Shefali Miller

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor val66met genotype and early life stress effects upon bipolar course

BACKGROUND Gene-environment interactions may contribute to bipolar disorder (BD) clinical course variability. We examined effects of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) val66met genotype and early life stress (ELS) upon illness severity and chronicity in adult BD patients. METHODS 80 patients (43 BD I, 33 BD II, 4 BD not otherwise specified, mean ± SD age 46.4 ± 14.0 years, 63.7% female) receiving open evidence-based and measurement-based care in the Stanford Bipolar Disorders Clinic for at least 12 months underwent BDNF val66met genotyping and completed the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. BDNF met allele carrier genotype and history of childhood sexual and physical abuse were evaluated in relation to mean prior-year Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Version-Overall Severity of Illness (MPY-CGI-BP-OS) score and clinical and demographic characteristics. RESULTS BDNF met allele carriers (but not non-met allele carriers) with compared to without childhood sexual abuse had 21% higher MPY-CGI-BP-OS scores (3.5 ± 0.7 versus 2.9 ± 0.7, respectively, t = -2.4, df = 28, p = 0.025) and 35% earlier BD onset age (14.6 ± 5.7 versus 22.8 ± 7.9 years, respectively, t = 3.0, df = 27, p = 0.006). Regression analysis, however, was non-significant for a BDNF-childhood sexual abuse interaction. LIMITATIONS small sample of predominantly female Caucasian insured outpatients taking complex medication regimens; only one gene polymorphism considered. CONCLUSIONS Between group comparisons suggested BDNF met allele carrier genotype might amplify negative effects of ELS upon BD illness severity/chronicity, although with regression analysis, there was not a significant gene-environment interaction. Further studies with larger samples are warranted to assess whether BDNF met allele carriers with ELS are at risk for more severe/chronic BD illness course.

Childhood-compared to adolescent-onset bipolar disorder has more statistically significant clinical correlates

BACKGROUND The strengths and limitations of considering childhood-and adolescent-onset bipolar disorder (BD) separately versus together remain to be established. We assessed this issue. METHODS BD patients referred to the Stanford Bipolar Disorder Clinic during 2000-2011 were assessed with the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for BD Affective Disorders Evaluation. Patients with childhood- and adolescent-onset were compared to those with adult-onset for 7 unfavorable bipolar illness characteristics with replicated associations with early-onset patients. RESULTS Among 502 BD outpatients, those with childhood- (<13 years, N=110) and adolescent- (13-18 years, N=218) onset had significantly higher rates for 4/7 unfavorable illness characteristics, including lifetime comorbid anxiety disorder, at least ten lifetime mood episodes, lifetime alcohol use disorder, and prior suicide attempt, than those with adult-onset (>18 years, N=174). Childhood- but not adolescent-onset BD patients also had significantly higher rates of first-degree relative with mood disorder, lifetime substance use disorder, and rapid cycling in the prior year. Patients with pooled childhood/adolescent - compared to adult-onset had significantly higher rates for 5/7 of these unfavorable illness characteristics, while patients with childhood- compared to adolescent-onset had significantly higher rates for 4/7 of these unfavorable illness characteristics. LIMITATIONS Caucasian, insured, suburban, low substance abuse, American specialty clinic-referred sample limits generalizability. Onset age is based on retrospective recall. CONCLUSIONS Childhood- compared to adolescent-onset BD was more robustly related to unfavorable bipolar illness characteristics, so pooling these groups attenuated such relationships. Further study is warranted to determine the extent to which adolescent-onset BD represents an intermediate phenotype between childhood- and adult-onset BD.

Balancing benefits and harms of treatments for acute bipolar depression

BACKGROUND Bipolar depression is more pervasive than mania, but has fewer evidence-based treatments. METHODS Using data from multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials and meta-analyses, we assessed the number needed to treat (NNT) for response and the number needed to harm (NNH) for selected side effects for older and newer acute bipolar depression treatments. RESULTS The 2 older FDA-approved treatments for bipolar depression, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (OFC) and quetiapine (QTP) monotherapy, were efficacious (response NNT=4 for OFC, NNT=6 for QTP), but similarly likely to yield harms (OFC weight gain NNH=6; QTP sedation/somnolence NNH=5). Commonly used unapproved agents (lamotrigine monotherapy and adjunctive antidepressants) tended to be well-tolerated (with double-digit NNHs), although this advantage was at the cost of inadequate efficacy (response NNT=12 for lamotrigine, NNT=29 for antidepressants). In contrast, the newly approved agent lurasidone was not only efficacious (response NNT=5 for monotherapy, NNT=7 as adjunctive therapy), but also had enhanced tolerability (NNH=15 for akathisia [monotherapy], NNH=16 for nausea [adjunctive]). Although adjunctive armodafinil appeared well tolerated, its efficacy in bipolar depression has not been consistently demonstrated in randomized controlled trials. LIMITATIONS NNT and NNH are categorical metrics; only selected NNHs were assessed; limited generalizability of efficacy (versus effectiveness) studies. CONCLUSION For acute bipolar depression, older approved treatments may have utility in high-urgency situations, whereas lamotrigine and antidepressants may have utility in low-urgency situations. Newly approved lurasidone may ultimately prove useful in diverse situations. New drug development needs to focus on not only efficacy but also on tolerability.

American tertiary clinic-referred bipolar II disorder compared to bipolar I disorder: More severe in multiple ways, but less severe in a few other ways

BACKGROUND Prevalence and relative severity of bipolar II disorder (BDII) vs. bipolar I disorder (BDI) are controversial. METHODS Prevalence, demographics, and illness characteristics were compared among 260 BDII and 243 BDI outpatients referred to the Stanford University BD Clinic and assessed with the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder Affective Disorders Evaluation. RESULTS BDII vs. BDI outpatients had statistically similar prevalence (51.7% vs. 48.3%), and in multiple ways had more severe illness, having significantly more often: lifetime comorbid anxiety (70.8% vs. 58.4%) and personality (15.4% vs. 7.4%) disorders, first-degree relative with mood disorder (62.3% vs. 52.3%), at least 10 prior mood episodes (80.0% vs. 50.9%), current syndromal/subsyndromal depression (52.3% vs. 38.4%), current antidepressant use (47.3% vs. 31.3%), prior year rapid cycling (33.6% vs. 13.4%), childhood onset (26.2% vs. 16.0%), as well as earlier onset age (17.0±8.6 vs. 18.9±8.1 years), longer illness duration (19.0±13.0 vs. 16.1±13.0), and higher current Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder-Overall Severity (4.1±1.4 vs. 3.7±1.5). However, BDII vs. BDI patients significantly less often had prior psychosis (14.2% vs. 64.2%), psychiatric hospitalization (10.0% vs. 67.9%), and current prescription psychotropic use, (81.5% vs. 93.0%), and had a statistically similar rate of prior suicide attempt (29.5% vs. 32.1%). LIMITATIONS American tertiary bipolar disorder clinic referral sample, cross-sectional design. CONCLUSIONS Further studies are warranted to determine the extent to which BDII, compared to BDI, can be more severe in multiple ways but less severe in a few other ways, and contributors to occurrence of more severe forms of BDII.

Trends in pharmacotherapy in patients referred to a bipolar specialty clinic, 2000–2011

OBJECTIVE To assess mood stabilizer (MS) and second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) prescribing trends in bipolar disorder (BD) outpatients referred to a bipolar disorder specialty clinic over the past 12 years. METHOD BD outpatients referred to the Stanford University Bipolar Disorder Clinic during 2000-2011 were assessed with the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for BD (STEP-BD) Affective Disorders Evaluation. Prescription rates for MSs and SGAs were compared during the first (2000-2005) and second (2006-2011) six years. RESULTS Among 597 BD patients (mean±SD age 35.4±8.6 years; 58.1% female; 40.7% Type I, 43.6% Type II, and 15.7% Type Not Otherwise Specified; taking 2.6±1.7 prescription psychotropic medications), lamotrigine, quetiapine, and aripiprazole usage more than doubled, from 14.7% to 37.2% (p<0.0001), 7.2% to 19.7% (p<0.0001), and 3.1% to 10.9% (p=0.0003), respectively, while olanzapine and risperidone use decreased by more than half from 15.0% to 6.6% (p=0.0043), and from 8.7% to 3.8% (p=0.039), respectively. SGA use increased from 34.1% to 44.8% (p=0.013), although MS use continued to be more common (in 65.2% for 2006-2011). Use of other individual MSs and SGAs and MSs as a class did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS Over 12 years, in patients referred to a BD specialty clinic, lamotrigine, quetiapine, and aripiprazole use more than doubled, and olanzapine and risperidone use decreased by more than half. Tolerability (for lamotrigine, aripiprazole, olanzapine, and risperidone) more than efficacy (for quetiapine) differences may have driven these findings. Additional studies are needed to explore the relative influences of enhanced tolerability versus efficacy upon prescribing practices in BD patients.

Treatment of bipolar disorder: Review of evidence regarding quetiapine and lithium

BACKGROUND Lithium, the prototypical mood stabilizer, and quetiapine, a second-generation antipsychotic, are widely used acute and maintenance pharmacotherapies for bipolar disorder. The Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness for Bipolar Disorder (Bipolar CHOICE) study was the first comparative effectiveness assessment of lithium versus quetiapine (in combination with adjunctive personalized treatment), and found no overall significant differences in efficacy and safety/tolerability outcomes between lithium and quetiapine. Completion of Bipolar CHOICE offers a timely opportunity to review the evidence regarding lithium and quetiapine for bipolar disorder. METHODS Controlled clinical trials and real-world observational studies that included quetiapine and lithium as monotherapy or as combination therapy were identified by literature search. Selected studies were reviewed in detail. RESULTS Review of the available trials suggested comparable efficacy of quetiapine and lithium in acute mania, and possibly greater efficacy for quetiapine compared with lithium in acute bipolar depression and in prevention of recurrent (particularly depressive) episodes. Combination therapy including quetiapine and lithium was generally more effective than either agent alone in acute mania and bipolar maintenance, although adding lithium to quetiapine did not increase efficacy in acute bipolar depression. Safety data for quetiapine and lithium were consistent with the established profiles of the two treatments. LIMITATIONS Limitations include those of the available efficacy and effectiveness trial data. CONCLUSIONS Quetiapine and lithium have overlapping but distinctive roles in different phases of bipolar disorder, and further studies of these agents (particularly in combination with one another) are warranted.

COGNITION–CHILDHOOD MALTREATMENT INTERACTIONS IN THE PREDICTION OF ANTIDEPRESSANT OUTCOMES IN MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER PATIENTS: RESULTS FROM THE iSPOT‐D TRIAL

Childhood maltreatment (CM) history has been associated with poor treatment response in major depressive disorder (MDD), but the mechanisms underlying this relationship remain opaque. Dysfunction in the neural circuits for executive cognition is a putative neurobiological consequence of CM that may contribute importantly to adverse clinical outcomes. We used behavioral and neuroimaging measures of executive functioning to assess their contribution to the relationship between CM and antidepressant response in MDD patients.

Italian Bipolar II vs I patients have better individual functioning, in spite of overall similar illness severity

Introduction Bipolar disorders (BDs) comprise different variants of chronic, comorbid, and disabling conditions, with relevant suicide and suicide attempt rates. The hypothesis that BD types I (BDI) and II (BDII) represent more and less severe forms of illness, respectively, has been increasingly questioned over recent years, justifying additional investigation to better characterize related sociodemographic and clinical profiles. METHODS A sample of 217 outpatients with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR)-described BD (141 BDI, 76 BDII), without a current syndromal mood episode, was recruited, and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of BDI and II patients were compared. RESULTS BDII patients had significantly more favorable sociodemographics, in relation to occupational stability, cohabitation, and marital status. However, BDII compared with BDI patients had significantly longer duration of untreated illness, more frequent lifetime anxiety disorders comorbidity, longer most recent episode duration, higher rate of depressive first/most recent episode, and more current antidepressant use. In contrast, BDI compared with BDII patients had significantly more severe illness in terms of earlier age at onset; higher rate of elevated first/most recent episode, lifetime hospitalizations, and involuntary commitments; lower Global Assessment of Functioning score; and more current antipsychotic use. BDI and II patients had similar duration of illness, psychiatric family history, lifetime number of suicide attempts, current subthreshold symptoms, history of stressful life events, and overall psychiatric/medical comorbidity. CONCLUSION BDII compared with BDI patients had more favorable sociodemographic features, but a mixture of specific unfavorable illness characteristics, confirming that BDII is not just a milder form of BD and requires further investigation in the field.

Age at onset in patients with bipolar i and II disorder : A comparison of large sample studies

BACKGROUND Bipolar Disorder (BD) is a leading cause of disability worldwide and factors contributing to its burden include chronic relapsing course, comorbidity, suicide risk, and early age at onset (AAO). In particular, recent investigation has shown that BD onset may occur earlier than previously believed, even though whether BDI and II are different in such regard is still debated. Reduced samples may, moreover, limit the confidence in the published studies, with geographic issues, in turn, representing potentially conditioning factors. The present review was aimed to select and analyze large sample studies comparing AAO in BDI vs II patients. METHODS A PubMed literature search was performed, considering English-written articles published up to December 2015, comparing AAO in BDI vs II patients with sample size≥100 subjects per group. RESULTS Seventeen studies were considered suitable for revision, with 8 studies reporting statistically significant differences and 9 not. Among studies reporting statistically significant differences, mostly conducted in Europe, 6 showed an earlier AAO in BDI, while 2 in BDII subjects. LIMITATIONS Only studies with large samples included, considering AAO as a continuous variable, and providing a comparison between the bipolar subtypes. CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest that AAO per se does not seem to reliably differentiate BDI from BDII patients and that such variable should likely be investigated in the context of other clinical characteristics, in order to assess its overall influence over BD course. Geographic factors may, in turn, play a potential role with future investigation warranted to further explore this specific issue.

Superior chronic tolerability of adjunctive modafinil compared to pramipexole in treatment-resistant bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND Suboptimal outcomes are common in bipolar disorder (BD) pharmacotherapy, and may be mitigated with novel adjunctive agents such as modafinil (a low-affinity dopamine transport inhibitor) and pramipexole (a dopamine D2/D3 receptor agonist). While uncontrolled long-term effectiveness data have been reported for these treatments, reports specifically assessing their comparative acute versus chronic tolerability in BD are lacking. Such information, particularly in relation to discontinuation causes, has substantial relevance, providing initial indications to clinicians which treatment may be better tolerated, and to researchers which agent ought to be assessed in longer-term controlled trials. METHODS BD outpatients assessed with the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP-BD) Affective Disorders Evaluation, and followed with the STEP-BD Clinical Monitoring Form, were naturalistically prescribed adjunctive modafinil or pramipexole, and somatic/psychiatric intolerability discontinuation rates were compared. RESULTS Among 63 BD outpatients (mean ± SD age 43.5 ± 14.3 years, 60.3% female, 42.9% type I, 44.4% type II, 12.7% type not otherwise specified), taking 3.5 ± 1.5 (median 3) concurrent prescription psychotropics, adjunctive modafinil (n=24) for 626.9 ± 863.9 (286) days versus pramipexole (n=39) for 473.7 ± 613.4 (214; p=0.51) days yielded a 26.0% lower somatic/psychiatric intolerability discontinuation rate (12.5% vs. 38.5%; p<0.05), with most of the difference accounted for by more pramipexole somatic intolerability discontinuations, due to nausea and sedation, after the first 12 weeks of treatment. LIMITATIONS No placebo comparison group. Small sample of predominantly female Caucasian insured outpatients, taking complex concurrent medication regimens. CONCLUSIONS Further studies are warranted to assess our preliminary observation that modafinil, compared to pramipexole, may be better tolerated for longer-term BD treatment.