The Medication Recommendation Tracking Form: a novel tool for tracking changes in prescribed medication, clinical decision making, and use in comparative effectiveness research

Assessing depression recurrence, cognitive burden, and neurobiological homeostasis in late life: Design and rationale of the REMBRANDT Study

Background

Late-life depression is characterized by disability, cognitive impairment and decline, and a high risk of recurrence following remission. Aside from past psychiatric history, prognostic neurobiological and clinical factors influencing recurrence risk are unclear. Moreover, it is unclear if cognitive impairment predisposes to recurrence, or whether recurrent episodes may accelerate brain aging and cognitive decline. The purpose of the REMBRANDT study (Recurrence markers, cognitive burden, and neurobiological homeostasis in late-life depression) is to better elucidate these relationships and identify phenotypic, cognitive, environmental, and neurobiological factors contributing to and predictive of depression recurrence.

Methods

Across three sites, REMBRANDT will enroll 300 depressed elders who will receive antidepressant treatment. The goal is to enroll 210 remitted depressed participants and 75 participants with no mental health history into a two-year longitudinal phase focusing on depression recurrence. Participants are evaluated every 2 months with deeper assessments occurring every 8 months, including structural and functional neuroimaging, environmental stress assessments, deep symptom phenotyping, and two weeks of 'burst' ecological momentary assessments to elucidate variability in symptoms and cognitive performance. A broad neuropsychological test battery is completed at the beginning and end of the longitudinal study.

Significance

REMBRANDT will improve our understanding of how alterations in neural circuits and cognition that persist during remission contribute to depression recurrence vulnerability. It will also elucidate how these processes may contribute to cognitive impairment and decline. This project will obtain deep phenotypic data that will help identify vulnerability and resilience factors that can help stratify individual clinical risk.

A New Treatment Program: Focused Integrated Team-based Treatment Program for Bipolar Disorder (FITT-BD)

OBJECTIVE

Bipolar disorder (BD) is complicated by a dynamic, chronic course along with multiple comorbid psychiatric and medical conditions, making it challenging for clinicians to treat and patients to thrive. To efficiently manage the complexity of BD and help patients recover, we developed a Focused Integrated Team-based Treatment Program for Bipolar Disorder (FITT-BD). The purpose of this paper is to describe how we developed this clinic and the lessons we learned.

METHODS

We developed FITT-BD by integrating strategies from stepped care, collaborative care, and learning health care systems. We describe the rationale, details, and lessons learned in developing FITT-BD.

RESULTS

By integrating stepped care, collaborative care, and a learning health care system approach, FITT-BD aims to reduce barriers to care, leverage the expertise of a multidisciplinary treatment team, ensure patient-centeredness, and use assessments to inform and continuously improve outcomes in real time. We learned that there are challenges in the creation of a web-based application that tracks the treatment of patients within a network of hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

The success of FITT-BD will be determined by the degree to which it can increase treatment access, improve treatment adherence, and help individuals with BD achieve their treatment goals. We expect that FITT-BD will improve outcomes in the context of ongoing clinical care.

PUBLIC HEALTH SIGNIFICANCE

The treatment of BD is challenging and complex. We propose a new treatment model for BD: FITT-BD. We expect that this program will be a patient-centered approach that improves outcomes in the context of ongoing clinical care for patients with BD.

Lithium plus antipsychotics or anticonvulsants for bipolar disorder: Comparing clinical response and metabolic changes

OBJECTIVE

Patients with bipolar disorder treated with lithium often require additional antipsychotics or anticonvulsants. However, the comparative effectiveness and safety of these agents as add-on to lithium has not been studied.

METHODS

This secondary analysis combined two similar 24-week trials on outpatients with bipolar disorder randomized to lithium (target serum level 0.4-0.6 mEq/L). Guideline-based adjunctive antipsychotics (Li+AP) and anticonvulsants (Li+AC) could be used if clinically indicated and was assessed at every study visit. Response was measured on the Clinical Global Impression scale and we performed adjusted mixed effects linear regression analyses. Analysis of variance tests compared metabolic measures including a binary diagnosis of metabolic syndrome before and after 24 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Among 379 outpatients (57% female, mean age 38 years, mean Clinical Global Impression 4.4), users of Li+AP (N = 50, primarily quetiapine and aripiprazole) improved to a similar degree (mean Clinical Global Impression improvement = 1.6, standard deviation = 1.5) as those using lithium-only (i.e. without adjunctive antipsychotics or anticonvulsants, N = 149, mean Clinical Global Impression improvement = 1.7, standard deviation = 1.4) (p = 0.59). Users of Li+AC (N = 107, primarily lamotrigine and valproate, mean Clinical Global Impression improvement = 1.2, standard deviation = 1.3) and users of Li+AP+AC (N = 73, mean Clinical Global Impression improvement = 1.1, standard deviation = 1.3) showed worse response compared to lithium-only users (all p < 0.01). When comparing Li+AP to Li+AC, users of Li+AP improved slightly better on general (p = 0.05) and manic symptoms (p = 0.01), but showed a worse development of glucose, triglycerides, and metabolic syndrome.

CONCLUSION

Despite treatment-by-indication confounding, these findings are relevant for real-world treatment settings and emphasize the need for randomized trials on this clinically important topic.

Procedure for Organizing a Post-FDA-approval Evaluation of Antidepressants

Purpose: The study reports the construction of a cohort used to study the effectiveness of antidepressants.

Methods: The cohort includes experiences of 3,678,082 patients with depression in the United States on antidepressants between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2018. A total of 10,221,145 antidepressant treatment episodes were analyzed. Patients who had no utilization of health services for at least two years, or who had died, were excluded from the analysis. Follow-up was passive, automatic, and collated from fragmented clinical services of diverse providers.

Results: The average follow-up was 2.93 years, resulting in 15,096,055 person-years of data. The mean age of the cohort was 46.54 years (standard deviation of 17.48) at first prescription of antidepressant, which was also the enrollment event (16.92% were over 65 years), and most were female (69.36%). In 10,221,145 episodes, within the first 100 days of start of the episode, 4,729,372 (46.3%) continued their treatment, 1,306,338 (12.8%) switched to another medication, 3,586,156 (35.1%) discontinued their medication, and 599,279 (5.9%) augmented their treatment.

Conclusions: We present a procedure for constructing a cohort using claims data. A surrogate measure for self-reported symptom remission based on the patterns of use of antidepressants has been proposed to address the absence of outcomes in claims. Future studies can use the procedures described here to organize studies of the comparative effectiveness of antidepressants.

Effectiveness of common antidepressants: a post market release study

BACKGROUND

This study summarizes the experiences of patients, who have multiple comorbidities, with 15 mono-treated antidepressants.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational, matched case control study. The cohort was organized using claims data available through OptumLabs for depressed patients treated with antidepressants between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2018. The cohort included patients from all states within United States of America. The analysis focused on 3,678,082 patients with major depression who had 10,221,145 antidepressant treatments. Using the robust, and large predictors of remission, and propensity to prescribe an antidepressant, the study created 16,770 subgroups of patients. The study reports the remission rate for the antidepressants within the subgroups. The overall impact of antidepressant on remission was calculated as the common odds ratio across the strata.

FINDINGS

The study accurately modelled clinicians' prescription patterns (cross-validated Area under the Receiver Operating Curve, AROC, of 82.0%, varied from 77% to 90%) and patients' remission (cross-validated AROC of 72.0%, varied from 69.5% to 78%). In different strata, contrary to published randomized studies, remission rates differed significantly and antidepressants were not equally effective. For example, in age and gender subgroups, the best antidepressant had an average remission rate of 50.78%, 1.5 times higher than the average antidepressant (30.30% remission rate) and 20 times higher than the worst antidepressant. The Breslow-Day chi-square test for homogeneity showed that across strata a homogenous common odds-ratio did not exist (alpha<0.0001). Therefore, the choice of the optimal antidepressant depended on the strata defined by the patient's medical history.

INTERPRETATION

Study findings may not be appropriate for specific patients. To help clinicians assess the transferability of study findings to specific patient, the web site http://hi.gmu.edu/ad assesses the patient's medical history, finds similar cases in our data, and recommends an antidepressant based on the experience of remission in our data. Patients can share this site's recommendations with their clinicians, who can then assess the appropriateness of the recommendations.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson foundation grant #76786. The development of related web site was supported by grant 247-02-20 from Virginia's Commonwealth Health Research Board.

Response and remission rates during 24 weeks of mood-stabilizing treatment for bipolar depression depending on early non-response

BACKGROUND

We aimed to study the probability of bipolar depression response at 24 weeks given initial non-response.

METHODS

We combined two multi-site, 24-week trials including similar populations following the same evidence-based guidelines randomizing patients to lithium or quetiapine. Additional mood-stabilizing treatment was possible if clinically indicated. We report cumulative proportions of response (>50% improvement in MADRS) and remission (MADRS<10).

RESULTS

We included 592 participants with bipolar depression (mean 39 years, 59% female, mean MADRS 25). Among 393 (66%) participants without response after 2 weeks, 46% responded by 24 weeks; for 291 (49%) without response at 4 weeks, 40% responded and 33% remitted by 24 weeks; for 222 (38%) without a response at 6 weeks, 36% responded and 29% remitted by 24 weeks; for 185 (31%) without a response at 8 weeks, 29% responded and 24% remitted by 24 weeks. Rates were similar for participants who had started an additional mood-stabilizing drug during the first 6 or 8 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with bipolar depression and non-response after 6 weeks treatment, representing an adequate bipolar depression trial, only one-third responded by 24 weeks. These results highlight the need for better treatment alternatives for non-responders to evidence-based treatments for bipolar depression.

Adjunctive antidepressant treatment among 763 outpatients with bipolar disorder: Findings from the Bipolar CHOICE and LiTMUS trials

BACKGROUND

Adjunctive antidepressants are frequently used for bipolar depression but their clinical efficacy has been studied in few trials and little is known about how co-occurring manic symptoms affect treatment response.

METHODS

Bipolar Clinical Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness (N = 482) and Lithium Treatment Moderate-Dose Use Study (N = 281) were similar comparative effectiveness trials on outpatients with bipolar disorder comparing four different randomized treatment arms with adjunctive personalized guideline-based treatment for 24 weeks. Adjunctive antidepressant treatment could be used if clinically indicated and was assessed at every study visit. Adjusted mixed effects linear regression analyses compared users of antidepressants to nonusers overall and in different subcohorts.

RESULTS

Of the 763 patients, 282 (37.0%) used antidepressant drugs during the study. Antidepressant users had less improvement compared to nonusers on the Clinical Global Impression Scale for Bipolar Disorder and on measures of depression. This was particularly true among patients with co-occurring manic symptoms. Exclusion of individuals begun on antidepressants late in the study (potentially due to overall worse response) resulted in no differences between users and nonusers. We found no differences in treatment effects on mania scales.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large cohort of outpatients with bipolar disorder, clinically indicated and guideline-based adjunctive antidepressant treatment was not associated with lower depressive symptoms or higher mania symptoms. The treatment-by-indication confounding due to the nonrandomized design of the trials complicates causal interpretations, but no analyses indicated better treatment effects of adjunctive antidepressants.

Complex polypharmacy in bipolar disorder: Side effect burden, adherence, and response predictors

BACKGROUND

Complex polypharmacy (CP) is common in bipolar disorder (BD). We assessed the associations between CP, adherence, and side effect burden, and patient traits associated with clinical improvement in relationship to CP.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of 482 adult BD participants in the Bipolar CHOICE trial. We examined the associations between CP (use of ≥3 BD medications) and non-adherence (missing >30% of BD medication doses in the last 30 days) and side effect burden (Frequency, Intensity and Burden of Side Effects Rating scale) using multivariate models with patient random effects. We used logistic regression to assess the patient traits associated with remission among those with majority CP use (Clinical Global Impression-Severity for BD score ≤2 for 8+ weeks).

RESULTS

43% of patients had any CP and 25% had CP for the majority of the study. CP was associated with non-adherence (OR = 2.51, 95% CI [1.81, 3.50]), but not worse side effect burden. Among those with CP, 16% achieved remission; those with non-adherence, comorbid social or generalized anxiety disorder, or BD I vs. II were less likely to achieve remission among those with CP.

LIMITATIONS

There could be unmeasured confounding between use of CP and side effect burden or adherence. Adherence was measured by self-report, which could be subject to reporting error.

CONCLUSIONS

BD patients with CP were less likely to adhere to therapy, and those with worse adherence to CP were less likely to clinically respond. Clinicians should assess medication adherence prior to adding another agent to medication regimens.

Prevalence and predictors of physician recommendations for medication adjustment in bipolar disorder treatment

BACKGROUND

Successful medication management for bipolar disorder requires clinicians to monitor and adjust regimens as needed, to achieve maximum effectiveness and patient adherence. This study aims to measure the prevalence of indications for medication adjustment at visits for bipolar disorder treatment; the frequency with which physicians recommend medication adjustments; and how strongly the indications predict the adjustments.

METHODS

Data included 3,094 visits for 457 patients in Bipolar CHOICE, a comparative effectiveness study that compared treatment with lithium versus quetiapine. A set of indications for adjustment was matched to reports of whether the physician recommended a medication adjustment at that visit, and what type. Associations between indication and adjustment were examined using bivariate tests and hierarchical logistic mixed effects models.

RESULTS

Medication adjustment was recommended at 63% of the visits where one of the indications was present, and at 53% of all visits. In multivariable analyses, adjustment was more likely to be recommended if there was an indication of non-response or side effects, for patients who started on quetiapine rather than lithium, or for patients who were female, married, employed or more educated.

LIMITATIONS

The study's cross-sectional design implies that observed associations could result from confounding variables. Also, the CHOICE trial placed certain restrictions on physicians' medication choices, although this is not likely to have resulted in major alterations of prescribing patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical inertia may help explain the lack of any adjustment recommendation at 37% of the visits where one of the indications was present. Other explanations could also apply, such as watchful waiting.

Sleep disturbance may impact treatment outcome in bipolar disorder: A preliminary investigation in the context of a large comparative effectiveness trial

BACKGROUND

Bipolar patients experience sleep disturbances during and between mood episodes. Yet the impact of sleep on treatment with different medications has not been fully explored. The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential impact of poor sleep at baseline on outcomes in a randomized effectiveness trial of quetiapine and lithium.

METHODS

The Bipolar CHOICE study was a 6-month, parallel group, multisite randomized controlled trial. Participants with bipolar disorder (N = 482; 59% female and age 18-70 years) received quetiapine or lithium. Patients were allowed to also receive adjunctive personalized treatments, which were guideline-informed, empirically-based medications added to treatment as needed. Medication changes were recorded as necessary clinical adjustments (NCA). Fisher's exact tests, mixed-regression models, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess demographic and clinical characteristics as well as whether sleep disturbance would predict outcomes.

RESULTS

63% of patients had baseline sleep disturbance. Individuals with sleep disturbance had worse bipolar illness severity, greater severity of depression, mania, anxiety, irritability, and psychosis, were less likely to have sustained response (17% vs. 29%; adjusted RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.38-0.78, p = 0.0006) and had more NCAs (median 0.71 vs. 0.59, p = 0.03).

LIMITATIONS

Our findings were limited by how we defined sleep disturbance, and by how severity of sleep disturbance was assessed with one item with a non-sleep specific measure.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline sleep disturbance was associated with more severe bipolar symptoms and worse 6-month outcomes. Further research is warranted on improving sleep in bipolar disorder, especially the role of psychosocial interventions.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and paracetamol do not affect 6-month mood-stabilizing treatment outcome among 482 patients with bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND

Many mood disorder patients need analgesics due to increased pain sensitivity. Recent studies have suggested that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may inhibit antidepressant treatment, which requires replication before clinical recommendations.

METHODS

The Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiatives in Comparative Effectiveness for Bipolar Disorder Study randomized participants to 6 months lithium or quetiapine treatment. Use of NSAIDs and paracetamol was assessed throughout the study period and psychopathology measured with the Clinical Global Impression Scale for Bipolar Disorder (CGI-BP) and Bipolar Inventory of Symptoms Scale (BISS). The effects of NSAIDs and paracetamol on treatment outcome were examined using mixed effects linear regression adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, smoking status, exercise, and somatic diseases.

RESULTS

Among 482 participants, 177 (36.7%) used NSAIDs and/or paracetamol during the study. NSAID and paracetamol users did not differ from nonusers with respect to treatment outcome with lithium or quetiapine at any time point during 6 months treatment on the overall CGI-BP (β = 0.001 (95% CI = -0.01 to -0.01), P = .87), the BISS (β = 0.01 (95% CI = -0.17 to 0.15), P = .91), nor the CGI-BP subscales for depression or mania. Users of NSAIDs only (n = 76), paracetamol only (n = 62), and users of both NSAIDs and paracetamol (n = 39) showed no statistical difference compared to nonusers (all P > .3).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first trial to show that use of NSAIDs and paracetamol, alone or in combination, does not affect lithium- or quetiapine-based bipolar disorder mood-stabilizing treatment outcomes. Prior studies have suggested that NSAIDs may inhibit antidepressant treatment, whereas our results support findings indicating no detrimental effects of NSAIDs or paracetamol on affective disorder treatment.

Tracking medication changes to assess outcomes in comparative effectiveness research: A bipolar CHOICE study

BACKGROUND

Comparative effectiveness research uses multiple tools, but lacks outcome measures to assess large electronic medical records and claims data. Aggregate changes in medications in response to clinical need may serve as a surrogate outcome measure. We developed the Medication Recommendation Tracking Form (MRTF) to record the frequency, types, and reasons for medication adjustments in order to calculate Necessary Clinical Adjustments (NCAs), medication adjustments to reduce symptoms, maximize treatment response, or address problematic side effects.

METHODS

The MRTF was completed at every visit for 482 adult patients in Bipolar CHOICE, a 6-month randomized comparative effectiveness trial.

RESULTS

Responders had significantly fewer NCAs compared to non-responders. NCAs predicted subsequent response status such that every additional NCA during the previous visit decreased a patient's odds of response by approximately 30%. Patients with more severe symptoms had a greater number of NCAs at the subsequent visit. Patients with a comorbid anxiety disorder demonstrated a significantly higher rate of NCAs per month than those without a comorbid anxiety disorder. Patients with greater frequency, intensity, and interference of side effects had higher rates of NCAs. Participants with fewer NCAs reported a higher quality of life and decreased functional impairment.

LIMITATIONS

The MRTF has not been examined in community clinic settings and did not predict response more efficiently than the Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar Version (CGI-BP).

CONCLUSIONS

The MRTF is a feasible proxy of clinical outcome, with implications for clinical training and decision-making. Analyses of big data could use changes in medications as a surrogate outcome measure.

Psychotherapy use in bipolar disorder: Association with functioning and illness severity

OBJECTIVE

This study examines characteristics of individuals with bipolar disorder who sought psychotherapy versus those who did not.

METHODS

Bipolar CHOICE was an 11-site comparative effectiveness study of lithium versus quetiapine in symptomatic outpatients (N = 482) with bipolar disorder. At baseline, participants' psychotherapy use within the past 3 months, mood, functioning, and overall health were assessed. Logistic regressions were used to test whether psychotherapy users and non-users differed on various demographic and clinical variables at baseline. Mixed-effects regression was used to determine whether psychotherapy groups differed on response to treatment over the 6-month study. Kaplan-Meier plots and log-rank tests were employed to test whether there were any differences in time to recovery (CGI-BP ≤ 2 for at least 8 weeks) between the groups.

RESULTS

Thirty one percent of participants reported using psychotherapy services. Psychotherapy users reported greater medication side effect burden than non-users and were more likely to have moderate to high suicide risk and at least one anxiety disorder. Participants not utilizing medications or psychotherapy had greater mania symptom severity, were younger, and less educated than medication only users. Medication only users were more likely to be married than the other participants.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that a minority of individuals with bipolar disorder attend psychotherapy services, and those that do have greater illness burden.