Bipolar disorder type II revisited

Status of Type II vs. Type I Bipolar Disorder: Systematic Review with Meta-Analyses

LEARNING OBJECTIVES AFTER PARTICIPATING IN THIS CME ACTIVITY, THE PSYCHIATRIST SHOULD BE BETTER ABLE TO

• Analyze and compare the different bipolar disorder (BD) types.• Identify markers that distinguish BD types and explain how the DSM-IV defines the disorder.

ABSTRACT

Since the status of type II bipolar disorder (BD2) as a separate and distinct form of bipolar disorder (BD) remains controversial, we reviewed studies that directly compare BD2 to type I bipolar disorder (BD1). Systematic literature searching yielded 36 reports with head-to-head comparisons involving 52,631 BD1 and 37,363 BD2 patients (total N = 89,994) observed for 14.6 years, regarding 21 factors (with 12 reports/factor). BD2 subjects had significantly more additional psychiatric diagnoses, depressions/year, rapid cycling, family psychiatric history, female sex, and antidepressant treatment, but less treatment with lithium or antipsychotics, fewer hospitalizations or psychotic features, and lower unemployment rates than BD1 subjects. However, the diagnostic groups did not differ significantly in education, onset age, marital status, [hypo]manias/year, risk of suicide attempts, substance use disorders, medical comorbidities, or access to psychotherapy. Heterogeneity in reported comparisons of BD2 and BD1 limits the firmness of some observations, but study findings indicate that the BD types differ substantially by several descriptive and clinical measures and that BD2 remains diagnostically stable over many years. We conclude that BD2 requires better clinical recognition and significantly more research aimed at optimizing its treatment.

Comparison of bipolar disorder type II and major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE

Compare patients diagnosed as DSM-5 type II bipolar disorder (BD2) vs. major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

We compared characteristics of 3246 closely and repeatedly evaluated, consenting, adult patient-subjects (n = 706 BD2, 2540 MDD) at a specialty clinic using bivariate methods and multivariable modeling.

RESULTS

Factors more associated with BD2 than MDD included: [a] descriptors (more familial psychiatric, mood and bipolar disorders and suicide; younger at onset, diagnosis and first-treatment; more education; more unemployment; fewer marriages and children; higher cyclothymic, hyperthymic and irritable temperament ratings, lower anxious); [b] morbidity (more hypomanic, mixed or panic first episodes; more co-occurring general medical diagnoses, more Cluster B personality disorder diagnoses and ADHD; more alcohol and drug abuse and smoking; shorter depressive episodes and interepisode periods; lower intake ratings of depression and anxiety, higher for hypomania; far more mood-switching with antidepressants; lower %-time depressed; DMI > MDI course-pattern in BD2; more suicide attempts and violent suicidal behavior); [c] item-scores with intake HDRS₂₁ higher for suicidality, paranoia, anhedonia, guilt, and circadian variation; lower somatic anxiety, depressed mood, insight, hypochondriasis, agitation, and insomnia; and [d] treatment (more lithium, mood-stabilizing anticonvulsants and antipsychotics, less antidepressants and benzodiazepines).

CONCLUSIONS

BD2 and MDD subjects differed greatly in many descriptive, psychopathological and treatment measures, notably including more familial risk, earlier onset, more frequent recurrences and greater suicidal risk with BD2. Such differences can contribute to improving differentiation of the disorders and planning for their treatment.

Differences between bipolar disorder types 1 and 2 support the DSM two-syndrome concept

Objective

To compare characteristics of bipolar disorder patients diagnosed as DSM-5 types I (BD-1) vs. II (BD-2).

Methods

We compared descriptive, psychopathological, and treatment characteristics in a sample of 1377 consenting, closely and repeatedly evaluated adult BD patient-subjects from a specialty clinic, using bivariate methods and logistic multivariable modeling.

Results

Factors found more among BD-2 > BD-1 cases included: [a] descriptors (more familial affective disorder, older at onset, diagnosis and first-treatment, more education, employment and higher socioeconomic status, more marriage and children, and less obesity); [b] morbidity (more general medical diagnoses, less drug abuse and smoking, more initial depression and less [hypo]mania or psychosis, longer episodes, higher intake depression and anxiety ratings, less mood-switching with antidepressants, less seasonal mood-change, greater %-time depressed and less [hypo]manic, fewer hospitalizations, more depression-predominant polarity, DMI > MDI course-pattern, and less violent suicidal behavior); [c] specific item-scores with initial HDRS₂₁ (higher scores for depression, guilt, suicidality, insomnia, anxiety, agitation, gastrointestinal symptoms, hypochondriasis and weight-loss, with less psychomotor retardation, depersonalization, or paranoia); and [d] treatment (less use of lithium or antipsychotics, more antidepressant and benzodiazepine treatment).

Conclusions

BD-2 was characterized by more prominent and longer depressions with some hypomania and mixed-features but not mania and rarely psychosis. BD-2 subjects had higher socioeconomic and functional status but also high levels of long-term morbidity and suicidal risk. Accordingly, BD-2 is dissimilar to, but not necessarily less severe than BD-1, consistent with being distinct syndromes.

Positive and Negative Activation in the Mood Disorder Questionnaire: Associations With Psychopathology and Emotion Dysregulation in a Clinical Sample

The Mood Disorder Questionnaire is a screening measure for bipolar disorder, previously found to comprise separate Positive and Negative Activation subscales. We sought to replicate these factors and examine their associations with a range of psychopathology. To further explicate the nature of Negative Activation, we examined associations with the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, a measure of emotion dysregulation. The sample consisted of 1,787 participants from an outpatient treatment facility. Confirmatory factor analysis replicated the existence of Positive and Negative Activation subscales. Logistic regressions, as hypothesized, found that Positive Activation was positively associated only with bipolar disorder, while Negative Activation was associated with almost all disorders. The Impulse and Goals subscales of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale were uniquely associated with Negative Activation, suggesting it may specifically assess impulsive behavior in emotional situations. The findings suggest that it may be important to attend to both Mood Disorder Questionnaire subscales.

Modelling mood disorders: An ACE solution?

OBJECTIVES

The treatment of mood disorders remains sub-optimal. A major reason for this is our lack of understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of depression and bipolar disorder. A core problem is the lack of specificity of our current diagnoses. This paper discusses the history of this problem and posits a solution in the form of a more sophisticated model.

METHOD

The authors review the notable historical works that laid the foundations of mood disorder nosology; discuss the more recent influences that shaped modern diagnoses; and examine the evidence that mood disorders are characterised by multidimensional and longitudinal symptom profiles.

RESULTS

The ACE model considers mood disorders as a combination of symptoms across three domains: Activity, Cognition, and Emotion; that vary over time. This multidimensional and longitudinal perspective is consistent with the prevalence of complex clinical presentations, such as mixed states, and highlights the importance of recurrence in mood disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACE model encourages researchers to characterise patients from a number of equally important perspectives and, by doing so, add specificity to the treatment of mood disorders.

Advanced Practice Registered Nurses: Gateway to Screening for Bipolar Disorder in Primary Care

Objective:

The goal of this mixed methods descriptive study was to explore Advanced Practice Registered Nurses’ (APRNs’) knowledge of bipolar disorder (BPD) and their perceptions of facilitators and barriers to screening patients with known depression for BPD.

Methods:

A mixed method study design using surveys on BPD knowledge and screening practices as well as focus group data collection method for facilitators and barriers to screening.

Results:

89 APRNs completed the survey and 12 APRNs participated in the focus groups. APRNs in any practice setting had low knowledge scores of BPD. No significant differences in screening for BPD for primary and non primary care APRNs. Qualitative findings revealed screening relates to tool availability; time, unsure of when to screen, fear of sigma, symptoms knowledge of BPD, accessible referral system, personal experiences with BPD, and therapeutic relationships with patients.

Conclusion:

Misdiagnosis of BPD as unipolar depression is common in primary care settings, leading to a long lag time to optimal diagnosis and treatment. The wait time to diagnosis and treatment could be reduced if APRNs in primary care settings screen patients with a diagnosis of depression by using validated screening tools. These results can inform APRN practice and further research on the effectiveness of screening for reducing the morbidity and mortality of BPDs in primary care settings; underscores the need for integration of mental health care into primary care as well as the need for more APRN education on the diagnosis and management of bipolar disorders.

Diagnostic Issues and Controversies in DSM-5: Return of the False Positives Problem

The fifth revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) was the most controversial in the manual's history. This review selectively surveys some of the most important changes in DSM-5, including structural/organizational changes, modifications of diagnostic criteria, and newly introduced categories. It analyzes why these changes led to such heated controversies, which included objections to the revision's process, its goals, and the content of altered criteria and new categories. The central focus is on disputes concerning the false positives problem of setting a valid boundary between disorder and normal variation. Finally, this review highlights key problems and issues that currently remain unresolved and need to be addressed in the future, including systematically identifying false positive weaknesses in criteria, distinguishing risk from disorder, including context in diagnostic criteria, clarifying how to handle fuzzy boundaries, and improving the guidelines for "other specified" diagnosis.

Prevalence of fibromyalgia and co-morbid bipolar disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic disorder with high morbidity and significant health service utilization costs. Few studies have reported on the phenotypic overlap of FM and bipolar disorder (BD). The aim of this review is to qualitatively and quantitatively summarize the results and clinical implications of the extant literature on the co-occurrence of FM and BD.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Embase was conducted to search for relevant articles. Articles were included if incidence and/or prevalence of BD was determined in the FM sample. Results of prevalence were pooled from all studies. Pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated based on case-control studies using standard meta-analytic methods.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies were included. The pooled rate of BD comorbidity in samples of FM patients was 21% (n=678); however, results varied greatly as a function of study methodology. Case-controlled studies revealed a pooled OR of 7.55 of BD co-morbidity in samples of FM patients [95% Confidence Interval (CI)=3.9-14.62, FM n=268, controls n=413] with low heterogeneity (I(2)=0%).

LIMITATIONS

The current study was limited by the low number of available studies and heterogeneity of study methods and results.

CONCLUSIONS

These data strongly suggest an association between BD and FM. Future studies employing a validated diagnostic screen are needed in order to more accurately determine the prevalence of BD in FM. An adequate psychiatric assessment is recommended in FM patients with suspected symptoms consistent with BD prior to administration of antidepressants in the treatment of FM.

DSM-5 reviewed from different angles: goal attainment, rationality, use of evidence, consequences—part 2: bipolar disorders, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorders, trauma- and stressor-related disorders, personality disorders, substance-related and addictive disorders, neurocognitive disorders

Part 1 of this paper discussed several more general aspects of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and offered a detailed, paradigmatic analysis of changes made to the chapter on depressive disorders. This second part focusses on several other disorders, including bipolar and schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The respective changes and their possible consequences are discussed under consideration of traditional psychiatric classification, particularly from the perspective of European traditions and on the basis of a PubMed search and review papers. The general conclusion is that even seemingly small changes such as the introduction of the mixed feature specifier can have far-reaching consequences. Contrary to the original plans, DSM-5 has not radically changed to become a primarily dimensional diagnostic system but has preserved the categorical system for most disorders. The ambivalence of the respective decision-making becomes apparent from the last minute decision to change the classification of personality disorders from dimensional back to categorical. The advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches are discussed in this context. In DSM-5, only the chapter on addictive disorders has a somewhat dimensional structure. Also in contrast to the original intentions, DSM-5 has not used a more neurobiological approach to disorders by including biological markers to increase the objectivity of psychiatric diagnoses. Even in the most advanced field in terms of biomarkers, the neurocognitive disorders, the primarily symptom-based, descriptive approach has been preserved and the well-known amyloid-related and other biomarkers are not included. This is because, even after so many years of biomarker research, the results are still not considered to be robust enough to use in clinical practice.

[Bipolar disorders in DSM-5]

BACKGROUND

In spring 2013 the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) edited by the American Psychiatric Association was published. The DSM-5 has also brought some important changes regarding bipolar disorders.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this manuscript is to review the novelties in DSM-5 and to evaluate the implications of these changes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The diagnostic criteria as well as the additional remarks provided in the running text of DSM-5 were carefully appraised.

RESULTS

For the first time diagnostic criteria are provided for disorders which up to now have been considered as subthreshold bipolar disorders. Furthermore, mixed episodes were eliminated and instead a mixed specifier was introduced. An increase in goal-directed activity/energy is now one of the obligatory symptoms for a (hypo)manic episode. Diagnostic guidance is provided as to when a (hypo)manic episode that has developed during treatment with an antidepressant has to be judged to be causally related to antidepressants and when this episode has only occurred coincidentally with antidepressant use.

CONCLUSIONS

While some of the novelties are clearly useful, e.g. addition of increased goal-directed activity/energy as obligatory symptom for (hypo)manic episodes, this remains to be demonstrated for others, such as the definition of various subthreshold bipolar disorders.