Axis II comorbidity of borderline personality disorder: description of 6-year course and prediction to time-to-remission

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the axis II comorbidity of 202 patients whose borderline personality disorder (BPD) remitted over 6 years of prospective follow-up to that of 88 whose BPD never remitted. METHOD: The axis II comorbidity of 290 patients meeting both DIB-R and DSM-III-R criteria for BPD was assessed at baseline using a semistructured interview of demonstrated reliability. Over 96% of surviving patients were reinterviewed about their co-occurring axis II disorders blind to all previously collected information at three distinct follow-up waves: 2-, 4-, and 6-year follow-up. RESULTS: Both remitted and non-remitted borderline patients experienced declining rates of most types of axis II disorders over time. However, the rates of avoidant, dependent, and self-defeating personality disorders remained high among non-remitted borderline patients. Additionally, the absence of these three disorders was found to be significantly correlated with a borderline patient's likelihood-of-remission and time-to-remission; self-defeating personality disorder by a factor of 4, dependent personality disorder by a factor of 3 1/2, and avoidant personality disorder by a factor of almost 2. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that axis II disorders co-occur less commonly with BPD over time, particularly for remitted borderline patients. They also suggest that anxious cluster disorders are the axis II disorders which most impede symptomatic remission from BPD.     

Axis I diagnostic comorbidity and borderline personality disorder.

Borderline personality disorder (PD) has been the most studied PD. Research has examined the relationship between borderline PD and most axis I diagnostic classes such as eating disorders, mood disorders, and substance use disorders. However, there is little information regarding the relationship of borderline PD and overall comorbidity with all classes of axis I disorders assessed simultaneously. In the present study, 409 patients were evaluated with semistructured diagnostic interviews for axis I and axis II disorders. Patients with a diagnosis of borderline PD versus those who did not receive the diagnosis were assigned significantly more current axis I diagnoses (3.4 v 2.0). Borderline PD patients were twice as likely to receive a diagnosis of three or more current axis I disorders (69.5% v 31.1%) and nearly four times as likely to have a diagnosis of four or more disorders 147.5% v 13.7%). In comparison to nonborderline PD patients, borderline PD patients more frequently received a diagnosis of current major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar I and II disorder, panic disorder with agoraphobia, social and specific phobia, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), eating disorder NOS, and any somatoform disorder. Similar results were observed for lifetime diagnoses. Overall, borderline PD patients were more likely to have multiple axis I disorders than nonborderline PD patients, and the differences between the two groups were present across mood, anxiety, substance use, eating, and somatoform disorder categories. These findings highlight the importance of performing thorough evaluations of axis I pathology in patients with borderline PD in order not to overlook syndromes that are potentially treatment-responsive.     

Ten-year stability of depressive personality disorder in depressed outpatients

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the long-term stability of depressive personality disorder. METHOD: The subjects included 142 outpatients with axis I depressive disorders at study entry; 73 had depressive personality disorder. The patients were assessed by using semistructured diagnostic interviews at baseline and in four follow-up evaluations at 2.5-year intervals over 10.0 years. Follow-up data were available for 127 (89.4%) of the patients. RESULTS: The 10.0-year stability of the diagnoses of depressive personality disorder was fair, and the rate of depressive personality disorder declined over time. The dimensional score was moderately stable over 10.0 years. Growth curve analyses revealed a sharp decline in the level of depressive personality disorder traits between the baseline and 2.5-year assessments, followed by a gradual linear decrease. Reductions in depressive personality disorder traits were associated with remission of the axis I depressive disorders. Finally, depressive personality disorder at baseline predicted the trajectory of depressive symptoms over time in patients with dysthymic disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive personality disorder is moderately stable, particularly when assessed with a dimensional approach. However, the diagnosis rate and traits of depressive personality disorder tend to decline over time. The degree of stability for depressive personality disorder is comparable to that for the axis II disorders in the main text of DSM-IV. Finally, depressive personality disorder has prognostic implications for the course of axis I mood disorders, such as dysthymic disorder.     

Prediction of the 10-year course of borderline personality disorder

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the most clinically relevant baseline predictors of time to remission for patients with borderline personality disorder. METHOD: A total of 290 inpatients meeting criteria for both the Revised Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines and DSM-III-R for borderline personality disorder were assessed during their index admission with a series of semistructured interviews and self-report measures. Diagnostic status was reassessed at five contiguous 2-year time periods. Discrete survival analytic methods, which controlled for baseline severity of borderline psychopathology and time, were used to estimate hazard ratios. RESULTS: Eighty-eight percent of the patients with borderline personality disorder studied achieved remission. In terms of time to remission, 39.3% of the 242 patients who experienced a remission of their disorder first remitted by their 2-year follow-up, an additional 22.3% first remitted by their 4-year follow-up, an additional 21.9% by their 6-year follow-up, an additional 12.8% by their 8-year follow-up, and another 3.7% by their 10-year follow-up. Sixteen variables were found to be significant bivariate predictors of earlier time to remission. Seven of these remained significant in multivariate analyses: younger age, absence of childhood sexual abuse, no family history of substance use disorder, good vocational record, absence of an anxious cluster personality disorder, low neuroticism, and high agreeableness. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that prediction of time to remission from borderline personality disorder is multifactorial in nature, involving factors that are routinely assessed in clinical practice and factors, particularly aspects of temperament, that are not.     

Axis I psychiatric comorbidity and its relationship to historical illness variables in 288 patients with bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVE: Bipolar disorder often co-occurs with other axis I disorders, but little is known about the relationships between the clinical features of bipolar illness and these comorbid conditions. Therefore, the authors assessed comorbid lifetime and current axis I disorders in 288 patients with bipolar disorder and the relationships of these comorbid disorders to selected demographic and historical illness variables. METHOD: They evaluated 288 outpatients with bipolar I or II disorder, using structured diagnostic interviews and clinician-administered and self-rated questionnaires to determine the diagnosis of bipolar disorder, comorbid axis I disorder diagnoses, and demographic and historical illness characteristics. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-seven (65%) of the patients with bipolar disorder also met DSM-IV criteria for at least one comorbid lifetime axis I disorder. More patients had comorbid anxiety disorders (N=78, 42%) and substance use disorders (N=78, 42%) than had eating disorders (N=9, 5%). There were no differences in comorbidity between patients with bipolar I and bipolar II disorder. Both lifetime axis I comorbidity and current axis I comorbidity were associated with earlier age at onset of affective symptoms and syndromal bipolar disorder. Current axis I comorbidity was associated with a history of development of both cycle acceleration and more severe episodes over time. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with bipolar disorder often have comorbid anxiety, substance use, and, to a lesser extent, eating disorders. Moreover, axis I comorbidity, especially current comorbidity, may be associated with an earlier age at onset and worsening course of bipolar illness. Further research into the prognostic and treatment response implications of axis I comorbidity in bipolar disorder is important and is in progress.     

Longitudinal comparison of depressive personality disorder and dysthymic disorder

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared the related diagnostic constructs of depressive personality disorder (DPD) and dysthymic disorder (DD). The authors attempted to replicate findings of Klein and Shih in longitudinally followed patients with personality disorder or major depressive disorder (MDD) in the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study. METHODS: Subjects (N = 665) were evaluated at baseline and over 2 years (n = 546) by reliably trained clinical interviewers using semistructured interviews and self-report personality questionnaires. RESULTS: Only 44 subjects (24.6% of 179 DPD and 49.4% of 89 early-onset dysthymic subjects) met criteria for both disorders at baseline. Depressive personality disorder was associated with increased comorbidity of some axis I anxiety disorders and other axis II diagnoses, particularly avoidant (71.5%) and borderline (55.9%) personality disorders. Depressive personality disorder was associated with low positive and high negative affectivity on dimensional measures of temperament. Depressive personality disorder subjects had lower likelihood of remission of baseline MDD at 2-year follow-up, whereas DD subjects did not. The DPD diagnosis appeared unstable over 2 years of follow-up, as only 31% (n = 47) of 154 subjects who had DPD at baseline and also had follow-up assessment met criteria on blind retesting. LIMITATIONS: Results from this sample may not generalize to other populations. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive personality disorder and dysthymic disorder appear to be related but differ in diagnostic constructs. Its moderating effect on MDD and predicted relationship to measures of temperament support the validity of DPD, but its diagnostic instability raises questions about its course, utility, and measurement.     

The comorbidity of bipolar disorder and axis II personality disorders: prevalence and clinical correlates

Objectives:  Many studies have examined the prevalence and predictive validity of axis II personality disorders among unipolar depressed patients, but few have examined these issues among bipolar patients. The few studies that do exist suggest that axis II pathology complicates the diagnosis and course of bipolar disorder. This study examined the prevalence of axis II disorder in bipolar patients who were clinically remitted.
Methods:  We assessed the co-occurrence of personality disorder among 52 remitted DSM-III-R bipolar patients using a structured diagnostic interview, the Personality Disorder Examination (PDE).
Results:  Axis II disorders can be rated reliably among bipolar patients who are in remission. Co-diagnosis of personality disorder occurred in 28.8% of patients. Cluster B (dramatic, emotionally erratic) and cluster C (fearful, avoidant) personality disorders were more common than cluster A (odd, eccentric) disorders. Bipolar patients with personality disorders differed from bipolar patients without personality disorders in the severity of their residual mood symptoms, even during remission.
Conclusions:  When structured assessment of personality disorder is performed during a clinical remission, less than one in three bipolar patients meets full syndromal criteria for an axis II disorder. Examining rates of comorbid personality disorder in broad-based community samples of bipolar spectrum patients would further clarify the linkage between these sets of disorders.     

The longitudinal course of borderline psychopathology: 6-year prospective follow-up of the phenomenology of borderline personality disorder

OBJECTIVE: The syndromal and subsyndromal phenomenology of borderline personality disorder was tracked over 6 years of prospective follow-up. METHOD: The psychopathology of 362 inpatients with personality disorders was assessed with the Revised Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines (DIB-R) and borderline personality disorder module of the Revised Diagnostic Interview for DSM-III-R Personality Disorders. Of these patients, 290 met DIB-R and DSM-III-R criteria for borderline personality disorder and 72 met DSM-III-R criteria for other axis II disorders (and neither criteria set for borderline personality disorder). Most of the borderline patients received multiple treatments before the index admission and during the study. Over 94% of the total surviving subjects were reassessed at 2, 4, and 6 years by interviewers blind to previously collected information. RESULTS: Of the subjects with borderline personality disorder, 34.5% met the criteria for remission at 2 years, 49.4% at 4 years, 68.6% at 6 years, and 73.5% over the entire follow-up. Only 5.9% of those with remissions experienced recurrences. None of the comparison subjects with other axis II disorders developed borderline personality disorder during follow-up. The patients with borderline personality disorder had declining rates of 24 symptom patterns but remained symptomatically distinct from the comparison subjects. Impulsive symptoms resolved the most quickly, affective symptoms were the most chronic, and cognitive and interpersonal symptoms were intermediate. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that symptomatic improvement is both common and stable, even among the most disturbed borderline patients, and that the symptomatic prognosis for most, but not all, severely ill borderline patients is better than previously recognized.     

Psychiatric comorbidity in pedophilic sex offenders.

OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of this research was to assess the rates of axis I and axis II psychiatric disorders, as defined in DSM-IV, in a group of pedophilic sex offenders. METHOD: Forty-five male subjects with pedophilia who were participating in residential or outpatient sex offender treatment programs were recruited to participate. Subjects were interviewed by using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV. RESULTS: Ninety-three percent of the subjects (N = 42) met the criteria for an axis I disorder other than pedophilia. The lifetime prevalence of mood disorder in this group was 67%. Sixty-four percent of the subjects met the criteria for an anxiety disorder, 60% for psychoactive substance use disorder, 53% for another paraphilia diagnosis, and 24% for a sexual dysfunction diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Axis I and II comorbidity rates are high in this population. Untreated comorbid psychiatric disorders may play a role in treatment failure and recidivism.     

Comorbid personality disorder and treatment use in a community sample of youths: a 20-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE: The impact of comorbid personality disorder (PD) on subsequent treatment and psychotropic drug use was examined in a representative sample of over 700 individuals. METHOD: Axis I disorders and PD were assessed by self- and mother-report at mean ages 13 and 22 years, and by self-report at mean age 33. Mothers reported treatment use by participants before mean age 33; participants reported treatment and psychotropic drug use at mean age 33. RESULTS: Individuals with multiple axis I disorders without PD, axis I disorder-PD comorbidity, and single disorders were compared simultaneously to individuals not diagnosed. Overall, odds of subsequent and past year treatment or psychotropic drug use or both were highest when PD co-occurred with a mood, an anxiety, a disruptive, or a substance use disorder. CONCLUSION: Co-occurring personality pathology may contribute to elevated mental health service use, including use of psychotropic drugs, among young adults in the community.     

Comorbid personality disorders in subjects with panic disorder: do personality disorders increase clinical severity?

Personality disorders are common in subjects with panic disorder. Personality disorders have been shown to affect the course of panic disorder. The purpose of this study was to examine which personality disorders affect clinical severity in subjects with panic disorder. This study included 122 adults (71 women, 41 men) who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition ( DSM-IV ) criteria for panic disorder (with or without agoraphobia). Clinical assessment was conducted by using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders, and the Panic and Agoraphobia Scale, Global Assessment Functioning Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Patients who had a history of sexual abuse were assessed with Sexual Abuse Severity Scale. Logistic regressions were used to identify predictors of suicide attempts, suicidal ideation, sexual abuse, and early onset of disorder. The rates of comorbid Axes I and II psychiatric disorders were 80.3% and 33.9%, respectively, in patients with panic disorder. Patients with panic disorder with comorbid personality disorders had more severe anxiety, depression, and agoraphobia symptoms, had earlier ages at onset, and had lower levels of functioning. The rates of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts were 34.8% and 9.8%, respectively, in subjects with panic disorder. The rate of patients with panic disorder and a history of childhood sexual abuse was 12.5%. The predictor of sexual abuse was borderline personality disorder. The predictors of suicide attempt were comorbid paranoid and borderline personality disorders, and the predictors of suicidal ideation were comorbid major depression and avoidant personality disorder in subjects with panic disorder. In conclusion, this study documents that comorbid personality disorders increase the clinical severity of panic disorder. Borderline personality disorder may be the predictor of a history of sexual abuse and early onset in patients with panic disorder. Paranoid and borderline personality disorders may be associated with a high frequency of suicide attempts in patients with panic disorder.     

Bipolar II disorder and comorbidity

The validity and reliability of the diagnosis of bipolar II disorder has been questioned by means of comorbidity with nonaffective disorders, including substance abuse, personality disorders, and anxiety disorders. This study examined the comorbid diagnosis of a sample of bipolar II patients, comparing patients with comorbidity and those with "pure" bipolar II disorder. Forty Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC) bipolar II patients were assessed by means of the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia, Lifetime Version (SADS-L) and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R axis I (SCID-II) for personality disorders. Patients fulfilling RDC criteria for any psychiatric disorder (except personality disorders) or DSM-IV criteria for any personality disorder were compared with patients without comorbidity. For practical reasons, cyclothymia was not considered as a comorbid diagnosis. Half of the sample had lifetime comorbidity with other psychiatric disorders, mainly personality disorders (33%), substance abuse or dependence (21%), and anxiety disorders (8%). However, only the rates of suicidal ideation (74% v 24%, chi square [chi2] = 9.03, P = .003) and suicide attempts (45% v 5%, chi2 = 8.53, P = .003) were significantly different between patients with and without comorbidity. In summary, although the rates of comorbidity are relatively high in bipolar II disorder, most clinical and course variables are strikingly similar in patients with and without comorbidity except for suicidal behavior, suggesting that comorbidity does not reduce the validity of the diagnosis of bipolar II disorder.     

Relationship between borderline personality disorder and Axis I diagnosis in severity of depression and anxiety

BACKGROUND: This study tested the hypothesis that subjects with borderline personality disorder irrespective of the presence or absence of an Axis I mood or anxiety disorder would exhibit greater severity of depression and anxiety than subjects with either a personality disorder other than borderline personality disorder or no personality disorder. METHOD: Two hundred eighty-three subjects from an outpatient psychiatry clinic were administered the following assessments: the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R (SCID) for Axes I and II, the Hamilton Rating Scales for Depression and Anxiety, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Subjects were categorized into borderline personality disorder, other personality disorder, and no personality disorder categories and into present versus absent categories on Axis I diagnosis of depression and of anxiety. A 2-factor multiple analysis of variance compared personality disorder status and Axis I diagnosis on severity of depression by observer rating and self-report. The analysis was repeated for anxiety. RESULTS: As hypothesized, significant main effects were found for borderline personality disorder and for both depression and anxiety. Subjects with borderline personality disorder showed greater severity on both depression and anxiety rating scales than did patients with another personality disorder, who showed greater severity than did patients with no personality disorder. Axis I diagnosis was also associated with greater severity on depression or anxiety rating scales. These differences were found for both observer ratings and self-report. An interaction was also found for depression: Subjects with borderline personality disorder but without an Axis I diagnosis of depression rated themselves as more severely depressed on the Beck Depression Inventory than did subjects with another or no personality disorder who also had an Axis I diagnosis of depression. CONCLUSION: Implications from the study are discussed including the need to assess for borderline personality disorder in research studies of depression and anxiety and to integrate treatments for borderline personality disorder into depression and anxiety treatment to maximize clinical outcomes.     

Three-year follow-up of women with the sole diagnosis of depressive personality disorder: subsequent development of dysthymia and major depression

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to determine whether subjects with the sole diagnosis of depressive personality disorder are at higher risk for developing dysthymia and major depression than are healthy comparison subjects. METHOD: Eighty-five women with depressive personality disorder who had no comorbid axis I or axis II disorders and 85 age-matched healthy comparison women were initially recruited and reinterviewed 3 years later to evaluate the cumulative incidence rate of dysthymia and major depression. RESULTS: At the 3-year follow-up assessment, the women with depressive personality disorder had a significantly greater odds ratio for developing dysthymia than did the healthy comparison women. The difference in odds ratios for the development of major depression between women with and without depressive personality disorder did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The present study, the first to determine the subsequent development of dysthymia and major depression in subjects with the sole diagnosis of depressive personality disorder, found that subjects with depressive personality disorder had a greater risk of developing dysthymia than did healthy comparison subjects at 3-year follow-up. Findings of the current study also suggest that depressive personality disorder may mediate the effects of a family history of axis I unipolar mood disorders.     

Co-occurrence of mood and personality disorders: a report from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study (CLPS)

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of subtypes and particular clinical features of mood disorders to co-occurrence with specific personality disorders. Five hundred and seventy-one subjects recruited for the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study (CLPS) were assessed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I) and the Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders (DIPD-IV). Percent co-occurrence rates for current and lifetime mood disorders with personality disorders were calculated. Logistic regression analyses examined the effects of clinical characteristics of depressive disorders (e.g., age at onset, recurrence, symptom severity, double depression, and atypical features) on personality disorder co-occurrence. In comparison with other DSM-IV personality disorders, avoidant, borderline, and dependent personality disorders (PDs) were most specifically associated with mood disorders, particularly depressive disorders. Severity and recurrence of major depressive disorder and comorbid dysthymic disorder predicted co-occurrence with borderline and to a lesser extent research criteria depressive personality disorders. The results are consistent with the view that a mood disorder with an insidious onset and recurrence, chronicity, and progression in severity leads to a personality disorder diagnosis in young adults.     

The subsyndromal phenomenology of borderline personality disorder: a 10-year follow-up study

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the course of 24 symptoms of borderline personality disorder in terms of time to remission. METHOD: The borderline psychopathology of 362 patients with personality disorders, all recruited during inpatient stays, was assessed using two semistructured interviews of proven reliability. Of these, 290 patients met DSM-III-R criteria as well as Revised Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines criteria for borderline personality disorder, and 72 met DSM-III-R criteria for another axis II disorder. Over 85% of the patients were reinterviewed at five distinct 2-year follow-up waves by interviewers blind to all previously collected information. RESULTS: Among borderline patients, 12 of the 24 symptoms studied showed patterns of sharp decline over time and were reported at 10-year follow-up by less than 15% of the patients who reported them at baseline. The other 12 symptoms showed patterns of substantial but less dramatic decline over the follow-up period. Symptoms reflecting core areas of impulsivity (e.g., self-mutilation and suicide efforts) and active attempts to manage interpersonal difficulties (e.g., problems with demandingness/entitlement and serious treatment regressions) seemed to resolve the most quickly. In contrast, affective symptoms reflecting areas of chronic dysphoria (e.g., anger and loneliness/emptiness) and interpersonal symptoms reflecting abandonment and dependency issues (e.g., intolerance of aloneness and counterdependency problems) seemed to be the most stable. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that borderline personality disorder may consist of both symptoms that are manifestations of acute illness and symptoms that represent more enduring aspects of the disorder.     

The prevalence of atypical features across mood,anxiety, and personality disorders

This study examines and compares the prevalence rates of the atypical features subtype across each of the major mood, anxiety, and personality disorders (PDs). It also evaluates the impact that comorbid anxiety and PDs have on the likelihood that depressed patients will present with atypical symptoms. Eleven hundred thirty psychiatric outpatients were evaluated for the presence of atypical symptoms. All axis I diagnoses were made using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID). PDs were assessed in a subset of 530 patients using the Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders (SIDP-IV). From a sample of 579 patients diagnosed with a current major depressive disorder, 22.5% met criteria for the atypical subtype. Prevalence rates were similar in bipolar and unipolar patients, although the pattern of symptoms was distinct. Prevalence rates were lower in patients with dysthymic disorder (12.5%), adjustment disorder with depressed mood (9.4%), and depression not otherwise specified (NOS) (7.9%). When major depression existed in the presence of a comorbid anxiety disorder, the likelihood of presenting with atypical features doubled. Nine percent of the patients diagnosed with an anxiety disorder (without a comorbid depressive disorder) met criteria for atypical features. Two of the four atypical symptoms, leaden paralysis and rejection sensitivity, were found to be especially prominent in nondepressed anxiety disorder patients. Of the 10 PDs listed in DSM-IV, only avoidant PD was associated with the atypical features subtype. In large part, this was accounted for by the high rate of rejection sensitivity in these patients. In conclusion, as many as one quarter of depressed patients who present for outpatient psychiatric treatment meet criteria for the atypical features subtype. There appears to be a strong association between anxiety and atypical depression, but the exact nature of this relationship needs to be further elucidated. It is unclear whether personality pathology is independently associated with the atypical features subtype.     

Personality disorders in patients with panic disorder: association with childhood anxiety disorders, early trauma, comorbidity, and chronicity.

The rates of comorbid personality disorders in patients with panic disorder are reported to be elevated, have an adverse impact on the response to treatment, and increase the likelihood of relapse on treatment discontinuation. We examined the rates of personality disorders in panic disorder patients in a longitudinal, naturalistic study of panic disorder. Of 100 panic disorder patients studied, 42 met criteria for at least one personality disorder as determined by the Personality Disorder Questionnaire-Revised (PDQ-R). The presence of a personality disorder as determined by the PDQ-R was associated with a past history of childhood anxiety disorders, comorbidity with other anxiety disorders and depression, and a chronic, unremitting course of panic disorder in adulthood. The presence of a personality disorder in these patients was not significantly associated with a history of physical or sexual abuse in childhood. Our findings support the notion that an anxiety diathesis, demonstrated by significant difficulties with anxiety in childhood, influences the development of apparent personality dysfunction in panic patients. In other cases, personality pathology may reflect the presence of comorbid anxiety disorders or depression. The association of personality disorder in panic patients with a more unremitting course of illness underscores the importance of axis II pathology in understanding the longitudinal course of panic disorder.     

Comorbid anxiety in bipolar disorder: does it have an independent effect on suicidality?

Objective:  Comorbid anxiety disorder is reported to increase suicidality in bipolar disorder. However, studies of the impact of anxiety disorders on suicidal behavior in mood disorders have shown mixed results. The presence of personality disorders, often comorbid with anxiety and bipolar disorders, may explain these inconsistencies. This study examined the impact of comorbid Cluster B personality disorder and anxiety disorder on suicidality in bipolar disorder.
Methods:  A total of 116 depressed bipolar patients with and without lifetime anxiety disorder were compared. Multiple regression analysis tested the association of comorbid anxiety disorder with past suicide attempts and severity of suicidal ideation, adjusting for the effect of Cluster B personality disorder. The specific effect of panic disorder was also explored.
Results:  Bipolar patients with and without anxiety disorders did not differ in the rate of past suicide attempt. Suicidal ideation was less severe in those with anxiety disorders. In multiple regression analysis, anxiety disorder was not associated with past suicide attempts or with the severity of suicidal ideation, whereas Cluster B personality disorder was associated with both. The results were comparable when comorbid panic disorder was examined.
Conclusions:  Comorbid Cluster B personality disorder appears to exert a stronger influence on suicidality than comorbid anxiety disorder in persons with bipolar disorder. Assessment of suicide risk in patients with bipolar disorder should include evaluation and treatment of Cluster B psychopathology.