Suzanne Rose

This Viewpoint discusses ways the coronavirus pandemic is forcing change onto graduate medical education, including online implementation of preclerkship curricula and alternatives to in-person patient experiences in clinical clerkship rotations.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies indicate that many preschoolers meet diagnostic criteria for psychiatric disorders. However, data on the continuity of these diagnoses are limited, particularly from studies examining a broad range of disorders in community samples. Such studies are necessary to elucidate the validity and clinical significance of psychiatric diagnoses in young children. The authors examined the continuity of specific psychiatric disorders in a large community sample of preschoolers from the preschool period (age 3) to the beginning of the school-age period (age 6). METHOD: Eligible families with a 3-year child were recruited from the community through commercial mailing lists. For 462 children, the child's primary caretaker was interviewed at baseline and again when the child was age 6, using the parent-report Preschool Age Psychiatric Assessment, a comprehensive diagnostic interview. The authors examined the continuity of DSM-IV diagnoses from ages 3 to 6. RESULTS: Three-month rates of disorders were relatively stable from age 3 to age 6. Children who met criteria for any diagnosis at age 3 were nearly five times as likely as the others to meet criteria for a diagnosis at age 6. There was significant homotypic continuity from age 3 to age 6 for anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and oppositional defiant disorder, and heterotypic continuity between depression and anxiety, between anxiety and oppositional defiant disorder, and between ADHD and oppositional defiant disorder. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that preschool psychiatric disorders are moderately stable, with rates of disorders and patterns of homotypic and heterotypic continuity similar to those observed in samples of older children.

OBJECTIVE: There have been few naturalistic follow-up studies of dysthymic disorder. This study describes the 5-year course and outcome of dysthymic disorder. METHOD: The authors conducted a prospective, longitudinal follow-up study of 86 outpatients with early-onset dysthymic disorder and 39 outpatients with episodic major depressive disorder. Follow-ups, conducted 30 and 60 months after entry into the study, rated patients on the Longitudinal Interval Follow-Up Evaluation and the Modified Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. RESULTS: The estimated 5-year recovery rate from dysthymic disorder was 52.9%. Among patients who recovered, the estimated risk of relapse was 45.2% during a mean of 23 months of observation. Patients with dysthymic disorder spent approximately 70% of the follow-up period meeting the full criteria for a mood disorder. During the course of the follow-up the patients with dysthymic disorder exhibited significantly greater levels of symptoms and lower functioning and were significantly more likely to attempt suicide and to be hospitalized than were patients with episodic major depressive disorder. Finally, among patients with dysthymic disorder who had never experienced a major depressive episode before entry into the study, the estimated risk of having a first lifetime major depressive episode was 76.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Dysthymic disorder is a chronic condition with a protracted course and a high risk of relapse. In addition, almost all patients with dysthymic disorder eventually develop superimposed major depressive episodes. Although patients with dysthymic disorder tend to show mild to moderate symptoms, from a longitudinal perspective, the condition is severe.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the 10-year course and outcome of dysthymic disorder. METHOD: The authors conducted a naturalistic, prospective, longitudinal follow-up of 97 adults with early-onset dysthymic disorder and 45 adults with nonchronic major depressive disorder selected from consecutive admissions to several outpatient facilities. Follow-up data were obtained for 90% of the cohort. Assessments were conducted at baseline, 30, 60, 90, and 120 months. Measures included the Longitudinal Interval Follow-Up Evaluation and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. RESULTS: The Kaplan-Meier estimated recovery rate from dysthymic disorder was 73.9%, with a median time to recovery of 52 months. Among patients who recovered, the estimated risk of relapse into another period of chronic depression was 71.4%. Chronic depressive relapses took a variety of forms and were not limited to dysthymia. Nonetheless, the distinction between chronic and nonchronic forms of depression was relatively stable over the follow-up period. Mixed-effects models indicated that patients with dysthymic disorder experienced a significantly slower rate of improvement in symptoms over time and exhibited significantly greater depression at the 10-year point, compared to patients with nonchronic major depression. CONCLUSIONS: Dysthymic disorder has a protracted course and is associated with a high risk of relapse. The nature of chronic depressive episodes varies over time within individuals, indicating that the various manifestations of chronic depression in DSM-IV do not represent distinct disorders. However, the distinction between chronic and nonchronic forms of depression is relatively stable and may provide a useful basis for subtyping in genetic and neurobiological research.