Article

A different depression: clinical distinctions between bipolar and unipolar depression.

Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Health Science Center, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, 7th Floor (Mail Code 7792), San Antonio, TX 78229-3900, USA.
Journal of Affective Disorders (Impact Factor: 3.71). 03/2005; 84(2-3):117-25. DOI: 10.1016/S0165-0327(03)00194-0
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Delayed diagnosis or misdiagnosis can prolong the suffering of patients with bipolar disorder. Accurate early diagnosis is sometimes difficult, however, particularly because patients often present in the depressive phase, which can easily be mistaken for unipolar depression. Unfortunately, therapy appropriate for unipolar depression can increase the risk of manic switch or cycle acceleration in bipolar disorder, especially in those with a family history of bipolarity and suicide, although some antidepressants may be useful in some bipolar patients. In addition, most currently available mood stabilizers, though effective in managing mania, do not effectively resolve depression. In contrast, lamotrigine has shown activity in bipolar depression and has a very low risk of manic switch. Bipolar depression, compared with unipolar depression, is more likely to be associated with hypersomnia, motor retardation, mood lability, early onset, and a family history of bipolar disorder. Awareness of these distinctions can greatly improve diagnosis of bipolar disorder and provide an opportunity for effective therapeutic intervention.

0 Followers
 · 
72 Views
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract These guidelines for the treatment of unipolar depressive disorders systematically review available evidence pertaining to the biological treatment of patients with major depression and produce a series of practice recommendations that are clinically and scientifi cally meaningful based on the available evidence. These guidelines are intended for use by all physicians assessing and treating patients with these conditions. The relevant data have been extracted primarily from various treatment guidelines and panels for depressive disorders, as well as from meta-analyses/reviews on the effi cacy of antidepressant medications and other biological treatment interventions identifi ed by a search of the MEDLINE database and Cochrane Library. The identifi ed literature was evaluated with respect to the strength of evidence for its effi cacy and was then categorized into fi ve levels of evidence (CE A-F) and fi ve levels of recommendation grades (RG 1 – 5). This second part of the WFSBP guidelines on depressive disorders covers the management of the maintenance phase treatment, and is primarily concerned with the biological treatment (including pharmacological and hormonal medications, electroconvulsive therapy and other brain stimulation treatments) of adults and also, albeit to a lesser extent, children, adolescents and older adults.
    The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry 02/2015; DOI:10.3109/15622975.2014.1001786 · 4.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and the Montgomery–Asberg Depression Scale (MADRS) are used worldwide and considered standard scales for evaluating depressive symptoms. This paper aims to investigate the psychometric proprieties (reliability and validity) of these scales in a Brazilian sample, and to compare responses in bipolar and unipolar patients. Methods The sample comprised 91 patients with either bipolar I or major depressive disorder from a psychiatric institute at São Paulo, Brazil. Participants were recruited and treated by clinicians through the Structured Interview for DSM-IV criteria, and had previously been interviewed by a trained, blind tester. Results Both scales indicated good reliability properties; however, the MADRS reliability statistics were higher than those of the HAM-D for detecting initial symptoms of unipolar depression. Correlation between the tests was moderate. Despite demonstrating adequate validity, neither test achieved the levels of sensitivity and specificity required for identification of a cutoff score to differentiate bipolar I and unipolar patients. Conclusions Both scales demonstrate adequate reliability and validity for assessing depressive symptoms in the Brazilian sample, and are good options to complement psychiatric diagnosis, but are not appropriate for distinguishing between the two affective disorder types.
    Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 04/2015; 13. DOI:10.1186/s12955-015-0235-3 · 2.10 Impact Factor