Objective: To compare characteristics of bipolar disorder patients diagnosed as DSM-5 types I (BD-1) vs. II (BD-2). Methods: We compared descriptive, psychopathological, and treatment characteristics in a sample of 1377 consenting, closely and repeatedly evaluated adult BD patient-subjects from a specialty clinic, using bivariate methods and logistic multivariable modeling. Results: Factors found more among BD-2 > BD-1 cases included: [a] descriptors (more familial affective disorder, older at onset, diagnosis and first-treatment, more education, employment and higher socioeconomic status, more marriage and children, and less obesity); [b] morbidity (more general medical diagnoses, less drug abuse and smoking, more initial depression and less [hypo]mania or psychosis, longer episodes, higher intake depression and anxiety ratings, less mood-switching with antidepressants, less seasonal mood-change, greater %-time depressed and less [hypo]manic, fewer hospitalizations, more depression-predominant polarity, DMI > MDI course-pattern, and less violent suicidal behavior); [c] specific item-scores with initial HDRS21 (higher scores for depression, guilt, suicidality, insomnia, anxiety, agitation, gastrointestinal symptoms, hypochondriasis and weight-loss, with less psychomotor retardation, depersonalization, or paranoia); and [d] treatment (less use of lithium or antipsychotics, more antidepressant and benzodiazepine treatment). Conclusions: BD-2 was characterized by more prominent and longer depressions with some hypomania and mixed-features but not mania and rarely psychosis. BD-2 subjects had higher socioeconomic and functional status but also high levels of long-term morbidity and suicidal risk. Accordingly, BD-2 is dissimilar to, but not necessarily less severe than BD-1, consistent with being distinct syndromes.

Differences between bipolar disorder types 1 and 2 support the DSM two-syndrome concept

Miola Alessandro;
2022

Abstract

Objective: To compare characteristics of bipolar disorder patients diagnosed as DSM-5 types I (BD-1) vs. II (BD-2). Methods: We compared descriptive, psychopathological, and treatment characteristics in a sample of 1377 consenting, closely and repeatedly evaluated adult BD patient-subjects from a specialty clinic, using bivariate methods and logistic multivariable modeling. Results: Factors found more among BD-2 > BD-1 cases included: [a] descriptors (more familial affective disorder, older at onset, diagnosis and first-treatment, more education, employment and higher socioeconomic status, more marriage and children, and less obesity); [b] morbidity (more general medical diagnoses, less drug abuse and smoking, more initial depression and less [hypo]mania or psychosis, longer episodes, higher intake depression and anxiety ratings, less mood-switching with antidepressants, less seasonal mood-change, greater %-time depressed and less [hypo]manic, fewer hospitalizations, more depression-predominant polarity, DMI > MDI course-pattern, and less violent suicidal behavior); [c] specific item-scores with initial HDRS21 (higher scores for depression, guilt, suicidality, insomnia, anxiety, agitation, gastrointestinal symptoms, hypochondriasis and weight-loss, with less psychomotor retardation, depersonalization, or paranoia); and [d] treatment (less use of lithium or antipsychotics, more antidepressant and benzodiazepine treatment). Conclusions: BD-2 was characterized by more prominent and longer depressions with some hypomania and mixed-features but not mania and rarely psychosis. BD-2 subjects had higher socioeconomic and functional status but also high levels of long-term morbidity and suicidal risk. Accordingly, BD-2 is dissimilar to, but not necessarily less severe than BD-1, consistent with being distinct syndromes.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/3501788
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 29
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 27
social impact