Polarised views about bipolar disorder(s): A critique of the 2020 College guidelines for mood disorders

Network dysfunction of sadness facial expression processing and morphometry in euthymic bipolar disorder

Facial emotion recognition (FER), including sadness, is altered in bipolar disorder (BD). However, the relationship between this impairment and the brain structure in BD is relatively unexplored. Furthermore, its association with clinical variables and with the subtypes of BD remains to be clarified. Twenty euthymic patients with BD type I (BD-I), 28 BD type II (BD-II), and 45 healthy controls completed a FER test and a 3D-T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Gray matter volume (GMV) of the cortico-limbic regions implicated in emotional processing was estimated and their relationship with FER performance was investigated using network analysis. Patients with BD-I had worse total and sadness-related FER performance relative to the other groups. Total FER performance was significantly negatively associated with illness duration and positively associated with global functioning in patients with BD-I. Sadness-related FER performance was also significantly negatively associated with the number of previous manic episodes. Network analysis showed a reduced association of the GMV of the frontal-insular-occipital areas in patients with BD-I, with a greater edge strength between sadness-related FER performance and amygdala GMV relative to controls. Our results suggest that FER performance, particularly for facial sadness, may be distinctively impaired in patients with BD-I. The pattern of reduced interrelationship in the frontal-insular-occipital regions and a stronger positive relationship between facial sadness recognition and the amygdala GMV in BD may reflect altered cortical modulation of limbic structures that ultimately predisposes to emotional dysregulation. Future longitudinal studies investigating the effect of mood state on FER performance in BD are warranted.

Differential characteristics of bipolar I and II disorders: a retrospective, cross-sectional evaluation of clinical features, illness course, and response to treatment

BACKGROUND

The distinction between bipolar I and bipolar II disorder and its treatment implications have been a matter of ongoing debate. The aim of this study was to examine differences between patients with bipolar I and II disorders with particular emphasis on the early phases of the disorders.

METHODS

808 subjects diagnosed with bipolar I (N = 587) or bipolar II disorder (N = 221) according to DSM-IV criteria were recruited between April 1994 and March 2022 from tertiary-level mood disorder clinics. Sociodemographic and clinical variables concerning psychiatric and medical comorbidities, family history, illness course, suicidal behavior, and response to treatment were compared between the bipolar disorder types.

RESULTS

Bipolar II disorder patients were more frequently women, older, married or widowed. Bipolar II disorder was associated with later "bipolar" presentation, higher age at first (hypo)mania and treatment, less frequent referral after a single episode, and more episodes before lithium treatment. A higher proportion of first-degree relatives of bipolar II patients were affected by major depression and anxiety disorders. The course of bipolar II disorder was typically characterized by depressive onset, early depressive episodes, multiple depressive recurrences, and depressive predominant polarity; less often by (hypo)mania or (hypo)mania-depression cycles at onset or during the early course. The lifetime clinical course was more frequently rated as chronic fluctuating than episodic. More patients with bipolar II disorder had a history of rapid cycling and/or high number of episodes. Mood stabilizers and antipsychotics were prescribed less frequently during the early course of bipolar II disorder, while antidepressants were more common. We found no differences in global functioning, lifetime suicide attempts, family history of suicide, age at onset of mood disorders and depressive episodes, and lithium response.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences between bipolar I and II disorders are not limited to the severity of (hypo)manic syndromes but include patterns of clinical course and family history. Caution in the use of potentially mood-destabilizing agents is warranted during the early course of bipolar II disorder.

Status of Type II vs. Type I Bipolar Disorder: Systematic Review with Meta-Analyses

LEARNING OBJECTIVES AFTER PARTICIPATING IN THIS CME ACTIVITY, THE PSYCHIATRIST SHOULD BE BETTER ABLE TO

• Analyze and compare the different bipolar disorder (BD) types.• Identify markers that distinguish BD types and explain how the DSM-IV defines the disorder.

ABSTRACT

Since the status of type II bipolar disorder (BD2) as a separate and distinct form of bipolar disorder (BD) remains controversial, we reviewed studies that directly compare BD2 to type I bipolar disorder (BD1). Systematic literature searching yielded 36 reports with head-to-head comparisons involving 52,631 BD1 and 37,363 BD2 patients (total N = 89,994) observed for 14.6 years, regarding 21 factors (with 12 reports/factor). BD2 subjects had significantly more additional psychiatric diagnoses, depressions/year, rapid cycling, family psychiatric history, female sex, and antidepressant treatment, but less treatment with lithium or antipsychotics, fewer hospitalizations or psychotic features, and lower unemployment rates than BD1 subjects. However, the diagnostic groups did not differ significantly in education, onset age, marital status, [hypo]manias/year, risk of suicide attempts, substance use disorders, medical comorbidities, or access to psychotherapy. Heterogeneity in reported comparisons of BD2 and BD1 limits the firmness of some observations, but study findings indicate that the BD types differ substantially by several descriptive and clinical measures and that BD2 remains diagnostically stable over many years. We conclude that BD2 requires better clinical recognition and significantly more research aimed at optimizing its treatment.

Bipolar I and bipolar II subtypes in older age: Results from the Global Aging and Geriatric Experiments in Bipolar Disorder (GAGE-BD) project

OBJECTIVES

The distinction between bipolar I disorder (BD-I) and bipolar II disorder (BD-II) has been a topic of long-lasting debate. This study examined differences between BD-I and BD-II in a large, global sample of OABD, focusing on general functioning, cognition and somatic burden as these domains are often affected in OABD.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analyses were conducted with data from the Global Aging and Geriatric Experiments in Bipolar Disorder (GAGE-BD) database. The sample included 963 participants aged ≥50 years (714 BD-I, 249 BD-II). Sociodemographic and clinical factors were compared between BD subtypes including adjustment for study cohort. Multivariable analyses were conducted with generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) and estimated associations between BD subtype and (1) general functioning (GAF), (2) cognitive performance (g-score) and (3) somatic burden, with study cohort as random intercept.

RESULTS

After adjustment for study cohort, BD-II patients more often had a late onset ≥50 years (p = 0.008) and more current severe depression (p = 0.041). BD-I patients were more likely to have a history of psychiatric hospitalization (p < 0.001) and current use of anti-psychotics (p = 0.003). Multivariable analyses showed that BD subtype was not related to GAF, cognitive g-score or somatic burden.

CONCLUSION

BD-I and BD-II patients did not differ in terms of general functioning, cognitive impairment or somatic burden. Some clinical differences were observed between the groups, which could be the consequence of diagnostic definitions. The distinction between BD-I and BD-II is not the best way to subtype OABD patients. Future research should investigate other disease specifiers in this population.

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

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.

Clinical practice guidelines, psychotherapy and implications for psychiatry

OBJECTIVE

The 2020 RANZCP clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for mood disorders, published in January 2021, raise important questions for practice and teaching. The objective of this review is to critically appraise the content of the CPG to examine if it reflects contemporary practice-based evidence.

CONCLUSION

Our review identifies factual error and notes international criticism. Retraction and amendment of the CPG is needed, particularly in the current political climate.