The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1176/foc.8.1.foc110

Background:

Interpersonal psychotherapy and cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) are established as effective treatments for major depression. Controversy remains regarding their effectiveness for severe and melancholic depression.

Aims:

To compare the efficacy of interpersonal psychotherapy and CBT in people receiving out-patient treatment for depression and to explore response in severe depression (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score above 30), and in melancholic depression.

Method:

Randomised clinical trial of 177 patients with a principal Axis I diagnosis of major depressive disorder receiving 16 weeks of therapy comprising 8–19 sessions. Primary outcome was improvement in MADRS score from baseline to end of treatment.

Results:

There was no difference between the two psychotherapies in the sample as a whole, but CBT was more effective than interpersonal psychotherapy in severe depression, and the response was comparable with that for mild and moderate depression. Melancholia did not predict poor response to either psychotherapy.

Conclusions:

Both therapies are equally effective for depression but CBT may be preferred in severe depression.

Declaration of interest:

None.

(Reprinted with permission from the British Journal of Psychiatry 2007; 190:496–502)