Matsunaga Hisato, Maebayashi Kensei, Kiriike Nobuo
Department of Neuropsychiatry, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine.
Seishin Shinkeigaku Zasshi. 2008;110(3):161-74.
Recently, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is often conceptualized as a heterogeneous disorder. To verify and more fully understand this OCD heterogeneity, more homogeneous and potentially valid phenotypic methods are needed. If OCD subtypes can be characterized using distinct features of psychobiology, then this would account for the variance in clinical and neurobiological studies on biological markers, and would potentially impact on treatment strategies for each patient. Most of the work on OCD subtypes has taken a categorical approach. For instance, it has been suggested that some forms of OCD are etiologically related to tic disorders, and OCD with comorbid tics has been characterized by specific phenomenological, genetic, and neuro-imaging features and a differential treatment response. There have been other attempts to subdivide OCD categorically based on predominant compulsions (e.g., cleaning or checking), age at onset (e.g., early-or late-onset), gender, impulsive features, comorbidity, or insight. The dimensional approach regards OCD as being composed of sets of obsessive-compulsive symptom dimensions. In recent studies, factor analyses have provided consistent evidence that distinct obsessive-compulsive symptom dimensions exist, including obsessions/ checking, contamination/washing, symmetry/ordering, and hoarding. It has been hypothesized that each symptom dimension may be underpinned by a distinctive set of bio-behavioral mechanisms. Indeed, neuroimaging studies have suggested particular neural correlates for different symptom dimensions, and some genetic and family studies are also consistent with such a hypothesis. Further, symptom dimensions may predict treatment responses; for example, a higher hoarding dimension level has consistently been associated with a poorer treatment response to selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors and cognitive-behavioral therapy. However, the dimensional structure of OCD symptoms is still not definitive, and the further standardization of methodological and analytic processes is also required. Thus, the relevance and limitations of each approach still remain to be discussed, and there is probably not one but several heuristic strategies that can be employed to identify more homogeneous OCD subtypes, which, when combined, may be, the most reasonable and useful method.
最近,强迫症(OCD)常被视为一种异质性疾病。为了验证并更全面地理解这种强迫症的异质性,需要更具同质性且可能有效的表型方法。如果强迫症亚型能够通过心理生物学的不同特征来表征,那么这将解释生物标志物临床和神经生物学研究中的差异,并可能影响每位患者的治疗策略。关于强迫症亚型的大多数研究采用了分类法。例如,有人提出某些形式的强迫症在病因上与抽动障碍有关,伴有共病抽动的强迫症具有特定的现象学、遗传学和神经影像学特征以及不同的治疗反应。还有其他一些尝试根据主要的强迫行为(如清洁或检查)、发病年龄(如早发或晚发)、性别、冲动特征、共病情况或自知力对强迫症进行分类。维度法认为强迫症由一系列强迫症状维度组成。在最近的研究中,因子分析提供了一致的证据,表明存在不同的强迫症状维度,包括强迫观念/检查、污染/清洗、对称/排序和囤积。据推测,每个症状维度可能由一组独特的生物行为机制支撑。事实上,神经影像学研究已经表明不同症状维度有特定的神经关联,一些遗传学和家族研究也与这一假设一致。此外,症状维度可能预测治疗反应;例如,较高的囤积维度水平一直与对选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂和认知行为疗法的较差治疗反应相关。然而,强迫症症状的维度结构仍不明确,方法和分析过程的进一步标准化也很有必要。因此,每种方法的相关性和局限性仍有待探讨,可能不是只有一种而是有几种启发式策略可用于识别更具同质性的强迫症亚型,将这些策略结合起来可能是最合理、最有用的方法。