Lithium plus antipsychotics or anticonvulsants for bipolar disorder: Comparing clinical response and metabolic changes.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with bipolar disorder treated with lithium often require additional antipsychotics or anticonvulsants. However, the comparative effectiveness and safety of these agents as add-on to lithium has not been studied. METHODS: This secondary analysis combined two similar 24-week trials on outpatients with bipolar disorder randomized to lithium (target serum level 0.4-0.6 mEq/L). Guideline-based adjunctive antipsychotics (Li+AP) and anticonvulsants (Li+AC) could be used if clinically indicated and was assessed at every study visit. Response was measured on the Clinical Global Impression scale and we performed adjusted mixed effects linear regression analyses. Analysis of variance tests compared metabolic measures including a binary diagnosis of metabolic syndrome before and after 24 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Among 379 outpatients (57% female, mean age 38 years, mean Clinical Global Impression 4.4), users of Li+AP (N = 50, primarily quetiapine and aripiprazole) improved to a similar degree (mean Clinical Global Impression improvement = 1.6, standard deviation = 1.5) as those using lithium-only (i.e. without adjunctive antipsychotics or anticonvulsants, N = 149, mean Clinical Global Impression improvement = 1.7, standard deviation = 1.4) (p = 0.59). Users of Li+AC (N = 107, primarily lamotrigine and valproate, mean Clinical Global Impression improvement = 1.2, standard deviation = 1.3) and users of Li+AP+AC (N = 73, mean Clinical Global Impression improvement = 1.1, standard deviation = 1.3) showed worse response compared to lithium-only users (all p < 0.01). When comparing Li+AP to Li+AC, users of Li+AP improved slightly better on general (p = 0.05) and manic symptoms (p = 0.01), but showed a worse development of glucose, triglycerides, and metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSION: Despite treatment-by-indication confounding, these findings are relevant for real-world treatment settings and emphasize the need for randomized trials on this clinically important topic.

Childhood trauma and treatment outcomes during mood-stabilising treatment with lithium or quetiapine among outpatients with bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: Childhood trauma affects the course of mood disorders. Researchers are now considering childhood trauma as an influential factor in the treatment of mood disorders. However, the role of childhood trauma in the treatment of bipolar disorder remains understudied. METHODS: The effect of childhood trauma on treatment outcomes was evaluated among participants randomised to treatment with lithium or quetiapine in the Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiatives in Comparative Effectiveness for Bipolar Disorder (Bipolar CHOICE) study by clinician assessment. Mixed effects linear regression models were used to analyse rates of improvement in symptom severity (assessed with the Bipolar Inventory of Symptoms Scale and the Clinical Global Impression Scale for Bipolar Disorder) and functional impairment (assessed with the Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation-Range of Impaired Functioning Tool). RESULTS: A history of any childhood trauma was reported by 52.7% of the sample (N = 476). Although participants with a history of any childhood trauma presented with greater symptom severity and functional impairment at most study visits, participants with and without a history of any childhood trauma showed similar rates of improvement in symptom severity and functional impairment over the 24 weeks of treatment. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to explore the association between childhood trauma and treatment outcomes during treatment with lithium or quetiapine in the context of a randomised trial. In Bipolar CHOICE, a history of childhood trauma did not inhibit improvement in symptom severity or functional impairment. Nevertheless, these findings need replication across different settings.

Adjunctive antidepressant treatment among 763 outpatients with bipolar disorder: Findings from the Bipolar CHOICE and LiTMUS trials.

BACKGROUND: Adjunctive antidepressants are frequently used for bipolar depression but their clinical efficacy has been studied in few trials and little is known about how co-occurring manic symptoms affect treatment response. METHODS: Bipolar Clinical Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness (N = 482) and Lithium Treatment Moderate-Dose Use Study (N = 281) were similar comparative effectiveness trials on outpatients with bipolar disorder comparing four different randomized treatment arms with adjunctive personalized guideline-based treatment for 24 weeks. Adjunctive antidepressant treatment could be used if clinically indicated and was assessed at every study visit. Adjusted mixed effects linear regression analyses compared users of antidepressants to nonusers overall and in different subcohorts. RESULTS: Of the 763 patients, 282 (37.0%) used antidepressant drugs during the study. Antidepressant users had less improvement compared to nonusers on the Clinical Global Impression Scale for Bipolar Disorder and on measures of depression. This was particularly true among patients with co-occurring manic symptoms. Exclusion of individuals begun on antidepressants late in the study (potentially due to overall worse response) resulted in no differences between users and nonusers. We found no differences in treatment effects on mania scales. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of outpatients with bipolar disorder, clinically indicated and guideline-based adjunctive antidepressant treatment was not associated with lower depressive symptoms or higher mania symptoms. The treatment-by-indication confounding due to the nonrandomized design of the trials complicates causal interpretations, but no analyses indicated better treatment effects of adjunctive antidepressants.

Patterns of changes in bipolar depressive symptoms revealed by trajectory analysis among 482 patients with bipolar disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Depressive episodes are often prevalent among patients with bipolar disorder, but little is known regarding the differential patterns of development over time. We aimed to determine and characterize trajectories of depressive symptoms among adults with bipolar disorder during 6 months of systematic treatment. METHODS: The pragmatic clinical trial, Bipolar Clinical Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness (CHOICE), randomized 482 outpatients with bipolar disorder to lithium or quetiapine. Depressive symptoms were rated at up to 9 visits using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Growth mixture modeling was utilized to identify trajectories and multinomial regression analysis estimated associations with potential predictors. RESULTS: Four distinct trajectories of depressive symptoms were identified. The responding class (60.3%) with a rapid reduction and subsequent low level; the partial-responding class (18.4%) with an initial reduction followed by an increase during the remaining weeks; the fluctuating class (11.6%) with a fluctuation in depressive symptoms; and the non-responding class (9.7%) with sustained moderate-severe depressive symptoms. Bipolar type I predicted membership of the non-responding class and randomization to quetiapine predicted membership of either the responding or the non-responding class. CONCLUSION: Approximately 30% experienced a partial or fluctuating course, and almost 10% had a chronic course with moderate-severe depression during 6 months. Patients diagnosed with bipolar type 1 had higher risk of being categorized into a class with a worse outcome. While no differences in average overall outcomes occurred between the lithium and quetiapine groups, trajectory analysis revealed that the lithium group had more variable courses.

Correlation between white blood cell count and mood-stabilising treatment response in two bipolar disorder trials.

BACKGROUND: Immune system markers may predict affective disorder treatment response, but whether an overall immune system marker predicts bipolar disorder treatment effect is unclear. METHODS: Bipolar CHOICE (N = 482) and LiTMUS (N = 283) were similar comparative effectiveness trials treating patients with bipolar disorder for 24 weeks with four different treatment arms (standard-dose lithium, quetiapine, moderate-dose lithium plus optimised personalised treatment (OPT) and OPT without lithium). We performed secondary mixed effects linear regression analyses adjusted for age, gender, smoking and body mass index to investigate relationships between pre-treatment white blood cell (WBC) levels and clinical global impression scale (CGI) response. RESULTS: Compared to participants with WBC counts of 4.5-10 × 109/l, participants with WBC < 4.5 or WBC ≥ 10 showed similar improvement within each specific treatment arm and in gender-stratified analyses. CONCLUSIONS: An overall immune system marker did not predict differential treatment response to four different treatment approaches for bipolar disorder all lasting 24 weeks.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and paracetamol do not affect 6-month mood-stabilizing treatment outcome among 482 patients with bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: Many mood disorder patients need analgesics due to increased pain sensitivity. Recent studies have suggested that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may inhibit antidepressant treatment, which requires replication before clinical recommendations. METHODS: The Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiatives in Comparative Effectiveness for Bipolar Disorder Study randomized participants to 6 months lithium or quetiapine treatment. Use of NSAIDs and paracetamol was assessed throughout the study period and psychopathology measured with the Clinical Global Impression Scale for Bipolar Disorder (CGI-BP) and Bipolar Inventory of Symptoms Scale (BISS). The effects of NSAIDs and paracetamol on treatment outcome were examined using mixed effects linear regression adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, smoking status, exercise, and somatic diseases. RESULTS: Among 482 participants, 177 (36.7%) used NSAIDs and/or paracetamol during the study. NSAID and paracetamol users did not differ from nonusers with respect to treatment outcome with lithium or quetiapine at any time point during 6 months treatment on the overall CGI-BP (ß = 0.001 (95% CI = -0.01 to -0.01), P = .87), the BISS (ß = 0.01 (95% CI = -0.17 to 0.15), P = .91), nor the CGI-BP subscales for depression or mania. Users of NSAIDs only (n = 76), paracetamol only (n = 62), and users of both NSAIDs and paracetamol (n = 39) showed no statistical difference compared to nonusers (all P > .3). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first trial to show that use of NSAIDs and paracetamol, alone or in combination, does not affect lithium- or quetiapine-based bipolar disorder mood-stabilizing treatment outcomes. Prior studies have suggested that NSAIDs may inhibit antidepressant treatment, whereas our results support findings indicating no detrimental effects of NSAIDs or paracetamol on affective disorder treatment.

White blood cell count correlates with mood symptom severity and specific mood symptoms in bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Immune alterations may play a role in bipolar disorder etiology; however, the relationship between overall immune system functioning and mood symptom severity is unknown. METHODS: The two comparative effectiveness trials, the Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiatives in Comparative Effectiveness for Bipolar Disorder Study (Bipolar CHOICE) and the Lithium Treatment Moderate-Dose Use Study (LiTMUS), were similar trials among patients with bipolar disorder. At study entry, white blood cell count and bipolar mood symptom severity (via Montgomery-Aasberg Depression Rating Scale and Bipolar Inventory of Symptoms Scale) were assessed. We performed analysis of variance and linear regression analyses to investigate relationships between deviations from median white blood cell and multinomial regression analysis between higher and lower white blood cell levels. All analyses were adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, smoking, diabetes, hypertension and hyperlipidemia. RESULTS: Among 482 Bipolar CHOICE participants, for each 1.0 × 109/L white blood cell deviation, the overall Bipolar Inventory of Symptoms Scale severity increased significantly among men (coefficient = 2.13; 95% confidence interval = [0.46, -3.79]; p = 0.013), but not among women (coefficient = 0.87; 95% confidence interval = [-0.87, -2.61]; p = 0.33). Interaction analyses showed a trend toward greater Bipolar Inventory of Symptoms Scale symptom severity among men (coefficient = 1.51; 95% confidence interval = [-0.81, -3.82]; p = 0.2). Among 283 LiTMUS participants, higher deviation from the median white blood cell showed a trend toward higher Montgomery-Aasberg Depression Rating Scale scores among men (coefficient = 1.33; 95% confidence interval = [-0.22, -2.89]; p = 0.09), but not among women (coefficient = 0.34; 95% confidence interval = [-0.64, -1.32]; p = 0.50). When combining LiTMUS and Bipolar CHOICE, Montgomery-Aasberg Depression Rating Scale scores increased significantly among men (coefficient = 1.09; 95% confidence interval = [0.31, -1.87]; p = 0.006) for each 1.0 × 109/L white blood cell deviation, whereas we found a weak association among women (coefficient = 0.55; 95% confidence interval = [-0.20, -1.29]; p = 0.14). Lower and higher white blood cell levels correlated with greater symptom severity and specific symptoms, varying according to gender. CONCLUSION: Deviations in an overall immune system marker, even within the normal white blood cell range, correlated with mood symptom severity in bipolar disorder, mostly among males. Studies are warranted investigating whether white blood cell count may predict response to mood-stabilizing treatment.

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.

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.

C'mon get happy: reduced magnitude and duration of response during a positive-affect induction in depression.

BACKGROUND: Depression involves decreased positive affect. Whether this is due to a failure to achieve or maintain positive emotion in response to discrete stimuli is unclear. Understanding the nature of decreased positive affect could help to address how to intervene in the phenomenon, for example, how to structure interventions using positive and rewarding stimuli in depression. Thus, we examined the time course of affect following exposure to positive stimuli in depressed and healthy individuals. METHODS: Seventy-one adults with major depressive disorder and thirty-four never-depressed controls read a self-generated highly positive script and continuously rated their affect for 7 min. RESULTS: Both groups quickly achieved increased positive affect, however, compared to controls, depressed participants did not achieve the same level of positive affect, did not maintain their positive affect, spent less time rating their affect as happy, and demonstrated larger drops in mood. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that depressed and nondepressed individuals can generate positive reactions to happy scripts, but depressed individuals cannot achieve or sustain equivalent levels of positive affect. Interventions for depression might fruitfully focus on increasing depressed individuals' ability to maintain initial engagement with positive stimuli over a sustained period of time.

A novel application of the Intent to Attend assessment to reduce bias due to missing data in a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Missing data are unavoidable in most randomized controlled clinical trials, especially when measurements are taken repeatedly. If strong assumptions about the missing data are not accurate, crude statistical analyses are biased and can lead to false inferences. Furthermore, if we fail to measure all predictors of missing data, we may not be able to model the missing data process sufficiently. In longitudinal randomized trials, measuring a patient's intent to attend future study visits may help to address both of these problems. Leon et al. developed and included the Intent to Attend assessment in the Lithium Treatment - Moderate dose Use Study (LiTMUS), aiming to remove bias due to missing data from the primary study hypothesis. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to assess the performance of the Intent to Attend assessment with regard to its use in a sensitivity analysis of missing data. METHODS: We fit marginal models to assess whether a patient's self-rated intent predicted actual study adherence. We applied inverse probability of attrition weighting (IPAW) coupled with patient intent to assess whether there existed treatment group differences in response over time. We compared the IPAW results to those obtained using other methods. RESULTS: Patient-rated intent predicted missed study visits, even when adjusting for other predictors of missing data. On average, the hazard of retention increased by 19% for every one-point increase in intent. We also found that more severe mania, male gender, and a previously missed visit predicted subsequent absence. Although we found no difference in response between the randomized treatment groups, IPAW increased the estimated group difference over time. LIMITATIONS: LiTMUS was designed to limit missed study visits, which may have attenuated the effects of adjusting for missing data. Additionally, IPAW can be less efficient and less powerful than maximum likelihood or Bayesian estimators, given that the parametric model is well specified. CONCLUSIONS: In LiTMUS, the Intent to Attend assessment predicted missed study visits. This item was incorporated into our IPAW models and helped reduce bias due to informative missing data. This analysis should both encourage and facilitate future use of the Intent to Attend assessment along with IPAW to address missing data in a randomized trial.

Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness for Bipolar Disorder (Bipolar CHOICE): a pragmatic trial of complex treatment for a complex disorder.

BACKGROUND: Classic and second-generation antipsychotic mood stabilizers are recommended for treatment of bipolar disorder, yet there are no randomized comparative effectiveness studies that have examined the 'real-world' advantages and disadvantages of these medications. PURPOSE: We describe the strategic decisions in the design of the Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness for Bipolar Disorder (Bipolar CHOICE). This article outlines the key issues and solutions the investigators faced in designing a clinical trial that would maximize generalizability and inform real-world clinical treatment of bipolar disorder. METHODS: Bipolar CHOICE was a 6-month, multi-site, prospective, randomized clinical trial of outpatients with bipolar disorder. This study compares the effectiveness of quetiapine versus lithium, each with adjunctive personalized treatments (APTs). The co-primary outcomes selected are the overall benefits and harms of the study medications (as measured by the Clinical Global Impression-Efficacy Index) and the Necessary Clinical Adjustments (a measure of the number of medication changes). Secondary outcomes are continuous measures of mood, the Framingham General Cardiovascular Risk Score, and the Longitudinal Interval Follow up Evaluation Range of Impaired Functioning Tool (LIFE-RIFT). RESULTS: The final study design consisted of a single-blind, randomized comparative effectiveness trial of quetiapine versus lithium, plus APT, across 10 sites. Other important study considerations included limited exclusion criteria to maximize generalizability, flexible dosing of APT medications to mimic real-world treatment, and an intent-to-treat analysis plan. In all, 482 participants were randomized to the study, and 364 completed the study. LIMITATIONS: The potential limitations of the study include the heterogeneity of APT, selection of study medications, lack of a placebo-control group, and participants' ability to pay for study medications. CONCLUSION: We expect that this study will inform our understanding of the benefits and harms of lithium, a classic mood stabilizer, compared to quetiapine, a second-generation antipsychotic with broad-spectrum activity in bipolar disorder, and will provide an example of a well-designed and well-conducted randomized comparative effectiveness clinical trial.

Correlates and outcomes of depressed out-patients with greater and fewer anxious symptoms: a CO-MED report.

The objective of this paper was to determine whether the presence of more vs. fewer anxious symptom features, at baseline, are associated with other clinical features and treatment outcomes in out-patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). This single-blind, randomized trial enrolled 665 MDD out-patients to compare the efficacy of two antidepressant medication combinations against escitalopram after 12-wk acute treatment and follow-up (total 28 wk). The sample was divided into those with greater (vs. fewer) anxiety features using the anxiety/somatization subscale of the baseline 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Baseline sociodemographic and clinical features, treatment features and outcomes compared these two groups. Overall, 74.7% of participants met the threshold for 'anxious features'. They were more likely to be female, have other concurrent anxiety disorders, more severe depression, more lethargic and melancholic features and poorer cognitive and physical functioning, quality of life and work and social adjustment. In acute treatment, participants with anxious features received comparatively higher doses of mirtazapine and venlafaxine and reported more side-effects. The groups with and without anxious features did not differ in treatment outcomes and side-effect burden. Despite being associated with a distinct clinical profile, baseline anxious features were not clinically useful in predicting acute treatment outcomes or differential treatment response.

Methods to limit attrition in longitudinal comparative effectiveness trials: lessons from the Lithium Treatment - Moderate dose Use Study (LiTMUS) for bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: High attrition rates, which occur frequently in longitudinal clinical trials of interventions for bipolar disorder, limit the interpretation of results. PURPOSE: The aim of this article is to present design approaches that limited attrition in the Lithium Treatment - Moderate dose Use Study (LiTMUS) for bipolar disorder. METHODS: LiTMUS was a 6-month randomized, longitudinal multisite comparative effectiveness trial that enrolled bipolar participants who were at least mildly ill. Participants were randomized to either low to moderate doses of lithium or no lithium; other treatments needed for mood stabilization were administered in a guideline-informed, empirically supported, and personalized fashion to participants in both treatment arms. RESULTS: Components of the study design that may have contributed to low attrition (16%) among 283 participants randomized included the use of (1) an intent-to-treat design, (2) a randomized adjunctive single-blind design, (3) participant reimbursement, (4) assessment of intent to attend the next study visit (included a discussion of attendance obstacles when intention was low), (5) quality care with limited participant burden, and (6) target windows for study visits. LIMITATIONS: The relationships between attrition and effectiveness and tolerability of treatment have not been analyzed yet. CONCLUSIONS: These components of the LiTMUS design may have limited attrition and may inform the design of future randomized comparative effectiveness trials among similar patients and those from other difficult-to-follow populations.

Cardiometabolic risk markers during mood-stabilizing treatment: Correlation with drug-specific effects, depressive symptoms and treatment response.

BACKGROUND: Patients with bipolar disorder have higher rates of cardiometabolic comorbidities and mortality. Although guidelines emphasize the importance of cardiovascular monitoring, few studies characterized the cardiometabolic risk profile during treatment and their relation to symptomatology and treatment response. METHODS: We analyzed data from two similar 24-weeks comparative effectiveness trials, with a combined sample of 770 participants randomized to two different lithium doses, quetiapine (300 mg/day), or standard treatment without lithium. Glucose, lipids and vital signs were measured before and after 24 weeks of treatment. We calculated several cardiovascular risk scores, assessed baseline correlations and compared the four treatment arms via multiple linear regression models. RESULTS: Higher cholesterol and LDL levels were associated with greater depression severity, showing differential correlations to specific symptoms, particularly agitation, low energy and suicidality. Those randomized to quetiapine showed a significant worsening of cardiometabolic markers during the 24-week trial. Neither baseline nor change in lipid levels correlated with differential treatment response. LIMITATIONS: Study duration was short from the perspective of cardiometabolic risk markers, and all treatment arms included patients taking adjunct antipsychotics. The trials compared quetiapine to lithium, but not to other medications known to affect similar risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with 300 mg/day quetiapine for 24 weeks, representing a short and common dose course, resulted in increased cardiometabolic risk markers, emphasizing the importance of monitoring during mood-stabilizing treatment. The symptom-specific associations are in line with previous studies in unipolar depression, suggesting a cardiometabolic-depression link that needs to be further studied in bipolar depression.

Response and remission rates during 24 weeks of mood-stabilizing treatment for bipolar depression depending on early non-response.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to study the probability of bipolar depression response at 24 weeks given initial non-response. METHODS: We combined two multi-site, 24-week trials including similar populations following the same evidence-based guidelines randomizing patients to lithium or quetiapine. Additional mood-stabilizing treatment was possible if clinically indicated. We report cumulative proportions of response (>50% improvement in MADRS) and remission (MADRS<10). RESULTS: We included 592 participants with bipolar depression (mean 39 years, 59% female, mean MADRS 25). Among 393 (66%) participants without response after 2 weeks, 46% responded by 24 weeks; for 291 (49%) without response at 4 weeks, 40% responded and 33% remitted by 24 weeks; for 222 (38%) without a response at 6 weeks, 36% responded and 29% remitted by 24 weeks; for 185 (31%) without a response at 8 weeks, 29% responded and 24% remitted by 24 weeks. Rates were similar for participants who had started an additional mood-stabilizing drug during the first 6 or 8 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with bipolar depression and non-response after 6 weeks treatment, representing an adequate bipolar depression trial, only one-third responded by 24 weeks. These results highlight the need for better treatment alternatives for non-responders to evidence-based treatments for bipolar depression.

Effectiveness of adjunctive antidepressant treatment for bipolar depression.

BACKGROUND: Episodes of depression are the most frequent cause of disability among patients with bipolar disorder. The effectiveness and safety of standard antidepressant agents for depressive episodes associated with bipolar disorder (bipolar depression) have not been well studied. Our study was designed to determine whether adjunctive antidepressant therapy reduces symptoms of bipolar depression without increasing the risk of mania. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we randomly assigned subjects with bipolar depression to receive up to 26 weeks of treatment with a mood stabilizer plus adjunctive antidepressant therapy or a mood stabilizer plus a matching placebo, under conditions generalizable to routine clinical care. A standardized clinical monitoring form adapted from the mood-disorder modules of the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, was used at all follow-up visits. The primary outcome was the percentage of subjects in each treatment group meeting the criterion for a durable recovery (8 consecutive weeks of euthymia). Secondary effectiveness outcomes and rates of treatment-emergent affective switch (a switch to mania or hypomania early in the course of treatment) were also examined. RESULTS: Forty-two of the 179 subjects (23.5%) receiving a mood stabilizer plus adjunctive antidepressant therapy had a durable recovery, as did 51 of the 187 subjects (27.3%) receiving a mood stabilizer plus a matching placebo (P=0.40). Modest nonsignificant trends favoring the group receiving a mood stabilizer plus placebo were observed across the secondary outcomes. Rates of treatment-emergent affective switch were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of adjunctive, standard antidepressant medication, as compared with the use of mood stabilizers, was not associated with increased efficacy or with increased risk of treatment-emergent affective switch. Longer-term outcome studies are needed to fully assess the benefits and risks of antidepressant therapy for bipolar disorder. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00012558 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Early adverse events and attrition in selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment: a suicide assessment methodology study report.

Adverse events during selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) treatment are frequent and may lead to premature treatment discontinuation. If attrition is associated with early worsening of adverse effects or the frequency, intensity, or burden of adverse effects, interventions to maximize retention could be focused on patients with these events. Outpatient participants (n = 265) with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder entered an 8-week trial with an SSRI. At baseline and week 2, specific adverse effects were evaluated with the Systematic Assessment for Treatment Emergent Events--Systematic Inquiry, and at week 2, the Frequency, Intensity, and Burden of Side Effects Rating globally assessed adverse effects. Attrition was defined by those participants who left treatment after week 2 but before week 8. No specific week 2 adverse effect, either treatment-emergent or with worsening intensity, was independently associated with attrition. Global ratings of adverse effect frequency, intensity, or burden at week 2 were also not associated with subsequent attrition. Neither global ratings nor specific adverse effects at week 2 were related to patient attrition during SSRI treatment. Other factors seem to contribute to patient decisions about continuing with treatment.

Correlation between patient and clinician assessments of depression severity in the PREVENT study.

BACKGROUND: The degree of agreement between patient- and clinician-rated scales of depressive severity varies widely. This study analyzed agreement between commonly used depression rating scales in the Prevention of Recurrent Episodes of Depression with Venlafaxine Extended Release (ER) for Two Years (PREVENT) trial. METHODS: The PREVENT trial was a multiphase, randomized, double-blind study of patients with recurrent major depressive disorder. This secondary analysis evaluated acute (10weeks) and continuation phase (6months) data. Pearson correlation coefficients at each acute-phase (weekly) and continuation-phase (monthly) visit were calculated for patient-rated (30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Rated [IDS-SR30] and clinician-rated (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D17] and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity [CGI-S]) measures and for response and remission. RESULTS: Data from 1,047 patients were analyzed. The respective correlation coefficients at baseline, week 10, and month 6 were: IDS-SR30: HAM-D17: 0.46, 0.75, 0.70; and for IDS-SR30: CGI-S 0.28, 0.67, 0.65. Agreement between IDS-SR30- and HAM-D17-defined remission and response was relatively poor: week 10, 0.52 and 0.34, respectively; month 6, 0.45 and 0.32, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that patient-rated measures of depression severity do not correspond strongly with clinician ratings, and are particularly poor prior to the initiation of treatment.

Linkage disequilibrium mapping of the chromosome 6q21-22.31 bipolar I disorder susceptibility locus.

We previously reported genome-wide significant evidence for linkage between chromosome 6q and bipolar I disorder (BPI) by performing a meta-analysis of original genotype data from 11 genome scan linkage studies. We now present follow-up linkage disequilibrium mapping of the linked region utilizing 3,047 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers in a case-control sample (N = 530 cases, 534 controls) and family-based sample (N = 256 nuclear families, 1,301 individuals). The strongest single SNP result (rs6938431, P = 6.72 x 10(-5)) was observed in the case-control sample, near the solute carrier family 22, member 16 gene (SLC22A16). In a replication study, we genotyped 151 SNPs in an independent sample (N = 622 cases, 1,181 controls) and observed further evidence of association between variants at SLC22A16 and BPI. Although consistent evidence of association with any single variant was not seen across samples, SNP-wise and gene-based test results in the three samples provided convergent evidence for association with SLC22A16, a carnitine transporter, implicating this gene as a novel candidate for BPI risk. Further studies in larger samples are warranted to clarify which, if any, genes in the 6q region confer risk for bipolar disorder.