The Efficacy and Tolerability of Continuation and Maintenance Electroconvulsive Therapy for Depression: A Systematic Review of Randomized and Observational Studies.

ABSTRACT: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a highly effective treatment for severe and treatment-resistant depression, but relapse rates remain high despite maintenance pharmacotherapy. Continuation or maintenance ECT (C/M-ECT) offers the potential to prevent relapses in the most unwell patients, but there remains disagreement among guidelines regarding its efficacy and tolerability. This review aims to summarize and assess the current evidence for the efficacy and tolerability of continuation and maintenance ECT for depression, including data from randomized and observational studies, which included an appropriate control group. Twenty studies were found meeting inclusion criteria. There was evidence from 14 studies suggesting that relapse rates are reduced in those receiving C/M-ECT. There was evidence from 6 studies suggesting that C/M-ECT had no effect on global cognitive function. Detailed neuropsychological testing was limited, but within studies that assessed specific cognitive domains, there was not consistent evidence for deficits in C/M-ECT compared with the control group. The certainty of evidence across outcomes was low or very low because of inclusion of observational studies, heterogeneity of study design, and patient populations. The findings add further weight to evidence suggesting that C/M-ECT is a viable treatment option to prevent relapse in severe depression and provides clinicians with further evidence for the benefits and risks of C/M-ECT when discussing treatment options with patients. Future research should focus on randomized or well-designed prospective studies with sufficient follow-up to determine longer-term outcomes, while including a standardized, detailed neurocognitive battery to assess potential adverse effects.

Neurotrophins, cytokines, oxidative stress mediators and mood state in bipolar disorder: systematic review and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: A reliable biomarker signature for bipolar disorder sensitive to illness phase would be of considerable clinical benefit. Among circulating blood-derived markers there has been a significant amount of research into inflammatory markers, neurotrophins and oxidative stress markers.AimsTo synthesise and interpret existing evidence of inflammatory markers, neurotrophins and oxidative stress markers in bipolar disorder focusing on the mood phase of illness. METHOD: Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, a systematic review was conducted for studies investigating peripheral biomarkers in bipolar disorder compared with healthy controls. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, SciELO and Web of Science, and separated studies by bipolar mood phase (mania, depression and euthymia). Extracted data on each biomarker in separate mood phases were synthesised using random-effects model meta-analyses. RESULTS: In total, 53 studies were included, comprising 2467 cases and 2360 controls. Fourteen biomarkers were identified from meta-analyses of three or more studies. No biomarker differentiated mood phase in bipolar disorder individually. Biomarker meta-analyses suggest a combination of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein/interleukin-6, brain derived neurotrophic factor/tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α and soluble TNF-α receptor 1 can differentiate specific mood phase in bipolar disorder. Several other biomarkers of interest were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Combining biomarker results could differentiate individuals with bipolar disorder from healthy controls and indicate a specific mood-phase signature. Future research should seek to test these combinations of biomarkers in longitudinal studies.Declaration of interestNone.

The views of early intervention service staff on the treatment of first episode bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about how first episode bipolar disorder (BD) is managed in early intervention for psychosis services (EIS). We aimed to investigate the knowledge and views of EIS staff on the assessment and treatment of BD. METHODS: A 27-item anonymised online questionnaire was distributed to EIS mental health professionals in England. Descriptive data analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Responses were received from 117 EIS staff. Most were 'fairly confident' in their knowledge about causes, presentations and relapse indicators of BD, but less confident on pharmacological and psychological treatments. Eighty five percent expressed the view that more BD training was necessary in this area with 78% reporting no clear care packages within the service. Seventy two percent believe early BD should be treated within EIS only if patients have psychosis. CONCLUSIONS: Clearer care packages and staff training are needed for EIS staff to optimise care for BD.

Short-term outcome of first episode delusional disorder in an early intervention population.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence suggests that delusional disorder has a later onset and better functional outcomes compared to schizophrenia. However, studies have not examined longitudinal outcomes in a first episode population, where confounding factors may be adjusted for. METHODS: A nested case control study was designed within the National EDEN study; a cohort of 1027 first episode psychosis patients. Patients with a baseline diagnosis of delusional disorder (n = 48) were compared with schizophrenia (n = 262) at 6 and 12 months with respect to symptomatic and functional outcomes. Regression analysis was used to adjust for possible confounders. RESULTS: Delusional disorder patients had a shorter duration of untreated psychosis compared to schizophrenia but were similar in other baseline characteristics. At baseline, delusional disorder patients had lower symptom scores but higher function scores compared to those with schizophrenia. At 12 months the differences persisted for symptoms scores but not overall function scores. After adjusting for baseline score, age and duration of untreated psychosis, differences between the groups remained significant only for Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANNS) negative, general and total scores and recovery rates. There were no differences in changes in outcomes scores. CONCLUSIONS: Delusional disorder in a first episode psychosis population presents with less severe symptoms, higher recovery rates and better functioning than schizophrenia, but at 12 months differences are ameliorated when adjusting for baseline differences.

Epidemiology and risk factors for bipolar disorder.

Bipolar disorder is a multifactorial illness with uncertain aetiology. Knowledge of potential risk factors enables clinicians to identify patients who are more likely to develop bipolar disorder, which directs further investigation, follow up and caution when prescribing. Ideally, identifying directly causative factors for bipolar disorder would enable intervention on an individual or population level to prevent the development of the illness, and improve outcomes through earlier treatment. This article reviews the epidemiology of bipolar disorder, along with putative demographic, genetic and environmental risk factors, while assessing the strength of these associations and to what extent they might be said to be 'causative'. While numerous genetic and environmental risk factors have been identified, the attributable risk of individual factors is often small, and most are not specific to bipolar disorder but are associated with several mental illnesses. Therefore, while some genetic and environmental factors have strong evidence supporting their association with bipolar disorder, fewer have sufficient evidence to establish causality. There is increasing interest in the role of specific gene-environment interactions, as well as the mechanisms by which risk factors interact to lead to bipolar disorder.