Important clinical features of atypical antipsychotics in acute bipolar depression that inform routine clinical care: a review of pivotal studies with number needed to treat

Cariprazine in the acute treatment of unipolar and bipolar depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cariprazine has emerged as a promising augmenting treatment agent for unipolar depression and as a monotherapy option for bipolar depression. We evaluated cariprazine's efficacy in treating acute major depressive episodes in individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, PyscInfo, Scopus and Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and ScanMedicine. Study quality was assessed using the RoB 2 tool. Pairwise and dose-response meta-analyses were conducted with RStudio. Evidence quality was assessed with GRADE.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs meeting inclusion criteria encompassed 4877 participants. Cariprazine, compared to placebo, significantly reduced the MADRS score (MD = -1.49, 95 % CI: -2.22 to -0.76) and demonstrated significantly higher response (RR = 1.21, 95 % CI: 1.12 to 1.30) and remission (RR = 1.19, 95 % CI: 1.06 to 1.34) rates. Subgroup analysis unveiled statistically significant reductions in MADRS score in MDD (MD = -1.15, 95 % CI: -2.04 to -0.26) and bipolar I disorder (BDI) (MD = -2.53, 95 % CI: -3.61 to -1.45), higher response rates for both MDD (RR = 1.19, 95 % CI: 1.08 to 1.31) and BDI (RR = 1.27, 95 % CI: 1.10 to 1.46), and higher remission rates only for BDI (RR = 1.41, 95 % CI: 1.24 to 1.60). A higher rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was observed.

LIMITATIONS

Reliance solely on RCTs limits generalisability; strict criteria might not reflect real-world diversity.

CONCLUSIONS

Cariprazine demonstrates efficacy in treating major depressive episodes, although variations exist between MDD and BDI and tolerability may be an issue.

Efficacy and Safety of Antidiabetic Agents for Major Depressive Disorder and Bipolar Depression: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of antidiabetic agents in the treatment of major depressive disorder and bipolar depression.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antidiabetic agents in major depressive disorder or bipolar depression were searched in three electronic databases and three clinical trial registry websites from their inception up to October 2023. The differences in changes in the depression rating scale scores from baseline to endpoint or pre-defined sessions, response rate, remission rate, rate of side effects and dropout rate between antidiabetic agents and placebo were meta-analyzed.

RESULTS

Six RCTs involving 399 participants were included in the final meta-analysis, which did not find that antidiabetics outperformed the placebo in reducing depressive symptoms. The standardized mean difference (SMD) in the depression scores from baseline to endpoint was 0.25 (95% CI -0.1, 0.61). However, a subgroup analysis found a significant difference between antidiabetics and placebos in reducing depressive symptoms in Middle Eastern populations, with an SMD of 0.89 (95% CI 0.44, 1.34).

CONCLUSIONS

The current meta-analysis does not support the efficacy of antidiabetics being superior to the placebo in the treatment of unipolar and bipolar depression. However, a subgroup analysis indicates that patients from the Middle East may benefit from adding an antidiabetic medication to their ongoing medication(s) for their depression. Larger studies with good-quality study designs are warranted.

Efficacy and safety profiles of mood stabilizers and antipsychotics for bipolar depression: a systematic review

The whole picture of psychotropics for bipolar depression (BPD) remains unclear. This review compares the differences in efficacy and safety profiles among common psychotropics for BPD. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched for proper studies. The changes in the depressive rating scale, remission/response rates, nervous system adverse events (NSAEs), gastrointestinal adverse events (GIAEs), metabolic parameters, and prolactin were compared between medication and placebo or among medications with the Cohen's d or number needed to treat/harm. The search provided 10 psychotropics for comparison. Atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) were superior to lithium and lamotrigine at alleviating acute depressive symptoms. Lithium was more likely to induce dry mouth and nausea. Cariprazine and aripiprazole seemed to be associated with an increased risk of akathisia and upper GIAEs. Lurasidone was associated with an increased risk of developing akathisia and hyperprolactinemia. Olanzapine, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (OFC), and quetiapine were associated with an increased risk of NSAEs, metabolic risk, dry mouth, and constipation. Cariprazine, lurasidone, OFC, or quetiapine was optimal monotherapy for BPD. Further studies are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of lamotrigine for treating BPD. Adverse events varied widely across different drug types due to variations in psychopharmacological mechanisms, dosages, titration, and ethnicities.

Protein Biomarkers in Monocytes and CD4+ Lymphocytes for Predicting Lithium Treatment Response of Bipolar Disorder: a Feasibility Study with Tyramine-Based Signal-Amplified Flow Cytometry

Purpose

To determine if enhanced flow cytometry (CellPrint™) can identify intracellular proteins of lithium responsiveness in monocytes and CD4⁺ lymphocytes from patients with bipolar disorder.

Methods

Eligible bipolar I or II patients were openly treated with lithium for 16-weeks. Baseline levels of Bcl2, BDNF, calmodulin, Fyn, phospho-Fyn/phospho-Yes, GSK3β, phospho-GSK3αβ, HMGB1, iNOS, IRS2, mTor, NLPR3, PGM1, PKA C-α, PPAR-γ, phospho-RelA, and TPH1 in monocytes and CD4⁺ lymphocytes of lithium responders and non-responders were measured with CellPrint™. Their utility of discriminating responders from non-responders was explored. Protein-protein network and pathway enrichment analyses were conducted.

Results

Of the 24 intent-to-treat patients, 12 patients completed the 16-week study. Eleven of 13 responders and 8 of 11 non-responders were available for this analysis. The levels of the majority of analytes in lithium responders were lower than non-responders in both cell types, but only the level of GSK3β in monocytes was significantly different (p = 0.034). The combination of GSK3β and phospho-GSK3αβ levels in monocytes correctly classified 11/11 responders and 5/8 non-responders. Combination of GSK3β, phospho-RelA, TPH1 and PGM1 correctly classified 10/11 responders and 6/7 non-responders, both with a likelihood of ≥ 85%. Prolactin, leptin, BDNF, neurotrophin, and epidermal growth factor/epidermal growth factor receptor signaling pathways are involved in the lithium treatment response. GSK3β and RelA genes are involved in 4 of 5 these pathways.

Conclusion

CellPrint™ flow cytometry was able to detect differences in multiple proteins in monocytes and CD4⁺ lymphocytes between lithium responders and non-responders. A large study is warranted to confirm or refute these findings.

A missed case of lurasidone induced laryngospasm: A case study and overview of extrapyramidal symptom identification and treatment

OBJECTIVE

Many patients with bipolar disorder are treated exclusively in primary care settings, and the use of atypical antipsychotics as primary treatment for bipolar depression is increasing. Extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) are common side effects of antipsychotic medications, and clinicians should actively monitor for these symptoms when prescribing antipsychotic medications. Accurate diagnosis of EPS is especially important as the symptoms can be highly distressing, and in some cases, life threatening. Our aim is to familiarize primary care providers and other clinicians prescribing antipsychotic medications with EPS and to aid in its rapid diagnosis and treatment.

METHOD

We describe a case of lurasidone induced dystonia with prominent laryngospasm and oculogyric crisis which was missed for many years in the primary care setting, largely due to misdiagnosis of symptoms as being related to anxiety and panic attacks.

RESULTS

In addition to summarizing this illustrative case, we present the most common forms of EPS and summarize the primary therapies for each type of EPS.

CONCLUSIONS

With increased management of bipolar disorder in the primary care setting and increased use of atypical antipsychotics as the primary therapy for bipolar disorder, it is essential that all practitioners are prepared to actively monitor for EPS, followed by its rapid diagnosis and treatment.

Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Treatment (SMART) for Bipolar Disorder at Any Phase of Illness and at least Mild Symptom Severity

OBJECTIVES

To sequentially study the effectiveness of lithium and divalproex monotherapy and adjunctive therapy with quetiapine or lamotrigine in the acute and continuation treatment of bipolar I or II disorder at any phase of illness and at least mild symptom severity.

METHODS

From June 2011 to December 2016, patients with bipolar I or II disorder (using DSM-IV diagnostic criteria) and CGI-S (Clinical Global Impression-Severity) ⩾ 3 were randomized to receive lithium or divalproex monotherapy for 2 weeks. Patients who had CGI-S-depression ⩾ 3 for 2 weeks at any time after 2-week monotherapy were randomly assigned to receive quetiapine or lamotrigine, or remaining on monotherapy for a total of 26 weeks.

RESULTS

The rates of early termination due to lack of efficacy and side effects and changes in BISS (Bipolar Inventory of Symptoms Scale) and CGI-S total score were not significantly different between lithium and divalproex. The completion rate was significantly higher with adjunctive therapy than with monotherapy. BISS and CGI-S total scores, and their sub-scores were significantly reduced with adjunctive therapy compared to monotherapy. Adjunctive therapy significantly increased survival times compared to monotherapy (hazard ratio = 6.8), and the monotherapy group had a significantly increased risk for not reaching sustained recovery from depression (hazard ratio = 12.7). Patients who did not need the 2nd randomization and remained on monotherapy had a significantly reduced hazard for discontinuation (hazard ratio = 3.8).

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of lithium and divalproex as monotherapy was modest. Adjunctive lamotrigine and quetiapine to either one was well-tolerated and equally effective in reducing bipolar symptomatology, but adjunctive therapy should be initiated as early as possible when depression symptoms are present.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pioglitazone for bipolar depression

BACKGROUND

Objective of the present study was to conduct an 8-week double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to test the efficacy of pioglitazone in the treatment of bipolar depression.

METHODS

38 outpatients with bipolar disorder and current major depressive episode were randomized to pioglitazone (15-45 mg/day) or placebo. The use of concomitant mood stabilizers, antipsychotics, and antidepressants was permitted. The primary outcome measure was the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Clinician Rated (IDS-C30) total score change from baseline to endpoint. Laboratory evaluations, including serum level of inflammatory and metabolic biomarkers, were conducted.

RESULTS

37 subjects were analyzed for efficacy (1 subject had no follow-up data). Mean reduction from baseline to week 8 in IDS-C30 score was-6.59 for pioglitazone and -11.63 for placebo. Mixed effects modeling indicated borderline statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.056) in favor of placebo. On analysis of inflammatory and metabolic markers, a statistically significant negative correlation was noted between change in leptin levels and change in depression scores in the pioglitazone group (r = -0.61, p = 0.047) but not in the placebo group, the significance of which is unclear as the study failed to demonstrate antidepressant efficacy of pioglitazone over placebo. No serious adverse effects were reported, and pioglitazone was well-tolerated.

LIMITATIONS

small sample size with inadequate power, concomitant use of other psychotropic medications, and lack of statistical adjustment for multiple testing.

CONCLUSION

Current study does not support the antidepressant efficacy of pioglitazone in the treatment of bipolar depression. (240 words).

A Pilot Study of the Effectiveness of Lithium Versus Quetiapine Immediate Release Monotherapy in Patients With Bipolar Spectrum Disorders

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of lithium versus quetiapine immediate release (IR) monotherapy in patients with bipolar I, II, or subthreshold bipolar disorder at any phase.

METHODS

Eligible patients were randomized to lithium or quetiapine IR for 16 weeks. The difference in the time to discontinuation from study due to "all causes" between lithium and quetiapine IR groups and changes from baseline to 8 and 16 weeks in depression, mania, anxiety, quality of life (QOL), metabolic profiles, and proinflammatory markers were compared.

RESULTS

Of the 42 patients randomized to lithium (n = 18) and quetiapine IR (n = 24), the median time to discontinuation due to "all causes" was 6 weeks (95% confidence interval, 2-12 weeks) in the lithium group and 8 weeks (95% confidence interval, 6 weeks to not calculable) in the quetiapine IR group. The mean time to discontinuation due to "all causes" was 7.7 ± 1.1 weeks for lithium versus 8.4 ± 0.8 weeks for quetiapine IR (P = 0.54). There was no significant difference between lithium and quetiapine IR in changes in the severity of depression, mania/hypomania, anxiety, and QOL as a whole or only in patients with depressive index episode. The decrease in total cholesterol was significantly larger with lithium than with quetiapine IR (P = 0.05) as a whole, but not only in patients with depression index episode. There was no other significant difference in changes in metabolic panels and inflammatory markers between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The difference in effectiveness between lithium and quetiapine IR monotherapy in a real-world bipolar population was minimal. Large-sample studies are needed to support or refute this finding.

Efficacy of quetiapine XR vs. placebo as concomitant treatment to mood stabilizers in the control of subthreshold symptoms of bipolar disorder: Results from a pilot, randomized controlled trial

Patients with bipolar disorder (BD) do not always achieve full remission between episodes. Subthreshold symptoms (depressive, manic or mixed) represent a major cause of relapse and disability in these patients. Immediate release (IR) and extended release (XR) formulations of quetiapine are both indicated for short and long-term treatment of BD. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of quetiapine XR vs placebo in subthreshold symptomatology when added to previous mood stabilizer treatment. A pilot phase IIIB, multicentre, prospective, placebo controlled, randomized, double blinded study of 12 weeks follow-up was performed (NCT01197846). Patients were randomized to quetiapine XR 300mg or placebo once daily. The primary outcome was the mean change between quetiapine XR and placebo from baseline to study endpoint (week 6) in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Quetiapine XR 300mg (n=16) significantly improved depressive subthreshold symptoms compared with placebo (n=16) after 6 weeks (P=0.021). Early response (reduction of at least the 20% of the MADRS total score) and remission rate (reduction in MADRS total score <8 and YMRS<8) did not show differences between groups. Quetiapine XR did not show superiority vs placebo when evaluating subthreshold manic symptoms, instead it was superior when evaluating functioning (GAF score) in BD type I patients (P=0.005). The most common adverse events were somnolence (9.1%), increased appetite, dry mouth and dizziness (6.8%). Quetiapine XR 300mg once daily was significantly more effective than placebo in depressive subthreshold symptoms. Adverse events were consistent with the known side effects of quetiapine.

Dopaminergic agents in the treatment of bipolar depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically examine the effects of dopaminergic agents (modafinil, armodafinil, pramipexole, methylphenidate, and amphetamines) on bipolar depression outcomes.

METHODS

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of treatment with dopaminergic agents in bipolar depression. In a secondary analysis, findings from both randomized controlled trials and high-quality observational studies were pooled by means of meta-analytic procedures to explore dopaminergic treatment-related new mania.

RESULTS

Nine studies (1716 patients) were included in our meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Treatment with dopaminergic agents for bipolar depression was associated with an increase in both response (1671 individuals, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.50) and remission rates (1671 individuals, RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.14, 1.71). There was no evidence of an increased risk of mood switch associated with this treatment (1646 individuals, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.49, 1.89). Our secondary analysis (1231 individuals) yielded a cumulative incidence of mood switch of 3% (95% CI 1.0, 5.0) during a mean follow-up period of 7.5 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary findings suggest that dopaminergic agents may represent a useful alternative for the treatment of bipolar depression, with no evidence for a related increase in the risk of mood destabilization during short-term follow-up.

Lurasidone in the Treatment of Bipolar Depression: Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

INTRODUCTION

A burgeoning number of systematic reviews considering lurasidone in the treatment of bipolar depression have occurred since its Food and Drug Administration extended approval in 2013. While a paucity of available quantitative evidence still precludes preliminary meta-analysis on the matter, the present quality assessment of systematic review of systematic reviews, nonetheless, aims at highlighting current essential information on the topic.

METHODS

Both published and unpublished systematic reviews about lurasidone mono- or adjunctive therapy in the treatment of bipolar depression were searched by two independent authors inquiring PubMed/Cochrane/Embase/Scopus from inception until October 2016.

RESULTS

Twelve included systematic reviews were of moderate-to-high quality and consistent in covering the handful of RCTs available to date, suggesting the promising efficacy, safety, and tolerability profile of lurasidone. Concordance on the drug profile seems to be corroborated by a steadily increasing number of convergent qualitative reports on the matter.

LIMITATIONS

Publication, sponsorship, language, citation, and measurement biases.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being preliminary in nature, this overview stipulates the effectiveness of lurasidone in the acute treatment of Type I bipolar depression overall. As outlined by most of the reviewed evidence, recommendations for future research should include further controlled trials of extended duration.

A critical review of trials of transcranial direct current stimulation and trigeminal nerve stimulation for depression: the issue of treatment-emergent mania

Objective:

This study is a critical review analyzing occurrence of treatment-emergent mania (TEM) related to transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS).

Method:

We present a systematic review of the literature on TEM related to tDCS and TNS treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD), conducted in accordance with the recommendations from Cochrane Group and the PRISMA guidelines.

Results:

Our search identified few reported episodes of TEM in the literature. In fact, we found 11 trials focused on treatment of MDD (seven controlled trials of tDCS and four trials of TNS, three open label and one controlled). We highlight the need for safety assessment in clinical research settings to establish with precision and in larger samples the risks inherent to the technique under investigation.

Conclusion:

Safety assessment is of fundamental importance in clinical research. TEM is a very important safety issue in MDD trials. Further and larger controlled trials will help to clarify both the safety and the clinical effects of combinations of pharmacotherapy and tDCS or TNS in daily clinical practice.

Lamotrigine compared to placebo and other agents with antidepressant activity in patients with unipolar and bipolar depression: a comprehensive meta-analysis of efficacy and safety outcomes in short-term trials

OBJECTIVES

To meta-analytically summarize lamotrigine's effectiveness and safety in unipolar and bipolar depression.

METHODS

We conducted systematic PubMed and SCOPUS reviews (last search =10/01/2015) of randomized controlled trials comparing lamotrigine to placebo or other agents with antidepressant activity in unipolar or bipolar depression. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis of depression ratings, response, remission, and adverse effects calculating standardized mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR) ±95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Eighteen studies (n=2152, duration=9.83 weeks) in patients with unipolar depression (studies=4, n=187; monotherapy vs lithium=1, augmentation of antidepressants vs placebo=3) or bipolar depression (studies=14, n=1965; monotherapy vs placebo=5, monotherapy vs lithium or olanzapine+fluoxetine=2, augmentation of antidepressants vs placebo=1, augmentation of mood stabilizers vs placebo=3, augmentation of mood stabilizers vs trancylpromine, citalopram, or inositol=3) were meta-analyzed. Lamotrigine's efficacy for depressive symptoms did not differ significantly in monotherapy vs augmentation studies (vs. placebo: p=0.98, I2=0%; vs active agents: p=0.48, I2=0%) or in unipolar vs bipolar patients (vs placebo: p=0.60, I2=0%), allowing pooling of each placebo-controlled and active-controlled trials. Lamotrigine outperformed placebo regarding depressive symptoms (studies=11, n=713 vs n=696; SMD=-0.15, 95% CI=-0.27, -0.02, p=0.02, heterogeneity: p=0.24) and response (after removing one extreme outlier; RR=1.42, 95% CI=1.13-1.78; p=0.003, heterogeneity: p=0.08). Conversely, lamotrigine did not differ regarding efficacy on depressive symptoms, response, or remission from lithium, olanzapine+fluoxetine, citalopram, or inositol (studies=6, n=306 vs n=318, p-values=0.85-0.92). Adverse effects and all-cause/specific-cause discontinuation were similar across all comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Lamotrigine was superior to placebo in improving unipolar and bipolar depressive symptoms, without causing more frequent adverse effects/discontinuations. Lamotrigine did not differ from lithium, olanzapine+fluoxetine, citalopram, or inositol.

Antipsychotic Drug-Induced Somnolence: Incidence, Mechanisms, and Management

Somnolence is a common side effect of antipsychotics. To assess the incidence of this side effect, we performed a MEDLINE search for randomized, double-blinded, placebo- or active-controlled studies of adult patients treated with antipsychotics for schizophrenia, mania, bipolar depression, or bipolar disorder. We extracted rates of somnolence from original publications and pooled them based on the dose of each antipsychotic in the same psychiatric condition, then estimated the absolute risk increase (ARI) and the number needed to harm (NNH) of an antipsychotic relative to placebo or an active comparator in the same psychiatric condition. According to the ARI in acute schizophrenia, bipolar mania, and bipolar depression, antipsychotics can be classified as high somnolence (clozapine), moderate somnolence (olanzapine, perphenazine, quetiapine, risperidone, ziprasidone), and low somnolence (aripiprazole, asenapine, haloperidol, lurasidone, paliperidone, cariprazine). The risk of somnolence with blonanserin, brexpiprazole, chlorpromazine, iloperidone, sertindole, and zotepine needs further investigation. The rates of somnolence were positively correlated to dose and duration for some antipsychotics, but not for others. Many factors, including antipsychotic per se, the method used to measure somnolence, patient population, study design, and dosing schedule, might affect the incidence of antipsychotic-induced somnolence. The mechanisms of antipsychotic-induced somnolence are likely multifactorial, although the blockade of histamine 1 receptors and α1 receptors may play a major role. The management of antipsychotic-induced somnolence should include sleep hygiene education, choosing an antipsychotic with a lower risk for somnolence, starting at a lower dose with a slower titration based on psychiatric diagnoses, adjusting doses when necessary, and minimizing concurrent somnolence-prone agents. Since most cases of somnolence were mild to moderate, allowing tolerance to develop over at least 4 weeks is reasonable before discontinuing an antipsychotic.