Original Research

Combined Therapy of Major Depression With
Concomitant Borderline Personality Disorder:
Comparison of Interpersonal and Cognitive
Psychotherapy

Silvio Bellino, MD

1

, Monica Zizza, PhD

2

, Camilla Rinaldi, MD

3

, Filippo Bogetto, MD

4

W La Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, vol 52, no 11, novembre 2007

718

Objective: The combination of antidepressants and brief psychotherapies has been proven
more efficacious in treating major depression and is particularly recommended in patients
with concomitant personality disorders. We compare the effects of 2 combined therapies,
fluoxetine and interpersonal therapy (IPT) or fluoxetine and cognitive therapy (CT), on
major depression in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD).

Method: Thirty-five consecutive outpatients with a diagnosis of BPD and a major
depressive episode (not bipolar and not psychotic) were enrolled. They were randomly
assigned to 1 of the 2 combined treatments and treated for 24 weeks. Assessment included
a semistructured interview, Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale, Hamilton Depression
Rating Scale (HDRS), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS), Beck Depression
Inventory-II (BDI-II), Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS),
Satisfaction Profile (SAT-P) for quality of life (QOL), and Inventory of Interpersonal
Problems (IIP-64). Statistical analysis was performed using the univariate General Linear
Model to calculate the effects of duration and type of treatment.

Results: No significant differences between treatments were found at CGI, HDRS, BDI-II,
and SOFAS score. Combined treatment with CT had greater effects on HARS score and on
psychological functioning factor of SAT-P. Combined treatment with IPT was more
effective on social functioning factor of SAT-P and on domains domineering or controlling
and intrusive or needy of IIP-64.

Conclusions: Both combined therapies are efficacious in treating major depression in
patients with BPD. Differences between CT and IPT concern specific features of subjective
QOL and interpersonal problems. These findings lack reliable comparisons and need to be
replicated.

(Can J Psychiatry 2007;52:718–725)

Information on funding and support and author affiliations appears at the end of the article.

Clinical Implications

· Combined treatments associating fluoxetine with IPT or CT are efficacious in treating major

depression in patients with concomitant BPD.

· Combined treatment with CT has greater effects on anxiety symptoms and on patients’

perception of psychological functioning.

· Combined treatment with IPT has more of an impact on patients’ perception of social

functioning and on interpersonal problems.

Key Words: major depressive disorder, borderline personality disorder, combined therapy,
interpersonal therapy, cognitive therapy, fluoxetine

T

he combination of ADs and brief psychotherapies is
widely used in the treatment of MDD and has been proven

more efficacious than monotherapy with either ADs or psy-
chotherapy in improving depressive symptoms and social
functioning.

1–11

Of the choices of psychotherapy, CT and IPT are 2 time-
limited treatments that were specifically proposed for major
depression and extensively studied in trials of monotherapy or
combined therapy.

1,12–28

Major depression is commonly associated with personality
disorders. In particular, MDD is the most common Axis I
comorbidity in populations with BPD,

29–36

a serious and per-

sistent mental disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of
instability of interpersonal relationships, affects, and
self-image, as well as marked impulsivity that appears in a
variety of contexts.

37

Clinical data and APA treatment guidelines for major depres-
sion indicate that providing combined therapy is particularly
recommended in patients with concomitant personality disor-
ders.

18,38–40

Kool and colleagues

41

compared the efficacy of

combined therapy with ADs and short psychodynamic sup-
portive psychotherapy and monotherapy with ADs in 72
patients with MDD. They concluded that depressed patients
with comorbid personality disorder appeared to benefit most
from combined therapy. The results were most striking for
cluster C disorders. A recent study of our group

42

included 32

BPD patients who present a major depressive episode (not
bipolar and not psychotic). A combination of fluoxetine and
IPT was found more efficacious than fluoxetine monotherapy
after 24 weeks, on measures of depressive symptoms, subjec-
tive QOL, and interpersonal problems. Although different
psychotherapies have been chosen for combined treatment,
their effects on depressed patients with concomitant personal-
ity disorders have not been compared. In particular, we have
no data to determine if combined treatments with different
psychotherapies can induce specific changes in patients with
MDD and BPD.

This study compares the association of an SSRI with CT or
IPT in treating a group of patients who presented a major
depressive episode with concomitant BPD.

Method

The study participants were selected from patients attending
the Service for Personality Disorders of the Unit of Psychia-
try, Department of Neurosciences, University of Turin, from
April to December 2005.

We included consecutive outpatients who received a
DSM-IV-TR

37

diagnosis of BPD and then met criteria for a

major depressive episode (that is, mild to moderate).

Diagnoses were made by an expert clinician and were con-
firmed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV
Axis I and II disorders.

43,44

We excluded individuals with a lifetime diagnosis of delir-
ium, dementia, amnestic or other cognitive disorders, schizo-
phrenia or other psychotic disorders, and patients whose
major depressive episode was an expression of bipolar
disorder.

Combined Therapy of Major Depression With Concomitant Borderline Personality Disorder: Comparison of Interpersonal and Cognitive Psychotherapy

The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Vol 52, No 11, November 2007

W

719

Limitations

· Sample size was relatively small and results need to be replicated.
· Study lacked a long-term follow-up to assess if clinical improvement is maintained after the

end of treatment.

· Assessment instruments did not include a specific scale for measuring BPD-related symptoms.

Abbreviations used in this article

AD

antidepressant drug

APA

American Psychiatric Association

BDI-II

Beck Depression Inventory-II

BPD

borderline personality disorder

CGI

Clinical Global Impression

CT

cognitive therapy

GLM

General Linear Model

HARS

Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scales

HDRS

Hamilton Depression Rating Scales

IIP-64

Inventory of Interpersonal Problems—64-item version

IPT

interpersonal therapy

MDD

major depressive disorder

QOL

quality of life

SAT-P

Satisfaction Profile

SD

standard deviation

SOFAS

Social and Occupational Functioning
Assessment Scale

SSRI

selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor

Exclusion criteria also considered a current diagnosis of sub-
stance abuse disorder and whether an individual was treated
with psychotropic drugs or psychotherapy during the 2
months prior to the study. Female patients of child-bearing
age were excluded if they were not using an adequate method
of birth control (according to the judgment of the clinician).

Written informed consent was obtained from all patients prior
to their participation. We had ethics board approval and fol-
lowed Declaration of Helsinki guidelines.

Patients included in the study were randomized using the web
program Research Randomizer v3.0 (Urbaniak & Plous,
Social Psychology Network, 2007) and were assigned to one
of 2 treatment groups of combined therapy: IPT plus
pharmacotherapy, or CT plus pharmacotherapy. Patients
underwent their respective treatments for 24 weeks.

All 32 patients included in the study received 20 to 40 mg of
fluoxetine daily. Initially, fluoxetine was prescribed at a fixed
dosage of 20 mg daily with the opportunity to increase the
dosage to 40 mg daily beginning in week 2, depending on clin-
ical judgment. A psychiatrist provided pharmacotherapy. He
was blind to which type of psychotherapy the patients were
receiving. Each patient was given 7 appointments, the first 2
fortnightly and the last 5 monthly.

Sixteen patients received fluoxetine plus IPT, the remaining
16 received fluoxetine plus CT. IPT consisted of weekly ses-
sions lasting 1 hour and was conducted referring to the IPT of
depression manual.

45

Patients in the IPT group were treated by

a psychotherapist who was not the psychiatrist prescribing
medication and who had at least 5 years of experience practis-
ing IPT. CT consisted of weekly 1-hour sessions and were
conducted referring to the manuals of cognitive therapy of
depression.

46,47

Patients in the CT group were treated by a psy-

chotherapist who was neither the psychiatrist prescribing
medication nor the psychotherapist providing IPT, and who
had at least 5 years of experience practising CT. Both psycho-
therapists received supervision during the treatment to assess
their adherence to the psychotherapy manuals. The
pharmacotherapy and both psychotherapies started
simultaneously.

All patients were repeatedly assessed (that is, at baseline,
week 12, and week 24) with the following measures: a
semistructured interview to assess demographic and clinical
characteristics; the Severity and Improvement items of the
CGI scale to assess the level of global symptomatology

48

; the

HDRS and HARS

49,50

; the revised BDI-II, a self-report instru-

ment developed to assess the severity of depression according
to Beck’s cognitive theories

51

; the SOFAS, a self-report scale

that assesses the social and occupational level of function-
ing

52

; the SAT-P,

53

a self-administered questionnaire consist-

ing of 32 scales that provides a satisfaction profile in daily life
and can be considered as an indicator of subjective QOL. The
SAT-P considers 5 different factors: psychological function-
ing; physical functioning; work; sleep, food, and free time;
and social functioning. This questionnaire allows for analysis

of patients’ perception of their level of functioning and treat-
ment benefits. Patients were also assessed with IIP-64,

54

a

self-report inventory to identify problematic areas in interper-
sonal relationships. This inventory assesses the severity of
interpersonal problems in 8 domains: domineering or control-
ling; vindictive or self-centred; cold and distant; socially
inhibited; nonassertive; overly accommodating; self-
sacrificing; and intrusive or needy. The IIP-64 has been
widely used to assess psychotherapy outcome.

55–58

The assessments were performed by an investigator who was
blind to the treatment methods. Remission was defined by a
decreased HDRS score (

$ 40%), with a final score of # 8, and

a score of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved) on
the Improvement item of the CGI.

We performed statistical analyses using the software system
SPSS, version 13.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois, 2004). Only
those patients who completed the study were included in the
analysis. We used Student t test and Fisher’s exact test to com-
pare demographic and clinical characteristics (that is, age,
sex, the Severity item of the CGI, HDRS and HARS scores,
and BDI-II scores) at baseline. The Student t test was used to
compare mean daily doses of fluoxetine in the 2 subgroups
and Fisher’s exact test was performed to compare the number
of patients who achieved remission. We used the univariate
GLM to calculate the effects of 2 factors (duration and type of
treatment) on each assessment scale score. P values were con-
sidered significant when P

£ 0.05.

Results

Initially, there were 32 patients enrolled in the study. At
intake, there were no significant differences between the 2
treatment groups concerning age, sex, the Severity item of the
CGI, HDRS and HARS scores, and BDI-II scores. Owing to
noncompliance, 6 patients discontinued treatment during the
first 3 weeks. Of these subjects, 2 were in the IPT group, and 4
were in the CT group. We performed statistical analyses of
outcome measures on the 26 patients (that is, 14 patients in the
IPT group and 12 patients in the CT group) who completed the
24 weeks of treatment. The sample had a mean age of 30.55,
SD 5.75 years. The ratio of men to women was 7 to 19 (2.71).
The mean dosages of fluoxetine were equivalent in the 2
groups: 32.86 mg daily, SD 9.95 mg, in the group treated with
IPT and 30.00 mg daily, SD 10.45 mg, in the group treated
with CT (P = 0.48). At the end point, 71.43% (n = 10) of the
IPT treated patients and 66.67% (n = 8) of CT treated patients
achieved remission. Statistical comparison with the Fisher’s
exact test did not show a significant difference (P = 0.56).

Results of the univariate GLM performed on the Severity item
of the CGI, HDRS, HARS, BDI-II, and SOFAS results are
presented in Table 1. On each scale, we found that the time
factor had a significant effect (P

< 0.005). The treatment fac-

tor showed a significant effect (P = 0.007) only on the HARS,
which indicates a higher score change in the subgroup receiv-
ing fluoxetine and CT.

W La Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, vol 52, no 11, novembre 2007

720

Original Research

In Table 2, the results of the GLM applied to the 5 factors of
the SAT-P are presented. There was a significant change in 4
of the 5 factors related to the length of treatments, that is, psy-
chological functioning; physical functioning; sleep, food, and

free time; and social functioning (P

< 0.007). We found that

the treatment factor had a significant effect (P = 0.02) on the
psychological functioning factor: combined therapy with CT
was more effective. The treatment factor also had a significant
effect (P = 0.02) on the social functioning factor: the efficacy
of combined therapy with IPT was greater.

Results of the univariate GLM applied to the 8 domains of the
IIP-64 are described in Table 3. Findings differ depending on
which domain is considered. Neither time nor treatment
factors had a significant effect on any of the following 5
domains: cold or distant; socially inhibited; nonassertive;
overly accommodating; and self-sacrificing. The time factor

had a significant effect (P < 0.001) on the vindictive or self-

centred domain. Both the time (P

< 0.001) and the treatment

factor (P

< 0.01) had a significant effect on the domineering or

controlling and intrusive or needy domains. These results
indicate that combined therapy with IPT has more of an
impact on these areas than combined therapy with CT.

Discussion

Our study compared the efficacy of 2 types of psychotherapy
(that is, IPT or CT) associated with a SSRI (that is, fluoxetine)
in the treatment of patients with a major depressive episode
and preexisting BPD. We chose fluoxetine because it is a
widely used AD

59–61

and it is also recommended by APA treat-

ment guidelines for BPD.

62

Our patients were treated with IPT

or CT because these approaches have been initially proposed
and extensively studied for the treatment of MDD.

1,12–28

In

addition, they are now considered among the effective
psychotherapies for BPD.

42,60,63–69

The combination of

pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy is recommended by
APA guidelines both for treatment of MDD and BPD.

18,60–62

In particular, combined therapy is preferable to monotherapy
when interpersonal problems or personality disorders are
associated with major depression.

18,38–42,70–75

In our study, the 2 treatment options did not significantly dif-
fer in rates of remission, improvement of global
psychopathology, social and occupational functioning, and
reduction of depressive symptoms. These findings agree with
other research that found that combined therapy with IPT or
CT are efficacious in depressive disorders.

14,20,25–27

Signifi-

cant differences between the 2 subgroups of our study were
found in measures of anxious symptoms, factors related to

Combined Therapy of Major Depression With Concomitant Borderline Personality Disorder: Comparison of Interpersonal and Cognitive Psychotherapy

The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Vol 52, No 11, November 2007

W

721

Table 1 Results of univariate GLM for symptom and social and occupational functioning scales

Rating scale

Treatment

T0

Mean (SD)

T1

Mean (SD)

T2

Mean (SD)

P

CGI: Severity item

IPT

3.5 (0.5)

2.5 (0.5)

1.9 (0.9)

Time

0.001

a

Treatment

ns

Time

´ Treatment ns

CT

3.3 (0.5)

2.3 (0.5)

1.7 (1.1)

HDRS

IPT

19.7 (3.4)

16.6 (3.8)

14.1 (5.5)

Time

0.005

b

Treatment

ns

Time

´ Treatment ns

CT

19.7 (3.4)

16.3 (3.6)

13.7 (5.7)

HARS

IPT

18.1 (0.8)

16.1 (0.9)

13.7 (2.8)

Time

0.001

a

Treatment

0.007

Time

´ Treatment ns

CT

18.0 (1.1)

13.3 (1.4)

12.5 (1.1)

BDI-II

IPT

22.0 (2.6)

18.9 (3.6)

15.7 (4.5)

Time

0.001

b

Treatment

ns

Time

´ Treatment ns

CT

21.0 (0.9)

17.7 (1.1)

14.7 (1.9)

SOFAS

IPT

51.7 (5.9)

59.0 (6.2)

65.0 (8.6)

Time

0.003

b

Treatment

ns

Time

´ Treatment ns

CT

54.0 (7.1)

62.7 (8.4)

70.3 (9.6)

a

T1;

b

T2; ns = not significant

subjective QOL, and dysfunctional patterns of interpersonal
relationships.

Concerning the efficacy of combined therapy with CT, our
results showed that it was significantly superior to combined
therapy with IPT in reducing anxious symptoms as measured
by the HARS. These data appear concordant with
Gunderson’s opinion that CT well-structured techniques (that
is, role-playing, instructions, homework, and mental exer-
cises) are useful instruments in reducing anxious symptoms in
BPD patients.

76

Moreover, CT is significantly superior to IPT

in improving the psychological functioning as measured by
the SAT-P scale for QOL. Subjective perception of psycho-
logical functioning deals with self-esteem, psychological
autonomy, problem-solving ability, emotional stability,
self-control, and sense of identity. This finding confirms an
open clinical trial of CT in depressed patients with BPD,
reporting significant reduction in depressive symptoms and
improvement in dysfunctional beliefs concerning self-
perception, dependency, helplessness, and emotional
control.

65

If we consider the efficacy of combined therapy with IPT, it
was found significantly superior to combined therapy with CT
in improving the social functioning as measured by the
SAT-P, and the 2 domains domineering or controlling and
intrusive or needy as measured by the IIP-64 scale for

interpersonal problems. Subjective experience of social func-
tioning deals with the quality of social relations in different
contexts in each patient’s life. According to some
research,

68,71,76,77

social functioning is more compromised in

depressed patients with concomitant BPD than in depressed
patients who do not have personality disorders. Difficulties in
handling relationships with family members, colleagues, and
friends provide appropriate targets for the IPT treatment, and
change of dysfunctional interpersonal patterns can improve
the patient’s QOL. The 2 domains domineering or controlling
and intrusive or needy of the IIP-64 refer to areas of interper-
sonal problems that often represent a core feature of patients
with BPD. These patients have a powerful need to feel
engaged with other people and impose their control, because
they cannot tolerate the fear of being abandoned. An improve-
ment in these areas indicates that patients have developed
more functional models for handling interpersonal relation-
ships, reducing their intrusive and controlling attitudes. A
reliable comparison of our results with published research is
not possible.

Although IPT and CT have both been widely studied in the
treatment of major depression and are considered promising
options for dealing with patients with BPD, systematic data on
their use in combined therapy of patients with concomitant
BPD and major depression are not available for CT and lim-
ited for IPT. The group treated by Brown and colleagues

65

W La Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, vol 52, no 11, novembre 2007

722

Original Research

Table 2 Results of univariate GLM for factors of subjective quality of life (SAT-P)

Factor

Treatment

T0

Mean (SD)

T1

Mean (SD)

T2

Mean (SD)

P

Psychological functioning

IPT

38.7 (10.2)

42.5 (7.1)

56.1 (15.4)

Time

0.005

a

Treatment

0.02

Time

´ Treatment ns

CT

42.3 (4.8)

56.7 (10.8)

63.7 (14.2)

Physical functioning

IPT

36.9 (5.3)

46.9 (7.1)

54.4 (14.9)

Time

0.007

b

Treatment

ns

Time

´ Treatment ns

CT

30.0 (4.5)

46.7 (6.8)

60.0 (7.7)

Work

IPT

38.0 (12.5)

46.2 (15.3)

51.9 (20.2)

Time

ns

Treatment

ns

Time

´ Treatment ns

CT

34.2 (7.4)

39.2 (10.2)

39.2 (10.2)

Sleep, food, and free time

IPT

36.1 (12.9)

44.7 (9.1)

53.1 (8.8)

Time

0.003

a

Treatment

ns

Time

´ Treatment ns

CT

41.7 (8.2)

48.3 (6.8)

53.3 (13.7)

Social functioning

IPT

43.1 (8.8)

53.1 (9.6)

70.0 (12.8)

Time

0.001

a

Treatment

0.02

Time

´ Treatment ns

CT

38.3 (14.7)

45.0 (13.8)

55.0 (14.8)

a

T2;

b

T1; ns = not significant

included 15 patients (52%) who received various medications
when they entered the trial with CT (9 received SSRIs). How-
ever, the study was not focused on efficacy of combined ther-
apy and did not compare combined therapy with
pharmacotherapy or psychotherapy. A previous investigation
of our group

42

found that the combination of IPT and

fluoxetine was more efficacious than pharmacotherapy alone
in a group of 32 depressed patients with BPD when consider-
ing measures of depressive symptoms, QOL, and interper-
sonal problems.

In summary, data from the present study indicate that the com-
bination of fluoxetine with either CT or IPT is efficacious in

treating major depression in patients with BPD during a
6-month period. Differences between the 2 treatment modali-
ties concern specific effects on subjective QOL and interper-
sonal problems, which appear to reflect the different goals of
the 2 psychotherapies focused on cognitive and interpersonal
issues.

A major limitation of the present study is the lack of long-term
follow-up to assess whether clinical and functional improve-
ments are maintained after the end of the trial. We are cur-
rently collecting and analyzing data at 6 and 12 months after
end-point. A second limitation is that assessment instruments
did not include a specific scale for measuring BPD-related

Combined Therapy of Major Depression With Concomitant Borderline Personality Disorder: Comparison of Interpersonal and Cognitive Psychotherapy

The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Vol 52, No 11, November 2007

W

723

Table 3 Results of univariate GLM for domains of interpersonal problems (IIP-64)

Domain

Treatment

T0

Mean (SD)

T1

Mean (SD)

T2

Mean (SD)

P

Domineering or controlling

IPT

85.4 (6.4)

77.9 (5.6)

69.5 (7.2)

Time

0.001

a

Treatment

0.003

Time

´ Treatment ns

CT

75.3 (16)

67.3 (11.3)

63.3 (5.2)

Vindictive or self-centred

IPT

80.4 (13.4)

71.6 (12.2)

65.2 (7.9)

Time

0.001

b

Treatment

ns

Time

´ Treatment ns

CT

85.7 (1.9)

75.0 (0)

69.0 (5.9)

Cold or distant

IPT

67.9 (12.7)

63.4 (10.1)

59.0 (9.7)

Time

ns

Treatment

ns

Time

´ Treatment ns

CT

73.0 (11.2)

66.0 (8.6)

63.3 (6.8)

Socially inhibited

IPT

71.7 (12.5)

67.4 (12.6)

65.2 (11.1)

Time

ns

Treatment

ns

Time

´ Treatment ns

CT

73.3 (6.8)

66.7 (5.2)

61.7 (2.6)

Nonassertive

IPT

66.0 (28.7)

65.7 (20.3)

67.9 (14.1)

Time

ns

Treatment

ns

Time

´ Treatment ns

CT

50.8 (19.6)

51.7 (14.4)

63.3 (6.8)

Overly accommodating

IPT

70.5 (24.9)

66.0 (18.4)

63.1 (15.1)

Time

ns

Treatment

ns

Time

´ Treatment ns

CT

50.0 (34.9)

56.7 (22.1)

66.7 (11.2)

Self-sacrificing

IPT

66.0 (22.8)

61.9 (17.7)

58.0 (14.6)

Time

ns

Treatment

ns

Time

´ Treatment ns

CT

63.3 (16.9)

60.0 (15.5)

56.7 (14.4)

Intrusive or needy

IPT

78.5 (6.9)

64.4 (12.6)

50.0 (11.3)

Time

0.001

b

Treatment

0.016

Time

´ Treatment ns

CT

81.5 (6.6)

70.0 (4.5)

63.3 (9.3)

a

T2;

b

T1; ns = not significant

symptoms. The reason is that the main object of the study was
to compare the effects of 2 combined therapies on major
depression with concomitant BPD. Therefore, our data con-
cerned improvement of depression and functional impair-
ment; however, we did not consider what happened to BPD
dysfunctional traits and related symptoms. Another limitation
is that an intention-to-treat analysis was not carried out,
because it could have affected the results.

Further investigations are required on larger samples to repli-
cate these initial findings and confirm that combined therapies
with CT or IPT produce specific effects on the clinical picture
and functional profile of depressed patients with BPD.

Funding and Support

This study received no funding and no support.

References

1. Depression Guideline Panel. Treatment of major depression. Clinical practice,

number 5. Depression in primary care: volume 2. US Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and
Research. Rockville (MD): AHCPR Publication Nr. 93–0551; 1993.

2. Thase ME, Greenhouse JB, Frank E, et al. Treatment of major depression with

psychotherapy or psychotherapy-pharmacotherapy combinations. Arch Gen
Psychiatry. 1997;54(11):1009–1015.

3. Thase ME. Integrating psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for treatment of

major depressive disorder. Current status and future considerations. J Psychother
Pract Res. 1997;6(4):300 –306.

4. Keller MB, McCullough JP, Klein DN, et al. A comparison of nefazodone, the

cognitive-behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy, and their combination
for the treatment of chronic depression. N Engl J Med.
2000;342(20):1462–1470.

5. de Jonghe F, Kool S, van Aalst G, et al. Combining psychotherapy and

antidepressants in the treatment of depression. J Affect Disord.
2001;64(2–3):217–229.

6. Dunner DL. Acute and maintenance treatment of chronic depression. J Clin

Psychiatry. 2001;62(Suppl 6):10 –16.

7. Jindal RD, Thase ME. Integration of care: integrating psychotherapy and

pharmacotherapy to improve outcomes among patients with mood disorders.
Psychiatr Serv. 2003;54(11):1484 –1490.

8. Hollon SD, Jarrett RB, Nierenberg AA, et al. Psychotherapy and medication in

the treatment of adult and geriatric depression: which monotherapy or combined
treatment? J Clin Psychiatry. 2005;66(4):455–468.

9. Molenaar PJ, Dekker J, Van R, et al. Does adding psychotherapy to

pharmacotherapy improve social functioning in the treatment of outpatient
depression? Depress Anxiety. 2006 Nov 27; [Epub ahead of print].

10. Petersen TJ. Enhancing the efficacy of antidepressants with psychotherapy.

J Psychopharmacol. 2006; 20(3 Suppl):19–28.

11. Thase ME. Preventing relapse and recurrence of depression: a brief review of

therapeutic options. CNS Spectr. 2006;11(12 Suppl 15):12–21.

12. Svartberg M, Stiles TC. Comparative effects of short-term psychodynamic

psychotherapy: a meta-analysis. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991;59(5):704–714.

13. Jarrett RB, Rush AJ. Short-term psychotherapy of depressive disorders: current

status and future directions. Psychiatry. 1994;57(2):115– 132.

14. Elkin I, Gibbons RD, Shea MT, et al. Initial severity and differential treatment

outcome in the national institute of mental health treatment of the depression
collaborative research program. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1995;63(5):841–847.

15. Weissman MM. Interpersonal psychotherapy: current status. Keio J Med.

1997;46(3):105–110.

16. Gloaguen V, Cottraux J, Cucherat M, et al. A meta-analysis of the effects of

cognitive therapy in depressed patients. J Affect Disord. 1998;49(1):59–72.

17. Markowitz JC. Developments in interpersonal psychotherapy. Can J Psychiatry.

1999;44(6):556–561.

18. American Psychiatric Association. Practice Guideline for the treatment of

patients with major depressive disorder. Washington (DC): American Psychiatric
Press; 2000.

19. Jarrett RB, Kraft D, Doyle J, et al. Prevention of relapse in residual depression

using cognitive therapy with and without a continuation phase: a randomized
clinical trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58(4):381–388.

20. Thase ME, Friedman ES, Howland RH. Management of treatment-resistant

depression: psychotherapeutic perspectives. J Clin Psychiatry. 2001;62
(Suppl 18):18–24.

21. Grote NK, Frank E. Difficult to treat depression: the role of contexts and

comorbidities. Biol Psychiatry. 2003;53(8):660–670.

22. Markowitz JC. Interpersonal psychotherapy for chronic depression. J Clin

Psychol. 2003;59(8):847–858.

23. Swartz HA, Frank E, Shear MK, et al. A pilot study of brief interpersonal

psychotherapy for depression among women. Psychiatr Serv.
2004;55(4):448–450.

24. Schramm E, van Calker D, Berger M. Efficacy and therapeutic factors of

interpersonal psychotherapy for depressed inpatients-results of a pilot study.
Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2004;54(2):65–72.

25. DeRubeis RJ, Hollon SD, Amsterdam JD, et al. Cognitive therapy vs

medications in the treatment of moderate to severe depression. Arch Gen
Psychiatry. 2005;62(4):409–416.

26. de Mello MF, de Jesus Mari J, Bacaltchuk J, et al. A systematic review of

research findings on the efficacy of interpersonal therapy for depressive
disorders. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2005;255(2):75–82.

27. Dimidjian S, Hollon SD, Dobson KS, et al. Randomized trial of behavioral

activation, cognitive therapy, and antidepressant medication in the acute
treatment of adults with major depression. J Consult Clin Psychol.
2006;74(4):658–670.

28. Weissman MM. Recent non-medication trials of interpersonal psychotherapy for

depression. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2007;10(1):117–122. Epub 2006 Jun
20.

29. Comtois KA, Cowley DS, Dunner DL, et al. Relationship between borderline

personality disorder and Axis I diagnosis in severity of depression and anxiety.
J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60(11):752–758.

30. Zimmerman M, Mattia JI. Axis I diagnostic comorbidity and borderline

personality disorder. Compr Psychiatry. 1999;40(4):245–252.

31. Johnson DM, Shea MT, Yen S, et al. Gender differences in borderline

personality disorder: findings from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality
Disorders Study. Compr Psychiatry. 2003;44(4):284–292.

32. Shea MT, Stout RL, Yen S, et al. Associations in the course of personality

disorders and Axis I disorders over time. J Abnorm Psychol.
2004;113(4):499–508.

33. Zanarini MC, Frankenburg FR, Hennen J, et al. Axis I comorbidity in patients

with borderline personality disorder: 6-year follow-up and prediction of time to
remission. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(11):2108–2114.

34. Bellino S, Patria L, Paradiso E, et al. Major depression in patients with

borderline personality disorder: a clinical investigation. Can J Psychiatry.
2005;40(4):234–238.

35. Zittel Conklin C, Westen D. Borderline personality disorder in clinical practice.

Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162(5):867–875.

36. Stanley B, Wilson ST. Heightened subjective experience of depression in

borderline personality disorder. J Personal Disord. 2006;20(4):307–318.

37. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders. 4th ed. Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). Washington (DC): American
Psychiatric Press; 2000.

38. Hardy GE, Barkham M, Shapiro DA, et al. Impact of cluster C personality

disorders on outcomes of contrasting brief psychotherapies for depression.
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1995;63(6):997–1004.

39. Cyranowski JM, Frank E, Winter E, et al. Personality pathology and outcome in

recurrently depressed women over 2 years of maintenance interpersonal
psychotherapy. Psychol Med. 2004;34(4):659–669.

40. Farabaugh A, Mischoulon D, Schwartz F, et al. Dysfunctional attitudes and

personality disorder comorbidity during long-term treatment of MDD. Depress
Anxiety. 2007;24(6):433–439. Epub 2006 Nov 3.

41. Kool S, Dekker J, Duijsens IJ, et al. Efficacy of combined therapy and

pharmacotherapy for depressed patients with or without personality disorders.
Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2003;11(3):133–141.

42. Bellino S, Zizza M, Rinaldi C, et al. Combined treatment of major depression in

patients with borderline personality disorder: a comparison with
pharmacotherapy. Can J Psychiatry. 2006;51(7):453–460.

43. First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, et al. Structured Clinical Interview for

DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I). Washington (DC): American Psychiatric
Press; 1997.

44. First MB, Gibbon M, Spitzer RL, et al. Structured Clinical Interview for

DSM-IV Axis II Disorders (SCID-II). Washington (DC): American Psychiatric
Press; 1997.

45. Klerman GL, Weissman MM, Rounsaville BJ, et al. Interpersonal psychotherapy

of depression. New York (NY): Basic Books; 1984.

46. Beck AT, Rush AJ, Shaw BF, et al. Cognitive therapy of depression. New York

(NY): The Guilford Press; 1979.

47. Beck JS. Cognitive therapy: basics and beyond. New York (NY): The Guilford

Press; 1995.

48. Guy W. ECDEU assessment manual for psychopharmacology. US department of

health, education, and welfare publication (ADM) 76–338. Rockville (MD):
National Institute of Mental Health; 1976. p 218– 222.

49. Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry.

1960;23:56–62.

50. Hamilton M. The assessment of anxiety states by rating. Br J Med Psychol.

1959;32(1):50–55.

W La Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, vol 52, no 11, novembre 2007

724

Original Research

51. Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown GK. Beck Depression Inventory-II (BECK-II). San

Antonio (TX): Harcourt Assessment; 1996.

52. Goldman HH, Skodol AE, Lave TR. Revising axis V for DSM-IV: a review of

measures of social functioning. Am J Psychiatry. 1992;149(9):1148–1156.

53. Majani G, Callegari S. SAT-P satisfaction profile. Soddisfazione soggettiva e

qualit

B della vita. Trento (IT): Erickson; 1998.

54. Horowitz LM, Alden LE, Wiggins JS, et al. Inventory of interpersonal problems.

San Antonia (TX): Harcourt Assessment; 2000.

55. Borkovec TD, Newman MG, Pincus AL, et al. A component analysis of

cognitive-behavioral therapy for generalized anxiety disorder and the role of
interpersonal problems. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2002;70(2):288–298.

56. Vittengl JR, Clark LA, Jarrett RB. Interpersonal problems, personality pathology

and social adjustment after cognitive therapy for depression. Psychol Assess.
2003;15(1):29–40.

57. Leichsenring F, Biskup J, Kreische R, et al. The Gottingen study of

psychoanalytic therapy: first results. Int J Psychoanal. 2005;86(Pt 2):433–455.

58. Loffler-Statska H, Ponocny-Seliger E, Fischer-Kern M, et al. Utilization of

psychotherapy in patients with personality disorder: the impact of gender,
character traits, affect regulation and quality of object-relations. Psychol
Psychother. 2005;78(Pt 4):531–548.

59. Zanarini MC, Frankenburg FR, Parachini EA. A preliminary, randomized trial of

fluoxetine, olanzapine, and the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination in women
with borderline personality disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2004;65(7):903–907.

60. Oldham JM. Guideline Watch. Practice guideline for the treatment of patients

with borderline personality disorders. Arlington (VA): American Psychiatric
Association; 2005. p 1–15.

61. Binks CA, Fenton M, McCArthy L, et al. Pharmacological interventions for

people with borderline personality disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006
Jan 25;(1):CD005653.

62. American Psychiatric Association. Practice Guidelines for the treatment of

patients with borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158
(10 Suppl):1–52.

63. Perry JC, Banon E, Ianni F. Effectiveness of psychotherapy for personality

disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156(9):1312–1321.

64. Bateman AW, Fonagy P. Effectiveness of psychotherapeutic treatment of

personality disorder. Br J Psychiatry. 2000;177:138–143.

65. Brown GK, Newman CF, Charlesworth SE, et al. An open clinical trial of

cognitive therapy for borderline personality disorder. J Personal Disord.
2004;18(3):257–271.

66. Keegan E. A cognitive approach of the borderline personality disorder. Vertex.

2004;15(58):287–294.

67. Markowitz JC. Interpersonal therapy. In: Oldham JM, Skodol AE, Bender DS.

Textbook of personality disorders. Washington (DC): The American Psychiatric
Publishing; 2005. p 321–334.

68. Markowitz JC, Skodol AE, Bleiberg K. Interpersonal psychotherapy for

borderline personality disorder: possible mechanisms of change. J Clin Psychol.
2006;62(4):431–444.

69. Wenzel A, Chapman JE, Newman CF, et al. Hypothesized mechanisms of

change in cognitive therapy for borderline personality disorder. J Clin Psychol.
2006;62(4):503–516.

70. Gabbard GO. Psychotherapy of personality disorders. J Psychother Pract Res.

2000;9(1):1–6.

71. Livesley WJ. A practical approach to the treatment of patients with borderline

personality disorder. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2000;23(1):211–232.

72. Stone MH. Clinical guidelines for psychotherapy for patients with borderline

personality disorder. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2000;23(1):193–210.

73. Livesley WJ. Principles and strategies for treating personality disorder. Can J

Psychiatry. 2005;50(8):442–450.

74. Paris J. Recent advances in the treatment of borderline personality disorder. Can

J Psychiatry. 2005;50(8):435–441.

75. Soler J, Pascual JC, Campins J, et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of

dialectical behaviour therapy plus olanzapine for borderline personality disorder.
Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162(6):1221–1224.

76. Gunderson JG. Borderline personality disorder: a clinical guide. Washington

(DC): The American Psychiatric Publishing; 2001.

77. Skodol AE, Grilo CM, Pagano ME, et al. Effects of personality disorders on

functioning and well-being in major depressive disorder. J Psychiatr Pract.
2005;11(6):363–368.

Manuscript received January 2007, revised, and accepted May 2007.

1

Assistant Professor, Service for Personality Disorders, Unit of Psychiatry,

Department of Neurosciences, University of Turin, Torino, Italy.

2

Clinical Psychologist, Service for Personality Disorders, Unit of

Psychiatry, Department of Neurosciences, University of Turin, Torino,
Italy.

3

Psychiatry Resident, Service for Personality Disorders, Unit of Psychiatry,

Department of Neurosciences, University of Turin, Torino, Italy.

4

Professor, Unit of Psychiatry, Department of Neurosciences, University of

Turin, Torino, Italy.

Address for correspondence: Professor S Bellino, Service for Personality
Disorders, Unit of Psychiatry, Department of Neurosciences, University of
Turin, Via Cherasco 11, 10126 Torino, Italy; [e-mail]

Combined Therapy of Major Depression With Concomitant Borderline Personality Disorder: Comparison of Interpersonal and Cognitive Psychotherapy

The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Vol 52, No 11, November 2007

W

725

Résumé : La thérapie combinée de la dépression majeure et du trouble concomitant de la personnalité
limite : comparaison de la psychothérapie interpersonnelle et cognitive

Objectif : La combinaison d’antidépresseurs et de psychothérapies à court terme s’est révélée plus efficace pour traiter la
dépression majeure et est particulièrement recommandée pour les patients souffrant de troubles de la personnalité concomitants.
Nous comparons les effets de 2 thérapies combinées de fluoxétine et de thérapie interpersonnelle (TIP) ou de fluoxétine et de
thérapie cognitive (TC) sur la dépression majeure de patients souffrant de trouble de la personnalité limite (TPL).

Méthode : Trente-cinq patients externes consécutifs ayant un diagnostic de TPL et d’un épisode de dépression majeure (ni
bipolaire ni psychotique) ont été inscrits. Ils ont été affectés au hasard à l’un des 2 traitements combinés et traités durant 24
semaines. L’évaluation incluait une entrevue semi-structurée, l’Impression clinique globale (CGI), l’échelle de dépression de
Hamilton (HDRS), l’échelle d’anxiété de Hamilton (HARS), l’inventaire de dépression de Beck-II (BDI-II), l’évaluation du
fonctionnement social et professionnel (SOFAS), le profil de satisfaction (SAT-P) de la qualité de vie (QOL), et l’inventaire
des problèmes interpersonnels (IIP-64). Une analyse statistique a été effectuée à l’aide du modèle linéaire général univarié pour
calculer les effets de la durée et du type de traitement.

Résultats : Aucunes différences significatives n’ont été observées entre les traitements aux scores de CGI, HDRS, BDI-II, et
SOFAS. Le traitement combiné avec la TC avait des effets plus marqués sur le score à la HARS et sur le facteur de
fonctionnement psychologique du SAT-P. Le traitement combiné avec la TIP était plus efficace sur le facteur du
fonctionnement social du SAT-P et sur les domaines de domination ou de contrôle et d’intrusif ou manquant d’affection de
l’IIP-64.

Conclusions : Les deux thérapies combinées sont efficaces pour traiter la dépression majeure chez les patients souffrant du
TPL. Les différences entre la TC et la TIP ont trait à des caractéristiques spécifiques de la qualité de vie et des problèmes
interpersonnels subjectifs. Ces résultats manquent de comparaisons fiables et doivent être reproduits.