The course of borderline personality disorder from adolescence to early adulthood: A 5-year follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Studies of the medium- to long-term clinical and functional course for treatment-seeking adolescents with borderline personality disorder (BPD) are lacking. This study aims to outline the psychopathological and functional status of participants, five years after being diagnosed with BPD during adolescence. METHODS: Participants were originally enrolled in a randomized clinical trial that compared mentalization-based group treatment with treatment as usual for adolescents with BPD. Semi-structured interview assessments at five-year follow-up included the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), alcohol, substance and tobacco use, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), complex PTSD, and general functioning were assessed using self-report instruments. RESULTS: 97 of the original sample of 111 participants (87%) participated. They were aged 19-23 years. The most prevalent disorders were ADHD (59%), any personality disorder (47%) of which half continued to meet criteria for BPD (24%), anxiety disorders (37%), depressive disorders (32%), PTSD or complex PTSD (20%), schizophrenia (16%), and eating disorders (13%). Only 16% did not meet criteria for any mental disorder. Approximately half of the sample were in psychological and/or psychopharmacological treatment at the time of follow-up. Their general functioning remained impaired, with 36% not engaged in education, employment or training (NEET), which is nearly four times the rate of NEET in the same age group in the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Although stability of the categorical BPD diagnosis is modest, adolescents meeting diagnostic criteria for BPD show a broad range of poor outcomes at five-year follow-up. BPD appears to be a marker of general maladjustment during adolescence and a harbinger of severe problems during the transition to young adulthood. Early intervention programs for adolescents diagnosed with BPD should focus upon a broad range of functional and psychopathological outcomes, especially social and vocational support, rather than the narrow BPD diagnosis.

Collaborative assessment as an intervention in the treatment of mental Illness: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Three meta-analyses suggested that the psychological assessment as a therapeutic intervention approach might have therapeutic effects but had unspecific inclusion criteria. METHODS: We searched four databases for RCTs that reported on the use of psychological assessment as an intervention. Two reviewers independently selected papers, extracted data, and assessed study quality.We conducted and reported the systematic review following the PRISMA statement. We assessed the Risk of bias in included studies using the Risk of Bias tool and graded the strength of the evidence with GRADE. RESULTS: We included two RCTs: The first study investigated Therapeutic Assessment (TA) combined with Manual-Assisted Cognitive Behavior Therapy (MACT) compared with MACT only in 16 outpatients with personality disorders. The trial found among completers (n = 7) no difference in borderline symptomatology but a possible difference regarding suicidality favoring MACT + TA. The trial did not provide any outcomes relating to readiness for treatment. The other trial investigated TA compared with a Goal-focused Pretreatment Intervention in a sample of 74 outpatients with personality disorders. The results found no intervention effects on symptomatology but suggested that TA might improve patient expectancy for future treatment among completers of the intervention. Both trials were judged at a high risk of bias and with very low certainty of evidence. DISCUSSION: We found no support for the clinical effect of psychological assessment as a therapeutic intervention due to the high risk of bias and low certainty of the evidence.

Attachment Problems and Mentalizing Capacity Relate to Parent-Child Informant Discrepancies in Female Adolescents with Borderline Personality Disorder.

Parent-child informant discrepancies on psychopathology provide important knowledge on the parent-child relationship and the child's mental health, but mechanisms underlying parent-child informant discrepancies are largely unknown. Therefore, we investigated the relationship between attachment problems and mentalizing capacity and parent-child informant discrepancies on borderline personality disorder (BPD) severity, internalizing, and externalizing pathology in a clinical sample of 91 adolescent girls with BPD and their parents. Results showed that more attachment problems to parents and peers were related to adolescents reporting more severe BPD than parents. Adolescents who described more internalizing symptoms relative to parents, reported more parental attachment problems, but enhanced peer attachment, suggesting those adolescents who do not feel recognized by their parents might turn to their friends. When parents rated adolescents higher on externalizing behaviors, the adolescent reported more attachment problems to parents and lower mentalizing capacity, indicating that this sub-group of adolescents may reflect less about how their behavior affects others.

Methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated psychiatric disorders in childhood. Typically, children and adolescents with ADHD find it difficult to pay attention and they are hyperactive and impulsive. Methylphenidate is the psychostimulant most often prescribed, but the evidence on benefits and harms is uncertain. This is an update of our comprehensive systematic review on benefits and harms published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of methylphenidate for children and adolescents with ADHD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers up to March 2022. In addition, we checked reference lists and requested published and unpublished data from manufacturers of methylphenidate. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents aged 18 years and younger with a diagnosis of ADHD. The search was not limited by publication year or language, but trial inclusion required that 75% or more of participants had a normal intellectual quotient (IQ > 70). We assessed two primary outcomes, ADHD symptoms and serious adverse events, and three secondary outcomes, adverse events considered non-serious, general behaviour, and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment for each trial. Six review authors including two review authors from the original publication participated in the update in 2022. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Data from parallel-group trials and first-period data from cross-over trials formed the basis of our primary analyses. We undertook separate analyses using end-of-last period data from cross-over trials. We used Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA) to control for type I (5%) and type II (20%) errors, and we assessed and downgraded evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 212 trials (16,302 participants randomised); 55 parallel-group trials (8104 participants randomised), and 156 cross-over trials (8033 participants randomised) as well as one trial with a parallel phase (114 participants randomised) and a cross-over phase (165 participants randomised). The mean age of participants was 9.8 years ranging from 3 to 18 years (two trials from 3 to 21 years). The male-female ratio was 3:1. Most trials were carried out in high-income countries, and 86/212 included trials (41%) were funded or partly funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Methylphenidate treatment duration ranged from 1 to 425 days, with a mean duration of 28.8 days. Trials compared methylphenidate with placebo (200 trials) and with no intervention (12 trials). Only 165/212 trials included usable data on one or more outcomes from 14,271 participants. Of the 212 trials, we assessed 191 at high risk of bias and 21 at low risk of bias. If, however, deblinding of methylphenidate due to typical adverse events is considered, then all 212 trials were at high risk of bias. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.88 to -0.61; I² = 38%; 21 trials; 1728 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -10.58 (95% CI -12.58 to -8.72) on the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS; range 0 to 72 points). The minimal clinically relevant difference is considered to be a change of 6.6 points on the ADHD-RS. Methylphenidate may not affect serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.67; I² = 0%; 26 trials, 3673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The TSA-adjusted intervention effect was RR 0.91 (CI 0.31 to 2.68). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: methylphenidate may cause more adverse events considered non-serious versus placebo or no intervention (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; I² = 72%; 35 trials 5342 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The TSA-adjusted intervention effect was RR 1.22 (CI 1.08 to 1.43). Methylphenidate may improve teacher-rated general behaviour versus placebo (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.33; I² = 68%; 7 trials 792 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but may not affect quality of life (SMD 0.40, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.83; I² = 81%; 4 trials, 608 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The majority of our conclusions from the 2015 version of this review still apply. Our updated meta-analyses suggest that methylphenidate versus placebo or no-intervention may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms and general behaviour in children and adolescents with ADHD. There may be no effects on serious adverse events and quality of life. Methylphenidate may be associated with an increased risk of adverse events considered non-serious, such as sleep problems and decreased appetite. However, the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is very low and therefore the true magnitude of effects remain unclear. Due to the frequency of non-serious adverse events associated with methylphenidate, the blinding of participants and outcome assessors is particularly challenging. To accommodate this challenge, an active placebo should be sought and utilised. It may be difficult to find such a drug, but identifying a substance that could mimic the easily recognised adverse effects of methylphenidate would avert the unblinding that detrimentally affects current randomised trials. Future systematic reviews should investigate the subgroups of patients with ADHD that may benefit most and least from methylphenidate. This could be done with individual participant data to investigate predictors and modifiers like age, comorbidity, and ADHD subtypes.

Prevalence and incidence of personality disorders among children and adolescents in Danish mental health services: a nationwide register study.

A few epidemiological studies have examined personality disorders (PDs) among children and adolescents in secondary mental health services. This study aims to describe the prevalence and incidence of PDs among children and adolescents who have attended Danish child and adolescent psychiatric services (CAPS). Using register-based data, we studied all patients under the age of 18 years who were admitted to in- and outpatient CAPS (N = 115,121) in Denmark from 2007 to 2017. A total of 4952 patients were diagnosed with a PD during the study period. The mean prevalence was 859 patients per year, and the mean incidence was 274 patients per year, including an increased incidence and prevalence of borderline, anxious, and unspecified PDs over the decade. The number of patients diagnosed with PDs increased from 700 to 851 per year, but the proportion of patients with PDs compared to all psychiatric diagnoses decreased from 4.2% to 2.8% over the study period. The PD population had an older age (14.8 years vs. 11.3 years; p < 0.001), a higher likelihood of being female (74% vs. 44%; p < 0.001), and four times more contacts with the psychiatric emergency departments than other patients with a psychiatric diagnosis. Future studies should focus on (a) implementing further epidemiological studies in different countries; (b) tracking diagnostic practices to facilitate comparisons and provide feedback for training clinicians and raising awareness; and (c) estimating trajectories of PDs, including costs within the CAPS, to facilitate informed decision-making regarding the future organization and provision of services to these children, adolescents, and their families.

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.

Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders.

BACKGROUND: Control interventions in randomised trials provide a frame of reference for the experimental interventions and enable estimations of causality. In the case of randomised trials assessing patients with mental health disorders, many different control interventions are used, and the choice of control intervention may have considerable impact on the estimated effects of the treatments being evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of typical control interventions in randomised trials with patients with mental health disorders. The difference in effects between control interventions translates directly to the impact a control group has on the estimated effect of an experimental intervention. We aimed primarily to assess the difference in effects between (i) wait-list versus no-treatment, (ii) usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment, and (iii) placebo interventions (all placebo interventions combined or psychological, pharmacological, and physical placebos individually) versus wait-list or no-treatment. Wait-list patients are offered the experimental intervention by the researchers after the trial has been finalised if it offers more benefits than harms, while no-treatment participants are not offered the experimental intervention by the researchers. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2018, we searched MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, CENTRAL, and seven other databases and six trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials assessing patients with a mental health disorder that compared wait-list, usual care, or placebo interventions with wait-list or no-treatment . DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed for eligibility. Review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for data from additional published and unpublished trials. A pre-planned decision hierarchy was used to select one benefit and one harm outcome from each trial. For the assessment of benefits, we summarised continuous data as standardised mean differences (SMDs) and dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs). We used risk differences (RDs) for the assessment of adverse events. We used random-effects models for all statistical analyses. We used subgroup analysis to explore potential causes for heterogeneity (e.g. type of placebo) and sensitivity analyses to explore the robustness of the primary analyses (e.g. fixed-effect model). MAIN RESULTS: We included 96 randomised trials (4200 participants), ranging from 8 to 393 participants in each trial. 83 trials (3614 participants) provided usable data. The trials included 15 different mental health disorders, the most common being anxiety (25 trials), depression (16 trials), and sleep-wake disorders (11 trials). All 96 trials were assessed as high risk of bias partly because of the inability to blind participants and personnel in trials with two control interventions. The quality of evidence was rated low to very low, mostly due to risk of bias, imprecision in estimates, and heterogeneity. Only one trial compared wait-list versus no-treatment directly but the authors were not able to provide us with any usable data on the comparison. Five trials compared usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment and found a SMD -0.33 (95% CI -0.83 to 0.16, I² = 86%, 523 participants) on benefits. The difference between all placebo interventions combined versus wait-list or no-treatment was SMD -0.37 (95% CI -0.49 to -0.25, I² = 41%, 65 trials, 2446 participants) on benefits. There was evidence of some asymmetry in the funnel plot (Egger's test P value of 0.087). Almost all the trials were small. Subgroup analysis found a moderate effect in favour of psychological placebos SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.64 to -0.30; I² = 53%, 39 trials, 1656 participants). The effect of pharmacological placebos versus wait-list or no-treatment on benefits was SMD -0.14 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.11, 9 trials, 279 participants) and the effect of physical placebos was SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.08, I² = 0%, 17 trials, 896 participants). We found large variations in effect sizes in the psychological and pharmacological placebo comparisons. For specific mental health disorders, we found significant differences in favour of all placebos for sleep-wake disorders, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorders, but the analyses were imprecise due to sparse data. We found no significant differences in harms for any of the comparisons but the analyses suffered from sparse data. When using a fixed-effect model in a sensitivity analysis on the comparison for usual care versus wait-list and no-treatment, the results were significant with an SMD of -0.46 (95 % CI -0.64 to -0.28). We reported an alternative risk of bias model where we excluded the blinding domains seeing how issues with blinding may be seen as part of the review investigation itself. However, this did not markedly change the overall risk of bias profile as most of the trials still included one or more unclear bias domains. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found marked variations in effects between placebo versus no-treatment and wait-list and between subtypes of placebo with the same comparisons. Almost all the trials were small with considerable methodological and clinical variability in factors such as mental health population, contents of the included control interventions, and outcome domains. All trials were assessed as high risk of bias and the evidence quality was low to very low. When researchers decide to use placebos or usual care control interventions in trials with people with mental health disorders it will often lead to lower estimated effects of the experimental intervention than when using wait-list or no-treatment controls. The choice of a control intervention therefore has considerable impact on how effective a mental health treatment appears to be. Methodological guideline development is needed to reach a consensus on future standards for the design and reporting of control interventions in mental health intervention research.

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.

Remarkable high frequency of insecure attachment in children with ADHD persists in a three-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Studies have pointed to a complicated and mutual relationship between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and attachment. In an observational follow-up study conducted in 2015 60 children from 7 years to 12 years recently diagnosed with ADHD were included and assessed according to attachment representation showing 85% of the children to be insecurely attached. AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the stability of this remarkably high frequency of insecure attachment in the same cohort of children. METHODS: Children previously assessed using the child attachment interview (CAI) when diagnosed with ADHD were contacted three years later for a follow-up CAI assessment. RESULTS: At follow-up, 31 children participated in the CAI-interviews. Since their diagnosis with ADHD, the children had received treatment as usual. The CAI-interviews showed a continued high rate of insecure attachment with 90% of the children classifying as insecurely attached compared to expected 38% in the normal population. Of these, the majority of children (77%) were classified as dismissing. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that targeting ADHD-symptoms with our current treatment strategies does not in itself improve attachment security. Attachment security may in turn be a factor of importance when evaluating general functioning and prognosis.

Mentalization-based treatment in groups for adolescents with Borderline Personality Disorder: 3- and 12-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.

Mentalization-based treatment in groups (MBT-G) has never been tested in adolescents with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) in a randomized controlled trial. The current study aimed to test the long-term effectiveness of MBT-G in an adolescent sample with BPD or BPD features (≥ 4 DSM-5 BPD criteria). Hundred and eleven patients with BPD (n = 106) or BPD features (n = 5) were randomized to either (1) a 1-year modified MBT-G program comprising three MBT introductory sessions, five individual case formulation sessions, 37 weekly MBT group sessions, and six MBT-Parent sessions, or (2) treatment as usual (TAU), defined as at least 12 individual monthly treatment sessions with follow-up assessments at 3 and 12 months post treatment. The primary outcome was the score on the Borderline Personality Features Scale for Children (BPFS-C), and secondary outcomes included clinician-rated BPD symptoms and global level of functioning as well as self-reported self-harm, depression, externalizing and internalizing symptoms, and caregiver reports. There were no statistically significant differences between MBT-G and TAU on the primary outcome measure or any of the secondary outcomes. Both groups showed improvement on the majority of clinical and social outcomes at both follow-up points, although remission rates were modest with just 35% in MBT-G and 39% in TAU 2 years after inclusion into the study. MBT-G was not superior to TAU in improving borderline features in adolescents. Although improvement was observed equally in both interventions over time, the patients continued to exhibit prominent BPD features, general psychopathology and decreased functioning in the follow-up period, which points to a need for more research and better understanding of effective components in early intervention programs. The ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT02068326.