Lurasidone in combination with lithium or valproate for the maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder

Cariprazine as a maintenance therapy in the prevention of mood episodes in adults with bipolar I disorder

INTRODUCTION

Cariprazine treats acute manic and depressive episodes in bipolar I disorder (BP-I), but its efficacy in preventing relapse of mood episode remains unknown.

METHODS

In this phase 3b, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with BP-I with acute manic or depressive episodes (each with/without mixed features), were treated with cariprazine 3.0 mg/day during a 16-week open-label treatment period; those who achieved stable remission within 8 weeks and remained stable for at least another 8 weeks were randomized to receive cariprazine 1.5 or 3.0 mg per day or placebo in the double-blind treatment period for up to 39 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was time to relapse of any mood episode. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed.

RESULTS

Patients (440/896) enrolled in the open-label treatment period achieved stability criteria and were randomized to receive cariprazine 3.0 mg/day (n = 148), cariprazine 1.5 mg/day (n = 147), or placebo (n = 145) in the double-blind treatment period. Relapse rates were 17.9%, 16.8%, and 19.7% in the cariprazine 3.0 mg/day, cariprazine 1.5 mg/day, and placebo groups, respectively. Neither dose of cariprazine was more effective than placebo on the primary outcome (3.0 mg/day: HR = 0.89, [95% CI: 0.5, 1.5]; 1.5 mg/day: HR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.5, 1.4]). The most frequently reported AEs (≥5%) were akathisia, headache, insomnia, and nausea in the open-label treatment period and increased weight and insomnia in the double-blind treatment period. In the open-label and double-blind treatment periods, 7.5% and 1.6% of patients experienced an AE leading to discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

Cariprazine was not superior to placebo in the prevention of relapses in this study. Relapse rates were unusually low in the placebo group. Cariprazine was well-tolerated.

Lurasidone and risk of metabolic syndrome: results from short and long-term studies in patients with bipolar depression

OBJECTIVE

The elevated prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) in patients with depression has been associated with increased mortality. This post hoc analysis assessed the effect of treatment with lurasidone on risk of MetS in patients with bipolar depression.

METHODS

Data used in the current analyses consisted of 3 double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled, 6-week studies in adults with bipolar I depression (N = 1192), consisting of 1 monotherapy, and 2 adjunctive trials (lithium or valproate). Also analyzed was a 6-month open-label (OL) extension study (monotherapy, N = 316; adjunctive therapy, N = 497); and a 5-month, OL, stabilization phase followed by randomization to a 28-week DB, placebo-controlled, adjunctive therapy study with lurasidone (N = 490). MetS was defined based on NCEP ATP III criteria (2005 revision).

RESULTS

The proportion of patients with new-onset MetS was similar for lurasidone vs placebo in the short-term studies (monotherapy, 13.9% vs 15.3%; adjunctive therapy, 13.6% vs 11.0%); and remained stable during both the 6-month extension phase study (monotherapy, 15.2%; adjunctive therapy, 16.9%), and the 5-month stabilization study (adjunctive therapy, 12.2%). After 28 weeks of DB treatment (following 5-month treatment in the stabilization study), new onset MetS was observed at endpoint (OC) in 26.2% of the lurasidone group, and 30.8% of the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

This post hoc analysis found that both short and long-term treatment with lurasidone was associated with a relatively low risk for the development of MetS in patients with bipolar I disorder. These findings are consistent with similar analyses in patients with schizophrenia.

Significant Weight Gain With the Administration of Lurasidone and Valproic Acid in Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder Patients

Antipsychotics are frequently used to treat psychiatric disorders and have been associated with weight gain. Mental disorders are likely to reduce patients' quality of life. Unhealthy lifestyles such as reduced physical activity, sleep disturbances, and irregular diets can lead to weight gain. Herein, we report two cases of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder who had a 10-kg gain in weight in six months with the administration of lurasidone and valproic acid. Lurasidone has fewer side effects, such as weight gain and somnolence. However, concomitant use of sedating antipsychotics or mood stabilizers in the acute phase and multiple doses increase the risk of weight gain. Additionally, various factors, including psychiatric symptoms and lifestyle changes, are believed to contribute to weight gain, and a comprehensive approach should be followed.

The efficacy and safety of lurasidone in bipolar I depression with and without rapid cycling: A pooled post-hoc analysis of two randomized, placebo-controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of lurasidone monotherapy in patients with bipolar I depression with or without rapid cycling has not been previously investigated.

METHODS

We performed subgroup analysis (rapid cycling/non-rapid cycling) of pooled data from two 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of lurasidone monotherapy (20-60 mg/day or 80-120 mg/day). Analyses included mean change from baseline to week 6 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Safety assessments included the number of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and laboratory assessments.

RESULTS

Of 1024 patients randomized, 85 were rapid cycling. Mean change in MADRS total score in patients with non-rapid cycling and rapid cycling, respectively, was -14.8 (effect size = 0.47) and - 12.8 (effect size = 0.04) in the lurasidone 20-60 mg/day group, -14.3 (effect size = 0.41) and - 13.0 (effect size = 0.02) in the lurasidone 80-120 mg/day group and -10.6 and -13.3 in the placebo group. The most common TEAE in each subgroup was akathisia in both lurasidone groups. Treatment-emergent mania was reported only in a small number of rapid cycling and non-rapid cycling patients.

LIMITATIONS

This was a post-hoc analysis of a short-term study that excluded patients with ≥8 cycles in the past year.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with non-rapid cycling bipolar depression, lurasidone monotherapy significantly improved depressive symptoms relative to placebo at both the 20-60 mg/day and 80-120 mg/day doses. In patients with rapid cycling, both doses of lurasidone displayed depressive symptom score reduction from baseline, but significant improvement was not observed likely due to high levels of improvement on placebo and small sample size.

Taiwan consensus on biological treatment of bipolar disorder during the acute, maintenance, and mixed phases: The 2022 update

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder is a mood dysregulation characterized by recurrent symptoms and episodes of mania, hypomania, depression, and mixed mood. The complexity of treating patients with bipolar disorder prompted the Taiwanese Society of Biological Psychiatry and Neuropsychopharmacology (TSBPN) to publish the first Taiwan consensus on pharmacological treatment of bipolar disorders in 2012. This paper presents the updated consensus, with changes in diagnostic criteria (i.e., mixed features) and emerging pharmacological evidence published up to April 2022.

METHODS

Our working group systemically reviewed the clinical research evidence and international guidelines and determined the levels of evidence for each pharmacological treatment on the basis of the most recent World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry grading system. Four clinical-specific issues were proposed. The current TSBPN Bipolar Taskforce then discussed research evidence and clinical experience related to each treatment option in terms of efficacy and acceptability and then appraised final recommendation grades through anonymous voting.

RESULTS

In the updated consensus, we include the pharmacological recommendations for bipolar disorder with mixed features considering its high prevalence, the severe clinical prognosis, and the absence of approved medications. Cariprazine, lurasidone, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and ketamine are incorporated as treatment options. In the maintenance phase, the application of long-acting injectable antipsychotics is emphasized, and the hazards of using antidepressants and conventional antipsychotics are proposed.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated Taiwan consensus on pharmacological treatment for bipolar disorder provides concise evidence-based and empirical recommendations for clinical psychiatric practice. It may facilitate treatment outcome improvement in patients with bipolar disorder.

The future of psychopharmacology: a critical appraisal of ongoing phase 2/3 trials, and of some current trends aiming to de-risk trial programmes of novel agents

Despite considerable progress in pharmacotherapy over the past seven decades, many mental disorders remain insufficiently treated. This situation is in part due to the limited knowledge of the pathophysiology of these disorders and the lack of biological markers to stratify and individualize patient selection, but also to a still restricted number of mechanisms of action being targeted in monotherapy or combination/augmentation treatment, as well as to a variety of challenges threatening the successful development and testing of new drugs. In this paper, we first provide an overview of the most promising drugs with innovative mechanisms of action that are undergoing phase 2 or 3 testing for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety and trauma-related disorders, substance use disorders, and dementia. Promising repurposing of established medications for new psychiatric indications, as well as variations in the modulation of dopamine, noradrenaline and serotonin receptor functioning, are also considered. We then critically discuss the clinical trial parameters that need to be considered in depth when developing and testing new pharmacological agents for the treatment of mental disorders. Hurdles and perils threatening success of new drug development and testing include inadequacy and imprecision of inclusion/exclusion criteria and ratings, sub-optimally suited clinical trial participants, multiple factors contributing to a large/increasing placebo effect, and problems with statistical analyses. This information should be considered in order to de-risk trial programmes of novel agents or known agents for novel psychiatric indications, increasing their chances of success.

Pharmacological Strategies for Bipolar Disorders in Acute Phases and Chronic Management with a Special Focus on Lithium, Valproic Acid, and Atypical Antipsychotics

Bipolar disorders (BDs) are a heterogeneous group of severe affective disorders generally described by the alternation of (hypo)manic, depressive, and mixed phases, with euthymic intervals of variable duration. BDs are burdened with high psychiatric and physical comorbidity, increased suicide risk and reduced life expectancy. In addition, BDs can progress into complicated forms (e.g., mixed states, rapid/irregular cycling), which are more difficult to treat and often require personalized pharmacological combinations. Mood stabilizers, particularly Lithium and Valproic acid (VPA), still represent the cornerstones of both acute and chronic pharmacotherapies of BDs. Lithium is the gold standard in BD-I and BDII with typical features, while VPA seems more effective for atypical forms (e.g., mixed-prevalence and rapid-cycling). However, despite appropriate mood stabilization, many patients show residual symptoms, and more than a half recur within 1-2 years, highlighting the need of additional strategies. Among these, the association of atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) with mood stabilizers is recurrent in the treatment of acute phases, but it is also being growingly explored in the maintenance pharmacotherapy. These combinations are clinically more aggressive and often needed in the acute phases, whereas simplifying pharmacotherapies to mood stabilizers only is preferable in the long-term, whenever possible. When mood stabilizers are not enough for maintenance treatment, Quetiapine and, less consistently, Aripiprazole have been proposed as the most advisable adjunctive strategies, for their safety and tolerability profiles. However, in view of the increased risk of serious adverse effects, a careful patient-centered balance between costs and benefits is mandatory.

Risk of Drug-induced Movement Disorders with Newer Antipsychotic Agents

Background:

The last decade has seen development of numerous novel antipsychotic drugs with unique mechanisms including long-acting formulations for clinical use. A comparative assessment of these new drugs with each other and previous antipsychotics have not been performed with regards to risk for drug-induced movement disorders (DIMD).

Methods:

Medline was searched from January 2010 to February 2022 for primary research articles and review articles in English using the search terms “extrapyramidal” and “tardive” with individual drug names of novel antipsychotics.

Results:

We identified articles describing the risk of DIMD with 6 novel antipsychotics, 4 novel formulations, and 3 experimental antipsychotics. Both short- and long-term data generally showed comparable to lower risk of DIMD with novel antipsychotics and recent long-acting formulations compared to previously marketed antipsychotics.

Discussion:

Several novel antipsychotics, particularly lumateperone and pimavanserin, show promise in being able to treat psychosis while reducing the risk of DIMD. Long-acting paliperidone may reduce risk of DIMD while other long-acting injectable formulations of SGA have similar risk of DIMD compared to oral formulations. New drug targets for treating psychosis without dopamine blockade also show promise.

Lithium treatment of Bipolar disorder in adults: A systematic review of randomized trials and meta-analyses

The aim of the study was to systematically review the hard evidence alone, concerning lithium efficacy separately for the phases and clinical facets of Bipolar disorder (BD). The PRISMA method was followed to search the MEDLINE for Randomized Controlled trials, Post-hoc analyses and Meta-analyses and review papers up to August 1st 2020, with the combination of the words 'bipolar', 'manic', 'mania', 'manic depression' and 'manic depressive' and 'randomized'. Trials and meta-analyses concerning the use of lithium either as monotherapy or in combination with other agents in adults were identified concerning acute mania (Ν=64), acute bipolar depression (Ν=78), the maintenance treatment (Ν=73) and the treatment of other issues (N = 93). Treatment guidelines were also identified. Lithium is efficacious for the treatment of acute mania including concomitant psychotic symptoms. In acute bipolar depression it is efficacious only in combination with specific agents. For the maintenance phase, it is efficacious as monotherapy mainly in the prevention of manic while its efficacy for the prevention of depressive episodes is unclear. Its combinations increase its therapeutic value. It is equaly efficacious in rapid and non-rapid cycling patients, in concomitant obsessive-compulsive symptoms, alcohol and substance abuse, the neurocognitive deficit, suicidal ideation and fatigue The current systematic review provided support for the usefulness of lithium against a broad spectrum of clinical issues in Bipolar disorder. Its efficacy is comparable to that of more recently developed agents.

Preventing new episodes of bipolar disorder in adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Uncertainty remains regarding the relative efficacy of maintenance pharmacotherapy for bipolar disorder (BD), and available data require updating. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to consolidate the evidence from the highest quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to July 2021, overcoming the limitations of earlier reviews. The PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for double-blind RCTs involving lithium, mood stabilizing anticonvulsants (MSAs), antipsychotics, antidepressants, and other treatments. Rates of new mood episodes with test vs. reference treatments (placebo or alternative active agent) were compared by random-effects meta-analysis. Polarity index was calculated for each treatment type. Eligible trials involved ≥6 months of maintenance follow up. Of 2,158 identified reports, 22 met study eligibility criteria, and involved 7,773 subjects stabilized for 1-12 weeks and followed-up for 24-104 weeks. Psychotropic monotherapy overall (including lithium, MSAs, and second generation antipsychotics (SGA) was more effective in preventing new BD episodes than placebo (odds ratio, OR=0.42; 95% confidence interval, CI 0.34-0.51, p<0.00001). Significantly lower risk of new BD episodes was observed with the following individual drugs: aripiprazole, asenapine, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone long-acting (ORs varied 0.19-0.46). Adding aripiprazole, divalproex, quetiapine, or olanzapine/risperidone to lithium or an MSA was more effective compared with lithium or MSA monotherapy (OR=0.37; 95%CI 0.25-0.55, p<0.00001). Active treatment favored prevention of mania over depression. The key limitations were "responder-enriched" design in most trials and high outcomes heterogeneity. PROSPERO registration number is CRD42020162663.

Effects of a conventional mood stabilizer alone or in combination with second-generation antipsychotics on recurrence rate and discontinuation rate in bipolar I disorder in the maintenance phase: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

A systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials were conducted to examine how soon an increase in recurrence risk could be observed among bipolar I disorder (BDI) patients who were clinically stable with the combination therapy of mood stabilizers with second-generation antipsychotics (SGA+MS) treatment following second-generation antipsychotics discontinuation (i.e., MS alone) compared with SGA+MS maintenance.

METHODS

Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL databases were used for systematic literature searches until May/22/2020. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate of any mood episode at 6 months. The secondary outcomes were the recurrence rates of manic/hypomanic/mixed and depressive episodes and all-cause discontinuation at 6 months. The recurrence rates at 1, 2, 3, 9, and 12 months were also investigated.

RESULTS

Eight studies (mean study duration = 58.25 ± 33.63 weeks) were identified (SGA+MS group [n = 1,456: 3 aripiprazole+MS studies, 1 lurasidone+MS study, 1 olanzapine+MS study, 2 quetiapine+MS studies, 1 ziprasidone+MS study] and placebo+MS group [n = 1,476]). Pooled SGA+MS exhibited lower recurrence rates of any mood episode, manic/hypomanic/mixed episodes, and depressive episodes as well as reduced all-cause discontinuation at every observational point. The risk ratios (95% confidence interval) of the recurrence rate at 6 months were 0.51 (0.39-0.86) for any mood episode, 0.42 (0.30-0.59) for manic/hypomanic/mixed episodes, and 0.39 (0.28-0.54) for depressive episodes. The RR for all-cause discontinuation was 0.67 (0.50-0.89). Both aripiprazole+MS and quetiapine+MS outperformed placebo+MS in the recurrence of any mood, manic/hypomanic/mixed, and depressive episodes at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

SGA+MS prevented recurrence for up to 12 months for BDI compared with placebo+MS.

Lurasidone in Therapy of Treatment-resistant Ultra-rapid Cycling Bipolar Disorder: Case Report

Lurasidone is an atypical antipsychotic approved for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar depression. It seems to have a favorable metabolic profile and low risk of causing adverse interactions. Here we present a case of a 25-year old female patient with treatment-resistant ultra-rapid cycling bipolar disorder, obesity, hypothyroidism, and epilepsy. Because of predominant depressive symptoms, occasional occurrence of brief psychotic symptoms and patient’s somatic comorbidities, treatment with lurasidone was initiated. Clinical improvement was observed 3 weeks and cessation of ultra-rapid cycling course of the disease 8 weeks after the beginning of lurasidone treatment. The patient’s level of functioning improved and body mass significantly decreased, with good tolerance of the pharmacotherapy. Lurasidone seems to be a promising treatment option in patients with treatment-resistant rapid cycling bipolar disorder.

Mood stabilizers and/or antipsychotics for bipolar disorder in the maintenance phase: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

We searched Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL from inception until 22 May 2020 to investigate which antipsychotics and/or mood stabilizers are better for patients with bipolar disorder in the maintenance phase. We performed two categorical network meta-analyses. The first included monotherapy studies and studies in which the two drugs used were specified (i.e., aripiprazole, aripiprazole once monthly, aripiprazole+lamotrigine, aripiprazole+valproate, asenapine, carbamazepine, lamotrigine, lamotrigine+valproate, lithium, lithium+oxcarbazepine, lithium+valproate, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone long-acting injection, valproate, and placebo). The second included studies on second-generation antipsychotic combination therapies (SGAs) (i.e., aripiprazole, lurasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, and ziprasidone) with lithium or valproate (LIT/VAL) compared with placebo with LIT/VAL. Outcomes were recurrence/relapse rate of any mood episode (RR-any, primary), depressive episode (RR-dep) and manic/hypomanic/mixed episode (RR-mania), discontinuation, mortality, and individual adverse events. Risk ratios and 95% credible interval were calculated. Forty-one randomized controlled trials were identified (n = 9821; mean study duration, 70.5 ± 36.6 weeks; percent female, 54.1%; mean age, 40.7 years). All active treatments other than carbamazepine, lamotrigine+valproate (no data) and paliperidone outperformed the placebo for RR-any. Aripiprazole+valproate, lamotrigine, lamotrigine+valproate, lithium, olanzapine, and quetiapine outperformed placebo for RR-dep. All active treatments, other than aripiprazole+valproate, carbamazepine, lamotrigine, and lamotrigine+valproate, outperformed placebo for RR-mania. Asenapine, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, and valproate outperformed placebo for all-cause discontinuation. All SGAs+LIT/VALs other than olanzapine+LIT/VAL outperformed placebo+LIT/VAL for RR-any. Lurasidone+LIT/VAL and quetiapine+LIT/VAL outperformed placebo+LIT/VAL for RR-dep. Aripiprazole+LIT/VAL and quetiapine+LIT/VAL outperformed placebo+LIT/VAL for RR-mania. Lurasidone+LIT/VAL and quetiapine+LIT/VAL outperformed placebo+LIT/VAL for all-cause discontinuation. Treatment efficacy, tolerability, and safety profiles differed among treatments.

Long-term treatment of bipolar disorder type I: A systematic and critical review of clinical guidelines with derived practice algorithms

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed at providing a critical, comprehensive synthesis of international guidelines' recommendations on the long-term treatment of bipolar disorder type I (BD-I).

METHODS

MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to January 15th, 2019 following PRISMA and PICAR rules. International guidelines providing recommendations for the long-term treatment of BD-I were included. A methodological quality assessment was conducted with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-AGREE II.

RESULTS

The final selection yielded five international guidelines, with overall good quality. The evaluation of applicability was the weakest aspect across the guidelines. Differences in their updating strategies and the rating of the evidence, particularly for meta-analyses, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies, could be responsible of some level of heterogeneity among recommendations. Nonetheless, the guidelines recommended lithium as the 'gold standard' in the long-term treatment of BD-I. Quetiapine was another possible first-line option as well as aripiprazole (for the prevention of mania). Long-term treatment should contemplate monotherapy, at least initially. Clinicians should check regularly for efficacy and side effects and if necessary, switch to first-line alternatives (i.e. Valproate), combine first-line compounds with different mechanisms of action or switch to second-line options or combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

The possibility to monitor improvements in long-term outcomes, namely relapse prevention and inter-episode subthreshold depressive symptoms, based on the application of their recommendations is an unmet need of clinical guidelines. In terms of evidence of clinical guidelines, there is a need for more efficacious treatment strategies for the prevention of bipolar depression.

New Developments in the Use of Atypical Antipsychotics in the Treatment of Bipolar Disorder: a Systematic Review of Recent Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Atypical antipsychotics are increasingly used in the treatment of bipolar disorder (BD). This systematic review provides an overview of recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of atypical antipsychotics in BD.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several studies supported efficacy of quetiapine monotherapy in acute bipolar I (BDI) and bipolar II (BDII) depression. Moreover, quetiapine adjunctive therapy showed superior efficacy to placebo in treatment-resistant bipolar depression. Cariprazine 1.5 mg was effective in treating bipolar I depression. Aripiprazole 400 mg IM once monthly was effective in preventing manic episodes with minimal metabolic effects. In youth with BD, lurasidone was effective and well-tolerated for acute depression while asenapine showed efficacy in treating acute manic and mixed episodes. Recently published RCTs generally support the efficacy of atypical antipsychotics in different phases of BD. Future studies should focus on understudied populations including pediatric BD and geriatric BD and BDII, as well as a focus on cognitive functioning and quality of life measures.

Hospitalization Risk for Adults with Bipolar I Disorder Treated with Oral Atypical Antipsychotics as Adjunctive Therapy with Mood Stabilizers: A Retrospective Analysis of Medicaid Claims Data

Background: Atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) with mood stabilizers are recommended as a first-line treatment for patients with bipolar disorder. No studies have compared the inpatient health care resource utilization for patients with bipolar disorder treated with lurasidone as adjunctive therapy with mood stabilizers compared with other oral AAPs. Objective: To compare the risk of hospitalization for adult Medicaid beneficiaries with bipolar I disorder when treated with lurasidone compared with other oral AAPs as adjunctive therapy with mood stabilizers. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used the MarketScan Research Databases Multi-State Medicaid Database (IBM, Armonk, NY) claims data to assess patients with bipolar I disorder between January 1, 2014, and June 30, 2019. Adult patients who initiated oral AAP treatment with mood stabilizers (index date) and who were continuously enrolled 12 months before (pre-index) and 24 months after (post-index) the index date were included. Treatment categories assigned by patient-month included lurasidone, aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone with mood stabilizers; no/minimal treatment; AAP monotherapy; and other. Marginal structural models were performed to estimate the all-cause and psychiatric hospitalization rates and hospital length of stay associated with each adjunctive AAP therapy by controlling for both time-invariant and time-varying confounders. Results: Adults with bipolar I disorder (N = 11,426; mean age = 39.4 years; female=73%) treated with an adjunctive oral AAP with mood stabilizers during the index month were categorized into lurasidone (12%), aripiprazole (17%), olanzapine (7%), quetiapine (32%), risperidone (11%), ziprasidone (7%), or other (15%) treatment groups. The adjusted odds of all-cause and psychiatric hospitalization were significantly higher for olanzapine (all causes: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.59; 95% CI, 1.13-2.25; psychiatric: aOR = 1.61, 95% CI, 1.12-2.32), quetiapine (all-causes: aOR = 1.27, 95% CI, 1.01-1.58; psychiatric: aOR = 1.28, 95% CI, 1.02-1.59), and ziprasidone (all-causes: aOR = 1.68, 95% CI, 1.05-2.66; psychiatric: aOR = 1.55, 95% CI, 1.02-2.35) compared with lurasidone with mood stabilizers. The adjusted odds of all-cause and psychiatric hospitalizations were numerically lower for lurasidone compared with aripiprazole. The all-cause hospital length of stay per 100 patient-months was significantly higher for olanzapine (20.3 days) and quetiapine (16.0 days) compared with lurasidone (12.2 days, both P values < 0.05). Conclusions: In a Medicaid population, adults with bipolar I disorder treated with lurasidone as adjunctive therapy with mood stabilizers had significantly lower all-cause and psychiatric hospitalization rates compared with olanzapine, quetiapine, and ziprasidone. Fewer hospitalizations may reduce the economic burden associated with bipolar disorder. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2021; 82:XXX-XXX).

Advances in the psychopharmacotherapy of bipolar disorder type I

INTRODUCTION

Research into the pharmacologic management of bipolar type I illness continues to progress.

AREAS COVERED

Randomized clinical trials performed with type I bipolar disorder in the years 2015 to August 2020 are reviewed. There are new indications for the use of cariprazine, for bipolar mania and depression, and a long-acting injectable formulation of aripiprazole has also been approved for relapse prevention in bipolar illness. Most of the randomized clinical trials are effectiveness studies.

EXPERT OPINION

Over the 20 years from 1997 through 2016, the use of lithium and other mood stabilizers has declined by 50%, while the use of both second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and antidepressants has increased considerably. Over the same time period (1990-2017), disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) increased by 54.4%, from 6.02 million in 1990 to 9.29 million in 2017 which is greater than the 47.74% increase in incidence of the disease, suggesting that the changes in prescribing patterns have not been helpful for our patients. Furthermore, recent effectiveness studies continue to confirm the superiority of lithium and other mood stabilizers in the management of bipolar illness for both psychiatric and medical outcomes, reaffirming their role as foundational treatments in the management of type I bipolar disorder. Clinicians need to reassess their prescribing habits.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of lurasidone monotherapy for the treatment of bipolar I depression

AIM

Previous studies conducted primarily in the USA and Europe have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of lurasidone 20-120 mg/day for the treatment of bipolar I depression. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone monotherapy for the treatment of bipolar I depression among patients from diverse ethnic backgrounds, including those from Japan.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment for 6 weeks with lurasidone, 20-60 mg/day (n = 184) or 80-120 mg/day (n = 169), or placebo (n = 172). The primary end-point was change from baseline to Week 6 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

RESULTS

Lurasidone treatment significantly reduced mean MADRS total scores from baseline to Week 6 for the 20-60-mg/day group (-13.6; adjusted P = 0.007; effect size = 0.33), but not for the 80-120-mg/day group (-12.6; adjusted P = 0.057; effect size = 0.22) compared with placebo (-10.6). Treatment with lurasidone 20-60 mg/day also improved MADRS response rates, functional impairment, and anxiety symptoms. The most common adverse events associated with lurasidone were akathisia and nausea. Lurasidone treatments were associated with minimal changes in weight, lipids, and measures of glycemic control.

CONCLUSION

Monotherapy with once daily doses of lurasidone 20-60 mg, but not 80-120 mg, significantly reduced depressive symptoms and improved functioning in patients with bipolar I depression. Results overall were consistent with previous studies, suggesting that lurasidone 20-60 mg/day is effective and safe in diverse ethnic populations, including Japanese.

How to treat mania

OBJECTIVE

In this paper, we aimed at reviewing evidence-based treatment options for bipolar mania and proposed tentative evidence-based clinical suggestions regarding the management of a manic episode, especially regarding the choice of the proper mood stabilizer and antipsychotic medication.

METHOD

A narrative review was undertaken addressing 'treatment of bipolar mania'. Findings have been synthesized and incorporated with clinical experience into a model to support different treatment choices.

RESULTS

To date, there is solid evidence supporting the use of several medications, such as lithium, divalproex, and carbamazepine, and antipsychotics, such as chlorpromazine, haloperidol, risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, aripiprazole, inhaled loxapine, asenapine, and cariprazine in acute mania, and some evidence supporting the use of clozapine or electroconvulsive therapy in treatment-refractory cases. However, in clinical practice, when making decisions about treatment, personalized treatment is needed, according to the different clinical presentations and more complex clinical situations within the manic episode and considering a long-term view and with the objective of not only a symptomatic but also functional recovery. After remission from acute mania, psychoeducation strategies are useful to ensure adherence.

DISCUSSION

Despite the evidence forefficacy of many currently available treatments for mania, the majority of RCTs provide little direction for the clinician as to what steps might be optimal in different presentations of mania as well as in the presence of specific patient characteristics. Manic episodes should be managed on a personalized basis considering the clinical course and patient criteria and with the expectation of maintaining that treatment in the long-term.

Lithium vs valproate in the maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder: A post- hoc analysis of a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Lithium and valproate are commonly used either in monotherapy or in combination with atypical antipsychotics in maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder; however, their comparative efficacy is not well understood. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of valproate and lithium on mood stability either in monotherapy or in combination with atypical antipsychotics.

METHODS

We performed a post hoc analysis using data from a 52-week randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, that recruited 159 patients with recently remitted mania during treatment with lithium or valproate and adjunctive atypical antipsychotic therapy. Patients were randomized to discontinue adjunctive atypical antipsychotic at 0, 24 or 52 weeks.

RESULTS

No significant differences in efficacy were observed between valproate and lithium (hazard ratio: 0.99; 95% confidence interval: [0.66, 1.48]) in time to any mood event. Valproate with 24 weeks of atypical antipsychotic was significantly superior to valproate monotherapy in preventing any mood relapse (hazard ratio: 0.46; 95% confidence interval: [0.22, 0.97]) while lithium with 24 weeks of atypical antipsychotic was superior to lithium monotherapy in preventing mania (hazard ratio: 0.27; 95% confidence interval: [0.09, 0.85]) but not depression.

CONCLUSION

Overall, this study did not find significant differences in efficacy between the two mood-stabilizing agents when used as monotherapy or in combination with atypical antipsychotics. However, study design and small sample size might have precluded from detecting an effect if true difference in efficacy existed. Further head-to-head investigations with stratified designs are needed to evaluate maintenance therapies.

Novel antipsychotics specificity profile: A clinically oriented review of lurasidone, brexpiprazole, cariprazine and lumateperone

Second generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are effective options in the treatment of schizophrenia and mood disorders, each with characteristic efficacy and safety features. In order to optimize the balance between efficacy and side effects, it is of upmost importance to match compound specificity against patient clinical profile. As the number of SGAs increased, this review can assist physicians in the prescription of three novel SGAs already on the market, namely lurasidone, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, and lumateperone, which is in the approval phase for schizophrenia treatment at the FDA. Besides schizophrenia, EMA and/or FDA approved lurasidone for bipolar depression, brexpiprazole as augmentation in major depressive disorder and cariprazine for the acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder. These new antipsychotics were developed with the aim of improving efficacy on negative and depressive symptoms and reducing metabolic and cardiovascular side effects compared to prior SGAs, while keeping the risk of extrapyramidal symptoms low. They succeeded quite well in containing these side effects, despite weight gain during acute treatment remains a possible concern for brexpiprazole, while cariprazine and lurasidone show higher risk of akathisia compared to placebo and other SGAs such as olanzapine. The available studies support the expected benefits on negative symptoms, cognitive dysfunction and depressive symptoms, while the overall effect on acute psychotic symptoms may be similar to other SGAs such as quetiapine, aripiprazole and ziprasidone. The discussed new antipsychotics represent useful therapeutic options but their efficacy and side effect profiles should be considered to personalize prescription.

Complex Combination Pharmacotherapy for Bipolar Disorder: Knowing When Less Is More or More Is Better

Combination pharmacotherapy for bipolar disorder is commonplace and often reflects the severity and complexity of the illness and the comorbid conditions frequently associated with it. Across treatment settings, about one-fifth of patients with bipolar disorder appear to receive four or more psychotropic medications. Practice patterns often outpace the evidence-based literature, insofar as few systematic studies have examined the efficacy and safety of two or more medications for any given phase of illness. Most randomized trials of combination pharmacotherapy focus on the utility of pairing a mood stabilizer with a second-generation antipsychotic for prevention of either acute mania or relapse. In real-world practice, patients with bipolar disorder often take more elaborate combinations of mood stabilizers, antipsychotics, antidepressants, anxiolytics, stimulants, and other psychotropics for indefinite periods that do not necessarily arise purposefully and logically. In this article, I identify clinical factors associated with complex combination pharmacotherapy for patients with bipolar disorder; describe approaches to ensuring that each component of a treatment regimen has a defined role; discuss the elimination of unnecessary, ineffective, or redundant drugs in a regimen; and address complementary, safe, rationale-based drug combinations that target specific domains of psychopathology for which monotherapies often provide inadequate benefit.

Medication nonadherence in bipolar disorder: a narrative review

A number of effective maintenance medication options exist for bipolar disorder (BD) and these are regarded as the foundation of long-term treatment in BD. However, nonadherence to medication is common in BD. For example, a large data base study in the United States of America (USA) showed that approximately half of patients with BD were nonadherent with lithium and maintenance medications over a 12 month period. Such nonadherence carries a high risk of relapse due to the recurrent nature of the illness and the fact that abrupt cessation of treatment, particularly lithium, may cause rebound depression and mania. Indeed, medication nonadherence in BD is associated with significantly increased risks of relapse, recurrence, hospitalization and suicide attempts and a decreased likelihood of achieving remission and recovery, as well as with higher overall treatment costs. Factors associated with nonadherence include adverse effects of medication, complex medication regimens, negative patient attitudes to medication, poor insight, rapid-cycling BD, comorbid substance misuse and a poor therapeutic alliance. Clinicians should routinely enquire about nonadherence in a nonjudgmental fashion. Potential steps to improve adherence include simple pragmatic strategies related to prescribing including shared decision-making, psychoeducation with a clear focus on adherence, reminders (traditional and digital), potentially using a depot rather than an oral antipsychotic, managing comorbid substance misuse and improving therapeutic alliance. Financial incentives have been shown to improve adherence to depot antipsychotics, but this approach raises ethical issues and its long-term effectiveness is unknown. Often a combination of approaches will be required. The strategies that are adopted need to be patient specific, reflecting that nonadherence has no single cause, and chosen by the patient and clinician working together.

Mixed states in bipolar and major depressive disorders: systematic review and quality appraisal of guidelines

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review provided a critical synthesis and a comprehensive overview of guidelines on the treatment of mixed states.

METHOD

The MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched from inception to March 21st, 2018. International guidelines covering the treatment of mixed episodes, manic/hypomanic, or depressive episodes with mixed features were considered for inclusion. A methodological quality assessment was conducted with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-AGREE II.

RESULTS

The final selection yielded six articles. Despite their heterogeneity, all guidelines agreed in interrupting an antidepressant monotherapy or adding mood-stabilizing medications. Olanzapine seemed to have the best evidence for acute mixed hypo/manic/depressive states and maintenance treatment. Aripiprazole and paliperidone were possible alternatives for acute hypo/manic mixed states. Lurasidone and ziprasidone were useful in acute mixed depression. Valproate was recommended for the prevention of new mixed episodes while lithium and quetiapine in preventing affective episodes of all polarities. Clozapine and electroconvulsive therapy were effective in refractory mixed episodes. The AGREE II overall assessment rate ranged between 42% and 92%, indicating different quality level of included guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The unmet needs for the mixed symptoms treatment were associated with diagnostic issues and limitations of previous research, particularly for maintenance treatment.

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) 2018 guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder

The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) previously published treatment guidelines for bipolar disorder in 2005, along with international commentaries and subsequent updates in 2007, 2009, and 2013. The last two updates were published in collaboration with the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD). These 2018 CANMAT and ISBD Bipolar Treatment Guidelines represent the significant advances in the field since the last full edition was published in 2005, including updates to diagnosis and management as well as new research into pharmacological and psychological treatments. These advances have been translated into clear and easy to use recommendations for first, second, and third- line treatments, with consideration given to levels of evidence for efficacy, clinical support based on experience, and consensus ratings of safety, tolerability, and treatment-emergent switch risk. New to these guidelines, hierarchical rankings were created for first and second- line treatments recommended for acute mania, acute depression, and maintenance treatment in bipolar I disorder. Created by considering the impact of each treatment across all phases of illness, this hierarchy will further assist clinicians in making evidence-based treatment decisions. Lithium, quetiapine, divalproex, asenapine, aripiprazole, paliperidone, risperidone, and cariprazine alone or in combination are recommended as first-line treatments for acute mania. First-line options for bipolar I depression include quetiapine, lurasidone plus lithium or divalproex, lithium, lamotrigine, lurasidone, or adjunctive lamotrigine. While medications that have been shown to be effective for the acute phase should generally be continued for the maintenance phase in bipolar I disorder, there are some exceptions (such as with antidepressants); and available data suggest that lithium, quetiapine, divalproex, lamotrigine, asenapine, and aripiprazole monotherapy or combination treatments should be considered first-line for those initiating or switching treatment during the maintenance phase. In addition to addressing issues in bipolar I disorder, these guidelines also provide an overview of, and recommendations for, clinical management of bipolar II disorder, as well as advice on specific populations, such as women at various stages of the reproductive cycle, children and adolescents, and older adults. There are also discussions on the impact of specific psychiatric and medical comorbidities such as substance use, anxiety, and metabolic disorders. Finally, an overview of issues related to safety and monitoring is provided. The CANMAT and ISBD groups hope that these guidelines become a valuable tool for practitioners across the globe.

The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) Guidelines for the Biological Treatment of Bipolar Disorders: Acute and long-term treatment of mixed states in bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVES

Although clinically highly relevant, the recognition and treatment of bipolar mixed states has played only an underpart in recent guidelines. This WFSBP guideline has been developed to supply a systematic overview of all scientific evidence pertaining to the acute and long-term treatment of bipolar mixed states in adults.

METHODS

Material used for these guidelines is based on a systematic literature search using various data bases. Their scientific rigour was categorised into six levels of evidence (A-F), and different grades of recommendation to ensure practicability were assigned. We examined data pertaining to the acute treatment of manic and depressive symptoms in bipolar mixed patients, as well as data pertaining to the prevention of mixed recurrences after an index episode of any type, or recurrence of any type after a mixed index episode.

RESULTS

Manic symptoms in bipolar mixed states appeared responsive to treatment with several atypical antipsychotics, the best evidence resting with olanzapine. For depressive symptoms, addition of ziprasidone to treatment as usual may be beneficial; however, the evidence base is much more limited than for the treatment of manic symptoms. Besides olanzapine and quetiapine, valproate and lithium should also be considered for recurrence prevention.

LIMITATIONS

The concept of mixed states changed over time, and recently became much more comprehensive with the release of DSM-5. As a consequence, studies in bipolar mixed patients targeted slightly different bipolar subpopulations. In addition, trial designs in acute and maintenance treatment also advanced in recent years in response to regulatory demands.

CONCLUSIONS

Current treatment recommendations are still based on limited evidence, and there is a clear demand for confirmative studies adopting the DSM-5 specifier with mixed features concept.