Unrecognised bipolar disorder in primary care patients with depression.

Department of Psychological Medicine and Neurology, Cardiff University School of Medicine, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK.
The British journal of psychiatry: the journal of mental science (Impact Factor: 7.34). 02/2011; 199(1):49-56. DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.083840
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Bipolar disorder is complex and can be difficult to diagnose. It is often misdiagnosed as recurrent major depressive disorder.
We had three main aims. To estimate the proportion of primary care patients with a working diagnosis of unipolar depression who satisfy DSM-IV criteria for bipolar disorder. To test two screening instruments for bipolar disorder (the Hypomania Checklist (HCL-32) and Bipolar Spectrum Diagnostic Scale (BSDS)) within a primary care sample. To assess whether individuals with major depressive disorder with subthreshold manic symptoms differ from those individuals with major depressive disorder but with no or little history of manic symptoms in terms of clinical course, psychosocial functioning and quality of life.
Two-phase screening study in primary care.
Three estimates of the prevalence of undiagnosed bipolar disorder were obtained: 21.6%, 9.6% and 3.3%. The HCL-32 and BSDS questionnaires had quite low positive predictive values (50.0 and 30.1% respectively). Participants with major depressive disorder and with a history of subthreshold manic symptoms differed from those participants with no or little history of manic symptoms on several clinical features and on measures of both psychosocial functioning and quality of life.
Between 3.3 and 21.6% of primary care patients with unipolar depression may have an undiagnosed bipolar disorder. The HCL-32 and BSDS screening questionnaires may be more useful for detecting broader definitions of bipolar disorder than DSM-IV-defined bipolar disorder. Subdiagnostic features of bipolar disorder are relatively common in primary care patients with unipolar depression and are associated with a more morbid course of illness. Future classifications of recurrent depression should include dimensional measures of bipolar symptoms.


Available from: Sharon A Simpson, Apr 21, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Antidepressant prescribing continues to rise. Increased long-term prescribing and higher doses are contributing to current growth; however, patient factors associated with the use of higher doses remain unknown. This study¿s aim was to investigate patient factors associated with selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI) prescribed daily dose for depression treatment in general practice.MethodsA stratified sample of low to high prescribing practices were selected. Routine individual patient-level data were extracted one practice at a time: September 2009 to January 2011. Patients included were ¿18 years, and prescribed an SSRI for depression. Logistic regression analysis was undertaken to assess individual predictor variables on SSRI daily dose by standard therapeutic dose versus higher dose, as SSRIs demonstrate flat dose response curves for depression treatment. Predictor variables included: age, gender, deprivation, co-morbidity, smoking status, being prescribed the same SSRI for ¿2 years, and patients¿ general practice. For a subgroup of patients a second sub-group analysis included long-term benzodiazepine and/or z-hypnotic (B&Z) as a predictor variable.ResultsInter-practice SSRI prescribing varied significantly; practice point prevalence ranged from 2.5% (94/3697) to 11.9% (359/3007) of the practice population ¿18 years old; median 7.3% (250/3421) (¿2¿=¿2277.2, df¿=¿10, p¿<¿0.001). Overall point prevalence was 6.3% (3518/52575), with 5.8% (3066/52575) prescribed SSRIs for depression of whom 84.7% (2596/3066) had data for regression analysis. Higher SSRI doses were significantly associated with, in descending order of magnitude, individual practice attended, being prescribed the same SSRI for ¿2 years (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.80, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.17, p¿<¿0.001) and living in a more deprived area (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.16, p¿=¿0.009). Higher SSRI doses in the B&Z subgroup were significantly associated with individual practice attended, being prescribed a long-term B&Z (OR 2.05 95% CI 1.47 to 2.86, p¿<¿0.001) and being prescribed the same SSRI for ¿2 years (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.47, p¿<¿0.001).Conclusion Higher SSRI doses for depression were associated with practice attended and being prescribed the same antidepressant for ¿2 years. As long-term antidepressant use increases, the use of higher doses may further contribute to prescribing growth.
    BMC Family Practice 12/2014; 15(1):6. DOI:10.1186/s12875-014-0210-9 · 1.74 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bipolar spectrum disorders are frequently under-recognized and/or misdiagnosed in various settings. Several influential publications recommend the routine screening of bipolar disorder. A systematic review and meta-analysis of accuracy studies for the bipolar spectrum diagnostic scale (BSDS), the hypomania checklist (HCL-32) and the mood disorder questionnaire (MDQ) were performed.Methods The Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane, PsycINFO and SCOPUS databases were searched. Studies were included if the accuracy properties of the screening measures were determined against a DSM or ICD-10 structured diagnostic interview. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to rate bias.ResultsFifty three original studies met inclusion criteria (N=21,542). At recommended cutoffs, summary sensitivities were 81%, 66% and 69%, while specificities were 67%, 79% and 86% for the HCL-32, MDQ, and BSDS in psychiatric services, respectively. The HCL-32 was more accurate than the MDQ for the detection of type II bipolar disorder in mental health care centers (P=0.018). At a cutoff of 7, the MDQ had a summary sensitivity of 43% and a summary specificity of 95% for detection of bipolar disorder in primary care or general population settings.LimitationsMost studies were performed in mental health care settings. Several included studies had a high risk of bias.Conclusions Although accuracy properties of the three screening instruments did not consistently differ in mental health care services, the HCL-32 was more accurate than the MDQ for the detection of type II BD. More studies in other settings (for example, in primary care) are necessary.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 10/2014; 172. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2014.10.024 · 3.71 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Studies suggest that misdiagnosis of bipolar disorders (BD) is frequent in primary care. This study aimed to evaluate agreement between referral for BD by general practitioners (GP) and BD diagnosis by secondary care psychiatrists, and to evaluate the impact of age, gender, and BD type on agreement. The study was conducted at Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal׳s "Module Evaluation/Liaison" (MEL), which establishes/clarifies psychiatric diagnoses requested mainly from GPs and directs patients to appropriate treatment and care. Socio-demographic variables, reason for referral, and psychiatric diagnosis were compiled for patients assessed from 1998 to 2010. GP-psychiatrist agreement was established for BD type, gender, and age group (18-25, 26-35, 36-45, >45) using Cohen׳s Kappa coefficient (Κ). From 1998 to 2010, MEL psychiatrists received 18,111 requests and carried out 10,492 (58%) assessments. There were 583 referrals for BD suspicion, while 640 assessments (6.1%) received a BD diagnosis (40.3% type I, 40.5% type II). The overall K was 0.35 (95% CI [0.31, 0.38]), and was significantly higher for type I than type II (I=0.35, 95% CI [0.30, 0.39]; II=0.25, 95% CI [0.21, 0.30]), though age group and gender had no impact. Reasons for referral were converted into keywords and categories to facilitate agreement analyses. Only the main psychiatric diagnosis was available. Our study suggests diagnosing BD remains strenuous, regardless of age and gender, though BD type I seems better understood by primary care GPs. The true measure of BD diagnosis remains a critical issue in clinical practice. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 11/2014; 174C:225-232. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2014.10.057 · 3.71 Impact Factor