Evidence Hub

Metacognitive interpersonal therapy in borderline personality disorder: Clinical and neuroimaging outcomes from the CLIMAMITHE study-A randomized clinical trial

Roberta Rossi, D. Corbo, Laura R. Magni, M. Pievani, G. Nicolo', A. Semerari, Giulia Quattrini, I. Riccardi et al.

Personality disorders, 2023

60 participants · 20 citations

Abstract

Different psychotherapeutic approaches demonstrated their efficacy but the possible neurobiological mechanism underlying the effect of psychotherapy in borderline personality disorder (BPD) patients is poorly investigated. We assessed the effects of metacognitive interpersonal therapy (MIT) on BPD features and other dimensions compared to structured clinical management (SCM). We also assessed changes in amygdala activation by viewing emotional pictures after psychotherapy. One hundred forty-one patients were referred and 78 BPD outpatients were included and randomized to MIT or SCM. Primary outcome was emotional dysregulation assessed with the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS). We also assessed BPD symptomatology, number of PD criteria, metacognitive abilities, state-psychopathology, depression, impulsiveness, interpersonal functioning, and alexithymia. A subset of 60 patients underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging before and after 1 year of psychotherapy to assess amygdala activation by viewing standardized emotional pictures (secondary outcome). DERS scores decreased in both groups (time effect p < .001). The Cohen's d effect size for change (baseline posttreatment) on DERS was very large (d = 0.84) in MIT, and large (d = 0.76) in SCM. Both groups significantly improved in depressive symptoms, state-psychopathology, alexithymia, and interpersonal functioning. MIT showed larger effect on metacognitive functions than SCM (Time × Group p < .001). Both…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 60 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free