The (cost-)effectiveness of early intervention (MBT-early) versus standard protocolized treatment (CBT) for emerging borderline personality disorder in adolescents (the EARLY study): a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although clinical guidelines prioritize the treatment of depression and anxiety in young persons, there is accumulating evidence that the presence of symptoms of borderline personality disorder (BPD) is associated with the limited effectiveness of these standard treatments. These findings stress the need for interventions addressing early-stage BPD in young people with presenting symptoms of anxiety and depressive disorders. The aim of this study is to investigate the (cost-)effectiveness of an early intervention programme for BPD (MBT-early) compared to first-choice psychological treatment for depression and anxiety according to Dutch treatment guidelines (CBT), in adolescents with either depression, anxiety, or both, in combination with early-stage BPD. METHODS: This study is a multi-centre randomized controlled trial. A total of 132 adolescents, presenting with either depression, anxiety, or both and significant BPD features will be randomized to either MBT-early or CBT. The severity of BPD, symptoms of depression and anxiety, personality, social and academic functioning, and quality of life will be assessed at baseline, end of treatment, and at 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-up, along with medical costs and costs of productivity losses for cost-effectiveness analyses. DISCUSSION: This study will provide an empirical evaluation of the potential surplus value of early intervention in young people for whom treatment oriented at common mental disorders like anxiety and depression may be insufficient given their underlying personality problems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NL9569. Registered on June 15, 2021.

Impact of clinical severity on treatment response in a randomized controlled trial comparing day hospital and intensive outpatient mentalization-based treatment for borderline personality disorder.

This study examined the impact of clinical severity on treatment outcome in two programs that differ markedly in treatment intensity: day hospital mentalization-based treatment (MBT-DH) and intensive outpatient mentalization-based treatment (MBT-IOP) for borderline personality disorder (BPD). A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted. Participants include the full intention-to-treat sample of the original trial of N = 114 randomized BPD patients (MBT-DH n = 70, MBT-IOP n = 44), who were assessed at baseline and subsequently every 6 up to 36 months after start of treatment. Outcomes were general symptom severity, borderline features, and interpersonal functioning. Clinical severity was examined in terms of severity of BPD, general symptom severity, comorbid symptom disorders, comorbid personality disorders, and cluster C personality features. None of the severity measures was related to treatment outcome or differentially predicted treatment outcome in MBT-DH and MBT-IOP, with the exception of a single moderating effect of co morbid symptom disorders on outcome in terms of BPD features, indicating less improvement in MBT-DH for patients with more symptom disorders. Overall, patients with varying levels of clinical severity benefited equally from MBT-DH and MBT-IOP, indicating that clinical severity may not be a useful criterion to differentiate in treatment intensity.

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.

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 = .58) for MBT-DH and 1.83 (SD = .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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

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.

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.

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.

Mentalization-Based Treatment Versus Specialist Treatment as Usual for Borderline Personality Disorder: Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial With 36-Month Follow-Up.

The authors present an economic evaluation performed alongside a randomized controlled trial of mentalization-based treatment in a day hospital setting (MBT-DH) versus specialist treatment as usual (S-TAU) for borderline personality disorder (BPD) with a 36-month follow-up period. Ninety-five patients from two Dutch treatment institutes were randomly assigned. Societal costs were compared with the proportion of BPD remissions and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) measured using the five-dimensional EuroQol instrument. The incremental societal costs for one additional QALY could not be calculated. The costs for one additional BPD remission with MBT-DH are approximately €29,000. There was a 58% likelihood that MBT-DH leads to more remitted patients at additional costs compared with S-TAU, and a 35% likelihood that MBT-DH leads to more remissions at lower costs. MBT-DH is not cost-effective compared with S-TAU with QALYs as the outcome, and slightly more cost-effective than S-TAU at 36 months with BPD symptoms as the outcome.

Day hospital versus intensive out-patient mentalisation-based treatment for borderline personality disorder: multicentre randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Two types of mentalisation-based treatment (MBT) have been developed and empirically evaluated for borderline personality disorder (BPD): day hospital MBT (MBT-DH) and intensive out-patient MBT (MBT-IOP). No trial has yet compared their efficacy. AIMS: To compare the efficacy of MBT-DH and MBT-IOP 18 months after start of treatment. MBT-DH was hypothesised to be superior to MBT-IOP because of its higher treatment intensity. METHOD: In a multicentre randomised controlled trial (Nederlands Trial Register: NTR2292) conducted at three sites in the Netherlands, patients with BPD were randomly assigned to MBT-DH (n = 70) or MBT-IOP (n = 44). The primary outcome was symptom severity (Brief Symptom Inventory). Secondary outcome measures included borderline symptomatology, personality functioning, interpersonal functioning, quality of life and self-harm. Patients were assessed every 6 months from baseline to 18 months after start of treatment. Data were analysed using multilevel modelling based on intention-to-treat principles. RESULTS: Significant improvements were found on all outcome measures, with moderate to very large effect sizes for both groups. MBT-DH was not superior to MBT-IOP on the primary outcome measure, but MBT-DH showed a clear tendency towards superiority on secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Although MBT-DH was not superior to MBT-IOP on the primary outcome measure despite its greater treatment intensity, MBT-DH showed a tendency to be more effective on secondary outcomes, particularly in terms of relational functioning. Patients receiving MBT-DH and MBT-IOP, thus, seem to follow different trajectories of change, which may have important implications for clinical decision-making. Longer-term follow-up and cost-effectiveness considerations may ultimately determine the optimal intensity of specialised treatments such as MBT for patients with BPD.

Subtypes of borderline personality disorder patients: a cluster-analytic approach.

BACKGROUND: The borderline personality disorder (BPD) population is notably heterogeneous, and this has potentially important implications for intervention. Identifying distinct subtypes of patients may represent a first step in identifying which treatments work best for which individuals. METHODS: A cluster-analysis on dimensional personality disorder (PD) features, as assessed with the SCID-II, was performed on a sample of carefully screened BPD patients (N = 187) referred for mentalization-based treatment. The optimal cluster solution was determined using multiple indices of fit. The validity of the clusters was explored by investigating their relationship with borderline pathology, symptom severity, interpersonal problems, quality of life, personality functioning, attachment, and trauma history, in addition to demographic and clinical features. RESULTS: A three-cluster solution was retained, which identified three clusters of BPD patients with distinct profiles. The largest cluster (n = 145) consisted of patients characterized by "core BPD" features, without marked elevations on other PD dimensions. A second "Extravert/externalizing" cluster of patients (n = 27) was characterized by high levels of histrionic, narcissistic, and antisocial features. A third, smaller "Schizotypal/paranoid" cluster (n = 15) consisted of patients with marked schizotypal and paranoid features. Patients in these clusters showed theoretically meaningful differences in terms of demographic and clinical features. CONCLUSIONS: Three meaningful subtypes of BPD patients were identified with distinct profiles. Differences were small, even when controlling for severity of PD pathology, suggesting a strong common factor underlying BPD. These results may represent a stepping stone toward research with larger samples aimed at replicating the findings and investigating differential trajectories of change, treatment outcomes, and treatment approaches for these subtypes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered 16 April 2010 in the Nederlands Trial Register, no. NTR2292.

Day hospital Mentalization-based treatment versus intensive outpatient Mentalization-based treatment for patients with severe borderline personality disorder: protocol of a multicentre randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is associated with a high socioeconomic burden. Although a number of evidence-based treatments for BPD are currently available, they are not widely disseminated; furthermore, there is a need for more research concerning their efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Such knowledge promises to lead to more efficient use of resources, which will facilitate the effective dissemination of these costly treatments. This study focuses on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Mentalization-Based Treatment (MBT), a manualized treatment for patients with BPD. Studies to date have either investigated MBT in a day hospitalization setting (MBT-DH) or MBT offered in an intensive outpatient setting (MBT-IOP). No trial has compared the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these MBT programmes. As both interventions differ considerably in terms of intensity of treatment, and thus potentially in terms of efficacy and cost-effectiveness, there is a need for comparative trials. This study therefore sets out to investigate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of MBT-DH versus MBT-IOP in patients with BPD. A secondary aim is to investigate the association between baseline measures and outcome, which might improve treatment selection and thus optimize efficacy and cost-effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: A multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing MBT-DH versus MBT-IOP in severe BPD patients. Patients are screened for BPD using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders, and are assessed before randomization, at the start of treatment and 6, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 months after the start of treatment. Patients who refuse to participate will be offered care as usual in the same treatment centre. The primary outcome measure is symptom severity as measured by the Brief Symptom Inventory. Secondary outcome measures include parasuicidal behaviour, depression, substance use, social, interpersonal, and personality functioning, attachment, mentalizing capacities, and quality of life. All analyses will be conducted based on the intention-to-treat principle. Cost-effectiveness will be calculated based on costs per quality-adjusted life-year. DISCUSSION: This multisite randomized trial will provide data to refine criteria for treatment selection for severe BPD patients and promises to optimize (cost-)effectiveness of the treatment of BPD patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR2292 . Registered 16 April 2010.