Immune dysregulation is implicated in the pathophysiology of both bipolar and major depressive disorder, while immune cell ratios (IRCs) have recently been proposed as clinically applicable immune biomarkers. We investigated IRCs differences in affective disorders and their association with current mood episodes and clinical features. This retrospective cohort study analyzed neutrophil–lymphocyte (NLR), monocyte–lymphocyte (MLR), and platelet–lymphocyte (PLR) ratios upon admission in 135 affective disorder in-patients with mania (MA, n = 36), bipolar depression (BiD, n = 38), and unipolar depression (MDD, n = 61). Demographic, clinical, and immune data were extracted from medical records. Monocyte count was significantly higher in BiD compared to MDD (p < 0.001). Multivariable regression models suggested higher NLR in MA compared to MDD (p = 0.039), higher MLR in both MA and BiD compared to MDD (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004 respectively), while we found neither group differences in PLR nor an effect of type and duration of hospitalization, current psychotic, or suicidal features and psychiatric history on IRCs. Here, we show that IRCs are elevated in bipolar disorder versus MDD and affected by mood episode, while MLR could be especially valuable in the differential diagnosis between bipolar and unipolar depression. IRCs represent inexpensive, routinely accessible and clinically applicable biomarkers with diagnostic validity in affective disorders that could be easily implemented as illness activity indicators, to better follow the course of illness and eventually predict relapse or treatment response and, thus, guide therapeutic targeting.

Background: Intimate partner femicide (IPF) is the most common form of femicide and a severe expression of gender-based violence, highlighting persistent gender inequality worldwide. Addressing this major public health concern requires a comprehensive synthesis of existing evidence to inform prevention strategies. This review aims to identify risk factors for IPF and explore the demographic, behavioral, and psychosocial characteristics of victims and perpetrators. Methods: A narrative review was conducted using a systematic literature search in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, following PRISMA guidelines. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Out of 1200 identified records, 51 met the criteria and were included. Data extraction and analysis were conducted independently by two reviewers. Findings are presented narratively. Results: The review identified multiple risk factors for IPF. Victims were more likely to be married, with a history of psychological and physical abuse as well as substance use. Perpetrators were typically older, with higher rates of unemployment, psychiatric disorders, and substance use. Common precipitating factors included jealousy, separation, and recurrent conflicts. Weapon use—particularly knives and firearms—and “overkill” were frequent. Perpetrators often exhibited stalking behaviors and a history of intimate partner violence. Compared to other homicide offenders, IPF perpetrators were generally older, more often employed, and less likely to have a criminal background, but more likely to engage in intimate partner violence and hold patriarchal beliefs. Conclusions: IPF is not an unpredictable act. Despite the heterogeneity among perpetrators, identifiable risk indicators can inform effective prevention and intervention efforts.