Mary Jane Attenburrow

Wake-up call for British psychiatry.

The recent drive within the UK National Health Service to improve psychosocial care for people with mental illness is both understandable and welcome: evidence-based psychological and social interventions are extremely important in managing psychiatric illness. Nevertheless, the accompanying downgrading of medical aspects of care has resulted in services that often are better suited to offering non-specific psychosocial support, rather than thorough, broad-based diagnostic assessment leading to specific treatments to optimise well-being and functioning. In part, these changes have been politically driven, but they could not have occurred without the collusion, or at least the acquiescence, of psychiatrists. This creeping devaluation of medicine disadvantages patients and is very damaging to both the standing and the understanding of psychiatry in the minds of the public, fellow professionals and the medical students who will be responsible for the specialtys future. On the 200th birthday of psychiatry, it is fitting to reconsider the specialtys core values and renew efforts to use psychiatric skills for the maximum benefit of patients.

Comparison of the effects of citalopram and escitalopram on 5-Ht-mediated neuroendocrine responses

Acute oral administration of selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) increases plasma cortisol by facilitating brain serotonin activity. Recently, salivary cortisol sampling has grown in popularity as a noninvasive means of assessing HPA axis activity. The aim of the present study was to find out whether acute oral administration of the SSRI, citalopram, increases salivary cortisol in healthy volunteers and whether the increase produced by an equivalent dose of its active isomer, escitalopram, is greater. A total of 15 healthy subjects were tested on three occasions receiving either oral citalopram (20 mg), escitalopram (10 mg), or placebo in a double-blind, randomized, crossover design. Salivary cortisol and plasma cortisol and prolactin were measured for 240 min after each treatment. Relative to placebo, both citalopram and escitalopram increased salivary and plasma cortisol levels with no evidence of consistent differences between them. Plasma prolactin concentration was not altered by either active treatment. Plasma and salivary cortisol responses after citalopram but not escitalopram correlated significantly. The present study does not support an enhanced effect of escitalopram on 5-HT-mediated neuroendocrine responses.

Comparative evaluation of quetiapine plus lamotrigine combination versus quetiapine monotherapy (and folic acid versus placebo) in bipolar depression (CEQUEL): a 2 × 2 factorial randomised trial

BACKGROUND Depressive symptoms are a major cause of disability in bipolar disorder and there are few safe and effective treatments. The combination of lamotrigine plus quetiapine potentially offers improved outcomes for people with bipolar depression. We aimed to determine if combination therapy with quetiapine plus lamotrigine leads to greater improvement in depressive symptoms over 12 weeks than quetiapine monotherapy plus lamotrigine placebo. METHODS In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel group, 2 × 2 factorial trial (CEQUEL), patients with DSM-IV bipolar disorder I or II, who were aged 16 years or older, and required new treatment for a depressive episode, were enrolled from 27 sites in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an adaptive minimisation algorithm to lamotrigine or placebo and to folic acid or placebo. Participants and investigators were masked to the treatment groups. The primary outcome was improvement in depressive symptoms at 12 weeks with the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-self report version 16 (QIDS-SR16). Analysis was by modified intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with EUdraCT, number 2007-004513-33. FINDINGS Between Oct 21, 2008, and April 27, 2012, 202 participants were randomly assigned; 101 to lamotrigine and 101 to placebo. The mean difference in QIDS-SR16 total score between the group receiving lamotrigine versus the placebo group at 12 weeks was -1·73 ([95% CI -3·57 to 0·11]; p=0·066) and at 52 weeks was -2·69 ([-4·89 to -0·49]; p=0·017). Folic acid was not superior to placebo. There was a significant interaction (p=0·028), with folic acid reducing the effectiveness of lamotrigine at 12 weeks. The mean difference on QIDS-SR16 was -4·14 ([95% CI -6·90 to -1·37]; p=0·004) for patients receiving lamotrigine without folic acid compared with 0·12 ([-2·58 to 2·82]; p=0·931) for those receiving lamotrigine and folic acid. INTERPRETATION Addition of lamotrigine to quetiapine treatment improved outcomes. Folic acid seems to nullify the effect of lamotrigine. CEQUEL should encourage clinicians and patients to consider lamotrigine for bipolar depression, but also to be aware that concurrent folic acid might reduce its effectiveness. FUNDING Medical Research Council.

A systematic review of calcium channel antagonists in bipolar disorder and some considerations for their future development

l-type calcium channel (LTCC) antagonists have been used in bipolar disorder for over 30 years, without becoming an established therapeutic approach. Interest in this class of drugs has been rekindled by the discovery that LTCC genes are part of the genetic aetiology of bipolar disorder and related phenotypes. We have therefore conducted a systematic review of LTCC antagonists in the treatment and prophylaxis of bipolar disorder. We identified 23 eligible studies, with six randomised, double-blind, controlled clinical trials, all of which investigated verapamil in acute mania, and finding no evidence that it is effective. Data for other LTCC antagonists (diltiazem, nimodipine, nifedipine, methyoxyverapamil and isradipine) and for other phases of the illness are limited to observational studies, and therefore no robust conclusions can be drawn. Given the increasingly strong evidence for calcium signalling dysfunction in bipolar disorder, the therapeutic candidacy of this class of drugs has become stronger, and hence we also discuss issues relevant to their future development and evaluation. In particular, we consider how genetic, molecular and pharmacological data can be used to improve the selectivity, efficacy and tolerability of LTCC antagonists. We suggest that a renewed focus on LTCCs as targets, and the development of ‘brain-selective’ LTCC ligands, could be one fruitful approach to innovative pharmacotherapy for bipolar disorder and related phenotypes.

Oxford Lithium Trial (OxLith) of the early affective, cognitive, neural and biochemical effects of lithium carbonate in bipolar disorder: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundDespite lithium’s being the most effective drug for bipolar disorder and in clinical use for decades, we still know very little about its early effects relevant to its mode of action.Methods/designThe Oxford Lithium Trial is a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study of 6-week lithium treatment in participants with bipolar disorder and mood instability. Its aim is to identify early clinical, neurocognitive and biological effects. Participants (n = 40) will undergo an intensive battery of multi-modal investigations, including remote monitoring of mood, activity and physiology, as well as cognitive testing, fMRI and magnetoencephalography, together with biochemical and gene expression measurements to assess renal, inflammatory and circadian effects.DiscussionThe findings derived from this trial may be of value in predicting subsequent therapeutic response or side effects, not only relevant to the use of lithium but also providing a potential signature to help in more rapid evaluation of novel mood stabilisers. In this respect, OxLith is a step towards the development of a valid experimental medicine model for bipolar disorder.Trial registrationISRCTN91624955. Registered on 22 January 2015.

Biochemical and genetic predictors and correlates of response to lamotrigine and folic acid in bipolar depression: Analysis of the CEQUEL clinical trial

CEQUEL (Comparative Evaluation of QUEtiapine plus Lamotrigine combination versus quetiapine monotherapy [and folic acid versus placebo] in bipolar depression) was a double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled, parallel group, 2×2 factorial trial that examined the effect of adding lamotrigine and/or folic acid (FA) to quetiapine in bipolar depression. Lamotrigine improved depression, but its effectiveness was reduced by FA. We investigated the baseline predictors and correlates of clinical response, and the possible basis of the interaction.

A web-based clinical decision tool to support treatment decision-making in psychiatry: a pilot focus group study with clinicians, patients and carers

BackgroundTreatment decision tools have been developed in many fields of medicine, including psychiatry, however benefits for patients have not been sustained once the support is withdrawn. We have developed a web-based computerised clinical decision support tool (CDST), which can provide patients and clinicians with continuous, up-to-date, personalised information about the efficacy and tolerability of competing interventions. To test the feasibility and acceptability of the CDST we conducted a focus group study, aimed to explore the views of clinicians, patients and carers.MethodsThe CDST was developed in Oxford. To tailor treatments at an individual level, the CDST combines the best available evidence from the scientific literature with patient preferences and values, and with patient medical profile to generate personalised clinical recommendations. We conducted three focus groups comprising of three different participant types: consultant psychiatrists, participants with a mental health diagnosis and/or experience of caring for someone with a mental health diagnosis, and primary care practitioners and nurses. Each 1-h focus group started with a short visual demonstration of the CDST. To standardise the discussion during the focus groups, we used the same topic guide that covered themes relating to the acceptability and usability of the CDST. Focus groups were recorded and any identifying participant details were anonymised. Data were analysed thematically and managed using the Framework method and the constant comparative method.ResultsThe focus groups took place in Oxford between October 2016 and January 2017. Overall 31 participants attended (12 consultants, 11 primary care practitioners and 8 patients or carers). The main themes that emerged related to CDST applications in clinical practice, communication, conflicting priorities, record keeping and data management. CDST was considered a useful clinical decision support, with recognised value in promoting clinician-patient collaboration and contributing to the development of personalised medicine. One major benefit of the CDST was perceived to be the open discussion about the possible side-effects of medications. Participants from all the three groups, however, universally commented that the terminology and language presented on the CDST were too medicalised, potentially leading to ethical issues around consent to treatment.ConclusionsThe CDST can improve communication pathways between patients, carers and clinicians, identifying care priorities and providing an up-to-date platform for implementing evidence-based practice, with regard to prescribing practices.