Search

Background: Mood disorders, including unipolar and bipolar depression, contribute significantly to the global burden of disease. Psychological therapy is considered a gold standard non-pharmacological treatment for managing these conditions; however, a growing body of evidence also supports the use of lifestyle therapies for these conditions. Despite some clinical guidelines endorsing the application of lifestyle therapies as a first-line treatment for individuals with mood disorders, there is limited evidence that this recommendation has been widely adopted into routine practice. A key obstacle is the insufficient evidence on whether lifestyle therapies match the clinical and cost effectiveness of psychological therapy, particularly for treating those with moderate to severe symptoms. The HARMON-E Trial seeks to address this gap by conducting a non-inferiority trial evaluating whether a multi-component lifestyle therapy program is non-inferior to psychological therapy on clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes over 8-weeks for adults with major depressive disorder and bipolar affective disorder., Methods: This trial uses an individually randomised group treatment design with computer generated block randomisation (1:1). Three hundred and seventy-eight adults with clinical depression or bipolar affective disorder, a recent major depressive episode, and moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms are randomised to receive either lifestyle therapy or psychological therapy (adjunctive to any existing treatments, including pharmacotherapies). Both therapy programs are delivered remotely, via a secure online video conferencing platform. The programs comprise an individual session and six subsequent group-based sessions over 8-weeks. All program aspects (e.g. session duration, time of day, and communications between participants and facilitators) are matched except for the content and program facilitators. Lifestyle therapy is provided by a dietitian and exercise physiologist focusing on four pillars of lifestyle (diet, physical activity, sleep, and substance use), and the psychological therapy program is provided by two psychologists using a cognitive behavioural therapy approach. Data collection occurs at baseline, 8-weeks, 16-weeks, and 6 months with research assistants blinded to allocation. The primary outcome is depressive symptoms at 8 weeks, measured using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) (minimal clinically important difference = 1.6). A pre-specified within-trial economic evaluation will also be conducted., Discussion: Should lifestyle therapy be found to be as clinically and cost effective as psychological therapy for managing mood disorders, this approach has potential to be considered as an adjunctive treatment for those with moderate to severe depressive symptoms., Trial Registration: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12622001026718, registered 22nd July 2022., Protocol Version:  4.14, 26/06/2024., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as an adjunct to standard care from an Australian health sector perspective, compared to standard care alone for adults with treatment-resistant bipolar depression (TRBD)., Methods: An economic model was developed to estimate the cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for rTMS added to standard care compared to standard care alone, for adults with TRBD. The model simulated the time in three health states (mania, depression, residual) over one year. Response to rTMS was sourced from a meta-analysis, converted to a relative risk and used to modify the time in the depressed state. Uncertainty and sensitivity tested the robustness of results., Results: Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were $72,299 per DALY averted (95 % Uncertainty Interval (UI): $60,915 to $86,668) and $46,623 per QALY gained (95 % UI: $39,676 - $55,161). At a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $96,000 per DALY averted, the base-case had a 100 % probability of being marginally cost-effective. At a WTP threshold of $64,000 per QALY gained, the base-case had a 100 % probability of being cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses decreasing the number of sessions provided, increasing the disability weight or the time spent in the depression state for standard care improved the ICERs for rTMS., Conclusions: Dependent on the outcome measure utilised and assumptions, rTMS would be considered a very cost-effective or marginally cost-effective adjunct to standard care for TRBD compared to standard care alone., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: The transdiagnostic effect of continuation/maintenance ECT (CM-ECT) across mood and psychotic disorders on hospital psychiatric readmission risk and total direct cost remains unclear., Methods: A naturalistic retrospective analysis of 540 patients who received inpatient acute ECT treatment from May 2017 to Mar 2021 in a tertiary psychiatric institution. Patients were assessed with validated clinical rating scales pre-ECT and after the first 6 treatments of a course of inpatient acute ECT. After discharge, patients who continued with CM-ECT were compared with those not receiving CM-ECT using survival analysis of hospital readmission. Total direct cost (hospitalisation and ECT treatment cost) was also analysed. All patients were subjected to a standard post-discharge monitoring program with case managers checking in on the patients regularly after discharge and ensuring they were given an outpatient appointment within a month of discharge., Results: Both cohorts had significant improvement in their rating scales scores after their first six 6 sessions of inpatient acute ECT. Patients who continued with CM-ECT after completing their inpatient acute ECT (mean number of acute ECT: N = 9.9, SD 5.3), had a significantly lower risk of readmission [adjusted hazard ratio of 0.68 (95 % CI: 0.49-0.94, p = 0.020)]. Patients who received CM-ECT also had a significantly lower average total direct cost compared to those who did not (SGD$35,259 vs SGD$61,337). For patients with mood disorders, the CM-ECT group had a significantly lower inpatient ECT cost, hospitalisation cost and total direct costs compared to those without CM-ECT., Limitations: The naturalistic study cannot prove a causal relationship between CM-ECT and reduced readmission and lower healthcare costs., Conclusion: CM-ECT is associated with lower readmission risks and lower total direct healthcare costs for the treatment of mood and psychotic disorders, especially for mood disorders., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest We confirm that the content of this manuscript is original research and has not been previously published, nor is it currently being submitted for publication elsewhere. There is no funding source for this study. We have no conflict of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Bipolar depression is characterized by neurobiological features including perturbed oxidative biology, reduction in antioxidant levels, and a concomitant rise in oxidative stress markers. Bipolar depression manifests systemic inflammation, mitochondrial dysfunction, and changes in brain growth factors. The depressive phase of the disorder is the most common and responds the least to conventional treatments. Garcinia mangostana Linn, commonly known as mangosteen, is a tropical fruit. The pericarp's properties may reduce oxidative stress and inflammation and improve neurogenesis, making mangosteen pericarp a promising add-on therapy for bipolar depression., Methods: Participants will receive 24 weeks of either 1,000 mg mangosteen pericarp or placebo per day, in addition to their usual treatment. The primary outcome is change in severity of mood symptoms, measured using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), over the treatment phase. Secondary outcomes include global psychopathology, quality of life, functioning, substance use, cognition, safety, biological data, and cost-effectiveness. A follow-up interview will be conducted 4 weeks post-treatment., Conclusion: The findings of this study may have implications for improving treatment outcomes for those with bipolar disorder and may contribute to our understanding of the pathophysiology of bipolar depression., Clinical Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12616000028404.

Background Few trials have compared psychosocial therapies for people with bipolar affective disorder, and conventional meta-analyses provided limited comparisons between therapies. Aims To combine evidence for the efficacy of psychosocial interventions used as adjunctive treatment of bipolar disorder in adults, using network meta-analysis (NMA). Method Systematic review identified studies and NMA was used to pool data on relapse to mania or depression, medication adherence, and symptom scales for mania, depression and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). Results Carer-focused interventions significantly reduced the risk of depressive or manic relapse. Psychoeducation alone and in combination with cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) significantly reduced medication non-adherence. Psychoeducation plus CBT significantly reduced manic symptoms and increased GAF. No intervention was associated with a significant reduction in depression symptom scale scores. Conclusions Only interventions for family members affected relapse rates. Psychoeducation plus CBT reduced medication non-adherence, improved mania symptoms and GAF. Novel methods for addressing depressive symptoms are required., (© The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2017.)

Background: Bipolar disorder has a significant impact upon a patient's quality of life, imposing a considerable economic burden on the individual, family members and society as a whole. Several medications are indicated for the acute treatment of mania and depression associated with bipolar disorder as well as for maintenance therapy; however, these have varying efficacy, tolerability and costs., Objective: The objective of this study was to develop a new discrete-event simulation model to analyse the long-term consequences of pharmacological therapy for the management of bipolar I and II disorders (acute treatment of episodes of mania and depression as well as maintenance therapy)., Methods: Probabilities of remission and relapse were obtained from clinical trial data and meta-analyses. Costs (year 2011 values) were assessed from a UK healthcare payer's perspective, and included pharmacological therapy and resource use associated with the treatment of mood events and selected adverse events. The health effects were measured in terms of QALYs., Results: For a patient starting with acute depression or in remission at 40 years of age (which was the average age in the clinical trials), quetiapine 300 mg/day was a cost-effective strategy compared with olanzapine 15 mg/day over a 5-year time frame. With acute bipolar depression as a starting episode, the 5-year medical costs were £323 higher and QALYs were 0.038 higher for quetiapine compared with olanzapine, corresponding to a cost-effectiveness ratio of £8600 per QALY gained., Conclusion: Compared with olanzapine, the results suggest that quetiapine is cost effective as a maintenance treatment for bipolar depression.

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine the efficacy of maintenance treatments for bipolar disorder. Placebo-controlled or active comparator bipolar maintenance clinical trials of ≥6 months' duration with at least 15 patients/treatment group were identified using Medline, EMBASE, clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane databases (1993 to July 2010). The main outcome measure was relative risk for relapse for patients in remission. Twenty trials (5,364 patients) were identified. Overall, lithium and quetiapine were the most studied agents (eight and five trials, respectively). The majority of studies included patients who had previously responded to treatment for an acute episode. All interventions, with the exception of perphenazine+mood stabilizer, showed a relative risk for manic/mixed or depressive relapse below 1.0, although there was variation in the statistical significance of the findings vs. placebo. No monotherapy was associated with a significantly reduced risk for both manic/mixed and depressed relapse. Of the combination treatments, only quetiapine+lithium/divalproex, was associated with a significantly reduced risk vs. comparator (placebo+lithium/valproate) for relapse at both the manic/mixed and depressed poles of bipolar illness. Limitations for the analysis include differences in study durations and definitions of relapse. In conclusion, available maintenance therapies show considerable variation in efficacy. The efficacy of lithium and divalproex has been confirmed, but newer therapies, such as a number of atypical antipsychotics were also shown to be effective in bipolar disorder. Efficacy of all maintenance interventions needs to be balanced against the safety and tolerability profiles of individual agents.

This meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of treatments of bipolar depression. Trials were identified using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane databases (1993 to July 2008). The outcome measures included mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) or Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) total scores, and rates of response and remission. Overall, 19 publications were included. Medications included quetiapine, lamotrigine, paroxetine, lithium, olanzapine, aripiprazole, phenelzine, and divalproex. The most trials were identified for quetiapine (5) and lamotrigine (6). Not all medications were associated with symptomatic improvement (significant reduction in MADRS/HAM-D total scores vs placebo), with lamotrigine, paroxetine, aripiprazole, and lithium not being different from placebo. Highest reductions in MADRS scores versus placebo were reported for the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (1 trial: -6.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.59 to -3.61; P = 0.000) and quetiapine monotherapy (5 trials: for 300 mg/d, -4.8; 95% CI, -6.18 to -3.49; P = 0.000; for 600 mg/d, -4.8; 95% CI, -6.22 to -3.28; P = 0.000), with quetiapine monotherapy also showing the highest reduction in HAM-D scores (4 trials: -4.0; 95% CI, -5.0 to -2.9; P = 0.000). All medications except paroxetine, lithium, aripiprazole, and phenelzine significantly improved the ratio of probabilities of response (overall rate, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.22-1.40) and remission (1.32; 95% CI, 1.20-1.45) versus placebo. Variability in efficacy exists between treatments of bipolar depression. Quetiapine and the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination showed the greatest symptomatic improvement. Efficacy considerations will need to be balanced against safety and tolerability of the individual agents.