More inclusive bipolar mixed depression definition by permitting overlapping and non-overlapping mood elevation symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the strengths and limitations of a mixed bipolar depression definition made more inclusive than that of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM-5) by counting not only 'non-overlapping' mood elevation symptoms (NOMES) as in DSM-5, but also 'overlapping' mood elevation symptoms (OMES, psychomotor agitation, distractibility, and irritability). METHODS: Among bipolar disorder (BD) out-patients assessed with the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for BD (STEP-BD) Affective Disorders Evaluation, we assessed prevalence, demographics, and clinical correlates of mixed vs. pure depression, using more inclusive (≥3 NOMES/OMES) and less inclusive DSM-5 (≥3 NOMES) definitions. RESULTS: Among 153 depressed BD, counting not only NOMES but also OMES yielded a three-fold higher mixed depression rate (22.9% vs. 7.2%) and important statistically significant clinical correlates for mixed compared to pure depression (more lifetime anxiety disorder comorbidity, more current irritability, and less current antidepressant use), which were not significant using the DSM-5 threshold. CONCLUSION: To conclude, further studies with larger numbers of patients with DSM-5 bipolar mixed depression assessing strengths and limitations of more inclusive mixed depression definitions are warranted, including efforts to ascertain whether or not OMES should count toward mixed depression.

More inclusive bipolar mixed depression definitions by requiring fewer non-overlapping mood elevation symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Assess strengths and limitations of mixed bipolar depression definitions made more inclusive than that of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM-5) by requiring fewer than three 'non-overlapping' mood elevation symptoms (NOMES). METHOD: Among bipolar disorder (BD) out-patients assessed with Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for BD (STEP-BD) Affective Disorders Evaluation, we assessed prevalence, demographics, and clinical correlates of mixed vs. pure depression, using less inclusive (≥3 NOMES, DSM-5), more inclusive (≥2 NOMES), and most inclusive (≥1 NOMES) definitions. RESULTS: Among 153 depressed BD, compared to less inclusive DSM-5 threshold, our more and most inclusive thresholds, yielded approximately two- and five-fold higher mixed depression rates (7.2%, 15.0%, and 34.6% respectively), and important statistically significant clinical correlates for mixed compared to pure depression (e.g. more lifetime anxiety disorder comorbidity, more current irritability), which were not significant using the DSM-5 threshold. CONCLUSION: Further studies assessing strengths and limitations of more inclusive mixed depression definitions are warranted, including assessing the extent to which enhanced statistical power vs. other factors contributes to more vs. less inclusive mixed bipolar depression thresholds having more statistically significant clinical correlates, and whether 'overlapping' mood elevation symptoms should be counted.

Obesity, but not metabolic syndrome, negatively affects outcome in bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Examine the effects of obesity and metabolic syndrome on outcome in bipolar disorder. METHOD: The Comparative Effectiveness of a Second Generation Antipsychotic Mood Stabilizer and a Classic Mood Stabilizer for Bipolar Disorder (Bipolar CHOICE) study randomized 482 participants with bipolar disorder in a 6-month trial comparing lithium- and quetiapine-based treatment. Baseline variables were compared between groups with and without obesity, with and without abdominal obesity, and with and without metabolic syndrome respectively. The effects of baseline obesity, abdominal obesity, and metabolic syndrome on outcomes were examined using mixed effects linear regression models. RESULTS: At baseline, 44.4% of participants had obesity, 48.0% had abdominal obesity, and 27.3% had metabolic syndrome; neither obesity, nor abdominal obesity, nor metabolic syndrome were associated with increased global severity, mood symptoms, or suicidality, or with poorer functioning or life satisfaction. Treatment groups did not differ on prevalence of obesity, abdominal obesity, or metabolic syndrome. By contrast, among the entire cohort, obesity was associated with less global improvement and less improvement in total mood and depressive symptoms, suicidality, functioning, and life satisfaction after 6 months of treatment. Abdominal obesity was associated with similar findings. Metabolic syndrome had no effect on outcome. CONCLUSION: Obesity and abdominal obesity, but not metabolic syndrome, were associated with less improvement after 6 months of lithium- or quetiapine-based treatment.

A profile approach to impulsivity in bipolar disorder: the key role of strong emotions.

OBJECTIVE: Bipolar disorder has been associated with elevated impulsivity - a complex construct subsuming multiple facets. We aimed to compare specific facets of impulsivity in bipolar disorder, including those related to key psychological correlates of the illness: reward sensitivity and strong emotion. METHOD: Ninety-one individuals diagnosed with bipolar I disorder (inter-episode period) and 80 controls completed several well-validated impulsivity measures, including those relevant to reward (Fun-seeking subscale of the Behavioral Activation System scale) and emotion (Positive Urgency and Negative Urgency scales). RESULTS: Bipolar participants reported higher impulsivity scores than did controls on all of the impulsivity measures, except the Fun-seeking subscale of the Behavioral Activation System scale. Positive Urgency - a measure assessing the tendency to act impulsively when experiencing strong positive emotion - yielded the largest group differences: F(1,170) = 78.69, P < 0.001, partial η(2)  = 0.316. Positive Urgency was also associated with poorer psychosocial functioning in the bipolar group: ΔR(2)  = 0.24, b = -0.45, P < 0.001. CONCLUSION: Individuals with bipolar I disorder appear to be at particular risk of behaving impulsively when experiencing strong positive emotions. Findings provide an important first step toward developing a more refined understanding of impulsivity in bipolar disorder with the potential to inform targeted interventions.

Medication adherence in a comparative effectiveness trial for bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Psychopharmacology remains the foundation of treatment for bipolar disorder, but medication adherence in this population is low (range 20-64%). We examined medication adherence in a multisite, comparative effectiveness study of lithium. METHOD: The Lithium Moderate Dose Use Study (LiTMUS) was a 6-month, six-site, randomized effectiveness trial of adjunctive moderate dose lithium therapy compared with optimized treatment in adult out-patients with bipolar I or II disorder (N=283). Medication adherence was measured at each study visit with the Tablet Routine Questionnaire. RESULTS: We found that 4.50% of participants reported missing at least 30% of their medications in the past week at baseline and non-adherence remained low throughout the trial (<7%). Poor medication adherence was associated with more manic symptoms and side-effects as well as lower lithium serum levels at mid- and post-treatment, but not with poor quality of life, overall severity of illness, or depressive symptoms. CONCLUSION: Participants in LiTMUS were highly adherent with taking their medications. The lack of association with possible predictors of adherence, such as depression and quality of life, could be explained by the limited variance or other factors as well as by not using an objective measure of adherence.

Using comparative effectiveness design to improve the generalizability of bipolar treatment trials data: contrasting LiTMUS baseline data with pre-existing placebo controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy-based double-blind placebo controlled trials were conducted to establish efficacy and safety for FDA approval. Such designs allowed and encouraged the use of exclusion criteria to improve assay sensitivity and internal validity. The LiTMUS trial increased the representation of real-world individuals with bipolar disorder despite the acknowledgment that this compromises assay sensitivity. METHOD: To maximize generalizability, LiTMUS used broad inclusion and narrow exclusion criteria: participants experiencing mood symptoms of sufficient intensity (at least with a CGI-BP ≥ 3) that would warrant a change in treatment, and that lithium treatment would be a reasonable therapeutic option if they were randomized to it. At baseline demographic, illness, clinical, and treatment characteristics were collected. The LiTMUS study design and baseline sociodemographic data were compared to previous efficacy studies. RESULTS: As compared to the previous bipolar disorder efficacy studies, LiTMUS participants were of similar age, gender, weight and illness severity; however LiTMUS participants were more racially and ethnically representative of the general population, had a greater number of mood episodes in the past 12 months, more Axis I/II comorbidity, a greater number of prior suicide attempts, and higher functional capacity. CONCLUSIONS: LiTMUS was a comparative effectiveness trial that had broad inclusion and minimal exclusion criteria that produced a more representative sample comprised of real-world participants. This design enables the results of the LiTMUS study to be a more representative of real world pharmacotherapuetic outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include possible selection bias, paucity of sociodemographic data in efficacy trials, and lack of a placebo.

General medical burden in bipolar disorder: findings from the LiTMUS comparative effectiveness trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined general medical illnesses and their association with clinical features of bipolar disorder. METHOD: Data were cross-sectional and derived from the Lithium Treatment - Moderate Dose Use Study (LiTMUS), which randomized symptomatic adults (n = 264 with available medical comorbidity scores) with bipolar disorder to moderate doses of lithium plus optimized treatment (OPT) or to OPT alone. Clinically significant high and low medical comorbidity burden were defined as a Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) score ≥4 and <4 respectively. RESULTS: The baseline prevalence of significant medical comorbidity was 53% (n = 139). Patients with high medical burden were more likely to present in a major depressive episode (P = .04), meet criteria for obsessive-compulsive disorder (P = .02), and experience a greater number of lifetime mood episodes (P = 0.02). They were also more likely to be prescribed a greater number of psychotropic medications (P = .002). Sixty-nine per cent of the sample was overweight or obese as defined by body mass index (BMI), with African Americans representing the racial group with the highest proportion of stage II obesity (BMI ≥35; 31%, n = 14). CONCLUSION: The burden of comorbid medical illnesses was high in this generalizable sample of treatment-seeking patients and appears associated with worsened course of illness and psychotropic medication patterns.

Gene-expression differences in peripheral blood between lithium responders and non-responders in the Lithium Treatment-Moderate dose Use Study (LiTMUS).

This study was designed to identify genes whose expression in peripheral blood may serve as early markers for treatment response to lithium (Li) in patients with bipolar disorder. Although changes in peripheral blood gene-expression may not relate directly to mood symptoms, differences in treatment response at the biochemical level may underlie some of the heterogeneity in clinical response to Li. Subjects were randomized to treatment with (n=28) or without (n=32) Li. Peripheral blood gene-expression was measured before and 1 month after treatment initiation, and treatment response was assessed after 6 months. In subjects treated with Li, 62 genes were differentially regulated in treatment responders and non-responders. Of these, BCL2L1 showed the greatest difference between Li responders and non-responders. These changes were specific to Li responders (n=9), and were not seen in Li non-responders or patients treated without Li, suggesting that they may have specific roles in treatment response to Li.

When does a difference make a difference? Interpretation of number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed.

Although great effort is made in clinical trials to demonstrate statistical superiority of one intervention vs. another, insufficient attention is paid regarding the clinical relevance or clinical significance of the observed outcomes. Effect sizes are not always reported. Available absolute effect size measures include Cohen's d, area under the curve, success rate difference, attributable risk and number needed to treat (NNT). Of all of these measures, NNT is arguably the most clinically intuitive and helps relate effect size difference back to real-world concerns of clinical practice. This commentary reviews the formula for NNT, and proposes acceptable values for NNT and its analogue, number needed to harm (NNH), using examples from the medical literature. The concept of likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH), calculated as the ratio of NNH to NNT, is used to illustrate trade-offs between benefits and harms. Additional considerations in interpreting NNT are discussed, including the importance of defining acceptable response, adverse outcomes of interest, the effect of time, and the importance of individual baseline characteristics.

Aims and results of the NIMH systematic treatment enhancement program for bipolar disorder (STEP-BD).

The Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD) was funded as part of a National Institute of Mental Health initiative to develop effectiveness information about treatments, illness course, and assessment strategies for severe mental disorders. STEP-BD studies were planned to be generalizable both to the research knowledge base for bipolar disorder and to clinical care of bipolar patients. Several novel methodologies were developed to aid in illness characterization, and were combined with existing scales on function, quality of life, illness burden, adherence, adverse effects, and temperament to yield a comprehensive data set. The methods integrated naturalistic treatment and randomized clinical trials, which a portion of STEP-BD participants participated. All investigators and other researchers in this multisite program were trained in a collaborative care model with the objective of retaining a high percentage of enrollees for several years. Articles from STEP-BD have yielded evidence on risk factors impacting outcomes, suicidality, functional status, recovery, relapse, and caretaker burden. The findings from these studies brought into question the widely practiced use of antidepressants in bipolar depression as well as substantiated the poorly responsive course of bipolar depression despite use of combination strategies. In particular, large studies on the characteristics and course of bipolar depression (the more pervasive pole of the illness), and the outcomes of treatments concluded that adjunctive psychosocial treatments but not adjunctive antidepressants yielded outcomes superior to those achieved with mood stabilizers alone. The majority of patients with bipolar depression concurrently had clinically significant manic symptoms. Anxiety, smoking, and early age of bipolar onset were each associated with increased illness burden. STEP-BD has established procedures that are relevant to future collaborative research programs aimed at the systematic study of the complex, intrinsically important elements of bipolar disorders.

Treatments for bipolar disorder: can number needed to treat/harm help inform clinical decisions?

OBJECTIVE: To compare bipolar treatment interventions, using number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH). METHOD: Results of randomized controlled clinical trials were used to assess efficacy (NNT for response and relapse/recurrence prevention vs. placebo) and tolerability (e.g. NNH for weight gain and sedation vs. placebo). RESULTS: United States Food and Drug Administration-approved bipolar disorder pharmacotherapies all have single-digit NNTs (i.e. > 10% advantage over placebo), but NNHs for adverse effects that vary widely. Some highly efficacious agents are as likely to yield adverse effects as therapeutic benefit, but may be interventions of choice in more acute severe illness. In contrast, some less efficacious agents with better tolerability may be interventions of choice in more chronic mild-moderate illness. CONCLUSION: Clinical trials can help inform clinical decision making by quantifying the likelihood of benefit vs. harm. Integrating such data with individual patient circumstances, values, and preferences can help optimize treatment choices.

In search of optimal lithium levels and olanzapine doses in the long-term treatment of bipolar I disorder. A post-hoc analysis of the maintenance study by Tohen et al. 2005.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether lower lithium levels (LoLi) or olanzapine doses (LoOL) are risk factors for future mood episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder. METHODS: A post-hoc analysis of the olanzapine-lithium-maintenance study [31] was performed using proportional hazards Cox regression models and marginal structural models (MSMs), adjusting for non-random assignments of dose during treatment. RESULTS: The LoLi group (<0.6 mmol/L) had a significantly increased risk of manic/mixed (hazard ratio [HR]=1.96, p=0.042), but not depressive (HR=2.11, p=0.272) episodes, compared to the combined medium (0.6-0.79 mmol/L) and high lithium level (≥0.8 mmol/L) groups. There was no significant difference in risk between the two higher lithium level groups (0.6-0.79 mmol/L; ≥0.8 mmol/L) for new manic/mixed (HR=0.96, p=0.893) or depressive (HR=0.95, p=0.922) episodes. The LoOL group (<10mg/day) showed a significantly increased risk of depressive (HR=2.24, p=0.025) episodes compared to the higher olanzapine (HiOL) dose group (HiOL: 10-20 mg/day), while there was no statistically significant difference in risk for manic/mixed episodes between the two groups (HR=0.94, p=0.895). CONCLUSION: Lithium levels≥0.6 mmol/L and olanzapine doses≥10mg/day may be necessary for optimal protection against manic/mixed or depressive episodes, respectively in patients with bipolar I disorder.

Divalproex extended-release in acute bipolar II depression.

BACKGROUND: Divalproex extended-release (divalproex-ER) is effective in acute mania, and limited data suggest divalproex may have efficacy in acute bipolar depression. METHODS: A 7-week, open-label trial of divalproex-ER monotherapy or adjunctive therapy was conducted in 28 outpatients (15 female, mean age 36.7+/-9.1, and mean duration of illness 22.1+/-11.1 years) with bipolar II depression (39% with rapid cycling course of illness within the prior year). Divalproex-ER was generally given as a single dose at bedtime, starting at 250mg and increased by 250mg every 4 days to symptom relief or adverse effects. Efficacy was assessed using weekly prospective Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores. RESULTS: Overall, mean divalproex-ER final doses and serum concentrations were 1469mg/day and 80.1microg/mL, respectively. Mean MADRS scores (last observation carried forward) decreased significantly from baseline in patients in the overall group (from 30.1 to 15.2, p<.00001). The overall response rate was 54%. Divalproex-ER therapy was generally well tolerated, with no early discontinuations due to adverse events. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by a small sample size and an open-label study design with no placebo control. CONCLUSIONS: Divalproex-ER as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy was well tolerated and yielded an overall response rate of 54% in bipolar II depression. Based on the results of this pilot study, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of divalproex-ER in bipolar II depression are warranted.

Depressive relapse during lithium treatment associated with increased serum thyroid-stimulating hormone: results from two placebo-controlled bipolar I maintenance studies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between depressive relapse and change in thyroid function in an exploratory post hoc analysis from a controlled maintenance evaluation of bipolar I disorder. METHOD: Mean thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and outcome data were pooled from two 18-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled, maintenance studies of lamotrigine and lithium monotherapy. A post hoc analysis of 109 subjects (n = 55 lamotrigine, n = 32 lithium, n = 22 placebo) with serum TSH values at screening and either week 52 (+/-14 days) or study drop-out was conducted. RESULTS: Lithium-treated subjects who required an intervention for a depressive episode had a significantly higher adjusted mean TSH level (4.4 microIU/ml) compared with lithium-treated subjects who did not require intervention for a depressive episode (2.4 microIU/ml). CONCLUSION: Lithium-related changes in thyroid function are clinically relevant and should be carefully monitored in the maintenance phase of bipolar disorder to maximize mood stability and minimize the risk of subsyndromal or syndromal depressive relapse.

A new US-UK diagnostic project: mood elevation and depression in first-year undergraduates at Oxford and Stanford universities.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate differences in prevalence of mood elevation, distress and depression among first-year undergraduates at Oxford and Stanford universities. METHOD: An online survey was sent to Oxford and Stanford first-year undergraduate students for two consecutive years in the winter of 2005 and 2006. Students completed a survey that assessed mood symptoms and medication use. RESULTS: Both universities had similar rates of distress by General Health Questionnaire (Oxford - 42.4%; Stanford - 38.3%), depression by Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (Oxford - 6.2%; Stanford - 6.6%), and psychotropic and non-psychotropic medication usage (psychotropic: Oxford - 1.5%; Stanford 3.5%; nonpsychotropic: Oxford - 13.3%; Stanford - 18%). Oxford had higher rates of mood elevation by Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) (Oxford - 4%; Stanford - 1.7%). CONCLUSION: Oxford and Stanford students have similar rates of mood distress, depression and general medication usage. Students at Oxford have a higher prevalence of MDQ scores that possibly indicate a bipolar disorder, while Stanford students are prescribed more psychotropics.

Bipolar disorder: improving diagnosis and optimizing integrated care.

Bipolar disorder is a chronic, severe condition commonly causing substantial mortality and psychosocial morbidity. Challenges in recognition can delay the institution of appropriate management, whereas misdiagnosis may initiate pharmacologic interventions that adversely affect the condition's course. Pharmacotherapy remains the foundation of treatment. In addition to efficacy, tolerability is an important consideration in medication choice, particularly for long-term maintenance because of its impact on adherence. Mood stabilizers are the classic treatments for bipolar disorder. Newer agents such as atypical antipsychotics may offer efficacy and/or tolerability advantages compared with other medications. The role of antidepressants in bipolar disorder remains controversial. Growing evidence indicates that adjunctive psychosocial interventions improve long-term functioning; consequently, psychologists are becoming increasingly involved in the long-term care of patients with bipolar disorder. This review seeks to update psychologists and related healthcare professionals on recent advances and the current limitations in the diagnosis and treatment of bipolar disorder.

Lamotrigine therapy in treatment-resistant menstrually-related rapid cycling bipolar disorder: a case report.

AIMS/OBJECTIVES: To evaluate lamotrigine in a woman with a 30-year history of treatment-resistant menstrually-entrained rapid cycling bipolar II disorder with follicular phase depressive and luteal phase mood elevation symptoms. METHODS: Lamotrigine was started at 5 mg/day and gradually increased up to 300 mg/day, while venlafaxine was tapered gradually and discontinued, and divalproex sodium 500 mg/day and levothyroxine 175 mcgm/day were continued. Daily self-reported mood ratings were obtained from the patient, using ChronoRecord software. RESULTS: As lamotrigine was increased gradually, mood cycle amplitude attenuated. There was notable decrease in the severity and duration of depressive symptoms specifically during the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle. At the time of submission of this paper, the subject had remained euthymic for a total of 12 months. CONCLUSION: This case suggests the potential utility of lamotrigine in treatment-resistant menstrually-related rapid cycling bipolar disorder, and raises the possibility that lamotrigine might be able to treat pathological entrainment of mood with the menstrual cycle. Both of these issues merit systematic assessment.