To assess the clinical validity of individual DSM-IV criteria for hypomania. In an international sample of 5,635 patients with major depressive episodes (Bridge Study), DSM-IV criteria for hypomania (stem questions, number and quality of symptoms, duration and exclusion criteria) were systematically assessed and their validity analysed on the basis of clinical data including family history, course, and other clinical characteristics. Three stem questions for hypomania, irritability, elevated mood and the added question of increased activity, showed comparable validity. The results support the current DSM-IV requirement for a higher symptom threshold (4 of 7 hypomanic symptoms) in cases of irritable mood. Longer durations of hypomanic episodes were associated with higher scores on all validators. The results did not support the DSM-IV durational requirements for hypomanic episodes (4 days) and manic episodes (7 days). Brief hypomanic episodes of 1, 2 or 3 days were valid and would meet validity criteria for inclusion. The three exclusion criteria in DSM-IV (hypomania due to the use of antidepressants or of other substances, or to other medical conditions) were found to exclude patients with bipolar depression and should therefore not be retained. These results support several revisions of the DSM-IV concept of hypomanic episodes: specifically, the inclusion of increased activity as a gate question, the inclusion of 1 or 2 to 3-day episodes and the elimination of all exclusion criteria.

Escitalopram is an effective, well-tolerated treatment for major depressive disorder in both primary and specialist settings. This analysis compared the efficacy of escitalopram with citalopram in the treatment of patients with severe depression [defined as a score of > or =30 Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)]. Data from three clinical trials were used for this pooled analysis. A total of 506 severely depressed patients were included (169 received escitalopram, 171 citalopram and 166 placebo). Mean change from baseline in MADRS total scores (primary efficacy parameter) was significantly higher in the escitalopram-treated group compared with the citalopram-treated group (p = 0.003). There was a significant difference in response between escitalopram and citalopram (56 vs. 41%, respectively, p = 0.007). Results from secondary efficacy parameters (Hamilton rating for depression and Clinical Global Impression of Improvement and Severity scales) were consistent with previous results. The benefits in severe depression of escitalopram vs. citalopram were so demonstrated.

The decrease in AAO of BP-I in recent birth-cohorts appears to be associated with an increase in the proportion of cases in the early onset subgroup; not with a decrease in the mean AAO in each putative subgroup. This could indicate temporal changes in exposure to risk factors for mania.

No abstract

No abstract