Mixed features of depression: why DSM-5 is wrong (and so was DSM-IV)

2013 ◽  
Vol 203 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Athanasios Koukopoulos ◽  
Gabriele Sani ◽  
S. Nassir Ghaemi

SummaryThe DSM system has never acknowledged a central position for mixed states; thus, mixed depressions have been almost completely neglected for decades. Now, DSM-5 is proposing diagnostic criteria for depression with mixed features that will lead to more misdiagnosis and inadequate treatment of this syndrome. Different criteria, based on empirically stronger evidence than exists for the DSM-5 criteria, should be adopted.

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Zimmerman

During the past two decades, a number of studies have found that depressed patients frequently have manic symptoms intermixed with depressive symptoms. While the frequency of mixed syndromes are more common in bipolar than in unipolar depressives, mixed states are also common in patients with major depressive disorder. The admixture of symptoms may be evident when depressed patients present for treatment, or they may emerge during ongoing treatment. In some patients, treatment with antidepressant medication might precipitate the emergence of mixed states. It would therefore be useful to systematically inquire into the presence of manic/hypomanic symptoms in depressed patients. We can anticipate that increased attention will likely be given to mixed depression because of changes in the DSM–5. In the present article, I review instruments that have been utilized to assess the presence and severity of manic symptoms and therefore could be potentially used to identify the DSM–5 mixed-features specifier in depressed patients and to evaluate the course and outcome of treatment. In choosing which measure to use, clinicians and researchers should consider whether the measure assesses both depression and mania/hypomania, assesses all or only some of the DSM–5 criteria for the mixed-features specifier, or assesses manic/hypomanic symptoms that are not part of the DSM–5 definition. Feasibility, more so than reliability and validity, will likely determine whether these measures are incorporated into routine clinical practice.


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger S. McIntyre ◽  
Allan H. Young ◽  
Peter M. Haddad

The simultaneous occurrence of manic and depressive features has been recognized since classical times, but the term ‘mixed state’ was first used by Kraepelin at the end of the 19th century. From the 1980s, until the advent of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5), psychiatric disorders were classified using a categorical approach. However, it was recognized that such an approach was too rigid to encompass the range of symptomatology encountered in clinical practice. Therefore, a dimensional approach was adopted in DSM-5, in which affective states are considered to be distributed across a continuum ranging from pure mania to pure depression. In addition, the copresence of symptoms of the opposite pole are captured using a ‘with mixed features’ specifier, applied when three or more nonoverlapping subthreshold symptoms of the opposite pole are present. Mixed features are common in patients with mood episodes, complicating the course of illness, reducing treatment response and worsening outcomes. However, research in this area is scarce and treatment options are limited. Current evidence indicates that antidepressants should be avoided for the treatment of bipolar mixed states. Evidence for bipolar mixed states supports the use of several second-generation antipsychotics, valproate and electroconvulsive therapy. One randomized controlled trial has demonstrated the efficacy of lurasidone, compared with placebo, in patients with major depressive disorder with mixed features, and there is limited evidence supporting the use of ziprasidone in such patients. Further research is required to determine whether other antipsychotic agents, or additional therapeutic approaches, might also be effective in this setting.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susana Jiménez-Murcia ◽  
Roser Granero ◽  
Fernando Fernández-Aranda ◽  
Anne Sauvaget ◽  
Andreas Fransson ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 41-42 ◽  
pp. 51-56
Author(s):  
Elizabeth P. McKernan ◽  
Natalie Russo ◽  
Courtney Burnette ◽  
Wendy R. Kates
Keyword(s):  
Dsm 5 ◽  

2010 ◽  
Vol 178 (3) ◽  
pp. 511-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer J. Thomas ◽  
Sherrie S. Delinsky ◽  
Sarah A. St. Germain ◽  
Thomas J. Weigel ◽  
Christopher M. Tangren ◽  
...  

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Antonio Tundo ◽  
Laura Musetti ◽  
Claudia Del Grande ◽  
Rocco de Filippis ◽  
Luca Proietti ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction. Epidemiological, clinical, and treatment response characteristics of major depression with anxious distress (ADS) are quite similar to those of mixed depression, but no study investigated the symptom interplay of these conditions. Objective. To analyze the correlations among symptom criteria for major depression with ADS and for mixed depression using a network analysis. Methods. Two hundred and forty-one outpatients with major depression were consecutively recruited. DSM-5 criteria for major depression with ADS or with mixed features (MF) and Koukopoulos’ criteria for mixed depression (MXD) were assessed using a structured clinical interview. Results. A total of 58.9% of patients met DSM-5 criteria for major depression with ADS, 48.5% for MXD, and 2.5% for major depression with MF, so that the symptoms of this specifier were excluded from the network analysis. The most frequent symptoms were difficulty concentrating due to worries (57.7%), feeling keyed up or on edge (51%) (major depression with ADS), and psychic agitation or inner tension (51%) (MXD). Psychic agitation or inner tension had a central position in the network and bridged MXD to major depression with ADS through feeling keyed up or on edge. Conclusions. Criteria for major depression with ADS and for MXD are partially overlapping, with psychic agitation or inner tension and feeling keyed up or on edge that feature in both conditions and are difficult to distinguish in clinical practice. The clarification of the relationship between these two psychopathological conditions could bring important implications for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of depressive episodes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document