Borderline personality disorder: a comprehensive review of diagnosis and clinical presentation, etiology, treatment, and current controversies.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) was introduced in the DSM-III in 1980. From the DSM-III to the DSM-5, no major changes have occurred in its defining criteria. The disorder is characterized by instability of self-image, interpersonal relationships and affects. Further symptoms include impulsivity, intense anger, feelings of emptiness, strong abandonment fears, suicidal or self-mutilation behavior, and transient stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms. There is evidence that BPD can be reliably diagnosed and differentiated from other mental disorders by semi-structured interviews. The disorder is associated with considerable functional impairment, intensive treatment utilization, and high societal costs. The risk of self-mutilation and suicide is high. In the general adult population, the lifetime prevalence of BPD has been reported to be from 0.7 to 2.7%, while its prevalence is about 12% in outpatient and 22% in inpatient psychiatric services. BPD is significantly associated with other mental disorders, including depressive disorders, substance use disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, bipolar disorder, bulimia nervosa, and other personality disorders. There is convincing evidence to suggest that the interaction between genetic factors and adverse childhood experiences plays a central role in the etiology of BPD. In spite of considerable research, the neurobiological underpinnings of the disorder remain to be clarified. Psychotherapy is the treatment of choice for BPD. Various approaches have been empirically supported in randomized controlled trials, including dialectical behavior therapy, mentalization-based therapy, transference-focused therapy, and schema therapy. No approach has proved to be superior to others. Compared to treatment as usual, psychotherapy has proved to be more efficacious, with effect sizes between 0.50 and 0.65 with regard to core BPD symptom severity. However, almost half of the patients do not respond sufficiently to psychotherapy, and further research in this area is warranted. It is not clear whether some patients may benefit more from one psychotherapeutic approach than from others. No evidence is available consistently showing that any psychoactive medication is efficacious for the core features of BPD. For discrete and severe comorbid anxiety or depressive symptoms or psychotic-like features, pharmacotherapy may be useful. Early diagnosis and treatment of BPD can reduce individual suffering and societal costs. However, more high-quality studies are required, in both adolescents and adults. This review provides a comprehensive update of the BPD diagnosis and clinical characterization, risk factors, neurobiology, cognition, and management. It also discusses the current controversies concerning the disorder, and highlights the areas in which further research is needed.

Efficacy of high-intensity versus low-intensity psychoanalytically oriented long-term treatments and determinants of outcome: individual participant data Meta-analysis of Long-term Analytic treatment Studies (MeLAS).

INTRODUCTION: Long-term psychodynamic/psychoanalytic psychotherapy (LTPP) is a prevalent treatment option for complex mental disorders. Yet, little is known about the role of treatment intensity in LTPP. We present a study protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis aggregating and analysing individual data from randomised and quasi-experimental trials by meta-analysis. The purpose is to (1) determine the treatment effectiveness of LTPP with low versus high intensity (up to 2 weekly sessions vs three or more), (2) compare their joint effectiveness to shorter therapies and treatments as usual, (3) identify predictors and moderators of treatment outcomes and (4) determine reciprocal relationships between different outcome domains (symptomatic and structural/personality change) over the courses of LTPP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We include studies from (randomised controlled trial, RCT) and quasi-experimental trials, where at least one condition was LTPP of high or low frequency. Long-term treatment is defined as ≥1 year or ≥50 sessions. To be eligible studies must include a standardised outcome measure of symptoms (global or disorder specific) with at least one proof of reliability. The primary outcome is symptom reduction (global or specific), secondary outcome criteria are reliable change, remission, functional capacities, personality, personality functioning and interpersonal pathology. Relevant studies will mainly be identified by searching relevant databases: PubMed, PsycINFO (via EBSCO), Web of Science (via Elsevier), Chochrane's Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley). Risk of bias will be evaluated in line with the Cochrane assessments tools for quasi-experimental trials and RCTs, respectively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Aggregation of data from primary trials collected based on ethics votes. Dissemination into clinical practice via open access publications of findings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022304982; Pre-results.

Baseline Severity as a Moderator of the Waiting List-Controlled Association of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy With Symptom Change in Social Anxiety Disorder: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis.

Importance: Social anxiety disorder (SAD) can be adequately treated with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). However, there is a large gap in knowledge on factors associated with prognosis, and it is unclear whether symptom severity predicts response to CBT for SAD. Objective: To examine baseline SAD symptom severity as a moderator of the association between CBT and symptom change in patients with SAD. Data Sources: For this systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA), PubMed, PsycInfo, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 1990, to January 13, 2023. Primary search topics were social anxiety disorder, cognitive behavior therapy, and randomized controlled trial. Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials comparing CBT with being on a waiting list and using the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) in adults with a primary clinical diagnosis of SAD. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Authors of included studies were approached to provide individual-level data. Data were extracted by pairs of authors following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. An IPDMA was conducted using a 2-stage approach for the association of CBT with change in LSAS scores from baseline to posttreatment and for the interaction effect of baseline LSAS score by condition using random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the baseline to posttreatment change in symptom severity measured by the LSAS. Results: A total of 12 studies including 1246 patients with SAD (mean [SD] age, 35.3 [10.9] years; 738 [59.2%] female) were included in the meta-analysis. A waiting list-controlled association between CBT and pretreatment to posttreatment LSAS change was found (b = -20.3; 95% CI, -24.9 to -15.6; P < .001; Cohen d = -0.95; 95% CI, -1.16 to -0.73). Baseline LSAS scores moderated the differences between CBT and waiting list with respect to pretreatment to posttreatment symptom reductions (b = -0.22; 95% CI, -0.39 to -0.06; P = .009), indicating that individuals with severe symptoms had larger waiting list-controlled symptom reductions after CBT (Cohen d = -1.13 [95% CI, -1.39 to -0.88] for patients with very severe SAD; Cohen d = -0.54 [95% CI, -0.80 to -0.29] for patients with mild SAD). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and IPDMA, higher baseline SAD symptom severity was associated with greater (absolute but not relative) symptom reductions after CBT in patients with SAD. The findings contribute to personalized care by suggesting that clinicians can confidently offer CBT to individuals with severe SAD symptoms.

The status of psychodynamic psychotherapy as an empirically supported treatment for common mental disorders - an umbrella review based on updated criteria.

To assess the current status of psychodynamic therapy (PDT) as an empirically supported treatment (EST), we carried out a pre-registered systematic umbrella review addressing the evidence for PDT in common mental disorders in adults, based on an updated model for ESTs. Following this model, we focused on meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the past two years to assess efficacy. In addition, we reviewed the evidence on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and mechanisms of change. Meta-analyses were evaluated by at least two raters using the proposed updated criteria, i.e. effect sizes, risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, publication bias, treatment fidelity, and their quality as well as that of primary studies. To assess the quality of evidence we applied the GRADE system. A systematic search identified recent meta-analyses on the efficacy of PDT in depressive, anxiety, personality and somatic symptom disorders. High quality evidence in depressive and somatic symptom disorders and moderate quality evidence in anxiety and personality disorders showed that PDT is superior to (inactive and active) control conditions in reducing target symptoms with clinically meaningful effect sizes. Moderate quality evidence suggests that PDT is as efficacious as other active therapies in these disorders. The benefits of PDT outweigh its costs and harms. Furthermore, evidence was found for long-term effects, improving functioning, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and mechanisms of change in the aforementioned disorders. Some limitations in specific research areas exist, such as risk of bias and imprecision, which are, however, comparable to those of other evidence-based psychotherapies. Thus, according to the updated EST model, PDT proved to be an empirically-supported treatment for common mental disorders. Of the three options for recommendation provided by the updated model (i.e., "very strong", "strong" or "weak"), the new EST criteria suggest that a strong recommendation for treating the aforementioned mental disorders with PDT is the most appropriate option. In conclusion, PDT represents an evidence-based psychotherapy. This is clinically important since no single therapeutic approach fits all psychiatric patients, as shown by the limited success rates across all evidence-based treatments.

Borderline Personality Disorder: A Review.

Importance: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) affects approximately 0.7% to 2.7% of adults in the US. The disorder is associated with considerable social and vocational impairments and greater use of medical services. Observations: Borderline personality disorder is characterized by sudden shifts in identity, interpersonal relationships, and affect, as well as by impulsive behavior, periodic intense anger, feelings of emptiness, suicidal behavior, self-mutilation, transient, stress-related paranoid ideation, and severe dissociative symptoms (eg, experience of unreality of one's self or surroundings). Borderline personality disorder is typically diagnosed by a mental health specialist using semistructured interviews. Most people with BPD have coexisting mental disorders such as mood disorders (ie, major depression or bipolar disorder) (83%), anxiety disorders (85%), or substance use disorders (78%). The etiology of BPD is related to both genetic factors and adverse childhood experiences, such as sexual and physical abuse. Psychotherapy is the treatment of choice for BPD. Psychotherapy such as dialectical behavior therapy and psychodynamic therapy reduce symptom severity more than usual care, with medium effect sizes (standardized mean difference) between -0.60 and -0.65. There is no evidence that any psychoactive medication consistently improves core symptoms of BPD. For discrete and severe comorbid mental disorders, eg, major depression, pharmacotherapy such as the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors escitalopram, sertraline, or fluoxetine may be prescribed. For short-term treatment of acute crisis in BPD, consisting of suicidal behavior or ideation, extreme anxiety, psychotic episodes, or other extreme behavior likely to endanger a patient or others, crisis management is required, which may include prescription of low-potency antipsychotics (eg, quetiapine) or off-label use of sedative antihistamines (eg, promethazine). These drugs are preferred over benzodiazepines such as diazepam or lorazepam. Conclusions and Relevance: Borderline personality disorder affects approximately 0.7% to 2.7% of adults and is associated with functional impairment and greater use of medical services. Psychotherapy with dialectical behavior therapy and psychodynamic therapy are first-line therapies for BPD, while psychoactive medications do not improve the primary symptoms of BPD.

Empirically supported psychodynamic psychotherapy for common mental disorders-An update applying revised criteria: Systematic review protocol.

The approach of evidence-based medicine has been extended to psychotherapy. More than 20 years ago, criteria for empirically supported psychotherapeutic treatments (ESTs) were defined. Meanwhile a new model for empirically supported psychotherapeutic treatments has been proposed. While the empirical status of psychodynamic therapy (PDT) was assessed in several reviews using the previous criteria, the proposed new model has not yet been applied to PDT. For this reason, we will carry out a systematic review on studies of PDT in common mental disorders applying the revised criteria of ESTs. As suggested by the new model we will focus on recent systematic quantitative reviews. A systematic search for meta-analyses on the efficacy of PDT in common mental disorders will be carried out. Meta-analyses will be selected and evaluated by at least two raters along the criteria of the new proposed model. In addition, systematic reviews and individual studies addressing mechanisms of change in PDT, effectiveness under real-world conditions, cost-effectiveness and adverse events will be systematically searched for and evaluated. Finally, quality of evidence, the extent to which benefits exceed harms and strength of recommendations will be assessed per disorder using GRADE.

The efficacy of psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies for mental disorders in adults: an umbrella review and meta-analytic evaluation of recent meta-analyses.

Mental disorders represent a worldwide public health concern. Psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies are recommended as first line treatments. However, evidence has emerged that their efficacy may be overestimated, due to a variety of shortcomings in clinical trials (e.g., publication bias, weak control conditions such as waiting list). We performed an umbrella review of recent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies for the main mental disorders in adults. We selected meta-analyses that formally assessed risk of bias or quality of studies, excluded weak comparators, and used effect sizes for target symptoms as primary outcome. We searched PubMed and PsycINFO and individual records of the Cochrane Library for meta-analyses published between January 2014 and March 2021 comparing psychotherapies or pharmacotherapies with placebo or treatment-as-usual (TAU), or psychotherapies vs. pharmacotherapies head-to-head, or the combination of psychotherapy with pharmacotherapy to either monotherapy. One hundred and two meta-analyses, encompassing 3,782 RCTs and 650,514 patients, were included, covering depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatoform disorders, eating disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, substance use disorders, insomnia, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, and bipolar disorder. Across disorders and treatments, the majority of effect sizes for target symptoms were small. A random effect meta-analytic evaluation of the effect sizes reported by the largest meta-analyses per disorder yielded a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.34 (95% CI: 0.26-0.42) for psychotherapies and 0.36 (95% CI: 0.32-0.41) for pharmacotherapies compared with placebo or TAU. The SMD for head-to-head comparisons of psychotherapies vs. pharmacotherapies was 0.11 (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.26). The SMD for the combined treatment compared with either monotherapy was 0.31 (95% CI: 0.19-0.44). Risk of bias was often high. After more than half a century of research, thousands of RCTs and millions of invested funds, the effect sizes of psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies for mental disorders are limited, suggesting a ceiling effect for treatment research as presently conducted. A paradigm shift in research seems to be required to achieve further progress.

The Validity of the Holtzman Inkblot Technique: New Indices.

Objective: The present study examines the validity of 11 new Holtzman Inkblot Technique indices. These were chosen from Exner's Comprehensive System (RCS) indices using two criteria: first, they had to be valid according to meta-analysis, and second, they must be computed using the HIT standard scoring system. Methods: Both techniques were administrated with a retest interval from 1 to 7days to a sample of 139 subjects (63 males and 76 females) from the general population. The validity of the new indices was studied through Pearson correlation (r) with the corresponding RCS indices. Results: Nine of the 11 new indices (R-HIT, F%-HIT, M-HIT, m-HIT, C'-HIT, Blends-HIT, PureH-HIT, DQ+HIT, and X-%-HIT) showed significant correlations with Rorschach scales, confirming our hypotheses. The correlation ranged from a minimum of 0.144 to a maximum of 0.414. Conclusions: The results provide support for the validity of the new HIT indices and have important implications for both clinical and research fields.

Procrastination, Perfectionism, and Other Work-Related Mental Problems: Prevalence, Types, Assessment, and Treatment-A Scoping Review.

Work-related mental problems can be defined as behaviors, emotions and cognitions that impede the successful completion of a task in a given time frame, i. e., the difficulty or inability to achieve important work-related goals. They are highly prevalent but have been neglected in psychology in general and as a target of psychotherapy in particular. Although work-related problems do not represent a mental disorder per se, they are associated with severe distress and high psychosocial costs. In this article, the prevalence of work-related problems, associated burden, diagnostic assessment and treatment are reviewed. So far, research has primarily focused on procrastination, i.e., the act of postponing or delaying tasks until the last minute or past the deadline. However, procrastination represents just one type of work-related problems among several others. Further forms of work-related problems are presented (e.g., perfectionism, or work-related problems in the context of specific personality types). The relation of work-related problems to specific mental disorders is discussed. Psychosocial interventions are the treatment of choice for work-related mental problems. However, response rates for the treatment of procrastination are limited, which calls for further research into which treatments work for whom. No evidence-based treatments are currently available for other types of work-related problems, with the exception of perfectionism, a personality trait that is also linked to problems in the field of work. Thus, there is a need to further improve the treatment of work-related problems including procrastination. For other types of work-related problems, effective treatments need to be developed and validated. They may be based on existing manualized treatments and extended by specific aspects or modules focusing on work-related problems.

Trauma-focused psychodynamic therapy and STAIR Narrative Therapy of post-traumatic stress disorder related to childhood maltreatment: trial protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial assessing psychological, neurobiological and health economic outcomes (ENHANCE).

INTRODUCTION: Success rates of psychotherapy in post-traumatic stress disorder related to childhood maltreatment (PTSD-CM) are limited. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Observer-blind multicentre randomised clinical trial (A-1) of 4-year duration comparing enhanced methods of STAIR Narrative Therapy (SNT) and of trauma-focused psychodynamic therapy (TF-PDT) each of up to 24 sessions with each other and a minimal attention waiting list in PTSD-CM. Primary outcome is severity of PTSD (Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 total) assessed by masked raters. For SNT and TF-PDT, both superiority and non-inferiority will be tested. Intention-to-treat analysis (primary) and per-protocol analysis (secondary). Assessments at baseline, after 10 sessions, post-therapy/waiting period and at 6 and 12 months of follow-up. Adult patients of all sexes between 18 and 65 years with PTSD-CM will be included. Continuing stable medication is permitted. To be excluded: psychotic disorders, risk of suicide, ongoing abuse, acute substance related disorder, borderline personality disorder, dissociative identity disorder, organic mental disorder, severe medical conditions and concurrent psychotherapy. To be assessed for eligibility: n=600 patients, to be e randomly allocated to the study conditions: n=328. Data management, randomisation and monitoring will be performed by an independent European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN)-certified data coordinating centre for clinical trials (KKS Marburg). Report of AEs to a data monitoring and safety board. Complementing study A-1, four inter-related add-on projects, including subsamples of the treatment study A-1, will examine (1) treatment integrity (adherence and competence) and moderators and mediators of outcome (B-1); (2) biological parameters (B-2, eg, DNA damage, reactive oxygen species and telomere shortening); (3) structural and functional neural changes by neuroimaging (B-3) and (4) cost-effectiveness of the treatments (B-4, costs and utilities). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval by the institutional review board of the University of Giessen (AZ 168/19). Following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for non-pharmacological trials, results will be reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals and disseminated to patient organisations and media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS 00021142.

Multimodal Psychotherapeutic Inpatient Therapy of Depression Is Successful in Patients With High Cytokine Production.

Objective: In experimental settings, systemically elevated inflammation markers interfere with major depression treatment. In German healthcare, compulsory national health insurance covers treatment of a wide variety of depressive disorders, if it follows evidence-based medicine guidelines combining recommended therapies. To date, little is known about the relevance of immune system cytokine production with regard to real-world clinical care for patients with moderate depression. Methods: Seventy three patients with moderate depression subjected to multimodal psychotherapeutic inpatient therapy (mPT) following a psychodynamic concept at a German university hospital were included. As a primary outcome, mPT success, evidenced by delta HADS "depression," was analyzed according to tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) production by peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) after phytohemagglutinin (PHA) challenge at baseline. Secondary outcomes addressed the inflammatory response and mental health comparing high and low TNFα-producers. Results: First, higher PBMC TNFα production at baseline predicted a better mPT-outcome (R 2 0.162, p = 0.014). Second, patients with high TNFα (hTNF) at baseline produced significantly more acute inflammatory cytokines [interleukin (IL)1ß, IL6), TH1/TH2 cytokines [interferon gamma (IFNγ), IL4] as well as eotaxin and IL2 compared to low TNFα producers (lTNF) (Cohen's ds between -0.532 and -1.013). Demographic data, diagnosis subtype-distribution, medication, systemic inflammation markers [C-reactive protein (CRP), high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), leptin], anxiety and depression (HADS) did not differ. From baseline to mPT-discharge, HADS "depression" decreased in both hTNF (11.31 to 5.47, p = 0.001, d = 1.184) and lTNF patients (11.50-7.92, p = 0.001, d = -0.765), while PBMC cytokine production decreased significantly in hTNF (Cohen's ds between -0.304 and -0.345) with a significant group by time interaction for TH1/TH2 ratio. At the end of therapy, comparison of TNF groups revealed significantly lower depression-scores in hTNF compared to lTNF patients (5.47 compared to 7.92, p = 0.035, d = 0.504). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates successful treatment of depression in a clinical care setting using multimodal psychotherapy based on a psychodynamic concept following guideline recommendation. The greatest improvement in patient depression was linked to the highest production of TNFα by PBMCs at baseline. Our study contributes to the definition of patient subpopulations with differing cytokine responses that are related to succesful treatment of depression.