Mondimore Francis M, Zandi Peter P, MacKinnon Dean F, McInnis Melvin G, Miller Erin B, Schweizer Barbara, Crowe Raymond P, Scheftner William A, Weissman Myrna M, Levinson Douglas F, DePaulo J Raymond, Potash James B
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
J Affect Disord. 2007 Jun;100(1-3):171-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2006.10.011. Epub 2006 Nov 28.
The study of chronicity in the course of major depression has been complicated by varying definitions of this illness feature. Because familial clustering is one component of diagnostic validity we compared family clustering of chronicity as defined in the DSM-IV to that of chronicity determined by an assessment of lifetime course of depressive illness.
In 1750 affected subjects from 652 families recruited for a genetic study of recurrent, early-onset depression, we applied several definitions of chronicity. Odds ratios were determined for the likelihood of chronicity in a proband predicting chronicity in an affected relative.
There was greater family clustering of chronicity as determined by assessment of lifetime course (OR=2.54) than by DSM-IV defined chronic major depressive episode (MDE) (OR=1.93) or dysthymic disorder (OR=1.76). In families with probands who had preadolescent onset of MDD, familiality was increased by all definitions, with a much larger increase observed for chronicity by lifetime course (ORs were 6.14 for lifetime chronicity, 2.43 for chronic MDE, and 3.42 for comorbid dysthymic disorder). Agreement between these definitions of chronicity was only fair.
The data used to determine chronicity were collected retrospectively and not blindly to relatives' status, and assessment of lifetime course was based on global clinical impressions gathered during a semi-structured diagnostic interview. Also, it can be difficult to determine whether individuals with recurrent major depressive episodes who frequently experience long periods of low grade depressive symptoms meet the strict timing requirements of DSM-IV dysthymic disorder.
An assessment of lifetime symptom course identifies a more familial, and thus possibly a more valid, type of chronic depression than the current DSM-IV categories which are defined in terms of particular cross-sectional features of illness.
重度抑郁症病程中慢性化的研究因对该疾病特征的不同定义而变得复杂。由于家族聚集性是诊断效度的一个组成部分,我们将《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版(DSM-IV)中定义的慢性化家族聚集性与通过评估抑郁疾病终生病程所确定的慢性化家族聚集性进行了比较。
在为复发性早发性抑郁症的基因研究招募的652个家庭的1750名受影响受试者中,我们应用了几种慢性化的定义。确定了先证者慢性化的可能性预测受影响亲属慢性化的比值比。
通过评估终生病程确定的慢性化家族聚集性(比值比=2.54)高于DSM-IV定义的慢性重度抑郁发作(MDE)(比值比=1.93)或恶劣心境障碍(比值比=1.76)。在先证者为青春期前起病的重度抑郁症的家庭中,所有定义下的家族性均增加,通过终生病程确定的慢性化增加幅度更大(终生慢性化的比值比为6.14,慢性MDE为2.43,共病恶劣心境障碍为3.42)。这些慢性化定义之间的一致性仅为一般。
用于确定慢性化的数据是回顾性收集的,且并非对亲属状况不知情,终生病程的评估基于在半结构化诊断访谈期间收集的总体临床印象。此外,对于经常经历长时间轻度抑郁症状的复发性重度抑郁发作个体,可能难以确定其是否符合DSM-IV恶劣心境障碍的严格时间要求。
与目前根据疾病特定横断面特征定义的DSM-IV类别相比,对终生症状病程的评估识别出一种家族性更强、因而可能更有效的慢性抑郁症类型。