Schaffer, Ayal

Abstract Objectives To systematically evaluate the certainty of evidence for treatment strategies across age groups and mood phases in bipolar disorder, and develop an open access web platform to facilitate shared decision making. Design Living umbrella review, evaluation, analysis, and communication hub (U-REACH) project. Data sources PubMed, PsycInfo, and Cochrane library databases, from inception to 19 November 2024. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Systematic reviews with network or pairwise meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials of pharmacological, nutraceutical, psychosocial, brain stimulation, or circadian rhythm based treatments, administered as monotherapy (without concurrent interventions), augmentation treatment (interventions added to an ongoing treatment regimen), or combination treatment (simultaneous initiation of two different interventions), examining any age group, bipolar disorder phase (ie, acute bipolar depression, mania or mixed episodes, or maintenance), treatment, control, or outcome. Results 77 studies met the inclusion criteria (21 network meta-analyses and 56 pairwise meta-analyses), including 116 unique pharmacological (n=74), brain stimulation (n=18), nutraceutical (n=13), psychosocial (n=8), and circadian rhythm based (n=3) treatments as monotherapy, augmentation, or combination therapy, along with five control interventions. These studies covered 133 unique outcomes (45 efficacy outcomes and 88 safety outcomes) resulting in 2510 meta-analyses with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) ratings of the certainty of the evidence as high (n=236), moderate (n=827), low (n=986), and very low (n=461). A communication hub, the Evidence Based Interventions for Bipolar Disorder (EBI-BD) platform, was developed and the full results are freely available ( https://ebibd-database.org ), including the preference based tool (12 interventions and 17 safety outcomes). Interventions effective across outcomes varied by phases. For bipolar depression, effective interventions in adults were cariprazine, divalproex or valproate, fluoxetine, ketamine (augmentation), lamotrigine, lumateperone, lurasidone, olanzapine, olanzapine with fluoxetine, and quetiapine, whereas effective interventions in children and adolescents were lurasidone and olanzapine with fluoxetine. For mania episodes, effective interventions in adults were aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, cariprazine, divalproex or valproate, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine (also augmentation), risperidone (also as augmentation), tamoxifen, and ziprasidone, whereas effective interventions in children and adolescents were aripiprazole, asenapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone. For maintenance, interventions effective across outcomes in adults were aripiprazole (also the long acting injectable formulation), asenapine, divalproex or valproate, lithium, olanzapine, group psychoeducation (augmentation), quetiapine, and risperidone long acting injectable formulation. Interventions effective across phases were aripiprazole (also as augmentation and as a long acting injectable formulation), asenapine, cariprazine, cognitive behavioural therapy (augmentation), divalproex or valproate, lamotrigine, lithium, olanzapine (also as augmentation), paliperidone, quetiapine (also as augmentation), and risperidone (also as augmentation and the long acting injectable formulation) (adults). Treatment effects by neuroscience based nomenclature classes are also reported. Conclusions The EBI-BD tool can help clinicians make evidence based, personalised treatment decisions for bipolar disorder. This resource can inform clinical guidelines and provides a foundation for continuously improving bipolar disorder care as new evidence emerges. Trial registration Open Science Framework https://osf.io/pjmvn/ Readers’ note This is a living systematic review and may be updated in the next two years if additional evidence emerges.

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.