Variability and efficacy in treatment effects on manic symptoms with lithium, anticonvulsants, and antipsychotics in acute bipolar mania: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Editorial: A Meta-Analysis of the Treatment of Acute Mania in Youth: Why Do Atypical Antipsychotics Work Better Than Mood Stabilizers?

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of youth with mania are very challenging to conduct, given the low base rate of bipolar disorder (BD) and the relative rarity of mania (vs bipolar depression, which tends to be much more common). Thus, many of the RCTs are relatively small, and it may be difficult to clinically interpret results. At the same time, findings about which anti-manic medications are most effective in youth are of critical importance, both because (1) poorly treated mania can lead to substantial negative psychosocial consequences, and (2) these medications can have significant adverse effects. In this setting, network meta-analyses (NMAs) are key to summarize extremely valuable work in a way that is meaningful and relevant to clinicians.

An algorithm for pharmacological treatment of mania during hospitalisation

Current evidence for pharmacological treatment of mania during hospitalisation is insufficient as there are no larger well-designed randomised trials of comparative medical treatments of mania during inpatient stays. Moreover, there is considerable variation in pharmacological medication in clinical practice during hospitalisation for mania. Based on a hospital data overview, a systematic search of the literature and a three-day consensus meeting, this narrative review proposed an algorithm for optimised pharmacological treatment of mania during hospitalisation and its subsequent scientific evaluation.

Why is lithium [not] the drug of choice for bipolar disorder? a controversy between science and clinical practice

BACKGROUND

During over half a century, science has shown that lithium is the most efficacious treatment for bipolar disorder but despite this, its prescription has consistently declined internationally during recent decades to approximately 35% ever use or less of patients with bipolar disorder.

CONTENT

This narrative review provides an overview of the decreasing use of lithium in bipolar disorder internationally, shortly summarises the evidence for lithium's acute and prophylactic effects in bipolar disorder, discuss the challenges in relation to lithium including side effects, long-term risks and myths around lithium and provides two detailed examples on how specialised care models may result in successful increase of the use of lithium to 70% of patients with bipolar disorder largescale and improve care regionally and nationally.

CONCLUSIONS

Decades of scientific investigations and education and teaching of clinicians and the public has not increased the use of lithium on a population-based large scale. It is argued that lithium should be the drug of choice for maintenance therapy as the single first-line treatment and that organizational changes are needed with specialised care for bipolar disorder to systematically and long-term change the use of lithium on a large-scale population-level.

Mortality and Lithium-Protective Effects after First-Episode Mania Diagnosis in Bipolar Disorder: A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study in Taiwan

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to estimate all-cause mortality in patients after a first-episode mania (FEM) and examine whether six guideline-recommended medications can reduce mortality.

METHODS

The cohort included population-based FEM samples and matched controls from Taiwan, spanning 2007 to 2018. The primary outcomes assessed were all-cause/suicide-related mortality, while the secondary outcome focused on mortality associated with pharmacological treatments. We compared mortality in post-FEM patients and age-/sex-matched controls without any diagnosed bipolar disorders and patients with and without psychopharmacological treatment using Cox regression analysis, respectively. Statistics were presented with time-to-event adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

The study included 54,092 post-FEM patients and 270,460 controls, totaling 2,467,417 person-years of follow-up. Post-FEM patients had higher risks of all-cause mortality (AHR 2.38, 95% CI: 2.31-2.45) and suicide death (10.80, 5.88-19.84) than controls. Lithium (0.62, 0.55-0.70), divalproex (0.89, 0.83-0.95), and aripiprazole (0.81, 0.66-1.00) were associated with reduced all-cause mortality compared to non-users. There were no significant all-cause mortality differences for quetiapine (0.95, 0.89-1.01), risperidone (0.92, 0.82-1.02), and paliperidone (1.24, 0.88-1.76) users. When accounting for drug action onset times in sensitivity analyses, only lithium significantly reduced all-cause mortality (AHR range 0.65-0.72). There were 35 and 16 suicide deaths in post-FEM patients and controls, respectively. No drug had a significant effect on suicide deaths (lithium: 6; divalproex: 7; aripiprazole: 0; quetiapine: 10; risperidone: 4; paliperidone: 1).

CONCLUSION

Post-FEM patients had a higher risk of all-cause/suicide-related mortality, and lithium treatment might reduce all-cause mortality.