Recognition, comorbidity, and outcome of DSM-IV bipolar I and II disorders in psychiatric care

This study is part of an ongoing collaborative bipolar research project, the Jorvi Bipolar Study (JoBS). The JoBS is run by the Department of Mental Health and Alcohol Research of the National Public Health Institute, Helsinki, and the Department of Psychiatry, Jorvi Hospital, Helsinki University Central Hospital (HUCH), Espoo, Finland. It is a prospective, naturalistic cohort study of secondary level care psychiatric in- and outpatients with a new episode of bipolar disorder (BD). The second report also included 269 major depressive disorder (MDD) patients from the Vantaa Depression Study (VDS). The VDS was carried out in collaboration with the Department of Psychiatry of the Peijas Medical Care District. Using the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ), all in- and outpatients at the Department of Psychiatry at Jorvi Hospital who currently had a possible new phase of DSM-IV BD were sought. Altogether, 1630 psychiatric patients were screened, and 490 were interviewed using a semistructured interview (SCID-I/P). The patients included in the cohort (n=191) had at intake a current phase of BD. The patients were evaluated at intake and at 6- and 18-month interviews. Based on this study, BD is poorly recognized even in psychiatric settings. Of the BD patients with acute worsening of illness, 39% had never been correctly diagnosed. The classic presentations of BD with hospitalizations, manic episodes, and psychotic symptoms lead clinicians to correct diagnosis of BD I in psychiatric care. Time of follow-up elapsed in psychiatric care, but none of the clinical features, seemed to explain correct diagnosis of BD II, suggesting reliance on cross- sectional presentation of illness. Even though BD II was clearly less often correctly diagnosed than BD I, few other differences between the two types of BD were detected. BD I and II patients appeared to differ little in terms of clinical picture or comorbidity, and the prevalence of psychiatric comorbidity was strongly related to the current illness phase in both types. At the same time, the difference in outcome was clear. BD II patients spent about 40% more time depressed than BD I patients. Patterns of psychiatric comorbidity of BD and MDD differed somewhat qualitatively. Overall, MDD patients were likely to have more anxiety disorders and cluster A personality disorders, and bipolar patients to have more cluster B personality disorders. The adverse consequences of missing or delayed diagnosis are potentially serious. Thus, these findings strongly support the value of screening for BD in psychiatric settings, especially among the major depressive patients. Nevertheless, the diagnosis must be based on a clinical interview and follow-up of mood. Comorbidity, present in 59% of bipolar patients in a current phase, needs concomitant evaluation, follow-up, and treatment. To improve outcome in BD, treatment of bipolar depression is a major challenge for clinicians.

Irritable bowel syndrome in the general population : epidemiology, comorbidity and societal costs

Background: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorder characterised by abdominal pain and abnormal bowel function. It is associated with a high rate of healthcare consumption and significant health care costs. The prevalence and economic burden of IBS in Finland has not been studied before. The aims of this study were to assess the prevalence of IBS according to various diagnostic criteria and to study the rates of psychiatric and somatic comorbidity in IBS. In addition, health care consumption and societal costs of IBS were to be evaluated. Methods: The study was a two-phase postal survey. Questionnaire I identifying IBS by Manning 2 (at least two of the six Manning symptoms), Manning 3 (at least three Manning symptoms), Rome I, and Rome II criteria, was mailed to a random sample of 5 000 working age subjects. It also covered extra-GI symptoms such as headache, back pain, and depression. Questionnaire II, covering rates of physician visits, and use of GI medication, was sent to subjects fulfilling Manning 2 or Rome II IBS criteria in Questionnaire I. Results: The response rate was 73% and 86% for questionnaires I and II. The prevalence of IBS was 15.9%, 9.6%, 5.6%, and 5.1% according to Manning 2, Manning 3, Rome I, and Rome II criteria. Of those meeting Rome II criteria, 97% also met Manning 2 criteria. Presence of severe abdominal pain was more often reported by subjects meeting either of the Rome criteria than those meeting either of the Manning criteria. Presence of depression, anxiety, and several somatic symptoms was more common among subjects meeting any IBS criterion than by controls. Of subjects with depressive symptoms, 11.6% met Rome II IBS criteria compared to 3.7% of those with no depressiveness. Subjects meeting any IBS criteria made more physician visits than controls. Intensity of GI symptoms and presence of dyspeptic symptoms were the strongest predictors of GI consultations. Presence of dyspeptic symptoms and a history of abdominal pain in childhood also predicted non-GI visits. Annual GI related individual costs were higher in the Rome II group (497 ) than in the Manning 2 group (295 ). Direct expenses of GI symptoms and non GI physician visits ranged between 98M for Rome II and 230M for Manning 2 criteria. Conclusions: The prevalence of IBS varies substantially depending on the criteria applied. Rome II criteria are more restrictive than Manning 2, and they identify an IBS population with more severe GI symptoms, more frequent health care use, and higher individual health care costs. Subjects with IBS demonstrate high rates of psychiatric and somatic comorbidity regardless of health care seeking status. Perceived symptom severity rather than psychiatric comorbidity predicts health care seeking for GI symptoms. IBS incurs considerable medical costs. The direct GI and non-GI costs are equivalent to up to 5% of outpatient health care and medicine costs in Finland. A more integral approach to IBS by physicians, accounting also for comorbid conditions, may produce a more favourable course in IBS patients and reduce health care expenditures.