RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Bipolar disorder (BD) has been reconceptualised as a progressive disorder that develops from mild to severe presentations. An empirical staging model - the Empirically Developed Clinical Staging Model for BD (EmDe-5) - was developed in a previous study. This study aims to further validate that model using a larger and more representative Spanish sample. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 183 BD outpatients were recruited at 11 sites in Spain. Assessment included clinical characteristics of the BD (number of hospitalisations, number of suicide attempts, comorbid personality disorders), physical health (BMI, metabolic syndrome, number of physical illnesses), cognition (SCIP), functioning (permanently disabled due to BD, FAST), and quality of life (SF-36). The CGI-S, VAS-S, and psychopharmacological treatment pattern were used as external validators. RESULTS: Ten patients (51.5%) were classified as stage 1, 33 (18%) as stage 2, 93 (508%) as stage 3, 37 (202%) as stage 4, and 10 (55%) as stage 5. All profilers, other than number of suicide attempts (p=0.311) and comorbid personality disorder (p=0.061), exhibited worse scores from stage 1 to 5. As expected, VAS-S and CGI-S scores were worse in the later stages. Regarding treatment, early stages (1-2) were associated with the use of one to three drugs while late stages (4-5) were associated with four or more drugs (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: We confirm the EmDe-5 staging model's construct validity. The ease of obtaining the profilers, together with the operational criteria provided to quantify them, will facilitate the use of the EmDe-5 staging model in daily clinical practice.
RESUMEN
Background: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is an established comorbidity in Bipolar Disorder (BD), but little is known about the characteristics of psychological trauma beyond a PTSD diagnosis and differences in trauma symptoms between BD-I and BD-II. Objective: (1) To present characteristics of a trauma-exposed BD sample; (2) to investigate prevalence and trauma symptom profile across BD-I and BD-II; (3) to assess the impact of a lifetime PTSD diagnosis vs. a history of trauma on BD course; and (4) to research the impacts of sexual and physical abuse. Methods: This multi-center study comprised 79 adult participants with BD with a history of psychological trauma and reports baseline data from a trial registered in Clinical Trials (https://clinicaltrials.gov; ref: NCT02634372). Clinical variables were gathered through clinical interview, validated scales and a review of case notes. Results: The majority (80.8%) of our sample had experienced a relevant stressful life event prior to onset of BD, over half of our sample 51.9% had a lifetime diagnosis of PTSD according to the Clinician Administered PTSD scale. The mean Impact of Event Scale-Revised scores indicated high levels of trauma-related distress across the sample, including clinical symptoms in the PTSD group and subsyndromal symptoms in the non-PTSD group. Levels of dissociation were not higher than normative values for BD. A PTSD diagnosis (vs. a history of trauma) was associated with psychotic symptoms [2(1) = 5.404, p = 0.02] but not with other indicators of BD clinical severity. There was no significant difference between BD-I and BD-II in terms of lifetime PTSD diagnosis or trauma symptom profile. Sexual abuse significantly predicted rapid cycling [2(1) = 4.15, p = 0.042], while physical abuse was not significantly associated with any clinical indicator of severity. Conclusion: Trauma load in BD is marked with a lack of difference in trauma profile between BD-I and BD-II. Although PTSD and sexual abuse may have a negative impact on BD course, in many indicators of BD severity there is no significant difference between PTSD and subsyndromal trauma symptoms. Our results support further research to clarify the role of subsyndromic PTSD symptoms, and highlight the importance of screening for trauma in BD patients.
