CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesTreatment of Major Depression

Radically open dialectical behaviour therapy for refractory depression: the RefraMED RCT

Open access
Lynch, Thomas R, Hempel, Roelie J, Whalley, Ben, Byford, Sarah, Chamba, Rampaul, Clarke, Paul, Clarke, Susan, Kingdon, David +8 more·2018·Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation
DOI 10.3310/eme05070
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background About one-third of patients who are depressed do not respond to antidepressant medication (ADM) and traditional psychotherapy shows limited benefits. However, most randomised trials have excluded the most sick patients, especially with comorbid personality disorder. Radically open dialectical behaviour therapy (RO DBT) is a new treatment targeting emotionally overcontrolled personality, which is common in refractory depression. Objective To evaluate the efficacy, cost-effectiveness and therapeutic mechanisms of RO DBT for patients with refractory depression. Design The Refractory depression: Mechanisms and Efficacy of RO DBT (RefraMED) trial was a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised trial in which participants were randomised to receive either RO DBT plus treatment as usual (TAU) or TAU alone. Participants were assessed at 7, 12 and 18 months after randomisation. Therapeutic mechanisms were explored in causal analyses. Setting Participants were recruited from three secondary care NHS organisations in the UK: Dorset, Hampshire and North Wales. Participants Patients were eligible if they were aged ≥ 18 years, had a Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) score of at least 15, had a current diagnosis of major depressive disorder in the Structured Clinical Interview forDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Axis I, were suffering either refractory or chronic depression and, in their current episode, had taken an adequate dose of ADM for at least 6 weeks without relief. Patients who met criteria for dramatic-erratic personality disorder (Cluster B), bipolar disorder or psychosis or who had a primary diagnosis of substance dependence or abuse were excluded. Interventions The intervention, RO DBT, comprised 29 weekly individual sessions lasting 1 hour and 27 weekly skills classes lasting 2.5 hours. Participants allocated to TAU could access any treatment offered by the NHS or privately. Main outcome measures The reported HRSD score 12 months after randomisation and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results A total of 250 participants were allocated at random: 162 (65%) participants were randomised to RO DBT plus TAU and 88 (35%) were randomised to TAU. The difference between RO DBT and TAU in the primary outcome at 12 months was not statistically significant. Nevertheless, after 7 months, participants randomised to RO DBT had substantially, and significantly, reduced depressive symptoms, relative to TAU, by 5.40 HRSD points [standardised mean difference 1.03 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 9.85 points;p = 0.02]. Thereafter, RO DBT remained the better treatment with net, but non-significant, reductions of 2.15 HRSD points (standardised mean difference 0.41 points, 95% CI –2.28 to 6.59 points;p = 0.29) after 12 months and 1.69 points (standardised mean difference 0.32 points, 95% CI –2.84 to 6.22 points;p = 0.42) after 18 months. Participants allocated to TAU could access any treatment offered by the NHS or privately. Participants randomised to RO DBT reported significantly better psychological flexibility and emotional coping than TAU participants; these differences increased over time. From the perspective of the NHS and personal social services, RO DBT was not cost-effective; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £220,000 per QALY, which is considerably above the willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 set by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). RO DBT participants reported eight possible serious adverse reactions compared with none by TAU participants; however, we believe that this imbalance was a result of major differences in reporting opportunities. The Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee agreed that there was no reason to suspect that RO DBT was harmful. Conclusions Although RO DBT achieved the target effect size (Cohen’sd) with ad of 0.4 at the primary end point of 12 months, this was not significant. RO DBT was not cost-effective by NICE criteria. Nevertheless, RO DBT enhanced psychological flexibility and emotional coping, which are potential mechanisms of change. Limitations Analysing only 190 participants, instead of the target of 245, reduced the statistical power of the trial. Future work Future studies should aim to refine RO DBT, by maintaining clinical effectiveness while reducing costs, and to evaluate it for a wider range of overcontrolled disorders over a longer period. Trial registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN85784627. Funding This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a MRC and NIHR partnership, and will be published in full inEfficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 5, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3310/eme05070

Cites

163 of 164 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Lynch TR. Radically Open Dialectical Behavior Therapy: Theory and Practice for Treating Disorders of Overcontrol. Reno, NV: Context Press; 2018.
  2. First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, Williams JBW. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Patient Edition. (SCID-I/P). New York, NY: Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute; 2002.
  3. Lynch TR. The Skills Training Manual for Radically Open Dialectical Behavior Therapy: A Clinicians Guide for Treating Disorders of Overcontrol. Reno, NV: Context Press; 2018.
  4. Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown GK. Beck Depression Inventory: Second Edition Manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation; 1996.
  5. Wilson BA, Emslie H, Foley J, Shiel A, Watson P, Hawkins K, et al. The Cambridge Prospective Memory Test. London: Harcourt-Assessment; 2005.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lynch, T. R., Hempel, R. J., Whalley, B., Byford, S., Chamba, R., Clarke, P., Clarke, S., Kingdon, D., O’Mahen, H., Remington, B., Rushbrook, S. C., Shearer, J., Stanton, M., Swales, M., Watkins, A., & Russell, I. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • University of Plymouth (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Member of Trial Management Committee responsible for Public and Patient Involvement, Bilston, UK
  • University of Essex (GB)
  • Dorset HealthCare University NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Bangor University (GB)
  • Swansea University (GB)
Corresponding author
Lynch, Thomas R
ORCID
Venue
Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation
Publisher
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Published
2018-12
Volume
5
Issue
7
Pages
1-112
ISSN
  • 2050-4365 (ISSN-L)
  • 2050-4373
DOI
10.3310/eme05070
OpenAlex
W2768430708
Cited by
22
References
164
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5
FWCI
2.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme (09/150/12)
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
treatment-resistant depression, chronic depression, personality disorder comorbidity, therapeutic mechanisms, cost-effectiveness, cost per QALY, depressive symptoms, usual care, causal analysis, individual psychotherapy, skills training, relapse prevention

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review