Nuria Cruz

Safety and efficacy of Vagus Nerve Stimulation in treatment-resistant depression. A systematic review

OBJECTIVE The main objective of this review of the literature was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) by means of systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS A systematic review of the literature was made using the major databases (Medline, Psychological Abstracts, Current Contents), beginning in January 2000 and ending in September 2007. Ninety-eight references were found, but only 18 add-on studies met the required quality criteria and were included in this review. Only one double-blind, randomized study was available and therefore a meta-analysis was not feasible. RESULTS In a majority of the preliminary open studies selected for this review, VNS was associated with a significant reduction of the depressive symptoms (primary outcome: Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, HDRS) in the short and long term. Unfortunately, the only double-blind study gave rather inconclusive results. Generally, VNS is reported to be a safe and feasible procedure, despite its invasive nature. CONCLUSIONS VNS seems to be an interesting new approach to treating TRD. However, despite the promising results reported mainly in open studies, further clinical trials are needed to confirm its efficacy in major depression. Moreover, studies on its mechanism of action and cost-effectiveness are also required to better understand and develop VNS therapy for affective disorder.

Efficacy of modern antipsychotics in placebo-controlled trials in bipolar depression: a meta-analysis

Randomized, controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy for second-generation antipsychotics in the treatment of acute mania in bipolar disorder. Despite depression being considered the hallmark of bipolar disorder, there are no published systematic reviews or meta-analyses to evaluate the efficacy of modern atypical antipsychotics in bipolar depression. We systematically reviewed published or registered randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of modern antipsychotics in adult bipolar I and/or II depressive patients (DSM-IV criteria). Efficacy outcomes were assessed based on changes in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) during an 8-wk period. Data were combined through meta-analysis using risk ratio as an effect size with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and with a level of statistical significance of 5% (p<0.05). We identified five RCTs; four involved antipsychotic monotherapy and one addressed both monotherapy and combination with an antidepressant. The two quetiapine trials analysed the safety and efficacy of two doses: 300 and 600 mg/d. The only olanzapine trial assessed olanzapine monotherapy within a range of 5-20 mg/d and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination within a range of 5-20 mg/d and 6-12 mg/d, respectively. The two aripiprazole placebo-controlled trials assessed doses of 5-30 mg/d. Quetiapine and olanzapine trials (3/5, 60%) demonstrated superiority over placebo (p<0.001). Only 2/5 (40%) (both aripiprazole trials) failed in the primary efficacy measure after the first 6 wk. Some modern antipsychotics (quetiapine and olanzapine) have demonstrated efficacy in bipolar depressive patients from week 1 onwards. Rapid onset of action seems to be a common feature of atypical antipsychotics in bipolar depression.

Treatment nonadherence and neurocognitive impairment in bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVE Little is known regarding the relationship between treatment adherence and residual cognitive dysfunction in euthymic bipolar disorder patients. This study aimed to investigate whether poor treatment adherence is associated with cognitive impairment in euthymic bipolar patients and whether other factors may be associated with both adherence and cognitive functioning. METHOD Euthymic DSM-IV bipolar I or II disorder patients (N = 103: 61 with high levels of treatment adherence and 42 with poor treatment adherence) were assessed using a neuropsychological battery targeting attention, psychomotor speed, verbal memory, and executive functions and compared with 35 healthy controls of similar age, sex distribution, and education. Data were collected from September 2005 to June 2007. RESULTS Bipolar patients with poor treatment adherence had more hospitalizations than those with high adherence. After controlling for age, gender, estimated IQ score, and Young Mania Rating Scale and 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores, non-treatment-adherent patients performed less well than normal controls in verbal learning and some executive functions. Among treatment-adherent and poorly adherent bipolar disorder patients, performance was similar in attention tasks and short-term and long-term verbal recall, but non-treatment-adherent patients were more impaired in ability to inhibit interferences and in spatial working memory. Poorer treatment adherence also was associated with the bipolar I subtype and with greater illness severity, as indicated by number of manic episodes and hospitalizations and history of psychosis. Pharmacologic factors, such as treatment with lithium, may also influence the relationship between neurocognition and adherence. CONCLUSIONS There is a close relationship between poor treatment adherence and cognitive impairment, but the causal inferences of these findings are uncertain. Poor treatment adherence may worsen the course of bipolar disorder and so indirectly worsen cognitive performance, or cognitive impairment may contribute to poor treatment adherence and reflect more severe illness.

Effects of atypical antipsychotics on neurocognition in euthymic bipolar patients.

BACKGROUND Different factors may influence cognitive functioning in bipolar disorder such as the effect of subsyndromal symptoms, the history of psychotic symptomatology or substance abuse, negative symptomatology, chronicity, sleep disturbances, and hormonal factors. The effect of pharmacologic treatment on cognition is still uncertain because of an insufficient number of studies examining this issue. OBJECTIVE The aims of this study were to compare neuropsychologic performance of treated bipolar patients with that of controls, including unmedicated patients and healthy subjects, as well as to evaluate possible neurocognitive differences among 3 different atypical antipsychotics. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A total of 119 subjects were included in the study. Of 79 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition euthymic bipolar patients, 68 were treated with one atypical antipsychotic, quetiapine (n = 12), olanzapine (n = 26), or risperidone (n = 30). Sixteen patients were drug-free. The 4 groups were compared with a sample of drug-naïve patients and a healthy control group (n = 35) on several clinical and neuropsychologic variables, especially on the domains of attention, verbal memory, and executive functions. Euthymia was defined by a score of 6 or less at the Young Mania Rating Scale and a score of 8 or less at the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale for at least 6 months. RESULTS The 5 groups did not differ in age, years of education, sex distribution, or estimated premorbid IQ. The 4 patients groups did not differ in chronicity, age of onset, total number of episodes, and number of hospitalizations. No differences were found regarding antipsychotic dosages between the groups. Bipolar patients performed poorly on most neuropsychologic measures as compared with healthy controls. After controlling for Hamilton Depression Rating Scale symptoms, no significant change in the results was observed. Because many patients with antipsychotic treatment had a history of psychotic symptoms, we performed multivariate analysis of covariance controlling for this variable. Bipolar patients taking 1 of the 3 antipsychotics presented with dose-independent significant deficits in most cognitive tasks compared with healthy controls. After several head-to-head group comparisons, the patients receiving quetiapine showed a better performance in learning task, short-term memory, and recognition task assessed with the California Verbal Learning Test and verbal fluency (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS Our results confirm the findings of previous studies of cognitive deficits in bipolar disorder. Untreated euthymic patients showed better cognitive performance than did patients on atypical antipsychotics. Some iatrogenic-pharmacologic effect, therefore, cannot be excluded, but quetiapine seemed to be less associated with impairment in measures of verbal memory than olanzapine or risperidone. We suggest to use drugs in bipolar disorder with a lower risk of cognitive adverse effects. However, randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to give a definite answer to this critical problem.

Morbidity in 303 first‐episode bipolar I disorder patients

OBJECTIVES To test the hypotheses that: (i) depressive-dysthymic-dysphoric (D-type) morbidity is more prevalent than manic-hypomanic-psychotic (M-type) morbidity even from first episodes of bipolar I disorder (BPD-I) and despite treatment; (ii) initial presentations predict later morbidity; (iii) morbidity varies internationally; and (iv) early and later morbidity are similar. METHODS We followed SCID-based, DSM-IV BPD-I patients (n = 303) systematically and prospectively for two years to estimate the percent of weeks in specific morbid states from first lifetime major episodes. RESULTS Total morbidity accounted for 44% of the first two years, and D-type exceeded M-type illnesses by 2.1-fold (30%/14%) among morbidities ranking: mixed states (major + minor) >or= dysthymia >or= mania >or= major depression > hypomania > psychosis. In 164 cases, morbidities at 0.5-2.5 and 2.5-4.5 years were very similar. Depressive or mixed initial episodes predicted a 3.6-fold excess of D-type morbidity, and initial M-type episodes predicted a 7.1-fold excess of M-type morbidity over two years. Morbidity in European (EU) sites was nearly half that in the U.S., and 22% greater overall among men than women. In five comparable studies, illness accounted for 54% of follow-up time, and the ratio of D/M morbidity averaged 3.0. CONCLUSIONS In accord with four midcourse studies, morbidity from BPD-I onset, despite treatment by community standards, averaged 44%, was 68% D-type morbidity, and was strongly predicted by first-episode polarity. Lower morbidity in EU than U.S. sites may reflect differences in healthcare or social systems.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled prophylaxis trial of oxcarbazepine as adjunctive treatment to lithium in the long-term treatment of bipolar I and II disorder.

We evaluated the prophylactic efficacy and the long-term tolerability of oxcarbazepine administration in the treatment of bipolar I and II disorder as an adjunctive therapy to lithium. We conducted a 52-wk, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, clinical trial. Bipolar I and II DSM-IV outpatients, having had two or more episodes in the last year, but currently being in remission, were randomly assigned on a 1:1 ratio to oxcarbazepine (n=26) or placebo (n=29) as adjuncts to ongoing treatment with lithium. The primary efficacy variable was the length of the remission period assessed by means of the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Other assessments were the Clinical Global Impression (CGI-BP-M), functional activity (GAF), anxiety (HAMA) and impulsiveness (BIS-11). The average time until first recurrence of any type was 19.2+/-13.9 wk and 18.6+/-17.0 wk for oxcarbazepine and placebo respectively (p=0.315). Ten (38.46%) patients had a recurrence of any kind in the oxcarbazepine group vs. 17 (58.62%) in the placebo group (p=0.1354). There was a trend for depressive episodes being less likely in the oxcarbazepine group compared to the placebo group (11.54% and 31.03% respectively, p=0.085), and for better functionality with the GAF (p=0.074). Impulsivity was significantly better prevented by oxcarbazepine (p=0.0443). Overall, oxcarbazepine was well tolerated. This pilot, randomized clinical trial, suggests that oxcarbazepine might have some prophylactic efficacy with regards to impulsivity and perhaps mood episodes in patients taking lithium, although further, adequately powered controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

A long-term prospective study on the outcome of bipolar patients treated with long-acting injectable risperidone

Background: Risperidone is the first atypical antipsychotic to become available in a long-acting, injectable formulation. This is the first prospective study to assess the effectiveness of long-acting risperidone in a cohort of bipolar patients. Methods: Twenty-nine DSM-IV acutely manic bipolar inpatients with a history of poor or partial adherence to medication entered the mirror-design observational study. They received naturalistic treatment for a manic episode plus long-acting, injectable risperidone for a mean period of 2 years. The following measures were used to assess the effectiveness of risperidone: the number of hospitalizations, the number of manic, mixed, and depressive episodes leading to hospitalization, the mean duration of hospitalizations, time to relapse, treatment adherence, aggression and suicide attempts. The Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) was used for clinical relevance as well. Results: During the follow-up, there was a significant decrease in the number of hospitalizations per patient (Z−2.72 P<0.006), in the number of manic or mixed episodes leading to hospitalization (Z−2.68 P<0.007) but not in the hospitalizations due to depressive episodes, a decrease in the average length of hospitalization per patient (Z−3.27 P<0.001), a significant increase in the time to any new episode (first relapse) (Z−3.28, P<0.001), and significant improvements in treatment adherence (P<0.0001) and hetero-aggressive episodes (P<0.0001), but not suicide attempts (P=NS). At study endpoint 14 patients (48%) were very much improved according to the CGI. Discussion: This observational long-term study provides support to long-acting injectable risperidone being effective for the maintenance treatment of mania and improving treatment adherence, reducing relapses and re-hospitalization rates.

Clinical implications of predominant polarity and the polarity index in bipolar disorder: a naturalistic study

Predominant polarity (PP) is an important variable in maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder (BD). This study aimed at determining the role of polarity index (PI), a metric indicating antimanic versus antidepressive prophylactic potential of drugs, in clinical decision‐making.

Why do clinicians maintain antidepressants in some patients with acute mania? Hints from the European Mania in Bipolar Longitudinal Evaluation of Medication (EMBLEM), a large naturalistic study.

OBJECTIVE Antidepressants are supposed to be withdrawn during a manic episode. The aim of this study was to analyze the characteristics of manic patients who received antidepressants during a manic phase in a large, naturalistic study. METHOD The European Mania in Bipolar Longitudinal Evaluation of Medication was a 2-year prospective observational study of inpatients and outpatients with acute mania/mixed mania (DSM-IV or ICD-10 criteria) conducted in 14 European countries. Of 2,416 manic patients who continued into the maintenance phase of the study, 345 (14%) were taking an antidepressant and 2,071 (86%) were not taking an antidepressant at baseline, week 1, and/or week 2 postbaseline. Demographic and clinical variables were collected at baseline and each study visit up to 24 months. Outcome measures included the Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Disorder scale (CGI-BP overall, mania, and depression scores) at 12 weeks and 24 months, the 5-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-5), and the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) at 12 weeks only. The present study was conducted from December 2002 to June 2004. RESULTS More antidepressant maintenance use was seen in patients with mixed episodes (P < .001), rapid cyclers (P < .02), patients with more previous depressive episodes (P < .001), and patients with higher mean HDRS-5 score at baseline (P < .001)-specifically patients with anxiety (P = .013). Patients in the antidepressant group had significantly higher CGI-BP depression scores (P < .001) and a significantly higher rate of depression relapse (P < .001) at both 12 weeks and 24 months. CONCLUSIONS Patients with mania receiving antidepressants are more likely to be outpatients with mixed episodes, anxiety, or rapid cycling and have a higher risk of depression relapse during follow-up.

Rapid-cycling bipolar I disorder: Course and treatment outcome of a large sample across Europe

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the baseline characteristics and follow-up outcomes of rapid-cycling (RC) bipolar I patients in a large, prospective, observational study. METHODS EMBLEM (European Mania in Bipolar Longitudinal Evaluation of Medication) is a long-term prospective observational study of in- and outpatients with an acute mania/mixed episode conducted in 14 European countries. Demographic and clinical variables were collected at baseline, including the presence or absence of DSM-IV rapid-cycling during the past year. Outcome measures included the 5-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-5) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) over 12 weeks, as well as the Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Disorder Scale (CGI-BP overall, mania and depression) over 12 months. RESULTS Of 3684 patients enrolled, 3089 patients provided reliable data to qualify for either RC (N=535, 17.3%) or non-RC (NRC, N=2554), according to DSM-IV. RC prevalence varied across countries (p<0.001). Baseline and 12 week outcomes on the YMRS and HAMD-5, 12 month ratings on the CGI-BP subscales and work impairment at 12 months were significantly different (p<0.001) between groups, being worse in RC. RC patients were more likely to receive antidepressants and lamotrigine (p<0.001). Using logistic regression, RC was associated to country (p<0.001), female sex (p=0.029), outpatients (p=0.035), more history of attempted suicide (p<0.001) and alcohol abuse (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS The EMBLEM results suggest that in naturalistic settings, patients with mania and RC differ from NRC in socio-demographic characteristics, treatment prescriptions and clinical outcome measures with a consistently worse occupational outcome and comorbidities. RC represents a longitudinally severe form of bipolar disorder, with poorly evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic tools.