Atypical depression. A valid clinical entity?
ABSTRACT The history of atypical depression is summarized, and the results of several treatment outcome studies are reviewed. A number of clinical course, family, and biologic variables in patients with atypical depression are investigated, and these patients are compared with patients with other depressive conditions. The Atypical Depression Diagnostic Scale Question Book also is presented.
SourceAvailable from: J-P Lang[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective This paper examines whether atypical depression is still a valid entity as a diagnosis subtype in the light of publications with most recent antidepressants. Method First, we present the origins of the diagnosis sub-specification of atypical depression, which is based on a different drug response to tricyclic antidepressants and mono amino oxydase inhibitors. Secondly, we discuss the different definitions that can be found for the terms of atypical depression. We present more specifically the definition of atypical depression as it is described in the DSM-IV, with its most important criterion: mood reactivity. Then we present a review of scientific publications questioning atypical depression validity as a clinical syndrome (based on medline researches). We will see whether this diagnosis is still relevant with the latest drugs used to treat mood disorders. A special focus is made on the link between atypical depression and bipolar disorder, based on Benazzi's work. Results Most of publications confirm that atypical depression is a valid syndrome regarding first antidepressants clinical trials. Nevertheless, more studies with the latest antidepressants and atypical antipsychotics are needed to confirm this hypothesis. The link between atypical depression and bipolar disorders seems to be quite strong although it requires further investigations. Discussion There are very few double-blind drug trials focusing on atypical depressions and results need to be confirmed by trials with new drugs. Moreover, we regret that there are no studies including cerebral imagery. More studies are also needed on neurobiology and psychotherapy specificity. Conclusion Atypical depression is still a useful concept, because of its specific clinical presentation, evolution and treatments, even if more studies should be done. Atypical depression could also be useful to diagnose more easily some bipolar disorders and should help clinicians to focus more on suicidal risks and addiction evaluation for these patients, considering the mood reactivity and the link with bipolar disorder. To conclude, we propose that atypical depression should still figure in the future DSM-V for these different reasons.L Encéphale 09/2013; 39(4):258–264. DOI:10.1016/j.encep.2012.08.008 · 0.60 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The core features of borderline personality disorder (BPD) are affective instability, unstable relationships and identity disturbance. Axis I comorbidities are frequent, in particular affective disorders. The concept of atypical depression is complex and often underestimated. The purpose of the study was to investigate the comorbidity of atypical depression in borderline patients regarding anxiety-related psychopathology and interpersonal problems. Sixty patients with BPD were assessed with the Structured Clinical Interviews for DSM-IV Axis I and II Disorders (SCID I, SCID II) as well as the Atypical Depression Diagnostic Scale (ADDS). Additionally, patients completed a questionnaire (SCL-90-R, BDI, STAI, STAXI, IIP-C). Forty-five BPD patients (81.8%) had a comorbid affective disorder of which 15 (27.3%) were diagnosed with an atypical depression. In comparison to patients with major depressive disorder or no comorbid depression, patients with atypical depression showed significant higher scores in psychopathological symptoms regarding anxiety and global severity as well as interpersonal problems. The presence of atypical depression in borderline patients is correlated with psychopathology, anxiety, and interpersonal problems and seems to be of clinical importance for personalized treatment decisions.Comprehensive psychiatry 12/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.comppsych.2013.11.021 · 2.26 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of combined bupropion versus placebo using duloxetine as active reference drug, in patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of major depression with atypical features and a history of treatment resistance, were evaluated in this preliminary six-week study. Patients (n=46) had a baseline Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) ≥14 and were randomly assigned to 150/300 mg/day bupropion vs. placebo, which was added to 60 to 120 mg/day duloxetine depending on baseline depression severity. Atypical features of depression were assessed using the additional eight-item module of the Structured Interview Guide for the HAM-D with the Atypical Depression Supplement. By week 6, only five (21.7%) patients receiving duloxetine+placebo vs. six (26.1%) patients on the bupropion combination achieved response. No significant difference in final HAM-D scores between the two groups was observed between those patients achieving response. The presence of a higher number of atypical features significantly predicted non-response, with the relevant binary logistic regression model correctly classifying 17 out 22 (77.3%) of non-responders [Exp(B)=0.294; p=.016] vs. 17 out 23 (73.9%) [Exp(B)=0.353; p=.028] non-responder cases in the “+placebo” and “+bupropion” groups, respectively. In those patients receiving bupropion, treatment-emergent adverse events leading to withdrawal were more common among those receiving lower doses of the combination drug, and no life-threating dangers were noted. Additional studies, including an adequate course of duloxetine trial, are nonetheless aimed to allow a firm conclusion about the usefulness of the combination of duloxetine and bupropion for treatment-resistant cases of major depression with atypical features.European Neuropsychopharmacology 08/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2014.04.004 · 5.40 Impact Factor