Day hospital versus intensive outpatient mentalization-based treatment:3-year follow-up of patients treated for borderline personality disorder in a multicentre randomized clinical trial

Abstract Background Two types of mentalization-based treatment (MBT), day hospital MBT (MBT-DH) and intensive outpatient MBT (MBT-IOP), have been shown to be effective in treating patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). This study evaluated trajectories of change in a multi-site trial of MBT-DH and MBT-IOP at 36 months after the start of treatment. Methods All 114 patients (MBT-DH n = 70, MBT-IOP n = 44) from the original multicentre trial were assessed at 24, 30 and 36 months after the start of treatment. The primary outcome was symptom severity measured with the Brief Symptom Inventory. Secondary outcome measures included borderline symptomatology, personality and interpersonal functioning, quality of life and self-harm. Data were analysed using multilevel modelling and the intention-to-treat principle. Results Patients in both MBT-DH and MBT-IOP maintained the substantial improvements made during the intensive treatment phase and showed further gains during follow-up. Across both conditions, 83% of patients improved in terms of symptom severity, and 97% improved on borderline symptomatology. No significant differences were found between MBT-DH and MBT-IOP at 36 months after the start of treatment. However, trajectories of change were different. Whereas patients in MBT-DH showed greater improvement during the intensive treatment phase, patients in MBT-IOP showed greater continuing improvement during follow-up. Conclusions Patients in both conditions showed similar large improvements over the course of 36 months, despite large differences in treatment intensity. MBT-DH and MBT-IOP were associated with different trajectories of change. Cost-effectiveness considerations and predictors of differential treatment outcome may further inform optimal treatment selection

Economic evaluation of day hospital versus intensive outpatient mentalization-based treatment alongside a randomized controlled trial with 36-month follow-up

Mentalization-based treatment (MBT) has demonstrated robust effectiveness in the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD) in both day hospital (MBT-DH) and intensive outpatient MBT (MBT-IOP) programs. Given the large differences in intensity and associated treatment costs, there is a need for studies comparing their cost-effectiveness. A health economic evaluation of MBT-DH versus MBT-IOP was performed alongside a multicenter randomized controlled trial with a 36-month follow-up. In three mental health-care institutions in the Netherlands, 114 patients were randomly allocated to MBT-DH (n = 70) or MBT-IOP (n = 44) and assessed every 6 months. Societal costs were compared with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and the number of months in remission over 36 months. The QALY gains over 36 months were 1.96 (SD = 0.58) for MBT-DH and 1.83 (SD = 0.56) for MBT-IOP; the respective number of months in remission were 16.0 (SD = 11.5) and 11.1 (SD = 10.7). Societal costs were €106,038 for MBT-DH and €91,368 for MBT-IOP. The incremental cost for one additional QALY with MBT-DH compared with MBT-IOP was €107,000. The incremental cost for 1 month in remission was almost €3000. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000 for a QALY, there was a 33% likelihood that MBT-DH is more cost-effective than MBT-IOP in terms of costs per QALY. Although MBT-DH leads to slightly more QALYs and remission months, it is probably not cost-effective when compared with MBT-IOP for BPD patients, as the small additional health benefits in MBT-DH did not outweigh the substantially higher societal costs

Day hospital versus intensive outpatient mentalization-based treatment: 3-year follow-up of patients treated for borderline personality disorder in a multicentre randomized clinical trial

BackgroundTwo types of mentalization-based treatment (MBT), day hospital MBT (MBT-DH) and intensive outpatient MBT (MBT-IOP), have been shown to be effective in treating patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). This study evaluated trajectories of change in a multi-site trial of MBT-DH and MBT-IOP at 36 months after the start of treatment.MethodsAll 114 patients (MBT-DH n = 70, MBT-IOP n = 44) from the original multicentre trial were assessed at 24, 30 and 36 months after the start of treatment. The primary outcome was symptom severity measured with the Brief Symptom Inventory. Secondary outcome measures included borderline symptomatology, personality and interpersonal functioning, quality of life and self-harm. Data were analysed using multilevel modelling and the intention-to-treat principle.ResultsPatients in both MBT-DH and MBT-IOP maintained the substantial improvements made during the intensive treatment phase and showed further gains during follow-up. Across both conditions, 83% of patients improved in terms of symptom severity, and 97% improved on borderline symptomatology. No significant differences were found between MBT-DH and MBT-IOP at 36 months after the start of treatment. However, trajectories of change were different. Whereas patients in MBT-DH showed greater improvement during the intensive treatment phase, patients in MBT-IOP showed greater continuing improvement during follow-up.ConclusionsPatients in both conditions showed sim

Efficacy of dose-escalated chemoradiation on complete tumour response in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (RECTAL-BOOST); a phase 2 randomised controlled trial

Purpose Pathological complete tumour response following chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is associated with favourable prognosis and allows organ-sparing treatment strategies. We aimed to investigate the effect of an external radiation boost to the tumour prior to chemoradiation on pathological or sustained clinical complete tumour response in LARC. Methods and materials This multicentre, non-blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial followed the trials within cohorts-design, which is a pragmatic trial design allowing cohort participants to be randomized for an experimental intervention. Patients in the intervention group are offered the intervention (and can accept or refuse this), whereas patients in the control group are not notified about the randomisation. Participants of a colorectal cancer cohort referred for chemoradiation of LARC to either of two radiotherapy centres were eligible. Patients were randomised to no boost or an external radiation boost (5 x 3 Gy) without concurrent chemotherapy directly followed by standard pelvic chemoradiation (25 x 2 Gy with concurrent capecitabine). The primary outcome was pathological complete response (pCR, i.e. ypT0N0) in patients with planned surgery at 12 weeks or, as surrogate for pCR, a 2-year sustained clinical complete response for patients treated with an organ preservation strategy. Analyses were intention to treat. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCTXXXXXX. Results Between Sept 2014 and July 2018, 128 patients were randomised. Fifty-one of the 64 (79.7%) patients in the intervention group accepted and received a boost. Compared with the control group, fewer patients in the intervention group had a cT4-stage and a low rectal tumour (31.3% versus 17.2% and 56.3% versus 45.3% respectively), and more patients had a cN2-stage (59.4% versus 70.3% respectively). Rate of pathological or sustained clinical complete tumour response was similar between the groups: 23 of 64 (35.9%, 95%CI 24.3-48.9) in the intervention group versus 24 of 64 (37.5%, 95%CI 25.7-50.5) in the control group (OR=0.94 95%CI 0.46-1.92). Near-complete or complete tumour regression was more common in the intervention group: 34 of 49 (69.4%) versus 24 of 53 (45.3%) in the control group (OR=2.74, 95%CI 1.21-6.18). Grade >3 acute toxicity was comparable: 6 of 64 (9.4%) in the intervention group versus 5 of 64 (7.8%) in the control group (OR=1.22 95%CI 0.35-4.22). Conclusion Dose escalation with an external radiotherapy boost to the tumour prior to neoadjuvant chemoradiation did not increase the pathological or sustained clinical complete tumour response rate in LARC

Attachment as a predictor of dropout in mentalization-based treatment

Objectives: Although treatments of patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) were historically associated with relatively high dropout rates, dropout rates in contemporary evidence-based treatments for BPD are typically substantially lower. However, only a few studies have investigated dropout rates in mentalization-based treatment (MBT), and even fewer have investigated predictors of dropout in this type of treatment. In this study, we investigated dropout rates in two types of MBT (day hospital MBT [MBT-DH] and intensive outpatient MBT [MBT-IOP]) using data from a recent multicenter randomized clinical trial. Given the central importance of attachment considerations in MBT, we also investigated the relationship between dropout in these two treatments and attachment dimensions. Design:Within a multicenter randomized clinical trial, 114 BPD patients were randomized to MBT-DH (n = 70) or MBT-IOP (n = 44). Methods: Dropout in both types of MBT was investigated using descriptive analyses, and its association with attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance, as measured by the Experiences in Close Relationships questionnaire at baseline, was investigated using regression analyses. Results: Dropout rates were relatively low (10.5% across both types of MBT) and did not significantly differ between groups (11.4% in MBT-DH, 9.1% in MBT-IOP). Attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety did not impact dropout, nor did their interaction or the interaction with the type of MBT. Conclusions: Low dropout rates in both types of MBT indicate a high level of engagement of patients in both programmes. Attachment dimensions were not associated with dropout, consistent with the principle that MBT is tailored to each individual's needs. More research is needed, however, to investigate to what extent attachment is a dynamic context-bound adaptive process rather than a static personality feature.</p

Addressing dissociation symptoms with trauma-focused mentalization-based treatment

A significant number of individuals receiving mental health care exhibit a history of traumatic experiences. Accompanying dissociative symptoms often amplify the complexity of their required treatment. This article introduces a novel understanding and treatment approach for post-traumatic stress symptoms, inclusive of dissociation, derived from attachment and mentalization theories. Initially, we outline the different expressions of dissociation and the prevailing knowledge concerning their associations with diverse clinical manifestations and their role in trauma. We subsequently reinterpret these clinical symptoms through an attachment and mentalization lens, then proceed to elaborate on the new trauma-focused mentalization-based treatment and its therapeutic objectives. The article culminates with a case study that exemplifies the application of this approach in a clinical setting

Trauma and Outcomes of Mentalization-Based Therapy for Individuals With Borderline Personality Disorder

OBJECTIVE: Recent meta-analyses suggest that many patients with borderline personality disorder have a history of complex trauma. Although trauma is central in mentalization-based approaches to the understanding of borderline personality disorder, surprisingly little is known about the effects of trauma on outcomes of mentalization-based treatment (MBT). This article investigates the prevalence and impact of childhood trauma among patients with borderline personality disorder participating in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing day hospital MBT (MBT-DH) and intensive outpatient MBT (MBT-IOP). METHODS: All 114 patients from the original multicenter RCT in the Netherlands were included in this study. Childhood trauma was assessed at baseline (with the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire), and its impact on symptom severity, interpersonal functioning, and borderline pathology was investigated through multilevel modeling for 36 months after the start of treatment. RESULTS: Childhood trauma was common among patients with borderline personality disorder referred to MBT, with more than 85% meeting cutoff criteria for substantial childhood trauma. Childhood trauma had little impact on outcomes of either MBT-DH or MBT-IOP in terms of improved borderline personality disorder features or interpersonal functioning. However, patients with substantial childhood trauma seemed to improve more rapidly with MBT-DH, as compared with MBT-IOP, in terms of symptom severity. In addition, patients with a history of emotional neglect showed more rapid changes in symptoms of borderline personality disorder with MBT-DH compared with MBT-IOP. CONCLUSIONS: Findings are discussed in the context of a social communicative approach to borderline personality disorder, with a focus on the need to address trauma in MBT

Erratum: Day hospital versus intensive outpatient mentalization-based treatment: 3-year follow-up of patients treated for borderline personality disorder in a multicentre randomized clinical trial

In the above published article there was an editing error in Table 1. The corrected table is shown below. The publishers apologise for this error