伴精神病性症状抑郁症患者人口学及临床特征

目的比较伴与不伴精神病性症状抑郁症患者的人口学及临床特点。方法数据来源于"中国双相障碍患者诊断评估服务研究"项目,将来自全国13个研究中心的1172例抑郁症患者,根据有无精神病性症状,分为伴精神病性症状组和不伴精神病性症状组,采用自制调查问卷收集患者社会人口学及临床特征方面的资料,比较两组差异,并分析抑郁症患者伴精神病性症状的影响因素。结果 13.3%(156/1172)的抑郁症患者伴有精神病性症状。与不伴精神病性症状组相比,伴精神病性症状的抑郁症患者起病早,年龄小,更多已婚,既往抑郁发作次数多,因精神疾病住院次数多,抑郁发作频繁,更多患者伴非典型特征、有周期性或季节性特点、伴自杀观念及精神障碍家族史(均P0.05)。多因素logistic回归分析显示,起病年龄(OR=0.972,95%CI:0.957～0.987)、抑郁发作频繁(OR=2.099,95%CI:1.233～3.573)、伴非典型特征(OR=1.937,95%CI:1.277～2.939)、伴自杀观念(OR=1.654,95%CI:1.147～2.385)与抑郁症患者伴精神病性症状相关(均P0.05)。结论伴精神病性症状的抑郁症患者具有起病年龄早、抑郁发作频繁、更常伴非典型特征、伴自杀观念的特点。     

女性双相情感障碍住院患者高自杀风险的相关因素 分析

目的 分析女性双相情感障碍（BD）住院患者高自杀风险的相关因素。方法 收集 2010 年 4 月至 2019 年 6 月首都医科大学附属北京安定医院 378 例女性 BD 住院患者的病历资料。根据患者 自杀风险,分为低自杀风险组（n=220）和高自杀风险组（n=158）。比较两组患者的一般人口学资料及 临床特征差异,采用二项 Logistic 回归分析女性 BD 住院患者高自杀风险的相关因素。结果 与低自 杀风险组相比,高自杀风险组患者的本次住院天数少、首发年龄及首次抑郁发作年龄小、总发作次 数及抑郁发作次数多、躁狂发作次数少、首发症状为抑郁者和双相Ⅱ型障碍者（BD-Ⅱ）比例高、有精 神病性症状者比例少,差异均有统计学意义（均P＜ 0.05）。二项Logistic回归分析显示,抑郁发作次数 （OR=1.56,95%CI=1.32～1.83）、BD类型（OR=2.30,95%CI=1.16～4.58）以及是否伴精神病性症状（OR=0.56, 95%CI=0.35～0.90）是女性 BD 患者高自杀风险的相关因素（P＜ 0.05）。结论 抑郁发作次数频繁、 BD-Ⅱ、不伴精神病性症状是影响女性 BD 患者高自杀风险的因素。     

34例抑郁症患者睡眠障碍临床分析

目的：本研究从临床角度分析抑郁症患者抑郁与睡眠的关系。方法：对１９９６年年底前住院，符合ＣＣＭＤ－２－Ｒ诊断标准的抑郁症患者３４例进行睡眠情况调查。结果：首发临床症状为睡眠障碍者２１例（６１．８％），单相发作１４例，双相发作７例。入院时临床症状，单相发作以入睡困难、睡眠减少、睡眠持续障碍为多见；双相发作以入睡困难、睡眠时相延迟为多见。治疗后抑郁程度与睡眠情况改善不呈正比。结论：可见单相发作与双相发作睡眠障碍的表现形式不同。睡眠障碍多出现在抑郁发作早期，并持续到抑郁症加重之后。持续的睡眠障碍提示有抑郁症复发的征象     

抑郁症和双相障碍患者服药依从性及相关因素 分析的多中心横断面研究

目的 对门诊抑郁症/ 双相障碍患者的服药依从性现状进行调查,探索服药依从性的影 响因素。方法 采用多中心连续入组的方法,选取首都医科大学附属北京安定医院、南京脑科医院、昆 明医学院附属第一医院、广州市精神病医院、哈尔滨医科大学附属第一医院、第四军医大学附属西京 医院等6 家三级甲等精神专科医院或综合医院精神科为研究中心,对2015 年10 月至2016 年3 月就诊 于各中心的门诊抑郁症/ 双相障碍患者进行访谈,对服药依从性和相关因素等主要观察指标进行统计 分析。结果 共收集有效资料1 206 份,其中758 例（62.85%）服药依从性较差;双相/ 抑郁患者中依从 性差分别为56.49%（296/524）和67.74%（462/682）。服药依从性好与差的两组患者在年龄、教育程度、疾 病诊断、2 年内发作次数、本次发作病程、抑郁严重程度、自知力、就诊医院类型等方面差异有统计学意 义（P＜ 0.05）。多因素分析显示,本科以下学历患者（OR=0.719,95%CI：0.542～0.953,P＜ 0.05）、2 年内 发作2 次以上的患者（OR=0.424,95%CI：0.251～0.716,P ＜ 0.01）及中重度抑郁发作的患者（OR=0.444, 95%CI：0.327～0.603,P＜ 0.01）服药不依从风险较低;于综合医院就诊的患者不依从风险低于精神专 科就诊患者（OR=0.328,95%CI：0.241～0.447,P＜ 0.01）;抑郁症患者服药不依从的风险高于双相障碍患 者（OR=1.659,95%CI：1.205～2.284,P＜ 0.01）。结论 抑郁症和双相障碍门诊患者服药依从性不佳,相 关因素包括疾病种类、当前发作的严重程度、既往发作次数、就诊医院类型、教育程度等,有必要采取措 施提升抑郁症和双相障碍患者对药物治疗的依从性。     

综合医院与精神专科医院双相障碍识别率及相关因素分析

目的:比较综合医院和精神专科医院抑郁障碍门诊中未识别出的双相障碍患者的临床特征及相关影响因素。方法:使用一般情况调查表和简明国际神经精神访谈(MINI)对综合医院和精神专科医院抑郁障碍门诊患者各50例进行调查,检出其中未被识别出的双相障碍患者,对其临床特征进行初步分析。结果:双相障碍的总检出率综合医院和精神专科医院之间差异无统计学意义(χ2=2.38,P=0.123);但在41~50岁年龄段精神专科医院的检出率高于综合医院(Z=2.11,P=0.035)。精神专科医院双相障碍的检出率与年龄(r=-0.46,P=0.001)和首发年龄(r=-0.37,P=0.008)的相关性具有统计学意义。综合医院和精神专科医院未识别出的双相障碍患者在年龄(t=2.43,P=0.020)和首发年龄(t=3.67,P=0.001)上的差异具有统计学意义。精神专科医院中未识别出的双相障碍更多的伴有精神病性症状(χ2=3.99,P=0.046)。综合医院中未识别出的轻躁狂症状"目前发作"比率更高(χ2=8.15,P=0.017)。结论:综合医院和精神专科医院抑郁障碍门诊患者中双相障碍的漏诊和误诊因素不同。     

高复发率单相抑郁研究

目的：探索高复发率单相抑郁与双相Ⅱ型障碍的关系。方法：收集单相抑郁患者85例和双相Ⅱ型障碍患者131例，其中单相抑郁分为高复发单相组53例和低复发单相组32例。对3组的性别、年龄、发病年龄、美国精神障碍诊断与统计手册第4版轴Ⅰ诊断同病性、精神病性症状、非典型特征、复发次数、一级亲属双相Ⅱ型阳性家族史等临床资料进行对照研究。结果：高复发率单相抑郁和双相Ⅱ型障碍的发病年龄、轴Ⅰ诊断同病性和抑郁症慢性化相似，而且似乎与复发关系更为密切，与双相Ⅱ型障碍阳性家族史的关系则较小。而与低复发单相组的差异较大。结论：高复发率单相抑郁可能是位于双相Ⅱ型障碍和低复发率单相抑郁之间的过渡类型，其临床特点更接近于双相Ⅱ型障碍。     

32项轻躁狂症状清单划界分高低人群的临床特征

目的:了解32项轻躁狂症状清单(HCL-32)划界分值高低人群的临床特征。方法:对1726例精神科门诊和住院部连续就诊的抑郁障碍患者采用HCL-32、简明国际神经精神访谈(MINI)进行评估。根据HCL-32得分结果,将患者分为HCL-32≥14且MINI单/双相、10≤HCL-32<14且MINI单/双相和HCL-32<10且MINI单相共5组,进行临床特征的分析。结果:有效完成问卷评分1487例,MINI诊断为双相障碍者360例(24.2%),以HCL-32≥14为划界值诊断为双相障碍者532例(35.8%),两种诊断方法差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。各组间在性别、文化程度、婚姻状况、工作状况、首次发病年龄上差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);10≤HCL-32<14且MINI单相组和HCL-32<10且MINI单相组在年龄、性别、婚姻状况、首次发病年龄上差异无统计学意义。HCL-32阳性回答条目数从高到低依次为HCL-32≥14且MINI双/单相组、10≤HCL-32<14且MINI双/单相组、HCL-32<10且MINI单相组。HCL-32≥14且MINI单/双相组抑郁发作更频繁、伴有更多的不典型特征、自杀观念行为、精神病性症状和具有周期性/季节性特点,有更多阳性家族史、既往曾被诊断过双相、目前更多使用抗抑郁剂以及情感"高涨"状态持续时间长于HCL-32<10且MINI单相组。结论:HCL-32≥14且MINI单/双相患者较HCL-32<10且MINI单相患者具有更多的临床特征,双相障碍的可能性更大。     

非典型症状与双相障碍

概述：双相障碍（Bipolar Disorder,BD）临床症状多样,容易被误诊为抑郁症（Major depressive disorder, MDD）。非典型症状（Atypical Features,ATFs）是一个有用的指标,可以从抑郁状态中识别出双相障碍,有助于双相障碍与抑郁症的鉴别诊断。本文就非典型症状与双相障碍的相关性问题进行讨论。     

心境障碍问卷和32项轻躁狂症状清单在单相抑郁障碍和双相障碍患者中的应用

目的 比较心境障碍问卷（MDQ）和 32 项轻躁狂症状清单（HCL-32）在单相抑郁障碍和双相 障碍患者中的应用效果。方法 纳入 2014 年 9 月至 2015 年 12 月于首都医科大学附属北京安定医院就 诊的 212 例心境障碍患者,其中单相抑郁障碍组患者 107 例,双相障碍组患者 105 例。采用主成分分析 法对 2 个量表进行因子分析。采用 Cronbach''s α 系数评估 2 个量表的内部一致性信度,采用 Spearman 相 关分析 2 个量表各条目得分与总分的相关性,比较两组患者 2 个量表的阳性应答率及得分。采用受试者 工作特征（ROC）曲线分析 2 个量表的筛查性能并比较 ROC 曲线下面积。结果 MDQ 为两因子结构,特 征值分别为 5.39、1.47,对总方差的累积贡献率为 52.81%;HCL-32 为三因子结构,特征值分别为 12.61、 2.87、1.84,对总方差的累积贡献率为 54.11%。MDQ 和 HCL-32 的 Cronbach''s α 系数分别为 0.88（95%CI： 0.85～0.90）、0.95（95%CI：0.94～0.96）。MDQ、HCL-32 各条目与总分之间的相关系数分别为 0.50～0.72 （P＜ 0.01）、0.16～0.78（P＜ 0.05）。双相障碍组 MDQ 所有条目的阳性应答率均高于单相抑郁障碍组;除 条目 32 外,双相障碍组 HCL-32 各条目的阳性应答率均高于单相抑郁障碍组。单相抑郁障碍组的 MDQ 总分为 3.00（0,5.00）分,HCL-32 总分为 9.00（1.00,17.00）分,低于双相障碍组的 5.00（1.50,9.00）、17.00 （12.00,23.50）分,差异有统计学意义（Z=-4.03、-5.02;P＜ 0.01）。MDQ 区分单相抑郁障碍和双相障碍的 ROC 曲线下面积为 0.66（95%CI：0.59～0.73,P＜ 0.001）,与 HCL-32 的 0.70（95%CI：0.63～0.77,P＜ 0.001） 比较,差异无统计学意义（Z=1.07,P=0.28）。MDQ 的最佳划界分为 6 分,灵敏度为 0.48,特异度为 0.82; HCL-32 的最佳划界分为 8 分,灵敏度为 0.85,特异度为 0.47。结论 MDQ 和 HCL-32 在单相抑郁障碍 和双相障碍患者中应用的信度较好,均可适用于专科医院鉴别双相障碍和单相抑郁障碍。HCL-32 较 MDQ 灵敏度高,但特异度低。     

不同年龄阶段伴躯体化症状抑郁症患者的临床特征及相关因素

目的 分析不同年龄阶段伴躯体化症状抑郁症患者的临床特征及相关因素。方法 纳入 2014 年 9 月至 2015 年 4 月在全国 11 家医院门诊就诊的 1 503 例抑郁症患者为研究对象,采用患者健 康问卷躯体症状群量表（PHQ-15）和 16 项抑郁症状快速评估量表（QIDS-SR16）评估患者躯体化症状及 抑郁症状的严重程度。PHQ-15 得分＜ 5 分为无躯体症状,≥ 5 分为有躯体化症状。采用 Spearman 相 关分析抑郁症患者躯体化症状与一般人口学资料及疾病相关资料的关系。以18～39岁（青年）、40～64岁 （中年）和≥ 65 岁（老年）进行年龄分层,采用累积比数 Logistic 回归分析不同年龄阶段抑郁症患者躯体化 症状的相关因素。结果 共 748 例（49.8%）抑郁症患者有躯体化症状,其中 82.6%（618/748）的患者躯体 症状是感到疲劳或无精打采。3 个不同年龄阶段患者背痛,胳膊、腿或关节疼痛,痛经或月经期间其他 的问题,性生活中有疼痛或其他问题的条目得分情况比较,差异有统计学意义（P＜ 0.05）。Spearman 相 关分析显示,抑郁症患者躯体化症状与伴躯体疾病、抗抑郁药治疗种类、合并镇静催眠药、QIDS-SR16 得分呈正相关（P＜ 0.05）,与受教育年限、首次发作年龄、合并抗精神病药呈负相关（P＜ 0.05）。以老 年患者为参照,累积比数 Logistic 回归分析显示,抗抑郁药治疗种类（OR=2.12,95%CI=1.38～3.26）;合 并镇静催眠药（OR=1.59,95%CI=1.14～2.22）、合并抗精神病药（OR=0.59,95%CI=0.39～0.90）、存在残留 症状（OR=11.07,95%CI=7.70～15.90）是青年患者躯体化症状的相关因素（P＜ 0.05）。合并镇静催眠药 （OR=1.51,95%CI=1.10～2.08）、合并抗精神病药（OR=0.45,95%CI=0.31～0.66）、存在残留症状（OR=9.59, 95%CI=6.89～13.34）是中年患者躯体化症状的相关因素（P＜ 0.05）。结论 不同年龄段抑郁症患者伴有 的躯体化症状存在区别,识别年龄相关躯体症状对于临床医生细化抑郁症伴随特征、实施个体化综合 干预是重要的。     

抑郁症还是双相障碍？

1 病史简介 患者,男,34岁,工人,已婚。因反复烦躁不安、情绪低落发作19年,于2011年5月26日第1次住我院。患者于1992年读初中二年级时与同学打架后,对老师的处理方式不满,渐出现不愿意读书,眠差,情绪不稳定,烦躁,之后出现情绪低落,注意力不易集中,记忆力下降,兴趣减退,自1992年起休学。     

Sustained unemployment in psychiatric outpatients with bipolar depression compared to major depressive disorder with comorbid borderline personality disorder

Zimmerman M, Martinez JH, Young D, Chelminski I, Dalrymple K. Sustained unemployment in psychiatric outpatients with bipolar depression compared to major depressive disorder with comorbid borderline personality disorder. Bipolar Disord 2012: 14: 856–862. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Objectives: The morbidity associated with bipolar disorder is, in part, responsible for repeated calls for improved detection and recognition. No such clinical commentary exists for improved detection of borderline personality disorder in depressed patients. Clinical experience suggests that borderline personality disorder is as disabling as bipolar disorder; however, no studies have directly compared the two disorders. For this reason we undertook the current analysis from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project comparing unemployment and disability rates in patients with bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder. Methods: Patients were interviewed with semi‐structured interviews. We compared three non‐overlapping groups of depressed patients: (i) 181 patients with DSM–IV major depressive disorder and borderline personality disorder, (ii) 1068 patients with major depressive disorder without borderline personality disorder, and (iii) 84 patients with bipolar depression without borderline personality disorder. Results: Compared to depressed patients without borderline personality disorder, depressed patients with borderline personality disorder were significantly more likely to have been persistently unemployed. A similar difference was found between patients with bipolar depression and major depressive disorder without borderline personality disorder. No differences were found between patients with bipolar depression and depression with borderline personality disorder. Conclusions: Both bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder were associated with impaired occupational functioning and thus carry a significant public health burden. Efforts to improve detection of borderline personality disorder in depressed patients might be as important as the recognition of bipolar disorder.     

Diagnosing bipolar disorder and the effect of antidepressants: a naturalistic study

OBJECTIVES: To determine if bipolar disorder is accurately diagnosed in clinical practice and to assess the effects of antidepressants on the course of bipolar illness. METHOD: Charts of outpatients with affective disorder diagnoses seen in an outpatient clinic during 1 year (N = 85 with bipolar or unipolar disorders) were reviewed. Past diagnostic and treatment information was obtained by patient report and systematic psychiatric history. Bipolar diagnosis was based on DSM-IV criteria using a SCID-based interview. RESULTS: Bipolar disorder was found to be misdiagnosed as unipolar depression in 37% of patients who first see a mental health professional after their first manic/hypomanic episode. Antidepressants were used earlier and more frequently than mood stabilizers, and 23% of this unselected sample experienced a new or worsening rapid-cycling course attributable to antidepressant use. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that bipolar disorder tends be misdiagnosed as unipolar major depressive disorder and that antidepressants seem to be associated with a worsened course of bipolar illness. However, this naturalistic trial was uncontrolled, and more controlled research is required to confirm or refute these findings.     

Prevalence of bipolar II disorder in atypical depression

The diagnostic validity of atypical depression is based on its superior response to monoamine oxidase inhibitors compared to tricyclic antidepressants, and on latent class analysis. The studies on atypical depression have often not included bipolar patients. The aim of the present study was to find the prevalence of bipolar II disorder among DSM-IV atypical depression outpatients. Bipolar II and unipolar atypical depressions were also compared to find if they were variants of the same disorder or if instead they were different disorders. One hundred and forty consecutive unipolar and bipolar II outpatients, presenting for treatment of an atypical major depressive episode, were interviewed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale. The prevalence of bipolar II disorder was 64.2%. The age at baseline and onset were significantly lower in bipolar II versus unipolar patients. All the other variables (MADRS items, duration of illness, severity, gender, psychosis, comorbidity, chronicity, recurrences) were not significantly different. The prevalence of bipolar II disorder among atypical depressed outpatients was higher than previously reported. Received: 27 July 1998 / Accepted: 19 January 1999     

Clinical characteristics of depressed outpatients previously overdiagnosed with bipolar disorder

The diagnosis of bipolar disorder in depressed patients requires the ascertainment of prior episodes of mania and hypomania. Several research reports and commentaries have suggested that bipolar disorder is underrecognized and that many patients with nonbipolar major depressive disorder have, in fact, bipolar disorder. In a previous article from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we reported the opposite phenomenon—that bipolar disorder is often overdiagnosed in psychiatric outpatients. An important question that has not been previously examined is whether there is a particular clinical or demographic profile associated with bipolar disorder overdiagnosis among depressed patients. Forty psychiatric outpatients with current major depressive disorder reported having been previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder, which was not confirmed when interviewed with the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (SCID). Psychiatric diagnoses, clinical and demographic variables were compared in these 40 patients and 233 depressed patients who were not diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Patients were interviewed by a highly trained diagnostic rater who administered the SCID for DSM-IV Axis I disorders, the Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality for DSM-IV Axis II disorders, and the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for clinical features of depression. The depressed patients who were overdiagnosed with bipolar disorder were diagnosed with a significantly higher number of Axis I disorders and were more likely to be diagnosed with specific phobia, posttraumatic stress disorder, and drug abuse/dependence. The patients overdiagnosed with bipolar disorder were also significantly more likely to be diagnosed with a current personality disorder and were more chronically ill with greater psychosocial impairment. Thus, the results suggest that depressed outpatients who had previously been overdiagnosed with bipolar disorder were more chronically and severely ill than depressed outpatients who had not been overdiagnosed.     

The tryptophan hydroxylase gene influences risk for bipolar disorder but not major depressive disorder: results of meta-analyses

Objective: Tryptophan hydroxylase is the rate-limiting enzyme in the synthesis of serotonin, and thus its gene, TPH, has been extensively studied as a risk factor for both bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder. The purpose of the present report is to synthesize the available data on these putative associations and derive best estimates of the nature and magnitude of the influence of TPH on risk for mood disorders. Methods: We identified studies that examined the TPH A218C polymorphism in relation to major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder using the PubMed online search engine, ultimately including 10 case-control studies in two meta-analyses. Results: The AA genotype had a significant effect on risk for bipolar disorder in comparison to either the CC or AC genotypes, suggesting that the A allele may increase risk for bipolar disorder in a recessive manner. None of the three genotypes significantly increased risk for major depressive disorder relative to any of the other genotypes. Conclusion: The homozygous recessive genotype of the TPH A218C polymorphism has a significant effect on risk for bipolar disorder but not major depressive disorder. A possible explanation for these results is that the A allele influences mood by permitting or facilitating mania while having no effect on depression. Further replication of these findings in additional large case-control and family-based association is needed before TPH can be designated a risk gene for bipolar disorder.     

Borderline personality disorder and the misdiagnosis of bipolar disorder

Recent reports suggest bipolar disorder is not only under-diagnosed but may at times be over-diagnosed. Little is known about factors that increase the odds of such mistakes. The present work explores whether symptoms of borderline personality disorder increase the odds of a bipolar misdiagnosis. Psychiatric outpatients (n = 610) presenting for treatment were administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) and the Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality for DSM-IV axis II disorders (SIDP-IV), as well as a questionnaire asking if they had ever been diagnosed with bipolar disorder by a mental health care professional. Eighty-two patients who reported having been previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder but who did not have it according to the SCID were compared to 528 patients who had never been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Patients with borderline personality disorder had significantly greater odds of a previous bipolar misdiagnosis, but no specific borderline criterion was unique in predicting this outcome. Patients with borderline personality disorder, regardless of how they meet criteria, may be at increased risk of being misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder.     

Mood patterns and classification in bipolar disorder

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to highlight recent studies that have questioned the current split of mood disorders into the categories of bipolar and depressive disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: A continuity between bipolar disorders (mainly bipolar II disorder) and major depressive disorder was supported by several lines of evidence: depressive mixed states (mixed depression) and dysphoric (mixed) hypomania (opposite polarity symptoms in the same episode do not support the splitting between mania/hypomania and depression); family history, major depressive disorder is the most common mood disorder in relatives of bipolar probands; lack of points of rarity between the depressive syndromes of bipolar II disorder and major depressive disorder; bipolar features in major depressive disorder; major depressive disorder shifting to bipolar disorders; history of manic/hypomanic symptoms in major depressive disorder and correlation between lifetime manic/hypomanic symptoms and depressive symptoms in major depressive disorder; factors of hypomania inside major depressive disorder; recurrent course of major depressive disorder; depression more common than mania and hypomania in bipolar disorders; trait mood lability in major depressive disorder. SUMMARY: This review of the recent findings on the relationship between bipolar disorders (especially bipolar II disorder) and depressive disorders seems to support a continuity among mood disorders, and runs against the current classification of mood disorders dividing them into independent categories. Further research is needed in the area, in part because of its possible treatment impact.     

Depression in bipolar disorder versus major depressive disorder: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions

Moreno C, Hasin DS, Arango C, Oquendo MA, Vieta E, Liu S, Grant BF, Blanco C. Depression in bipolar disorder versus major depressive disorder: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Bipolar Disord 2012: 14: 271–282. © 2012 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Objectives: To compare the clinical features and course of major depressive episodes (MDEs) occurring in subjects with bipolar I disorder (BD‐I), bipolar II disorder (BD‐II), and major depressive disorder (MDD). Methods: Data were drawn from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (2001–2002), a nationally representative face‐to‐face survey of more than 43000 adults in the USA, including 5695 subjects with lifetime MDD, 935 with BD‐I and lifetime MDE, and 494 with BD‐II and lifetime MDE. Differences on sociodemographic characteristics and clinical features, course, and treatment patterns of MDE were analyzed. Results: Most depressive symptoms, family psychiatric history, anxiety disorders, alcohol and drug use disorders, and personality disorders were more frequent—and number of depressive symptoms per MDE was higher—among subjects with BD‐I, followed by BD‐II, and MDD. BD‐I individuals experienced a higher number of lifetime MDEs, had a poorer quality of life, and received significantly more treatment for MDE than BD‐II and MDD subjects. Individuals with BD‐I and BD‐II experienced their first mood episode about ten years earlier than those with MDD (21.2, 20.5, and 30.4 years, respectively). Conclusions: Our results support the existence of a spectrum of severity of MDE, with highest severity for BD‐I, followed by BD‐II and MDD, suggesting the utility of dimensional assessments in current categorical classifications.