Lithium vs valproate in the maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder: A post- hoc analysis of a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 298-307
Author(s):  
Mehar G Kang ◽  
Hong Qian ◽  
Kamyar Keramatian ◽  
Trisha Chakrabarty ◽  
Gayatri Saraf ◽  
...  

Objective: Lithium and valproate are commonly used either in monotherapy or in combination with atypical antipsychotics in maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder; however, their comparative efficacy is not well understood. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of valproate and lithium on mood stability either in monotherapy or in combination with atypical antipsychotics. Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis using data from a 52-week randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, that recruited 159 patients with recently remitted mania during treatment with lithium or valproate and adjunctive atypical antipsychotic therapy. Patients were randomized to discontinue adjunctive atypical antipsychotic at 0, 24 or 52 weeks. Results: No significant differences in efficacy were observed between valproate and lithium (hazard ratio: 0.99; 95% confidence interval: [0.66, 1.48]) in time to any mood event. Valproate with 24 weeks of atypical antipsychotic was significantly superior to valproate monotherapy in preventing any mood relapse (hazard ratio: 0.46; 95% confidence interval: [0.22, 0.97]) while lithium with 24 weeks of atypical antipsychotic was superior to lithium monotherapy in preventing mania (hazard ratio: 0.27; 95% confidence interval: [0.09, 0.85]) but not depression. Conclusion: Overall, this study did not find significant differences in efficacy between the two mood-stabilizing agents when used as monotherapy or in combination with atypical antipsychotics. However, study design and small sample size might have precluded from detecting an effect if true difference in efficacy existed. Further head-to-head investigations with stratified designs are needed to evaluate maintenance therapies.

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luc Morin ◽  
Karthik Narayanan Ramaswamy ◽  
Muralidharan Jayashree ◽  
Arun Bansal ◽  
Karthi Nallasamy ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC) developed and validated a definition of pediatric refractory septic shock (RSS), based on two septic shock scores (SSS). Both bedside SSS (bSSS) and computed SSS (cSSS) were found to be strongly associated with mortality. We aimed at assessing the accuracy of the RSS definition on a prospective cohort from India. Methods Post hoc analysis of a cohort issued from a double-blind randomized trial that compared first-line vasoactive drugs in children with septic shock. Sequential bSSS and cSSS from 60 children (single-center study, 53% mortality) were analyzed. The prognostic value of the ESPNIC RSS definition was tested for 28-day all-cause mortality. Results In this septic shock cohort, RSS was diagnosed in 35 patients (58.3%) during the first 24 h. Death occurred in 30 RSS patients (85.7% mortality) and in 2 non-RSS patients (8% mortality), OR = 60.9 [95% CI: 10.5–676.2], p < 0.001 with a median delay from sepsis onset of 3 days [1.0–6.7]. Among patients diagnosed with RSS, the mortality was not significantly different according to vasopressors randomization. Diagnosis of RSS with bSSS and cSSS had a high discrimination for death with an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.916 [95% CI: 0.843–0.990] and 0.925 [95% CI: 0.845–1.000], respectively. High prognostic accuracy of the bSSS was found in the first hours following intensive care admission. The best interval of prognostication occurs after the 12th hour following treatment initiation (AUC 0.973 [95% CI: 0.925–1.000]). Conclusions The ESPNIC refractory septic shock definition accurately identifies, within the first 6 h of septic shock management, children with lethal outcome.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document