Factors associated with chronic pain in patients with bipolar depression: a cross-sectional study

Background: While pain is frequently associated with unipolar depression, few studies have investigated the link between pain and bipolar depression. In the present study we estimated the prevalence and characteristics of pain among patients with bipolar depression treated by psychiatrists in their regular clinical practice. The study was designed to identify factors associated with the manifestation of pain in these patients.- Methods:Patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder (n=121) were selected to participate in a cross-sectional study in which DSM-IV-TR criteria were employed to identify depressive episodes. The patients were asked to describe any pain experienced during the study, and in the 6 weeks beforehand, by means of a Visual Analogical Scale (VAS).- Results: Over half of the bipolar depressed patients (51.2%, 95% CI: 41.9%–60.6%), and 2/3 of the female experienced concomitant pain. The pain was of moderate to severe intensity and prolonged duration, and it occurred at multiple sites, significantly limiting the patient’s everyday activities. The most important factors associated with the presence of pain were older age, sleep disorders and delayed diagnosis of bipolar disorder.- Conclusions: Chronic pain is common in bipolar depressed patients, and it is related to sleep disorders and delayed diagnosis of their disorder. More attention should be paid to study the presence of pain in bipolar depressed patients, in order to achieve more accurate diagnoses and to provide better treatment options.

The bipolar depression rating scale (BDRS) : its development, validation and utility

Objectives: Unipolar and bipolar depression differ neurobiologically and in clinical presentation. Existing depression rating instruments, used in bipolar depression, fail to capture the necessary phenomenological nuances, as they are based on and skewed towards the characteristics of unipolar depression. Both clinically and in research there is a growing need for a new observer-rated scale that is specifically designed to assess bipolar depression.

Methods: An instrument reflecting the characteristics of bipolar depression was drafted by the authors, and administered to 122 participants aged 18–65 (44 males and 78 females) with a diagnosis of DSM-IV bipolar disorder, who were currently experiencing symptoms of depression. The Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (BDRS) was administered together with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS).

Results: The BDRS has strong internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.917), and robust correlation coefficients with the MADRS (r = 0.906) and HAM-D (r = 0.744), and the mixed subscale correlated with the YMRS (r = 0.757). Exploratory factor analysis showed a three-factor solution gave the best account of the data. These factors corresponded to depression (somatic), depression (psychological) and mixed symptom clusters.

Conclusions: This study provides evidence for the validity of the BDRS for the measurement of depression in bipolar disorder. These results suggest good internal validity, provisional evidence of inter-rater reliability and strong correlations with other depression rating scales.

Scale matters : the need for a Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (BDRS)

Objective: To briefly review the clinical and biological distinctions between unipolar and bipolar depression critiquing in particular currently available depression rating scales and discuss the need for a new observer-rated scale tailored to bipolar depression.

Method: Relevant literature pertaining to the symptomatic differences between bipolar disorder and unipolar disorder as well as their measurement using existing assessment scales was identified by computerized searches and reviews of scientific journals known to the authors.

Results: Bipolar depression is distinct from unipolar depression in terms of phenomenology and clinical characteristics. These distinguishing features can be used to identify bipolarity in patients that present with recurrent depressive episodes. This is important because current self-report and observer-rated scales are optimized for unipolar depression, and hence limited in their ability to accurately assess bipolar depression.

Conclusion: The development of a specific bipolar depression rating scale will improve the assessment of bipolar depression in both research and clinical settings and assist the development of better treatments and interventions.

The validity and internal structure of the bipolar depression rating scale (BDRS): data from a clinical trial of N-acetylcysteine as adjunctive therapy in bipolar disorder

Background: The phenomenology of unipolar and bipolar disorders differ in a number of ways, such as the presence of mixed states and atypical features. Conventional depression rating instruments are designed to capture the characteristics of unipolar depression and have limitations in capturing the breadth of bipolar disorder.

Method: The Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (BDRS) was administered together with the Montgomery Asberg Rating Scale (MADRS) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) in a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial of N-acetyl cysteine for bipolar disorder (N = 75).

Results: A factor analysis showed a two-factor solution: depression and mixed symptom clusters. The BDRS has strong internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.917), the depression cluster showed robust correlation with the MADRS (r = 0.865) and the mixed subscale correlated with the YMRS (r = 0.750).

Conclusion: The BDRS has good internal validity and inter-rater reliability and is sensitive to change in the context of a clinical trial.

Medicating mood with maintenance in mind : bipolar depression pharmacotherapy

Objectives:  Bipolar depression is a core feature of bipolar disorder, a phase in which many patients spend the majority of time and one that confers a significant degree of burden and risk. The purpose of this paper is to briefly review the evidence base for the pharmacotherapy of bipolar depression and to discuss the recommendations for its optimal management.Methods:  A detailed literature review was undertaken with a particular emphasis on pharmacological treatment strategies for bipolar depression across the acute and maintenance phases of the illness. Electronic library and Web-based searches were performed using recognised tools (MEDLINE, PubMED, EMBASE and PsychINFO) to identify the pertinent literature. A summary of the evidence base is outlined and then distilled into broad clinical recommendations to guide the pharmacological management of bipolar depression.Results:  Partitioning treatment into acute and maintenance therapy is difficult based on the paucity of current evidence. The evidence from treatment trials favours the use of lithium and lamotrigine as first-line treatment in preference to valproate, and indicates that, for acute episodes, quetiapine and olanzapine have perhaps achieved equivalence at least in terms of efficacy. However, the effectiveness of the atypical antipsychotics in maintenance therapy is constrained by the potential for significant side effects of individual agents and the lack of both long-term research data and clinical experience in treating bipolar disorder as compared to other agents. Conversely, lithium and the anticonvulsants are generally slower to effect symptomatic change, and this limits their usefulness.Conclusions:  There has been a tendency for research trials of bipolar depression to differentiate the illness cross-sectionally into the acute and maintenance phases of bipolar depression; however, in clinical terms, bipolar depression invariably follows a longitudinal course in which the phases of illness are inextricably linked, and useful acute treatments are typically continued in maintenance. Therefore, when medicating mood in acute bipolar depression it is imperative to keep maintenance in mind as it is this aspect of treatment that determines long-term success.

Design and rationale of a 16-week adjunctive randomized placebo-controlled trial of mitochondrial agents for the treatment of bipolar depression

Objective: Bipolar disorder places a significant burden on individuals, caregivers and family, and the broader community. Current treatments are believed to be more effective against manic symptoms, leaving a shortfall in recovery during the depressive phase of the illness. The current study draws on recent evidence suggesting that, in addition to increased oxidative load, alterations in mitochondrial function occur in bipolar disorder. Methods: This 16-week study aims to explore the potential benefits of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) alone or in combination (CT) with selected nutraceuticals believed to enhance mitochondrial function. The study includes adults diagnosed with bipolar disorder currently experiencing an episode of depression. Participants are asked to take NAC, CT, or placebo in addition to any usual treatments. A post-discontinuation visit is conducted 4 weeks following the treatment phase. Results: The primary outcome of the study will be mean change on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes include functioning, substance use, mania ratings, and quality of life. Blood samples will be collected at baseline and week 16 to explore biochemical alterations following treatment. Conclusion: This study may provide a novel adjunctive treatment for bipolar depression. Analysis of biological samples may assist in understanding the therapeutic benefits and the underlying etiology of bipolar depression. Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12612000830897.

Transcultural adaption and validation of the Spanish version of the Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (BDRS-S)

The Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (BDRS) arguably better captures symptoms in bipolar depression especially depressive mixed states than traditional unipolar depression rating scales. The psychometric properties of the Spanish adapted version, BDRS-S, are reported.

Affective instability and the course of bipolar depression: results from the STEP-BD randomised controlled trial of psychosocial treatment

BACKGROUND: Little is known about predictors of recovery from bipolar depression. AIMS: We investigated affective instability (a pattern of frequent and large mood shifts over time) as a predictor of recovery from episodes of bipolar depression and as a moderator of response to psychosocial treatment for acute depression. METHOD: A total of 252 out-patients with DSM-IV bipolar I or II disorder and who were depressed enrolled in the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD) and were randomised to one of three types of intensive psychotherapy for depression (n = 141) or a brief psychoeducational intervention (n = 111). All analyses were by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: Degree of instability of symptoms of depression and mania predicted a lower likelihood of recovery and longer time until recovery, independent of the concurrent effects of symptom severity. Affective instability did not moderate the effects of psychosocial treatment on recovery from depression. CONCLUSIONS: Affective instability may be a clinically relevant characteristic that influences the course of bipolar depression.

Clinical Predictors Associated With Duration of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Treatment for Remission in Bipolar Depression A Naturalistic Study

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been widely tested and shown to be effective for unipolar depression. Although it has also been investigated for bipolar depression (BD), there are only few rTMS studies with BD. Here, we investigated 56 patients with BD who received rTMS treatment until remission (defined as Hamilton Depression Rating Scores <= 7). We used simple and multiple logistic regressions to identify clinical and demographic predictors associated with duration of treatment (defined as <15 vs. >15 rTMS sessions). Age, refractoriness, number of prior depressive episodes, and severe depression at baseline were associated with a longer rTMS treatment. In the multivariate analysis, refractoriness (likelihood ratio (LR) = 4.33; p < 0.01) and baseline severity (LR = 0.18, p < 0.01) remained significant predictors. Our preliminary study showed that, in remitted patients, refractoriness and severity of index episode are associated with the need of a longer rTMS treatment; providing preliminary evidence of important factors associated with rTMS parameters adjustment.