Search

Objectives: To understand treatment practices for bipolar disorders (BD), this study leveraged the Global Bipolar Cohort collaborative network to investigate pharmacotherapeutic treatment patterns in multiple cohorts of well‐characterized individuals with BD in North America, Europe, and Australia. Methods: Data on pharmacotherapy, demographics, diagnostic subtypes, and comorbidities were provided from each participating cohort. Individual site and regional pooled proportional meta‐analyses with generalized linear mixed methods were conducted to identify prescription patterns. Results: This study included 10,351 individuals from North America (n = 3985), Europe (n = 3822), and Australia (n = 2544). Overall, participants were predominantly female (60%) with BD‐I (60%; vs. BD‐II = 33%). Cross‐sectionally, mood‐stabilizing anticonvulsants (44%), second‐generation antipsychotics (42%), and antidepressants (38%) were the most prescribed medications. Lithium was prescribed in 29% of patients, primarily in the Australian (31%) and European (36%) cohorts. First‐generation antipsychotics were prescribed in 24% of the European versus 1% in the North American cohort. Antidepressant prescription rates were higher in BD‐II (47%) compared to BD‐I (35%). Major limitations were significant differences among cohorts based on inclusion/exclusion criteria, data source, and time/year of enrollment into cohort. Conclusions: Mood‐stabilizing anticonvulsants, second‐generation antipsychotics, and antidepressants were the most prescribed medications suggesting prescription patterns that are not necessarily guideline concordant. Significant differences exist in the prescription practices across different geographic regions, especially the underutilization of lithium in the North American cohorts and the higher utilization of first‐generation antipsychotics in the European cohorts. There is a need to conduct future longitudinal studies to further explore these differences and their impact on outcomes, and to inform and implement evidence‐based guidelines to help improve treatment practices in BD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Rapid cycling is a common and disabling phenomenon in individuals with bipolar disorders. In the absence of a recent literature examination, this systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to synthesise the evidence of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of treatments for individuals with rapid cycling bipolar disorder (RCBD). Method: A systematic search was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials assigning participants with RCBD to pharmacological and/or non‐pharmacological interventions. Study inclusion and data extraction were undertaken by two reviewers independently. The primary outcome was continuous within‐subject RCBD illness severity before and after treatment. Pre‐post random effects meta‐analyses were conducted for each outcome/intervention arm studied, generating a standardised effect size (hedge's g) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: A total of 34 articles describing 30 studies were included. A total of 16 separate pharmacological treatments were examined in contrast to 1 psychological therapy study. Only quetiapine and lamotrigine were assessed in >5 studies. By assessing 95% CI overlap of within‐subject efficacy effects compared to placebo, the only interventions suggesting significant depression benefits (placebo g = 0.60) were olanzapine (with/without fluoxetine; g = 1.01), citalopram (g = 1.10) and venlafaxine (g = 2.48). For mania, benefits were indicated for quetiapine (g = 1.01), olanzapine (g = 1.19) and aripiprazole (g = 1.09), versus placebo (g = 0.33). Most of these effect sizes were from only one trial per treatment. Heterogeneity between studies was variable, and 20% were rated to have a high risk of bias. Conclusions: While many interventions appeared efficacious, there was a lack of robust evidence for most treatments. Given the limited and heterogeneous evidence base, the optimal treatment strategies for people with RCBD are yet to be established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides insights from our recent RCTs of CR for people with mood disorders and discusses the challenges of synthesising CR studies that examine multimodal predictors. In both bipolar disorder (BD) and major depressive disorder (MDD), evidence for efficacy and effectiveness of cognitive remediation (CR) interventions is preliminary, with relatively few randomised controlled trials (RCT) in small samples. [Extracted from the article]

Objectives: In healthy populations, caffeine appears to have beneficial effects on health; however, patients with bipolar disorder (BD) are routinely advised to limit caffeine use in psychoeducation programmes. We aimed to examine all literature reporting whether caffeine intake/withdrawal impacts the natural course of BD, in terms of clinical outcomes. Methods: PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO were searched (up to 17/07/2020) and all studies reporting data on individuals with BD comparing a measure of caffeine use with illness severity (symptoms of mania, depression, psychosis, anxiety, sleep or suicidality) were included. Results: Of the 1678 records reviewed, 17 studies met inclusion criteria (10 case reports, 1 retrospective cohort study, 5 cross‐sectional studies, 1 interventional study). Most case reports described people with BD switching to manic, hypomanic or mixed states after consuming caffeine in variable amounts and/or whose serum lithium concentrations increased after reducing caffeine consumption. The interventional study found that caffeine may suppress lithium concentrations, while the retrospective cohort study reported that participants who drank coffee had more suicidality than non‐drinkers. Conclusions: The literature examining clinical effects of caffeine in patients with BD is not conclusive. Acute increases in caffeine consumption may precede the occurrence of manic symptoms in patients with BD, potentially through a direct stimulant effect, affecting sleep patterns and/or the metabolism of lithium or other medications, although increases in caffeine intake could also be a consequence of an ongoing manic relapse or a prodromal sign. Further research is needed to determine whether caffeine use impacts the long‐term prognosis of BD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Cognitive remediation therapy (CRT) may benefit people with bipolar disorder type I and II for whom cognitive impairment is a major contributor to disability. Extensive research has demonstrated CRT to improve cognition and psychosocial functioning in people with different diagnoses, but randomised trials of evidenced therapy programmes are lacking for bipolar disorders. The Cognitive Remediation in Bipolar (CRiB) study aimed to determine whether an established CRT programme is feasible and acceptable for people with bipolar disorders. Methods: This proof‐of‐concept, single‐blind randomised trial recruited participants aged 18‐65 with bipolar disorder, not currently experiencing an episode. They were 1:1 block randomised to treatment‐as‐usual (TAU) with or without individual CRT for 12 weeks. The partly computerised CRT programme ("CIRCuiTS") was therapist‐led and is evidence‐based from trials in those with psychotic illnesses. Data were collected and analysed by investigators blinded to group allocation. The main outcomes (week 13 and 25) examined participant retention, intervention feasibility and putative effects of CRT on cognitive and psychosocial functioning via intention‐to‐treat analyses. Trial registration: ISRCTN ID32290525. Results: Sixty participants were recruited (02/2016‐06/2018) and randomised to CRT (n = 29) or TAU (n = 31). Trial withdrawals were equivalent (CRT n = 2/29; TAU n = 5/31). CRT satisfaction indicated high acceptability. Intention‐to‐treat analyses (N = 60) demonstrated greater improvements for CRT‐ than TAU‐randomised participants: at both week 13 and 25, CIRCuiTS participants showed larger improvements in the following domains (week 25 effect sizes reported here): IQ (SES = 0.71, 95% CI [0.29,1.13]), working memory (SES = 0.70, 95% CI [0.31,1.10]), executive function (SES = 0.93, 95% CI [0.33,1.54]), psychosocial functioning (SES = 0.49, 95% CI [0.18,0.80]) and goal attainment (SES = 2.02, 95% CI [0.89,3.14]). No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: CRT is feasible for individuals with bipolar disorders and may enhance cognition and functioning. The reported effect sizes from this proof‐of‐concept trial encourage further investigation in a definitive trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cognitive Remediation (CR), originally developed to treat people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, has recently emerged as a potential treatment option to promote functional recovery by targeting cognitive difficulties in people with BD. HETEROGENEITY OF COGNITIVE DIFFICULTIES IN PEOPLE WITH BD Adopting CR paradigms from schizophrenia appears reasonable for BD research when considering the similarities in the cognitive profiles across schizophrenia and BD. REFINING TREATMENT PARADIGMS TO TARGET DIVERSE NEEDS The research corpus of CR interventions for people with BD is small with studies including small samples and most testing therapy feasibility or proof-of-concept. [Extracted from the article]