Treatment of bipolar depression: making sensible decisions

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 19 (S1) ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie Citrome

A major challenge in the treatment of major depressive episodes associated with bipolar disorder is differentiating this illness from major depressive episodes associated with major depressive disorder. Mistaking the former for the latter will lead to incorrect treatment and poor outcomes. None of the classic antidepressants, serotonin specific reuptake inhibitors, or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors have ever received regulatory approval as monotherapies for the treatment of bipolar depression. At present, there are only 3 approved medication treatments for bipolar depression: olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, quetiapine (immediate or extended release), and lurasidone (monotherapy or adjunctive to lithium or valproate). All 3 have similar efficacy profiles, but they differ in terms of tolerability. Number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) can be used to quantify these similarities and differences. The NNTs for response and remission for each of these interventions vs placebo range from 4 to 7, and 5 to 7, respectively, with overlap in terms of their 95% confidence intervals. NNH values less than 10 (vs placebo) were observed for the spontaneously reported adverse events of weight gain and diarrhea for olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (7 and 9, respectively) and somnolence and dry mouth for quetiapine (3 and 4, respectively). There were no NNH values less than 10 (vs placebo) observed with lurasidone treatment. NNH values vs placebo for weight gain of at least 7% from baseline were 6, 16, 58, and 36, for olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, quetiapine, lurasidone monotherapy, and lurasidone combined with lithium or valproate, respectively. Individualizing treatment decisions will require consideration of the different potential adverse events that are more likely to occur with each medication. The metric of the likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH) is the ratio of NNH to NNT and can illustrate the tradeoffs inherent in selecting medications. A more favorable LHH was noted for treatment with lurasidone. However, OFC and quetiapine monotherapy may still have utility in high urgency situations, particularly in persons who have demonstrated good outcomes with these interventions in the past, and where a pressing clinical need for efficacy mitigates their potential tolerability shortcomings. In terms of maintenance therapy, adjunctive quetiapine is the only agent where the NNT vs lithium or valproate alone is less than 10 for both the prevention of mania and the prevention of depression.

2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 693-704 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. McGirr ◽  
M. T. Berlim ◽  
D. J. Bond ◽  
M. P. Fleck ◽  
L. N. Yatham ◽  
...  

BackgroundThere is growing interest in glutamatergic agents in depression, particularly ketamine, a glutamate N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist. We aimed to assess the efficacy of ketamine in major depressive episodes.MethodWe searched EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and Medline from 1962 to January 2014 to identify double-blind, randomized controlled trials with allocation concealment evaluating ketamine in major depressive episodes. Clinical remission, response and depressive symptoms were extracted by two independent raters. The primary outcome measure was clinical remission at 24 h, 3 days and 7 days post-treatment. Analyses employed a random-effects model.ResultsData were synthesized from seven RCTs employing an intravenous infusion and one RCT employing intranasal ketamine, representing 73 subjects in parallel arms and 110 subjects in cross-over designs [n = 34 with bipolar disorder (BD), n = 149 with major depressive disorder (MDD)]. Ketamine was associated with higher rates of clinical remission relative to comparator (saline or midazolam) at 24 h [OR 7.06, number needed to treat (NNT) = 5], 3 days (OR 3.86, NNT = 6), and 7 days (OR 4.00, NNT = 6), as well as higher rates of clinical response at 24 h (OR 9.10, NNT = 3), 3 days (OR 6.77, NNT = 3), and 7 days (OR 4.87, NNT = 4). A standardized mean difference of 0.90 in favor of ketamine was observed at 24 h based on depression rating scale scores, with group comparisons revealing greater efficacy in unipolar depression compared to bipolar depression (1.07 v. 0.68). Ketamine was associated with transient psychotomimetic effects, but no persistent psychosis or affective switches.ConclusionOur meta-analysis suggests that single administrations ketamine are efficacious in the rapid treatment of unipolar and bipolar depression. Additional research is required to determine optimal dosing schedules, route, treatment schedules, and the potential efficacy of other glutamatergic agents.


2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-192 ◽  

For the majority of patients with bipolar disorder, major depressive episodes represent the most debilitating and difficult-to-treat illness dimension. Patients spend significantly more time depressed than manic or hypomanic, and attempt suicide more frequently during this illness phase, yet the availability of treatments remains limited. The discovery of more effective therapeutics for managing depressive episodes is arguably the greatest unmet need in bipolar disorder. This article provides an evidence-based summary of pharmacological treatments for the acute and longitudinal management of bipolar depression. Clinical trial results are reviewed for a diverse array of compounds, inclusive of traditional mood stabilizers (eg, lithium and divalproex), atypical antipsychotics, unimodal antidepressants, and modafinil. Where applicable, differences in efficacy across compounds are examined through discussion of number needed to treat and effect size determinations. A pragmatic clinical approach is presented for management of the depressed phase of bipolar disorder.


CNS Spectrums ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 120-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianni L. Faedda ◽  
Ciro Marangoni

The newly introduced Mixed Features Specifier of Major Depressive Episode and Disorder (MDE/MDD) is especially challenging in terms of pharmacological management. Prior to the publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, the symptoms of the mixed features specifier were intradepressive hypomanic symptoms, always and only associated with bipolar disorder (BD).Intradepressive hypomanic symptoms, mostly referred to as depressive mixed states (DMX), have been poorly characterized, and their treatment offers significant challenges. To understand the diagnostic context of DMX, we trace the nosological changes and collocation of intradepressive hypomanic symptoms, and examine diagnostic and prognostic implications of such mixed features.One of the reasons so little is known about the treatment of DMX is that depressed patients with rapid cycling, substance abuse disorder, and suicidal ideation/attempts are routinely excluded from clinical trials of antidepressants. The exclusion of DMX patients from clinical trials has prevented an assessment of the safety and tolerability of short- and long-term use of antidepressants. Therefore, the generalization of data obtained in clinical trials for unipolar depression to patients with intradepressive hypomanic features is inappropriate and methodologically flawed.A selective review of the literature shows that antidepressants alone have limited efficacy in DMX, but they have the potential to induce, maintain, or worsen mixed features during depressive episodes in BD. On the other hand, preliminary evidence supports the effective use of some atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of DMX.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document