Anand, Amit

AbstractBackgroundBipolar disorder (BD) is characterized by episodes of depression and mania and disrupted circadian rhythms. Lithium is an effective therapy for BD, but only 30%–40% of patients are fully responsive. Preclinical models show that lithium alters circadian rhythms. However, it is unknown if the circadian rhythm effects of lithium are essential to its therapeutic properties.MethodsIn secondary analyses of a multi‐center, prospective, trial of lithium for BD, we examined the relationship between circadian rhythms and therapeutic response to lithium. Using standardized instruments, we measured morningness, diurnal changes in mood, sleep, and energy (circadian rhythm disturbances) in a cross‐sectional study of 386 BD subjects with varying lithium exposure histories. Next, we tracked symptoms of depression and mania prospectively over 12 weeks in a subset of 88 BD patients initiating treatment with lithium. Total, circadian, and affective mood symptoms were scored separately and analyzed.ResultsSubjects with no prior lithium exposure had the most circadian disruption, while patients stable on lithium monotherapy had the least. Patients who were stable on lithium with another drug or unstable on lithium showed intermediate levels of disruption. Treatment with lithium for 12 weeks yielded significant reductions in total and affective depression symptoms. Lithium responders (Li‐Rs) showed improvement in circadian symptoms of depression, but non‐responders did not. There was no difference between Li‐Rs and nonresponders in affective, circadian, or total symptoms of mania.ConclusionsExposure to lithium is associated with reduced circadian disruption. Lithium response at 12 weeks was selectively associated with the reduction of circadian depressive symptoms. We conclude that stabilization of circadian rhythms may be an important feature of lithium's therapeutic effects. Clinical Trials Registry: NCT0127253.

AbstractBackgroundLithium is regarded as a first‐line treatment for bipolar disorder (BD), but partial response and non‐response commonly occurs. There exists a need to identify lithium non‐responders prior to initiating treatment. The Pharmacogenomics of Bipolar Disorder (PGBD) Study was designed to identify predictors of lithium response.MethodsThe PGBD Study was an eleven site prospective trial of lithium treatment in bipolar I disorder. Subjects were stabilized on lithium monotherapy over 4 months and gradually discontinued from all other psychotropic medications. After ensuring a sustained clinical remission (defined by a score of ≤3 on the CGI for 4 weeks) had been achieved, subjects were followed for up to 2 years to monitor clinical response. Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the relationship between clinical measures and time until failure to remit or relapse.ResultsA total of 345 individuals were enrolled into the study and included in the analysis. Of these, 101 subjects failed to remit or relapsed, 88 achieved remission and continued to study completion, and 156 were terminated from the study for other reasons. Significant clinical predictors of treatment failure (p < 0.05) included baseline anxiety symptoms, functional impairments, negative life events and lifetime clinical features such as a history of migraine, suicidal ideation/attempts, and mixed episodes, as well as a chronic course of illness.ConclusionsIn this PGBD Study of lithium response, several clinical features were found to be associated with failure to respond to lithium. Future validation is needed to confirm these clinical predictors of treatment failure and their use clinically to distinguish who will do well on lithium before starting pharmacotherapy.

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.