Pharmacological treatment of mixed states

Treatment of mixed depression with theta-burst stimulation (TBS): results from a double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial

Mixed depression is probably different in terms of clinical course and response to treatment. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is well established in non-mixed depression, and theta-burst stimulation (TBS) protocol is replacing conventional protocols because of noninferiority and reduced delivery time. However, TBS has not been adequately studied in mixed states. This study was a double-blind, six-week, sham-controlled, and randomized clinical trial of bilateral TBS targeting the right and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, respectively. Adults with bipolar and major depressive disorder experiencing an acute mixed depression were eligible if they had not benefited from a first- or second-line treatment for acute unipolar or bipolar depression recommended by the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments. Out of 100 patients included, 90 composed modified intention-to-treat sample, which was patients that completed at least one week of the intervention. There were no significant differences in Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale score changes (least squares mean difference between groups at week 3, -0.06 [95% CI, - 3.39 to 3.51; P = 0.97] in favor of sham TBS). Response and remission rates per MADRS were also not statistically different among active and sham groups (35.7% vs. 43.7%, and 28.5% vs. 37.5% respectively at week 6, ps > 0.51). No other analyses from baseline to weeks 3 or 6 revealed significant time x group interaction or mean differences among groups in the mITT sample. Bilateral TBS targeting the DLPFC is not efficacious as an add-on treatment of acute bipolar and unipolar mixed depression. ClinicalTrials.govIdentifier: NCT04123301.

Lurasidone in Children and Adolescents with Bipolar Depression Presenting with Mixed (Subsyndromal Hypomanic) Features: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone in the treatment of children and adolescents with bipolar depression presenting with mixed (subsyndromal hypomanic) features. Methods: Patients, 10-17 years of age, with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. (DSM-5), diagnosis of bipolar I depression were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with once-daily flexible doses of lurasidone 20-80 mg or placebo. The presence of mixed (subsyndromal hypomanic) features in this pediatric bipolar depression trial was defined as a Young Mania Rating Scale score of 5 or greater at study baseline. Key efficacy measures included change from baseline to week 6 in the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) score (primary endpoint) and Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Severity (CGI-BP-S) score, using a mixed model for repeated measures analysis. Results: At baseline, subsyndromal hypomanic features were present in 54.2% of patients. Treatment with lurasidone (vs. placebo) was associated with significantly greater reductions in CDRS-R scores at week 6, independent of the presence (-21.5 vs. -15.9, p < 0.01; effect size d = 0.43) or absence (-20.5 vs. -14.9, p < 0.01; d = 0.44) of subsyndromal hypomanic features. Likewise, lurasidone (vs. placebo) was associated with significantly greater reductions in CGI-BP-S scores at week 6, independent of the presence (-1.6 vs. -1.1, p < 0.001, d = 0.51) or absence (-1.3 vs. -1.0, p = 0.05; d = 0.31) of these subsyndromal hypomanic features. Rates of protocol-defined treatment-emergent hypomania or mania were similar for lurasidone and placebo in patients with (lurasidone 8.2% vs. placebo 9.0%) or without subsyndromal hypomanic features (lurasidone 1.3% vs. placebo 3.7%). Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis of a randomized placebo-controlled trial, lurasidone was found to be efficacious in the treatment of child and adolescent patients with bipolar depression who presented with mixed (subsyndromal hypomanic) features. No differences in safety profile, including the risk of treatment-emergent mania, were observed in patients with or without subsyndromal hypomanic features in this study.

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.

Treatment of Mixed Features in Bipolar Disorder: an Updated View

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Mixed presentations in bipolar disorder have long posed clinical and nosological challenges. The DSM-5 mixed features specifier was developed to provide a more flexible and clinically relevant definition of mixed presentations compared with narrowly defined DSM-IV mixed episodes. However, there is little guidance on treating such presentations. Here, we summarize the evidence for biological treatments of DSM-5 and similarly defined mixed features (MFs).

RECENT FINDINGS

The literature on treating MFs is almost exclusively based on post hoc analyses. Within this limited evidence base is preliminary positive data for aripiprazole, asenapine, cariprazine, olanzapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone in treating acute mania with MFs, and cariprazine, lurasidone, olanzapine, and ziprasidone for depressive symptoms in depression with MFs. Divalproex may also be efficacious for acute mania with MFs. The few extant maintenance studies suggest that divalproex and olanzapine may have long-term efficacy in those with index MFs or for the prevention of MFs, respectively. The existing evidence suggests that clinicians consider atypical antipsychotics and divalproex for treating acute mixed presentations. However, adequately powered treatment trials-and studies of maintenance and neurostimulation therapies-are needed. Additionally, data-driven techniques to identify relevant symptom clusters may help improve our conceptualization of mixed presentations.

Agitated depression in bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVES

It has been suggested that agitated depression (AD) is a common, severe feature in bipolar disorder. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of AD and investigate whether presence of AD was associated with episodic and lifetime clinical features in a large well-characterized bipolar disorder sample.

METHOD

The prevalence of agitation, based on semi-structured interview and medical case-notes, in the most severe depressive episode was estimated in 2925 individuals with DSM-IV bipolar disorder recruited into the UK Bipolar Disorder Research Network. Predictors of agitation were ascertained using symptoms within the same episode and lifetime clinical features using multivariate models.

RESULTS

32.3% (n = 946) experienced agitation during the worst depressive episode. Within the same episode, significant predictors of presence of agitation were: insomnia (OR 2.119, P < 0.001), poor concentration (OR 1.966, P = 0.027), decreased libido (OR 1.960, P < 0.001), suicidal ideation (OR 1.861, P < 0.001), slowed activity (OR 1.504, P = 0.001), and poor appetite (OR 1.297, P = 0.029). Over the lifetime illness course, co-morbid panic disorder (OR 2.000, P < 0.001), suicide attempt (OR 1.399, P = 0.007), and dysphoric mania (OR 1.354, P = 0.017) were significantly associated with AD.

CONCLUSIONS

Agitation accompanied bipolar depression in at least one-third of cases in our sample and was associated with concurrent somatic depressive symptoms, which are also common features of mixed manic states. Furthermore, AD in our sample was associated with lifetime experience of mixed mania, in addition to severe lifetime illness course including comorbid panic disorder and suicidal behavior. Our results have implications for the diagnosis and treatment of agitated features in bipolar depression.

Mixed States: Modelling and Management

Our current conceptualisation of mixed states, defined as co-occurring manic and depressive symptoms, is unlikely to advance our knowledge or inform clinical practice. Episodes of mixed states can no longer be coded in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and the 'mixed features specifier' fails to capture the most common mixed state presentations. This reflects a lack of understanding of both the importance of mixed states and their underlying pathophysiology. Indeed, research into the nature of mixed states is scarce and uninformative, and most clinical practice guidelines fail to provide advice regarding their management. In this paper, we proffer a reconceptualisation of mixed states that provides a framework for informing clinical practice and research. It is based on the ACE model, which deconstructs mood disorders into three domains of symptoms: activity, cognition, and emotion. Symptoms within each domain vary independently over time and in different directions (towards either excitation or inhibition). By deconstructing mood disorders into component domains, mixed states can be explained as the product of different domains varying 'out of sync'. In most cases, the aetiology of mixed states is unknown. Alongside such idiopathic mixed states, we describe three potential causes of mixed states that are important to consider when formulating management: transitions, ultradian cycling, and treatment-emergent affective switches. In addition to providing guidance on the identification of various kinds of mixed states, we discuss practical strategies for their management, including the monitoring of ACE domains and functioning, to inform the use of psychoeducation and lifestyle changes, psychotherapy, pharmacology, and electroconvulsive therapy.

Mixed states in bipolar disorder: modelling, measuring and managing

OBJECTIVE:

To consider whether consensus exists in recommendations for managing bipolar mixed states published in recent reviews and treatment guidelines, and to summarise what might be their best management.

CONCLUSION:

Limitations to and changes in the definition of mixed states compromise diagnosis and management. The striking comparison between DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria sets risks under-diagnosis and over-diagnosis. Current reviews and guidelines offer limited evidence to guide treatment; however, management should involve addressing the contribution of any antidepressant medication, and the introduction of a second-generation antipsychotic medication to stabilise the condition.

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.