{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016551724137931035, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.078048780487805, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Bipolar depression: clinically missed, pharmacologically mismanaged

Bipolar affective disorders are common and frequently debilitating mental illnesses. Diagnostic criteria mean they are defined by the presence of pathological mood elevation, but research shows greater disease burden is inflicted by depressive phases (bipolar depression) both in terms of duration and impact of symptoms. Despite this there is consistent evidence for the underdiagnosis of bipolar depression and its misdiagnosis as a unipolar disorder, with significant subsequent impact on medication management. There is currently less robust evidence for the appropriate pharmacological approach in such individuals than in unipolar depression, and fewer guidelines for clinicians. Despite this there is clear and growing evidence that ‘treatment as usual’ of depressive symptomatology is ineffective at best, harmful at worst, and that there is little role for the use of antidepressants. Both mood stabilizers and antipsychotics demonstrate efficacy, and whilst there are emerging data on intraclass differences, more research is needed, particularly concerning bipolar II disorder. Present treatment strategies are limited by insufficient large randomized control trials, an inadequate understanding of the neuropathology of bipolar illnesses and a lack of tailored medications. Better clinical training, understanding and recognition of this common condition are essential.