Can magnetic resonance imaging enhance the assessment of potential new treatments for cognitive impairment in mood disorders? A systematic review and position paper by the International Society for Bipolar Disorders Targeting Cognition Task Force

BACKGROUND

Developing treatments for cognitive impairment is key to improving the functioning of people with mood disorders. Neuroimaging may assist in identifying brain-based efficacy markers. This systematic review and position paper by the International Society for Bipolar Disorders Targeting Cognition Task Force examines the evidence from neuroimaging studies of pro-cognitive interventions.

METHODS

We included magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies of candidate interventions in people with mood disorders or healthy individuals, following the procedures of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis 2020 statement. Searches were conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycInfo, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 30th April 2021. Two independent authors reviewed the studies using the National Heart, Lung, Blood Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Controlled Intervention Studies and the quality of neuroimaging methodology assessment checklist.

RESULTS

We identified 26 studies (N = 702). Six investigated cognitive remediation or pharmacological treatments in mood disorders (N = 190). In healthy individuals, 14 studies investigated pharmacological interventions (N = 319), 2 cognitive training (N = 73) and 4 neuromodulatory treatments (N = 120). Methodologies were mostly rated as 'fair'. 77% of studies investigated effects with task-based fMRI. Findings varied but most consistently involved treatment-associated cognitive control network (CCN) activity increases with cognitive improvements, or CCN activity decreases with no cognitive change, and increased functional connectivity. In mood disorders, treatment-related default mode network suppression occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Modulation of CCN and DMN activity is a putative efficacy biomarker. Methodological recommendations are to pre-declare intended analyses and use task-based fMRI, paradigms probing the CCN, longitudinal assessments, mock scanning, and out-of-scanner tests.

Smartphone-based interventions in bipolar disorder: Systematic review and meta-analyses of efficacy. A position paper from the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) Big Data Task Force

BACKGROUND

The clinical effects of smartphone-based interventions for bipolar disorder (BD) have yet to be established.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy of smartphone-based interventions in BD and how the included studies reported user-engagement indicators.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on January 24, 2022, in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, APA PsycINFO, and Web of Science. We used random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the standardized difference (Hedges' g) in pre-post change scores between smartphone intervention and control conditions. The study was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021226668).

RESULTS

The literature search identified 6034 studies. Thirteen articles fulfilled the selection criteria. We included seven RCTs and performed meta-analyses comparing the pre-post change in depressive and (hypo)manic symptom severity, functioning, quality of life, and perceived stress between smartphone interventions and control conditions. There was significant heterogeneity among studies and no meta-analysis reached statistical significance. Results were also inconclusive regarding affective relapses and psychiatric readmissions. All studies reported positive user-engagement indicators.

CONCLUSION

We did not find evidence to support that smartphone interventions may reduce the severity of depressive or manic symptoms in BD. The high heterogeneity of studies supports the need for expert consensus to establish ideally how studies should be designed and the use of more sensitive outcomes, such as affective relapses and psychiatric hospitalizations, as well as the quantification of mood instability. The ISBD Big Data Task Force provides preliminary recommendations to reduce the heterogeneity and achieve more valid evidence in the field.

Randomised controlled cognition trials in remitted patients with mood disorders published between 2015 and 2021: A systematic review by the International Society for Bipolar Disorders Targeting Cognition Task Force

BACKGROUND

Cognitive impairments are an emerging treatment target in mood disorders, but currently there are no evidence-based pro-cognitive treatments indicated for patients in remission. With this systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) Targeting Cognition Task force provides an update of the most promising treatments and methodological recommendations.

METHODS

The review included RCTs of candidate pro-cognitive interventions in fully or partially remitted patients with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder. We followed the procedures of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Searches were conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycInfo, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from January 2015, when two prior systematic reviews were conducted, until February 2021. Two independent authors reviewed the studies with the Revised Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool for Randomised trials.

RESULTS

We identified 16 RCTs (N = 859) investigating cognitive remediation (CR; k = 6; N = 311), direct current or repetitive magnetic stimulation (k = 3; N = 127), or pharmacological interventions (k = 7; N = 421). CR showed most consistent cognitive benefits, with two trials showing improvements on primary outcomes. Neuromodulatory interventions revealed no clear efficacy. Among pharmacological interventions, modafinil and lurasidone showed early positive results. Sources of bias included small samples, lack of pre-screening for objective cognitive impairment, no primary outcome and no information on allocation sequence masking.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for pro-cognitive treatments in mood disorders is emerging. Recommendations are to increase sample sizes, pre-screen for impairment in targeted domain(s), select one primary outcome, aid transfer to real-world functioning, investigate multimodal interventions and include neuroimaging.

What we learn about bipolar disorder from large-scale neuroimaging: Findings and future directions from the ENIGMA Bipolar Disorder Working Group

MRI-derived brain measures offer a link between genes, the environment and behavior and have been widely studied in bipolar disorder (BD). However, many neuroimaging studies of BD have been underpowered, leading to varied results and uncertainty regarding effects. The Enhancing Neuro Imaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) Bipolar Disorder Working Group was formed in 2012 to empower discoveries, generate consensus findings and inform future hypothesis-driven studies of BD. Through this effort, over 150 researchers from 20 countries and 55 institutions pool data and resources to produce the largest neuroimaging studies of BD ever conducted. The ENIGMA Bipolar Disorder Working Group applies standardized processing and analysis techniques to empower large-scale meta- and mega-analyses of multimodal brain MRI and improve the replicability of studies relating brain variation to clinical and genetic data. Initial BD Working Group studies reveal widespread patterns of lower cortical thickness, subcortical volume and disrupted white matter integrity associated with BD. Findings also include mapping brain alterations of common medications like lithium, symptom patterns and clinical risk profiles and have provided further insights into the pathophysiological mechanisms of BD. Here we discuss key findings from the BD working group, its ongoing projects and future directions for large-scale, collaborative studies of mental illness.

In vivo hippocampal subfield volumes in bipolar disorder—A mega‐analysis from The Enhancing Neuro Imaging Genetics through Meta‐Analysis Bipolar Disorder Working Group

The hippocampus consists of anatomically and functionally distinct subfields that may be differentially involved in the pathophysiology of bipolar disorder (BD). Here we, the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta‐Analysis Bipolar Disorder workinggroup, study hippocampal subfield volumetry in BD. T1‐weighted magnetic resonance imaging scans from 4,698 individuals (BD = 1,472, healthy controls [HC] = 3,226) from 23 sites worldwide were processed with FreeSurfer. We used linear mixed‐effects models and mega‐analysis to investigate differences in hippocampal subfield volumes between BD and HC, followed by analyses of clinical characteristics and medication use. BD showed significantly smaller volumes of the whole hippocampus (Cohen's d = −0.20), cornu ammonis (CA)1 (d = −0.18), CA2/3 (d = −0.11), CA4 (d = −0.19), molecular layer (d = −0.21), granule cell layer of dentate gyrus (d = −0.21), hippocampal tail (d = −0.10), subiculum (d = −0.15), presubiculum (d = −0.18), and hippocampal amygdala transition area (d = −0.17) compared to HC. Lithium users did not show volume differences compared to HC, while non‐users did. Antipsychotics or antiepileptic use was associated with smaller volumes. In this largest study of hippocampal subfields in BD to date, we show widespread reductions in nine of 12 subfields studied. The associations were modulated by medication use and specifically the lack of differences between lithium users and HC supports a possible protective role of lithium in BD.

Methodological recommendations for cognition trials in bipolar disorder by the International Society for Bipolar Disorders Targeting Cognition Task Force

OBJECTIVES

To aid the development of treatment for cognitive impairment in bipolar disorder, the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) convened a task force to create a consensus-based guidance paper for the methodology and design of cognition trials in bipolar disorder.

METHODS

The task force was launched in September 2016, consisting of 18 international experts from nine countries. A series of methodological issues were identified based on literature review and expert opinion. The issues were discussed and expanded upon in an initial face-to-face meeting, telephone conference call and email exchanges. Based upon these exchanges, recommendations were achieved.

RESULTS

Key methodological challenges are: lack of consensus on how to screen for entry into cognitive treatment trials, define cognitive impairment, track efficacy, assess functional implications, and manage mood symptoms and concomitant medication. Task force recommendations are to: (i) enrich trials with objectively measured cognitively impaired patients; (ii) generally select a broad cognitive composite score as the primary outcome and a functional measure as a key secondary outcome; and (iii) include remitted or partly remitted patients. It is strongly encouraged that trials exclude patients with current substance or alcohol use disorders, neurological disease or unstable medical illness, and keep non-study medications stable. Additional methodological considerations include neuroimaging assessments, targeting of treatments to illness stage and using a multimodal approach.

CONCLUSIONS

This ISBD task force guidance paper provides the first consensus-based recommendations for cognition trials in bipolar disorder. Adherence to these recommendations will likely improve the sensitivity in detecting treatment efficacy in future trials and increase comparability between studies.