Select comorbid personality disorders and the treatment of chronic depression with nefazodone, targeted psychotherapy, or their combination.

Department of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Journal of Affective Disorders (Impact Factor: 3.71). 03/2009; 117(3):174-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2009.01.010
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Individuals with chronic depression respond poorly to both medication and psychotherapy. The reasons for the poorer response, however, remain unclear. One potential factor is the presence of comorbid Axis II personality disorders (PDs), which occur at high rates among these patients.
This study examines the moderating influence of co-occurring PDs, primarily in cluster C, among 681 chronically depressed adult outpatients who were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of treatment with nefazodone, a specialized psychotherapy for chronic depression, or their combination.
At baseline, 50.4% (n=343) of patients met criteria for one or more Axis II disorders. Following 12 weeks of treatment, patients with comorbid PDs had statistically lower depression scores (M=12.2, SD=+9.2) than patients without comorbid PDs (M=13.5, SD=+8.7). There was no differential impact of a comorbid PD on responsiveness to medication versus psychotherapy. The results did not change when the data were analyzed using an intent-to-treat sample or when individual personality disorders were examined separately.
Patients with severe borderline, antisocial, and schizotypal PDs were excluded from study entry; therefore, these data primarily apply to patients with cluster C PDs and may not generalize to other Axis II conditions.
Comorbid Axis II disorders did not negatively affect treatment outcome and did not differentially affect response to psychotherapy versus medication. Treatment formulations for chronically depressed patients with certain PDs may not need to differ from treatment formulations of chronically depressed patients without co-occurring PDs.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present study assessed the rate of depressive personality (DP), as measured by the self-report instrument depressive personality disorder inventory (DPDI), among 159 clients entering psychotherapy at an outpatient university clinic. The presenting clinical profile was evaluated for those with and without DP, including levels of depressed mood, other psychological symptoms, and global severity of psychopathology. Clients were followed naturalistically over the course of therapy, up to 40 weeks, and reassessed on these variables again after treatment. Results indicated that 44 percent of the sample qualified for DP prior to treatment, and these individuals had a comparatively more severe and complex presenting disposition than those without DP. Mixed-model repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to examine between-groups changes on mood and global severity over time, with those with DP demonstrating larger reductions on both outcome variables, although still showing more symptoms after treatment, than those without DP. Only eleven percent of the sample continued to endorse DP following treatment. These findings suggest that in routine clinical situations, psychotherapy may benefit individuals with DP.
    Depression research and treatment 01/2012; 2012:208435. DOI:10.1155/2012/208435
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study tested the effectiveness of schema therapy (ST) for patients with chronic depression. Twelve patients with a diagnosis of chronic depression participated. The treatment protocol consisted of 60 sessions, with the first 55 sessions offered weekly and the last five sessions on a biweekly basis. A single case series A-B-C design, with 6 months follow-up was used. Baseline (A) was a wait period of 8 weeks. Baseline was followed by introduction to ST and bonding to therapist (phase B) with individually tailored length of 12-16 sessions, after which further ST was provided (phase C) up to 60 sessions (included the sessions given as introduction). Patients were assessed with Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression three times during baseline, at the end of phase B, then every 12 weeks until the end of treatment and at 6 months follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety and the Young Schema Questionnaire. At the end of treatment 7 patients (approximately 60%) remitted or satisfactorily responded. The mean HRSD dropped from 21.07 during baseline to 9.40 at post-treatment and 10.75 at follow-up. The effects were large and the gains of treatment were maintained at 6-month follow-up. Only one patient dropped out for reasons not related to treatment. The lack of control group, the small sample and the lack of a multiple baseline case series. This preliminary study supports the use of ST as an effective treatment for chronic depression.
    Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 02/2014; 45(3):319-329. DOI:10.1016/j.jbtep.2014.02.003 · 2.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Depressive personality disorder (DPD) is highly studied and common in clinical settings. Nevertheless, it is rife with controversies and often overshadowed by major depression and dysthymia with which it shares many similarities but also is clinically distinct. Possibly as a result, DPD is underdiagnosed and misunderstood in clinical care. Thus the goal of this practice review is to present a case from psychiatric clinical work illustrating how DPD may be commonly overlooked in routine care, and how the conceptualization of this case and its treatment plan changed course once DPD was considered by treating staff, ultimately contributing to the successful outcome of the case. Questions elicited by the case are subsequently discussed in the context of the empirical literature on DPD, allowing for a clearer picture to emerge on DPD and its role in the development, course, and treatment of depression. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).
    Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment 08/2013; 5(1). DOI:10.1037/a0031680 · 3.54 Impact Factor