Adjunctive lithium treatment in the prevention of suicidal behavior in patients with depression and comorbid personality disorders

Antisuicidal effect of lithum in bipolar disorder: is there an age-specific effect?

OBJECTIVE

Our group reported previously a comparable overall antisuicidal effect of lithium and valproate in bipolar patients. We investigated factors associated with higher antisuicidal efficacy of lithium in older individuals.

METHODS

The age-related antisuicidal effect of lithium and valproate was compared in ninety-four (n = 94) high-risk bipolar suicide attempters who participated in a 2.5-year randomized, double-blind trial.

RESULTS

Age significantly moderated the effect of lithium vs. valproate on the risk of suicide event during the study (z = -1.98, p = 0.049). We found that those who were 42 years or older (above the 75th percentile), and on lithium had significantly lower risk of suicidal behavior than older patients on valproate (>42y) or younger (<42 y) patients on either medication (interaction HR = 0.09, 95%CI: 0.01-0.89, z = -2.07, p = 0.039). This difference in risk differences was not explained away by age-related differences in the proportion of participants with bipolar II disorder (Fisher's test p = 0.020) or higher lethality of past suicide attempts in younger participants (Wilcoxon test p = 0.024); neither was there any correlation with age in the longitudinally measured blood lithium levels (t = 1.04, df = 36, p = 0.307) or valproate levels (t = -0.50, df = 41, p = 0.621).

LIMITATIONS

Besides the fact that this is a secondary analysis, a limitation is that the study is not powered to detect suicide deaths or suicide attempts.

CONCLUSION

Bipolar patients randomized to lithium and older than 42 years had less suicidal behavior compared to same aged patients on valproate or younger patients (<42 y) on either medication. This effect was independent of clinical and sociodemographic characteristics.

Pharmacological interventions for people with borderline personality disorder

BACKGROUND

Among people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) who are engaged in clinical care, prescription rates of psychotropic medications are high, despite the fact that medication use is off-label as a treatment for BPD. Nevertheless, people with BPD often receive several psychotropic drugs at a time for sustained periods.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological treatment for people with BPD.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers up to February 2022. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatment to placebo, other pharmacologic treatments or a combination of pharmacologic treatments in people of all ages with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were individual BPD symptoms, depression, attrition and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 46 randomised controlled trials (2769 participants) in this review, 45 of which were eligible for quantitative analysis and comprised 2752 participants with BPD in total. This is 18 more trials than the 2010 review on this topic. Participants were predominantly female except for one trial that included men only. The mean age ranged from 16.2 to 39.7 years across the included trials. Twenty-nine different types of medications compared to placebo or other medications were included in the analyses. Seventeen trials were funded or partially funded by the pharmaceutical industry, 10 were funded by universities or research foundations, eight received no funding, and 11 had unclear funding. For all reported effect sizes, negative effect estimates indicate beneficial effects by active medication. Compared with placebo, no difference in effects were observed on any of the primary outcomes at the end of treatment for any medication. Compared with placebo, medication may have little to no effect on BPD symptom severity, although the evidence is of very low certainty (antipsychotics: SMD -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 0.08; 8 trials, 951 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.65 to 1.18; 2 trials, 87 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.57; 4 trials, 265 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on self-harm, indicating little to no effect (antipsychotics: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.84; 2 trials, 76 participants; antidepressants: MD 0.45 points on the Overt Aggression Scale-Modified-Self-Injury item (0-5 points), 95% CI -10.55 to 11.45; 1 trial, 20 participants; mood stabilisers: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.48; 1 trial, 276 participants). The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on suicide-related outcomes, with little to no effect (antipsychotics: SMD 0.05, 95 % CI -0.18 to 0.29; 7 trials, 854 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.26, 95% CI -1.62 to 1.09; 2 trials, 45 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.36, 95% CI -1.96 to 1.25; 2 trials, 44 participants). Very low-certainty evidence shows little to no difference between medication and placebo on psychosocial functioning (antipsychotics: SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.00; 7 trials, 904 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.06; 4 trials, 161 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26; 2 trials, 214 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests that antipsychotics may slightly reduce interpersonal problems (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.08; 8 trials, 907 participants), and that mood stabilisers may result in a reduction in this outcome (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.02; 4 trials, 300 participants). Antidepressants may have little to no effect on interpersonal problems, but the corresponding evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.55; 2 trials, 119 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about dropout rates compared with placebo by antipsychotics (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.38; 13 trials, 1216 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference in dropout rates between antidepressants (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.76; 6 trials, 289 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.15; 9 trials, 530 participants), compared to placebo. Reporting on adverse events was poor and mostly non-standardised. The available evidence on non-serious adverse events was of very low certainty for antipsychotics (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.29; 5 trials, 814 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; 1 trial, 276 participants). For antidepressants, no data on adverse events were identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review included 18 more trials than the 2010 version, so larger meta-analyses with more statistical power were feasible. We found mostly very low-certainty evidence that medication may result in no difference in any primary outcome. The rest of the secondary outcomes were inconclusive. Very limited data were available for serious adverse events. The review supports the continued understanding that no pharmacological therapy seems effective in specifically treating BPD pathology. More research is needed to understand the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of BPD better. Also, more trials including comorbidities such as trauma-related disorders, major depression, substance use disorders, or eating disorders are needed. Additionally, more focus should be put on male and adolescent samples.

Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder

BACKGROUND

Over the decades, a variety of psychological interventions for borderline personality disorder (BPD) have been developed. This review updates and replaces an earlier review (Stoffers-Winterling 2012).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of psychological therapies for people with BPD.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing different psychotherapeutic interventions with treatment-as-usual (TAU; which included various kinds of psychotherapy), waiting list, no treatment or active treatments in samples of all ages, in any setting, with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. There were 11 secondary outcomes, including individual BPD symptoms, as well as attrition and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 randomised controlled trials (4507 participants), predominantly involving females with mean ages ranging from 14.8 to 45.7 years. More than 16 different kinds of psychotherapy were included, mostly dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) and mentalisation-based treatment (MBT). The comparator interventions included treatment-as-usual (TAU), waiting list, and other active treatments. Treatment duration ranged from one to 36 months. Psychotherapy versus TAU Psychotherapy reduced BPD symptom severity, compared to TAU; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to -0.33; 22 trials, 1244 participants; moderate-quality evidence. This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -3.6 (95% CI -4.4 to -2.08) on the Zanarini Rating Scale for BPD (range 0 to 36), a clinically relevant reduction in BPD symptom severity (minimal clinical relevant difference (MIREDIF) on this scale is -3.0 points). Psychotherapy may be more effective at reducing self-harm compared to TAU (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.14; 13 trials, 616 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -0.82 (95% CI -1.25 to 0.35) on the Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory Scale (range 0 to 34). The MIREDIF of -1.25 points was not reached. Suicide-related outcomes improved compared to TAU (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.11; 13 trials, 666 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -0.11 (95% CI -0.19 to -0.034) on the Suicidal Attempt Self Injury Interview. The MIREDIF of -0.17 points was not reached. Compared to TAU, psychotherapy may result in an improvement in psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.22; 22 trials, 1314 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -2.8 (95% CI -4.25 to -1.38), on the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (range 0 to 100). The MIREDIF of -4.0 points was not reached. Our additional Trial Sequential Analysis on all primary outcomes reaching significance found that the required information size was reached in all cases. A subgroup analysis comparing the different types of psychotherapy compared to TAU showed no clear evidence of a difference for BPD severity and psychosocial functioning. Psychotherapy may reduce depressive symptoms compared to TAU but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.17; 22 trials, 1568 participants; very low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -2.45 points on the Hamilton Depression Scale (range 0 to 50). The MIREDIF of -3.0 points was not reached. BPD-specific psychotherapy did not reduce attrition compared with TAU. Adverse effects were unclear due to too few data. Psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment Greater improvements in BPD symptom severity (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.05; 3 trials, 161 participants), psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.11; 5 trials, 219 participants), and depression (SMD -1.28, 95% CI -2.21 to -0.34, 6 trials, 239 participants) were observed in participants receiving psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment (all low-quality evidence). No evidence of a difference was found for self-harm and suicide-related outcomes. Individual treatment approaches DBT and MBT have the highest numbers of primary trials, with DBT as subject of one-third of all included trials, followed by MBT with seven RCTs. Compared to TAU, DBT was more effective at reducing BPD severity (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.14; 3 trials, 149 participants), self-harm (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.07; 7 trials, 376 participants) and improving psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.03; 6 trials, 225 participants). MBT appears to be more effective than TAU at reducing self-harm (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.80; 3 trials, 252 participants), suicidality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04, 0.30, 3 trials, 218 participants) and depression (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.22 to 0.05, 4 trials, 333 participants). All findings are based on low-quality evidence. For secondary outcomes see review text.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our assessments showed beneficial effects on all primary outcomes in favour of BPD-tailored psychotherapy compared with TAU. However, only the outcome of BPD severity reached the MIREDIF-defined cut-off for a clinically meaningful improvement. Subgroup analyses found no evidence of a difference in effect estimates between the different types of therapies (compared to TAU) . The pooled analysis of psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment found significant improvement on BPD severity, psychosocial functioning and depression at end of treatment, but these findings were based on low-quality evidence, and the true magnitude of these effects is uncertain. No clear evidence of difference was found for self-harm and suicide-related outcomes. However, compared to TAU, we observed effects in favour of DBT for BPD severity, self-harm and psychosocial functioning and, for MBT, on self-harm and suicidality at end of treatment, but these were all based on low-quality evidence. Therefore, we are unsure whether these effects would alter with the addition of more data.

Clinical factors associated with augmentation treatment with second-generation antipsychotics and lithium in major depression - Results from a European multicenter study

This cross-sectional European multicenter study with retrospective assessment of treatment response sought to determine variables associated with the administration of augmentation strategies with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and lithium in the pharmacotherapy of major depressive disorder (MDD). In 349 DSM-IV-TR MDD patients, differences in socio-demographic, clinical, treatment, and pharmacological features between participants receiving add-on treatment of their antidepressants with either SGAs (n = 318) or lithium (n = 31) were investigated using analyses of covariance, chi-squared tests, and binary logistic regression analyses. As only significant between-group difference, we found SGA augmentation (compared with lithium augmentation) to be associated with high depressive symptom severity expressed by a higher mean Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating (MADRS) total score (27.19 ± 11.35 vs 18.87 ± 12.88, F = 14.82, p = < .0001) and a higher mean 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) total score (21.27 ± 9.30 vs 13.74 ± 9.11, F = 18.60, p = < .0001). No significant differences for socio-demographic features, psychotic symptoms, suicidality, psychiatric and somatic comorbidities, antidepressant pharmacotherapy, and other add-on medications could be seen. Even if there was no significant superiority of one augmentation strategy with regard to treatment response pattern, a trend whereupon adjunctive SGAs were more likely dispensed in treatment-resistant and difficult-to-treat MDD conditions could be observed. In terms of the prescription pattern, we could demonstrate that lithium is less frequently used than SGAs in the clinical routine care which may reflect the need of continuous plasma level determinations and the anticipation of adverse effects.

The DEsire to DIe in Palliative care: Optimization of Management (DEDIPOM) - a study protocol

BACKGROUND

A desire to die (DD) is frequent in palliative care (PC). However, uncertainty remains as to the appropriate therapeutic response. (Proactive) discussion of DD is not usually part of standard care. To support health practitioners' (HPs) reactions to a patient's DD, a training program has been developed, piloted and evaluated. Within this framework, a first draft of a semi-structured clinical interview schedule with prompts (CISP) has been developed, including recommendations for action to support HPs' self-confidence. The aim of this study is the further development of the CISP to support routine exploration of death and dying distress and proactive addressing of a DD.

METHODS

This observatory, prospective health services study comprises a three step study design: 1. Revision of the CISP and consensus finding based on semi-structured interviews with patients and a Delphi process with (inter-)national experts, patient representatives and relatives; 2. Increasing confidence in HPs through a 2 day-training program using the consented CISP; 3. A formative quantitative evaluation of conversations between HPs and patients (300 palliative patients at three time points) and a qualitative evaluation based on interview triads of patients, relatives and HPs. The evaluation of conversations will include patient-oriented outcomes, including perceived relationships with HPs and death and dying distress. We will also consider aspects of social inequality and gender.

DISCUSSION

The intervention can provide a framework for open discussion of DD and a basis for enhancing a trustful HP-patient relationship in which such difficult topics can be addressed. The benefits of this study will include (a) the creation of the first consented semi-structured approach to identify and address DD and to respond therapeutically, (b) the multi-professional enhancement of confidence in dealing with patients' DD and an intervention that can flexibly be integrated into other training and education programs and (c) an evaluation of effects of this intervention on patients, relatives and HPs, with attention to social inequality and gender.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register ( DRKS00012988 ; registration date: 27.9.2017) and in the Health Services Research Database ( VfD_DEDIPOM_17_003889 ; registration date: 14.9.2017).

Evidence-based pharmacotherapy of treatment-resistant unipolar depression

Treatment resistance to the antidepressive pharmacotherapy represents one of the most important clinical challenges in the pharmacological management of unipolar depression. In this review, we aimed to summarise the evidence for various pharmacological treatment options in therapy-resistant unipolar depression derived from clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and treatment guidelines. The first measure in case of insufficient response to the initial antidepressant monotherapy contains the debarment of 'pseudo-resistance', potentially caused by inadequate dose and treatment duration of the antidepressant, insufficient plasma levels, non-compliance of the patient regarding medication intake or relevant psychiatric and/or somatic comorbidities. Applying a dose escalation of the current antidepressant cannot be generally recommended as evidence-based treatment option and the efficacy depends on the class of antidepressants. There is no compelling evidence for a switch to another, new antidepressant compound after insufficient response to a previous antidepressant. The combination of two antidepressants should be preferentially established with antidepressants characterised by different mechanisms of action (e.g. reuptake inhibitors together with presynaptic autoreceptor inhibitors). At present, the most convincing body of evidence exists for the augmentation of antidepressants with second-generation antipsychotic drugs and lithium. Hence, both strategies are consistently advised by treatment guidelines as pharmacological first-line strategy in treatment-resistant depression.