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.     

Problems and considerations in the valid assessment of personality disorders.

This article reviews evidence for the reliability and diagnostic concordance of structured-interview and self-report questionnaire methods for the diagnosis of personality disorders. The findings of nine studies that compared two or more axis II diagnostic instruments administered to the same groups of subjects are summarized. Across the eight studies with sufficient data, a summary of the overall diagnostic agreement between any two instruments yielded a low reliability (median kappa = 0.25) for making individual personality disorder diagnoses. Diagnostic concordance was lower between self-report questionnaire and interview methods than between interview methods. Comparing dimensional scores of different methods did not appreciably improve the level of agreement. The author concludes that current methods for making personality disorder diagnoses have high reliability but yield diagnoses that are not significantly comparable across methods beyond chance, which is not scientifically acceptable. Sources for the disagreement include variance due to different raters, interview occasions, data sources (self-report versus observer report), information bases obtained, and instrument sensitivity to state effects (e.g., mood). Serious problems in assessment validity may also arise from the yes/no format, which, despite probes for confirmatory examples, may fail to distinguish adequately between sporadic occurrences and longstanding patterns. Efforts should be made to improve and demonstrate the validity of axis II diagnostic methods. One route to increasing validity is to improve the clinical interview, because personality patterns are best revealed by the recurring patterns one finds when taking a systematic history.     

Diagnosis of the borderline disorders

Only a few of the borderline concepts introduced in clinical psychiatry have adequate diagnostic reliability. They are the borderline personality disorder of Gunderson and of DSM-III and the schizotypal personality disorder of DSM-III. Diagnostic interviews for these disorders have been developed, and their features are discussed. The diagnosis of borderline disorder can also be made with self-report instruments which are presented. Basic prevalence and demographic data for these disorders are given. The delimitation of the borderline disorders from other personality disorders is a major diagnostic problem still unresolved. The method of differentiated weight for symptoms is discussed as a probable solution for this problem.     

Screening and Assessment of Personality Disorders in Addiction Treatment Settings

Given the high rates of overlap between personality disorders and substance use disorders and the associated high levels of disability, a thorough diagnostic assessment involving screening for personality pathology should be routinely done with people seeking treatment for addiction problems. Evaluating whether a person meets diagnostic criteria for an Axis II disorder is essential, since specific diagnoses, such as borderline personality disorder, are linked to preferred treatment approaches. Screening is integral to the detection and treatment of problems faced by people with concurrent personality disorders and substance use disorders. However, as screens tend to overestimate the presence of personality disorder traits, diagnostic assessment is necessary to accurately determine the presence or absence of a personality disorder and to specify the contribution of a concurrent personality disorder to the problems being experienced by someone with a substance use disorder. This paper reviews the psychometrics of several instruments for the screening and diagnosis of personality disorders, which may be useful in addiction treatment settings.     

Effectiveness of psychotherapy for personality disorders.

OBJECTIVE: The authors examined the evidence for the effectiveness of psychotherapy for personality disorders in psychotherapy outcome studies. METHOD: Fifteen studies were located that reported data on pretreatment-to-posttreatment effects and/or recovery at follow-up, including three randomized, controlled treatment trials, three randomized comparisons of active treatments, and nine uncontrolled observational studies. They included psychodynamic/interpersonal, cognitive behavior, mixed, and supportive therapies. RESULTS: All studies reported improvement in personality disorders with psychotherapy. The mean pre-post effect sizes within treatments were large: 1.11 for self-report measures and 1.29 for observational measures. Among the three randomized, controlled treatment trials, active psychotherapy was more effective than no treatment according to self-report measures. In four studies, a mean of 52% of patients remaining in therapy recovered--defined as no longer meeting the full criteria for personality disorder--after a mean of 1.3 years of treatment. A heuristic model based on these findings estimated that 25.8% of personality disorder patients recovered per year of therapy, a rate sevenfold larger than that in a published model of the natural history of borderline personality disorder (3.7% recovered per year, with recovery of 50% of patients requiring 10.5 years of naturalistic follow-up). CONCLUSIONS: Psychotherapy is an effective treatment for personality disorders and may be associated with up to a sevenfold faster rate of recovery in comparison with the natural history of disorders. Future studies should examine specific therapies for specific personality disorders, using more uniform assessment of core pathology and outcome.     

Influence of child and adolescent psychiatric disorders on young adult personality disorder.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines associations between childhood psychopathology and young adult personality disorder in a random sample of 551 youths, who were 9 to 16 years old at first assessment. METHOD: Subjects were evaluated for DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders. Information was obtained prospectively from youths and their mothers at three points over 10 years. The predictive effects of prior axis I disorders and adolescent axis II personality disorder clusters A, B, and C on young adult personality disorder were examined in logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: The odds of young adult personality disorder increased given an adolescent personality disorder in the same cluster. Prior disruptive disorders, anxiety disorders, and major depression all significantly increased the odds of young adult personality disorder independent of an adolescent personality disorder. In addition, comorbidity of axis I and axis II disorders heightened the odds of young adult personality disorder relative to the odds of a disorder on a single axis. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of personality pathology before late adolescence may be warranted. Childhood or adolescent axis I disorders may set in motion a chain of maladaptive behaviors and environmental responses that foster more persistent psychopathology over time. Identification and treatment of childhood disorder may help to reduce that risk.     

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.     

Validity of the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire--revised: comparison with two structured interviews

The authors gave the self-report Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire--Revised (PDQ-R) to 87 applicants for inpatient treatment of severe personality psychopathology and, blind to these results, diagnosed personality disorders in the applicants by using the Personality Disorder Examination and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R Personality Disorders. The PDQ-R was not a substitute for a structured interview assessment of axis II disorders because many of its diagnoses were false positives. Its high sensitivity and moderate specificity for most of the axis II disorders suggest, however, that it is an efficient instrument for screening patients with DSM-III-R personality disorders.     

Clinical correlates of self-mutilation in a sample of general psychiatric patients.

The aims of this study were to examine whether certain axis I disorders characterized by impulsive aggression were associated with self-mutilative behavior and to evaluate the clinical correlates of self-mutilation in a sample of general psychiatric outpatients. Two hundred fifty-six outpatients were administered diagnostic interviews for axis I and axis II disorders. In addition, questionnaires that measured self-mutilative acts within the last 3 months, dissociation, and childhood abuse were completed. This study found that axis I disorders of substance abuse, posttraumatic stress disorder, and intermittent explosive disorder were significantly related to self-mutilative behavior, independent of borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder. Also, a higher level of dissociation was related to self-mutilation, controlling for borderline personality disorder and childhood abuse. Outpatients with certain axis I disorders and those who dissociate may represent a sizable group of patients who are at risk for self-mutilative behavior.     

Diagnosis of personality disorders by the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory

The diagnostic efficiency of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI) was examined with regard to the diagnosis of DSM-III axis II personality disorders by practicing psychiatrists. The MCMI displayed fairly good sensitivity but poor specificity and predictive power regarding the diagnosis of any personality disorder. Two possible explanations were offered: a) axis I psychopathology inflates scores on the MCMI personality disorder scales and causes an overdiagnosis of personality disorders by the test; or b) there is an under-recognition of axis II personality disorders (especially in the context of obvious axis I psychopathology) by the average practicing clinician.     

Development and validation of a computerized screening test for personality disorders in DSM-III-R

The available self-report instruments designed to measure personality disorder (PD) are time-consuming to administer and/or score and can be impractical for routine clinical use. There is a need for a computerized method of personality assessment based on contemporary systems of classification. A computerized DSM-III-R-based questionnaire was developed and validated against the structured clinical interview for DSM-III-R Axis-II disorders on a sample of 60 subjects. The computerized test showed moderate validity as a diagnostic instrument (mean kappa coefficient=0.47). With adjusted cut-off scores it was valid as a screening instrument (mean sensitivity=0.87). Antisocial, borderline and avoidant PD scores were strongly correlated across measures and not subject to significant observer bias.     

Current issues in the assessment of personality disorders

Most patients will have clinically significant maladaptive personality traits. These personality traits can substantially complicate the effective treatment of other mental disorders, and they can also be the focus of effective treatment. The assessment of personality disorders is of considerable clinical importance. However, this assessment can also be highly problematic. This article discusses the major issues in the assessment of personality disorders (eg, differentiation from other mental disorders, from normal personality functioning, and gender bias) and summarizes existing research on the convergent and discriminant validity of the semistructured interviews and self-report inventories, which have been developed to improve the reliability and validity of personality disorder assessment.     

The Borderline Syndrome Index. Clinical validity and utility

Recently, a 52-item self-report questionnaire, called the Borderline Syndrome Index (BSI), was developed to provide a rapid clinical assessment of the borderline syndrome (Conte, H. R., Plutchik, R., Karasu, T. B., and Jerrett, I. A self-report borderline scale: Discriminative validity and preliminary norms. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 168: 428-435, 1980). The present investigation addresses the question of the applicability of this test instrument over the full range of borderline syndrome psychopathology, as defined by DSM-III diagnostic criteria, as well as the relationship of various demographic, treatment, and personality variables to total scale scores. The final sample consisted of 51 patients meeting DSM-III diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder, 14 patients with DSM-III defined schizotypal personality disorder, 17 patients meeting DSM-III diagnostic criteria for borderline and schizotypal personality disorder, 30 CATEGO-defined early schizophrenics (first psychotic episode within the past 2 years), and 20 normal control subjects. All patient groups scored significantly higher than the normal group on the BSI, and each borderline syndrome group was discriminable from the early schizophrenic group but not from each other. None of the demographic variables correlated significantly with BSI total scores. Treatment variables were somewhat related to total scores, and it is suggested that chronicity rather than severity of disturbance may strongly affect performance on the BSI. Principal component analysis of BSI items, as well as high correlations between scores on the BSI and almost every scale on the MMPI, suggests that the BSI may be tapping a general, rather than specific, dimension of psychopathology. This dimension might best be described as a generalized deficiency in coping with life, with resultant feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness. While the present study provides some support for the discriminative validity of the measure, further evidence for the validity of the BSI as a specific measure of borderline syndrome psychopathology is clearly indicated before its widespread implementation.     

Adverse outcomes associated with personality disorder not otherwise specified in a community sample

OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated 1) whether adolescents and adults in the community diagnosed with personality disorder not otherwise specified are at elevated risk for adverse outcomes, and 2) whether this elevation in risk is comparable with that associated with the DSM-IV cluster A, B, and C personality disorders. METHOD: A community-based sample of 693 mothers and their offspring were interviewed during the offspring's childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood. Offspring psychopathology, aggressive behavior, educational and interpersonal difficulties, and suicidal behavior were assessed. RESULTS: Individuals who met DSM-IV criteria for personality disorder not otherwise specified were significantly more likely than those without personality disorders to have concurrent axis I disorders and behavioral, educational, or interpersonal problems during adolescence and early adulthood. In addition, adolescents with personality disorder not otherwise specified were at significantly elevated risk for subsequent educational failure, numerous interpersonal difficulties, psychiatric disorders, and serious acts of physical aggression by early adulthood. Adolescents with personality disorder not otherwise specified were as likely to have these adverse outcomes as those with cluster A, B, or C personality disorders or those with axis I disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents and young adults in the general population diagnosed with personality disorder not otherwise specified may be as likely as those with DSM-IV cluster A, B, or C personality disorders to have axis I psychopathology and to have behavioral, educational, or interpersonal problems that are not attributable to co-occurring psychiatric disorders. Individuals with personality disorder not otherwise specified and individuals with DSM-IV cluster A, B, or C personality disorders are likely to be at substantially elevated risk for a wide range of adverse outcomes.     

Personality characteristics among cardiothoracic transplant recipients

Personality characteristics are clinically believed to predict posttransplant adherence and outcome; however, data, as to the prevalence and type of personality disorders (PDs) and distribution of personality traits among transplant (txp) populations, are sparse and inconclusive. This paper reports on the prevalence and type of PD and range of personality traits, according to the Five-Factor model, among 73 adult cardiothoracic txp recipients. It represents the first systematic assessment of PDs and traits in a sample of txp recipients. Personality disorders were assessed with a semistructured diagnostic interview; personality traits were assessed with a self-report instrument. Thirty-three percent of the sample met diagnostic criteria for a PD, approximately three times higher than prevalence of PD previously reported among nonpsychiatric populations. Mean values of personality traits for the sample were in the normative range but with wide variability; extreme values on four of the five traits were scored by subjects with a PD. This unexpectedly high prevalence of PD and the wide variability in traits among heart and lung recipients alert clinicians to consider personality characteristics when planning interventions to increase compliance and maximize quality of life after cardiothoracic transplantation.     

Psychiatric comorbidity in epilepsy

Many studies on psychiatric comorbidity in epilepsy have been performed using many different patient groups and diagnostic instruments. This methodological heterogeneity complicates comparison of the findings. In this article, psychiatric disorders in epilepsy are reviewed from the perspective of the DSM classification system. The empirical findings of axis I clinical disorders and axis II personality disorders are described separately. Furthermore, the existence and specificity of conditions such as interictal dysphoric disorder, interictal behavior syndrome, and psychosis of epilepsy are discussed. From the many studies that have been performed on this topic it can be learned that there is a need for well-controlled studies using representative patient groups and valid and standardized diagnostic instruments. So far, the majority of the studies have concerned axis I disorders; relatively little research has been performed on axis II personality disorders. More research on personality disorders, as well as on the relative contributions of the different (brain- and non-brain-related) factors to the relationship between epilepsy and psychiatric disorders, is recommended.     

Differentiation between schizoid and avoidant personalities: an empirical test

A number of authors have questioned the rationale for subdividing the DSM-II schizoid diagnosis into three separate personality disorders in DSM-III, the schizoid, avoidant, and schizotypal. The present study was designed to explore differences between psychiatric patients with schizoid and avoidant personalities as compared to psychiatric controls with no personality disorder. Differences were examined on demographic data, self-report measures, and clinical information. A Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) revealed a significant overall effect for groups across MMPI subscales. However, subsequent univariate Analyses of Variance (ANOVA's) revealed that almost all differences were between the two personality disorder groups as compared to the psychiatric controls. Contrary to expectations, schizoid and avoidant personalities were found to display equivalent levels of anxiety, depression, and psychotic tendencies as compared to psychiatric control patients. No meaningful distinctions were found between the avoidant and the schizoid personalities. Results are discussed in terms of problems with the assessment methods and the diagnostic criteria.     

Personality disorders: new data versus old concepts

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this paper is to review the most recent literature on personality disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent data suggest that individual personality disorder criteria and full diagnosis may remit within 1-2 years. The same line of evidence disputes the separation of axis I and axis II disorders and suggests the presence of a continuum. Neuropsychological, neurobiological and genetic studies favor the presence of cognitive disorders and a non-specific mode of hereditability concerning all externalizing disorders. How to best treat personality disorders remains elusive. The most impressive news in the forensic field concerns the introduction of a new concept, dangerous and severe personality disorder by the UK government, for prevention and treatment purposes. SUMMARY: The most recent data do not adequately support a separate axis II. Future classification may need to move personality disorders to axis I, each under a suitable group of diseases and eliminate the very term 'personality' from the nomenclature, since it constitutes an empirically unsupported theoretical invasion in a system supposed to be 'atheoretical'.