Combined Treatment of Major Depression in Patients with Borderline Personality Disorder: A Comparison with Pharmacotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Combined treatment with psychotherapy and antidepressants is more effective than monotherapies. Recent data show that combined therapy has better results in patients with depression and Axis II codiagnosis. The aim of this study was to compare combined treatment using interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) with pharmacotherapy alone in patients with depression and borderline personality disorder (BPD). METHODS: There were 39 consecutive outpatients diagnosed with BPD who presented with a major depressive episode enrolled in this study. They were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups: fluoxetine 20 mg to 40 mg daily or fluoxetine 20 mg to 40 mg daily plus IPT 1 session weekly. Owing to noncompliance, 7 patients dropped out. We assessed the 32 patients who completed the 24 weeks of treatment at baseline, Week 12, and Week 24, using a semistructured interview for clinical characteristics, the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS), and 2 self-report questionnaires, that is, the Satisfaction Profile (SAT-P) for quality of life and the 64-item Inventory for Interpersonal Problems (IIP-64). We performed statistical analysis, using univariate general linear models with 2 factors: duration and type of treatment. RESULTS: Changes in remission rates, CGI, and HARS score did not differ between treatments. According to changes in the HDRS scores; changes in psychological functioning and social functioning scores on the SAT-P; and changes in vindictive or self-centred, cold or distant, intrusive or needy, and socially inhibited scores on the IIP-64, combined therapy was superior to fluoxetine alone. CONCLUSIONS: Combined therapy with IPT is more effective than antidepressant therapy alone, both in treating symptoms of major depression and in improving dimensions of quality of life and interpersonal functioning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".