Center of Alcohol Studies, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 607 Allison Road, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854-8001, USA.
J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2011 Jan;72(1):151-7. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2011.72.151.
The current study examined the distinction between primary and secondary depression among substance use patients to test whether the primary depressed subgroup presents to treatment with a unique profile of clinical and vulnerability characteristics.
The heterogeneous sample comprised 286 individuals (76% male) with alcohol and/or drug abuse or dependence (according to criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, Revised) across four treatment outcome studies conducted at the alcohol research center at the Rutgers University Center of Alcohol Studies. Participants were classified as having comorbid lifetime history of primary depression (21%), secondary depression (24%), or no depression (55%).
Participants in the primary depression and secondary depression groups were comparable in severity of substance use, and both of these groups had more severe substance use problems than the no-depression group. The primary depression group presented with more severe depression histories, higher levels of current depressive symptoms, and higher rates of additional Axis I comorbidity at treatment entry. In terms of vulnerability indices, the primary depression subgroup had a uniquely high family history risk for major depressive disorder; underlying personality vulnerability to depression was also evident in the primary depression group, with higher neuroticism and lower extraversion relative to secondary depression patients.
The findings suggest that careful assessment of lifetime depression symptoms vis-à-vis substance use history and severity yields important information identifying the primary depression subtype of substance use patients as a group with a unique and more severely affected clinical presentation of depression and other Axis I psychopathology relative to secondary depression patients. Effectiveness of substance use interventions may be augmented with depression treatment for primary depression patients, given their more severe clinical presentation and vulnerability characteristics.
本研究旨在对物质使用患者的原发性和继发性抑郁进行区分,以检验原发性抑郁亚组在接受治疗时是否具有独特的临床和脆弱性特征。
该异质样本包括来自罗格斯大学酒精研究中心酒精研究中心的四项治疗结果研究中的 286 名个体(76%为男性),这些个体均存在酒精和/或药物滥用或依赖(根据《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》第三版修订版的标准)。参与者被分为伴发终身原发性抑郁症史(21%)、继发性抑郁症史(24%)或无抑郁症史(55%)。
原发性抑郁组和继发性抑郁组的物质使用严重程度相当,且这两组的物质使用问题比无抑郁组更严重。原发性抑郁组在治疗开始时具有更严重的抑郁史、更高的当前抑郁症状水平和更高的附加轴 I 共病率。在易感性指标方面,原发性抑郁亚组具有独特的家族史发生重度抑郁障碍的风险;原发性抑郁组也表现出潜在的对抑郁的人格脆弱性,其神经质水平高于继发性抑郁患者,外向性水平低于继发性抑郁患者。
这些发现表明,对物质使用史和严重程度的终生抑郁症状进行仔细评估,可以提供重要信息,从而将物质使用患者的原发性抑郁亚组识别为一组具有独特的、更严重的抑郁表现和其他轴 I 精神病理学的患者,与继发性抑郁患者相比。鉴于原发性抑郁患者更严重的临床表现和脆弱性特征,对原发性抑郁患者进行抑郁症治疗可能会提高物质使用干预的效果。