Borderline personality disorder: 6 studies of psychosocial interventions

Study design

• In the 2009 trial, Bateman et al¹³ randomized adult participants who met DSM-IV criteria for BPD and had a suicide attempt or episode of life-threatening self-harm in the past 6 months to receive 18 months of MBT or SCM. The primary outcome was crisis events, defined as a composite of suicidal and severe self-injurious behaviors and hospitalizations. The 2021 Bateman et al⁸ study expanded this investigation by collecting additional data on a yearly basis for 8 years.
• Of the 134 original participants, 98 agreed to complete the follow-up. Due to attrition, the follow-up period was limited to 8 years. At each yearly visit, researchers collected information on the primary outcome, the absence of severe self-harm, suicide attempts, and inpatient admissions in the previous 12 months.
• Secondary measures were collected mainly through a modified version of the Client Service Receipt Inventory and included critical incidents, psychiatric and medical hospital and community services, employment and other personally meaningful activity, psychoactive medication, and other mental health treatments.

Outcomes

• The number of participants who met diagnostic criteria for BPD at the 1-year follow-up was significantly lower in the MBT group compared with the SCM group. To improve participant retention, this outcome was not evaluated at later visits.
• The number of participants who achieved the primary recovery criteria of the original trial (absence of severe self-harm, suicide attempts, and inpatient admissions in the previous 12 months) and remained well throughout the entire follow-up period was significantly higher in the MBT group compared with the SCM group. The average number of years during which participants failed to meet recovery criteria was significantly greater in the SCM group compared with the MBT group.
• When controlling for age, treatment group was a significant predictor of recovery during the follow-up period. Overall, significantly fewer participants in the MBT group experienced critical incidents during the follow-up period.
• The SCM group used crisis mental health services for a significantly greater number of follow-up years than the MBT group, although the likelihood of ever using crisis services did not statistically differ between the groups. Both groups had similar use of outpatient mental health services, primary care services, and nonmental health medical services. Compared to the SCM group, the MBT group had significantly fewer professional support service visits and significantly fewer outpatient psychiatrist visits.
• MBT group participants spent more time in education, were less likely to be unemployed, and were less likely to use social care interventions than SCM group participants. Although those in the MBT group spent more months engaged in purposeful activity, there was no significant difference between the groups in the proportion of participants who did not engage in purposeful activity.
• The MBT group spent fewer months receiving psychotherapeutic medication compared with the SCM group. The variables that yielded significant 2-way interactions were eating disorder, substance use disorder, and physical abuse, suggesting greater benefit from MBT with these concurrent diagnoses. Younger age was associated with better outcomes.

Conclusions/limitations

• This study demonstrated that patients with BPD significantly benefited from specialized therapies such as MBT.
• At the 1 follow-up visit, the number of participants who met diagnostic criteria for BPD was significantly lower in the MBT group compared with the SCM group.
• The number of participants who had achieved the primary recovery criteria and remained well during the 8-year follow-up period was significantly higher in the MBT group compared to the SCM group.
• Limitations include increasing attrition over time, possible allegiance effects and unmasking of research assistants, lack of self-report questionnaires, and the potentially erroneous conclusion that increased use of services equates to poorer treatment response and greater need for support.

6. Klein JP, Hauer-von Mauschwitz A, Berger T, et al. Effectiveness and safety of the adjunctive use of an internet-based self-management intervention for borderline personality disorder in addition to care as usual: results from a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2021;11(9):e047771.

Fewer than 1 in 4 patients with BPD have access to effective psychotherapies. The use of internet-based self-management interventions (SMIs) developed from evidence-based psychotherapies can help close this treatment gap. Although the efficacy of SMIs for several mental disorders has been demonstrated in multiple meta-analyses, results for BPD are mixed. In this study, Klein et al⁹ examined the effectiveness and safety of the adjunctive use of an SMI based on schema therapy in addition to care as usual (CAU) in patients with BPD.

Study design

• In a 12-month, rater-blind, controlled parallel group trial, adults who had a total BPDSI score ≥15 and either a diagnosis of BPD according to DSM-IV criteria or a probable diagnosis of BPD (if they had also received a BPD diagnosis from their treating physician) were randomized to an internet-based SMI based on schema therapy called priovi (n = 103) or CAU (n = 101). Participants could complete the SMI content in approximately 6 months but were recommended to use the intervention for the entire year.
• Participation in psychotherapy and psychiatric treatment, including pharmacotherapy, was permitted. At baseline, 74% of participants were receiving psychotherapy and 88% were receiving psychiatric treatment.
• The primary outcome was change in BPDSI score at 12 months. The primary safety outcome was the number of serious adverse events at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included BPD severity, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, quality of life, uncontrolled internet use, negative treatment effects, and satisfaction with the intervention. Most assessments were measured at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months.

Outcomes

• Large reductions in the severity of BPD symptoms as measured by change in BPDSI score was observed in both groups. Although the average reduction in BPDSI score was greater in the SMI group, this difference was not statistically significant from the CAU group.
• There was no statistically significant difference in the number of serious adverse events between groups at any time.

Conclusions/limitations

• Treatment with SMI did not result in improved outcomes over CAU. Although the average reduction in BPDSI score was greater in the SMI group compared to the CAU group, this difference was not statistically significant.
• The authors cautioned that the smaller-than-expected between-groups effect size must be interpreted against the background of an unexpectedly large effect in the CAU group. In fact, the CAU group pre/post effect was comparable to the pre/post effect of intensive specialized DBT treatment groups in previous RCTs.
• The authors also suggested that the high percentage of participants who received psychotherapy did not allow for an additional benefit from SMI.
• Limitations include recruitment method, lack of systematic assessment of accidental unblinding, high exclusion rate due to failure of the participant or treating clinician to provide confirmation of diagnosis, and the use of a serious adverse events assessment that is not psychometrically validated.

Bottom Line

Evidence from randomized controlled trials suggests that internet-based psychoeducation, brief dialectical behavior therapy skills-only treatment, interpersonal therapy, a program that combines day treatment with individual and group psychotherapy, and mentalization-based treatment can improve symptoms and quality of life for patients with borderline personality disorder.