ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Individuals with bipolar disorder (BD) often have co-occurring substance use disorders (SUDs), which substantially impoverish the course of illness. Despite the importance of this dual diagnosis, the evidence of the efficacy and safety of adjuvant treatments is mostly unknown. OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjuvant drugs in patients with co-occurring BD and SUD. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge until 30th April 2022 for randomized clinical trials (RCT) evaluating the efficacy and safety of adjuvant drugs compared to placebo in patients with a dual diagnosis of BD and SUD. We meta-analyzed the effect of adjuvant drugs on general outcomes (illness severity, mania, depression, anxiety, abstinence, substance craving, substance use, gamma-GT, adherence, and adverse events) and used the results to objectively assess the quality of the evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. For completeness, we also report the specific effects of specific adjuvant drugs in patients with specific substance disorders. RESULTS: We included 15 RCT studies (9 alcohol, 3 cocaine, 2 nicotine, and 1 cannabis) comprising 628 patients allocated to treatment and 622 to placebo. There was low-quality evidence that adjuvant drugs may reduce illness severity (g=-0.25, 95% CI: -0.44, -0.06), and very-low quality evidence that they may decrease substance use (g=-0.23, 95% CI: -0.44, -0.02) and increase substance abstinence (g=0.21, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.38). DISCUSSION: There is low-quality evidence that adjuvant drugs may help reduce illness severity, probably via facilitating abstinence and lower substance use. However, the evidence is weak; thus, these results should be considered cautiously until better evidence exists.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with severe mental disorders (SMD) have been classically considered as a particularly high-risk population for bloodborne virus infections. We performed a systematic screening of hepatitis B and C virus among the population with SMD in the area of influence of Hospital Clínic (Barcelona) in order to evaluate the real prevalence of these infections and achieve HCV microelimination in this subpopulation. METHODS: We screened two cohorts for anti-HCV and HBsAg: Cohort A (hospitalized patients with SMD, done systematically) and Cohort B (outpatients, mental health centre-CSMA, done voluntarily). Risk factors and socio-demographic variables were collected. In positive cases, telematic review was activated by Hepatology, calculation of FIB-4 and prescription of direct-acting agents (DAA) in HCV or follow-up in HBV. RESULTS: In Cohort A, 404 patients were screened. 3 HBV patients were detected (0.7%). In all of them, there was a history of drug use. 12 anti-HCV positive patients were detected (3%); 8 of them had a history of drug use. Among the HCV positive, only 2 patients were viraemic (received DAA, both achieving SVR) as most of them (n = 6) had already been cured with DAA. In cohort B, 305 patients were screened, after 542 (64% of the target population) declined to participate. No cases of HCV or HBV were detected. CONCLUSIONS: HCV/HBV prevalence among SMD population with no history of drug use does not seem to be different from the general population. These data may be of interest for defining health policies.
Subject(s)
Hepatitis B , Mental Disorders , Humans , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Hepatitis B/complications , Hepatitis B/epidemiology , Hepatitis B/drug therapy , Hepatitis B Surface Antigens , Hepatitis B virus , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Mental Disorders/complications , Mental Disorders/drug therapyABSTRACT
Aunque el correcto diagnóstico y manejo de los pacientes con esquizofrenia y un diagnóstico comórbido de trastorno por uso de sustancias (TUS) determinaría una disminución de la morbilidad y mortalidad en estos pacientes, el desarrollo de estrategias terapéuticas eficientes es todavía una asignatura pendiente. Presentamos recomendaciones sobre el manejo farmacológico y psicológico de estos pacientes siguiendo la estructura PICO (Paciente-Intervención-Comparación-Outcome/resultados). Realizamos una evaluación de la calidad de los estudios y un resumen de la evidencia para cada pregunta siguiendo las recomendaciones del grupo de trabajo GRADE («Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation»).(AU)
Although correct diagnosis and management of patients with schizophrenia and a comorbid substance use disorder (SUD) would determine a decrease in morbidity and mortality in these patients, development of efficient therapeutic strategies is still pending. We present recommendations on the pharmacological and psychological management of these patients following the PICO structure (Patient-Intervention-Comparison-Outcomes). Evaluation of the quality of studies and summary of the evidence for each question was performed following the recommendations of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) working group.(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Adult , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Pharmacology , Schizophrenia , Substance-Related DisordersABSTRACT
La concurrencia de depresión y un trastorno por uso de sustancias (TUS) en pacientes que presentan patología dual ha sido reconocida desde hace mucho tiempo como una consideración importante en la práctica clínica. Esta revisión sintetiza la evidencia de intervenciones farmacológicas y psicosociales para trastornos comórbidos de depresión y uso de sustancias y además proporciona recomendaciones clínicas respecto de las mejores intervenciones para tratar a estos pacientes. Se utilizó la mejor evidencia de ensayos controlados aleatorizados para evaluar las opciones de tratamiento. La fuerza de las recomendaciones se describió mediante el enfoque GRADE.(AU)
Co-occurrence of depression and a substance use disorder (SUD) in patients who present dual diagnoses has been long recognized as an important consideration in clinical practice. This review synthesizes the evidence of pharmacological and psychosocial interventions for comorbid depressive disorders and SUDs while providing clinical recommendations about the best interventions to address these patients. The best evidence from randomized controlled trials was used to evaluate treatment options. The strength of recommendations was described using the GRADE approach.(AU)
Subject(s)
Practice Guideline , Pharmacology , Depressive Disorder , Substance-Related DisordersABSTRACT
Esta revisión resume las intervenciones farmacológicos y psicosociales que se han realizado en trastorno bipolar (TB) y un diagnóstico comórbido de trastorno por uso de sustancias (TUS) y además proporciona recomendaciones clínicas respecto de cuáles elementos de intervención son útiles para hacer frente a los síntomas del uso de sustancias versus los síntomas de estado de ánimo en pacientes con estas afecciones concurrentes. Se utilizó la mejor evidencia de ensayos controlados aleatorizados para evaluar las opciones de tratamiento. La fuerza de las recomendaciones se describió mediante el enfoque GRADE. Muy pocos de los ensayos aleatorizados realizados hasta la fecha han proporcionado evidencia consistente para el manejo tanto de los síntomas de estado de ánimo como del uso de sustancias en pacientes con TB. No hay disponibilidad de ensayos clínicos para pacientes con TB que utilizan el cannabis. Algunos tratamientos han mostrado beneficios para los síntomas de estado de ánimo sin beneficios para el uso de alcohol o sustancias ilícitas.(AU)
This review synthesizes the pharmacological and psychosocial interventions that have been conducted in comorbid bipolar disorder (BD) and substance use disorders (SUDs) while also providing clinical recommendations about which intervention elements are helpful for addressing substance use versus mood symptoms in patients with these co-occurring conditions. The best evidence from randomized controlled trials was used to evaluate treatment options. The strength of recommendations was described using the GRADE approach. Very few of the randomized trials performed so far have provided consistent evidence for the management of both mood symptoms and substance use in patients with a BD. No clinical trials are available for bipolar patients using cannabis. Some treatments have shown benefit for mood symptoms without benefits for alcohol or illicit substance use.(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Adult , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Pharmacology , Substance-Related Disorders , Bipolar DisorderABSTRACT
Esta revisión resume las intervenciones farmacológicos y psicosociales que han sido llevadas a cabo en trastornos de ansiedad con un diagnóstico comórbido de trastorno por uso de sustancias y además proporciona recomendaciones clínicas respecto de cuáles elementos de intervención son útiles para hacer frente a los síntomas del uso de sustancias y los síntomas de ansiedad en pacientes con estas afecciones concurrentes. Se utilizó la mejor evidencia de ensayos controlados aleatorizados para evaluar las opciones de tratamiento. La fuerza de las recomendaciones se describió mediante el enfoque GRADE. Hay ensayos clínicos disponibles únicamente para el trastorno por estrés postraumático (TEPT) y para el trastorno de ansiedad. En cuanto al diagnóstico comórbido de trastorno por uso de sustancias, todos los estudios han incluido pacientes con consumo de alcohol, ninguno de ellos ha abordado el consumo de cocaína, cannabis o nicotina. Aunque algunos tratamientos han mostrado beneficios para los síntomas de ansiedad sin beneficios para el consumo de alcohol u otras sustancias, solo se han ensayado enfoques farmacológicos limitados (sertralina, desipramina, paroxetina, buspirona, naltrexona y disulfiram).(AU)
This review synthesizes the pharmacological and psychosocial interventions that have been conducted in comorbid anxiety disorders and SUDs while also providing clinical recommendations about which intervention elements are helpful for addressing substance use versus anxiety symptoms in patients with these co-occurring conditions. The best evidence from randomized controlled trials was used to evaluate treatment options. The strength of recommendations was described using the GRADE approach. Clinical trials are only available for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and for social anxiety. Concerning the comorbid substance use, all the studies have included patients with alcohol use, none of them have dealt with cocaine, cannabis or nicotine use. Although some treatments have shown benefit for anxiety symptoms without benefits for alcohol or other substance use, only limited pharmacological approaches have been assayed (sertraline, desipramine, paroxetine, buspirone, naltrexone and disulfiram).(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Adult , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Pharmacology , Substance-Related Disorders , Anxiety DisordersABSTRACT
La evidencia actual confirma la alta comorbilidad entre el trastorno por déficit de atención con hiperactividad (TDAH) y trastorno por uso de sustancias (TUS). Esta revisión resume las intervenciones farmacológicas y psicosociales que se han evaluado en pacientes con TDAH y TUS, y ofrece recomendaciones mediante el enfoque GRADE. Nuestros resultados sugieren: 1) En pacientes con TDAH y trastorno por uso de alcohol, la atomoxetina es recomendable para reducir los síntomas de TDAH (recomendación débil) y el craving de alcohol (recomendación débil). 2) En pacientes con TDAH y trastorno por uso de cannabis, la atomoxetina es recomendable para mejorar los síntomas de TDAH (recomendación débil), no para reducir el uso de cannabis (recomendación débil). 3) En pacientes con TDAH y trastorno por uso de cocaína, el metilfenidato no es recomendable para mejorar los síntomas de TDAH o para reducir el uso de cocaína (recomendación débil). 4) En pacientes con TDAH y trastorno por uso de nicotina, es recomendable el metilfenidato para mejorar los síntomas de TDAH (recomendación débil). Los psicoestimulantes, como metilfenidato o lisdexanfetamina, no son recomendables para reducir el uso de nicotina (recomendación débil). 5) Respecto de los pacientes con TDAH y cualquier TUS, el uso de los psicoestimulantes es recomendable para mejorar los síntomas de TDAH (recomendación débil), no para reducir el uso de sustancias (recomendación débil) o para mejorar la retención del tratamiento (recomendación fuerte).(AU)
Substantial evidence has confirmed the high comorbidity between Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and a substance use disorder (SUD). This review synthesizes the pharmacological and psychosocial interventions conducted in ADHD and SUDs, and provides clinical recommendations using the GRADE approach. Our results suggest: 1) In patients with ADHD and alcohol use, atomoxetine is recommended to reduce ADHD symptoms (weak recommendation) and alcohol craving (weak recommendation). 2) In patients with ADHD and cannabis use disorder, atomoxetine is recommended to improve ADHD symptoms (weak recommendation), not to reduce cannabis use (weak recommendation). 3) In patients with ADHD and cocaine use disorder, methylphenidate is not recommended to improve ADHD symptoms or to reduce cocaine use (weak recommendation). 4) In patients with ADHD and comorbid nicotine use disorder, methylphenidate is recommended to improve ADHD symptoms (weak recommendation). Psychoestimulants, such as methylphenidate or lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, are not recommended to reduce nicotine use (weak recommendation). 5) Regarding patients with ADHD and any SUD, the use of psychostimulants is recommended to improve ADHD symptoms (weak recommendation), not to reduce substance use (weak recommendation) or to improve retention to treatment (strong recommendation).(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Adult , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Pharmacology , Substance-Related Disorders , Attention Deficit Disorder with HyperactivityABSTRACT
This review synthesizes the pharmacological and psychosocial interventions that have been conducted in comorbid bipolar disorder (BD) and substance use disorders (SUDs) while also providing clinical recommendations about which intervention elements are helpful for addressing substance use versus mood symptoms in patients with these co-occurring conditions. The best evidence from randomized controlled trials was used to evaluate treatment options. The strength of recommendations was described using the GRADE approach. Very few of the randomized trials performed so far have provided consistent evidence for the management of both mood symptoms and substance use in patients with a BD. No clinical trials are available for bipolar patients using cannabis. Some treatments have shown benefit for mood symptoms without benefits for alcohol or illicit substance use. Our results suggest that 1) we can (weakly) recommend the use of adjuvant valproate or naltrexone to improve symptoms of alcohol use disorder; 2) Lamotrigine add-on therapy seems to reduce cocaine-related symptoms and is therefore recommended (moderate strength); and 3) Varenicline is (weakly) recommended to improve nicotine abstinence. Integrated group therapy is the most-well validated and efficacious approach on substance use outcomes if substance use is targeted in an initial treatment phase.
Esta revisión resume las intervenciones farmacológicos y psicosociales que se han realizado en trastorno bipolar (TB) y un diagnóstico comórbido de trastorno por uso de sustancias (TUS) y además proporciona recomendaciones clínicas respecto de cuáles elementos de intervención son útiles para hacer frente a los síntomas del uso de sustancias versus los síntomas de estado de ánimo en pacientes con estas afecciones concurrentes. Se utilizó la mejor evidencia de ensayos controlados aleatorizados para evaluar las opciones de tratamiento. La fuerza de las recomendaciones se describió mediante el enfoque GRADE. Muy pocos de los ensayos aleatorizados realizados hasta la fecha han proporcionado evidencia consistente para el manejo tanto de los síntomas de estado de ánimo como del uso de sustancias en pacientes con TB. No hay disponibilidad de ensayos clínicos para pacientes con TB que utilizan el cannabis. Algunos tratamientos han mostrado beneficios para los síntomas de estado de ánimo sin beneficios para el uso de alcohol o sustancias ilícitas. Nuestros resultados sugieren que 1) podemos (débilmente) recomendar el uso de ácido valproico o naltrexona adyuvante para aliviar los síntomas del trastorno por consumo de alcohol; 2) el tratamiento complementario con lamotrigina parece reducir los síntomas relacionados con la cocaína y, por tanto, es recomendable (fuerza moderada); y 3) la vareniclina es recomendable (débilmente) para mejorar la abstinencia de la nicotina. La terapia grupal integrada es el enfoque con más validación y eficacia sobre los resultados en el uso de sustancias cuando este uso es abordado durante la fase inicial de tratamiento.
Subject(s)
Alcoholism , Bipolar Disorder , Psychotherapy, Group , Substance-Related Disorders , Adult , Alcoholism/complications , Alcoholism/epidemiology , Alcoholism/therapy , Bipolar Disorder/complications , Bipolar Disorder/therapy , Comorbidity , Humans , Substance-Related Disorders/complications , Substance-Related Disorders/epidemiology , Substance-Related Disorders/therapyABSTRACT
This review synthesizes the pharmacological and psychosocial interventions that have been conducted in comorbid anxiety disorders and SUDs while also providing clinical recommendations about which intervention elements are helpful for addressing substance use versus anxiety symptoms in patients with these co-occurring conditions. The best evidence from randomized controlled trials was used to evaluate treatment options. The strength of recommendations was described using the GRADE approach. Clinical trials are only available for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and for social anxiety. Concerning the comorbid substance use, all the studies have included patients with alcohol use, none of them have dealt with cocaine, cannabis or nicotine use. Although some treatments have shown benefit for anxiety symptoms without benefits for alcohol or other substance use, only limited pharmacological approaches have been assayed (sertraline, desipramine, paroxetine, buspirone, naltrexone and disulfiram). Our results suggest that 1) we can (weakly) recommend the use of desipramine over paroxetine to alleviate symptoms of anxiety in patients with a PTSD and alcohol use; 2) In these patients, the use of naltrexone to reduce symptoms of anxiety is also recommended (weak strength); and 3) SSRI antidepressants vs placebo can be recommended to reduce alcohol use (weak recommendation). Our review highlights the need for more research in this area and for larger, multisite studies with generalizable samples to provide more definite guidance for clinical practice.
Esta revisión resume las intervenciones farmacológicos y psicosociales que han sido llevadas a cabo en trastornos de ansiedad con un diagnóstico comórbido de trastorno por uso de sustancias y además proporciona recomendaciones clínicas respecto de cuáles elementos de intervención son útiles para hacer frente a los síntomas del uso de sustancias y los síntomas de ansiedad en pacientes con estas afecciones concurrentes. Se utilizó la mejor evidencia de ensayos controlados aleatorizados para evaluar las opciones de tratamiento. La fuerza de las recomendaciones se describió mediante el enfoque GRADE. Hay ensayos clínicos disponibles únicamente para el trastorno por estrés postraumático (TEPT) y para el trastorno de ansiedad. En cuanto al diagnóstico comórbido de trastorno por uso de sustancias, todos los estudios han incluido pacientes con consumo de alcohol, ninguno de ellos ha abordado el consumo de cocaína, cannabis o nicotina. Aunque algunos tratamientos han mostrado beneficios para los síntomas de ansiedad sin beneficios para el consumo de alcohol u otras sustancias, solo se han ensayado enfoques farmacológicos limitados (sertralina, desipramina, paroxetina, buspirona, naltrexona y disulfiram). Nuestros resultados sugieren que 1) podemos (débilmente) recomendar el uso de desipramina sobre la paroxetina para aliviar los síntomas de ansiedad en pacientes con un TEPT y consumo de alcohol; 2) en estos pacientes, el uso de naltrexona para reducir los síntomas de ansiedad es también recomendable (fuerza débil); y 3) se pueden recomendar antidepresivos ISRS frente a placebo para reducir el consumo de alcohol (recomendación débil). Nuestra revisión pone de relieve la necesidad de realizar más investigaciones en esta área y de estudios más grandes, multisitio con muestras generalizables para proporcionar evidencia más definitiva para la práctica clínica.
Subject(s)
Paroxetine , Substance-Related Disorders , Adult , Anxiety Disorders/complications , Anxiety Disorders/therapy , Desipramine/therapeutic use , Humans , Naltrexone/therapeutic use , Paroxetine/therapeutic use , Substance-Related Disorders/complications , Substance-Related Disorders/therapyABSTRACT
Substantial evidence has confirmed the high comorbidity between Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and a substance use disorder (SUD). This review synthesizes the pharmacological and psychosocial interventions conducted in ADHD and SUDs, and provides clinical recommendations using the GRADE approach. Our results suggest: 1) In patients with ADHD and alcohol use, atomoxetine is recommended to reduce ADHD symptoms (weak recommendation) and alcohol craving (weak recommendation). 2) In patients with ADHD and cannabis use disorder, atomoxetine is recommended to improve ADHD symptoms (weak recommendation), not to reduce cannabis use (weak recommendation). 3) In patients with ADHD and cocaine use disorder, methylphenidate is not recommended to improve ADHD symptoms or to reduce cocaine use (weak recommendation). 4) In patients with ADHD and comorbid nicotine use disorder, methylphenidate is recommended to improve ADHD symptoms (weak recommendation). Psychoestimulants, such as methylphenidate or lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, are not recommended to reduce nicotine use (weak recommendation). 5) Regarding patients with ADHD and any SUD, the use of psychostimulants is recommended to improve ADHD symptoms (weak recommendation), not to reduce substance use (weak recommendation) or to improve retention to treatment (strong recommendation). In these patients, the use of atomoxetine is recommended to improve ADHD symptoms (weak recommendation), not to decrease substance use (weak recommendation) or to improve retention to treatment (strong recommendation). Atomoxetine and psychostimulants appear to be safe in patients with any SUD (strong recommendation). Our review suggests the need for more research in this area and for larger, multisite, randomized studies to provide more definite and conclusive evidence.
La evidencia actual confirma la alta comorbilidad entre el trastorno por déficit de atención con hiperactividad (TDAH) y trastorno por uso de sustancias (TUS). Esta revisión resume las intervenciones farmacológicas y psicosociales que se han evaluado en pacientes con TDAH y TUS, y ofrece recomendaciones mediante el enfoque GRADE. Nuestros resultados sugieren: 1) En pacientes con TDAH y trastorno por uso de alcohol, la atomoxetina es recomendable para reducir los síntomas de TDAH (recomendación débil) y el craving de alcohol (recomendación débil). 2) En pacientes con TDAH y trastorno por uso de cannabis, la atomoxetina es recomendable para mejorar los síntomas de TDAH (recomendación débil), no para reducir el uso de cannabis (recomendación débil). 3) En pacientes con TDAH y trastorno por uso de cocaína, el metilfenidato no es recomendable para mejorar los síntomas de TDAH o para reducir el uso de cocaína (recomendación débil). 4) En pacientes con TDAH y trastorno por uso de nicotina, es recomendable el metilfenidato para mejorar los síntomas de TDAH (recomendación débil). Los psicoestimulantes, como metilfenidato o lisdexanfetamina, no son recomendables para reducir el uso de nicotina (recomendación débil). 5) Respecto de los pacientes con TDAH y cualquier TUS, el uso de los psicoestimulantes es recomendable para mejorar los síntomas de TDAH (recomendación débil), no para reducir el uso de sustancias (recomendación débil) o para mejorar la retención del tratamiento (recomendación fuerte). En estos pacientes, el uso de atomexetina es recomendable para mejorar los síntomas de TDAH (recomendación débil), no para reducir el uso de sustancias (recomendación débil) o para mejorar la retención del tratamiento (recomendación fuerte). La atomoxetina y los psicoestimulantes parecen ser seguros en pacientes con cualquier TUS (recomendación fuerte). Nuestra revisión sugiere la necesidad de realizar más investigaciones en esta área y de estudios aleatorizados, multicéntricos y de mayor tamaño muestral para proporcionar más evidencia definitiva y concluyente.
Subject(s)
Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity , Central Nervous System Stimulants , Cocaine , Methylphenidate , Substance-Related Disorders , Adult , Atomoxetine Hydrochloride/therapeutic use , Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity/complications , Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity/drug therapy , Central Nervous System Stimulants/therapeutic use , Comorbidity , Humans , Methylphenidate/adverse effects , Substance-Related Disorders/complications , Substance-Related Disorders/therapyABSTRACT
Although correct diagnosis and management of patients with schizophrenia and a comorbid substance use disorder (SUD) would determine a decrease in morbidity and mortality in these patients, development of efficient therapeutic strategies is still pending. We present recommendations on the pharmacological and psychological management of these patients following the 'PICO' structure (Patient-Intervention-Comparison-Outcomes). Evaluation of the quality of studies and summary of the evidence for each question was performed following the recommendations of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) working group. Our results suggest: 1) In patients with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, it is not possible to recommend one antipsychotic drug over another (between olanzapine, risperidone or haloperidol) for improving psychotic symptoms, reducing cannabis use, or improving pragmatic variables (weak recommendation). Clozapine cannot be recommended to reduce cannabis use (weak recommendation). 2) In patients with schizophrenia and cocaine use disorder we recommend haloperidol over olanzapine to reduce craving (moderate recommendation), and olanzapine over haloperidol to improve motor side effects in these patients (moderate recommendation). 3) In patients with schizophrenia and alcohol use disorder while naltrexone is recommended to reduce alcohol use (in terms of reducing alcohol craving) (weak recommendation), there is insufficient evidence to make any recommendation on the use of adjuvant acamprosate (weak recommendation). 4) In patients with schizophrenia and nicotine use disorder, adjuvant bupropion and varenicline are recommended for reducing nicotine use and nicotine abstinence (strong/moderate recommendation). 5) In patients with schizophrenia and polydrug use disorder, second-generation over first-generation antipsychotic drugs and olanzapine over other second-generation antipsychotics are recommended to improve psychotic symptoms (moderate/weak recommendation).
Aunque el correcto diagnóstico y manejo de los pacientes con esquizofrenia y un diagnóstico comórbido de trastorno por uso de sustancias (TUS) determinaría una disminución de la morbilidad y mortalidad en estos pacientes, el desarrollo de estrategias terapéuticas eficientes es todavía una asignatura pendiente. Presentamos recomendaciones sobre el manejo farmacológico y psicológico de estos pacientes siguiendo la estructura PICO (Paciente-Intervención-Comparación-Outcome/resultados). Realizamos una evaluación de la calidad de los estudios y un resumen de la evidencia para cada pregunta siguiendo las recomendaciones del grupo de trabajo GRADE («Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation¼). Nuestros resultados sugieren: 1) En pacientes con esquizofrenia y trastorno por consumo de cannabis, no es posible recomendar un fármaco antipsicótico sobre otro (entre olanzapina, risperidona o haloperidol) para mejorar los síntomas psicóticos, reducir el consumo de cannabis o mejorar las variables pragmáticas (recomendación débil). No se puede recomendar la clozapina para reducir el consumo de cannabis (recomendación débil). 2) En pacientes con esquizofrenia y trastorno por consumo de cocaína, recomendamos haloperidol sobre olanzapina para reducir el craving (recomendación moderada) y olanzapina sobre haloperidol para mejorar los efectos secundarios motores en estos pacientes (recomendación moderada). 3) En pacientes con esquizofrenia y trastorno por consumo de alcohol, mientras que se recomienda naltrexona para reducir el consumo de alcohol (en términos de reducción del craving de alcohol) (recomendación débil), no hay evidencia suficiente para hacer ninguna recomendación sobre el uso de acamprosato como adyuvante (recomendación débil). 4) En pacientes con esquizofrenia y trastorno por consumo de nicotina, se recomiendan bupropión y vareniclina adyuvantes para reducir el consumo y la abstinencia de nicotina (recomendación fuerte/moderada). 5) En pacientes con esquizofrenia y trastorno por policonsumo, se recomiendan antipsicóticos de segunda generación sobre los de primera generación y olanzapina sobre otros antipsicóticos de segunda generación para mejorar los síntomas psicóticos (recomendación moderada/débil).
Subject(s)
Antipsychotic Agents , Schizophrenia , Substance-Related Disorders , Adult , Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use , Benzodiazepines/therapeutic use , Haloperidol/therapeutic use , Humans , Nicotine , Olanzapine/therapeutic use , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Schizophrenia/complications , Schizophrenia/drug therapy , Substance-Related Disorders/complications , Substance-Related Disorders/drug therapyABSTRACT
Co-occurrence of depression and a substance use disorder (SUD) in patients who present dual diagnoses has been long recognized as an important consideration in clinical practice. This review synthesizes the evidence of pharmacological and psychosocial interventions for comorbid depressive disorders and SUDs while providing clinical recommendations about the best interventions to address these patients. The best evidence from randomized controlled trials was used to evaluate treatment options. The strength of recommendations was described using the GRADE approach. Our results suggest that 1) In patients with depression and alcohol consumption, the administration of non-selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants instead of SSRI is recommended for improvement of depressive symptoms (strong recommendation). Neither SSRI (strong recommendation) nor non-SSRI (weak recommendation) antidepressants are recommended for reduction in alcohol consumption. 2) In patients with depression and cannabis use, the use of venlafaxine is not recommended (weak recommendation). 3) In patients with depression and cocaine consumption, the use of SSRI antidepressants for improving depressive symptoms (weak recommendation) or to reduce cocaine use is not recommended (strong recommendation). The use of non-SSRI antidepressants is only recommended for improving depressive symptoms (strong recommendation). 4) The administration of bupropion to reduce nicotine consumption is not recommended (strong recommendation). 5) Regarding psychological treatment, in patients with depression and co-occurring alcohol disorder, both pharmacotherapy and cognitive behavioural therapy have positive effects on internalizing symptoms and in reducing alcohol consumption (weak recommendation). Our review suggests the need for more research in this area and for larger, multisite, randomized studies to provide more definite evidence.
La concurrencia de depresión y un trastorno por uso de sustancias (TUS) en pacientes que presentan patología dual ha sido reconocida desde hace mucho tiempo como una consideración importante en la práctica clínica. Esta revisión sintetiza la evidencia de intervenciones farmacológicas y psicosociales para trastornos comórbidos de depresión y uso de sustancias y además proporciona recomendaciones clínicas respecto de las mejores intervenciones para tratar a estos pacientes. Se utilizó la mejor evidencia de ensayos controlados aleatorizados para evaluar las opciones de tratamiento. La fuerza de las recomendaciones se describió mediante el enfoque GRADE. Nuestros resultados sugieren que: 1) en pacientes con depresión y consumo de alcohol, se recomienda la administración de antidepresivos inhibidores de la recaptación de serotonina (ISRS) no selectivos en lugar de los ISRS para mejorar los síntomas depresivos (recomendación fuerte). No se recomiendan antidepresivos ISRS (recomendación fuerte) ni antidepresivos no ISRS (recomendación débil) para reducir el consumo de alcohol; 2) en pacientes con depresión y consumo de cannabis, no se recomienda el uso de venlafaxina (recomendación débil); 3) en pacientes con depresión y consumo de cocaína, no se recomienda el uso de antidepresivos ISRS para mejorar los síntomas depresivos (recomendación débil) o para reducir el consumo de cocaína (recomendación fuerte). El uso de antidepresivos no ISRS solo se recomienda para mejorar los síntomas depresivos (recomendación fuerte); 4) no se recomienda la administración de bupropión para reducir el consumo de nicotina (recomendación fuerte), y 5) en cuanto al tratamiento psicológico, en pacientes con depresión y trastorno de alcohol concurrente, tanto la farmacoterapia como la terapia cognitivo-conductual tienen efectos positivos en la internalización de los síntomas y en la reducción del consumo de alcohol (recomendación débil). Nuestra revisión sugiere la necesidad de realizar más investigaciones en esta área y de estudios aleatorizados, multisitio y más grandes para proporcionar más evidencia definitiva.
Subject(s)
Cocaine , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Substance-Related Disorders , Adult , Antidepressive Agents/therapeutic use , Depression , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Substance-Related Disorders/complications , Substance-Related Disorders/therapyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Seasonal pattern (SP) is a bipolar disorder (BD) specifier that indicates a tendency towards affective relapses during specific moments of the year. SP affects 15%-25% of BD patients. In the past, SP was applied only to depressive relapses while, in DSM-5, SP may be applied to both depressive and (hypo)manic episodes. We examined the association between different clinical correlates of BD and SP according to its current definition in a cohort of patients with BD type I (BDI) and II (BDII). METHODS: Patients were recruited from a specialized unit and assessed according to the season of relapse and type of episode per season. SP and non-SP patients were compared looking into sociodemographic and clinical correlates. Significant variables at univariate comparisons were included in multivariate logistic regression with SP as the dependent variable. RESULTS: 708 patients were enrolled (503 BDI, 205 BDII), and 117 (16.5%) fulfilled DSM-5 criteria for SP. The mean age was 45.3 years (SD = 14.18), and 389 were female (54.9%). The logistic regression model included a significant contribution of BDII (OR = 2.23, CI 1.4-3.55), family history of mood disorder (OR = 1.97, CI 1.29-3.01), undetermined predominant polarity (OR = 0.44, CI 0.28-0.70), and aggressive behavior (OR = 0.42, CI 0.23-0.75). CONCLUSION: Our results outline a novel positive association of SP with undetermined predominant polarity, BDII, family history of mood disorder, and with fewer aggressiveness-related symptoms. Seasonality is associated with a biphasic pattern with similar dominance of (hypo)mania and depression and is more frequent in BDII as compared to BDI. Seasonal episodes may be easier to predict, but difficult to prevent.
Subject(s)
Bipolar Disorder , Bipolar Disorder/epidemiology , Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Mood Disorders , Recurrence , SeasonsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of adjunctive group psychoeducation in bipolar disorder has been proven although treatment response differ among individuals. The aim of this study was to characterize responders and non-responders to group psychoeducation in order to identify baseline variables that could predict treatment response. METHODS: The sample was composed of 103 medicated euthymic patients with bipolar disorder referred to 21 sessions of group psychoeducation (6 months). Sociodemographic and clinical variables, temperament, circadian rhythms, BDNF, cognitive and psychosocial functioning were collected. At the 18-month endpoint, the patients were split in two groups on the basis of having suffered any recurrence. Significant group differences were included in a logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Ninety patients out of 103 engaged in group psychoeducation, 47 of whom (52.2%) responded to psychoeducation and 43 (47.8%) did not. Recurrences occurred more often in the follow-up, the most common being depression. Responders and non-responders differed in gender, age at diagnosis, latency of diagnosis, temperament, attention composite score and BDNF. Lower age at diagnosis of bipolar disorder, lower cyclothimic temperament scores and being male -which was associated with bipolar type I and a trend to more previous manic episodes- were significantly related to a better response to psychoeducation in the regression analysis. LIMITATIONS: No control group. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies age at diagnosis as a significant modifiable risk factor of treatment response, highlighting the need for early identification of bipolar disorder. Existing programs should be adjusted to the characteristics of specific subpopulations in the framework of a personalized approach.
Subject(s)
Bipolar Disorder , Bipolar Disorder/therapy , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Prospective Studies , Recurrence , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics (LAIs) are used to overcome non-compliance in psychoses, mainly schizophrenia spectrum disorders. We aimed to summarize available evidence of studies comparing the efficacy of LAIs to placebo or oral medications for Bipolar Disorder (BD) and/or Schizoaffective Disorder (SAD). We searched six databases from inception to 28-March-2018, using the strategy: long-acting antipsychotics AND (bipolar disorder OR schizoaffective disorder OR mania OR manic OR bipolar depression). We included peer-reviewed double-blind comparisons of LAIs for any clinical outcome occurrence in BD, or open mirror studies with same prospective as retrospective assessment periods. We excluded studies reporting on mixed schizophrenia/SAD populations without reporting results separately. The pooled records amounted to 642. After duplicate removal and inclusion/exclusion criteria application, we included 15 studies, 6 double-blind and 9 open, 13 assessing BD and 2 SAD. Depot neuroleptics prevented manic, but not depressive recurrences and may worsen depressive symptoms. Risperidone long-acting injectable was found to be effective in protecting from any mood/manic symptom compared to placebo, but not from depressive recurrences. Add-on or monotherapy paliperidone palmitate in SAD patients protected from psychotic, depressive, and manic symptoms. In patients with BD-I with a manic episode at study enrolment, aripiprazole monohydrate significantly delayed time to recurrence of manic episodes without inducing depressive episodes. LAIs are effective and well-tolerated maintenance treatments for BD and SAD. They showed better efficacy in preventing mania than depression. LAIs may be first-line for BD-I and SAD patients with a manic predominant polarity and with non-adherence problems.
Subject(s)
Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use , Bipolar Disorder/drug therapy , Psychotic Disorders/drug therapy , Antipsychotic Agents/administration & dosage , Delayed-Action Preparations/administration & dosage , Delayed-Action Preparations/therapeutic use , Humans , Injections, Intramuscular , RecurrenceSubject(s)
Bipolar Disorder/psychology , Patient Satisfaction/statistics & numerical data , Professional-Family Relations , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Bipolar Disorder/therapy , Humans , Male , Mental Health Services , Middle Aged , Quality of Health Care , Spain , Surveys and Questionnaires , Tertiary Care Centers , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Cortical surface area and thickness abnormalities have been observed in patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorders; however, no study thus far has examined cortical morphologic measurements in children and adolescents at genetic risk for the disorders comparatively. METHOD: One hundred thirty-seven participants, including 36 offspring of patients with schizophrenia (SzO), 54 offspring of patients with bipolar disorder (BpO), and 47 offspring of community controls (CcO), 6 to 17 years old, were assessed with clinical and neuroimaging methods. Sixty-nine percent of the sample was reassessed at a 27.6-month (mean) follow-up. Cortical surface reconstruction was applied to measure cortical area and thickness using FreeSurfer; mixed-effects models were used to investigate cross-sectional and longitudinal differences in global and lobar morphologic measurements. RESULTS: The SzO group exhibited a cross-sectional decrease in global, parietal, and occipital lobe surface area compared with the CcO group, and in the occipital lobe compared with the BpO group. In the SzO group, global and parietal surface area values were inversely associated with attenuated positive and negative prodromal symptom scores. No cross-sectional differences in cortical thickness were observed. Division of the sample by pubertal status showed group-by-time interactions in the pubertal and postpubertal SzO subgroup, with less longitudinal decrease in cortical surface area and thickness than in the CcO and BpO subgroups, respectively. CONCLUSION: The SzO, but not the BpO, group was characterized by cross-sectional decreases in surface area, and this was associated with prodromal symptoms. Longitudinal changes in cortical morphology associated with risk for schizophrenia may be expressed differently according to developmental stage.
Subject(s)
Bipolar Disorder/pathology , Cerebral Cortex/pathology , Child of Impaired Parents , Prodromal Symptoms , Schizophrenia/pathology , Adolescent , Adult , Bipolar Disorder/diagnostic imaging , Bipolar Disorder/physiopathology , Cerebral Cortex/diagnostic imaging , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Schizophrenia/diagnostic imaging , Schizophrenia/physiopathologyABSTRACT
Breast milk is considered the best source of nutrients and provides much better protection than immune modified milk. However, the postpartum period is a phase of increased risk for all women to experience psychiatric symptoms and recurrences or new episodes of bipolar disorder (BD), especially in those who have discontinued treatment. This is a systematic review of the risks and benefits of mood stabilizers and antipsychotics during breastfeeding as they relate to the health and well-being of mothers and their infants. Evidence-based treatment advice for women with BD during lactation is also provided. This systematic review has been conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. We included studies examining the exposure and the effects of antipsychotics and mood stabilizers used to treat BD on infants during breastfeeding clearly reporting the estimated amount of drug or effects on infants. The final selection included 56 studies. The available data supports the use of lithium as a possible treatment option during breastfeeding. Carbamazepine and valproic acid are also considered relatively safe. Lamotrigine can be used but at the lowest doses and considered for individual cases. Among the antipsychotics, quetiapine and olanzapine should be considered as first-line treatment options. Risperidone may be compatible with breastfeeding under medical supervision. Clozapine and amisulpiride are currently contraindicated. Long-term outcome studies evaluating the infant׳s health and psychosocial and cognitive functioning are needed.
Subject(s)
Antimanic Agents/adverse effects , Antimanic Agents/therapeutic use , Antipsychotic Agents/adverse effects , Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use , Bipolar Disorder/drug therapy , Breast Feeding , Adult , Antimanic Agents/pharmacokinetics , Antipsychotic Agents/pharmacokinetics , Bipolar Disorder/complications , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Milk, Human/chemistry , Milk, Human/metabolism , Postpartum PeriodABSTRACT
UNLABELLED: The DSM-5 and ICD-11 classifications, the latter still under development, are aimed at harmonizing the diagnoses of mental disorders. A critical review is presented in the issues that can converge or separate both classifications regarding bipolar disorders, and those conditionsincluded in depressive disorderswith special relevance for bipolar (e.g. major depressive episode). The main novelties include the incorporation of dimensional parameters to assess the symptoms, as well as the sub-threshold states in the bipolar spectrum, the consideration of new course specifiers such as the mixed symptoms, the elimination of mixed episodes, and a more restrictive threshold for the diagnosis of hypo/mania. The most noticeable points of convergence are the inclusion of bipolar II disorder in ICD-11 and the additional requirement of an increase in activity, besides mood elation or irritability, for the diagnosis of hypo/mania in both classifications. The main differences are, most likely keeping the mixed depression and anxiety disorder diagnostic category, maintaining bereavement as exclusion criterion for the depressive episode, and maintaining the mixed episode diagnosis in bipolar disorder in the forthcoming ICD-11. CONCLUSION: Since DSM-5 has already been published, changes in the draft of ICD-11, or ongoing changes in DSM-5.1 will be necessary to improve the harmonization of psychiatric diagnoses.
Subject(s)
Bipolar Disorder/diagnosis , Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , International Classification of Diseases , Psychiatric Status Rating Scales , Bipolar Disorder/classification , HumansABSTRACT
Las clasificaciones DSM-5 y CIE-11, esta última en elaboración, pretenden armonizar los diagnósticos de los trastornos mentales. En este artículo hacemos una revisión crítica de los puntos que pueden aproximar y aquellos que pueden dificultar la convergencia de los trastornos bipolares, así como de aquellas condiciones clínicas single bondincluidas dentro de los trastornos depresivossingle bond con especial relevancia para los trastornos bipolares (p. ej., episodio depresivo mayor). Las principales novedades agregadas comprenden la incorporación de parámetros dimensionales para la evaluación de los síntomas, la posibilidad de diagnosticar cuadros subumbrales del espectro bipolar, la consideración de nuevos especificadores de curso como los síntomas mixtos, la desaparición del diagnóstico de episodio mixto, y el aumento del umbral para el diagnóstico de hipo/manía. Las convergencias destacables son la inclusión del trastorno bipolar ii en la CIE-11 y la exigencia adicional, además de la euforia o la irritabilidad, de un aumento de la energía o de la actividad para el diagnóstico de hipo/manía en ambas clasificaciones. El mantenimiento del diagnóstico de trastorno mixto ansioso-depresivo, del duelo como criterio de exclusión de depresión mayor, o el diagnóstico de episodio mixto en el trastorno bipolar, son algunas de las principales divergencias en la versión beta de la CIE-11 respecto al ya editado DSM-5. Conclusión. Dado que el DSM-5 ya ha sido publicado, serán necesarios cambios en el borrador de la CIE-11 o modificaciones del DSM-5.1 para armonizar los diagnósticos psiquiátricos (AU)
The DSM-5 and ICD-11 classifications, the latter still under development, are aimed at harmonizing the diagnoses of mental disorders. A critical review is presented of the issues that can converge or separate both classifications regarding bipolar disorders, and those conditions - included in depressive disorders - with special relevance for bipolar (e.g. major depressive episode). The main novelties include the incorporation of dimensional parameters to assess the symptoms, as well as the sub-threshold states in the bipolar spectrum, the consideration of new course specifiers such as the mixed symptoms, the elimination of mixed episodes, and a more restrictive threshold for the diagnosis of hypo/mania. The most noticeable points of convergence are the inclusion of bipolar ii disorder in ICD-11 and the additional requirement of an increase in activity, besides mood elation or irritability, for the diagnosis of hypo/mania in both classifications. The main differences are, most likely keeping the mixed depression and anxiety disorder diagnostic category, maintaining bereavement as exclusion criterion for the depressive episode, and maintaining the mixed episode diagnosis in bipolar disorder in the forthcoming ICD-11. Conclusion. Since DSM-5 has already been published, changes in the draft of ICD-11, or ongoing changes in DSM-5.1 will be necessary to improve the harmonization of psychiatric diagnoses (AU)