Interpersonal sensitivity and childhood trauma in patients with major depressive disorder, bipolar I, and II disorder.

Childhood trauma and interpersonal sensitivity impact the development of mood disorders. In this study, we investigate the association between childhood trauma and interpersonal sensitivity in patients with mood disorders. A total 775 patients (major depressive disorder [MDD, n = 241], bipolar I disorder [BD I, n = 119], and bipolar II disorder [BD II, n = 415]) and 734 controls. For evaluation, we used the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form (CTQ) and Interpersonal Sensitivity Measure (IPSM). We examined between-group differences for each subscale in the CTQ and IPSM. Patients with BD II had significantly higher IPSM total scores than patients with MDD, BD I, or controls. The CTQ total score was related to the IPSM total score in all participants and subgroups. Among the CTQ subscales, emotional abuse showed the highest correlation with the IPSM total score, while separation anxiety and fragile inner self showed higher positive correlations with CTQ than the other subscales of IPSM in all patient groups and the control group, respectively. The findings reveal that childhood trauma and interpersonal sensitivity are positively correlated among patients with MDD, BD I, and BD II, and that interpersonal sensitivity is higher in patients with BD II than those with BD I or MDD. Childhood trauma is associated with interpersonal sensitivity, and each trauma type has a different impact on mood disorders. We expect that this study will encourage future research on interpersonal sensitivity and childhood trauma in mood disorders to improve treatment approaches.

Borderline Personality Pathology in Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar I and II Disorder, and Its Relationship With Childhood Trauma.

OBJECTIVE: Mood disorder and borderline personality pathology (BPP) are frequently comorbid and relate to childhood trauma. We investigated the relationship between childhood trauma and BPP features in mood disorder patients versus controls. METHODS: A total of 488 mood disorder patients, particularly major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar I disorder (BD I), and bipolar II disorder (BD II), and 734 controls were included. We examined between-group BPP-related differences and correlated between BPP and childhood trauma using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form (CTQ) and the Personality Assessment Inventory-Borderline Features Scale. RESULTS: BD II patients showed significantly higher BPP. Emotional abuse and neglect were prominently associated with BPP, while affective instability and negative relationships exhibited a stronger association with childhood trauma. We also found a positive relationship between childhood trauma and BPP in MDD, BD I, and BD II patients. CONCLUSION: The findings of the present study imply that BPP features are more likely to be found in patients with BD II than BD I or MDD. Mood disorder patients with severe childhood trauma may have higher BPP features. Thus, further study of the relationship between childhood trauma and BPP features could improve the therapeutic approaches and help understand patients with mood disorders.

Efficacy and safety of daily home-based transcranial direct current stimulation as adjunct treatment for bipolar depressive episodes: Double-blind sham-controlled randomized clinical trial.

Background: Although transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is known to be a promising therapeutic modality for unipolar depression, the efficacy and safety of tDCS for bipolar depressive episodes (BD) are still unknown and clinical trials of home-based tDCS treatment are scarce. As a result, we set out to investigate the efficacy and safety of home-based tDCS for the treatment BD. Methods: Participants (n = 64), diagnosed as bipolar disorder as per the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5), were randomly assigned to receive tDCS. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) scores were measured at the baseline, week 2, 4, and 6, and home-based tDCS (for 30 min with 2 mA) was self-administered daily. Results: Of the 64 patients (15.6% bipolar disorder I, 84.4% bipolar disorder II), 41 patients completed the entire assessment. In the intention-to-treat analysis, time-group interaction for the HDRS-17 [F (3, 146.36) = 2.060; p = 0.108] and adverse effect differences between two groups were not statistically significant, except the pain score, which was higher in the active group than the sham group (week 0-2: p < 0.01, week 2-4: p < 0.05, and week 4-6: p < 0.01). Conclusion: Even though we found no evidence for the efficacy of home-based tDCS for patients with BD, this tool was found to be a safe and tolerable treatment modality for BD. Clinical trial registration: [https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT03974815], identifier [NCT03974815].