Epidemiology
Estimates
of the lifetime risk for manic–depressive I disorder from epidemiological
studies have ranged from 0.2 to 0.9%. The Epidemiological Catchment Area (ECA)
study found a lifetime prevalence rate of 1.2% for combined type I and type II
variants. These rates are approximately tenfold greater than the preva-lence
rate for schizophrenia and about one-fifth that for major depressive disorder.
Little is known regarding the prevalence of cyclothymic disorder. The National
Comorbidity Survey Repli-cation (NCD-R) found a considerably higher lifetime
prevalence of bipolar I-II disorders of 3.9% (Kessler et al., 2005).
The life-time prevalence for all mood disorders was 20.8%. Unlike major
depressive disorder, manic–depressive disorder has an approxi-mately equal
gender distribution. Few consistent data are avail-able regarding differences
in prevalence across ethnic, cultural, or rural–urban settings. However, one of
the more intriguing puzzles is the tendency of manic–depressive disorder to
occur in higher socioeconomic strata than schizophrenia, which tends to
aggregate in lower socioeconomic strata. Although many theo-ries have been
advanced to explain this phenomenon, no certain mechanism has been identified.
However, several issues are clear. First, the finding is most likely not
exclusively due to diagnos-tic bias (i.e., overdiagnosing persons of lower
socioeconomicclass with schizophrenia more
frequently than manic–depressive disorder and the converse in persons of higher
socioeconomic class). Secondly, the upward socioeconomic “drift” is not due to
highly impaired patients “dragged” upward by higher function-ing family members
who are normal or who have adaptive sub-syndromal manic–depressive spectrum
characteristics; rather, patients themselves, at least those with type II
disorder, are in many cases highly successful and occupy higher socioeconomic
levels. Thirdly, the findings are not limited to the USA but have been
replicated in European samples.
Of particular interest in regard to the epidemiology of manic–
depressive disorder is that the incidence of manic–depressive dis-order (and
depressive disorders) appears to have increased since the 1940s. Reasons for
this are not clear, although environmental factors, either physiological or
psychosocial, may be responsible. For instance, exposure to increasingly severe
social stressors, or the breakdown of cultural supports that may buffer
stresses, may contribute; increases in exposure to putative environmental
toxins might also be considered. In addition, in those families afflicted with
manic–depressive disorder across generations, those in later generations tend
to have earlier onset. This may be due to changes in genetic loading across
generations or to environmental factors either within the family or in the
wider environment. Regardless of the cause, the increasing incidence and
earlier onset of manic–de-pressive disorder indicate that this illness is not
likely to decrease in importance as a clinical and public health issue.
Alcohol and drug abuse and dependence represent the most consistently
described and most clinically important psychi-atric comorbidities with
manic–depressive disorder. Whereas rates of alcohol abuse combined with alcohol
dependence are from 3 to 13% in the general population, lifetime rates for
al-cohol dependence from ECA data indicate that they are greater than 30% in
persons with manic–depressive I disorder (Regier et al., 1990). Further, ECA lifetime rates for drug dependence in individuals with manic–depressive I
disorder are greater than 25% and rates for any substance abuse or dependence
are above 60%. Comparable rates for alcohol, drug, or any substance abuse or
dependence in major depressive disorder in ECA data are, respectively, 12%, 11%
and 27%. Thus, manic–depres-sive disorder represents an enriched sample for
substance use disorders, with substantially greater rates than for the general
population or even those with unipolar depression. The reasons for the
co-occurrence of manic–depressive disorder and sub-stance dependence are not
clear. In addition to self-medicat-ing for depression, mania and intensifying
the manic experi-ence with stimulants, it is possible that some common genetic
predisposition for mood instability is associated with both manic–depressive
mood phenomenology and increased craving for substances, and the predominant
phenotypic expression is then determined by other genetic or environmental
factors. Ac-cording to this hypothesis, some persons possessing the gene
develop manic–depressive disorder, some develop substance dependence and some
develop both. Regardless of the mecha-nism, comorbid substance dependence
represents an important clinical challenge for clinicians treating persons with
manic– depressive disorder.
Lifetime anxiety disorders have been described in as many as 44% of
individuals with manic–depressive disorder. Other psychiatric comorbidities
have been described in modest proportions of manic–depressive patients.
Interestingly, data in-dicate that comorbidity may be higher in women with
manic–de-pressive disorder than in men which may contribute to the ten-dency
for the female gender to be associated with more complex forms of
manic–depressive disorder such as rapid and dysphoric mania.
Related Topics
Privacy Policy, Terms and Conditions, DMCA Policy and Compliant
Copyright © 2018-2023 BrainKart.com; All Rights Reserved. Developed by Therithal info, Chennai.