Is it depression or is it bipolar depression?

This review is intended to guide primary care providers in differentiating patients with bipolar depression from those with unipolar depression and inform patient management. Up to 64% of clinical encounters for depression occur in primary care, with misdiagnosis of bipolar depression common in both primary care and psychiatry. Although bipolar disorder is characterized by manic, hypomanic, and depressive episodes, the most common and debilitating symptomatic presentation is depression. Misdiagnosis as unipolar depression is common, often resulting in mistreatment with an unopposed monoamine antidepressant. Antidepressants are often ineffective for treating bipolar depression and may cause detrimental consequences such as treatment-emergent hypomania/mania, rapid cycling, or increased suicidality. Factors that are suggestive of bipolar disorder versus unipolar depression include early-onset depression, frequent depressive episodes, family history of serious mental illness, hypomania/mania symptoms within the depressive episode, and nonresponse to antidepressants. Comorbid medical (e.g., cardiovascular disease, hypertension, obesity) and psychiatric (e.g., attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anxiety disorder, personality disorders, and substance use disorder) conditions are common and contribute to premature mortality for patients with bipolar disorder compared with the general public. Cariprazine, fluoxetine/olanzapine, lurasidone, and quetiapine are approved to treat bipolar depression; only cariprazine and quetiapine are approved to treat both bipolar mania and depression. Primary care providers who can differentiate presenting symptoms of bipolar depression from unipolar depression and offer appropriate treatment options will optimize patient care in clinical practice. Relevant information for this review was identified through a multistep literature search of PubMed using the terms bipolar depression/bipolar disorder plus other relevant terms.

Towards an ICF Core Set for functioning assessment in severe mental disorders: Commonalities in bipolar disorder, depression and schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) offers an internationally accepted standard for describing and assessing functioning and disability in any health condition. A specific list of ICF categories, an ICF Core Set (CS), has been developed for bipolar disorder, depression and schizophrenia. The aim of this study was to determine commonalities in the ICF-CSs for these three disorders, and to identify relevant categories for the development of tentative ICF-CSs for severe mental disorders in general. METHODS: The ICF categories of all three mental health conditions were examined and compared. RESULTS: Comparison of the Comprehensive ICF-CSs for the three mental health conditions revealed a set of 34 common categories (i.e., 10 from the Body functions component, 14 from the Activities and participation component, and 10 Environmental factors ). These categories formed the proposed Comprehensive ICF-CS for severe mental disorders. A total of 11 categories were common to the Brief ICF-CSs of the three mental health conditions, and these formed the Brief ICF-CS for severe mental disorders (i.e., 3 from the Body functions component, 6 from the Activities and participation component, and 2 Environmental factors ). All the categories included refer to key aspects of functioning for severe mental disorders. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed ICF-CSs for severe mental disorders may be applicable across a number of psychotic and affective disorders and they should prove useful for mental health services whose care remit covers a range of conditions.

A symptom-based continuum of psychosis explains cognitive and real-world functional deficits better than traditional diagnoses.

BACKGROUND: Patients with psychotic spectrum disorders share overlapping clinical/biological features, making it often difficult to separate them into a discrete nosology (i.e., Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM]). METHODS: The current study investigated whether a continuum classification scheme based on symptom burden would improve conceptualizations for cognitive and real-world dysfunction relative to traditional DSM nosology. Two independent samples (New Mexico [NM] and Bipolar and Schizophrenia Network on Intermediate Phenotypes [B-SNIP]) of patients with schizophrenia (NM: N = 93; B-SNIP: N = 236), bipolar disorder Type I (NM: N = 42; B-SNIP: N = 195) or schizoaffective disorder (NM: N = 15; B-SNIP: N = 148) and matched healthy controls (NM: N = 64; B-SNIP: N = 717) were examined. Linear regressions examined how variance differed as a function of classification scheme (DSM diagnosis, negative and positive symptom burden, or a three-cluster solution based on symptom burden). RESULTS: Symptom-based classification schemes (continuous and clustered) accounted for a significantly larger portion of captured variance of real-world functioning relative to DSM diagnoses across both samples. The symptom-based classification schemes accounted for large percentages of variance for general cognitive ability and cognitive domains in the NM sample. However, in the B-SNIP sample, symptom-based classification schemes accounted for roughly equivalent variance as DSM diagnoses. A potential mediating variable across samples was the strength of the relationship between negative symptoms and impaired cognition. CONCLUSIONS: Current results support suggestions that a continuum perspective of psychopathology may be more powerful for explaining real-world functioning than the DSM diagnostic nosology, whereas results for cognitive dysfunction were sample dependent.

Dyadic Adjustment among Healthy Spouses of Bipolar I and II Disorder Patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to investigate the total dyadic adjustment (including satisfaction, cohesion, consensus and affectional expression) among spouses of bipolar patients with I and II subtypes. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: 82 subjects (46 women/ 36men) were enrolled in the study - 50 spouses of bipolar I (BD I) patients and 32 spouses of bipolar II (BD II) patients. We used an interview, the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), and a questionnaire including questions concerning basic socio-demographic data, the duration of marriage, as well as information about the patient's illness. RESULTS: The results indicate that BD I is likely to be more disruptive for life-partners and is associated with a lower dyadic adjustment (assessed by the healthy spouse) than BD type II (p≤0.05). There are differences in DAS scales when specific episodes are compared with each other as well (p≤0.01). Also patients' illicit substance use and co-morbidity were significant factors (p≤0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We would like to emphasize that bipolar disorder affects marriage (even the healthy spouse) and that its different subtypes (especially type I) as well as additional factors may be associated with significant deterioration of a relationship.

The Cambridge-Perugia Inventory for assessment of Bipolar Disorder.

It is well known that Bipolar Disorder is a condition which is often under diagnosed or misdiagnosed. We propose an inventory of questions which will help assess the longitutinal history of the patient's illness, and to evaluate the presence of mixed affective states, rapid cycling, and comorbidities, all of which have an important bearing on prognosis.

The medicalisation of "ups and downs": the marketing of the new bipolar disorder.

The concept of bipolar disorder has undergone a transformation over the last two decades. Once considered a rare and serious mental disorder, bipolar disorder is being diagnosed with increasing frequency in Europe and North America, and is suggested to replace many other diagnoses. The current article shows how the modern concept of bipolar disorder has been created in the course of efforts to market new antipsychotics and other drugs for bipolar disorder, to enable these drugs to migrate out of the arena of serious mental disorder and into the more profitable realm of everyday emotional problems. A new and flexible notion of the condition has been created that bears little resemblance to the classical condition, and that can easily be applied to ordinary variations in temperament. The assertion that bipolar disorder is a brain disease arising from a biochemical imbalance helps justify this expansion by portraying drug treatment as targeted and specific, and by diverting attention from the adverse effects and mind-altering properties of the drugs themselves. Childhood behavioural problems have also been metamorphosed into "paediatric bipolar disorder," under the leadership of academic psychiatry, with the assistance of drug company financing. The expansion of bipolar disorder, like depression before it, medicalises personal and social difficulties, and profoundly affects the way people in Western nations conceive of what it means to be human.

Development of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health core sets for bipolar disorders: results of an international consensus process.

PURPOSE: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) is a tool of the World Health Organization (WHO) designed to be a guide to identify and classify relevant domains of human experience affected by health conditions. The purpose of this article is to describe the process for the development of two Core Sets for bipolar disorder (BD) in the framework of the ICF. The Comprehensive ICF Core Set for BD intends to be a guide for multidisciplinary assessment of patients diagnosed with this condition, while the Brief ICF Core Set for BD will be useful when rating aspects of patient's experience for clinical practice or epidemiological studies. METHODS: An international consensus conference involving a sample of experts with different professional backgrounds was performed using the nominal group technique. Various preparatory studies identified a set of 743 potential ICF categories to be included in the Core Sets. RESULTS: A total of 38 ICF categories were selected to be included in the Comprehensive Core Set for BD. A total of 19 ICF categories from the Comprehensive Core Set were chosen as the most significant to constitute the Brief Core Set for BD. CONCLUSIONS: The formal consensus process integrating evidence and expert opinion on the ICF led to the formal adoption of the ICF Core Sets for BD. The most important categories included are representative of the characteristics usually associated with BD. The next phase of this ICF project is to conduct a formal validation process to establish its applicability in clinical settings. Implications for Rehabilitation Bipolar disorder (BD) is a prevalent condition that has a great impact on people who suffer it, not only in health but also in daily functioning and quality of life. No standard has been defined so far regarding the problems in functioning of persons with BDs. The process described in this article defines the set of areas of functioning to be addressed in clinical assessments of persons with BD and establish the starting point for the development of condition-specific outcome measures.

Psychotropic marketing practices and problems: implications for DSM-5.

The descriptive diagnostic model since DSM-III has often led to "cookbook" diagnosis and assumptions of "chemical imbalance" for psychiatric disorders. Pharmaceutical companies have exploited this in their marketing. This includes promoting self-diagnosis with online checklists. Significant overprescribing of psychotropics has resulted. DSM-5 will provide new disorders and broader diagnostic criteria that will likely exacerbate this. Most psychotropic prescribing is done by primary care physicians, who are problematically excluded from DSM-5 field trials and are influenced by industry funded key opinion leaders who may promote diagnosis of subthreshold cases. More lax criteria will increase diagnosis of subthreshold cases. Expansion of not otherwise specified (NOS) categories can be used to justify off-label promotion. Pediatric bipolar disorder, constructed within the bipolar disorder NOS category, became an "epidemic" in the United States, fuelled by diagnostic upcoding pressures. Disruptive mood dysregulation disorder may similarly cause overdiagnosis and excessive prescribing, as will other new disorders and lower diagnostic thresholds.

[What is the burden associated with bipolar depression?]. / Quel est le poids de la dépression dans les troubles bipolaires?

Intensity and frequency of the thymic symptoms are specific of the clinical picture of bipolar disorder patients. International classifications, don't take into account polarity as an operational criteria. Despite the lack of a consensual definition of polarity, close to 2/3 of the patients can be considered as having a predominant depressive form. Polarity can be considered as idiosyncratic of a patient and could be the preferential mode of evolution. Identification of the polarity of the disorder has interests in terms of prognosis and choice of treatment.

Characteristics, healthcare utilization and costs of bipolar disorder type I patients with and without frequent psychiatric intervention in a Medicaid population.

OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics, healthcare resource utilization and costs of Medicaid bipolar disorder (BPD) type I (BP-I) patients with and without frequent psychiatric intervention (FPI). METHODS: Adults with BP-I, ≥ 1 prescription claim for a mood stabilizer/atypical antipsychotic and 24 months' continuous medical/prescription coverage were identified (MarketScan* Medicaid database). Patients with ≥ 2 clinically significant events (CSEs) during a 12-month identification period had FPI. CSEs included emergency department (ED) visits or hospitalizations with a principal diagnosis of BPD, addition of a new medication to the first observed treatment regimen or ≥ 50% increase in BPD medication dose. Demographic and clinical characteristics were evaluated for the identification period, and healthcare utilization and costs for the 12-month follow-up. Multivariate generalized linear modeling and multivariate logistic regression, respectively, were used to evaluate the impact of FPI on all-cause and psychiatric-related costs and risk of psychiatric-related hospitalization and ED visit during follow-up. RESULTS: Of 5,527 BP-I patients, 53% had FPI. Relative to patients without FPI, those with FPI were younger and more likely to be female, had higher adjusted all-cause (+US$3,232, p < 0.001) and psychiatric-related (+US$2,519, p < 0.001) costs and higher risk of hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 3.681, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.85-4.75) and ED visit (OR = 3.094, 95% CI = 2.55-3.76). LIMITATIONS: Analysis used a convenience sample of Medicaid enrollees in several geographically dispersed states, limiting generalizability. Analyses of administrative claims data depend on accurate diagnoses and data entry. CONCLUSION: BP-I patients with FPI incurred significantly higher healthcare resource utilization and costs during the follow-up period than those without FPI.

Psychopathological assessment of schizophrenia: relevance for classification.

Considerable effort has been focused on updating the clinical aspects of psychiatric classifications based on recent progress in the field of neurobiology. In this article, recent developments in the primary assessment methods within clinical psychiatry, which are based in phenomenological psychopathology, are reviewed as nosotaxies that are still embedded in clinical description. New directions for research on psychopathology are outlined to elicit better descriptions of subjective experience from patients. Finally, the known limitations of the Kraepelinian dichotomy are summarized, and future problems related to the inclusion of the new dimensional assessment methods in the next psychiatric classifications are described.

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.

Bipolar disorder: assessment and management.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners are increasingly aware of the bipolar disorders and of being required to adopt a management role. OBJECTIVE: This article provides the GP with efficient strategies to assist detection and diagnosis of bipolar I and bipolar II disorders and defines management principles. DISCUSSION: Bipolar disorders benefit from a mix of medication and nonmedication components, with complementary clinical management and patient self management reducing the high morbidity and suicide risk associated with these disorders.

Prevalence, correlates, and comorbidity of bipolar I disorder and axis I and II disorders: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To present nationally representative data on 12-month and lifetime prevalence, correlates, and comorbidity of bipolar I disorder. METHOD: The data were derived from the 2001-2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (N = 43,093). Prevalences and associations of bipolar I disorder with sociodemographic correlates and Axis I and II disorders were determined. RESULTS: Prevalences of 12-month and lifetime DSM-IV bipolar I disorder were 2.0% (95% CI = 1.82 to 2.18) and 3.3% (95% CI = 2.76 to 3.84), respectively, and no sex differences were observed. The odds of bipolar I disorder were significantly greater among Native Americans, younger adults, and respondents who were widowed/separated/divorced and of lower socioeconomic status and significantly lower among Asians and Hispanics (p < .05). Men were significantly (p < .05) more likely to have unipolar mania and earlier onset and longer duration of manic episodes, while women were more likely to have mixed and major depressive episodes and to be treated for manic, mixed, and major depressive episodes. Bipolar I disorder was found to be highly and significantly related (p < .05) to substance use, anxiety, and personality disorders, but not to alcohol abuse. CONCLUSION: Bipolar I disorder is more prevalent in the U.S. population than previously estimated, highlighting the underestimation of the economic costs associated with this illness. Associations between bipolar I disorder and Axis I and II disorders were all significant, underscoring the need for systematic assessment of comorbidity among bipolar I patients.

Spotlight on olanzapine in bipolar I disorder.

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic that is approved in the US and Europe for the oral treatment of acute manic episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder and for maintenance therapy to prevent recurrence in responders. Oral olanzapine is effective in the treatment of bipolar mania, both as single agent therapy and as adjunctive therapy in combination with lithium or valproate semisodium. In the treatment of acute episodes, olanzapine is superior to placebo and at least as effective as lithium, valproate semisodium, haloperidol and risperidone in reducing the symptoms of mania and inducing remission. Additional comparative studies are required to determine the efficacy of olanzapine relative to newer atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine, ziprasidone and aripiprazole. Olanzapine is also effective at delaying or preventing relapse during long-term maintenance therapy in treatment responders and is currently the only atypical antipsychotic approved for this indication. Current evidence suggests that olanzapine may be more effective than lithium in preventing relapse into mania, but not relapse into depression or relapse overall. Olanzapine is generally well tolerated and, although it is associated with a higher incidence of weight gain than most atypical agents, it has a low incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms. Therefore, oral olanzapine is a useful first-line or adjunctive agent for both the acute treatment of manic episodes and the long-term prevention of relapse into manic, depressive or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder.

Epidemiology of bipolar disorders.

UNLABELLED: Bipolar, or manic-depressive, disorders are frequent and severe mental illnesses associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Epilepsy and bipolar disorder could probably share some aspects of pathophysiology because manic as well as depressive symptoms are seen in patients with seizures, and a number of antiepileptic drugs are effectively used in the acute and prophylactic treatment of bipolar disorder. Epidemiologic research suggests a dimensional composition of bipolar illness at the population level. Apart from the DSM-IV diagnostic features of bipolar I (mania and depression) and bipolar II (hypomania and depression), the concept of bipolar spectrum disorders comprises a range of bipolar conditions with less obvious manifestations with estimated lifetime prevalence rates ranging from 2.8 to 6.5%. Expanding the definition of bipolar II disorders shows that half of the patients currently diagnosed with a unipolar depressive episode could suffer from unrecognized bipolar II disorder, and about the same number of mild depressive patients could be minor bipolars. Research efforts to refine the diagnostic criteria of bipolar disorder aim at an earlier and complete recognition of the disease to provide appropriate pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment early in the course of the illness to anticipate individual suffering, suicidal behavior, and increased socioeconomic costs for society. This article also discusses risk factors, comorbid conditions, course of illness, as well as the individual and socioeconomic impact of bipolar disorders. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest reconceptualizing bipolar illnesses as highly recurrent, malignant disorders that occur far more frequently than previously thought. Interdisciplinary knowledge transfer could help to increase our understanding of the pathophysiology of these disorders as well as provide grounds for better recognition and treatment of patients with manic and/or depressive symptoms.

Recognition and diagnosis of bipolar disorder.

Bipolar disorder is a serious, recurrent, and sometimes chronic psychiatric illness that is far more prevalent than many physicians realize. It often is unrecognized and misdiagnosed, particularly in patients presenting with depression. The consequences of misdiagnosis and mistreatment as unipolar depression may be disastrous. The rate of recognition may be improved by asking patients about bipolar symptoms and by screening for bipolar disorder using the Mood Disorder Questionnaire.