Screening for bipolar disorder in a county jail at the time of criminal arrest.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the operating characteristics of the mood disorder questionnaire (MDQ) among offenders arrested and detained at a county jail. METHOD: The MDQ, a brief self-report instrument designed to screen for all subtypes of bipolar disorder (BP I, II and NOS) was voluntarily administered to adult detainees at the Ottawa County Jail in Port Clinton, Ohio. A confirmatory diagnostic evaluation was also performed using the mini-international neuropsychiatric interview (MINI). The MDQ was scored using a standard algorithm requiring endorsement of 7/13 mood items as well as two items that assess whether manic or hypomanic symptoms co-occur and cause moderate to severe functional impairment. In addition to the standard algorithm for scoring the MDQ, modifications were also tested in an attempt to improve overall sensitivity. RESULTS: Among 526 jail detainees who completed the MDQ, 37 (7%) screened positive for bipolar disorder. Of 164 detainees who agreed to a research diagnostic evaluation, 32 (19.5%) screened positive on the MDQ, while 55 (33.5%) met criteria for bipolar disorder according to the MINI. When administered to the sample of 164 adult jail detainees, the sensitivity of the MDQ was 0.47 and the specificity was 0.94. The MDQ was significantly better at detecting BP I (0.59) than BP II/NOS (0.19; p=0.008). Modification of scoring the MDQ improved the sensitivity for detection of BP II from 0.23 to 0.54 with minimal decrease in specificity (0.84). The optimum sensitivity and specificity of the MDQ was achieved by decreasing the item threshold to 3/13 and eliminating the symptom co-occurrence and functional impairment items. CONCLUSION: The MDQ was found to have limited utility as a screening tool for bipolar disorder in a correctional setting, particularly for the BP II subtype.

Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of bipolar spectrum disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey replication.

CONTEXT: There is growing recognition that bipolar disorder (BPD) has a spectrum of expression that is substantially more common than the 1% BP-I prevalence traditionally found in population surveys. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence, correlates, and treatment patterns of bipolar spectrum disorder in the US population. DESIGN: Direct interviews. SETTING: Households in the continental United States. PARTICIPANTS: A nationally representative sample of 9282 English-speaking adults (aged >or=18 years). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Version 3.0 of the World Health Organization's Composite International Diagnostic Interview, a fully structured lay-administered diagnostic interview, was used to assess DSM-IV lifetime and 12-month Axis I disorders. Subthreshold BPD was defined as recurrent hypomania without a major depressive episode or with fewer symptoms than required for threshold hypomania. Indicators of clinical severity included age at onset, chronicity, symptom severity, role impairment, comorbidity, and treatment. RESULTS: Lifetime (and 12-month) prevalence estimates are 1.0% (0.6%) for BP-I, 1.1% (0.8%) for BP-II, and 2.4% (1.4%) for subthreshold BPD. Most respondents with threshold and subthreshold BPD had lifetime comorbidity with other Axis I disorders, particularly anxiety disorders. Clinical severity and role impairment are greater for threshold than for subthreshold BPD and for BP-II than for BP-I episodes of major depression, but subthreshold cases still have moderate to severe clinical severity and role impairment. Although most people with BPD receive lifetime professional treatment for emotional problems, use of antimanic medication is uncommon, especially in general medical settings. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents the first prevalence estimates of the BPD spectrum in a probability sample of the United States. Subthreshold BPD is common, clinically significant, and underdetected in treatment settings. Inappropriate treatment of BPD is a serious problem in the US population. Explicit criteria are needed to define subthreshold BPD for future clinical and research purposes.

Prevalence and effects of mood disorders on work performance in a nationally representative sample of U.S. workers.

OBJECTIVE: Research on the workplace costs of mood disorders has focused largely on major depressive episodes. Bipolar disorder has been overlooked both because of the failure to distinguish between major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder and by the failure to evaluate the workplace costs of mania/hypomania. METHOD: The National Comorbidity Survey Replication assessed major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder with the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and work impairment with the WHO Health and Work Performance Questionnaire. A regression analysis of major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder predicting Health and Work Performance Questionnaire scores among 3,378 workers was used to estimate the workplace costs of mood disorders. RESULTS: A total of 1.1% of the workers met CIDI criteria for 12-month bipolar disorder (I or II), and 6.4% meet criteria for 12-month major depressive disorder. Bipolar disorder was associated with 65.5 and major depressive disorder with 27.2 lost workdays per ill worker per year. Subgroup analysis showed that the higher work loss associated with bipolar disorder than with major depressive disorder was due to more severe and persistent depressive episodes in those with bipolar disorder than in those with major depressive disorder rather than to stronger effects of mania/hypomania than depression. CONCLUSIONS: Employer interest in workplace costs of mood disorders should be broadened beyond major depressive disorder to include bipolar disorder. Effectiveness trials are needed to study the return on employer investment of coordinated programs for workplace screening and treatment of bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder.

Quetiapine in the treatment of anxiety in patients with bipolar I or II depression: a secondary analysis from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: Quetiapine monotherapy shows efficacy in bipolar depression. The analyses in this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, fixed-dose, placebo-controlled study evaluated effects of quetiapine monotherapy on anxiety symptoms in bipolar depression. METHOD: Of 542 outpatients randomly assigned to treatment, 539 with bipolar I (N = 358) or bipolar II (N = 181) disorder experiencing a major depressive episode (DSM-IV) received 8 weeks of quetiapine monotherapy (600 or 300 mg/day) or placebo between September 2002 and October 2003. Anxiety assessments included the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) and relevant items from the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). Analyses evaluated the pooled dose groups versus placebo. RESULTS: At week 8, quetiapine 600 and 300 mg/day each demonstrated significant improvements in HAM-A total score versus placebo (-10.8 and -9.9 vs. -6.7, p < .001). Quetiapine (pooled doses) significantly improved HAM-A total score from week 1. In bipolar I depression, quetiapine showed significant improvement in HAM-A total score versus placebo (-10.4 vs. -5.1, p < .001). In bipolar I depression, quetiapine also showed significant improvements versus placebo on the HAM-A anxious mood and tension items, HAM-A psychic and somatic subscales, MADRS inner tension item, and HAM-D psychic anxiety item (all p < .001), but not the HAM-D somatic anxiety item. In bipolar II depression, quetiapine reduced the HAM-A total score more than placebo, but the difference was not statistically significant (-9.8 vs. -9.0, p = .473). In bipolar II depression, quetiapine showed significant improvement versus placebo on the HAM-A anxious mood, MADRS inner tension, and HAM-D psychic anxiety items (all p < .01). CONCLUSION: Quetiapine monotherapy shows efficacy in treating anxiety symptoms in bipolar I depression; however, the anxiolytic effects in bipolar II disorder require further investigation.

Atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of mania: a meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Randomized, controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy for atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of mania in bipolar disorder, either as monotherapy or adjunctive treatment. However, there are no published comparisons of individual atypical antipsychotics for mania. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled monotherapy and adjunctive therapy trials of atypical antipsychotics for acute bipolar mania. Studies published through 2004 were identified using searches of PubMed/MEDLINE with the search terms mania, placebo, and each of the atypical antipsychotics, limited to randomized, controlled clinical trials; review of abstracts from the 2003 meetings of the American College of Neuropsychiatry, American Psychiatric Association, and International Conference on Bipolar Disorder; and consultations with study investigators and representatives of pharmaceutical companies that market atypical antipsychotics. DATA EXTRACTION: Analyses were performed on the changes in Young Mania Rating Scale or Mania Rating Scale total scores from baseline to endpoint, using last observation carried forward and computing the difference in change scores between each drug and its corresponding placebo arm. A random-effects model with fixed drug effects was used to combine the studies and make comparisons of the antipsychotics to each other and to placebo. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data from 12 placebo-controlled monotherapy and 6 placebo-controlled adjunctive therapy trials involving a total of 4304 subjects (including 1750 placebo-treated subjects) with bipolar mania were obtained. Aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone all demonstrated significant efficacy in monotherapy (i.e., all confidence intervals exclude zero). However, after adjusting for multiple comparisons, pairwise comparisons of individual effects identified no significant differences in efficacy among antipsychotics. Magnitude of improvement was similar whether the antipsychotic was utilized as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The 5 newer atypical antipsychotics were all superior to placebo in the treatment of bipolar mania. For monotherapy and add-on therapy, cross-trial comparisons suggest that differences in acute efficacy between the drugs, if any, are likely to be small.

Validation of the Mood Disorder Questionnaire for bipolar disorders in adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: The study was designed to determine the validity of the Mood Disorder Questionnaire-Adolescent Version (MDQ-A) as a screening instrument for bipolar disorders (I, II, not otherwise specified, and cyclothymia) in an adolescent outpatient psychiatric population. METHOD: 104 adolescents and their parents completed the MDQ-A. Three versions of the MDQ-A were compared: (1) self report of symptoms by adolescent, (2) attributional report-how the adolescent believed teachers or friends would report his/her symptoms, and (3) parent report of adolescent's symptoms. DSM-IV diagnosis was made based upon the clinician-administered Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL), a semistructured diagnostic interview. MDQ-A items were summed, yielding a score for each adolescent ranging from 0 to 13 on each of the 3 MDQ-A versions. Each possible scoring threshold, in combination with co-occurrence of symptoms and behaviors and with moderate to serious problems caused by symptoms, was crossed with the results of the K-SADS-PL diagnostic interview to assess sensitivity and specificity. The study was conducted from April 2002 to September 2003. RESULTS: A score of 5 or more items on the parent version yielded a sensitivity of 0.72 and specificity of 0.81, which were superior to self and attributional versions. CONCLUSIONS: The MDQ-A completed by parents about their adolescents' symptoms may be a useful screening instrument for bipolar disorders in an adolescent psychiatric outpatient population.

Validity of the assessment of bipolar spectrum disorders in the WHO CIDI 3.0.

OBJECTIVE: Although growing interest exists in the bipolar spectrum, fully structured diagnostic interviews might not accurately assess bipolar spectrum disorders. A validity study was carried out for diagnoses of threshold and sub-threshold bipolar disorders (BPD) based on the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). CIDI BPD screening scales were also evaluated. METHOD: The NCS-R is a nationally representative US household population survey (n=9282 using CIDI to assess DSM-IV disorders. CIDI diagnoses were evaluated in blinded clinical reappraisal interviews using the non-patient version of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID). RESULTS: Excellent CIDI-SCID concordance was found for lifetime BP-I (AUC=.99 kappa=.88, PPV=.79, NPV=1.0), either BP-II or sub-threshold BPD (AUC=.96, kappa=.88, PPV=.85, NPV=.99), and overall bipolar spectrum disorders (i.e., BP-I/II or sub-threshold BPD; AUC=.99, kappa=.94, PPV=.88, NPV=1.0). Concordance was lower for BP-II (AUC=.83, kappa=.50, PPV=.41, NPV=.99) and sub-threshold BPD (AUC=.73, kappa=.51, PPV=.58, NPV=.99). The CIDI was unbiased compared to the SCID, yielding a lifetime bipolar spectrum disorders prevalence estimate of 4.4%. Brief CIDI-based screening scales detected 67-96% of true cases with positive predictive value of 31-52%. LIMITATION: CIDI prevalence estimates are still probably conservative, though, but might be improved with future CIDI revisions based on new methodological studies with a clinical assessment more sensitive than the SCID to sub-threshold BPD. CONCLUSIONS: Bipolar spectrum disorders are much more prevalent than previously realized. The CIDI is capable of generating conservative diagnoses of both threshold and sub-threshold BPD. Short CIDI-based scales are useful screens for BPD.

The distinct temperament profiles of bipolar I, bipolar II and unipolar patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite a plethora of studies, controversies abound on whether the long-term traits of unipolar and bipolar patients could be differentiated by temperament and whether these traits, in turn, could be distinguished from subthreshold affective symptomatology. METHODS: 98 bipolar I (BP-I), 64 bipolar II (BP-II), and 251 unipolar major depressive disorder (UP-MDD) patients all when recovered from discrete affective episodes) and 617 relatives, spouses or acquaintances without lifetime RDC diagnoses (the comparison group, CG) were administered a battery of 17 self-rated personality scales chosen for theoretical relevance to mood disorders. Subsamples of each of the four groups also received the General Behavior Inventory (GBI). RESULTS: Of the 436 personality items, 103 that significantly distinguished the three patient groups were subjected to principal components analysis, yielding four factors which reflect the temperamental dimensions of "Mood Lability", "Energy-Assertiveness," "Sensitivity-Brooding," and "Social Anxiety." Most BP-I described themselves as near normal in emotional stability and extroversion; BP-II emerged as labile in mood, energetic and assertive, yet sensitive and brooding; MDD were socially timid, sensitive and brooding. Gender and age did not have marked influence on these overall profiles. Within the MDD group, those with baseline dysthymia were the most pathological (i.e., high in neuroticism, insecurity and introversion). Selected GBI items measuring hypomania and biphasic mood changes were endorsed significantly more often by BP-II. Finally, it is relevant to highlight a methodologic finding about the precision these derived temperament factors brought to the UP-BP differentiation. Unlike BP-I who were low on neuroticism, both BP-II and UP scored high on this measure: yet, in the case of BP-II high neuroticism was largely due to mood lability, in UP it reflected subdepressive traits. LIMITATION: We used self-rated personality measures, a possible limitation generic to the paper-and-pencil personality literature. It is therefore likely that BP-I may have over-rated their "sanguinity"; or should one consider such self-report as a reliable reflection of one's temperament? One can raise similar unanswerable questions about "depressiveness" and "mood lability." CONCLUSION: As contrasted to CG and published norms, the postmorbid self-described "usual" personality is 1) sanguine among many, but not all, BP-I; 2) labile or cyclothymic among BP-II; and 3) subanxious and subdepressive among UP. It is further noteworthy that with the exception of BP-II, the temperament scores of BP-I and MDD were within one SD from published norms. Rather than being pathological, these attributes are best conceived as subclinical temperamental variants of the normal, thereby supporting the notion of continuity between interepisodic and episodic phases of affective disorders. These findings overall are in line with Kraepelin's views and contrary to the DSM-IV formulation of axis-II constructs as being pathological and sharply demarcated from affective episodes.

An open-label extension trial of risperidone monotherapy in the treatment of bipolar I disorder.

The primary objective of this 9-week open-label extension trial was to assess the effects of risperidone monotherapy in patients with acute bipolar I disorder who completed treatment in two preceding 3-week double-blind trials. Patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, experiencing an acute manic episode, received a flexible dose of risperidone (1-6 mg/day) or placebo in two independent double-blind, randomized, 3-week monotherapy trials. Completers who required ongoing treatment were eligible to enter this open-label 9-week extension trial during which all patients received risperidone. The primary efficacy measure was the mean change in the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score. Secondary efficacy measures included the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity Scale, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and Global Assessment Scale. Safety assessments included adverse event reports, laboratory tests, and the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS). Of the 283 patients who entered the extension study, 160 had previously received risperidone (RIS/RIS) in the acute treatment trial and 123 had received placebo (PLA/RIS). This study was completed by 71% of these patients. The mean+/-SE modal dose of risperidone was 4.6+/-1.5 mg/day. Patients in both the RIS/RIS and PLA/RIS groups improved significantly at the endpoint of the 9-week open-label study compared to their open-label baseline scores (-5.2+/-0.69, P<0.001 and -9.12+/-1.44, P<0.001, respectively) on the YMRS. Furthermore, changes from double-blind baseline to open-label endpoint were -29.4+/-1.0 in the RIS/RIS group and -23.9+/-1.4 in the PLA/RIS group. Significant improvements from both double-blind and open-label baseline were seen at week 1 of the open-label trial (P<0.001) and at each subsequent timepoint. A similar pattern was observed on the secondary measures of efficacy. Most frequent adverse events were extrapyramidal disorder (18%) and somnolence (12%). Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. The mean score for the Parkinsonism subscale of the ESRS was 1.1 at open-label baseline, and decreased by 0.1 at endpoint. Mean increase in body weight from open-label baseline was 0.6 kg in patients treated with placebo in the preceding double-blind trial and 1.2 kg in patients previously treated with risperidone. Risperidone treatment was well tolerated and resulted in further improvement during the 9-week extension, beyond the 3 weeks of acute treatment. Patients switched from placebo to risperidone improved markedly. Risperidone treatment did not induce depression.

Predictors of bipolar disorder risk among patients currently treated for major depression.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to assess the rate of bipolar disorder (BPD) risk among patients unsuccessfully treated for major depression and to identify predictors of bipolarity. PATIENTS, DESIGN, AND SETTING: Psychiatrists from community and private practice settings sequentially selected patients with unipolar depression who exhibited nonresponse to at least 1 antidepressant (AD) trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients self-reported their demographics, family history, comorbid health status, and legal problems. Current depression symptoms were assessed via the Centers for Epidemiologic Studies--Depression (CES-D) scale. Bipolar screening was performed using the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ). A psychiatrist recorded patient history and current and prior AD medication use. RESULTS: Of 602 patients enrolled, 18.6% screened positive on the MDQ. This rate was not affected by the number of prior AD failures or patient demographics. A prior history of BPD was reported by 12.3% of patients of which the psychiatrist was not aware or did not report, and 41.2% of these patients were MDQ+. Stepwise logistic regression identified 5 variables associated with bipolar disorder risk: the CES-D item "people were unfriendly," comorbid anxiety, initial depression diagnosis within 5 years, family history of BPD, and legal problems. In the subset of patients with complete data for the 5 variables (n = 483), 41.3% of the patients endorsing any 3 or more risk factors (n = 109) were MDQ+. CONCLUSIONS: Almost 20% of patients with AD nonresponsive unipolar depression screened positive for BPD and the number of past medication trials had no effect on bipolarity. This suggests that clinicians should carefully screen for BPD in patients who have failed at least 1 antidepressant. Comorbid anxiety, feelings of people being unfriendly, recent depression diagnosis, BPD family history, and legal problems may prove useful indicators of BPD risk among patients who have failed at least 1 antidepressant. Future studies are needed to confirm that these risk factors are useful clinical variables to screen for bipolarity.

The Texas implementation of medication algorithms: update to the algorithms for treatment of bipolar I disorder.

BACKGROUND: A panel consisting of academic psychiatrists and pharmacist administrators of the Texas Department of State Health Services (formerly Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation), community mental health physicians, advocates, and consumers met in May 2004 to review new evidence in the pharmacologic treatment of bipolar I disorder (BDI). The goal of the consensus conference was to update and revise the current treatment algorithm for BDI as part of the Texas Implementation of Medication Algorithms, a statewide quality assurance program for the treatment of major psychiatric illness. The guidelines for evaluating possible medications, the criteria for selection and ranking, and the updated algorithms are described. METHOD: Principles from previous consensus conferences were reviewed and amended. Medication algorithms for the acute treatment of hypomanic/manic or mixed and depressive episodes in BDI were developed after examining recent efficacy and safety and tolerability data. Recommendations for maintenance treatments were developed. RESULTS: The panel updated the 2 primary algorithms (hypomanic/manic/mixed and depressive) based on clinical evidence for efficacy, tolerability, and safety developed since 2000. Expert consensus was utilized where clinical evidence was limited. Prevention of new episodes or prophylaxis treatment recommendations were developed based on recent data from longer-term trials. Maintenance recommendations are provided as levels versus a specified staged algorithm, as for acute treatment, due to the relatively limited database to inform treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These algorithms for the treatment of BDI represent the recommendations based on the most recent evidence available. These recommendations are meant to provide a framework for clinical decision making, not to replace clinical judgment. As with any algorithm, treatment practices will evolve beyond the recommendations of this consensus conference as new evidence and additional medications become available.

Double-blind switch study of imipramine or sertraline treatment of antidepressant-resistant chronic depression.

BACKGROUND: Although various strategies have been proposed to treat antidepressant nonresponders, little controlled research has been published that examines prospectively the use of switching to an alternate antidepressant. METHODS: This was a multisite study in which outpatients with chronic major depression (with or without concurrent dysthymia), who failed to respond to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with either sertraline hydrochloride (n = 117) or imipramine hydrochloride (n = 51), were crossed over or switched to 12 additional weeks of double-blind treatment with the alternate medication. Outcome measures included the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and the Clinical Global Impressions--Severity and Improvement scales. RESULTS: The switch from sertraline to imipramine (mean dosage, 221 mg/d) and from imipramine to sertraline (mean dosage, 163 mg/d) resulted in clinically and statistically significant improvements. The switch to sertraline treatment was associated with fewer adverse effect complaints and significantly less attrition owing to adverse effects. Although sertraline treatment also resulted in significantly higher response rates in the intent-to-treat samples (60% in the sertraline group and 44% in the imipramine group), neither the intent-to-treat remission rates nor the response and remission rates among study completers differed significantly. Moreover, after considering the effect of attrition, there were no significant treatment effects on the more comprehensive generalized estimating equation analyses of the continuous dependent measures. CONCLUSIONS: More than 50% of chronically depressed antidepressant nonresponders benefited from a switch from imipramine to sertraline, or vice versa, despite a high degree of chronicity. As in the initial trial, sertraline was generally better tolerated than imipramine. Switching to a standard antidepressant of a different class is a useful treatment strategy for antidepressant nonresponders and could be considered a standard of comparison for future studies of novel alternate strategies.

Effectiveness and medical costs of divalproex versus lithium in the treatment of bipolar disorder: results of a naturalistic clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical, quality of life (QOL), and medical cost outcomes of treatment with divalproex were compared with lithium in patients with bipolar I disorder over 1 year. METHODS: In a pragmatic, randomized clinical trial, 201 adults hospitalized with bipolar I manic or mixed episodes were randomized to divalproex or lithium, in addition to usual psychiatric care, and followed for 1 year. All subsequent treatment of bipolar disorder was managed by the patient's psychiatrist. Symptoms of mania and depression were evaluated at baseline and at hospital discharge. Assessments at the start of maintenance therapy and after 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months included manic and depressive symptoms, disability days and QOL. Medical resource use data were also collected monthly and costs were estimated using national sources. RESULTS: Divalproex-treated patients (12%) were less likely to discontinue study medications for lack of efficacy or adverse effects than lithium-treated patients (23%). No statistically significant differences between the treatment groups were observed over the 1-year maintenance phase for clinical symptoms, QOL outcomes, or disability days. Mean estimated total medical costs were USD 28,911 for the divalproex group compared with USD 30,666 for the lithium treatment group. Patients continuing mood stabilizer therapy at 3 months had slightly better health outcomes and substantially lower total medical costs than those who discontinued therapy ( USD 10,091 versus USD 34,432, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Divalproex maintenance treatment for bipolar disorder resulted in comparable medical costs, clinical and QOL outcomes compared with lithium. Patients remaining on mood stabilizer therapy had substantially lower total medical costs and better health outcomes compared with those who discontinued therapy.

Reassessing carbamazepine in the treatment of bipolar disorder: clinical implications of new data.

This monograph summarizes the proceedings of a roundtable meeting convened to discuss the role of carbamazepine in the treatment of bipolar disorder, in light of new data and the recent indication of carbamazepine extended-release capsules (CBZ ERC) for use in the treatment of acute manic and mixed episodes. Two lectures were presented, followed by a panel discussion among all 6 participants. A summary of the two pivotal trials of CBZ ERC and their pooled data along with other relevant data is presented first. Next, historical trends of carbamazepine and the agent's use in acute mania, bipolar depression, and maintenance are reviewed, emphasizing clinical implications of efficacy, safety, tolerability, and drug interactions. Finally, the panel discussion provides recommendations for the use of carbamazepine in different phases of the illness, taking into account adverse effects and drug-drug interactions. Panel discussants agree that current data confirm the utility of CBZ ERC as an effective treatment for acute manic and mixed episodes in bipolar disorder. Carbamazepine may also prove to be an option for maintenance treatment. Tolerability of the drug is related to dose and titration, and overall safety limitations regarding carbamazepine usage are comparable to other medications. For some patients, the main challenges to use of carbamazepine may be common drug-drug interactions and increased side effects related to aggressive introduction during treatment of acute manic and mixed episodes. Thus, carbamazepine may be a lower priority option for patients who are taking multiple medications, such as elderly individuals with medical comorbidity, due to the potential for drug interactions. Important benefits of carbamazepine include the low propensity toward weight gain and evidence of good tolerability with long-term treatment. (At present there are no available data from long-term, placebo-controlled studies evaluating the effects of carbamazepine or CBZ ERC on weight.) Thus, carbamazepine may be a good option for patients who are concerned about weight gain or who are intolerant of or respond poorly to other medications. Further efforts are needed to update physicians on the use of carbamazepine relative to other medications in the treatment of bipolar disorder.

Bipolar disorder--costs and comorbidity.

Not only is bipolar disorder a chronic, severe psychiatric disorder, it is also expensive to treat and expensive to society. An estimate of the total cost of bipolar disorder made more than a decade ago was as high as 45 billion dollars per year. Most of this cost is accounted for by indirect costs related to reduced functional capacity and lost work. Patients with bipolar disorder have higher rates of utilization of healthcare resources compared with the general population and compared with patients with other types of psychiatric conditions. Comorbidity contributes to the heavy burden that bipolar disorder imposes on society. Bipolar disorder frequently occurs together with other psychiatric disorders, especially anxiety disorders and substance abuse. In addition, bipolar disorder has been associated with a variety of general medical conditions, which further complicate management of the psychiatric disorder.

Bipolar disorder: quality of life and the impact of atypical antipsychotics.

This article reviews the impact of bipolar disorder on the quality of life of affected individuals. In particular, the impact of atypical antipsychotics on the quality of life of individuals with bipolar disorder is addressed. Among atypical antipsychotics, olanzapine has been studied most with regard to quality of life. In general, symptomatic improvements have been associated with improvements in quality of life.