The bipolar disorders: A case for their categorically distinct status based on symptom profiles

Background: It is unclear whether the bipolar disorders (i.e. BP-I/BP-II) differ dimensionally or categorically. This study sought to clarify this issue. Methods: We recruited 165 patients, of which 69 and 96 had clinician-assigned diagnoses of BP-I and BP-II respectively. Their psychiatrists completed a data sheet seeking information on clinical variables about each patient, while the patients completed a different data sheet and scored a questionnaire assessing the prevalence and severity of 96 candidate manic/hypomanic symptoms. Results: We conducted a series of analyses examining a set (and two sub-sets) of fifteen symptoms that were significantly more likely to be reported by the clinically diagnosed BP-I patients. Latent class analyses favoured two-class solutions, while mixture analyses demonstrated bimodality, thus arguing for a BP-I/BP-II categorical distinction. Statistically defined BP-I class members were more likely when manic to have experienced psychotic features and over-valued ideas. They were also more likely to have been hospitalised, and to have been younger when they received their bipolar diagnosis and first experienced a depressive or manic episode. Limitations: The lack of agreement between some patients and managing clinicians in judging the presence of psychotic features could have compromised some analyses. It is also unclear whether some symptoms (e.g. grandiosity, noting mystical events) were capturing formal psychotic features or not. Conclusions: Findings replicate our earlier study in providing evidence to support the modelling of BP-I and BP-II as categorically discrete conditions. This should advance research into aetiological factors and determining optimal (presumably differing) treatments for the two conditions

Categorical differentiation of the unipolar and bipolar disorders

There has been a longstanding debate as to whether the bipolar disorders differ categorically or dimensionally, with some dimensional or spectrum models including unipolar depressive disorders within a bipolar spectrum model. We analysed manic/hypomanic symptom data in samples of clinically diagnosed bipolar I, bipolar II and unipolar patients, employing latent class analyses to determine if separate classes could be identified. Mixture analyses were also undertaken to determine if a unimodal, bimodal or a trimodal pattern was present. For both a refined 15-item set and an extended 30-item set of manic/hypomanic symptoms, our latent class analyses favoured three-class solutions, while mixture analyses identified trimodal distributions of scores. Findings argue for a categorical distinction between unipolar and bipolar disorders, as well as between bipolar I and bipolar II disorders. Future research should aim to consolidate these results in larger samples, particularly given that the size of the unipolar group in this study was a salient limitation

Differentiating mania/hypomania from happiness using a machine learning analytic approach.

Background: This study aimed to improve the accuracy of bipolar disorder diagnoses by identifying symptoms that help to distinguish mania/hypomania in bipolar disorders from general ‘happiness’ in those with unipolar depression. Methods: An international sample of 165 bipolar and 29 unipolar depression patients (as diagnosed by their clinician) were recruited. All participants were required to rate a set of 96 symptoms with regards to whether they typified their experiences of manic/hypomanic states (for bipolar patients) or when they were ‘happy’ (unipolar patients). A machine learning paradigm (prediction rule ensembles; PREs) was used to derive rule ensembles that identified which of the 94 non-psychotic symptoms and their combinations best predicted clinically-allocated diagnoses. Results: The PREs were highly accurate at predicting clinician bipolar and unipolar diagnoses (92% and 91% respectively). A total of 20 items were identified from the analyses, which were all highly discriminating across the two conditions. When compared to a classificatory approach insensitive to the weightings of the items, the ensembles were of comparable accuracy in their discriminatory capacity despite the unbalanced sample. This illustrates the potential for PREs to supersede traditional classificatory approaches. Limitations: There were considerably less unipolar than bipolar patients in the sample, which limited the overall accuracy of the PREs. Conclusions: The consideration of symptoms outlined in this study should assist clinicians in distinguishing between bipolar and unipolar disorders. Future research will seek to further refine and validate these symptoms in a larger and more balanced sample

Towards the clinical implementation of pharmacogenetics in bipolar disorder.

BackgroundBipolar disorder (BD) is a psychiatric illness defined by pathological alterations between the mood states of mania and depression, causing disability, imposing healthcare costs and elevating the risk of suicide. Although effective treatments for BD exist, variability in outcomes leads to a large number of treatment failures, typically followed by a trial and error process of medication switches that can take years. Pharmacogenetic testing (PGT), by tailoring drug choice to an individual, may personalize and expedite treatment so as to identify more rapidly medications well suited to individual BD patients.DiscussionA number of associations have been made in BD between medication response phenotypes and specific genetic markers. However, to date clinical adoption of PGT has been limited, often citing questions that must be answered before it can be widely utilized. These include: What are the requirements of supporting evidence? How large is a clinically relevant effect? What degree of specificity and sensitivity are required? Does a given marker influence decision making and have clinical utility? In many cases, the answers to these questions remain unknown, and ultimately, the question of whether PGT is valid and useful must be determined empirically. Towards this aim, we have reviewed the literature and selected drug-genotype associations with the strongest evidence for utility in BD.SummaryBased upon these findings, we propose a preliminary panel for use in PGT, and a method by which the results of a PGT panel can be integrated for clinical interpretation. Finally, we argue that based on the sufficiency of accumulated evidence, PGT implementation studies are now warranted. We propose and discuss the design for a randomized clinical trial to test the use of PGT in the treatment of BD

The Farsi version of the Hypomania Check-List 32 (HCL-32): Applicability and indication of a four-factorial solution

Background: Data from the Iranian population for hypomania core symptom clusters are lacking. The aim of the present study was therefore to apply the Farsi version of the Hypomania-Check-List 32 (HCL-32), and to explore its factorial structure.Methods: A total of 163 Iranian out-patients took part in the study; 61 suffered from Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), and 102 suffered from Bipolar Disorders (BP). Participants completed the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) and the Hypomania Checklist (HCL-32). Exploratory factor analyses were used to examine the properties of the HCL-32. A ROC-curve analysis was performed to calculate sensitivity and specificity.Results: The HCL-32 differentiated between patients with MDD and with BP. Psychometric properties were satisfactory: sensitivity: 73; specificity: 91. MDQ and HCL-32 did correlate highly. No differences were found between patients suffering from BP I and BP II.Discussion: Instead of the two-factorial structure of the HCL-32 reported previously, the present pattern of factorial results suggest a distinction between four factors: two broadly positive dimensions of hypomania ("physically and mentally active"; "positive social interactions") and two rather negative dimensions ("risky behavior and substance use"; "difficulties in social interaction and impatience").Conclusion: The Farsi version of the HCL-32 proved to be applicable, and therefore easy to introduce within a clinical context. The pattern of results suggests a four factorial solution. © 2011 Haghighi et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Brain Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) Expression Is Regulated by MicroRNAs miR-26a and miR-26b Allele-Specific Binding

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is a neurotrophin that plays an essential role in neuronal development and plasticity. MicroRNA (miRNAs) are small non-coding RNAs of about 22-nucleotides in length regulating gene expression at post-transcriptional level. In this study we explore the role of miRNAs as post-transcriptional inhibitors of BDNF and the effect of 3′UTR sequence variations on miRNAs binding capacity. Using an in silico approach we identified a group of miRNAs putatively regulating BDNF expression and binding to BDNF 3′UTR polymorphic sequences. Luciferase assays demonstrated that these miRNAs (miR-26a1/2 and miR-26b) downregulates BDNF expression and that the presence of the variant alleles of two single nucleotide polymorphisms (rs11030100 and rs11030099) mapping in BDNF 3′UTR specifically abrogates miRNAs targeting. Furthermore we found a high linkage disequilibrium rate between rs11030100, rs11030099 and the non-synonymous coding variant rs6265 (Val66Met), which modulates BDNF mRNA localization and protein intracellular trafficking. Such observation led to hypothesize that miR-26s mediated regulation could extend to rs6265 leading to an allelic imbalance with potentially functional effects, such as peptide's localization and activity-dependent secretion. Since rs6265 has been previously implicated in various neuropsychiatric disorders, we evaluated the distribution of rs11030100, rs11030099 and rs6265 both in a control and schizophrenic group, but no significant difference in allele frequencies emerged. In conclusion, in the present study we identified two novel miRNAs regulating BDNF expression and the first BDNF 3′UTR functional variants altering miRNAs-BDNF binding

Impaired working speed and executive functions as frontal lobe dysfunctions in young first-degree relatives of schizophrenic patients

The aim of the investigation was to detect neuropsychological markers, such as sustained and selective attention and executive functions, which contribute to the vulnerability to schizophrenia especially in young persons. Performance was assessed in 32 siblings and children of schizophrenic patients and 32 matched controls using Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Colour-Word-Interference-Test, Trail Making Test, and d2-Concentration-Test. The first-degree relatives showed certain impairments on all four tests, in particular, slower times on all time-limited tests. These results suggest the need for more time when completing neuropsychological tasks involving selected and focused attention, as well as cognitive flexibility, as a possible indicator of genetic vulnerability to schizophrenia

Missense mutation of Brain Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) alters neurocognitive performance in patients with mild traumatic brain injury: a longitudinal study

The predictability of neurocognitive outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury is not straightforward. The extent and nature of recovery in patients with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) are usually heterogeneous and not substantially explained by the commonly known demographic and injury-related prognostic factors despite having sustained similar injuries or injury severity. Hence, this study evaluated the effects and association of the Brain Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) missense mutations in relation to neurocognitive performance among patients with mTBI. 48 patients with mTBI were prospectively recruited and MRI scans of the brain were performed within an average 10.1 (SD 4.2) hours post trauma with assessment of their neuropsychological performance post full Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) recovery. Neurocognitive assessments were repeated again at 6 months follow-up. The paired t-test, Cohen’s d effect size and repeated measure ANOVA were performed to delineate statistically significant differences between the groups [wildtype G allele (Val homozygotes) vs. minor A allele (Met carriers)] and their neuropsychological performance across the time point (T1 = baseline/ admission vs. T2 = 6th month follow-up). Minor A allele carriers in this study generally performed more poorly on neuropsychological testing in comparison wildtype G allele group at both time points. Significant mean differences were observed among the wildtype group in the domains of memory (M = -11.44, SD = 10.0, p = .01, d = 1.22), executive function (M = -11.56, SD = 11.7, p = .02, d = 1.05) and overall performance (M = -6.89 SD = 5.3, p = .00, d = 1.39), while the minor A allele carriers showed significant mean differences in the domains of attention (M = -11.0, SD = 13.1, p = .00, d = .86) and overall cognitive performance (M = -5.25, SD = 8.1, p = .01, d = .66).The minor A allele carriers in comparison to the wildtype G allele group, showed considerably lower scores at admission and remained impaired in most domains across the timepoints, although delayed signs of recovery were noted to be significant in the domains attention and overall cognition. In conclusion, the current study has demonstrated the role of the BDNF rs6265 Val66Met polymorphism in influencing specific neurocognitive outcomes in patients with mTBI. Findings were more detrimentally profound among Met allele carriers