Bobo, William V.

IntroductionDepressive episodes are often prevalent among patients with bipolar disorder, but little is known regarding the differential patterns of development over time. We aimed to determine and characterize trajectories of depressive symptoms among adults with bipolar disorder during 6 months of systematic treatment.MethodsThe pragmatic clinical trial, Bipolar Clinical Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness (CHOICE), randomized 482 outpatients with bipolar disorder to lithium or quetiapine. Depressive symptoms were rated at up to 9 visits using the Montgomery‐Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Growth mixture modeling was utilized to identify trajectories and multinomial regression analysis estimated associations with potential predictors.ResultsFour distinct trajectories of depressive symptoms were identified. The responding class (60.3%) with a rapid reduction and subsequent low level; the partial‐responding class (18.4%) with an initial reduction followed by an increase during the remaining weeks; the fluctuating class (11.6%) with a fluctuation in depressive symptoms; and the non‐responding class (9.7%) with sustained moderate‐severe depressive symptoms. Bipolar type I predicted membership of the non‐responding class and randomization to quetiapine predicted membership of either the responding or the non‐responding class.ConclusionApproximately 30% experienced a partial or fluctuating course, and almost 10% had a chronic course with moderate‐severe depression during 6 months. Patients diagnosed with bipolar type 1 had higher risk of being categorized into a class with a worse outcome. While no differences in average overall outcomes occurred between the lithium and quetiapine groups, trajectory analysis revealed that the lithium group had more variable courses.

There is a new appreciation of the perimenopause—defined as the early and late menopause transition stages as well as the early postmenopause—as a window of vulnerability for the development of both depressive symptoms and major depressive episodes. However, clinical recommendations on how to identify, characterize and treat clinical depression are lacking. To address this gap, an expert panel was convened to systematically review the published literature and develop guidelines on the evaluation and management of perimenopausal depression. The areas addressed included: (1) epidemiology; (2) clinical presentation; (3) therapeutic effects of antidepressants; (4) effects of hormone therapy; and (5) efficacy of other therapies ( e.g. , psychotherapy, exercise, and natural health products). Overall, evidence generally suggests that most midlife women who experience a major depressive episode during the perimenopause have experienced a prior episode of depression. Midlife depression presents with classic depressive symptoms commonly in combination with menopause symptoms ( i.e. , vasomotor symptoms, sleep disturbance), and psychosocial challenges. Menopause symptoms complicate, co-occur, and overlap with the presentation of depression. Diagnosis involves identification of menopausal stage, assessment of co-occurring psychiatric and menopause symptoms, appreciation of the psychosocial factors common in midlife, differential diagnoses, and the use of validated screening instruments. Proven therapeutic options for depression ( i.e. , antidepressants, psychotherapy) are the front-line treatments for perimenopausal depression. Although estrogen therapy is not approved to treat perimenopausal depression, there is evidence that it has antidepressant effects in perimenopausal women, particularly those with concomitant vasomotor symptoms. Data on estrogen plus progestin are sparse and inconclusive.

Abstract There is a new appreciation of the perimenopause – defined as the early and late menopause transition stages as well as the early postmenopause - as a window of vulnerability for the development of both depressive symptoms and major depressive episodes. However, clinical recommendations on how to identify, characterize and treat clinical depression are lacking. To address this gap, an expert panel was convened to systematically review the published literature and develop guidelines on the evaluation and management of perimenopausal depression. The areas addressed included: 1) epidemiology; 2) clinical presentation; 3) therapeutic effects of antidepressants; 4) effects of hormone therapy; and 5) efficacy of other therapies (eg, psychotherapy, exercise, and natural health products). Overall, evidence generally suggests that most midlife women who experience a major depressive episode during the perimenopause have experienced a prior episode of depression. Midlife depression presents with classic depressive symptoms commonly in combination with menopause symptoms (ie, vasomotor symptoms, sleep disturbance), and psychosocial challenges. Menopause symptoms complicate, co-occur, and overlap with the presentation of depression. Diagnosis involves identification of menopausal stage, assessment of co-occurring psychiatric and menopause symptoms, appreciation of the psychosocial factors common in midlife, differential diagnoses, and the use of validated screening instruments. Proven therapeutic options for depression (ie, antidepressants, psychotherapy) are the front-line treatments for perimenopausal depression. Although estrogen therapy is not approved to treat perimenopausal depression, there is evidence that it has antidepressant effects in perimenopausal women, particularly those with concomitant vasomotor symptoms. Data on estrogen plus progestin are sparse and inconclusive.

Objective: Activation encompasses energy and activity and is a central feature of bipolar disorder. However, the impact of activation on treatment response of bipolar depression requires further exploration. The aims of this study were to assess the association of decreased activation and sustained remission in bipolar depression and test for factors that could affect this association. Methods: We assessed participants with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed) bipolar depression ( n = 303) included in a comparative effectiveness study of lithium- and quetiapine-based treatments (the Bipolar CHOICE study). Activation was evaluated using items from the Bipolar Inventory of Symptoms Scale. The selection of these items was based on a dimension of energy and interest symptoms associated with poorer treatment response in major depression. Results: Decreased activation was associated with lower remission rates in the raw analyses and in a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline severity and subsyndromal manic symptoms (odds ratio = 0.899; p = 0.015). The manic features also predicted lower remission (odds ratio = 0.934; p < 0.001). Remission rates were similar in the two treatment groups. Conclusion: Decreased activation and subsyndromal manic symptoms predict lower remission rates in bipolar depression. Patients with these features may require specific treatment approaches, but new studies are necessary to identify treatments that could improve outcomes in this population.

Objective The study aimed to define thresholds of clinically significant change in 17‐item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS‐17) scores using the Clinical Global Impression‐Improvement (CGI‐I) Scale as a gold standard. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of individual patient data from the Pharmacogenomic Research Network Antidepressant Medication Pharmacogenomic Study, an 8‐week, single‐arm clinical trial of citalopram or escitalopram treatment of adults with major depression. We used equipercentile linking to identify levels of absolute and percent change in HDRS‐17 scores that equated with scores on the CGI‐I at 4 and 8 weeks. Additional analyses equated changes in the HDRS‐7 and Bech‐6 scale scores with CGI‐I scores. Results A CGI‐I score of 2 (much improved) corresponded to an absolute decrease (improvement) in HDRS‐17 total score of 11 points and a percent decrease of 50–57%, from baseline values. Similar results were observed for percent change in HDRS‐7 and Bech‐6 scores. Larger absolute (but not percent) decreases in HDRS‐17 scores equated with CGI‐I scores of 2 in persons with higher baseline depression severity. Conclusions Our results support the consensus definition of response based on HDRS‐17 scores ( > 50% decrease from baseline). A similar definition of response may apply to the HDRS‐7 and Bech‐6. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

ObjectivesTo examine the independent effects of sex on the risk of rapid cycling and other indicators of adverse illness course in patients with bipolar I disorder (BP‐I) or bipolar II disorder (BP‐II).MethodsWe analyzed data from the first 1,225 patients enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Individualized Medicine Biobank for Bipolar Disorder. Demographic and clinical variables were ascertained using standardized questionnaires; height and weight were assessed to determine body mass index (BMI). Rates of rapid cycling, cycle acceleration, and increased severity of mood episodes over time were compared between women and men overall and within subgroups defined by bipolar disorder subtype (BP‐I or BP‐II). Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to assess the independent effect of sex on the risk of these indicators of adverse illness course.ResultsWomen had significantly higher rates of rapid cycling than men. Overall rates of rapid cycling were higher in patients with BP‐II than BP‐I; and sex differences in the rate of rapid cycling were more pronounced in patients with BP‐II than BP‐I, although the power to detect statistically significant differences was reduced due to the lower sample size of subjects with BP‐II. Female sex was a significant predictor of rapid cycling, cycle acceleration, and increased severity of mood episodes over time after adjusting for age, bipolar disorder subtype, BMI, having any comorbid psychiatric disorder, and current antidepressant use.ConclusionsFemale sex was associated with significantly higher risk of rapid cycling, cycle acceleration, and increased severity of mood episodes over time in a sample of 1,225 patients with bipolar disorders.

ObjectiveExamine the effects of obesity and metabolic syndrome on outcome in bipolar disorder.MethodThe Comparative Effectiveness of a Second Generation Antipsychotic Mood Stabilizer and a Classic Mood Stabilizer for Bipolar Disorder (Bipolar CHOICE) study randomized 482 participants with bipolar disorder in a 6‐month trial comparing lithium‐ and quetiapine‐based treatment. Baseline variables were compared between groups with and without obesity, with and without abdominal obesity, and with and without metabolic syndrome respectively. The effects of baseline obesity, abdominal obesity, and metabolic syndrome on outcomes were examined using mixed effects linear regression models.ResultsAt baseline, 44.4% of participants had obesity, 48.0% had abdominal obesity, and 27.3% had metabolic syndrome; neither obesity, nor abdominal obesity, nor metabolic syndrome were associated with increased global severity, mood symptoms, or suicidality, or with poorer functioning or life satisfaction. Treatment groups did not differ on prevalence of obesity, abdominal obesity, or metabolic syndrome. By contrast, among the entire cohort, obesity was associated with less global improvement and less improvement in total mood and depressive symptoms, suicidality, functioning, and life satisfaction after 6 months of treatment. Abdominal obesity was associated with similar findings. Metabolic syndrome had no effect on outcome.ConclusionObesity and abdominal obesity, but not metabolic syndrome, were associated with less improvement after 6 months of lithium‐ or quetiapine‐based treatment.

ObjectivesTo determine whether clinical features of bipolar disorder, such as history of psychosis, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors contribute to a higher risk of CVD among patients with bipolar disorder.MethodsThis cross‐sectional study included a sample of 988 patients with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder or schizoaffective bipolar type confirmed by the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐IV‐TR disorders (SCID). Medical comorbidity burden was quantified utilizing the Cumulative Illness Severity Rating Scale (CIRS). This 13‐item organ‐based scale includes cardiac disease severity quantification. Confirmed by medical record review, patients who scored 1 (current mild or past significant problem) or higher in the cardiac item were compared by logistic regression to patients who scored 0 (no impairment), adjusting for CVD risk factors that were selected using a backwards stepwise approach or were obtained from the literature.ResultsIn a multivariate model, age [odds ratio (OR) = 3.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.66–5.54, p < 0.0001], hypertension (OR = 2.43, 95% CI: 1.69–3.55, p < 0.0001), and history of psychosis (OR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.03–2.13, p = 0.03) were associated with CVD. When CVD risk factors from the literature were added to the analysis, age (OR = 3.19, 95% CI: 1.67–6.10, p = 0.0005) and hypertension (OR = 2.46, 95% CI: 1.61–3.76, p < 0.01) remained significant, with psychosis being at the trend level (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 0.96–2.13, p = 0.08).ConclusionsThe phenotype of psychotic bipolar disorder may reflect higher illness severity with associated cardiac comorbidity. Further studies are encouraged to clarify the effect of the disease burden (i.e., depression), lifestyle, and treatment interventions (i.e., atypical antipsychotics) on this risk association.