Study design and patient characteristics and outcome in acute mania clinical trials

The CINP Guidelines on the Definition and Evidence-Based Interventions for Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Disorder

BACKGROUND

Resistant bipolar disorder is a major mental health problem related to significant disability and overall cost. The aim of the current study was to perform a systematic review of the literature concerning (1) the definition of treatment resistance in bipolar disorder, (2) its clinical and (3) neurobiological correlates, and (4) the evidence-based treatment options for treatment-resistant bipolar disorder and for eventually developing guidelines for the treatment of this condition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PRISMA method was used to identify all published papers relevant to the definition of treatment resistance in bipolar disorder and the associated evidence-based treatment options. The MEDLINE was searched to April 22, 2018.

RESULTS

Criteria were developed for the identification of resistance in bipolar disorder concerning all phases. The search of the literature identified all published studies concerning treatment options. The data were classified according to strength, and separate guidelines regarding resistant acute mania, acute bipolar depression, and the maintenance phase were developed.

DISCUSSION

The definition of resistance in bipolar disorder is by itself difficult due to the complexity of the clinical picture, course, and treatment options. The current guidelines are the first, to our knowledge, developed specifically for the treatment of resistant bipolar disorder patients, and they also include an operationalized definition of treatment resistance. They were based on a thorough and deep search of the literature and utilize as much as possible an evidence-based approach.

Initial symptom severity of bipolar I disorder and the efficacy of olanzapine: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from five placebo-controlled studies

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of antipsychotics across the initial severity range in patients with acute mania remains unclear. Therefore, we examined the influence of baseline severity on the efficacy of olanzapine.

METHODS

We did an individual participant data meta-analysis of double-blind, randomised controlled trials that compared olanzapine with placebo, identified through searches of the ClinicalStudyRequest.com database on Feb 2, 2016. We included patients with acute mania associated with bipolar I disorder. We examined the association between baseline and change scores on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS; range 0-60) up to 3 weeks for olanzapine versus placebo groups using eight increasingly complex competing mixed-effects models for repeated measures.

FINDINGS

We identified 33 reports, five (15%) of which were eligible and contained data for 939 patients (552 received olanzapine; 387 received placebo). The interaction between baseline severity and treatment was significant (β=0·22, 95% CI 0·05-0·39; p=0·013). The greater the baseline severity, the greater the magnitude of the differences between olanzapine and placebo was expected. The mean estimated YMRS scores were reduced at 3 weeks in both groups, but were greater with olazapine than placebo by 2·56 points for patients with a baseline score of 20-25 (9·26 for olanzapine vs 6·70 for placebo; effect size 0·35, 95% CI 0·11-0·60), by 4·74 points for a baseline score of 25-35 (14·25 vs 9·51; 0·58, 0·34-0·86), and by 8·01 points for a baseline score of 35-60 (21·72 vs 13·71; 0·70, 0·31-1·23).

INTERPRETATION

Benefits of olanzapine can be expected for patients across the full spectrum of symptom severity who are likely to be treated for acute mania. Less severely ill patients seem to benefit less in terms of olanzapine efficacy, but still experience the same side-effects as more severely ill patients. Thus, clinicians and patients should carefully consider the benefit-to-risk ratio of olanzapine and its additional, prophylactic effect against relapse in the long term. The generalisability of these results to other antipsychotics, trial designs, and medical conditions remains to be established.

FUNDING

None.

Impact of irritability: a 2-year observational study of outpatients with bipolar I or schizoaffective disorder

OBJECTIVES

Many people experience irritability when manic, hypomanic, or depressed, yet its impact on illness severity and quality of life in bipolar and schizoaffective disorders is poorly understood. This study aimed to examine the relationship between irritability and symptom burden, functioning, quality of life, social support, suicidality, and overall illness severity in a naturalistic cohort of people with bipolar I or schizoaffective disorder.

METHODS

We used data from 239 adult outpatients with bipolar I or schizoaffective disorder in the Bipolar Comprehensive Outcomes Study (BCOS) - a non-interventional observational study with a 2-year follow-up period. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of participants with and without irritability were compared. A mixed-model repeated measures analysis was conducted to examine the longitudinal effect of irritability on clinical and quality-of-life variables over follow-up using significant baseline variables.

RESULTS

At baseline, 54% of participants were irritable. Baseline irritability was associated with illness severity, mania, depression, psychotic symptoms, suicidality, poor functioning, and quality of life, but not diagnosis (schizoaffective/bipolar disorder). Participants with irritability were less likely to have a partner and perceived less adequate social support. On average, over follow-up, those with irritability reported more symptoms, functional impairment, and suicidality. Furthermore, the effects of irritability could not be fully explained by illness severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Irritability was associated with more negative symptomatic, functional, and quality-of-life outcomes and suicidality. The identification, monitoring, and targeted treatment of irritability may be worth considering, to enhance health and wellbeing outcomes for adults with bipolar and schizoaffective disorders.

The misleading concept of initial severity in depression clinical trials: development and results from a mathematical model

OBJECTIVE

Recently, meta-analytic studies have suggested a positive relationship between initial severity and magnitude of treatment efficacy. The aim of the current study was to develop a mathematical model to test the assumption concerning the role of initial severity in treatment response.

METHODS

A number of experimental artificial datasets were developed on the basis of three different scenarios which reflect a pre-determined effect of initial severity. They were used to test for correlations at the patient level as well as at the meta-analysis level (trial level).

RESULTS

The results suggested that in all scenarios and analyses the correlations were so high that a ceiling effect was obvious. The testing concerned changes from baseline, but not differences between arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall the data suggest that the question concerning the role of initial severity cannot be answered. Any allegations on such a role are based on flawed methodology and do not take into consideration the true nature of data.

The International College of Neuro-Psychopharmacology (CINP) Treatment Guidelines for Bipolar Disorder in Adults (CINP-BD-2017), Part 2: Review, Grading of the Evidence, and a Precise Algorithm

Background

The current paper includes a systematic search of the literature, a detailed presentation of the results, and a grading of treatment options in terms of efficacy and tolerability/safety.

Material and Methods

The PRISMA method was used in the literature search with the combination of the words 'bipolar,' 'manic,' 'mania,' 'manic depression,' and 'manic depressive' with 'randomized,' and 'algorithms' with 'mania,' 'manic,' 'bipolar,' 'manic-depressive,' or 'manic depression.' Relevant web pages and review articles were also reviewed.

Results

The current report is based on the analysis of 57 guideline papers and 531 published papers related to RCTs, reviews, posthoc, or meta-analysis papers to March 25, 2016. The specific treatment options for acute mania, mixed episodes, acute bipolar depression, maintenance phase, psychotic and mixed features, anxiety, and rapid cycling were evaluated with regards to efficacy. Existing treatment guidelines were also reviewed. Finally, Tables reflecting efficacy and recommendation levels were created that led to the development of a precise algorithm that still has to prove its feasibility in everyday clinical practice.

Conclusions

A systematic literature search was conducted on the pharmacological treatment of bipolar disorder to identify all relevant random controlled trials pertaining to all aspects of bipolar disorder and graded the data according to a predetermined method to develop a precise treatment algorithm for management of various phases of bipolar disorder. It is important to note that the some of the recommendations in the treatment algorithm were based on the secondary outcome data from posthoc analyses.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of combined antipsychotics and mood stabilizers versus individual drug classes for acute mania: Network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Recent network meta-analyses of drug treatments for acute mania have only evaluated the efficacy and acceptability of individual drug treatments. The relative efficacy and acceptability of combined drug treatment has not been assessed.

METHODS

Double-blind drug trials in acute mania were identified using a systematic search strategy. We recorded numbers of patients enrolled, endpoints for efficacy (changes in mania rating scales, numbers of responders) and acceptability (numbers of dropouts) and treatment administered (categorized as antipsychotic, mood stabilizer, combined antipsychotic/mood stabilizer or placebo). Data were analyzed using a random effects frequentist network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

All three drug categories were more effective than placebo. Antipsychotics and combined antipsychotic/mood stabilizer were significantly more effective than mood stabilizers for changes in mania rating scales. Combined antipsychotic/mood stabilizer was significantly more effective than mood stabilizers and antipsychotics for responder rate. Dropout rates were significantly lower for antipsychotics compared with placebo and mood stabilizers. Combined antipsychotic/mood stabilizer had the highest probability of being the best treatment based on change in mania rating scales (96.1% for all mania scales; 85.5% for Young Mania Rating Scale), and 99.3% for being the best treatment for responders. Antipsychotics had 82.0% probability as the best treatment to minimize dropouts.

CONCLUSION

Combined antipsychotic/mood stabilizer appears to have efficacy advantages over antipsychotic or mood stabilizer monotherapy in acute mania, and should be considered as first line therapy.

Effects of mood state on divided attention in patients with bipolar disorder: evidence for beneficial effects of subclinical manic symptoms

A relatively small number of studies have been dedicated to the differential effects of the current mood state on cognition in patients with a bipolar disorder (BD). The aim of the current study was to investigate the effect of current mood state on divided attention (DA) performance, and specifically examine possible beneficial effects of the (hypo-) manic state. Over a maximum period of 24 months, medication use, divided attention test (a subtest of the Test for Attentional Performance (TAP)) was assessed every 6 months in 189 outpatients with BD. Data were analyzed with multilevel regression analysis (i.e. linear mixed models). DA performance varied considerable over time within patients. Corrected for psychotropic medication a significant quadratic relationship between manic symptoms and DA performance was found, with mild hypomanic symptoms having a positive influence on divided attention scores and moderate to severe manic symptoms having a negative influence. No association between depressive symptoms and DA performance was found. In future research on mania and cognition as well as in the clinical practice both the beneficial and negative effects of mania should be taken into account.

Efficacy of pharmacotherapy in bipolar disorder: a report by the WPA section on pharmacopsychiatry

The current statement is a systematic review of the available data concerning the efficacy of medication treatment of bipolar disorder (BP). A systematic MEDLINE search was made concerning the treatment of BP (RCTs) with the names of treatment options as keywords. The search was updated on 10 March 2012. The literature suggests that lithium, first and second generation antipsychotics and valproate and carbamazepine are efficacious in the treatment of acute mania. Quetiapine and the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination are also efficacious for treating bipolar depression. Antidepressants should only be used in combination with an antimanic agent, because they can induce switching to mania/hypomania/mixed states/rapid cycling when utilized as monotherapy. Lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine and aripiprazole are efficacious during the maintenance phase. Lamotrigine is efficacious in the prevention of depression, and it remains to be clarified whether it is also efficacious for mania. There is some evidence on the efficacy of psychosocial interventions as an adjunctive treatment to medication. Electroconvulsive therapy is an option for refractory patients. In acute manic patients who are partial responders to lithium/valproate/carbamazepine, adding an antipsychotic is a reasonable choice. The combination with best data in acute bipolar depression is lithium plus lamotrigine. Patients stabilized on combination treatment might do worse if shifted to monotherapy during maintenance, and patients could benefit with add-on treatment with olanzapine, valproate, an antidepressant, or lamotrigine, depending on the index acute phase. A variety of treatment options for BP are available today, but still unmet needs are huge. Combination therapy may improve the treatment outcome but it also carries more side-effect burden. Further research is necessary as well as the development of better guidelines and algorithms for the step-by-step rational treatment.