Pharmacological management of bipolar disorder: Japanese expert consensus

Clinical decision support for bipolar depression using large language models

Management of depressive episodes in bipolar disorder remains challenging for clinicians despite the availability of treatment guidelines. In other contexts, large language models have yielded promising results for supporting clinical decisionmaking. We developed 50 sets of clinical vignettes reflecting bipolar depression and presented them to experts in bipolar disorder, who were asked to identify 5 optimal next-step pharmacotherapies and 5 poor or contraindicated choices. The same vignettes were then presented to a large language model (GPT4-turbo; gpt-4-1106-preview), with or without augmentation by prompting with recent bipolar treatment guidelines, and asked to identify the optimal next-step pharmacotherapy. Overlap between model output and gold standard was estimated. The augmented model prioritized the expert-designated optimal choice for 508/1000 vignettes (50.8%, 95% CI 47.7-53.9%; Cohen's kappa = 0.31, 95% CI 0.28-0.35). For 120 vignettes (12.0%), at least one model choice was among the poor or contraindicated treatments. Results were not meaningfully different when gender or race of the vignette was permuted to examine risk for bias. By comparison, an un-augmented model identified the optimal treatment for 234 (23.0%, 95% CI 20.8-26.0%; McNemar's p < 0.001 versus augmented model) of the vignettes. A sample of community clinicians scoring the same vignettes identified the optimal choice for 23.1% (95% CI 15.7-30.5%) of vignettes, on average; McNemar's p < 0.001 versus augmented model. Large language models prompted with evidence-based guidelines represent a promising, scalable strategy for clinical decision support. In addition to prospective studies of efficacy, strategies to avoid clinician overreliance on such models, and address the possibility of bias, will be needed.

Efficacy and Safety of Valbenazine in Japanese Patients With Tardive Dyskinesia and Schizophrenia/Schizoaffective Disorder or Bipolar Disorder/Depressive Disorder: Primary Results and Post Hoc Analyses of the J-KINECT Study

PURPOSE

This post hoc analysis investigated whether a patient's underlying psychiatric disease (schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder [SCHZ] or bipolar disorder/depressive disorder [MOOD]) influenced the efficacy or safety of valbenazine for tardive dyskinesia (TD) in an Asian population.

METHODS

We analyzed data from J-KINECT, a multicenter, phase II/III, randomized, double-blind study, which consisted of a 6-week placebo-controlled period followed by a 42-week extension where Japanese patients with TD received once-daily 40- or 80-mg valbenazine. We compared the change from baseline in Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale total score and Clinical Global Impression of TD score between patients with SCHZ and those with MOOD, and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 256 patients included in the placebo-controlled period, 211 continued to the long-term extension. The mean change from baseline in Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale total score at week 6 (95% confidence interval) was -1.8 (-3.2 to -0.5) and -3.3 (-4.7 to -1.9) in the valbenazine 40- and 80-mg groups, respectively (SCHZ group), and -2.4 (-3.9 to -0.9) and -3.5 (-5.1 to -1.9) in the valbenazine 40- and 80-mg groups, respectively (MOOD group), demonstrating improvement at either dose level over placebo, regardless of the underlying disease. These results were maintained to week 48, and improvements of Clinical Global Impression of TD scores were similar. There were no notable differences in the incidence of serious or fatal treatment-emergent adverse events by underlying disease; differences in the incidence of worsening schizophrenia and depression were attributed to underlying disease progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Safety and efficacy of long-term valbenazine therapy for TD did not vary according to underlying psychiatric disease.

Taiwan consensus on biological treatment of bipolar disorder during the acute, maintenance, and mixed phases: The 2022 update

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder is a mood dysregulation characterized by recurrent symptoms and episodes of mania, hypomania, depression, and mixed mood. The complexity of treating patients with bipolar disorder prompted the Taiwanese Society of Biological Psychiatry and Neuropsychopharmacology (TSBPN) to publish the first Taiwan consensus on pharmacological treatment of bipolar disorders in 2012. This paper presents the updated consensus, with changes in diagnostic criteria (i.e., mixed features) and emerging pharmacological evidence published up to April 2022.

METHODS

Our working group systemically reviewed the clinical research evidence and international guidelines and determined the levels of evidence for each pharmacological treatment on the basis of the most recent World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry grading system. Four clinical-specific issues were proposed. The current TSBPN Bipolar Taskforce then discussed research evidence and clinical experience related to each treatment option in terms of efficacy and acceptability and then appraised final recommendation grades through anonymous voting.

RESULTS

In the updated consensus, we include the pharmacological recommendations for bipolar disorder with mixed features considering its high prevalence, the severe clinical prognosis, and the absence of approved medications. Cariprazine, lurasidone, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and ketamine are incorporated as treatment options. In the maintenance phase, the application of long-acting injectable antipsychotics is emphasized, and the hazards of using antidepressants and conventional antipsychotics are proposed.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated Taiwan consensus on pharmacological treatment for bipolar disorder provides concise evidence-based and empirical recommendations for clinical psychiatric practice. It may facilitate treatment outcome improvement in patients with bipolar disorder.

Pharmacological Strategies for Bipolar Disorders in Acute Phases and Chronic Management with a Special Focus on Lithium, Valproic Acid, and Atypical Antipsychotics

Bipolar disorders (BDs) are a heterogeneous group of severe affective disorders generally described by the alternation of (hypo)manic, depressive, and mixed phases, with euthymic intervals of variable duration. BDs are burdened with high psychiatric and physical comorbidity, increased suicide risk and reduced life expectancy. In addition, BDs can progress into complicated forms (e.g., mixed states, rapid/irregular cycling), which are more difficult to treat and often require personalized pharmacological combinations. Mood stabilizers, particularly Lithium and Valproic acid (VPA), still represent the cornerstones of both acute and chronic pharmacotherapies of BDs. Lithium is the gold standard in BD-I and BDII with typical features, while VPA seems more effective for atypical forms (e.g., mixed-prevalence and rapid-cycling). However, despite appropriate mood stabilization, many patients show residual symptoms, and more than a half recur within 1-2 years, highlighting the need of additional strategies. Among these, the association of atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) with mood stabilizers is recurrent in the treatment of acute phases, but it is also being growingly explored in the maintenance pharmacotherapy. These combinations are clinically more aggressive and often needed in the acute phases, whereas simplifying pharmacotherapies to mood stabilizers only is preferable in the long-term, whenever possible. When mood stabilizers are not enough for maintenance treatment, Quetiapine and, less consistently, Aripiprazole have been proposed as the most advisable adjunctive strategies, for their safety and tolerability profiles. However, in view of the increased risk of serious adverse effects, a careful patient-centered balance between costs and benefits is mandatory.

The centrality of working memory networks in differentiating bipolar type I depression from unipolar depression: A task-fMRI study

OBJECTIVES

Up to 70%-80% of patients with bipolar disorder are misdiagnosed as having major depressive disorder (MDD), leading to both delayed intervention and worsening disability. Differences in the cognitive neurophysiology may serve to distinguish between the depressive phase of type 1 bipolar disorder (BDD-I) from MDD, though this remains to be demonstrated. To this end, we investigate the discriminatory signal in the topological organization of the functional connectome during a working memory (WM) task in BDD-I and MDD, as a candidate identification approach.

METHODS

We calculated and compared the degree centrality (DC) at the whole-brain voxel-wise level in 31 patients with BDD-I, 35 patients with MDD, and 80 healthy controls (HCs) during an n-back task. We further extracted the distinct DC patterns in the two patient groups under different WM loads and used machine learning approaches to determine the distinguishing ability of the DC map.

RESULTS

Patients with BDD-I had lower accuracy and longer reaction time (RT) than HCs at high WM loads. BDD-I is characterized by decreased DC in the default mode network (DMN) and the sensorimotor network (SMN) when facing high WM load. In contrast, MDD is characterized by increased DC in the DMN during high WM load. Higher WM load resulted in better classification performance, with the distinct aberrant DC maps under 2-back load discriminating the two disorders with 90.91% accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

The distributed brain connectivity during high WM load provides novel insights into the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying cognitive impairment of depression. This could potentially distinguish BDD-I from MDD if replicated in future large-scale evaluations of first-episode depression with longitudinal confirmation of diagnostic transition.

Effect of age and sex on prescriptions for outpatients with bipolar disorder in the MUSUBI study: a cross‑sectional study

BACKGROUND

Childbearing-aged female patients and elderly patients with bipolar disorder need special attention for pharmacological treatments, but current guidelines provide little information on their pharmacological treatment. In particular, the risk/benefit balance of pharmacological treatment for childbearing-aged females with bipolar disorder is a growing concern. Therefore, we aimed to address the effect of age and sex on psychotropic drug prescription for outpatients with bipolar disorder.

METHODS

The MUlticenter treatment SUrvey for BIpolar disorder in Japanese psychiatric clinics (MUSUBI) study was conducted, and data on age, sex, and details of pharmacological treatment were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 3106 outpatients were included in this study. Among young females (age  ≤ 39), 25% were prescribed valproate. There was no significant difference in the frequency and daily dose of valproate prescription for young females among all groups. Valproate prescriptions were significantly less frequent among young males and more frequent among middle-aged males. Lithium prescriptions were significantly less frequent among young females and more frequent among older males (age  ≥ 65) and older females. Lamotrigine prescriptions were significantly more frequent among young males and young females and less frequent among older males and older females. Carbamazepine prescriptions were significantly less frequent among young males and more frequent among older males.

CONCLUSIONS

Biased information about the risk and safety of valproate and lithium for young females was suggested, and further study to correct this bias is needed. Older patients were prescribed lithium more commonly than lamotrigine. Further studies are needed to determine the actual pharmacotherapy for elderly individuals.

A case of mood disorder with severe side effects of antidepressants in association with resistance to thyroid hormone beta with a THRB mutation

Background

Although resistance to thyroid hormone beta (RTHβ) is associated with attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder, there are few reports of other concomitant mood disorders in individuals with RTHβ.

Case presentation

A 67‐year‐old woman who had been previously diagnosed with RTHβ (Refetoff syndrome) came to our department as a depressed patient. She was hospitalized twice for depression and treated with antidepressants both times. Paroxetine (37.5 mg/day) treatment during the first hospitalization did not cause any side effects, but treatment with mirtazapine (15 mg/day) and venlafaxine (150 mg/day) during the second hospitalization caused clonus and disturbance of consciousness, and these adverse effects resulted in a prolonged period of hospitalization. Finally, the patient’s symptoms were controlled with quetiapine (75 mg/day).

Conclusion

Poor tolerability to antidepressants was observed, which may be related to thyroid hormone intolerance. Low doses of quetiapine may contribute to improvements in depression.

Mood Stabilizers and Antipsychotics for Acute Mania: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Augmentation Therapy vs Monotherapy From the Perspective of Time to the Onset of Treatment Effects

BACKGROUND

Existing meta-analytic evidence on bipolar mania treatment has revealed that augmentation therapy (AUG) with antipsychotics and mood stabilizers is more effective than monotherapy. However, the speed of the onset of treatment effects and subsequent changes in risk/benefit are unclear.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases until January 2021. Our primary outcomes were response and tolerability. We set 3 time points: 1, 3, and 6 weeks after randomization.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies compared AUG therapy and MS monotherapy (comparison 1), and 8 studies compared AUG therapy and antipsychotics monotherapy (comparison 2). In comparison 1, AUG therapy resulted in significantly more responses than monotherapy, with an odds ratio of 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17 to 1.80) at 3 weeks and 1.59 (95% CI: 1.28 to 1.99) at 6 weeks. Significant improvement was observed in the first week with a standardized mean difference of -0.25 (95% CI: -0.38 to -0.12). In comparison 2, AUG therapy was significantly more effective than monotherapy, with an odds ratio of 1.73 (95% CI: 1.25 to 2.40) at 3 weeks and 1.74 (95% CI: 1.11 to 2.73) at 6 weeks. Significant improvement was observed in the first week with an standardized mean difference of -0.23 (95% CI: -0.39 to -0.07). Regarding tolerability, there was no significant difference between AUG therapy and monotherapy at 3 and 6 weeks in both comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Early AUG therapy should be considered, as it has shown efficacy from weeks 1 to 6, although attention to side effects is necessary for acute mania treatment.

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.

Drug Combinations for Mood Disorders and Physical Comorbidities That Need Attention: A Cross-Sectional National Database Survey

INTRODUCTION

This study investigated combined prescriptions of drugs for mood disorders and physical comorbidities that need special attention in the light of frequent physical comorbidities in patients with mood disorders.

METHODS

We used the claims sampling data of 581,990 outpatients in January 2015 from the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups of Japan. Fisher's exact test was performed to compare the prescription rates of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), loop/thiazide diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers between lithium users and age- and sex-matched non-lithium users; NSAIDs, antiplatelet drugs, and/or anticoagulants between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)/serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) users and non-users; warfarin between mirtazapine users and non-users; and the proportions of patients in the two groups with a diagnosis of somatic conditions for which these medications were indicated and actually received them. A Bonferroni corrected p-value of<0.05/3 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Prescriptions of the above-mentioned medications were less frequent in lithium and mirtazapine users and comparable in SSRI/SNRI users, compared to non-users (18.3 vs. 31.9%, p=7.6×10^-10; 0.78 vs. 1.65%, p=0.01; 23.1 vs. 24.1%, p=0.044). In a subgroup of patients with somatic diseases for which these medications were indicated, the prescription rates were comparable in lithium and mirtazapine users and higher in SSRI/SNRI users compared to non-users (28.0 vs. 29.4%, p=0.73; 4.7 vs. 7.4%, p=0.28; 35.6 vs. 33.4%, p=0.0026).

DISCUSSION

Pharmacotherapy with drugs for mood disorders and physical comorbidities that require attention was commonly observed in clinical practice.

Dynamical regional activity in putamen distinguishes bipolar type I depression and unipolar depression

OBJECTIVES

Intrinsic human brain activity is time-varying and dynamic. However, there is still a lack of knowledge about the dynamic regional activity differences between unipolar depression (UD) and bipolar type I depression (BD-I), and whether their differential pattern can help to distinguish these two patient groups who are prone to misdiagnosis in clinical practice.

METHOD

In this study, we used the dynamical fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations (dfALFF) to examine the resting-state dynamical regional activity in 40 BD-I, 42 UD, and 44 healthy controls (HCs). Analysis of covariance was applied to explore the shared and distinct dfALFF pattern among three groups, and machine-learning methods were conducted to classify BD-I from UD by using the detected distinct dfALFF pattern.

RESULTS

Compared with HCs, both BD-I and UD exhibited decreased dfALFF temporal variability in the left inferior temporal gyrus. The BD-I showed significantly decreased dfALFF temporal variability in the left putamen compared to UD. By using the dfALFF variability pattern of the left putamen as features, we achieved the 75.61% accuracy and 0.756 area under curve in classifying BD-I from UD.

LIMITATIONS

The small sample size of the current study may limit the generalizability of the findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study demonstrated that the dfALFF temporal variability pattern in the putamen may show a promise as future diagnostic aids for BD-I and UD.

Clinical predictors of non-response to lithium treatment in the Pharmacogenomics of Bipolar Disorder (PGBD) study

BACKGROUND

Lithium is regarded as a first-line treatment for bipolar disorder (BD), but partial response and non-response commonly occurs. There exists a need to identify lithium non-responders prior to initiating treatment. The Pharmacogenomics of Bipolar Disorder (PGBD) Study was designed to identify predictors of lithium response.

METHODS

The PGBD Study was an eleven site prospective trial of lithium treatment in bipolar I disorder. Subjects were stabilized on lithium monotherapy over 4 months and gradually discontinued from all other psychotropic medications. After ensuring a sustained clinical remission (defined by a score of ≤3 on the CGI for 4 weeks) had been achieved, subjects were followed for up to 2 years to monitor clinical response. Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the relationship between clinical measures and time until failure to remit or relapse.

RESULTS

A total of 345 individuals were enrolled into the study and included in the analysis. Of these, 101 subjects failed to remit or relapsed, 88 achieved remission and continued to study completion, and 156 were terminated from the study for other reasons. Significant clinical predictors of treatment failure (p < 0.05) included baseline anxiety symptoms, functional impairments, negative life events and lifetime clinical features such as a history of migraine, suicidal ideation/attempts, and mixed episodes, as well as a chronic course of illness.

CONCLUSIONS

In this PGBD Study of lithium response, several clinical features were found to be associated with failure to respond to lithium. Future validation is needed to confirm these clinical predictors of treatment failure and their use clinically to distinguish who will do well on lithium before starting pharmacotherapy.

The use of antidepressant medications for Bipolar I and II disorders

Given that the patterns and clinical correlates related to antidepressant drugs (ADs) prescription for Bipolar Disorder (BD) remain generally unclear, this study aimed to compare socio-demographic and clinical features of BD patients treated vs. not treated with ADs. The sample consists of 287 currently euthymic bipolar patients. Among participants (mean age=51.9±15.02), 157 54.7% were receiving ADs. Based on the main findings, subjects given ADs were older and more frequently retired than those without receiving ADs. Moreover, patients given ADs were more likely to have had a first major depressive episode. Lifetime substance abuse/dependence history was less frequently reported among patients given ADs. Furthermore, ADs given patients had a higher number of affective episodes, and longer duration of their illness. Additionally, subjects treated with ADs reported higher hopelessness levels, and lower positive reinterpretations than those who were not treated with ADs. Factors associated with ADs-use by multivariate modeling were reduced personal autonomy (OR=.070), and hopelessness levels (OR=1.391). These results may help clinicians to better understand the clinical correlates of BD subtypes and improve their differential management. Additional studies are needed to replicate these findings, and facilitate the differential trajectories of BD patients based on socio-demographic/clinical profiles.

Pharmacological Treatment of Schizophrenia: Japanese Expert Consensus

Introduction Conventional treatment guidelines of schizophrenia do not necessarily provide solutions on clinically important issues.

Methods A total of 141 certified psychiatrists of the Japanese Society of Clinical Neuropsychopharmacology evaluated treatment options regarding 19 clinically relevant situations in the treatment of schizophrenia with a 9-point scale (1=“disagree” and 9=“agree”).

Results First-line antipsychotics varied depending on predominant symptoms: risperidone (mean±standard deviation score, 7.9±1.4), olanzapine (7.5±1.6), and aripiprazole (6.9±1.9) were more likely selected for positive symptoms; aripiprazole (7.6±1.6) for negative symptoms; aripiprazole (7.3±1.9), olanzapine (7.2±1.9), and quetiapine (6.9±1.9) for depression and anxiety; and olanzapine (7.9±1.5) and risperidone (7.5±1.5) for excitement and aggression. While only aripiprazole was categorized as a first-line treatment for relapse prevention (7.6±1.0) in patients without noticeable symptoms, aripiprazole (8.0±1.6) and brexpiprazole (6.9±2.3) were categorized as such for social integration. First-line treatments in patients who are vulnerable to extrapyramidal symptoms include quetiapine (7.5±2.0) and aripiprazole (6.9±2.1).

Discussion These clinical recommendations represent the expert consensus on the use of a particular antipsychotic medication for a particular situation, filling a current gap in the literature.

Pharmacological management of bipolar disorder: Japanese expert consensus

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to develop a consensus guideline by certified experts of the Japanese Society of Clinical Neuropsychopharmacology on the psychopharmacological treatment for bipolar disorders I and II (BP-I and BP-II), in order to fill the gap in the literature and provide more concrete guidance for challenging and controversial real-world situations.

METHODS

Experts were asked to assess treatment options regarding 19 clinical situations of bipolar disorder with a nine-point Likert scale (one = "disagree" and nine = "agree"). According to the responses from 119 experts, the options were categorized into the first-, second-, and third-line treatments.

RESULTS

For the treatment of BP-I, lithium monotherapy was categorized as a first-line treatment for manic episodes (mean ± standard deviation score, 7.0 ± 2.2), depressive episodes (7.1 ± 2.0), and the maintenance phase (7.8 ± 1.8). Combination therapy of lithium and an atypical antipsychotic was endorsed for manic episodes (7.7 ± 1.7), depressive episodes with (7.1 ± 2.0) and without mixed features (6.9 ± 2.2), and the maintenance phase (6.9 ± 2.1). Similarly, in BP-II, lithium monotherapy was categorized as a first-line treatment for hypomanic episodes (7.3 ± 2.2), depressive episodes (7.0 ± 2.2), and the maintenance phase (7.3 ± 2.3), while combination therapy of lithium and an atypical antipsychotic was recommended for hypomanic episodes (6.9 ± 2.4).No antipsychotic monotherapy or antidepressant treatment was categorized as a first-line treatment for any type of episode.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations reflect the current evidence and represent the experts' consensus on using lithium for the treatment of bipolar disorder. Clinicians should consider the effectiveness and adverse effects of antipsychotic and antidepressant medications for the treatment of bipolar disorder.