An Open Trial of Lurasidone as an Acute and Maintenance Adjunctive Treatment for Outpatients With Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Disorder

Longer-Term Effectiveness and Tolerability of Adjunctive Open Lurasidone in Patients With Bipolar Disorder

PURPOSE

To retrospectively assess lurasidone effectiveness/efficacy/tolerability in bipolar disorder (BD) patients.

METHODS

Outpatients assessed with Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for BD Affective Disorders Evaluation received naturalistically administered (primarily adjunctive) open lurasidone while monitored at visits with the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for BD Clinical Monitoring Form.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients (32 type I, 26 type II, 3 type not otherwise specified; mean ± SD age, 45.1 ± 14.0 years; 63.9% were female) received lurasidone with 3.1 ± 1.4 (≥2 in 88.5%, monotherapy in only 3.3%) other nonanxiolytic/hypnotic prescription psychotropics, started during syndromal depression in 57.4%, subsyndromal depression in 23.0%, and euthymia in 19.7%. Lurasidone was taken for median 126 days, with final dose 55.6 ± 30.8 mg/d. By final visit taking lurasidone, syndromal depression rate decreased by nearly one-half to 31.1%, and euthymia rate more than doubled to 42.6%, whereas subsyndromal depression rate was unchanged at 23.0%. Clinical Global Impressions-BD-Overall Severity improved significantly only in patients with baseline syndromal depression. Seventy-seven percent of patients discontinued lurasidone after median 103 days, because of adverse events in 54.1% (most often akathisia, sedation/somnolence, nausea, and weight gain), inefficacy in 16.4%, and other reasons in 6.6%; 12.1% had equal to or greater than 7% weight gain, and 3.3% developed hypomania. Limitations to this study were the open design and demographically homogeneous (relatively affluent, predominantly white female) small sample taking complex pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In American specialty clinic BD outpatients, adjunctive longer-term lurasidone commonly relieved syndromal depression and maintained euthymia, suggesting possible effectiveness/efficacy. However, lurasidone was discontinued in 54.1% because of adverse events, suggesting tolerability limitations in these challenging patients, nearly 90% of whom were already taking at least 2 other nonanxiolytic/hypnotic prescription psychotropics.

The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) Guidelines for the Biological Treatment of Bipolar Disorders: Acute and long-term treatment of mixed states in bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVES

Although clinically highly relevant, the recognition and treatment of bipolar mixed states has played only an underpart in recent guidelines. This WFSBP guideline has been developed to supply a systematic overview of all scientific evidence pertaining to the acute and long-term treatment of bipolar mixed states in adults.

METHODS

Material used for these guidelines is based on a systematic literature search using various data bases. Their scientific rigour was categorised into six levels of evidence (A-F), and different grades of recommendation to ensure practicability were assigned. We examined data pertaining to the acute treatment of manic and depressive symptoms in bipolar mixed patients, as well as data pertaining to the prevention of mixed recurrences after an index episode of any type, or recurrence of any type after a mixed index episode.

RESULTS

Manic symptoms in bipolar mixed states appeared responsive to treatment with several atypical antipsychotics, the best evidence resting with olanzapine. For depressive symptoms, addition of ziprasidone to treatment as usual may be beneficial; however, the evidence base is much more limited than for the treatment of manic symptoms. Besides olanzapine and quetiapine, valproate and lithium should also be considered for recurrence prevention.

LIMITATIONS

The concept of mixed states changed over time, and recently became much more comprehensive with the release of DSM-5. As a consequence, studies in bipolar mixed patients targeted slightly different bipolar subpopulations. In addition, trial designs in acute and maintenance treatment also advanced in recent years in response to regulatory demands.

CONCLUSIONS

Current treatment recommendations are still based on limited evidence, and there is a clear demand for confirmative studies adopting the DSM-5 specifier with mixed features concept.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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