The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for the biological treatment of bipolar disorders: update 2009 on the treatment of acute mania

Efficacy of aripiprazole adjunctive to lithium or valproate in the long-term treatment of patients with bipolar I disorder with an inadequate response to lithium or valproate monotherapy: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole (ARI) adjunctive to lithium (Li) or valproate (Val) (ARI+Li / Val) compared with placebo (PLB) adjunctive to Li or Val (PLB+Li / Val) as maintenance therapy for patients with bipolar I disorder who had an inadequate response to Li or Val monotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with a current manic/mixed episode received Li or Val for at least 2 weeks. Those with an inadequate response [Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score ≥ 16 and ≤ 35% decrease from baseline at 2 weeks] received adjunctive single-blind ARI plus mood stabilizer. Patients who achieved stability [YMRS and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score ≤ 12] for 12 consecutive weeks were randomized to double-blind ARI (10-30 mg/day) or PLB+Li / Val. Relapse was monitored for 52 weeks. Adverse events (AEs) were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 337 patients were randomized to ARI+ Li / Val (n=168) or PLB+Li / Val (n=169). The Kaplan-Meier relapse rate at 52 weeks was 17% with ARI+Li / Val and 29% with PLB+Li / Val. ARI+Li / Val significantly delayed time to any relapse compared with PLB+Li / Val; hazard ratio=0.54 (95% confidence interval: 0.33-0.89; log-rank p=0.014). The most common AEs ≥ 5%(ARI+Li / Val versus PLB+Li / Val) were headache (13.2% versus 10.8%), weight increase (9.0% versus 6.6%), tremor (6.0% versus 2.4%), and insomnia (5.4% versus 9.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Continuation of ARI+Li / Val treatment increased the time to relapse to any mood episode compared with Li or Val monotherapy, and was relatively well tolerated during the one-year study. These findings suggest that there is a long-term benefit in continuing ARI adjunctive to a mood stabilizer after sustained remission is achieved.

Asenapine: a review of its use in the management of mania in adults with bipolar I disorder

Asenapine is an atypical antipsychotic agent available in sublingual formulations (5 or 10 mg) and indicated in the US (Saphris) for the acute treatment, as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, of manic and mixed episodes and in the EU (Sycrest) for the treatment of moderate to severe manic episodes, in adult patients with bipolar I disorder. In two large (both n = 480), well designed, 3-week trials in adult patients with bipolar I disorder, asenapine monotherapy was significantly more effective than placebo at improving mania symptoms, as assessed using the Young Mania Rating Scale total score (YMRS; primary endpoint), with significant differences between the asenapine and placebo groups occurring after 2 days of treatment. In both trials, Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder (CGI-BP) scale mania severity scores exceeded those of placebo. In one trial, response and remission rates exceeded those of placebo. In a 9-week extension study that recruited completers from the monotherapy trials, there were no significant differences between asenapine and olanzapine groups in terms in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores, CGI-BP mania severity scores, YMRS response rates or YMRS remission rates during the extension phase. In the extension study, the efficacy of asenapine monotherapy appeared to be maintained over 40 weeks (total treatment duration of 52 weeks). In a 12-week trial of asenapine as adjunctive therapy to lithium or valproate, asenapine was more effective than placebo in improving manic symptoms, based on the difference between groups in the YMRS total score at week 3 (primary endpoint). Most adverse events associated with asenapine were of mild to moderate severity, with <7% of asenapine recipients experiencing serious adverse events (vs 7% with placebo). In a pooled analysis of the monotherapy trials, the most common adverse events (occurring in ≥ 5% of patients and at twice the incidence of placebo) reported during acute phase asenapine monotherapy for bipolar mania were somnolence, dizziness, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS, other than akathisia) and increased bodyweight, which were similar in nature to those occurring during longer-term monotherapy with asenapine. EPS did not worsen in severity during longer-term asenapine monotherapy. Asenapine had minimal effects on plasma glucose, lipid and prolactin levels over both short- and longer-term treatment periods, and had little pro-arrhythmogenic potential. Further active comparator trials and longer-term tolerability and safety data are required. In the meantime, asenapine is a further option for the management of manic and/or mixed symptoms in patients with bipolar I disorder and may be of particular value for patients who are at high risk for metabolic abnormalities.

A clinical review of aripiprazole in bipolar depression and maintenance therapy of bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder is a chronic, recurrent disorder with a significant negative impact on quality of life. Effective treatments are available for acute mania. In contrast, there is a lack of consensus on the treatment of acute bipolar depression and long treatment options for bipolar disorder require more study. Aripiprazole is FDA approved for the treatment of acute mania. This paper reviews current data on the efficacy of aripiprazole in the treatment of acute bipolar depression and in maintenance therapy of bipolar disorder.

METHODS

PubMed and abstracts of recent conferences were searched for randomized, double-blind studies that investigated the efficacy of aripiprazole in acute bipolar depression or maintenance therapy of bipolar disorder.

RESULTS

Two studies assessed the efficacy of aripiprazole monotherapy in the treatment of acute bipolar depression. These showed that although aripiprazole significantly reduced depressive symptoms early in treatment, the results were not significantly different from placebo at the primary end point of week 8. As to long-term treatment, aripiprazole was superior to placebo in delaying time to relapse for manic episodes, but not for depressive episodes after 26 and 100 weeks of maintenance therapy. Aripiprazole was as effective as lithium, and adjunctive aripiprazole with lithium or valproate was more effective than placebo plus lithium or valproate, in preventing a manic relapse. Reductions in manic and mixed relapse rates compared to placebo were achieved in a study combining aripiprazole with lamotrigine; however, the results were not statistically significant. Similar to other maintenance studies, depressive relapse rates were not significantly reduced compared to placebo.

LIMITATIONS

Negative findings for aripiprazole in the treatment of acute bipolar depression have been attributed to high study doses, rapid titration, and high placebo rates. A recent post-hoc analysis demonstrated that aripiprazole was more effective in patients with severe depressive symptoms, particularly for patients on a lower dose. Further research is needed to confirm this finding. The inability of aripiprazole to reduce the time to depressive relapse during maintenance therapy may be due to the recruitment of patients with an index manic episode and a consequent lower incidence of depressive relapses. Therefore, studies using a depression index episode are needed to appropriately evaluate relapse prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Although aripiprazole has proven efficacy for acute mania and the prevention of mania, the evidence available thus far does not support the efficacy of aripiprazole for the treatment of acute bipolar depression and prevention of depressive relapse. Further studies with appropriate doses and a depressive index episode are needed to clarify the role of aripiprazole in bipolar disorder.

Pharmacological treatments for bipolar disorder: present recommendations and future prospects

In selecting and adapting medications to treat the specific clinical features of a patient with bipolar disorder (BPD) over time, a foundation strategy is to have good working knowledge of up-to-date practice guidelines. The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry Guidelines has the reasoned advantage of weighing safety/tolerability as high as efficacy. Most successful treatments for BPD start to separate from placebo within 1 week; most differences between regimens occur within the first 4 weeks. This observation extrapolates to a strategy of discontinuing or adding a second drug for symptoms unimproved within 1 month of treatment initiation. The weight of evidence argues against starting treatment with combination regimens, despite evidence that over time most patients do receive combination drug regimens and appear to tolerate them well. The current design paradigm for adjunctive trials generally strongly weights trials in favor of the sponsor drug.Well managed, BPD is often compatible with fully good health, both symptomatically and functionally. Consequently, for whatever regimens are found to accomplish excellent symptom control, it is important to achieve regimens that are well tolerated by all bodily systems. This chapter emphasizes the tactics needed to accomplish this specific to individual medications. The chapter also addresses the serious, broad failure of pharmaceutical companies to develop new drugs with novel mechanisms for BPD therapy and proposes a series of steps that might reenergize drug development to the benefit of psychiatrists and patients alike.

The role of ziprasidone in adjunctive use with lithium or valproate in maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVES

This article addresses the clinical role for ziprasidone used adjunctively with a mood stabilizer in maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. This review also addresses the strengths and limitations of design features in adjunctive studies of second-generation antipsychotic drugs added to mood stabilizers.

METHODS

The principal study relevant to this review enrolled subjects who were ≥18 years of age, experiencing a recent or current manic or mixed bipolar I episode, with at least moderately severe current manic symptoms. To meet criteria for randomization to 6 months maintenance treatment, patients had to have failed a short course of treatment with either lithium or valproate and achieved benefit with added ziprasidone for 8 consecutive weeks.

RESULTS

Time to intervention for a new mood episode as well as time to discontinuation for any reason was significantly longer with adjunctive ziprasidone treatment than with monotherapy treatment with mood stabilizer. Three dosages of ziprasidone augmentation were studied. Patients treated with 120 mg/day had better efficacy and overall outcomes than did patients who received 80 or 160 mg/day of ziprasidone.

CONCLUSIONS

Good evidence exists that adjunctive ziprasidone will likely provide greater overall efficacy coupled with good tolerability for at least a 6-month period than a strategy of continued monotherapy with a mood stabilizer. Changes in open phases of maintenance studies to reduce study enrichment, in study endpoints, and in statistical approaches to analysis of data are warranted.

Management of Bipolar II Disorder

Bipolar II disorder (BP II) disorder was recognized as a distinct subtype in the DSM-IV classification. DSM-IV criteria for BP II require the presence or history of one or more major depressive episode, plus at least one hypomanic episode, which, by definition, must last for at least 4 days. Various studies found distinct patterns of symptoms and familial inheritance for BP II disorder. BP II is commonly underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed. Making an early and accurate diagnosis of BP II is utmost importance in the management of BP II disorder. The clinician should have this diagnosis in mind when he is facing a patient presenting with mood problems, particularly unipolar depression. Quetiapine and lamotrigine are the only agents with demonstrated efficacy in double-blind RCT. Although the evidence for the use of lithium in long-term therapy is largely based on observational studies, the many years of close follow-up, comparatively larger subject numbers, and 'harder' clinically meaningful with bipolar disorder outcomes measures, enhance our confidence in its role in treating BP II. With respect to short-term treatment, there is some limited support for the use of risperidone and olanzepine in hypomania and for fluoxetine, venlafaxine and valproate in treating depression. The current clinical debate over whether one should use antidepressants as monotherapy or in combination with a mood stabilizer when treating BP II depression is not yet settled. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs to cast more definitive light on how best to manage patients with BP II disorder.

Level of response and safety of pharmacological monotherapy in the treatment of acute bipolar I disorder phases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

In recent years, combinations of pharmacological treatments have become common for the treatment of bipolar disorder type I (BP I); however, this practice is usually not evidence-based and rarely considers monotherapy drug regimen (MDR) as an option in the treatment of acute phases of BP I. Therefore, we evaluated comparative data of commonly prescribed MDRs for both manic and depressive phases of BP I. Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the ClinicalStudyResults.org and other data sources were searched from 1949 to March 2009 for placebo and active controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Risk ratios (RRs) for response, remission, and discontinuation rates due to adverse events (AEs), lack of efficacy, or discontinuation due to any cause, and the number needed to treat or harm (NNT or NNH) were calculated for each medication individually and for all evaluable trials combined. The authors included 31 RCTs in the analyses comparing a MDR with placebo or with active treatment for acute mania, and 9 RCTs comparing a MDR with placebo or with active treatment for bipolar depression. According to the collected evidence, most of the MDRs when compared to placebo showed significant response and remission rates in acute mania. In the case of bipolar depression only quetiapine and, to a lesser extent, olanzapine showed efficacy as MDR. Overall, MDRs were well tolerated with low discontinuation rates due to any cause or AE, although AE profiles differed among treatments. We concluded that most MDRs were efficacious and safe in the treatment of manic episodes, but very few MDRs have demonstrated being efficacious for bipolar depressive episodes.

Twelve-month prospective, multinational, observational study of factors associated with recovery from mania in bipolar disorder in patients treated with atypical antipsychotics

OBJECTIVES

Atypical antipsychotic agents constitute one therapeutic approach for bipolar disorder. Since disease course and outcome are variable, further studies are needed to complement limited data supportive of clinical decisions at treatment initiation.

METHODS

This 12-month, prospective, observational study investigated factors associated with symptomatic remission (total YMRS score < or =12) and full clinical recovery (sustained reduction in CGI-BP-S overall score) in bipolar disorder during treatment with atypical antipsychotics (predominantly olanzapine, risperidone and quetiapine; alone or in combination with a psychotropic such as lithium or valproate) in actual clinical practice.

RESULTS

Amongst 872 enrolled and eligible patients, rates of symptomatic remission and full clinical recovery at 12 months were 93.0 and 78.5%, respectively. Of the baseline factors significantly (P< or =0.05) associated with symptomatic remission, the following categories were positively associated with a higher chance of symptomatic remission: Caucasian ethnicity; higher CGI-BP-S scores; family-dependent living; a previous manic episode; 1, 2 or > or =5 social activities; no work impairment; and being neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with life. Outpatient treatment and historically longer periods of mania were significantly positively associated with full clinical recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

While clinical status may also be associated with longer-term remission and recovery, factors relating to social functioning and quality of life are easily assessed and potentially modifiable. Such knowledge may aid physicians' clinical decisions regarding patients with bipolar mania treated with atypical antipsychotics.

Pharmacogenetics--genomics and personalized psychiatry

Pharmacogenetic influences on therapeutic response to e.g. antidepressant or neuroleptic treatment are poorly understood and the lack of efficacy in many of the patients together with side effects can both limit therapy and compliance. Thus the aim of pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics is to provide predictive tools for the response to psychopharmacologic agents in the therapy of psychiatric disorders and in that ways to provide a real personalized psychiatry. The following review will summarize the current stage of pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics and will critically discuss the possibilities of a personalized medicine.

Anticonvulsants in bipolar disorder

Anticonvulsant drugs are widely used in psychiatric indications. This includes alcohol and benzodiazepine withdrawal symptoms, panic and anxiety disorders, dementia, schizophrenia, and to some extent personality disorders. Besides pain syndromes, their main domain outside epilepsy, however, is bipolar disorder. Carbamazepine, valproate, and lamotrigine are meanwhile recognized mood stabilizers, but several other antiepileptic drugs have also been tried out with diverging or inconclusive results. Understanding the mechanisms of action and identifying similarities between anticonvulsants effective in bipolar disorder may also enhance our understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of the disorder.

The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) Guidelines for the Biological Treatment of Bipolar Disorders: Update 2010 on the treatment of acute bipolar depression

OBJECTIVES

These guidelines are based on a first edition that was published in 2002, and have been edited and updated with the available scientific evidence until September 2009. Their purpose is to supply a systematic overview of all scientific evidence pertaining to the treatment of acute bipolar depression in adults.

METHODS

The data used for these guidelines have been extracted from a MEDLINE and EMBASE search, from the clinical trial database clinicaltrials.gov, from recent proceedings of key conferences, and from various national and international treatment guidelines. Their scientific rigor was categorised into six levels of evidence (A-F). As these guidelines are intended for clinical use, the scientific evidence was finally assigned different grades of recommendation to ensure practicability.

RESULTS

We identified 10 pharmacological monotherapies or combination treatments with at least limited positive evidence for efficacy in bipolar depression, several of them still experimental and backed up only by a single study. Only one medication was considered to be sufficiently studied to merit full positive evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Although major advances have been made since the first edition of this guideline in 2002, there are many areas which still need more intense research to optimize treatment. The majority of treatment recommendations is still based on limited data and leaves considerable areas of uncertainty.

Evidence-based medicine in psychopharmacotherapy: possibilities, problems and limitations

Psychopharmacotherapy should now be regulated in the sense of evidence-based medicine, as is the case in other areas of clinical treatment in medicine. In general this is a meaningful development, which principally will have a positive impact on routine health care in psychiatry. But several related problems should not be ignored. So far consensus on an internationally accepted evidence graduation could not be reached due to several difficulties related to this. For example, focussing on the results of meta-analyses instead of considering relevant single studies results in a decision-making logic which is in conflict with the rationale applied by drug authorities in the licensing process. Another example is the relevance of placebo-controlled trials: if randomized placebo-controlled phase-III studies are prioritized in the evidence grading, the evidence possibly deviates too far from the conditions of routine clinical care due to the special selection of patients in those studies. However, a grading primarily based on active comparator trials could lead to wrong conclusions about efficacy. This concerns especially the so-called "effectiveness" studies and other forms of phase-IV studies with their less restrictive methodological rigidity. Attempts to regulate psychopharmacotherapy in the sense of evidence-based medicine come closer to their limits the more complex the clinical situation and the respective decision-making logic are. Even in times of evidence-based medicine a large part of complex clinical decision-making in psychopharmacotherapy still relies more on clinical experience and a consensus on clinical experience, traditions and belief systems than on results of efficacy oriented phase-III and effectiveness-oriented phase-IV clinical studies.