The impact of personality disorder pathology on the effectiveness of Cognitive Therapy and Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Major Depressive Disorder

BACKGROUND: Despite extensive research, there is no consensus how Personality Disorders (PD) and PD features affect outcome for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). The present study evaluated the effects of PD (features) on treatment continuation and effectiveness in Cognitive Therapy (CT) and Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT) for MDD. METHODS: Depressed outpatients were randomized to CT (n=72) and IPT (n=74). Primary outcome was depression severity measured repeatedly with the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) at baseline, three months, at the start of each therapy session, at post-treatment and monthly during five months follow-up. RESULTS: Comorbid PD and PD features did not affect dropout. Multilevel and Cox regression models indicated no negative effect of PD on BDI-II change and remission rates during treatment and follow-up, irrespective of the treatment received. For both therapies, higher dependent PD features predicted overall lower BDI-II scores during treatment, however this effect did not sustain through follow-up. Cluster A PD features moderated treatment outcome during treatment and follow-up: individuals with high cluster A PD features had greater BDI-II reductions over time in CT as compared to IPT. LIMITATIONS: Not all therapists and participants were blind to the assessment of PD (features), and assessments were performed by one rater. Further research must investigate the state and trait dependent changes of PD and MDD over time. CONCLUSIONS: We found no negative impact of PD on the effectiveness and treatment retention of CT and IPT for MDD during treatment and follow-up. If replicated, cluster A PD features can be used to optimize treatment selection

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

Cognitive therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy for major depressive disorder:how do they work, how long, and for whom?

BACKGROUND: Although the effectiveness of cognitive therapy (ct) and interpersonal psychotherapy (ipt) for depression has been well established, little is known about how, how long and for whom they work.&lt;br/&gt; AIM: To summarize findings from a large rct to the (differential) effects and mechanisms of change of ct/ipt for depression.&lt;br/&gt; METHOD: 182 adult depressed outpatients were randomized to ct (n = 76), ipt (n = 75), or a two-month wait-list-control condition (n = 31). Primary outcome was depression severity (bdi-ii). Other outcomes were quality of life, social and general psychological functioning and various potential process measures. Interventions were compared at the end of treatment, and up to 17 months follow-up.&lt;br/&gt; RESULTS: Overall, ct and ipt were both superior to the wait-list, but did not differ significantly from one another. However, the pathway through which therapeutic change occurred appeared to be different for ct and ipt, and many patients were predicted to have a clinically meaningful advantage in one of the two interventions. We did not find empirical support for the theoretical models of change.&lt;br/&gt; CONCLUSION: (Long-term) outcomes of ct and ipt appear to not differ significantly. The field would benefit from further refinement of research methods to disentangle mechanisms of change, and from advances in the field of personalized medicine.</p

Cost-effectiveness of twice-weekly versus once-weekly sessions of cognitive-behavioural therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy for depression at 12 months after start of treatment : randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Cost-effective treatments are needed to reduce the burden of depression. One way to improve the cost-effectiveness of psychotherapy might be to increase session frequency, but keep the total number of sessions constant. AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of twice-weekly compared with once-weekly psychotherapy sessions after 12 months, from a societal perspective. METHOD: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial comparing twice-weekly versus once-weekly sessions of psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioural therapy or interpersonal psychotherapy) for depression. Missing data were handled by multiple imputation. Statistical uncertainty was estimated with bootstrapping and presented with cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: Differences between the two groups in depressive symptoms, physical and social functioning, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) at 12-month follow-up were small and not statistically significant. Total societal costs in the twice-weekly session group were higher, albeit not statistically significantly so, than in the once-weekly session group (mean difference €2065, 95% CI -686 to 5146). The probability that twice-weekly sessions are cost-effective compared with once-weekly sessions was 0.40 at a ceiling ratio of €1000 per point improvement in Beck Depression Inventory-II score, 0.32 at a ceiling ratio of €50 000 per QALY gained, 0.23 at a ceiling ratio of €1000 per point improvement in physical functioning score and 0.62 at a ceiling ratio of €1000 per point improvement in social functioning score. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current results, twice-weekly sessions of psychotherapy for depression are not cost-effective over the long term compared with once-weekly sessions