Axis I and II comorbidity in adults with ADHD

Ongoing debate over the validity of the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) construct in adulthood is fueled in part by uncertainty regarding implications of potentially extensive yet incompletely described comorbid Axis I and II psychopathology. Three hundred sixty-three adults ages 18 to 37 completed semistructured clinical interviews; informants were also interviewed, and best estimate diagnoses were obtained. Results were as follows: First, ADHD combined type (ADHD-C) had an excess of externalizing and internalizing Axis I disorders, suggesting a gradient-of-severity relationship between it and ADHD inattentive type (ADHD-I). Second, ADHD-C and ADHD-I did not differ in frequency of Axis II disorders. Third, however, ADHD overall was associated with increased rates of Axis II disorders, compared with rates in non-ADHD control participants, including both Cluster B (primarily borderline personality disorder) and Cluster C disorders. Fourth, ADHD incrementally accounted for clinician-rated global assessment of functioning scores above and beyond comorbid conditions or symptoms on either Axis I or Axis II. Results further inform nosology of ADHD in adults.     

The joint structure of DSM-IV Axis I and Axis II disorders

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (4th ed. [DSM-IV]; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) distinction between clinical disorders on Axis I and personality disorders on Axis II has become increasingly controversial. Although substantial comorbidity between axes has been demonstrated, the structure of the liability factors underlying these two groups of disorders is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to determine the latent factor structure of a broad set of common Axis I disorders and all Axis II personality disorders and thereby to identify clusters of disorders and account for comorbidity within and between axes. Data were collected in Norway, through a population-based interview study (N = 2,794 young adult twins). Axis I and Axis II disorders were assessed with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and the Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality (SIDP-IV), respectively. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to investigate the underlying structure of 25 disorders. A four-factor model fit the data well, suggesting a distinction between clinical and personality disorders as well as a distinction between broad groups of internalizing and externalizing disorders. The location of some disorders was not consistent with the DSM-IV classification; antisocial personality disorder belonged primarily to the Axis I externalizing spectrum, dysthymia appeared as a personality disorder, and borderline personality disorder appeared in an interspectral position. The findings have implications for a meta-structure for the DSM.     

Social phobia: Axis I and II correlates

The presence of Axis I and Axis II disorders in 71 social phobic patients was examined. Generalized anxiety disorder was the most common secondary Axis I disorder, followed by simple phobia. Avoidant personality disorder and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder were the most common Axis II diagnoses, and 88% of the sample exhibited features of these 2 personality styles. Subjects with additional Axis I diagnoses were more anxious and depressed than those with no additional Axis I disorder. Social phobics with additional Axis II disorders were more depressed but not more anxious than those with no Axis II diagnosis. Furthermore, those with an additional Axis I disorder had higher scores on measures of neuroticism, interpersonal sensitivity, and agoraphobia. The prevalence and impact of additional Axis I and II disorders on the etiology, maintenance, and treatment outcome for persons with social phobia are discussed.     

An investigation of the effects of comorbid Axis II pathology on outcome of inpatient treatment for unipolar depression

DSM-based research on comorbidity has suggested thatdepression andpersonality disorder frequently occur together and that the combination of syndromes is associated with a poor response to treatment for depression. The present study was designed to explore the effect of comorbid Axis II pathology for a sample of 45 inpatients who received treatment for major depression. Both categorical and dimensional ratings of personality disorder were used in the statistical analysis. Positive categorical diagnosis of Cluster C (anxious-avoidant) disorder, as well as higher dimensional rating of Cluster A (odd-eccentric) pathology, was predictive of a poor response to treatment (p<.05), as measured by change in pre-post clinical ratings on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. These results were construed as indicative of a significant Axis II comorbidity effect in the context of an inpatient, multimodal treatment setting for depression. The results also spotlight the influence of techniques of measurement in determining the outcome of statistical analysis.     

Comorbid anxiety and mood disorders among persons with social anxiety disorder.

Axis I comorbidity is associated with greater severity of social anxiety disorder. However, the differential effects of comorbid mood and anxiety disorders on symptom severity or treatment outcome have not been investigated. We evaluated 69 persons with uncomplicated social anxiety disorder, 39 persons with an additional anxiety disorder, and 33 persons with an additional mood disorder (with or without additional anxiety disorders). Those with comorbid mood disorders reported greater duration of social anxiety than those with uncomplicated social anxiety disorder. They were also judged, before and after 12 weeks of cognitive-behavioral group treatment and at follow-up, to be more severely impaired than those with no comorbid diagnosis. In contrast, persons with comorbid anxiety disorders were rated as more impaired than those with no comorbid diagnosis on only a single measure. Type of comorbid diagnosis did not result in differential rates of improvement of social anxiety disorder.     

Suicide Attempts in Major Depressed Patients with Personality Disorder

Suicide attempters who met criteria for borderline personality disorder (BPD) comorbid with major depressive disorder (MDD) were compared to both suicide attempters suffering from MDD alone and to attempters with comorbid MDD and other personality disorders (PD). Participants were 239 (158 patients with comorbid PD and 81 patients with MDD without comorbidity) inpatients consecutively admitted after a suicide attempt made in the last 24 hours. Suicide attempters with comorbid MDD and BPD had more frequent previous suicide attempts and were more likely to have a history of aggressive behaviors and alcohol and drug use disorders compared with patients suffering from MDD without Axis II comorbidity.     

Trait Anger and Axis I Disorders: Implications for REBT

Anger has a prominent role in basic theories of emotion. And while many psychiatric disorders can be conceived of as emotional disorders (e.g., depressive disorders, anxiety disorders), there are no disorders for which anger is the cardinal feature. We analyzed diagnostic data on 1,687 (as later) psychiatric outpatients and looked at the co-occurrence of high trait anger (as assessed by criterion 8 of Borderline Personality Disorder) and Axis I disorders, and Borderline and Antisocial Personality Disorders. The purpose was to examine whether dysfunctional anger met criteria necessary to be considered a valid diagnostic category. Results showed that high trait anger was not fully accounted for by any particular Axis I diagnosis, or any set of Axis I diagnoses, or by the combination of Axis I diagnoses and Borderline and Antisocial PDs. Trait anger also accounted for significant amounts of unique variance in several indicators of psychiatric impairment and psychosocial functioning. We describe the anger disorder diagnoses of Eckhardt and Deffenbacher (Anger disorders: Definition, diagnosis and treatment. Taylor & Francis, Bristol, PA, 1995), and discuss the implications of those diagnoses for the practice of REBT and CBT.

Stability as a distinction between Axis I and Axis II disorders

Temporal stability has served as a conceptual basis for the distinction between the clinical syndromes of Axis I disorders and the Axis II personality disorders, the latter being viewed as lifelong enduring patterns. However, comparisons of the stability of Axis I and II disorders have been limited. The present review examines findings from three naturalistic longitudinal studies that utilize similar methodology: the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study (CLPS; Gunderson et al., 2000), the Collaborative Depression Study (CDS; Katz & Klerman, 1979), and the Harvard/Brown Anxiety Research Program (HARP; Keller et al., 1994). Using a definition of remission/recovery as having no or minimal symptoms for 8 consecutive weeks, the courses of personality, depressive, and anxiety disorders were compared. Though remission/recovery rate at the 2-year follow-up was highest for mood disorders, the probability of recurrence was also particularly high. Personality disorders, with remission rates higher than the anxiety disorders, appear to be less stable than conceptualized. The anxiety disorders had remarkably low recovery rates even beyond 5 years of prospective follow-up. Factors that may explain these findings, as well as implications for future conceptualization of DSM, are discussed.     

Associations in the course of personality disorders and Axis I disorders over time

In this study, the authors examined time-varying associations between schizotypal (STPD), borderline (BPD), avoidant (AVPD), or obsessive-compulsive (OCPD) personality disorders and co-occurring Axis I disorders in 544 adult participants from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study. The authors tested predictions of specific longitudinal associations derived from a model of crosscutting psychobiological dimensions (L. J. Siever & K. L. Davis, 1991) with participants with the relevant Axis I disorders. The authors assessed participants at baseline and at 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up evaluations. BPD showed significant longitudinal associations with major depressive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder. AVPD was significantly associated with anxiety disorders (specifically social phobia and obsessive-compulsive disorder). Two of the four personality disorders under examination (STPD and OCPD) showed little or no association with Axis I disorders.     

Personality disorder and Axis I psychopathology: the problematic boundary of Axis I and Axis II

The confusion of personality disorders with Axis I disorders can be traced in part to inadequacies of assessment instruments and diagnostic criterion sets. However, it also reflects the absence of adequate conceptualization. If Axis I continues to include early onset, chronic impairments that characterize everyday functioning, then there is unlikely to be a clear or meaningful distinction. Inherent and unique to personality disorders is that they concern a person's sense of self and identity. They are disorders of everyday functioning. Personality disorders have an early onset, characterize everyday functioning, and relate closely to personality functioning evident within the general population; Axis I disorders, in contrast, have an onset throughout adult life, are episodic, and are readily distinguishable from normal personality functioning.     

The effect of Axis II disorders on the outcome of treatment of anxiety and unipolar depressive disorders: a review

Psychiatric and other clinicians have often speculated on whether the presence of a personality disorder would indicate a poorer course of treatment for an Axis I disorder. Starting around 1990, the standardized criteria of the DSM increased interest in examining this area empirically. This report updates my previous reviews and examines other writing in this area. There is still a considerable body of evidence indicating that personality may cause a poorer treatment outcome of an Axis I disorder; however, there are also intriguing new developments. The introduction of new drug treatments that may be helpful with some dysfunctional personality traits changes some of the findings and may suggest that there may be preferential treatments for some Axis I patients with certain comorbid personality traits. (In certain cases this may apply to some specific psychotherapy techniques as well.) In addition, at times, personality traits may predict a positive outcome to treatment. This review is an attempt to bring together this diverse area and suggest where fruitful areas of research and intervention may possibly be found.     

Personality disorders in patients with burning mouth syndrome

Burning Mouth Syndrome (BMS) presents high rates of comorbid Axis I disorders while no controlled studies have addressed the question of Axis II comorbidities. The aim of the present study was to examine DSM-IV (APA, 1994) Axis II comorbidity in BMS patients and to control for the specificity of this association. Seventy BMS patients were compared to a nonpsychiatric population sample and to patients with other Somatoform Disorders for the presence of personality disorders (assessed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders [SCID-II; First, Gibbon, Spitzer, & Williams, 1997). Prevalence rates were compared using the Pearson's chi square test. At least one personality disorder (PD) was found in 85.7%, 24.3%, and 88.6% of subjects in the three groups, respectively. When examining PD subgroups, significant differences emerged even between the BMS and the somatoform disorder group, with BMS patients showing more Cluster A and fewer Cluster B PDs. Our results suggest that BMS is associated with a specific pattern of Axis II comorbidity.     

One-year follow-up of patients with cluster C personality disorders: a prospective study comparing patients with "pure" and comorbid conditions within cluster C, and "pure" C with "pure" cluster A or B conditions.

This one-year, post-treatment prospective study of consecutively admitted patients to a national psychiatric in-patient clinic, compares patients belonging to four subgroups of DSM-III-R personality disorder (PDs): "pure cluster A (N = 21), "pure" B (N = 67), "pure" C (N = 251), and Axis II "comorbid" C (N = 138). Outcome was measured by SCl-90 and occupational status. Axis I disorders were controlled for in all analyses. Contrary to our hypothesis, patients in pure cluster C had no better outcome than either Axis II comorbid cluster C patients or patients with pure cluster A or B. Although pure C patients relapsed in symptom distress after discharge, comorbid C patients did not. C patients with an additional Histrionic PD were less at risk to be a case at follow up (GSI level > 1.00). Cluster C disorders as a whole had negative impact upon outcome in the total sample. These findings suggest the need for better treatment of patients with cluster C conditions.     

Differentiation of Axis I and Axis II disorders

The revised 3rd edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1987) distinguishes between Axis I and Axis II disorders: Axis II includes personality (and developmental) disorders, and all others are on Axis I. This distinction is often useful, but the reification of Axis I and II constructs through diagnostic criteria sets that demarcate categorically distinct entities is at times problematic. We review the issues of differentiating personality from Axis I disorders, specifically illustrated by schizotypal and schizophrenic disorders, borderline and mood disorders, antisocial and substance use disorders, and avoidant personality from social phobia. The options for addressing their differentiation include adding exclusion criteria, shifting the placement of disorders, deleting overlapping criteria, adding differentiating criteria, and converting to a dimensional format.     

Personality disorder cognitions in the eating disorders

The eating disorders are frequently found to be comorbid with Axis II cluster B and C personality disorders. It is important to identify the personality-level cognitions that typify these disorders. This study of a clinical group examines the personality disorder cognitions in the eating disorders. The cognitions that were most relevant to the eating disorder pathology were those relating to avoidant and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. Other personality disorder cognitions were associated with comorbid psychopathology in largely clinically meaningful ways. These findings extend our understanding of the comorbidity of eating disorders and personality pathology, suggesting that some cases need to be assessed and formulated with such cognitions in mind. Treatment strategies are required that address both the eating and the personality pathology, while considering the impact of these cognitions on the therapeutic relationship.     

Interpersonal dependency and personality pathology: variations in Rorschach Oral Dependency scores across Axis II diagnoses

Although several investigations have examined the relationship of Rorschach Oral Dependency (ROD; Masling, Rabie, & Blondheim, 1967) scores to Axis I diagnosis, there has been very little research assessing variations in ROD scores across Axis II personality disorders (PDs). In this study, ROD scores were compared in 5 PD groups (borderline PD inpatients, borderline PD outpatients, avoidant-dependent PD outpatients, narcissistic PD outpatients, and antisocial PD outpatients), and 2 non-PD comparison groups (psychotic disorder inpatients and college students). Borderline PD inpatients had significantly higher ROD scores than borderline PD outpatients, antisocial PD outpatients, and college students; no other between-group differences were found. We discuss implications of these results for research on dependency and Axis II psychopathology and offer suggestions for future studies.     

Detection of a Psychiatric Diagnosis in Heart Transplant Candidates with the MBHI

The utility of the Millon Behavioral Health Inventory (MBHI) in screening for the formal diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder was investigated in a sample of 90 heart transplant candidates, a population at risk for psychiatric disturbance. Psychiatric disorders were identified in 71% of patients, the majority being adjustment disorder. Sensitivity and specificity rates of >70% were determined in discriminant function analyses, for presence or absence of a psychiatric condition. When Axis I conditions were differentiated as mild (adjustment reaction only) or severe (all other Axis I conditions, including comorbid Axis II disorders), the MBHI correctly identified every severe case as a probable psychiatric diagnosis. The rate of clinically significant elevations on certain MBHI scales and severity of Axis I psychiatric condition was also significantly associated. These findings suggest that the MBHI may have potential utility in identifying high-risk patients with diagnosable psychiatric conditions and help justify mental health consultation referrals at a time when managed care entities are vigorously rationing ancillary services with medically ill populations.     

Heterogeneity of borderline personality disorder: do the number of criteria met make a difference?

Many studies have compared the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with and without borderline personality disorder (BPD), but there is limited knowledge on differences within the population of borderline patients. One potential index of heterogeneity is disorder severity. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we examined whether the severity of borderline personality disorder, as measured by the number of criteria present, is associated with co-morbidity of Axis I and Axis II diagnoses, as well as demographic factors and psychosocial functioning. Two thousand three hundred psychiatric outpatients were interviewed with the Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality (SIDP-IV). Approximately ten percent (n = 237) of the patients were diagnosed with BPD, and they were divided into four groups based on the number of DSM-IV criteria met, 5 (n = 89), 6 (n = 70), 7 (n = 46), and 8 or 9 (n = 32). There were greater rates of drug use disorders and comorbid Axis II disorders, as well as a greater number of suicidal gestures, in patients meeting seven or more BPD criteria. There were no significant differences between the groups in the number and specific rates of other co-morbid Axis I disorders, other measures of psychosocial functioning, or demographic correlates. Sub-typing of borderline patients by the number of criteria met provides a limited explanation for heterogeneity within BPD patients.     

Socio-demographic conditions, subjective somatic health, Axis I disorders and personality disorders in the common population: the relationship to quality of life

Quality of life (QOL) was studied in a population of 2,065 subjects in Norway. A broad concept of QOL was applied, including subjective well-being, self-realization, negative life events, and a number of interpersonal relationships. The assessment of QOL, based on interview, was related to a number of socio-demographic variables, subjectively experienced somatic health, the most common Axis I disorders, and all Axis II personality disorders (PDs). The results of multivariate analyses showed that being female and living with a partner in the outskirts of a city and having good physical health are important positive correlates of QOL. Controlling for all these variables, major depression, dysthymic disorder, and somatoform disorders were the Axis I disorders that have a negative statistical effect on global QOL. Specific anxiety disorders did not add to the effects. Among the PDs, avoidant, schizotypal, paranoid, and schizoid PD traits were the most important statistical negative determinants of QOL, followed by borderline, dependent, antisocial, and also self-defeating and narcissistic PDs, restricted to some specific sub-indexes of QOL. The study also showed that our results vary and are sometimes the opposite, depending on the sub-index of QOL examined. The study showed that it is necessary to apply a broad concept of QOL to disclose the real nature or the relationship between mental disorders and QOL. Furthermore, demographic variables, subjectively experienced somatic health, Axis I disorders, and PD traits appeared to be independently associated with QOL.     

The relationship between comorbid personality disorders and treatment received in patients with anxiety disorders

Few studies have addressed the relationship between the presence of a comorbid personality disorder and the amount of psychiatric treatment received by patients with an Axis I disorder. This issue has not been studied in patients with anxiety disorders. In a prospective, naturalistic, longitudinal study of anxiety disorders, 526 subjects were assessed with the Personality Disorder Examination, and types of treatment received in 1991 and 1996 were identified. In 1991, compared to subjects without a personality disorder, subjects with a personality disorder were as likely to receive medication and they received a greater number of medications. Subjects with borderline personality disorder were more likely to receive heterocyclic antidepressants and interventions characteristic of psychodynamic psychotherapy and cognitive therapy; they also reported receiving a greater number of medications and types of psychosocial treatment than other subjects. In 1996, subjects with borderline personality disorder were more likely to receive psychodynamic interventions. These findings suggest that in patients with an anxiety disorder, the presence of a comorbid personality disorder is associated with receiving a greater number of medications but not with a greater likelihood of receiving pharmacologic or psychosocial treatment. However, the presence of borderline personality disorder is associated with a greater likelihood of receiving, and receiving a greater number of, certain types of somatic and psychosocial treatments.