Comparative efficacy and acceptability of drug treatments for bipolar depression: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis

Efficacy of life goals collaborative care for bipolar disorder: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder remains a disabling mental health condition despite the availability of effective treatments. Collaborative chronic care models (CCMs) represent an evidence-based way to structure care for conditions like bipolar disorder. Life Goals Collaborative Care (LGCC) was designed specifically for bipolar disorder, featuring psychoeducation alongside collaborative components (e.g. nurse care management or expert psychiatric consultation). Despite the use of Life Goals across health systems, a systematic review summarizing its effectiveness has never been conducted.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of LGCC through December 2023 to help guide the field in treating bipolar disorder (PROSPERO: #404581). We evaluated study quality and outcomes in several symptom and quality of life domains.

RESULTS

Ten articles describing eight studies met inclusion criteria. All studies featured group-based LGCC; most were compared to treatment as usual (TAU). Three of eight studies found LGCC to be associated with statistically significant effects for the prevention of manic episodes. Most studies finding positive effects featured additional collaborative care components beyond psychoeducation and were conducted in capitated healthcare systems.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations include: several types of potential bias in included studies; exclusion of observational studies of LGCC; lack of generalizability to pediatric populations; insufficient studies to conduct subgroup analyses; and low confidence in the quality of the evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, group-based LGCC demonstrated some positive effects for reducing mania recurrence; results for other outcome domains were equivocal. Future studies should investigate one-on-one LGCC, both in person and virtually, to enhance well-being for people with bipolar disorder.

Real-world retrospective study of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) treatment for bipolar and unipolar depression using TMS registry data in Tokyo

Despite the prevalence of empirical practice, evidence supporting the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in treating bipolar depression (BD) is sparse compared to that for unipolar depression. Therefore, this study aimed to conduct a retrospective observational analysis using TMS registry data to compare the efficacy of rTMS treatment for BD and unipolar depression. Data from 20 patients diagnosed with unipolar and BD were retrospectively extracted from the TMS registry to ensure age and sex matching. The primary outcomes of this registry study were measured using the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D21) and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Analysis did not reveal significant differences between the two groups in terms of depression severity, motor threshold, or stimulus intensity at baseline. Similarly, no significant differences were observed in absolute or relative changes in the total HAM-D21 and MADRS scores. Furthermore, the response and remission rates following rTMS treatment did not differ significantly between groups. The only adverse event reported in this study was scalp pain at the stimulation site; however, the incidence and severity were not significantly different between the groups. In conclusion, this retrospective study, using real-world TMS registry data, suggests that rTMS treatment for BD could be as effective as that for unipolar depression. These findings underscore the need for further validation in prospective randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes.

Disease progression to bipolar disorder among adolescents and young adults with antidepressant-resistant and antidepressant-responsive depression: Does antidepressant class matter?

Studies have demonstrated a positive relationship between antidepressant resistance and the progression of bipolar disorder. However, the influence of antidepressant classes such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) in this context has yet to be investigated. A total of 5,285 adolescents and young adults with antidepressant-resistant depression and 21,140 with antidepressant-responsive depression were recruited in the present study. The antidepressant-resistant depression group was divided into two subgroups: only resistant to SSRIs (n = 2,242, 42.4%) and additionally resistant to non-SSRIs (n = 3,043, 57.6%) groups. The status of bipolar disorder progression was monitored from the date of depression diagnosis to the end of 2011. Patients with antidepressant-resistant depression were more likely to develop bipolar disorder during the follow-up (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.67-3.09) than those with antidepressant-responsive depression. Furthermore, the group that was additionally resistant to non-SSRIs were at the highest risk of bipolar disorder (HR: 3.02, 95% CI: 2.76-3.29), followed by the group that was only resistant to SSRIs (2.70, 2.44-2.98). Adolescents and young adults with antidepressant-resistant depression, especially those who responded poorly to both SSRIs and SNRIs, were at increased risk of subsequent bipolar disorder compared with those with antidepressant-responsive depression. Further studies are warranted to elucidate the molecular pathomechanisms underlying the resistance to SSRIs and SNRIs and subsequent bipolar disorder.

All studies are not created equal: A systematic narrative review of bipolar depression clinical trial inclusion/exclusion rules and baseline severity scores

BACKGROUND

Several bipolar depression treatment guidelines have been designed to assist clinicians with medication selection. When ranking medications, none explicitly considered the inclusion/exclusion criteria or baseline severity scores of the reviewed clinical trials. This article aimed to determine if sufficient differences exist in these variables to justify their consideration when designing treatment guidelines.

METHODS

Using Ovid and PubMed databases in May and September 2022, all published, short-term cross-over or parallel-group design studies comparing second generation antipsychotics (SGAs), mood stabilizers, or antidepressants versus placebo in bipolar depressed patients were identified. Included studies must have enrolled adult bipolar I/II depressed patients, randomized patients into two or more treatment groups, utilized a double-blind, prospective design written in English, and had primary outcome results that were statistically significant in favor of the investigational treatment.

RESULTS

Thirty studies met eligibility criteria, comprising a total of 8791 patients. Among those studies, there were seventeen antipsychotic trials, six lithium trials, one lamotrigine trial, three valproate trials, two carbamazepine trials, and two antidepressant trials. The analysis revealed substantial differences among the studies. Although this was seen among all the different drug classes, these differences are clearest when comparing the lithium trials to those of the SGAs.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations included the selection of severity scores from the treatment arm with the most severe score and the exclusive focus on mood stabilizers, antidepressants, and SGAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Severity of the enrolled patient sample and treatment-resistance should be considered in addition to other factors when ranking medications in bipolar depression treatment guidelines.

Comparative efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of adjunctive anti-inflammatory agents on bipolar disorder: A systemic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) with up-to-date evidence to compare different anti-inflammatory agents to improve the treatment of bipolar disorder (BD) patients.

METHODS

Four databases (i.e., the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1995 and 2022 on the use of anti-inflammatory agents in the treatment of BD. A systematic review and NMA were conducted.

RESULTS

Adjunctive N-acetylcysteine (NAC) was superior to placebo for the treatment of BD according to the endpoint scale score (SMD -0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): - 0.99 to - 0.31), response rate (odds ratio (OR) 3.42, 95% CI: 1.23-9.52), remission rate (OR 4.94, 95% CI: 1.03-41.38) and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value of the endpoint scale score (0.84). Adjunctive nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were more favorable than placebo based on the remission rate (OR 3.93, 95% CI: 1.15-13.43) and were significantly more acceptable than other treatments (OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.36-0.99). Adjunctive coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) was superior to other agents in terms of the response rate (OR 18.85, 95% CI: 2.63-135.00), with a SUCRA value for the response rate of 0.90 and that for the remission rate of 0.71.

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive NAC is recommended for the treatment of BD. Adjunctive NSAIDs and CoQ10 are still seen as effective, but more high-quality clinical studies are needed to verify their efficacy. Other anti-inflammatory agents may not be recommended for clinical use at present. All anti-inflammatory agents demonstrated a good safety profile. We call for further research on the combined treatment of BD with different anti-inflammatory agents to be included in future trials.

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.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of quetiapine and lithium for bipolar depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

Pharmacological treatments recommended for bipolar depression are inconsistent across guidelines. We compared the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics and mood stabilizers for bipolar depression.

METHODS

A systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing antipsychotics and mood stabilizers for bipolar depression was conducted based on a literature search of major electronic databases.

RESULTS

Three studies comparing quetiapine with lithium were identified and analyzed; no other antipsychotic-mood stabilizer combinations were found. The meta-analysis revealed no significant differences between quetiapine and lithium for the following outcomes: (1) remission from depressive episodes (risk ratio [RR]: 1.80, 95% CI: 0.51-6.40, P = 0.36), (2) changes in depressive symptom (standardized mean difference: -0.22, 95% CI: -0.52-0.08, P = 0.15), (3) changes in social function (standardized mean difference: -0.00, 95% CI: -0.19-0.18, P = 0.98), (4) suicide-related events (odds ratio [OR]: 2.35, 95% CI: 0.40-13.65, P = 0.34), (5) severe adverse events (OR: 1.63, 95% CI: 0.51-5.20, P = 0.41), (6) dropouts due to adverse events (RR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.76-1.87, P = 0.45, 7) dropout for any reasons (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.74-1.22, P = 0.70).

CONCLUSION

Although this study found no differences in the efficacy and safety of quetiapine and lithium for bipolar depression, a comprehensive comparison of antipsychotics and mood stabilizers was not performed. Further studies are needed to clarify which of these, not just quetiapine and lithium, is more useful for bipolar depression.

Lithium in the treatment of acute bipolar depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate lithium in the treatment of acute bipolar depression.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review for: 1) cross-over or parallel-group design studies comparing lithium response in bipolar versus unipolar depressed patients, and 2) parallel group studies of bipolar depressed patients comparing lithium versus placebo or other psychotropics. Meta-analyses using response rate as the primary outcome were conducted to evaluate lithium's efficacy.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 947 records. Ultimately, 17 studies were included, totaling 1545 patients, including 676 who received lithium. The overall summary effects reveal that there were no statistically significant differences between lithium versus antidepressants or placebo, however, lithium performed numerically worse than antidepressants (RR = 0.61; 95%CI, 0.37-1.02; p = 0.06) but better than placebo (RR = 1.18; 95%CI, 0.99-1.41; p = 0.07). The specificity of lithium for bipolar versus unipolar depression was not supported in the primary analysis of all trials, though an analysis limited to double-blinded, monotherapy, cross-over studies revealed a statistically significant result supporting lithium's efficacy for those with bipolar depression.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations include study selection rules, the use of response rates rather than remission rates or continuous score outcomes, and the small number of studies included in each meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

These meta-analyses do not support lithium as a first-line treatment for acute bipolar depression. However, the bipolar vs. unipolar sensitivity analysis and the modest, though non-significant advantage over placebo suggest lithium may still be a viable treatment option. Larger and more rigorously-designed studies are needed to determine lithium's full range of efficacy relative to placebo and other psychotropics.

Treatment Patterns Among Patients with Bipolar Disorder in the United States: A Retrospective Claims Database Analysis

Introduction

Bipolar disorder is a chronic and complex disorder that can be difficult to treat. The objective of this retrospective study was to describe treatment patterns among patients with bipolar disorder.

Methods

Adults newly diagnosed with bipolar disorder from 2016 to 2018 were identified using the IBM^® MarketScan^® Commercial claims database. Patients were enrolled for at least 12 months prior to and 6 months after initial diagnosis. Lines of therapy (LOTs) were continuous treatment periods based on filled prescriptions; medications, such as antidepressants, mood stabilizers, atypical antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, stimulants, and off-label prescriptions, were recorded. All data were analyzed descriptively.

Results

A total of 40,345 patients met criteria. The most common initial episode types were bipolar II (38.1%), and bipolar I depression (29.8%), mania (12.8%), and mixed features (12.0%). Among all episode types, approximately 90% of patients received treatment (LOT1) and approximately 80% of these patients received at least one additional LOT. Across all episode types, the most common medication classes in LOT1 (n = 36,587) were mood stabilizers (43.8%), antidepressants (42.3%; 12.9% as monotherapy), atypical antipsychotics (31.7%), and benzodiazepines (20.7%); with subsequent LOTs, antidepressant (51.4–53.8%) and benzodiazepine (26.9–27.4%) usage increased. Also in LOT1, there were 2067 different regimens. Treatment patterns were generally similar across episode type.

Conclusions

Antidepressants and benzodiazepines were frequently prescribed to treat bipolar disorder despite guidelines recommending against use as frontline therapy. These results highlight the considerable heterogeneity in care and suggest that many clinicians treating bipolar disorder are not using evidence-based prescribing practices.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02112-6.

Efficacy and acceptability of next step treatment strategies in adults with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder: protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

For major depression, a one-size-fits-all treatment does not exist. Patients enter a 'trial-and-change' algorithm in which effective therapies are subsequently applied. Unfortunately, an empirically based order of treatments has not yet been determined. There is a magnitude of different treatment strategies while clinical trials only compare a small number of these. Network meta-analyses (NMA) might offer a solution, but so far have been limited in scope and did not account for possible differences in population characteristics that arise with increasing levels of treatment-resistance, potentially violating the transitivity assumption. We; therefore, present a protocol for a systematic review and NMA aiming at summarising and ranking treatments for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) while covering a broad range of therapeutic options and accounting for possible differences in population characteristics at increasing levels of treatment-resistance.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Randomised controlled trials will be included that compared next-step pharmacological, neuromodulation or psychological treatments for treatment-resistant depression (TRD; ie, failure to respond to ≥1 adequate antidepressant drug trial(s) in the current episode) to each other or to a control condition. Primary outcomes will be the proportion of patients who responded to (efficacy) and dropped out of (acceptability) the allocated treatment. A random effects NMA will be conducted, synthesising the evidence for each outcome and determining the differential efficacy of treatments. Heterogeneity in treatment nodes will be reduced by considering alternative geometries of the network structure and by conducting a meta-regression examining different levels of TRD. Local and global methods will be applied to evaluate consistency. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework will be used to assess risk of bias and certainty.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review does not require ethical approval.

Distinct Effects of Antidepressants in Association With Mood Stabilizers and/or Antipsychotics in Unipolar and Bipolar Depression

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

There is a dearth of studies comparing the clinical outcomes of patients with treatment-resistant unipolar (TRD) depression and depression in bipolar disorder (BD) despite similar treatment strategies. We aimed to evaluate the effects of the pharmacological combinations (antidepressants [AD], mood stabilizers [MS], and/or antipsychotics [AP]) used for TRD and BD at the McGill University Health Center.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

We reviewed health records of 206 patients (76 TRD 130 BD) with TRD and BD treated with similar augmentation strategies including AD with MS (AD+MS) or AP (AD+AP) or combination (AD+AP+MS). Clinical outcomes were determined by comparing changes on the 17-time Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, and Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness at the beginning (T0) and after 3 months of an unchanged treatment (T3).

FINDINGS/RESULTS

Baseline HAMD-17 scores in TRD were higher than in BD (P < 0.001), but TRD patients had a greater improvement at end point (P = 0.003). Antidepressants with AP generated greater reductions in HAMD-17 in TRD compared with BD (P = 0.02). Importantly, in BD patients, the addition of AD compared with other treatment strategies failed to improve the outcome. The limitations of this study include possibly unrepresentative subjects from tertiary care settings, incomplete matching of BD and TRD subjects, nonrandomized treatment with unmatched agents, doses, and times, unknown treatment adherence, and nonblinded retrospective outcome assessments. Nevertheless, the findings may reflect real-world interactions of clinically selected pharmacotherapies.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

Combination of augmentation strategies such as AD+AP and/or MS showed a better clinical improvement in patients with TRD compared with BD suggesting a limited evidence for AD potentiation in BD.

Mitochondrial modulators in the treatment of bipolar depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Mitochondrial dysfunction has been implicated in the risk, pathophysiology, and progression of mood disorders, especially bipolar disorder (BD). Thus, the objective of this meta-analysis was to determine the overall antidepressant effect of mitochondrial modulators in the treatment of bipolar depression. Outcomes included improvement in depression scale scores, Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) and Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S) score. Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the antidepressant effect of diverse mitochondrial modulators were pooled to determine standard mean differences (SMDs) compared with placebo.13 RCTs were identified for qualitative review. The overall effect size of mitochondrial modulators on depressive symptoms was -0.48 (95% CI: -0.83 to -0.14, p = 0.007, I² = 75%), indicative of a statistically significant moderate antidepressant effect. In the subgroup analysis, NAC improved depressive symptoms compared with placebo (-0.88, 95% CI: -1.48 to -0.27, I² = 81%). In addition, there was no statistical difference between mitochondrial modulators and placebo in YMRS. Although mitochondrial modulators were superior to placebo in CGI-S score (-0.44, 95% CI: -0.83 to -0.06, I² = 71%), only EPA was superior to placebo in subgroup analysis. Overall, a moderate antidepressant effect was observed for mitochondrial modulators compared with placebo in the treatment of bipolar depression. The small number of studies, diversity of agents, and small sample sizes limited interpretation of the current analysis.

Is aripiprazole similar to quetiapine for treatment of bipolar depression? Results from meta-analysis of Chinese data

OBJECTIVE

To study the similarities and differences in the clinical efficacy of aripiprazole and quetiapine in Chinese patients with bipolar depression through meta-analysis. Additionally, to provide evidence of aripiprazole in treatment for bipolar depression.

METHODS

We searched Chinese literature related to the study of aripiprazole and quetiapine in treatment for bipolar depression, among which results such as comments, letters, reviews, and case reports were excluded. The clinical efficacy between aripiprazole and quetiapine was synthesized and discussed.

RESULT

A total of 1,546 subjects were included in 17 studies. The random effect model was used to review the data by RevMan 5.2. The results showed that there was no significant difference in the remission rate between patients treated with aripiprazole and quetiapine evidenced by the scale used to evaluate the patients being treated for bipolar depression (221/501 vs. 193/501, Z = 1.12, P = 0.26). But the results also showed that the remission rate of aripiprazole with lithium carbonate was significantly higher than quetiapine with lithium carbonate in the treatment of bipolar depression (111/232 vs. 69/232, Z = 3.92, P < 0.0001). The results showed that the effective rate of aripiprazole was similar to quetiapine (426/572 vs. 386/572, Z = 2.70, P = 0.007). Overall, there was no difference in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD) score between patients treated with aripiprazole and quetiapine (Z = 1.68, P = 0.09). The results also show that the drop-out rate of aripiprazole was similar to quetiapine in the treatment of patients with bipolar depression (Z = 1.80, P = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

As an atypical antipsychotic, aripiprazole may be similar to quetiapine for treating bipolar depression with similar drop-out and higher remission rates when combined with lithium carbonate. However, the results of this study need to be read with caution given the poor quality of collected/analyzed literature.

Can Quetiapine Prolong the Antidepressant Effect of Ketamine?: A 5-Year Follow-up Study

PURPOSE

Ketamine, a noncompetitive, high-affinity antagonist of the N-methyl-d-aspartate-type glutamate receptor, has a rapid effect in patients with treatment-resistant disorder, but many patients who respond to intravenous ketamine relapse within several days. The objective of this study was to examine the long-term outcome of patients' mood 5 years after ketamine treatment.

METHODS

Sixteen electroconvulsive therapy referrals received at least 1 intravenous ketamine treatment in addition to their stable antidepressant medications. Depression was evaluated using the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician-Rated, Hamilton Rating Scales for Depression, and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale. Anxiety was measured using the Hamilton Rating Scale.

RESULTS

Of 16 patients treated, 6 achieved complete remission, 3 partially responded, and 7 did not respond. At baseline, all patients were treated with antidepressants, 14 patients were also treated with neuroleptics, of whom 5 patients were treated with quetiapine. The time to relapse in the 5 patients taking quetiapine was significantly longer than in patients who were taking other neuroleptics (965.83 ± 824.68 vs 80.5 ± 114.3, Z = 7.001, P = 0.0001). At the 5-year follow-up, 3 of the patients taking quetiapine maintained their remission. Overall levels of depression and anxiety at all times were improved in comparison to baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Our follow-up results suggest that the combination of quetiapine and ketamine can prolong time to relapse after ketamine treatment in patients with treatment-resistant disorder.

Ketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators for depression in adults with bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND

Glutamergic system dysfunction has been implicated in the pathophysiology of bipolar depression. This is an update of the 2015 Cochrane Review for the use of glutamate receptor modulators for depression in bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the effects of ketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators in alleviating the acute symptoms of depression in people with bipolar disorder. 2. To review the acceptability of ketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators in people with bipolar disorder who are experiencing depressive symptoms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO all years to July 2020.  We did not apply any restrictions to date, language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing ketamine or other glutamate receptor modulators with other active psychotropic drugs or saline placebo in adults with bipolar depression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Primary outcomes were response rate and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included remission rate, depression severity change scores, suicidality, cognition, quality of life, and dropout rate. The GRADE framework was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies (647 participants) were included in this review (an additional five studies compared to the 2015 review). There were no additional studies added to the comparisons identified in the 2015 Cochrane review on ketamine, memantine and cytidine versus placebo. However, three new comparisons were found: ketamine versus midazolam, N-acetylcysteine versus placebo, and riluzole versus placebo. The glutamate receptor modulators studied were ketamine (three trials), memantine (two), cytidine (one), N-acetylcysteine (three), and riluzole (one). Eight of these studies were placebo-controlled and two-armed. In seven trials the glutamate receptor modulators had been used as add-on drugs to mood stabilisers. Only one trial compared ketamine with an active comparator, midazolam. The treatment period ranged from a single intravenous administration (all ketamine studies), to repeated administration for riluzole, memantine, cytidine, and N-acetylcysteine (with a follow-up of eight weeks, 8 to 12 weeks, 12 weeks, and 16 to 20 weeks, respectively). Six of the studies included sites in the USA, one in Taiwan, one in Denmark, one in Australia, and in one study the location was unclear. All participants had a primary diagnosis of bipolar disorder and were experiencing an acute bipolar depressive episode, diagnosed according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition (IV) or fourth edition text revision (IV-TR). Among all glutamate receptor modulators included in this review, only ketamine appeared to be more efficacious than placebo 24 hours after infusion for response rate (odds ratio (OR) 11.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 107.74; P = 0.03; participants = 33; studies = 2; I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence). Ketamine seemed to be more effective in reducing depression rating scale scores (MD -11.81, 95% CI -20.01 to -3.61; P = 0.005; participants = 32; studies = 2; I2 = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of ketamine's efficacy in producing remission over placebo at 24 hours (OR 5.16, 95% CI 0.51 to 52.30; P = 0.72; participants = 33; studies = 2; I2 = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). Evidence on response, remission or depression rating scale scores between ketamine and midazolam was uncertain at 24 hours due to very low-certainty evidence (OR 3.20, 95% CI 0.23 to 45.19). In the one trial assessing ketamine and midazolam, there were no dropouts due to adverse effects or for any reason (very low-certainty evidence). Placebo may have been more effective than N-acetylcysteine in reducing depression rating scale scores at three months, although this was based on very low-certainty evidence (MD 1.28, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.31; participants = 58; studies = 2). Very uncertain evidence found no difference in response at three months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.14; participants = 69; studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for remission or acceptability. Extremely limited data were available for riluzole vs placebo, finding only very-low certainty evidence of no difference in dropout rates (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 12.84; P = 0.46; participants = 19; studies = 1; I2 = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is difficult to draw reliable conclusions from this review due to the certainty of the evidence being low to very low, and the relatively small amount of data usable for analysis in bipolar disorder, which is considerably less than the information available for unipolar depression. Nevertheless, we found uncertain evidence in favour of a single intravenous dose of ketamine (as add-on therapy to mood stabilisers) over placebo in terms of response rate up to 24 hours, however ketamine did not show any better efficacy for remission in bipolar depression. Even though ketamine has the potential to have a rapid and transient antidepressant effect, the efficacy of a single intravenous dose may be limited. We did not find conclusive evidence on adverse events with ketamine, and there was insufficient evidence to draw meaningful conclusions for the remaining glutamate receptor modulators. However, ketamine's psychotomimetic effects (such as delusions or delirium) may have compromised study blinding in some studies, and so we cannot rule out the potential bias introduced by inadequate blinding procedures. To draw more robust conclusions, further methodologically sound RCTs (with adequate blinding) are needed to explore different modes of administration of ketamine, and to study different methods of sustaining antidepressant response, such as repeated administrations.

Pharmacological and Psychotherapeutic Interventions for Management of Obsessive-compulsive Disorder in Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Reprinted under Creative Commons CC-BY license.

Prescribing Tamoxifen in Patients With Mood Disorders: A Systematic Review of Potential Antimanic Versus Depressive Effects

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

Tamoxifen is a selective estrogen receptor modulator widely used for treatment and prevention of estrogenic receptor-positive breast cancer. Tamoxifen is an object of growing interest in psychopharmacology as an antimanic drug, because it inhibits the protein kinase C, a molecular target of bipolar disorder. Consistently, the potential depressive effect of tamoxifen has been repeatedly reported.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

This article systematically reviews studies examining tamoxifen impact on mood, exploring either its potential therapeutic use as antimanic agent or its potential depressive effect.

FINDINGS

Eight studies explored tamoxifen antimanic properties, all, but one, reported a rapid and efficacious antimanic action. As to the depressive effect, 9 cohort studies emerged among which 4 pointed out an increased risk of depression. Seven case reports described the onset or exacerbation of depressive episodes besides 1 case series study reported a high rate of depressive symptoms. In addition, 1 case report study described a tamoxifen-induced manic episode.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

The present review highlights tamoxifen treatment as a possible trigger of mood symptoms onset or exacerbation in vulnerable patients. Accordingly, patients with a history of mood disorders may require a close clinical surveillance during tamoxifen use. At the same time, the use of tamoxifen as an antimanic agent in psychiatric settings requires caution, as available evidence came from small-sample studies with short observation time. More studies are needed to define how long-term tamoxifen use may affect the course of bipolar disorder.

Efficacy and tolerability of atypical antipsychotics for acute bipolar depression: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While clinical trial evidence has firmly established the efficacy of several atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) for treating bipolar depression, no randomized controlled trials (RCT's) comparing AAPs have been conducted. This Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the relative efficacy and tolerability of AAP monotherapy in adults with bipolar depression.

METHODS

Efficacy measures included change in Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Improvement - Bipolar Disorder (CGI-BP), response, and remission. Multiple tolerability outcomes were examined. Results from random effects models were reported as difference in change from baseline for continuous variables or odds ratios for dichotomous variables. Treatments were ranked using the surface under the curve cumulative ranking probabilities. Number needed to treat (NNT) and harm (NNH) were calculated.

RESULTS

Eighteen RCT's met inclusion criteria of the systematic literature review. On change in MADRS, lurasidone (- 4.71 [95% Crl - 6.98, - 2.41]), quetiapine (- 4.80 [- 5.93, - 3.72]), olanzapine (- 4.57 [- 5.92, - 3.20]), and cariprazine (- 2.29 [- 3.47, - 1.09]) were more efficacious than placebo. Lurasidone was associated with a significantly greater odds of response (≥50% improvement in MADRS) compared to cariprazine (1.78 [95% Crl 1.08, 2.77]), aripiprazole (2.38 [1.38, 3.85]), and ziprasidone (2.47 [1.41, 3.98]), but was similar to olanzapine (1.68 [0.99,2.65]) and quetiapine (1.25 [0.78, 1.90]). For change in CGI-BP-S-overall score, lurasidone was significantly better than cariprazine (- 0.38 [95% Crl - 0.66,-0.10]) and ziprasidone (- 0.58 [- 0.91,-0.26]), but similar to quetiapine (- 0.08 [- 0.36, 0.19])and olanzapine (- 0.04 [- 1.41, 1.46]). Lurasidone (0.34 kg [95% Crl - 0.22, 0.89]) and aripiprazole (0.20 kg [- 0.59, 1.00]) had a similar weight change compared to placebo, but olanzapine (2.88 kg [2.40, 3.36]), quetiapine (1.17 kg [0.84, 1.49]), and cariprazine (0.65 kg [0.34, 0.96]) were associated with greater weight gain. The NNT for response was the lowest for lurasidone (NNT = 5) followed by quetiapine (NNT = 6), olanzapine (NNT = 10) and cariprazine (NNT = 12).

CONCLUSIONS

In this NMA in adults with bipolar depression, which evaluated change in depressive symptoms (assessed by MADRS) across short-term trials, the largest improvement versus placebo was observed for lurasidone, olanzapine and quetiapine with cariprazine, showing a smaller treatment effect. Aripiprazole and ziprasidone were ineffective for the treatment of bipolar depression. Improvement in CGI-BP-S score for lurasidone was larger than cariprazine and ziprasidone but similar to quetiapine and olanzapine. Based on short term studies lurasidone and aripiprazole had similar weight gain compared to placebo.

A meta-analysis comparing short-term weight and cardiometabolic changes between olanzapine/samidorphan and olanzapine

This study compared weight and cardiometabolic changes after short-term treatment of olanzapine/samidorphan and olanzapine. Eligible criteria for an included trial were ≤ 24 weeks, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared olanzapine/samidorphan and olanzapine treatments in patients/healthy volunteers and reported weight or cardiometabolic outcomes. Three databases were searched on October 31, 2020. Primary outcomes included weight changes and all-cause dropout rates. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and risk ratios (RRs) were computed and pooled using a random-effect model. This meta-analysis included four RCTs (n = 1195). The heterogeneous data revealed that weight changes were not significantly different between olanzapine/samidorphan and olanzapine groups (4 RCTs, SDM = − 0.19, 95% CI − 0.45 to 0.07, I² = 75%). The whole-sample, pooled RR of all-cause dropout rates (4 RCTs, RR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.23, I² = 0%) was not significant different between olanzapine/samidorphan and olanzapine groups. A lower percentage of males and a lower initial body mass index were associated with the greater effect of samidorphan in preventing olanzapine-induced weight gain. Current evidence is insufficient to support the use of samidorphan to prevent olanzapine-induced weight gain and olanzapine-induced cardiometabolic abnormalities. Samidorphan is well accepted by olanzapine-treated patients.

The efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for bipolar depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has established efficacy in the treatment of unipolar depression and a growing evidence base in the treatment of bipolar depression. The objective of this study was to provide an estimate of the efficacy of rTMS in bipolar depression as an up to date synthesis of this literature is lacking.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the sham-controlled randomized controlled trial (RCT) literature examining rTMS in bipolar depression. Studies were included if they included participants with bipolar depression in both sham- and active arms. The primary outcome parameter was rate of clinical response, defined as a 50% reduction as compared to baseline, on an established depression rating scale. Quantitative synthesis was performed using the Maentel-Haenszel random-effects model.

RESULTS

Data from a total of 274 patients from 14 studies were retained in the quantitative synthesis. The response rates were higher in rTMS compared to sham treatment (odds ratio (OR) = 2.72. 95%CI: 1.44-5.14). When stimulation protocols were analysed separately, statistically significant clinical response was only observed for high-frequency rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (OR = 2.57, 95%CI: 1.17-5.66).

LIMITATIONS

Most data was extracted from trials including very few participants with bipolar depression (predominantly unipolar depression samples). Large confirmatory RCTs of rTMS specifically for bipolar depression are lacking.

CONCLUSION

rTMS seems effective in the treatment of bipolar depression, but dedicated and adequately powered RCTs are needed in order to firmly conclude that rTMS should be offered routinely for the treatment of bipolar depression.

Reversibility of Antipsychotic-Induced Weight Gain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Weight gain is a major adverse effect of antipsychotic medication, negatively affecting physical and mental well-being. The objective of this study was to explore if dose reduction, discontinuation, switch to a partial agonist, or switch from polypharmacy to monotherapy will lead to weight loss.

METHODS

Controlled and uncontrolled studies reporting the effects of discontinuation, dose reduction, switch to a partial agonist, or switch from polypharmacy to monotherapy on weight were included. Primary outcome was difference in weight compared to maintenance groups based on controlled studies. Secondary outcome was change in weight from initiation of one of the included interventions until follow-up in a pre-post analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 40 randomized controlled trials and 15 uncontrolled studies including 12,279 individuals. The effect of the interventions, i.e. dose reduction, drug discontinuation, or switch to a partial agonis, reduced the weight with 1.5 kg (95% CI -2.03 to -0.98; P < 0.001) compared to maintenance treatment. The weight change from pre to post was a reduction of 1.13 kg (95% CI -1.36 to -0.90; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

We found a significant but small reduction in weight, suggesting that antipsychotic-induced weight gain can be reversed to some degree. Only a few studies were designed to address the question as primary outcome, which limits the generalizability of our findings.

Efficacy and safety of lamotrigine in the treatment of bipolar disorder across the lifespan: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a cyclic mood disorder characterised by alternating episodes of mania/hypomania and depression interspersed with euthymic periods. Lamotrigine (LTG) demonstrated some mood improvement in patients treated for epilepsy, leading to clinical studies in patients with BD and its eventual introduction as maintenance therapy for the prevention of depressive relapse in euthymic patients. Most current clinical guidelines include LTG as a recommended treatment option for the maintenance phase in adult BD, consistent with its global licencing status.

AIMS

To review the evidence for the efficacy and safety of LTG in the treatment of all phases of BD.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials using the keywords: LTG, Lamictal, 'bipolar disorder', 'bipolar affective disorder', 'bipolar I', 'bipolar II', cyclothymia, mania, manic, depression, depressive, 'randomised controlled trial', 'randomised trial', RCT and 'placebo-controlled' and corresponding MeSH terms. Eligible articles published in English were reviewed.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were identified. The strongest evidence supports utility in the prevention of recurrence and relapse, particularly depressive relapse, in stabilised patients. Some evidence suggests efficacy in acute bipolar depression, but findings are inconsistent. There is little or no strong evidence in support of efficacy in acute mania, unipolar depression, or rapid-cycling BD. Few controlled trials have evaluated LTG in bipolar II or in paediatric patients. Indications for safety, tolerability and patient acceptability are relatively favourable, provided there is slow dose escalation to reduce the probability of skin rash.

CONCLUSION

On the balance of efficacy and tolerability, LTG might be considered a first-line drug for BD, except for acute manic episodes or where rapid symptom control is required. In terms of efficacy alone, however, the evidence favours other medications.

Astroglial Connexin43 as a Potential Target for a Mood Stabiliser

Mood disorders remain a major public health concern worldwide. Monoaminergic hypotheses of pathophysiology of bipolar and major depressive disorders have led to the development of monoamine transporter-inhibiting antidepressants for the treatment of major depression and have contributed to the expanded indications of atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of bipolar disorders. In spite of psychopharmacological progress, current pharmacotherapy according to the monoaminergic hypothesis alone is insufficient to improve or prevent mood disorders. Recent approval of esketamine for treatment of treatment-resistant depression has attracted attention in psychopharmacology as a glutamatergic hypothesis of the pathophysiology of mood disorders. On the other hand, in the last decade, accumulated findings regarding the pathomechanisms of mood disorders emphasised that functional abnormalities of tripartite synaptic transmission play important roles in the pathophysiology of mood disorders. At first glance, the enhancement of astroglial connexin seems to contribute to antidepressant and mood-stabilising effects, but in reality, antidepressive and mood-stabilising actions are mediated by more complicated interactions associated with the astroglial gap junction and hemichannel. Indeed, several depressive mood-inducing stress stimulations suppress connexin43 expression and astroglial gap junction function, but enhance astroglial hemichannel activity. On the other hand, monoamine transporter-inhibiting antidepressants suppress astroglial hemichannel activity and enhance astroglial gap junction function, whereas several non-antidepressant mood stabilisers activate astroglial hemichannel activity. Based on preclinical findings, in this review, we summarise the effects of antidepressants, mood-stabilising antipsychotics, and anticonvulsants on astroglial connexin, and then, to establish a novel strategy for treatment of mood disorders, we reveal the current progress in psychopharmacology, changing the question from "what has been revealed?" to "what should be clarified?".

Pharmacological Treatment of Mood Disorders and Comorbid Addictions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Traitement Pharmacologique des Troubles de L'humeur et des Dépendances Comorbides: Une Revue Systématique et une Méta-Analyse

OBJECTIVE

Addiction comorbidity is an important clinical challenge in mood disorders, but the best way of pharmacologically treating people with mood disorders and addictions remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of pharmacological treatments for mood and addiction symptoms in people with mood disorders and addiction comorbidity.

METHODS

A systematic search of placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of pharmacological treatments in people with bipolar disorder (BD) or major depressive disorder (MDD), and comorbid addictions was performed. Treatment-related effects on mood and addiction measures were assessed in a meta-analysis, which also estimated risks of participant dropout and adverse effects.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies met systematic review inclusion criteria. Pharmacological therapy was more effective than placebo for improving manic symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.15; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], -0.29 to -0.02; P = 0.03) but not BD depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.09; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.03; P = 0.15). Quetiapine significantly improved manic symptoms (SMD = -0.23; 95% CI, -0.39 to -0.06; P = 0.008) but not BD depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.07; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.10; P = 0.42). Pharmacological therapy was more effective than placebo for improving depressive symptoms in MDD (SMD = -0.16; 95% CI, -0.30 to -0.03; P = 0.02). Imipramine improved MDD depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.58; 95% CI, -1.03 to -0.13; P = 0.01) but Selective serotonin reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI)-based treatments had no effect (SMD = -0.06; 95% CI, -0.30 to 0.17; P = 0.60). Pharmacological treatment improved the odds of alcohol abstinence in MDD but had no effects on opiate abstinence.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacological treatments were significantly better than placebo in improving manic symptoms, MDD depressive symptoms, and alcohol abstinence but were not better for bipolar depression symptoms. Importantly, quetiapine was not more effective than placebo in improving bipolar depression symptoms nor were SSRI's for the treatment of MDD depression. Our findings highlight the need for further high-quality clinical trials of treatments for mood disorders and comorbid addictions.

Evolution and characteristics of the use of valproate in women of childbearing age with bipolar disorder: Results from the FACE-BD cohort

BACKGROUND

Valproate is associated with teratogenic and neurodevelopmental effects. Several agencies have restricted the conditions of its prescription in bipolar disorders (BD). We aimed to assess the evolution of valproate prescription and the clinical profile of BD women of childbearing age receiving valproate.

METHODS

Based on a large national cohort, we included all BD women 16-50 years old. Sociodemographic, clinical and pharmacological data were recorded. Logistic regression analyses were used to describe variables associated with valproate prescription.

RESULTS

Of the 1018 included women 16-50 years old, 26.9% were treated with valproate with a mean daily dosage of 968 mg. The prevalence of BD women using valproate was 32.6% before May 2015 and 17.3% after May 2015 (p<0.001), the date of French regulatory publication of restriction of valproate prescription. The multivariate analysis revealed that the inclusion period after May 2015 (OR=0.54, CI 95% 0.37-0.78, p=0.001), the age lower than 40 years (OR=0.65, CI 95% 0.43-0.98, p=0.040) and the number of lifetime mood episodes (OR=0.98, CI 95% 0.95-0.99, p=0.040) were the variables negatively associated with the use of valproate.

LIMITATIONS

Study could be underpowered to determine a clinical profile associated with valproate prescription.

CONCLUSIONS

The regulatory change in BD women of childbearing age had a significant impact on valproate prescription, even if the prescription rate remains high. Important efforts are needed to help clinicians and patients to improve quality of care in BD women of childbearing age.

Cariprazine to Treat Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder in Adults

Purpose of Review

Antipsychotics are the standard of care when it comes to the treatment of Schizophrenia, and they are often used in Bipolar as well. Their use can come with adverse effects such as extrapyramidal movements, metabolic complications as well as cardiovascular complications such as a prolonged QT interval. Treatment for these side effects ranges from the treatment of the complications up to the cessation of the medication, which could come at the expense of the user's stability. Both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have an increased risk of suicide and increased morbidity. The purpose of this review presents the background, evidence, and indications for the use of the new second-generation antipsychotic Cariprazine, which has a primary function as a D3 and D2 partial agonist, with higher selectivity for the D3 receptor type.

Recent Findings

Schizophrenia is currently teated by dopamine antagonists and/or 5HT modulators, each with their own set of side effects. Bipolar disorder is mostly treated with mood stabilizers. Studies looking at the efficacy and safety of cariprazine have shown in two phase II trials and phase III trials the decrease in PANSS scores in schizophrenia. The most common adverse effects were akathisia, insomnia, constipation, and other extrapyramidal side effects. A unique side effect of Cariprazine caused bilateral cataract and cystic degeneration of the retina in the dog following daily oral administration for 13 weeks and/or 1 year and retinal degeneration in rats following daily oral administration for 2 years. Another study showed that cariprazine had significant efficacy in preventing relapse in patients with schizophrenia. The time to the loss of sustained remission was significantly longer (P = .0020) for cariprazine compared to placebo (hazard ratio = 0.51) during the double-blind treatment. 60.5% of patients treated with cariprazine and 34.9% of patients treated with placebo sustained remission through the final visit (odds ratio [OR] = 2.85; P = .0012; number needed to treat [NNT] = 4. Another Phase IIIb study looked at negative symptoms and used the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Factor Score for Negative Symptoms (PANSS-FSNS), and it found that the use of cariprazine, from baseline to week 26, led to a greater least-squares mean change in PANSS-FSNS than did risperidone. Another study looked at the quality of life years with the treatment of cariprazine and showed those treated with cariprazine had superior quality of life compared to those treated with risperidone. In terms of bipolar disorder, it showed a decrease in depressive symptoms as measured by decreased MADRs scores with a dose of 3.0mg/day. A phase II study looked at the use of cariprazine in mania or mix states and showed cariprazine significantly decreased YMRS scores compared to placebo, least-square mean difference of -6.1 (p < 0.001). The metabolic parameters demonstrated comparable changes except for fasting glucose in which cariprazine was associated with elevations in glucose levels compared to placebo (p < 0.05). Another phase III study showed significant differences in YMRS total score mean change between cariprazine versus placebo-treated group. Changes in metabolic profiles in all mentioned studies were minimal.

Summary

Cariprazine, in recent studies, has shown some promise in being able to treat both bipolar disorder in manic, depressed, and mixed states as well as schizophrenia. Side effects noted as adverse events in these studies are similar in profile to the medications that were developed in the past. With better relapse prevention, cariprazine could be a reasonable alternative clozapine.

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.

A Network Meta-Analysis to Compare Effectiveness of Baricitinib and Other Treatments in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Inadequate Response to Methotrexate

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

This article compares the effectiveness of baricitinib (BARI) 4 mg (oral, Janus kinase [JAK] 1/2 inhibitor) versus other targeted synthetic/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, in combination with methotrexate (MTX), in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response (IR) to MTX.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the interventions of interest. Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMA) were used to compare American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses at 24 weeks. A series of prespecified sensitivity analyses addressed the potential impact of, among others, baseline risk, treatment effect modifiers, and trial design on treatment response.

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs were included in the NMA (primary analysis). For ACR20, BARI 4 mg + MTX was found to be more effective than adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg + MTX (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.33), abatacept (ABA) 10 mg + MTX (IV/4 weeks) (OR 1.45), infliximab (IFX) 3 mg + MTX (IV/8 wks) (OR 1.63), and rituximab (RTX) 1000 mg + MTX (OR 1.63). No differences were found on ACR50. For ACR70, BARI 4 mg + MTX was more effective than ADA 40 mg + MTX (OR 1.37), ABA 10 mg + MTX (OR 1.86), and RTX 1000 mg + MTX (OR 2.26). Sensitivity analysis including 10 additional RCTs with up to 20% of patients with prior biologic use showed BARI 4 mg + MTX to be more effective than tocilizumab (TCZ) 8 mg + MTX on ACR20 (OR 1.44). Results for all sensitivity analyses were consistent with the direction and magnitude of the primary results. Key limitations include the time span in which trials were conducted (1999-2017), during which patient characteristics and treatment approaches might have changed.

CONCLUSION

This NMA suggests that BARI 4 mg + MTX is an efficacious treatment option in the MTX-IR population as evidenced by the robustness of results.

Prescription of Valproate-Containing Medicines in Women of Childbearing Potential who have Psychiatric Disorders: Is It Worth the Risk?

Valproate-containing medicines have long been used in psychiatric practice, principally in the treatment of acute manic episodes, as augmentation agents in the treatment of bipolar and unipolar depressive episodes, and in the prophylaxis of bipolar affective disorder. Many babies are still being born with the adverse consequences of valproate exposure in utero, which include congenital malformations, neurodevelopmental delay, and increased risks of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder. Previous measures designed to better inform women about the risks associated with valproate have not been sufficiently effective. This review highlights recent recommendations from influential regulatory and advisory bodies, summarises the relative efficacy and tolerability of valproate preparations in the psychiatric conditions for which they have often been prescribed, and offers practical guidance for the withdrawal and replacement of valproate-containing medicines in women with psychiatric disorders.

The Treatment of Bipolar Depression: Current Status and Future Perspectives

Purpose of Review

This paper aims to review current available treatment options and to consider future directions in the treatment of bipolar depression.

Recent Findings

There are a limited number of established treatments that have demonstrated varied efficacy in acute bipolar depression including modern antipsychotics (quetiapine, lurasidone, olanzapine ± fluoxetine and recently cariprazine) and mood stabilisers (lamotrigine and valproate). Lithium has a role in protecting against depressive relapses and suicide. Alternative and experimental treatments including pramipexole, modafinil/armodafinil, omega-3 fatty acids and thyroxine may be used to augment the treatment of bipolar depression. Ketamine represents a major breakthrough, producing rapid reductions in depressive symptoms even in cases of treatment-resistance, but challenges remain in how best to maintain response and reduce unwanted side effects.

Summary

There remains uncertainty with regard to the relative efficacy and safety of established and experimental treatments for bipolar depression. Further work using consistent, optimal trial designs as well as further investigation into novel compounds and treatment interventions is warranted.

Bipolar depression: a major unsolved challenge

Depression in bipolar disorder (BD) patients presents major clinical challenges. As the predominant psychopathology even in treated BD, depression is associated not only with excess morbidity, but also mortality from co-occurring general-medical disorders and high suicide risk. In BD, risks for medical disorders including diabetes or metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disorders, and associated mortality rates are several-times above those for the general population or with other psychiatric disorders. The SMR for suicide with BD reaches 20-times above general-population rates, and exceeds rates with other major psychiatric disorders. In BD, suicide is strongly associated with mixed (agitated-dysphoric) and depressive phases, time depressed, and hospitalization. Lithium may reduce suicide risk in BD; clozapine and ketamine require further testing. Treatment of bipolar depression is far less well investigated than unipolar depression, particularly for long-term prophylaxis. Short-term efficacy of antidepressants for bipolar depression remains controversial and they risk clinical worsening, especially in mixed states and with rapid-cycling. Evidence of efficacy of lithium and anticonvulsants for bipolar depression is very limited; lamotrigine has long-term benefit, but valproate and carbamazepine are inadequately tested and carry high teratogenic risks. Evidence is emerging of short-term efficacy of several modern antipsychotics (including cariprazine, lurasidone, olanzapine-fluoxetine, and quetiapine) for bipolar depression, including with mixed features, though they risk adverse metabolic and neurological effects.

Factors Associated with Non-Remission in Bipolar Disorder: The Multicenter Treatment Survey for Bipolar Disorder in Psychiatric Outpatient Clinics (MUSUBI)

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with non-remission in bipolar disorder.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The multicenter treatment survey for bipolar disorder in psychiatric outpatient clinics (MUSUBI) study used a questionnaire administered at 176 clinics throughout Japan from September to October 2016. Clinic psychiatrists performed a retrospective medical record survey of consecutive cases with bipolar disorder. Patients were considered to be in remission if they met all of the following criteria: they were not in a mixed state, their manic or depressive symptoms were either borderline or nonexistent (corresponding to 2 or 1 points on the Clinical Global Impressions Scale, Bipolar Version), and their psychiatrists clinically considered them to be in remission. Enrolled patients were classified into remitters group and non-remitters group and demographic and clinical characteristics were contrasted between the groups. Non-remitters were compared with remitters, using a series of logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 3130 patients (1420 men; mean age: 50.3 years) were included in this study; 1307 patients (41.8%) were in remission. Of the remaining 1823 patients, 1260 (40.3%) had mild to severe depression, 261 (8.3%) suffered from manic or hypomanic episodes, and 302 (9.6%) were in a mixed state. Logistic regression analyses found the following eight factors to be significantly correlated with non-remission in patients with bipolar disorder: female gender, younger age, unemployed status, rapid cycling pattern, comorbid alcohol/substance abuse, poorer social function, lithium non-use, and antidepressant use.

CONCLUSION

The MUSUBI study, the largest nationwide investigation on bipolar disorder, identified eight clinically relevant factors associated with non-remission in bipolar patients. They have important clinical implications; further prospective studies are necessary to replicate these findings and to guide better managements for those in serious needs.

Novel antipsychotics specificity profile: A clinically oriented review of lurasidone, brexpiprazole, cariprazine and lumateperone

Second generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are effective options in the treatment of schizophrenia and mood disorders, each with characteristic efficacy and safety features. In order to optimize the balance between efficacy and side effects, it is of upmost importance to match compound specificity against patient clinical profile. As the number of SGAs increased, this review can assist physicians in the prescription of three novel SGAs already on the market, namely lurasidone, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, and lumateperone, which is in the approval phase for schizophrenia treatment at the FDA. Besides schizophrenia, EMA and/or FDA approved lurasidone for bipolar depression, brexpiprazole as augmentation in major depressive disorder and cariprazine for the acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder. These new antipsychotics were developed with the aim of improving efficacy on negative and depressive symptoms and reducing metabolic and cardiovascular side effects compared to prior SGAs, while keeping the risk of extrapyramidal symptoms low. They succeeded quite well in containing these side effects, despite weight gain during acute treatment remains a possible concern for brexpiprazole, while cariprazine and lurasidone show higher risk of akathisia compared to placebo and other SGAs such as olanzapine. The available studies support the expected benefits on negative symptoms, cognitive dysfunction and depressive symptoms, while the overall effect on acute psychotic symptoms may be similar to other SGAs such as quetiapine, aripiprazole and ziprasidone. The discussed new antipsychotics represent useful therapeutic options but their efficacy and side effect profiles should be considered to personalize prescription.

Psychopharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics for Bipolar Depression

Bipolar disorder is a chronic illness that affects 2%-4% of U.S. adults during their lifetime. The course of bipolar disorder is commonly characterized by prolonged periods of depression interspersed with manic-hypomanic episodes. Management of depression among patients with bipolar disorder is challenging because of the limited number of medications currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the high proportion of patients who do not respond to these medications, and the metabolic and other side effects associated with long-term use of these medications. In addition to reviewing the clinical options available to patients with bipolar depression and their treatment providers, this article presents an evidence-based management approach and discusses the off-label uses of currently available treatments and experimental therapeutics under development.

Lithium for acute mania

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder is a common condition associated with high morbidity; developing efficacious, safe treatments is therefore essential. Lithium is an effective maintenance treatment for bipolar disorder. It acts as mood stabiliser and reduces the risk of suicide. However, evidence assessing the efficacy of lithium in the treatment of acute mania is less robust. Current evidence-based guidelines cite multiple anti-dopaminergic and mood-stabilising agents as initial treatments: more definite evidence is needed to decide if lithium should be the first-line therapy.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the effects of lithium in comparison with placebo or other active treatment in alleviating the acute symptoms of a manic or mixed episode in people with bipolar disorder.2. To review the acceptability and tolerability of treatment with lithium in comparison with placebo or other active treatments in alleviating the acute symptoms of a manic or mixed episode in people with bipolar disorder.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. We also searched the World Health Organization trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews. We have incorporated studies from searches to 18 May 2018 into the current analyses.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective randomised controlled studies comparing lithium with placebo or alternative drug treatment in treatment of acute mania. We included anyone with bipolar disorder, male and female, of any age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. We used odds ratios (ORs) to analyse binary efficacy outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuously distributed outcomes. We used a fixed-effect model unless heterogeneity was moderate or substantial, in which case we used a random-effects model. We used Review Manager 5 to analyse data. We assessed the certainty of evidence for individual outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 36 randomised controlled studies comparing lithium with placebo, one of 12 drugs, or electroconvulsive therapy for treatment of acute mania. Studies included male and female participants (n = 4220), of all ages, who all fitted criteria for a manic episode within the context of a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.Risk of bias was variable; 12 studies had a high risk of bias in one domain and 27 gave inadequate information on randomisation leading to an 'unclear' rating for selection bias.Lithium versus placeboHigh-certainty evidence found that lithium was an effective treatment for acute mania and was more effective than placebo at inducing a response (OR 2.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.73 to 2.63; participants = 1707; studies = 6; I² = 16%; high-certainty evidence), or remission (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.73 to 2.69; participants = 1597; studies = 5; I² = 21%; high-certainty evidence).Lithium was more likely than placebo to cause tremor (OR 3.25, 95% CI 2.10 to 5.04; participants = 1241; studies = 6; I² = 0%; high-certainty evidence), and somnolence (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.58; participants = 1351; studies = 7; I² = 0%; high-certainty evidence).There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of lithium for all-cause dropouts (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.25; participants = 1353; studies = 7; I² = 75%; moderate-certainty evidence), and weight gain (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.92; participants = 735, studies = 3; I²= 51%; moderate-certainty evidence).Lithium versus antipsychotics or mood stabilisersFor the outcome of inducing a response, there was only very low-certainty evidence regarding lithium compared to haloperidol (MD -2.40, 95% CI -6.31 to 1.50; participants = 80; studies = 3; I² = 95%), quetiapine (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.55; participants = 335; studies = 2; I² = 71%), and carbamazepine (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.60; participants = 102; studies = 3; I² = 0%).Lithium was probably less likely to induce a response than olanzapine (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.94; participants = 180; studies = 2; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence).Lithium may be less likely to induce a response than risperidone (MD 7.28, 95% CI 5.22 to 9.34; participants = 241; studies = 3; I² = 49%; low-certainty evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between lithium and valproate (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.70; participants = 607; studies = 5; I² = 22%; moderate-certainty evidence).There was moderate-certainty evidence that lithium was more effective than topiramate at treating acute mania (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.63 to 3.20; participants = 660; studies = 1).Data on adverse events for these comparisons contained too few studies to provide high-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review indicates that lithium is more effective than placebo as a treatment for acute mania but increases the risk for somnolence and tremor. Limited evidence suggests little or no difference between lithium and other mood stabilisers (valproate, carbamazepine) or antipsychotics (risperidone, quetiapine, haloperidol). Olanzapine may be an exception, as it is probably slightly more effective than lithium. There is uncertain evidence that risperidone may also be more effective than lithium. Lithium is probably more effective at treating acute mania than topiramate. When compared to placebo, lithium was more likely to cause adverse events. However, when compared to other drugs, too few studies provided data on adverse effects to provide high-certainty evidence. More, rigorously designed, large-scale studies are needed to definitively conclude if lithium is superior to other interventions in treating acute mania.

Adjunctive tianeptine treatment for bipolar disorder: A 24-week randomized, placebo-controlled, maintenance trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of tianeptine as an adjunctive maintenance treatment for bipolar depression.

METHODS

This is a multicenter double-blind randomized placebo-controlled maintenance trial of adjunctive tianeptine 37.5 mg/day. Participants ( n=161) had a Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale ⩾12 at entry. After eight weeks of open-label tianeptine treatment, those who responded to tianeptine ( n=69) were randomized to adjunctive tianeptine ( n=36) or placebo ( n=33) in addition to usual treatment. Kaplan-Meier estimates and the Mantel-Cox log-rank test were used to evaluate differences in time to intervention for a mood episode between the tianeptine and placebo groups. We also assessed overall functioning, biological rhythms, quality of life, rates of manic switch and serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor levels.

RESULTS

There were no differences between adjunctive tianeptine or placebo regarding time to intervention or depression scores in the 24-week double-blind controlled phase. Patients in the tianeptine group showed better performance in the letter-number sequencing subtest from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale at the endpoint ( p=0.014). Tianeptine was well tolerated and not associated with higher risk for manic switch compared to placebo.

CONCLUSION

Tianeptine was not more effective than placebo in the maintenance treatment of bipolar depression. There is preliminary evidence suggesting a pro-cognitive effect of tianeptine in working memory compared to placebo.

Ropinirole Augmentation for Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial Pilot Study

OBJECTIVE

Evidence both from animal and human studies suggests a role for dopaminergic pathways in the treatment of depression. Ropinirole, a selective agonist of dopamine D2/D3, is in use for the treatment of parkinsonism. Preliminary evidence suggests that such agonists might be useful as antidepressants. We tested whether an add-on ropinirole is an effective in depressed patients.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of add-on ropinirole in depressed patients unresponsive to at least one antidepressant. We recruited 32 unipolar and bipolar patients who remained depressed (modified 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale) despite at least 4 weeks of treatment with an adequate dose of antidepressant medication. Patients received either 2 mg of oral ropinirole or placebo twice daily added on to their current medication and were evaluated weekly for 7 weeks using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale.

RESULTS

No difference in primary or secondary outcome measures was detected between the treatment and control groups.

DISCUSSION

These results differ from previous studies and are unexpected in light of theoretical considerations. This may indicate that there are differences in pharmacological activity between ropinirole and other dopaminergic agents such as pramipexole.

Tamoxifen for bipolar disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Tamoxifen is an oral medication that has been proposed as a potential treatment for bipolar disorder. Tamoxifen acts to inhibit the intracellular action of protein kinase C, which is also an action of well-established treatments such as lithium and valproate. Here we aimed to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of tamoxifen in the treatment of bipolar disorder and synthesise their results using meta-analysis.

METHODS

RCTs were identified by searching of electronic databases and from discussion with experts in the field. Data were extracted, and meta-analyses performed in R.

RESULTS

Five placebo-controlled RCTs of tamoxifen in the treatment of acute mania were identified. There were no trials in the treatment of episodes of bipolar depression, or for relapse prevention. The studies of mania treatment were of between three and six weeks duration. Tamoxifen was studied either as monotherapy (two trials) or as augmentation of lithium or valproate (three trials). Change in mania scale scores favoured tamoxifen over placebo: SMD -2.14 (95% CI -3.39 to -0.89; 4 trials), as did endpoint mania scale scores SMD 1.23 (95% CI 0.60-1.87; 5 trials). Response rates were also higher: RR 4.35 (1.99-9.50; 4 trials). Acceptability was similar to placebo: RR 1.03 (0.94-1.13; 5 trials).

CONCLUSIONS

Tamoxifen appears to be a promising potential treatment for episodes of mania. Future studies could investigate its effects as an adjunct to dopamine antagonists for improved anti-manic efficacy, and establish its longer term effects on mood, particularly depression and relapse.

Atypical antipsychotic adherence is associated with lower inpatient utilization and cost in bipolar I disorder

AIMS

This study explored the association between medication adherence to oral atypical antipsychotics (AAP) and both psychiatric hospitalization and associated costs in bipolar I disorder (BD-I) in a real-world setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study used the Truven Health MarketScan Medicaid, Commercial, and Medicare Supplemental Claims Databases. Adults were identified if they had BD-I and initiated an AAP treatment during the study identification period (July 1, 2015-June 30, 2016 for Medicaid, July 1, 2015-March 31, 2016 for Commercial and Medicare Supplemental) and had ≥6-month continuous enrollment before (baseline) and after (follow-up) the first day of treatment. Medication adherence was measured by the proportion of days covered (PDC) and grouped as: fully-adherent (PDC ≥80%), partially-adherent (40% ≤ PDC <80%), and non-adherent (PDC <40%). Logistic and linear regression models were conducted to estimate the risk of psychiatric hospitalization and costs during the 6-month follow-up period.

RESULTS

The final sample consisted of 5,892 (32.0%) fully-adherent, 4,246 (23.1%) partially-adherent, and 8,250 (44.9%) non-adherent patients. The adjusted rate of psychiatric hospitalization during the follow-up period was lower in the fully-adherent (6.0%) vs partially- (8.3%) or non-adherent (8.8%) groups (p < 0.001). Using the fully-adherent cohort as the reference group, the odds of psychiatric hospitalization were significantly higher for the partially-adherent (OR = 1.42; 95% CI = 1.23-1.64) and non-adherent (1.51; 1.33-1.71) cohorts. The mean adjusted psychiatric hospitalization cost over 6 months among hospitalized patients was lower for the fully-adherent cohort ($11,748), than the partially-adherent ($15,051 p = 0.002) or non-adherent cohorts ($13,170, not statistically significant).

LIMITATIONS

The medication adherence measures relied on prescription claims data, not actual use.

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of BD-I, better medication adherence to AAP was associated with fewer psychiatric hospitalizations. Among hospitalized patients, fully-adherent patients had statistically significantly lower psychiatric costs than partially-adherent ones. These findings suggest that improving adherence to AAP in BD-I may be a valuable goal from both clinical and economic perspectives.

Lurasidone compared to other atypical antipsychotic monotherapies for bipolar depression: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of lurasidone versus other atypical antipsychotic monotherapy agents in patients with bipolar depression, using a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Fourteen randomised clinical trials (6221 patients) of lurasidone, quetiapine (extended release and immediate release), aripiprazole, olanzapine, and ziprasidone for bipolar depression were included. Efficacy assessments included change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), rates of response (≥50% improvement in MADRS) and remission (MADRS ≤12 at study endpoint), and change in the Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Disorder-Severity (CGI-BP-S) scale. Tolerability outcomes included weight, somnolence, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and all-cause discontinuation. Changes from baseline or odds ratios (OR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Improvement in the MADRS associated with lurasidone treatment was significantly greater than placebo (-4.70, 95%CrI: -7.20, -2.21), aripiprazole (-3.62, 95%CrI: -7.04, -0.20), and ziprasidone (-3.38, 95%CrI: -6.68, -0.11), but not olanzapine (-0.15, 95%CrI: -3.12, 2.74) or quetiapine (0.10, 95%CrI: -2.68, 2.84). Results for improvement in the CGI-BP-S, and for response and remission were similar. Lurasidone was associated with less weight gain than olanzapine (-2.54 kg, 95%CrI: -3.42, -1.67) and quetiapine (-0.83kg, 95%CrI: -1.59, -0.08); and with lower rates of somnolence than quetiapine (OR: 0.33, 95%CrI: 0.11, 0.82) and ziprasidone (OR: 0.34, 95%CrI: 0.09, 0.93). No significant differences among atypical antipsychotic agents were observed in rates of discontinuation or in rates of EPS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this network meta-analysis, lurasidone was found to be more efficacious than aripiprazole and ziprasidone, and was associated with less weight gain than quetiapine and olanzapine and less somnolence than quetiapine and ziprasidone.

A History of the Pharmacological Treatment of Bipolar Disorder

In this paper, the authors review the history of the pharmacological treatment of bipolar disorder, from the first nonspecific sedative agents introduced in the 19th and early 20th century, such as solanaceae alkaloids, bromides and barbiturates, to John Cade's experiments with lithium and the beginning of the so-called "Psychopharmacological Revolution" in the 1950s. We also describe the clinical studies and development processes, enabling the therapeutic introduction of pharmacological agents currently available for the treatment of bipolar disorder in its different phases and manifestations. Those drugs include lithium salts, valproic acid, carbamazepine, new antiepileptic drugs, basically lamotrigine and atypical antipsychotic agents (olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, ziprasidone, aripiprazole, asenapine, cariprazine and lurasidone). Finally, the socio-sanitary implications derived from the clinical introduction of these drugs are also discussed.

Initiating/maintaining long-acting injectable antipsychotics in schizophrenia/schizoaffective or bipolar disorder - expert consensus survey part 2

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to provide recommendations on initiating and maintaining long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) in individuals with schizophrenia/schizoaffective or bipolar disorder.

METHODS

A 50-question survey comprising 916 response options was completed by 34 expert researchers and high prescribers with extensive LAI experience, rating relative appropriateness/importance on a 9-point scale. Consensus was determined using chi-square test of score distributions. Results of 21 questions comprising 339 response options regarding LAI initiation, maintenance treatment, adequate trial definition, identifying treatment nonresponse, and switching are reported.

RESULTS

Experts agreed that the most important LAI selection factor was patient response/tolerability to previous antipsychotics. An adequate therapeutic LAI trial was defined as the time to steady state ± 1-2 injection cycles. Experts suggested that oral efficacy and tolerability should be established before switching to an LAI, without consensus on the required time, and that the time for oral supplementation and next injection interval should be determined by the time to attainment of therapeutic LAI levels. Most experts agreed that ≥1 adequate LAI trial is needed to identify the lack of efficacy. There was little agreement about strategies for switching between LAIs.

CONCLUSION

Expert guidance may aid clinicians in their decisions regarding initiating/maintaining LAIs in individuals with schizophrenia/schizoaffective or bipolar disorder.

Effect of clinical response to active drugs and placebo on antipsychotics and mood stabilizers relative efficacy for bipolar depression and mania: A meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

Randomised placebo-controlled trials investigating treatments for bipolar disorder have been hampered by wide variations of active drugs and placebo clinical response rates. It is important to estimate whether the active drug or placebo response has a greater influence in determining the relative efficacy of drugs for psychosis (antipsychotics) and relapse prevention (mood stabilisers) for bipolar depression and mania.

METHODS

We identified 53 randomised, placebo-controlled trials assessing antipsychotic or mood stabiliser monotherapy ('active drugs') for bipolar depression or mania. We carried out random-effects meta-regressions, estimating the influence of active drugs and placebo response rates on treatment relative efficacy.

RESULTS

Meta-regressions showed that treatment relative efficacy for bipolar mania was influenced by the magnitude of clinical response to active drugs ( p=0.002), but not to placebo ( p=0.60). On the other hand, treatment relative efficacy for bipolar depression was influenced by response to placebo ( p=0.047), but not to active drugs ( p=0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite several limitations, our unexpected findings showed that antipsychotics / mood stabilisers relative efficacy for bipolar depression seems unrelated to active drugs response rates, depending only on clinical response to placebo. Future research should explore strategies to reduce placebo-related issues in randomised, placebo-controlled trials for bipolar depression.

A Meta-Analysis of Memantine for Depression

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on whether memantine was beneficial for the treatment of depressive symptoms in major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD). The analysis included double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of memantine in MDD and BD. The primary outcome measures for efficacy and safety were response rate and all-cause discontinuation, respectively. Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. We identified six trials including 451 patients: MDD, four trials (n = 189), three of which studied memantine augmentation for antidepressants; BD, two trials (n = 262), both on memantine augmentation for mood stabilizers. The mean study duration was 8.33 weeks, and the mean age of patients was 39.9 years. Memantine was not superior to placebo with regard to response rate (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.70-1.20, I2 = 72%), remission rate, improvement of depressive symptoms scale score, all-cause discontinuation (RR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.60-1.18, I2 = 0%), discontinuation due to inefficacy and adverse events, or incidence of individual adverse events including decreased appetite, dizziness, nausea, and sedation. Although we conducted sensitivity analyses of the response rate to determine the reasons for the heterogeneity (diagnosis, age of patients, memantine dose, memantine augmentation, geographical region, and statistical population), we did not seek confounding factors. Memantine did not improve the treatment efficacy for depressive symptoms in MDD and BD patients. Long-term study of memantine for depression is required.