Citations

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.

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 Purpose/Background Clozapine was approved in the United States (US) using 1989 regulations and knowledge. After 30 years, many sections of the US package insert (PI) are outdated. Methods We comprehensively reviewed the literature to propose PI updates. We present the information in 2 articles. In Part I, we focus on basic pharmacology based on 407 relevant articles. Part II focuses on clinical aspects and pharmacovigilance. Findings/Results Based on more recent expectations of Food and Drug Administration regulations, we reviewed clozapine basic pharmacology including the following: 1) clearance, 2) pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and 3) monitoring tools. We identified 9 major problems in the basic pharmacological sections of the PI including the following: 1) in vivo studies indicate that clozapine is dependent on CYP1A2 for its metabolism, 2) the minor role of CYP2D6 in clozapine metabolism requires removing the PI recommendation to lower clozapine doses in CYP2D6 poor metabolizers, 3) in nontoxic concentrations CYP3A4 has a minor role in clozapine metabolism and potent CYP3A4 inhibitors lack clinically relevant effects, 4) several drug-drug interactions need to be updated based on recent literature, 5) systemic inflammation may decrease clozapine metabolism and increase the risk of clozapine intoxication, 6) obesity may decrease clozapine metabolism, 7) patients of Asian and Indigenous American ancestry need lower clozapine doses, 8) personalized titration and c-reactive protein monitoring should be considered until prospective studies are available, and 9) the half-life section needs to be modified to acknowledge that single dosing at night is frequent in the US. Implications/Conclusions An improvement in the US clozapine PI may lead to improvement in PIs worldwide.

Abstract Purpose/Background This is the second part of a 2-part article that proposes improving the United States (US) clozapine package insert. Part II focuses on fatal outcomes and the 5 boxed warnings, 4 specifically for clozapine: severe neutropenia, seizure, orthostatic hypotension and myocarditis, and 1 for all antipsychotics (elderly with dementia). Methods US reports to the World Health Organization's global pharmacovigilance database were analyzed from clozapine's introduction to January 15, 2023. Findings/Results The US was the top reporter worldwide for clozapine with 56,003 reports and 9587 associated fatal outcomes. The 4 clozapine boxed warnings were associated with 534 fatal outcomes (218 with severe neutropenia, 131 with seizures, 125 with orthostasis, 36 with myocarditis, 24 with cardiomyopathy, and 0 with mitral valve prolapse). With no boxed warnings, pneumonia was associated with 674 fatal outcomes and increased white blood cell count (a sign of infection) with 596 fatal outcomes. After considering overlaps, pneumonia and increases in white blood cell count explained 900 fatalities, or 9.4% of 9587 fatal outcomes. The Food and Drug Administration continues to focus on severe neutropenia which was associated with only 218 or 2.3% of fatal outcomes, whereas 97.7% of fatal outcomes reported in US clozapine-treated patients had another cause. Implications/Conclusions To help prevent future deaths in clozapine-treated patients, the clozapine package insert should focus on fatal outcomes during infections. Part II offers detailed solutions regarding current boxed warnings and lack of a warning for pneumonia and other infections. The Supplementary Material includes letters of support from 124 non-US clozapine experts from 44 countries/regions who support Parts I and II.

With more than 6000 attendees between in-person and virtual offerings, the American Epilepsy Society Meeting 2022 in Nashville, felt as busy as in prepandemic times. An ever-growing number of physicians, scientists, and allied health professionals gathered to learn a variety of topics about epilepsy. The program was carefully tailored to meet the needs of professionals with different interests and career stages. This article summarizes the different symposia presented at the meeting. Basic science lectures addressed the primary elements of seizure generation and pathophysiology of epilepsy in different disease states. Scientists congregated to learn about anti-seizure medications, mechanisms of action, and new tools to treat epilepsy including surgery and neurostimulation. Some symposia were also dedicated to discuss epilepsy comorbidities and practical issues regarding epilepsy care. An increasing number of patient advocates discussing their stories were intertwined within scientific activities. Many smaller group sessions targeted more specific topics to encourage member participation, including Special Interest Groups, Investigator, and Skills Workshops. Special lectures included the renown Hoyer and Lombroso, an ILAE/IBE joint session, a spotlight on the impact of Dobbs v. Jackson on reproductive health in epilepsy, and a joint session with the NAEC on coding and reimbursement policies. The hot topics symposium was focused on traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic epilepsy. A balanced collaboration with the industry allowed presentations of the latest pharmaceutical and engineering advances in satellite symposia.

AbstractObjectivesPersistent functional impairment is common in bipolar disorder (BD) and is influenced by a number of demographic, clinical, and cognitive features. The goal of this project was to estimate and compare the influence of key factors on community function in multiple cohorts of well‐characterized samples of individuals with BD.MethodsThirteen cohorts from 7 countries included n = 5882 individuals with BD across multiple sites. The statistical approach consisted of a systematic uniform application of analyses across sites. Each site performed a logistic regression analysis with empirically derived “higher versus lower function” as the dependent variable and selected clinical and demographic variables as predictors.ResultsWe found high rates of functional impairment, ranging from 41 to 75%. Lower community functioning was associated with depressive symptoms in 10 of 12 of the cohorts that included this variable in the analysis. Lower levels of education, a greater number of prior mood episodes, the presence of a comorbid substance use disorder, and a greater total number of psychotropic medications were also associated with low functioning.ConclusionsThe bipolar clinical research community is poised to work together to characterize the multi‐dimensional contributors to impairment and address the barriers that impede patients' complete recovery. We must also identify the core features which enable many to thrive and live successfully with BD. A large‐scale, worldwide, prospective longitudinal study focused squarely on BD and its heterogeneous presentations will serve as a platform for discovery and promote major advances toward optimizing outcomes for every individual with this illness.

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.