Improving the Recognition of Borderline Personality Disorder in a Bipolar World

Patients with borderline personality disorder and bipolar disorder: a descriptive and comparative study

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder (BPD) are each significant public health problems. It has been frequently noted that distinguishing BPD from bipolar disorder is challenging. Consequently, reviews and commentaries have focused on differential diagnosis and identifying clinical features to distinguish the two disorders. While there is a burgeoning literature comparing patients with BPD and bipolar disorder, much less research has characterized patients with both disorders. In the current report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we compare psychiatric outpatients with both BPD and bipolar disorder to patients with BPD without bipolar disorder and patients with bipolar disorder without BPD.

METHODS

Psychiatric outpatients presenting for treatment were evaluated with semi-structured interviews. The focus of the current study is the 517 patients with both BPD and bipolar disorder (n = 59), BPD without bipolar disorder (n = 330), and bipolar disorder without BPD (n = 128).

RESULTS

Compared to patients with bipolar disorder, the patients with bipolar disorder and BPD had more comorbid disorders, psychopathology in their first-degree relatives, childhood trauma, suicidality, hospitalizations, time unemployed, and likelihood of receiving disability payments. The added presence of bipolar disorder in patients with BPD was associated with more posttraumatic stress disorder in the patients as well as their family, more bipolar disorder and substance use disorders in their relatives, more childhood trauma, unemployment, disability, suicide attempts, and hospitalizations.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with both bipolar disorder and BPD have more severe psychosocial morbidity than patients with only one of these disorders.

Clinical traits of patients with major depressive disorder with comorbid borderline personality disorder based on propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) with comorbid borderline personality disorder (BPD) makes the clinical symptoms of patients more complex and more difficult to treat, so more attention should be paid to the recognition of their clinical features. This study investigated the differences between patients with MDD with and without BPD in clinical traits.

METHODS

Propensity score matching was used to analyze the retrospective patients' data from August 2012 to September 2019. Altogether, 1381 patients with MDD were enrolled; 38 patients with MDD were matched to compare demographic data, and scores on the Hamilton Depression Scale, Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS), and the frequency of nonsuicidal self-harm (NSSH).

RESULTS

Compared to patients with MDD without BPD, the age of onset of patients with MDD with comorbid BPD was significantly earlier (t = 3.25, p = .00). The scores of HAMA (t = -2.28, p = .03), SDS (t = 9.31, p = .00), MOAS (t = -13.67, p = .00), verbal aggression (t = -3.79, p = .00), aggression against objects (t = -2.84, p = .00), aggression against others (t = -6.70, p = .00), and aggression against self (t = -9.22, p = .00) were significantly higher in patients with MDD with comorbid BPD. Moreover, the frequency of NHSS in these patients was significantly higher (χ²  = 20.13, p = .00). MOAS was an independent influencing factor in these (odds ratio = 7.38, p = .00).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with BPD showed early onset and increased complaints relative to symptoms, accompanied by obvious anxiety symptoms, impulsive behavior, and NSSH. Therefore, patients with MDD with impulsive behavior have comorbid BPD.

Characterizing DSM-5 and ICD-11 personality disorder features in psychiatric inpatients at scale using electronic health records

BACKGROUND

Investigation of personality traits and pathology in large, generalizable clinical cohorts has been hindered by inconsistent assessment and failure to consider a range of personality disorders (PDs) simultaneously.

METHODS

We applied natural language processing (NLP) of electronic health record notes to characterize a psychiatric inpatient cohort. A set of terms reflecting personality trait domains were derived, expanded, and then refined based on expert consensus. Latent Dirichlet allocation was used to score notes to estimate the extent to which any given note reflected PD topics. Regression models were used to examine the relationship of these estimates with sociodemographic features and length of stay.

RESULTS

Among 3623 patients with 4702 admissions, being male, non-white, having a low burden of medical comorbidity, being admitted through the emergency department, and having public insurance were independently associated with greater levels of disinhibition, detachment, and psychoticism. Being female, white, and having private insurance were independently associated with greater levels of negative affectivity. The presence of disinhibition, psychoticism, and negative affectivity were each significantly associated with a longer stay, while detachment was associated with a shorter stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Personality features can be systematically and scalably measured using NLP in the inpatient setting, and some of these features associate with length of stay. Developing treatment strategies for patients scoring high in certain personality dimensions may facilitate more efficient, targeted interventions, and may help reduce the impact of personality features on mental health service utilization.

Barriers to care for adolescents with borderline personality disorder

Intervention for borderline personality disorder (BPD) in adolescence is crucial as early onset of the disorder predicts more severe course, and intervention 'late' in the course of the disorder is associated with more negative outcomes. In spite of this, access to services is poor. This is because several unique barriers to accessing care exist for adolescents with BPD. In this article we highlight key barriers to care for adolescents with BPD utilizing a conceptual model for understanding health care access that emphasizes the interaction between patient and health care system characteristics. We conclude with proposed recommendations to address these identified barriers.

Collaborative Deprescribing in Borderline Personality Disorder: A Narrative Review

After participating in this activity, learners should be better able to:• Assess medication management in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD)• Evaluate the role of deprescribing as an active intervention in patients with BPD treated with polypharmacy ABSTRACT: Psychopharmacology in borderline personality disorder (BPD) is complicated by comorbid disorders, substance use, sensitivity to side effects, risk of self-harm through medication misuse, and intense but transient symptoms. Patients' relationships with medications may range from tenuous to highly enmeshed, and may profoundly influence the response to treatment. For these reasons, awareness of current evidence and flexible approaches are particularly relevant to prescribing in BPD. In this narrative review, we illustrate the current status of medication management in BPD by focusing on polypharmacy. We use a single vignette to explore the limitations of prescribing multiple medications and the factors contributing to polypharmacy. With the same vignette, and using the framework of deprescribing, we describe how medication regimens can be reduced to a necessary minimum. Deprescribing, originally developed in geriatric medicine, is an active intervention that involves a risk-benefit analysis for each medication, keeping in mind the patient's medical and psychiatric status and his or her preferences and values. Deprescribing lends itself well to use in psychiatry and especially in BPD because of its emphasis on the patient's preferences and on repeated conversations to revisit and update decisions. In addition to elaborating on the deprescribing framework, we provide recommendations for conducting these critical discussions about medications in BPD, with particular attention to the patient's relationship to the medication. Finally, we summarize our recommendations and strategies for implementing flexible and responsive medication management for patients with BPD. We suggest areas of future research, including testing the efficacy of targeted intermittent medication treatments.

Association between DSM-5 and ICD-11 personality dimensional traits in a general medical cohort and readmission and mortality

BACKGROUND

Personality has long been studied as a factor associated with health outcomes. Investigations of large, generalizable clinical cohorts are limited by variations in personality diagnostic methodologies and difficulties with long-term follow-up.

METHODS

Electronic health records of a cohort of patients admitted to a general hospital were characterized using a previously developed natural language processing tool for extracting DSM-5 and ICD-11 personality domains. We used Cox regression and Fine-Gray competing risk survival to analyze the relationships between these personality estimates, sociodemographic features, and risk of readmission and mortality.

RESULTS

Among 12,274 patients, 2379 deaths occurred in the course of 61,761 patient-years at risk, with 19,985 admissions during follow-up. Detachment was the most common personality feature. Presence of disinhibition was independently associated with a higher mortality risk, while anankastic traits were associated with a lower mortality risk. Increased likelihood of readmission was predicted by detachment, while decreased likelihood of readmission was associated with disinhibition and psychoticism traits.

CONCLUSIONS

Personality features can be identified from electronic health records and are associated with readmission and mortality risk. Developing treatment strategies that target patients with higher personality symptom burden in specific dimensions could enable more efficient and focused interventions.

Beyond the Categorical Distinction Between Borderline Personality Disorder and Bipolar II Disorder Through the Identification of Personality Traits Profiles

BACKGROUND

The relationship between borderline personality disorder (BPD) and type-II bipolar disorder (BDII) is not clearly understood. Nevertheless, in clinical practice and research, most efforts focus on establishing a categorical distinction between the two. We propose using personality traits as a more informative strategy to describe them.

METHODS

Five-Factor Model personality traits were measured in 73 individuals with either BPD or BDII. Latent class cluster analysis was applied to the sample.

RESULTS

A three-cluster model resulted the best fit to the data, where all clusters had high neuroticism and low extraversion scores but differed widely on the other traits. The clusters' boundaries did not match the categorical diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our sample showed significant heterogeneity on personality traits, which can have a relevant effect on the outcome of each disorder and that was not captured by the categorical diagnosis. Thus, we advocate for a multivariate approach as a better way to understand the relationship between BPD and BDII.

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.

Differential Diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) has a wide range of symptoms and clinical features that overlap with other diagnostic categories. Diagnosis is important because different disorders respond to different forms of treatment. Differential diagnosis is particularly relevant for distinguishing BPD from bipolar spectrum disorders, requiring a careful evaluation of affective instability and hypomania. BPD may also be confused with major depression, schizophrenia, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

The International Mood Network (IMN) Nosology Project: differentiating borderline personality from bipolar illness

OBJECTIVE

The differential diagnosis of bipolar illness vs. borderline personality is controversial. Both conditions manifest impulsive behavior, unstable interpersonal relationships, and mood symptoms. This study examines whether and which mood clinical features can differentiate between both conditions.

METHOD

A total of 260 patients (mean ± standard deviation age 41 ± 13 years, 68% female) attending to a mood clinic were examined for diagnosis of bipolar illness and borderline personality disorder using SCID-I, SCID-II, and clinical mood criteria extracted from Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ). They were analyzed using diagnoses as dependent variables. Predictors of bipolar and borderline diagnoses were identified by multivariable logistic regressions, and predictive validity of models was assessed using ROC curve analysis.

RESULTS

Bipolar illness was strongly predicted by elevated mood (OR = 4.02, 95% CI: 1.80-9.15), increased goal-directed activities (OR = 3.90, 95% CI: 1.73-8.96), and episodicity of mood symptoms (OR = 3.48, 95% CI 1.49-8.39). This triad model predicted bipolar illness with 88.7% sensitivity, 81.4% specificity, and obtained an auROC of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.76-0.96) and a positive predictive value of 85.1%. For borderline personality disorder, only female gender was a statistically significant predictor (OR = 3.41, 95% CI: 1.29-13.7), and the predictive model obtained an auROC of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.53-0.74).

CONCLUSION

In a mood disorder clinic setting, manic criteria and episodic mood course distinguished bipolar illness from borderline personality disorder.