Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, this is the first prospective natural history study of weekly symptomatic status of patients with bipolar I disorder (BP-I) during long-term follow-up.
METHODS: Analyses are based on ongoing prospective follow-up of 146 patients with Research Diagnostic Criteria BP-I, who entered the National Institute of Mental Health (Bethesda, Md) Collaborative Depression Study from 1978 through 1981. Weekly affective symptom status ratings were analyzed by polarity and severity, ranging from asymptomatic, to subthreshold levels, to full-blown major depression and mania. Percentages of follow-up weeks at each level as well as number of shifts in symptom status and polarity during the entire follow-up period were examined. Finally, 2 new measures of chronicity were evaluated in relation to previously identified predictors of chronicity for BP-I.
RESULTS: Patients with BP-I were symptomatically ill 47.3% of weeks throughout a mean of 12.8 years of follow-up. Depressive symptoms (31.9% of total follow-up weeks) predominated over manic/hypomanic symptoms (8.9% of weeks) or cycling/mixed symptoms (5.9% of weeks). Subsyndromal, minor depressive, and hypomanic symptoms combined were nearly 3 times more frequent than syndromal-level major depressive and manic symptoms (29.9% vs 11.2% of weeks, respectively). Patients with BP-I changed symptom status an average of 6 times per year and polarity more than 3 times per year. Longer intake episodes and those with depression-only or cycling polarity predicted greater chronicity during long-term follow-up, as did comorbid drug-use disorder.
CONCLUSIONS: The longitudinal weekly symptomatic course of BP-I is chronic. Overall, the symptomatic structure is primarily depressive rather than manic, and subsyndromal and minor affective symptoms predominate. Symptom severity levels fluctuate, often within the same patient over time. Bipolar I disorder is expressed as a dimensional illness featuring the full range (spectrum) of affective symptom severity and polarity.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: This is the first prospective longitudinal study, to our knowledge, of the natural history of the weekly symptomatic status of bipolar II disorder (BP-II).
METHODS: Weekly affective symptom status ratings for 86 patients with BP-II were based on interviews conducted at 6- or 12-month intervals during a mean of 13.4 years of prospective follow-up. Percentage of weeks at each symptom severity level and the number of shifts in symptom status and polarity were examined. Predictors of chronicity for BP-II were evaluated using new chronicity measures. Chronicity was also analyzed in relation to the percentage of follow-up weeks with different types of somatic treatment.
RESULTS: Patients with BP-II were symptomatic 53.9% of all follow-up weeks: depressive symptoms (50.3% of weeks) dominated the course over hypomanic (1.3% of weeks) and cycling/mixed (2.3% of weeks) symptoms. Subsyndromal, minor depressive, and hypomanic symptoms combined were 3 times more common than major depressive symptoms. Longer intake episodes, a family history of affective disorders, and poor previous social functioning predicted greater chronicity. Prescribed somatic treatment did not correlate significantly with symptom chronicity. Patients with BP-II of brief (2-6 days) vs longer (> or =7 days) hypomanias were not significantly different on any measure.
CONCLUSIONS: The longitudinal symptomatic course of BP-II is chronic and is dominated by depressive rather than hypomanic or cycling/mixed symptoms. Symptom severity fluctuates frequently within the same patient over time, involving primarily symptoms of minor and subsyndromal severity. Longitudinally, BP-II is expressed as a dimensional illness involving the full severity range of depressive and hypomanic symptoms. Hypomania of long or short duration in BP-II seems to be part of the same disease process.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate whether patients with affective disorder have increased risk of developing dementia compared to other groups of psychiatric patients and compared to the general population.
METHOD: In the Danish psychiatric central register, 3363 patients with unipolar affective disorder, 518 patients with bipolar affective disorder, 1025 schizophrenic and 8946 neurotic patients were identified according to the diagnosis at the first ever discharge from psychiatric hospital during the period from 1970 to 1974. The rate of discharge diagnosis of dementia on readmission was estimated during 21 years of follow-up. In addition, the rates were compared with the rates for admission to psychiatric hospitals with a discharge diagnosis of dementia for the total Danish population.
RESULTS: Patients with unipolar and with bipolar affective disorder had a greater risk of receiving a diagnosis of dementia than patients with schizophrenia and those with neurosis. All groups of patients had a higher risk of being given a diagnosis of dementia than gender- and age-matched samples of the general population.
CONCLUSION: Patients with affective disorder appear to be at increased risk of developing dementia.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated the relationship between number of lifetime episodes of affective disorder and the antimanic response to lithium, divalproex, or placebo.
METHOD: The subjects were 154 of the 179 inpatients with acute mania who entered a 3-week parallel group, double-blind study. The primary efficacy measure was the manic syndrome score from the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia. The relationship between improvement and number of previous episodes was investigated by using nonlinear regression analysis.
RESULTS: An apparent transition in the relationship between number of previous episodes and response to antimanic medication occurred at about 10 previous episodes. For patients who had experienced more episodes, response to lithium resembled the response to placebo but was worse than response to divalproex. For patients who had experienced fewer episodes, however, the responses to lithium and divalproex did not differ and were better than the response to placebo. This differential response pattern was not related to rapid cycling or mixed states.
CONCLUSIONS: A history of many previous episodes was associated with poor response to lithium or placebo but not to divalproex.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have examined the safety and tolerability of oral-loaded divalproex sodium in the treatment of acute mania, but not the early efficacy of this dosing strategy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the early efficacy of oral-loaded divalproex.
METHOD: In this pooled analysis, 348 subjects from 3 randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active- or placebo-controlled studies were used to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of oral-loaded divalproex with standard-titration divalproex, lithium, olanzapine, or placebo. Subjects were inpatients diagnosed with acute mania associated with bipolar I disorder (DSM-III-R or -IV and SADS-Change Version). Patients were administered oral-loaded divalproex (20 or 30 mg/kg/day on days 1 and 2 followed by 20 mg/kg/day, and increased at physician's discretion), standard-titration divalproex initiated at 250 mg t.i.d. and titrated to 40-150 microg/mL, lithium (300 mg t.i.d. initial dose) titrated to 0.4 to 1.5 mEq/L, olanzapine (10 mg q.d. initial dose) up to 20 mg/day, or placebo.
RESULTS: The results demonstrate an early efficacy advantage for oral-loaded divalproex compared to standard-titration divalproex at days 5, 7/8, and 10. Efficacy was improved over lithium on day 7/8. There were no efficacy differences between divalproex loading and olanzapine. Divalproex loading showed greater efficacy than placebo at all time points. Divalproex loading was as well tolerated or better tolerated than the other active treatments as measured by adverse events and changes in laboratory parameters.
CONCLUSION: These results suggest the oral loading of divalproex leads to a more rapid antimanic effect when compared with standard-titration divalproex, lithium, or placebo and is better tolerated than olanzapine and as well tolerated as lithium or standard-titration divalproex.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Conventional meta-analyses have shown inconsistent results for efficacy of pharmacological treatments for acute mania. We did a multiple-treatments meta-analysis, which accounted for both direct and indirect comparisons, to assess the effects of all antimanic drugs.
METHODS: We systematically reviewed 68 randomised controlled trials (16,073 participants) from Jan 1, 1980, to Nov 25, 2010, which compared any of the following pharmacological drugs at therapeutic dose range for the treatment of acute mania in adults: aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, valproate, gabapentin, haloperidol, lamotrigine, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, topiramate, and ziprasidone. The main outcomes were the mean change on mania rating scales and the number of patients who dropped out of the allocated treatment at 3 weeks. Analysis was done by intention to treat.
FINDINGS: Haloperidol (standardised mean difference [SMD] -0·56 [95% CI -0·69 to -0·43]), risperidone (-0·50 [-0·63 to -0·38), olanzapine (-0·43 [-0·54 to -0·32], lithium (-0·37 [-0·63 to -0·11]), quetiapine (-0·37 [-0·51 to -0·23]), aripiprazole (-0·37 [-0·51 to -0·23]), carbamazepine (-0·36 [-0·60 to -0·11], asenapine (-0·30 [-0·53 to -0·07]), valproate (-0·20 [-0·37 to -0·04]), and ziprasidone (-0·20 [-0·37 to -0·03]) were significantly more effective than placebo, whereas gabapentin, lamotrigine, and topiramate were not. Haloperidol had the highest number of significant differences and was significantly more effective than lithium (SMD -0·19 [95% CI -0·36 to -0·01]), quetiapine (-0·19 [-0·37 to 0·01]), aripiprazole (-0·19 [-0·36 to -0·02]), carbamazepine (-0·20 [-0·36 to -0·01]), asenapine (-0·26 [-0·52 to 0·01]), valproate (-0·36 [-0·56 to -0·15]), ziprasidone -0·36 [-0·56 to -0·15]), lamotrigine (-0·48 [-0·77 to -0·19]), topiramate (-0·63 [-0·84 to -0·43]), and gabapentin (-0·88 [-1·40 to -0·36]). Risperidone and olanzapine had a very similar profile of comparative efficacy, being more effective than valproate, ziprasidone, lamotrigine, topiramate, and gabapentin. Olanzapine, risperidone, and quetiapine led to significantly fewer discontinuations than did lithium, lamotrigine, placebo, topiramate, and gabapentin.
INTERPRETATION: Overall, antipsychotic drugs were significantly more effective than mood stabilisers. Risperidone, olanzapine, and haloperidol should be considered as among the best of the available options for the treatment of manic episodes. These results should be considered in the development of clinical practice guidelines.
FUNDING: None.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder (BD) is a leading cause of disability. Systematic reviews of randomized trials for the treatment of the maintenance phase of BD are lacking.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and tolerability of mood stabilizers and antipsychotics in the maintenance treatment of BD.
METHODS: We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials of licensed medications for the treatment of any phase of BD. We included randomized controlled trials comparing a medication to placebo or another medication. Comprehensive searches of electronic databases were conducted to March 2005. Outcomes investigated were relapse due to mania, depression or any mood episode, and withdrawal due to any reason or due to an adverse event. Data were combined through meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Fourteen studies (n = 2,526) met the inclusion criteria. Lithium, lamotrigine, olanzapine and valproate semisodium each demonstrated evidence to support long-term use. Compared with placebo, all medications were more effective at preventing relapse because of any mood episode. Hazard ratios (HR) were 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.53-0.86] for lithium, 0.68 (95% CI = 0.55-0.85) for lamotrigine, and 0.82 (95% CI = 0.57-1.20) for valproate semisodium; for olanzapine, the risk ratio (RR) was 0.58 (95% CI = 0.49-0.69). Lithium and olanzapine significantly reduced manic relapses (HR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.35-0.79 and RR = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.24-0.57, respectively). Lamotrigine and valproate semisodium significantly reduced depressive relapses (HR = 0.65; 95% CI = 0.46-0.91 and RR = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.20-0.82, respectively). Lithium significantly reduced manic relapses compared with lamotrigine (HR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.34-0.92) and olanzapine significantly reduced manic relapses compared with lithium (RR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.12-2.55). Withdrawal due to an adverse event was approximately twice as likely with lithium compared with valproate semisodium (RR = 1.81; 95% CI = 1.08-3.03) and lamotrigine (RR = 2.20; 95% CI = 1.31-3.70). There were few data for carbamazepine or medications given as adjunct therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Mood stabilizers have differing profiles of efficacy and tolerability, suggesting complementary roles in long-term maintenance treatment.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Lithium carbonate and valproate semisodium are both recommended as monotherapy for prevention of relapse in bipolar disorder, but are not individually fully effective in many patients. If combination therapy with both agents is better than monotherapy, many relapses and consequent disability could be avoided. We aimed to establish whether lithium plus valproate was better than monotherapy with either drug alone for relapse prevention in bipolar I disorder.
METHODS: 330 patients aged 16 years and older with bipolar I disorder from 41 sites in the UK, France, USA, and Italy were randomly allocated to open-label lithium monotherapy (plasma concentration 0.4-1.0 mmol/L, n=110), valproate monotherapy (750-1250 mg, n=110), or both agents in combination (n=110), after an active run-in of 4-8 weeks on the combination. Randomisation was by computer program, and investigators and participants were informed of treatment allocation. All outcome events were considered by the trial management team, who were masked to treatment assignment. Participants were followed up for up to 24 months. The primary outcome was initiation of new intervention for an emergent mood episode, which was compared between groups by Cox regression. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN 55261332.
FINDINGS: 59 (54%) of 110 people in the combination therapy group, 65 (59%) of 110 in the lithium group, and 76 (69%) of 110 in the valproate group had a primary outcome event during follow-up. Hazard ratios for the primary outcome were 0.59 (95% CI 0.42-0.83, p=0.0023) for combination therapy versus valproate, 0.82 (0.58-1.17, p=0.27) for combination therapy versus lithium, and 0.71 (0.51-1.00, p=0.0472) for lithium versus valproate. 16 participants had serious adverse events after randomisation: seven receiving valproate monotherapy (three deaths); five lithium monotherapy (two deaths); and four combination therapy (one death).
INTERPRETATION: For people with bipolar I disorder, for whom long-term therapy is clinically indicated, both combination therapy with lithium plus valproate and lithium monotherapy are more likely to prevent relapse than is valproate monotherapy. This benefit seems to be irrespective of baseline severity of illness and is maintained for up to 2 years. BALANCE could neither reliably confirm nor refute a benefit of combination therapy compared with lithium monotherapy.
FUNDING: Stanley Medical Research Institute; Sanofi-Aventis.
Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Valproate is one of the most used mood stabilisers for bipolar disorder, although the evidence for the effectiveness of valproate is sparse.
AIMS: To compare the effect of valproate v. lithium for treatment of bipolar disorder in clinical practice.
METHOD: An observational cohort study with linkage of nationwide registers of all people with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder in psychiatric hospital settings who were prescribed valproate or lithium in Denmark during a period from 1995 to 2006.
RESULTS: A total of 4268 participants were included among whom 719 received valproate and 3549 received lithium subsequent to the diagnosis of bipolar disorder. The rate of switch/add on to the opposite drug (lithium or valproate), antidepressants, antipsychotics or anticonvulsants (other than valproate) was increased for valproate compared with lithium (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.86, 95% CI 1.59-2.16). The rate of psychiatric hospital admissions was increased for valproate v. lithium (HR = 1.33, 95% CI 1.18-1.48) and regardless of the type of episode leading to a hospital admission (depressive or manic/mixed). Similarly, for participants with a depressive index episode (HR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.40-2.48), a manic index episode (HR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.01-1.51) and a mixed index episode (HR = 1.44, 95% CI 1.04-2.01), the overall rate of hospital admissions was significantly increased for valproate compared with lithium.
CONCLUSIONS: In daily clinical practice, treatment with lithium seems in general to be superior to treatment with valproate.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Two clinical trials, prospectively designed for combined analysis, compared placebo, lithium, and lamotrigine for treatment of bipolar I disorder in recently depressed or manic patients.
METHOD: 1315 bipolar I patients (DSM-IV) enrolled in the initial open-label phase, and 638 were stabilized and randomly assigned to 18 months of double-blind monotherapy with lamotrigine (N = 280; 50-400 mg/day fixed dose or 100-400 mg/day flexible dose), lithium (N = 167; serum level of 0.8-1.1 mEq/L), or placebo (N = 191). The primary endpoint was time from randomization to intervention for a mood episode. Data were gathered from August 1997 to August 2001.
RESULTS: Lamotrigine and lithium were superior to placebo for time to intervention for any mood episode (median survival: placebo, 86 days [95% CI = 58 to 121]; lithium, 184 days [95% CI = 119 to not calculable]; lamotrigine, 197 days [95% CI = 144 to 388]). Lamotrigine was superior to placebo for time to intervention for depression (median survival: placebo, 270 days [95% CI = 138 to not calculable]; lithium, median not calculable; lamotrigine, median not calculable). Lithium and lamotrigine were superior to placebo for time to intervention for mania (median survival not calculable for any group). Results of additional analyses adjusted for index mood were similar; however, only lithium was superior to placebo for intervention for mania. There was no evidence that either active treatment caused affective switch. Adverse event analysis indicated more diarrhea (19% vs. 7%, p <.05) and tremor (15% vs. 4%, p <.05) in lithium-treated patients compared with lamotrigine-treated patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Lamotrigine and lithium stabilized mood by delaying the time to treatment for a mood episode. Lamotrigine was effective against depression and mania, with more robust activity against depression. Lithium was effective against mania.
