Differential diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder type II and borderline personality disorder: analysis of the affective dimension

Moment-to-moment affective dynamics in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND

Affective disturbances in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder may represent a transdiagnostic etiological process as well as a target of intervention. Hypotheses on similarities and differences in various parameters of affective dynamics (intensity, successive/acute changes, variability, and reactivity to stress) between the two disorders were tested.

METHODS

Experience sampling method was used to assess dynamics of positive and negative affect, 10 times a day over 6 consecutive days. Patients with schizophrenia (n = 46) and patients with bipolar disorder (n = 46) were compared against age-matched healthy controls (n = 46).

RESULTS

Compared to controls, the schizophrenia group had significantly more intense momentary negative affect, a lower likelihood of acute changes in positive affect, and reduced within-person variability of positive affect. The bipolar disorder group was not significantly different from either the schizophrenia group or the healthy control group on any affect indexes. Within the schizophrenia group, level of depression was associated with weaker reactivity to stress for negative affect. Within the bipolar disorder group, level of depression was associated with lower positive affect.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with schizophrenia endured a more stable and negative affective state than healthy individuals, and were less likely to be uplifted in response to happenings in daily life. There is little evidence that these affective constructs characterize the psychopathology of bipolar disorder; such investigation may have been limited by the heterogeneity within group. Our findings supported the clinical importance of assessing multiple facets of affective dynamics beyond the mean levels of intensity.

Clinical differences between bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder: a case report

The clinical difference between bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder has always been a diagnostic challenge, especially with type II bipolar disorder and subthreshold symptoms, opening a diagnostic bias with the consequent repercussions of inappropriate treatment. Both pathologies are often misdiagnosed initially. The objective of this article is to emphasise the main clinical differences between the two pathologies. We present the case of a patient with a long history of psychiatric symptoms that started in childhood, with considerable functional impairment, who met the criteria for both disorders, pointing to comorbidity. During follow-up, she responded favourably to psychotropic drugs, pushing the diagnosis towards the bipolar spectrum, due to the notable improvement. However, comorbidity should not be neglected due to its high presentation.

Understanding the development of bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder in young people: a meta-review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

There is ongoing debate on the nosological position of bipolar disorder (BD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD). Identifying the unique and shared risks, developmental pathways, and symptoms in emerging BD and BPD could help the field refine aetiological hypotheses and improve the prediction of the onset of these disorders. This study aimed to: (a) systematically synthesise the available evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) concerning environmental, psychosocial, biological, and clinical factors leading to the emergence of BD and BPD; (b) identify the main differences and common features between the two disorders to characterise their complex interplay and, (c) highlight remaining evidence gaps.

METHODS

Data sources were; PubMed, PsychINFO, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Medline, ISI Web of Science. Overlap of included SRs/MAs was assessed using the corrected covered area process. The methodological quality of each included SR and MA was assessed using the AMSTAR.

RESULTS

22 SRs and MAs involving 249 prospective studies met eligibility criteria. Results demonstrated that family history of psychopathology, affective instability, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety disorders, depression, sleep disturbances, substance abuse, psychotic symptoms, suicidality, childhood adversity and temperament were common predisposing factors across both disorders. There are also distinct factors specific to emerging BD or BPD.

CONCLUSIONS

Prospective studies are required to increase our understanding of the development of BD and BPD onset and their complex interplay by concurrently examining multiple measures in BD and BPD at-risk populations.

Self-report screening instruments differentiate bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder (BD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD) share overlapping phenomenology and are frequently misdiagnosed. This study investigated the diagnostic accuracy of the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) and McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (MSI) in a clinical inpatient setting and whether individual screening items could differentiate BD from BPD.

METHODS

757 sequential inpatients admitted to a Mood Disorder Unit completed both the MDQ and MSI. Screen positive for the MDQ was defined as ≥7/13 symptoms endorsed with concurrence and at least moderate impact. Screen positive for the MSI was defined as a score of ≥7. The clinical discharge summary diagnosis completed by a board-certified psychiatrist was used as the reference standard to identify concordance rates of a positive screen with clinical diagnosis. Individual items predicting one disorder and simultaneously predicting absence of other disorder by odds ratio (OR>and <1) were identified.

RESULTS

Both screening instruments were more specific than sensitive (MDQ 83.7%/ 67.8%, MSI 73.2% / 63.3%). MDQ individual items (elevated mood, grandiosity, increased energy, pressured speech, decreased need for sleep, hyperactivity) were significant predictors of BD diagnosis and non-predictors of BPD diagnosis. Whereas MSI subitem, self-harm behaviors/suicidal attempts predicted BPD in the absence of BD; distrust and irritability were additional predictors of BPD.

CONCLUSION

While this study is limited by the lack of structured diagnostic interview, these data provide differential symptoms to discriminate BD and BPD. Further work with larger datasets and more rigorous bioinformatics machine learning methodology is encouraged to continue to identify distinguishing features of these two disorders to guide diagnostic precision and subsequent treatment recommendations.

Abnormal transitions of dynamic functional connectivity states in bipolar disorder: A whole-brain resting-state fMRI study

BACKGROUND

Dynamic functional connectivity (dFC) based on resting-state fMRI has attracted interest in the field of bipolar disorder (BD), because dFC can better capture the evolving processes of emotion and cognition, which are typically impaired in BD. However, previous dFC studies of BD have typically focused on specific seed brain regions or specific functional brain networks, and they have ignored global dynamic information interaction in the whole brain. This study is aimed to reveal aberrant and interpretable whole-brain dFC patterns of BD.

METHODS

The resting-state fMRI data collected from 35 euthymic BD patients and 30 healthy people. We developed a new dFC inference pipeline, including the sliding-window method, k-means clustering, a new permutation with zero-inflated Poisson regression method, and a similarity analysis for interpretable states, to examine the different patterns of dFC states between BD patients and healthy participants.

RESULTS

BD patients had significantly more frequent transitions between two specific dFC states, which were respectively close to high-level cognitive networks and low-level sensory networks, than healthy controls (p < 0.05, FDR).

LIMITATIONS

The size of samples and other BD types need to be expanded to validate the results of this study. Possible confounding effect of medication.

CONCLUSIONS

This study detected aberrant dFC pattern of BD, which indicated the increased lability of the processes of cognition and emotion in BD, and this finding could improve our understanding of the neuropathological mechanism of BD.

Anger and cluster B personality traits and the conversion from unipolar depression to bipolar disorder

INTRODUCTION

Feelings of anger and irritability are prominent symptoms of bipolar disorder (BD) that may occur during hypomanic, depressive and, especially, during mixed mood states. We aimed to determine whether such constructs are associated with the conversion to BD in subjects with a history of unipolar depression.

METHODS

Data were derived from the depressed participants of Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety with 9 years of follow-up. Hypomania was ascertained using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview at 2, 4, 6, and 9 years follow-up. Cross-sectionally, we studied the association between prevalent hypomania and anger related constructs with the "Spielberger Trait Anger subscale," the "Anger Attacks" questionnaire, the cluster B personality traits part of the "Personality Disorder Questionnaire," and "aggression reactivity." Prospectively, we studied whether aggression reactivity predicted incident hypomania using Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

Cross-sectionally, the bipolar conversion group (n = 77) had significantly higher scores of trait anger and aggression reactivity, as well as a higher prevalence on "anger attacks," "antisocial traits," and "borderline traits" compared to current (n = 349) as well as remitted (n = 1159) depressive patients. In prospective analyses in 1744 participants, aggression reactivity predicted incident hypomania (n = 28), with a multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio of 1.4 (95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.93; p = .037).

CONCLUSION

Anger is a risk factor for conversion from unipolar depression to BD. In addition, patients who converted to BD showed on average more anger, agitation and irritability than people with a history of unipolar depression who had not converted.

Differentiation of bipolar disorder versus borderline personality disorder: A machine learning approach

BACKGROUND

Differentiation of bipolar disorder (BP) from borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a common diagnostic dilemma. We undertook a machine learning (ML) approach to distinguish the conditions.

METHODS

Participants meeting DSM criteria for BP or BPD were compared on measures examining cognitive and behavioral BPD constructs, emotion regulation strategies, and parental behaviors during childhood. Two analyses used continuous and dichotomised data, with ML-allocated diagnoses compared to DSM.

RESULTS

82 participants met DSM criteria for BP and 52 for BPD. Accuracy of ML classification was 84.1% - 87.8% for BP, 50% - 57.7% for BPD, with overall accuracy of 73.1% - 73.9%. Importance of items differed between the analyses with the overall most important items including identity difficulties, relationship problems, female gender, feeling suicidal after a relationship breakdown and age.

LIMITATIONS

Participants were volunteers, preponderance of bipolar II (BP II) participants, comorbidity of BP and BPD not examined, and small BPD sample contributed to the relatively low classification accuracies for this group CONCLUSIONS: Study findings may assist distinguishing BP and BPD based on differences in cognitive and behavioral domains, emotion regulation strategies and parental behaviors. Future studies using larger datasets could further improve predictive accuracy and assist in differential diagnosis.

Clinical Differences between Bipolar Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder: A Case Report

The clinical difference between bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder has always been a diagnostic challenge, especially with type II bipolar disorder and subthreshold symptoms, opening a diagnostic bias with the consequent repercussions of inappropriate treatment. Both pathologies are often misdiagnosed initially. The objective of this article is to emphasise the main clinical differences between the two pathologies. We present the case of a patient with a long history of psychiatric symptoms that started in childhood, with considerable functional impairment, who met the criteria for both disorders, pointing to comorbidity. During follow-up, she responded favourably to psychotropic drugs, pushing the diagnosis towards the bipolar spectrum, due to the notable improvement. However, comorbidity should not be neglected due to its high presentation.

Affective and non-affective cognition in patients with bipolar disorder type I and type II in full or partial remission: Associations with familial risk

BACKGROUND

The upcoming conversion of the ICD-11 will subdivide patients with bipolar disorder (BD) into BD type I (BD-I) and BD type II (BD-II). This study aimed to investigate whether cognitive impairments could aid as objective cognitive biomarkers for recently diagnosed BD subtypes by comparing cognitive profiles between BD subtypes, their unaffected relatives (UR), and healthy controls (HC).

METHODS

The sample included 76 patients with BD-I, 149 patients with BD-II, 28 UR of patients with BD-I (UR-I), 50 UR of patients with BD-II (UR-II) and 168 HC from the Bipolar Illness Onset study, who were assessed with an extensive non-affective and affective cognitive test battery.

RESULTS

The results showed no significant differences in affective or non-affective cognition between BD-I and BD-II. Compared to HC, patients with BD-I (but not BD-II) showed worse performance in verbal fluency (p = .01) and were slower at recognising fearful faces (p = .045), while patients with BD-II (but not BD-I) displayed generally poorer recognition of facial expressions (p = .02). Only UR-I showed lower performance on verbal fluency (p = .049) and aberrant affective cognition (ps≤.047) compared to HC.

LIMITATIONS

The potential confounding effects of medication were not explored.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of significant differences in cognitive profiles between recently diagnosed BD-I and BD-II suggests that neither affective nor non-affective cognition are indicative of BD subtype.

Borderline patients have difficulties describing feelings; bipolar II patients describe difficult feelings. An alexithymia study

OBJECTIVE

Apparent similarities between borderline personality disorder (BPD) and bipolar II disorder (BIP-II) contribute to clinical difficulties in distinguishing between the disorders. Here, we aimed to explore how subjective Difficulties with the Identification and Description of Feelings (DIDF), a major constituent of the alexithymia construct and assessed as a part of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS), are related to relationship problems and health complaints in these groups.

METHODS

Twenty-two patients with BPD; 22 patients with BIP-II; and 23 healthy controls (HC) completed TAS. Health complaints, including symptoms associated with mood swings, were assessed with the Giessener Subjective Complaints List (Giessener Beschwerdebogen-GBB), and relationship problems with the Health of the Nation Outcome scale, Relationship item (HoNOSR). Bivariate correlations were run.

RESULTS

Both patient groups had high DIDF and GBB scores. In BPD only, there was a significant positive correlation between DIDF and HoNOSR. In BIP-II only, there was a significant positive correlation between DIDF and GBB total score. In BIP-II, DIDF correlated highly with those GBB subscales assessing symptoms typically occurring during bipolar mood swings (cardiovascular and gastrointestinal symptoms, exhaustion).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that in BPD, high DIDF scores represent genuine problems with identifying and describing emotions which are expected to correlate with relationship problems. In BIP-II, high DIDF scores could potentially represent difficulties with understanding the unpredictable symptoms of bipolar mood swings. The findings suggest that difficulties with identifying and describing feelings in patients should be carefully explored to increase the validity of the diagnostic evaluation.

Differential Diagnosis of Bipolar II Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Differentiating bipolar (BP) disorders (in particular BP II) from borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a common diagnostic dilemma. We sought to critically examine recent studies that considered clinical differences between BP II and BPD, which might advance their delineation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies focused on differentiating biological parameters-genetics, epigenetics, diurnal rhythms, structural and functional neuroimaging-with indicative differences not yet sufficient to guide diagnosis. Key differentiating factors include family history, developmental antecedents, illness course, phenomenological differences in mood states, personality style and relationship factors. Less differentiating factors include impulsivity, neuropsychological profiles, gender distribution, comorbidity and treatment response. This review details parameters offering differentiation of BP II from BPD and should assist in resolving a frequent diagnostic dilemma. Future studies should specifically examine the BP II subtype directly with BPD, which would aid in sharpening the distinction between the disorders.

Cognitive and Behavioral Differentiation of Those With Borderline Personality Disorder and Bipolar Disorder

The current study sought to identify features offering differentiation of borderline personality disorder (BPD) from bipolar disorder (BP). Participants were clinically assessed and assigned diagnoses based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria. A 113-item self-report questionnaire was completed, comprising cognitive and behavioral constructs weighted to a borderline personality style. A total of n = 53 participants were assigned to BPD, n = 83 to BP, with comorbid participants excluded. Twenty items were highly endorsed (>95%) by the BPD group, with most of the features capturing emotional dysregulation (ED) and identity disturbance; however, many items were also highly endorsed by the participants with BP. Thirty-eight items offered differentiation of BPD from BP, with identity disturbance overrepresented. The study findings indicate that the transdiagnostic nature of ED (a feature of both conditions) means it is less useful for diagnostic decisions, whereas identity disturbance is both intrinsic to BPD and offers specificity in differentiation from BP.

Common and distinct patterns of grey matter alterations in borderline personality disorder and bipolar disorder: voxel-based meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether borderline personality disorder (BPD) and bipolar disorder are the same or different disorders lacks consistency.AimsTo detect whether grey matter volume (GMV) and grey matter density (GMD) alterations show any similarities or differences between BPD and bipolar disorder.

METHOD

Web-based publication databases were searched to conduct a meta-analysis of all voxel-based studies that compared BPD or bipolar disorder with healthy controls. We included 13 BPD studies (395 patients with BPD and 415 healthy controls) and 47 bipolar disorder studies (2111 patients with bipolar disorder and 3261 healthy controls). Peak coordinates from clusters with significant group differences were extracted. Effect-size signed differential mapping meta-analysis was performed to analyse peak coordinates of clusters and thresholds (P &lt; 0.005, uncorrected). Conjunction analyses identified regions in which disorders showed common patterns of volumetric alteration. Correlation analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

Patients with BPD showed decreased GMV and GMD in the bilateral medial prefrontal cortex network (mPFC), bilateral amygdala and right parahippocampal gyrus; patients with bipolar disorder showed decreased GMV and GMD in the bilateral medial orbital frontal cortex (mOFC), right insula and right thalamus, and increased GMV and GMD in the right putamen. Multi-modal analysis indicated smaller volumes in both disorders in clusters in the right medial orbital frontal cortex. Decreased bilateral mPFC in BPD was partly mediated by patient age. Increased GMV and GMD of the right putamen was positively correlated with Young Mania Rating Scale scores in bipolar disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show different patterns of GMV and GMD alteration and do not support the hypothesis that bipolar disorder and BPD are on the same affective spectrum.Declaration of interestNone.

Bipolar affective disorder and borderline personality disorder: Differentiation based on the history of early life stress and psychoneuroendocrine measures

INTRODUCTION

Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and Bipolar Affective Disorder (BD) have clinical characteristics in common which often make their differential diagnosis difficult. The history of early life stress (ELS) may be a differentiating factor between BPD and BD, as well as its association with clinical manifestations and specific neuroendocrine responses in each of these diagnoses.

OBJECTIVE

Assessing and comparing patients with BD and BPD for factors related to symptomatology, etiopathogenesis and neuroendocrine markers.

METHODOLOGY

The study sample consisted of 51 women, divided into 3 groups: patients with a clinical diagnosis of BPD (n = 20) and BD (n = 16) and healthy controls (HC, n = 15). Standardized instruments were used for the clinical evaluation, while the history of ELS was quantified with the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ), and classified according to the subtypes: emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional neglect and physical neglect. The functioning of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis was evaluated by measuring a single plasma cortisol sample.

RESULTS

Patients with BPD presented with more severe psychiatric symptoms of: anxiety, impulsivity, depression, hopelessness and suicidal ideation than those with BD. The history of ELS was identified as significantly more prevalent and more severe in patients (BPD and BP) than in HC. Emotional abuse, emotional neglect and physical neglect also showed differences and were higher in BPD than BD patients. BPD patients had greater severity of ELS overall and in the subtypes of emotional abuse, emotional neglect and physical neglect than BD patients. The presence of ELS in patients with BPD and BP showed significant difference with lower cortisol levels when compared to HC. The endocrine evaluation showed no significant differences between the diagnoses of BPD and BD. Cortisol measured in patients with BPD was significantly lower compared to HC in the presence of emotional neglect and physical neglect. A significant negative correlation between the severity of hopelessness vs cortisol; and physical neglect vs cortisol were found in BPD with ELS. The single cortisol sample showed a significant and opposite correlations in the sexual abuse diagnosis-related groups, being a negative correlation in BD and positive in BPD.

DISCUSSION

Considering the need for a multi-factorial analysis, the differential diagnosis between BPD and BD can be facilitated by the study of psychiatric symptoms, which are more severe in the BPD patients with a history of early life stress. The function of the HPA axis assessed by this cortisol measure suggests differences between BPD and BP with ELS history.

CONCLUSION

The integrated analysis of psychopathology, ELS and neuroendocrine function may provide useful indicators to differentiate BPD and BD diagnoses. These preliminary data need to be replicated in a more significant sample with improved and multiple assessments of HPA axis activity.

Asenapine in the management of impulsivity and aggressiveness in bipolar disorder and comorbid borderline personality disorder: an open-label uncontrolled study

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) often co-occurres with bipolar disorder (BD). Impulsivity and aggressiveness represent core shared features and their pharmacological management is mainly based on mood stabilizers and antipsychotics, although scarce evidence is available for this context of comorbidity. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the role of Asenapine as an adjunctive drug for reducing aggressiveness and impulsivity in a sample of Italian BD type I outpatients with or without a comorbid BPD. This was an observational 12-week open-label uncontrolled clinical study carried out from April to October 2014 in two psychiatric clinics in Sicily. Each patient was treated with asenapine at two dose options, 5 mg (twice daily) or 10 mg (twice daily), and concomitant ongoing medications were not discontinued. We measured impulsivity using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS) and aggressiveness using the Aggressive Questionnaire (AQ). For the analysis of our outcomes, patients were divided into two groups: with or without comorbid BPD. Adjunctive therapy was associated with a significant decrease of BIS and AQ overall scores in the entire bipolar sample. Yet, there was no significant difference in BIS and AQ reductions between subgroups. Using a regression model, we observed that concomitant BPD played a negative role on the Hostility subscale and overall AQ score variations; otherwise, borderline co-diagnosis was related positively to the reduction of physical aggression. According to our post-hoc analysis, global aggressiveness scores are less prone to decrease in patients with a dual diagnosis, whereas physical aggressiveness appears to be more responsive to the add-on therapy in patients with comorbidity.

Differences in clinical presentation between bipolar I and II disorders in the early stages of bipolar disorder: A naturalistic study

AIM

In a naturalistic clinical study of patients in the early stages of bipolar disorders the aim was to assess differences between patients with bipolar I (BD I) and bipolar II (BD II) disorders on clinical characteristics including affective symptoms, subjective cognitive complaints, functional level, the presence of comorbid personality disorders and coping strategies.

METHODS

Diagnoses were confirmed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Disorders. Clinical symptoms were rated with the Young Mania Rating Scale and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and functional status using the Functional Assessment Short Test. Cognitive complaints were assessed using the Massachusetts General Hospital Cognitive and Physical Functioning Questionnaire, the presence of comorbid personality disorders using the Standardized Assessment of Personality - Abbreviated Scale and coping style using the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations.

RESULTS

In total, 344 patients were included (BD I (n=163) and BD II (n=181). Patients with BD II presented with significantly more depressive symptoms, more cognitive complaints, lower overall functioning, and a higher prevalence of comorbid personality disorders. Finally, they exhibited a trend towards using less adaptive coping styles.

LIMITATION

It cannot be omitted that some patients may have progressed from BD II to BD I. Most measures were based on patient self report.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, BD II was associated with a higher disease burden. Clinically, it is important to differentiate BD II from BD I and research wise, there is a need for tailoring and testing specific interventions towards BD II.

A pilot open series of lamotrigine in DBT-treated eating disorders characterized by significant affective dysregulation and poor impulse control

BACKGROUND

There is little effective psychopharmacological treatment for individuals with eating disorders who struggle with pervasive, severe affective and behavioral dysregulation.

METHODS

This pilot open series evaluated lamotrigine, a mood stabilizer, in the treatment of patients with eating disorders who did not respond adequately to antidepressant medications. Nine women with anorexia nervosa- or bulimia nervosa-spectrum eating disorders in partial hospital or intensive outpatient dialectical behavior therapy (DBT)-based eating disorder treatment took lamotrigine for 147 ± 79 days (mean final dose = 161.1 ± 48.6 mg/day). Participants completed standardized self-report measures of emotion dysregulation and impulsivity after lamotrigine initiation and approximately biweekly thereafter. Mood and eating disorder symptomatology were measured at lamotrigine initiation and at time of final assessment.

RESULTS

Lamotrigine and concurrent DBT were associated with large reductions in self-reported affective and behavioral dysregulation (ps < 0.01). Eating disorder and mood symptoms decreased moderately.

CONCLUSIONS

Although our findings are limited by the confounds inherent in an open series, lamotrigine showed initial promise in reducing emotional instability and behavioral impulsivity in severely dysregulated eating-disordered patients. These preliminary results support further investigation of lamotrigine for eating disorders in rigorous controlled trials.

Emotional dysregulation in those with bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder and their comorbid expression

BACKGROUND

Differentiation of the bipolar disorders (BP) from a borderline personality disorder (BPD) can be challenging owing to shared features, with emotional dysregulation being the likely principal one.

AIM

To assess differences in emotion regulation strategies in those with BP alone, BPD alone and those comorbid for both.

METHODS

We interviewed participants previously receiving a BP or BPD diagnosis, studying those who met DSM criteria for one or both conditions.

RESULTS

The sample comprised 83 with bipolar disorder, 53 with BPD and 54 comorbid for both. Analyses established linear trends, with the greatest impairment in emotion regulation strategies in the comorbid group followed by the BPD group, and with the lowest in the BP group. Specific deficits in the comorbid group included impulsivity, difficulties with goal directed behaviour, and accessing strategies. A similar linear profile was quantified for maladaptive cognitive emotion regulation strategies, weighted to catastrophizing and rumination. Adaptive emotion regulation strategies were superior in the bipolar group, without significant differences observed between the comorbid and BPD groups.

LIMITATIONS

Reliance on self-report measures; combined BP I and II participants limits generalisability of results to each bipolar sub-type; use of DSM diagnoses risking artefactual comorbidity; while there was an over-representation of females in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in emotion regulation strategies advance differentiation of those with either BP or BPD, while we identify the specificity of differing strategies to each condition and their synergic effect in those comorbid for both conditions. Study findings should assist the development and application of targeted strategies for those with either or both conditions.

Comorbidity between bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder: Prevalence, explanatory theories, and clinical impact

BACKGROUND

The relationship between bipolar disorder (BD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD) has been controversial and widely debated. Specifically, the comorbidity between both disorders has yielded a plethora of research, but there are no comprehensive reviews on this issue.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the empirical evidence regarding the comorbidity between BD and BPD based on prevalence data, explanatory theories for their co-occurrence, and clinical impact of one disorder in the other.

METHOD

A comprehensive search of databases (PubMed and PsycINFO) was performed. Published manuscripts between January 1985 and August 2015 were identified. Overall, 70 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Over a fifth of subjects showed comorbidity between BPD and BD. Empirical evidence from common underlying factors was inconclusive, but BPD appears to be a risk factor for BD. Data also indicated that the negative impact of BPD in BD (e.g., suicidality, worse mood course) was greater than vice verse.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the high prevalence of comorbidity between BD and BPD and the negative effects of BPD in subjects with BD, further studies are needed to clarify the factor associated with the comorbidity between these two disorders. This information is important to develop appropriate treatments for subjects with both disorders, improve their clinical course, and prevent the increased risk of suicidality commonly found in these subjects.

Integrating Early Intervention for Borderline Personality Disorder and Mood Disorders

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) has been demonstrated to be a reliable and valid construct in young people (adolescents and young adults). Both borderline- and mood-related psychopathology become clinically apparent from puberty through to young adulthood, frequently co-occur, can reinforce one another, and can be difficult to differentiate clinically. This Gordian knot of overlapping clinical features, common risk factors, and precursors to both BPD and mood disorders complicates clinical assessment, prevention, and treatment. Regardless of whether an individual crosses an arbitrary diagnostic threshold, a considerable proportion of young people with borderline- and mood-related psychopathology will develop significant and persistent functional, vocational, and interpersonal impairment and disability during this critical risk and developmental period. There is a clear need for early intervention, but spurious diagnostic certainty risks stigma, misapplication of diagnostic labels, inappropriate treatment, and unfavorable outcomes. This article aims to integrate early intervention for BPD and mood disorders in the clinical context of developmental and phenomenological change and evolution. "Clinical staging," similar to disease staging in general medicine, is presented as a pragmatic, heuristic, and trans-diagnostic framework to guide prevention and intervention. It acknowledges that the early stages of these disorders cannot be disentangled sufficiently to allow for disorder-specific preventive measures and early interventions. Clinical staging defines an individual's location along the continuum of the evolving temporal course of a disorder. Such staging aids differentiation of early or milder clinical phenomena from those that accompany illness progression and chronicity, and suggests the application of appropriate and proportionate intervention strategies.

Differentiating the bipolar disorders from borderline personality disorder

OBJECTIVE

To identify features differentiating bipolar disorder (BP) from borderline personality disorder (BPD) and with each condition variably defined.

METHOD

Participants were assigned a BP or BPD diagnosis on the basis of DSM criteria and, separately, by clinical judgment, and undertook a diagnostic interview and completed self-report measures.

RESULTS

Predictors of BPD status varied according to diagnostic decisions, but with the most consistent items being childhood sexual abuse, childhood depersonalization, personality variables relating to relationship difficulties and sensitivity to criticism, and the absence of any BP family history. Across diagnostic groups, personality measure items alone predicted diagnostic allocation with an accuracy of 81-84%, the refined study variables other than hypo/manic features improved the classification rates to 88%, and when the presence or absence of hypo/manic features was added, classification rates increased to 92-95%.

CONCLUSION

Study findings indicate that BPD can be differentiated from BP with a high degree of accuracy.

Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for mood disorders

OBJECTIVES

To provide guidance for the management of mood disorders, based on scientific evidence supplemented by expert clinical consensus and formulate recommendations to maximise clinical salience and utility.

METHODS

Articles and information sourced from search engines including PubMed and EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Google Scholar were supplemented by literature known to the mood disorders committee (MDC) (e.g., books, book chapters and government reports) and from published depression and bipolar disorder guidelines. Information was reviewed and discussed by members of the MDC and findings were then formulated into consensus-based recommendations and clinical guidance. The guidelines were subjected to rigorous successive consultation and external review involving: expert and clinical advisors, the public, key stakeholders, professional bodies and specialist groups with interest in mood disorders.

RESULTS

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for mood disorders (Mood Disorders CPG) provide up-to-date guidance and advice regarding the management of mood disorders that is informed by evidence and clinical experience. The Mood Disorders CPG is intended for clinical use by psychiatrists, psychologists, physicians and others with an interest in mental health care.

CONCLUSIONS

The Mood Disorder CPG is the first Clinical Practice Guideline to address both depressive and bipolar disorders. It provides up-to-date recommendations and guidance within an evidence-based framework, supplemented by expert clinical consensus.

MOOD DISORDERS COMMITTEE

Professor Gin Malhi (Chair), Professor Darryl Bassett, Professor Philip Boyce, Professor Richard Bryant, Professor Paul Fitzgerald, Dr Kristina Fritz, Professor Malcolm Hopwood, Dr Bill Lyndon, Professor Roger Mulder, Professor Greg Murray, Professor Richard Porter and Associate Professor Ajeet Singh.

INTERNATIONAL EXPERT ADVISORS

Professor Carlo Altamura, Dr Francesco Colom, Professor Mark George, Professor Guy Goodwin, Professor Roger McIntyre, Dr Roger Ng, Professor John O'Brien, Professor Harold Sackeim, Professor Jan Scott, Dr Nobuhiro Sugiyama, Professor Eduard Vieta, Professor Lakshmi Yatham.

AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND EXPERT ADVISORS

Professor Marie-Paule Austin, Professor Michael Berk, Dr Yulisha Byrow, Professor Helen Christensen, Dr Nick De Felice, A/Professor Seetal Dodd, A/Professor Megan Galbally, Dr Josh Geffen, Professor Philip Hazell, A/Professor David Horgan, A/Professor Felice Jacka, Professor Gordon Johnson, Professor Anthony Jorm, Dr Jon-Paul Khoo, Professor Jayashri Kulkarni, Dr Cameron Lacey, Dr Noeline Latt, Professor Florence Levy, A/Professor Andrew Lewis, Professor Colleen Loo, Dr Thomas Mayze, Dr Linton Meagher, Professor Philip Mitchell, Professor Daniel O'Connor, Dr Nick O'Connor, Dr Tim Outhred, Dr Mark Rowe, Dr Narelle Shadbolt, Dr Martien Snellen, Professor John Tiller, Dr Bill Watkins, Dr Raymond Wu.

Borderline personality disorder in adolescence

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a common and severe mental disorder that is associated with severe functional impairment and a high suicide rate. BPD is usually associated with other psychiatric and personality disorders, high burden on families and carers, continuing resource utilization, and high treatment costs. BPD has been a controversial diagnosis in adolescents, but this is no longer justified. Recent evidence demonstrates that BPD is as reliable and valid among adolescents as it is in adults and that adolescents with BPD can benefit from early intervention. Consequently, adolescent BPD is now recognized in psychiatric classification systems and in national treatment guidelines. This review aims to inform practitioners in the field of adolescent health about the nature of BPD in adolescence and the benefits of early detection and intervention. BPD diagnosis and treatment should be considered part of routine practice in adolescent mental health to improve these individuals' well-being and long-term prognosis.

The addition of STEPPS in the treatment of patients with bipolar disorder and comorbid borderline personality features: a protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder (BD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD) both are severe and chronic psychiatric disorders. Both disorders have overlapping symptoms, and current research shows that the presence of a BPD has an adverse effect on the course of BD. The limited research available shows an unfavorable illness course, a worse prognosis and response to medication, longer treatment duration, more frequent psychiatric admissions, higher drop-out, increased risk of substance abuse, increased risk of suicide, and more impairment of social and occupational functioning. However, there is no research available on the effect of specific psychotherapeutic treatment for this patients.

METHODS/DESIGN

This paper presents the protocol of a RCT to investigate the presence of borderline personality features in patients treated for BD (study part 1) and the effectiveness of STEPPS (Systems Training for Emotional Predictability and Problem Solving) added to treatment as usual (TAU) for BD compared to TAU in patients with BD and comorbid borderline personality features (study part 2). STEPPS is a validated and effective intervention for BPD. The study population consists of patients treated for BD at specialized outpatient clinics for BD in the Netherlands. At first the prevalence of comorbid borderline personality features in outpatients with BD is investigated. Inclusion criteria for study part 2 is defined as having three or more of the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria of BPD, including impulsivity and anger bursts. Primary outcomes will be the frequency and severity of manic and depressive recurrences as well as severity, course and burden of borderline personality features. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life, utilizing mental healthcare and psychopathologic symptoms not primarily related to BD or BPD. Assessment will be at baseline, at the end of the intervention, and at 12 and 18 months follow-up.

DISCUSSION

This will be the first randomized controlled trial of a specific intervention in patients with BD and comorbid BPD or borderline personality features. There are no recommendations in the guideline of treatment of bipolar disorders for patients with this complex comorbidity. We expect that a combined treatment aimed at mood disorder and emotion regulation will improve treatment outcomes for these patients.

Emotion regulation strategies in bipolar II disorder and borderline personality disorder: differences and relationships with perceived parental style

BACKGROUND

Bipolar II disorder (BP II) and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) share common features and can be difficult to differentiate, contributing to misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment. Research contrasting phenomenological features of both conditions is limited. The current study sought to identify differences in emotion regulation strategies in BP II and BPD in addition to examining relationships with perceived parental style.

METHOD

Participants were recruited from a variety of outpatient and community settings. Eligible participants required a clinical diagnosis of BP II or BPD, subsequently confirmed via structured diagnostic interviews assessing DSM-IV criteria. Participants completed a series of self-reported questionnaires assessing emotion regulation strategies and perceived parental style.

RESULTS

The sample comprised 48 (n=24 BP II and n=24 BPD) age and gender-matched participants. Those with BPD were significantly more likely to use maladaptive emotion regulation strategies, less likely to use adaptive emotion regulation strategies, and scored significantly higher on the majority of (perceived) dysfunctional parenting sub-scales than participants with BP II. Dysfunctional parenting experiences were related to maladaptive emotion regulation strategies in participants with BP II and BPD, however differential associations were observed across groups.

LIMITATIONS

Relatively small sample sizes; lack of a healthy control comparator group; lack of statistical control for differing sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, medication and psychological treatments; no assessment of state or trait anxiety; over-representation of females in both groups limiting generalisability of results; and reliance on self-report measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in emotion regulation strategies and perceived parental style provide some support for the validity of distinguishing BP II and BPD. Development of intervention strategies targeting the differing forms of emotion regulatory pathology in these groups may be warranted.

Clinical differentiation of bipolar II disorder from borderline personality disorder

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Differentiating bipolar II disorder (BP II) from borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a common diagnostic dilemma. The purpose of this review is to focus on recent studies that have considered clinical differences between the conditions including family history, phenomenology, longitudinal course, comorbidity and treatment response, and which might advance their clinical distinction.

RECENT FINDINGS

Findings suggest key differentiating parameters to include family history, onset pattern, clinical course, phenomenological profile of depressive and elevated mood states, and symptoms of emotional dysregulation. Less specific differentiation is provided by childhood trauma history, deliberate self-harm, comorbidity rates, neurocognitive features, treatment response and impulsivity parameters.

SUMMARY

This review refines candidate variables for differentiating BP II from BPD, and should assist the design of studies seeking to advance their phenomenological and clinical distinction.

Using the mood disorder questionnaire and bipolar spectrum diagnostic scale to detect bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder among eating disorder patients

BACKGROUND

Screening scales for bipolar disorder including the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) and Bipolar Spectrum Diagnostic Scale (BSDS) have been plagued by high false positive rates confounded by presence of borderline personality disorder. This study examined the accuracy of these scales for detecting bipolar disorder among patients referred for eating disorders and explored the possibility of simultaneous assessment of co-morbid borderline personality disorder.

METHODS

Participants were 78 consecutive female patients who were referred for evaluation of an eating disorder. All participants completed the mood and eating disorder sections of the SCID-I/P and the borderline personality disorder section of the SCID-II, in addition to the MDQ and BSDS. Predictive validity of the MDQ and BSDS was evaluated by Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis of the Area Under the Curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Fifteen (19%) and twelve (15%) patients fulfilled criteria for bipolar II disorder and borderline personality disorder, respectively. The AUCs for bipolar II disorder were 0.78 (MDQ) and 0.78 (BDSD), and the AUCs for borderline personality disorder were 0.75 (MDQ) and 0.79 (BSDS).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients being evaluated for eating disorders, the MDQ and BSDS show promise as screening questionnaires for both bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder.