CONTEXT: The familiality of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and its sectors of psychopathology are incompletely understood. OBJECTIVES: To assess the familial aggregation of BPD and its 4 major sectors (affective, interpersonal, behavioral, and cognitive) and test whether the relationship of the familial and nonfamilial associations among these sectors can be accounted for by a latent BPD construct. DESIGN: Family study, with direct interviews of probands and relatives. SETTING: A psychiatric hospital (McLean Hospital) and the Boston-area community. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 368 probands (132 with BPD, 134 without BPD, and 102 with major depressive disorder) and 885 siblings and parents of probands. MAIN ASSESSMENTS: The Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders and the Revised Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines (DIB-R) were used to assess borderline psychopathology, and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV was used to assess major depressive disorder. RESULTS: Borderline personality disorder meeting both DSM-IV and DIB-R criteria showed substantial familial aggregation for BPD in individuals with a family member with BPD vs those without a family member with BPD, using proband-relative pairs (risk ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-5.5) as well as using all pairs of family members (3.9; 1.7-9.0). All 4 sectors of BPD psychopathology aggregated significantly in families, using both DSM-IV and DIB-R definitions (correlation of traits among all pairs of family members ranged from 0.07 to 0.27), with the affective and interpersonal sectors showing the highest levels; however, the level of familial aggregation of BPD was higher than that of the individual sectors. The relationship among the sectors was best explained by a common pathway model in which the sectors represent manifestations of a latent BPD construct. CONCLUSIONS: Familial factors contribute to BPD and its sectors of psychopathology. Borderline personality disorder may arise from a unitary liability that finds expression in its sectors of psychopathology.
CONTEXT: The familiality of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and its sectors of psychopathology are incompletely understood. OBJECTIVES: To assess the familial aggregation of BPD and its 4 major sectors (affective, interpersonal, behavioral, and cognitive) and test whether the relationship of the familial and nonfamilial associations among these sectors can be accounted for by a latent BPD construct. DESIGN: Family study, with direct interviews of probands and relatives. SETTING:A psychiatric hospital (McLean Hospital) and the Boston-area community. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 368 probands (132 with BPD, 134 without BPD, and 102 with major depressive disorder) and 885 siblings and parents of probands. MAIN ASSESSMENTS: The Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders and the Revised Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines (DIB-R) were used to assess borderline psychopathology, and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV was used to assess major depressive disorder. RESULTS:Borderline personality disorder meeting both DSM-IV and DIB-R criteria showed substantial familial aggregation for BPD in individuals with a family member with BPD vs those without a family member with BPD, using proband-relative pairs (risk ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-5.5) as well as using all pairs of family members (3.9; 1.7-9.0). All 4 sectors of BPD psychopathology aggregated significantly in families, using both DSM-IV and DIB-R definitions (correlation of traits among all pairs of family members ranged from 0.07 to 0.27), with the affective and interpersonal sectors showing the highest levels; however, the level of familial aggregation of BPD was higher than that of the individual sectors. The relationship among the sectors was best explained by a common pathway model in which the sectors represent manifestations of a latent BPD construct. CONCLUSIONS: Familial factors contribute to BPD and its sectors of psychopathology. Borderline personality disorder may arise from a unitary liability that finds expression in its sectors of psychopathology.
Authors: Mary C Zanarini; Frances R Frankenburg; Lynne Yong; Giuseppe Raviola; D Bradford Reich; John Hennen; James I Hudson; John G Gunderson Journal: J Pers Disord Date: 2004-10
Authors: K R Merikangas; M Stolar; D E Stevens; J Goulet; M A Preisig; B Fenton; H Zhang; S S O'Malley; B J Rounsaville Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 1998-11
Authors: Peter Fonagy; Mario Speranza; Patrick Luyten; Michael Kaess; Christel Hessels; Martin Bohus Journal: Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2015-08-14 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Kristin N Javaras; Mary C Zanarini; James I Hudson; Shelly F Greenfield; John G Gunderson Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: M C Zanarini; F R Frankenburg; D B Reich; M M Wedig; L C Conkey; G M Fitzmaurice Journal: Acta Psychiatr Scand Date: 2014-03-04 Impact factor: 6.392
Authors: Ted Reichborn-Kjennerud; Eivind Ystrom; Michael C Neale; Steven H Aggen; Suzanne E Mazzeo; Gun Peggy Knudsen; Kristian Tambs; Nikolai O Czajkowski; Kenneth S Kendler Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 21.596