The diagnosis of bipolar disorder in children and adolescents: Past, present and future.

AIMS: This article examines the ongoing debate concerning the diagnosis of bipolar disorder in children and adolescents. This contentious issue has generated robust discussion over the past two decades without consensus, and as such the true prevalence of so-called paediatric bipolar disorder (PBD) remains unknown. In this article we offer a solution to break this deadlock. METHODS: Recent meta-analyses and additional literature concerning the definition and prevalence of PBD was critically reviewed with a view to understanding the perspectives of those developing the taxonomy of PBD, and those engaged in research and clinical practice. RESULTS: A key finding is the lack of iteration and meaningful communication between the various groups interested in PBD that stems from deep-seated problems within our classificatory systems. This undermines our research efforts and complicates clinical practice. These problems make the already difficult diagnosis of bipolar disorder in adults even more challenging to transpose to younger populations, and additional complexities arise when parsing clinical phenomenology from normative developmental changes in youth. Therefore, in those manifesting bipolar symptoms post-puberty, we argue for the use of adolescent bipolar disorder to describe bipolar symptoms whereas in pre-pubertal children, we propose a reconceptualisation that allows symptomatic treatment to be advanced whilst requiring critical review of these symptoms over time. CONCLUSION: Significant changes in our current taxonomy are necessary and to be clinically meaningful, these revisions to our diagnoses need to be developmentally-informed.

Countering the declining use of lithium therapy: a call to arms.

For over half a century, it has been widely known that lithium is the most efficacious treatment for bipolar disorder. Yet, despite this, its prescription has consistently declined over this same period of time. A number of reasons for this apparent disparity between evidence and clinical practice have been proposed, including a lack of confidence amongst clinicians possibly because of an absence of training and lack of familiarity with the molecule. Simultaneously, competition has grown within the pharmacological armamentarium for bipolar disorder with newer treatments promoting an image of being safer and easier to prescribe primarily because of not necessitating plasma monitoring, which understandably is appealing to patients who then exercise their preferences accordingly. However, these somewhat incipient agents are yet to reach the standard lithium has attained in terms of its efficacy in providing prophylaxis against the seemingly inevitable recrudescence of acute episodes that punctuates the course of bipolar disorder. In addition, none of these mimics have the additional benefits of preventing suicide and perhaps providing neuroprotection. Thus, a change in strategy is urgently required, wherein myths regarding the supposed difficulties in prescribing lithium and the gravity of its side-effects are resolutely dispelled. It is this cause to which we have pledged our allegiance and it is to this end that we have penned this article.