Right unilateral electroconvulsive therapy does not cause more cognitive impairment than pharmacologic treatment in treatment-resistant bipolar depression: A 6-month randomized controlled trial follow-up study.

OBJECTIVES: Electroconvulsive therapy is an effective treatment for bipolar depression, but there are concerns about whether it causes long-term neurocognitive impairment. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, in-patients with treatment-resistant bipolar depression were randomized to either algorithm-based pharmacologic treatment or right unilateral electroconvulsive therapy. After the 6-week treatment period, all of the patients received maintenance pharmacotherapy as recommended by their clinician guided by a relevant treatment algorithm. Patients were assessed at baseline and at 6 months. Neurocognitive functions were assessed using the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) Consensus Cognitive Battery, and autobiographical memory consistency was assessed using the Autobiographical Memory Interview-Short Form. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients entered the trial, of whom 51 and 26 completed neurocognitive assessments at baseline and 6 months, respectively. The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery composite score improved by 4.1 points in both groups (P = .042) from baseline to 6 months (from 40.8 to 44.9 and from 41.9 to 46.0 in the algorithm-based pharmacologic treatment and electroconvulsive therapy groups, respectively). The Autobiographical Memory Interview-Short Form consistency scores were reduced in both groups (72.3% vs 64.3% in the algorithm-based pharmacologic treatment and electroconvulsive therapy groups, respectively; P = .085). CONCLUSIONS: This study did not find that right unilateral electroconvulsive therapy caused long-term impairment in neurocognitive functions compared to algorithm-based pharmacologic treatment in bipolar depression as measured using standard neuropsychological tests, but due to the low number of patients in the study the results should be interpreted with caution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00664976.

Occupational outcome in bipolar disorder is not predicted by premorbid functioning and intelligence.

OBJECTIVES: Bipolar disorder (BD), over the long term, can manifest a variety of outcomes depending on a number of different conditions. There is a need for further knowledge regarding preventive factors as well as predictors of the disabling course of the disorder. Studies regarding the impact on functional outcome of premorbid and current general intellectual function [intelligence quotient (IQ)] and premorbid functioning in BD patients are sparse. The present study addressed the role of premorbid functioning [assessed with the Premorbid Adjustment Scale (PAS)], intelligence, course of illness, and sociodemographics on occupational outcome in BD. METHODS: Bipolar disorder patients were recruited consecutively from psychiatric units (outpatient and inpatient) in four major hospitals in Oslo, Norway [(N = 226: 64.4% bipolar I disorder (BD-I); 30.1% bipolar II disorder (BD-II); 5.5% bipolar disorder not otherwise specified (BD-NOS); 38.6% males]. The associations between current IQ, premorbid IQ [assessed using the National Adult Reading Test (NART)], PAS, clinical and sociodemographic characteristics, and receipt of disability benefit were analysed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: The number of hospitalizations for depressive episodes and illness duration was associated with a higher risk of receipt of disability benefit. PAS, premorbid and current IQ, as well as decline in IQ, did not explain the higher risk of receipt of disability benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Severe clinical course of BD was associated with receipt of disability benefit. Occupational outcome was unrelated to PAS, premorbid and current IQ, as well as decline in IQ. This suggests that the persistence of severe clinical symptoms, rather than global cognitive functioning, determines occupational outcome in BD and emphasizes the protective potential of early and continuous clinical treatment.

Treatment-resistant bipolar depression: a randomized controlled trial of electroconvulsive therapy versus algorithm-based pharmacological treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is regarded by many clinicians as the most effective treatment for treatment-resistant bipolar depression, but no randomized controlled trials have been conducted, to the authors' knowledge. They compared efficacy measures of ECT and algorithm-based pharmacological treatment in treatment-resistant bipolar depression. METHOD: This multicenter, randomized controlled trial was carried out at seven acute-care psychiatric inpatient clinics throughout Norway and included 73 bipolar disorder patients with treatment-resistant depression. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either ECT or algorithm-based pharmacological treatment. ECT included three sessions per week for up to 6 weeks, right unilateral placement of stimulus electrodes, and brief pulse stimulation. RESULTS: Linear mixed-effects modeling analysis revealed that ECT was significantly more effective than algorithm-based pharmacological treatment. The mean scores at the end of the 6-week treatment period were lower for the ECT group than for the pharmacological treatment group: by 6.6 points on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (SE=2.05, 95% CI=2.5-10.6), by 9.4 points on the 30-item version of the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician-Rated (SE=2.49, 95% CI=4.6-14.3), and by 0.7 points on the Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder (SE=0.31, 95% CI=0.13-1.36). The response rate was significantly higher in the ECT group than in the group that received algorithm-based pharmacological treatment (73.9% versus 35.0%), but the remission rate did not differ between the groups (34.8% versus 30.0%). CONCLUSION: Remission rates remained modest regardless of treatment choice for this challenging clinical condition.

Bipolar disorder patients have similar levels of education but lower socio-economic status than the general population.

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence regarding the educational level and its importance for social and occupational functioning in bipolar disorder (BD). The aim of this study was to investigate how educational achievement relates to function in BD compared with the general population, and which clinical factors are associated with level of education. METHODS: Hospitalized patients with DSM-IV BD (N=257; 69.3% BD I; 25.7% BD II; 5.1 BD NOS; 51.4% females) were consecutively recruited from mental health clinics throughout Norway and compared with a geographically matched reference sample from the general population (N=56,540) on levels of education, marital status, income, and disability benefits. Further analyses of association were carried out using logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: A significantly higher proportion of subjects in the BD group than in the reference group was single, had low income, or was disabled. No between-group difference was found in educational level. In the reference group education was inversely correlated with the risk of being disabled, but no such relationship was found in the BD group. Rapid cycling and recurring depressive episodes were the only clinical characteristics associated with low educational level. LIMITATIONS: Acutely admitted patients might not be representative for milder forms of disease. CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar levels of education, BD patients had lower social and occupational function than the general population, and no association was found between education and disability for BD patients.

Despite clinical differences, bipolar disorder patients from acute wards and outpatient clinics have similar educational and disability levels compared to the general population.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to compare clinical characteristics and educational and occupational functioning in two Bipolar Disorder (BD) samples recruited respectively from acutely admitted inpatients and public outpatient clinics and to investigate if the two BD samples differed in the same way in education and work ability from the general population. METHODS: DSM-IV BD patients were consecutively recruited from acute wards throughout Norway (N=252; 69.8% BD I; 25.0% BD II; 5.2% BD NOS) and from outpatient clinics in the Oslo region (N=230; 60.4% BD I; 33.5% BD II; 6.1% BD NOS) and demographic and clinical characteristics were compared. A reference sample from the general population (N=100 869) was used to compare levels of education, marital status and disability benefits. RESULTS: The acute ward sample was older, and had more men, more BD I disorder, more hospitalisations and suicide attempts, longer illness duration, an earlier age of onset and first treatment and used a higher number of antipsychotics, anticonvulsants and lithium than the outpatient sample. Both samples were educated to the same level as their respective reference populations, but received disability benefit and were single to a higher but similar degree. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical differences between the BD samples had no consequence for educational achievement and receipt of disability benefit compared to the general population indicating that other factors than severity of illness play a role for education and work abilities in BD patients.