Search

In this conceptual review we argue that by certifying some of the atypical neuroleptics (or, if one prefers, antipsychotics) as indicated for the 'maintenance' treatment of bipolar disorder, the US FDA has created confusion in the field. These maintenance indications are based on studies using a 'relapse prevention' design, a design that does not address whether the agents tested can prevent new episodes of illness, i.e. recurrence prevention or true prophylaxis. We found that the relapse prevention design fails to prove that these agents are mood stabilizers because patients are pre-selected to respond to the study drug for an acute mood episode (mania) and when they relapse, they do so into an episode of the same polarity (i.e. mania). We believe that this represents withdrawal into the same mood episode that patients experienced before the maintenance study began, rather than prevention of a new mood episode, as research into the natural history of bipolar disorder indicates that such new episodes typically are of the opposite polarity. Thus, the inability of neuroleptics to prevent depression in such maintenance studies reflects the general inability to prevent any new mood episode recurrence (which we believe should be defined as 6 months or longer after the index episode). If one defines a mood stabilizer, as we do, as a drug that prevents new episodes of mania and depression in monotherapy, then these studies do not show that atypical neuroleptics are mood stabilizers. Future maintenance research studies in bipolar disorder should use the prophylaxis design (i.e. without pre-selection of drug responders), rather than the relapse prevention design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1 Theories linking 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) with depression are briefly reviewed. The various experimental strategies adopted to investigate this relationship, examination of autopsy data, CSF metabolite data, 5-HT re-uptake patterns in human blood platelets and imipramine binding studies in human platelets, are discussed. 2 Recent studies of 5-hydroxyindole acetic acid (5-HIAA) levels in cerebrospinal fluid have revealed a linkage between low 5-HIAA levels and suicide, aggression and impulsivity. Decreases in the number of imipramine binding sites have also been found in brains of suicide victims. 3 The available data lead to the conclusion that decreased 5- hydroxytryptaminergic function may be associated with an increased risk of depression, suicide, and some types of aggression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This column describes a pilot study of a fully automated, Internet-based program that provides a key element of interpersonal and social rhythm therapy, a form of psychotherapy shown to be effective in the treatment of bipolar disorder when combined with mood-stabilizing medication. Participants (N=64) recorded the time they completed activities of daily living and their mood at the time of each entry. After 90 days they demonstrated a 31% increase in social rhythm stability and a small, though statistically significant, decrease in symptoms of abnormal mood. Internet-based programs can enhance access to a best practice in the management of bipolar disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We sought to test the hypothesis that antidepressants (ADs) may show preferential efficacy and safety among patients with type II bipolar disorder (BD, BD-II) more than patients with type I BD (BD-I)., Methods: Patients with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, BD-I (n = 21) and BD-II (n = 49) in acute major depressive episodes were treated with ADs plus mood stabilizers to euthymia sustained for 2 months and then randomized openly to continue or discontinue ADs for up to 3 years. Outcomes were episode recurrences and changes in standardized symptom ratings., Results: In follow-up averaging 1.64 years, both subgroups showed improvement in depressive episode frequency with AD continuation, but contrary to the hypothesis, more improvement was seen in BD-I than in BD-II (for type II, mean [standard deviation] decrease in depressive episodes per year, 0.21 [0.26]; for type I, mean (SD) decrease, 0.35 [0.15]). Subjects with BD-II who continued on ADs had slightly more depressive, but fewer manic/hypomanic, episodes than subjects with BD-I. No notable differences were seen in either group in time to a recurrence of mood episodes or total time-in-remission., Conclusions: The findings do not confirm the hypothesis that long-term AD treatment in patients with BP-II has better outcomes than in patients with BD-I, except somewhat lower risk of manic/hypomanic episodes.

Background: The use of antidepressants in rapid-cycling bipolar disorder has been controversial. We report the first randomized clinical trial with modern antidepressants on this topic., Methods: As part of the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD) study, we analyzed, as an a priori secondary outcome, rapid cycling as a predictor of response in 68 patients randomized to continue vs. discontinue antidepressant treatment, after initial response for an acute major depressive episode. Outcomes assessed were percent time well and total number of episodes. All patients received standard mood stabilizers., Results: In those continued on antidepressants (AD), rapid cycling (RC) subjects experienced 268% (3.14/1.17) more total mood episodes/year, and 293% (1.29/0.44) more depressive episodes/year, compared with non-rapid cycling (NRC) subjects (mean difference in depressive episodes per year RC vs. NRC was 0.85 ± 0.37 (SE), df = 28, p = 0.03). In the AD continuation group, RC patients also had 28.8% less time in remission than NRC patients (95% confidence intervals (9.9%, 46.5%), p = 0.004). No such differences between RC and NRC subjects were seen in the AD discontinuation group (Table 1). Analyses within the rapid-cycling subgroup alone were consistent with the above comparisons between RC and NRC subjects, stratified by maintenance antidepressant treatment, though limited by sample size., Conclusions: In an a priori analysis, despite preselection for good antidepressant response and concurrent mood stabilizer treatment, antidepressant continuation in rapid-cycling was associated with worsened maintenance outcomes, especially for depressive morbidity, vs. antidepressant discontinuation., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The long-term impact of prior antidepressant exposure on the subsequent course of bipolar illness remains controversial., Method: 139 outpatients (mean age, 42 years) with bipolar I disorder diagnosed by DSM-IV criteria had a detailed retrospective examination of their prior course of illness on the National Institute of Mental Health Life Chart Method. Number of prior antidepressant trials and total duration of antidepressant exposure were assessed. Prospective long-term response (for at least 6 months) to naturalistic treatment in the network from 1996 through 2002 was the primary outcome measure as it related to prior antidepressant exposure (and other illness variables) by logistic regression, with P < .05 used for statistical significance in this post hoc analysis., Results: Greater number of antidepressant trials, but not duration of antidepressant exposure, was related to prospective nonresponse (P = .0051) whether or not antidepressants were covered by concurrent treatment with a mood stabilizer or atypical antipsychotic. Poor prospective response was also independently related to having had an anxiety disorder and 20 or more prior affective episodes., Conclusions: That the number of antidepressant trials, but not duration of antidepressant treatment, was associated with prospective nonresponse suggests that it is the repeated use of antidepressants to treat episodes of depression that is related to poor prospective response to naturalistic treatment. The direction of causality is unclear as to whether more antidepressant trials led to this increased treatment resistance or whether a difficult course of illness with more episodes and anxiety comorbidity engendered more attempts at antidepressant treatment., (© Copyright 2012 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Objective: To address issues concerning potential treatment-emergent "suicidality," a consensus conference was convened March 23-24, 2009., Participants: This gathering of participants from academia, government, and industry brought together experts in suicide prevention, clinical trial design, psychometrics, pharmacoepidemiology, and genetics, as well as research psychiatrists involved in studies in studies of psychiatric disorders associated with elevated suicide risk across the life cycle. The process involved reviews of the relevant literature, and a series of 6 breakout sessions focused on specific questions of interest., Evidence: Each of the participants at the meeting received references relevant to the formal presentations (as well as the slides for the presentations) for their review prior to the meeting. In addition, the assessment instruments of suicidal ideation/behavior were reviewed in relationship to standard measures of validity, reliability, and clinical utility, and these findings were discussed at length in relevant breakout groups, in the final plenary session, and in the preparation of the article. Consensus and dissenting views were noted., Consensus Process: Discussion and questions followed each formal presentation during the plenary sessions. Approximately 6 questions per breakout group were prepared in advance by members of the Steering Committee and each breakout group chair. Consensus in the breakout groups was achieved by nominal group process. Consensus recommendations and any dissent were reviewed for each breakout group at the final plenary session. All plenary sessions were recorded and transcribed by a court stenographer. Following the transcript, with input by each of the authors, the final paper went through 14 drafts. The output of the meeting was organized into this brief report and the accompanying full article from which it is distilled. The full article was developed by the authors with feedback from all participants at the meeting and represents a consensus view. Any areas of disagreement at the conference have been noted in the text., Conclusions: The term suicidality is not as clinically useful as more specific terminology (ideation, behavior, attempts, and suicide). Most participants applauded the FDA's encouragement of standard definitions and definable expectations for investigators and industry sponsors. Further research of available assessment instruments is needed to verify their utility, reliability, and validity in identifying suicide-associated treatment-emergent adverse effects and/or a signal of efficacy in suicide prevention trials. The FDA needs to systematically monitor postmarketing events by encouraging the development of a validated instrument for postmarketing surveillance of suicidal ideation, behavior, and risk. Over time, the FDA, industry, and clinical researchers should evaluate the impact of the requirement that all central nervous system clinical drug trials must include a Columbia Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment (C-CASA)-compatible screening instrument for assessing and documenting the occurrence of treatment-emergent suicidal ideation and behavior. Finally, patients at high risk for suicide can safely be included in clinical trials, if proper precautions are followed., (Copyright 2010 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Objective: To address issues concerning potential treatment-emergent "suicidality," a consensus conference was convened March 23-24, 2009., Participants: This gathering of participants from academia, government, and industry brought together experts in suicide prevention, clinical trial design, psychometrics, pharmacoepidemiology, and genetics, as well as research psychiatrists involved in studies of major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, substance abuse/dependence, and other psychiatric disorders associated with elevated suicide risk across the life cycle. The process involved reviews of the relevant literature, and a series of 6 breakout sessions focused on specific questions of interest., Evidence: Each of the participants at the meeting received references relevant to the formal presentations (as well as the slides for the presentations) for their review prior to the meeting. In addition, the assessment instruments of suicidal ideation/behavior were reviewed in relationship to standard measures of validity, reliability, and clinical utility, and these findings were discussed at length in relevant breakout groups, in the final plenary session, and in the preparation of the article. Consensus and dissenting views were noted., Consensus Process: Discussion and questions followed each formal presentation during the plenary sessions. Approximately 6 questions per breakout group were prepared in advance by members of the Steering Committee and each breakout group chair. Consensus in the breakout groups was achieved by nominal group process. Consensus recommendations and any dissent were reviewed for each breakout group at the final plenary session. All plenary sessions were recorded and transcribed by a court stenographer. Following the transcript, with input by each of the authors, the final paper went through 14 drafts. The output of the meeting was organized into this scholarly article, which has been developed by the authors with feedback from all participants at the meeting and represents a consensus view. Any areas of disagreement have been noted., Conclusions: The term suicidality is not as clinically useful as more specific terminology (ideation, behavior, attempts, and suicide). Most participants applauded the FDA's effort to promote standard definitions and definable expectations for investigators and industry sponsors by endorsing the terminology in the Columbia Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment (C-CASA). Further research of available assessment instruments is needed to verify their utility, reliability, and validity in identifying suicide-associated treatment-emergent adverse effects and/or a signal of efficacy in suicide prevention trials. The FDA needs to build upon its new authority to systematically monitor postmarketing events by encouraging the development of a validated instrument for postmarketing surveillance of suicidal ideation, behavior, and risk within informative large health care-related databases in the United States and abroad. Over time, the FDA, industry, and clinical researchers should evaluate the impact of the current Agency requirement that all CNS clinical drug trials must include a C-CASA-compatible screening instrument for assessing and documenting the occurrence of treatment-emergent suicidal ideation and behavior. Finally, patients at high risk for suicide can safely be included in clinical trials, if proper precautions are followed, and they need to be included to enable premarket assessments of the risks and benefits of medications related to suicidal ideation, suicidal behavior, and suicide in such patients., (Copyright 2010 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Background: Longitudinal mood instability is the essential feature of bipolar disorder, however most rating scales are cross sectional in nature, and focus on acute symptoms. By contrast, the NIMH Life Chart Methodology (LCM) characterizes in detail the severity, duration, and frequency of mood episodes. Adherence to daily rating, however, tends to be low. In this study an online version of the LCM, designed to enhance adherence, was compared to the standard paper version., Methods: Patients from a mood disorders specialty clinic were randomized to the standard LCM or an online, open-source adaptation. The online version used hypertext links embedded in a daily email as the primary rating interface. Participants rated for 90 days. The total number of days rated and the number of days with complete data were compared for the two groups., Results: Forty-eight patients participated in the study. The online group rated approximately twice as many days compared to the standard group (44.3 versus 20.4, p=.029). The online group also entered complete data for a larger portion of days (55.2% versus 27.7%, p=.039)., Limitations: This was a small, short-term study. The implications for longer-term rating are unclear., Conclusions: Despite the advantages of documenting mood fluctuation on a daily basis, the LCM is not commonly used, in part because ensuring adequate adherence can be resource intensive. An easily accessible online adaptation that utilizes email checking behavior can make this tool available to a wider range of patients.

Background: Despite the importance of marriage as a source of social support, it has been largely neglected in studies of bipolar disorder; and differential effects on men and women have not been explored., Methods: Data on episodes of depression, mania, and mixed states were collected for the previous 2 years from a sample of 282 bipolar individuals using the National Institute of Mental Health Life Chart Methodology., Results: Effects unique to women included the following: Bipolar women were significantly more likely to be married. Married women had fewer episodes of depression during the past 2 years than never-married women, and the cumulative severity of depression was lower. There were no differences in diagnostic subtype or age of onset between married and never-married women. Among men, never-married men were more likely to have bipolar I disorder and had an earlier age of onset compared with married men. There were no differences between married and never-married men in frequency, duration, or severity of mood episodes., Conclusions: Partner selection processes as they relate to bipolar disorder may be different for men and women. The bipolar I diagnostic subtype and early age of onset were associated with a lower likelihood of being married for men, but not for women. Marriage was associated with less depression in women during a 2-year period; but marital status was not associated with disease course differences in men, suggesting that women may be more sensitive to the positive effects of social support available within a stable marital relationship., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess long-term effectiveness and safety of randomized antidepressant discontinuation after acute recovery from bipolar depression., Method: In the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD) study, conducted between 2000 and 2007, 70 patients with DSM-IV-diagnosed bipolar disorder (72.5% non-rapid cycling, 70% type I) with acute major depression, initially responding to treatment with antidepressants plus mood stabilizers, and euthymic for 2 months, were openly randomly assigned to antidepressant continuation versus discontinuation for 1-3 years. Mood stabilizers were continued in both groups., Results: The primary outcome was mean change on the depressive subscale of the STEP-BD Clinical Monitoring Form. Antidepressant continuation trended toward less severe depressive symptoms (mean difference in DSM-IV depression criteria = -1.84 [95% CI, -0.08 to 3.77]) and mildly delayed depressive episode relapse (HR = 2.13 [1.00-4.56]), without increased manic symptoms (mean difference in DSM-IV mania criteria = +0.23 [-0.73 to 1.20]). No benefits in prevalence or severity of new depressive or manic episodes, or overall time in remission, occurred. Type II bipolar disorder did not predict enhanced antidepressant response, but rapid-cycling course predicted 3 times more depressive episodes with antidepressant continuation (rapid cycling = 1.29 vs non-rapid cycling = 0.42 episodes/year, P = .04)., Conclusions: This first randomized discontinuation study with modern antidepressants showed no statistically significant symptomatic benefit with those agents in the long-term treatment of bipolar disorder, along with neither robust depressive episode prevention benefit nor enhanced remission rates. Trends toward mild benefits, however, were found in subjects who continued antidepressants. This study also found, similar to studies of tricyclic antidepressants, that rapid-cycling patients had worsened outcomes with modern antidepressant continuation., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00012558., (Copyright 2010 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Background: During post-acute phase pharmacotherapy for bipolar disorder, there has been little empirical study to establish when emerging mania symptoms (1) are of clinical significance and (2) reflect iatrogenic events versus the natural course of illness., Method: Secondary analyses were conducted in a previously studied group of bipolar I disorder (DSM-IV) outpatients randomly assigned to lamotrigine monotherapy (n=171) or placebo (n=121), and a larger prerandomization group (N=966) during open-label titration of lamotrigine, following an index depressive episode. Time until the emergence of mania symptoms, at varying severity thresholds, was examined over 6 months for lamotrigine versus placebo, while controlling for potential confounding factors in Cox proportional hazard models. Subject enrollment occurred between July 1997 and August 2001., Results: Rates of mood elevation during both acute open-label and randomized continuation phases of lamotrigine treatment were comparable to those seen with placebo during the randomized phase. The hazard ratio for the emergence of mania symptoms with lamotrigine was not significantly different from placebo (hazard ratio=0.79; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.16), with an upper bound that suggests no meaningful increase in susceptibility toward mania with lamotrigine. By contrast, clinically meaningful rises in mania symptom severity were predicted by baseline residual manic symptoms prerandomization and by the number of manic, hypomanic, or mixed episodes in the past year., Conclusions: Based on a composite definition of mood destabilization involving a range of severity thresholds for emerging signs of mania, lamotrigine confers no meaningful elevated risk relative to placebo for mood destabilization in bipolar I disorder. Rather, illness burden related to residual or lifetime mania features may hold greater importance for explaining mania relapses or breakthrough manic features during lamotrigine continuation pharmacotherapy., (Copyright 2009 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Background: The development of new antidepressant drugs has reached a plateau. There is an unmet need for faster, better, and safer medications, but as placebo-response rates rise, effect sizes shrink, and more studies fail or are negative, pharmaceutical companies are increasingly reluctant to invest in new drug development because of the risk of failure. In the absence of an identifiable human pathophysiology that can be modeled in preclinical studies, the principal point of leverage to move beyond the present dilemma may be improving the information gleaned from well-designed proof-of-concept (POC) studies of new antidepressant drugs with novel central nervous system effects. With this in mind, a group of experts was convened under the auspices of the University of Arizona Department of Psychiatry and Best Practice Project Management, Inc., Participants: Forty-five experts in the study of antidepressant drugs from academia, government (U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Institute of Mental Health), and industry participated. EVIDENCE/CONSENSUS PROCESS: In order to define the state of clinical trials methodology in the antidepressant area, and to chart a way forward, a 2-day consensus conference was held June 21-22, 2007, in Bethesda, Md., at which careful reviews of the literature were presented for discussion. Following the presentations, participants were divided into 3 workgroups and asked to address a series of separate questions related to methodology in POC studies. The goals were to review the history of antidepressant drug trials, discuss ways to improve study design and data analysis, and plan more informative POC studies., Conclusions: The participants concluded that the federal government, academic centers, and the pharmaceutical industry need to collaborate on establishing a network of sites at which small, POC studies can be conducted and resulting data can be shared. New technologies to analyze and measure the major affective, cognitive, and behavioral components of depression in relationship to potential biomarkers of response should be incorporated. Standard assessment instruments should be employed across studies to allow for future meta-analyses, but new instruments should be developed to differentiate subtypes and symptom clusters within the disorder that might respond differently to treatment. Better early-stage POC studies are needed and should be able to amplify the signal strength of drug efficacy and enhance the quality of information in clinical trials of new medications with novel pharmacologic profiles., (Copyright 2008 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Objective: To assess the scientific and ethical basis for clinical innovation in psychopharmacology., Methods: We conducted a literature review, utilizing MEDLINE search and bibliographic cross-referencing, and historical evidence regarding the discovery and development of new medications in psychiatry. Clinical innovation was defined as use of treatments in a clinical setting which have not been well-proven in a research setting., Results: Empirical data regarding the impact of clinical innovation in psychopharmacology are lacking. A conceptual and historical assessment of this topic highlights the ethical and scientific importance of clinical innovation. Ethically, it touches a borderline that, in our judgment, is not adequately framed in contemporary mainstream bioethics. Currently, research is viewed as not at all benefiting the patients who participate in it, while clinical care is viewed as being solely for the benefit of patients. Clinical innovation straddles these two worlds, uncomfortably at times. While many argue that clinical innovation should either be avoided or folded into research projects, we argue that clinical innovation is necessary for progress in psychopharmacology research, and that it can prosper best when guided by the following ethical principles: 1.) The treatment should be based on a viable hypothesis. 2.) Whenever possible, one's clinical observations should be reported so they can be evaluated by the scientific community. 3.) One should be willing to report unexpected observations of drug effects. 4.) A high standard of informed consent should be maintained. Again, this proposal goes against the standard view among bioethicists that research and clinical care are categorically opposed activities, as made clear by the either-or dichotomy of the Belmont Report on bioethics. This approach has so polarized our profession into clinicians versus researchers, that many clinicians will not apply new knowledge produced by clinical research until it eventually gets incorporated into formal treatment guidelines, while researchers have little to guide them as to what kind of new knowledge it is most important to provide., Summary: Clinical innovation brings out the ambiguities in our current ethical conceptions of research versus clinical care. Yet, historically, clinical innovation has been an important contributor to progress in psychopharmacology. We argue that clinical innovation should not be discouraged, but rather it should occur under certain ethical conditions."Almost everyone can and should do research...because almost everyone has a unique observational opportunity at some time in his life which he has an obligation to record.... If one considers the fundamental operations or methods of research, one immediately realizes that most people do research at some time or another, except that they do not call their activity by that name. There are seven operations.... In simple language they are counting, sorting, measuring, comparing, nature-study, guess testing, and reappraisal.... Guess testing is of course what most people think of when the word research is mentioned; except that it is bad manners to call a guess a guess. It should be called an hypothesis. Let us make one plea. Guessing becomes merely a game unless it is done in the context of a plan for action. It is a waste of time elaborating untestable hypotheses 1." John Cade.

Objectives: To update and extend comparisons of rates of suicides and suicide attempts among patients with major affective disorders with versus without long-term lithium treatment., Methods: Broad searching yielded 45 studies providing rates of suicidal acts during lithium treatment, including 34 also providing rates without lithium treatment. We scored study quality, tested between-study variance, and examined suicidal rates on versus off lithium by meta-analytic methods to determine risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Results: In 31 studies suitable for meta-analysis, involving a total of 85,229 person-years of risk-exposure, the overall risk of suicides and attempts was five times less among lithium-treated subjects than among those not treated with lithium (RR = 4.91, 95% CI 3.82-6.31, p < 0.0001). Similar effects were found with other meta-analytic methods, as well as for completed versus attempted suicide, and for bipolar versus major mood disorder patients. Studies with higher quality ratings, including randomized, controlled trials, involved shorter exposures with somewhat lesser lithium superiority. Omitting one very large study or those involving lithium-discontinuation had little effect on the results. The incidence-ratio of attempts-to-suicides increased 2.5 times with lithium-treatment, indicating reduced lethality of suicidal acts. There was no indication of bias toward reporting positive findings, nor were outcomes significantly influenced by publication-year or study size., Conclusions: Risks of completed and attempted suicide were consistently lower, by approximately 80%, during treatment of bipolar and other major affective disorder patients with lithium for an average of 18 months. These benefits were sustained in randomized as well as open clinical trials.

Objective: To determine if substance use disorder (SUD) is a predictor of antidepressant-induced mania (ADM) in bipolar disorder, correcting for confounding factors in a regression model., Method: 335 antidepressant trials were identified in 98 patients treated in an academic bipolar specialty clinic from 2000 to 2004. Patient charts were reviewed, and histories of SUD and ADM (primary outcome; defined as a hypomanic or manic episode within 12 weeks of beginning an antidepressant trial) were identified. Mood disorder diagnoses were made using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV mood module, and SUD diagnoses were defined using DSM-IV criteria. Potential confounding variables were also examined and included in a multivariable regression model. Concomitant mood stabilizer, antimanic, and antidepressant use was adjusted for in the regression model., Results: In univariate analyses, there was no evidence of an association between ADM and past SUD. However, after adjustment for confounding variables in a multivariable regression model, there was a strong relationship (OR = 5.06, 95% CI = 1.31 to 19.64, p < .05). Other statistically significant predictors of ADM in the regression model were type II subtype of bipolar illness, female gender, and tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) use (vs. bupropion)., Conclusions: Along with other factors, a history of SUD was a strong predictor of ADM. Possible underestimation of ADM in randomized clinical trials may occur due to the exclusion of subjects with SUD. Type II illness, female gender, and TCA use also appeared to be predictors of ADM, while bupropion use appeared to predict lower likelihood of ADM.

This Task Force report by the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology evaluates the safety and efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs) antidepressants for depressed youth under 18 years. The report was undertaken after regulatory agencies in the United States and United Kingdom raised concerns in 2003 about the possibility that treatment of depression in children and adolescents with SSRIs may increase the risk of suicidal thinking or suicide attempts.

Objective: To examine, in a real-world clinical setting, the risk of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) with atypical neuroleptics in bipolar patients., Methods: The authors assessed 51 individual patient trials of atypical neuroleptic agents (17 risperidone, 13 olanzapine, 11 quetiapine, 8 ziprasidone, and 2 aripiprazole) in 37 bipolar patients (type I or type II). Risk of EPS was assessed using the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale, and the Simpson-Angus Scale. Mean duration of treatment was 25.5 weeks (range 3-107 weeks) and 60.8% of patients were female., Results: 62.7% of trials resulted in moderate to severe EPS. EPS and discontinuation frequencies were similar between specific neuroleptic agents or between high potency (risperidone/ziprasidone/aripiprazole; 52.9%, 27/51 trials) and low potency (quetiapine/olanzapine; 47.1%, 24/51 trials) agents. In a multiple regression model adjusted for confounders, akathisia was less common with low potency agents. Younger age was associated with more akathisia. 31.4% (11/35) of trials discontinued due to side effects. 7.8% (4/51) of trials led to mild de novo tardive dyskinesia., Conclusions: Over one-half of bipolar patients experienced EPS in this real world clinical setting. This rate is much higher than the 5-15% range reported in clinical trials, suggesting potential problems with clinical trial generalizability.

Expert consensus emphasizes the need for better recognition and accurate diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Current research on lithium, divalproex, and lamotrigine provides new insight into the effective management of this illness. Advances in identifying the mechanism of action of mood stabilization has focused on signaling pathways within the cell that are associated with neurotrophic effects. Clinical research has led to confirmatory evidence of the efficacy of lithium in all phases of bipolar disorder, with the greatest effects seen in the treatment and prevention of mania. Compared to divalproex, lithium also has been found to have greater efficacy in the prevention of suicide. Lamotrigine has emerged as a first line treatment for bipolar depression, which is an area of weakness for other mood stabilizers. Oral loading of divalproex leads to rapid stabilization of mania without imposing a greater adverse effect burden than conventional dosing. Because no agent is universally effective in all phases of the illness, combination therapy with two or more agents often is the best option.

Background: This analysis describes the effects of bipolar I disorder on self-reported neurocognitive measures and remediation of these deficits with lamotrigine therapy., Method: Data were derived from 2 clinical trials designed to assess the efficacy of lamotrigine as maintenance therapy for recently manic (N = 349) or depressed (N = 966) patients (DSM-IV criteria). During the 8- to 16-week open stabilization phase, patients received lamotrigine as monotherapy or as adjunctive therapy (target dose = 200 mg/day, minimum dose = 100 mg/day) while other psychotropic drugs were discontinued. The Medical Outcomes Study Cognitive Scale (MOS-Cog) and the AB-Neurological Assessment Scale (AB-NAS) were used to measure cognitive functioning at baseline and at the end of the open-label phase. To examine the relationship between depressive and manic symptomatology, initiation of lamotrigine, and cognitive functioning, correlational analyses and analyses of covariance were conducted., Results: Bipolar patients in both trials had significant cognitive impairment; however, it was much greater in index episode depressed bipolar patients compared with index episode manic patients. In both studies, substitution of lamotrigine for other psychotropic medications significantly improved the mean scores from baseline to the end of the open-label phase on the MOS-Cog and the AB-NAS (p < .0001). Among patients who took lamotrigine as monotherapy, the mean MOS-Cog score also improved significantly versus baseline (+32.2, or 81%, for depressed patients, p < .0001; and +19.9, or 35%, for manic patients, p < .0001). Mean AB-NAS scores (-19.7, or -55%, for depressed patients, p < .0001; and -7.2, or -32%, for manic patients, p = .0062) showed similar improvement. Cognitive impairment was significantly correlated with depression symptom severity based on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores (p < .0001). After controlling for change in mood, age, gender, baseline score, duration of illness, and duration of use of other psychotropics, a significant improvement in cognition was observed during the open-label phase when lamotrigine was used as monotherapy/adjunctive therapy., Conclusion: Treatment with lamotrigine as monotherapy and as adjunctive therapy was associated with improved cognitive functioning and reduced neurocognitive side effects, regardless of index mood polarity.

Olanzapine (Zyprexa, Eli Lilly & Co.) is an atypical antipsychotic medication with once-daily dosing that was originally developed for the treatment of schizophrenia. It has shown broad efficacy in the treatment of bipolar mixed and manic episodes, but is less effective in the treatment of bipolar depression. Double-blind studies have demonstrated a rapid onset of action in acute bipolar mania, significantly greater rates of response compared with placebo, and a remission rate of 88.3% in a 49-week open-label study. Diverse presentations of the illness responded well to olanzapine including patients with rapid-cycling bipolar disorder, mixed episodes, as well as psychotic and nonpsychotic manias. Olanzapine monotherapy improved symptoms of depression related to its sedating and appetite-enhancing profile, but core symptoms such as depressed mood did not improve significantly. However, in combination with fluoxetine, bipolar depressed patients responded without an increased risk of mania. Weight gain and sedation are prominent adverse effects, and it has been associated with atherogenic dyslipidemia and glucose intolerance.

Objective: To assess depressive features of a proposed definition of bipolar spectrum disorder (BSD)., Methods: Thirty-six patients with bipolar disorder type I or II were compared to 37 patients with unipolar major depressive disorder through patient interview and chart review., Results: Univariate analysis suggests that 7 of 12 (recurrent major depressive episodes, brief major depressive episodes, atypical depressive symptoms, early age of onset, family history of bipolar disorder, antidepressant tolerance, and antidepressant-induced mania) features of major depressive episodes were more likely to occur in bipolar versus unipolar patients. After adjustment in a multivariable regression model, however, the five most powerful predictors of bipolar disorder were brief major depressive episodes, early age of onset, antidepressant- induced mania, postpartum depression, and atypical depressive symptoms., Conclusions: This preliminary study supports the idea that bipolar disorder is characterized by some depressive features less likely to be found in unipolar depression. Further prospective study needs to be conducted comparing BSD with unipolar depression.

To compare long-term effectiveness and safety of risperidone versus olanzapine as adjunctive maintenance treatments of bipolar disorder. Retrospective observational chart review of 29 outpatients with bipolar or schizoaffective disorder (type I = 15, type II = 3, NOS = 5, schizoaffective = 6) who received risperidone or olanzapine added to lithium or valproate >3 months. Acute indications were depression (n = 8), manic/hypomanic/mixed states (n = 8), rapid cycling (n = 6), other indications (n = 6), and prophylaxis (n = 1). Logistic regression models adjusted for potential confounding factors (i.e., severity of illness, comorbid substance abuse, diagnostic subtype). Overall duration of follow-up was 65.9+/-70.1 weeks. Mild to moderate response was similar in the risperidone and olanzapine groups after adjusting for potential confounders (OR = 0.91, 95% CI [0.05, 16.17]). Somewhat greater adjusted moderate to marked response (OR >3.60, 95% CI [0.31, >42.00]) and longer duration of treatment (HR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.22, 1.22]) occurred in the risperidone group, but were still compatible with the null hypothesis. Weight gain occurred more frequently with olanzapine (57%) than risperidone (13%). EPS was similar, and tardive dyskinesia did not occur. Risperidone and olanzapine appeared to have similar real-world maintenance effectiveness for bipolar disorder, but differed somewhat in side effects.

The 2002 American Psychiatric Association (APA) guidelines for the treatment of bipolar disorder recommended more conservative use of antidepressants. This change in comparison with previous APA guidelines has been criticized, especially from some groups in Europe. The Munich group in particular has published a critique of assumptions underlying the conservative recommendations of the recent APA treatment guidelines. In this paper, we re-examine the argument put forward by the Munich group, and we demonstrate that indeed, conceptually and empirically, there is a strong rationale for a cautious approach to antidepressant use in bipolar disorder, consistent with, and perhaps even more strongly than, the APA guidelines. This rationale is based on support for the following four propositions: (i) The risk of antidepressant induced mood-cycling is high, (ii) Antidepressants have not been shown to definitively prevent completed suicides and reduce mortality, whereas lithium has, (iii) Antidepressants have not been shown to be more effective than mood stabilizers in acute bipolar depression and have been shown to be less effective than mood stabilizers in preventing depressive relapse in bipolar disorder and (iv) Mood stabilizers, especially lithium and lamotrigine, have been shown to be effective in acute and prophylactic treatment of bipolar depressive episodes. We therefore draw three conclusions from this interpretation of the evidence: (i) There are significant risks of mania and long-term worsening of bipolar illness with antidepressants, (ii) Antidepressants should generally be reserved for severe cases of acute bipolar depression and not routinely used in mild to moderate cases and (iii) Antidepressants should be discontinued after recovery from the depressive episode, and maintained only in those who repeatedly relapse after antidepressant discontinuation (a minority we judge to represent only about 15-20% of bipolar depressed patients).

Context: Several studies have suggested that lithium treatment reduces risk of suicide in bipolar disorder, but no research has examined suicide risk during treatment with divalproex, the most commonly prescribed mood-stabilizing drug in the United States., Objective: To compare risk of suicide attempt and suicide death during treatment with lithium with that during treatment with divalproex., Design and Setting: Retrospective cohort study conducted at 2 large integrated health plans in California and Washington., Patients: Population-based sample of 20 638 health plan members aged 14 years or older who had at least 1 outpatient diagnosis of bipolar disorder and at least 1 filled prescription for lithium, divalproex, or carbamazepine between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 2001. Follow-up for each individual began with first qualifying prescription and ended with death, disenrollment from the health plan, or end of the study period., Main Outcome Measures: Suicide attempt, recorded as a hospital discharge diagnosis or an emergency department diagnosis; suicide death, recorded on death certificate., Results: In both health plans, unadjusted rates were greater during treatment with divalproex than during treatment with lithium for emergency department suicide attempt (31.3 vs 10.8 per 1000 person-years; P<.001), suicide attempt resulting in hospitalization (10.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years; P<.001), and suicide death (1.7 vs 0.7 per 1000 person-years; P =.04). After adjustment for age, sex, health plan, year of diagnosis, comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions, and concomitant use of other psychotropic drugs, risk of suicide death was 2.7 times higher (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-6.3; P =.03) during treatment with divalproex than during treatment with lithium. Corresponding hazard ratios for nonfatal attempts were 1.7 (95% CI, 1.2-2.3; P =.002) for attempts resulting in hospitalization and 1.8 (95% CI, 1.4-2.2; P<.001) for attempts diagnosed in the emergency department., Conclusion: Among patients treated for bipolar disorder, risk of suicide attempt and suicide death is lower during treatment with lithium than during treatment with divalproex.

It is important to consider, in light of how innovation has so often occurred, whether today's managed care environment is conducive to continued psychopharmacologic innovation. The initial step in the development of a new area in psychopharmacology has historically relied in large part on individual clinicians who pursued unconventional methods of treatment. When a set of guidelines such as a formulary (a list of drugs eligible for reimbursement compiled by a managed care organization) becomes restrictive, it decreases clinician innovation. In addition to this long-term threat to innovation, studies have found greater restrictiveness in formularies to be associated with higher health care utilization. Thus, restricted formularies that are based on a naive interpretation of "therapeutic equivalence" may slow the advance of medical science without even achieving the only goal that could possibly justify such restrictions-cost control. If innovation is to flourish, formularies must be flexible and advisory, not restrictive. Preserving the climate for innovation in health care requires the management culture to focus on the long-term impact of policies on quality and innovation as well as on the overall health cost in the system.

Bipolar disorder is a complex illness, and no single agent has been proven in randomized, placebo-controlled trials to effectively prevent and/or control all aspects of the illness-acute mania, rapid cycling, and breakthrough depression. However, for the most important issue, prophylaxis of episodes, lithium has more evidence of efficacy than any other agent. Like lithium, typical antipsychotics, carbamazepine, divalproex, and the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine are effective in the treatment of mania. Carbamazepine, divalproex, and olanzapine seem effective in preventing manic episodes but, like lithium, are less effective in preventing depression. Few trials have been conducted in the more difficult-to-treat characteristics of bipolar disorder, specifically, rapid cycling and break-through depression. For patients with rapid cycling, carbamazepine or divalproex therapy may improve symptoms, but only lamotrigine has been shown to reduce cycling, mostly in the bipolar II group, in a randomized, placebo-controlled study. For the treatment of depressive episodes, lithium and olanzapine have shown modest efficacy in controlled trials, and among the mood stabilizers, lamotrigine has the most robust effect. Because manic symptoms may respond best to one agent and depressive symptoms to another, combination therapy may be the optimal treatment for many patients with bipolar disorder. For example, lithium augmentation may improve overall response rates to treatment with carbamazepine or divalproex, and the lithium-lamotrigine combination should provide effective prevention of both mania and depression. Also, each mood stabilizer may be given at lower doses when given in combination, resulting in a reduced side effect burden and improved compliance.

Background: The rate of lamotrigine-associated rash in patients with mood disorders has not been well characterized. The objective of this report was to determine rash rates in clinical trials of lamotrigine in DSM-IV unipolar depression or bipolar disorder., Method: A retrospective analysis was conducted of rates of lamotrigine-related rash in 12 multicenter studies, including 1 open study, 7 randomized controlled acute trials, and 4 randomized controlled maintenance trials from 1996 to 2001., Results: A total of 1955 patients were treated with lamotrigine in open-label settings (open-label phases preceding or following randomization and 1 stand-alone open-label study); 1198 patients received lamotrigine in controlled settings, and 1056 patients received placebo. In controlled settings, rates of benign rash were 8.3% and 6.4% in lamotrigine- and placebo-treated patients, respectively. Rates of serious rash were 0% with lamotrigine, 0.1% (N = 1) with placebo, and 0% with comparators. In the open-label setting, the overall rate of rash for lamotrigine was 13.1% (N = 257) and of serious rash, 0.1% (N = 2). One mild case of Stevens-Johnson syndrome not requiring hospitalization occurred in a patient treated with lamotrigine. There were no cases of toxic epidermal necrolysis in any setting., Conclusion: Serious drug eruptions associated with lamotrigine were rare. Although rash is a potentially life-threatening reaction, the risk of serious rash due to lamotrigine should be weighed against more common risks associated with untreated or undertreated bipolar depression.

The diagnosis and treatment of bipolar disorder (BD) has been inconsistent and frequently misunderstood in recent years. To identify the causes of this problem and suggest possible solutions, we undertook a critical review of studies concerning the nosology of BD and the effects of antidepressant agents. Both the underdiagnosis of BD and its frequent misdiagnosis as unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD) appear to be problems in patients with BD. Underdiagnosis results from clinicians' inadequate understanding of manic symptoms, from patients' impaired insight into mania, and especially from failure to involve family members or third parties in the diagnostic process. Some, but by no means all, of the underdiagnosis problem may also result from lack of agreement about the breadth of the bipolar spectrum, beyond classic type I manic-depressive illness (what Ketter has termed "Cade's Disease"). To alleviate confusion about the less classic varieties of bipolar illness, we propose a heuristic definition, "bipolar spectrum disorder." This diagnosis would give greater weight to family history and antidepressant-induced manic symptoms and would apply to non-type I or II bipolar illness, in which depressive symptom, course, and treatment response characteristics are more typical of bipolar than unipolar illness. The role of antidepressants is also controversial. Our review of the evidence leads us to conclude that there should be less emphasis on using antidepressants to treat persons with this illness.

Because of the great morbidity and mortality associated with bipolar disorder, long-term treatment is necessary to prevent recurrence and reduce the loss of productivity and increased medical costs associated with this illness. The agent with the most evidence of efficacy and the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved medication for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder is lithium. Lithium may cause a prophylactic response in more than two thirds of patients with bipolar disorder and reduce suicide risk by more than 8-fold. However, lithium may be more effective for patients with classical features such as fully remitting courses and typical manic symptoms than for patients with nonclassical bipolar features such as mixed states and rapid cycling. Because lithium may be toxic at only twice the therapeutic dose, physicians should consider patients' ages and medical history when prescribing this drug. Monitoring requirements; possible side effects; changes in the illness including more treatment-resistant forms; and the introduction of newer agents, which are supported by more marketing and continuing medical education programs than the essentially generic drug lithium, have contributed to the decline in lithium prescription rates in the last 15 years in the United States. However, long-term treatment with lithium continues to be effective in many patients, especially if the dose is periodically evaluated as patients experience changes in their physical health and lithium tolerance. Until newer agents have comparable evidence of efficacy, lithium will be considered a first-line long-term treatment for bipolar disorder, either as monotherapy or in combination therapy.