The Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Lamotrigine in Borderline Personality Disorder: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The authors examined whether lamotrigine is a clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for people with borderline personality disorder. METHOD: This was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. Between July 2013 and November 2016, the authors recruited 276 people age 18 or over who met diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder. Individuals with coexisting bipolar affective disorder or psychosis, those already taking a mood stabilizer, and women at risk of pregnancy were excluded. A web-based randomization service was used to allocate participants randomly in a 1:1 ratio to receive either an inert placebo or up to 400 mg/day of lamotrigine. The primary outcome measure was score on the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 52 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included depressive symptoms, deliberate self-harm, social functioning, health-related quality of life, resource use and costs, side effects of treatment, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 195 (70.6%) participants were followed up at 52 weeks, at which point 49 (36%) of those in the lamotrigine group and 58 (42%) of those in the placebo group were taking study medication. The mean ZAN-BPD score was 11.3 (SD=6.6) among those in the lamotrigine group and 11.5 (SD=7.7) among those in the placebo group (adjusted difference in means=0.1, 95% CI=-1.8, 2.0). There was no evidence of any differences in secondary outcomes. Costs of direct care were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that treating people with borderline personality disorder with lamotrigine is not a clinically effective or cost-effective use of resources.

Clinical effectiveness and acceptability of structured group psychoeducation versus optimised unstructured peer support for patients with remitted bipolar disorder (PARADES): a pragmatic, multicentre, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Group psychoeducation is a low-cost National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended treatment for bipolar disorder. However, the clinical effectiveness and acceptability of this intervention are unclear compared with unstructured peer support matched for delivery and aim of treatment, and for previous bipolar history. We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and acceptability of structured group psychoeducation versus optimised unstructured peer support for patients with remitted bipolar disorder. METHODS: We did this pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial at eight community sites in two regions in England. Participants aged 18 years or older with bipolar disorder and no episode in the preceding 4 weeks were recruited via self-referral or secondary care referral. Participants were individually randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated stochastic allocation sequence, to attend 21 2-h weekly sessions of either structured group psychoeducation or optimised unstructured peer support. Randomisation was minimised by number of previous episodes (one to seven, eight to 19, or ≥20) and stratified by clinical site. Outcome assessors were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time from randomisation to next bipolar episode, with planned moderator analysis of number of previous bipolar episodes and qualitative interview of participant experience. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN62761948. FINDINGS: Between Sept 28, 2009, and Jan 9, 2012, we randomly assigned 304 participants to receive psychoeducation (n=153) or peer support (n=151); all (100%) participants had complete primary outcome data. Attendance at psychoeducation groups was higher than at peer-support groups (median 14 sessions [IQR three to 18] vs nine sessions [two to 17]; p=0·026). At 96 weeks, 89 (58%) participants in the psychoeducation group had experienced a next bipolar episode compared with 98 (65%) participants in the peer-support group; time to next bipolar episode did not differ between groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0·83, 95% CI 0·62-1·11; p=0·217). Planned moderator analysis showed that psychoeducation was most beneficial in participants with few (one to seven) previous bipolar episodes (χ2; HR 0·28, 95% CI 0·12-0·68; p=0·034). Four (1%) participants (one in the psychoeducation group and three in the peer-support group) died during follow-up; these deaths were deemed unrelated to the study interventions or procedures. INTERPRETATION: Structured group psychoeducation was no more clinically effective than similarly intensive unstructured peer support, but was more acceptable and improved outcome in participants with fewer previous bipolar episodes. Optimum provision of structured psychological interventions, such as group psychoeducation, early in the course of bipolar disorder might have important benefits on the course of illness, and merits further research. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Lamotrigine versus inert placebo in the treatment of borderline personality disorder: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: People with borderline personality disorder (BPD) experience rapid and distressing changes in mood, poor social functioning and have high rates of suicidal behaviour. Several small scale studies suggest that mood stabilizers may produce short-term reductions in symptoms of BPD, but have not been large enough to fully examine clinical and cost-effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: A two parallel-arm, placebo controlled randomized trial of usual care plus either lamotrigine or an inert placebo for people aged over 18 who are using mental health services and meet diagnostic criteria for BPD. We will exclude people with comorbid bipolar affective disorder or psychosis, those already taking a mood stabilizer, those who speak insufficient English to complete the baseline assessment and women who are pregnant or contemplating becoming pregnant. Those meeting inclusion criteria and provide written informed consent will be randomized to up to 200mg of lamotrigine per day or an inert placebo (up to 400mg if taking combined oral contraceptives). Participants will be randomized via a remote web-based system using permuted stacked blocks stratified by study centre, severity of personality disorder, and level of bipolarity. Follow-up assessments will be conducted by masked researchers 12, 24 weeks, and 52 weeks after randomization. The primary outcome is the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD). The secondary outcomes are depressive symptoms, deliberate self-harm, social functioning, health-related quality of life, resource use and costs, side effects of treatment, adverse events and withdrawal of trial medication due to adverse effects. The main analyses will use intention to treat without imputation of missing data. The economic evaluation will take an NHS/Personal Social Services perspective. A cost-utility analysis will compare differences in total costs and differences in quality of life using QALYs derived from the EQ-5D. DISCUSSION: The evidence base for the use of pharmacological treatments for people with borderline personality disorder is poor. In this trial we will examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine to assess what if any impact offering this has on peoples' mental health, social functioning, and use of other medication and other resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN90916365 (registered 01/08/2012).