A naturalistic effectiveness study of maintenance therapies for the bipolar disorders.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decision-making for individuals with bipolar disorder can be difficult. Recommendations from clinical practice guidelines can be affected by multiple methodological limitations, while pharmaco-epidemiological data suggest great variety in prescription practices across regions. Given these inconsistencies, this study aimed to provide an alternative perspective on the effectiveness of common bipolar disorder maintenance treatments through considering naturalistic data. METHODS: A total of 246 individuals with bipolar disorder (84 bipolar I [BP-I], 162 bipolar II [BP-II]) were recruited through clinics and/or websites. All were euthymic and had trialled at least one mood stabiliser. They completed an online survey containing questions on demographics, clinical variables, symptomatology, and the effectiveness/side effect profiles of any mood stabilisers (MSTs) or atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) that they have taken. RESULTS: Lithium and lamotrigine were the most commonly prescribed MSTs and the most effective at mood stabilisation. Lithium and lamotrigine appeared marginally more effective for BP-I and BP-II respectively, however, only the latter difference was statistically significant. Furthermore, lamotrigine had the more favourable side effect profile. Amongst the AAPs, quetiapine and olanzapine were the most commonly prescribed, but they were negligibly superior to other AAPs. CONCLUSION: This study clearly established a preference for lamotrigine in the maintenance treatment of BP-II. While the literature consistently emphasises the primacy of lithium in bipolar disorder treatment, its side effect profile as observed in this study remains a concern. Future research considering moderators of treatment response and concomitant medications could help to identify further nuances to consider for treatment decision-making.

Burnout and depression: Points of convergence and divergence.

BACKGROUND: Debate is ongoing as to whether burnout can be differentiated from depression. This study evaluated whether burnout and depression could be distinguished using a new burnout measure and other variables. METHODS: Scores on the Sydney Burnout Measure (SBM) were compared between participants with self-diagnosed burnout (BO-all group; n = 622) and clinically-diagnosed depression (DEP-all group; n = 90). The latter group was split into melancholic (DEP-mel; n = 56) and non-melancholic (DEP-nonmel; n = 34) depression subgroups for subsequent analyses. Differences in reporting of depressive symptoms and causal attributions were also evaluated. RESULTS: While total SBM scores showed poor differentiation, the BO-all group had lower social withdrawal and higher empathy loss subscale scores than the depression groups. Odds ratios were significant for several of the depressive symptoms and causal attribution items when comparing the BO-all group to the DEP-all and DEP-mel groups, while only a few items were significant when comparing the BO-all and DEP-nonmel groups. LIMITATIONS: Participants in the depression group were assigned by clinician-based depression diagnoses, rather than by a standardised diagnostic interview, and the group had a relatively small sample size. Participants in the burnout group were self-diagnosed and not assessed for comorbid psychiatric diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: There were some nuanced symptoms differences between burnout and depression, but many of the SBM symptoms were not specific to burnout. Results also suggested that burnout overlaps more with non-melancholic than melancholic depression, and that differentiation of burnout and depression may rely more on weighting causal factors over symptoms.

Modelling self-diagnosed burnout as a categorical syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: There is currently little consensus as to how burnout is best defined and measured, and whether the syndrome should be afforded clinical status. The latter issue would be advanced by determining whether burnout is a singular dimensional construct varying only by severity (and with some level of severity perhaps indicating clinical status), or whether a categorical model is superior, presumably reflecting differing 'sub-clinical' versus 'clinical' or 'burning out' vs 'burnt out' sub-groups. This study sought to determine whether self-diagnosed burnout was best modelled dimensionally or categorically. METHODS: We recently developed a new measure of burnout which includes symptoms of exhaustion, cognitive impairment, social withdrawal, insularity, and other psychological symptoms. Mixture modelling was utilised to determine if scores from 622 participants on the measure were best modelled dimensionally or categorically. RESULTS: A categorical model was supported, with the suggestion of a sub-syndromal class and, after excluding such putative members of that class, two other classes. Analyses indicated that the latter bimodal pattern was not likely related to current working status or differences in depression symptomatology between participants, but reflected subsets of participants with and without a previous diagnosis of a mental health condition. CONCLUSION: Findings indicated that sub-categories of self-identified burnout experienced by the lay population may exist. A previous diagnosis of a mental illness from a mental health professional, and therefore potentially a psychological vulnerability factor, was the most likely determinant of the bimodal data, a finding which has theoretical implications relating to how best to model burnout.