Venlafaxine versus lithium monotherapy of rapid and non-rapid cycling patients with bipolar II major depressive episode: a randomized, parallel group, open-label trial

Multi-trial, aggregated, individual participant data mega-analysis of short-term antidepressant versus mood stabilizer monotherapy of bipolar type II major depressive episode

BACKGROUND

Few studies have systematically examined the safety and effectiveness of antidepressant versus mood stabilizer monotherapy of bipolar II depression. To date, there are no aggregated or mega-analyses of prospective trials of individual participant-level data (IPD) to inform future treatment guidelines on the relative safety and effectiveness of antidepressant or lithium monotherapy.

METHODS

Data from a series of four independent, similarly designed trials of antidepressant or lithium monotherapy (where longitudinal IPD were available) (n = 393) were aggregated into an IPD dataset (i.e., mega-analysis). Hierarchical log-linear growth models were used to analyze primary outcome of change over time in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) scores; while secondary outcomes examined Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI/S) and change (CGI/C) scores, and change over time in Young Mania Rating (YMR) scores.

RESULTS

Relative to lithium monotherapy, antidepressant monotherapy demonstrated significantly greater symptom reduction on HRSD scores across time (b = -2.33, t = -6.68, p < 0.0001), significantly greater symptom reduction on the CGI/S across time (b = -0.414, t = -6.32, p < 0.001), and a significant improvement in CGI/C across time (b = -0.47, t = -7.43, p < 0.0001). No differences were observed in change over time for YMR scores between antidepressant and lithium monotherapy (b = 0.06, t = 0.49, p = 0.62).

CONCLUSION

Findings from this IPD mega-analysis of bipolar II depression trials suggest a divergence from current evidence-based guidelines recommending combined mood stabilizer plus antidepressant therapy. The current mega-analysis suggests that antidepressant monotherapy may provide superior short-term effectiveness without clinically meaningful increase in treatment-emergent hypomanic symptoms compared to lithium monotherapy.

Current Status and Treatment of Rapid Cycling Bipolar Disorder

BACKGROUND

Rapid cycling (RC) at least 4 recurrent episodes per year in bipolar disorder (BD) has been recognized since the 1970s. We now comment on our recent review of the topic and extensive RC analysis in a large clinical cohort, emphasizing therapeutics research.

COMMENTS

Prevalence of RC-BD averages 36% for any year versus 22% in the preceding year. Rapid cycling is not a consistent feature over many years, although average long-term, annual recurrence rates are greater in RC-BD patients. Risk of RC may be somewhat greater among women and with older ages. It is also associated with cyclothymic temperament, prominent depression, and mood-switching with antidepressant treatment and is associated with increased suicidal risk. Treatment of individual episodes in RC-BD and effective long-term prevention remain inadequately studied, although antidepressant treatment can worsen RC. Some research supports treatment with aripiprazole, lamotrigine, and lithium, and interest in second-generation antipsychotics is emerging. All such options are used in various inadequately evaluated combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid cycling is prevalent among BD patients but seems to vary in risk over time without evidence of progressive worsening. Treatment of acute episodes in RC-BD patients and effective long-term preventive management require much more intensive investigation.

Bipolar II Disorder: Understudied and Underdiagnosed

Despite its inclusion as a distinct entity in APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders since 1994, bipolar II disorder remains a surprisingly neglected psychiatric condition. Understudied and underrecognized, bipolar II disorder is often misdiagnosed and misunderstood, even by experienced clinicians. As a result, patients typically experience symptoms for more than 10 years before receiving the correct diagnosis. Incorrect diagnosis leads to incorrect treatment, including overuse of monoaminergic antidepressant medications, with resultant declines in functioning and worse quality of life. Perhaps because of its underrecognition, treatment studies of bipolar II disorder are limited, and, too often, results of bipolar I disorder studies are applied to bipolar II disorder, with no direct evidence supporting this practice. Bipolar II disorder is an understudied and unmet treatment challenge in psychiatry. In this review, the authors provide a broad overview of bipolar II disorder, including differential diagnosis, course of illness, comorbid conditions, and suicide risk. The authors summarize treatment studies specific to bipolar II disorder, identifying gaps in the literature. This review reveals similarities between bipolar I and bipolar II disorders, including risks of suicide and predominance of depression over the course of illness, but also differences between the phenotypes in treatment response, for example, to antidepressant medications.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of treatments for rapid cycling bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVES

Rapid cycling is a common and disabling phenomenon in individuals with bipolar disorders. In the absence of a recent literature examination, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesise the evidence of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of treatments for individuals with rapid cycling bipolar disorder (RCBD).

METHOD

A systematic search was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials assigning participants with RCBD to pharmacological and/or non-pharmacological interventions. Study inclusion and data extraction were undertaken by two reviewers independently. The primary outcome was continuous within-subject RCBD illness severity before and after treatment. Pre-post random effects meta-analyses were conducted for each outcome/intervention arm studied, generating a standardised effect size (hedge's g) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 34 articles describing 30 studies were included. A total of 16 separate pharmacological treatments were examined in contrast to 1 psychological therapy study. Only quetiapine and lamotrigine were assessed in >5 studies. By assessing 95% CI overlap of within-subject efficacy effects compared to placebo, the only interventions suggesting significant depression benefits (placebo g = 0.60) were olanzapine (with/without fluoxetine; g = 1.01), citalopram (g = 1.10) and venlafaxine (g = 2.48). For mania, benefits were indicated for quetiapine (g = 1.01), olanzapine (g = 1.19) and aripiprazole (g = 1.09), versus placebo (g = 0.33). Most of these effect sizes were from only one trial per treatment. Heterogeneity between studies was variable, and 20% were rated to have a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

While many interventions appeared efficacious, there was a lack of robust evidence for most treatments. Given the limited and heterogeneous evidence base, the optimal treatment strategies for people with RCBD are yet to be established.

Evidence-based treatment strategies for rapid cycling bipolar disorder, a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Rapid cycling is a phase of bipolar disorder with increased episode frequencies. It is a severe and disabling condition that often poses a major challenge to the clinician. The aim of this paper is to give an overview of the evidence-based treatment options for rapid cycling.

METHODS

A systematic search on Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases from inception until December 2021 was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. An additional search on clinicaltrials.gov was done. References of retrieved papers and key reviews were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials including at least 10 patients with bipolar disorder, rapid cycling, reporting an objective outcome measure were selected.

RESULTS

Our search, initially revealing 1330 articles, resulted in 16 papers about treatment of an acute mood episode, relapse prevention or both. Lithium, anticonvulsants, second generation antipsychotics, antidepressants and thyroid hormone were assessed as treatment options in the presented data. Evidence supporting the use of aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, valproate and lamotrigine for treatment of rapid cycling bipolar disorder was found.

LIMITATIONS

Small sample sizes, different index episodes and variety of outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

Evidence regarding treatment of rapid cycling remains scarce. Evidence supports the use of aripiprazole, olanzapine, and valproate for acute manic or mixed episodes, quetiapine for acute depressive episodes and aripiprazole and lamotrigine for relapse prevention. Given the paucity of available evidence, and the burden that accompanies rapid cycling, future research is warranted.

Cutaneous adverse drug reactions to psychotropic drugs and their risk factors - a case-control study

Cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs) in patients with psychotropic drugs are common. Large studies on the relevant drugs and other risk factors are still scarce. 594 cases of severe CADRs ("cases") were compared with 8085 cases of other adverse drug reactions ("non-cases") documented in a pharmacovigilance program in psychiatry (AMSP) from 1993 to 2014. Logistic regression was carried out to determine risk factors and between-drug differences. CADRs were relatively more prevalent in patients treated with clomipramine, maprotiline, carbamazepine, lamotrigine, acamprosate, clomethiazole and disulfiram as well as with antidepressants and anticonvulsants as drug classes (p < 0.01). For these drugs, significantly more women were found in patients using maprotiline, lamotrigine (not carbamazepine) and in the groups of antidepressants, tricyclics and anticonvulsants (p < 0.01). Women were more vulnerable to CADRs (67% in cases and 56% in non-cases, p < 0.01). The significantly higher rate of CADRs in women was mainly observed under age of 50 years, i.e. during female reproductive years. In a multivariate logistic regression, female sex, the diagnostic group ICD F1 (substance abuse), maprotiline, carbamazepine, lamotrigine and clomethiazole were identified as risk factors of CADRs. The case/non-case approach allowed to identify risk factors based on empirical data rather than experts' evaluations. The new findings of substance abuse and clomethiazole as risk factors for CADRs have to be confirmed in further studies. Since CADRs can be life-threatening, it is important to be aware of risk factors, especially women during their reproductive period and with lamotrigine treatment.

Lithium, Stress, and Resilience in Bipolar Disorder: Deciphering this key homeostatic synaptic plasticity regulator

BACKGROUND

Lithium is the lightest metal and the only mood stabilizer that has been used for over half a century for the treatment of bipolar disorder (BD). As a small ion, lithium is omnipresent, and consequently, its molecular mechanisms and targets are widespread. Currently, lithium is a crucial pharmacotherapy for the treatment of acute mood episodes, prophylactic therapy, and suicide prevention in BD. Besides, lithium blood level is the most widely used biomarker in clinical psychiatry. The concept of stress in BD characterizes short- and long-term deleterious effects at multiple levels (from genes to behaviors) and the ability to establish homeostatic regulatory mechanisms to either prevent or reverse these effects. Within this concept, lithium has consistently shown anti-stress effects, by normalizing components across several levels associated with BD-induced impairments in cellular resilience and plasticity.

METHODS

A literature search for biomarkers associated with lithium effects at multiple targets, with a particular focus on those related to clinical outcomes was performed. An extensive search of the published literature using PubMed, Medline and Google Scholar was performed. Example search terms included lithium, plasticity, stress, efficacy, and neuroimaging. Articles determined by the author to focus on lithium's impact on neural plasticity markers (central and periphery) and clinical outcomes were examined in greater depth. Relevant papers were evaluated, selected and included in this review.

RESULTS

Lithium induces neurotrophic and neuroprotective effects in a wide range of preclinical and translational models. Lithium's neurotrophic effects are related to the enhancement of cellular proliferation, differentiation, growth, and regeneration, whereas its neuroprotective effects limit the progression of neuronal atrophy or cell death following the onset of BD. Lithium's neurotrophic and neuroprotective effects seem most pronounced in the presence of pathology, which again supports its pivotal role as an active homeostatic regulator.

LIMITATIONS

Few studies associated with clinical outcomes. Due to space limitations, the author was unable to detail all findings, in special those originated from preclinical studies.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support a potential role for biomarkers involved in neuroprotection and activation of plasticity pathways in lithium's clinical response. Evidence supporting this model comes from results evaluating macroscopic and microscopic brain structure as well neurochemical findings in vivo from cellular to sub-synaptic (molecules and intracellular signaling) compartments using central and peripheral biomarkers. Challenges to precisely decipher lithium's biological mechanisms involved in its therapeutic profile include the complex nature of the illness and clinical subtypes, family history and comorbid conditions. In the context of personalized medicine, it is necessary to validate predictive biomarkers of response to lithium by designing longitudinal clinical studies during mood episodes and associated clinical dimensions in BD.

Design limitations to bipolar II treatment efficacy studies: A challenge and a revisionist strategy

BACKGROUND

Trials examining medication efficacy for bipolar II disorder commonly employ a set of standardized interval measures to assess outcomes. The key issue is whether such interval measures pick up changes in the severity, duration and frequency of depressive, hypomanic and euthymic episodes.

METHOD

We examine the application of measures most commonly used to monitor progress in nine studies involving participants with a bipolar II disorder and published in journals with a moderate to high impact factor.

RESULTS

Studies rarely provided interval details for assessing depressive and hypomanic symptoms. None specified whether ratings of depressive and hypomanic symptoms were based on severity, duration or number of symptoms, and none recorded any data on euthymic periods.

LIMITATIONS

Our sample of reviewed studies was small and our analyses focused only on the three most commonly used outcome measures. We advocate for complementary subjective daily mood monitoring strategies but recognize that such strategies need to be validated in future studies.

CONCLUSIONS

We argue that interval ratings undertaken weekly or over longer periods may compromise efficacy data. We recommend that userguides be developed to ensure standard outcome measures are employed consistently across trials, and that specific details be published in trial papers about how measures were employed and what mood episode characteristics were measured at each assessment. We also argue for daily ratings to be used as an outcome measure to provide data on severity, frequency and duration of depressive, hypomanic and euthymic periods in intervention studies of those with a bipolar II disorder.

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) 2018 guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder

The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) previously published treatment guidelines for bipolar disorder in 2005, along with international commentaries and subsequent updates in 2007, 2009, and 2013. The last two updates were published in collaboration with the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD). These 2018 CANMAT and ISBD Bipolar Treatment Guidelines represent the significant advances in the field since the last full edition was published in 2005, including updates to diagnosis and management as well as new research into pharmacological and psychological treatments. These advances have been translated into clear and easy to use recommendations for first, second, and third- line treatments, with consideration given to levels of evidence for efficacy, clinical support based on experience, and consensus ratings of safety, tolerability, and treatment-emergent switch risk. New to these guidelines, hierarchical rankings were created for first and second- line treatments recommended for acute mania, acute depression, and maintenance treatment in bipolar I disorder. Created by considering the impact of each treatment across all phases of illness, this hierarchy will further assist clinicians in making evidence-based treatment decisions. Lithium, quetiapine, divalproex, asenapine, aripiprazole, paliperidone, risperidone, and cariprazine alone or in combination are recommended as first-line treatments for acute mania. First-line options for bipolar I depression include quetiapine, lurasidone plus lithium or divalproex, lithium, lamotrigine, lurasidone, or adjunctive lamotrigine. While medications that have been shown to be effective for the acute phase should generally be continued for the maintenance phase in bipolar I disorder, there are some exceptions (such as with antidepressants); and available data suggest that lithium, quetiapine, divalproex, lamotrigine, asenapine, and aripiprazole monotherapy or combination treatments should be considered first-line for those initiating or switching treatment during the maintenance phase. In addition to addressing issues in bipolar I disorder, these guidelines also provide an overview of, and recommendations for, clinical management of bipolar II disorder, as well as advice on specific populations, such as women at various stages of the reproductive cycle, children and adolescents, and older adults. There are also discussions on the impact of specific psychiatric and medical comorbidities such as substance use, anxiety, and metabolic disorders. Finally, an overview of issues related to safety and monitoring is provided. The CANMAT and ISBD groups hope that these guidelines become a valuable tool for practitioners across the globe.

An Oldie but Goodie: Lithium in the Treatment of Bipolar Disorder through Neuroprotective and Neurotrophic Mechanisms

Lithium has been used for the treatment of bipolar disorder (BD) for the last sixty or more years, and recent studies with more reliable designs and updated guidelines have recommended lithium to be the treatment of choice for acute manic, mixed and depressive episodes of BD, along with long-term prophylaxis. Lithium’s specific mechanism of action in mood regulation is progressively being clarified, such as the direct inhibition on glycogen synthase kinase 3β, and its various effects on neurotrophic factors, neurotransmitters, oxidative metabolism, apoptosis, second messenger systems, and biological systems are also being revealed. Furthermore, lithium has been proposed to exert its treatment effects through mechanisms associated with neuronal plasticity. In this review, we have overviewed the clinical aspects of lithium use for BD, and have focused on the neuroprotective and neurotrophic effects of lithium.

Comparison of treatment outcome using two definitions of rapid cycling in subjects with bipolar II disorder

OBJECTIVES

We examined differences in treatment outcome between Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)-defined rapid cycling and average lifetime-defined rapid cycling in subjects with bipolar II disorder. We hypothesized that, compared with the DSM-IV definition, the average lifetime definition of rapid cycling may better identify subjects with a history of more mood lability and a greater likelihood of hypomanic symptom induction during long-term treatment.

METHODS

Subjects ≥18 years old with a bipolar II major depressive episode (n=129) were categorized into DSM-IV- and average lifetime-defined rapid cycling and prospectively treated with either venlafaxine or lithium monotherapy for 12 weeks. Responders (n=59) received continuation monotherapy for six additional months.

RESULTS

These exploratory analyses found moderate agreement between the two rapid-cycling definitions (κ=0.56). The lifetime definition captured subjects with more chronic courses of bipolar II depression, whereas the DSM-IV definition captured subjects with more acute symptoms of hypomania. There was no difference between rapid-cycling definitions with respect to the response to acute venlafaxine or lithium monotherapy. However, the lifetime definition was slightly superior to the DSM-IV definition in identifying subjects who went on to experience hypomanic symptoms during continuation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Although sample sizes were limited, the findings suggest that the lifetime definition of rapid cycling may identify individuals with a chronic rapid-cycling course and may also be slightly superior to the DSM-IV definition in identifying individuals with hypomania during relapse-prevention therapy. These findings are preliminary in nature and need replication in larger, prospective, bipolar II studies.

Rapid versus non-rapid cycling bipolar II depression: response to venlafaxine and lithium and hypomanic risk

OBJECTIVE

To examine the safety and effectiveness of antidepressant versus mood stabilizer monotherapy in rapid versus non-rapid cycling bipolar II disorder.

METHOD

Subjects ≥18 years old with bipolar II depression (n = 129) were randomized to double-blind venlafaxine or lithium carbonate monotherapy for 12 weeks. Responders (n = 59) received continuation monotherapy for six additional months.

RESULTS

Rapid cycling did not affect frequency of response or change over time in depressive symptoms. Rapid cycling status did not affect frequency of depressive relapse or sustained treatment response. Rapid cyclers were more likely to experience hypomanic symptoms (P = 0.005) during continuation monotherapy; however, rates were similar in venlafaxine (17.6%) and lithium (42.9%) (P = 0.31).

CONCLUSION

Rapid cycling status may not be associated with an increased risk of diminished response or greater depressive relapse during venlafaxine, relative to lithium monotherapy, in bipolar II subjects. Additional randomized studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Short-term venlafaxine v. lithium monotherapy for bipolar type II major depressive episodes: effectiveness and mood conversion rate

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists over antidepressant use in bipolar II depression.

AIMS

To compare the safety and effectiveness of antidepressantv.mood stabiliser monotherapy for bipolar type II major depressive episodes.

METHOD

Randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, 12-week comparison of venlafaxine (n= 65)v.lithium (n= 64) monotherapy in adult out-patients (trial registration numberNCT00602537).

RESULTS

Primary outcome - venlafaxine produced a greater response rate (67.7%)v lithium (34.4%,P<0.001). Secondary outcomes - venlafaxine produced a greater remission rate (58.5%v 28.1%,P<0.001); greater decline in depression symptom scores over time (β = -5.32, s.e. = 1.16, χ(2)= 21.19,P<0.001); greater reduction in global severity scores over time (β = -1.05, s.e. = 0.22, w(2)= 22.33,P<0.001); and greater improvement in global change scores (β = -1.31, s.e. = 0.32, χ(2)= 16.95,P<0.001) relative to lithium. No statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences in hypomanic symptoms were observed between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that short-term venlafaxine monotherapy may provide effective antidepressant treatment for bipolar II depression without a statistically significant increase in hypomanic symptoms relative to lithium.

Time to lack of persistence with pharmacological treatment among patients with current depressive episodes: a natural study with 1-year follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Medication nonadherence remains a big challenge for depressive patients. This study aims to assess and compare the medication persistence between unipolar depression (UD) and bipolar depression (BD).

METHODS

A total of 146 UD and 187 BD patients were recruited at their first index prescription. Time to lack of persistence with pharmacological treatment (defined as a gap of at least 60 days without taking any medication) was calculated, and clinical characteristics were collected. Final diagnosis was made at the end of 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 101 (69.2%) UD and 126 (67.4%) BD patients discontinued the treatment, with a median duration of 36 days and 27 days, respectively. No significant difference was found between UD and BD in terms of time to lack of persistence with pharmacological treatment. The highest discontinuation rate (>40%) occurred in the first 3 months for both groups of patients. For UD patients, those with a higher risk of suicide (odds ratio [OR] =0.696, P=0.035) or comorbidity of any anxiety disorder (OR =0.159, P<0.001) were less likely to prematurely drop out (drop out within the first 3 months), while those with onset in the summer (OR =4.702, P=0.049) or autumn (OR =7.690, P=0.012) were more likely to prematurely drop out than those with onset in the spring (OR =0.159, P<0.001). For BD patients, being female (OR =2.250, P=0.012) and having a history of spontaneous remission or switch to hypomania (OR =2.470, P=0.004) were risk factors for premature drop out, while hospitalization (OR =0.304, P=0.023) and misdiagnosis as UD (OR =0.283, P<0.001) at the first index prescription were protective factors.

LIMITATION

Conservative definition of nonadherence, low representativeness of sample.

CONCLUSION

Treatment discontinuation was frequently seen in patients with UD or BD, especially in the first 3 months of treatment. In spite of the similar pattern of medication persistence, UD and BD differ from each other in predictors of premature drop out.

Review of evidence for use of antidepressants in bipolar depression

OBJECTIVE

Depressive episodes predominate over the course of bipolar disorder and cause considerable functional impairment. Antidepressants are frequently prescribed in the treatment of bipolar depression, despite concerns about efficacy and risk of switching to mania. This review provides a critical examination of the evidence for and against the use of antidepressants in bipolar depression.

DATA SOURCES

English-language peer-reviewed literature and evidence-based guidelines published between January 1, 1980, and March 2014, were identified using PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO/PsycLIT, and EMBASE. All searches contained the terms antidepressants, bipolar depression, depressive episodes in bipolar disorder, and treatment guidelines for bipolar depression. Meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines were included. Bibliographies from these publications were used to identify additional articles of interest.

DATA EXTRACTION

Studies involving treatment of bipolar depression with antidepressant monotherapy, adjunctive use of antidepressant with a mood stabilizer, and meta-analysis of such studies combined were reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

The body of evidence on the use of antidepressant monotherapy to treat patients with bipolar depression is contentious, but the recommendations from evidence-based guidelines do not support antidepressant monotherapy for bipolar depression. Only when mood stabilizer or atypical antipsychotic monotherapy has failed should adjunctive treatment with an antidepressant be considered.

Pharmacotherapy for bipolar disorder and concordance with treatment guidelines: survey of a general population sample referred to a tertiary care service

BACKGROUND

Many new approaches have been adopted for the treatment of bipolar disorder (BD) in the past few years, which strived to produce more positive outcomes. To enhance the quality of care, several guideline recommendations have been developed. For study purposes, we monitored the prescription of psychotropic drugs administered to bipolar patients who had been referred to tertiary care services, and assessed the degree to which treatment met specific guidelines.

METHODS

Between December 2006 and February 2009, we assessed 113 individuals suffering from BD who had been referred to the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (ROMHC) Mood Disorders Program by physicians within the community, mostly general practitioners. The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR was used to assess diagnosis. The prescribed treatment was compared with specific Canadian guidelines (CANMAT, 2009). Univariate analyses and logistic regression were used to assess the contribution of demographic and clinical factors for concordance of treatment with guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-two subjects had BD type I (BD-I), and 81 subjects had BD type II (BD-II). All subjects with BD-I, and 90% of the BD-II group were given at least one psychotropic treatment. Lithium was more often prescribed for subjects with BD-I (62%) than those with BD-II (19%). Antidepressants were the most frequently prescribed class of psychotropics. Sixty-eight percent of subjects received treatment concordant with guidelines by medication and dose. The presence of a current hypomanic episode was independently associated with poorer concordance to guidelines. In more than half the cases, the inappropriate use of antidepressants was at the origin of the non concordance of treatment with respect to guidelines. Absence of psychotropic treatment in bipolar II patients and inadequate dosage of mood stabilizers were the two other main causes of non concordance with guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The factors related to treatment not concordant with guidelines should be further explored to determine appropriate strategies in implementing the use of guidelines in clinical practice.

Effectiveness and mood conversion rate of short-term fluoxetine monotherapy in patients with rapid cycling bipolar II depression versus patients with nonrapid cycling bipolar II depression

OBJECTIVE

We examined the effectiveness and mood conversion rate of fluoxetine monotherapy in patients with rapid cycling bipolar II depression versus patients with nonrapid cycling bipolar II depression. We hypothesized that there would be reduced antidepressant effectiveness and a greater mood conversion rate over time in patients with rapid cycling.

METHODS

Open-label fluoxetine monotherapy 10 to 80 mg daily was administered for up to 14 weeks in 42 outpatients with rapid cycling versus 124 outpatients with nonrapid cycling. Outcome measures included the change over time in depression ratings, the proportion of treatment responders and remitters, change over time in mania ratings, and frequency of syndromal and subsyndromal hypomanic episodes.

RESULTS

There was a greater reduction in depression rating scores in the patients with rapid cycling versus those with nonrapid cycling (P = 0.04), with similar rates of response (P = 0.18) and remission (P = 0.69). Change in mean mania rating scores was similar in the patients with rapid cycling versus those with nonrapid cycling (P = 0.28). Hypomanic symptoms occurred in a similar proportion of the patients with rapid cycling versus those with nonrapid cycling (P = 0.99). Hypomanic episodes occurred in 5.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-18.2) of the patients with rapid cycling versus 3.6% (95% CI, 1.0-8.9) of those with nonrapid cycling (P = 0.65). Subsyndromal hypomania occurred in 13.5% (95% CI, 4.5-28.8) of the patients with rapid cycling versus 9.0% (95% CI, 4.4-15.9) of those with nonrapid cycling (P = 0.43).

CONCLUSION

In contrast to reports of reduced effectiveness and increased mood conversion rates in patients with rapid cycling bipolar disorder taking antidepressants, we found greater effectiveness and similar hypomania rates during fluoxetine monotherapy in the patients with rapid cycling bipolar II depression versus those with nonrapid cycling bipolar II depression.

Antidepressants and rapid-cycling bipolar II disorder: dogma, definitions and deconstructing discrepant data

It is suggested that a finding that apparently challenges current practice guidelines, namely that patients with a rapid-cycling pattern of bipolar disorder can take antidepressant monotherapy for months without increasing risk of cycling, may be parsimoniously understood by the way that the investigators defined rapid cycling and by their use of acute-phase fluoxetine monotherapy prior to randomisation to continutaion-phase therapy with fluoxetine, lithium or placebo.

Efficacy and mood conversion rate during long-term fluoxetine v. lithium monotherapy in rapid- and non-rapid-cycling bipolar II disorder

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists over antidepressant use in rapid-cycling bipolar disorder.

AIMS

Exploratory analysis of safety and efficacy of fluoxetine v. lithium monotherapy in individuals with rapid- v. non-rapid-cycling bipolar II disorder.

METHOD

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of fluoxetine v. lithium monotherapy in patients initially stabilised on fluoxetine monotherapy (trial registration NCT00044616).

RESULTS

The proportion of participants with depressive relapse was similar between the rapid- and non-rapid-cycling groups (P = 0.20). The odds of relapse were similar between groups (P = 0.36). The hazard of relapse was similar between groups (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.40-1.91). Change in mania rating scores was similar between groups (P = 0.86). There was no difference between groups in the rate of syndromal (P = 0.27) or subsyndromal (P = 0.82) hypomania.

CONCLUSIONS

Depressive relapse and treatment-emergent mood conversion episode rates were similar for lithium and fluoxetine monotherapy and placebo during long-term, relapse-prevention therapy of rapid- and non-rapid-cycling bipolar II disorder.

A systematic review of the evidence on the treatment of rapid cycling bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVE

  Rapid cycling is associated with longer illness duration and greater illness severity in bipolar disorder. The aim of the present study was to review the existing published randomized trials investigating the effect of treatment on patients with rapid cycling bipolar disorder.

METHODS

  A MEDLINE search was conducted using combinations of the following key words: bipolar and rapid or rapid-cycling or rapid cycling and randomized. The search was conducted through July 16, 2011, and no conference proceedings were included.

RESULTS

  The search returned 206 papers and ultimately 25 papers were selected for review. Only six randomized, controlled trials specifically designed to study a rapid cycling population were found. Most data were derived from post hoc analyses of trials that had included rapid cyclers. The literature suggested that: (i) rapid cycling patients perform worse in the follow-up period; (ii) lithium and anticonvulsants have comparable efficacies; (iii) there is inconclusive evidence on the comparative acute or prophylactic efficacy of the combination of anticonvulsants versus anticonvulsant monotherapy; (iv) aripiprazole, olanzapine, and quetiapine are effective against acute bipolar episodes; (v) olanzapine and quetiapine appear to be equally effective to anticonvulsants during acute treatment; (vi) aripiprazole and olanzapine appear promising for the maintenance of response of rapid cyclers; and (vii) there might be an association between antidepressant use and the presence of rapid cycling.

CONCLUSION

  The literature examining the pharmacological treatment of rapid cycling is still sparse and therefore there is no clear consensus with respect to its optimal pharmacological management. Clinical trials specifically studying rapid cycling are needed in order to unravel the appropriate management of rapid cycling bipolar disorder.

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) collaborative update of CANMAT guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder: update 2013

The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments published guidelines for the management of bipolar disorder in 2005, with updates in 2007 and 2009. This third update, in conjunction with the International Society for Bipolar Disorders, reviews new evidence and is designed to be used in conjunction with the previous publications.The recommendations for the management of acute mania remain largely unchanged. Lithium, valproate, and several atypical antipsychotic agents continue to be first-line treatments for acute mania. Monotherapy with asenapine, paliperidone extended release (ER), and divalproex ER, as well as adjunctive asenapine, have been added as first-line options.For the management of bipolar depression, lithium, lamotrigine, and quetiapine monotherapy, as well as olanzapine plus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), and lithium or divalproex plus SSRI/bupropion remain first-line options. Lurasidone monotherapy and the combination of lurasidone or lamotrigine plus lithium or divalproex have been added as a second-line options. Ziprasidone alone or as adjunctive therapy, and adjunctive levetiracetam have been added as not-recommended options for the treatment of bipolar depression. Lithium, lamotrigine, valproate, olanzapine, quetiapine, aripiprazole, risperidone long-acting injection, and adjunctive ziprasidone continue to be first-line options for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. Asenapine alone or as adjunctive therapy have been added as third-line options.

Mono- and combination drug therapies in hospitalized patients with bipolar depression. Data from the European drug surveillance program AMSP

BACKGROUND

For the pharmacological treatment of bipolar depression several guidelines exist. It is largely unknown, to what extent the prescriptions in daily clinical routine correspond to these evidence based recommendations and which combinations of psychotropic drugs are frequently used.

METHODS

The prescriptions of psychotropic drugs were investigated of all in-patients with bipolar depression (n = 2246; time period 1994-2009) from hospitals participating in the drug surveillance program AMSP. For the drug use in 2010, 221 cases were analysed additionally.

RESULTS

From 1994 to 2009, 85% of all patients received more than one class of psychotropic substances: 74% received antidepressants in combination therapy, 55% antipsychotics, 48% anticonvulsants and 33% lithium. When given in combination, lithium is the most often prescribed substance for bipolar depression (33%), followed by valproic acid (23%), mirtazapine and venlafaxine (16% each), quetiapine (15%), lamotrigine (14%) and olanzapine (13%). Both, lithium and valproic acid are often combined with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), but also with mirtazapine und venlafaxine. Combinations of more than one antidepressant occur quite often, whereby combinations with bupropion, paroxetine, fluoxetine or fluvoxamine are very rare. In 2010, quetiapine (alone and combined) was the most frequently prescribed drug (39%); aripiprazole was administered in 10%.

CONCLUSION

Combinations of antidepressants (SSRI, mirtazapine, venlafaxine) with mood stabilizers (lithium, valproic acid, lamotrigine) and / or atypical antipsychotics (quetiapine, olanzapine) are common. Of most of those combinations the efficacy has not been studied. The use of aripiprazole and the concomitant use of two or three antidepressants contrast the guidelines.

The clinical management of bipolar disorder complexity using a stratified model

OBJECTIVE

To provide practical and clinically meaningful treatment recommendations that amalgamate clinical and research considerations for several common, and as yet understudied, bipolar disorder complex presentations, within the framework of a proposed stratified model.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the literature was undertaken using electronic database search engines (Medline, PubMed, Web of Science) using key words (e.g., bipolar disorder, anxiety, rapid cycling, and subsyndromal). All relevant randomised controlled trials were examined, in addition to review papers, meta-analyses, and book chapters known to the authors. The findings formed the basis of the treatment recommendations within this paper.

RESULTS

In light of the many broad presentations of bipolar disorder, a stratified model of bipolar disorder complexity was developed to facilitate consideration of the myriad of complexities that can occur during the longitudinal course of illness and the appropriate selection of treatment. Evidence-based treatment recommendations are provided for the following bipolar disorder presentations: bipolar II disorder, subsyndromal symptoms, mixed states, rapid cycling, comorbid anxiety, comorbid substance abuse, and for the following special populations: young, elderly, and bipolar disorder around the time of pregnancy and birth. In addition, some key strategies for countering treatment non-response and alternative medication recommendations are provided.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment recommendations for the more challenging presentations of bipolar disorder have historically received less attention, despite their prevalence. This review acknowledges the weaknesses in the current evidence base on which treatment recommendations are generally formulated, and additionally emphasises the need for high-quality research in this area. The stratified model provides a means for conceptualizing the complexity of many bipolar disorder presentations and considering their management.

Antidepressant treatment for acute bipolar depression: an update

While studies in the past have focused more on treatment of the manic phase of bipolar disorder (BD), recent findings demonstrate the depressive phase to be at least as debilitating. However, in contrast to unipolar depression, depression in bipolar patients exhibits a varying response to antidepressants, raising questions regarding their efficacy and tolerability. Methods. We conducted a MEDLINE and Cochrane Collaboration Library search for papers published between 2005 and 2011 on the subject of antidepressant treatment of bipolar depression. Sixty-eight articles were included in the present review. Results. While a few studies did advocate the use of antidepressants, most well-controlled studies failed to show a robust effect of antidepressants in bipolar depression, regardless of antidepressant class or bipolar subtype. There was no significant increase in the rate of manic/hypomanic switch, especially with concurrent use of mood stabilizers. Prescribing guidelines published in recent years rely more on atypical antipsychotics, especially quetiapine, as a first-line therapy. Conclusions. Antidepressants probably have no substantial role in acute bipolar depression. However, in light of conflicting results between studies, more well-designed trials are warranted.

Clinical differentiation of bipolar II disorder from personality-based "emotional dysregulation" conditions

BACKGROUND

The non-psychotic mood swings experienced by those with a bipolar II disorder can lead to diagnostic dilemmas, especially in differentiating this condition from personality styles marked by emotional dysregulation. This paper provides a clinical vignette and then offers some indicative parameters that might assist differentiation.

METHODS

A clinical vignette is provided of a patient who had longitudinal features consistent with either a bipolar II disorder or of distinct personality-based dysregulation and the reader is invited to consider the likely diagnosis. A relevant literature is overviewed and, in conjunction with clinical observations, diagnostic parameters for differentiating the two diagnostic groupings are derived.

RESULTS

It is suggested that the derived parameters assist diagnostic clarification in most instances but reference back to the clinical vignette tempers that level of confidence.

LIMITATIONS

Many of the identified differentiating features are clinically derived and are subject to limitations of clinical observation and biases.

CONCLUSIONS

The importance of differentiating a primary bipolar II disorder from a personality-based condition is of high clinical importance. This overview seeks to advance the objective.

Pharmacotherapy for the treatment of acute bipolar II depression: current evidence

OBJECTIVE

Bipolar II disorder is a common, recurrent, and disabling psychiatric illness, and yet little is known about how best to treat it. The pressing clinical need for evidence-based approaches to the treatment of bipolar II disorder, coupled with recent publication of pertinent studies, calls for an updated review of this literature. This review focuses on a critical examination of the evidence supporting the efficacy of treatments for acute depressive episodes in bipolar II disorder.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE (via Ovid) search of journals, covering the period from January 1950 to January 2009, was performed to identify relevant studies. Keywords used were bipolar II disorder, bipolar disorder, bipolar depression, and pharmacotherapy. Studies were further limited to those that were in adult samples, published in peer-reviewed journals, and written in English.

STUDY SELECTION

We examined all randomized trials evaluating the use of pharmacotherapy in the treatment of acute bipolar II depression. Studies with mixed samples of bipolar I and II or bipolar II and unipolar depression were examined as well. Twenty-one randomized trials were identified and reviewed.

DATA EXTRACTION

Therapeutic agents were rated according to the quality of evidence supporting their efficacy as treatments for bipolar II depression.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Ninety percent of relevant trials were published after 2005. Quetiapine was judged as having compelling evidence supporting its efficacy. Lithium, antidepressants, and pramipexole were judged as having preliminary support for efficacy. Lamotrigine was considered to have mixed support.

CONCLUSIONS

Although progress has been made, further research on bipolar II depression is warranted.

Achieving adolescent adherence to treatment of major depression

When treatments are ordered for adolescent major depression, or for other adolescent medical illnesses, adherence and clinical outcomes are likely to be unsatisfactory, unless 4 basic principles of the medical treatment of adolescent illness are implemented. These comprise providing effective patient and parent/caregiver education, establishing effective patient and caregiver therapeutic alliances, providing effective treatment, and managing other factors associated with treatment adherence as indicated. The goals of treatment are to achieve the earliest possible response and remission. Failure to treat adolescent major depression successfully has potentially serious consequences, including worsened adherence, long-term morbidity, and suicide attempt. Accordingly, prescribed treatment must be aggressively managed. Doses of an antidepressant medication should be increased as rapidly as can be tolerated, preferably every 1-2 weeks, until full remission is achieved or such dosing is limited by the emergence of unacceptable adverse effects. A full range of medication treatment options must be employed if necessary. Treatment adherence, occurrence of problematic adverse effects, clinical progress, and safety must be systematically monitored. Adolescents with major depression must be assessed for risk of harm to self or others. When this risk appears significant, likelihood of successful outcomes will be enhanced by use of treatment plans that comprehensively address factors associated with treatment nonadherence. Abbreviated and comprehensive plans for the treatment of potentially fatal adolescent illnesses are outlined in this review.

Efficacy and safety of long-term fluoxetine versus lithium monotherapy of bipolar II disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-substitution study

OBJECTIVE

The authors examined the safety and efficacy of long-term fluoxetine monotherapy, lithium monotherapy, and placebo therapy in preventing relapse and recurrence of bipolar type II major depressive episode. The authors hypothesized that fluoxetine monotherapy would be superior to lithium monotherapy with a similar hypomanic mood conversion rate.

METHOD

Patients at least 18 years old who recovered from their major depressive episode during initial open-label fluoxetine monotherapy were randomly assigned to receive 50 weeks of double-blind monotherapy with fluoxetine at 10-40 mg/day, lithium at 300-1200 mg/day, or placebo. The primary outcome measure was time to relapse or recurrence. Secondary outcome measures included the proportion of patients remaining well and the frequency of hypomanic symptoms.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in clinical or demographic characteristics among the fluoxetine (N=28), lithium (N=26), and placebo (N=27) groups. The mean time to relapse was 249.9 days for the fluoxetine group, 156.4 days for the lithium group, and 186.9 days for the placebo group. The hazard of relapse was significantly lower with fluoxetine compared with lithium, and the estimated hazard of relapse with lithium was 2.5 times greater than with fluoxetine. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences in hypomanic symptoms among treatment groups over time. One patient taking fluoxetine and one patient taking placebo discontinued treatment because of hypomania.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that long-term fluoxetine monotherapy may provide superior relapse-prevention benefit relative to lithium monotherapy after recovery from bipolar II major depressive episode without an increase in hypomanic mood conversion episodes.

Efficacy and mood conversion rate of short-term fluoxetine monotherapy of bipolar II major depressive episode

OBJECTIVE

As part of a long-term, relapse-prevention study of antidepressant versus mood stabilizer monotherapy of bipolar II major depressive episode, we prospectively examined the efficacy and mood conversion rate of initial fluoxetine monotherapy. We hypothesized that there would be a statistically significant reduction in depressive symptoms without a clinically meaningful increase in mood conversion symptoms.

METHODS

Patients received open-label fluoxetine monotherapy 10 to 80 mg daily for up to 14 weeks. Primary outcome was change over time in Hamilton Depression Rating score, with secondary outcomes including the proportion of treatment responders and remitters, change over time in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score, and frequency of mood conversion episodes.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-eight patients had at least 1 post-baseline measurement. Mean Hamilton Depression Rating score decreased by 9.0 points (P < 0.0005). There were 88 responder patients (59.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 51.1%-67.4%) (P < 0.0005) and 86 remitter patients (58.1%; 95% CI, 49.7%-66.2%) (P < 0.0005). Mean time to remission was 64.4 days (95% CI, 59.1-69.7 days). Six patients (4.1%; 95% CI, 1.5%-8.6%) (P < 0.0005) had hypomania, and 29 patients (19.6%; 95% CI, 13.5%-26.9%) (P < 0.0005) had subsyndromal hypomania, which did not result in treatment discontinuation. Six patients (4.1%; 95% CI, 1.5%-8.6%) had a YMRS score of 8 or greater (P < 0.0005), and 4 patients (2.7%; 95% CI, 0.7%-6.8%) (P < 0.0005) had a YMRS score of 12 or greater at any study visit.

CONCLUSIONS

Although design limitations constrain the interpretation of the current findings, fluoxetine monotherapy may be an effective short-term treatment of bipolar II major depressive episode with a relatively low rate of syndromal hypomanic episodes.

Feasibility and diagnostic validity of the M-3 checklist: a brief, self-rated screen for depressive, bipolar, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorders in primary care

PURPOSE

Mood and anxiety disorders are the most common psychiatric conditions seen in primary care, yet they remain underdetected and undertreated. Screening tools can improve detection, but available instruments are limited by the number of disorders assessed. We wanted to assess the feasibility and diagnostic validity of the My Mood Monitor (M-3) checklist, a new, 1-page, patient-rated, 27-item tool developed to screen for multiple psychiatric disorders in primary care.

METHODS

We enrolled a sample of 647 consecutive participants aged 18 years and older who were seeking primary care at an academic family medicine clinic between July 2007 and February 2008. We used a 2-step scoring procedure to make screening more efficient. The main outcomes measured were the sensitivity and specificity of the M-3 for major depression, bipolar disorder, any anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a specific type of anxiety disorder. Using a split sample technique, analysis proceeded from determination of optimal screening thresholds to assessment of the psychometric properties of the self-report instrument using the determined thresholds. We used the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview as the diagnostic standard. Feasibility was assessed with patient and physician exit questionnaires.

RESULTS

The depression module had a sensitivity of 0.84 and a specificity of 0.80. The bipolar module had a sensitivity of 0.88, and a specificity of 0.70. The anxiety module had a sensitivity of 0.82 and a specificity of 0.78, and the PTSD module had a sensitivity of 0.88 and a specificity of 0.76. As a screen for any psychiatric disorder, sensitivity was 0.83 and specificity was 0.76. Patients took less than 5 minutes to complete the M-3 in the waiting room, and less than 1% reported not having time to complete it. Eighty-three percent of clinicians reviewed the checklist in 30 or fewer seconds, and 80% thought it was helpful in reviewing patients' emotional health.

CONCLUSIONS

The M-3 demonstrates utility as a valid, efficient, and feasible tool for screening multiple common psychiatric illnesses, including bipolar disorder and PTSD, in primary care. Its diagnostic accuracy equals that of currently used single-disorder screens and has the additional benefit of being combined into a 1-page tool. The M-3 potentially can reduce missed psychiatric diagnoses and facilitate proper treatment of identified cases.

Venlafaxine monotherapy in bipolar type II depressed patients unresponsive to prior lithium monotherapy

OBJECTIVE

We examine the safety and efficacy of venlafaxine monotherapy in bipolar type II (BP II) patients with major depressive episode (MDE) who were unresponsive to prior lithium monotherapy. We hypothesized that venlafaxine would be superior to lithium with a low hypomanic conversion rate.

METHOD

Seventeen patients who were unresponsive to prior lithium monotherapy were crossed to venlafaxine monotherapy for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was within-subject change in total Hamilton Depression Rating (HAM-D) score over time. Secondary outcomes included the change in Young Mania Rating (YMRS) and clinical global impressions severity (CGI/S) and change (CGI/C) scores.

RESULTS

Venlafaxine produced significantly greater reductions in HAM-D (P < 0.0005), CGI/S (P < 0.0005), and CGI/C (P < 0.0005) scores vs. prior lithium. There was no difference in mean YMRS scores between treatment conditions (P = 0.179).

CONCLUSION

Venlafaxine monotherapy may be a safe and effective monotherapy of BP II MDE with a low hypomanic conversion rate in lithium non-responders.