We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
A proportion of patients with bipolar disorder (BD) manifests with only unipolar mania (UM). This study examined relevant clinical features and psychosocial characteristics in UM compared with depressive-manic (D-M) subgroups. Moreover, comorbidity patterns of physical conditions and psychiatric disorders were evaluated between the UM and D-M groups.
Methods
This clinical retrospective study (N = 1015) analyzed cases with an average of 10 years of illness duration and a nationwide population-based cohort (N = 8343) followed up for 10 years in the Taiwanese population. UM was defined as patients who did not experience depressive episodes and were not prescribed adequate antidepressant treatment during the disease course of BD. Logistic regression models adjusted for relevant covariates were used to evaluate the characteristics and lifetime comorbidities in the two groups.
Results
The proportion of UM ranged from 12.91% to 14.87% in the two datasets. Compared with the D-M group, the UM group had more psychotic symptoms, fewer suicidal behaviors, a higher proportion of morningness chronotype, better sleep quality, higher extraversion, lower neuroticism, and less harm avoidance personality traits. Substantially different lifetime comorbidity patterns were observed between the two groups.
Conclusions
Patients with UM exhibited distinct clinical and psychosocial features compared with patients with the D-M subtype. In particular, a higher risk of comorbid cardiovascular diseases and anxiety disorders is apparent in patients with D-M. Further studies are warranted to investigate the underlying mechanisms for diverse presentations in subgroups of BDs.
Cancer is a serious public health problem worldwide, and its relationship
with affective disorders is not clear.
Aims
To investigate alcohol- and tobacco-related cancer risk among patients
with affective disorders in a large Taiwanese cohort.
Method
Records of newly admitted patients with affective disorders from January
1997 through December 2002 were retrieved from the Psychiatric Inpatient
Medical Claims database in Taiwan. Cancers were stratified by site and
grouped into tobacco- or alcohol-related cancers. Standardised incidence
ratios (SIRs) were calculated to compare the risk of cancer between those
with affective disorders and the general population.
Results
Some 10 207 patients with bipolar disorder and 9826 with major depression
were included. The risk of cancer was higher in patients with major
depression (SIR = 2.01, 95% CI 1.85–2.19) than in those with bipolar
disorder (SIR 1.39, 95% CI 1.26–1.53). The elevated cancer risk among
individuals ever admitted to hospital for affective disorders was more
pronounced in tobacco- and/or alcohol-related cancers.
Conclusions
Elevated cancer risk was found in patients who had received in-patient
care for affective disorders. They require holistic approaches to
lifestyle behaviours and associated cancer risks.
The aim of this study was to examine and test the sensitivity, specificity, and threshold scores of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and determine those that best correspond to a clinical diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB).
Methods:
Sixty-seven Alzheimer's disease (AD), 36 DLB, and 62 healthy participants without dementia (NC), aged 60 to 90, were enrolled. All three groups took the MoCA and MMSE tests at the same time. The Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel tests and receiver operating characteristics curve analysis were used to compare the different neuropsychological test results among the groups.
Results:
The cut-off point of the MoCA for AD was 21/22 with a sensitivity of 95.5% and a specificity of 82.3% (area under the curve (AUC): 0.945), and the cut-off point for DLB was 22/23 with a sensitivity of 91.7% and a specificity of 80.6% (AUC: 0.932). For the MMSE, the cut-off points for AD and for DLB from NC were all 24/25, with a sensitivity of 88.1% and a specificity of 85.5% for AD (AUC: 0.92), and a sensitivity of 77.8% and a specificity of 85.5% for DLB (AUC: 0.895). After controlling sex, age, and education, AD and DLB had lower scores in all MoCA subscales than the NC group (p < 0.05), except for the orientation and naming in DLB. In addition, AD had a lower score in the MoCA orientation (p = 0.03) and short-term memory (p = 0.02) than did DLB.
Conclusions:
The MoCA is a more sensitive instrument than the MMSE to screen AD or DLB patients from non-dementia cases.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.