Acquired lithium resistance revisited: discontinuation-induced refractoriness versus tolerance

Lithium-discontinuation-induced treatment refractoriness revisited

BACKGROUND

Lithium is effective in the long-term treatment of bipolar disorder. Concerns have been raised about non-responsiveness after discontinuation and resuming previously effective lithium prophylaxis. We reviewed the available literature on this so-called lithium-discontinuation-induced treatment refractoriness (LDITR).

RESULTS

We found 11 case reports and six cohort studies including 403 patients addressing LDITR, and one nation-wide register study providing some additional data on LDITR. Pooling all cohort studies, the percentages of non-responders during re-treatment with lithium ranged from 3.6 to 27.7%, with an average of 17.3%. Non-responsiveness was associated with longer duration of lithium treatment before discontinuation, longer duration of bipolar disorder before start of lithium, faster tapering off lithium, and longer duration of discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

There may be a subgroup in whom lithium discontinuation-induced treatment refractoriness exists. However, the vast majority of people respond when lithium is restarted. Moreover, it may be necessary to continue lithium beyond the first relapses to restore long-term prophylactic efficacy.

Effectiveness of ultra-long-term lithium treatment: relevant factors and case series

BACKGROUND

The phenomenon of preventing the recurrences of mood disorders by the long-term lithium administration was discovered sixty years ago. Such a property of lithium has been unequivocally confirmed in subsequent years, and the procedure makes nowadays the gold standard for the pharmacological prophylaxis of bipolar disorder (BD). The efficacy of lithium prophylaxis surpasses other mood stabilizers, and the drug has the longest record as far as the duration of its administration is concerned. The continuation of lithium administration in case of good response could be a lifetime and last for several decades. The stability of lithium prophylactic efficacy in most patients is pretty steady. However, resuming lithium after its discontinuation may, in some patients, be less efficient.

MAIN BODY

In the article, the clinical and biological factors connected with the prophylactic efficacy of long-term lithium administration are listed. Next, the adverse and beneficial side effects of such longitudinal treatment are presented. The main problems of long-term lithium therapy, which could make an obstacle to lithium continuation, are connected with lithium's adverse effects on the kidney and, to lesser extent, on thyroid and parathyroid functions. In the paper, the management of these adversities is proposed. Finally, the case reports of three patients who have completed 50 years of lithium therapy are described.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors of the paper reckon that in the case of good response, lithium can be given indefinitely. Given the appropriate candidates for such therapy and successful management of the adverse effects, ultra-long term lithium therapy is possible and beneficial for such patients.

Tolerance to Stimulant Medication for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Literature Review and Case Report

Recommended treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) includes stimulant medication. While these medicines are effective for most ADHD patients, benefits may wear off, suggesting tolerance. This paper reviews the published literature on tolerance to stimulant medication treatment for ADHD. As there are relatively few studies published, pivotal studies and ADHD treatment guidelines were also reviewed. Research demonstrates physiological changes related to continued stimulant usage in neurons and certain brain regions, suggesting a mechanism for tolerance development. One clinical study showed that 24.7% of patients developed tolerance to stimulants in the time of days to weeks; another showed 2.7% developed tolerance over 10 years. Long term follow-up studies demonstrate that medication response may lessen over longer durations of treatment in a high percentage of patients. Strategies to manage tolerance include switching stimulant medicines, drug holidays, or clinical reassessment. Three cases illustrate challenges with treating patients who develop tolerance to stimulant medication. The paucity of research and lack of guidance to clinicians may contribute to significant under recognition of tolerance to stimulant medication. Further research is required to define clinical tolerance for stimulants in ADHD and to provide guidance on identifying and managing tolerance in clinical practice.

Resumption of migraine preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) antibodies after a 3-month drug holiday: a real-world experience

Background

Migraine frequency increases after the cessation of successful preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the course of migraine after treatment resumption.

Methods

Patients with migraine, who started treatment with the same CGRP(-R) mAb after a three-month drug holiday were included in this analysis. We collected headache data at four prospective visits: 1) during the four weeks before the initial mAb treatment (baseline); 2) during the four weeks before the last mAb injection; 3) in weeks 13–16 of the drug holiday; 4) in weeks 9–12 after treatment restart. Outcomes were the changes in monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly headache days (MHD), monthly days with acute medication use (AMD) and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) scores across the observation period.

Results

This study included 39 patients (erenumab n = 16; galcanezumab/ fremanezumab n = 23). MMD decreased from 12.3 ± 6.3 at the end of the drug holiday to 7.8 ± 5.5 three months after treatment restart (p = 0.001). The improvement after treatment resumption was similar to the response in the initial treatment period (baseline: 12.3 ± 6.3 MMD vs. 7.5 ± 5.2 MMD before treatment interruption). MHD and AMD showed a significant improvement after treatment restart. HIT-6 scores decreased, indicating a diminished impact of headache on everyday life.

Conclusions

Reinitiation of treatment with CGRP(-R) mAbs after a drug holiday leads to a significant reduction of migraine frequency and medication use as well as improvement in quality of life.

Long-term lithium therapy and risk of chronic kidney disease in bipolar disorder: A historical cohort study

AIMS

Long-term lithium therapy (LTLT) has been associated with kidney insufficiency in bipolar disorder (BD). We aimed to investigate the risk factors of chronic kidney disease (CKD) development and progression among BD patients receiving LTLT.

METHODS

We included adult patients with BD on LTLT (≥1 year) who were enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Bipolar Biobank, Rochester, Minnesota. We reviewed electronic medical records to extract information related to lithium therapy and kidney-related data to assess changes in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). CKD severity was assessed based on eGFR.

RESULTS

Among 154 patients who received LTLT, 41 patients (27%) developed CKD, of whom 20 (49%) patients continued lithium (continuers) and 19 (46%) discontinued it (discontinuers). The median time to stage 3 CKD development was 21.7 years from the start of Li treatment. Type-2 diabetes mellitus and benzodiazepine use were independent predictors for CKD development in the survival analysis, after controlling for age. The subsequent CKD progression rate did not differ between continuers and discontinuers (mean GFR 48.6 vs. 44.1, p = 0.13) at the end of follow-up duration (mean duration: 3.5 ± 4.4 years for continuers and 4.9 ± 5.3 years for discontinuers).

CONCLUSION

CKD was observed in one fourth of patients with BD receiving LTLT. There was no significant difference in the progression of CKD among Li continuers versus discontinuers, at the mean follow-up duration of 4.2 years, after the CKD diagnosis. Progression of CKD could be influenced by existing comorbidities and may not necessarily be due to lithium alone.

The Challenges of Children with Bipolar Disorder

Childhood onset bipolar disorder (CO-BD) presents a panoply of difficulties associated with early recognition and treatment. CO-BD is associated with a variety of precursors and comorbidities that have been inadequately studied, so treatment remains obscure. The earlier the onset, the longer is the delay to first treatment, and both early onset and treatment delay are associated with more depressive episodes and a poor prognosis in adulthood. Ultra-rapid and ultradian cycling, consistent with a diagnosis of BP-NOS, are highly prevalent in the youngest children and take long periods of time and complex treatment regimens to achieve euthymia. Lithium and atypical antipsychotics are effective in mania, but treatment of depression remains obscure, with the exception of lurasidone, for children ages 10-17. Treatment of the common comorbid anxiety disorders, oppositional defiant disorders, pathological habits, and substance abuse are all poorly studied and are off-label. Cognitive dysfunction after a first manic hospitalization improves over the next year only on the condition that no further episodes occur. Yet comprehensive expert treatment after an initial manic hospitalization results in many fewer relapses than traditional treatment as usual, emphasizing the need for combined pharmacological, psychosocial, and psycho-educational approaches to this difficult and highly recurrent illness.

Hamlet's augury: how to manage discontinuation of mood stabilizers in bipolar disorder

Research has generated good quality evidence about the treatment and management of bipolar disorder in acute and, to some degree, sub-acute/continuation phases. This has informed various guidelines about the treatment and management of bipolar disorder (BD). However, for the long-term or maintenance phase of illness, most guidelines peter out and, in the absence of sufficiently high-quality research evidence, remain vague. This is particularly evident for the important clinical question of discontinuing mood stabilizing pharmacological agents after a period of remission has been achieved. The aim of this review is to put together current existing evidence about discontinuing mood stabilizers after a period of remission in order to come up with a structured and coherent strategy for managing such discontinuation and to make recommendations for future research. To this end, we reviewed the main relevant treatment guidelines and subsequent evidence following the publication of these guidelines. The current recommended long-term treatment of BD is usually considered within the same principles applicable to any chronic health condition (e.g. hypertension or diabetes) where the focus is on continuing treatment at minimum effective medication dose often life-long, switching to alternative choice of medication due to side-effects and very few, if any, indications for complete cessation. However, in the absence of strong evidence on long-term treatment and the high rate of non-concordance in BD, medication discontinuation is a very important aspect of the treatment that should be given due consideration at every aspect of the treatment.

The CINP Guidelines on the Definition and Evidence-Based Interventions for Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Disorder

BACKGROUND

Resistant bipolar disorder is a major mental health problem related to significant disability and overall cost. The aim of the current study was to perform a systematic review of the literature concerning (1) the definition of treatment resistance in bipolar disorder, (2) its clinical and (3) neurobiological correlates, and (4) the evidence-based treatment options for treatment-resistant bipolar disorder and for eventually developing guidelines for the treatment of this condition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PRISMA method was used to identify all published papers relevant to the definition of treatment resistance in bipolar disorder and the associated evidence-based treatment options. The MEDLINE was searched to April 22, 2018.

RESULTS

Criteria were developed for the identification of resistance in bipolar disorder concerning all phases. The search of the literature identified all published studies concerning treatment options. The data were classified according to strength, and separate guidelines regarding resistant acute mania, acute bipolar depression, and the maintenance phase were developed.

DISCUSSION

The definition of resistance in bipolar disorder is by itself difficult due to the complexity of the clinical picture, course, and treatment options. The current guidelines are the first, to our knowledge, developed specifically for the treatment of resistant bipolar disorder patients, and they also include an operationalized definition of treatment resistance. They were based on a thorough and deep search of the literature and utilize as much as possible an evidence-based approach.

Lithium treatment in the era of personalized medicine

In 1949, an Australian psychiatrist, John Cade, reported on the antimanic efficacy of lithium carbonate, which is regarded as an introduction of lithium into contemporary psychiatry. Since the 1960s, lithium has been a precursor of mood stabilizers and has become first-choice drug for the prevention of affective episodes in mood disorders. For nearly four decades, lithium has also been used for the augmentation of antidepressant drugs in treatment-resistant depression. The knowledge of clinical and biological factors connected with the capability of long-term lithium treatment to prevent manic and depressive recurrences makes an important element of the personalized medicine of mood disorders. Excellent prophylactic lithium responders can be characterized by distinct mood episodes, with full remissions between them, the absence of other psychiatric morbidity, and the family history of bipolar illness. In recent years, many other clinical and biological factors connected with such a response have been identified, helping to select the best candidates for lithium prophylaxis. The antisuicidal effect of lithium during its long-term administration has been demonstrated and should also be taken into account as the element of personalized medicine for the pharmacological prophylaxis of patients with mood disorders. Several studies pertaining to personalized medicine were also dedicated to lithium treatment of acute mood episodes. Lithium still has a value in the treatment of mania and bipolar depression. However, it seems that the more important indication would be the augmentation of antidepressant drugs in treatment-resistant depression. The factors connected with the efficacy of lithium in these conditions are reviewed.

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.

Decreased responsiveness following lithium discontinuation in bipolar disorder: A naturalistic observation study

Lithium is a cornerstone in treatment of bipolar disorder. Findings are conflicting as to whether acquired unresponsiveness occurs following the discontinuation. Retrospective life chart data were evaluated to investigate the incidence of loss of response. Sixty-five patients chosen from a larger cohort, followed with prospective life charts, who discontinued lithium and had a second lithium treatment. Patients who had at least 2 mood episodes when they were drug naïve to describe the natural frequency of illness and 3 mood episodes before the discontinuation were included. The type of response was defined as excellent, partial, or poor according to mirror design method. Eighteen of 65 patients (27.6%) had a decreased response to lithium following its discontinuation. Nine of these patients (13.8%) were unresponsive and nine patients (13.8%) had attenuated response to second lithium treatment. The mean time of discontinuation was longer in the patients who show decreased response (245.8+268.2 vs. 117.9+149.8 days, p=.01). Those who had episode recurrences during the discontinuation were more likely to show reduced responsiveness upon re-treatment. After discontinuation of lithium treatment, more than a quarter of the patients showed an attenuated response or unresponsiveness, and initial partial responders more likely to show unresponsiveness than excellent responders.

Does the "Silver Bullet" Lose its Shine Over the Time? Assessment of Loss of Lithium Response in a Preliminary Sample of Bipolar Disorder Outpatients

Background:

Though often perceived as a “silver bullet” treatment for bipolar disorder (BD), lithium has seldom reported to lose its efficacy over the time.

Objective:

The aim of the present study was to assess cases of refractoriness toward restarted lithium in BD patients who failed to preserve maintenance.

Method:

Treatment trajectories associated with re-instituted lithium following loss of achieved lithium-based maintenance in BD were retrospectively reviewed for 37 BD-I patients (median age 52 years; F:M=17:20 or 46% of the total) over an 8.1-month period on average.

Results:

In our sample only 4 cases (roughly 11% of the total, of whom F:M=2:2) developed refractoriness towards lithium after its discontinuation. Thirty-three controls (F:M=15:18) maintained lithium response at the time of re-institution. No statistically significant difference between cases and controls was observed with respect to a number of demographic and clinical features but for time spent before first trial ever with lithium in life (8.5 vs. 3 years; U=24.5, Z=-2.048, p=.041) and length of lithium discontinuation until new therapeutic attempt (5.5 vs. 2 years; U=8, Z=-2.927, p=.003) between cases vs. controls respectively. Tapering off of lithium was significantly faster among cases vs. controls (1 vs. 7 days; U=22, Z=-2.187), though both subgroups had worrisome high rates of poor adherence overall.

Conclusion:

Although intrinsic limitations of the present preliminary assessment hamper the validity and generalizability of overall results, stating the clinical relevance of the topic further prospective research is warranted. The eventual occurrence of lithium refractoriness may indeed be associated with peculiar course trajectories and therapeutic outcomes ultimately urging the prescribing clinicians to put efforts in preserving maintenance of BD in the absence of any conclusive research insight on the matter.

Factors associated with lithium efficacy in bipolar disorder

About one-third of lithium-treated, bipolar patients are excellent lithium responders; that is, lithium monotherapy totally prevents further episodes of bipolar disorder for ten years and more. These patients are clinically characterized by an episodic clinical course with complete remission, a bipolar family history, low psychiatric comorbidity, mania-depression episode sequences, a moderate number of episodes, and a low number of hospitalizations in the pre-lithium period. Recently, it has been found that temperamental features of hypomania (a hyperthymic temperament) and a lack of cognitive disorganization predict the best results of lithium prophylaxis. Lithium exerts a neuroprotective effect, in which increased expression of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and inhibition of the glycogen synthase kinase-3 (GSK-3) play an important role. The response to lithium has been connected with the genotype of the BDNF gene and serum BDNF levels. A better response to lithium is connected with the Met allele of the BDNF Val/Met polymorphism, as is a hyperthymic temperament. Excellent lithium responders have normal cognitive functions and serum BDNF levels, even after long-term duration of the illness. The preservation of cognitive functions in long-term lithium-treated patients may be connected with the stimulation of the BDNF system, with the resulting prevention of affective episodes exerting deleterious cognitive effects, and possibly also with lithium's antiviral effects. A number of candidate genes that are related to neurotransmitters, intracellular signaling, neuroprotection, circadian rhythms, and other pathogenic mechanisms of bipolar disorder were found to be associated with the lithium prophylactic response. The Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen) has recently performed the first genome-wide association study on the lithium response in bipolar disorder.

Response to lithium in bipolar disorder: clinical and genetic findings

The use of lithium is a cornerstone for preventing recurrences in bipolar disorder (BD). The response of patients with bipolar disorder to lithium has different levels of magnitude. About one-third of lithium-treated patients are excellent lithium responders (ELR), showing total prevention of the episodes. A number of clinical characteristics were delineated in patients with favorable response to lithium as regards to clinical course, family history of mood disorders, and psychiatric comorbidity. We have also demonstrated that temperamental features of hypomania (a hyperthymic temperament) and a lack of cognitive disorganization predict the best results of lithium prophylaxis. A degree of prevention against manic and depressive episodes has been regarded as an endophenotype for pharmacogenetic studies. The majority of data have been gathered from so-called "candidate" gene studies. The candidates were selected on the basis of neurobiology of bipolar disorder and mechanisms of lithium action including, among others, neurotransmission, intracellular signaling, neuroprotection or circadian rhythms. We demonstrated that response to lithium has been connected with the genotype of BDNF gene and serum BDNF levels and have shown that ELR have normal cognitive functions and serum BDNF levels, even after long-term duration of the illness. A number of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of BD have been also performed in recent years, some of which also focused on lithium response. The Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen) has established the large sample for performing the genome-wide association study (GWAS) of lithium response in BD, and the first results have already been published.

The effectiveness of restarted lithium treatment after discontinuation: reviewing the evidence for discontinuation-induced refractoriness

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine whether the risk of relapse in patients with bipolar disorder is higher after discontinuation and restart of lithium treatment as compared to continuous lithium treatment in these same patients.

METHODS

We conducted literature searches in the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycINFO databases with cross-reference checks. Relevant data were extracted and pooled for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Five relevant studies were included for review, of which three studies qualified for the meta-analysis and included a total of 212 analyzed cases. Two studies found lithium to be less effective after discontinuation and reintroduction and three studies found no decreased effectiveness. The pooled odds ratio for the occurrence of one or more relapses after interruption of lithium treatment compared to continuous treatment was 1.40 (95% confidence interval: 0.85-2.31; p = 0.19).

CONCLUSIONS

Although studies are scarce, review and meta-analysis of the available literature does not provide convincing evidence that lithium is less effective when treatment is discontinued and restarted, compared to uninterrupted treatment.