Lépine J P
Service de Psychiatrie, Hôpital Fernand Widal, Paris.
Encephale. 1994 Dec;20 Spec No 4:683-92.
The validity of diagnosis in psychiatry remains controversial. The new international classifications of mental disorders and the use of diagnostic criteria have allowed a marked improvement in the diagnostic process but the validity of the clinical entities is far from being strongly established. Epidemiological approach is a way among others which can offer new insights to that problem. During the recent decade, several community surveys have been conducted using quite similar methods and designs, referring to the same classification systems and using structured diagnostic interviews. A systematic collection of clinical signs and symptoms has found that, in the community, as well as in clinical setting, anxiety and affective disorders are frequently comorbid in the same subject. The concept of comorbidity has different meanings in a clinical or epidemiological sense. Results from several community surveys underline the importance of this phenomenon in various countries whatever the specific prevalence of anxiety and affective disorders could be. The most recent large study, the National Comorbidity Survey, has been undergone partly to address many questions concerning the comorbidity patterns between affective, anxiety and substance use disorders, their risk factors and influence on morbidity and health seeking process. Comorbidity is high between major depression and all different anxiety disorders, and to a much larger extent with generalized anxiety disorder. The distinction between pur and comorbid disorders on one hand, primary and secondary disorders according to the sequence of age of onset in comorbid disorders on the other hand has been also underlined recently. Comorbidity between anxiety and affective disorders strongly argue for investigating the genetics as well as the psychosocial factors involved in this phenomenon. Within this methodological perspective, these studies may offer new answers to major problems encountered in clinical and psychopathological research and, by the way, improve current therapeutic strategies.
精神病学诊断的有效性仍然存在争议。新的国际精神障碍分类以及诊断标准的使用使诊断过程有了显著改善,但临床实体的有效性远未得到有力确立。流行病学方法是众多能够为该问题提供新见解的途径之一。在最近十年中,已经开展了几项社区调查,这些调查采用了颇为相似的方法和设计,参照相同的分类系统并使用结构化诊断访谈。对临床体征和症状的系统收集发现,在社区以及临床环境中,焦虑症和情感障碍在同一患者中常常合并存在。合并症的概念在临床或流行病学意义上有不同含义。几项社区调查的结果强调了这一现象在各个国家的重要性,无论焦虑症和情感障碍的具体患病率如何。最新的大型研究——全国共病调查,部分目的是解决许多关于情感、焦虑和物质使用障碍之间的共病模式、其风险因素以及对发病率和就医过程的影响等问题。重度抑郁症与所有不同的焦虑症之间的共病率很高,与广泛性焦虑症的共病率更高。最近还强调了一方面纯粹障碍与共病障碍之间的区别,另一方面共病障碍中根据发病年龄顺序区分原发性和继发性障碍。焦虑症和情感障碍之间的共病强烈支持对涉及这一现象的遗传学以及心理社会因素进行研究。从这种方法论角度来看,这些研究可能会为临床和精神病理学研究中遇到的主要问题提供新的答案,顺便改善当前的治疗策略。