Pharmacological treatment and staging in bipolar disorder: evidence from clinical practice

Objectives: Staging models for medical diseases are widely used to guide treatment and prognosis. Bipolar disorder (BD) is a chronic condition and it is among the most disabling disorders in medicine. The staging model proposed by Kapczinski in 2009 presents four progressive clinical stages of BD. Our aim was to evaluate pharmacological maintenance treatment across these stages in patients with BD. Methods: One hundred and twenty-nine subjects who met DSM-IV criteria for BD were recruited from the Bipolar Disorders Program at Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Brazil. All patients were in remission. The subjects were classified according to the staging model: 31 subjects were classified as stage I, 44 as stage II, 31 as stage III, and 23 as stage IV. Results: Patterns of pharmacological treatment differed among the four stages (p = 0.001). Monotherapy was more frequent in stage I, and two-drug combinations in stage II. Patients at stages III and IV needed three or more medications or clozapine. Impairment in functional status (Functioning Assessment Short Test [FAST] scale scores) correlated positively with the number of medications prescribed. Conclusions: This study demonstrated differences in pharmacological treatment in patients with stable BD depending on disease stage. Treatment response can change with progression of BD. Clinical guidelines could consider the staging model to guide treatment effectiveness. .

Pharmacovigilance in epileptic patients using antiepileptic drugs

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the occurrence of adverse effects of antiepileptic drugs (AED) in chronic epileptic patients in mono or polytherapy. METHOD: We evaluated consecutive patients that met the following inclusion criteria: age of 18 years or older, diagnosis of epilepsy for at least one year, stable dose of AED for at least three months. Patients were asked if they had any adverse event related to the AED. After that, they were interviewed according to a detailed semi-structure questionnaire. We also assessed specifically the adverse events in the last four weeks. The data were analyzed regarding the use of monotherapy x polytherapy, and the presence of probable depression (score >15) according to the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were evaluated, 35 women, mean age 38.3 years; 35 patients were in use of monotherapy and 35 in polytherapy. Only 45 (69.2 percent) patients spontaneously reported adverse effects. After the formal questionnaire, 63 (97 percent) patients referred experiencing an adverse event (p<0.001). Seventeen men had adverse events, as opposed to 28 women (p=0.042). When the last four weeks were evaluated, patients with probable depression presented adverse events more frequently (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that adverse events are highly prevalent when a detailed questionnaire is applied and that depression may aggravate the number and intensity of side effects in patients using AEDs.