Problematic drinking frequently co-occurs with depression among young adults, but often remains unaddressed in depression treatment. Evidence is insufficient on whether digital alcohol interventions can be effective in this young comorbid population. In a randomized controlled trial, we examined the effectiveness of Beating the Booze (BtB), an add-on digital alcohol intervention to complement depression treatment for young adults.

Participants were randomized to BtB + depression treatment as usual (BTB + TAU, n = 81) or TAU (n = 82). The primary outcome was treatment response, a combined measure for alcohol and depression after 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were number of weekly drinks (Timeline Follow-back) and depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale). Treatment response was analyzed using generalized linear modeling and secondary outcomes using robust linear mixed modeling.

Low treatment response was found due to lower than expected depression remission rates. No statistically significant between-group effect was found for treatment response after 6-month follow-up (odds ratio 2.86, p = 0.089, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85–9.63). For our secondary outcomes, statistically significant larger reductions in weekly drinks were found in the intervention group after 3-month (B = −4.00, p = 0.009, 95% CI −6.97 to −1.02, d = 0.27) and 6-month follow-up (B = −3.20, p = 0.032, 95% CI −6.13 to −0.27, d = 0.23). We found no statistically significant between-group differences on depressive symptoms after 3-month (B = −0.57, p = 0.732, 95% CI −3.83 to 2.69) nor after 6-month follow-up (B = −0.44, p = 0.793, 95% CI −3.69 to 2.82).

The add-on digital alcohol intervention was effective in reducing alcohol use, but not in reducing depressive symptoms and treatment response among young adults with co-occurring depressive disorders and problematic alcohol use.

Pre-registered on October 29, 2019 in the Overview of Medical Research in the Netherlands (OMON), formerly the Dutch Trial Register(https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/49219).

There are indications that problematic alcohol use may negatively impact the course of major depressive disorder (MDD). However, most studies on alcohol use and adverse MDD outcomes are conducted amongst MDD populations with (severe) alcohol use disorder in psychiatric treatment settings. Therefore, it remains unclear whether these results can be generalised to the general population. In light of this, we examined the longitudinal relationship between alcohol use and MDD persistence after a 3-year follow-up amongst people with MDD from the general population.

Data were derived from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2 (NEMESIS-2), a psychiatric epidemiological prospective study comprising four waves amongst the adult Dutch general population (n = 6.646). The study sample (n = 642) consisted of those with 12-month MDD who participated at the follow-up wave. The outcome was 12-month MDD persistence after the 3-year follow-up, which was assessed via the Composite International Diagnostic Interview version 3.0. Weekly alcohol consumption was operationalised as non-drinking (0 drinks), low-risk drinking (⩽7 drinks; reference), at-risk drinking (women 8–13 drinks, men 8–20 drinks) and high-risk drinking (women ⩾14, men ⩾21 drinks). We performed univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses, which were adjusted for various socio-demographic and health-related factors.

The majority (67.4%) of the MDD sample were female, while the mean age was 47.1 years. Amongst these, 23.8% were non-drinkers, 52.0% were low-risk drinkers and 14.3% and 9.4% were at-risk and high-risk drinkers, respectively. Around one-quarter of the sample (23.6%) met the criteria for a persistent MDD after 3-year follow-up. No statistically significant association was found between alcohol use and MDD persistence, either for the crude model or the adjusted models. In comparison to low-risk drinking, the full adjusted model showed no statistically significant associations between MDD persistence and non-drinking (odds ratio (OR) = 1.15, p = 0.620), at-risk drinking (OR = 1.25, p = 0.423), or high-risk drinking (OR = 0.74, p = 0.501).

Contrary to our expectations, our findings showed that alcohol use was not a predictor of MDD persistence after 3-year follow-up amongst people with MDD from the general population.

Two types of mentalization-based treatment (MBT), day hospital MBT (MBT-DH) and intensive outpatient MBT (MBT-IOP), have been shown to be effective in treating patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). This study evaluated trajectories of change in a multi-site trial of MBT-DH and MBT-IOP at 36 months after the start of treatment.

All 114 patients (MBT-DH n = 70, MBT-IOP n = 44) from the original multicentre trial were assessed at 24, 30 and 36 months after the start of treatment. The primary outcome was symptom severity measured with the Brief Symptom Inventory. Secondary outcome measures included borderline symptomatology, personality and interpersonal functioning, quality of life and self-harm. Data were analysed using multilevel modelling and the intention-to-treat principle.

Patients in both MBT-DH and MBT-IOP maintained the substantial improvements made during the intensive treatment phase and showed further gains during follow-up. Across both conditions, 83% of patients improved in terms of symptom severity, and 97% improved on borderline symptomatology. No significant differences were found between MBT-DH and MBT-IOP at 36 months after the start of treatment. However, trajectories of change were different. Whereas patients in MBT-DH showed greater improvement during the intensive treatment phase, patients in MBT-IOP showed greater continuing improvement during follow-up.

Patients in both conditions showed similar large improvements over the course of 36 months, despite large differences in treatment intensity. MBT-DH and MBT-IOP were associated with different trajectories of change. Cost-effectiveness considerations and predictors of differential treatment outcome may further inform optimal treatment selection.

Two types of mentalisation-based treatment (MBT) have been developed and empirically evaluated for borderline personality disorder (BPD): day hospital MBT (MBT-DH) and intensive out-patient MBT (MBT-IOP). No trial has yet compared their efficacy.

To compare the efficacy of MBT-DH and MBT-IOP 18 months after start of treatment. MBT-DH was hypothesised to be superior to MBT-IOP because of its higher treatment intensity.

In a multicentre randomised controlled trial (Nederlands Trial Register: NTR2292) conducted at three sites in the Netherlands, patients with BPD were randomly assigned to MBT-DH (n = 70) or MBT-IOP (n = 44). The primary outcome was symptom severity (Brief Symptom Inventory). Secondary outcome measures included borderline symptomatology, personality functioning, interpersonal functioning, quality of life and self-harm. Patients were assessed every 6 months from baseline to 18 months after start of treatment. Data were analysed using multilevel modelling based on intention-to-treat principles.

Significant improvements were found on all outcome measures, with moderate to very large effect sizes for both groups. MBT-DH was not superior to MBT-IOP on the primary outcome measure, but MBT-DH showed a clear tendency towards superiority on secondary outcomes.

Although MBT-DH was not superior to MBT-IOP on the primary outcome measure despite its greater treatment intensity, MBT-DH showed a tendency to be more effective on secondary outcomes, particularly in terms of relational functioning. Patients receiving MBT-DH and MBT-IOP, thus, seem to follow different trajectories of change, which may have important implications for clinical decision-making. Longer-term follow-up and cost-effectiveness considerations may ultimately determine the optimal intensity of specialised treatments such as MBT for patients with BPD.

Day hospital mentalization-based treatment (MBT-DH) is a promising treatment for borderline personality disorder (BPD) but its evidence base is still limited. This multi-site randomized trial compared the efficacy of MBT-DH delivered by a newly set-up service v. specialist treatment as usual (S-TAU) tailored to the individual needs of patients, and offered by a well-established treatment service.

Two mental healthcare institutes in The Netherlands participated in the study. Patients who met DSM-IV criteria for BPD and had a score of ⩾20 on the borderline personality disorder severity index (BPDSI) were randomly allocated to MBT-DH (N = 54) or S-TAU (N = 41). The primary outcome variable was the total score on the BPDSI. Secondary outcome variables included symptom severity, quality of life, and interpersonal functioning. Data were collected at baseline and every 6 months until 18-month follow-up, and were analyzed using multilevel analyses based on intention-to-treat principles.

Both treatments were associated with significant improvements in all outcome variables. MBT-DH was not superior to S-TAU on any outcome variable. MBT-DH was associated with higher acceptability in BPD patients compared v. S-TAU, reflected in significantly higher early drop-out rates in S-TAU (34%) v. MBT-DH (9%).

MBT-DH delivered by a newly set-up service is as effective as specialist TAU in The Netherlands in the treatment of BPD at 18-month follow-up. Further research is needed to investigate treatment outcomes in the longer term and the cost-effectiveness of these treatments.