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.

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.

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.