Mood instability metrics to stratify individuals and measure outcomes in bipolar disorder

Sarah H. Sperry, Anastasia K. Yocum, Melvin G. McInnis
{"title":"Mood instability metrics to stratify individuals and measure outcomes in bipolar disorder","authors":"Sarah H. Sperry, Anastasia K. Yocum, Melvin G. McInnis","doi":"10.1038/s44220-024-00291-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Clinical care for bipolar disorder (BD) has a narrow focus on prevention and remission of episodes with pre-/posttreatment reductions in symptom severity as the ‘gold standard’ for outcomes in clinical trials and measurement-based care strategies. Here the study aim was to provide an innovative method for measuring outcomes in BD that has clinical utility and can stratify individuals with BD based on mood instability. The 603 participants comprised those with a BD (n = 385), other or nonaffective disorder (n = 71) or no psychiatric history (n = 147) enrolled in an longitudinal cohort for at least 10 years that collects patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assessing depression, (hypo)mania, anxiety and functioning every 2 months. Mood instability was calculated as the intraindividual s.d. of PROMs over 1-year rolling windows and stratified into low, moderate and high thresholds. Individuals with BD had significantly higher 1-year rolling s.d. for depression, (hypo)mania and anxiety compared with psychiatric comparisons (small–moderate effects) and healthy controls (large effects). A significantly greater proportion of scores for those with BD fell into the moderate (depression 50.6%; anxiety 36.5%; and (hypo)mania 52.1%) and high thresholds (depression 9.4%; anxiety 6.1%; and (hypo)mania 10.1%) compared with psychiatric comparisons (moderate 32.3–42.9% and high 2.6–6.6%) and healthy controls (moderate 11.5–31.7% and high 0.4–5.8%). Being in the high or moderate threshold predicted worse mental health functioning (small to large effects). Mood instability, as measured in commonly used PROMs, characterized the course of illness over time, correlated with functional outcomes and significantly differentiated those with BD from healthy controls and psychiatric comparisons. The results suggest a paradigm shift in monitoring outcomes in BD, by measuring intraindividual s.d. as a primary outcome index. This study introduces a method to measure outcomes in bipolar disorder by quantifying mood instability over time.","PeriodicalId":74247,"journal":{"name":"Nature mental health","volume":"2 9","pages":"1111-1119"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature mental health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44220-024-00291-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Clinical care for bipolar disorder (BD) has a narrow focus on prevention and remission of episodes with pre-/posttreatment reductions in symptom severity as the ‘gold standard’ for outcomes in clinical trials and measurement-based care strategies. Here the study aim was to provide an innovative method for measuring outcomes in BD that has clinical utility and can stratify individuals with BD based on mood instability. The 603 participants comprised those with a BD (n = 385), other or nonaffective disorder (n = 71) or no psychiatric history (n = 147) enrolled in an longitudinal cohort for at least 10 years that collects patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assessing depression, (hypo)mania, anxiety and functioning every 2 months. Mood instability was calculated as the intraindividual s.d. of PROMs over 1-year rolling windows and stratified into low, moderate and high thresholds. Individuals with BD had significantly higher 1-year rolling s.d. for depression, (hypo)mania and anxiety compared with psychiatric comparisons (small–moderate effects) and healthy controls (large effects). A significantly greater proportion of scores for those with BD fell into the moderate (depression 50.6%; anxiety 36.5%; and (hypo)mania 52.1%) and high thresholds (depression 9.4%; anxiety 6.1%; and (hypo)mania 10.1%) compared with psychiatric comparisons (moderate 32.3–42.9% and high 2.6–6.6%) and healthy controls (moderate 11.5–31.7% and high 0.4–5.8%). Being in the high or moderate threshold predicted worse mental health functioning (small to large effects). Mood instability, as measured in commonly used PROMs, characterized the course of illness over time, correlated with functional outcomes and significantly differentiated those with BD from healthy controls and psychiatric comparisons. The results suggest a paradigm shift in monitoring outcomes in BD, by measuring intraindividual s.d. as a primary outcome index. This study introduces a method to measure outcomes in bipolar disorder by quantifying mood instability over time.

Abstract Image

情绪不稳定性指标用于双相情感障碍患者的分层和疗效测量
双相情感障碍(BD)的临床治疗主要集中在发作的预防和缓解上,临床试验和基于测量的治疗策略将治疗前/后症状严重程度的减轻作为衡量治疗效果的 "金标准"。本研究旨在提供一种创新的方法来测量 BD 的疗效,这种方法具有临床实用性,并能根据情绪不稳定性对 BD 患者进行分层。603 名参与者包括 BD 患者(n = 385)、其他或非情感障碍患者(n = 71)或无精神病史患者(n = 147),他们加入纵向队列至少 10 年,每两个月收集一次患者报告的结果测量(PROMs),评估抑郁、(低)躁狂、焦虑和功能。情绪不稳定性按 1 年滚动窗口中 PROMs 的个体内 s.d. 计算,并分为低、中、高临界值。与精神病学比较(小-中度影响)和健康对照(大影响)相比,BD 患者的抑郁、(低)躁狂和焦虑的 1 年滚动 s.d. 明显更高。与精神科比较组(中度 32.3-42.9%,高度 2.6-6.6%)和健康对照组(中度 11.5-31.7%,高度 0.4-5.8%)相比,BD 患者中度(抑郁 50.6%;焦虑 36.5%;(低)躁狂 52.1%)和高度(抑郁 9.4%;焦虑 6.1%;(低)躁狂 10.1%)的比例明显更高。处于高或中度临界值可预示心理健康功能较差(从小幅影响到大幅影响)。通过常用的 PROMs 测定的情绪不稳定性可描述疾病的长期发展过程,与功能结果相关,并可显著区分 BD 患者与健康对照组和精神病比较组。研究结果表明,通过测量个体内部的s.d.作为主要结果指标,可以改变监测BD结果的模式。本研究介绍了一种通过量化随时间变化的情绪不稳定性来衡量躁狂症预后的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信