Manic/hypomanic symptom burden and cardiovascular mortality in bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the risk for cardiovascular mortality between bipolar I and bipolar II subtypes and determine correlates of cardiovascular mortality. Bipolar disorder conveys an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality. METHODS: Participants with major affective disorders were recruited for the National Institute of Mental Health Collaborative Depression Study and followed prospectively for up to 25 years. A total of 435 participants met the diagnostic criteria for bipolar I (n = 288) or bipolar II (n = 147) disorder based on Research Diagnostic Criteria at intake and measures of psychiatric symptoms during follow-up. Diagnostic subtypes were contrasted by cardiovascular mortality risk using Cox proportional hazards regression. Affective symptom burden (the proportion of time with clinically significant manic/hypomanic or depressive symptoms) and treatment exposure were additionally included in the models. RESULTS: Thirty-three participants died from cardiovascular causes. Participants with bipolar I disorder had more than double the cardiovascular mortality risk of those with bipolar II disorder, after controlling for age and gender (hazard ratio = 2.35, 95% Confidence Interval = 1.04-5.33; p = .04). The observed difference in cardiovascular mortality between these subtypes was at least partially confounded by the burden of clinically significant manic/hypomanic symptoms which predicted cardiovascular mortality independent of diagnosis, treatment exposure, age, gender, and cardiovascular risk factors at intake. Selective serotonin uptake inhibitors seemed protective although they were introduced late in follow-up. Depressive symptom burden was not related to cardiovascular mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Participants with bipolar I disorder may face a greater risk of cardiovascular mortality than those with bipolar II disorder. This difference in cardiovascular mortality risk may reflect manic/hypomanic symptom burden.

Distinguishing bipolar major depression from unipolar major depression with the screening assessment of depression-polarity (SAD-P).

BACKGROUND: Patients with bipolar I or II major depression are often misdiagnosed with unipolar major depression. The goal of this study was to develop and validate a brief instrument to screen for bipolar disorder in patients actively ill with major depression. METHOD: The sample consisted of subjects who enrolled in the National Institute of Mental Health-Collaborative Program on the Psychobiology of Depression-Clinical Studies from 1978 to 1981 during an episode of major depression and included 91 subjects with bipolar I major depression, 52 with bipolar II major depression, and 338 with unipolar major depression diagnosed according to Research Diagnostic Criteria. Most of the subjects were inpatients at the time of enrollment, and subjects were prospectively followed for up to 20 years. In order to create, test, and cross-validate the screening instrument, a split-sample data analytic procedure was performed. This procedure yielded 3 groups of subjects: the bipolar I index sample, the bipolar I cross-validation sample, and the bipolar II cross-validation sample. Each group included subjects with bipolar major depression and subjects with unipolar major depression. Within the bipolar I index sample, subjects with bipolar I major depression at study intake were compared with subjects with unipolar major depression at study intake on a pool of 59 sociodemographic and clinical candidate variables. The 3 variables showing the greatest disparity between bipolar I subjects and unipolar subjects were selected for the screen, the Screening Assessment of Depression-Polarity (SAD-P). The operating characteristics of the SAD-P were then examined within the bipolar I index sample, bipolar I cross-validation sample, and bipolar II cross-validation sample. RESULTS: The items selected for the screening instrument were (1) presence of delusions during the current episode of major depression, (2) number of prior episodes of major depression, and (3) family history of major depression or mania. The screen identified bipolar major depression with a sensitivity of 0.82 in the bipolar I index sample, 0.72 in the bipolar I cross-validation sample, and 0.58 in the bipolar II cross-validation sample. With regard to misclassifying subjects with unipolar major depression, the screen provided a positive predictive value of 0.36 in the bipolar I index sample, 0.29 in the bipolar I cross-validation sample, and 0.27 in the bipolar II cross-validation sample. CONCLUSION: We suggest using the 3-item SAD-P as a preliminary screen for bipolar disorder in patients who present with an active episode of major depression.

Psychosocial disability in the course of bipolar I and II disorders: a prospective, comparative, longitudinal study.

CONTEXT: Evidence of psychosocial disability in bipolar disorder is based primarily on bipolar I disorder (BP-I) and does not relate disability to affective symptom severity and polarity or to bipolar II disorder (BP-II). OBJECTIVE: To provide detailed data on psychosocial disability in relation to symptom status during the long-term course of BP-I and BP-II. DESIGN: A naturalistic study with 20 years of prospective, systematic follow-up. SETTING: Inpatient and outpatient treatment facilities at 5 US academic centers. Patients One hundred fifty-eight patients with BP-I and 133 patients with BP-II who were followed up for a mean (SD) of 15 (4.8) years in the National Institute of Mental Health Collaborative Depression Study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The relationship, by random regression, between Range of Impaired Functioning Tool psychosocial impairment scores and affective symptom status in 1-month periods during the long-term course of illness from 6-month and yearly Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation interviews. RESULTS: Psychosocial impairment increases significantly with each increment in depressive symptom severity for BP-I and BP-II and with most increments in manic symptom severity for BP-I. Subsyndromal hypomanic symptoms are not disabling in BP-II, and they may even enhance functioning. Depressive symptoms are at least as disabling as manic or hypomanic symptoms at corresponding severity levels and, in some cases, significantly more so. At each level of depressive symptom severity, BP-I and BP-II are equally impairing. When asymptomatic, patients with bipolar disorder have good psychosocial functioning, although it is not as good as that of well controls. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial disability fluctuates in parallel with changes in affective symptom severity in BP-I and BP-II. Important findings for clinical management are the following: (1) depressive episodes and symptoms, which dominate the course of BP-I and BP-II, are equal to or more disabling than corresponding levels of manic or hypomanic symptoms; (2) subsyndromal depressive symptoms, but not subsyndromal manic or hypomanic symptoms, are associated with significant impairment; and (3) subsyndromal hypomanic symptoms appear to enhance functioning in BP-II.