Are antidepressants safe in the treatment of bipolar depression? A critical evaluation of their potential risk to induce switch into mania or cycle acceleration

"A sense of the bigger picture:" A qualitative analysis of follow-up interviews with people with bipolar disorder who self-reported psilocybin use

OBJECTIVES

People with bipolar disorder (BD) spend more time depressed than manic/hypomanic, and depression is associated with greater impairments in psychosocial functioning and quality of life than mania/hypomania. Emerging evidence suggests psilocybin, the psychoactive compound in "magic mushrooms," is a promising treatment for unipolar depression. Clinical trials of psilocybin therapy have excluded people with BD as a precaution against possible adverse effects (e.g., mania). Our study centered the experiences of adults living with BD who consumed psilocybin-containing mushrooms, and aimed to (1) understand its subjective impacts on BD symptoms, (2) deepen understanding of Phase I survey results, and (3) elucidate specific contextual factors associated with adverse reactions in naturalistic settings.

METHODS

Following an international survey (Phase I), follow-up interviews were conducted with 15 respondents (Phase II) to further understand psilocybin use among adults with BD. As part of a larger mixed-methods explanatory sequential design study, reflexive thematic analysis was used to elaborate findings.

RESULTS

Three major themes containing sub-themes were developed. (1) Mental Health Improvements: (1.1) decreased impact and severity of depression, (1.2) increased emotion processing, (1.3) development of new perspectives, and (1.4) greater relaxation and sleep. (2) Undesired Mental Health Impacts: (2.1) changes in sleep, (2.2) increased mania severity, (2.3) hospitalization, and (2.4) distressing sensory experiences. (3) Salient Contextual Factors for psilocybin use included: (3.1) poly-substance use and psilocybin dose, (3.2) solo versus social experiences, and (3.3) pre-psilocybin sleep deprivation.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate both benefits and risks of psilocybin use in this population. Carefully designed clinical trials focused on safety and preliminary efficacy are warranted.

Pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression

BACKGROUND

Evidence is limited regarding the most effective pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression: monotherapy with an antidepressant, monotherapy with an antipsychotic, another treatment (e.g. mifepristone), or combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

1. To compare the clinical efficacy of pharmacological treatments for patients with an acute psychotic depression: antidepressant monotherapy, antipsychotic monotherapy, mifepristone monotherapy, and the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic versus placebo and/or each other. 2. To assess whether differences in response to treatment in the current episode are related to non-response to prior treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

A search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR); Ovid MEDLINE (1950-); Embase (1974-); and PsycINFO (1960-) was conducted on 21 February 2020. Reference lists of all included studies and related reviews were screened and key study authors contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with acute major depression with psychotic features, as well as RCTs consisting of participants with acute major depression with or without psychotic features, that reported separately on the subgroup of participants with psychotic features.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies, according to criteria from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data were entered into RevMan 5.1. We used intention-to-treat data. Primary outcomes were clinical response for efficacy and overall dropout rate for harm/tolerance. Secondary outcome were remission of depression, change from baseline severity score, quality of life, and dropout rate due to adverse effects. For dichotomous efficacy outcomes (i.e. response and overall dropout), risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.  Regarding the primary outcome of harm, only overall dropout rates were available for all studies. If the study did not report any of the response criteria as defined above, remission as defined here could be used as an alternative. For continuously distributed outcomes, it was not possible to extract data from the RCTs.  MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 3947 abstracts, but only 12 RCTs with a total of 929 participants could be included in the review. Because of clinical heterogeneity, few meta-analyses were possible. The main outcome was reduction in severity (response) of depression, not of psychosis. For depression response, we found no evidence of a difference between antidepressant and placebo (RR 8.40, 95% CI 0.50 to 142.27; participants = 27, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or between antipsychotic and placebo (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.73; participants = 201, studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found no evidence of a difference in overall dropouts with antidepressant (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.51; participants = 27, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.08; participants = 201, studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). No evidence suggests a difference in depression response (RR 2.09, 95% CI 0.64 to 6.82; participants = 36, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or overall dropouts (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.18 to 18.02; participants = 36, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) between antidepressant and antipsychotic. For depression response, low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests that the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic may be more effective than antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.38; participants = 447, studies = 4), more effective than antidepressant monotherapy (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.80; participants = 245, studies = 5), and more effective than placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.82; participants = 148, studies = 2). Very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in overall dropouts between the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic versus antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; participants = 447, studies = 4), antidepressant monotherapy (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.50; participants = 245, studies = 5), or placebo alone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18; participants = 148, studies = 2). No study measured change in depression severity from baseline, quality of life, or dropouts due to adverse events. We found no RCTs with mifepristone that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Risk of bias is considerable: we noted differences between studies with regards to diagnosis, uncertainties around randomisation and allocation concealment, treatment interventions (pharmacological differences between various antidepressants and antipsychotics), and outcome criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychotic depression is heavily under-studied, limiting confidence in the conclusions drawn. Some evidence indicates that combination therapy with an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than either treatment alone or placebo. Evidence is limited for treatment with an antidepressant alone or with an antipsychotic alone. Evidence for efficacy of mifepristone is lacking.

Intranasal esketamine use in bipolar disorder: A case report

Over the past few years, intranasal esketamine has been FDA-approved for treatment-resistant depression as well as MDD with suicidal ideation. In the clinical trials leading to the recent FDA approvals, subjects with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder were excluded from participation in the trial. The manufacturer of intranasal esketamine states that it "has not been studied, and is not indicated, for patients with bipolar disorder." Antidepressants are commonly associated with having the potential to induce rapid cycling in patients with bipolar disorder, though the mechanism is not fully understood. This case report demonstrates the potential safety of intranasal esketamine in combination with mood stabilizer therapy in a patient diagnosed with bipolar disorder without recent history of manic or hypomanic episodes.

Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Adjunctive Pharmacotherapies for Acute Bipolar Depression: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the comparative efficacy and tolerability of augmentation strategies for bipolar depression.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 8 electronic databases for double-blind, randomized controlled trials of adjunctive pharmacotherapies for acute bipolar depression.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and applied the Cochrane risk of bias tool for study quality appraisal. Two reviewers independently abstracted data. We resolved all discrepancies by consensus.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were response and completion of treatment. We estimated summary rate ratios (RRs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) relative to placebo controls using frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 69 trials meeting eligibility criteria (8,007 participants, 42.8 years, 58.0% female). Adjunctive racemic intravenous ketamine, coenzyme Q10, pramipexole, fluoxetine, and lamotrigine were more effective than placebo. Summary RRs for response ranged between 1.51 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11 to 2.06) for fluoxetine and 12.49 (95% CI, 3.06 to 50.93) for racemic intravenous ketamine. For completion of treatment, risperidone appeared less tolerable than placebo (RR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.94), while fluoxetine seemed more tolerable than placebo (RR = 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.24). None of the investigated agents were associated with increased treatment-emergent mood switches.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The evidence for augmentation strategies in bipolar depression is limited to a handful of agents. Fluoxetine appeared to have the most consistent evidence base for both efficacy and tolerability. There remains a need for additional research exploring novel treatment strategies for bipolar depression, particularly head-to-head studies.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological treatments for the treatment of acute bipolar depression: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological treatment strategies for the treatment of acute bipolar depression.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted by searching eight registries for published and unpublished, double-blind, randomized controlled trials of pharmacotherapies for the acute treatment of bipolar depression.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

PRISMA guidelines were used for abstracting data, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess data quality. Data extraction was done independently by two reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were efficacy (response and remission rate) and acceptability (completion of treatment and dropouts due to adverse events). Summary odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects.

RESULTS

Identified citations (4,404) included 50 trials comprising 11,448 participants. Escitalopram, phenelzine, moclobemide, carbamazepine, sertraline, lithium, paroxetine, aripiprazole, gabapentin and ziprasidone appear to be ineffective as compared to placebo in treatment of bipolar depression. Divalproex, olanzapine/fluoxetine, olanzapine, quetiapine, cariprazine, and lamotrigine, appear to be effective as compared to placebo in treatment of bipolar depression according to the network meta-analysis. Aripiprazole showed higher discontinuation rates versus placebo due to the appearance of any adverse event. Quetiapine was better than placebo at reducing treatment-emergent affective switches. For Bipolar I Disorder, cariprazine, fluoxetine, imipramine, lamotrigine, lurasidone, olanzapine-fluoxetine, and olanzapine were significantly better than placebo at response, while fluoxetine, imipramine, cariprazine, lurasidone, olanzapine-fluoxetine, and olanzapine were significantly better than placebo at remission.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These results could serve evidence-based practice and inform patients, physicians, guideline developers, and policymakers on the relative benefits of the different antidepressants, antipsychotics, and mood-stabilizing agents for the treatment of bipolar depression.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42019122172).

Critical Predictors for the Early Detection of Conversion From Unipolar Major Depressive Disorder to Bipolar Disorder: Nationwide Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder are two major mood disorders. The two disorders have different treatment strategies and prognoses. However, bipolar disorder may begin with depression and could be diagnosed as MDD in the initial stage, which may later contribute to treatment failure. Previous studies indicated that a high proportion of patients diagnosed with MDD will develop bipolar disorder over time. This kind of hidden bipolar disorder may contribute to the treatment resistance observed in patients with MDD.

OBJECTIVE

In this population-based study, our aim was to investigate the rate and risk factors of a diagnostic change from unipolar MDD to bipolar disorder during a 10-year follow-up. Furthermore, a risk stratification model was developed for MDD-to-bipolar disorder conversion.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving patients who were newly diagnosed with MDD between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2004, by using the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. All patients with depression were observed until (1) diagnosis of bipolar disorder by a psychiatrist, (2) death, or (3) December 31, 2013. All patients with depression were divided into the following two groups, according to whether bipolar disorder was diagnosed during the follow-up period: converted group and nonconverted group. Six groups of variables within the first 6 months of enrollment, including personal characteristics, physical comorbidities, psychiatric comorbidities, health care usage behaviors, disorder severity, and psychotropic use, were extracted and were included in a classification and regression tree (CART) analysis to generate a risk stratification model for MDD-to-bipolar disorder conversion.

RESULTS

Our study enrolled 2820 patients with MDD. During the follow-up period, 536 patients were diagnosed with bipolar disorder (conversion rate=19.0%). The CART method identified five variables (kinds of antipsychotics used within the first 6 months of enrollment, kinds of antidepressants used within the first 6 months of enrollment, total psychiatric outpatient visits, kinds of benzodiazepines used within one visit, and use of mood stabilizers) as significant predictors of the risk of bipolar disorder conversion. This risk CART was able to stratify patients into high-, medium-, and low-risk groups with regard to bipolar disorder conversion. In the high-risk group, 61.5%-100% of patients with depression eventually developed bipolar disorder. On the other hand, in the low-risk group, only 6.4%-14.3% of patients with depression developed bipolar disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

The CART method identified five variables as significant predictors of bipolar disorder conversion. In a simple two- to four-step process, these variables permit the identification of patients with low, intermediate, or high risk of bipolar disorder conversion. The developed model can be applied to routine clinical practice for the early diagnosis of bipolar disorder.

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.

Antidepressants in Bipolar Depression: An Enduring Controversy

(Reprinted with permission from Int J Bipolar Discord (2018) 6:25).

The assessment of resistance to antidepressant treatment: Rationale for the Antidepressant Treatment History Form: Short Form (ATHF-SF)

There is considerable diversity in how treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is defined. However, every definition incorporates the concept that patients with TRD have not benefited sufficiently from one or more adequate trials of antidepressant treatment. This review examines the issues fundamental to the systematic evaluation of antidepressant treatment adequacy and resistance. These issues include the domains of interventions deemed effective in treatment of major depressive episodes (e.g., pharmacotherapy, brain stimulation, and psychotherapy), the subgroups of patients for whom distinct adequacy criteria are needed (e.g., bipolar vs. unipolar depression, psychotic vs. nonpsychotic depression), whether trials should be rated dichotomously as adequate or inadequate or on a potency continuum, whether combination and augmentation strategies require specific consideration, and the criteria used to evaluate the adequacy of treatment delivery (e.g., dose, duration), trial adherence, and clinical outcome. This review also presents the Antidepressant Treatment History Form: Short-Form (ATHF-SF), a completely revised version of an earlier instrument, and details how these fundamental issues were addressed in the ATHF-SF.

Antidepressants have complex associations with longitudinal depressive burden in bipolar disorder

AIMS

Antidepressants are common in bipolar disorder (BD), but controversial due to questionable efficacy/tolerability. We assessed baseline antidepressant use/depression associations in BD.

METHODS

Stanford BD Clinic outpatients, enrolled during 2000-2011, assessed with the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for BD (STEP-BD) Affective Disorders Evaluation, were monitored up to two years with the STEP-BD Clinical Monitoring Form while receiving naturalistic expert treatment. Prevalence/correlates of baseline antidepressant use in recovered (euthymic ≥8 weeks)/depressed patients were assessed. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses assessed times to depressive recurrence/recovery in patients with/without baseline antidepressant use, and Cox Proportional Hazard regression analyses assessed covariate effects.

RESULTS

Baseline antidepressant use was significantly (albeit without Bonferroni multiple comparison correction) less among 105 recovered (31.4%) versus 153 depressed (44.4%) patients, and among recovered patients (again without Bonferroni correction), associated with Caucasian race, earlier onset, worse Clinical Global Impression scores, and hastened depressive recurrence (only if mood elevation episodes were not censored), driven by lifetime anxiety disorder, and more (even with Bonferroni correction) bipolar II disorder, lifetime anxiety and eating disorders, and core psychotropics. Baseline antidepressant use among depressed patients was associated with significantly (again without Bonferroni correction) older age, female gender, and more (even with Bonferroni correction) anxiolytics/hypnotics, complex pharmacotherapy, and core psychotropics, but no other unfavorable illness characteristic/current mood symptom, and not time to depressive recovery.

LIMITATIONS

Tertiary BD clinic referral sample receiving open naturalistic expert treatment. Analyses without/with Bonferroni correction.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional research is required to assess the complex associations between baseline antidepressant use and longitudinal depressive burden in BD.

Antidepressants in bipolar depression: an enduring controversy

The proper place and the optimal use of antidepressants in treating bipolar depression continues to be an area of great interest and greater controversy with passionate opinions more common than good studies. Even the handful of meta-analyses in the area disagree with each other. Overall, the evidence that antidepressants are effective in treating bipolar depression is weak. Additionally, many experts and clinicians worry greatly about the capacity of antidepressants to cause affective switching or mood destabilization. Yet, in short term controlled studies, with most patients also taking mood stabilizers, antidepressants are not associated with switches into mania/hypomania. Evidence of cycle acceleration with antidepressants primarily reflects treatment with older antidepressants, e.g., tricyclics. Similar evidence with modern antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is lacking. The key questions should not be: are antidepressants effective in bipolar depression?; And: do antidepressants worsen the course of bipolar disorder? Rather, the question should be focused on subgroups: for which patients are antidepressants helpful and safe, and for which patients will they be harmful? Predictors of affective switching with antidepressants include: bipolar I disorder (vs. bipolar II), mixed features during depression, tricyclics vs. modern antidepressants, rapid cycling and possibly a history of drug abuse, especially stimulant abuse. Additionally, a number of recent studies have demonstrated both the safety and efficacy of antidepressant monotherapy in treating bipolar II depression. Finally, a subgroup of bipolar individuals need antidepressants in addition to mood stabilizers as part of an optimal maintenance treatment regimen.

Risk of manic switch with antidepressants use in patients with bipolar disorder in a Nigerian neuropsychiatric hospital

Background

Depressive disorders are common among those with bipolar affective disorder (BAD) and may necessitate the use of antidepressants. This has been suggested to precipitate manic episodes in some patients.

Objectives

This study aims to determine the prevalence of and factors associated with manic switch in patients with BAD being treated with antidepressants.

Methods

Case notes of patients who were treated at a Nigerian neuropsychiatric hospital for a BAD from 2004 to 2015 were reviewed. BAD diagnosis was made using ICD-10 criteria. Treatment for bipolar depression included monotherapy (i.e. antidepressants, antipsychotics or mood stabilisers) or combination therapy (mood stabiliser with an antidepressant or a combination of mood stabilisers, antipsychotics and antidepressants). The primary outcome measure was a switch to mania or hypomania within 12 weeks of commencing an antidepressant.

Results

Manic or hypomanic switch (MS) was observed in 109 (44.3%) of the participants. Female gender, younger age, number of previous episodes and a past history of psychiatric hospitalisation were all significantly associated with a risk of MS. There was no significant difference in the rate of MS in either those treated with adjunct antidepressants therapy with a mood stabiliser or an antipsychotic or those placed on a combination of antidepressants, antipsychotics and mood-stabilising agents.

Conclusion

A large proportion of patients with BAD on antidepressants experience medication-induced manic or hypomanic switch.

Does recent mania affect response to antidepressants in bipolar disorder? A re-analysis of STEP-BD data

BACKGROUND

One previous study suggested that the presence of a manic episode before bipolar depression is related to worse response to antidepressants.

METHOD

To examine this effect in a larger sample, we used data from the large, multi-site STEP-BD study. We hypothesized that among persons treated with antidepressants for bipolar depression, manic or mixed episodes before depression onset (as compared to euthymia) would predict lower rate of recovery, more sustained depressive symptoms and higher rate of switching into mania/hypomania after antidepressant treatment of bipolar depression. 320 participants were available for analyses (140 male) diagnosed with bipolar I, bipolar II, cyclothymia, bipolar disorder not otherwise specified, or schizoaffective disorder bipolar subtype. Patients were randomly assigned to 3 treatment randomization strata (placebo, bupropion, and paroxetine) as adjuncts to mood stabilizers.

RESULTS

Analyses were conducted to examine the effect of episode status before the depressive episode on the degree of change in depressive symptoms at 3 and 6 months, the likelihood of depression recovery and the likelihood of anti-depressant induced switching. Presence of a manic episode before depression in patients with bipolar disorder did not significantly predict response to antidepressants.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by a high rate of attrition, and consideration of only two antidepressant medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings are in agreement with other past studies suggesting that mania and depression may operate separately for those with bipolar disorder, with differential predictors of the onset and offset of mania versus depression. Future directions may consider vulnerability for these episodes separately.

Looking for bipolarity in antidepressant discontinuation manic states: Update and diagnostic considerations of the phenomenon

BACKGROUND

Antidepressant withdrawal manic states are intriguing and under-recognized phenomena. The associated patho-physiological pathways are ill defined and the inclusion of the phenomena in the bipolar spectrum disorders is questionable. This study aims to update a review on antidepressant discontinuation manic states published in 2008 and to look for hints alluding to bipolar disorder in the affected published cases and in the literature. It also reviews the different hypotheses proposed to explain discontinuation mania.

METHODS

We searched Pubmed using the key words: 'antidepressant withdrawal' or 'antidepressant discontinuation' plus 'mania' or 'hypomania' from January 2008 until January 2018.

RESULTS

Five new eligible reports were identified since the last review in 2008, involving the antidepressants Amitriptyline, Fluoxetine, Escitalopram and Mirtazapine. Hypotheses involve the implication of Catecholamines, Acetylcholine and Serotonin in the pathophysiology of this paradoxical phenomenon. Careful analysis of the total 29 cases revealed psychiatric histories in favor of a bipolar spectrum disorder in 12 individuals while five were already known to have bipolar disorder.

LIMITATIONS

This review is based on case reports with associated recall bias, and lack of in-depth description at times.

CONCLUSIONS

Antidepressant discontinuation manic or hypomanic states do not occur randomly. An individual susceptibility to bipolar disorder must be considered.

Clinical and psychopathological features associated with treatment-emergent mania in bipolar-II depressed outpatients exposed to antidepressants

BACKGROUND

Treatment-emergent affective switch (TEAS), including treatment-emergent mania (TEM), carry significant burden in the clinical management of bipolar depression, whereas the use of antidepressants raises both efficacy, safety and tolerability concerns. The present study assesses the prevalence and clinical correlates of TEM in selected sample of Bipolar Disorder (BD) Type-II (BD-II) acute depression outpatients.

METHODS

Post-hoc analysis of the clinical and psychopathological features associated with TEM among 91 BD-II depressed outpatients exposed to antidepressants.

RESULTS

Second-generation antipsychotics (SGA) (p = .005), lithium (≤ .001), cyclothymic/irritable/hyperthymic temperaments (p = ≤ .001; p = .001; p = .003, respectively), rapid-cycling (p = .005) and depressive mixed features (p = .003) differed between TEM⁺ cases vs. TEM^- controls. Upon multinomial logistic regression, the accounted psychopathological features correctly classified as much as 88.6% of TEM⁺ cases (35/91 overall sample, or 38.46% of the sample), yet not statistically significantly [Exp(B) = .032; p = ns]. Specifically, lithium [B = - 2.385; p = .001], SGAs [B = - 2.354; p = .002] predicted lower rates of TEM⁺ in contrast to the number of lifetime previous psychiatric hospitalizations [B = 2.380; p = .002], whereas mixed features did not [B = 1.267; p = ns].

LIMITATIONS

Post-hoc analysis. Lack of systematic pharmacological history record; chance of recall bias and Berkson's biases. Permissive operational criterion for TEM. Relatively small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Cyclothymic temperament and mixed depression discriminated TEM⁺ between TEM^- cases, although only lithium and the SGAs reliably predicted TEM^+/- grouping. Larger-sampled/powered longitudinal replication studies are warranted to allow firm conclusions on the matter, ideally contributing to the identification of clear-cut sub-phenotypes of BD towards patient-tailored-pharmacotherapy.

The Use of Antidepressants in Bipolar Depression

Depression remains a significant debilitating and frequent phase of illness for patients with bipolar disorder. There are few FDA-approved medications for its treatment, only one of which includes a traditional antidepressant (olanzapine-fluoxetine combination), despite studies that demonstrate traditional antidepressants are one of the most commonly prescribed class of medications for bipolar patients in a depressive episode. While traditional antidepressants remain the primary option for treatment of unipolar depression, their use in bipolar depression has been controversial due to a limited efficacy evidence and the concern for potential harm. This chapter reviews the current data concerning the use of traditional antidepressants in bipolar disorder, and the current expert treatment guideline recommendations for their use.

Antidepressant-induced hypomania/mania in patients with major depression: Evidence from the BRIDGE-II-MIX study

BACKGROUND

The issue of antidepressant-induced mood switches to hypomania, mania, or mixed states within the course of mayor depressive disorder (MDD) has been a controversial topic. The present post-hoc analysis of the BRIDGE-II-MIX study focuses on the clinical features of patients with history of antidepressant-induced hypomania/mania (AIHM) in a large international sample of patients with major depressive episode (MDE).

METHODS

2811 subjects with major depression were enrolled in this multicentre cross-sectional study. Current mixed symptoms, socio-demographic and other clinical variables were collected and compared among MDD-AIHM, MDD and BD patients.

RESULTS

475 patients out of 2811 had history of AIHM (16.90%). In the MDD-AIHM group, familiarity for BD and rates of atypical features and comorbid anxiety, eating and borderline personality disorders were similar to BD and significantly more frequent compared to MDD group. MDD-AIHM patients had more frequently more than 3 episodes and reported higher rates of treatment resistance, mood lability and irritability following treatment with antidepressants. Frequencies of depression with mixed features and (hypo)manic symptoms were similar in patients of MDD-AIHM and BD groups and significantly higher in both groups than in MDD.

LIMITATIONS

there were widely varying rates of hospitalized patients across countries and the participating centres were not randomly selected.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results strongly support the DSM-5 inclusion of MDD patients with AIHM within the rubric of bipolar disorder. Differences with other MDD and BD were also observed suggesting the possibility that MDD-AIHM may represent a specific sub-population, particularly sensitive to exogenous input from antidepressants.

Circuits Regulating Pleasure and Happiness in Bipolar Disorder

According to our model, the motivation for appetitive-searching vs. distress-avoiding behaviors is regulated by two parallel cortico-striato-thalamo-cortical (CSTC) re-entry circuits that include the core and the shell parts of the nucleus accumbens, respectively. An entire series of basal ganglia, running from the caudate nucleus on one side to the centromedial amygdala on the other side, control the intensity of these reward-seeking and misery-fleeing behaviors by stimulating the activity of the (pre)frontal and limbic cortices. Hyperactive motivation to display behavior that potentially results in reward induces feelings of hankering (relief leads to pleasure); while, hyperactive motivation to exhibit behavior related to avoidance of aversive states results in dysphoria (relief leads to happiness). These two systems collaborate in a reciprocal fashion. We hypothesized that the mechanism inducing the switch from bipolar depression to mania is the most essential characteristic of bipolar disorder. This switch is attributed to a dysfunction of the lateral habenula, which regulates the activity of midbrain centers, including the dopaminergic ventral tegmental area (VTA). From an evolutionary perspective, the activity of the lateral habenula should be regulated by the human homolog of the habenula-projecting globus pallidus, which in turn might be directed by the amygdaloid complex and the phylogenetically old part of the limbic cortex. In bipolar disorder, it is possible that the system regulating the activity of this reward-driven behavior is damaged or the interaction between the medial and lateral habenula may be dysfunctional. This may lead to an adverse coupling between the activities of the misery-fleeing and reward-seeking circuits, which results in independently varying activities.

A re-examination of antidepressant treatment-emergent mania in bipolar disorders: evidence of gender differences

OBJECTIVE

To explore the prevalence and clinical profile of males and females who develop antidepressant treatment-emergent mania (ATEM).

METHOD

From an original sample of 754 patients with BD, we identified ATEM+ cases (n = 75) and ATEM- controls (n = 135) that met stringent criteria. We specifically examined the combinations of clinical factors that best classified males and females as ATEM+ cases.

RESULTS

Seventy-five individuals were classified as ATEM+; 87% of ATEM events occurred during antidepressant monotherapy. Regression analyses demonstrated that the presence of an alcohol and/or substance use disorder [Odds Ratio (OR) 6.37], a history of one or more suicide attempts (OR 4.19) and higher number of depressive episodes per year of illness (OR 1.71) correctly classified 73% of males. In contrast, 84% of females were correctly classified on the basis of a positive history of thyroid disorder (OR 3.23), a positive family history of BD I (OR 2.68) and depressive onset polarity (OR 2.01).

CONCLUSION

Using stringent definitions of ATEM status to reduce the probability of inclusion of false-positive cases and false-negative controls, we identified for the first time that the risk profiles for the development of an ATEM differ significantly according to gender.

The International College of Neuro-Psychopharmacology (CINP) Treatment Guidelines for Bipolar Disorder in Adults (CINP-BD-2017), Part 2: Review, Grading of the Evidence, and a Precise Algorithm

Background

The current paper includes a systematic search of the literature, a detailed presentation of the results, and a grading of treatment options in terms of efficacy and tolerability/safety.

Material and Methods

The PRISMA method was used in the literature search with the combination of the words 'bipolar,' 'manic,' 'mania,' 'manic depression,' and 'manic depressive' with 'randomized,' and 'algorithms' with 'mania,' 'manic,' 'bipolar,' 'manic-depressive,' or 'manic depression.' Relevant web pages and review articles were also reviewed.

Results

The current report is based on the analysis of 57 guideline papers and 531 published papers related to RCTs, reviews, posthoc, or meta-analysis papers to March 25, 2016. The specific treatment options for acute mania, mixed episodes, acute bipolar depression, maintenance phase, psychotic and mixed features, anxiety, and rapid cycling were evaluated with regards to efficacy. Existing treatment guidelines were also reviewed. Finally, Tables reflecting efficacy and recommendation levels were created that led to the development of a precise algorithm that still has to prove its feasibility in everyday clinical practice.

Conclusions

A systematic literature search was conducted on the pharmacological treatment of bipolar disorder to identify all relevant random controlled trials pertaining to all aspects of bipolar disorder and graded the data according to a predetermined method to develop a precise treatment algorithm for management of various phases of bipolar disorder. It is important to note that the some of the recommendations in the treatment algorithm were based on the secondary outcome data from posthoc analyses.

Efficacy and safety of quetiapine extended release monotherapy in bipolar depression: a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

RATIONALE

Quetiapine extended release (XR) has been used to treat various psychiatric disorders, including depressive episodes associated with bipolar I and II disorders. Quetiapine XR is the first approved drug in China for the treatment of bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVES

The study evaluated the efficacy and safety of short-term quetiapine XR monotherapy in the treatment of depressive episodes of bipolar I and II disorders.

METHODS

This was an 8-week multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose phase 3 study. The primary endpoint was the mean change of the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Secondary endpoints included Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar (CGI-BP) and remission rates.

RESULTS

The study recruited 279 adult bipolar I or II patients currently experiencing depression from 11 Chinese provinces. Of these, 139 received quetiapine XR (300 mg/day) and 140 received placebo for 8 weeks. The mean change in the MADRS total score was significantly greater in the quetiapine XR group than in the placebo group (-19.00 ± 7.88 vs. -16.20 ± 9.32; p = 0.004). Adverse events occurred in 96 patients (65.3 %) in the quetiapine XR group and 72 (49.0 %) in the placebo group. The incidence of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups (p = 0.247).

CONCLUSIONS

This study, which is the first to evaluate 300 mg/day quetiapine XR monotherapy for depression in Chinese patients with bipolar disorders, found that this drug was superior to the placebo. Quetiapine XR was generally safe and well tolerated (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01256177).

Trends in the psychopharmacological treatment of bipolar disorder: a nationwide register-based study

OBJECTIVE

In bipolar disorder, treatment with antidepressants without concomitant use of mood stabilisers (antidepressant monotherapy) is associated with development of mania and rapid cycling and is therefore not recommended. The present study aimed to investigate the psychopharmacological treatment patterns in bipolar disorder over time, with a focus on antidepressant monotherapy.

METHODS

Cohort study with annual cross-sectional assessment of the use of psychotropic medications between 1995 and 2012 for all Danish residents aged 10 years or older with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder registered in the Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register. Users of a given psychotropic medication were defined as individuals having filled at least one prescription for that particular medication in the year of interest.

RESULTS

We identified 20 618 individuals with bipolar disorder. The proportion of patients with bipolar disorder using antidepressants, atypical antipsychotics and anticonvulsants increased over the study period, while the proportion of patients using lithium, typical antipsychotics and benzodiazepines/sedatives decreased. The proportion of patients treated with antidepressant monotherapy decreased from 20.5% in 1997 to 12.1% in 2012, and among antidepressant users, the proportion in monotherapy decreased from 47.7% to 23.9%, primarily driven by a decrease in the use of tricyclic antidepressants.

CONCLUSION

The results show an increase in the proportion of patients with bipolar disorder being treated with antidepressants in the period from 1997 to 2012. However, in accordance with international treatment guidelines, the extent of antidepressant monotherapy decreased during the same period.

Unrecognised bipolar disorder among UK primary care patients prescribed antidepressants: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder is not uncommon, is associated with high disability and risk of suicide, often presents with depression, and can go unrecognised.

AIM

To determine the prevalence of unrecognised bipolar disorder among those prescribed antidepressants for depressive or anxiety disorder in UK primary care; whether those with unrecognised bipolar disorder have more severe depression than those who do not; and the accuracy of a screening questionnaire for bipolar disorder, the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ), in this setting.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Observational primary care study of patients on the lists of 21 general practices in West Yorkshire aged 16-40 years and prescribed antidepressant medication.

METHOD

Participants were recruited using primary care databases, interviewed using a diagnostic interview, and completed the screening questionnaire and rating scales of symptoms and quality of life.

RESULTS

The prevalence of unrecognised bipolar disorder was 7.3%. Adjusting for differences between the sample and a national database gives a prevalence of 10.0%. Those with unrecognised bipolar disorder were younger and had greater lifetime depression. The predictive value of the MDQ was poor.

CONCLUSION

Among people aged 16-40 years prescribed antidepressants in primary care for depression or anxiety, there is a substantial proportion with unrecognised bipolar disorder. When seeing patients with depression or anxiety disorder, particularly when they are young or not doing well, clinicians should review the life history for evidence of unrecognised bipolar disorder. Some clinicians might find the MDQ to be a useful supplement to non-standardised questioning.

Mortality and secular trend in the incidence of bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND

The world-wide interest in bipolar disorder is illustrated by an exponential increase in publications on the disorder registered in Pubmed since 1990. This inspired an investigation of the epidemiology of bipolar disorder.

METHODS

This was a register-based cohort study. All first-ever diagnoses of bipolar disorder (International Classification of Diseases-10: F31) were identified in the nationwide Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register between 1995 and 2012. Causes of death were obtained from The Danish Register of Causes of Death. Age- and gender standardized incidence rates, standardized mortality ratio (SMR) and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were calculated.

RESULTS

We identified 15,334 incident cases of bipolar disorder. The incidence rate increased from 18.5/100,000 person-years (PY) in 1995 to 28.4/100,000 PY in 2012. The mean age at time of diagnosis decreased significantly from 54.5 years in 1995 to 42.4 years in 2012 (p<0.001). The mean time from first affective diagnosis to diagnosis of bipolar disorder was 7.9 years (SD 9.1). The SMR was 1.7 (95%-CI 1.2-2.1). Causes of death were mainly natural; 9% died from suicide.

LIMITATIONS

Only patients in psychiatric care were included. The outpatient registry opened in 1995. Patients treated solely in outpatient units are not recorded previously. Systematic studies validating all the clinical diagnoses of the registry do not exist.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of bipolar disorder has increased in the last 10 years. The SMR was significantly increased. Half of the patients were known to have another affective disorder. This should be considered in future decisions regarding the healthcare organization.

Pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression

BACKGROUND

Evidence is limited regarding the most effective pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression: combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic, monotherapy with an antidepressant or monotherapy with an antipsychotic. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

1. To compare the clinical efficacy of pharmacological treatments for patients with an acute psychotic depression: antidepressant monotherapy, antipsychotic monotherapy and the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic, compared with each other and/or with placebo.2. To assess whether differences in response to treatment in the current episode are related to non-response to prior treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

A search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Register (CCDANCTR) was carried out (to 12 April 2013). These registers include reports of randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: EMBASE (1970-), MEDLINE (1950-) and PsycINFO (1960-). Reference lists of all studies and related reviews were screened and key authors contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with acute major depression with psychotic features, as well as RCTs consisting of participants with acute major depression with or without psychotic features, that reported separately on the subgroup of participants with psychotic features.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies, according to the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data were entered into RevMan 5.1. We used intention-to-treat data. For dichotomous efficacy outcomes, the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. For continuously distributed outcomes, it was not possible to extract data from the RCTs. Regarding the primary outcome of harm, only overall dropout rates were available for all studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 3659 abstracts, but only 12 RCTs with a total of 929 participants could be included in the review. Because of clinical heterogeneity, few meta-analyses were possible. The main outcome was reduction of severity (response) of depression, not of psychosis.We found no evidence for the efficacy of monotherapy with an antidepressant or an antipsychotic.However, evidence suggests that the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than antidepressant monotherapy (three RCTs; RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.98, P = 0.006), more effective than antipsychotic monotherapy (four RCTs; RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.38, P = 0.00001) and more effective than placebo (two identical RCTs; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.82, P = 0.003).Risk of bias is considerable: there were differences between studies with regard to diagnosis, uncertainties around randomisation and allocation concealment, differences in treatment interventions (pharmacological differences between the various antidepressants and antipsychotics) and different outcome criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychotic depression is heavily understudied, limiting confidence in the conclusions drawn. Some evidence indicates that combination therapy with an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than either treatment alone or placebo. Evidence is limited for treatment with an antidepressant alone or with an antipsychotic alone.

Who will benefit from antidepressants in the acute treatment of bipolar depression? A reanalysis of the STEP-BD study by Sachs et al. 2007, using Q-learning

BACKGROUND

There is substantial uncertainty regarding the efficacy of antidepressants in the treatment of bipolar disorders.

METHODS

Traditional randomized controlled trials and statistical methods are not designed to discover if, when, and to whom an intervention should be applied; thus, other methodological approaches are needed that allow for the practice of personalized, evidence-based medicine with patients with bipolar depression.

RESULTS

Dynamic treatment regimes operationalize clinical decision-making as a sequence of decision rules, one per stage of clinical intervention, that map patient information to a recommended treatment. Using data from the acute depression randomized care (RAD) pathway of the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD) study, we estimate an optimal dynamic treatment regime via Q-learning.

CONCLUSIONS

The estimated optimal treatment regime presents some evidence that patients in the RAD pathway of STEP-BD who experienced a (hypo)manic episode before the depressive episode may do better to forgo adding an antidepressant to a mandatory mood stabilizer.

Toward stratified treatments for bipolar disorders

In bipolar disorders, there are unclear diagnostic boundaries with unipolar depression and schizophrenia, inconsistency of treatment guidelines, relatively long trial-and-error phases of treatment optimization, and increasing use of complex combination therapies lacking empirical evidence. These suggest that the current definition of bipolar disorders based on clinical symptoms reflects a clinically and etiologically heterogeneous entity. Stratification of treatments for bipolar disorders based on biomarkers and improved clinical markers are greatly needed to increase the efficacy of currently available treatments and improve the chances of developing novel therapeutic approaches. This review provides a theoretical framework to identify biomarkers and summarizes the most promising markers for stratification regarding beneficial and adverse treatment effects. State and stage specifiers, neuropsychological tests, neuroimaging, and genetic and epigenetic biomarkers will be discussed with respect to their ability to predict the response to specific pharmacological and psychosocial psychotherapies for bipolar disorders. To date, the most reliable markers are derived from psychopathology and history-taking, while no biomarker has been found that reliably predicts individual treatment responses. This review underlines both the importance of clinical diagnostic skills and the need for biological research to identify markers that will allow the targeting of treatment specifically to sub-populations of bipolar patients who are more likely to benefit from a specific treatment and less likely to develop adverse reactions.

Treatment implications of predominant polarity and the polarity index: a comprehensive review

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a serious and recurring condition that affects approximately 2.4% of the global population. About half of BD sufferers have an illness course characterized by either a manic or a depressive predominance. This predominant polarity in BD may be differentially associated with several clinical correlates. The concept of a polarity index (PI) has been recently proposed as an index of the antimanic versus antidepressive efficacy of various maintenance treatments for BD. Notwithstanding its potential clinical utility, predominant polarity was not included in the DSM-5 as a BD course specifier.

METHODS

Here we searched computerized databases for original clinical studies on the role of predominant polarity for selection of and response to pharmacological treatments for BD. Furthermore, we systematically searched the Pubmed database for maintenance randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for BD to determine the PI of the various pharmacological agents for BD.

RESULTS

We found support from naturalistic studies that bipolar patients with a predominantly depressive polarity are more likely to be treated with an antidepressive stabilization package, while BD patients with a manic-predominant polarity are more frequently treated with an antimanic stabilization package. Furthermore, predominantly manic BD patients received therapeutic regimens with a higher mean PI. The calculated PI varied from 0.4 (for lamotrigine) to 12.1 (for aripiprazole).

CONCLUSIONS

This review supports the clinical relevance of predominant polarity as a course specifier for BD. Future studies should investigate the role of baseline, predominant polarity as an outcome predictor of BD maintenance RCTs.

Risk of manic switch associated with antidepressant therapy in pediatric bipolar depression

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of manic switch associated with antidepressants in Medicaid-enrolled pediatric patients with bipolar depression.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study involved 2003-2007 Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) data from four geographically diverse states. The study sample included children and adolescents (ages 6-18 years) who had received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder on two or more separate occasions or during a hospital discharge, followed by a diagnosis of depression. According to the pharmacotherapy received by these patients in the 30 days around the index bipolar depression diagnosis, patients were categorized into five mutually exclusive groups. Manic switch was defined as having received a diagnosis of mania within 6 weeks after the initiation of bipolar depression treatment. Relative risks of manic switch between antidepressant monotherapy/polytherapy and their alternatives were assessed using Cox proportional hazards model. The robustness of the conventional Cox proportional hazards model toward possible bias caused by unobserved confounders was tested using instrumental variable analysis, and the uncertainty regarding manic switch definition was tested by altering the duration of follow-up.

RESULTS

After applying all the selection criteria, 179 antidepressant monotherapy, 1047 second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) monotherapy, 570 mood stabilizer monotherapy, 445 antidepressant polytherapy, and 1906 SGA-mood stabilizer polytherapy users were identified. In Cox proportional hazard analyses, both antidepressant monotherapy and polytherapy exhibited higher risk of manic switch than their alternatives (antidepressant monotherapy vs. SGA monotherapy, hazard ratio [HR]=2.87 [95% CI: 1.10-7.49]; antidepressant monotherapy vs. mood stabilizer monotherapy, HR=1.41 [95% CI: 0.52-3.80); antidepressant polytherapy vs. SGA-mood stabilizer polytherapy, HR=1.61 [95% CI: 0.90-2.89]). However, only the comparison between antidepressant monotherapy and SGA monotherapy was statistically significant. The instrumental variable analysis did not detect endogeneity of the treatment variables. Extending the follow-up period from 6 weeks to 8 and 12 weeks generated findings consistent with the main analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Study findings indicated a higher risk of manic switch associated with antidepressant monotherapy than with SGA monotherapy in pediatric patients with bipolar depression. The finding supported the clinical practice of cautious prescribing of antidepressants for brief periods.

Risk factors of cycle acceleration in acutely admitted patients with bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVE

To identify risk factors associated with cycle acceleration (CA), that is, progressive decrease in duration of syndrome-free intervals between affective episodes, in acutely admitted patients with bipolar disorder (BD).

METHOD

All patients (n = 210) with BD I (67%) and BD II (33%) (DSM-IV) acutely admitted to a hospital serving a catchment area were compared in retrospect with regard to a positive or negative history of CA. Putative risk factors of CA with a P-value <0.05 in uni-variate tests were secondly entered into a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The logistic regression model was statistically significant (P < 0.0001) and explained between 45.3% and 60.5% of the variance of CA status. 83.7% of the cases were correctly classified with a sensitivity of 87.2% and a specificity of 80.4%. Unique significant risk factors of CA were increasing severity of affective episodes (odds ratio (OR) = 28.8), BD II (OR = 3.3), hypomanic/manic episode induced by an antidepressant and/or alcohol (OR = 3.3), and female gender (OR = 3.1).

CONCLUSION

The clinical factors associated with CA may help targeting patients with BD with a course aggravation, and are in line with previously reported neuropathological processes of illness progression.

Screening for bipolar depression in family medicine practices: prevalence and clinical correlates

BACKGROUND

To compare individuals in primary care (PC) who screen positive for bipolar depression to those who screened positive for unipolar depression on mental health care ouctomes, PC service utilization, medical comorbidities, suicidal ideation, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and psychosocial functioning.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, participants (N=1197) answered self-reported measures of depressive symptoms (Center for epidemiologic studies depression scale), HRQoL (World Health Organization Quality of Life instrument-Abbreviated version), medical comorbidity (functional comorbidity index) and functioning (Functional Assessment Short test). Participants were partitioned into 'bipolar' and 'unipolar' depression groups based on a predefined cutoff on the Brazilian mood disorder questionnaire.

RESULTS

The prevalence of bipolar depression was in PC was 4.6% (95% CI: 3.4-5.8). Participants with bipolar depression were more likely to endorse suicidal ideation, present with more medical comorbidities, report a worse physical HRQoL and have a higher rate of PC services utilization as compared to participants who screened positive for unipolar depression. Only six (10.9%) participants were recognized by the general practitioner as having a diagnosis of bipolar depression.

LIMITATIONS

The cross-sectional design prevents firm causal inferences from being drawn. A positive screen for BD does not substantiate the actual diagnosis. Co-morbid mental disorders were not accessed.

CONCLUSIONS

Bipolar depression is common and under-recognized in Brazilian PC services. A positive screen for bipolar depression was associated with worse clinical outcomes and greater PC service utilization.

Comparison of clinical characteristics of bipolar and depressive disorders in Korean clinical sample of youth: a retrospective chart review

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical characteristics of bipolar disorder I, II (BD I and II) and not otherwise specified (BD NOS) to those of major depressive disorder (MDD) in a clinical sample of Korean children and adolescents. This study was a cross-sectional review of longitudinal observational data. Two psychiatrists retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 198 children and adolescents (age 6-18) that were diagnosed as having bipolar or depressive disorders from March 2010 to February 2012 at Department of Psychiatry of Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. Every subject's diagnoses were reviewed and confirmed. BD I, II and MDD were assessed according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV criteria. BD NOS was defined based on the criteria for the Course and Outcome of Bipolar Youth study. Comparisons were made in demographic information, clinical characteristics, family history, and psychiatric comorbidities at baseline and during observation. Among 198 subjects, 20 (10.1 %) subjects were diagnosed as having BD I, 10 (5.1 %) as BD II, 25 (12.6 %) as BD NOS and 143 (73.7 %) as MDD. BD depression was associated with mood change while taking an antidepressant, familial bipolarity, aggressive behaviors, and atypical features. Comorbid obsessive-compulsive disorder tended to be higher in BD NOS than in MDD. Presence of psychosocial stressors was more common in MDD than in BD depression. In children and adolescents, bipolar depression is distinct from unipolar depression in family history, comorbidity, and clinical characteristics.

Bipolar disorder in children

Although bipolar disorder historically was thought to only occur rarely in children and adolescents, there has been a significant increase in children and adolescents who are receiving this diagnosis more recently (Carlson, 2005). Nonetheless, the applicability of the current bipolar disorder diagnostic criteria for children, particularly preschool children, remains unclear, even though much work has been focused on this area. As a result, more work needs to be done to further the understanding of bipolar symptoms in children. It is hoped that this paper can assist psychologists and other health service providers in gleaning a snapshot of the literature in this area so that they can gain an understanding of the diagnostic criteria and other behaviors that may be relevant and be informed about potential approaches for assessment and treatment with children who meet bipolar disorder criteria. First, the history of bipolar symptoms and current diagnostic criteria will be discussed. Next, assessment strategies that may prove helpful for identifying bipolar disorder will be discussed. Then, treatments that may have relevance to children and their families will be discussed. Finally, conclusions regarding work with children who may have a bipolar disorder diagnosis will be offered.

Pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression

BACKGROUND

Evidence is limited regarding the most effective pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression: combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic, monotherapy with an antidepressant or monotherapy with an antipsychotic. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

1. To compare the clinical efficacy of pharmacological treatments for patients with an acute psychotic depression: antidepressant monotherapy, antipsychotic monotherapy and the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic, compared with each other and/or with placebo.2. To assess whether differences in response to treatment in the current episode are related to non-response to prior treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

A search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Register (CCDANCTR) was carried out (to 12 April 2013). These registers include reports of randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: EMBASE (1970-), MEDLINE (1950-) and PsycINFO (1960-). Reference lists of all studies and related reviews were screened and key authors contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with acute major depression with psychotic features, as well as RCTs consisting of participants with acute major depression with or without psychotic features, that reported separately on the subgroup of participants with psychotic features.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies, according to the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data were entered into RevMan 5.1. We used intention-to-treat data. For dichotomous efficacy outcomes, the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. For continuously distributed outcomes, it was not possible to extract data from the RCTs. Regarding the primary outcome of harm, only overall dropout rates were available for all studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 3659 abstracts, but only 12 RCTs with a total of 929 participants could be included in the review. Because of clinical heterogeneity, few meta-analyses were possible. The main outcome was reduction of severity (response) of depression, not of psychosis.We found no evidence for the efficacy of monotherapy with an antidepressant or an antipsychotic.However, evidence suggests that the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than antidepressant monotherapy (three RCTs; RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.98, P = 0.006), more effective than antipsychotic monotherapy (four RCTs; RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.38, P = 0.00001) and more effective than placebo (two identical RCTs; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.82, P = 0.003).Risk of bias is considerable: there were differences between studies with regard to diagnosis, uncertainties around randomisation and allocation concealment, differences in treatment interventions (pharmacological differences between the various antidepressants and antipsychotics) and different outcome criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychotic depression is heavily understudied, limiting confidence in the conclusions drawn. Some evidence indicates that combination therapy with an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than either treatment alone or placebo. Evidence is limited for treatment with an antidepressant alone or with an antipsychotic alone.

The International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) task force report on antidepressant use in bipolar disorders

OBJECTIVE

The risk-benefit profile of antidepressant medications in bipolar disorder is controversial. When conclusive evidence is lacking, expert consensus can guide treatment decisions. The International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) convened a task force to seek consensus recommendations on the use of antidepressants in bipolar disorders.

METHOD

An expert task force iteratively developed consensus through serial consensus-based revisions using the Delphi method. Initial survey items were based on systematic review of the literature. Subsequent surveys included new or reworded items and items that needed to be rerated. This process resulted in the final ISBD Task Force clinical recommendations on antidepressant use in bipolar disorder.

RESULTS

There is striking incongruity between the wide use of and the weak evidence base for the efficacy and safety of antidepressant drugs in bipolar disorder. Few well-designed, long-term trials of prophylactic benefits have been conducted, and there is insufficient evidence for treatment benefits with antidepressants combined with mood stabilizers. A major concern is the risk for mood switch to hypomania, mania, and mixed states. Integrating the evidence and the experience of the task force members, a consensus was reached on 12 statements on the use of antidepressants in bipolar disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of limited data, the task force could not make broad statements endorsing antidepressant use but acknowledged that individual bipolar patients may benefit from antidepressants. Regarding safety, serotonin reuptake inhibitors and bupropion may have lower rates of manic switch than tricyclic and tetracyclic antidepressants and norepinephrine-serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The frequency and severity of antidepressant-associated mood elevations appear to be greater in bipolar I than bipolar II disorder. Hence, in bipolar I patients antidepressants should be prescribed only as an adjunct to mood-stabilizing medications.

What goes up must come down: the burden of bipolar depression in youth

BACKGROUND

In the pediatric bipolar disorder literature, mania has eclipsed depression as the mood state of most interest. Though depressive episodes tend to be more prevalent and persisting than manic episodes, research about the associated consequences is limited. The goal of the present study was to compare the influences of depressive and manic symptoms on domains of functioning in which youth with bipolar disorder often demonstrate deficits.

METHOD

Youth meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria for bipolar spectrum disorders (I, II, and NOS) between the ages of seven and 13 were recruited from a clinic in a large Midwestern city (N=54). Both parent and clinician report of manic and depressive symptoms were used in regression analyses to determine how each set of symptoms was related to child functioning.

RESULTS

Parent-rated child depression symptoms were associated with problem behaviors (p<0.05), and lower quality of life (p<0.001). Clinician-rated child depression was associated with greater psychiatric illness (p<0.05), lower child self-concept (p<0.001), lower quality of life (p<0.05), hopelessness (p<0.05), and suicidal ideation (p<0.05). Parent-rated mania was associated with better self-esteem (p<0.05) and physical wellbeing (p<0.05). Clinician-rated mania was associated with greater psychiatric illness (p<0.05) and physical wellbeing (p<0.05).

LIMITATIONS

The specific outcomes predicted by parent and clinician-rated symptoms vary. Though the overall story told--that bipolar depression is associated with significant impairment in youth--is consistent, further research is necessary to more fully understand the impact of each mood state.

CONCLUSION

Mania is undoubtedly destructive, but this study provides evidence to suggest that depression may be more deleterious to youths' psychosocial functioning and quality of life; more attention to understanding and ameliorating the effects of bipolar depression on youth is warranted.

Treatment of bipolar depression

Depressive symptoms and episodes dominate the long-term course of bipolar disorder and are associated with high levels of disability and an increased risk of suicide. However, the treatment of bipolar depression has been poorly investigated in comparison with that of manic episodes and unipolar major depressive disorder. The goal of treatment in bipolar depression is not only to achieve full remission of acute symptoms, but also to avoid long-term mood destabilization and to prevent relapses. A depressive presentation of bipolar disorder may often delay the appropriate management and, thus, worsen the long-term outcome. In these cases, an accurate screening for diagnostic indicators of a possible bipolar course of the illness should guide the therapeutic choices, and lead to prognostic improvement. Antidepressant use is still the most controversial issue in the treatment of bipolar depression. Despite inconclusive evidence of efficacy and tolerability, this class of agents is commonly prescribed in acute and long-term treatment, often in combination with mood stabilizers. In this article, we review available treatment options for bipolar depression, and we shall provide some suggestions for the management of the different presentations of depression in the course of bipolar disorder.

Overview of antidepressant treatment of bipolar depression

Bipolar depression remains a major unresolved challenge for psychiatric therapeutics. It is associated with significant disability and mortality and represents the major proportion of the approximately half of follow-up time spent in morbid states despite use of available treatments. Evidence regarding effectiveness of standard treatments, particularly with antidepressants, remains limited and inconsistent. We reviewed available clinical and research literature concerning treatment with antidepressants in bipolar depression and its comparison with unipolar depression. Research evidence concerning efficacy and safety of commonly used antidepressant treatments for acute bipolar depression is very limited. Nevertheless, an updated meta-analysis indicated that overall efficacy was significantly greater with antidepressants than with placebo-treatment and not less than was found in trials for unipolar major depression. Moreover, risks of non-spontaneous mood-switching specifically associated with antidepressant treatment are less than appears to be widely believed. The findings encourage additional efforts to test antidepressants adequately in bipolar depression, and to consider options for depression in types I vs. II bipolar disorder, depression with subsyndromal hypomania and optimal treatment of mixed agitated-dysphoric states--both short- and long-term. Many therapeutic trials considered were small, varied in design, often involved co-treatments, or lacked adequate controls.

A systematic review of the evidence for the treatment of acute depression in bipolar I disorder

In this article, we examined evidence for the acute treatment of depression in bipolar I disorder, focusing on double-blind, placebo-controlled studies with a definite primary outcome measure and published in peer review journals. Quetiapine and olanzapine/fluoxetine are currently approved by the FDA for the treatment of bipolar depression, and a number of additional agents (including other atypical antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, antidepressants, and novel compounds) have been studied with varying degrees of efficacy. The medication with the most evidence for efficacy in bipolar depression is quetiapine, with five studies showing positive efficacy compared to placebo. In contrast, five studies of lamotrigine were negative, although meta-analyses of the pooled have found some treatment effects. Two studies of olanzapine and olanzapine/fluoxetine and three small studies of divalproex showed significant efficacy in treating bipolar depression. Two studies of aripiprazole found no differences compared to placebo. Early research on lithium in bipolar depression had significant methodological flaws, and only one study of lithium met our primary search criteria. To better understand the role of antidepressants, we also examined studies of antidepressants as adjunctive treatment of bipolar depression in participants taking mood stabilizers or atypical antipsychotics. These studies reported mixed results for a variety of antidepressants, but the majority found no differences compared to placebo. Other studies of adjunctive treatment were also discussed. There has been one positive adjunctive study each of lamotrigine, omega-3 fatty acids, modafinil, and armodafinil, while there was one negative trial each of omega-3 fatty acids, ziprasidone, and levetiracetam.

Pharmacological management of bipolar depression: acute treatment, maintenance, and prophylaxis

Although the most distinctive clinical feature of bipolar disorder is the pathologically elevated mood, it does not usually constitute the prevalent mood state of bipolar illness. The majority of patients with bipolar disorder spend much more time in depressive episodes, including subsyndromal depressive symptoms, and bipolar depression accounts for the largest part of the morbidity and mortality of the illness. The pharmacological treatment of bipolar depression mostly consists of combinations of at least two drugs, including mood stabilizers (lithium and anticonvulsants), atypical antipsychotics, and antidepressants. Antidepressants are the most frequently prescribed drugs, but recommendations from evidence-based guidelines are not conclusive and do not overtly support their use. Among antidepressants, best evidence exists for fluoxetine, but in combination with olanzapine. Although some guidelines recommend the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or bupropion in combination with antimanic agents as first-choice treatment, others do not, based on the available evidence. Among anticonvulsants, the use of lamotrigine is overall recommended as a first-line choice, but acute monotherapy studies have failed. Valproate is generally mentioned as a second-line treatment. Lithium monotherapy is also suggested by most guidelines as a first-line treatment, but its efficacy in acute use is not totally clear. Amongst atypical antipsychotics, quetiapine, in monotherapy or as adjunctive treatment, is recommended by most guidelines as a first-line choice. Olanzapine monotherapy is also suggested by some guidelines and is approved in Japan. Armodafinil, pramipexole, ketamine, and lurasidone are recent proposals. Long-term treatment in bipolar disorder is strongly recommended, but guidelines do not recommend the use of antidepressants as a maintenance treatment. Lithium, lamotrigine, valproate, olanzapine, quetiapine, and aripiprazole are the recommended first-line maintenance options.

Differentiating bipolar disorder-not otherwise specified and severe mood dysregulation

OBJECTIVE

Bipolar disorder-not otherwise specified (BP-NOS) and severe mood dysregulation (SMD) are severe mood disorders that were defined to address questions about the diagnosis of bipolar disorder (BD) in youth. SMD and BP-NOS are distinct phenotypes that differ in clinical presentation and longitudinal course. The purpose of this review is to inform clinicians about the clinical features of the two phenotypes and about the research literature distinguishing them.

METHOD

A literature review was performed on SMD as studied in the National Institute of Mental Health Intramural Research Program and on BP-NOS in youth. For BP-NOS, the phenotype defined in the Course of Bipolar Youth study is the focus, because this has received the most study.

RESULTS

SMD is characterized by impairing, chronic irritability without distinct manic episodes. Most commonly, BP-NOS is characterized by manic, mixed, or hypomanic episodes that are too short to meet the DSM-IV-TR duration criterion. Research provides strong, albeit suggestive, evidence that SMD is not a form of BD; the most convincing evidence are longitudinal data indicating that youth with SMD are not at high risk to develop BD as they age. The BP-NOS phenotype appears to be on a diagnostic continuum with BD types I and II. Subjects with BP-NOS and those with BD type I have similar symptom and family history profiles, and youth with BP-NOS are at high risk to develop BD as they age. Currently, little research guides treatment for either phenotype.

CONCLUSIONS

Pressing research needs include identifying effective treatments for these phenotypes, ascertaining biomarkers that predict conversion from BP-NOS to BD, elucidating associations between SMD and other disorders, and defining the neural circuitry mediating each condition.

Olanzapine plus fluoxetine for bipolar disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine plus fluoxetine combination (OFC) is one of the current approaches for treating the depressive phase of bipolar disorder. Our objective was to synthesize the evidence on the efficacy of OFC therapy in bipolar depressed patients.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MEDLINE, Embase and other databases. Independent researchers selected the studies and extracted the data. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence. The Mantel-Haenszel random effect model was used to perform the meta-analyses.

RESULTS

From 627 unique records retrieved, four RCTs were included (1330 patients). OFC improved the response compared to olanzapine (relative risk [RR]=1.58; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.27, 1.97) and to placebo (RR=1.99; 95% CI: 1.49, 2.65) but not to lamotrigine (low-quality evidence). Similar results were found for remission and relapse rates. No differences were identified for levels of depression and mania symptoms (low-quality evidence) and incidence of mania (moderate-quality evidence). Adverse effects were more common in patients treated with OFC than in those treated with lamotrigine (RR=1.13; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.23), but no difference was found relative to the patients treated with olanzapine (low-quality evidence).

LIMITATIONS

Despite the totality of the evidence included, there are few RCTs available regarding the efficacy of OFC therapy for bipolar depression. The risk of attrition and reporting bias is also a concern.

CONCLUSIONS

OFC therapy improved the response, remission, and relapse rates among other outcomes. However, a worse profile of adverse reactions was observed in some comparisons. These data clarify the therapeutic use of OFC as an option to olanzapine in bipolar depression. The quality of the evidence could be improved by additional comparisons and higher rates of treatment adherence.

Onset of Depression Inventory (ODI)--assessment of the speed of onset of depressive episodes

BACKGROUND

The development of a full blown depressive episode may be very rapid, taking less than one hour, or be very slow, taking up to months. In a previous study with outpatients it was found that the majority (58%) of depressive episodes within bipolar affective disorders (BD) develop within one week whereas this is rarely the case (7.4%) in unipolar depression (UD). Apart from a replication of these findings, the present study aimed to investigate the speed of onset in patients with BD compared to UD patients with either a depressive episode (DE) or recurrent depressive disorder (RD).

METHODS

Speed of onset of depression was assessed using the structured patient interview "Onset of Depression Inventory" (ODI). In total, 24 BD patients, 42 patients with a DE and 80 patients with a RD within unipolar affective disorders were included.

RESULTS

The speed of onset of depressive episodes differed significantly between the three patient groups (Kruskal-Wallis-test: Chi²=12.493, p=0.002): 50% of the BD patients developed a depressive episode within a week, compared with only 16.7% of DE patients and 25.0% of RD patients.

LIMITATIONS

The ODI has not yet been validated.

CONCLUSIONS

The earlier finding of a faster onset of depressive episodes in BD compared to UD patients is replicated. Clinicians should consider the possibility of a hidden bipolarity in patients who develop a depressive episode within a few days.

An update on antidepressant use in bipolar depression

The effective treatment of depression in people with bipolar disorder remains a clinical challenge. The role of antidepressant medication in treating bipolar depression has been controversial. While early studies and meta-analyses supported a role for antidepressant medication, more recent, high quality randomized controlled trials in bipolar depression have generally not demonstrated efficacy for antidepressant medications. Although the risk of affective switch and long-term de-stabilization remains a concern when using antidepressant medications in bipolar disorder, the magnitude of this risk has been difficult to ascertain with confidence. Maintenance use of antidepressant medication has generally not demonstrated a favorable risk-benefit ratio. Future studies should explore the patient characteristics and response patterns that predict a more favorable response profile to antidepressants amongst patients with bipolar disorder so that the medications can be rationally used in those who are most likely to benefit.

Brief depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder: analysis of long-term self-reported data

OBJECTIVE

Most patients with bipolar disorder experience depressive symptoms outside of an episode of depression as defined by DSM-IV criteria. This study explores the frequency of brief depressive episodes, lasting 1 to 4 days, using daily self-reported mood ratings.

METHOD

Mood ratings were obtained from 448 patients (281 bipolar I, 167 bipolar II) using ChronoRecord software (91,786 total days). Episodes of depression and days of depression outside of episodes were determined. The intensity of depressive symptoms (mild versus moderate to severe) was compared.

RESULTS

Using the DSM-IV length criteria, 61% of all depressive days occurred outside of a depressed episode. Decreasing the minimum length criterion to 2 days, both the number of patients experiencing a depressed episode (128 to 317) and the mean percent of days spent in a depressed episode by each patient (7.9% to 17.8.%) increased by about 2½ times, and 34.3% of depressed days remained outside of an episode. Depending on the episode length, the proportion of days within an episode with severe symptoms varied from 1/3 to 1/4 for episodes lasting from 14 to 2 days, and 1/4 for single-day episodes. There was no significant difference in the frequency of brief depressive episodes between bipolar I and II disorders. For all episode lengths, patients taking antidepressants spent 4% more days within an episode and 6% more days with depressive symptoms outside of an episode than those not taking antidepressants.

CONCLUSION

Brief depressive episodes lasting 1 to 4 days occur frequently in bipolar disorder and do not distinguish between bipolar I and II disorders. Symptoms of moderate to severe intensity occur on 1/4 to 1/3 of the days in brief depressive episodes. This study did not address brief depression in those without bipolar disorder. Patients taking antidepressants experienced more brief depressive episodes. Controlled trials are needed to assess the impact of antidepressants on subsyndromal depressive symptoms.

[S3 guidelines on diagnostics and therapy of bipolar disorders: development process and essential recommendations]

Bipolar disorders are severe psychiatric disorders with extensive individual and health economic consequences. Starting in 2007 the first German evidence and consensus based guideline for diagnostics and treatment of bipolar disorders was developed which holds the potential of increasing confidence of therapists, patients and relatives in the decision-making process and improving healthcare service experiences of patients and relatives. Apart from recommendations for diagnostics and treatment the guidelines provide those for trialogue action, knowledge transfer and self-help and for strategies for healthcare provision of this complex disorder. In the present article the methodology and essential recommendations are outlined and complemented in specific topics by corresponding articles in this special issue. Due to restrictions of the length of this presentation there is the need to refer to the comprehensive version of the guidelines at several points also regarding a detailed discussion of the limitations.

The argument of antidepressant drugs in the treatment of bipolar depression: mixed evidence or mixed states?

INTRODUCTION

The role of antidepressant drugs in acute and maintenance treatment of bipolar depression is a matter of debate that cannot be decided from the evidence available in the current literature.

AREAS COVERED

This review includes two sections: in the first, important contributions from the current literature, emphasizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analysis, highlight current controversies and methodological issues; in the second, the impact of mixed depressive features in bipolar depression is evaluated from a psychopathological perspective.

EXPERT OPINION

Methodological issues may complicate evaluation of the evidence from RCTs regarding antidepressants and mixed states. Moreover, nosological constructs may also contribute to the inconclusive findings, by introducing heterogeneity in patient selection and diagnosis. Acknowledging the impact of mixed features in the course of bipolar depression, essentially by the careful reading of classical Kraepelinian contributions, could enhance clinical management. This would in turn allow a more judicious use of antidepressants, ideally helping to shed some light on the much controversial 'antidepressant-related suicidality', and help to further clarify the reasons for the current literature discordance on this topic.

P2RX7: expression responds to sleep deprivation and associates with rapid cycling in bipolar disorder type 1

Context

Rapid cycling is a severe form of bipolar disorder with an increased rate of episodes that is particularly treatment-responsive to chronotherapy and stable sleep-wake cycles. We hypothesized that the P2RX7 gene would be affected by sleep deprivation and be implicated in rapid cycling.

Objectives

To assess whether P2RX7 expression is affected by total sleep deprivation and if variation in P2RX7 is associated with rapid cycling in bipolar patients.

Design

Gene expression analysis in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from healthy volunteers and case-case and case-control SNP/haplotype association analyses in patients.

Participants

Healthy volunteers at the sleep research center, University of California, Irvine Medical Center (UCIMC), USA (n = 8) and Swedish outpatients recruited from specialized psychiatric clinics for bipolar disorder, diagnosed with bipolar disorder type 1 (n = 569; rapid cycling: n = 121) and anonymous blood donor controls (n = 1,044).

Results

P2RX7 RNA levels were significantly increased during sleep deprivation in PBMCs from healthy volunteers (p = 2.3*10⁻⁹). The P2RX7 rs2230912 _A allele was more common (OR = 2.2, p = 0.002) and the ACGTTT haplotype in P2RX7 (rs1718119 to rs1621388) containing the protective rs2230912_G allele (OR = 0.45–0.49, p = 0.003–0.005) was less common, among rapid cycling cases compared to non-rapid cycling bipolar patients and blood donor controls.

Conclusions

Sleep deprivation increased P2RX7 expression in healthy persons and the putatively low-activity P2RX7 rs2230912 allele A variant was associated with rapid cycling in bipolar disorder. This supports earlier findings of P2RX7 associations to affective disorder and is in agreement with that particularly rapid cycling patients have a more vulnerable diurnal system.