The impact of a new affective episode on psychosocial functioning, quality of life and perceived stress in newly diagnosed patients with bipolar disorder: A prospective one-year case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder (BD) has been associated with impaired functioning during periods of euthymia. This prospective one-year case-control study investigated the impact of a new affective episode on psychosocial functioning, quality of life (QoL) and perceived stress in newly diagnosed patients with BD in euthymia. METHODS: Clinically evaluated psychosocial functioning (Functioning Assessment Short Test, FAST), self-reported QoL (WHOQoL-BREF scale) and stress (Cohens' Perceived Stress Scale) were collected from 87 patients with BD with (BD-E) (n=38) and without (BD-NE) (n=44) clinical relapse and 44 age and gender matched healthy control (HC) individuals at baseline (T0), following an episode if it occurred (T2) and at one-year follow-up (T3). RESULTS: Patients with BD presented with poorer functioning compared to HC individuals at T0 and T3. There was no statistically significantly difference in the changes in FAST (-1.2, adjusted-p=0.82), PSS (0.34, adjusted-p=0.93) or WHOQoL (-0.67, adjusted-p=0.93) between BD-E and BD-NE during the one-year follow-up. The subgroup BD-E had statistically significantly higher FAST and stress scores and lower WHOQoL-scores compared to BD-NE at both T0 and T3. LIMITATIONS: Modest sample size. CONCLUSION: Functioning is impaired in newly diagnosed patients with BD in a euthymic state, however, a new affective episode does not affect functioning during subsequent euthymia at one-year follow-up. Patients with BD-E presented with overall most impaired functioning, highlighting the importance of early intervention strategies as essential to identify and treat patients at high risk of relapse and poor outcome.

Poor evidence for putative abnormalities in cerebrospinal fluid neurotransmitters in patients with depression versus healthy non-psychiatric individuals: A systematic review and meta-analyses of 23 studies.

BACKGROUND: Although investigated for decades, surprisingly no systematic review has ever been published on monoamines concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in major depressive disorder (MDD) versus healthy individuals (HC). METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analyses according to the PRISMA Statement based on comprehensive database searches for studies on CSF biomarkers of monoamines and their precursor and/or metabolites, and glutamine, glutamate and GABA in MDD versus HC. Risk of bias was systematically assessed. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies were included. Statistically significantly decreased levels between MDD and HC were found regarding CSF 5-HIAA (n = 2/13 (15%)), HVA (n = 2/11 (18%)), MHPG (n = 1/8 (13%)), and GABA (n = 2/4 (50%)), while increased levels were reported regarding NE (n = 1/2 (50%)), MHPG (n = 1/8 (13%)) and DOPEG (n = 1/1 (100%)). A majority of the studies found no statistically significant differences between MDD and HC regarding CSF 5-HIAA, HVA, NE, MHPG, glutamine, glutamate and GABA. Meta-analyses showed: 5-HIAA (-3.85, -8.89, 1.19, 0.14), HVA (-18.02, -30.99, -5.04, 0.01), MHPG (0.11, -2.96, 3.17, 0.95) and GABA (-33.20, -51.79, -14.62, 0.00) (mean difference, lower 95% CL, upper 95% CL, p-value). Most studies were influenced by risk of bias mainly due to small sample sizes, and not considering potential confounders as age, gender, severity of depression, body height and position during lumbar puncture, analytics of biomarkers and medication. CONCLUSION: The evidence for CSF 5-HIAA, HVA, NE, MHPG, DOPEG and GABA being related to the pathophysiology of MDD is poor. Future controlled studies of monoamines or metabolites should validate the null i.e., that the concentrations of these compounds are not abnormal in MDD.