Soares, Jair C.

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 Background The Global Bipolar Cohort (GBC) was established to identify existing bipolar disorder (BD) cohorts worldwide and foster collaborations focused on descriptive and analytic outcomes relevant to BD. A distributed analytic framework has been implemented to engage multiple sites without the need for central data pooling. This report describes the GBC endeavor and global functional impairment patterns. Cross-cohort comparisons of functional correlates are limited by heterogeneous measures and data-sharing constraints. Large, culturally diverse comparisons are needed to distinguish broadly reproducible correlates from cohort-specific effects. Participating sites completed a 28-item descriptive survey covering diagnostic methods, cognition, genetics, treatment, functioning, and follow-up strategies. We implemented a harmonized local logistic regression model of dichotomized functional outcome and shared summary statistics only. Results We identified 69 cohorts across five continents. Thirty-seven cohorts contributed functional outcome analyses from 17,130 participants. Outcome measures included clinician-rated disability scales and social indicators such as employment and marital status. The proportion classified with poor functioning ranged from 16% to 77% (mean 50%). In 32 of 37 cohorts, the overall regression model significantly explained variance in functioning. Current depressive symptoms were the most robust and reproducible correlate of poor functional outcome: they were assessed in 29 cohorts, significant in 22 (75.8%), ranked among the top three correlates in 22, and were the top-ranked correlates in 19. Associations between depressive burden and poor functioning were observed across clinician-rated disability scales and work or social indicators, and across geographically diverse cohorts. Comorbid substance use disorder and medication-related variables were associated with poorer functioning in subsets of cohorts, whereas sex, ancestry, bipolar subtype, psychosis history, and premorbid IQ showed weak or inconsistent associations. Cognitive measures, available in a minority of regression models, showed modest and non-uniform effects. Conclusions Across heterogeneous international cohorts, current depressive symptom burden emerged as the most consistent correlate of poor functioning in bipolar disorder. These findings replicate earlier multisite work at a larger scale, show that protocol-based distributed analyses can identify reproducible clinical signals without sharing individual-level data, and support prioritizing detection and treatment of depressive symptoms when aiming to improve real-world functioning. Future work should expand longitudinal harmonization and representation of under-studied populations.

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.

AbstractFirst‐degree relatives of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia (SZ‐FDRs) show similar patterns of brain abnormalities and cognitive alterations to patients, albeit with smaller effect sizes. First‐degree relatives of patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder (BD‐FDRs) show divergent patterns; on average, intracranial volume is larger compared to controls, and findings on cognitive alterations in BD‐FDRs are inconsistent. Here, we performed a meta‐analysis of global and regional brain measures (cortical and subcortical), current IQ, and educational attainment in 5,795 individuals (1,103 SZ‐FDRs, 867 BD‐FDRs, 2,190 controls, 942 schizophrenia patients, 693 bipolar patients) from 36 schizophrenia and/or bipolar disorder family cohorts, with standardized methods. Compared to controls, SZ‐FDRs showed a pattern of widespread thinner cortex, while BD‐FDRs had widespread larger cortical surface area. IQ was lower in SZ‐FDRs (d = −0.42,p = 3 × 10−5), with weak evidence of IQ reductions among BD‐FDRs (d = −0.23,p = .045). Both relative groups had similar educational attainment compared to controls. When adjusting for IQ or educational attainment, the group‐effects on brain measures changed, albeit modestly. Changes were in the expected direction, with less pronounced brain abnormalities in SZ‐FDRs and more pronounced effects in BD‐FDRs. To conclude, SZ‐FDRs and BD‐FDRs show a differential pattern of structural brain abnormalities. In contrast, both had lower IQ scores and similar school achievements compared to controls. Given that brain differences between SZ‐FDRs and BD‐FDRs remain after adjusting for IQ or educational attainment, we suggest that differential brain developmental processes underlying predisposition for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder are likely independent of general cognitive impairment.