Article

Reviewing the diagnostic validity and utility of mixed depression (depressive mixed states).

Hecker Psychiatry Research Center, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
European Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 3.21). 02/2008; 23(1):40-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2007.07.003
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To review the diagnostic validity and utility of mixed depression, i.e. co-occurrence of depression and manic/hypomanic symptoms.
PubMed search of all English-language papers published between January 1966 and December 2006 using and cross-listing key words: bipolar disorder, mixed states, criteria, utility, validation, gender, temperament, depression-mixed states, mixed depression, depressive mixed state/s, dysphoric hypomania, mixed hypomania, mixed/dysphoric mania, agitated depression, anxiety disorders, neuroimaging, pathophysiology, and genetics. A manual review of paper reference lists was also conducted.
By classic diagnostic validators, the diagnostic validity of categorically-defined mixed depression (i.e. at least 2-3 manic/hypomanic symptoms) is mainly supported by family history (the current strongest diagnostic validator). Its diagnostic utility is supported by treatment response (negative effects of antidepressants). A dimensionally-defined mixed depression is instead supported by a non-bi-modal distribution of its intradepression manic/hypomanic symptoms.
Categorically-defined mixed depression may have some diagnostic validity (family history is the current strongest validator). Its diagnostic utility seems supported by treatment response.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
73 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mixed-depressive features imply an occult bipolarity and might be linked to resistance to antidepressant therapy and a higher risk of suicide. Currently, there is no consensus about or any clinical guidelines available for this ill-defined clinical entity. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of mood stabilizers, such as valproate, for adjuvant therapy in patients suspected of having mixed-depressive features.
    Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology 08/2014; 4(4):143-8. DOI:10.1177/2045125314532868 · 1.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The new diagnostic category in the Depressive Disorders chapter of DSM-5 entitled 'Major Depressive Disorder With Mixed Features' is applied to individuals who meet criteria for Major Depressive Disorder and have concurrent subsyndromal hypomanic or manic symptoms. But the operational definition of this new specifier is much closer to that of hypomania and mania than to the definition of atypical depression or the older 'mixed depression.' Moreover, multiple studies have shown that the characteristics of individuals with this condition and the clinical trajectory of their illness is much closer to that of bipolar patients than to that of depressed individuals without comorbid hypomanic or manic symptoms. Thus we believe that this condition would be more appropriately placed in the Bipolar Disorders chapter of DSM-5. We also believe that this blurring of the depressive disorder- bipolar disorder boundary is one cause for the low inter-rater reliability in the diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background To acknowledge the clinical significance of manic features in depressed patients, DSM-5 included criteria for a mixed features specifier for major depressive disorder (MDD). In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project we modified our previously published depression scale to include a subscale assessing the DSM-5 mixed features specifier. Methods More than 1100 psychiatric outpatients with MDD or bipolar disorder completed the Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS) supplemented with questions for the DSM-5 mixed features specifier (CUDOS-M). To examine discriminant and convergent validity the patients were rated on clinician severity indices of depression, anxiety, agitation, and irritability. Discriminant and convergent validity was further examined in a subset of patients who completed other self-report symptom severity scales. Test–retest reliability was examined in a subset who completed the CUDOS-M twice. We compared CUDOS-M scores in patients with MDD, bipolar depression, and hypomania. Results The CUDOS-M subscale had high internal consistency and test–retest reliability, was more highly correlated with another self-report measure of mania than with measures of depression, anxiety, substance use problems, eating disorders, and anger, and was more highly correlated with clinician severity ratings of agitation and irritability than anxiety and depression. CUDOS-M scores were significantly higher in hypomanic patients than depressed patients, and patients with bipolar depression than patients with MDD. Limitations The study was cross-sectional, thus we did not examine whether the CUDOS-M detects emerging mixed symptoms when depressed patients are followed over time. Also, while we examined the correlation between the CUDOS-M and clinician ratings of agitation and irritability, we did not examine the association with a clinician measure of manic symptomatology such as the Young Mania Rating Scale Conclusions In the present study of a large sample of psychiatric outpatients, the CUDOS-M was a reliable and valid measure of the DSM-5 mixed features specifier for MDD.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 10/2014; 168:357–362. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2014.07.021 · 3.71 Impact Factor