Kessing, Lars Vedel

ABSTRACT Background Sunlight has profound impacts on physical and mental health, beyond vision, including effects on circadian rhythms, alertness, mood, and sleep. A family history of any mood disorders is strongly associated with psychiatric disorders including bipolar disorder. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between a family history of any mood disorder in patients with bipolar I disorder and solar insolation at varied international onset locations. Methods Data for this analysis were available from 5842 patients with a diagnosis of bipolar I disorder obtained at 83 collection sites in both hemispheres. This included 4752 patients from 71 collection sites in the northern hemisphere and 1090 patients from 12 collection sites in the southern hemisphere. Patient data variables were obtained from records or interviews. Solar insolation data were obtained from The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Power database for each onset location, and the ratio of the mean monthly minimum/mean monthly maximum solar insolation was calculated. Typically, the ratio is largest near the equator (little yearly change in solar insolation) and smallest near the poles (large yearly change in solar insolation). Results A significant relationship was found between a family history of any mood disorder, the ratio of the mean monthly minimum/mean monthly maximum solar insolation, and gender. The odds of a family history of mood disorder increased as patient location nears the poles and decreased near the equator. Female gender also increased the odds of having a family history of a mood disorder. Conclusions This study highlighted the association between family history, solar insolation, and gender in international patients with bipolar I disorder. Given the profound effects of sunlight on human health, the family of patients with bipolar disorder who live in the same location with the same solar insolation, and especially females, may be at increased risk for a mood disorder.

Bipolar disorder is heterogeneous in phenomenology, illness trajectory, and response to treatment. Despite evidence for the efficacy of multimodal­ity interventions, the majority of persons affected by this disorder do not achieve and sustain full syndromal recovery. It is eagerly anticipated that combining datasets across various information sources (e.g., hierarchical “multi‐omic” measures, electronic health records), analyzed using advanced computational methods (e.g., machine learning), will inform future diagnosis and treatment selection. In the interim, identifying clinically meaningful subgroups of persons with the disorder having differential response to specific treatments at point‐of‐care is an empirical priority. This paper endeavours to synthesize salient domains in the clinical characterization of the adult patient with bipolar disorder, with the overarching aim to improve health outcomes by informing patient management and treatment considerations. Extant data indicate that characterizing select domains in bipolar disorder provides actionable information and guides shared decision making. For example, it is robustly established that the presence of mixed features – especially during depressive episodes – and of physical and psychiatric comorbidities informs illness trajectory, response to treatment, and suicide risk. In addition, early environmental exposures (e.g., sexual and physical abuse, emotional neglect) are highly associated with more complicated illness presentations, inviting the need for developmentally‐oriented and integrated treatment approaches. There have been significant advances in validating subtypes of bipolar disorder (e.g., bipolar I vs. II disorder), particularly in regard to pharmacological interventions. As with other severe mental disorders, social functioning, interpersonal/family relationships and internalized stigma are domains highly relevant to relapse risk, health outcomes, and quality of life. The elevated standardized mortality ratio for completed suicide and suicidal behaviour in bipolar disorder invites the need for characterization of this domain in all patients. The framework of this paper is to describe all the above salient domains, providing a synthesis of extant literature and recommendations for decision support tools and clinical metrics that can be implemented at point‐of‐care.

Objective: To derive new criteria sets for defining manic and hypomanic episodes (and thus for defining the bipolar I and II disorders), an international Task Force was assembled and termed AREDOC reflecting its role of Assessment, Revision and Evaluation of DSM and other Operational Criteria. This paper reports on the first phase of its deliberations and interim criteria recommendations. Method: The first stage of the process consisted of reviewing Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, and recent International Classification of Diseases criteria, identifying their limitations and generating modified criteria sets for further in-depth consideration. Task Force members responded to recommendations for modifying criteria and from these the most problematic issues were identified. Results: Principal issues focussed on by Task Force members were how best to differentiate mania and hypomania, how to judge ‘impairment’ (both in and of itself and allowing that functioning may sometimes improve during hypomanic episodes) and concern that rejecting some criteria (e.g. an imposed duration period) might risk false-positive diagnoses of the bipolar disorders. Conclusion: This first-stage report summarises the clinical opinions of international experts in the diagnosis and management of the bipolar disorders, allowing readers to contemplate diagnostic parameters that may influence their clinical decisions. The findings meaningfully inform subsequent Task Force stages (involving a further commentary stage followed by an empirical study) that are expected to generate improved symptom criteria for diagnosing the bipolar I and II disorders with greater precision and to clarify whether they differ dimensionally or categorically.