Abstract:Aims: Assess prevalence and clinical relevance of 'with mixed features" using a more liberal (2 opposite pole symptoms) compared to the more conservative DSM-5 (3 opposite pole symptoms) threshold in depressed bipolar disorder (BD) patients.
“…Nevertheless, this nosologic change was judged to be controversial by several authors and much of the criticism focused on the diagnostic subtype of the MDE "with mixed features". Indeed, the threshold number of symptoms was deemed arbitrary, as was the choice to retain as mixed features only those manifestations belonging to the manic polarity, and excluding the so-called "overlapping symptoms" such as irritability, psychomotor agitation, and distractibility [17][18][19]. As remarked by several psychopathologists, the DSM neo-Leonhardian taxonomy of mood disorders, based on polarity (depression and mania as extreme poles of a bipolar dichotomy) rather than on the course and recurrence of the episode, constitutes a theoretical model, per se, unsuitable to offer a diagnostic prototype that would properly target the complexity of mixedness in the real-world clinical setting [20][21][22].…”
Background
Subthreshold hypomania during a major depressive episode challenges the bipolar-unipolar dichotomy. In our study we employed a cross-diagnostic cluster analysis - to identify distinct subgroups within a cohort of depressed patients.
Methods
A k-means cluster analysis— based on the domain scores of the Mood Spectrum Self-Report (MOODS-SR) questionnaire—was performed on a data set of 300 adults with either bipolar or unipolar depression. After identifying groups, between-clusters comparisons were conducted on MOODS-SR domains and factors and on a set of sociodemographic, clinical and psychometric variables.
Results
Three clusters were identified: one with intermediate depressive and poor manic symptomatology (Mild), one with severe depressive and poor manic symptomatology (Moderate), and a third one with severe depressive and intermediate manic symptomatology (Mixed). Across the clusters, bipolar patients were significantly less represented in the Mild one, while the DSM-5 “Mixed features” specifier did not differentiate the groups. When compared to the other patients, those of Mixed cluster exhibited a stronger association with most of the illness-severity, quality of life, and outcomes measures considered. After performing pairwise comparisons significant differences between “Mixed” and “Moderate” clusters were restricted to: current and disease-onset age, psychotic ideation, suicidal attempts, hospitalization numbers, impulsivity levels and comorbidity for Cluster B personality disorder.
Conclusions
In the present study, a clustering approach based on a spectrum exploration of mood symptomatology led to the identification of three transdiagnostic groups of patients. Consistent with our hypothesis, the magnitude of subthreshold (hypo)manic symptoms was related to a greater clinical severity, regardless of the main categorical diagnosis.
“…Nevertheless, this nosologic change was judged to be controversial by several authors and much of the criticism focused on the diagnostic subtype of the MDE "with mixed features". Indeed, the threshold number of symptoms was deemed arbitrary, as was the choice to retain as mixed features only those manifestations belonging to the manic polarity, and excluding the so-called "overlapping symptoms" such as irritability, psychomotor agitation, and distractibility [17][18][19]. As remarked by several psychopathologists, the DSM neo-Leonhardian taxonomy of mood disorders, based on polarity (depression and mania as extreme poles of a bipolar dichotomy) rather than on the course and recurrence of the episode, constitutes a theoretical model, per se, unsuitable to offer a diagnostic prototype that would properly target the complexity of mixedness in the real-world clinical setting [20][21][22].…”
Background
Subthreshold hypomania during a major depressive episode challenges the bipolar-unipolar dichotomy. In our study we employed a cross-diagnostic cluster analysis - to identify distinct subgroups within a cohort of depressed patients.
Methods
A k-means cluster analysis— based on the domain scores of the Mood Spectrum Self-Report (MOODS-SR) questionnaire—was performed on a data set of 300 adults with either bipolar or unipolar depression. After identifying groups, between-clusters comparisons were conducted on MOODS-SR domains and factors and on a set of sociodemographic, clinical and psychometric variables.
Results
Three clusters were identified: one with intermediate depressive and poor manic symptomatology (Mild), one with severe depressive and poor manic symptomatology (Moderate), and a third one with severe depressive and intermediate manic symptomatology (Mixed). Across the clusters, bipolar patients were significantly less represented in the Mild one, while the DSM-5 “Mixed features” specifier did not differentiate the groups. When compared to the other patients, those of Mixed cluster exhibited a stronger association with most of the illness-severity, quality of life, and outcomes measures considered. After performing pairwise comparisons significant differences between “Mixed” and “Moderate” clusters were restricted to: current and disease-onset age, psychotic ideation, suicidal attempts, hospitalization numbers, impulsivity levels and comorbidity for Cluster B personality disorder.
Conclusions
In the present study, a clustering approach based on a spectrum exploration of mood symptomatology led to the identification of three transdiagnostic groups of patients. Consistent with our hypothesis, the magnitude of subthreshold (hypo)manic symptoms was related to a greater clinical severity, regardless of the main categorical diagnosis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.