Inositol as an add-on treatment for bipolar depression

Objective: Inositol is a constituent of the intracellular phosphatidyl inositol (PI) second messenger system, which is linked to various neurotransmitter receptors. Inositol crosses the blood–brain barrier in pharmacological doses, and has shown efficacy in a small double-blind study of unipolar depression. This pilot study evaluated its potential efficacy and safety in bipolar depression.

Methods: Twenty-four consenting adult men and women with DSM-IV bipolar depression (bipolar I=21; bipolar II=3) were randomly assigned to receive either 12 g of inositol or d -glucose as placebo for 6 weeks. Efficacy and safety ratings were done weekly. Thymoleptic medications (lithium, valproate, carbamazepine) in stable doses and at therapeutic levels at study entry were continued unchanged.

Results: Two subjects receiving placebo dropped out early due to worsening or non-adherence to the protocol. Among the 22 subjects who completed the trial, six (50%) of the inositol-treated subjects responded with a 50% or greater decrease in the baseline Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score and a Clinical Global Improvement (CGI) scale score change of 'much' or 'very much' improved, as compared to three (30%) subjects assigned to placebo, a statistically non-significant difference. On the Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), eight (67%) of twelve inositol-treated subjects had a 50% or greater decrease in the baseline MADRS scores compared to four (33%) of twelve subjects assigned to placebo (p=0.10). Inositol was well tolerated with minimal side effects, and thymoleptic blood levels were unaltered.

Conclusions: These pilot data suggest a controlled study with an adequate sample size, and the appropriate rating scale may demonstrate efficacy for inositol in bipolar depression. The tolerability and the 'natural substance' aspect of inositol may be particularly appealing to subjects with bipolar depression.     

A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of adjunctive donepezil in treatment-resistant mania

INTRODUCTION: Because there is a high rate of partial response to standard thymoleptic medication, novel augmentation strategies for treatment-resistant bipolar disorder are needed. In an open trial, donepezil augmentation was associated with improvement in manic symptoms in 9 of 11 subjects. METHOD: We conducted a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of donepezil for treatment-resistant bipolar mania. Eligible subjects had a Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score of at least 15 despite two or more weeks of proven therapeutic levels of lithium or valproate. Subjects who completed the trial were eligible for an 8-week open trial of donepezil. Subjects were started on donepezil 5 mg/day and were eligible for dose increase to 10 mg/day after 4 weeks. RESULTS: Twelve subjects were enrolled. Eleven subjects received at least 1 week of study medication and were included in the analysis. No subjects in the donepezil group (0/6) and 60% (3/5) in the placebo group met response criteria of >30% reduction in YMRS score (Fisher's Exact p = 0.061). YMRS scores were higher at trial endpoint in the donepezil group 20.17 (3.66) compared with the placebo group [11.20 (4.60), Z = -2.476, p = 0.01]. There were no differences at trial endpoint in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores in either the intent-to-treat or the completer analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Donepezil does not appear to be an effective adjunctive treatment for refractory manic symptoms. The strength of the conclusion of this trial is limited by the possibility of a false-negative result due to the small sample.     

Analyses of treatment-emergent mania with olanzapine/fluoxetine combination in the treatment of bipolar depression

BACKGROUND: Treatment-emergent mania is a potential risk when patients with bipolar disorder are treated with antidepressant agents. These subanalyses compare treatment-emergent mania rates in bipolar I depressed patients treated with olanzapine, placebo, or olanzapine/fluoxetine combination. METHOD: In this 8-week, double-blind investigation, patients with bipolar I depression (DSM-IV criteria) (N = 833, baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score > or = 20) were randomly assigned to olanzapine (5-20 mg/day, N = 370), placebo (N = 377), or olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (6/25, 6/50, or 12/50 mg/day; N = 86). Treatment-emergent mania was evaluated with the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), the Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Edition (CGI-BP) Severity of Mania scale, and adverse events records. RESULTS: Overall rates of study discontinuation due to mania were low and not significantly different among the therapy groups (p = .358). Incidence of treatment-emergent mania (defined as a YMRS score < 15 at baseline and > or = 15 at any subsequent visit) did not differ significantly among therapy groups (olanzapine 5.7%, placebo 6.7%, olanzapine/fluoxetine combination 6.4%; p = .861). Subjects receiving olanzapine or olanzapine/fluoxetine combination had greater mean decreases in YMRS scores than those receiving placebo (p < .001 for both). Subjects receiving olanzapine or olanzapine/fluoxetine combination also had greater mean decreases in CGI-BP scores than those receiving placebo (p = .040 and p = .003, respectively). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that olanzapine/fluoxetine combination does not present a greater risk of treatment-emergent mania compared to olanzapine or placebo over 8 weeks of acute treatment for bipolar I depression. Due to the cyclical nature of bipolar disorder, patients taking olanzapine/fluoxetine combination for bipolar depression should still be monitored for signs or symptoms of emerging mania.     

Topiramate monotherapy in the management of acute mania: results of four double-blind placebo-controlled trials

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate monotherapy in adults with acute manic or mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder. METHODS: In four trials, adults hospitalized with acute mania, a diagnosis of bipolar I disorder, history of > or =1 previous manic or mixed episodes, and > or =20 Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score were randomized to double-blind treatment with topiramate (target doses: 200, 400, or 600 mg/day) or placebo; two trials included an active comparator (lithium, 1500 mg/day). The core study duration in all trials was 3 weeks; three trials also had 9-week double-blind extensions. The primary efficacy variable was mean change from baseline in YMRS in the core 3-week study. RESULTS: Changes in YMRS score during 3 weeks were not significantly different for topiramate versus placebo (mean YMRS reductions, -5.1 to -8.4). Mean YMRS reductions in lithium-treated groups were significantly greater (p < or = 0.001 versus placebo and topiramate). A similar pattern was observed after 12 weeks of double-blind treatment in studies with double-blind extensions. Paresthesia, appetite decrease, dry mouth, and weight loss were more frequently associated with topiramate than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: These studies do not support the efficacy of topiramate as monotherapy in acute mania or mixed episodes in adults with bipolar I disorder. Topiramate was not associated with mood destabilization measured as mania exacerbation or treatment-emergent depression. Lithium was confirmed as an effective therapy in this population.     

Left prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) treatment of depression in bipolar affective disorder: a pilot study of acute safety and efficacy

Objectives:  Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been shown to improve depressive symptoms. We designed and carried out the following left prefrontal rTMS study to determine the safety, feasibility, and potential efficacy of using TMS to treat the depressive symptoms of bipolar affective disorder (BPAD).
Methods:  We recruited and enrolled 23 depressed BPAD patients (12 BPI depressed state, nine BPII depressed state, two BPI mixed state). Patients were randomly assigned to receive either daily left prefrontal rTMS (5 Hz, 110% motor threshold, 8 sec on, 22 sec off, over 20 min) or placebo each weekday morning for 2 weeks. Motor threshold and subjective rating scales were obtained daily, and blinded Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and Young Mania Rating Scales (YMRS) were obtained weekly.
Results:  Stimulation was well tolerated with no significant adverse events and with no induction of mania. We failed to find a statistically significant difference between the two groups in the number of antidepressant responders (>50% decline in HRSD or HRSD <10 – 4 active and 4 sham) or the mean HRSD change from baseline over the 2 weeks ( t =−0.22, p=0.83). Active rTMS, compared with sham rTMS, produced a trend but not statistically significant greater improvement in daily subjective mood ratings post-treatment ( t =1.58, p=0.13). The motor threshold did not significantly change after 2 weeks of active treatment ( t =1.11, p=0.28).
Conclusions:  Daily left prefrontal rTMS appears safe in depressed BPAD subjects, and the risk of inducing mania in BPAD subjects on medications is small. We failed to find statistically significant TMS clinical antidepressant effects greater than sham. Further studies are needed to fully investigate the potential role, if any, of TMS in BPAD depression.     

Long-term olanzapine therapy in the treatment of bipolar I disorder: an open-label continuation phase study

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of acute mania in 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. We describe the results of the open-label extension from one of these trials. METHOD: In a 3-week, double-blind study of patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, olanzapine was superior to placebo for the treatment of acute manic symptoms. Of the 139 patients who entered the double-blind phase of the 3-week study, 113 patients continued into the 49-week open-label extension. Efficacy measurements including the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-21), the Clinical Global Impressions scale-Bipolar Version, and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and safety measurements including the Simpson-Angus scale, the Barnes Akathisia Scale, and the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale were completed throughout. The analysis considered all treatment results, starting with the first olanzapine dose. Adjunctive lithium and fluoxetine were allowed during the open-label extension. RESULTS: The mean length of olanzapine treatment was 6.6 months, with a mean modal dose of 13.9 mg/day. A significant mean improvement in the YMRS total score, baseline to endpoint (-18.01, p < .001), was observed. During treatment, 88.3% of patients experienced a remission of manic symptoms (YMRS total score < or =12), and only 25.5% subsequently relapsed (YMRS total score > or = 15). Significant improvement in HAM-D-21 scores was observed (p < .001). Forty-one percent of patients were maintained on olanzapine monotherapy. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events reported were somnolence (46.0%), depression (38.9%), and weight gain (36.3%). CONCLUSION: During up to 1 year of olanzapine therapy, either as monotherapy or in combination with lithium and/or fluoxetine, patients with bipolar disorder demonstrated significant improvement in mania and depression symptoms with a favorable safety profile. Further double-blind, controlled studies are needed to confirm these results.     

Pramipexole for bipolar II depression: a placebo-controlled proof of concept study.

BACKGROUND: The original serotonergic and noradrenergic hypotheses do not fully account for the neurobiology of depression or mechanism of action of effective antidepressants. Research implicates a potential role of the dopaminergic system in the pathophysiology of bipolar disorder. The current study was undertaken as a proof of the concept that dopamine agonists will be effective in patients with bipolar II depression. METHODS: In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 21 patients with DSM-IV bipolar II disorder, depressive phase on therapeutic levels of lithium or valproate were randomly assigned to treatment with pramipexole (n = 10) or placebo (n = 11) for 6 weeks. Primary efficacy was assessed by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. RESULTS: All subjects except for one in each group completed the study. The analysis of variance for total Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores showed a significant treatment effect. A therapeutic response (>50% decrease in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale from baseline) occurred in 60% of patients taking pramipexole and 9% taking placebo (p =.02). One subject on pramipexole and two on placebo developed hypomanic symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The dopamine agonist pramipexole was found to have significant antidepressant effects in patients with bipolar II depression.     

Lamotrigine in the acute treatment of bipolar depression: results of five double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials

OBJECTIVES: The efficacy of lamotrigine as maintenance treatment for bipolar disorder (BD), particularly for delaying depressive episodes, is well established, but its efficacy in the acute treatment of bipolar depression is less clear. This paper reports the results of five randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of lamotrigine monotherapy for the acute treatment of bipolar depression. METHODS: Adult subjects with bipolar I or II disorder experiencing a depressive episode were randomized to placebo or lamotrigine monotherapy (after titration, at a fixed dose of 50 mg or 200 mg daily in Study 1; a flexible dose of 100-400 mg daily in Study 2; or a fixed dose of 200 mg daily in Studies 3, 4 and 5) for 7-10 weeks. RESULTS: Lamotrigine did not differ significantly from placebo on primary efficacy endpoints [17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in Studies 1 and 2; Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) in Studies 3, 4 and 5]. In Study 1, lamotrigine significantly separated from placebo on some secondary measures of efficacy, including the MADRS, the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) and the CGI-Improvement (CGI-I), but seldom differed on secondary efficacy endpoints for the other studies. CONCLUSIONS: Lamotrigine monotherapy did not demonstrate efficacy in the acute treatment of bipolar depression in four out of five placebo-controlled clinical studies. Lamotrigine was well tolerated in the acute treatment of bipolar depression.     

Divalproex sodium for pediatric mixed mania: a 6-month prospective trial

OBJECTIVE: This prospective 6-month open trial examined the effectiveness and safety of divalproex sodium (DVPX) in pediatric mixed mania. METHOD: Thirty-four subjects with a mean age of 12.3 (SD = 3.7) years, DSM-IV diagnosis of a current mixed episode and a baseline Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score >20 were treated with DVPX monotherapy. The primary outcome measures were the YMRS and the Child Depression Rating Scale-Revised. Secondary measures were the Clinical Global Impression Scale for Bipolar Disorder (CGI-BP) and the Children's Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (C-GAS). Measures of safety and tolerability were also administered. RESULTS: Effect size (Cohen's d) based on change scores from baseline was 2.9 for the YMRS and 1.23 for the CDRS-R. Response rate (> or =50% change from baseline YMRS score and < or =40 score on CDRS-R at the end of study) was 73.5%. The remission rate (> or =50% change from baseline on YMRS, < or =40 on CDRS-R, CGI-BP-Improvement subscale of < or =2, and > or =51 CGAS score) was 52.9%. Significant improvements (p < 0.001) from baseline were seen for mean scores on all outcome measures (i.e., YMRS, CGI-BP, CDRS-R, and C-GAS). DVPX was safe and well tolerated with no serious adverse events during the 6-month trial. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence for the effectiveness and safety of DVPX in the treatment of pediatric mixed mania over a 6-month period. Placebo-controlled, randomized trials involving larger samples will ultimately shed light on the efficacy of this agent.     

Age-grouped differences in bipolar mania

Objective

This review of published studies compares scores on individual items of mania rating scales that systematically recorded symptom severity in persons diagnosed with bipolar disorder to identify age-grouped differences.

Methods

An extensive literature search identified item scores from mania rating scales, with a particular emphasis on baseline Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) item scores in published double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of bipolar I manic disorder. These baseline YMRS item scores were assessed as a proportion of the total YMRS score and compared by age group. Additional YMRS item/total scores in subjects with bipolar spectrum disorders were added to expand the analysis.

Results

Preadolescents with bipolar disorder had significantly higher YMRS item scores than adolescents on aggression, irritability, and motor activity. Young Mania Rating Scale baseline item scores relative to the YMRS total score revealed that adolescents diagnosed with bipolar I mania scored comparatively higher than did adults on YMRS aggression and irritability items, whereas adults with bipolar I manic disorder scored comparatively higher on the grandiosity and sexual interest items. Age-grouped findings from subjects diagnosed with bipolar I, II, and Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) disorders yielded similar age-grouped results.

Conclusion

In age-grouped YMRS item assessments of bipolar mania, anger dyscontrol was most prominent for youth, whereas disordered thought content was paramount for adults.     

Efficacy of olanzapine in combination with valproate or lithium in the treatment of mania in patients partially nonresponsive to valproate or lithium monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: A 6-week double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to determine the efficacy of combined therapy with olanzapine and either valproate or lithium compared with valproate or lithium alone in treating acute manic or mixed bipolar episodes. METHODS: The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine (5-20 mg/d) vs placebo when added to ongoing mood-stabilizer therapy as measured by reductions in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores. Patients with bipolar disorder (n = 344), manic or mixed episode, who were inadequately responsive to more than 2 weeks of lithium or valproate therapy, were randomized to receive cotherapy (olanzapine + mood-stabilizer) or monotherapy (placebo + mood-stabilizer). RESULTS: Olanzapine cotherapy improved patients' YMRS total scores significantly more than monotherapy (-13.11 vs -9.10; P = .003). Clinical response rates (> or = 50% improvement on YMRS) were significantly higher with cotherapy (67.7% vs 44.7%; P< .001). Olanzapine cotherapy improved 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-21) total scores significantly more than monotherapy (4.98 vs 0.89 points; P< .001). In patients with mixed-episodes with moderate to severe depressive symptoms (DSM-IV mixed episode; HAMD-21 score of > or = 20 at baseline), olanzapine cotherapy improved HAMD-21 scores by 10.31 points compared with 1.57 for monotherapy (P< .001). Extrapyramidal symptoms (Simpson-Angus Scale, Barnes Akathisia Scale, Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale) were not significantly changed from baseline to end point in either treatment group. Treatment-emergent symptoms that were significantly higher for the olanzapine cotherapy group included somnolence, dry mouth, weight gain, increased appetite, tremor, and slurred speech. CONCLUSION: Compared with the use of valproate or lithium alone, the addition of olanzapine provided superior efficacy in the treatment of manic and mixed bipolar episodes.     

A double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study of quetiapine for depressed adolescents with bipolar disorder

Objective: To conduct a pilot study comparing the effects of quetiapine and placebo for the treatment of depressive episodes in adolescents with bipolar I disorder. Method: Thirty‐two adolescents (ages 12–18 years) with a depressive episode associated with bipolar I disorder were randomized to eight weeks of double‐blind treatment with quetiapine, 300–600 mg/day, or placebo. This two‐site study was conducted from March 2006 through August 2007. The primary efficacy measure was change in Children’s Depression Rating Scale–Revised Version (CDRS‐R) scores from baseline to endpoint. Secondary efficacy measures included change in CDRS‐R scores over the eight‐week study period (PROC MIXED), changes from baseline to endpoint in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM‐A), Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), and Clinical Global Impression–Bipolar Version Severity (CGI‐BP‐S) scores, as well as response and remission rates. Safety and tolerability were assessed weekly. Results: There was no statistically significant treatment group difference in change in CDRS‐R scores from baseline to endpoint (p = 0.89, effect size =?0.05, 95% confidence interval: ?0.77–0.68), nor in the average rate of change over the eight weeks of the study (p = 0.95). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in response (placebo =67% versus quetiapine = 71%) or remission (placebo = 40% versus quetiapine = 35%) rates, or change in HAM‐A, YMRS, or CGI‐BP‐S scores (all p > 0.7) between treatment groups. Dizziness was more commonly reported in the quetiapine (41%) than in the placebo (7%) group (Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.04). Conclusions: The results suggest that quetiapine monotherapy is no more effective than placebo for the treatment of depression in adolescents with bipolar disorder. However, limitations of the study, including the high placebo response rate, may have contributed to our findings and should be considered in the design of future investigations of pharmacological interventions for this population.     

A prospective open-label treatment trial of ziprasidone monotherapy in children and adolescents with bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of ziprasidone for treating pediatric mania. METHODS: This was an eight-week, open-label, prospective study of ziprasidone monotherapy (57.3 +/- 33.9 mg/day) in 21 bipolar youth [manic, mixed, or bipolar not otherwise specified (NOS); 6-17 years old]. Assessments included the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale (CGI-I), and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Adverse events were assessed through spontaneous self-reports, vital signs, weight monitoring, and laboratory analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen of the 21 youth (67%) completed the study. Ziprasidone treatment was associated with clinically and statistically significant improvement in mean YMRS scores (-10.8 +/- 8.4, p < 0.0001) and 57% had a CGI-I 相似文献   

Rates of response,euthymia and remission in two placebo-controlled olanzapine trials for bipolar mania

Objective:  Clinically meaningful recovery from acute mania may not be captured by conventionally reported response categorizations. We defined new and stringent criteria for remission in bipolar mania. Using a cohort of patients with acute mania randomized to treatment with either olanzapine or placebo, we contrasted remission rates to findings using previously reported but more lenient categorical outcome measures of response and euthymia.
Methods:  We pooled and reanalyzed results through 3 weeks from two published randomized double-blind trials of olanzapine versus placebo for treating acute bipolar mania ( 1, 2 ). Response was previously defined as ≥ 50% decrease from baseline to endpoint total Young Mania Rating Scale ( 3 ) (Y-MRS) scores, and euthymia as an endpoint total Y-MRS score of ≤ 12. In this report, remission required an endpoint total Y-MRS score of ≤ 7, and an endpoint total Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, (HAM-D21) ( 4 ) score of ≤ 7 and an endpoint Clinical Global Impression Scale – Bipolar version, CGI-BP ( 5 ), overall severity score of ≤ 2.
Results:  Olanzapine treated subjects achieved statistically significantly greater rates of clinical response, euthymia and remission than those assigned to placebo, 55% versus 29.5%, 50% versus 27%, and 18% versus 7%, respectively.
Conclusions:  Olanzapine monotherapy resulted in discernable clinical improvements in mania in over 50% of subjects and just under 20% of subjects achieved a near complete resolution of manic and accompanying depressive symptoms after 3 weeks of treatment. Full remission is an important but potentially elusive goal during short-term management of acute mania.     

A preliminary open-label study of zonisamide treatment for bipolar depression in 10 patients

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of zonisamide in the treatment of bipolar depression. METHOD: Ten patients with DSM-IV bipolar disorder, depressed phase, who had either not tolerated or not responded to previous treatments were given zonisamide in this add-on open-label study. Zonisamide treatment was started at 100 mg/day and increased by 100 mg every 2 weeks to a maximum of 300 mg/day in divided doses (b.i.d. or t.i.d.). Subjects underwent weekly visits at which they were administered the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), and Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI). Every 2 weeks, subjects also underwent laboratory tests, a urine examination, and a verbal memory test. Outcome measures were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Eight subjects completed all 8 weeks of the study. Two subjects completed more than 4 weeks of the study, and their data were analyzed using the last observation carried forward. Bipolar depression subjects had a significant reduction in HAM-D scores (p < .001) and in CGI-Improvement (CGI-I) scores (p < .001). Five of 8 subjects who completed all 8 weeks of the study had more than a 50% decrease in HAM-D scores and were rated much improved on the CGI-I at the end of 8 weeks of treatment. There was no significant drug effect on YMRS scores, weight, or verbal memory. CONCLUSION: Zonisamide may be a useful drug in the treatment of bipolar depression. Further controlled clinical trials are needed.     

Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of olanzapine as maintenance therapy in patients with bipolar I disorder responding to acute treatment with olanzapine

OBJECTIVE: In a placebo-controlled, double-blind study, the authors investigated the efficacy and safety of olanzapine as monotherapy in relapse prevention in bipolar I disorder. METHOD: Patients achieving symptomatic remission from a manic or mixed episode of bipolar I disorder (Young Mania Rating Scale [YMRS] total score < or =12 and 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D] score or =15, HAM-D score > or =15, or hospitalization). RESULTS: Time to symptomatic relapse into any mood episode was significantly longer among patients receiving olanzapine (a median of 174 days, compared with a median of 22 days in patients receiving placebo). Times to symptomatic relapse into manic, depressive, and mixed episodes were all significantly longer among patients receiving olanzapine than among patients receiving placebo. The relapse rate was significantly lower in the olanzapine group (46.7%) than in the placebo group (80.1%). During olanzapine treatment, the most common emergent event was weight gain; during the open-label phase, patients who received olanzapine gained a mean of 3.1 kg (SD=3.4). In double-blind treatment, placebo patients lost a mean of 2.0 kg (SD=4.4) and patients who continued to take olanzapine gained an additional 1.0 kg (SD=5.2). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, olanzapine delays relapse into subsequent mood episodes in bipolar I disorder patients who responded to open-label acute treatment with olanzapine for a manic or mixed episode.     

Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of mixed amphetamine salts for symptoms of comorbid ADHD in pediatric bipolar disorder after mood stabilization with divalproex sodium

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether adjunctive use of a psychostimulant (mixed amphetamine salts) was safe and efficacious for treatment of symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in pediatric outpatients with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder and concurrent ADHD whose manic symptoms had been stabilized through treatment with divalproex sodium. METHOD: An 8-week open-label trial of divalproex sodium to control manic symptoms and to discern the effect of divalproex sodium on ADHD was followed by a 4-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial to determine if mixed amphetamine salts was safe and effective for treatment of ADHD symptoms. Patients in the crossover trial continued to receive divalproex sodium. Diagnoses, made by clinical interview, were confirmed with the Washington University in St. Louis Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia. The Young Mania Rating Scale (for manic symptoms) and the Clinical Global Impression of improvement (for ADHD symptoms) were the primary outcome measures. RESULTS: Forty subjects ages 6-17 years with bipolar I disorder (77.5%) or bipolar II disorder (22.5%) and a Young Mania Rating Scale score > or =14 entered open treatment with divalproex sodium. With divalproex sodium, 32 subjects achieved > or =50% reduction in Young Mania Rating Scale baseline scores, but only three participants had significant improvement in ADHD symptoms. For the 30 subjects who entered the placebo-controlled crossover trial, mixed amphetamine salts was significantly more effective than placebo for ADHD symptoms. No significant side effects or worsening of manic symptoms was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric patients with bipolar disorder and concurrent ADHD can be safely and effectively treated with mixed amphetamine salts after their manic symptoms are stabilized with divalproex sodium. Divalproex sodium alone (8-week trial) is not an effective treatment for ADHD in the context of bipolar disorder.     

Risperidone in the treatment of mixed state bipolar patients: Results from a 24-week, multicenter, open-label study in Korea

Aims:  The goal of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of risperidone combined with mood stabilizers for treating bipolar mixed state.
Methods:  The present study was a 24-week, open-label, combination, prospective investigation of the efficacy of risperidone in combination with mood stabilizers. Risperidone (1–6 mg/day) was given in combination with mood stabilizers in flexible doses according to clinical response and tolerability for 114 patients in mixed or manic episode.
Results:  Forty-four patients met our criteria for mixed state bipolar disorder and 70 met the criteria for pure mania. Mean age for the subjects was 39.0 ± 11.0 years and 55.3% were female. The combination of risperidone with mood stabilizers significantly improved the scores on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD), 18-item Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Global Assessment Scale (GAS), and Clinical Global Impression Scale for use in bipolar illness Severity (CGI-BP) at 24 weeks ( P  < 0.0001). Analysis of the YMRS, BPRS, GAS, and CGI-BP scores showed significant improvement in both the manic and mixed groups. The rate of response in YMRS scores was 84.2% ( n  = 96) and the rate of YMRS remission was 77.2% ( n  = 88) at week 24 in the total population. Seventy-four patients met both YMRS ≤ 12 and HAMD ≤ 7 at week 24 (64.9%). Risperidone was well tolerated, and adverse events were mostly mild.
Conclusion:  The combination of risperidone with mood stabilizers was an effective and safe treatment for manic symptoms and coexisting depressive symptoms of bipolar disorder.     

The Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (BDRS): its development, validation and utility

OBJECTIVES: Unipolar and bipolar depression differ neurobiologically and in clinical presentation. Existing depression rating instruments, used in bipolar depression, fail to capture the necessary phenomenological nuances, as they are based on and skewed towards the characteristics of unipolar depression. Both clinically and in research there is a growing need for a new observer-rated scale that is specifically designed to assess bipolar depression. METHODS: An instrument reflecting the characteristics of bipolar depression was drafted by the authors, and administered to 122 participants aged 18-65 (44 males and 78 females) with a diagnosis of DSM-IV bipolar disorder, who were currently experiencing symptoms of depression. The Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (BDRS) was administered together with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS). RESULTS: The BDRS has strong internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.917), and robust correlation coefficients with the MADRS (r = 0.906) and HAM-D (r = 0.744), and the mixed subscale correlated with the YMRS (r = 0.757). Exploratory factor analysis showed a three-factor solution gave the best account of the data. These factors corresponded to depression (somatic), depression (psychological) and mixed symptom clusters. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence for the validity of the BDRS for the measurement of depression in bipolar disorder. These results suggest good internal validity, provisional evidence of inter-rater reliability and strong correlations with other depression rating scales.     

Vagus nerve stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a randomized, controlled acute phase trial.

BACKGROUND: Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) alters both concentrations of neurotransmitters or their metabolites and functional activity of central nervous system regions dysregulated in mood disorders. An open trial has suggested efficacy. METHODS: This 10-week, acute, randomized, controlled, masked trial compared adjunctive VNS with sham treatment in 235 outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder (n = 210) or nonpsychotic, depressed phase, bipolar disorder (n = 25). In the current episode, participants had not responded adequately to between two and six research-qualified medication trials. A two-week, single-blind recovery period (no stimulation) and then 10 weeks of masked active or sham VNS followed implantation. Medications were kept stable. Primary efficacy outcome among 222 evaluable participants was based on response rates (>/=50% reduction from baseline on the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HRSD(24)]). RESULTS: At 10-weeks, HRSD(24) response rates were 15.2% for the active (n = 112) and 10.0% for the sham (n = 110) groups (p = .251, last observation carried forward [LOCF]). Response rates with a secondary outcome, the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology - Self-Report (IDS-SR(30)), were 17.0% (active) and 7.3% (sham) (p = .032, LOCF). VNS was well tolerated; 1% (3/235) left the study because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not yield definitive evidence of short-term efficacy for adjunctive VNS in treatment-resistant depression.