Comparative outcomes among the problem areas of interpersonal psychotherapy for depression.

BACKGROUND: Although interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) is an efficacious treatment for acute depression, the relative efficacy of treatment in each of the four IPT problem areas (grief, role transitions, role disputes, interpersonal deficits) has received little attention. We evaluated the specificity of IPT by comparing treatment success among patients whose psychotherapy focused on each problem area. Moreover, we sought to understand how the patient characteristics and interpersonal problems most closely linked to the onset of a patient’s current depression contributed to IPT success. METHODS: Patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for an episode of major depressive disorder (n=182) were treated with weekly IPT. Remission was defined as an average Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression 17-item score of 7 or below over 3 weeks. Personality disorders were diagnosed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders. RESULTS: Contrary to our prediction that patients whose treatment was focused on interpersonal deficits would take longer to remit, survival analyses indicated that patients receiving treatment focused on each of the four problem areas did not differ in their times to remission. Nor were patients in the interpersonal deficits group more likely to have an Axis II diagnosis. Patients whose treatment focused on role transitions remitted faster than those whose treatment focused on role disputes, after controlling for covariates. CONCLUSION: With skillful use of IPT strategies and tactics and with careful medication management where appropriate, patients in this study whose treatment focused on each problem area were treated with equal success by trained IPT clinicians

Comparative outcomes among the problem areas of interpersonal psychotherapy for depression.

BACKGROUND: Although interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) is an efficacious treatment for acute depression, the relative efficacy of treatment in each of the four IPT problem areas (grief, role transitions, role disputes, interpersonal deficits) has received little attention. We evaluated the specificity of IPT by comparing treatment success among patients whose psychotherapy focused on each problem area. Moreover, we sought to understand how the patient characteristics and interpersonal problems most closely linked to the onset of a patient's current depression contributed to IPT success. METHODS: Patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for an episode of major depressive disorder (n=182) were treated with weekly IPT. Remission was defined as an average Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression 17-item score of 7 or below over 3 weeks. Personality disorders were diagnosed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders. RESULTS: Contrary to our prediction that patients whose treatment was focused on interpersonal deficits would take longer to remit, survival analyses indicated that patients receiving treatment focused on each of the four problem areas did not differ in their times to remission. Nor were patients in the interpersonal deficits group more likely to have an Axis II diagnosis. Patients whose treatment focused on role transitions remitted faster than those whose treatment focused on role disputes, after controlling for covariates. CONCLUSION: With skillful use of IPT strategies and tactics and with careful medication management where appropriate, patients in this study whose treatment focused on each problem area were treated with equal success by trained IPT clinicians

Addressing the challenges of a cross-national investigation: lessons from the Pittsburgh-Pisa study of treatment-relevant phenotypes of unipolar depression

Abstract BACKGROUND: To date, no cross-national RCT has addressed the mechanisms underlying the relative success of pharmacological and psychotherapeutic interventions for depression. A multi-site clinical trial that includes psychotherapy as one of the treatments presents numerous challenges related to cross-site consistency and communication. PURPOSE: This report describes how those challenges were met in the study "Depression: The Search for Treatment Relevant Phenotypes'', being carried out at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Pisa, Italy. METHODS: Implementing the study required the investigators to address methodological and practical challenges related to the different requirements of the two Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), psychotherapy training, independent evaluator training, patient recruitment, development of common tools for data entry, quality control and generation of weekly reports of patient progress as well as establishing a similar clinical and research framework in two countries with substantially different health care systems. RESULTS: By having bilingual investigators and staff members who spent time at one another's sites, making use of frequent conference-call staff meetings and being flexible within the bounds of the sometimes contradictory requirements of the IRBs, the investigators were able to meet the human subjects protection requirements of both institutions, surmount language barriers to consistent therapist and evaluator training and develop common tools for study management. As a result, recruitment goals were met at both sites and retention rates were high. One instance of inconsistent implementation of the protocol was corrected within the first year. LIMITATIONS: This study was conducted in two Western cultures by researchers with long-standing collaboration. Our findings may not be generalizable to other countries or research settings. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a cross-national protocol and the adoption and maintenance of common procedures is possible when investigators are aware of the challenges this may present and are proactive in trying to address them