult mental health, parenting practices, and treatment outcomes. Despite decades of theorizing, however, we have little empirical information regarding how patients with a U/d classification assigned by accredited coders actually behave or speak in psychotherapy sessions. Here, we take a step towards bridging this gap by reporting our observations of the psychotherapy session transcripts of 40 outpatients who were independently classified as U/d on the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), the gold standard measure of adult attachment research. These patients were extracted from a larger sample of 181 and compared to others without a U/d classification. In this paper, we discuss two different discourse styles associated with a U/d classification. Some U/d patients did not seem to sufficiently elicit the therapist's endorsement of what they said. For example, they did not justify their claims with examples or explanations, or did not consider others' intentions or experiences. Other U/d patients were credible, but left the listener uncertain as to the underlying point of their discourse, for example, by glaringly omitting the consequences of their experiences, or interrupting their narratives mid-way. In the discussion, we place these observations in the context of recent thinking on attachment and epistemic trust, and discuss how this study may form the basis for future quantitative studies of psychotherapy.

Blinding in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions: a retrospective study of published trial reports.

OBJECTIVES: To study the extent of blinding in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions and the interpretative considerations if randomised clinical trials are not blinded. DESIGN: Retrospective study of trial reports published in six high impact factor journals within the field of psychiatry in 2017 and 2018. SETTING: Trial reports published in World Psychiatry, JAMA Psychiatry, Lancet Psychiatry, American Journal of Psychiatry, British Journal of Psychiatry, or Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blinding status of participants, treatment providers, outcome assessors, data managers, the data safety and monitoring committee, statisticians and conclusion makers, if trialists rejected the null hypothesis on the primary outcome measure, and if trialists discussed the potential bias risk from lack of blinding in the published trial report. RESULTS: 63 randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions were identified. None (0%; 95% CI 0% to 5.75%) of the trials reported blinding of all possible key persons. 37 (58.7%; 95% CI 46.42% to 70.04%) trials reported blinding of outcome assessors. Two (3.2%; 95% CI 0.87% to 10.86%) trials reported blinding of participants. Two (3.2%; 95% CI 0.87% to 10.86%) trials reported blinding of data managers. Three (4.8%; 95% CI 1.63% to 13.09%) trials reported blinding of statisticians. None of the trials reported blinding of treatment providers, the data safety and monitoring committee, and conclusion makers. 45 (71.4%; 95% CI 59.30% to 81.10%) trials rejected the null hypothesis on the primary outcome(s). 13 (20.7%; 95% CI 12.48% to 32.17%) trials discussed the potential bias risk from lack of blinding in the published trial report. CONCLUSIONS: Blinding of key persons involved in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions is rarely sufficiently documented. The possible interpretative limitations are only rarely considered. There is a need of randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions with documented blinding attempts of all possible key persons.

Social anxiety disorder and avoidant personality disorder from an interpersonal perspective.

OBJECTIVES: The general objective of this article is to study the unclear and overlapping relationship between social anxiety disorder (SAD) and avoidant personality disorder (AvPD) from an interpersonal perspective. The first specific objective is to compare the disorders with regard to interpersonal problems and general symptom distress. The second specific objective is to examine interpersonal subgroups and pathoplasticity. DESIGN: In a cross-sectional design, patients from an outpatient psychotherapy clinic diagnosed with social anxiety disorder (SAD, n = 299), avoidant personality disorder (AvPD, n = 180), or the comorbid condition of both disorders (AvPD + SAD, n = 29) were assessed before treatment. METHODS: Patients filled out the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-64) and the Symptom Checklist-Revised (SCL-R-90) before treatment. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: From an interpersonal perspective, the relationship between the diagnostic groups is well described by the severity continuum hypothesis, with similar interpersonal problems related to Nonassertiveness and lower levels of general interpersonal stress in the SAD group compared to the two AvPD groups. However, other differences in severity do not fit the severity continuum hypothesis, as there are no differences in severity on the global severity index, and, moreover, the SAD group has the most severe problems on the SCL-90 phobic anxiety scale. Interpersonal pathoplasticity is not found in the diagnostic groups or in the full sample. However, three interpersonal subgroups are identified in the full sample, designated as Nonassertive, Friendly-submissive, and Cold-submissive. Implications for treatment are discussed. PRACTITIONER POINTS: SAD is characterized by a lower level of interpersonal distress compared to AvPD, but the two disorders are similar in having Nonassertiveness as their general interpersonal problem. Contrary to expectation, SAD and AvPD did not differ in general level of symptom severity, and patients with SAD reported more problems with phobic anxiety than AvPD patients did. When understanding SAD and AvPD as different conceptualizations of the same disorder and analysing all patients together, three distinct interpersonal subgroups emerge, which can be identified as Nonassertive, Friendly-submissive, and Cold-submissive.