Suppr超能文献

情感气质和精神病理特征对双相障碍亚型定义的影响:对意大利全国双相 I 样本的研究。

The influence of affective temperaments and psychopathological traits on the definition of bipolar disorder subtypes: a study on bipolar I Italian national sample.

机构信息

Department of Psychiatry, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; Institute of Behavioural Sciences, "G. De Lisio", Pisa, Italy.

Department of Psychiatry, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; Institute of Behavioural Sciences, "G. De Lisio", Pisa, Italy.

出版信息

J Affect Disord. 2012 Jan;136(1-2):e41-e49. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2009.12.027. Epub 2010 Feb 2.

Abstract

UNLABELLED

Affective temperament and psychopathological traits such as separation anxiety (SA) and interpersonal sensitivity (IPS) are supposed to impact on the clinical manifestation and on the course of Bipolar Disorder (BD); in the present study we investigated their influence on the definition of BD subtypes.

METHOD

: Among 106 BD-I patients with DSM-IV depressive, manic or mixed episode included in a multi-centric Italian study and treated according to the routine clinical practice, 89 (84.0%) were in remission after a follow-up period ranging from 3 to 6 months (Clinical Global Impression-BP [CGI-BP] <2). Remitting patients underwent a comprehensive evaluation including self-report questionnaires such as the Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris and San Diego (TEMPS-A) scale, Separation Anxiety Symptom Inventory (SASI), Interpersonal Sensitivity Measure (IPSM) and the Semi-structured interview for Mood Disorder (SIMD-R) administered by experienced clinicians. Correlation and factorial analyses were conducted on temperamental and psychopathological measures. Comparative analyses were conducted on different temperamental subtypes based on the TEMPS-A, SASI and IPSM profile.

RESULTS

: Depressive, cyclothymic and irritable TEMPS-A score and SASI and IPSM total scores were positively and statistically correlated with each other. On the contrary, hyperthymic temperament score was negatively correlated with depressive temperament and not significantly correlated with the other temperamental and psychopathological dimensions. The factorial analysis of the TEMPS-A subscales and SASI and IPSM total scores allowed the extraction of 2 factors: the cyclothymic-sensitive (explaining 46% of the variance) that included, as positive components, depressive, cyclothymic, irritable temperaments and SASI and IPSM scores; the hyperthymic (explaining the 19% of the variance) included hyperthymic temperament as the only positive component and depressive temperament and IPSM, as negative components. Dominant cyclothymic-sensitive patients (n=49) were more frequently females and reported higher number of depressive, hypomanic and suicide attempts when compared to the dominant hyperthymic patients (n=40). On the contrary, these latter showed a higher number of manic episodes and hospitalizations than cyclothymic-sensitive patients. The rates of first-degree family history for both mood and anxiety disorders were higher in cyclothymic-sensitive than in hyperthymic patients. Cyclothymic sensitive patients also reported more axis I lifetime co-morbidities with Panic Disorder/Agoraphobia and Social Anxiety Disorder in comparison with hyperthymics. As concerns axis II co-morbidity the cyclothymic-sensitive patients met more frequently DSM-IV criteria 1, 5 and 7 for borderline personality disorder than the hyperthymics. On the contrary, antisocial personality disorder was more represented among hyperthymic than cyclothymic patients, in particular for DSM-IV criteria 1 and 6.

LIMITATION

: No blind evaluation and uncertain validity of personality inventory.

CONCLUSION

: Our results support the view that affective temperaments influence the clinical features of BD in terms of both clinical and course characteristics, family history and axis I and II co-morbidities. Hypothetical temperamental subtypes as measured by TEMPS-A presented important interrelationships that permit to reliably isolate two fundamental temperamental disposition: the first characterized by rapid fluctuations of mood and emotional instability, and the second by hyperactivity, high level of energy and emotional intensity. Dominant cyclothymic and hyperthymic bipolar I patients reported important differences in terms of gender distribution, number and polarity of previous episodes, hospitalizations, suicidality, rates of co-morbid anxiety and personality traits and disorders. Our data are consistent with the hypothesis that affective temperaments, and in particular cyclothymia, could be utilized as quantitative, intermediate phenotypes in order to identify BD susceptibility genes.

摘要

未注明

情感气质和心理病理特征,如分离焦虑(SA)和人际敏感(IPS),据推测会影响双相情感障碍(BD)的临床表现和病程;在本研究中,我们调查了它们对 BD 亚型定义的影响。

方法

在一项多中心意大利研究中,包括 106 名符合 DSM-IV 抑郁、躁狂或混合发作的 BD-I 患者,根据常规临床实践进行治疗,在随访 3 至 6 个月后(临床总体印象-BP [CGI-BP] <2),89 名患者缓解。缓解的患者接受了全面评估,包括自我报告问卷,如孟菲斯、比萨、巴黎和圣地亚哥的气质评估(TEMPS-A)量表、分离焦虑症状量表(SASI)、人际敏感量表(IPSM)和经验丰富的临床医生进行的心境障碍半结构式访谈(SIMD-R)。对气质和心理病理测量进行了相关和因子分析。基于 TEMPS-A、SASI 和 IPSM 特征对不同气质亚型进行了比较分析。

结果

抑郁、环性和易激惹 TEMPS-A 评分以及 SASI 和 IPSM 总分彼此呈正相关且具有统计学意义。相反,高活力气质评分与抑郁气质呈负相关,与其他气质和心理病理维度无显著相关性。TEMPS-A 子量表和 SASI 及 IPSM 总分的因子分析允许提取 2 个因子:环性敏感(解释 46%的方差),包括作为阳性成分的抑郁、环性、易激惹气质以及 SASI 和 IPSM 评分;高活力(解释 19%的方差),包括高活力气质作为唯一的阳性成分和抑郁气质以及 IPSM,作为阴性成分。占主导地位的环性敏感患者(n=49)中女性较多,与占主导地位的高活力患者(n=40)相比,他们报告的抑郁、轻躁狂和自杀企图次数更多。相反,这些患者的躁狂发作和住院次数比环性敏感患者多。环性敏感患者的心境和焦虑障碍一级家族史发生率高于高活力患者。与高活力患者相比,环性敏感患者还报告了更多的轴 I 终生共病,包括惊恐障碍/广场恐怖症和社交焦虑障碍。就轴 II 共病而言,环性敏感患者符合 DSM-IV 标准 1、5 和 7 的边缘型人格障碍比高活力患者更常见。相反,反社会人格障碍在高活力患者中比环性敏感患者更为常见,特别是在 DSM-IV 标准 1 和 6 中。

局限性

无盲法评估和人格量表的有效性不确定。

结论

我们的结果支持这样一种观点,即情感气质影响 BD 的临床特征,包括临床和病程特征、家族史以及轴 I 和 II 共病。TEMPS-A 测量的假设气质亚型具有重要的相互关系,可可靠地分离两种基本的气质倾向:第一种特征是情绪和情绪不稳定的快速波动,第二种特征是高活力、高能量和情绪强度。占主导地位的环性和高活力双相 I 型患者在性别分布、以前发作的次数和极性、住院、自杀意念、焦虑和人格特质及障碍的共病率方面存在重要差异。我们的数据与情感气质,特别是环性,可作为定量、中间表型的假设一致,以识别 BD 的易感基因。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验