Article

Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder and the Brain

American Journal of Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 13.56). 03/2013; 170(3):248-52. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12121555
Source: PubMed
1 Follower
 · 
90 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prefrontal regions are involved in processing emotional stimuli and are a topic of interest in clinical and neurological research. Although sex steroids are potent neuromodulators, the influence of menstrual cycle phase and hormonal contraceptive use is rarely taken into account in neuroimaging studies. Our purpose was to evaluate changes in gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) in women, as measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), with phases of the menstrual cycle and use of hormonal contraceptives, and to assess correlations with premenstrual symptoms. Three MRI sessions per cycle were obtained in the natural cycle group, and two sessions in the hormonal contraceptives group. In addition to an anatomical scan, single voxel MRS in the prefrontal area was performed. After quality control, 10 women with natural cycle and 21 women taking hormonal contraceptives were included for analysis. Peripheral blood samples were obtained to determine endogenous hormone concentrations. Subjects were asked to complete a daily rating of severity of problems questionnaire, to quantify premenstrual symptoms. In the natural cycle group, we found a significant increase in prefrontal GABA concentration at the time of ovulation. Conversely, in the hormonal contraceptives group, no differences were found between the pill phase and pill-free phase. GABA concentrations did not significantly correlate with endogenous hormone levels, nor with premenstrual symptoms. Our results indicate that spectroscopically measured GABA concentrations are higher during ovulation in women with a natural menstrual cycle. We suggest that neuroimaging studies should take into account this variability. Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier B.V.
    Brain Research 12/2014; 1597. DOI:10.1016/j.brainres.2014.11.051 · 2.83 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) affects up to 80% of women, often leading to significant personal, social and economic costs. When apparently maladaptive states are widespread, they sometimes confer a hidden advantage, or did so in our evolutionary past. We suggest that PMS had a selective advantage because it increased the chance that infertile pair bonds would dissolve, thus improving the reproductive outcomes of women in such partnerships. We confirm predictions arising from the hypothesis: PMS has high heritability; gene variants associated with PMS can be identified; animosity exhibited during PMS is preferentially directed at current partners; and behaviours exhibited during PMS may increase the chance of finding a new partner. Under this view, the prevalence of PMS might result from genes and behaviours that are adaptive in some societies, but are potentially less appropriate in modern cultures. Understanding this evolutionary mismatch might help depathologize PMS, and suggests solutions, including the choice to use cycle-stopping contraception.
    Evolutionary Applications 08/2014; 7(8). DOI:10.1111/eva.12190 · 4.57 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The proposals to include a menstruation-related mood disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Revised Third Edition (DSM-III-R), and DSM-IV led to intense public and behind-the-scenes controversy. Although the controversies surrounding the DSM-5 revision were greater in number than the controversies of the earlier revisions, the DSM-5 proposal to include a menstruation-related mood disorder was not among them. Premenstrual dysphoric disorder was made an official disorder in the DSM-5 with no significant protest. To understand the factors that led to this change, we interviewed those psychiatrists and psychologists who were most involved in the DSM-IV revision. On the basis of these interviews, we offer a list of empirical and nonempirical considerations that led to the DSM-IV compromise and explore how key alterations in these considerations led to a different outcome for the DSM-5.
    The Journal of nervous and mental disease 03/2014; DOI:10.1097/NMD.0000000000000128 · 1.81 Impact Factor