Article

Recovery from multiple episodes of bipolar I depression.

Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 5.14). 03/2013; 74(3):e205-11. DOI: 10.4088/JCP.12m08049
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To describe the duration of bipolar I major and minor depressive episodes and factors associated with time to recovery.
As part of the National Institute of Mental Health Collaborative Depression Study, 219 participants with bipolar I disorder based on Research Diagnostic Criteria analogs to DSM-IV-TR criteria were recruited at 5 academic medical centers from 1978 to 1981 and followed for up to 25 years with the Longitudinal Interval Follow-Up Evaluation. The probability of recovery over time from depressive episodes, the primary outcome measure, was examined with mixed-effects grouped-time survival models.
The median duration of major depressive episodes was 14 weeks, and over 70% of participants recovered within 12 months of episode onset. The median duration of minor depressive episodes was 8 weeks, and approximately 90% of participants recovered within 6 months of onset of the episode. Aggregated data demonstrated similar durations of the first 3 major depressive episodes. However, for each participant with multiple episodes of major depression or minor depression, the duration of each episode was not consistent (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.07 and 0.25 for major and minor depression, respectively). The total number of years in episode over follow-up with major plus minor depression prior to onset of a major depressive episode was significantly associated with a decreased probability of recovery from that episode; with each additional year, the likelihood of recovery was reduced by 7% (hazard ratio = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.98; P = .002).
Bipolar I major depression generally lasts longer than minor depression, and the duration of multiple episodes within an individual varies. However, the probability of recovery over time from an episode of major depression appears to decline with each successive episode.

1 Follower
 · 
107 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective This randomized, controlled clinical trial compared the effect of interpersonal and social rhythm therapy (IPSRT) to that of specialist supportive care (SSC) on depressive outcomes (primary), social functioning, and mania outcomes over 26–78 weeks in young people with bipolar disorder receiving psychopharmacological treatment.Methods Subjects were aged 15–36 years, recruited from a range of sources, and the patient groups included bipolar I disorder, bipolar II disorder, and bipolar disorder not otherwise specified. Exclusion criteria were minimal. Outcome measures were the Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation and the Social Adjustment Scale. Paired-sample t-tests were used to determine the significance of change from baseline to outcome period. Analyses of covariance were used to determine the impact of therapy, impact of lifetime and current comorbidity, interaction between comorbidity and therapy, and impact of age at study entry on depression.ResultsA group of 100 participants were randomized to IPSRT (n = 49) or SSC (n = 51). The majority had bipolar I disorder (78%) and were female (76%), with high levels of comorbidity. After treatment, both groups had improved depressive symptoms, social functioning, and manic symptoms. Contrary to our hypothesis, there was no significant difference between therapies. There was no impact of lifetime or current Axis I comorbidity or age at study entry. There was a relative impact of SSC for patients with current substance use disorder.ConclusionsIPSRT and SSC used as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy appear to be effective in reducing depressive and manic symptoms and improving social functioning in adolescents and young adults with bipolar disorder and high rates of comorbidity. Identifying effective treatments that particularly address depressive symptoms is important in reducing the burden of bipolar disorder.
    Bipolar Disorders 10/2014; 17(2). DOI:10.1111/bdi.12273 · 4.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inflammation has emerged as a potentially important factor - and thus putative pharmacological target - in the pathology of bipolar disorders. However to date no systematic evaluations of the efficacy of add on anti-inflammatory treatment for the depressive and manic episodes have been carried out. Sixteen articles were ultimately identified - by computer searches of databases (including PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and EMBASE), supplemented by hand searches and personal communication - as meeting study inclusion criteria. Anti-manic effects were evaluated in two trials, one of adjunctive n-acetyl cysteine (NAC), one of omega-3 fatty acids (O3FA), and significant improvements only emerged for NAC. Celecoxib had a rapid but short-lived antidepressant effect. Despite limited effects of O3FA on symptoms, imaging data demonstrated alterations in neuronal functioning that might have longer-term therapeutic effects. Evidence was strongest for adjunctive NAC in bipolar depression though conclusions are limited by small sample sizes. Definitive conclusions are limited by the paucity of data, small study sizes, and the variability in methodology used. Current evidence for aspirin or celecoxib is insufficient though further investigation of the potential of celecoxib in early illness onset is warranted. Variable evidence exists for add-on O3FA though an indication of short-term treatment effects on membrane fluidity and neuronal activity suggest longer follow-up assessment is needed. The strongest evidence emerged for NAC in depression and future studies must address the role of illness duration and patients׳ baseline medications on outcomes. Careful consideration of lithium toxicity in the elderly and renal impaired is essential. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 12/2014; 174C:467-478. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.015 · 3.71 Impact Factor