Article

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Psychoeducation or Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in Bipolar Disorder: A Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) Study

Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 5.14). 06/2012; 73(6):803-10. DOI: 10.4088/JCP.11m07343
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Bipolar disorder is insufficiently controlled by medication, so several adjunctive psychosocial interventions have been tested. Few studies have compared these psychosocial treatments, all of which are lengthy, expensive, and difficult to disseminate. We compared the relative effectiveness of a brief psychoeducation group intervention to a more comprehensive and longer individual cognitive-behavioral therapy intervention, measuring longitudinal outcome in mood burden in bipolar disorder.
This single-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted between June 2002 and September 2006. A total of 204 participants (ages 18-64 years) with DSM-IV bipolar disorder type I or II participated from 4 Canadian academic centers. Subjects were recruited via advertisements or physician referral when well or minimally symptomatic, with few exclusionary criteria to enhance generalizability. Participants were assigned to receive either 20 individual sessions of cognitive-behavioral therapy or 6 sessions of group psychoeducation. The primary outcome of symptom course and morbidity was assessed prospectively over 72 weeks using the Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation, which yields depression and mania symptom burden scores for each week.
Both treatments had similar outcomes with respect to reduction of symptom burden and the likelihood of relapse. Eight percent of subjects dropped out prior to receiving psychoeducation, while 64% were treatment completers; rates were similar for cognitive-behavioral therapy (6% and 66%, respectively). Psychoeducation cost $180 per subject compared to cognitive-behavioral therapy at $1,200 per subject.
Despite longer treatment duration and individualized treatment, cognitive-behavioral therapy did not show a significantly greater clinical benefit compared to group psychoeducation. Psychoeducation is less expensive to provide and requires less clinician training to deliver, suggesting its comparative attractiveness.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00188838.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: David L Streiner, Jul 02, 2015
10 Followers
 · 
470 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This research was conducted as an experiment-control experimental study which aimed to determine the effectiveness of a psychoeducation program prepared to reduce internalized stigmatization. The study included 47 patients (24 experimental, 23 control) who had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. At the end of the psychoeducation program, a significant decrease was observed in the total ISSMI mean scores, as well as in the ISSMI subscale mean scores for subscales such as alienation, approval of stereotypes, perceived discrimination and social withdrawal (p<0.05). The results demonstrated that a psychoeducation program designed for internalized stigmatization may have positive effects on the internalized stigmatization levels of patients with bipolar disorder.
    Archives of psychiatric nursing 02/2014; 28(1):62-6. DOI:10.1016/j.apnu.2013.10.008 · 1.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Schema therapy (ST) is an integrative form of psychotherapy developed for complex, chronic psychological disorders with a characterlogical underpinning. Bipolar disorder is just such a disorder-complex and often comorbid, with demonstrated stable cognitive and personality features that complicate the course of illness. This article presents the reasons justifying the application of ST to bipolar disorder and proposes a treatment rationale and future directions for treatment and research. If well adapted to the characteristics of bipolar disorder, ST might prove to be an effective adjunctive psychotherapy option that attenuates emotional reactivity, reduces symptoms and improves quality of life.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 12/2012; 148(1). DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2012.10.034 · 3.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Olanzapine plus fluoxetine combination (OFC) is one of the current approaches for treating the depressive phase of bipolar disorder. Our objective was to synthesize the evidence on the efficacy of OFC therapy in bipolar depressed patients. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MEDLINE, Embase and other databases. Independent researchers selected the studies and extracted the data. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence. The Mantel-Haenszel random effect model was used to perform the meta-analyses. RESULTS: From 627 unique records retrieved, four RCTs were included (1330 patients). OFC improved the response compared to olanzapine (relative risk [RR]=1.58; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.27, 1.97) and to placebo (RR=1.99; 95% CI: 1.49, 2.65) but not to lamotrigine (low-quality evidence). Similar results were found for remission and relapse rates. No differences were identified for levels of depression and mania symptoms (low-quality evidence) and incidence of mania (moderate-quality evidence). Adverse effects were more common in patients treated with OFC than in those treated with lamotrigine (RR=1.13; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.23), but no difference was found relative to the patients treated with olanzapine (low-quality evidence). LIMITATIONS: Despite the totality of the evidence included, there are few RCTs available regarding the efficacy of OFC therapy for bipolar depression. The risk of attrition and reporting bias is also a concern. CONCLUSIONS: OFC therapy improved the response, remission, and relapse rates among other outcomes. However, a worse profile of adverse reactions was observed in some comparisons. These data clarify the therapeutic use of OFC as an option to olanzapine in bipolar depression. The quality of the evidence could be improved by additional comparisons and higher rates of treatment adherence.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 12/2012; DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2012.11.001 · 3.71 Impact Factor