Copenhagen Affective Disorder Research Centre (CADIC), Psychiatric Centre Copenhagen, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Denmark.
Copenhagen Affective Disorder Research Centre (CADIC), Psychiatric Centre Copenhagen, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Denmark.
J Affect Disord. 2021 Mar 15;283:207-215. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.01.074. Epub 2021 Feb 2.
The upcoming conversion of the ICD-11 will subdivide patients with bipolar disorder (BD) into BD type I (BD-I) and BD type II (BD-II). This study aimed to investigate whether cognitive impairments could aid as objective cognitive biomarkers for recently diagnosed BD subtypes by comparing cognitive profiles between BD subtypes, their unaffected relatives (UR), and healthy controls (HC).
The sample included 76 patients with BD-I, 149 patients with BD-II, 28 UR of patients with BD-I (UR-I), 50 UR of patients with BD-II (UR-II) and 168 HC from the Bipolar Illness Onset study, who were assessed with an extensive non-affective and affective cognitive test battery.
The results showed no significant differences in affective or non-affective cognition between BD-I and BD-II. Compared to HC, patients with BD-I (but not BD-II) showed worse performance in verbal fluency (p = .01) and were slower at recognising fearful faces (p = .045), while patients with BD-II (but not BD-I) displayed generally poorer recognition of facial expressions (p = .02). Only UR-I showed lower performance on verbal fluency (p = .049) and aberrant affective cognition (ps≤.047) compared to HC.
The potential confounding effects of medication were not explored.
The lack of significant differences in cognitive profiles between recently diagnosed BD-I and BD-II suggests that neither affective nor non-affective cognition are indicative of BD subtype.
即将推出的 ICD-11 将把双相情感障碍 (BD) 患者细分为 I 型 (BD-I) 和 II 型 (BD-II)。本研究旨在通过比较 BD 亚型、未受影响的亲属 (UR) 和健康对照 (HC) 的认知特征，探讨认知障碍是否可以作为新诊断 BD 亚型的客观认知生物标志物。
该样本包括 76 名 BD-I 患者、149 名 BD-II 患者、28 名 BD-I 患者的 UR（UR-I）、50 名 BD-II 患者的 UR（UR-II）和 168 名来自双相情感障碍发作研究的 HC，他们接受了广泛的非情感和情感认知测试。
结果显示，BD-I 和 BD-II 之间在情感或非情感认知方面没有显著差异。与 HC 相比，BD-I 患者（而非 BD-II 患者）在词语流畅性方面表现更差（p=.01），且识别恐惧面孔的速度较慢（p=.045），而 BD-II 患者（而非 BD-I 患者）则普遍对表情识别较差（p=.02）。只有 UR-I 与 HC 相比，在词语流畅性（p=.049）和异常情感认知（p≤.047）方面表现较差。
未探讨药物治疗的潜在混杂影响。
新诊断的 BD-I 和 BD-II 之间认知特征没有显著差异表明，情感和非情感认知都不能表明 BD 亚型。
