Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Social distancing measures during the COVID‐19 pandemic forced an abrupt transformation of treatment delivery for mental health care. In mid‐March 2020, nearly all in‐person contact was replaced with video conferencing. The pandemic thus offered a natural experiment and a unique opportunity to conduct an observational study of whether alcohol use disorder treatment through video conferencing is non‐inferior to in‐person treatment. Methods: In a large urban substance use disorder treatment center in the Netherlands, treatment evaluation is routine practice. Outcome data are regularly collected to support shared decision making and monitor patient progress. For this study, pre‐test and post‐test data on alcohol use (Measurements in the Addictions for Triage and Evaluation), psychopathology (Depression Anxiety Stress Scales), and quality of life (Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life) were used to compare outcomes of cognitive behavioral therapy treatment for three cohorts: patients who received treatment for a primary alcohol use disorder performed prior to (n = 628), partially during (n = 557), and entirely during (n = 653) the COVID‐19 lockdown. Results: Outcome was similar across the three cohorts: No inferior outcomes were found for treatments that were conducted predominantly through video conferencing during lockdown or treatments that started in‐person, but were continued through video conferencing, compared to in‐person treatments that were conducted prior to COVID‐19. The number of drop‐outs were also similar between cohorts. However, there was a difference in average treatment intensity between cohorts, with treatment partially or fully conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic lasting longer. Conclusions: Treatment for a primary alcohol use disorder, provided partially or predominantly through video conferencing during the COVID‐19 pandemic resulted in abstinence rates and secondary outcomes similar to traditional in‐person care, in spite of the potentially negative effects of the COVID‐related lockdown measures themselves. These results from everyday clinical practice corroborate findings of randomized controlled studies and meta‐analyses in which video conferencing appeared non‐inferior to in‐person care in clinical effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The aim is to perform an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial comparing guided self‐help cognitive behavioral therapy‐enhanced (CBT‐E) for binge‐eating disorder (BED) to a waiting list control condition. Methods: BED patients (N = 212) were randomly assigned to guided self‐help CBT‐E or the 3‐month waiting list. Measurements took place at baseline and the end‐of‐treatment. The cost‐effectiveness analysis was performed using the number of binge‐eating episodes during the last 28 days as an outcome indicator according to the eating disorder examination. A cost‐utility analysis was performed using the EuroQol‐5D. Results: The difference in societal costs over the 3 months of the intervention between both conditions was €679 (confidence interval [CI] 50–1330). The incremental costs associated with one incremental binge eating episode prevented in the guided self‐help condition was approximately €18 (CI 1–41). From a societal perspective there was a 96% likelihood that guided self‐help CBT‐E led to a greater number of binge‐eating episodes prevented, but at higher costs. Each additional quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) gained was associated with incremental costs of €34,000 (CI 2494–154,530). With a 95% likelihood guided self‐help CBT‐E led to greater QALY gain at higher costs compared to waiting for treatment. Based on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence willingness‐to‐pay threshold of €35,000 per QALY, guided self‐help CBT‐E can be considered cost‐effective with a likelihood of 95% from a societal perspective. Discussion: Guided self‐help CBT‐E is likely a cost‐effective treatment for BED in the short‐term (3‐month course of treatment). Comparison to treatment‐as‐usual is recommended for future research, as it enables an economic evaluation with a longer time horizon. Public Significance: Offering treatment remotely has several benefits for patients suffering from binge‐eating disorders. Guided self‐help CBT‐E is an efficacious and likely cost‐effective treatment, reducing binge eating and improving quality‐of‐life, albeit at higher societal costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]