Korean Medication Algorithm for Bipolar Disorder 2010: Comparisons with Other Treatment Guidelines / 대한정신약물학회지

ABSTRACT

The Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder (KMAP-BP) was developed in 2002 and thereafter revised in 2006. It was secondly revised in 2010 (KMAP-BP 2010). The aim of this study was to compare KMAP-BP 2010 with other recently published treatment algorithm and guidelines for bipolar disorder. The authors reviewed the 4 recently published guidelines and treatment algorithms for bipolar disorder [The British Association for Psychopharmacology Guideline for Treatment of Bipolar Disorder, Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Bipolar Disorder, The World Federation Society of Biological Psychiatry Guideline for Biological Treatment of Bipolar Disorder and National Institute for Health and Clinical Experience (NICE) Clinical Guideline] to compare the similarities and discrepancies between KMAP-BP 2010 and the others. In aspects of treatment options, most treatment guidelines had some similarities. But there were notable discrepancies between the recommendations of other guidelines and those of KMAP-BP in which combination or adjunctive treatments were favored. Most guidelines advocated new atypical antipsychotics as first-line treatment option in nearly all phases of bipolar disorder and lamotrigine in depressive phase and maintenance phase. Lithium and valproic acid were still commonly used as mood stabilizers in manic phase and strongly recommended valproic acid in mixed or psychotic mania. Mood stabilizers or atypical antipsychotics were selected as first-line treatment option in maintenance treatment. As the more evidences were accumulated, more use of atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine, aripiprazole and ziprasidone were prominent. This review suggests that the medication strategies of bipolar disorder have been reflected the recent studies and clinical experiences, and the consultation of treatment guidelines may provide clinicians with useful information and a rationale for making sequential treatment decisions. It also has been consistently stressed that treatment algorithm or guidelines are not a substitute for clinical judgment; they may serve as a critical reference to complement of individual clinical judgment.