What influences psychological functioning in patients with mood disorders? The role of clinical, sociodemographic, and temperamental characteristics in a naturalistic study

Longitudinal trajectories of psychosocial functioning in patients with pre-existing mental disorders after one year of COVID-19 pandemic

Aims of the present study were to prospectively assess psychosocial functioning trajectories during the COVID pandemic and the possible impact of sociodemographic variables, as well as of COVID-19 pandemic-related factors, on these trajectories, in a sample of patients with pre-existing severe mental disorders. Moreover, we aimed at identifying predictors of impairment in psychosocial functioning over a period of 9 months of COVID-19 pandemic. Patients were recruited during the 3rd wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (T0, March-April 2021) while strict containment measures were applied in Italy, and reassessed after 3 months (T1, June-July 2021), and after 6 months from T1 (T2- November-December 2021), during the 4th wave of COVID pandemic. A sample of 300 subject (out of the 527 subjects recruited at baseline) completed the T2 evaluation. Patients were assessed by: Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) for psychosocial functioning, Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item (GAD-7) for anxiety symptoms, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for depressive symptoms and the Impact of Events Scale-Revised, for post-traumatic symptoms. Cluster analyses identified 4 trajectories of functioning: the High, Stable Functioning group (N = 77), the Improvement Functioning group (N = 62), the Progressive Impairment group (N = 83) and the Persistent Severe Impairment group (N = 78) respectively. We found that predictors of higher WSAS score at T2 were higher WSAS score at T0 (B = 0.43, p < .001), PHQ scores at baseline >10 (B = 2.89, p < .05), while not living alone was found to be a protective factor (B = -2.5, p < .05). Results of the present study provides insights into the vulnerability of individuals with psychiatric disorders during times of crisis. Study findings can contribute to a better understanding of the specific needs of this population and inform interventions and support strategies.

What Came First, Mania or Depression? Polarity at Onset in Bipolar I and II: Temperament and Clinical Course

(1) Background: Bipolar disorder (BD) is divided into type I (BD-I) and type II (BD-II). Polarity at onset (PO) is a proposal to specify the clinical course of BD, based on the type of the first episode at disorder onset-depressive (D-PO) or manic (M-PO). At the same time, affective temperaments represent preexisting variants of the spectrum of affective disorders. Our objectives were to investigate the hypothesis that temperament may exert an influence on PO, and that this factor can serve as an indicator of the forthcoming course of the disorder, carrying significant therapeutic implications. (2) Methods: We included 191 patients with BD and examined clinical variables and temperament; the latter was assessed using the short version of the Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris, and San Diego-Auto-questionnaire (TEMPS-A-39-SV). We tested the associations between these variables and PO using standard univariate/bivariate methods followed by multivariate logistic regression models. (3) Results: 52.9% of the sample had D-PO and 47.1% had M-PO. D-PO and M-PO patients scored higher for dysthymic and hyperthymic temperaments, respectively (p < 0.001). Also, they differed in BD subtypes, age at first affective episode, illness duration, number of depressive episodes, seasonality, suicide risk, substance use, lithium, and benzodiazepine use (p < 0.05). Only BD-II and age at first depressive episode were predictors of D-PO, whereas BD-I, age at first manic/hypomanic episode, and hyperthymic temperament were predictors of M-PO (p < 0.01). (4) Conclusions: Our findings point to the importance of carefully assessing temperament and PO in patients with BD, to better predict the clinical course and tailor therapeutic interventions to individual patients' needs.

Can Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor Be Considered a Biomarker for Bipolar Disorder? An Analysis of the Current Evidence

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) plays a key role in brain development, contributing to neuronal survival and neuroplasticity. Previous works have found that BDNF is involved in several neurological or psychiatric diseases. In this review, we aimed to collect all available data on BDNF and bipolar disorder (BD) and assess if BDNF could be considered a biomarker for BD. We searched the most relevant medical databases and included studies reporting original data on BDNF circulating levels or Val66Met polymorphism. Only articles including a direct comparison with healthy controls (HC) and patients diagnosed with BD according to international classification systems were included. Of the 2430 identified articles, 29 were included in the present review. Results of the present review show a reduction in BDNF circulating levels during acute phases of BD compared to HC, which increase after effective therapy of the disorders. The Val66Met polymorphism was related to features usually associated with worse outcomes. High heterogeneity has been observed regarding sample size, clinical differences of included patients, and data analysis approaches, reducing comparisons among studies. Although more studies are needed, BDNF seems to be a promising biomarker for BD.