Duffy Anne, Malhi Gin S, Grof Paul
1 Department of Psychiatry, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
2 Mood Disorders Centre of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Can J Psychiatry. 2017 Feb;62(2):115-122. doi: 10.1177/0706743716649189. Epub 2016 Jul 9.
The purpose of this study is to address the question of whether a universal staging model of severe psychiatric disorders is a viable direction for future research by examining the extant literature.
A narrative review was conducted of the relevant historical, conceptual, and empirical literature pertaining to the clinical trajectory of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and issues relevant to staging.
There is substantive evidence that classic recurrent bipolar disorder is separable from schizophrenia on the basis of family history, developmental and clinical course, treatment response, and neurobiological findings. However, because of the intrinsic heterogeneity of diagnostic categories that has been amplified by recent changes in psychiatric taxonomy, key distinctions between the groups have become obfuscated. While mapping risk and illness markers to emerging psychopathology is a logical approach and may be of value for some psychiatric disorders and/or their clinical subtypes, robust evidence supporting identifiable stages per se is still lacking. Presently, even rudimentary stages such as prodromes cannot be meaningfully applied across different disorders and no commonalities can be found for the basis of universal staging.
Advances in the prediction of risk, accurate early illness detection, and tailored intervention will require mapping biomarkers and other risk indicators to reliable clinical phases of illness progression. Given the capricious nature of mood and psychotic disorders, this task is likely to yield success only if conducted in narrowly defined subgroups of individuals at high risk for specific illnesses. This approach is diametrically opposite to that being promulgated by proponents of a universal staging model.
本研究旨在通过审视现有文献,探讨严重精神障碍的通用分期模型是否是未来研究的一个可行方向。
对与双相情感障碍和精神分裂症的临床病程以及与分期相关问题的历史、概念和实证文献进行叙述性综述。
有大量证据表明,经典复发性双相情感障碍在家族史、发育和临床病程、治疗反应及神经生物学发现方面可与精神分裂症区分开来。然而,由于精神科分类法近期的变化放大了诊断类别的内在异质性,两组之间的关键差异变得模糊不清。虽然将风险和疾病标志物映射到新出现的精神病理学是一种合理的方法,可能对某些精神障碍和/或其临床亚型有价值,但仍缺乏支持可识别阶段本身的有力证据。目前,即使是像前驱期这样的基本阶段也无法在不同障碍中得到有意义的应用,且找不到通用分期的共同基础。
在风险预测、准确的早期疾病检测和针对性干预方面取得进展,将需要把生物标志物和其他风险指标映射到疾病进展的可靠临床阶段。鉴于情绪和精神障碍的多变性质,只有在针对特定疾病的高风险个体的狭义亚组中进行这项任务,才可能取得成功。这种方法与通用分期模型支持者所倡导的方法截然相反。