Wozniak Janet, Uchida Mai, Faraone Stephen V, Fitzgerald Maura, Vaudreuil Carrie, Carrellas Nicholas, Davis Jacqueline, Wolenski Rebecca, Biederman Joseph
Clinical and Research Program in Pediatric Psychopharmacology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Bipolar Disord. 2017 May;19(3):168-175. doi: 10.1111/bdi.12494. Epub 2017 May 22.
To examine the validity of subthreshold pediatric bipolar I disorder (BP-I), we compared the familial risk for BP-I in the child probands who had either full BP-I, subthreshold BP-I, ADHD, or were controls that neither had ADHD nor bipolar disorder.
BP-I probands were youth aged 6-17 years meeting criteria for BP-I, full (N=239) or subthreshold (N=43), and also included were their first-degree relatives (N=687 and N=120, respectively). Comparators were youth with ADHD (N=162), controls without ADHD or bipolar disorder (N=136), and their first-degree relatives (N=511 and N=411, respectively). We randomly selected 162 non-bipolar ADHD probands and 136 non-bipolar, non-ADHD control probands of similar age and sex distribution to the BP-I probands from our case-control ADHD family studies. Psychiatric assessments were made by trained psychometricians using the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children Epidemiological Version (KSADS-E) and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) structured diagnostic interviews. We analyzed rates of bipolar disorder using multinomial logistic regression.
Rates of full BP-I significantly differed between the four groups (χ =32.72, P<.001): relatives of full BP-I probands and relatives of subthreshold BP-I probands had significantly higher rates of full BP-I than relatives of ADHD probands and relatives of control probands. Relatives of full BP-I, subthreshold BP-I, and ADHD probands also had significantly higher rates of major depressive disorder compared to relatives of control probands.
Our results showed that youth with subthreshold BP-I had similarly elevated risk for BP-I and major depressive disorder in first-degree relatives as youth with full BP-I. These findings support the diagnostic continuity between subsyndromal and fully syndromatic states of pediatric BP-I disorder.
为检验阈下儿童双相I型障碍(BP-I)的有效性,我们比较了患有完全型BP-I、阈下BP-I、注意力缺陷多动障碍(ADHD)的儿童先证者以及既无ADHD也无双相情感障碍的对照组儿童先证者中BP-I的家族风险。
BP-I先证者为年龄在6至17岁、符合BP-I标准的青少年,包括完全型(N = 239)或阈下型(N = 43),还纳入了他们的一级亲属(分别为N = 687和N = 120)。对照组为患有ADHD的青少年(N = 162)、无ADHD或双相情感障碍的对照组(N = 136)以及他们的一级亲属(分别为N = 511和N = 411)。我们从病例对照ADHD家族研究中随机选取了162名非双相ADHD先证者和136名非双相、非ADHD的对照先证者,其年龄和性别分布与BP-I先证者相似。由经过培训的心理测量师使用学龄儿童情感障碍和精神分裂症量表(适用于流行病学版本,KSADS-E)以及DSM-IV结构化临床访谈(SCID)进行精神科评估。我们使用多项逻辑回归分析双相情感障碍的发病率。
四组之间完全型BP-I的发病率存在显著差异(χ = 32.72,P <.001):完全型BP-I先证者的亲属和阈下BP-I先证者的亲属中完全型BP-I的发病率显著高于ADHD先证者的亲属和对照先证者的亲属。与对照先证者的亲属相比,完全型BP-I、阈下BP-I和ADHD先证者的亲属中重度抑郁症的发病率也显著更高。
我们的结果表明,阈下BP-I的青少年在一级亲属中患BP-I和重度抑郁症的风险与完全型BP-I的青少年相似。这些发现支持了儿童BP-I障碍亚综合征状态和完全综合征状态之间的诊断连续性。