Malhi, Gin S

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.

Objective: To derive new criteria sets for defining manic and hypomanic episodes (and thus for defining the bipolar I and II disorders), an international Task Force was assembled and termed AREDOC reflecting its role of Assessment, Revision and Evaluation of DSM and other Operational Criteria. This paper reports on the first phase of its deliberations and interim criteria recommendations. Method: The first stage of the process consisted of reviewing Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, and recent International Classification of Diseases criteria, identifying their limitations and generating modified criteria sets for further in-depth consideration. Task Force members responded to recommendations for modifying criteria and from these the most problematic issues were identified. Results: Principal issues focussed on by Task Force members were how best to differentiate mania and hypomania, how to judge ‘impairment’ (both in and of itself and allowing that functioning may sometimes improve during hypomanic episodes) and concern that rejecting some criteria (e.g. an imposed duration period) might risk false-positive diagnoses of the bipolar disorders. Conclusion: This first-stage report summarises the clinical opinions of international experts in the diagnosis and management of the bipolar disorders, allowing readers to contemplate diagnostic parameters that may influence their clinical decisions. The findings meaningfully inform subsequent Task Force stages (involving a further commentary stage followed by an empirical study) that are expected to generate improved symptom criteria for diagnosing the bipolar I and II disorders with greater precision and to clarify whether they differ dimensionally or categorically.

Although the etiology of bipolar disorder remains uncertain, multiple studies examining neuroimaging, peripheral markers and genetics have provided important insights into the pathophysiologic processes underlying bipolar disorder. Neuroimaging studies have consistently demonstrated loss of gray matter, as well as altered activation of subcortical, anterior temporal and ventral prefrontal regions in response to emotional stimuli in bipolar disorder. Genetics studies have identified several potential candidate genes associated with increased risk for developing bipolar disorder that involve circadian rhythm, neuronal development and calcium metabolism. Notably, several groups have found decreased levels of neurotrophic factors and increased pro-inflammatory cytokines and oxidative stress markers. Together these findings provide the background for the identification of potential biomarkers for vulnerability, disease expression and to help understand the course of illness and treatment response. In other areas of medicine, validated biomarkers now inform clinical decision-making. Although the findings reviewed herein hold promise, further research involving large collaborative studies is needed to validate these potential biomarkers prior to employing them for clinical purposes. Therefore, in this positional paper from the ISBD-BIONET (biomarkers network from the International Society for Bipolar Disorders), we will discuss our view of biomarkers for these three areas: neuroimaging, peripheral measurements and genetics; and conclude the paper with our position for the next steps in the search for biomarkers for bipolar disorder.