BACKGROUND: Comorbidity of personality disorder (PD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been suggested in several reports. However, assessment of PD is problematic, and studies have over-relied on baseline evaluations. METHODS:Forty-seven patients entered a double-blind trial of osmotic release oral system (OROS) methylphenidate (MPH). Patients were assessed at baseline with the Wisconsin Personality Inventory IV (WISPI-IV) and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II). Following the study, all information-including tests, family reports, and extended clinical observations-produced a final PD diagnosis. Three post hoc categories were created: PD-negative (no PD), PD-positive (1 PD), and PD-plus (2 or more PDs). RESULTS: Twenty-one (45%) patients had a PD on the final assessment vs 62% using SCID-II and 33% using WISPI-IV; final PD diagnosis revealed 9% cluster A, 17% cluster B, and 28% cluster C. Twenty-one percent of patients experienced multiple disorders. Using a weighted kappa, the number of PDs on the final assessment correlated with the WISPI-IV (kappa=.53; P > .001) and the SCID-II (kappa =.70; P < .001). However the SCID-II overidentified and the WISPI-IV underidentified PD. CONCLUSION: Almost all PDs were represented in this sample, and past emphasis on cluster B appears unwarranted. Although the SCID-II and WISPI-IV had limited success in identifying specific PDs, they were more successful in identifying the number of PDs present in each patient. The small sample makes these findings preliminary.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Comorbidity of personality disorder (PD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been suggested in several reports. However, assessment of PD is problematic, and studies have over-relied on baseline evaluations. METHODS: Forty-seven patients entered a double-blind trial of osmotic release oral system (OROS) methylphenidate (MPH). Patients were assessed at baseline with the Wisconsin Personality Inventory IV (WISPI-IV) and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II). Following the study, all information-including tests, family reports, and extended clinical observations-produced a final PD diagnosis. Three post hoc categories were created: PD-negative (no PD), PD-positive (1 PD), and PD-plus (2 or more PDs). RESULTS: Twenty-one (45%) patients had a PD on the final assessment vs 62% using SCID-II and 33% using WISPI-IV; final PD diagnosis revealed 9% cluster A, 17% cluster B, and 28% cluster C. Twenty-one percent of patients experienced multiple disorders. Using a weighted kappa, the number of PDs on the final assessment correlated with the WISPI-IV (kappa=.53; P > .001) and the SCID-II (kappa =.70; P < .001). However the SCID-II overidentified and the WISPI-IV underidentified PD. CONCLUSION: Almost all PDs were represented in this sample, and past emphasis on cluster B appears unwarranted. Although the SCID-II and WISPI-IV had limited success in identifying specific PDs, they were more successful in identifying the number of PDs present in each patient. The small sample makes these findings preliminary.
Authors: E Hoxhaj; C Sadohara; P Borel; R D'Amelio; E Sobanski; H Müller; B Feige; S Matthies; Alexandra Philipsen Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 5.270