scholarly journals Evidence base for psychological treatment of personality disorder – a narrative review

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
pp. S278-S278
Author(s):  
Caoimhe Ni Shuilleabhain
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Psychological Treatment ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Specific Patient ◽  
Current Evidence Base

AimsThis review critically appraises the up-to-date evidence base for psychological treatment of PD.BackgroundThe prevalence rate of any personality disorder (PD) in the general population has been estimated to be as high as 12% rising to over 70% in prison settings. PD is known to carry significant psychosocial and health burdens with increased mortality, increased suicide, increased substance misuse, increased crime, reduced capacity to work, poorer outcomes for comorbid mental disorders, dysfunctional engagement with services, and high economic costs through a high utilisation of healthcare systems. In the 1990s several manualised treatment strategies emerged, specifically for borderline PD. These include dialectical behaviour therapy, cognitive therapy, cognitive analytic therapy, mentalization-based therapy, transference-focused psychotherapy, and schema-focussed therapy.MethodUsing relevant search criteria, literature was identified through a search of the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. Data were appraised and synthesised to provide a comprehensive overview of the current evidence base for psychological treatment of PD.ResultThe DSM-V defined Cluster B borderline PD has received the majority of attention. Increasing attention has been paid in recent years to the Cluster B antisocial PD. Cluster A (Paranoid, Schizoid, Schizotypal) and Cluster C PDs (Avoidant, Dependent, Obsessive Compulsive) have received relatively little attention with few studies to draw upon regarding the effectiveness of therapy. The remaining Cluster B personality disorders (Narcissistic and Histrionic) have been criticised as having poor construct validity, with a lack of rigorously designed treatment trials.A number of treatment protocols have gained empirical support. However, of those that have empirical support, there appears to be little demonstrable evidence to suggest superiority of any one of the evidence-based interventions over another. While specialised therapies are more efficacious than “treatment as usual” or treatment delivered by expert clinicians, when specialised therapies are compared with well-specified manualised general psychiatric care tailored to personality disorder, the results are different, with little consistent evidence demonstrating the superiority of specialised therapies.ConclusionCurrent evidence suggests that individual therapies do not differ substantially from each other or from structured clinical care that relies on generic change factors. This is in keeping with established psychotherapy outcome literature. Current evidence would indicate that common features across the proven treatment strategies should be emphasised and implemented well. There may be justification for added interventions from specific treatment modalities targeted to specific patient problems.

Level of scientific evidence supporting NCCN guidelines: Is there evidence of progress?

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 14-14
Author(s):  
Aakash Desai ◽  
Ronald S. Go ◽  
Thejaswi Poonacha
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Uterine Cancer ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
The Us ◽  
Therapeutic Recommendations

14 Background: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are the most comprehensive and widely used standard for clinical care in oncology by clinicians and payors in the US. The level of scientific evidence in NCCN guidelines has not been studied since it’s last review in 2010. We describe the categories of evidence and consensus (EC) among the 10 most common cancers in the US as of 2019 and compare them with 2010 guidelines. Methods: We obtained the 2019 version of NCCN guidelines. The definitions for various categories of EC used were: Category 1 (high level evidence such as randomized controlled trials with uniform consensus), 2A (lower level of evidence with uniform consensus), 2B (lower level of evidence without a uniform consensus but with no major disagreement) and 3 (any level of evidence but with major disagreement). We compared our results with previously published results from 2010 guidelines. Results: Total recommendations increased by 77% from 1023 (2010) to 1818 (2019). Of the 1818 recommendations, Category 1, 2A, 2B and 3 EC were 7%, 87%, 6% and 0% while in 2010 they were 5%, 85%, 9% and 1% respectively. Recommendations with category 1 EC were found in lung (13%), prostate (11%), melanoma (8%), breast (7%), NHL (5%), kidney (2%), bladder (2%) and colorectal (2%) guidelines. Pancreatic and uterine cancer guidelines had no recommendations with category 1 EC. 19% of therapeutic recommendations were category 1 EC with the majority (65%) pertaining to initial therapy. Guidelines with highest proportions of therapeutic recommendations with category 1 EC were breast (30%), lung (10%), and kidney (10%) cancers. No category 1 EC recommendations existed in screening or surveillance. Although we found an increase in the total number of recommendations, the distribution of different types of categories of EC are largely similar to 2010. Conclusions: Recommendations in 2019 NCCN guidelines are largely derived from lower levels of evidence with uniform expert opinion. Despite the major advances in oncology in the past decade, this is largely unchanged. Our study underscores the urgent need and available opportunities to expand the current evidence base in oncology which forms the platform for clinical practice guidelines.

scholarly journals The Gut Microbiome and Mental Health: What Should We Tell Our Patients?: Le microbiote Intestinal et la Santé Mentale : que Devrions-Nous dire à nos Patients?

2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (11) ◽  
pp. 747-760 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary I. Butler ◽  
Sabrina Mörkl ◽  
Kiran V. Sandhu ◽  
John F. Cryan ◽  
Timothy G. Dinan
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Psychiatric Disorders ◽  
Gut Microbiome ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Current Evidence Base

The gut microbiome as a potential therapeutic target for mental illness is a hot topic in psychiatry. Trillions of bacteria reside in the human gut and have been shown to play a crucial role in gut–brain communication through an influence on neural, immune, and endocrine pathways. Patients with various psychiatric disorders including depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and autism spectrum disorder have been shown to have significant differences in the composition of their gut microbiome. Enhancing beneficial bacteria in the gut, for example, through the use of probiotics, prebiotics, or dietary change, has the potential to improve mood and reduce anxiety in both healthy people and patient groups. Much attention is being given to this subject in the general media, and patients are becoming increasingly interested in the potential to treat mental illness with microbiome-based therapies. It is imperative that those working with people with mental illness are aware of the rationale and current evidence base for such treatment strategies. In this review, we provide an overview of the gut microbiome, what it is, and what it does in relation to gut–brain communication and psychological function. We describe the fundamental principles and basic techniques used in microbiome–gut–brain axis research in an accessible way for a clinician audience. We summarize the current evidence in relation to microbiome-based strategies for various psychiatric disorders and provide some practical advice that can be given to patients seeking to try a probiotic for mental health benefit.

scholarly journals Psychological interventions for depression in children and young people with an intellectual disability and/or autism: systematic review

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Lauren A. Cameron ◽  
Katelyn Phillips ◽  
Glenn A. Melvin ◽  
Richard P. Hastings ◽  
Kylie M. Gray
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Young People ◽  
Psychological Treatment ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Psychological Interventions ◽  
Children And Young People ◽  
Current Evidence Base

Background Children and young people with intellectual disability and/or Autism Spectrum Disorder (autism) experience higher rates of mental health problems, including depression, than their typically developing peers. Although international guidelines suggest psychological therapies as first-line intervention for children and young people, there is limited evidence for psychological therapy for depression in children and young people with intellectual disability and/or autism. Aims To evaluate the current evidence base for psychological interventions for depression in children and young people with intellectual disability and/or autism, and examine the experiences of children and young people with intellectual disability and/or autism, their families and therapists, in receiving and delivering psychological treatment for depression. Method Databases were searched up to 30 April 2020 using pre-defined search terms and criteria. Articles were independently screened and assessed for risk of bias. Data were synthesised and reported in a narrative review format. Results A total of 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Four identified studies were clinical case reports and six were quasi-experimental or experimental studies. All studies were assessed as being of moderate or high risk of bias. Participants with intellectual disability were included in four studies. There was limited data on the experiences of young people, their families or therapists in receiving or delivering psychological treatment for depression. Conclusions Well-designed, randomised controlled trials are critical to develop an evidence base for psychological treatment for young people with intellectual disability and/or autism with depression. Future research should evaluate the treatment experiences of young people, their families and therapists.

scholarly journals Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines for the Treatment of Adults With Metastatic Brain Tumors: Executive Summary

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 550-552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey J Olson ◽  
Steven N Kalkanis ◽  
Timothy C Ryken
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Brain Tumors ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Metastatic Brain Tumors ◽  
Executive Summary ◽  
Relevant Evidence ◽  
Current Evidence Base

Abstract BACKGROUND The Congress of Neurological Surgeons systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice parameter guidelines for the treatment of adults with metastatic brain tumors was first published in 2010. Because of the time elapsed since that publication, an update of this set of guidelines based on literature published since is now indicated. OBJECTIVE To establish the best evidence-based management of metastatic brain tumors over all commonly used diagnostic and treatment modalities in regularly encountered clinical situations. METHODS Literature searches regarding management of metastatic brain tumors with whole brain radiation therapy, surgery, stereotactic radiosurgery, chemotherapy, prophylactic anticonvulsants, steroids, instances of multiple brain metastases, and emerging and investigational therapies were carried out to answer questions designed by consensus of a multidisciplinary writing group. RESULTS Recommendations were created and their strength linked to the quality of the literature data available thus creating an evidence-based guideline. Importantly, shortcomings and biases to the literature data are brought out so as to provide guidance for future investigation and improvements in the management of patients with metastatic brain tumors. CONCLUSION This series of guidelines was constructed to assess the most current and clinically relevant evidence for management of metastatic brain tumors. They set a benchmark regarding the current evidence base for this management while also highlighting important key areas for future basic and clinical research, particularly on those topics for which no recommendations could be formulated. The full guideline can be found at: https://www.cns.org/guidelines-treatment-adults-metastatic-brain-tumors/chapter_1.

scholarly journals Group cognitive–behavioural therapy for anxiety and depression

2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 219-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graeme Whitfield
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Psychological Treatment ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Anxiety And Depression ◽  
Psychological Therapies ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Group Cbt

SummaryCognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) is a psychological treatment approach that can be delivered not only on a one-to-one basis but also to groups and in self-help formats. However, the evidence base supporting individual CBT is more extensive than the research regarding group CBT. This is likely to influence the choice of services that develop in the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme for the treatment of depression and anxiety disorders in primary care in England. This article outlines the different forms that group CBT takes, the way in which it may benefit people and the current evidence base supporting its use for anxiety and depression. It also outlines the advantages of group or individual CBT and describes those patients who appear to be best suited to a specific delivery.

scholarly journals A rapid evidence assessment of psychological treatment approaches for stalking behaviour

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shonagh Leigh ◽  
Jason Davies
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Treatment ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Behaviour Therapy ◽  
Treatment Approaches ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
The Uk

Purpose This paper aims to provide practitioners with a brief but comprehensive review of the current evidence base for psychological treatment approaches used in the UK that may be useful for stalking therapies. Design/methodology/approach A rapid evidence assessment was conducted on papers (post the UK Protection from Harassment Act, 1997) that discuss treatments of stalking (with or without a conviction) and associated offences/disorders. Therapies reviewed were Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Cognitive Analytic Therapy, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Dialectical Behaviour Therapy and Schema Therapy. Searches for Mentalization-Based Therapy and Psychodynamic Therapy in relation to stalking were also performed but yielded no results that met inclusion criteria. Findings There is currently a severely limited evidence base for the efficacy of the psychological treatment of stalking behaviours. Some interventions show promise although a multifaceted, formulation-based approach is likely to be required. Practical implications Future research would benefit from robust studies focused on stalking with long-term efficacy follow-ups. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first rapid evidence review of psychological treatments that directly address stalking behaviour.

scholarly journals Molecular Subtypes and Precision Oncology in Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (13) ◽  
pp. 2803
Author(s):  
Carolin Czauderna ◽  
Martha M. Kirstein ◽  
Hauke C. Tews ◽  
Arndt Vogel ◽  
Jens U. Marquardt
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Care ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Precision Oncology ◽  
Recurrence Rates ◽  
Isocitrate Dehydrogenase 1 ◽  
Liver Cancers

Cholangiocarcinomas (CCAs) are the second-most common primary liver cancers. CCAs represent a group of highly heterogeneous tumors classified based on anatomical localization into intra- (iCCA) and extrahepatic CCA (eCCA). In contrast to eCCA, the incidence of iCCA is increasing worldwide. Curative treatment strategies for all CCAs involve oncological resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in early stages, whereas chemotherapy is administered at advanced stages of disease. Due to late diagnosis, high recurrence rates, and limited treatment options, the prognosis of patients remains poor. Comprehensive molecular characterization has further revealed considerable heterogeneity and distinct prognostic and therapeutic traits for iCCA and eCCA, indicating that specific treatment modalities are required for different subclasses. Several druggable alterations and oncogenic drivers such as fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 gene fusions and hotspot mutations in isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and 2 mutations have been identified. Specific inhibitors have demonstrated striking antitumor activity in affected subgroups of patients in phase II and III clinical trials. Thus, improved understanding of the molecular complexity has paved the way for precision oncological approaches. Here, we outline current advances in targeted treatments and immunotherapeutic approaches. In addition, we delineate future perspectives for different molecular subclasses that will improve the clinical care of iCCA patients.

scholarly journals Polyphenols and Cognition In Humans: An Overview of Current Evidence from Recent Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Daniel Joseph Lamport ◽  
Claire Michelle Williams
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Cognitive Outcome ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Cognitive Benefits ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

There is increasing interest in the impact of dietary influences on the brain throughout the lifespan, ranging from improving cognitive development in children through to attenuating ageing related cognitive decline and reducing risk of neurodegenerative diseases. Polyphenols, phytochemicals naturally present in a host of fruits, vegetables, tea, cocoa and other foods, have received particular attention in this regard, and there is now a substantial body of evidence from experimental and epidemiological studies examining whether their consumption is associated with cognitive benefits. The purpose of this overview is to synthesise and evaluate the best available evidence from two sources, namely meta-analyses and systematic reviews, in order to give an accurate reflection of the current evidence base for an association between polyphenols and cognitive benefits. Four meta-analyses and thirteen systematic reviews published between 2017–2020 were included, and were categorised according to whether they reviewed specific polyphenol-rich foods and classes or all polyphenols. A requirement for inclusion was assessment of a behavioural cognitive outcome in humans. A clear and consistent theme emerged that whilst there is support for an association between polyphenol consumption and cognitive benefits, this conclusion is tentative, and by no means definitive. Considerable methodological heterogeneity was repeatedly highlighted as problematic such that the current evidence base does not support reliable conclusions relating to efficacy of specific doses, duration of treatment, or sensitivity in specific populations or certain cognitive domains. The complexity of multiple interactions between a range of direct and indirect mechanisms of action is discussed. Further research is required to strengthen the reliability of the evidence base.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document