Ostacher, Michael J.

ABSTRACT Objective To provide expert recommendations for the development of a specialty bipolar clinic that promotes best clinical practices for the delivery of safe and effective care. Methods Members of the National Network of Depression Centers (NNDC) Bipolar Clinics Work Group met in a series of 1‐h monthly video calls over 18 months to discuss all aspects of their respective institution's bipolar clinics, including services provided, administrative processes, staffing models, characteristics of patients treated, patient volumes, finances, and research. The group also invited psychiatrists from outside of the NNDC who ran large bipolar clinics to contribute their thoughts and experiences on the subject. In addition, the NNDC sent a 20‐question survey to all 27 sites asking clinic directors specific questions about their bipolar clinics, if applicable. Further meetings and discussions incorporating results from the survey took place to produce a comprehensive set of recommendations. Results Twenty‐one of 27 NNDC sites (81%) responded to the survey. Twelve of 21 (57%) sites had a specific bipolar clinic, and another 4 (19%) were looking to start one. Clinics were based in university settings. The meetings, clinic survey, and discussions resulted in 10 recommendations describing services and operations for bipolar specialty clinics. Conclusions Given the complexity of bipolar disorder, specialty clinics are important to enhance care. Clinics with a wide array of services that include consultation, medication management, bipolar‐specific psychotherapies, and patient/family psychoeducation provide the most comprehensive care. Challenges to these clinics include maintaining ongoing patient access as well as ensuring long‐term financial stability.

Importance There is a need for greater recognition of clinical psychopharmacology endpoints, including instances where specific psychotropic medications may become unnecessary, redundant, contradictory, or otherwise inappropriate and therefore merit deprescribing. Objective To address circumstances warranting psychotropic medication deprescribing. Evidence Review The American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology convened a panel of 45 international psychopharmacology experts who developed and completed a multiround Delphi survey and conducted a focused literature review between January and May of 2025, in order to identify areas of consensus or disagreement on key aspects of the deprescribing of psychotropic medications. These included collaborative risk-benefit assessments with patients; pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors; pharmacogenomics; distinguishing redundant or conflictual from complementary mechanisms of action; managing adverse effects; assuring medication adherence; drug tolerance or tachyphylaxis; medication misuse; and the psychological context and ramifications of deprescribing. Findings Consensus was achieved on 44 of 50 final Delphi statements (88%). Panelists unanimously agreed that components of a pharmacotherapy regimen should undergo periodic review to ensure that treatments target relevant symptoms and have favorable risk-benefit ratios. Key points of consensus were that deprescribing: (1) should not occur without first assessing medication adherence; (2) merits consideration if less than partial therapeutic response is apparent, or if treatment goals have been reached and relapse prevention is not a long-term objective; (3) involves psychological ramifications that warrant attention; (4) should be followed by close clinical monitoring; and (5) risk-benefit decisions should ideally involve active patient participation within a shared decision-making model. Conclusions and Relevance Through this Consensus Statement, the Task Force identified circumstances in which the selective elimination of certain psychotropic medications may be clinically indicated. Empirical trials are needed to assess the implementation of deprescribing protocols and gauge their safe, effective, and acceptable outcomes.