Short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy and fluoxetine in major depressive disorder: A randomized comparative study

Department of Psychiatry, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (Impact Factor: 9.37). 09/2008; 77(6):351-7. DOI: 10.1159/000151388
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT There are few studies comparing the efficacy of short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (STPP) and pharmacotherapy in major depressive disorder. We conducted a comparative study on the efficacy of STPP versus fluoxetine treatment in patients with major depressive disorder in a primary care setting.
Fifty-one patients with major depressive disorder (DSM-IV) of mild or moderate severity were recruited through occupational health services providing primary health care. Patients were randomized to receive either STPP (1 session/week) or fluoxetine treatment (20-40 mg/day) for 16 weeks. The outcome measures included the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS).
Intent-to-treat analyses indicated that both treatments were highly effective in reducing the HDRS (p < 0.0001) and BDI (p < 0.0001) scores, as well as in improving functional ability (SOFAS; p < 0.0001), with no statistically significant differences between the treatments. Of those 40 subjects who completed the follow-up, 57% in the psychotherapy group and 68% in the fluoxetine group showed full remission (HDRS <or=7) after 4 months.
Both STPP and pharmacological treatment with fluoxetine are effective in reducing symptoms and in improving functional ability of primary care patients with mild or moderate depression. This study suggests no marked differences in the therapeutic effects of these two treatment forms in a primary care setting.

  • Contemporary psychoanalysis 04/2014; 50(1-2):89-130. DOI:10.1080/00107530.2014.880310 · 0.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychotherapeutic interventions assume that specific techniques are used in treatments, which are responsible for changes in the client's symptoms. This assumption also holds true for meta-analyses, where evidence for specific interventions and techniques is compiled. However, it has also been argued that different treatments share important techniques and that an upcoming consensus about useful treatment strategies is leading to a greater integration of treatments. This makes assumptions about the effectiveness of specific interventions ingredients questionable if the shared (common) techniques are more often used in interventions than are the unique techniques. This study investigated the unique or shared techniques in RCTs of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (STPP). Psychotherapeutic techniques were coded from 42 masked treatment descriptions of RCTs in the field of depression (1979-2010). CBT techniques were often used in studies identified as either CBT or STPP. However, STPP techniques were only used in STPP-identified studies. Empirical clustering of treatment descriptions did not confirm the original distinction of CBT versus STPP, but instead showed substantial heterogeneity within both approaches. Extraction of psychotherapeutic techniques from the treatment descriptions is feasible and could be used as a content-based approach to classify treatments in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
    01/2014; 2(1):929-950. DOI:10.1080/21642850.2014.931231
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Work disability such as sickness absence is common in people with depression. To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing work disability in employees with depressive disorders. We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO until January 2014. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of work-directed and clinical interventions for depressed people that included sickness absence as an outcome. Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed trial quality. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to pool study results in the studies we judged to be sufficiently similar. We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence. We included 23 studies with 26 study arms, involving 5996 participants with either a major depressive disorder or a high level of depressive symptoms. We judged 14 studies to have a high risk of bias and nine to have a low risk of bias. Work-directed interventionsWe identified five work-directed interventions. There was moderate quality evidence that a work-directed intervention added to a clinical intervention reduced sickness absence (SMD -0.40; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.14; 3 studies) compared to a clinical intervention alone.There was moderate quality evidence based on a single study that enhancing the clinical care in addition to regular work-directed care was not more effective than work-directed care alone (SMD -0.14; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.21).There was very low quality evidence based on one study that regular care by occupational physicians that was enhanced with an exposure-based return to work program did not reduce sickness absence compared to regular care by occupational physicians (non-significant finding: SMD 0.45; 95% CI -0.00 to 0.91). Clinical interventions, antidepressant medicationThree studies compared the effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) to selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) medication on reducing sickness absence and yielded highly inconsistent results. Clinical interventions, psychological We found moderate quality evidence based on three studies that telephone or online cognitive behavioural therapy was more effective in reducing sick leave than usual primary or occupational care (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.45 to -0.01). Clinical interventions, psychological combined with antidepressant medicationWe found low quality evidence based on two studies that enhanced primary care did not substantially decrease sickness absence in the medium term (4 to 12 months) (SMD -0.02; 95% CI -0.15 to 0.12). A third study found no substantial effect on sickness absence in favour of this intervention in the long term (24 months).We found high quality evidence, based on one study, that a structured telephone outreach and care management program was more effective in reducing sickness absence than usual care (SMD - 0.21; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.05). Clinical interventions, exerciseWe found low quality evidence based on one study that supervised strength exercise reduced sickness absence compared to relaxation (SMD -1.11; 95% CI -1.68 to -0.54). We found moderate quality evidence based on two studies that aerobic exercise was no more effective in reducing sickness absence than relaxation or stretching (SMD -0.06; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.24). We found moderate quality evidence that adding a work-directed intervention to a clinical intervention reduced the number of days on sick leave compared to a clinical intervention alone. We also found moderate quality evidence that enhancing primary or occupational care with cognitive behavioural therapy reduced sick leave compared to the usual care. A structured telephone outreach and care management program that included medication reduced sickness absence compared to usual care. However, enhancing primary care with a quality improvement program did not have a considerable effect on sickness absence. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on sickness absence of one antidepressant medication compared to another. More studies are needed on work-directed interventions. Clinical intervention studies should also include work outcomes to increase our knowledge on reducing sickness absence in depressed workers.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 12/2014; 12(12):CD006237. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD006237.pub3 · 5.70 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 29, 2014