Diagnostic conversion from depression to bipolar disorders: results of a long-term prospective study of hospital admissions.
ABSTRACT To analyse the time course and some risk factors for a diagnostic change from major depression to bipolar disorders (BP) over an average of 20 years from the onset of the disorders.
Patients (406) with major mood disorders hospitalised at some time between 1959 and 1963 were followed-up until 1985. The analysis also included the course prior to hospitalisation. Survival analyses and Cox regression models were applied.
A diagnostic change from depression to bipolar I occurred in about 1% of the patients per year and to bipolar II disorders in about 0.5% per year. Risk factors for a change from depression to BP-I disorder were male sex and an early onset of the disorder; risk factors for a change from depression to BP-II disorder were female sex, a later onset of the disorder and a positive family history of mania.
Across the entire lifetime, every new episode of depression brings a new risk for mania; more than half of our severe mood disorder cases became bipolars. The risk of depression developing into bipolar disorder remains constant lifelong.
The diagnostic classification of ICD-9 met RDC criteria for bipolar disorder in only 90% of cases. Part of the data collected in retrospect may be less reliable; the prospective data were only collected every 5 years from 1965 to 1985 using multiple sources; mild manifestations between the follow-ups may have been partially missed. The sample of subsequent hospital admissions for major depression and mania represents a severe group of patients and generalisations to ambulatory cases may not be possible. Not all risk factors for diagnostic conversion described in the literature could be assessed in this study.
SourceAvailable from: Stephan Köhler[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: While pediatric mania and depression can be distinguished from each other, differentiating between unipolar major depressive disorder (unipolar MDD) and bipolar major depression (bipolar MDD) poses unique clinical and therapeutic challenges. Our aim was to examine the current body of knowledge on whether unipolar MDD and bipolar MDD in youth could be distinguished from one another in terms of clinical features and correlates.Journal of Affective Disorders 05/2015; 176. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2015.01.037 · 3.76 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In bipolar disorders, there are unclear diagnostic boundaries with unipolar depression and schizophrenia, inconsistency of treatment guidelines, relatively long trial-and-error phases of treatment optimization, and increasing use of complex combination therapies lacking empirical evidence. These suggest that the current definition of bipolar disorders based on clinical symptoms reflects a clinically and etiologically heterogeneous entity. Stratification of treatments for bipolar disorders based on biomarkers and improved clinical markers are greatly needed to increase the efficacy of currently available treatments and improve the chances of developing novel therapeutic approaches. This review provides a theoretical framework to identify biomarkers and summarizes the most promising markers for stratification regarding beneficial and adverse treatment effects. State and stage specifiers, neuropsychological tests, neuroimaging, and genetic and epigenetic biomarkers will be discussed with respect to their ability to predict the response to specific pharmacological and psychosocial psychotherapies for bipolar disorders. To date, the most reliable markers are derived from psychopathology and history-taking, while no biomarker has been found that reliably predicts individual treatment responses. This review underlines both the importance of clinical diagnostic skills and the need for biological research to identify markers that will allow the targeting of treatment specifically to sub-populations of bipolar patients who are more likely to benefit from a specific treatment and less likely to develop adverse reactions. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier B.V.European neuropsychopharmacology: the journal of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology 01/2015; 58. DOI:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2014.12.006 · 3.68 Impact Factor