Cognitive therapy versus Rogerian supportive therapy in borderline personality disorder. Two-year follow-up of a controlled pilot study.

BACKGROUND: To date, there have been no studies comparing cognitive therapy (CT) with Rogerian supportive therapy (RST) in borderline personality disorder. METHOD: Sixty-five DSM-IV borderline personality disorder outpatients were recruited at 2 centres: Lyon and Marseille. Thirty-three patients were randomly allocated to CT and 32 to RST. The therapists were the same in both groups. Both treatments shared the same duration (1 year) and amount of therapy. Assessment by independent evaluators utilised the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Scale, the Hamilton Depression Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Hopelessness Scale, Young Schema Questionnaire II, Eysenck Impulsivity Venturesomeness Empathy (IVE) Inventory, a self-harming behaviours checklist and scales measuring quality of life and the therapeutic relationship. The response criterion was a score of 3 or less on the CGI, associated with a Hopelessness Scale score of <8. RESULTS: No patient committed suicide during the trial. Fifty-one patients were evaluated at week 24, 38 at week 52 and 21 at week 104. Cognitive therapy retained the patients in therapy for a longer time. The response criterion found no significant between-group differences at any measurement point in the completers. However, at week 24, CT was better than RST on the Hopelessness Scale, IVE scale and regarding the therapeutic relationship. At week 104, the CGI improvement (patient and evaluator) was significantly better in CT than in RST. High baseline depression and impulsivity predicted dropouts. CONCLUSIONS: CT retained the patients in therapy longer, showed earlier positive effects on hopelessness and impulsivity, and demonstrated better long-term outcomes on global measures of improvement.

Randomized controlled comparison of cognitive behavior therapy with Rogerian supportive therapy in chronic post-traumatic stress disorder: a 2-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: To date, there have been no studies comparing cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) with Rogerian therapy in post-traumatic stress disorder. METHOD: Sixty outpatients with DSM-IV chronic post-traumatic stress disorder were randomized into two groups for 16 weekly individual sessions of CBT or Rogerian supportive therapy (ST) at two centers. No medication was prescribed. Measures included the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist Scale (PCLS), the Hamilton Anxiety Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, and Quality of Life. The general criterion of improvement (GCI) was a score of less than 44 on the PCLS. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were evaluated at post-test, 38 at week 52 and 25 at week 104. At post-test, the rate of patients leaving the trial due to worsening or lack of effectiveness was significantly higher in the ST group (p = 0.004). At this point, no between-group difference was found on the GCI and any of the rating scales. Intent-to-treat analysis found no difference for the GCI, but patients in the CBT group showed greater improvement on the PCLS and Hamilton Anxiety Scale. Naturalistic follow-up showed sustained improvement without between-group differences at weeks 52 and 104. CONCLUSIONS: CBT retained significantly more patients in treatment than ST, but its effects were equivalent to those of ST in the completers. CBT was better in the dimensional intent-to-treat analysis at post-test.

Comparison of escitalopram and citalopram in outpatients with severe major depressive disorder: a prospective, naturalistic, 8-week study.

Objective. Escitalopram is a new selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor indicated for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). The objective of this study is to examine its efficacy in the treatment of severe MDD compared with that of citalopram in daily practice. Method. A prospective, naturalistic, 8-week study was conducted involving 127 patients fulfilling DSM-IV criteria for severe MDD and having a baseline Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of at least 30. A full non-parsimonious logistic model, called the propensity score, was first defined to reduce bias associated with non-randomization. The primary efficacy analysis was the mean change from baseline to week 8 in MADRS score between the escitalopram and citalopram groups, after stratification on the propensity score. Other efficacy measurements consisted of the Clinical Global Impression of Severity and Improvement scales (CGI-S and CGI-I, respectively), response (defined as a reduction of at least 50% on MADRS from baseline to week 8) and remission rates (defined as MADRS ≤ 12 at week 8), after adjustment on propensity score for escitalopram use. Results. A total of 67 escitalopram-treated patients and 60 citalopram-treated patients were enrolled in this study. Escitalopram reduced mean MADRS total score at week 8 compared with citalopram (-23.5 vs. -17.5; P<0.001). The effect of escitalopram was consistently greater than that of citalopram on the CGI scales. Escitalopram-treated patients were also more likely to respond to treatment (79.4 vs. 44.0%; P<0.001), and remission rates were also in favour of escitalopram (56.9 vs. 11.2%, P<0.001). Analysis of safety data showed better tolerability of escitalopram than that of citalopram. Conclusion. Using adequate methodology to reduce biases due to non-randomization, this study indicates better efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram versus citalopram in severe MDD outpatients.

The validation of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist Scale in posttraumatic stress disorder and nonclinical subjects.

BACKGROUND: The Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist Scale (PCLS) is a short self-report inventory for assessing the 3 main syndromes of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The aim of this study was the validation of the French version of the PCLS in PTSD subjects and nonclinical subjects. METHODS: One-hundred and thirteen outpatients suffering from PTSD according to DSM-IV were administered the PCLS. The patients' scores on the PCLS were then compared to those of 31 nonclinical control subjects. Thirty-five of the patients were administered the PCLS twice over an interval of 1-2 weeks and also completed questionnaires measuring depression, phobia and anxiety. RESULTS: The patients' total score and subscores on the PCLS were found to be significantly higher than those of control subjects. The cutoff score of 44 on the French version PCLS distinguishes well between the PTSD group and control group with a high diagnostic efficacy (0.94). Factor analysis revealed 3 main factors corresponding to the reexperiencing, numbing and hyperarousal syndromes. The PCLS showed satisfactory test-retest reliability and internal consistency. CONCLUSIONS: The PCLS is therefore a valid and effective measurement of PTSD. It may be a useful tool for screening and assessing PTSD in psychiatric as well as in primary-care settings.