Suppes, Trisha

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.

ABSTRACT Objective Despite the availability of approved treatments, a substantial proportion of patients with bipolar disorder experience treatment‐resistant bipolar depression (TRBD), characterized by persistent depressive symptoms unresponsive to standard therapies. However, a universally accepted definition of TRBD is lacking. This consensus document, developed by the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) Task Force on TRBD, aims to provide a standardized definition of TRBD to facilitate clinical trials, research, and treatment strategies. Methods The Task Force employed a literature review, clinical trials analysis, and expert consensus meetings to define TRBD. Results TRBD was defined as the failure to achieve a significant and sustained clinical response after at least two approved and adequately dosed pharmacological treatments, administered for a sufficient duration with treatment adherence. For bipolar I (BD‐I) depression, approved treatments included quetiapine (300–600 mg/day for ≥ 8 weeks), lurasidone (20–120 mg/day for ≥ 6 weeks), the combination of olanzapine (6–12 mg/day) and fluoxetine (25–75 mg/day for ≥ 8 weeks), cariprazine (1.5–3 mg/day for ≥ 6 weeks), and lumateperone (42 mg/day for ≥ 6 weeks). For bipolar II (BD‐II) depression, approved treatments included quetiapine (300–600 mg/day for ≥ 8 weeks) and lumateperone (42 mg/day for ≥ 6 weeks). Conclusion This consensus definition aims to provide clarity for clinical trials, improve consistency in research, and guide treatment approaches and inform regulatory pathways. It represents a foundational step in addressing the unmet needs in TRBD and promoting the development of innovative therapeutic strategies. Future efforts will focus on adapting the definition to better align with real‐world clinical challenges and optimize patient care.

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.

AbstractObjectivesA high incidence of Axis II personality disorders is described in patients with bipolar disorder; however, their relationship to mood state remains uncertain.MethodsA total of 966 outpatients with bipolar disorder gave informed consent and filled out the Personality Disorder Questionnaire, 4th edition (PDQ4) and a questionnaire on demographics and course of illness prior to Bipolar Treatment Outcome Network entry at average age 41 years. Patients were rated at each visit for depression on the Inventory of Depressive Symptoms‐Clinician version (IDS‐C) and for mania on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS). In a subgroup, the PDQ4 was retaken during periods of depression and euthymia.ResultsPatients met criteria for most personality disorders at a much higher rate when they took the PDQ4 while depressed compared to while euthymic, and scores were significantly related to the severity of depression (IDS) and of mania (YMRS) assessed within 2 weeks of taking the PDQ. Even when euthymic, more than quarter to half of the patients met criteria for a cluster A, B or C personality disorder.ConclusionsA wide range of personality disorders occur in bipolar patients, but are highly dependent on filling out the form while depressed compared to while euthymic. How this relates to having a personality disorder assessed using a structured clinical interview remains to be tested. However, higher PDQ4 scores are related to an earlier age of onset of bipolar disorder and other factors portending a more difficult course of bipolar disorder, and the optimal treatment of these patients remains to be illuminated.