Search

Background: Bipolar patients experience sleep disturbances during and between mood episodes. Yet the impact of sleep on treatment with different medications has not been fully explored. The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential impact of poor sleep at baseline on outcomes in a randomized effectiveness trial of quetiapine and lithium.Methods: The Bipolar CHOICE study was a 6-month, parallel group, multisite randomized controlled trial. Participants with bipolar disorder (N = 482; 59% female and age 18-70 years) received quetiapine or lithium. Patients were allowed to also receive adjunctive personalized treatments, which were guideline-informed, empirically-based medications added to treatment as needed. Medication changes were recorded as necessary clinical adjustments (NCA). Fisher's exact tests, mixed-regression models, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess demographic and clinical characteristics as well as whether sleep disturbance would predict outcomes.Results: 63% of patients had baseline sleep disturbance. Individuals with sleep disturbance had worse bipolar illness severity, greater severity of depression, mania, anxiety, irritability, and psychosis, were less likely to have sustained response (17% vs. 29%; adjusted RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.38-0.78, p = 0.0006) and had more NCAs (median 0.71 vs. 0.59, p = 0.03).Limitations: Our findings were limited by how we defined sleep disturbance, and by how severity of sleep disturbance was assessed with one item with a non-sleep specific measure.Conclusions: Baseline sleep disturbance was associated with more severe bipolar symptoms and worse 6-month outcomes. Further research is warranted on improving sleep in bipolar disorder, especially the role of psychosocial interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Efficacy and safety of long-term use of antidepressants (AD) in bipolar disorder (BD) patients remains highly controversial. Here we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exploring the efficacy and safety of long-term AD use in BD patients.Methods: English-written literature published in peer-reviewed journal was systematically searched from Pubmed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO and Clinicaltrials.gov. Each database was searched from its first available time to August 31, 2016. Additional papers were searched from recent guidelines, expert consensus and systematic reviews by hand. RCTs exploring the efficacy and safety of long-term (≥4m) antidepressant treatment for patients with bipolar disorder were eligible. Two authors (HF, JL) independently extracted the data. Risk ratio (RR), number needed to treat (NNT) and/or number needed to harm (NNH) for new depressive episodes and new manic/hypomanic episodes were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed based on treatment regimen (AD monotherapy or combined with MS), types of antidepressants, funding source, bipolar subtypes and treatment duration.Results: Eleven trials with 692 bipolar disorder patients were included in the meta-analysis. The risk of bias assessment demonstrated moderate bias risk. Antidepressants were superior to placebo in reducing new depressive episodes in bipolar disorders without increasing risk of new manic/hypomanic episodes either used as monotherapy or in combination with MS. Subgroup analyses revealed that greater benefit and lower risk may be achieved in BD II than in BD I. However, compared with MS monotherapy, AD monotherapy significantly increased the risk of affective switch with no improvement in prophylaxis of new depressive episodes.Conclusions: Reduced new depressive episodes may be achieved by long-term AD treatment with no significantly increased risk of new manic/hypomanic episodes in BD, particularly in BD II. The elevated risk of affective switch of AD monotherapy compared with MS monotherapy may be contributed to the protective effect of MS in diminishing manic/hypomanic episodes. Further studies are needed to verify our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In epidemiological studies, statins appear to benefit mood, and there are now some randomized controlled trials examining the efficacy of statins. However, the role of statins in depression remains uncertain. Thus the aim of this paper was to assess the effect of statins on depressive symptoms by performing a meta-analysis of all double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled clinical trials (RCT) conducted in subjects with depression.Methods: A systematic search was executed using PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov in November 30th, 2015 for all double-blind, RCT of statins versus placebo in persons with depressive symptoms. Sixty-seven potential articles were identified through search of electronic databases, of those three met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The outcome measure was change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) scores associated with statin use. A meta-analysis was conducted and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. GRADE was used to assess study quality.Results: The three articles included provided data on 165 participants with moderate to severe depression. Of these, 82 were randomized to statins as an adjuvant therapy to antidepressant treatment (i.e., citalopram or fluoxetine) and 83 to the placebo arm. All studies were double-blind RCTs, with a follow-up of 6-12 weeks. The statin agents evaluated were lovastatin, atorvastatin, and simvastatin. When compared to placebo, statins, as add-on to treatment as usual, largely improved depressive symptoms as assessed by the HDRS (SMD=-0.73, 95% IC -1.04 to -0.42, p<0.001, 3 between-group comparisons, n=165). No serious adverse effects were reported.Conclusions: Our results suggest that adjunctive treatment with statins could be useful for the treatment of depressive symptoms. Additional double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials are necessary to settle the matter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The outcomes of psychological therapies for anxiety and depression vary across individuals and symptom domains. Being able to predict treatment response from readily available patient data at presentation has potentially important benefits in aiding decisions about the most suitable interventions for a patient. This paper presents a method of identifying subgroups of patients using latent profile analysis, and comparing response to psychological treatments between these profiles.Methods: All outpatients taken into treatment at two psychological treatment services in London, UK and who provided basic demographic information and standardized symptom measures were included in the analysis (n=16636).Results: Latent Profile Analysis was performed on intake data to identify statistically different groups of patients, which were then examined in longitudinal analyses to determine their capacity to predict treatment outcomes. Comparison between profiles showed considerable variation in recovery (74-15%), deterioration rates (5-20%), and levels of attrition (17-40%). Further variation in outcomes was found within the profiles when different intensities of psychological intervention were delivered.Limitations: Latent profiles were identified using data from two services, so generalisability to other services should be considered. Routinely collected patient data was included, additional patient information may further enhance utility of the profiles.Conclusions: These results suggest that intake data can be used to reliably classify patients into profiles that are predictive of outcome to different intensities of psychological treatment in routine care. Algorithms based on these kinds of data could be used to optimize decision-making and aid the appropriate matching of patients to treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]