Early Nonresponse in the Antipsychotic Treatment of Acute Mania: A Criterion for Reconsidering Treatment? Results From an Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether early nonresponse to antipsychotic treatment of acute mania predicts treatment failure and, if so, to establish the best definition or criterion of an early nonresponse. DATA SOURCES: Short-term efficacy studies assessing antipsychotics that were submitted to the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board during an 11-year period as part of the marketing authorization application for the indication of acute manic episode of bipolar disorder. Pharmaceutical companies provided their raw patient data, which enabled us to perform an individual patient data meta-analysis. STUDY SELECTION: All double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials assessing the efficacy of antipsychotics for acute manic episode of bipolar disorder were included (10 trials). DATA EXTRACTION: All patients with data available for completer analysis (N = 1,243), symptom severity scores on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) at weeks 0, 1, and 2 and at study end point (week 3 or 4). RESULTS: The a priori chances of nonresponse and nonremission at study end point were 40.9% (95% CI, 38.2%-43.6%) and 65.3% (95% CI, 62.0%-68.6%), respectively. Early nonresponse in weeks 1 and 2, defined by cutoff scores ranging from a ≤ 10% to a ≤ 50% reduction in symptoms compared to baseline on the YMRS, significantly predicted nonresponse (≤ 0% symptom reduction) and nonremission (YMRS score higher than 8) in week 3. The predictive value of early nonresponse (PVnr_se) at week 1 for both nonresponse and nonremission at study end point declined linearly with increasing cutoff scores of early nonresponse; nonresponse: 76.0% (95% CI, 69.7%-82.3%) for a ≤ 10% response to 48.7% (95% CI, 45.5%-51.9%) for a ≤ 50% response; nonremission: 92.2% (95% CI, 88.3%-96.1%) for a ≤ 10% response to 76.8% (95% CI, 74.4%-79.5%) for a ≤ 50% response. A similar linear decline was observed for increasing cutoff scores of early nonresponse at week 2 for nonresponse, but not for nonremission at end point: nonresponse 90.3% (95% CI, 84.6%-96.0%) for a ≤ 10% response to 65.0% (95% CI, 61.4%-68.6%) for a ≤ 50% response; nonremission: 94.2% (95% CI, 89.7%-98.7%) for a ≤ 10% response and 93.2% (95% CI, 93.1%-95.1%) for a ≤ 50% response. Specific antipsychotic characteristics did not modify these findings at either time point (week 1: P = .127; week 2: P = .213). CONCLUSIONS: When patients fail to respond early (1-2 weeks) after the initiation of antipsychotic treatment for acute mania, clinicians should reconsider their treatment choice using a 2-stage strategy.

Does Insight Affect the Efficacy of Antipsychotics in Acute Mania?: An Individual Patient Data Regression Meta-Analysis.

Patients having an acute manic episode of bipolar disorder often lack insight into their condition. Because little is known about the possible effect of insight on treatment efficacy, we examined whether insight at the start of treatment affects the efficacy of antipsychotic treatment in patients with acute mania. We used individual patient data from 7 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled registration studies of 4 antipsychotics in patients with acute mania (N = 1904). Insight was measured with item 11 of the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) at baseline and study endpoint 3 weeks later. Treatment outcome was defined by (a) mean change score, (b) response defined as 50% or more improvement on YMRS, and (c) remission defined as YMRS score less than 8 at study endpoint. We used multilevel mixed effect linear (or logistic) regression analyses of individual patient data to assess the interaction between baseline insight and treatment outcomes. At treatment initiation, 1207 (63.5%) patients had impaired or no insight into their condition. Level of insight significantly modified the efficacy of treatment by mean change score (P = 0.039), response rate (P = 0.033), and remission rate (P = 0.043), with greater improvement in patients with more impaired insight. We therefore recommend that patients experiencing acute mania should be treated immediately and not be delayed until patients regain insight.

Efficacy of drug treatment for acute mania differs across geographic regions: An individual patient data meta-analysis of placebo-controlled studies.

Given globalization trends in the conduct of clinical trials, the external validity of trial results across geographic regions is questioned. The objective of this study was to examine the efficacy of treatment in acute mania in bipolar disorder across regions and to explain potential differences by differences in patient characteristics. We performed a meta-analysis of individual patient data from 12 registration studies for the indication acute manic episode of bipolar disorder. Patients (n = 3207) were classified into one of three geographic regions: Europe (n = 981), USA (n = 1270), and other regions (n = 956). Primary outcome measures were mean symptom change score on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) from baseline to endpoint and responder status (50% improvement form baseline). Effect sizes were significantly smaller in the USA (g = 0.203, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.062-0.344; odds ratio (OR) 1.406, 95% CI 0.998-1.980) than in Europe (g = 0.476, 95% CI 0.200-0.672; OR 2.380, 95% CI 1.682-3.368) or other regions (g = 0.533, 95% CI 0.399-0.667; OR 2.300, 95% CI 1.800-2.941). Regional differences in age, gender, initial severity, body mass index, placebo response, discontinuation rate, and type of compound could not explain the geographic differences in effect. Less severe symptoms at baseline in the US patients did explain some of the difference in responder status between patients in Europe and the USA. These findings suggest that the results of studies involving patients with acute mania cannot be extrapolated across geographic regions. Similar findings have been identified in schizophrenia, contraceptive, and in cardiovascular trials. Therefore, this finding may indicate a more general problem regarding the generalizability of pharmacological trials over geographic regions.