4.6 Article

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COURSE OF UNIPOLAR MANIA: RESULTS FROM THE NATIONAL EPIDEMIOLOGIC SURVEY ON ALCOHOL AND RELATED CONDITIONS (NESARC)

期刊

DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY
卷 31, 期 9, 页码 746-755

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/da.22261

关键词

bipolar disorder; epidemiology; unipolar mania

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundUnipolar mania (UM), in which only manic episodes occur during the course of illness, may be an important clinical manifestation of bipolar disorder that is under-recognized and understudied. The aim of this study is, for the first time, to examine the prevalence of UM and its clinical characteristics in the community. MethodsAmong a total of 1,411 subjects with bipolar I disorder, we evaluated the prevalence of UM using three different criteria proposed in previous studies. We compared the clinical characteristics of subjects with UM to those with a more classic bipolar presentation with mania and lifetime major depressive episode (MDE). We additionally explored the proportion of subjects with UM who later experience at least one MDE during a 3-year follow-up period and determined risk factors for converting from UM to classic bipolar disorder. ResultsThe prevalence rate of UM among those with bipolar disorder ranged from 5.0 to 7.2% depending on the criteria. UM was more common in male and nonwhite subjects. About half of individuals with UM experienced subthreshold depression. Individuals with UM had lower rates of comorbid anxiety disorders or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). During the follow-up, about 18% of subjects with UM experienced MDEs. Male, nonwhite, comorbid generalized anxiety disorder and ADHD predicted an increased transition from UM to classic bipolar disorder. Subthreshold depression was not associated with the risk of the transition. ConclusionsUM is an infrequent but clinically distinct subtype of bipolar I disorder. Further research delineating the characteristics of UM is warranted. (C) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据