During the past few years, many experts have suggested that bipolar disorder — a serious illness resulting in significant psychosocial morbidity and excess mortality — is under-recognized, particularly in patients with major depression. Even patients who are diagnosed with bipolar disorder often wait more than 10 years after initially seeking treatment for the correct diagnosis to be made.
The clinical implications of the failure to recognize bipolar disorder in depressed patients include the under-prescription of mood-stabilizing medications, and an increased risk of rapid “cycling” — swings between manic and depressive phases. But, perhaps as a consequence of concerted efforts to improve the recognition of bipolar disorder, during the past few years we have observed the emergence of an opposite phenomenon — overdiagnosis.
In my own practice, my colleagues and I have encountered patients who reported that they were previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder, despite lacking a history of manic or hypomanic episodes. To be sure, we have also seen patients seeking treatment for depression who really did have bipolar disorder. However, there seemed to be more overdiagnosis than underdiagnosis.
We therefore conducted a study to examine empirically how often bipolar disorder might be over- and under-diagnosed. Seven hundred psychiatric outpatients were interviewed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) and completed a self-administered questionnaire that asked whether they had been previously diagnosed by a health-care professional with bipolar or manic-depressive disorder. Family history information was obtained from the patient regarding their immediate relatives.
Slightly more than 20 percent (145 patients) in our sample reported that they had been previously diagnosed as having bipolar disorder, significantly higher than the 12.9 percent rate based on the SCID. Less than half of those who reported that they had been previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder were diagnosed with bipolar disorder based on the SCID. Patients with SCID-diagnosed bipolar disorder had a significantly higher risk of bipolar disorder in their immediate family members than patients who self-reported a previous diagnosis of bipolar disorder that was not confirmed by the SCID. Patients who self-reported a previous diagnosis of bipolar disorder that was not confirmed by the SCID did not have a significantly higher risk for bipolar disorder than the patients who were negative for bipolar disorder by self-report and the SCID. Our findings, validated by family history, thus suggest that bipolar disorder was overdiagnosed.
Any study seeking to determine whether a psychiatric disorder is over-diagnosed will find that some patients with the condition do not have it upon re-interview. Such is the nature of the imperfect reliability of psychiatric diagnosis. The question, then, is not whether some patients previously given a diagnosis do not seem to have it upon re-interview, but rather how many . How high the percentage should be before claiming over-diagnosis is a significant problem and a value judgment. But we think that an over-diagnosis rate of more than 50 percent crosses the clinical significance threshold.
Over-diagnosis of bipolar disorder has costs. Mood stabilizers are the treatment of choice, and, depending on the medication, they can produce potentially significant health complications affecting renal, endocrine, hepatic, immunologic, or metabolic function.
The impact of marketing efforts by pharmaceutical companies and publicity probably plays a role in the emerging tendency to over-diagnose bipolar disorder. Direct-to-consumer advertisements that refer individuals to screening questionnaires can result in patients suggesting to their doctors that they have bipolar disorder. We have seen evidence of this in our practice. This does not necessarily reflect a problem with the performance of a screening questionnaire, but rather how these scales are used. Screening questionnaires maximize sensitivity, at a cost of false positives, because it is presumed that they are followed by expert clinical evaluation. But insufficient diagnostic rigor can result in overdiagnosis.
Clinicians are inclined to diagnose disorders that they feel more comfortable treating. We believe that the increased availability of medications that have been approved for the treatment of bipolar disorder might be influencing clinicians who are unsure whether or not a patient has bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder to err on the side of diagnosing the disorder that is responsive to medication.
This bias is reinforced by the marketing of pharmaceutical companies to physicians, which has emphasized research on delayed diagnosis and under-recognition of bipolar disorder, possibly sensitizing clinicians accordingly. The campaign against under-recognition has probably resulted in some anxious, agitated and/or irritable depressed patients who complain of insomnia and “racing thoughts” being misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder.
The results of our study are consistent with prior studies suggesting possible problems with the diagnosis of bipolar disorder. With the greater number of medications approved for the treatment of bipolar disorder, along with multiple reports cautioning clinicians against underdiagnosis, it appears that overdiagnosis has become a greater problem than underdiagnosis. Both can have negative consequences.
Mark Zimmerman is associate professor of psychiatry and human behavior at Brown Medical School.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) chairman Mark Liu (劉德音) said in an interview with CNN on Sunday that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would render the company’s plants inoperable, and that such a war would produce “no winners.” Not only would Taiwan’s economy be destroyed in a cross-strait conflict, but the impact “would go well beyond semiconductors, and would bring about the destruction of the world’s rules-based order and totally change the geopolitical landscape,” Liu said in the interview, according to the Central News Agency. Bloomberg columnist Hal Brands wrote on June 24: “A major war over Taiwan could create global economic
Amid a fervor in the global media, US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her congressional delegation made a high-profile visit to Taipei. President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) awarded a state honor to her at the Presidential Office. Evidently, the occasion took on the aspect of an inter-state relationship between the US and the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan, despite no mutual state recognition between the two. Beijing furiously condemned Pelosi’s visit in advance, with military drills in the waters surrounding coastal China to check the move. Pelosi is a well-known China hawk, and second in the line of succession to
Washington’s official position on US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan is that nothing has changed: The US government says it is maintaining its “one China” policy, that Pelosi is free to arrange international trips with congressional delegations independent of the government and that she is not the first US official to visit Taiwan even this year. Yet there is no denying that the fact and the optics of the second-in-line to the US presidency speaking with lawmakers at the Legislative Yuan about inter-parliamentary discussions and learning from each other as equals are hugely significant, as were
A stark contrast in narratives about China’s future is emerging inside and outside of China. This is partly a function of the dramatic constriction in the flow of people and ideas into and out of China, owing to China’s COVID-19 quarantine requirements. There also are fewer foreign journalists in China to help the outside world make sense of developments. Those foreign journalists and diplomats who are in China often are limited in where they can travel and who they can meet. There also is tighter technological control over information inside China than at any point since the dawn of the
RSS