[Overcoming treatment resistance in chronic depression : The role of inpatient psychotherapy]

[Inpatient psychotherapy of depressive disorders: options and challenges]

BACKGROUND

The psychotherapy of depressive disorders has become established as a central component of inpatient treatment in psychiatric and psychosomatic hospitals and furthermore constitutes an important component of the residency training in Germany; however, the number of studies examining the effectiveness and efficacy is limited.

METHODS

This narrative review summarizes the current state of research on inpatient psychotherapy for depressive disorders. The results of meta-analyses as well as practice-based observational studies from routine treatment in Germany, disorder-specific special programs, and side effects of inpatient psychotherapy are summarized.

RESULTS

The number of studies on the efficacy of inpatient psychotherapy of depressive disorders is overall low. The main finding of the largest recent meta-analysis indicates that psychotherapy in clinics and other facilities has a significant effect on depressive symptoms, with small to moderate effect sizes in randomized controlled studies. The effects are mostly maintained even after 9-15 months follow-up. An observational study from routine treatment with a very large sample size reported large pre-post and pre-follow-up effect sizes. It additionally revealed factors that appear to be difficult to change during inpatient psychotherapy, negatively affect treatment success and could be specifically addressed in future trials. Special programs, such as inpatient Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT) and the inpatient Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy (CBASP) indicate acceptance and efficacy/effectiveness in an initial randomized controlled (IPT) study and in observational (CBASP) studies. Side effects of inpatient psychotherapy were reported by 60-94% of patients with depressive disorders, whereby a perceived dependence on the therapist or the therapeutic setting was identified as a frequent side effect.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the results of the narrative review reveal that inpatient psychotherapy appears to be meaningful and effective for many patients with depressive disorders. Specific side effects, cost-effectiveness, and the question of differential indications (what works for whom?) should be further investigated.

Negative Effects of a Multimodal Inpatient CBASP Program: Rate of Occurrence and Their Impact on Treatment Outcome in Chronic and Treatment-Resistant Depression

Background: A growing number of studies indicate that the Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy (CBASP) is effective in treating chronic depression. However, there is no systematic research into possible negative effects. Therefore, the objectives of the study were to investigate the rate of occurrence of negative effects of an inpatient CBASP program and their impact on treatment response. Methods: Patients with chronic depression and treatment resistance who completed the 12-week multimodal inpatient CBASP treatment program in an open trial (N = 52) retrospectively completed the Inventory for the Assessment of Negative Effects of Psychotherapy (INEP) during follow-up data collection. Severity of depressive symptoms was assessed self- and observer-rated at admission, discharge, and 6 months follow-up. Rates of occurrence of negative effects were calculated and binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the relationship to treatment outcome. Results: The results indicate that 92.3% of patients reported having experienced at least one negative effect and 45.2% indicated dependence on their therapist. Stigmatization and financial concerns as well as intrapersonal changes were reported by about one-third. Only dependence on the therapist negatively impacted treatment outcome in both outcome measures. Conclusions: While almost all patients reported at least one negative effect of a multimodal inpatient CBASP treatment program, most of the reported negative effects appear to be benign. However, dependence on the therapist seems to have a negative impact on treatment outcome. If these results can be replicated in future large-scale, randomized controlled prospective studies, CBASP therapists should be aware of possible dependence and consciously address it during treatment.

Persistent depressive disorder across the adult lifespan: results from clinical and population-based surveys in Germany

BACKGROUND

Although the individual and economic disease burden of depression is particularly high for long-term symptoms, little is known of the lifetime course of chronic depression. Most evidence derives from clinical samples, and the diagnostic distinction between persistent depressive disorder (PDD) and non-chronic major depression (NCMDD) is still debated. Thus, we examined characteristics of PDD among clinical vs. non-clinical cases, and the associated disease burden at a population level.

METHODS

Data were drawn from the mental health module of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS1-MH, 2009-2012, n = 4483) and a clinical sample of PDD inpatients at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (2018-2019, n = 45). The DSM-5 definition of PDD was operationalized a priori to the study using interview-based DSM-IV diagnoses of dysthymia and major depression lasting at least 2 years in both surveys. Additional depression characteristics (depression onset, self-classified course, suicidality, comorbid mental disorders, treatment history and current depressive symptoms [Patient Health Questionnaire-9]) were assessed. In the DEGS1-MH, health-related quality of life (Short Form Health Survey-36, SF-36), chronic somatic conditions, number of sick days (past 12 months) or days with limitations in normal daily life activities (past 4 weeks), and health service utilization (past 12 months) were compared for PDD vs. NCMDD.

RESULTS

PDD cases from the clinical sample had a significantly earlier depression onset, a higher proportion of self-classification as persistent course, and treatment resistance than PDD and NCMDD cases in DEGS1-MH. At a population level, PDD cases showed worse outcomes compared with NCMDD cases in terms of somatic comorbidity, SF-36 mental component score, and activity limitations owing to mental health problems, as well as a higher risk for outpatient mental health care contact.

CONCLUSIONS

The distinction between PDD and NCMDD proposed for DSM-5 seems warranted. Early onset depression, self-classification as persistent depressive course, and treatment resistance are suggested as markers of more severe and chronic depression courses. At a population level, PDD is associated with remarkably higher individual and economic disease burden than NCMDD, highlighting the need to improve medical recognition of chronic courses and establish specific treatment concepts for chronic depression.