Incidence and predictors of metabolic syndrome onset in individuals with bipolar disorders: A longitudinal study from the FACE-BD cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a cluster of components including abdominal obesity, hyperglycemia, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. MetS is highly prevalent in individuals with bipolar disorders (BD) with an estimated global rate of 32.6%. Longitudinal data on incident MetS in BD are scarce and based on small sample size. The objectives of this study were to estimate the incidence of MetS in a large longitudinal cohort of 1521 individuals with BD and to identify clinical and biological predictors of incident MetS. METHODS: Participants were recruited from the FondaMental Advanced Center of Expertise for Bipolar Disorder (FACE-BD) cohort and followed-up for 3 years. MetS was defined according to the International Diabetes Federation criteria. Individuals without MetS at baseline but with MetS during follow-up were considered as having incident MetS. A logistic regression model was performed to estimate the adjusted odds ratio and its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for an association between each factor and incident MetS during follow-up. We applied inverse probability-of-censoring weighting method to minimize selection bias due to loss during follow-up. RESULTS: Among individuals without MetS at baseline (n = 1521), 19.3% developed MetS during follow-up. Multivariable analyses showed that incident MetS during follow-up was significantly associated with male sex (OR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.7-3.0, p < 0.0001), older age (OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.40-3.25, p = 0.0004), presence of a mood recurrence during follow-up (OR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.22-3.00, p = 0.0049), prolonged exposure to second-generation antipsychotics (OR = 1.56, 95% CI = 0.99, 2.45, p = 0.0534), smoking status at baseline (OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.00-1.68), lifetime alcohol use disorders (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 0.98-1.79), and baseline sleep disturbances (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.00-1.08), independently of the associations observed for baseline MetS components. CONCLUSION: We observed a high incidence of MetS during a 3 years follow-up (19.3%) in individuals with BD. Identification of predictive factors should help the development of early interventions to prevent or treat early MetS.

[French Expert advice on the management of valproate in childbearing and pregnant women with bipolar disorder]. / Avis d'experts français sur la prise en charge des femmes en âge de procréer et enceintes souffrant d'un trouble bipolaire traitées par valproate.

INTRODUCTION: The perinatal period is associated with high risk of relapses in women with untreated bipolar disorder (BD) and can have significant consequences on foetal and child development. Valproate is an effective mood stabilizer in BD but it is also the anticonvulsant associated to the highest risks of neurodevelopmental disorders and congenital malformations. The National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM) changed the conditions of use and prescription of valproate in France in 2015. Its prescription is now contraindicated (i.e., not to be prescribed) in women able to have children unless alternative treatments are ineffective or not tolerated. Moreover, valproate could only be prescribed if the protocol of a specific pregnancy prevention program is followed. METHODS: A panel of experts from the French Association for Biological Psychiatry and Neuropsychopharmacology (AFPBN) provided consensus-based recommendations for switching and discontinuation of valproate in women with BD. The development of these recommendations consisted of an adaptation to French clinical practice based on a European expert opinion published in 2019. The experts discussed five real-world clinical situations in light of the scientific evidence and their clinical experience (a. Stable BD patient with valproate monotherapy who is planning pregnancy, b. Stable BD patient with valproate polytherapy who is planning pregnancy, c. Unstable BD patient with frequent relapses and valproate polytherapy who is planning pregnancy, d. Stable BD patient treated with valproate and unexpected pregnancy, e. Unstable BD patient treated with valproate and unexpected pregnancy) and developed, through several rounds of exchange drafts, a French version of clinical recommendations. RESULTS: First of all, some factors need to be considered for establishing personalized practical recommendations for a safe and effective switching or discontinuation of valproate in any clinical situations: planned pregnancy or unplanned pregnancy or current pregnancy, the existence or not of a pregnancy risk minimization program and a complete treatment history. Other factors that should be considered are the predominant polarity, the severity, the stability, the comorbidities associated with BD, the beliefs toward treatments, the family situation and the preference of the patient. The modalities for switching or discontinuation of valproate in women with BD were related to the clinical situation. First-line therapeutic alternatives such as lithium, lamotrigine, quetiapine, olanzapine or aripiprazole were preferred for patients suffering from a clinically stable BD considering pregnancy or pregnant. In patients suffering from clinically unstable BD, to reach stability was considered first. A shared decision-making should be systematically implemented and the patient must be fully informed of the risks related to an in-utero exposure to valproate, and the risks of the discontinuation/switch that is considered. CONCLUSION: Although the adaptation to French practice of the recommendations from the European expert opinion highlighted some differences in the criteria taken into consideration to guide the therapeutic decision, this expert advice will guide the clinician for switching and discontinuation of valproate in BD women able to have children or pregnant.

[Psychopharmacotherapeutic guidelines : a challenge during health crisis]. / Recommandations psychopharmacothérapeutiques : un défi en temps de crise sanitaire.

The construction of pharmacological guidelines is a complex endeavor, and this is all the truer amidst a health crisis such as the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In psychiatric settings, guidelines have to consider the handling of other drugs (i.e., psychotropic medications), that have been suggested as potentially prophylactic for COVID-19. These dialectics are discussed here, and the methodological foundations used for the elaboration of guidelines are put forward.

Réaliser des recommandations pharmacothérapeutiques est une démarche complexe, plus encore dans une période de crise sanitaire, comme celle que nous traversons avec la pandémie liée au SARS-CoV-2. En psychiatrie, les préconisations formulées se doivent de rappeler la légitime prudence à adopter dans le maniement des psychotropes, dans un contexte qui, par ailleurs, présente certaines de ces médications comme potentiellement prophylactiques de la COVID-19. Ces enjeux contradictoires sont débattus, les concepts méthodologiques de l'élaboration des recommandations sont rappelés.

Mixed states in bipolar and major depressive disorders: systematic review and quality appraisal of guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review provided a critical synthesis and a comprehensive overview of guidelines on the treatment of mixed states. METHOD: The MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched from inception to March 21st, 2018. International guidelines covering the treatment of mixed episodes, manic/hypomanic, or depressive episodes with mixed features were considered for inclusion. A methodological quality assessment was conducted with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-AGREE II. RESULTS: The final selection yielded six articles. Despite their heterogeneity, all guidelines agreed in interrupting an antidepressant monotherapy or adding mood-stabilizing medications. Olanzapine seemed to have the best evidence for acute mixed hypo/manic/depressive states and maintenance treatment. Aripiprazole and paliperidone were possible alternatives for acute hypo/manic mixed states. Lurasidone and ziprasidone were useful in acute mixed depression. Valproate was recommended for the prevention of new mixed episodes while lithium and quetiapine in preventing affective episodes of all polarities. Clozapine and electroconvulsive therapy were effective in refractory mixed episodes. The AGREE II overall assessment rate ranged between 42% and 92%, indicating different quality level of included guidelines. CONCLUSION: The unmet needs for the mixed symptoms treatment were associated with diagnostic issues and limitations of previous research, particularly for maintenance treatment.

Efficacy of shared decision-making on treatment adherence of patients with bipolar disorder: a cluster randomized trial (ShareD-BD).

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a model of interaction between doctors and patients in which both actors contribute to the medical decision-making process. SDM has raised great interest in mental healthcare over the last decade, as it is considered a fundamental part of patient-centered care. However, there is no research evaluating the efficacy of SDM compared to usual care (CAU), as it relates to quality of care and more specifically treatment adherence, in bipolar disorder (BD). METHODS/DESIGN: This is a 12-month multi-centre, cluster-randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of SDM to CAU. Adult BD patients (n = 300) will be eligible after stabilization for at least 4 weeks following an acute mood episode. The intervention will consist of applying the standardized SDM process as developed by the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute in order to choose the maintenance treatment of BD. A multidisciplinary team developed a decision aid "choose my long-term treatment with my doctor" for BD patients to clarify possible therapeutic options. Primary outcome will assess the patient's level of adherence (based on hetero-evaluation) of ongoing treatment at 12 months. Secondary outcomes will assess the difference between the 2 groups of patients in terms of adherence to maintenance drug therapy based on other measures (self-assessment scale and plasma levels of mood stabilizers). Additionally, other dimensions will be assessed: decisional conflict, satisfaction with care and involvement in decision making, beliefs about treatment, therapeutic relationship, knowledge about information for medical decision and clinical outcomes (depression, mania, functioning and quality of life). The primary endpoint will be analysed without adjustment by comparison of adherence scores between the two groups using Student t-tests or Mann-Whitney tests according to the variable distribution. A set of secondary analyses will be adjusted for covariates of clinical interest using generalized linear mixed regression models. DISCUSSION: This will be the first study evaluating the effect of an SDM intervention on patient adherence in BD. This is also an innovative protocol because it proposes the development of an evidence-based tool that should help patients and clinicians to initiate discussions regarding the use of BD treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03245593 .

Aggressiveness in depression: a neglected symptom possibly associated with bipolarity and mixed features.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate aggressiveness during a major depressive episode (MDE) and its relationship with bipolar disorder (BD) in a post hoc analysis of the BRIDGE-II-MIX study. METHOD: A total of 2811 individuals were enrolled in this multicenter cross-sectional study. MDE patients with (MDE-A, n = 399) and without aggressiveness (MDE-N, n = 2412) were compared through chi-square test or Student's t-test. A stepwise backward logistic regression model was performed. RESULTS: MDE-A group was more frequently associated with BD (P < 0.001), while aggressiveness was negatively correlated with unipolar depression (P < 0.001). At the logistic regression, aggressiveness was associated with the age at first depressive episode (P < 0.001); the severity of mania (P = 0.03); the diagnosis of BD (P = 0.001); comorbid borderline personality disorder (BPD) (P < 0.001) but not substance abuse (P = 0.63); no current psychiatric treatment (P < 0.001); psychotic symptoms (P = 0.007); the marked social/occupational impairment (P = 0.002). The variable most significantly associated with aggressiveness was the presence of DSM-5 mixed features (P < 0.001, OR = 3.815). After the exclusion of BPD, the variable of lifetime suicide attempts became significant (P = 0.013, OR = 1.405). CONCLUSION: Aggressiveness seems to be significantly associated with bipolar spectrum disorders, independently from BPD and substance abuse. Aggressiveness should be considered as a diagnostic criterion for the mixed features specifier and a target of tailored treatment strategy.

[Comparison of medical and economic benefits of antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia in France]. / Comparaison des bénéfices médico-économiques des antipsychotiques dans la prise en charge de la schizophrénie en France.

INTRODUCTION: The course of schizophrenia can vary widely, and patients experience remission phases alternating with relapse episodes, which generally lead to hospitalisation and have a significant impact on the burden of disease. The prevalence of schizophrenia in France is estimated to be approximately 600,000 people, with an incidence of 10,000 new patients per year. Patients with schizophrenia represent the largest group of hospitalised patients in French public institutions and specialised centres, and the French authorities recognise that the management of schizophrenia is a major public health concern. The Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) and most of the evidence-based guidelines for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia recommend long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics to be used predominantly in the prevention of relapse for non-compliant patients; however, in clinical practice, the use of LAIs remains low. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to estimate and to compare the cost-effectiveness of the most common antipsychotic strategies in France in the management of schizophrenia. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate the progression of a cohort of patients with schizophrenia through four health states (stable treated, stable non-treated, relapse and death) and considered up to three lines of treatment to account for changes in treatment management. Antipsychotics including aripiprazole LAI (ALAI), olanzapine LAI (OLAI), paliperidone LAI (PLAI), risperidone LAI (RLAI), haloperidol decanoate (HD) and oral olanzapine (OO) were compared in terms of costs and clinical outcomes. Thus, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and number of relapses were assessed over five years based on three-month cycles from a French health insurance perspective with a discount rate of 4 %. Patients were considered to be stabilised after clinical decompensation and would enter the model at an initiation phase, followed by a prevention of relapse phase if successful. Data (e.g. relapse or discontinuation rates) for the initiation phase came from randomised clinical trials, whereas relapse rates in the prevention phase were derived from hospitalisation risks based on French real-life data in order to capture adherence effects. Safety and utility data were derived from international publications. Additionally costs were retrieved from French health insurance databases and publications. Robustness of results was assessed through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: First and second generations of LAIs were found to have similar costs over five years; i.e. approximately € 55,000, except for PLAI which was associated with a discounted cost of € 50,880. Oral antipsychotics were found to be less costly (i.e. OO cost € 50,379 after five years) but associated with a lower number of QALYs gained and relapse avoided. PLAI and RLAI were associated with the greatest number of QALYs gained; i.e. PLAI dominated ALAI, OLAI and HD and was associated with an incremental costs-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of € 2411 per QALY gained versus OO. Finally, PLAI and OLAI were associated with the lowest number of relapses; i.e. PLAI dominated RLAI, ALAI and HLAI and was associated with an ICER of € 1782 per avoided relapse compared to OO. OO and HD were found to have led to the highest number of relapses. CONCLUSION: This analysis, to the best of our knowledge, is the first of its kind to assess the cost-effectiveness of antipsychotics based on French observational data. PLAI was associated with the highest probability of being the optimal treatment from the French health insurance perspective.

Course of residual symptoms according to the duration of euthymia in remitted bipolar patients.

OBJECTIVE: Although many studies showed the negative impact of residual symptoms on the course of bipolar disorder (BD), there is a need to examine potential differences in residual symptoms according to the duration of euthymia in remitted BD patients. METHOD: This was a large cross-sectional study of 525 euthymic BD out-patients. A multivariate analysis of covariance was conducted to compare depressive and manic residual symptoms, sleep disturbances and cognitive complaints among three patient groups on the basis of duration of euthymia (A. 6 months to <1 year; B. 1 year to <3 years; C. 3 years to ≤5 years). RESULTS: A significant difference between the three groups was found in residual symptoms [Pillai's Trace: F(8942) = 4.659, P < 0.001]. Tukey post hoc analysis indicated that patients from Group C presented lower residual depressive symptoms, higher sleep quality and better perceived cognitive performance compared with Group A. Group B also presented better sleep and cognitive outcomes than Group A. In addition, Group C showed the lowest incidence of functional impairment. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the intensity of residual symptoms and functional impairment in remitted BD patients is negatively related to the duration of euthymia.

[Long-term efficacy and safety of lurasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia]. / Efficacité et tolérance à long terme de la lurasidone dans la prise en charge de la schizophrénie.

Lurasidone is a new second-generation antipsychotic approved in March 2014 by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of schizophrenia. Lurasidone has demonstrated its efficacy in long-term studies. It has been shown to reduce significantly the risk of relapse in comparison with placebo in patients with schizophrenia. In comparator study, lurasidone was noninferior to quetiapine XR in risk for relapse. In open-label studies, lurasidone was associated with sustained improvement in efficacy measures observed and well-tolerated inpatients with schizophrenia who had switched to lurasidone from another antipsychotic. Available evidence showed also that lurasidone might be involved in the long-term improvement of cognitive performance in schizophrenic patients. Lurasidone differs from the other second-generation antipsychotics by a good tolerability profile, in particular in terms of metabolic and cardiovascular profiles. Lurasidone seems to have a moderate link with the occurrence of akathisia and extrapyramidal symptoms. Although lurasidone long-acting formulation is lacking, the long-term profile of lurasidone appears compatible with a good acceptability and consequently a good compliance to treatment of patients with schizophrenia.

[French Society for Biological Psychiatry and Neuropsychopharmacology task force. Formal consensus for the treatment of bipolar disorder: an update (2014)]. / Recommandations Formalisées d'Experts de l'Association Française de Psychiatrie Biologique et Neuropsychopharmacologie sur le dépistage et prise en charge du trouble bipolaire : mise à jour 2014.

As part of a process to improve the quality of care, the French Society for Biological Psychiatry and Neuropsychopharmacology developed in 2010 formal consensus guidelines for the treatment of bipolar disorder. The evolution of therapeutic options available in France for the treatment of bipolar disorder has justified the update of this guideline. The purpose of this work was to provide an updated and ergonomic document to promote its use by clinicians. This update focuses on two of the six thematic previously published (acute treatment and long-term treatment). Aspects of the treatment of bipolar patients sparking debate and questions of clinicians (use of antidepressant, place of the bitherapy, interest of long-acting antipsychotics…) were also covered. Finally, we proposed graded recommendations taking into account specifically the risk-benefit balance of each molecule.

[Aripiprazole long-acting for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia.] / Aripiprazole injectable à libération prolongée dans le traitement de maintenance de la schizophrénie.

Antipsychotics are the cornerstone for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia patients. Their long-acting formulations are helpful for preventing relapses through improvement of adherence to medication and a better pharmacokinetic coverage. However, their use is often reserved for refractory or non-observant clinical forms because of limitations among both clinicians and patients. The development of a new formulation of long-acting injectable aripiprazole administered every 4 weeks is a new option. Two randomized controlled trials vs. placebo and vs. oral aripiprazole respectively show a superiority and non-inferiority in terms of relapse prevention. Meanwhile, a mirror-image study demonstrates fewer hospitalizations. The safety profile is comparable to the oral formulation, particularly in terms of metabolic and neurological side-effects. As mentioned in various professional recommendations, long-acting injectable antipsychotics, so long-acting injectable aripiprazole, are one of the major strategies of the maintenance treatment for patients with schizophrenia.

[Efficacy of aripiprazole for the treatment of schizophrenia: what dose is required?]. / Efficacité de l'aripiprazole dans le traitement de la schizophrénie : quelle dose pour quel effet ?

OBJECTIVE: Problem of the choice of antipsychotic dose is a key issue in clinical practice. It determines the efficacy and safety of treatment. Aripiprazole is recommended at a dose of between 10 and 15 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia, with a dose range considered to be effective, between 10 and 30 mg/day. This wide therapeutic range prompted us to investigate the existence of a possible dose-effect relationship for aripiprazole in the treatment of schizophrenia. METHOD: We conducted a literature review from PubMed and EMBASE database, with the keywords: aripiprazole, schizophrenia. We limited it to studies published in English and French, with the main objective to assess the efficacy of aripiprazole in patients with schizophrenia. We selected only randomized clinical trials, double-blind, controlled against placebo or against an active comparator. Studies in which aripiprazole was studied added to another antipsychotic were not retained. RESULTS: Twenty-two randomized, double-blind, controlled studies were selected. Three studies assessed the efficacy of aripiprazole on agitation symptoms in patients with schizophrenia and for which a dose of aripiprazole between 1 and 15mg showed significant efficacy compared to placebo. Seven clinical trials focused on the effect of aripiprazole short term (less than 12weeks). For the primary endpoint (PANSS scores), aripiprazole was superior to placebo or equivalent to active comparators (risperidone, olanzapine or haloperidol). These short-term studies revealed a range of effective doses from 10 mg/day to 20 mg/day. Five studies, lasting between 16 and 52 weeks, with a primary endpoint being the time to discontinuation for any cause for two studies, the time before relapse in one study, and the improvement in PANSS scores for the two other studies. On these different endpoints, aripiprazole was effective at average doses between 15 and 28.1 mg/day. The safety of aripiprazole was particularly favourable in these trials. Finally, we listed seven post-hoc analyses. In support of these long-term analyses on different endpoints, aripiprazole showed significant efficacy at higher doses (20 and 30 mg/day) than those used in the agitation treatment. CONCLUSIONS: No study was designed to compare aripiprazole doses in schizophrenia. Nevertheless, efficacy on agitation and hostility components had been observed for doses of 10mg/day, or lower; whereas the antipsychotic effect in acute or maintenance phase appeared optimal for doses ranging from 10 to 25 mg/day. Only one study retained a minimum effective dose of 10mg/day on the PANSS scores. This literature review reveals an effective dose range between 10 and 25 mg/day for aripiprazole in schizophrenia. Less than 10 mg/day did not show significant efficacy on symptoms of schizophrenia, apart from a specific short-term effect on agitation, at very low doses (starting at 1mg). Optimization of treatment, at doses above 25 mg/day, cannot be the subject of evidence-based recommendations.

[Short-term efficacy and safety of lurasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia]. / Efficacité et tolérance à court terme de la lurasidone dans la prise en charge de la schizophrénie.

Lurasidone is a new second-generation antipsychotic approved in October 2010 by the Food and Drug Administration and in March 2014 by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of schizophrenia. Like other second-generation antipsychotics, lurasidone is an antagonist of D2 dopamine and 5HT2A serotonin receptors, but differs from the other second-generation antipsychotics in its action profile for certain receptors. Lurasidone is the second-generation antipsychotic with the greatest affinity for 5HT7 receptors and has a low affinity for α1 and α2C-adrenergic and 5HT2C serotonin receptors, and no affinity for histaminergic H1 or muscarinic M1 receptors. Lurasidone has demonstrated its efficacy in several short-term studies in acute schizophrenia with significantly reducing total scores of Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) compared with placebo. Early improvement was observed by days 3-7 for the 80-160 mg/day doses. Two studies with several methodological limitations showed that lurasidone might be involved in the improvement of cognitive performance in schizophrenic patients. Post hoc analysis of four pooled short-term studies showed significantly better effects on improving depressive symptoms associated with schizophrenia in patients treated with lurasidone as compared to patients treated with placebo. Lurasidone differs from the other second-generation antipsychotics by a good tolerability profile, in particular in terms of metabolic and cardiovascular profiles. Although results of the preclinical studies suggested that lurasidone had a low potential for causing clinically significant extrapyramidal symptoms, these were observed with a higher frequency than expected. It seems to have a significant though moderate link with the occurrence of akathisia, extrapyramidal symptoms, and hyperprolactinemia during initiation of treatment. This new tolerance profile greatly broadens the scope of second-generation antipsychotics and supports the view of some authors that the term second-generation antipsychotic is now outdated. Other therapeutic perspectives of lurasidone have been assessed, in particular in bipolar depression.

Psychometric properties of two implementation measures: Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire (NoMAD) and organizational readiness for implementing change (ORIC).

Background: Effective interventions need to be implemented successfully to achieve impact. Two theory-based measures exist for measuring the effectiveness of implementation strategies and monitor implementation progress. The Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire (NoMAD) explores the four core concepts (Coherence, Cognitive Participation, Collective Action, Reflexive Monitoring) of the Normalization Process Theory. The Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) is based on the theory of Organizational Readiness for Change, measuring organization members' psychological and behavioral preparedness for implementing a change. We examined the measurement properties of the NoMAD and ORIC in a multi-national implementation effectiveness study. Method: Twelve mental health organizations in nine countries implemented Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) for common mental disorders. Staff involved in iCBT service delivery (n = 318) participated in the study. Both measures were translated into eight languages using a standardized forward-backward translation procedure. Correlations between measures and subscales were estimated to examine convergent validity. The theoretical factor structures of the scales were tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Test-retest reliability was based on the correlation between scores at two time points 3 months apart. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Floor and ceiling effects were quantified using the proportion of zero and maximum scores. Results: NoMAD and ORIC measure related but distinct latent constructs. The CFA showed that the use of a total score for each measure is appropriate. The theoretical subscales of the NoMAD had adequate internal consistency. The total scale had high internal consistency. The total ORIC scale and subscales demonstrated high internal consistency. Test-retest reliability was suboptimal for both measures and floor and ceiling effects were absent. Conclusions: This study confirmed the psychometric properties of the NoMAD and ORIC in multi-national mental health care settings. While measuring on different but related aspects of implementation processes, the NoMAD and ORIC prove to be valid and reliable across different language settings.

Why was the study done?: Effective interventions need to be implemented successfully to achieve impact. Reliable measurement instruments are needed to determine if an implementation was successful or not. Two theory-based instruments exist for measuring the effectiveness of implementation strategies and monitor progress. The NoMAD measures aspects of normalization related to sense-making, willingness to implement, the work people do, and reflection. The Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) measures organization members' preparedness for implementing a change. What did we do?: This study examined whether the NoMAD and ORIC measure what they are supposed to measure. We translated the instruments from English to eight languages (Albanian, Danish, Dutch, French, German, Italian, and Spanish/Catalan) We applied various statistical methods to confirm the measurement properties, including correlations of scales, factor structures, test­retest reliability, consistency and floor and ceiling effects. 318 mental health professionals from nine countries participated in the study. What did we find?: For both instruments, total scores can be used as well as the subscale scores. Internal consistency for ORIC was high and for NoMAD adequate. Test­retest reliability was demonstrated, and floor and ceiling effects were rare. What does this mean?: NoMAD and ORIC are reliable instruments for measuring implementation processes and outcomes across mental health care settings in different countries and languages. They measure related but different aspects of implementation processes and outcomes. The measures are brief, and theory supported. However, more work is to be done on interpreting scores in relation to implementation success and regarding changes over time.

[French Society for Biological Psychiatry and Neuropsychopharmacology task force: Formal Consensus for the prescription of depot antipsychotics]. / Recommandations Formalisées d'Experts de l'AFPBN : prescription des neuroleptiques et antipsychotiques d'action prolongée.

BACKGROUND: Compliance is often partial with oral antipsychotics and underestimated for patients with serious mental illness. Despite their demonstrated advantages in terms of relapse prevention, depot formulations are still poorly used in routine. As part of a process to improve the quality of care, French Association for Biological Psychiatry and Neuropsychopharmacology (AFPBN) Task Force elaborated a Formal Consensus for the prescription of depot antipsychotics in clinical practice. METHODS: The Task Force recommends as first-line choice, the use of long-acting injectable (LAI) second-generation antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and delusional disorder. They can be considered as a second-line option as a monotherapy to prevent manic recurrence or in combination with mood stabilizer to prevent depressive recurrence in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. LAI second-generation antipsychotics can also be used after a first episode of schizophrenia. Depot neuroleptics are not recommended during the early course of schizophrenia and are not appropriate in bipolar disorder. They are considered as a second-line option for maintenance treatment in schizophrenia. RESULTS: LAI formulations should be systematically proposed to any patients for whom maintenance antipsychotic treatment is indicated. LAI antipsychotics can be used preferentially for non-compliant patients with frequent relapses or aggressive behaviors. CONCLUSION: A specific information concerning the advantages and inconveniences of the LAI formulations, in the framework of shared-decision making must be delivered to each patient. Recommendations for switching from one oral/LAI form to another LAI and for using LAI antipsychotics in specific populations (pregnant women, elderly patients, subjects in a precarious situation, and subjects having to be treated in a prison establishment) are also proposed.

[Methodological approach to inter "guideline" variability in the management of bipolar disorders]. / Approche méthodologique de la variabilité inter « Guidelines ¼ : exemples dans la prise en charge du trouble bipolaire.

INTRODUCTION: In recent decades, an increasing number of pharmacologic agents have become available in bipolar disorder treatment. These therapeutic advances provide a new challenge for clinicians in the choice of medication for patients with bipolar disorder. In this context, tools have been developed for making medical decisions in the management of bipolar disorder: guidelines. METHODS: Guidelines for bipolar disorder were compared on the basis of their construction methodology (evidence-based treatment guidelines or consensus-based treatment guidelines), results and recommendations for clinical practice. RESULTS: There are differences between guidelines for treating bipolar disorder. For the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the severity of the manic episode is a primary endpoint of the decision-making tree for the choice of therapy. On the other hand, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) ruled that the choice of the initial treatment, in the case of manic episode, should be based first on the current patient's treatment (history of anti-manic therapy) while the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) emphasizes the clinical classification of the type of mania. The sequencing of medication in the guidelines may vary according to the construction methodology, the date of elaboration, the geocultural context and experts' position. Recent guidelines consider the last randomized controlled trials (RCT) as those of aripiprazole in the treatment of mania, recommending it in first line as anti-manic agent. The recent updated WFSBP guidelines changed in its construction methodology taking into account the negative studies or those showing non-superiority compared to placebo. Thus, a recent study of non-superiority of lithium monotherapy compared to placebo in the treatment of bipolar depression downgraded lithium from level of evidence B to D. During recent years, a large number of RCT have demonstrated superior efficacy (particularly in mania treatment) of lithium or valproate combined with second-generation antipsychotic compared with lithium or valproate monotherapy. Consequently, according to geocultural context or experts' position, some guidelines recommended medication combinations in first line (Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatment) and other guidelines considered monotherapy in first line (except for particular cases) to promote tolerance and good therapeutic alliance (WFSBP). Malhi et al. recommended a sequencing of medication based on the benefit risk ratio for the management of each phase of bipolar disorder. These differences between guidelines may cause difficulties for clinicians in choosing clinical practice guidelines. CONCLUSION: While there are a large number of guidelines for bipolar disorder, the recommendations may vary depending on multiple factors. It seems interesting to conduct a comparative study of guidelines for bipolar disorder on the basis of a validated scale (AGREE) or completed by other items such as date of elaboration and number of proposed recommendations. However, the methodological understanding of guidelines remains the central element for practitioners in their choice of guidelines. Thus, the initial objective of guidelines "to develop statements to assist clinician and patient decisions about the most appropriate health care for specific clinical situations" could be implemented in clinical practice.

[Asenapine in bipolar disorder: efficacy, safety and place in clinical practice]. / Asénapine dans le trouble bipolaire : efficacité, tolérance et utilisation en pratique clinique.

Asenapine is a new second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) approved in September 2010 by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of bipolar disorder. It was significantly more effective than placebo in acute mania or mixed episodes as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy to mood stabilizers (lithium or valproate). Early improvement was seen at day-2 (significant difference with placebo) and was strongly associated with week-3 response and remission. These suggest that the observation of an early improvement in the first week may be clinically an useful tool for individual treatment adjustment during the early course of treatment. Post-hoc analyses of asenapine studies showed significantly better effects on improving depressive symptoms associated with manic symptoms, and physical health related quality of life dimensions as compared to placebo. Asenapine differs from the other SGAs by a good tolerability profile, in particular in terms of metabolic profile. However, it seems to have a significant though moderate link with the occurrence of sedation. This new tolerance profile greatly broadens the scope of SGAs and supports the view of some authors that the term SGA is now outdated. Other therapeutic perspectives of asenapine are being assessed, in particular in specific population (pediatric and elderly patients).

[Treatment initiation in psychotic and manic episodes: French attitudes collected by Focus Group]. / L'initiation thérapeutique dans les épisodes psychotiques et maniaques : recueil des attitudes françaises par Focus Group.

An accurate treatment of first episodes in schizophrenia and bipolar disorders has a significant impact on compliance and prognosis. However, existing therapeutic guidelines may be poorly respected and may concern only typical clinical situations. Medical attitudes in clinical practice have been collected and structured on the basis of small interactive meetings (Focus Group [FG]), and a synthesis of practical attitudes has been compared with updated guidelines. The FG method applied to treatment initiation in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder is seen as complementary to evidence-based guidelines. It reveals that, in a reflexive manner, clinical attitudes are often more diverse and frequently consider first treatments after global evaluation, taking more into account external factors such as clinicians' experience, patient's history and willingness, clinical setting, and environment. A symptomatic approach is sometimes preferred, and a better alliance is always considered as a main objective. The FG method could be a supplementary support to continuous medical education.

Key findings on bipolar disorders from the longitudinal FondaMental Advanced Center of Expertise-Bipolar Disorder (FACE-BD) cohort.

BACKGROUND: The FACE-BD cohort is an observational cohort of individuals with bipolar disorders (BD) who benefited from a systematic evaluation with evidence-based treatment recommendations and who were followed-up every year for 3 years in France. The objectives were to describe the lifetime course of BD, associated psychiatric and somatic comorbidities, and cognition profile. This cohort aims to identify clinical/biological signatures of outcomes, trajectories of functioning and transition between clinical stages. This article summarizes 10 years of findings of the FACE-BD cohort. METHOD & RESULTS: We included 4422 individuals, all having a baseline assessment, among which 61.2% had at least one follow-up visit at either one, two or three years. A subsample of 1200 individuals had at least one biological sample (serum, plasma, DNA). Assessments include family history of psychiatric disorders, psychiatric diagnosis, current mood symptoms, functioning, hospitalizations, suicidal attempts, physical health, routine blood tests, treatment history, psychological dimensions, medico-economic data and a cognitive assessment. Studies from this cohort illustrate that individuals with BD display multiple coexistent psychiatric associated conditions including sleep disturbances, anxiety disorders, substance use disorders and suicide attempts as well as a high prevalence of metabolic syndrome. During follow-up, we observed a 55% reduction of the number of days of hospitalization and a significant improvement in functioning. CONCLUSIONS: The FACE-BD cohort provides a strong research infrastructure for clinical research in BD and has a unique position among international cohorts because of its comprehensive clinical assessment and sustainable funding from the French Ministry of Health.