Different patterns of manic/hypomanic symptoms in depression: A pilot modification of the hypomania checklist-32 to assess mixed depression

[A clinical case of the new-onset bipolar affective disorder in the postcovid period]

A large number of people who have had COVID-19 have developed mental symptoms and mood disorders. Anxiety and depression prevail among affective pathology. Evidence is accumulating that the Sars-CoV-2 virus can induce mania or hypomania in people with no personal psychopathological history. Some clinical, anamnestic and paraclinical patterns of new-onset mania and hypomania have been found. In cases of severe manic symptoms, it is possible to quickly assume the occurrence of bipolar affective disorder. The predominance of depressive and anxiety syndromes in the long-term disease and the presence of vivid vegetative symptoms can mask brief and syndromally incomplete episodes of hypomania, which distorts the understanding of the disease as a bipolar disorder. This article presents such a clinical case of the occurrence of bipolar affective disorder in a patient who had COVID-19 with an asymptomatic course. Approaches to rational diagnosis and treatment are discussed.

Use of the 33-Item Hypomania Checklist (HCL-33) to Distinguish Bipolar Disorder From Major Depressive Disorder in Older Adults

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder (BD) is often misdiagnosed as major depressive disorder (MDD) in older patients. This study examined the psychometric properties of the 33-item Hypomania Checklist (HCL-33) and its accuracy to differentiate BD from MDD among older adults.

METHOD

A total of 215 depressed older patients were recruited; 107 were diagnosed with BD (71 with BD-type I and 36 with BD-type II) and 108 with MDD. Principal components analysis (PCA) was used to explore the factor structure of the HCL-33. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to test the internal consistency. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to measure test-retest reliability. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to generate the optimal cut-off value to differentiate between BD and MDD.

RESULTS

Two factors were identified in the PCA analysis accounting for 33.9% of the total variance. The Cronbach's alpha value for the HCL-33 was 0.912, with 0.922 for factor I and 0.664 for factor II. The test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC: 0.891). The optimal cut-off of the HCL-33 total score for discriminating between MDD and BD was 14, with a sensitivity of 88.8% and specificity of 82.4%.

CONCLUSION

The HCL-33 had satisfactory reliability and validity and could be used to distinguish BD from MDD in older adults.

Validation of the 33-item Hypomania Checklist (HCL-33) in screening adolescents with bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND

Adolescents with bipolar disorder (BD) are often misdiagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD), which delays the introduction of appropriate treatment resulting in adverse outcomes. This study examined the psychometric properties of the 33-item Hypomania Checklist (HCL-33) and its accuracy to distinguish BD from MDD in adolescents.

METHOD

A total of 248 participants (171 MDD and 77 BD patients) were recruited from a university-affiliated hospital in China. Depression was measured with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. All participants completed the assessment with the HCL-33.

RESULTS

A two-factor structure was found for the HCL-33, which explained 30.2% of the total variance. The internal consistency and split half reliability of the total scale were acceptable. The optimal cut-off value of 18 generated sensitivity of 0.52 and specificity of 0.73 for distinguishing BD from MDD.

CONCLUSION

The HCL-33 seems to be a useful screening instrument to distinguish BD from depressed adolescents. However, considering certain less than robust psychometric properties, the HCL-33 needs to be modified and further refined for adolescent patients.

The Koukopoulos mixed depression rating scale (KMDRS) and the assessment of mixed symptoms during the perinatal period

BACKGROUND

Mixed symptoms in depression may underlie bipolar diathesis rather than unipolarity. Uncovering mixed depression (MxD) is crucial for appropriate management, especially in the perinatal period, as it may affect treatment planning and impact future child development. We used a scale specific for identifying MxD and tested its validity in pregnant and postpartum women with depression.

METHODS

Women developing a major depressive episode (MDE) during their perinatal period extending from pregnancy to one year postpartum from November-2012 through June-2019 were assessed with BPRS-18, EPDS, CGI-S, GAF, HAM-A, HAM-D, Koukopoulos' Mixed Depression Rating Scale (KMDRS), TEMPS, and YMRS. They were classified, based on KMDRS criteria, as with mixed (MxD) or without (nonMxD) mixed symptoms. We conducted ROC analysis and performed factor analysis of the KMDRS.

RESULTS

Of 45 included, MxD (N = 19) were biased towards diagnosis of bipolar disorder and nonMxD (N = 26) towards major depressive disorder. Other sociodemographic variables did not differ significantly between MxD and nonMxD. MxD scored higher on total YMRS, BPRS, and KMDRS, and on KMDRS-6 Subjective Feelings of Irritability and KMDRS-12 Suicidal Impulsiveness items. The KMDRS correlated in the entire sample, in MxD and nonMxD, with the YMRS and the BPRS, while correlating with the HAM-D in nonMxD only. The KMDRS showed acceptable AUC distribution, with a 68% sensitivity and 58% specificity. Best-fit was three-factor-structure, explaining 54.66% of cumulative variance.

LIMITATIONS

Small sample and cross-sectional design.

CONCLUSIONS

The KMDRS is fit for investigating MxD along with the YMRS and the BPRS in perinatal women with a MDE.

Psychometric properties of the Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale supplemented with DSM-5 Mixed subtype questionnaire in Chinese patients with mood disorders

BACKGROUND

With the modification of DSM-5 mixed features specifier, a brief scale to screen mixed features in patients with mood disorders is needed in clinical practice. This study aimed to explore the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale supplemented with DSM-5 Mixed subtype (CUDOS-M-C) for the Chinese patients with mood disorders.

METHODS

Overall, 300 patients with major depressive episode were recruited. All participants were assessed using CUDOS-M-C, Young Mania Rating Scale, Hamilton Anxiety Scale and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to calculate the optimal cut-off values of CUDOS-M-C score. The reliability and validity of CUDOS-M-C were examined using Cronbach's alpha, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and principal component analysis (PCA).

RESULTS

The results of PCA indicated two-factor structure as the best solution for CUDOS-M-C, which explained 54.82% of cumulative variance. The Cronbach's alpha was 0.892 and the ICC was 0.853. The area under the ROC curve of the CUDOS-M-C for participants with mixed depression was 0.927 (p<0.001) and the suitable cut-off value was 8, with a sensitivity of 91.6% and specificity of 79.9%.

LIMITATIONS

Most of the patients were recruited from eastern China and further research with larger sample is warranted. And this study did not perform confirmatory factor analysis to identify the generalization of factor structure of CUDOS-M-C. Besides, the study performed the test-retest reliability of CUDOS-M-C and further analysis is needed to ascertain the patient's post-treatment changes.

CONCLUSION

The CUDOS-M-C demonstrated to have satisfactory psychometric properties as a self-report scale, and could be applied to screen patients with mixed depression in clinical practice.

Comparing the Self- and External Assessment Versions of the HCL-33 as Screening Instruments for Bipolar Disorder in Older Depressed Patients

Objectives: The misdiagnosis of bipolar disorder (BD) as major depressive disorder (MDD) is common in depressed older adults. The self-rated HCL-33 and its external assessment version (HCL-33-EA) have been developed to screen for hypomanic symptoms. This study compared the screening ability of these two instruments to discriminate BD from MDD. Methods: A total of 215 patients (107 with BD and 108 with MDD) and their carers were recruited. Patients and their carers completed the HCL-33 and HCL-33-EA, respectively. The consistency of the total score and the positive response to each item between the two scales was calculated with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen's kappa coefficient separately. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were drawn for both instruments. The optimal cut-off points were determined according to the maximum Youden's Index. The areas under the ROC curve (AUC) of the HCL-33 and HCL-33-EA were calculated separately and compared. The sensitivity and specificity at the optimal cut-off values were also calculated separately for the HCL-33 and HCL-33-EA. Results: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between the total scores of the HCL-33 and HCL-33-EA was 0.823 (95% CI = 0.774-0.862). The positive response rate on all items showed high agreement between the two instruments. ROC curve analysis demonstrated that the total scores of both HCL-33 and HCL-33-EA differentiated well between MDD and BD, while there was no significant difference in the AUCs between the two scales (Z = 0.422, P = 0.673). The optimal cutoff values for the HCL-33 and HCL-33-EA were 14 and 12, respectively. With the optimal cutoff value, the sensitivities of the HCL-33 and HCL-33-EA were 88.8% and 93.5%, and their specificities were 82.4% and 79.6%. Conclusion: Both the HCL-33 and HCL-33-EA had good screening ability for discriminating BD from MDD in depressed older adults.

A Latent Class Analysis of Manic and Psychotic Symptoms

Bipolar spectrum disorders encompass heterogeneous clinical manifestations and comorbidities. A latent class analysis (LCA) was performed in 1846 subjects who experienced an episode of abnormally elevated or irritable mood to identify homogeneous groups of subjects, based on the distribution of 11 manic and 7 psychotic symptoms. LCA identified five classes: 1) two classes with irritability and with low and high level of psychosis (respectively "irritable," 29.1% of the sample, and "irritable-psychotic," 16.2%); 2) a class with expansive mood and hyperactivity ("expansive-hyperactive," 12.7%); and 3) two classes with manic symptoms and high and low level of psychosis ("manic-psychotic," 15.0%, and "manic," 27.2%). "Irritable" displayed lower rates of depressive episode, panic, and substance use disorders. Manic-psychotic displayed higher rates of depressive episode, panic, generalized anxiety, and substance use disorders. Use of mental health treatment more frequent in manic-psychotic and manic classes. Five classes of bipolar spectrum disorders were characterized by different sociodemographic and clinical patterns.

Are existing self-ratings of acute manic symptoms in adults reliable and valid?-A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Depression research historically uses both self- and clinician ratings of symptoms with significant and substantial correlations. It is often assumed that manic patients lack insight and cannot accurately report their symptoms. This delayed the development of self-rating scales for mania, but several scales now exist and are used in research. Our objective is to systematically review the literature to identify existing self-ratings of symptoms of (hypo)mania and to evaluate their psychometric properties.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Knowledge, and Ovid were searched up until June 2018 using the keywords: "(hypo)mania," "self-report," and "mood disorder" to identify papers which included data on the validity and reliability of self-rating scales for (hypo)mania in samples including patients with bipolar disorder.

RESULTS

We identified 55 papers reporting on 16 different self-rating scales claiming to assess (hypo)manic symptoms or states. This included single item scales, but also some with over 40 items. Three of the scales, the Internal State Scale (ISS), Altman Self-Rating Mania Scale (ASRM), and Self-Report Manic Inventory (SRMI), provided data about reliability and/or validity in more than three independent studies. Validity was mostly assessed by comparing group means from individuals in different mood states and sometimes by correlation to clinician ratings of mania.

CONCLUSIONS

ASRM, ISS, and SRMI are promising self-rating tools for (hypo)mania to be used in clinical contexts. Future studies are, however, needed to further validate these measures; for example, their associations between each other and sensitivity to change, especially if they are meant to be outcome measures in studies.

Short versions of the 32-item Hypomania Checklist: A systematic review

PURPOSE

Bipolar disorder (BD) is frequently misdiagnosed, which can lead to negative outcomes. The 32-item Hypomania Checklist (HCL-32) is one of the most widely used self-reported screening instruments for hypomanic symptoms, which has several short versions. This systematic review examined the psychometric properties of HCL-32 short versions.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Five international databases were systematically and independently searched by two researchers for studies that developed the HCL short versions. Basic demographic and clinical characteristics and the psychometric properties of the HCL short versions were recorded.

FINDINGS

Eighteen studies were identified. The majority of the HCL short versions showed satisfactory to good psychometric properties.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Validated HCL short versions with satisfactory psychometric properties may be helpful in screening for BD.

Factorial structure and familial aggregation of the Hypomania Checklist-32 (HCL-32): Results of the NIMH Family Study of Affective Spectrum Disorders

BACKGROUND

There is substantial evidence that bipolar disorder (BD) manifests on a spectrum rather than as a categorical condition. Detection of people with subthreshold manifestations of BD is therefore important. The Hypomania Checklist-32 (HCL-32) was developed as a tool to identify such people.

PURPOSE

The aims of this paper were to: (1) investigate the factor structure of HCL-32; (2) determine whether the HCL-32 can discriminate between mood disorder subtypes; and (3) assess the familial aggregation and cross-aggregation of hypomanic symptoms assessed on the HCL with BD.

PROCEDURES

Ninety-six probands recruited from the community and 154 of their adult first-degree relatives completed the HCL-32. Diagnosis was based on semi-structured interviews and family history reports. Explanatory factor analysis and mixed effects linear regression models were used.

FINDINGS

A four-factor ("Activity/Increased energy," "Distractibility/Irritability", "Novelty seeking/Disinhibition, "Substance use") solution fit the HCL-32, explaining 11.1% of the total variance. The Distractibility/Irritability score was elevated among those with BP-I and BP-II, compared to those with depression and no mood disorders. Higher HCL-32 scores were associated with increased risk of BD-I (OR = 1.22, 95%CI 1.14-1.30). The "Distractibility/Irritability" score was transmitted within families (β = 0.15, p = 0.040). However, there was no familial cross-aggregation between mood disorders and the 4 HCL factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the HCL-32 discriminates the mood disorder subtypes, is familial and may provide a dimensional index of propensity to BD. Future studies should explore the heritability of symptoms, rather than focusing on diagnoses.

Measuring racing thoughts in healthy individuals: The Racing and Crowded Thoughts Questionnaire (RCTQ)

Racing thoughts refer to an acceleration and overproduction of thoughts, which have been associated with manic and mixed episodes. Phenomenology distinguishes 'crowded' from 'racing' thoughts, associated with mixed depression and mania, respectively. Recent data suggest racing thoughts might also be present in healthy individuals with sub-affective traits and symptoms. We investigated this assumption, with a 34-item self-rating scale, the Racing and Crowded Thoughts Questionnaire (RCTQ), and evaluated its reliability, factor structure, and concurrent validity. 197 healthy individuals completed the RCTQ, the Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris, and San Diego - autoquestionnaire (TEMPS-A), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Altman Self-Rating Mania scale (ASRM), and the Ruminative Response Scale (RRS). Exploratory factor analysis yielded a three-factor solution, labeled 'thought overactivation', 'burden of thought overactivation', and 'thought overexcitability'. Internal consistency of each of the three subscales of the RCTQ was excellent. The TEMPS-A cyclothymia score was associated with the three factors, suggesting good concurrent validity. The 'thought activation' subscale was selectively associated with current elated mood and included items conveying both the notion of increased amount and velocity of thoughts, whereas the 'burden of thought overactivation' subscale was associated with current low mood. The 'thought overexcitability' subscale included items conveying the notion of distractibility, and was associated with both elated and low mood. Rumination was not a significant predictor of RCTQ subscores. These results suggest that the RCTQ has good psychometric properties. Racing and crowded thoughts, as measured by the RCTQ, are a multi-faceted phenomenon, distinct from rumination, and particularly associated with mood instability even in its milder forms.

Guidelines for the recognition and management of mixed depression

A significant minority of people presenting with a major depressive episode (MDE) experience co-occurring subsyndromal hypo/manic symptoms. As this presentation may have important prognostic and treatment implications, the DSM-5 codified a new nosological entity, the "mixed features specifier," referring to individuals meeting threshold criteria for an MDE and subthreshold symptoms of (hypo)mania or to individuals with syndromal mania and subthreshold depressive symptoms. The mixed features specifier adds to a growing list of monikers that have been put forward to describe phenotypes characterized by the admixture of depressive and hypomanic symptoms (e.g., mixed depression, depression with mixed features, or depressive mixed states [DMX]). Current treatment guidelines, regulatory approvals, as well the current evidentiary base provide insufficient decision support to practitioners who provide care to individuals presenting with an MDE with mixed features. In addition, all existing psychotropic agents evaluated in mixed patients have largely been confined to patient populations meeting the DSM-IV definition of "mixed states" wherein the co-occurrence of threshold-level mania and threshold-level MDE was required. Toward the aim of assisting clinicians providing care to adults with MDE and mixed features, we have assembled a panel of experts on mood disorders to develop these guidelines on the recognition and treatment of mixed depression, based on the few studies that have focused specifically on DMX as well as decades of cumulated clinical experience.

Screening mixed depression and bipolarity in the postpartum period at a primary health care center

INTRODUCTION

Mixed depression is a clinical condition accompanied by the symptoms of (hypo)mania and is considered to be a predictor for bipolar disorder. Compared to pure major depression, mixed depression is worse in progress. There are limited data on the prevalence of mixed depression since it is a relatively new entity. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the prevalence of mixed depression during the postpartum period which is risky for mood disorders.

METHODS

The study included 63 postpartum women. The participants were administered Beck Depression Scale, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), Mood Disorders Questionnaire (MDQ), and Modified Hypomania Symptom Checklist-32 (mHCL-32).

RESULTS

The MDQ scores of the women with expected depression according to the EPDS cut-off scores, were significantly higher than the women with lower EPDS scores (t=-4.968; p<0.001). The modified hypomania scores were significantly higher in the women with higher depression scores compared to the women under EPDS cut-off scores (t=-4.713; p<0.001). According to the EPDS and BDS results, 27 (42.9%) and 14 (22.2%) women needed additional clinical examination for depression, respectively. In addition, 3 (4.8%) women require additional clinical examination for bipolar disorder. The scores for the first item of MDQ were above the cut-off value in 11 (17.5%) women. According to the mHCL-32 results, 50 (79.4%) women had at least 1 symptom, 45 (71.4%) women had at least 3 symptoms, and 43 (68.3%) women had at least 5 symptoms of mixed depression.

CONCLUSION

Postpartum mixed depression should be promptly diagnosed by using appropriate diagnostic tools, particularly by primary health care physicians. Patients with mixed depression should be closely monitored to avoid manic switch.

Factor structure and reliability of the Italian adaptation of the Hypomania Check List-32, second revision (HCL-32-R2)

OBJECTIVE

To assess the psychometric properties of the Italian adaptation of the Hypomania-Check-List 32-item, second revision (HCL-32-R2) for the detection of bipolarity in major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment-seeking outpatients.

METHODS

A back-to-back Italian adaption of the "Bipolar Disorders: Improving Diagnosis, Guidance, and Education" English module of the HCL-32-R2 was administered between March 2013 and October 2014 across twelve collaborating sites in Italy. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Fourth edition (DSM-IV) diagnoses were made adopting the mini-international neuropsychiatric interview, using bipolar disorder (BD) patients as controls.

RESULTS

In our sample (n=441, of whom, BD-I=68; BD-II=117; MDD=256), using a cut-off of 14 allowed the HCL-32-R2 to discriminate DSM-IV-defined MDD patients between "true unipolar" (HCL-32-R2(-)) and "sub-threshold bipolar depression" (HCL-32-R2(+)) with sensitivity=89% and specificity=79%. Area under the curve was .888; positive and negative predictive values were 75.34% and 90.99% respectively. Owing to clinical interpretability considerations and consistency with previous adaptations of the HCL-32, a two-factor solution (F1="hyperactive/elated" vs. F2="irritable/distractible/impulsive") was preferred using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, whereas items n.33 ("I gamble more") and n.34 ("I eat more") introduced in the R2 version of the scale slightly loaded onto F2 and F1 respectively. Cronbach׳s α=.88 for F1 and .71 for F2.

LIMITATIONS

No cross-validation with any additional validated screening tool; treatment-seeking outpatient sample; recall bias; no systematic evaluation of eventual medical/psychiatric comorbidities, current/lifetime pharmacological history, neither record of severity of current MDE.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results seem to indicate fair accuracy of HCL-32 as a screening instrument for BD, though replication studies are warranted.

Factor structure and reliability of the Arabic adaptation of the Hypomania Check List-32, second revision (HCL-32-R2)

OBJECTIVE

To assess the psychometric properties of the Arabic adaptation of the Hypomania-Check-List 32-item, second revision (HCL-32-R2) for the detection of bipolarity in major depressive disorder (MDD) inpatients suffering a current major depressive episode (MDE).

METHOD

The "Bipolar Disorders: Improving Diagnosis, Guidance, and Education" Arabic module of the HCL-32-R2 was administered to mother-tongue Arabic MDE inpatients between March 2013 and October 2014. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Fourth edition (DSM-IV) diagnoses were made adopting the mini-international neuropsychiatric interview, using bipolar disorder (BD) patients as controls.

RESULTS

In our sample (n=500, of whom, BD-I=329; BD-II=70; MDD=101), using a cut-off of 17 allowed the HCL-32-R2 to discriminate DSM-IV-defined MDD patients between "true unipolar" (HCL-32-R2(-)) and "sub-threshold bipolar depression" (HCL-32-R2(+)) with sensitivity=82% and specificity=77%. Area under the curve was .883; positive and negative predictive values were 93.44% and 73.23% respectively. Owing to clinical interpretability considerations and consistency with previous adaptations of the HCL-32, a two-factor solution (F1="hyperactive/elated" vs. F2="irritable/distractible/impulsive") was preferred using exploratory and confirmatory factors analyses. Item n.33 ("I gamble more") and n.34 ("I eat more") introduced in the R2 version of the HCL-32 loaded onto F1, though very slightly. Cronbach's alphas were F1=.86 and F2=.60.

LIMITATIONS

No cross-validation with any additional validated screening tool. Inpatients only sample; recall bias; no systematic evaluation of eventual medical/psychiatric comorbidities, current/lifetime pharmacological history, or record of severity of current MDE.

CONCLUSIONS

In our sample, the HCL-32 fairly discriminated between MDD and BD-I but not BD-II, therefore soliciting for replication studies for use in Arabic-speaking depressed inpatients.