Pharmacological Treatment of the Maintenance Phase of Bipolar Depression: Efficacy and Side Effects

Author(s):  
Keming Gao ◽  
Renrong Wu ◽  
Joseph R. Calabrese
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tea Rosic ◽  
Raveena Kapoor ◽  
Balpreet Panesar ◽  
Leen Naji ◽  
Darren B. Chai ◽  
...  

Abstract Background With the ongoing opioid crisis and policy changes regarding legalization of cannabis occurring around the world, it is necessary to consider cannabis use in the context of opioid use disorder (OUD) and its treatment. We aimed to examine (1) past-month cannabis use in patients with OUD, (2) self-reported cannabis-related side effects and craving, and (3) the association between specific characteristics of cannabis use and opioid use during treatment in cannabis users. Methods Participants receiving pharmacological treatment for OUD (n = 2315) were recruited from community-based addiction treatment clinics in Ontario, Canada, and provided information on past-month cannabis use (self-report). Participants were followed for 3 months with routine urine drug screens in order to assess opioid use during treatment. We used logistic regression analysis to explore (1) the association between any cannabis use and opioid use during treatment, and (2) amongst cannabis-users, specific cannabis use characteristics associated with opioid use. Qualitative methods were used to examine responses to the question: “What effect does marijuana have on your treatment?”. Results Past-month cannabis use was reported by 51% of participants (n = 1178). Any cannabis use compared to non-use was not associated with opioid use (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.87–1.23, p = 0.703). Amongst cannabis users, nearly 70% reported daily use, and half reported experiencing cannabis-related side effects, with the most common side effects being slower thought process (26.2%) and lack of motivation (17.3%). For cannabis users, daily cannabis use was associated with lower odds of opioid use, when compared  with occasional use (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.47–0.79, p < 0.001) as was older age of onset of cannabis use (OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.94, 0.99, p = 0.032), and reporting cannabis-related side effects (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.51, 0.85, p = 0.001). Altogether, 75% of cannabis users perceived no impact of cannabis on their OUD treatment. Conclusion Past-month cannabis use was not associated with more or less opioid use during treatment. For patients who use cannabis, we identified specific characteristics of cannabis use associated with differential outcomes. Further examination of characteristics and patterns of cannabis use is warranted and may inform more tailored assessments and treatment recommendations.


Author(s):  
Prateek Yadav

The pharmacological treatment for ADHD has been researched well and we have efficacious drugs. Drugs are the mainstay of treatment particularly for over 6 years of age. There are two broad classes of drugs that are used in the treatment, psychostimulants and non-stimulants. Transcranial current stimulation and neurofeedback are other mechanisms that have been tried. There are various formulations and doses available for each and only certain drugs are available in India. The various guidelines broadly put stimulant Methylphenidate as the first choice and recommend early shift to a longer acting formulation. Treatment, various comorbidities, and side-effects of these drugs have to be kept in mind and dealt accordingly. Further psychosocial treatments should be used concurrently to improve the outcome.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 204512532097379
Author(s):  
Danielle Hett ◽  
Steven Marwaha

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a debilitating mood disorder marked by manic, hypomanic and/or mixed or depressive episodes. It affects approximately 1–2% of the population and is linked to high rates of suicide, functional impairment and poorer quality of life. Presently, treatment options for BD are limited. There is a strong evidence base for pharmacological (e.g., lithium) and psychological (e.g., psychoeducation) treatments; however, both of these pose challenges for treatment outcomes (e.g., non-response, side-effects, limited access). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a non-invasive brain stimulation technique, is a recommended treatment for unipolar depression, but it is unclear whether rTMS is an effective, safe and well tolerated treatment in people with BD. This article reviews the extant literature on the use of rTMS to treat BD across different mood states. We found 34 studies in total ( N = 611 patients), with most assessing bipolar depression ( n = 26), versus bipolar mania ( n = 5), mixed state bipolar ( n = 2) or those not in a current affective episode ( n = 1). Across all studies, there appears to be a detectable signal of efficacy for rTMS treatment, as most studies report that rTMS treatment reduced bipolar symptoms. Importantly, within the randomised controlled trial (RCT) study designs, most reported that rTMS was not superior to sham in the treatment of bipolar depression. However, these RCTs are based on small samples ( NBD ⩽ 52). Reported side effects of rTMS in BD include headache, dizziness and sleep problems. Ten studies ( N = 14 patients) reported cases of affective switching; however, no clear pattern of potential risk factors for affective switching emerged. Future adequately powered, sham-controlled trials are needed to establish the ideal rTMS treatment parameters to help better determine the efficacy of rTMS for the treatment of BD.


Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 3962-3962 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Kao ◽  
Wei Xu ◽  
Vikas Gupta ◽  
Mark Minden ◽  
Andre Schuh ◽  
...  

Abstract Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in patients over age 60 years is a poor prognosis disease with complete remission rate of 50–60% and median overall survival of less than a year. Between July 2004 and June 2007, we treated 17 elderly patients with newly diagnosed ALL with a modified pediatric protocol that included a remission induction phase, a CNS prophylaxis phase with intrathecal chemotherapy × 4, a 21-week intensification phase (7 cycles × 3 weeks each), and a 72-week maintenance phase. Induction chemotherapy consisted of vincristine 2 mg weekly × 3, doxorubicin 30mg/m2 × 2 doses, methotrexate 40mg/m2 × 1, asparaginase 12,000/m2 U × 1, and dexamethasone 40mg/day × 8 doses; BCR-ABL+ patients received imatinib mesylate 400 mg daily × 16 days instead of asparaginase. The intensification phase consisted of vincristine 2 mg × 7 doses, doxorubicin 30mg/m2 × 7 doses, asparaginase 6000 U/m2 weekly × 21 doses, 6-mercaptopurine 14/21 days, and dexamethasone 6 mg BID × 5/21 days. BCR-ABL+ patients received imatinib 400 mg daily × 14/21 days instead of asparaginase. Maintenance was the same as intensification except that no asparaginase was given. The median age was 66 years (range 60–78 years). Seven patients (41%) were BCR-ABL+ and four (24%) were pre-B with WBC &gt; 30. Major side effects during the induction phase included infection (71%), hyperglycemia requiring insulin (24%), and cardiac toxicity (18%). The complete remission (CR) rate was 71% with an induction mortality of 29%. Of the five induction deaths, four were due to bacterial sepsis or pneumonia, and one was due to tumor lysis syndrome. CNS prophylaxis was well-tolerated except in one patient who required IV hydration for nausea/vomiting. Eleven patients proceeded to intensification. Major side effects during the intensification phase included infections (64%), peripheral neuropathy (64%), thrombosis (27%), and grade 3 nausea/vomiting (27%). Two patients required hospitalization during the intensification phase; there was one myocardial infarction and one acute pancreatitis. Eleven patients proceeded to the maintenance phase; major side effects during maintenance included infections (36%) and grade 3 peripheral neuropathy (18%). Two patients (17%) have relapsed, both during early maintenance phase; both had had a number of dose modifications and delays during intensification. The one year overall survival (OS) was 71% and the median OS has not been reached. After a median follow-up duration of 17 months (range 9–40 months), the median relapse-free survival (RFS) of the CR patients has not been reached; the one year RFS was 82%. These results show that administering a modified pediatric protocol to patients over age 60 years with ALL is feasible with an improved CR rate than generally reported. The OS and RFS also compare favorably to previously reported results, although further follow-up is required. However, induction mortality was high, and infectious complications persisted throughout the entire course of induction and intensification, though much diminished during the maintenance phase. Accrual to the protocol is continuing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document