Search

Background Metacognitive deficits and repetitive negative thinking are poorly explored in bipolar disorder (BD). The majority of the published studies concerned patients with bipolar depression, without differentiating among BD subtypes. The most common dysfunctional metacognitions, measured with the Metacognition Questionnaire-30 (MCQ-30), were Negative Beliefs about the Uncontrollability and Danger of Worry (NB), Cognitive Confidence (CC) and Beliefs about the Need to Control Thoughts (NC). Worry and rumination also seem to influence every phase of BD. This study aimed to investigate metacognitions and repetitive negative thinking in euthymic patients with BD. Method Using the MCQ-30, the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ) and the Ruminative Responses Scale (RRS), we compared 57 BD-I and 48 BD-II patients with 78 healthy controls. Results Both BD groups showed significantly higher NB, CC, NC and total MCQ-30 scores. ‘Positive Beliefs About Worry’ (PBW) showed a significantly higher score only in the BD-II group. Rumination scores were significantly higher in both patient samples. Worry did not show any significant differences between groups. Limitations The primary limitations are related to the size of the samples and the research design. Conclusions Our findings suggested that metacognitive deficits and negative repetitive thinking were associated with euthymic BD. Rumination, NB, CC, and TC may represent trait-dependent features related to the inter-episodic phase of the disorder. A higher PBW score seemed to be a distinctive feature only for patients with euthymic BD-II. The results offer new perspectives in the psychotherapeutic treatment of these patients.

Several international guidelines indicate stimulants, including methylphenidate (MPH), amphetamines and derivatives, modafinil, and armodafinil among the second-third-line choices for bipolar depression. Efficacy of stimulants has been also reported for the management of residual depressive symptoms such as fatigue and sleepiness and for the management of affective, cognitive, and behavioral symptoms in children and adult bipolar patients with comorbid ADHD. Few case reports show positive results with MPH in the treatment of resistant mania. Finally, MPH might be an option in some bipolar forms observed in psychiatric presentations of frontotemporal dementia and traumatic brain injury. In spite of these preliminary observations, the use of stimulants in bipolar patients is still controversial. Potential of misuse and abuse and mood destabilization with induction of (hypo)manic switches, mixed states, and rapid cycling are the concerns most frequently reported. Our aims are to summarize available literature on this topic and discuss practical management implications.

Objective To assess the psychometric properties of the Italian adaptation of the Hypomania-Check-List 32-item, second revision (HCL-32-R2) for the detection of bipolarity in major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment-seeking outpatients. Methods A back-to-back Italian adaption of the “Bipolar Disorders: Improving Diagnosis, Guidance, and Education” English module of the HCL-32-R2 was administered between March 2013 and October 2014 across twelve collaborating sites in Italy. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Fourth edition (DSM-IV) diagnoses were made adopting the mini-international neuropsychiatric interview, using bipolar disorder (BD) patients as controls. Results In our sample ( n =441, of whom, BD-I=68; BD-II=117; MDD=256), using a cut-off of 14 allowed the HCL-32-R2 to discriminate DSM-IV-defined MDD patients between “true unipolar” (HCL-32-R2 − ) and “sub-threshold bipolar depression” (HCL-32-R2 + ) with sensitivity=89% and specificity=79%. Area under the curve was .888; positive and negative predictive values were 75.34% and 90.99% respectively. Owing to clinical interpretability considerations and consistency with previous adaptations of the HCL-32, a two-factor solution (F1=“ hyperactive / elated ” vs. F2=“ irritable / distractible / impulsive ”) was preferred using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, whereas items n.33 (“ I gamble more ”) and n.34 (“ I eat more ”) introduced in the R2 version of the scale slightly loaded onto F2 and F1 respectively. Cronbach׳s α=.88 for F1 and .71 for F2. Limitations No cross-validation with any additional validated screening tool; treatment-seeking outpatient sample; recall bias; no systematic evaluation of eventual medical/psychiatric comorbidities, current/lifetime pharmacological history, neither record of severity of current MDE. Conclusions Our results seem to indicate fair accuracy of HCL-32 as a screening instrument for BD, though replication studies are warranted.