Correll, Christoph Ulrich

Abstract Objectives To systematically evaluate the certainty of evidence for treatment strategies across age groups and mood phases in bipolar disorder, and develop an open access web platform to facilitate shared decision making. Design Living umbrella review, evaluation, analysis, and communication hub (U-REACH) project. Data sources PubMed, PsycInfo, and Cochrane library databases, from inception to 19 November 2024. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Systematic reviews with network or pairwise meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials of pharmacological, nutraceutical, psychosocial, brain stimulation, or circadian rhythm based treatments, administered as monotherapy (without concurrent interventions), augmentation treatment (interventions added to an ongoing treatment regimen), or combination treatment (simultaneous initiation of two different interventions), examining any age group, bipolar disorder phase (ie, acute bipolar depression, mania or mixed episodes, or maintenance), treatment, control, or outcome. Results 77 studies met the inclusion criteria (21 network meta-analyses and 56 pairwise meta-analyses), including 116 unique pharmacological (n=74), brain stimulation (n=18), nutraceutical (n=13), psychosocial (n=8), and circadian rhythm based (n=3) treatments as monotherapy, augmentation, or combination therapy, along with five control interventions. These studies covered 133 unique outcomes (45 efficacy outcomes and 88 safety outcomes) resulting in 2510 meta-analyses with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) ratings of the certainty of the evidence as high (n=236), moderate (n=827), low (n=986), and very low (n=461). A communication hub, the Evidence Based Interventions for Bipolar Disorder (EBI-BD) platform, was developed and the full results are freely available ( https://ebibd-database.org ), including the preference based tool (12 interventions and 17 safety outcomes). Interventions effective across outcomes varied by phases. For bipolar depression, effective interventions in adults were cariprazine, divalproex or valproate, fluoxetine, ketamine (augmentation), lamotrigine, lumateperone, lurasidone, olanzapine, olanzapine with fluoxetine, and quetiapine, whereas effective interventions in children and adolescents were lurasidone and olanzapine with fluoxetine. For mania episodes, effective interventions in adults were aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, cariprazine, divalproex or valproate, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine (also augmentation), risperidone (also as augmentation), tamoxifen, and ziprasidone, whereas effective interventions in children and adolescents were aripiprazole, asenapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone. For maintenance, interventions effective across outcomes in adults were aripiprazole (also the long acting injectable formulation), asenapine, divalproex or valproate, lithium, olanzapine, group psychoeducation (augmentation), quetiapine, and risperidone long acting injectable formulation. Interventions effective across phases were aripiprazole (also as augmentation and as a long acting injectable formulation), asenapine, cariprazine, cognitive behavioural therapy (augmentation), divalproex or valproate, lamotrigine, lithium, olanzapine (also as augmentation), paliperidone, quetiapine (also as augmentation), and risperidone (also as augmentation and the long acting injectable formulation) (adults). Treatment effects by neuroscience based nomenclature classes are also reported. Conclusions The EBI-BD tool can help clinicians make evidence based, personalised treatment decisions for bipolar disorder. This resource can inform clinical guidelines and provides a foundation for continuously improving bipolar disorder care as new evidence emerges. Trial registration Open Science Framework https://osf.io/pjmvn/ Readers’ note This is a living systematic review and may be updated in the next two years if additional evidence emerges.

Summary The American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology convened a 45-member international expert task force to identify circumstances supporting the deprescribing of core psychotropic medications for major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorders. Three Delphi survey rounds plus a selective literature review identified points of consensus (predefined as ≥75% agreement) about when antidepressant, antipsychotic, mood stabiliser and sedative-hypnotic deprescribing is warranted. Twenty out of 32 statements (63%) achieved consensus across seven thematic areas. In MDD, panellists favoured discontinuing antidepressants when mechanisms of action are duplicative, adequate trials produce ≤25% improvement or loss of prior efficacy cannot be regained through dose increases or augmentations. Indefinite antidepressant maintenance in MDD was favoured after three or more lifetime episodes. In bipolar disorder, antidepressant deprescribing was favoured in the setting of rapid cycling, mixed features or emerging mania/hypomania symptoms; and discouraged if prior antidepressant cessation led to relapse. In nonpsychotic mood disorders, panellists favoured deprescribing antipsychotics that caused significant weight gain or tardive dyskinesia over adding pharmacological antidotes. Deprescribing to achieve an eventual medication-free status was considered inappropriate, in bipolar type 1, but not necessarily bipolar type 2 disorder. Although individualised circumstances necessarily inform psychopharmacology management, clinical presentations that misalign with existing pharmacotherapies may signal the desirability of cautious deprescribing.

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.

Abstract Purpose/Background Clozapine was approved in the United States (US) using 1989 regulations and knowledge. After 30 years, many sections of the US package insert (PI) are outdated. Methods We comprehensively reviewed the literature to propose PI updates. We present the information in 2 articles. In Part I, we focus on basic pharmacology based on 407 relevant articles. Part II focuses on clinical aspects and pharmacovigilance. Findings/Results Based on more recent expectations of Food and Drug Administration regulations, we reviewed clozapine basic pharmacology including the following: 1) clearance, 2) pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and 3) monitoring tools. We identified 9 major problems in the basic pharmacological sections of the PI including the following: 1) in vivo studies indicate that clozapine is dependent on CYP1A2 for its metabolism, 2) the minor role of CYP2D6 in clozapine metabolism requires removing the PI recommendation to lower clozapine doses in CYP2D6 poor metabolizers, 3) in nontoxic concentrations CYP3A4 has a minor role in clozapine metabolism and potent CYP3A4 inhibitors lack clinically relevant effects, 4) several drug-drug interactions need to be updated based on recent literature, 5) systemic inflammation may decrease clozapine metabolism and increase the risk of clozapine intoxication, 6) obesity may decrease clozapine metabolism, 7) patients of Asian and Indigenous American ancestry need lower clozapine doses, 8) personalized titration and c-reactive protein monitoring should be considered until prospective studies are available, and 9) the half-life section needs to be modified to acknowledge that single dosing at night is frequent in the US. Implications/Conclusions An improvement in the US clozapine PI may lead to improvement in PIs worldwide.

Abstract Purpose/Background This is the second part of a 2-part article that proposes improving the United States (US) clozapine package insert. Part II focuses on fatal outcomes and the 5 boxed warnings, 4 specifically for clozapine: severe neutropenia, seizure, orthostatic hypotension and myocarditis, and 1 for all antipsychotics (elderly with dementia). Methods US reports to the World Health Organization's global pharmacovigilance database were analyzed from clozapine's introduction to January 15, 2023. Findings/Results The US was the top reporter worldwide for clozapine with 56,003 reports and 9587 associated fatal outcomes. The 4 clozapine boxed warnings were associated with 534 fatal outcomes (218 with severe neutropenia, 131 with seizures, 125 with orthostasis, 36 with myocarditis, 24 with cardiomyopathy, and 0 with mitral valve prolapse). With no boxed warnings, pneumonia was associated with 674 fatal outcomes and increased white blood cell count (a sign of infection) with 596 fatal outcomes. After considering overlaps, pneumonia and increases in white blood cell count explained 900 fatalities, or 9.4% of 9587 fatal outcomes. The Food and Drug Administration continues to focus on severe neutropenia which was associated with only 218 or 2.3% of fatal outcomes, whereas 97.7% of fatal outcomes reported in US clozapine-treated patients had another cause. Implications/Conclusions To help prevent future deaths in clozapine-treated patients, the clozapine package insert should focus on fatal outcomes during infections. Part II offers detailed solutions regarding current boxed warnings and lack of a warning for pneumonia and other infections. The Supplementary Material includes letters of support from 124 non-US clozapine experts from 44 countries/regions who support Parts I and II.

Abstract Objective For adolescents, DSM‐5 differentiates anorexia nervosa (AN) and atypical AN with the 5th BMI‐centile‐for‐age. We hypothesized that the diagnostic weight cut‐off yields (i) lower weight loss in atypical AN and (ii) discrepant premorbid BMI distributions between the two disorders. Prior studies demonstrate that premorbid BMI predicts admission BMI and weight loss in patients with AN. We explore these relationships in atypical AN. Method Based on admission BMI‐centile < or ≥5th, participants included 411 female adolescent inpatients with AN and 49 with atypical AN from our registry study. Regression analysis and t ‐tests statistically addressed our hypotheses and exploratory correlation analyses compared interrelationships between weight loss, admission BMI, and premorbid BMI in both disorders. Results Weight loss in atypical AN was 5.6 kg lower than in AN upon adjustment for admission age, admission height, premorbid weight and duration of illness. Premorbid BMI‐standard deviation scores differed by almost one between both disorders. Premorbid BMI and weight loss were strongly correlated in both AN and atypical AN. Discussion Whereas the weight cut‐off induces discrepancies in premorbid weight and adjusted weight loss, AN and atypical AN overall share strong weight‐specific interrelationships that merit etiological consideration. Epidemiological and genetic associations between AN and low body weight may reflect a skewed premorbid BMI distribution. In combination with prior findings for similar psychological and medical characteristics in AN and atypical AN, our findings support a homogenous illness conceptualization. We propose that diagnostic subcategorization based on premorbid BMI, rather than admission BMI, may improve clinical validity. Public significance Because body weights of patients with AN must drop below the 5th BMI‐centile per DSM‐5, they will inherently require greater weight loss than their counterparts with atypical AN of the same sex, age, height and premorbid weight. Indeed, patients with atypical AN had a 5.6 kg lower weight loss after controlling for these variables. In comparison to the reference population, we found a lower and higher mean premorbid weight in patients with AN and atypical AN, respectively. Considering previous psychological and medical comparisons showing little differences between AN and atypical AN, we view a single disorder as the most parsimonious explanation. Etiological models need to particularly account for the strong relationship between weight loss and premorbid body weight.

Bipolar disorder is heterogeneous in phenomenology, illness trajectory, and response to treatment. Despite evidence for the efficacy of multimodal­ity interventions, the majority of persons affected by this disorder do not achieve and sustain full syndromal recovery. It is eagerly anticipated that combining datasets across various information sources (e.g., hierarchical “multi‐omic” measures, electronic health records), analyzed using advanced computational methods (e.g., machine learning), will inform future diagnosis and treatment selection. In the interim, identifying clinically meaningful subgroups of persons with the disorder having differential response to specific treatments at point‐of‐care is an empirical priority. This paper endeavours to synthesize salient domains in the clinical characterization of the adult patient with bipolar disorder, with the overarching aim to improve health outcomes by informing patient management and treatment considerations. Extant data indicate that characterizing select domains in bipolar disorder provides actionable information and guides shared decision making. For example, it is robustly established that the presence of mixed features – especially during depressive episodes – and of physical and psychiatric comorbidities informs illness trajectory, response to treatment, and suicide risk. In addition, early environmental exposures (e.g., sexual and physical abuse, emotional neglect) are highly associated with more complicated illness presentations, inviting the need for developmentally‐oriented and integrated treatment approaches. There have been significant advances in validating subtypes of bipolar disorder (e.g., bipolar I vs. II disorder), particularly in regard to pharmacological interventions. As with other severe mental disorders, social functioning, interpersonal/family relationships and internalized stigma are domains highly relevant to relapse risk, health outcomes, and quality of life. The elevated standardized mortality ratio for completed suicide and suicidal behaviour in bipolar disorder invites the need for characterization of this domain in all patients. The framework of this paper is to describe all the above salient domains, providing a synthesis of extant literature and recommendations for decision support tools and clinical metrics that can be implemented at point‐of‐care.

Abstract This international guideline proposes improving clozapine package inserts worldwide by using ancestry-based dosing and titration. Adverse drug reaction (ADR) databases suggest that clozapine is the third most toxic drug in the United States (US), and it produces four times higher worldwide pneumonia mortality than that by agranulocytosis or myocarditis. For trough steady-state clozapine serum concentrations, the therapeutic reference range is narrow, from 350 to 600 ng/mL with the potential for toxicity and ADRs as concentrations increase. Clozapine is mainly metabolized by CYP1A2 (female non-smokers, the lowest dose; male smokers, the highest dose). Poor metabolizer status through phenotypic conversion is associated with co-prescription of inhibitors (including oral contraceptives and valproate), obesity, or inflammation with C-reactive protein (CRP) elevations. The Asian population (Pakistan to Japan) or the Americas’ original inhabitants have lower CYP1A2 activity and require lower clozapine doses to reach concentrations of 350 ng/mL. In the US, daily doses of 300–600 mg/day are recommended. Slow personalized titration may prevent early ADRs (including syncope, myocarditis, and pneumonia). This guideline defines six personalized titration schedules for inpatients: 1) ancestry from Asia or the original people from the Americas with lower metabolism (obesity or valproate) needing minimum therapeutic dosages of 75–150 mg/day, 2) ancestry from Asia or the original people from the Americas with average metabolism needing 175–300 mg/day, 3) European/Western Asian ancestry with lower metabolism (obesity or valproate) needing 100–200 mg/day, 4) European/Western Asian ancestry with average metabolism needing 250–400 mg/day, 5) in the US with ancestries other than from Asia or the original people from the Americas with lower clozapine metabolism (obesity or valproate) needing 150–300 mg/day, and 6) in the US with ancestries other than from Asia or the original people from the Americas with average clozapine metabolism needing 300–600 mg/day. Baseline and weekly CRP monitoring for at least four weeks is required to identify any inflammation, including inflammation secondary to clozapine rapid titration.