RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: We examined the relationship between biological rhythms and severity of depressive symptoms in subjects with bipolar disorder and the effects of biological rhythms alterations on functional impairment. METHOD: Bipolar patients (n = 260) and healthy controls (n = 191) were recruited from mood disorders programs in three sites (Spain, Brazil, and Canada). Parameters of biological rhythms were measured using the Biological Rhythms Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (BRIAN), an interviewer administered questionnaire that assesses disruptions in sleep, eating patterns, social rhythms, and general activity. RESULTS: Multivariate analyses of covariance showed significant intergroup differences after controlling for potential confounders (Pillai's F = 49.367; df = 2, P < 0.001). Depressed patients had the greatest biological rhythms disturbance, followed by patients with subsyndromal symptoms, euthymic patients, and healthy controls. Biological rhythms and HAMD scores were independent predictors of poor functioning (F = 12.841, df = 6, P < 0.001, R2 = 0.443). CONCLUSION: Our study shows a dose-dependent association between the severity of depressive symptoms and degree of biological rhythms disturbance. Biological rhythms disturbance was also an independent predictor of functional impairment. Although the directionality of this relationship remains unknown, our results suggest that stability of biological rhythms should be an important target of acute and long-term management of bipolar disorder and may aid in the improvement of functioning.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: It is well established that patients with bipolar disorder experience functional impairment even in remission. Nevertheless, bipolar II disorder remains understudied because most investigations to date include only bipolar I patients or just a small sample of bipolar II patients, without explicitly comparing both subtypes of disorder. The main objective of the current report is to evaluate overall and multiple domains of functioning, specifically in bipolar II disorder compared to patients with bipolar I disorder and healthy subjects. METHODS: 233 subjects from 3 groups were compared: bipolar I patients (n=106), bipolar II patients (n=66) and healthy controls (n=61). Bipolar patients meeting criteria of remission were recruited at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona and at different study sites in Argentina. All participants were assessed with 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) and the Functioning Assessment Short Test (FAST). Clinical and sociodemographic data were also recorded. RESULTS: Both subgroups of patients, bipolar I and bipolar II, showed lower overall functioning (p<0.001) and in each domain of the FAST scale (all, p<0.001) when compared to the healthy control group. Tukey post hoc test revealed that bipolar II patients scored worse in the cognitive domain compared to bipolar I patients. However, after controlling for potential confounding variables, this difference disappeared and only older age (p<0.005) and HAM-D scores (p<0.001) remained significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that bipolar II patients are as disabled as bipolar I patients. This may be explained, in part, because bipolar II patients experience greater lifetime residual depressive symptoms than the bipolar I subgroup, which may have particular impact on cognitive domains of functioning.