Swartz, Holly A.

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.

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.

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.