Singh, Balwinder

Abstract Objectives To understand treatment practices for bipolar disorders (BD), this study leveraged the Global Bipolar Cohort collaborative network to investigate pharmacotherapeutic treatment patterns in multiple cohorts of well‐characterized individuals with BD in North America, Europe, and Australia. Methods Data on pharmacotherapy, demographics, diagnostic subtypes, and comorbidities were provided from each participating cohort. Individual site and regional pooled proportional meta‐analyses with generalized linear mixed methods were conducted to identify prescription patterns. Results This study included 10,351 individuals from North America ( n = 3985), Europe ( n = 3822), and Australia ( n = 2544). Overall, participants were predominantly female (60%) with BD‐I (60%; vs. BD‐II = 33%). Cross‐sectionally, mood‐stabilizing anticonvulsants (44%), second‐generation antipsychotics (42%), and antidepressants (38%) were the most prescribed medications. Lithium was prescribed in 29% of patients, primarily in the Australian (31%) and European (36%) cohorts. First‐generation antipsychotics were prescribed in 24% of the European versus 1% in the North American cohort. Antidepressant prescription rates were higher in BD‐II (47%) compared to BD‐I (35%). Major limitations were significant differences among cohorts based on inclusion/exclusion criteria, data source, and time/year of enrollment into cohort. Conclusions Mood‐stabilizing anticonvulsants, second‐generation antipsychotics, and antidepressants were the most prescribed medications suggesting prescription patterns that are not necessarily guideline concordant. Significant differences exist in the prescription practices across different geographic regions, especially the underutilization of lithium in the North American cohorts and the higher utilization of first‐generation antipsychotics in the European cohorts. There is a need to conduct future longitudinal studies to further explore these differences and their impact on outcomes, and to inform and implement evidence‐based guidelines to help improve treatment practices in BD.

Clonidine, an alpha-2 adrenergic agonist, has been proposed as an antimanic agent that acts by reducing noradrenergic transmission. We conducted a systematic review to examine the efficacy and safety of clonidine for acute mania/hypomania. A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomized studies investigating the efficacy and safety of monotherapy/adjuvant treatment with clonidine for acute mania/hypomania in patients with bipolar disorder (BD). Nine studies (n = 222) met our inclusion criteria, including five RCTs (n = 159) and four non-randomized studies (n = 63). Non-randomized studies showed clonidine to help reduce symptoms of mania. However, data from placebo controlled RCTs were inconsistent. One RCT showed adjuvant clonidine as superior to placebo, whereas another RCT reported that clonidine was not better than placebo. In individual RCTs, lithium and valproate offered better antimanic effects compared to clonidine. Studies reported hypotension, depression, and somnolence as common adverse effects. Significant differences in study design and sample size contributed to high heterogeneity. This systematic review suggests low-grade evidence for clonidine as an adjuvant treatment for acute mania with mood stabilizers and inconclusive efficacy as monotherapy, warranting further well-designed RCTs.

Lithium has been a cornerstone treatment for bipolar disorder (BD). Despite descriptions in the literature regarding associations between long-term lithium therapy (LTLT) and development of a thyroid disorder (overt/subclinical hypo/hyperthyroidism, thyroid nodule, and goiter) in BD, factors such as time to onset of thyroid abnormalities and impact on clinical outcomes in the course of illness have not been fully characterized. In this study we aimed to compare clinical characteristics of adult BD patients with and without thyroid disorders who were on LTLT. We aimed to identify the incidence of thyroid disorders in patients with BD on LTLT and response to lithium between patients with and without thyroid disorders in BD. The Cox proportional model was used to find the median time to the development of a thyroid disorder. Our results showed that up to 32% of patients with BD on LTLT developed a thyroid disorder, of which 79% developed hypothyroidism, which was corrected with thyroid hormone replacement. We did not find significant differences in lithium response between patients with or without thyroid disorders in BD. Findings from this study suggest that patients with BD and comorbid thyroid disorders when adequately treated have a response to lithium similar to patients with BD and no thyroid disorders.

Thyroid hormone (TH) augmentation, although commonly used for major depression, is sparingly used for bipolar disorder (BD) after the failure of mood-stabilizing agents. While the exact mechanisms of thyroid hormone action in BD remains unclear, central thyroid hormone deficit has been postulated as a mechanism for rapid cycling. This systematic review—conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines—of eight studies synthesizes the evidence for TH augmentation in BD. A systematic search of the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCT), open-label trials, and observational studies of levothyroxine (LT4) and triiodothyronine (T3) for BD. Open-label studies of high dose LT4 augmentation for bipolar depression and rapid cycling showed improvement in depression outcomes and reduction in recurrence, respectively. However, an RCT of high-dose LT4 did not show benefit in contrast to placebo. An RCT comparing LT4, T3, and placebo showed benefit only in rapid-cycling bipolar women. A meta-analysis could not be completed due to significant differences in study designs, interventions, and outcomes. Our systematic review shows mixed evidence and a lack of high-quality studies. The initial promise of supratherapeutic LT4 augmentation from open-label trials has not been consistently replicated in RCTs. Limited data are available for T3. The studies did not report significant thyrotoxicosis, and TH augmentation were well tolerated. Therefore, TH augmentation, especially with supratherapeutic doses, should be reserved for highly treatment-resistant bipolar depression and rapid-cycling BD.

Abstract Purpose Although clozapine was Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved more than 3 decades ago, major barriers and gaps in knowledge continue to prevent its effective and safe use. We review modern-day problems encountered with clozapine in the United States (US). Methods Information surrounding current administrative, clinical, research, and technological gaps or barriers related to clozapine use in the US was reviewed. Findings The history of how clozapine became FDA approved likely contributes to gaps in knowledge. The frequency of safety warnings added to the FDA prescribing information may add to fears about clozapine, as evidence by numerous published survey studies. The clozapine Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program has been modified several times in the last decade, causing access and safety issues for patients, which are discussed. Evidence may suggest that the FDA REMS requirements for hematologic monitoring are too cumbersome, and there may be ability to safely loosen requirements. The COVID-19 pandemic brought forth the ability for extended interval monitoring but also greater awareness of the clozapine-inflammation interaction. Newer guidelines published describe considerations in personalizing clozapine titration based on principles of ethnopsychopharmacology. Emerging technologies to support the use of clozapine are not widely available. Implications Clozapine is a unique life-saving drug but it is underused in the US, despite its established efficacy. The 2021 REMS changes led to significant difficulties for providers and patients. We highlight the importance of the clozapine-inflammation interaction, therapeutic drug monitoring, and the ability for individual care based on patient-specific factors. There is an urgent need for advancing technology used for clozapine monitoring, evaluating barriers created by REMS, and establishing consistent practices throughout the US.

Abstract Aim To appraise the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of lamotrigine (LAM) in the treatment of pediatric mood disorders (PMD) (i.e., Major Depressive disorder [MDD], bipolar disorder [BD]). Methods Major databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), open‐label trials, and observational studies reporting on pediatric (age < 18 years) patients treated with LAM for mood disorders. Results A total of 3061 abstracts were screened and seven articles were selected for inclusion. Seven studies (319 BD and 43 MDD patients), including one RCT ( n = 173), three prospective ( n = 105), and three retrospective ( n = 84) studies, met the study criteria with a study duration range from 8 to 60.9 weeks. The mean age of this pooled data is 14.6 ± 2.0 years. LAM daily dosage varied from 12.5 to 391.3 mg/day among the studies. In an important finding, the RCT reported favorable outcomes with LAM (HR = 0.46; p = 0.02) in 13‐ to 17‐year‐old age group as compared with 10‐ to 12‐year‐old age group (HR = 0.93; p = 0.88). In addition, time to occurrence of a bipolar event trended toward favoring LAM over placebo. All the studies identified LAM as an effective and safe drug in PMDs especially, BDs. Overall, LAM was well tolerated with no major significant side effects and no cases of Stevens–Johnson syndrome. Conclusions Most studies suggested that LAM was safe and effective in pediatric patients with mood disorders. However, the data regarding the therapeutic range for LAM are lacking. Based on the data, there is inconsistent evidence to make conclusive recommendations on therapeutic LAM dosage for mood improvement in the pediatric population. Further studies including larger sample sizes are required to address this relevant clinical question.

Abstract Purpose Recognizing the negative impact that antipsychotic-induced movement disorders have on the quality of life and treatment outcomes in bipolar disorder (BD), this study aimed to assess clinical correlates and antipsychotic use patterns of tardive dyskinesia (TD+) in BD. Materials and Methods Participants with and without TD were included. Clinical variables were compared using t-test and χ2 test. Antipsychotic use patterns in TD+, including number of trials, mean doses, and estimated cumulative exposure, were assessed in a case-only analysis. Results The prevalence rate of TD was 5.1%. In comparison to the TD− group (n = 1074), TD+ participants (n = 58) were older, more likely to be female and have type I bipolar illness. There were 60.3% of the TD+ group that continued using antipsychotics at study entry and had a mean cumulative exposure to antipsychotics of 18.2 ± 15.6 years. Average dose, in haloperidol equivalents, was 5.9 ± 3.5 mg and 77.7% of the trials were second-generation antipsychotics. Conclusions This study confirms previously identified TD risk factors, such as age, sex, and bipolar subtype in a large BD cohort. Limitations included a cross-sectional design and the lack of tardive illness severity assessment. As atypical antipsychotics continue to be primary mood stabilization treatment, attempting to harmonize large data sets to identify additional biomarkers of tardive risk will optimize individualized care for patients with BD.