Burdick, K E

ABSTRACT Objectives To investigate pharmacological treatment patterns in individuals with bipolar disorder (BD) with and without comorbid substance use disorder (SUD) and anxiety disorder (AX), we leveraged the Global Bipolar Cohort to analyze cross‐regional practices across North America, Europe, and the Pacific. Methods Fourteen cohorts contributed aggregate data on pharmacotherapy, demographics, diagnostic subtypes, and comorbidities. Proportional meta‐analyses using generalized linear mixed models were conducted to examine prescription trends and identify clinical differences. Results The sample ( N = 11,521) was 60% female and 84% Caucasian. Participants were categorized into four mutually exclusive groups based on comorbidity status: those with comorbid AX only, comorbid SUD only, both AX and SUD, or neither. The AX+SUD subgroup showed higher rates of attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), rapid cycling, obesity, and unemployment, reflecting a more severe clinical profile. Regional variations were notable: North American cohorts reported higher prevalence of AX and SUD than European and Pacific cohorts. Antidepressants use for AX were more common in Europe and the Pacific, while North American prescribing patterns were more variable. Benzodiazepine use was high among individuals with SUD across all regions. Lithium and first‐generation antipsychotic prescriptions varied, with higher rates observed in Europe. Conclusions Findings underscore the heterogeneity of BD and the influence of comorbid AX and SUD on illness burden and treatment. Regional prescribing variations underscore the need for context‐specific guidelines. Gaps in data on medication‐assisted treatment for SUD point to areas for future research. These insights can support more individualized and effective care for complex BD presentations.

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 Objectives To understand treatment practices for bipolar disorders (BD), this study leveraged the Global Bipolar Cohort collaborative network to investigate pharmacotherapeutic treatment patterns in multiple cohorts of well‐characterized individuals with BD in North America, Europe, and Australia. Methods Data on pharmacotherapy, demographics, diagnostic subtypes, and comorbidities were provided from each participating cohort. Individual site and regional pooled proportional meta‐analyses with generalized linear mixed methods were conducted to identify prescription patterns. Results This study included 10,351 individuals from North America ( n = 3985), Europe ( n = 3822), and Australia ( n = 2544). Overall, participants were predominantly female (60%) with BD‐I (60%; vs. BD‐II = 33%). Cross‐sectionally, mood‐stabilizing anticonvulsants (44%), second‐generation antipsychotics (42%), and antidepressants (38%) were the most prescribed medications. Lithium was prescribed in 29% of patients, primarily in the Australian (31%) and European (36%) cohorts. First‐generation antipsychotics were prescribed in 24% of the European versus 1% in the North American cohort. Antidepressant prescription rates were higher in BD‐II (47%) compared to BD‐I (35%). Major limitations were significant differences among cohorts based on inclusion/exclusion criteria, data source, and time/year of enrollment into cohort. Conclusions Mood‐stabilizing anticonvulsants, second‐generation antipsychotics, and antidepressants were the most prescribed medications suggesting prescription patterns that are not necessarily guideline concordant. Significant differences exist in the prescription practices across different geographic regions, especially the underutilization of lithium in the North American cohorts and the higher utilization of first‐generation antipsychotics in the European cohorts. There is a need to conduct future longitudinal studies to further explore these differences and their impact on outcomes, and to inform and implement evidence‐based guidelines to help improve treatment practices in BD.

AbstractObjectivesPersistent functional impairment is common in bipolar disorder (BD) and is influenced by a number of demographic, clinical, and cognitive features. The goal of this project was to estimate and compare the influence of key factors on community function in multiple cohorts of well‐characterized samples of individuals with BD.MethodsThirteen cohorts from 7 countries included n = 5882 individuals with BD across multiple sites. The statistical approach consisted of a systematic uniform application of analyses across sites. Each site performed a logistic regression analysis with empirically derived “higher versus lower function” as the dependent variable and selected clinical and demographic variables as predictors.ResultsWe found high rates of functional impairment, ranging from 41 to 75%. Lower community functioning was associated with depressive symptoms in 10 of 12 of the cohorts that included this variable in the analysis. Lower levels of education, a greater number of prior mood episodes, the presence of a comorbid substance use disorder, and a greater total number of psychotropic medications were also associated with low functioning.ConclusionsThe bipolar clinical research community is poised to work together to characterize the multi‐dimensional contributors to impairment and address the barriers that impede patients' complete recovery. We must also identify the core features which enable many to thrive and live successfully with BD. A large‐scale, worldwide, prospective longitudinal study focused squarely on BD and its heterogeneous presentations will serve as a platform for discovery and promote major advances toward optimizing outcomes for every individual with this illness.

Abstract Bipolar disorder (BD) is a complex and dynamic condition with a typical onset in late adolescence or early adulthood followed by an episodic course with intervening periods of subthreshold symptoms or euthymia. It is complicated by the accumulation of comorbid medical and psychiatric disorders. The etiology of BD remains unknown and no reliable biological markers have yet been identified. This is likely due to lack of comprehensive ontological framework and, most importantly, the fact that most studies have been based on small nonrepresentative clinical samples with cross‐sectional designs. We propose to establish large, global longitudinal cohorts of BD studied consistently in a multidimensional and multidisciplinary manner to determine etiology and help improve treatment. Herein we propose collection of a broad range of data that reflect the heterogenic phenotypic manifestations of BD that include dimensional and categorical measures of mood, neurocognitive, personality, behavior, sleep and circadian, life‐story, and outcomes domains. In combination with genetic and biological information such an approach promotes the integrating and harmonizing of data within and across current ontology systems while supporting a paradigm shift that will facilitate discovery and become the basis for novel hypotheses.