Winokur G, Coryell W, Endicott J, Akiskal H, Keller M, Maser J D, Warshaw M
National Institute of Mental Health Collaborative Program on the Psychobiology of Depression-Clinical Studies, Iowa City, USA.
Psychol Med. 1995 Jul;25(4):797-806. doi: 10.1017/s0033291700035042.
Subjects who meet the criteria for an affective syndrome possibly are aetiologically heterogeneous. An approach to this possibility involves examining affectively ill subjects obtained by different methods of ascertainment. This study compares depressed and manic subjects who are related to affectively ill probands with affectively ill subjects who were obtained from a study of a control population, and, therefore, were less likely to be familial. The subjects were identified in a large collaborative study of depression where both family members as well as controls were personally interviewed and followed up for 6 years after admission to the study. Data were obtained on subtypes of affective disorder using the Research Diagnostic Criteria and information was gathered about psychiatric hospitalizations, suicide attempts, alcoholism and psychological functioning prior to admission. Similar assessments were made for the comparison groups for the 6 year period between intake and follow-up. Relatives of bipolar I/schizoaffective manic probands were more likely to show mania than affectively ill controls or relatives of unipolar/schizoaffective depressed probands. Affectively ill controls were less likely to be hospitalized and less likely to suffer from an incapacitating depression. They were also likely to have functioned in a more healthy fashion than the affectively ill relatives of the bipolars and unipolars, in the 5 years before admission to the study. In the 6 year follow-up, both the subjects themselves and raters assessed the depressed controls as functioning better than the affectively ill relatives of the probands. Further, assessment of global adjustment during the 6 year period was worse for the relatives of affectively ill probands than for the depressed controls. Length of major depression was longer in relatives of bipolar and unipolar probands than in controls. Though all of the subjects in this study met research criteria for an affective illness, there were marked differences in the qualitative aspects of these illnesses with the relatives of affectively ill probands, who functioned less well and had longer and more severe episodes and more hospitalizations.
符合情感综合征标准的受试者在病因上可能具有异质性。探讨这种可能性的一种方法是检查通过不同确诊方法获得的情感疾病患者。本研究将与情感疾病先证者相关的抑郁和躁狂受试者,与从对照人群研究中获得的情感疾病患者进行比较,因此后者家族性的可能性较小。这些受试者是在一项大型抑郁症合作研究中确定的,研究中对家庭成员和对照者都进行了个人访谈,并在进入研究后随访6年。使用研究诊断标准获取情感障碍亚型的数据,并收集入院前的精神病住院、自杀未遂、酗酒和心理功能方面的信息。对比较组在入组和随访之间的6年期间进行了类似评估。与单相/分裂情感性抑郁先证者的亲属或情感疾病对照者相比,双相I型/分裂情感性躁狂先证者的亲属更易出现躁狂。情感疾病对照者住院的可能性较小,患致残性抑郁症的可能性也较小。在进入研究前的5年里,他们的功能状态可能也比双相和单相情感疾病亲属更为健康。在6年随访中,受试者本人和评估者都认为抑郁对照者的功能状态优于先证者的情感疾病亲属。此外,情感疾病先证者亲属在6年期间的总体适应评估比抑郁对照者更差。双相和单相先证者亲属的重度抑郁持续时间比对照者更长。尽管本研究中的所有受试者均符合情感疾病的研究标准,但这些疾病的定性方面存在明显差异,情感疾病先证者的亲属功能较差,发作时间更长、更严重,住院次数更多。