Palacio-Ortiz Juan David, Peña-Quintero Cristian Esteban, Gómez-Valero María Alejandra, Bustamante-Gómez Paula Andrea, Arroyave-Sierra Pilar Helena, Vargas-Upeguí Cristian David, López-Jaramillo Carlos
Grupo de Investigación en Psiquiatría (GIPSI), Departamento de Psiquiatría, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia; Programa de Trastornos del Ánimo, Hospital San Vicente Fundación, Medellín, Colombia.
Grupo de Investigación en Psiquiatría (GIPSI), Departamento de Psiquiatría, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.
Rev Colomb Psiquiatr. 2017 Jul-Sep;46(3):129-139. doi: 10.1016/j.rcp.2016.06.007. Epub 2016 Jul 27.
Literature reports show that Bipolar Offspring (BO) present with a wide range of psychiatric disorders. Comparison between BO and Control Parent Offspring (CPO) may help to identify which psychopathological findings are specific to this high-risk group.
To compare the psychopathological characteristics between a group of BO type-I and a group of CPO, by identifying the presence of psychiatric disorders according the DSM-IV-TR.
A descriptive-correlational, cross-sectional and comparative study was conducted with 127 offspring of parents with bipolar disorder type-I from the multimodal intervention program (PRISMA) and with 150 CPO between 6 and 30 years of age. Subjects were evaluated with validated diagnostic interviews (K-SADS-PL and DIGS).
The BO group showed higher frequencies for bipolar disorder (Prevalence Ratio [PR]=17.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]; 1.02 - 306.83), bipolar disorder not otherwise specified (PR=23.07, 95% CI; 2.8 - 189.0, P=.0001), disorders due to psychoactive substance use (PR=9.52, 95% CI; 2.93 -30.90), oppositional defiant disorder (PR=4.10, 95% CI; 1.70 -9.89), posttraumatic stress disorder (PR=3.90, 95% CI 1.30 -11.66), disorder due to alcohol use (PR=3.84, 95% CI; 1.28 -11.48), attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (PR=2.26, 95% CI; 1.37 -3.75), and major depressive disorder (PR=2.25, 95% CI; 1.13 -4.50). Statistically significant differences were also found in the CGAS and GAF functional scales, with lower scores for the BO group.
These findings confirm previous literature reports showing that BO have higher rates of affective and non-affective psychiatric disorders than control subjects, and also a lower level of global functioning.
文献报告显示,双相情感障碍患者的后代(BO)存在多种精神障碍。比较BO与对照父母的后代(CPO)可能有助于确定哪些精神病理学发现是这个高危群体所特有的。
通过根据《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版修订版(DSM-IV-TR)确定精神障碍的存在情况,比较一组I型BO和一组CPO的精神病理学特征。
对多模式干预项目(PRISMA)中127名I型双相情感障碍患者的后代以及150名6至30岁的CPO进行了描述性相关、横断面和比较性研究。通过经过验证的诊断访谈(K-SADS-PL和DIGS)对受试者进行评估。
BO组中双相情感障碍(患病率比[PR]=17.70;95%置信区间[CI];1.02 - 306.83)、未另行说明的双相情感障碍(PR=23.07,95% CI;2.8 - 189.0,P=.0001)、精神活性物质所致障碍(PR=9.52,95% CI;2.93 - 30.90)、对立违抗性障碍(PR=4.10,95% CI;1.70 - 9.89)、创伤后应激障碍(PR=3.90,95% CI 1.30 - 11.66)、酒精所致障碍(PR=3.84,95% CI;1.28 - 11.48)、注意力缺陷/多动障碍(PR=2.26,95% CI;1.37 - 3.75)和重度抑郁症(PR=2.25,95% CI;1.13 - 4.50)的发生率更高。在CGAS和GAF功能量表中也发现了具有统计学意义的差异,BO组得分较低。
这些发现证实了先前的文献报告,即BO患情感性和非情感性精神障碍的比率高于对照组,且整体功能水平较低。