User-Centered Design of a Digitally Enabled Care Pathway in a Large Health System: Qualitative Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Management of chronic conditions such as MDD can be improved by enhanced patient engagement, measurement-based care (MBC), and shared decision-making (SDM). A user-centered design approach can improve the understanding of the patient journey and care team workflows and thus aid the development of digital health care innovations optimized for the needs of patients living with MDD and their primary care teams. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to use qualitative research methods for the user-centered design of a digitally enabled MDD care platform, PathwayPlatform, intended to enhance patient engagement, MBC, and SDM. METHODS: Insights were gathered through 2 stages of qualitative interviews by a study team with expertise in qualitative research and user-centered design methods. Thematic analysis was used to generate an overarching understanding of a set of shared experiences, thoughts, or behaviors across a broad qualitative data set, including transcripts of interviews, to allow both inductive and deductive insights to emerge. Thematic analysis of interviews was supported by Dedoose (SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC), a qualitative data analysis software tool that enables systematized coding. Findings and insights were presented based on code frequency, salience, and relevance to the research project. RESULTS: In stage 1, interviews were conducted with 20 patients living with MDD and 15 health care providers from September 2018 to January 2019 to understand the experiences with and perceptions about the initial functionality of the Pathway app while also exploring the perceptions about potential additional features and functionality. Feedback about care team workflows and treatment approaches was collected in stage-2 interviews with 36 health care providers at 8 primary care sites. Inductive and deductive thematic analyses revealed several themes related to app functionality, patient-provider engagement, workflow integration, and patient education. Both patients and their care teams perceived the remote tracking of patient-reported outcomes via digital tools to be clinically useful and reliable and to promote MBC and SDM. However, there was emphasis on the need to enhance the flow of real-time data shared with the care team, improve trend visualizations, and integrate the data within the existing clinical workflow and educational programs for patients and their care teams. User feedback was incorporated into the iterative development of the Pathway app. CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing communication with patients living with MDD and their care teams provided an opportunity for user-centric developmental iterations of the Pathway Platform. Key insights led to further development of the patient-facing and care team-facing visit preparation features, collaborative goal-setting and goal-tracking features, patient-reported outcome summaries, and trend visualizations. The result is an enhanced digital platform with the potential to improve treatment outcomes and provide patients living with MDD additional support throughout their treatment journey.

Design and Implementation of a Digitally Enabled Care Pathway to Improve Management of Depression in a Large Health Care System: Protocol for the Implementation of a Patient Care Platform.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a serious public health concern worldwide. A treatment approach that incorporates measurement-based care (MBC) and shared decision-making between patients with MDD and their providers may foster patient engagement and improve clinical outcomes. While digital tools such as mobile apps show promise for expanding health interventions, these apps are rarely integrated into clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this ongoing study is to determine whether implementation of a digital tool-the Pathway Platform-in primary care improves adherence to MBC practices; here, we present the study methods. METHODS: This large-scale, real-world implementation study is based on a pilot study of an earlier iteration of a mobile app (the Pathway app) that confirmed the feasibility of using the app in patients with MDD and showed a positive trend in patient engagement in the app arm. In addition, a user-centered design approach that included qualitative assessments from patients and providers was used to improve understanding of the patient journey and care team workflows. User feedback highlighted the need for enhanced features, education modules, and real-time data sharing via integration with the electronic health record. The current iteration of the Platform includes the newest version of the Pathway app, education modules for both patients and providers, and real-time patient-level data sharing with the electronic health record. The study takes place in primary care sites within the Advocate Aurora Health system in Illinois and includes adult patients with MDD who were recently prescribed monotherapy antidepressant medication (defined as a new start, medication switch, or dose change in the past 3 months). Clinical performance and selected patient outcomes will be compared before and after the implementation of the Platform. RESULTS: Patient recruitment was completed in July 2022, with initial results expected in mid-2023. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide useful insights into real-world integration of a digital platform within a large health system. The methods presented here highlight the unique user-centric development of the Pathway Platform, which has resulted in an enhanced digital tool with the potential to foster MBC and shared decision-making, improve patient-provider communication, and ultimately lead to optimized treatment outcomes for patients with MDD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04891224; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04891224. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/43788.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pioglitazone for bipolar depression.

BACKGROUND: Objective of the present study was to conduct an 8-week double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to test the efficacy of pioglitazone in the treatment of bipolar depression. METHODS: 38 outpatients with bipolar disorder and current major depressive episode were randomized to pioglitazone (15-45 mg/day) or placebo. The use of concomitant mood stabilizers, antipsychotics, and antidepressants was permitted. The primary outcome measure was the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Clinician Rated (IDS-C30) total score change from baseline to endpoint. Laboratory evaluations, including serum level of inflammatory and metabolic biomarkers, were conducted. RESULTS: 37 subjects were analyzed for efficacy (1 subject had no follow-up data). Mean reduction from baseline to week 8 in IDS-C30 score was-6.59 for pioglitazone and -11.63 for placebo. Mixed effects modeling indicated borderline statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.056) in favor of placebo. On analysis of inflammatory and metabolic markers, a statistically significant negative correlation was noted between change in leptin levels and change in depression scores in the pioglitazone group (r = -0.61, p = 0.047) but not in the placebo group, the significance of which is unclear as the study failed to demonstrate antidepressant efficacy of pioglitazone over placebo. No serious adverse effects were reported, and pioglitazone was well-tolerated. LIMITATIONS: small sample size with inadequate power, concomitant use of other psychotropic medications, and lack of statistical adjustment for multiple testing. CONCLUSION: Current study does not support the antidepressant efficacy of pioglitazone in the treatment of bipolar depression. (240 words).

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study of Quetiapine-XR Monotherapy or Adjunctive Therapy to Antidepressant in Acute Major Depressive Disorder with Current Generalized Anxiety Disorder.

OBJECTIVES: To pilot efficacy and safety data of quetiapine-XR monotherapy or adjunctive therapy to antidepressant(s) in the acute treatment of MDD with current generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHODS: The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview was used to ascertain the diagnosis of DSM-IV Axis I disorders. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to quetiapine-XR or placebo for up to 8 weeks. Changes from baseline to endpoint in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 items (HAMD-17), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S), Quick Inventory of Depression Symptomatology-16 items Self-Report (QIDS-16-SR) total scores, and other outcome measures were analyzed with the last observation carried forward strategy and/or mixed-effects modeling for repeated measures. RESULTS: Of the 34 patients screened, 23 patients were randomized to receive quetiapine-XR (n = 11) or placebo (n = 12), with 5 and 4 completing the study, respectively. The mean dose of quetiapine-XR was 154 ± 91 mg/d. The change from baseline to endpoint in the total scores of HAMD-17, HAM-A, QIDS-16-SR, and CGI-S were significant in the quetiapine-XR group, but only the change in HAM-A total score was significant in the placebo group. The differences in these changes between the two groups were only significant in CGI-S scores, with the rest of numerical larger in the quetiapine-XR group. The most common side effects from quetiapine-XR were dry mouth, somnolence/sedation, and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, quetiapine-XR was numerically superior to placebo in reducing depressive and anxiety symptoms in patients with MDD and current GAD. Large sample studies are warranted to support or refute these preliminary findings.

Baseline disability and poor functioning in bipolar disorder predict worse outcomes: results from the Bipolar CHOICE study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of treatment on functioning impairments and quality of life and assess baseline functioning and employment status as predictors of treatment response in symptomatic individuals from the Bipolar Clinical Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness (Bipolar CHOICE) study. METHOD: Bipolar CHOICE was an 11-site, 6-month randomized effectiveness study comparing lithium to quetiapine, each with adjunctive personalized treatments (APTs). We examined post hoc (1) the effects of treatment on functioning, (2) how changes in functioning differed between treatment responders and nonresponders, and (3) whether functioning and employment status mediated treatment response in 482 participants with DSM-IV-TR bipolar I or II disorder from September 2010 to September 2013. RESULTS: Treatment was associated with significant improvements in functioning and quality of life, regardless of treatment group (P values < .0001). Responders showed greater improvements in quality of life (Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire P values < .05) and functioning (Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation-Range of Impaired Functioning Tool P values < .05) than nonresponders. Unemployed or disabled participants at baseline had significantly greater illness severity at baseline than employed participants (P values < .05). Over the study duration, employed participants reported greater improvements in physical health and quality of life in leisure activities than both unemployed and disabled participants (P values < .05). Individuals who saw greater improvement in functioning and quality of life tended to show greater improvements in depressive and anxiety symptoms (P values ≤ .0001), as well as overall illness severity (P values < .001). Early (8 weeks) and very early (4 weeks) clinical changes in mood symptoms predicted changes in functioning and quality of life at 6 months (P values < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Prior disability status was associated with a worse treatment response and prospective illness course. Results implicate functioning and employment status as important markers of illness severity and likelihood of recovery in bipolar disorder, suggesting that interventions that target functional impairment may improve outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier for the Bipolar CHOICE study: NCT01331304.

Medical burden in bipolar disorder: findings from the Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness for Bipolar Disorder study (Bipolar CHOICE).

OBJECTIVES: Individuals with bipolar disorder have high rates of other medical comorbidity, which is associated with higher mortality rates and worse course of illness. The present study examined common predictors of medical comorbidity. METHODS: The Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness for Bipolar Disorder study (Bipolar CHOICE) enrolled 482 participants with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder in a six-month, randomized comparative effectiveness trial. Baseline assessments included current and lifetime DSM-IV-TR diagnoses, demographic information, psychiatric and medical history, severity of psychiatric symptoms, level of functioning, and a fasting blood draw. Medical comorbidities were categorized into two groups: cardiometabolic (e.g., diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and metabolic syndrome) and non-cardiovascular (e.g., seizures, asthma, and cancer). Additionally, we looked at comorbid substance use (e.g., smoking and drug dependence). RESULTS: We found that 96.3% of participants had at least one other medical comorbidity. Older age predicted a greater likelihood of having a cardiometabolic condition. Early age of onset of bipolar symptoms was associated with a lower chance of having a cardiometabolic condition, but a greater chance of having other types of medical comorbidity. Additional predictors of other medical comorbidities in bipolar disorder included more time spent depressed, less time spent manic/hypomanic, and longer duration of illness. Medications associated with weight gain were associated with low high-density lipoprotein and abnormal triglycerides. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a substantial medical burden associated with bipolar disorder, highlighting the need for collaborative care among psychiatric and general medical providers to address both psychiatric and other medical needs concomitantly in this group of patients.

Disagreement between self-reported and clinician-ascertained suicidal ideation and its correlation with depression and anxiety severity in patients with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVES: To study the disagreement between self-reported suicidal ideation (SR-SI) and clinician-ascertained suicidal ideation (CA-SI) and its correlation with depression and anxiety severity in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder (BPD). METHODS: Routine clinical outpatients were diagnosed with the MINI-STEP-BD version. SR-SI was extracted from the 16 Item Quick Inventory of Depression Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-SR-16) item 12. CA-SI was extracted from a modified Suicide Assessment module of the MINI. Depression and anxiety severity were measured with the QIDS-SR-16 and Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale. Chi-square, Fisher exact, and bivariate linear logistic regression were used for analyses. RESULTS: Of 103 patients with MDD, 5.8% endorsed any CA-SI and 22.4% endorsed any SR-SI. Of the 147 patients with BPD, 18.4% endorsed any CA-SI and 35.9% endorsed any SR-SI. The agreement between any SR-SI and any CA-SI was 83.5% for MDD and 83.1% for BPD, with weighted Kappa of 0.30 and 0.43, respectively. QIDS-SR-16 score, female gender, and ≥4 year college education were associated with increased risk for disagreement, 15.44 ± 4.52 versus 18.39 ± 3.49 points (p = 0.0026), 67% versus 46% (p = 0.0783), and 61% versus 29% (p = 0.0096). The disagreement was positively correlated to depression severity in both MDD and BPD with a correlation coefficient R(2) = 0.40 and 0.79, respectively, but was only positively correlated to anxiety severity in BPD with a R(2) = 0.46. CONCLUSION: Self-reported questionnaire was more likely to reveal higher frequency and severity of SI than clinician-ascertained, suggesting that a combination of self-reported and clinical-ascertained suicidal risk assessment with measuring depression and anxiety severity may be necessary for suicide prevention.

Complexity of illness and adjunctive benzodiazepine use in outpatients with bipolar I or II disorder: results from the Bipolar CHOICE study.

Benzodiazepines are widely prescribed for patients with bipolar disorders in clinical practice, but very little is known about the subtypes of patients with bipolar disorder or aspects of bipolar illness that contribute most to benzodiazepine use. We examined the prevalence of and factors associated with benzodiazepine use among 482 patients with bipolar I or II disorder enrolled in the Bipolar CHOICE study. Eighty-one subjects were prescribed benzodiazepines at study entry and were considered benzodiazepine users. Stepwise logistic regression was used to model baseline benzodiazepine use versus nonuse, using entry and exit criteria of P < 0.1. In bivariate analyses, benzodiazepine users were prescribed a significantly higher number of other psychotropic medications and were more likely to be prescribed lamotrigine or antidepressants as compared with benzodiazepine nonusers. Benzodiazepine users were more likely to have a diagnosis of bipolar I disorder and comorbid anxiety disorder, but not comorbid alcohol or substance use disorders. Benzodiazepine users also had experienced more anxiety and depressive symptoms and suicidality, but not irritability or manic symptoms, than did benzodiazepine nonusers. In the multivariate model, anxiety symptom level (regardless of diagnosis), lamotrigine use, number of concomitant psychotropic medications, college education, and high household income predicted benzodiazepine use. Benzodiazepine use in patients with bipolar disorders is associated with greater illness complexity as indicated by a higher number of concomitant psychotropic medications and higher anxiety symptom burden, regardless of a comorbid anxiety disorder diagnosis. Demographic factors were also important determinants of benzodiazepine use, which may be related to access to care and insurance coverage for benzodiazepines.

Managing the side effects associated with commonly used treatments for bipolar depression.

BACKGROUND: The most commonly used pharmacologic therapies for bipolar depression are mood stabilizers, atypical antipsychotics, and antidepressants. This paper reviews common side effects associated with these medications and provides recommendations for managing adverse medication effects in clinical practice. METHODS: Narrative review based on literature searches of Medline and evidence-based treatment guidelines for agents that have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and/or are commonly used to treat bipolar depression. RESULTS: Side effects of bipolar depression pharmacotherapies are common and vary by medication, with weight gain, metabolic dysregulation, sedation/somnolence, and akathisia among those observed most frequently. These adverse events (weight gain and sedation/somnolence, in particular) negatively affect treatment adherence in patients with bipolar disorder. Furthermore, endocrine and metabolic comorbidities, weight gain, and obesity may reduce the likelihood of positive clinical responses to pharmacologic therapies. Clinicians may consider switching patients to bipolar depression medication(s) with a lower propensity for sedation or adverse metabolic effects. Lifestyle modification (e.g., dietary changes, exercise) is an important component in the treatment of weight gain/obesity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and hyperglycemia; in addition, a wide range of medications are available as therapeutic options for patients in whom non-pharmacologic management strategies are insufficient. The use of adjunctive medication may also reduce treatment-related sedation and somnolence. LIMITATIONS: The selection of relevant studies from the literature search relied primarily on the author's expertise in the area of bipolar depression and knowledge of the issues addressed. CONCLUSION: Successful treatment of bipolar depression extends beyond managing mood symptoms to also monitoring adverse medication events and managing associated medical disorders.

Efficacy and safety of quetiapine-XR as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy to a mood stabilizer in acute bipolar depression with generalized anxiety disorder and other comorbidities: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy and safety of quetiapine-XR as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy to a mood stabilizer in acute bipolar I or II depression with comorbid generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and other comorbidities. METHOD: The study was conducted from January 2007 to November 2011. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview was used to ascertain the diagnosis of DSM-IV bipolar disorder, GAD, and other Axis I disorders. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to quetiapine-XR or placebo for up to 8 weeks. The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 items (HDRS-17) was used as a primary outcome to evaluate the difference between the 2 groups using the change from baseline to end of study. Last observation carried forward and mixed-effects modeling for repeated measures were used to analyze the primary and secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: Of the 120 patients screened, 100 patients were randomized to receive quetiapine-XR (n = 50) or placebo (n = 50). Twenty-six patients in the quetiapine-XR and 18 in the placebo group completed the study. The mean quetiapine-XR dose was 276 ± 50 mg/d (50-300 mg/d). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the change from baseline to end of study in HDRS-17 total score with an effect size of 0.19 favoring quetiapine-XR. There were also no significant differences between the 2 groups in secondary efficacy and safety outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine-XR was not significantly superior to placebo in bipolar I or II depression with GAD and other comorbidities, suggesting that data from relatively "pure" bipolar patients may not be generalizable to a highly comorbid population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00671853.

Effect of adjunctive benzodiazepines on clinical outcomes in lithium- or quetiapine-treated outpatients with bipolar I or II disorder: results from the Bipolar CHOICE trial.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the longer-term effects of adjunctive benzodiazepines on symptom response during treatment in patients with bipolar disorders. METHODS: The study sample consisted of 482 patients with bipolar I or II disorder enrolled in a 6-month, randomized, multi-site comparison of lithium- and quetiapine-based treatment. Changes in clinical measures (BISS total and subscales, CGI-BP, and CGI-Efficacy Index) were compared between participants who did and did not receive benzodiazepine treatment at baseline or during follow-up. Selected outcomes were also compared between patients who did and did not initiate benzodiazepines during follow-up using stabilized inverse probability weighted analyses. RESULTS: Significant improvement in all outcome measures occurred within each benzodiazepine exposure group. Benzodiazepine users (at baseline or during follow-up) experienced significantly less improvement in BISS total, BISS irritability, and CGI-BP scores than did benzodiazepine non-users. There were no significant differences in these measures between patients who did and did not initiate benzodiazepines during follow-up in the weighted analyses. There was no significant effect of benzodiazepine use on any outcome measure in patients with comorbid anxiety or substance use disorders. LIMITATIONS: This is a secondary analysis of data from a randomized effectiveness trial that was not designed to address differential treatment response according to benzodiazepine use. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive benzodiazepines may not significantly affect clinical outcome in lithium- or quetiapine-treated patients with bipolar I or II disorder over 6 months, after controlling for potential confounding factors.

PPAR-γ agonism as a modulator of mood: proof-of-concept for pioglitazone in bipolar depression.

BACKGROUND: Insulin resistance and other cardio-metabolic risk factors predict increased risk of depression and decreased response to antidepressant and mood stabilizer treatments. This proof-of-concept study tested whether administration of an insulin-sensitizing peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)-γ agonist could reduce bipolar depression symptom severity. A secondary objective was to determine whether levels of highly sensitive C-reactive protein and interleukin (IL)-6 predicted treatment outcome. METHODS: Patients (n = 34) with bipolar disorder (I, II, or not otherwise specified) and metabolic syndrome/insulin resistance who were currently depressed (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms [QIDS] total score ≥11) despite an adequate trial of a mood stabilizer received open-label, adjunctive treatment with the PPAR-γ agonist pioglitazone (15-30 mg/day) for 8 weeks. The majority of participants (76 %, n = 26) were experiencing treatment-resistant bipolar depression, having already failed two mood stabilizers or the combination of a mood stabilizer and a conventional antidepressant. RESULTS: Supporting an association between insulin sensitization and depression severity, pioglitazone treatment was associated with a decrease in the total Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS-C30) score from 38.7 ± 8.2 at baseline to 21.2 ± 9.2 at week 8 (p < 0.001). Self-reported depressive symptom severity and clinician-rated anxiety symptom severity significantly improved over 8 weeks as measured by the QIDS (p < 0.001) and Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (p < 0.001), respectively. Functional improvement also occurred as measured by the change in total score on the Sheehan Disability Scale (-17.9 ± 3.6; p < 0.001). Insulin sensitivity increased from baseline to week 8 as measured by the Insulin Sensitivity Index derived from an oral glucose tolerance test (0.98 ± 0.3; p < 0.001). Higher baseline levels of IL-6 were associated with greater decrease in depression severity (parameter estimate ß = -3.89, standard error [SE] = 1.47, p = 0.015). A positive correlation was observed between improvement in IDS-C30 score and change in IL-6 (r = 0.44, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Open-label administration of the PPAR-γ agonist pioglitazone was associated with improvement in depressive symptoms and reduced cardio-metabolic risk. Reduction in inflammation may represent a novel mechanism by which pioglitazone modulates mood. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00835120).

Weight change and metabolic effects of asenapine in patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To describe weight changes and metabolic effects of asenapine compared with placebo and olanzapine in adults. METHOD: Post hoc analyses were performed using data from 17 asenapine trials (13 schizophrenia and 4 bipolar mania trials) with placebo (5-10 mg twice daily; n = 1,748; 1-6 weeks) and/or olanzapine (5-20 mg, once daily; n = 3,430; 3-100 weeks). Data were pooled based on treatment into placebo-controlled and olanzapine-controlled trials. For trials with placebo and olanzapine treatment groups, the asenapine population was included in both pools. Changes from baseline for weight, body mass index, and fasting lipid and glucose levels were determined. The Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities was used to define metabolic adverse events. RESULTS: Mean (standard error [SE]) weight change was greater with asenapine than with placebo (1.2 [0.2] vs 0.14 [0.2] kg; P < .0001) and similar in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Mean changes differed for asenapine versus placebo in triglycerides (1.8 [6.3] vs -12.2 [5.9] mg/dL; P < .01) and fasting glucose (1.9 [1.7] vs -1.6 [1.5] mg/dL; P < .05). In the olanzapine-controlled trials, weight change was significantly lower with asenapine than with olanzapine (0.9 [0.1] vs 3.1 [0.2] kg; P < .0001). Changes associated with asenapine were lower than those with olanzapine in fasting glucose (2.0 vs 3.3 mg/dL), total cholesterol (-0.4 [1.1] vs 6.2 [1.2] mg/dL; P < .0001), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.3 [1.1] vs 3.1 [1.2] mg/dL; P < .01), and triglycerides (-0.9 [5.4] vs 24.3 [5.8] mg/dL; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Asenapine was associated with greater weight gain and glucose changes than placebo and not associated with a meaningful change in triglycerides or cholesterol levels. Asenapine was not significantly different from olanzapine in change in glucose levels and lower than olanzapine with respect to triglycerides, weight gain, and increased cholesterol.

Associations among obesity, acute weight gain, and response to treatment with olanzapine in adolescent schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate associations between body weight and illness characteristics, including weight gain and therapeutic efficacy, in adolescents with schizophrenia. METHODS: Adolescents ages 13-17 years (n = 107) with American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (DSM-IV) schizophrenia enrolled in a 6 week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing olanzapine and placebo. Therapeutic response was assessed by the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale for Children (BPRS-C). Secondary outcomes included the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) scale and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Obesity was defined as sex-/age-adjusted body mass index (BMI) ≥ 95th percentile. Linear regression was used to analyze the relationship between weight gain and psychiatric symptom improvement; logistic regression was conducted to identify predictors of baseline obesity. RESULTS: Weight gain was significantly correlated with greater BPRS-C reduction among olanzapine-treated subjects (r = -0.31, p<0.01), whereas a trend was observed among placebo-treated subjects (r = -0.31, p = 0.08). However, this relationship became nonsignificant when analyses were controlled for duration of olanzapine treatment (p=0.12), and a treatment by weight gain interaction did not emerge in a repeated-measures mixed model analysis that included time in the study (t = 1.27, p = 0.21). Additionally, weight gain ≥ 7% was not significantly associated with response or remission. Among 17 adolescents (16%) with obesity at study entry, obesity was not significantly associated with endpoint BPRS-C illness severity. However, girls (p = 0.03), individuals hospitalized within the past year (p = 0.02), and those with less severe overall (p = 0.03) and negative symptoms (p = 0.003) according to the CGI-S and PANSS negative subscale, respectively, were more likely to be obese at baseline. CONCLUSION: Baseline obesity was associated with lower illness severity, which could be mediated by greater treatment adherence, leading to more weight gain. Olanzapine-related weight gain was not independently associated with symptomatic outcome when controlling for treatment duration. Additional studies are needed to extend these findings to other disorders and medications.

Association of exercise with quality of life and mood symptoms in a comparative effectiveness study of bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with bipolar disorder lead a sedentary lifestyle associated with worse course of illness and recurrence of symptoms. Identifying potentially modifiable predictors of exercise frequency could lead to interventions with powerful consequences on the course of illness and overall health. METHODS: The present study examines baseline reports of exercise frequency of bipolar patients in a multi-site comparative effectiveness study of a second generation antipsychotic (quetiapine) versus a classic mood stabilizer (lithium). Demographics, quality of life, functioning, and mood symptoms were assessed. RESULTS: Approximately 40% of participants reported not exercising regularly (at least once per week). Less frequent weekly exercise was associated with higher BMI, more time depressed, more depressive symptoms, and lower quality of life and functioning. In contrast, more frequent exercise was associated with experiencing more mania in the past year and more current manic symptoms. LIMITATIONS: Exercise frequency was measured by self-report and details of the exercise were not collected. Analyses rely on baseline data, allowing only for association analyses. Directionality and predictive validity cannot be determined. Data were collected in the context of a clinical trial and thus, it is possible that the generalizability of the findings could be limited. CONCLUSION: There appears to be a mood-specific relationship between exercise frequency and polarity such that depression is associated with less exercise and mania with more exercise in individuals with bipolar disorder. This suggests that increasing or decreasing exercise could be a targeted intervention for patients with depressive or mood elevation symptoms, respectively.

Should an assessment of Axis I comorbidity be included in the initial diagnostic assessment of mood disorders? Role of QIDS-16-SR total score in predicting number of Axis I comorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Axis I comorbidity in mood disorders was common in epidemiological studies. This study was designed to investigate the prevalence, pattern, and number of Axis I comorbidities and the role of the Quick Inventory of Depression Symptomatology - 16 items-Self-Report (QIDS-16-SR) in predicting the number of comorbidities in major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder (BPD). METHODS: Baseline data from the first 300 routine clinical outpatients diagnosed with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview Systematic-Treatment-Enhancement - Program for BPD version 5.0.0 were used. Baseline severity was measured with QIDS-16-SR and Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S). RESULTS: Of 113 patients with MDD and 166 with BPD, the prevalence of any current anxiety disorder (AD), substance use disorder (SUD), and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was 76% versus 74%, 14% versus 29%, and 8% versus 21%, respectively. The most common patterns of current comorbidity were MDD+AD (58.4%) for MDD, and BPD+AD (39.8%) and BPD+AD+SUD (11.4%) for BPD. More than 80% patients with MDD or BPD had ≥ 1 current comorbid disorder. About 20% patients with BPD and 10% with MDD had ≥ 4 other disorders. The number of comorbidities was positively associated with baseline severity and suicidal ideation in both MDD and BPD. A QIDS-16-SR of 10 had a positive predictive value of ≥ 90% in predicting ≥ 1 comorbidity in MDD and BPD. LIMITATIONS: The sample was modest and from a tertiary medical center. CONCLUSION: A thorough diagnostic assessment for Axis I comorbidity should be included in all patients with mood disorders, especially when a QIDS-16-SR of ≥ 10 points.

Investigation into the long-term metabolic effects of aripiprazole adjunctive to lithium, valproate, or lamotrigine.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar I disorder (BPD) patients are often overweight or obese, and likely to have metabolic syndrome. Several medications used to treat BPD are associated with increased body weight and/or worsening metabolic parameters. METHODS: Metabolic data were analyzed from two efficacy studies of aripiprazole plus the mood stabilizers, lithium/valproate (Study CN138-189), or lamotrigine (Study CN138-392), in the long-term treatment (52 weeks) of BPD. Changes in body weight, individual metabolic parameters, and incidence of metabolic syndrome were assessed. RESULTS: In the lithium/valproate study, modest increases in body weight were observed at Week 52 in both groups: 1.7 ± 0.8 kg in the lithium/valproate group, and 1.6 ± 0.7 kg in the adjunctive aripiprazole group; this difference was nonsignificant. In the lamotrigine study, decreases in body weight were observed at Week 52 with lamotrigine alone (-2.2 ± 1.0 kg), whereas a modest increase was observed when combined with aripiprazole (0.4 ± 1.0 kg). In both studies, rates of metabolic syndrome at 52 weeks did not increase from baseline with aripiprazole, and median changes from baseline in individual metabolic syndrome parameters were similar with both mood stabilizer monotherapy and the addition of aripiprazole as an adjunctive therapy. LIMITATIONS: This was a post-hoc analysis, and a low percentage of patients completed the lamotrigine study. CONCLUSIONS: Aripiprazole plus a mood stabilizer has minimal impact on metabolic changes in predominantly overweight/obese BPD patients over a 52-week period. In both studies, modest mean increases in weight with the addition of aripiprazole were not accompanied by increased rates of metabolic syndrome or changes in metabolic parameters.

Lamotrigine as add-on treatment to lithium and divalproex: lessons learned from a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in rapid-cycling bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVES: A substantial portion of the morbidity associated with rapid-cycling bipolar disorder (RCBD) stems from refractory depression. This study assessed the antidepressant effects of lamotrigine as compared with placebo when used as add-on therapy for rapid-cycling bipolar depression non-responsive to the combination of lithium plus divalproex. METHODS: During Phase 1 of this trial, hypomanic, manic, mixed, and/or depressed outpatients (n = 133) aged 18-65 years with DSM-IV RCBD type I or II were initially treated with the open combination of lithium and divalproex for up to 16 weeks. During Phase 2, subjects who did not meet the criteria for stabilization (n = 49) (i.e., remained in or cycled into the depressed phase) were randomly assigned to double-blind, adjunctive lamotrigine (n = 23) or adjunctive placebo (n = 26). The primary endpoint was the mean change in depression symptom severity from the beginning of Phase 2 to the end of Phase 2 (week 12) on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Data were analyzed by analysis of covariance with last observation carried forward and a mixed-models analysis. RESULTS: During Phase 1, a high rate of study discontinuations occurred due to intolerable side effects (13/133; 10%) and study non-adherence (22/133; 17%). Only 14% (19/133) stabilized on the open combination of lithium and divalproex. Among the 49 (37%) patients randomized to the double-blind adjunctive treatment phase, mean ± standard error change from baseline on the MADRS total score was -8.5 ± 1.7 points for lamotrigine and -9.1 ± 1.5 points for placebo (p = not significant; mixed-models analysis). No significant differences were observed in the rates of response, remission, or bimodal response between lamotrigine and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The poor tolerability, lack of efficacy, and high rate of early discontinuation with the combination of lithium and divalproex suggests this regimen was ineffective for the majority of patients with RCBD. Among patients who did not stabilize on lithium and divalproex, the addition of lamotrigine was no more effective than placebo in reducing depression severity. The findings suggest an opportunity for several design modifications to enhance signal detection in future trials of RCBD. The main limitation is the small number of subjects randomized to double-blind treatment.

The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) task force recommendations for the management of patients with mood disorders and comorbid metabolic disorders.

BACKGROUND: One goal of the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) is to develop evidence-based and best practice educational programs and recommendations. Our group conducted a comprehensive literature review to provide evidence-based recommendations for treating metabolic comorbidity in individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD). METHODS: We searched PubMed for all English-language articles published January 1966 to November 2010 using BD and MDD cross-referenced with metabolic syndrome, obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. That search was augmented by a review of articles reporting outcomes of an intervention targeting components of metabolic syndrome in individuals with MDD or BD. RESULTS: Consensus exists for the recommendation that individuals with MDD and BD should be routinely screened for risk factors that increase risk for metabolic syndrome. For excess weight, the best-studied pharmacologic approaches are metformin and topiramate, with emerging evidence for liraglutide and modafinil. For binge eating disorder, the best evidence in mood disorders was for cognitive-behavioral therapy as well as topiramate, zonisamide, and in select cases selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. For dysglycemia, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, evidence supports cognitive-behavioral interventions and anti-diabetic, antilipidemic, and antihypertensive treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive care of individuals with mood disorders should include routine evaluation of the risk and presence of metabolic syndrome and its components. Systematic evaluation of preventative and targeted treatments of metabolic syndrome in mood disorder populations is insufficient.

Use of insulin sensitizers for the treatment of major depressive disorder: a pilot study of pioglitazone for major depression accompanied by abdominal obesity.

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to examine the safety and efficacy of pioglitazone, a thiazolidinedione insulin sensitizer, in adult outpatients with major depressive disorder. METHOD: In a 12-week, open-label, flexible-dose study, 23 patients with major depressive disorder received pioglitazone monotherapy or adjunctive therapy initiated at 15 mg daily. Subjects were required to meet criteria for abdominal obesity (waist circumference>35 in. in women and >40 in. in men) or metabolic syndrome. The primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to Week 12 on the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS) total score. Partial responders (≥25% decrease in IDS total score) were eligible to participate in an optional extension phase for an additional three months. RESULTS: Pioglitazone decreased depression symptom severity from a total IDS score of 40.3±1.8 to 19.2±1.8 at Week 12 (p<.001). Among partial responders (≥25% decrease in IDS total score), an improvement in depressive symptoms was maintained during an additional 3-month extension phase (total duration=24 weeks) according to IDS total scores (p<.001). Patients experienced a reduction in insulin resistance from baseline to Week 12 according to the log homeostasis model assessment (-0.8±0.75; p<.001) and a significant reduction in inflammation as measured by log highly- sensitive C-reactive protein (-0.87±0.72; p<.001). During the current episode, the majority of participants (74%, n=17), had already failed at least one antidepressant trial. The most common side effects were headache and dizziness; no patient discontinued due to side effects. LIMITATIONS: These data are limited by a small sample size and an open-label study design with no placebo control. CONCLUSION: Although preliminary, pioglitazone appears to reduce depression severity and improve several markers of cardiometabolic risk, including insulin resistance and inflammation. Larger, placebo-controlled studies are indicated.