Diagnostic criteria are not always useful to discriminate major depression with anxious distress (ADS-D; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, version-5 [DSM-5] criteria) from mixed depression (Koukopoulos’ criteria; KMX-D). So, clinicians need alternative tools to improve their diagnostic ability and to choose the most appropriate treatment. The aim of the present study is to identify socio-demographic and clinical features that discriminate patients with ADS-D from those with KMX-D.

Two hundred and forty-one consecutive outpatients with unipolar (51%) and bipolar (49%) disorder, fulfilling DSM-5 criteria for a current major depressive episode (MDE) and with a 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score ≥ 14, were recruited and treated in a prospective observational study.

Ten percent of patients met criteria for KMX-D, 22% ADS-D, and 37% for both. Irritable premorbid temperament, mixed depression polarity at onset, mixed depression recurrence, and a high number of mania symptoms at intake were typical features of patients with KMX-D. Depressive polarity at onset, a low number of mania symptoms at intake, and generalized anxiety disorder comorbidity were typical features of patients with ADS-D. Multinomial logistic regression confirmed that higher rate of irritable temperament and higher Young Mania Rating Scale total score differentiated patients with KMX-D from patients with pure MDE.

Our findings suggest some clinical features that could help differentiate between ADS-D and KMX-D in patients meeting both conditions and to select the appropriate treatment. However, the small sample size may have limited the power to detect differences between the groups. Further research is needed to confirm the results of present study.

Mixed depressive states portend greater rates of impulsivity, attempted suicide, treatment resistance, and poorer outcome than non-mixed forms of depression. The neurocognitive bases of such affective states have not been defined yet.

This work represents an attempt to clarify the neuropsychology underlying mixed depressive states.

Thirty subjects with affective disorders with mixed depression (MxD), 54 subjects with non-mixed depression (nonMxD), 73 euthymic subjects (Eu) and 93 healthy comparisons (HC) underwent a neurocognitive battery including the Trail-Making Test (TMT), the Controlled Word Fluency Test (WFT) and the Semantic Fluency Test (SFT), the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST, the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test RAVLT, the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test ROCFT, the Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM), and the Interference Component of the Stroop Test (ST). Between-group differences were performed through multiple one-way analyses of variance. Post-hoc analyses were performed using Tukey post-hoc tests.

HC performed better than the three patient groups in all the aforementioned neurocognitive tests. Eu performed better in RPM, TMT, SFT than nonMxD, and better on ST WCST than both nonMxD and MxD. MxD showed better performances in RPM, TMT-A, WCST than nonMxD, and more errors and less reaction times in the ST than nonMxD.

Mixed depressive states are characterized by enhanced attentional resources and greater set shifting abilities than non-mixed depressive states. On the other hand, they have less cognitive control than non-mixed depression. Such findings might explain some typical features observed in subjects with mixed depression, such impulsivity, suicidality, emotional reactivity and behavioral dyscontrol.

No significant relationships.

Subthreshold hypomania during a major depressive episode challenges the bipolar-unipolar dichotomy. In our study we employed a cross-diagnostic cluster analysis - to identify distinct subgroups within a cohort of depressed patients.

A k-means cluster analysis— based on the domain scores of the Mood Spectrum Self-Report (MOODS-SR) questionnaire—was performed on a data set of 300 adults with either bipolar or unipolar depression. After identifying groups, between-clusters comparisons were conducted on MOODS-SR domains and factors and on a set of sociodemographic, clinical and psychometric variables.

Three clusters were identified: one with intermediate depressive and poor manic symptomatology (Mild), one with severe depressive and poor manic symptomatology (Moderate), and a third one with severe depressive and intermediate manic symptomatology (Mixed). Across the clusters, bipolar patients were significantly less represented in the Mild one, while the DSM-5 “Mixed features” specifier did not differentiate the groups. When compared to the other patients, those of Mixed cluster exhibited a stronger association with most of the illness-severity, quality of life, and outcomes measures considered. After performing pairwise comparisons significant differences between “Mixed” and “Moderate” clusters were restricted to: current and disease-onset age, psychotic ideation, suicidal attempts, hospitalization numbers, impulsivity levels and comorbidity for Cluster B personality disorder.

In the present study, a clustering approach based on a spectrum exploration of mood symptomatology led to the identification of three transdiagnostic groups of patients. Consistent with our hypothesis, the magnitude of subthreshold (hypo)manic symptoms was related to a greater clinical severity, regardless of the main categorical diagnosis.

To review the diagnostic validity and utility of mixed depression, i.e. co-occurrence of depression and manic/hypomanic symptoms.

PubMed search of all English-language papers published between January 1966 and December 2006 using and cross-listing key words: bipolar disorder, mixed states, criteria, utility, validation, gender, temperament, depression-mixed states, mixed depression, depressive mixed state/s, dysphoric hypomania, mixed hypomania, mixed/dysphoric mania, agitated depression, anxiety disorders, neuroimaging, pathophysiology, and genetics. A manual review of paper reference lists was also conducted.

By classic diagnostic validators, the diagnostic validity of categorically-defined mixed depression (i.e. at least 2–3 manic/hypomanic symptoms) is mainly supported by family history (the current strongest diagnostic validator). Its diagnostic utility is supported by treatment response (negative effects of antidepressants). A dimensionally-defined mixed depression is instead supported by a non-bi-modal distribution of its intradepression manic/hypomanic symptoms.

Categorically-defined mixed depression may have some diagnostic validity (family history is the current strongest validator). Its diagnostic utility seems supported by treatment response.

As psychotic agitated depression is now a well-described form of mixed state during the course of bipolar I disorder, we sought to investigate the diagnostic validity of a new definition for agitated (mixed) depression in bipolar II (BP-II) and major depressive disorder (MDD).

Three hundred and thirty six consecutive outpatients presenting with major depressive episodes (MDE) but without history of mania were evaluated with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV when presenting for the treatment of MDE. On the basis of history of hypomania they were assigned to BP-II (n = 206) vs. MDD (n = 130). All patients were also examined for hypomania during the current MDE. Mixed depression was operationally defined by the coexistence of a MDE and at least two of the following excitatory signs and symptoms as described by Koukopoulos and Koukopoulos (Koukopoulos A, Koukopoulos A. Agitated depression as a mixed state and the problem of melancholia. In: Akiskal HS, editor. Bipolarity: beyond classic mania. Psychiatr Clin North Am 1999;22:547–64): inner psychic tension (irritability), psychomotor agitation, and racing/crowded thoughts. The validity of mixed depression was investigated by documenting its association with BP-II disorder and with external variables distinguishing it from unipolar MDD (i.e., younger age at onset, greater recurrence, and family history of bipolar disorders). We analyzed the data with multivariate regression (STATA 7).

MDE plus psychic tension (irritability) and agitation accounted for 15.4%, and MDE plus agitation and crowded thoughts for 15.1%. The highest rate of mixed depression (38.6%) was achieved with a definition combining MDE with psychic tension (irritability) and crowded thoughts: 23.0% of these belonged to MDD and 76.9% to BP-II. Moreover, any of these permutations of signs and symptoms defining mixed depression was significantly and strongly associated with external validators for bipolarity. The mixed irritable-agitated syndrome depression with racing-crowded thoughts was further characterized by distractibility (74–82%) and increased talkativeness (25–42%); of expansive behaviors from the criteria B list for hypomania, only risk taking occurred with some frequency (15–17%).

These findings support the inclusion of outpatient-agitated depressions within the bipolar spectrum. Agitated depression is validated herein as a dysphorically excited form of melancholia, which should tip clinicians to think of such a patient belonging to or arising from a bipolar substrate. Our data support the Kraepelinian position on this matter, but regrettably this is contrary to current ICD-10 and DSM-IV conventions. Cross-sectional symptomatologic hints to bipolarity in this mixed/agitated depressive syndrome are virtually absent in that such patients do not appear to display the typical euphoric/expansive characteristics of hypomania—even though history of such behavior may be elicited by skillful interviewing for BP-II. We submit that the application of this diagnostic entity in outpatient practice would be of considerable clinical value, given the frequency with which these patients are encountered in such practice and the extent to which their misdiagnosis as unipolar MDD could lead to antidepressant monotherapy, thereby aggravating it in the absence of more appropriate treatment with mood stabilizers and/or atypical antipsychotics.

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.

To analyze the correlations among symptom criteria for major depression with ADS and for mixed depression using a network analysis.

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.

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.

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.

Mixed presentations, defined by simultaneous occurrence of depressive and manic symptoms, are difficult to treat. Antidepressants, although commonly used, have weak evidence of efficacy and may increase risk of mood destabilization. The aim of this pooled post hoc analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of cariprazine in the treatment of bipolar depression with or without concurrent manic symptoms.

Patients from 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies who met DSM-IV-TR or DSM-5 criteria for bipolar I disorder with a current major depressive episode were identified to have concurrent manic symptoms by baseline Young Mania Rating Scale total score ≥4. Efficacy was assessed in cariprazine 1.5 and 3 mg/day dose groups versus placebo; analyses included the least squares mean change from baseline to week 6 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score.

Of 1383 patients randomized to treatment, 808 (58.4%) had concurrent manic symptoms. For patients with manic symptoms, mean reduction in MADRS total score from baseline to week 6 was significantly greater for both cariprazine 1.5 and 3 mg/day compared with placebo, with least squares mean differences (LSMDs) versus placebo of −2.5 (p = .0033) and −2.9 (p = .0010), respectively; for patients without manic symptoms, the LSMD was significant for 1.5 mg/day (−3.3; p = .0008), but not for 3 mg/day (−1.9; p = .0562).

The results of this post hoc analysis suggest that cariprazine may be an appropriate treatment option for patients with bipolar I depression with or without manic symptoms, with higher doses potentially more effective in patients with manic symptoms.