Guidelines for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder: are there discrepancies between European and North American recommendations?

Methodological differences between pharmacological treatment guidelines for bipolar disorder: what to do for the clinicians?

OBJECTIVE

Numerous guidelines for bipolar disorder have been published. The aim of this article is to underline the main differences between consensus-based guidelines (CBG) and evidence-based guidelines (EBG) currently available for the management of bipolar disorder.

METHODS

A literature search for guidelines published since 2006 was performed. A qualitative analysis was then conducted to compare the methodologies and the guidelines contents.

RESULTS

Comparison between CBG and EBG found more similarities than differences. However, discordances were found in the first-line choice of treatment (monotherapy or combination, use of lamotrigine or lithium in bipolar depression), time to reassessment and duration of maintenance treatment, introduction as from the acute phase a regimen compatible with long-term use and pharmacotherapy during pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of policy, whatever the methodology used, is up to the authors and can, therefore, depend on their interpretation of the available scientific evidence. Combining both methodologies (CBG and EBG) enables us to meet the complete definition of evidence-based medicine.

Adherence to guidelines by French psychiatrists in their real world of clinical practice

The treatment modalities of bipolar disorder and adherence to international guidelines recommendations in France were investigated. We conducted an observational survey among 210 French psychiatrists concerning their prescribing practice in bipolar disorder, and whether they use guidelines or not. Simple mania is mainly treated with valproate, whereas second-generation antipsychotics are preferred for delusional mania. Lithium is mostly used as second-line treatment by "young psychiatrists." Personal experience appears in the foreground (41% of psychiatrists) in the choice of therapy. Young psychiatrists refer more to guidelines (32% of responders) as compared with other psychiatrists. The main reason for the lack of use of guidelines is because they refer mostly to an Anglo-Saxon medical practice, which is considered different from the French practice. Guidelines for treatment of bipolar disorder are not frequently used. French psychiatrists' age and practice type are the most important variables correlated to the level of use of guidelines.

Comparison of olanzapine and risperidone in the EMBLEM Study: translation of randomized controlled trial findings into clinical practice

Data from the EMBLEM Study, a 2-year, prospective, observational study of health outcomes associated with acute treatment of patients experiencing a manic/mixed episode of bipolar disorder, was used to compare the effectiveness of olanzapine monotherapy versus risperidone monotherapy, and to investigate whether the treatment effects were similar to those reported in a 3-week, randomized controlled trial assessing the same treatments. Symptom severity measures included the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), the 5-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and the Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar Disorder Scale. A total of 245 EMBLEM inpatients were analyzed with YMRS >or=20: olanzapine (n=209), risperidone (n=36). Both the treatment groups had similar improvements in YMRS from baseline to 6 weeks, but there was a significantly greater improvement in 5-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in the olanzapine group. There was a similar improvement in Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar Disorder Scale in both the groups and the occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events and weight gain did not differ between the treatment groups. The EMBLEM results partly support those of the randomized controlled trial, which suggests olanzapine and risperidone have similar improvements in mania but that olanzapine monotherapy may be more effective than risperidone monotherapy in the treatment of depressive symptoms associated with mania. Limitations include differences in study design, patient population, and length of follow-up.

A UK consensus on the administration of aripiprazole for the treatment of mania

Aripiprazole has recently received approval for the treatment of moderate to severe manic episodes in bipolar I disorder and prevention of new manic episodes in aripiprazole-responsive patients. Aripiprazole differs from other antipsychotics in its pharmacology, and the need for prescribing guidance in the UK was recently identified. A UK multidisciplinary panel was convened in November 2007. This report describes the consensus agreed during the meeting on the optimal approach to prescribing aripiprazole: how best to approach initiation of, and switching to, treatment with aripiprazole and management strategies for side effects. A literature review of the randomised controlled clinical trials of aripiprazole in mania supports these recommendations. Aripiprazole should be initiated at 15 mg/day (range 5-20 mg/day). If necessary, adjunctive medication should be used in early treatment to manage side effects or assist in management of symptoms such as agitation. When switching to aripiprazole, the therapeutic dose of current treatment should be maintained while adding aripiprazole 15 (5-20) mg/day. Only once an effective dose of aripiprazole is reached should previous medication be reduced. Nausea, insomnia and agitation typically resolve within days. Some principles for dosing and switching are provided to assist with a successful treatment outcome with aripiprazole in mania.

Olanzapine plus carbamazepine v. carbamazepine alone in treating manic episodes

BACKGROUND

Combinations of olanzapine and carbamazepine are often used in clinical practice in the management of mania.

AIMS

To assess the efficacy and safety of olanzapine plus carbamazepine in mixed and manic bipolar episodes.

METHOD

Randomised, double-blind, 6-week trial of olanzapine (10-30 mg/day) plus carbamazepine (400-1200 mg/day; n=58) v. placebo plus carbamazepine (n=60) followed by open-label, 20-week olanzapine (10-30 mg/day) plus carbamazepine (400-1200 mg/day, n=86), with change in manic symptoms as main outcome measure. Safety and pharmacokinetics were also evaluated.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences (baseline to endpoint) in efficacy measures between treatment groups, but at 6 weeks triglyceride levels were significantly higher (P=0.008) and potentially clinically significant weight gain (>or=7%) occurred more frequently (24.6% v. 3.4%, P=0.002) in the combined olanzapine and carbamazepine group. Carbamazepine reduced olanzapine concentrations but olanzapine had no effect on carbamazepine concentrations.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of olanzapine and carbamazepine did not have superior efficacy to carbamazepine alone. The increases in weight and triglycerides observed during combination treatment are a matter of concern.

Differences between prepubertal- versus adolescent- onset bipolar disorder in a Spanish clinical sample

OBJECTIVE

To examine patients attended and diagnosed with bipolar disorder (BD) at a child and adolescent psychiatry service; to record age of diagnosis and age of onset, and to study clinical differences between prepubertal and adolescent onset groups.

METHODS

All patients currently attended for BD type I, type II or non specified BD were reviewed and divided into two age groups: prepubertal onset (beginning before age 13) and adolescent onset (beginning at or above age 13).

RESULTS

The sample were 43 patients with BD. Fourteen (32.6%) with prepubertal onset and 29 (67.4%) with adolescent onset. Time between onset of symptoms and diagnosis was longer in the prepubertal onset group (1.2 years versus 0.8 years respectively, P = .05). Patients with prepubertal onset BD more frequently presented previous symptoms such as irritability and conduct problems and had a higher rate of comorbidity (more frequently attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder-ADHD). The adolescent onset group more often presented psychotic symptoms.

CONCLUSION

The clinical characteristics of patients with bipolar disorder differ according to whether onset is prepubertal or adolescent.

The management of bipolar disorder in general practice

General practitioners have a key role in managing patients with bipolar disorder, a condition which affects at least one in 200 Australians each year and is the sixth leading cause of disability in the population. Although diagnosis and treatment of the illness is complex, effective treatment can lead to good outcomes for many patients. GPs can contribute significantly to early recognition of bipolar disorder, avoiding the long delays in accurate diagnosis that have been reported. As in other complex recurrent or persistent illnesses, GPs are well placed to coordinate multidisciplinary "shared care" with specialists and other health care professionals. GPs also provide continuing general medical care for patients with bipolar disorder, and are in a unique position to understand patients' life circumstances and to monitor their progress over time. The last decade has seen many advances in medication for bipolar disorder, including the introduction of new therapies and the refinement of treatment protocols using older medications. There has also been increasing recognition of the contribution of psychological therapies to symptom relief, relapse prevention, optimal function, and quality of life.