Judd Lewis L, Schettler Pamela J, Akiskal Hagop S, Maser Jack, Coryell William, Solomon David, Endicott Jean, Keller Martin
National Institute of Mental Health Collaborative Program on the Psychobiology of Depression Clinical Studies, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2003 Jun;6(2):127-37. doi: 10.1017/S1461145703003341.
Weekly affective symptom severity and polarity were compared in 135 bipolar I (BP I) and 71 bipolar II (BP II) patients during up to 20 yr of prospective symptomatic follow-up. The course of BP I and BP II was chronic; patients were symptomatic approximately half of all follow-up weeks (BP I 46.6% and BP II 55.8% of weeks). Most bipolar disorder research has concentrated on episodes of MDD and mania and yet minor and subsyndromal symptoms are three times more common during the long-term course. Weeks with depressive symptoms predominated over manichypomanic symptoms in both disorders (31) in BP I and BP II at 371 in a largely depressive course (depressive symptoms=59.1% of weeks vs. hypomanic=1.9% of weeks). BP I patients had more weeks of cyclingmixed polarity, hypomanic and subsyndromal hypomanic symptoms. Weekly symptom severity and polarity fluctuated frequently within the same bipolar patient, in which the longitudinal symptomatic expression of BP I and BP II is dimensional in nature involving all levels of affective symptom severity of mania and depression. Although BP I is more severe, BP II with its intensely chronic depressive features is not simply the lesser of the bipolar disorders; it is also a serious illness, more so than previously thought (for instance, as described in DSM-IV and ICP-10). It is likely that this conventional view is the reason why BP II patients were prescribed pharmacological treatments significantly less often when acutely symptomatic and during intervals between episodes. Taken together with previous research by us on the long-term structure of unipolar depression, we submit that the thrust of our work during the past decade supports classic notions of a broader affective disorder spectrum, bringing bipolarity and recurrent unipolarity closer together. However the genetic variation underlying such a putative spectrum remains to be clarified.
在135例双相I型(BP I)和71例双相II型(BP II)患者中,对长达20年的前瞻性症状随访期间的每周情感症状严重程度和极性进行了比较。BP I和BP II的病程是慢性的;患者在所有随访周中约有一半出现症状(BP I为46.6%,BP II为55.8%)。大多数双相情感障碍研究都集中在重度抑郁发作和躁狂发作上,然而在长期病程中,轻微和亚综合征症状的出现频率是前者的三倍。在这两种疾病中,抑郁症状持续的周数都超过了轻躁狂症状(BP I中为31周,BP II中为371周),呈现出以抑郁为主的病程(抑郁症状占59.1%,轻躁狂症状占1.9%)。BP I患者出现循环性混合极性、轻躁狂和亚综合征轻躁狂症状的周数更多。在同一双相情感障碍患者中,每周症状严重程度和极性经常波动,其中BP I和BP II的纵向症状表现本质上是维度性的,涉及躁狂和抑郁情感症状严重程度的所有水平。虽然BP I更严重,但具有强烈慢性抑郁特征的BP II并非简单地是较轻的双相情感障碍;它也是一种严重疾病,比之前认为的更严重(例如,如《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版和《国际疾病分类》第十版中所述)。很可能正是这种传统观点导致BP II患者在急性症状发作时和发作间期接受药物治疗的频率明显更低。结合我们之前关于单相抑郁长期结构的研究,我们认为过去十年我们工作的重点支持了更广泛情感障碍谱的经典概念,使双相性和复发性单相性更紧密地联系在一起。然而,这种假定谱背后的基因变异仍有待阐明。