Department of Psychiatry, Seoul Paik Hospital, Inje University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Department of Psychiatry, Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University School of Medicine, Goyang, South Korea.
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2016 Sep;134(3):189-98. doi: 10.1111/acps.12563. Epub 2016 Mar 14.
Assess strengths and limitations of mixed bipolar depression definitions made more inclusive than that of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM-5) by requiring fewer than three 'non-overlapping' mood elevation symptoms (NOMES).
Among bipolar disorder (BD) out-patients assessed with Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for BD (STEP-BD) Affective Disorders Evaluation, we assessed prevalence, demographics, and clinical correlates of mixed vs. pure depression, using less inclusive (≥3 NOMES, DSM-5), more inclusive (≥2 NOMES), and most inclusive (≥1 NOMES) definitions.
Among 153 depressed BD, compared to less inclusive DSM-5 threshold, our more and most inclusive thresholds, yielded approximately two- and five-fold higher mixed depression rates (7.2%, 15.0%, and 34.6% respectively), and important statistically significant clinical correlates for mixed compared to pure depression (e.g. more lifetime anxiety disorder comorbidity, more current irritability), which were not significant using the DSM-5 threshold.
Further studies assessing strengths and limitations of more inclusive mixed depression definitions are warranted, including assessing the extent to which enhanced statistical power vs. other factors contributes to more vs. less inclusive mixed bipolar depression thresholds having more statistically significant clinical correlates, and whether 'overlapping' mood elevation symptoms should be counted.
评估比《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》第五版(DSM-5)更具包容性的混合双相抑郁定义的优势和局限性,这些定义要求少于三个“不重叠”的情绪升高症状(NOMES)。
在接受《双相情感障碍系统治疗增强计划》(STEP-BD)情感障碍评估的双相障碍(BD)门诊患者中,我们使用不太包容(≥3 NOMES,DSM-5)、更包容(≥2 NOMES)和最包容(≥1 NOMES)的定义,评估混合与单纯抑郁的患病率、人口统计学和临床相关性。
在 153 名抑郁的 BD 患者中,与不太包容的 DSM-5 阈值相比,我们的更具包容性和最具包容性的阈值分别导致混合抑郁率增加了约两倍和五倍(分别为 7.2%、15.0%和 34.6%),以及与单纯抑郁相比具有重要统计学意义的临床相关性(例如,更多的终生焦虑障碍共病,更多的当前易激惹),而使用 DSM-5 阈值则不具有统计学意义。
需要进一步研究更具包容性的混合抑郁定义的优势和局限性,包括评估增强的统计效力与其他因素对更具包容性和不太具包容性的混合双相抑郁阈值具有更显著的临床相关性的程度,以及是否应计入“重叠”的情绪升高症状。