双相情感障碍分期:理论练习还是临床现实?

R. Kupka
{"title":"双相情感障碍分期:理论练习还是临床现实?","authors":"R. Kupka","doi":"10.5350/DAJPN20183104001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dusunen Adam The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences, Volume 31, Number 4, December 2018 In an optimistic view, bipolar mood disorders are seen as episodic illnesses with complete remission after each episode that respond well to lithium. This clinical picture exists; however, among patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder there is a vast variety of clinical presentations, with differences in previous illness and treatment histories, treatment responses, and degrees of interepisode residual symptoms and cognitive or functional impairment. Some patients have an illness course somewhere in between schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, conveniently classified as schizo-affective disorder. Moreover, patients may or may not have a family history of mood disorders, a personal biography complicated by traumatic life events, a comorbid anxiety disorder, substance abuse disorder, or personality disorder. Still, treatment practice, treatment guidelines, and clinical trials tend to disregard this heterogeneity, lumping patients together under the shared diagnosis of bipolar disorder, only to be differentiated into large subcategories such as bipolar I or bipolar II. Although the cross-sectional clinical syndromes of mania, hypomania, and depression may have many similarities among patients, it is in the longitudinal illness course where the individual differences become apparent. Some patients continue to thrive, even after repeated and sometimes severe mood episodes, while others show a gradual decline in psychosocial and cognitive functioning. It is therefore not surprising that treatment response and outcome may differ considerably within a group of bipolar patients, be it in an outpatient treatment program or in a formal clinical trial. In an era where early intervention and personalized treatment have become issues of growing interest, clinical staging of psychiatric disorders is one approach to deal with individual differences in illness progression, complementing current classification. In general medicine, the staging of progressive disorders is well established in areas such as oncology, cardiovascular disease, and kidney disease. Staging has prognostic significance and helps the clinician to decide which treatment is the most appropriate in an individual patient. Staging systems in psychiatry have been introduced some decades ago (1) but are hampered by the fact that the pathophysiology of psychiatric illness is still largely unknown and recognition of biomarkers is currently in its infancy. Disorders are entirely defined by their Dusunen Adam The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences 2018;31:329-330 Guest Editorial / Misafir Editoryal DOI: 10.5350/DAJPN20183104001","PeriodicalId":11480,"journal":{"name":"Dusunen Adam: The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Staging bipolar disorder: theoretical exercise or clinical reality?\",\"authors\":\"R. Kupka\",\"doi\":\"10.5350/DAJPN20183104001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Dusunen Adam The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences, Volume 31, Number 4, December 2018 In an optimistic view, bipolar mood disorders are seen as episodic illnesses with complete remission after each episode that respond well to lithium. This clinical picture exists; however, among patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder there is a vast variety of clinical presentations, with differences in previous illness and treatment histories, treatment responses, and degrees of interepisode residual symptoms and cognitive or functional impairment. Some patients have an illness course somewhere in between schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, conveniently classified as schizo-affective disorder. Moreover, patients may or may not have a family history of mood disorders, a personal biography complicated by traumatic life events, a comorbid anxiety disorder, substance abuse disorder, or personality disorder. Still, treatment practice, treatment guidelines, and clinical trials tend to disregard this heterogeneity, lumping patients together under the shared diagnosis of bipolar disorder, only to be differentiated into large subcategories such as bipolar I or bipolar II. Although the cross-sectional clinical syndromes of mania, hypomania, and depression may have many similarities among patients, it is in the longitudinal illness course where the individual differences become apparent. Some patients continue to thrive, even after repeated and sometimes severe mood episodes, while others show a gradual decline in psychosocial and cognitive functioning. It is therefore not surprising that treatment response and outcome may differ considerably within a group of bipolar patients, be it in an outpatient treatment program or in a formal clinical trial. In an era where early intervention and personalized treatment have become issues of growing interest, clinical staging of psychiatric disorders is one approach to deal with individual differences in illness progression, complementing current classification. In general medicine, the staging of progressive disorders is well established in areas such as oncology, cardiovascular disease, and kidney disease. Staging has prognostic significance and helps the clinician to decide which treatment is the most appropriate in an individual patient. Staging systems in psychiatry have been introduced some decades ago (1) but are hampered by the fact that the pathophysiology of psychiatric illness is still largely unknown and recognition of biomarkers is currently in its infancy. Disorders are entirely defined by their Dusunen Adam The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences 2018;31:329-330 Guest Editorial / Misafir Editoryal DOI: 10.5350/DAJPN20183104001\",\"PeriodicalId\":11480,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dusunen Adam: The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dusunen Adam: The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5350/DAJPN20183104001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dusunen Adam: The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5350/DAJPN20183104001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

《精神病学与神经科学杂志》,第31卷,第4期,2018年12月乐观地认为,双相情感障碍被视为一种发作性疾病,每次发作后都能完全缓解,对锂的反应良好。这种临床表现是存在的;然而,在被诊断为双相情感障碍的患者中,有各种各样的临床表现,在既往疾病和治疗史、治疗反应、发作间残留症状和认知或功能障碍的程度上存在差异。一些患者的病程介于精神分裂症和双相情感障碍之间,被方便地归类为精神分裂情感障碍。此外,患者可能有也可能没有情绪障碍的家族史,有创伤性生活事件的个人传记,共病焦虑症,药物滥用障碍或人格障碍。然而,治疗实践、治疗指南和临床试验倾向于忽视这种异质性,将患者集中在双相情感障碍的共同诊断下,只是为了区分为双相情感障碍I或双相情感障碍II等大亚类。尽管躁狂、轻躁狂和抑郁的横截面临床症状在患者之间可能有许多相似之处,但在纵向病程中,个体差异才变得明显。有些患者即使在反复发作(有时是严重的情绪发作)后仍能保持健康,而另一些患者则表现出社会心理和认知功能的逐渐下降。因此,在一组双相患者中,无论是在门诊治疗方案中还是在正式的临床试验中,治疗反应和结果可能存在很大差异,这并不奇怪。在一个早期干预和个性化治疗日益受到关注的时代,精神疾病的临床分期是处理疾病进展中的个体差异的一种方法,补充了当前的分类。在一般医学中,进行性疾病的分期在肿瘤、心血管疾病和肾脏疾病等领域得到了很好的确立。分期具有预后意义,并有助于临床医生决定哪种治疗方法对个体患者最合适。精神病学的分期系统在几十年前就已经被引入(1),但由于精神疾病的病理生理学在很大程度上仍然是未知的,而且对生物标志物的认识目前还处于起步阶段,因此受到了阻碍。疾病完全由他们的Dusunen Adam定义精神病学和神经科学杂志2018;31:329-330客座编辑/ Misafir编辑DOI: 10.5350/DAJPN20183104001
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Staging bipolar disorder: theoretical exercise or clinical reality?
Dusunen Adam The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences, Volume 31, Number 4, December 2018 In an optimistic view, bipolar mood disorders are seen as episodic illnesses with complete remission after each episode that respond well to lithium. This clinical picture exists; however, among patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder there is a vast variety of clinical presentations, with differences in previous illness and treatment histories, treatment responses, and degrees of interepisode residual symptoms and cognitive or functional impairment. Some patients have an illness course somewhere in between schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, conveniently classified as schizo-affective disorder. Moreover, patients may or may not have a family history of mood disorders, a personal biography complicated by traumatic life events, a comorbid anxiety disorder, substance abuse disorder, or personality disorder. Still, treatment practice, treatment guidelines, and clinical trials tend to disregard this heterogeneity, lumping patients together under the shared diagnosis of bipolar disorder, only to be differentiated into large subcategories such as bipolar I or bipolar II. Although the cross-sectional clinical syndromes of mania, hypomania, and depression may have many similarities among patients, it is in the longitudinal illness course where the individual differences become apparent. Some patients continue to thrive, even after repeated and sometimes severe mood episodes, while others show a gradual decline in psychosocial and cognitive functioning. It is therefore not surprising that treatment response and outcome may differ considerably within a group of bipolar patients, be it in an outpatient treatment program or in a formal clinical trial. In an era where early intervention and personalized treatment have become issues of growing interest, clinical staging of psychiatric disorders is one approach to deal with individual differences in illness progression, complementing current classification. In general medicine, the staging of progressive disorders is well established in areas such as oncology, cardiovascular disease, and kidney disease. Staging has prognostic significance and helps the clinician to decide which treatment is the most appropriate in an individual patient. Staging systems in psychiatry have been introduced some decades ago (1) but are hampered by the fact that the pathophysiology of psychiatric illness is still largely unknown and recognition of biomarkers is currently in its infancy. Disorders are entirely defined by their Dusunen Adam The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences 2018;31:329-330 Guest Editorial / Misafir Editoryal DOI: 10.5350/DAJPN20183104001
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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