Besiroglu Lutfullah, Uguz Faruk, Ozbebit Ozgur, Guler Ozkan, Cilli Ali Savas, Askin Rustem
Yüzüncü Yil University, School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Van, Turkey.
Depress Anxiety. 2007;24(7):461-6. doi: 10.1002/da.20240.
Although it has been postulated that symptom subtypes are potential predictors of treatment response, few data exist on the longitudinal course of symptom and subtype categories in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Putative subtypes of OCD have gradually gained more recognition, but as yet there is no generally accepted subtype discrimination. Subtypes, it has been suggested, could perhaps be discriminated based on autogenous versus reactive obsessions stemming from different cognitive processes. In this study, our aim was to assess whether symptom and subtype categories change over time. Using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Symptom Checklist (Y-BOCS-SC), we assessed 109 patients who met DSM-IV criteria for OCD to establish baseline values, then reassessed 91 (83%) of the initial group after 36+/-8.2 months. Upon reassessment, we found significant changes from baseline within aggressive, contamination, religious, symmetry and miscellaneous obsessions and within checking, washing, repeating, counting and ordering compulsion categories. Sexual, hoarding, and somatic obsessions, and hoarding and miscellaneous compulsions, did not change significantly. In accordance with the relevant literature, we also assigned patients to one of three subtypes--autogenous, reactive, or mixed groups. Though some changes in subtype categories were found, no subtype shifts (e.g., autogenous to reactive or reactive to autogenous) were observed during the course of the study. Significantly more patients in the autogenous group did not meet OCD criteria at follow-up than did patients in the other groups. Our results suggest that the discrimination between these two types of obsession might be highly valid, because autogenous and reactive obsessions are quite different, both in the development and maintenance of their cognitive mechanisms, and in their outcome.
尽管有假设认为症状亚型是治疗反应的潜在预测指标,但关于强迫症(OCD)症状和亚型类别的纵向病程的数据却很少。OCD的假定亚型逐渐获得了更多认可,但目前尚无普遍接受的亚型区分方法。有人提出,亚型或许可以根据源自不同认知过程的自发与反应性强迫观念来区分。在本研究中,我们的目的是评估症状和亚型类别是否随时间变化。我们使用耶鲁-布朗强迫症症状清单(Y-BOCS-SC),对109名符合DSM-IV强迫症标准的患者进行评估以确定基线值,然后在36±8.2个月后对初始组中的91名(83%)患者进行重新评估。重新评估时我们发现,在攻击性、污染、宗教、对称及其他强迫观念以及检查、洗涤、重复、计数和排序强迫行为类别中,与基线相比有显著变化。性、囤积和躯体强迫观念,以及囤积和其他强迫行为,没有显著变化。根据相关文献,我们还将患者分为三种亚型之一——自发型、反应型或混合型。尽管发现亚型类别有一些变化,但在研究过程中未观察到亚型转换(例如,从自发型转换为反应型或从反应型转换为自发型)。自发型组中在随访时不符合强迫症标准的患者显著多于其他组。我们的结果表明,这两种强迫观念之间的区分可能非常有效,因为自发型和反应型强迫观念在其认知机制的发展和维持以及结果方面都有很大不同。