Search

Objective In spite of growing numbers of older people, there are few treatment studies on late-life bipolar disorder (BD). This was a 12-week prospective, open-label trial to assess efficacy and tolerability of adjunct asenapine in non-demented older adults (≥60 years) with sub-optimal previous response to BD treatments. Methods Asenapine was initiated at 5 mg/day and titrated as tolerated. Effects on global psychopathology were measured with Clinical Global Impression, bipolar version (CGI-BP), and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Mood polarity severity was measured with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and Young Mania Rating Scale. Other outcomes included the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II. Results Fifteen individuals were enrolled (mean age 68.6, SD 6.12; 53% female; 73% Caucasian, 13% African American, and 7% Asian). There were 4/15 (27%) individuals who prematurely terminated the study, whereas 11/15 (73%) completed the study. There were significant improvements from baseline on the BPRS ( p < 0.05), on CGI-BP overall ( p < 0.01), and on CGI-BP mania ( p < 0.05) and depression ( p < 0.01) subscales. The mean dose of asenapine was 11.2 ( SD 6.2) mg/day. The most common reported side effects were gastrointestinal discomfort ( n = 5, 33%), restlessness ( n = 2, 13%), tremors ( n = 2, 13%), cognitive difficulties ( n = 2, 13%), and sluggishness ( n = 2, 13%). Conclusions Older people with BD had global improvements on asenapine. Most reported adverse effects were mild and transient, but adverse effects prompted drug discontinuation in just over one quarter of patients. Although risks versus benefits in older people must always be carefully considered, asenapine may be a treatment consideration for some non-demented geriatric BD patients. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Epilepsy and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) are both chronic illnesses characterized by similar and overlapping clinical features. A limited number of studies comparing people with epilepsy (PWE) and patients with PNES that address determinants of health outcomes exist. We conducted an analysis using a well-characterized sample of people with PNES and the Managing Epilepsy Well (MEW) Network integrated data, comparing descriptive data on samples with epilepsy and with documented PNES. Based on the pooled data, we hypothesized that people with PNES would have worse QOL and higher depression severity than PWE. Material and methods We used data from the MEW Network integrated database involving select epilepsy self-management studies comprising 182 PWE and 305 individuals with documented PNES from the Rhode Island Hospital Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Neurology Clinic. We conducted a matched, case–control study assessing descriptive comparisons on 16 common data elements that included gender, age, ethnicity, race, education, employment, income, household composition, relationship status, age at seizure onset, frequency of seizures, seizure type, health status, healthy days, quality of life, and depression. Standardized rating scales for depression and quality of life were used. Results Median seizure frequency in the last 30 days for PWE was 1, compared to 15 for patients with PNES (p < 0.05). People with epilepsy had a QOLIE-10 mean score of 3.00 (SD: 0.91) compared to 3.54 (0.88) (p < 0.01) for patients with PNES. Depression severity was moderate to severe in 7.7% of PWE compared to 34.1% (p < 0.05) of patients with PNES. Discussion People with epilepsy in selected MEW Network programs are fairly well educated, mostly women, with few minorities and low monthly seizure rates. Those with PNES, however, have higher levels of not working/on disability and had more frequent seizures, higher depression severity, and worse QOL. These differences were present despite demographics that are largely similar in both groups, illustrating that other determinants of illness may influence PNES. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]