Frequency of hospitalisations and inpatient care costs of manic episodes: in patients with bipolar I disorder in France

Long-Term Course of Remission and Recovery in Psychotic Disorders

OBJECTIVE

Understanding prognosis is critical to anticipating public health needs and providing care to individuals with psychotic disorders. However, the long-term course of remission and recovery remains unclear. In this study, the most common trajectories of illness course are described for a cohort of individuals followed for 25 years since first admission for psychosis.

METHODS

Participants are from the Suffolk County Mental Health Project, an epidemiological study of first-admission psychosis. Data for the present study was collected from six follow-ups, with 311 individuals assessed at the 25-year follow-up. Common patterns of remission and recovery were assessed in the baseline cohort of 591 individuals and the subsample from the 25-year follow up.

RESULTS

In the baseline cohort and the 25-year subsample, the most common trajectory for individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders was no remission and no recovery. Among individuals with other psychotic disorders, in both the baseline and 25-year cohorts, the modal pattern was one of intermittent remission and recovery. Individuals with other psychotic disorders were more likely to experience stable remission (15.1%) and stable recovery (21.1%), outcomes that were rare among individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (0% and 0.6%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The modal longitudinal pattern for individuals with other psychoses is one of multiple transitions into and out of symptomatic and functional recovery. Engagement in a long-term health care plan may help individuals detect and respond to these changes. Sustained remission and recovery are rare among people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Efforts should be directed toward developing more effective treatments for this population.

Prevalence and outcomes of rapid cycling bipolar disorder: Mixed method systematic meta-review

Rapid-cycling in bipolar disorder (RC-BD) is associated with greater illness morbidity and inferior treatment response but many aspects remain unclear, prompting this systematic review of its definitions, prevalence, and clinical characteristics. We searched multiple literature databases through April 2022 for systematic reviews or meta-analyses on RC-BD and extracted associated definitions, prevalence, risk-factors, and clinical outcomes. We assessed study quality (NIH Quality Assessment Tool) and levels of evidence (Oxford criteria). Of 146 identified reviews, 22 fulfilling selection criteria were included, yielding 30 studies involving 13,698 BD patients, of whom 3777 (27.6% [CI: 26.8-28.3]) were considered RC-BD, as defined in 14 reports by ≥4 recurrences/year within the past 12 months or in any year, without considering responsiveness to treatment. Random-effects meta-analytically pooled one-year prevalence was 22.3% [CI: 14.4-32.9] in 12 reports and lifetime prevalence was 35.5% [27.6-44.3] in 18 heterogenous reports. Meta-regression indicated greater lifetime prevalence of RC-BD among women than men (p=0.003). Association of RC-BD with suicide attempts, and unsatisfactory response to mood-stabilizers was supported by strong evidence (Level 1); associations with childhood maltreatment, mixed-features, female sex, and type-II BD had moderate evidence (Level 2). Other factors: genetic predisposition, metabolic disturbances or hypothyroidism, antidepressant exposure, predominant depressive polarity (Level 3), along with greater illness duration and immune-inflammatory dysfunction (Level 4) require further study. RC-BD was consistently recognized as having high prevalence (22.3%-35.5% of BD cases) and inferior treatment response. Identified associated factors can inform clinical practice. Long-term illness-course, metabolic factors, and optimal treatment require further investigation.

Sex-specific associations between lifetime diagnosis of bipolar disorder and cardiovascular disease: A cross-sectional analysis of 257,673 participants from the UK Biobank

BACKGROUND

Sex is seldom considered as a potential moderator of the impact of bipolar disorder (BD) on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. We aimed to characterize the sex-specific association of CVD and BD using data from the UK Biobank.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional analysis, we compared the odds ratio between women and men with BD for seven CVD diagnoses (coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, angina, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, stroke, and essential hypertension) and four cardiovascular biomarkers (arterial stiffness index, low-density lipoprotein, C-reactive protein, and HbA1c) in 293 participants with BD and 257,380 psychiatrically healthy controls in the UK Biobank.

RESULTS

After adjusting for age, we found a two- to three-fold stronger association among women than among men between BD and rates of coronary artery disease, heart failure, and essential hypertension, with a significant sex-by-diagnosis interactions. The association remained significant after controlling for self-reported race, education, income, and smoking status. After controlling for potential confounders, there was no significant association between sex and any cardiovascular biomarkers.

LIMITATIONS

These analyses could not disentangle effects of BD from its treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results underscore the importance of incorporating sex and mental illness in risk estimation tools for CVD, and improving screening for, and timely treatment of, CVD in those with BD. Future research is needed to better understand the contributors and mechanisms of sex differences related to CVD risk in BD.

Bipolar Disorder Related Hospitalizations - a Descriptive Nationwide Study Using a Big Data Approach

Bipolar Disorder (BD) is a mental disorder which frequently requires long hospitalizations and need for acute psychiatric care. The aim of this study was to describe a nationwide perspective of BD related hospitalizations and to use a BigData based approach in mental health research. We performed a retrospective observational study using a nationwide hospitalization database containing all hospitalizations registered in Portuguese public hospitals from 2008-2015. Hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of BD were selected based on International Classification of Diseases version 9, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes of diagnosis 296.xx (excluding 296.2x; 296.3x and 296.9x). From 20,807 hospitalizations belonging to 13,300 patients, around 33.4% occurred in male patients with a median length of stay of 16.0 days and a mean age of 47.9 years. The most common hospitalization diagnosis in BD has the code 296.4x (manic episode) representing 34.3% of all hospitalizations, followed by the code 296.5x (depressed episode) with 21.4%. The mean estimated hospitalization charge was 3,508.5€ per episode, with a total charge of 73M€ in the 8-year period of this study.This is a nationwide study giving a broad perspective of the BD hospitalization panorama at a national level. We found important differences in hospitalization characteristics by sex, age and primary diagnosis.

Lithium for acute mania

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-of-illness studies for bipolar disorder: systematic review of international studies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Bipolar disorder (BD) may result in a greater burden than all forms of cancer, Alzheimer's disease and epilepsy. Cost-of-illness (COI) studies provide useful information on the economic burden that BD imposes on a society. Furthermore, COI studies are pivotal sources of evidence used in economic evaluations. This study aims to give a general overview of COI studies for BD and to discuss methodological issues that might potentially influence results. This study also aims to provide recommendations to improve practice in this area, based on the review.

METHODS

A search was performed to identify COI studies of BD. The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, HMIC and openSIGLE. The primary outcome of this review was the annual cost per BD patient. A narrative assessment of key methodological issues was also included. Based on these findings, recommendations for good practice were drafted.

RESULTS

Fifty-four studies were included in this review. Because of the widespread methodological heterogeneity among included studies, no attempt has been made to pool results of different studies. Potential areas for methodological improvement were identified. These were: description of the disease and population, the approach to deal with comorbidities, reporting the rationale and impact for choosing different cost perspectives, and ways in which uncertainty is addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

This review showed that numerous COI studies have been conducted for BD since 1995. However, these studies employed varying methods, which limit the comparability of findings. The recommendations provided by this review can be used by those conducting COI studies and those critiquing them, to increase the credibility and reporting of study results.

Aripiprazole alone or in combination for acute mania

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder is a mental disorder characterised by episodes of elevated or irritable mood (manic or hypomanic episodes) and episodes of low mood and loss of energy (depressive episodes). Drug treatment is the first-line treatment for acute mania with the initial aim of rapid control of agitation, aggression and dangerous behaviour. Aripiprazole, an atypical antipsychotic, is used in the treatment of mania both as monotherapy and combined with other medicines. The British Association of Psychopharmacology guidelines report that, in monotherapy placebo-controlled trials, the atypical antipsychotics, including aripiprazole, have been shown to be effective for acute manic or mixed episodes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole alone or in combination with other antimanic drug treatments, compared with placebo and other drug treatments, in alleviating acute symptoms of manic or mixed episodes. Other objectives include reviewing the acceptability of treatment with aripiprazole, investigating the adverse effects of aripiprazole treatment, and determining overall mortality rates among those receiving aripiprazole treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) was searched, all years to 31st July 2013. This register contains relevant randomised controlled trials from: The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). We also searched Bristol-Myers Squibb clinical trials register, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov (to August 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing aripiprazole versus placebo or other drugs in the treatment of acute manic or mixed episodes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data, including adverse effect data, from trial reports and assessed bias. The drug manufacturer or the trial authors were contacted for missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies (3340 participants) were included in the review. Seven studies compared aripiprazole monotherapy versus placebo (2239 participants); two of these included a third comparison arm-one study used lithium (485 participants) and the other used haloperidol (480 participants). Two studies compared aripiprazole as an adjunctive treatment to valproate or lithium versus placebo as an adjunctive treatment (754 participants), and one study compared aripiprazole versus haloperidol (347 participants). The overall risk of bias was unclear. A high dropout rate from most trials (> 20% for each intervention in eight of the trials) may have affected the estimates of relative efficacy. Evidence shows that aripiprazole was more effective than placebo in reducing manic symptoms in adults and children/adolescents at three and four weeks but not at six weeks (Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS); mean difference (MD) at three weeks (random effects) -3.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.82 to -2.05; six studies; N = 1819, moderate quality evidence) - a modest difference. Aripiprazole was compared with other drug treatments in three studies in adults-lithium was used in one study and haloperidol in two studies. No statistically significant differences between aripiprazole and other drug treatments in reducing manic symptoms were noted at three weeks (YMRS MD at three weeks (random effects) 0.07, 95% CI -1.24 to 1.37; three studies; N = 972, moderate quality evidence) or at any other time point up to and including 12 weeks. Compared with placebo, aripiprazole caused more movement disorders, as measured on the Simpson Angus Scale (SAS), on the Barnes Akathisia Scale (BAS) and by participant-reported akathisia (high quality evidence), with more people requiring treatment with anticholinergic medication (risk ratios (random effects) 3.28, 95% CI 1.82 to 5.91; two studies; N = 730, high quality evidence). Aripiprazole also led to more gastrointestinal disturbances (nausea (high quality evidence), and constipation) and caused more children/adolescents to have a prolactin level that fell below the lower limit of normal. Significant heterogeneity was present in the meta-analysis of movement disorders associated with aripiprazole and other treatments and was most likely due to the different side effect profiles of lithium and haloperidol. At the three-week time point, meta-analysis was not possible because of lack of data; however, at 12 weeks, haloperidol resulted in significantly more movement disorders than aripiprazole, as measured on the SAS, the BAS and the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) and by participant-reported akathisia. By 12 weeks, investigators reported no difference between aripiprazole and lithium (SAS, BAS, AIMS), except in terms of participant-reported akathisia (RR 2.97, 95% CI 1.37 to 6.43; one study; N = 313).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Aripiprazole is an effective treatment for mania in a population that includes adults, children and adolescents, although its use leads to gastrointestinal disturbances and movement disorders. Comparative trials with medicines other than haloperidol and lithium are few, so the precise place of aripiprazole in therapy remains unclear.

The societal cost of bipolar disorder in Sweden

PURPOSE

There is a lack of comprehensive cost-of-illness studies in bipolar disorder, in particular studies based on patient-level data. The purpose of this study was to estimate the societal cost of bipolar disorder and to relate costs to disease severity, depressive episodes, hospitalisation and patient functioning.

METHODS

Retrospective resource use data in inpatient and outpatient care during 2006-2008, as well as ICD-10 diagnoses and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores, were obtained from the Northern Stockholm psychiatric clinic with a catchment area including 47% of the adult inhabitants in Stockholm. This dataset was combined with national register data on prescription pharmaceuticals and sick leave to estimate the societal cost of bipolar disorder. The study was conducted from a societal perspective, with indirect costs valued according to the human capital method.

RESULTS

The average annual cost per patient was <euro>28,011 in 2008 (n = 1,846). Indirect costs due to sick leave and early retirement represented 75%, inpatient costs 13%, outpatient costs 8%, pharmaceuticals 2% and community care another 2% of the total cost. Total costs were considerably higher during mood episodes (six times higher than in remission), for hospitalised patients (<euro>55,500 vs. <euro>22,200) and for patients with low GAF scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The high cost of bipolar disorder is driven primarily by indirect costs. Costs were strongly associated with mood episodes, hospitalisations and low GAF scores. This suggests that treatment that reduces the risk for relapses and hospitalizations and improve functioning may decrease both the societal cost of bipolar disorder and patient suffering.

Cost of disorders of the brain in Europe 2010

BACKGROUND

The spectrum of disorders of the brain is large, covering hundreds of disorders that are listed in either the mental or neurological disorder chapters of the established international diagnostic classification systems. These disorders have a high prevalence as well as short- and long-term impairments and disabilities. Therefore they are an emotional, financial and social burden to the patients, their families and their social network. In a 2005 landmark study, we estimated for the first time the annual cost of 12 major groups of disorders of the brain in Europe and gave a conservative estimate of €386 billion for the year 2004. This estimate was limited in scope and conservative due to the lack of sufficiently comprehensive epidemiological and/or economic data on several important diagnostic groups. We are now in a position to substantially improve and revise the 2004 estimates. In the present report we cover 19 major groups of disorders, 7 more than previously, of an increased range of age groups and more cost items. We therefore present much improved cost estimates. Our revised estimates also now include the new EU member states, and hence a population of 514 million people.

AIMS

To estimate the number of persons with defined disorders of the brain in Europe in 2010, the total cost per person related to each disease in terms of direct and indirect costs, and an estimate of the total cost per disorder and country.

METHODS

The best available estimates of the prevalence and cost per person for 19 groups of disorders of the brain (covering well over 100 specific disorders) were identified via a systematic review of the published literature. Together with the twelve disorders included in 2004, the following range of mental and neurologic groups of disorders is covered: addictive disorders, affective disorders, anxiety disorders, brain tumor, childhood and adolescent disorders (developmental disorders), dementia, eating disorders, epilepsy, mental retardation, migraine, multiple sclerosis, neuromuscular disorders, Parkinson's disease, personality disorders, psychotic disorders, sleep disorders, somatoform disorders, stroke, and traumatic brain injury. Epidemiologic panels were charged to complete the literature review for each disorder in order to estimate the 12-month prevalence, and health economic panels were charged to estimate best cost-estimates. A cost model was developed to combine the epidemiologic and economic data and estimate the total cost of each disorder in each of 30 European countries (EU27+Iceland, Norway and Switzerland). The cost model was populated with national statistics from Eurostat to adjust all costs to 2010 values, converting all local currencies to Euro, imputing costs for countries where no data were available, and aggregating country estimates to purchasing power parity adjusted estimates for the total cost of disorders of the brain in Europe 2010.

RESULTS

The total cost of disorders of the brain was estimated at €798 billion in 2010. Direct costs constitute the majority of costs (37% direct healthcare costs and 23% direct non-medical costs) whereas the remaining 40% were indirect costs associated with patients' production losses. On average, the estimated cost per person with a disorder of the brain in Europe ranged between €285 for headache and €30,000 for neuromuscular disorders. The European per capita cost of disorders of the brain was €1550 on average but varied by country. The cost (in billion €PPP 2010) of the disorders of the brain included in this study was as follows: addiction: €65.7; anxiety disorders: €74.4; brain tumor: €5.2; child/adolescent disorders: €21.3; dementia: €105.2; eating disorders: €0.8; epilepsy: €13.8; headache: €43.5; mental retardation: €43.3; mood disorders: €113.4; multiple sclerosis: €14.6; neuromuscular disorders: €7.7; Parkinson's disease: €13.9; personality disorders: €27.3; psychotic disorders: €93.9; sleep disorders: €35.4; somatoform disorder: €21.2; stroke: €64.1; traumatic brain injury: €33.0. It should be noted that the revised estimate of those disorders included in the previous 2004 report constituted €477 billion, by and large confirming our previous study results after considering the inflation and population increase since 2004. Further, our results were consistent with administrative data on the health care expenditure in Europe, and comparable to previous studies on the cost of specific disorders in Europe. Our estimates were lower than comparable estimates from the US.

DISCUSSION

This study was based on the best currently available data in Europe and our model enabled extrapolation to countries where no data could be found. Still, the scarcity of data is an important source of uncertainty in our estimates and may imply over- or underestimations in some disorders and countries. Even though this review included many disorders, diagnoses, age groups and cost items that were omitted in 2004, there are still remaining disorders that could not be included due to limitations in the available data. We therefore consider our estimate of the total cost of the disorders of the brain in Europe to be conservative. In terms of the health economic burden outlined in this report, disorders of the brain likely constitute the number one economic challenge for European health care, now and in the future. Data presented in this report should be considered by all stakeholder groups, including policy makers, industry and patient advocacy groups, to reconsider the current science, research and public health agenda and define a coordinated plan of action of various levels to address the associated challenges.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Political action is required in light of the present high cost of disorders of the brain. Funding of brain research must be increased; care for patients with brain disorders as well as teaching at medical schools and other health related educations must be quantitatively and qualitatively improved, including psychological treatments. The current move of the pharmaceutical industry away from brain related indications must be halted and reversed. Continued research into the cost of the many disorders not included in the present study is warranted. It is essential that not only the EU but also the national governments forcefully support these initiatives.

Pattern of healthcare resource utilization and direct costs associated with manic episodes in Spain

BACKGROUND

Although some studies indicate that bipolar disorder causes high health care resources consumption, no study is available addressing a cost estimation of bipolar disorder in Spain. The aim of this observational study was to evaluate healthcare resource utilization and the associated direct cost in patients with manic episodes in the Spanish setting.

METHODS

Retrospective descriptive study was carried out in a consecutive sample of patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of bipolar type I disorder with or without psychotic symptoms, aged 18 years or older, and who were having an active manic episode at the time of inclusion. Information regarding the current manic episode was collected retrospectively from the medical record and patient interview.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and eighty-four evaluable patients, recruited by 182 psychiatrists, were included in the study. The direct cost associated with healthcare resource utilization during the manic episode was high, with a mean cost of nearly 4,500 euros per patient, of which approximately 55% corresponded to the cost of hospitalization, 30% to the cost of psychopharmacological treatment and 10% to the cost of specialized care.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show the high cost of management of the patient with a manic episode, which is mainly due to hospitalizations. In this regard, any intervention on the management of the manic patient that could reduce the need for hospitalization would have a significant impact on the costs of the disease.

The cost of relapse for patients with a manic/mixed episode of bipolar disorder in the EMBLEM study

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder (BD) is characterized by episodes of mania and depression. The debilitating symptoms during an acute episode require intensive treatment, frequently leading to inpatient psychiatric care, which places significant demands on health and social care systems and incurs substantial costs. However, no study to date has estimated the economic impact of relapse.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the direct costs associated with relapse in the treatment of BD following an acute manic or mixed episode over a 21-month follow-up period in routine clinical practice in Europe, using data from a large, prospective, observational study.

METHODS

EMBLEM was a prospective, observational study on the outcomes of patients with a manic/mixed episode of BD conducted in 14 European countries. Patients eligible for analysis were those enrolled in the 21-month maintenance phase of the study, following the 3-month acute phase. Relapse was defined as achieving any one of the following criteria: (i) at least a one-point increase in Clinical Global Impression - Bipolar Disorder (CGI-BP) overall score from the previous visit, with a final rating of > or =4; (ii) inpatient admission for an acute episode of BD; or (iii) psychiatrists' confirmation of relapse. Data on healthcare resource use were recorded retrospectively for the four respective periods (3-6, 6-12, 12-18 and 18-24 month visits). Multivariate analyses were performed to compare the cost of resource use (inpatient stay, day care, psychiatrist visits and medication) for those who relapsed during the 21-month maintenance phase and those who never relapsed. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted to examine the 6-month costs during relapse. The analyses were adjusted for patient characteristics and took account of non-Normality of the cost data by using a log link function. UK unit costs were applied to resource use. The analysis was repeated after multiple imputation for missing data. All costs were presented as year 2007/08 values.

RESULTS

A total of 1379 patients completed all visits during the maintenance phase and were eligible for inclusion in the present analysis. Of these, over half (54.3%) experienced relapse during this period. A total of 792 patients without any missing data were eventually included in the final cost model. Costs incurred by patients who relapsed during the 21-month maintenance phase were approximately double those incurred by patients who never relapsed (pounds sterling 9140 vs pounds sterling 4457; p < 0.05). Of the cost difference, 80.3% was accounted for by inpatient stay. Estimates on the economic impact were higher (pounds sterling 11,781 vs pounds sterling 4789; p < 0.05) in the additional analysis with imputed missing data. The impact of relapse was even greater in the 6-month cost comparison. The average 6-month costs for patients who relapsed were found to be about three times higher than for those who did not relapse (pounds sterling 4083 vs pounds sterling 1298; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings confirm the significant economic impact of relapse in BD patients after an acute manic or mixed episode, even when considering direct costs only. Such costs were dominated by inpatient stay. Nevertheless, the use of UK unit costs requires caution when interpreting this costing in the context of a specific country, as resource use and the associated costs will differ by country.

A systematic review of the evidence of the burden of bipolar disorder in Europe

Background

Bipolar disorder is recognized as a major mental health issue, and its economic impact has been examined in the United States. However, there exists a general scarcity of published studies and lack of standardized data on the burden of the illness across European countries. In this systematic literature review, we highlight the epidemiological, clinical, and economic outcomes of bipolar disorder in Europe.

Methods

A systematic review of publications from the last 10 years relating to the burden of bipolar disorder was conducted, including studies on epidemiology, patient-related issues, and costs.

Results

Data from the UK, Germany, and Italy indicated a prevalence of bipolar disorder of ~1%, and a misdiagnosis rate of 70% from Spain. In one study, up to 75% of patients had at least one DSM-IV comorbidity, commonly anxiety disorders and substance/alcohol abuse. Attempted suicide rates varied between 21%–54%. In the UK, the estimated rate of premature mortality of patients with bipolar I disorder was 18%. The chronicity of bipolar disorder exerted a profound and debilitating effect on the patient. In Germany, 70% of patients were underemployed, and 72% received disability payments. In Italy, 63%–67% of patients were unemployed. In the UK, the annual costs of unemployment and suicide were £1510 million and £179 million, respectively, at 1999/2000 prices. The estimated UK national cost of bipolar disorder was £4.59 billion, with hospitalization during acute episodes representing the largest component.

Conclusion

Bipolar disorder is a major and underestimated health problem in Europe. A number of issues impact on the economic burden of the disease, such as comorbidities, suicide, early death, unemployment or underemployment. Direct costs of bipolar disorder are mainly associated with hospitalization during acute episodes. Indirect costs are a major contributor to the overall economic burden but are not always recognized in research studies.

Cognitive dysfunction associated with elemental mercury ingestion and inhalation: a case study

A 63-year-old man with a history of alcohol dependence ingested elemental mercury as a suicide gesture. Serial abdominal X-rays showed gradual but incomplete clearance of mercury from the colon. Routine chest X-ray showed evidence of punctate radiopaque materials in the lower lobe of the right lung. Blood and urine mercury levels both exceeded thresholds considered to be associated with cognitive dysfunction. Elicited cognitive deficits were most prominent in processing speed, flexibility, and response inhibition. Semantic fluency, visuospatial processing, and recall memory for visual and low-context verbal material were also affected. The deficits may have been attributable primarily to alcohol abuse. Elemental mercury is not readily absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract; however, mercury vapor, which was inhaled inadvertently, readily crosses the blood-brain barrier and is neurotoxic. We argue, therefore, that mercury toxicity is more likely than not to have been a factor contributing to the patient's cognitive dysfunction.

Incurring greater health care costs: risk stratification of employees with bipolar disorder

PURPOSE

To compare the costs of employees with bipolar disorder with other employee cohorts and to assess cost differences among employees with bipolar disorder of varying severity.

METHODS

Retrospective data analysis comparing employees with bipolar disorder (cohort 1) with employees without bipolar disorder (cohort 2), employees with other mental disorders (cohort 3), and employees with no mental disorders (cohort 4). Sick leave, short-term disability, long-term disability, and workers' compensation data were used to compare annual lost time and work-absence costs from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2002. For bipolar disorder severity and risk stratification, quintiles were identified based on total medical and prescription drug costs and analyzed for many health benefits cost categories.

RESULTS

Cohort 1 was the most costly in nearly every health benefits cost category. All comparisons between cohort 1 and cohorts 2, 3, and 4 yielded significant (p ≤ .05) differences except for sick leave costs in cohorts 1 and 3. The aggregate health benefits costs for the highest-cost cohort 1 quintile were $70,616, or 21 times greater than the health benefits costs for the lowest-cost quintile ($3385). Medical comorbidity costs accounted for most of this difference ($51,495; p ≤ .05).

CONCLUSION

Employees with bipolar disorder are the most costly in nearly every health benefits category, with a small minority (2.4%) accounting for 20% of the costs. Employers need to identify and target high-risk ("high cost") employees with bipolar disorder and coexisting conditions that use resources more frequently for appropriate interventions that may include early screening and diagnosis, appropriate treatment, and/or behavioral strategies for improved adherence. These strategies have the potential to improve quality of patient care and reduce costs.

Cost-of-illness studies : a review of current methods

The number of cost-of-illness (COI) studies has expanded considerably over time. One outcome of this growth is that the reported COI estimates are inconsistent across studies, thereby raising concerns over the validity of the estimates and methods. Several factors have been identified in the literature as reasons for the observed variation in COI estimates. To date, the variation in the methods used to calculate costs has not been examined in great detail even though the variations in methods are a major driver of variation in COI estimates. The objective of this review was to document the variation in the methodologies employed in COI studies and to highlight the benefits and limitations of these methods. The review of COI studies was implemented following a four-step procedure: (i) a structured literature search of MEDLINE, JSTOR and EconLit; (ii) a review of abstracts using pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria; (iii) a full-text review using pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria; and (iv) classification of articles according to the methods used to calculate costs. This review identified four COI estimation methods (Sum_All Medical, Sum_Diagnosis Specific, Matched Control and Regression) that were used in categorising articles. Also, six components of direct medical costs and five components of indirect/non-medical costs were identified and used in categorising articles.365 full-length articles were reflected in the current review following the structured literature search. The top five cost components were emergency room/inpatient hospital costs, outpatient physician costs, drug costs, productivity losses and laboratory costs. The dominant method, Sum_Diagnosis Specific, was a total costing approach that restricted the summation of medical expenditures to those related to a diagnosis of the disease of interest. There was considerable variation in the methods used within disease subcategories. In several disease subcategories (e.g. asthma, dementia, diabetes mellitus), all four estimation methods were represented, and in other cases (e.g. HIV/AIDS, obesity, stroke, urinary incontinence, schizophrenia), three of the four estimation methods were represented. There was also evidence to suggest that the strengths and weaknesses of each method were considered when applying a method to a specific illness. Comparisons and assessments of COI estimates should consider the method used to estimate costs both as an important source of variation in the reported COI estimates and as a marker of the reliability of the COI estimate.

Lost Time, Absence Costs, and Reduced Productivity Output for Employees With Bipolar Disorder

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the incremental health-related lost work time and at-work productivity loss for employees with bipolar disorder (BPD).

METHODS

Health-related absence and real productivity output of employees with BPD were compared with that of non-BPD and other employee cohorts from a large employer database using multivariate regression to control for cohort differences.

RESULTS

After adjusting for confounding factors, employees with BPD had significantly higher absence costs (1,219 dollars) and 11.5 additional lost days (P<0.05) per year than those without BPD. Adjusted annual productivity output was 20% lower for the BPD group (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Employees with BPD are less likely to be present for work. When present, their productivity level is similar to that of other employees, but over the course of a year, their absence rates result in significant productivity losses.

Prevalence and burden of bipolar disorders in European countries

A literature search, supplemented by an expert survey and selected reanalyses of existing data from epidemiological studies was performed to determine the prevalence and associated burden of bipolar I and II disorder in EU countries. Only studies using established diagnostic instruments based on DSM-III-R or DSM-IV, or ICD-10 criteria were considered. Fourteen studies from a total of 10 countries were identified. The majority of studies reported 12-month estimates of approximately 1% (range 0.5-1.1%), with little evidence of a gender difference. The cumulative lifetime incidence (two prospective-longitudinal studies) is slightly higher (1.5-2%); and when the wider range of bipolar spectrum disorders is considered estimates increased to approximately 6%. Few studies have reported separate estimates for bipolar I and II disorders. Age of first onset of bipolar disorder is most frequently reported in late adolescence and early adulthood. A high degree of concurrent and sequential comorbidity with other mental disorders and physical illnesses is common. Most studies suggest equally high or even higher levels of impairments and disabilities of bipolar disorders as compared to major depression and schizophrenia. Few data are available on treatment and health care utilization.

The societal costs and quality of life of patients suffering from bipolar disorder in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

To assess the societal costs and quality of life of patients suffering from bipolar disorder in the Netherlands.

METHOD

Forty persons with a lifetime diagnosis of bipolar disorder (SCID/DSM-IV) and representative for the Dutch general population were interviewed to collect data on direct (use of medical resources) and indirect (productivity losses because of absence from work and reduced efficiency at work) costs of illness. Respondents' quality of life was also assessed. Prevalence (5.2%) of bipolar disorder was used to estimate total costs.

RESULTS

Total costs of bipolar disorder were estimated at US 1.83 billion dollars (total direct costs = US 454 million dollars; total indirect costs = US 1.37 billion dollars). Participants' quality-of-life scores were lower than those of the general population.

CONCLUSION

The societal costs form patients suffering of bipolar disorder in the Netherlands were high, especially the indirect costs because of absence from work. The quality of life of bipolar patients was lower than the general population.

Strategies for improving treatment of bipolar disorder: integration of measurement and management

OBJECTIVE

Bipolar disorder is a common and complex condition associated with high rates of disability and high health care costs. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD).

METHOD

The Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD) was conceived in response to an NIMH request for proposals to study the effectiveness of treatments for Bipolar Disorder. Aspects of this program have been adapted and enriched for presentation in this paper.

RESULT

Designed for implementation in routine practice across a variety of settings, STEP-BD offers a disease management program in which standardized assessments are linked to critical decision points in clinical management pathways.

CONCLUSION

This paper describes strategies used in STEP-BD to improve the treatment of Bipolar disorder: a simple conceptual model, which integrates assessments and management, and several specialized elements, used in the STEP-BD assessment package.