Recovery in bipolar depression: Post-hoc analysis of a placebo-controlled lurasidone trial followed by a long-term continuation study

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.

Efficacy and safety of lurasidone versus placebo as adjunctive to mood stabilizers in bipolar I depression: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Few evidence-based treatments and guidelines reflect greater uncertainty regarding consensus treatment algorithms than those for unipolar disorder. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and side effects of lurasidone by comparing with placebo in bipolar I depression.

METHODS

Electronic databases, such as PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase, were searched until May 30, 2018, for randomized controlled trials on comparison lurasidone therapy with placebo. The primary efficacy assessment included MADRS total score and CGI-BP-S total score, the secondary efficacy assessment included the response and the remission rates and the safety and tolerability were also evaluated applying the Simpson-Angus Scale.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis compromised 7 studies. Efficacy analysis suggested that lurasidone was more effective than placebo: MADRS total score (MD:-4.31, 95%CI: (-6.93,-1.7), P = 0.001) and the CGI-BP-S total score (MD:-0.37, 95%CI: (-0.59,-0.15), P = 0.0008) were obtained for both lurasidone-treated and placebo groups. Response rates (RR: 1.73, 95%CI: (1.46, 2.05), P < 0.00001) and Remission rates (RR: 1.57, 95%CI: (1.38, 1.79), P < 0.00001). The safety analysis between lurasidone and placebo showed no difference: at least one event (RR: 1.12, 95% CI :(1.00, 1.26), p = 0.05 and the influence on glucose (MD: 0.35, 95% CI :(-1.09, 1.79), p = 0.63.

LIMITATION

The present conclusion is limited by the limited included studies. The different dose of lurasidone should be considered in the future.

CONCLUSION

Compared with placebo, adjunctive lurasidone significantly improved depressive symptoms and is very well tolerated with minimal side effects on the endocrine and cardiovascular systems in clinical patients with bipolar I depression. Key words: Bipolar I depression; Lurasidone; Meta-analysis; Remission rates; Adverse effect.

Applications of calcium channel blockers in psychiatry: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic aspects of treatment of bipolar disorder

Introduction: Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) comprise a heterogeneous group of medications that reduce calcium influx and attenuate cellular hyperactivity. Evidence of hyperactive intracellular calcium ion signaling in multiple peripheral cells of patients with bipolar disorder, calcium antagonist actions of established mood stabilizers, and a relative dearth of treatments have prompted research into potential uses of CCBs for this common and disabling condition. Areas covered: This review provides a comprehensive overview of intracellular calcium signaling in bipolar disorder, structure and function of calcium channels, pharmacology of CCBs, evidence of efficacy of CCBs in bipolar disorder, clinical applications, and directions for future research. Expert opinion: Despite mixed evidence of efficacy, CCBs are a promising novel approach to a demonstrated cellular abnormality in both poles of bipolar disorder. Potential advantages include low potential for sedation and weight gain, and possible usefulness for pregnant and neurologically impaired patients. Further research should focus on markers of a preferential response, studies in specific bipolar subtypes, development of CCBs acting preferentially in the central nervous system and on calcium channels that are primarily involved in neuronal signaling and plasticity.

Longer-Term Effectiveness and Tolerability of Adjunctive Open Lurasidone in Patients With Bipolar Disorder

PURPOSE

To retrospectively assess lurasidone effectiveness/efficacy/tolerability in bipolar disorder (BD) patients.

METHODS

Outpatients assessed with Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for BD Affective Disorders Evaluation received naturalistically administered (primarily adjunctive) open lurasidone while monitored at visits with the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for BD Clinical Monitoring Form.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients (32 type I, 26 type II, 3 type not otherwise specified; mean ± SD age, 45.1 ± 14.0 years; 63.9% were female) received lurasidone with 3.1 ± 1.4 (≥2 in 88.5%, monotherapy in only 3.3%) other nonanxiolytic/hypnotic prescription psychotropics, started during syndromal depression in 57.4%, subsyndromal depression in 23.0%, and euthymia in 19.7%. Lurasidone was taken for median 126 days, with final dose 55.6 ± 30.8 mg/d. By final visit taking lurasidone, syndromal depression rate decreased by nearly one-half to 31.1%, and euthymia rate more than doubled to 42.6%, whereas subsyndromal depression rate was unchanged at 23.0%. Clinical Global Impressions-BD-Overall Severity improved significantly only in patients with baseline syndromal depression. Seventy-seven percent of patients discontinued lurasidone after median 103 days, because of adverse events in 54.1% (most often akathisia, sedation/somnolence, nausea, and weight gain), inefficacy in 16.4%, and other reasons in 6.6%; 12.1% had equal to or greater than 7% weight gain, and 3.3% developed hypomania. Limitations to this study were the open design and demographically homogeneous (relatively affluent, predominantly white female) small sample taking complex pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In American specialty clinic BD outpatients, adjunctive longer-term lurasidone commonly relieved syndromal depression and maintained euthymia, suggesting possible effectiveness/efficacy. However, lurasidone was discontinued in 54.1% because of adverse events, suggesting tolerability limitations in these challenging patients, nearly 90% of whom were already taking at least 2 other nonanxiolytic/hypnotic prescription psychotropics.

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.

Lurasidone in the Treatment of Bipolar Depression: Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

INTRODUCTION

A burgeoning number of systematic reviews considering lurasidone in the treatment of bipolar depression have occurred since its Food and Drug Administration extended approval in 2013. While a paucity of available quantitative evidence still precludes preliminary meta-analysis on the matter, the present quality assessment of systematic review of systematic reviews, nonetheless, aims at highlighting current essential information on the topic.

METHODS

Both published and unpublished systematic reviews about lurasidone mono- or adjunctive therapy in the treatment of bipolar depression were searched by two independent authors inquiring PubMed/Cochrane/Embase/Scopus from inception until October 2016.

RESULTS

Twelve included systematic reviews were of moderate-to-high quality and consistent in covering the handful of RCTs available to date, suggesting the promising efficacy, safety, and tolerability profile of lurasidone. Concordance on the drug profile seems to be corroborated by a steadily increasing number of convergent qualitative reports on the matter.

LIMITATIONS

Publication, sponsorship, language, citation, and measurement biases.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being preliminary in nature, this overview stipulates the effectiveness of lurasidone in the acute treatment of Type I bipolar depression overall. As outlined by most of the reviewed evidence, recommendations for future research should include further controlled trials of extended duration.

Remission and recovery associated with lurasidone in the treatment of major depressive disorder with subthreshold hypomanic symptoms (mixed features): post-hoc analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled study with longer-term extension

OBJECTIVE

This post-hoc analysis assessed rates of symptomatic and functional remission, as well as recovery (combination of symptomatic and functional remission), in patients treated with lurasidone for major depressive disorder (MDD) associated with subthreshold hypomanic symptoms (mixed features).

METHOD

Patients with MDD plus two or three manic symptoms (defined as per the DSM-5 mixed-features specifier) were randomly assigned to flexible-dose lurasidone 20-60 mg/day (n=109) or placebo (n=100) for 6 weeks, followed by a 3-month open-label, flexible-dose extension study for U.S. sites only (n=48). Cross-sectional recovery was defined as the presence of both symptomatic remission (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score ≤ 12) and functional remission (all Sheehan Disability Scale [SDS] domain scores ≤3) at week 6, and at both months 1 and 3 of the extension study ("sustained recovery").

RESULTS

A significantly higher proportion of lurasidone-treated patients (31.3%) achieved recovery (assessed cross-sectionally) compared to placebo (12.2%, p=0.002) at week 6. The number of manic symptoms at baseline moderated the effect size for attaining cross-sectional recovery for lurasidone treatment (vs. placebo) (p=0.028). Sustained recovery rates were higher in patients initially treated with lurasidone (20.8%) versus placebo (12.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this post-hoc analysis of a placebo-controlled study with open-label extension that involved patients with MDD and mixed features, lurasidone was found to significantly improve the rate of recovery at 6 weeks (vs. placebo) that was sustained at month 3 of the extension study. The presence of two (as opposed to three) manic symptoms moderated recovery at the acute study endpoint.

The direct and indirect effects of lurasidone monotherapy on functional improvement among patients with bipolar depression: results from a randomized placebo-controlled trial

Background

Bipolar depression is characterized by depressive symptoms and impairment in many areas of functioning, including work, family, and social life. The objective of this study was to assess the independent, direct effect of lurasidone treatment on functioning improvement, and examine the indirect effect of lurasidone treatment on functioning improvement, mediated through improvements in depression symptoms.

Methods

Data from a 6-week placebo-controlled trial assessing the effect of lurasidone monotherapy versus placebo in patients with bipolar depression was used. Patient functioning was measured using the Sheehan disability scale (SDS). Descriptive statistics were used to assess the effect of lurasidone on improvement on the SDS total and domain scores (work/school, social, and family life), as well as number of days lost and unproductive due to symptoms. Path analyses evaluated the total effect (β₁), as well as the indirect effect (β₂×β₃) and direct effect (β₄) of lurasidone treatment on SDS total score change, using standardized beta path coefficients and baseline scores as covariates. The direct effect of treatment on SDS total score change and indirect effects accounting for mediation through depression improvement were examined for statistical significance and magnitude using MPlus.

Results

In this 6-week trial (N = 485), change scores from baseline to 6-weeks were significantly larger for both lurasidone treatment dosage groups versus placebo on the SDS total and all three SDS domain scores (p < 0.05). Through path analyses, lurasidone treatment predicted improvement in depression (β₂ = −0.33, p = 0.009), subsequently predicting improvement in functional impairment (β₃ = 0.70, p < 0.001; indirect effect = −0.23). The direct effect was of medium magnitude (β₄ = −0.17, p = 0.04), indicating lurasidone had a significant and direct effect on improvement in functional impairment, after accounting for depression improvement.

Conclusions

Results demonstrated statistically significant improvement in functioning among patients on lurasidone monotherapy compared to placebo. Improvement in functioning among patients on lurasidone was largely mediated through a reduction in depression symptoms, but lurasidone also had a medium and statistically significant independent direct effect in improving functioning.