Biochemical and genetic predictors and correlates of response to lamotrigine and folic acid in bipolar depression: Analysis of the CEQUEL clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: CEQUEL (Comparative Evaluation of QUEtiapine plus Lamotrigine combination versus quetiapine monotherapy [and folic acid versus placebo] in bipolar depression) was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group, 2×2 factorial trial that examined the effect of adding lamotrigine and/or folic acid (FA) to quetiapine in bipolar depression. Lamotrigine improved depression, but its effectiveness was reduced by FA. We investigated the baseline predictors and correlates of clinical response, and the possible basis of the interaction. METHODS: The main outcome was change in depressive symptoms at 12 weeks, measured using the Quick Inventory for Depressive Symptoms-self report version 16 (QIDS-SR16). We examined the relationship between symptoms and lamotrigine levels, and biochemical measures of one-carbon metabolism and functional polymorphisms in catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT), methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) and folate hydrolase 1 (FOLH1). RESULTS: Lamotrigine levels were unaffected by FA and did not differ between those participants who achieved remission and those with persisting symptoms. When participants with subtherapeutic serum levels were excluded, there was a main effect of lamotrigine on the main outcome, although this remained limited to those randomized to FA placebo. None of the biochemical measures correlated with clinical outcome. The negative impact of FA on lamotrigine response was limited to COMT Met carriers. FOLH1 and MTHFR had no effect. CONCLUSIONS: Our results clarify that FA's inhibition of lamotrigine's efficacy is not a pharmacokinetic effect, and that low serum lamotrigine levels contributed to lamotrigine's lack of a main effect at 12 weeks. We were unable to explain the lamotrigine-FA interaction, but our finding that it is modulated by the COMT genotype provides a starting point for follow-on neurobiological investigations. More broadly, our results highlight the value of including biochemical and genetic indices in randomized clinical trials.

Incentives and disincentives to participation by clinicians in randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients and clinicians need reliable, up-to-date information from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the costs and benefits of treatments. Recruitment difficulties arise when clinicians do not invite patients to participate in trials. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to assess the evidence for the effect of disincentives and incentives on the extent to which clinicians invite eligible patients to participate in RCTs of healthcare interventions. Secondary: to assess the evidence in relation to stated willingness to invite participation. SEARCH STRATEGY: 1. The Cochrane Methodology Register and Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews were searched in May 2006 and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, National Research Register and ClinicalTrialsGov in April 2005.2. EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED were searched in April 2005.3. Reference lists of included studies were checked. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies exploring the effect of (dis)incentives on clinicians' views and recruitment-related activity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The information about included studies was insufficient for a full assessment of quality. Data on (dis)incentives were extracted and association with recruitment tested. MAIN RESULTS: No RCTs of interventions were identified. Eleven observational studies were included - two medical records reviews, one matched pair study, one clinician interview study, two studies documenting clinicians' decisions and five postal surveys. Three measures of recruitment were used, invitation to participate, entry into RCT and reported entry to RCT. Five studies explored the effect of patient characteristics. The effect of age and prognosis varied between trials. Six studies considered the association between clinicians' views and recruitment. Clinicians who agreed to participate because they were acquainted with the researchers were less likely to participate than those otherwise motivated (1 study, 2-sided p = 0.04 Fisher's exact test) and (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.4, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.2 to 0.9, 1 study). Clinicians who had recruited were more likely to report some difficulties including "trials involve extra work" (OR 92.94, 95% CI 4.54 - 1902.11; p

Risperidone in long-term treatment for bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: Risperidone, an atypical antipsychotic, is used to treat acute manic episodes, particularly when psychotic symptoms are present. Drugs used to treat mania are often continued as long-term treatment to prevent relapse. There is a need for evidence of the effectiveness and safety of risperidone as long-term treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the randomised evidence for the efficacy and tolerability of risperidone compared with placebo or other active pharmacological treatments as long-term treatment for prevention or attenuation of further episodes of mood disorder in patients with bipolar disorder. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR-Studies) was search on 12/10/2005, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched in October 2005. Reference lists and English language textbooks were searched; researchers in the field were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing risperidone with placebo or other drug in long-term treatment for prevention of depressive or manic relapses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Not applicable. MAIN RESULTS: No randomised trials comparing risperidone with other treatments for the prevention of manic and depressive relapses were identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for randomised controlled trials comparing risperidone and other treatments for the prevention of relapse in bipolar disorder. The trials should involve randomisation of treatment for relapse prevention and involve long-term follow up.

Haloperidol alone or in combination for acute mania.

BACKGROUND: The main objectives in treating mania are to control dangerous behaviour, reduce suicide, produce appropriate acute sedation and shorten the episode of mood disturbance. Among different drugs, haloperidol has for many years been used in treating psychotic patients, but it has a troublesome side effect profile. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of haloperidol for the treatment of mania in comparison with placebo or other active drugs, either as monotherapy or add-on treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (11 October 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966-2003), EMBASE (1980-2003), CINAHL (1982-2003), PsycINFO (1872-2003) and reference lists. We also contacted experts, triallists and pharmaceutical companies in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing haloperidol with placebo or other active treatment in the treatment of acute manic or mixed episodes in patients with bipolar disorder or schizoaffective disorder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse effects information from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen trials involving 2022 people were included. Compared to placebo, haloperidol was more effective at reducing manic symptoms, both as monotherapy (Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) -5.85, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) -7.69 to -4.00) and as adjunctive treatment to lithium or valproate (WMD -5.20, 95% CI -9.26 to -1.14). There was a statistically significant difference, with haloperidol being less effective than aripiprazole (Relative Risk (RR) 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73). No significant differences between haloperidol and risperidone, olanzapine, carbamazepine or valproate were found. Compared with placebo, a statistically significant difference in favour of haloperidol in failure to complete treatment (RR 0.74, 95% Cl 0.57 to 0.96) was reported. Haloperidol was associated with less weight gain than olanzapine (RR: 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.67), but with a higher incidence of tremor (RR: 3.01, 95% CI 1.55 to 5.84) and other movement disorders. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that haloperidol is an effective treatment for acute mania. From the limited data available, there was no difference in overall efficacy of treatment between haloperidol and olanzapine or risperidone. Some evidence suggests that haloperidol could be less effective than aripiprazole. Referring to tolerability, when considering the poor evidence comparing drugs, clinicians and patients should consider different side effect profiles as an important issue to inform their choice.

Risperidone alone or in combination for acute mania.

BACKGROUND: Risperidone, an atypical antipsychotic, is used to treat mania both alone and in combination with other medicines. OBJECTIVES: To review the efficacy and tolerability of risperidone as treatment for mania. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR-Studies December 2004), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched in December 2004. Reference lists and English language textbooks were searched; researchers in the field and Janssen-Cilag were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing risperidone with placebo or other drugs in acute manic or mixed episodes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data from trial reports. Janssen-Cilag was asked to provide missing information. QUALITY ASSESSMENT: As in other trials of treatment for mania, the high proportion of imputed efficacy data resulting from rates of failure to complete treatment of between 12% and 62% may have biased the results. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials (1343 participants) of risperidone as monotherapy or as adjunctive treatment to lithium, or an anticonvulsant, were identified. Permitted doses were consistent with those recommended by the manufacturers of Haldol (haloperidol) and Risperdal (risperidone) for treatment of mania and trials involving haloperidol allowed antiparkinsonian treatment. Risperidone monotherapy was more effective than placebo in reducing manic symptoms, using the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) (weighted mean difference (WMD) -5.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.46 to -4.04, P<0.00001; 2 trials) and in leading to response, remission and sustained remission. Effect sizes for monotherapy and adjunctive treatment comparisons were similar. Low levels of baseline depression precluded reliable assessment of efficacy for treatment of depressive symptoms. Risperidone as monotherapy and as adjunctive treatment was more acceptable than placebo, with lower incidence of failure to complete treatment (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.82, P = 0.0003; 5 trials). Overall risperidone caused more weight gain, extrapyramidal disorder, sedation and increase in prolactin level than placebo. There was no evidence of a difference in efficacy between risperidone and haloperidol either as monotherapy or as adjunctive treatment. The acceptability of risperidone and haloperidol in incidence of failure to complete treatment was comparable. Overall risperidone caused more weight gain than haloperidol but less extrapyramidal disorder and comparable sedation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone, as monotherapy and adjunctive treatment, is effective in reducing manic symptoms. The main adverse effects are weight gain, extrapyramidal effects and sedation. Risperidone is comparable in efficacy to haloperidol. Higher quality trials are required to provide more reliable and precise estimates of its costs and benefits.

Olanzapine alone or in combination for acute mania.

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine, an atypical antipsychotic, is used in the treatment of mania both as monotherapy and combined with other medicines. OBJECTIVES: To review the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine in the treatment of mania SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing olanzapine with placebo or other drug in acute manic or mixed episodes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data from trial reports MAIN RESULTS: Six trials (1422 participants) were included in the review. There was a high rate of failure to complete treatment on all treatments which may have biased the estimates of relative efficacy. Olanzapine was superior to placebo at reducing manic symptoms as monotherapy (Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) - weighted mean difference (WMD): -5.94, 95% CI -9.09 to -2.80) and in combination with lithium/valproate (YMRS) (WMD -4.01, 95% confidence interval -6.06 to -1.96). Olanzapine monotherapy was superior at reducing psychotic symptoms (PANSS positive symptoms subscale WMD: -3.54, 95% CI -5.28 to -1.80). Olanzapine was superior to divalproex at reducing manic symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD): -0.29, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.08). Olanzapine did not lead to a statistically higher rate of clinical response than haloperidol (RR: 1.03, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.38). Fewer patients discontinued treatment on olanzapine than placebo (RR: 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.80). Olanzapine caused greater weight gain than placebo (WMD 1.91Kg, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.53) and somnolence (RR: 2.13 95% CI 1.62 to 2.79) but not more depressive symptoms (RR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.40) or movement disorder (WMD: -0.33, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.09). Olanzapine caused more prolactin elevation than placebo (RR: 4.35 95%CI 1.77 to 10.70). Olanzapine caused greater weight gain (WMD: 1.54, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.05); somnolence (RR: 1.80 95% CI 1.32 to 2.46) and movement disorders (SAS - WMD: 0.72 95% CI 0.11 to 1.33) than divalproex but less nausea ( RR: 0.36 95% CI 0.20 to 0.65). Olanzapine caused more weight gain than haloperidol (RR: 3.59, 95% CI 1.49 to 8.64) but less movement disorder (EPS RR: 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.24). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine is an effective treatment for mania and may be more efficacious than divalproex, though leads to more weight gain. Clinicians should consider both the relative efficacy and the different incidence of specific adverse effects of available drugs.