Search

OBJECTIVE: Researchers disagree as to whether irritability is a diagnostic indicator for pediatric mania in bipolar disorder. The authors compared the behavioral and psychophysiological correlates of irritability among children with severe mood dysregulation (i.e., nonepisodic irritability and hyperarousal without episodes of euphoric mood) and narrow-phenotype bipolar disorder (i.e., a history of at least one manic or hypomanic episode with euphoric mood) as well as those with no diagnosis (i.e., healthy comparison children). METHOD: Subjects with severe mood dysregulation (N=21) or narrow-phenotype bipolar disorder (N=35) and comparison subjects (N=26) completed the affective Posner task, an attentional task that manipulated emotional demands and induced frustration. Mood response, behavior (reaction time and accuracy), and brain activity (event-related potentials) were measured. RESULTS: The severe mood dysregulation and narrow-phenotype bipolar disorder groups both reported significantly more arousal than comparison subjects during frustration, but behavioral and psychophysiological performance differed between the patient groups. In the frustration condition, children with narrow-phenotype bipolar disorder had lower P3 amplitude than children with severe mood dysregulation or comparison subjects, reflecting impairments in executive attention. Regardless of emotional context, children with severe mood dysregulation had lower N1 event-related potential amplitude than comparison subjects or children with narrow-phenotype bipolar disorder, reflecting impairments in the initial stages of attention. Post hoc analyses demonstrated that the N1 deficit in children with severe mood dysregulation is associated with oppositional defiant disorder symptom severity. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that while irritability is an important feature of severe mood dysregulation and narrow-phenotype bipolar disorder, the pathophysiology of irritability may differ among the groups and is influenced by oppositional defiant disorder severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: Deficits in motor inhibition may contribute to impulsivity and irritability in children with bipolar disorder. Studies of the neural circuitry engaged during failed motor inhibition in pediatric bipolar disorder may increase our understanding of the pathophysiology of the illness. The authors tested the hypothesis that children with bipolar disorder and comparison subjects would differ in ventral prefrontal cortex, striatal, and anterior cingulate activation during unsuccessful motor inhibition. They also compared activation in medicated versus unmedicated children with bipolar disorder and in children with bipolar disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) versus those with bipolar disorder without ADHD. METHOD: The authors conducted an event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging study comparing neural activation in children with bipolar disorder and healthy comparison subjects while they performed a motor inhibition task. The study group included 26 children with bipolar disorder (13 unmedicated and 15 with ADHD) and 17 comparison subjects matched by age, gender, and IQ. RESULTS: On failed inhibitory trials, comparison subjects showed greater bilateral striatal and right ventral prefrontal cortex activation than did patients. These deficits were present in unmedicated patients, but the role of ADHD in mediating them was unclear. CONCLUSIONS: In relation to comparison subjects, children with bipolar disorder may have deficits in their ability to engage striatal structures and the right ventral prefrontal cortex during unsuccessful inhibition. Further research should ascertain the contribution of ADHD to these deficits and the role that such deficits may play in the emotional and behavioral dysregulation characteristic of bipolar disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some advocates for improved pain management have devised and had initial success utilizing a controversial new weapon-the elder abuse claim. In California, two recent cases have been brought under the state's elder abuse statutes against physicians and health care institutions. The first lead to a much publicized jury verdict against a physician, and the second was recently settled as to all defendants, with related disciplinary actions against a treating physician and a skilled nursing facility by their respective regulatory agencies. This commentary reviews the phenomenon of litigating cases of undertreated pain, analyzes the most recent cases, and considers the implications of invoking elder abuse statutes in such cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. The objectives of this medico-legal case report are to consider the current status of the use of placebos in pain medicine from clinical, ethical, and legal perspectives. The focus of the analysis is a particular case in which the deceptive use of placebo pain therapy on an adolescent gave rise to professional grievances filed by the patient's mother against the physician who ordered and several nurses who administered the placebo. The medical board declined to take disciplinary action against the physician, and disciplinary action by the board of registered nursing against the nurses was successfully challenged by two of the charged nurses in an administrative review. While there is a growing literature that challenges the need for or justification of the deceptive use of placebos, the practice continues and, as the case under consideration indicates, retains some influential supporters.Design. This is a case report from a community hospital. The patient, referred to here as KC, was an adolescent with migraine headaches. The substitution of a placebo (saline solution) for an opioid analgesic (morphine) was made during KC's treatment.Results. The patient's pain subsided sufficiently following the administration of a placebo to permit his discharge from the hospital. The subsequent discovery by the patient's mother of the deceptive use of a placebo prompted her to file charges of professional misconduct against the treating physician and three nurses with their respective professional licensing boards. The medical board declined to take disciplinary action against the physician, and the disciplinary action by the board of registered nursing was successfully challenged in a ruling by an administrative law judge following a hearing in which expert witnesses took conflicting positions on the acceptability of the deceptive use of a placebo.Conclusion. While there is a developing literature that challenges the ethical legitimacy of the deceptive use of placebos in pain medicine, that literature has yet to be recognized as unqualifiedly setting the standard of care or of professionalism in medicine and nursing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response to the preceding commentary is provided form the perspective of a bioethicist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]