Blog

Cuijpers, P., Sijbrandij, E.M., Koole, S.L., Andersson, G., Beekman, A.T. & Reynolds, C.F. (2014). Adding psychotherapy to antidepressant medication in depression and anxiety disorders: A meta-analysis. World Psychiatry, 13(1), 56-67.

Anxiety and depressive disorders occur at a high rate and are very burdensome to those who suffer. These disorders are also related to high levels of health care costs, loss of productivity, and lower quality of life. Both pharmacological and psychotherapeutic interventions are effective, yet in recent years there has been a trend for patients to receive psychotropic interventions alone rather than psychotherapy. Cuijpers and colleagues (2014) conducted a meta analysis comparing pharmacotherapy alone versus pharmacotherapy combined with psychotherapy. Studies in the meta analysis included a variety of disorders such as depressive disorders and anxiety disorders. (Meta analysis is an important tool to review and combine the effects of interventions across a large number of studies. Rather than simply counting studies with positive, neutral, or negative findings, meta analysis allows one to calculate an effect size, average the effect sizes across different studies, and look at predictors or moderators of the effects. Aggregated effect sizes in a meta analysis are much more reliable [i.e., dependable] than any single study result). Cuijpers and colleagues’ meta analysis included 52 studies with 3,623 patients. Most studies tested cognitive behavioral therapy, though a large minority also included interpersonal psychotherapy and psychodynamic therapy. Most studies used selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), though some included tricyclic antidepressants and others. There was a moderately large overall difference between pharmacotherapy versus combined pharmacotherapy plus psychotherapy for major depression, panic disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). That is, adding psychotherapy resulted in a clinically meaningful improvement above and beyond pharmacotherapy alone. There were no significant differences found for type of antidepressant medication or for type of psychotherapy. Eleven studies included a placebo control condition to which medication alone vs medication plus psychotherapy was compared. The effect of combining medication and psychotherapy was twice as large as the effect of medication alone when compared to a placebo control condition. Nineteen studies followed patients after treatment (from 3 to 24 months post treatment), and the superiority of combined treatment versus medication alone remained strong and significant well into follow up.

Practice Implications

There has been a trend over the past decade to provide medication as a first line of treatment for depression and anxiety disorders. However, the results of this meta analysis indicate that monotherapy with medication alone is not optimal treatment for most patients, and that psychotherapy results in additive clinically meaningful improvement for most patients. The additive effects of psychotherapy are especially pronounced for major depression, panic disorder, and OCD.

Kossowsky, J., Pfaltz, M., Schneider, S., Taeymans, J., Locher, C., & Gaab, J. (2013). The separation anxiety hypothesis of panic disorder: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 768-781.

The concept of separation anxiety is intimately tied to attachment theory. Problematic early attachments have negative consequences for adults’ ability to experience and internalize positive relationships which help to develop mental capacities to self sooth, tolerate anxiety, and modulate affect. Separation anxiety is the persistent, excessive, and developmentally inappropriate fear of separation from major attachment figures, like parents. It is one of the most frequently diagnosed childhood anxiety disorders, with a lifetime prevalence of 4.1% to 5.1%. If we knew that separation anxiety is truly related to or causes adult psychopathology, then we would have a better understanding of the development of adult mental disorders and greater reason to quickly and aggressively treat childhood separation anxiety. A meta analysis by Kossowsky and colleagues (2013) begins to address this relationship between separation anxiety and adult disorders. They looked at case-control, prospective, and retrospective studies comparing children with and without separation anxiety disorder with regard to future panic disorder, major depressive disorder, any anxiety disorder, and substance use disorders. The meta analysis included 25 studies of 14, 855 participants. Children with separation anxiety were 3.45 times more likely to develop a panic disorder later on; and 5 studies suggested that children with separation anxiety were 2.19 times more likely to develop future anxiety disorders. Childhood separation anxiety disorder did not increase the risk of future depressive disorders or of future substance use disorders. In a subsequent paper, Milrod and colleagues (2014) reviewed the literature on separation anxiety and psychotherapy outcomes of adult anxiety and mood disorders. Separation anxiety is associated with poor response to treatment of adult anxiety and mood disorders possibly because separation anxiety disrupts the therapeutic relationship. Separation anxiety also predicted non-response to antidepressant medications.

Practice Implications

As Kossowsky and colleagues (2013) indicate, it is possible that children suffering from separation anxiety disorder may be hindered early on in developing skills to help cope with anxiety and strong emotions. Nevertheless, the findings draw our attention to the importance of recognizing and treating separation anxiety as early as possible. A few psychological treatment studies show that disorder-specific parent-child cognitive behavioral therapy is successful in treating separation anxiety in children. For adults, poorer treatment response may reflect difficulty forming and maintaining attachments, including the therapeutic relationship. Milrod and colleagues (2014) suggest that psychotherapies that focus on relationships and separation anxiety by using the dyadic therapist-patient relationship to revisit earlier problematic parent-child relationships may benefit adults with separation anxiety.

Budge, S.L., Moore, J.T., Del Re, A.C., Wampold, B.E., Baardseth, T.P., & Nienhuis, J.B. (2013). The effectiveness of evidence-based treatments for personality disorders when comparing treatment-as-usual and bona fide treatments. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 1057-1066.

Personality disorders (PD) are more stable and enduring than other mental disorders and are characterized by pervasive, serious, and rigid self-destructive patterns in affect, cognition, interpersonal relations, and impulse control that reduce psychological well-being. PD are associated with higher rates of self injury, suicide, and health care costs. The prevalence of PD in the population ranges from 6% to 13%. The presence of PD in a patient often reduces the effectiveness of psychological treatments for Axis I disorders (e.g., depression, anxiety) that the patient may have. Psychotherapy may be more effective than other interventions, such as pharmacotherapy, for treating PD. In their meta analysis, Budge and colleagues (2013) addressed two questions. First, are manualized evidence-based treatments (EBT) as provided in clinical trials superior to treatment as usual (TAU), presumably as offered in naturalistic settings, for treating PD? Second, are there differences between bona fide treatments (i.e., psychotherapy administered by trained therapists and based on sound psychological theories) for PD? (A note about meta analyses: meta analyses are a statistical method to combine the findings of a large number of studies while accounting for the sample sizes, quality of the studies, and size of the effects. Meta analyses provide us with much more dependable results than any single study could provide). Regarding the first question, 30 studies were included in the meta analysis. Evidence-based treatments included psychodynamic therapies, cognitive behavioral therapies, and dialectical behavior therapy, among others. Overall, EBTs were more effective than TAUs, and the effect was medium sized. The positive effects in favor of EBT over TAU were larger for patients with borderline personality disorder. For the second study comparing bona fide treatments, only 12 studies were found and included in the meta analysis. Only three of the studies indicated that one bona fide therapy was more effective than another. It is also important to note that the average duration of treatment in the EBT studies was 1 year and peaked at 40 sessions.

Practice Implications

As Budge and colleagues (2013) concluded, with sufficient training, supervision, and dose hours, it appears that evidence based treatments (EBT) are more effective than treatments as usual (TAU) for personality disorders (PD). The results of the meta analysis suggested that training in evidence based psychotherapies may be necessary to achieve the best possible outcomes for patients with PD, especially those with borderline personality disorder. Are there differences in between EBTs for PD? The literature on this issue is quite small, so that 12 studies are not enough to make many conclusions. There is previous evidence that psychodynamic therapies and CBT yield very large effects for PD. The pervasiveness and complexity of PD symptoms make it so that effective treatments are necessarily longer term, which is consistent with previous research on this topic.

Cuijpers, P., Huibers, M., Ebert, D.D., Koole, S.L., & Andersson, G. (2013). How much psychotherapy is needed to treat depression? A metaregression analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 147, 1-13.

The question of the number of psychotherapy sessions and of frequency sessions (i.e., number of sessions per week) that are optimal for good outcomes could have implications for how psychotherapy is practiced and how it is reimbursed. In my August 2013 PPRNet Blog, I reported on research that indicated half of patients recover after 21 sessions of psychotherapy. However, that also means that half do not recover in that number of sessions. Many of those who do not recover require another 29 sessions to recover. Research and practice in psychotherapy is largely based on a “one-session-per-week” model. Some researchers, however, have found that an increase in the frequency sessions per week could improve or speed up outcomes. Cuijpers and colleagues (2013) did a meta-regression to assess these questions for short-term psychotherapies for depression. (Meta-regression is a type of meta-analysis in which predictors from many studies are aggregated and their averaged effects on the aggregated outcome are assessed. This produces much more reliable findings than are possible from a single study.) The authors assessed predictors such as the number and frequency of sessions, and they looked at symptom outcomes for depression. The authors found 70 controlled studies that included 5403 patients. More than two-thirds of the studies included CBT as the psychotherapy. Average length of treatment was 11 sessions, and the maximum number of sessions was 24. The number of sessions across studies ranged from .44 to 2 per week, and the average per week was 1. The overall effect size for the treatment was medium sized (g = .59), though the effect became smaller (g = .40) when publication bias was corrected. (Publication bias refers to the likelihood that some less favorable studies or results were not published thus creating an overestimation of the effect of the treatment. See my May 2013 PPRNet Blog). Cuijper and colleagues’ meta-regression showed a small but significant association between greater number of sessions and outcomes for depression; but more importantly, a greater number of sessions per week had a considerably larger positive influence on the effects of psychotherapy for depression.

Practice Implications

The findings from Cuijpers and colleagues (2013) meta-regression are particularly relevant to time limited treatment of depression with CBT. The total number of sessions was less important than the frequency of sessions per week. The results suggest that increasing the intensity or frequency of CBT sessions per week might result in a more efficient therapy and faster relief for patients with depression.

Author email: p.cuijpers@vu.nl

Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change: Starting in March 2013 I will review one chapter a month from the Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change in addition to reviewing psychotherapy research articles. Book chapters have more restrictive copy right rules than journal articles, so I will not provide author email addresses for these chapters. If you are interested, the Handbook table of content and sections of the book can be read on Google Books.

Baldwin, S. & Imel, Z.E. (2013). Therapist effects. In M.E. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, 6^th Edition (pp. 258-297). New York: Wiley.

Does it matter that some therapists are more effective than others? Can less effective therapists be trained to improve their outcomes and relationship quality with patients?  These are important questions not only for our patients’ well-being but also for the long term survival of psychotherapy as a health enterprise. If we do not measure outcomes and help therapists who are less effective, stakeholders (i.e., clients, families, agencies, insurance companies) may stop paying for the services. In the September 2013 blog I discussed a large study that showed that a few therapists were reliably harmful and some therapists were reliably helpful to their patients. That study also reported that most therapists were effective in 5 of 12 problem domains for which their patients sought help. What these findings and the Handbook chapter by Baldwin and Imel (2013) show is that there are significant between-therapist effects (i.e., therapists differed from each other on patient outcomes) and within-therapist effects (i.e., therapist outcomes within their own caseload differed based on the patients’ problems). Baldwin and Imel (2013) reported on their meta analysis in which between-therapist differences accounted for 5% of the outcome variance. That seems small, but it’s not. One study, for example, estimated that for each 100 patients that would be treated, the worst therapist compared to the best therapist would have 6 more patients who deteriorated. I would prefer my loved ones to be seen by the best therapist, even if the difference between best and worst is only 5%. Nevertheless, 95% of the variance in outcomes is within the therapist’s caseload. That is, the patient, other contextual variables, and the therapist-patient relationship are by far the biggest contributors to outcome. As Baldwin and Imel point out, not only are some therapists are more effective for some patients and not others, but also some therapists are better at developing a therapeutic relationship with some patients than with others. Baldwin and Imel reported that, on average, 9% of the variance in the quality of the therapeutic alliance is associated with the therapist – that’s a clinically meaningful effect.

Practice Implications

As Baldwin and Imel (2013) state, ignoring therapist accountability is detrimental to patients and to the mental health field in general. If stakeholders do not see evidence of positive outcomes, then they will withdraw funding, and patients will have even less access to services. Therapists differ in their outcomes, and outcomes also differ within each therapist’s caseload. If a primary goal is to improve therapist performance and patient outcomes, then therapists need to measure outcomes and therapeutic relationship quality. This knowledge about performance with specific patients can help therapists seek continuing education and training to improve outcomes and therapeutic alliances with specific patients for whom the therapist is less effective. This may require continuous outcome monitoring and real-time feedback to therapists regarding their patients’ outcomes (see my September 2013 blog in identifying clients who might deteriorate).

Bell, E. C., Marcus, D. K., & Goodlad, J. K. (2013). Are the parts as good as the whole? A meta-analysis of component treatment studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81, 722-736.

Component studies (i.e., dismantling treatments or adding to existing treatments) may provide a method for identifying whether specific active ingredients in psychotherapy contribute to client outcomes. In a dismantling design, at least one element of the treatment is removed and the full treatment is compared to this dismantled version. In additive designs, an additional component is added to an existing treatment to examine whether the addition improves client outcomes. If the dismantled or added component is an active ingredient, then the condition with fewer components should yield less improvement. Among other things, results from dismantling or additive design studies can help clinicians make decisions about which components of treatments to add or remove with some clients who are not responding. For example, Jacobson and colleagues (1996) conducted a dismantling study of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for depression. They compared: (1) the full package of CBT, (2) behavioral activation (BA) plus CBT modification of automatic thoughts, and (3) BA alone. This study failed to find differences among the three treatment conditions. These findings were interpreted to indicate that BA was as effective as CBT, and there followed an increased interest in behavioral treatments for depression. However, relying on a single study to influence practice is risky because single studies are often statistically underpowered and their results are not as reliable as the collective body of research. One way to evaluate the collective research is by meta analysis, which allows one to assess an overall effect size in the available literature (see my November, 2013 blog on why clinicians should rely on meta analyses). In their meta analysis, Bell and colleagues (2013) collected 66 component studies from 1980 to 2010. For the dismantling studies, there were no significant differences between the full treatments and the dismantled treatments. For the additive studies, the treatment with the added component yielded a small but significant effect at treatment completion and at follow-up. These effects were only found for the specific problems that were targeted by the treatment. Effects were smaller and non-non-significant for other outcomes such as quality of life.

Practice Implications

Psychotherapists are sometimes faced with a decision about whether to supplement current treatments with an added component, or whether to remove a component that may not be helping. Adding components to existing treatments leads to modestly improved outcomes at least with regard to targeted symptoms. Removing components appears not to have an impact on outcomes. The findings of Bell and colleagues’ (2013) meta analysis suggest that specific components or active ingredients of current treatments’ have a significant but small effect on outcomes. Some writers, such as Wampold, have argued that the small effects of specific components highlight the greater importance of common factors in psychotherapy (i.e., therapeutic alliance, client expectations, therapist empathy, etc.). This may be especially the case when it comes to improving a patient’s quality of life.

Author email: david.marcus@wsu.edu