Impact of bipolar disorder on a U.S. community sample.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder is a chronic psychiatric illness characterized by depression and at least 1 manic or hypomanic episode during the lifetime of the illness. Bipolar symptoms have been associated with significant functional impairment. We conducted a study to determine the psychosocial impact of bipolar disorder in a U.S. community sample. METHOD: 3059 subjects were selected from a large epidemiologic study of bipolar prevalence that used the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) to screen for bipolar I and II disorder. Subjects were surveyed from April 24, 2001, to August 6, 2001, using the Sheehan Disability Scale and the Social Adjustment Scale-Self Report. Comorbid disease data were also collected. RESULTS: Of the 3059 subjects surveyed, 2450 (80%) returned completed surveys: 1167 (48%) subjects screened positive for bipolar disorder based on MDQ scores; 1283 (52%) screened negative. MDQ-positive subjects reported significantly (p <.0001) more difficulties with work-related performance, social/leisure activities, and social/family interactions compared with MDQ-negative subjects. Younger subjects, aged 18 to 34 years, reported significantly (p =.003) more symptom days than did older MDQ-positive subjects. MDQ-positive women reported more disruption in social and family life, while MDQ-positive men reported being jailed, arrested, and convicted for crimes. Anxiety (30% vs. 6%), panic attacks (18% vs. 4%), migraine (24% vs. 11%), asthma (17% vs. 10%), and allergies (42% vs. 29%) were significantly (p <.05) more common in MDQ-positive versus MDQ-negative subjects. CONCLUSION: Bipolar disorder, as identified in a community sample using the Mood Disorder Questionnaire, was significantly associated with negative impact on the performance of work-related, leisure, and interpersonal activities.

Screening for bipolar disorder in the community.

BACKGROUND: Our goal was to estimate the rate of positive screens for bipolar I and bipolar II disorders in the general population of the United States. METHOD: The Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ), a validated screening instrument for bipolar I and II disorders, was sent to a sample of 127,800 people selected to represent the U.S. adult population by demographic variables. 85,358 subjects (66.8% response rate) that were 18 years of age or above returned the survey and had usable data. Of the nonrespondents, 3404 subjects matched demographically to the 2000 U.S. Census data completed a telephone interview to estimate nonresponse bias. RESULTS: The overall positive screen rate for bipolar I and II disorders, weighted to match the 2000 U.S. Census demographics, was 3.4%. When adjusted for the nonresponse bias, the rate rose to 3.7%. Only 19.8% of the individuals with positive screens for bipolar I or II disorders reported that they had previously received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder from a physician, whereas 31.2% reported receiving a diagnosis of unipolar depression. An additional 49.0% reported receiving no diagnosis of either bipolar disorder or unipolar depression. Positive screens were more frequent in young adults and low income households. The rates of migraine, allergies, asthma, and alcohol and drug abuse were substantially higher among those with positive screens. CONCLUSION: The positive MDQ screen rate of 3.7% suggests that nearly 4% of American adults may suffer from bipolar I and II disorders. Young adults and individuals with lower income are at greater risk for this largely underdiagnosed disorder.

Skating to where the puck is going to be: a plan for clinical trials and translation research in mood disorders.

As part of the National Institute of Mental Health Strategic Plan for Mood Disorders Research effort, the Clinical Trials and Translation Workgroup was asked to define priorities for clinical trials in mood disorders and for research on how best to translate the results of such research to clinical practice settings. Through two face-to-face meetings and a series of conference calls, we established priorities based on the literature to date and what was known about research currently in progress in this area. We defined five areas of priority that cut across developmental stages, while noting that research on adult mood disorders was at a more advanced stage in each of these areas than research on child or geriatric disorders. The five areas of priority are: 1) maximizing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of initial (acute) treatments for mood disorders already known to be efficacious in selected populations and settings when they are applied across all populations and care settings; 2) learning what further treatments or services are most likely to reduce symptoms and improve functioning when the first treatment is delivered well, but the mood disorder does not remit or show adequate improvement; 3) learning what treatments or services are most cost-effective in preventing recurrence or relapse and maintaining optimal functioning after a patient's mood disorder has remitted or responded maximally to treatment; 4) developing and validating clinical, psychosocial, biological, or other markers that predict: a) which treatments are most effective, b) course of illness, c) risk of adverse events/tolerability and acceptability for individual patients or well-defined subgroups of patients; 5) developing clinical trial designs and methods that result in lower research costs and greater generalizability earlier in the treatment development and testing process. A rationale for the importance of each of these priorities is provided.