Quetiapine for acute mania in bipolar disorder.

PURPOSE: The efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine in the treatment of acute mania were reviewed. SUMMARY: Five randomized, placebo-controlled trials involving quetiapine as monotherapy or adjunct therapy in combination with either divalproex or lithium in the treatment of bipolar mania in either adolescents or adults were identified and reviewed. The primary outcome measure used in the trials was a change in Young Mania Rating Scale total scores. Monotherapy trials evaluated quetiapine, lithium, haloperidol, and placebo. Quetiapine was superior to placebo in both trials. Quetiapine and lithium showed comparable efficacy in one study, though lithium serum concentrations may have been suboptimal. Haloperidol was superior to quetiapine in efficacy at day 21 but similar at day 84. In the two trials evaluating quetiapine or placebo as adjunct therapy to lithium or divalproex, quetiapine was significantly more efficacious than placebo in one trial. In adolescents, quetiapine was more effective than placebo as an adjunct to divalproex. The most common adverse effects clearly attributable to quetiapine in these trials were somnolence and dry mouth. Quetiapine did not induce extrapyramidal effects, but weight gain was notable with the drug. CONCLUSION: While quetiapine treatment demonstrated efficacy in the majority of the studies, the robustness of its efficacy is questionable. The use of quetiapine as first-line therapy for acute mania is not recommended based on the available results and cost considerations. However, it may be a useful second-line agent, particularly when sensitivity to extrapyramidal symptoms limits treatment options.     

Quetiapine versus placebo in combination with lithium or divalproex for the treatment of bipolar mania

Quetiapine (QTP) combined with lithium (Li) or divalproex (DVP) for the treatment of mania was evaluated in 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Patients were randomized to 3 or 6 weeks of treatment with QTP plus Li/DVP or placebo (PBO) plus Li/DVP. Quetiapine was dosed up to 800 mg/d; Li was dosed to achieve serum concentrations of 0.7-1.0 mEq/L and DVP to 50-100 microg/mL. A total of 402 patients were randomized: 197 to QTP + Li/DVP and 205 to PBO + Li/DVP. The mean quetiapine dose in responders was 492 (+/-204) mg/d. Improvement in the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) at day 21 in the QTP + Li/DVP group (-15.29) was statistically superior to the PBO + Li/DVP group (-12.19) (P < 0.05). A statistically significant difference in favor of quetiapine was observed within the first week (P < 0.05). Significantly more QTP + Li/DVP patients achieved a response (> or =50% decrease in the YMRS) at day 21 (QTP + Li/DVP, 55.7%; PBO + Li/DVP, 41.6%;P < 0.01). Improvements in Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar Severity of Illness scores by day 21 were also significantly greater in QTP + Li/DVP-treated patients (-1.59) versus PBO + Li/DVP (-1.19) (P < 0.01). Common adverse events (> or =5% and twice that in the PBO + Li/DVP group) in the QTP + Li/DVP group were somnolence, dry mouth, and asthenia. Quetiapine combined with Li/DVP was not associated with extrapyramidal symptoms (including akathisia) or emergent depression. More QTP + Li/DVP-treated patients completed the trial, and there was no difference in discontinuation rates due to adverse events between the two groups. Quetiapine, in combination with lithium or divalproex, is well tolerated and has superior efficacy to lithium or divalproex alone in the treatment of bipolar mania.     

Risperidone: a review of its use in the treatment of bipolar mania

Risperidone (Risperdal) is an atypical antipsychotic with high affinity for 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)2A, dopamine D2 and alpha1- and alpha2-adrenergic receptors. Risperidone is now approved in the UK and the US for use in bipolar mania. Risperidone < or =6 mg/day, as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy with first-line mood stabilisers, significantly improves moderate and severe bipolar mania and improves global functioning over 3 weeks. Improvements in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores in double-blind trials were greater with risperidone than with placebo over 3 weeks, and similar to those with haloperidol over 3 and 12 weeks. Risperidone was reasonably well tolerated. Limited data are available on the combination of risperidone and carbamazepine. Risperidone, as monotherapy or combined therapy with lithium or valproate semisodium, is an effective treatment option in bipolar mania.     

Quetiapine monotherapy for mania associated with bipolar disorder: combined analysis of two international, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled studies

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of quetiapine monotherapy for mania in bipolar disorder by an a priori defined combined analysis of data from two placebo-controlled studies. METHOD: The intent-to-treat (ITT) populations from two studies of patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, manic episode, randomised to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with quetiapine (up to 800 mg/day) or placebo were combined. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score from baseline to Day 21. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in YMRS to Day 84, YMRS response and remission rates and change from baseline to Days 21 and 84 in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions (CGI), Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar (CGI-BP) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). These endpoints were analysed as continuous variables, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with the baseline as covariate. In order to account for any difference in response between studies, the analyses were stratified by study as a fixed effect, and centre as a random effect. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to analyse binary variables. A chi square test was used to compare the frequency of adverse events between the treatment groups. RESULTS: The combined analysis included a total of 403 patients from two quetiapine monotherapy studies in patients with bipolar I disorder. A significant improvement in YMRS score was observed from Day 4 (p = 0.021) onward in the quetiapine group compared with placebo. The treatment advantage of quetiapine over placebo continued to increase to Day 21 (p < 0.001) and Day 84 (p < 0.001). Significantly more quetiapine-treated than placebo-treated patients achieved a response (p < 0.001). The average quetiapine dose in responders was approximately 600 mg daily. Of adverse events occurring in > or = 5% of patients, quetiapine-treated patients had a significantly greater incidence versus placebo of somnolence (16.3% vs. 4.0%), dry mouth (15.8% vs. 3%), weight gain (9.1% vs. 1.5%) and dizziness (6.7% vs. 2.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The data from this combined analysis support the results from the individual studies and indicate that quetiapine monotherapy is effective across a broad range of mood symptoms, fast-acting and well tolerated in the treatment of mania.     

Quetiapine monotherapy for mania associated with bipolar disorder: combined analysis of two international,double-blind,randomised, placebo-controlled studies

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of quetiapine monotherapy for mania in bipolar disorder by an a priori defined combined analysis of data from two placebo-controlled studies.

Method: The intent-to-treat (ITT) populations from two studies of patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, manic episode, randomised to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with quetiapine (up to 800?mg/day) or placebo were combined. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score from baseline to Day 21. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in YMRS to Day 84, YMRS response and remission rates and change from baseline to Days 21 and 84 in the Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions (CGI), Clinical Global Impressions – Bipolar (CGI-BP) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). These endpoints were analysed as continuous variables, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with the baseline as covariate. In order to account for any difference in response between studies, the analyses were stratified by study as a fixed effect, and centre as a random effect. The Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test was used to analyse binary variables. A chi square test was used to compare the frequency of adverse events between the treatment groups.

Results: The combined analysis included a total of 403 patients from two quetiapine monotherapy studies in patients with bipolar I disorder. A significant improvement in YMRS score was observed from Day 4 (?p = 0.021) onward in the quetiapine group compared with placebo. The treatment advantage of quetiapine over placebo continued to increase to Day 21 (?p < 0.001) and Day 84 (?p < 0.001). Significantly more quetiapine-treated than placebo-treated patients achieved a response (?p < 0.001). The average quetiapine dose in responders was approximately 600?mg daily. Of adverse events occurring in ≥ 5% of patients, quetiapine-treated patients had a significantly greater incidence versus placebo of somnolence (16.3% vs. 4.0%), dry mouth (15.8% vs. 3%), weight gain (9.1% vs. 1.5%) and dizziness (6.7% vs. 2.5%).

Conclusions: The data from this combined analysis support the results from the individual studies and indicate that quetiapine monotherapy is effective across a broad range of mood symptoms, fast-acting and well tolerated in the treatment of mania.     

Number needed to treat and time to response/remission for quetiapine monotherapy efficacy in acute bipolar depression: evidence from a large, randomized, placebo-controlled study

The objectives of this analysis are to elucidate the clinical significance of antidepressant effects with quetiapine by evaluating number needed to treat as well as time to response and remission with quetiapine monotherapy in patients with acute bipolar depression. A post-hoc analysis was conducted of 542 patients with bipolar I or II disorder, (moderate to severe depression), randomized to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with quetiapine 600 mg/day (n=180), quetiapine 300 mg/day (n=181), or placebo (n=181). Number needed to treat, time to response (> or =50% reduction from baseline in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score) and time to remission (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score < or =12) were evaluated. Response rates at week 8 were 58.2 and 57.6% for quetiapine 600 and 300 mg/day, respectively, and 36.1% for placebo (P<0.001). Remission rates were 52.9% for both quetiapine groups and 28.4% for placebo (P<0.001). The number needed to treat was five for both response and remission for quetiapine (600 and 300 mg/day) compared with placebo. Median time to response and remission were significantly shorter with quetiapine 600 and 300 mg/day than placebo. No between-group difference was found in the incidence of treatment-emergent mania or hypomania (quetiapine 600 mg/day: 2.2%, quetiapine 300 mg/day: 3.9, and placebo: 3.9%). In conclusion, quetiapine compared with placebo significantly reduces time to response and remission compared with placebo, and has a favorable number needed to treat.     

Budgetary impact of treating acute bipolar mania in hospitalized patients with quetiapine: an economic analysis of clinical trials

ABSTRACT

Objective: To present a tool that allows estimation of the budget impact of treatments for acute mania in bipolar I disorder from a US healthcare payer perspective.

Methods: Using discrete event simulation, the course of individuals is simulated beginning with hospitalization. Discharge depends on symptom level measured by the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS). The treatment effect is determined using time-dependent regression equations derived from trial data, and decision rules obtained from clinical experts. Outcomes include: time to response and symptom resolution; proportion of subjects reaching each outcome; number of adverse events. Costs were obtained from hospital discharge databases, the National Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and RedBook. Different scenarios are examined, each describing the proportion of subjects on the various treatments (lithium, divalproex sodium, olanzapine, risperidone, and quetiapine – monotherapy and in combination with lithium). Analyses are intention-to-treat over 100 days, corresponding to follow-up in mania trials. Despite its flexibility and structural adaptability, the model has some important limitations related to the characteristics of the clinical trials. These include focus on inpatient management of acute mania, use of the YMRS as the model driver, polypharmacy restricted to two-drug regimens, no explicit consideration of titration and dose changes, and relatively short time horizon.

Results: Scenarios with a greater proportion of quetiapine users (5% vs. 40% and 100%) result in a smaller impact on the healthcare budget ($6912, $6277, and $5525 per patient, respectively) and improvements in patient outcomes (e.g., 43%, 47%, and 54% responding at day 21; 74%, 77%, and 80% remitting by day 84). Sensitivity analyses showed that the budget impact is influenced by drug prices, discharge criteria and side-effect management.

Conclusion: Results suggest that increased use of quetiapine for bipolar mania in the US is economically justified and improves health outcomes. In addition, this model illustrates that discrete event simulation is a useful and versatile tool for budget impact analyses.     

Efficacy of quetiapine monotherapy in bipolar I and II depression: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study (the BOLDER II study)

This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine monotherapy for depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I or II disorder (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) who were randomized to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with quetiapine (300 or 600 mg/d; once daily, evening dosing) or placebo. Patients were assessed weekly using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). The primary end point was change in MADRS total score from baseline to Week 8 (analysis of covariance/last-observation-carried-forward analysis). Of 509 patients randomized, 59% completed the study. Improvements from baseline in mean MADRS total scores were significantly greater with quetiapine 300 and 600 mg/d than with placebo from first evaluation (Week 1) through Week 8 (both P 相似文献   

Acute and continuation risperidone monotherapy in bipolar mania: a 3-week placebo-controlled trial followed by a 9-week double-blind trial of risperidone and haloperidol.

In a randomized, double-blind trial, patients with acute bipolar mania received 1-6 mg/day of risperidone, 2-12 mg/day of haloperidol, or placebo for 3 weeks, followed by double-blind risperidone or haloperidol for 9 weeks. Of 438 patients, 154 were randomized to risperidone, 144 to haloperidol, and 140 to placebo. The mean+/-S.D. modal doses were 4.2+/-1.7 mg/day of risperidone and 8.0+/-3.6 mg/day of haloperidol during the initial 3-week phase and 4.1+/-1.8 and 7.4+/-3.7 mg/day during the 12-week period. At week 3, mean Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score reductions from baseline were significantly greater in patients receiving risperidone than placebo (p<0.001). Differences between risperidone and haloperidol on this efficacy measure were not significant. Further reductions in YMRS scores were seen in patients receiving risperidone or haloperidol during the subsequent 9 weeks. No unexpected adverse events were reported. Extrapyramidal disorder and hyperkinesias, the most commonly reported adverse events with antipsychotic use, occurred less frequently with risperidone than haloperidol. We conclude that risperidone monotherapy was an effective and well-tolerated treatment for bipolar mania and that efficacy was maintained over the long term.     

Asenapine as adjunctive treatment for acute mania associated with bipolar disorder: results of a 12-week core study and 40-week extension

In a 12-week randomized, placebo-controlled study evaluating the efficacy and safety of adjunctive asenapine, bipolar I disorder patients experiencing manic or mixed episodes despite pretreatment with lithium or valproate monotherapy were treated with flexible-dose, twice-daily asenapine 5 or 10 mg (n = 158) or placebo (n = 166). The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score at week 3. Secondary outcomes included YMRS response and remission and Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score changes. Patients completing the core study were eligible for a 40-week double-blind extension assessing safety and tolerability. Adjunctive asenapine significantly improved mania versus placebo at week 3 (primary end point) and weeks 2 to 12. The YMRS response rates were similar at week 3 but significantly better with asenapine at week 12. The YMRS remission rates and changes from baseline on Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder for mania and overall illness were significantly better with asenapine at weeks 3 and 12. No other statistically significant differences on secondary outcomes were observed. Only a small number of patients entered the extension, making firm statistical conclusions on efficacy difficult. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported by 5% or more of asenapine patients and at twice the incidence of placebo were sedation, somnolence, depression/depressive symptoms, oral hypoesthesia, and increased weight in the 12-week core study. Adjunctive asenapine to lithium or valproate was more effective than mood stabilizer monotherapy in the core study and was well tolerated for up to 52 weeks.     

Rapid titration versus conventional titration of quetiapine in the treatment of bipolar mania: a preliminary trial

The present trial was designed as a pilot study to re-examine how fast the dose of quetiapine in combination with mood stabilizers can be titrated upward in acutely ill patients with bipolar mania. Patients were assigned to either a rapid titration group (RTG) or a conventional titration group (CTG). Quetiapine was administered twice daily in a 3-day period in the RTG (200 mg/day on day 1; 400 mg/day on day 2; and 600 mg/day on day 3) and in a 5-day period in the CTG (50 mg/day on day 1; 100 mg/day on day 2; 200 mg/day on day 3; 300 mg/day on day 4; and 400 mg/day on day 5). The Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) and Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scores were assessed at days 1 (baseline), 3, 5, 7, 14 and 21. The Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale and Simpson-Angus Rating Scale (SARS) were assessed at days 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14 and 21. RTG and CTG showed significant improvement on the scores of YMRS and CGI-S during the study without group differences. Both treatments were well tolerated without clinically significant differences in tolerability measures. Treatment was not limited by adverse events in the two groups. This study demonstrates the potential benefit and tolerability of rapid titration of quetiapine in the treatment of acutely ill bipolar disorder. This preliminary study proposes that rapid titration of quetipaine in combination with a mood stabilizer for the treatment of bipolar mania is effective and tolerable in comparison with conventional titration. A controlled study with a larger cohort should be performed.     

Asenapine: a review of its use in the management of mania in adults with bipolar I disorder

Asenapine is an atypical antipsychotic agent available in sublingual formulations (5 or 10 mg) and indicated in the US (Saphris) for the acute treatment, as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, of manic and mixed episodes and in the EU (Sycrest) for the treatment of moderate to severe manic episodes, in adult patients with bipolar I disorder. In two large (both n = 480), well designed, 3-week trials in adult patients with bipolar I disorder, asenapine monotherapy was significantly more effective than placebo at improving mania symptoms, as assessed using the Young Mania Rating Scale total score (YMRS; primary endpoint), with significant differences between the asenapine and placebo groups occurring after 2 days of treatment. In both trials, Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder (CGI-BP) scale mania severity scores exceeded those of placebo. In one trial, response and remission rates exceeded those of placebo. In a 9-week extension study that recruited completers from the monotherapy trials, there were no significant differences between asenapine and olanzapine groups in terms in Montgomery-?sberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores, CGI-BP mania severity scores, YMRS response rates or YMRS remission rates during the extension phase. In the extension study, the efficacy of asenapine monotherapy appeared to be maintained over 40 weeks (total treatment duration of 52 weeks). In a 12-week trial of asenapine as adjunctive therapy to lithium or valproate, asenapine was more effective than placebo in improving manic symptoms, based on the difference between groups in the YMRS total score at week 3 (primary endpoint). Most adverse events associated with asenapine were of mild to moderate severity, with <7% of asenapine recipients experiencing serious adverse events (vs 7% with placebo). In a pooled analysis of the monotherapy trials, the most common adverse events (occurring in ≥ 5% of patients and at twice the incidence of placebo) reported during acute phase asenapine monotherapy for bipolar mania were somnolence, dizziness, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS, other than akathisia) and increased bodyweight, which were similar in nature to those occurring during longer-term monotherapy with asenapine. EPS did not worsen in severity during longer-term asenapine monotherapy. Asenapine had minimal effects on plasma glucose, lipid and prolactin levels over both short- and longer-term treatment periods, and had little pro-arrhythmogenic potential. Further active comparator trials and longer-term tolerability and safety data are required. In the meantime, asenapine is a further option for the management of manic and/or mixed symptoms in patients with bipolar I disorder and may be of particular value for patients who are at high risk for metabolic abnormalities.     

Quetiapine or haloperidol as monotherapy for bipolar mania--a 12-week, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial.

METHODS: Patients (n=302) with bipolar I disorder (manic episode) were randomised to 12 weeks' double-blind treatment with quetiapine (flexibly dosed up to 800 mg/day), placebo, or haloperidol (up to 8 mg/day). The primary efficacy outcome variable was change from baseline to Day 21 in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score. RESULTS: YMRS score improved with quetiapine at Day 21 (-12.29 versus -8.32 for placebo; P<0.01). The difference in favor of quetiapine increased by Day 84 (-17.52 versus -9.48; P<0.001). Haloperidol also showed an advantage over placebo at Days 21 and 84 (P<0.001). There was no significant difference in efficacy measures between quetiapine and haloperidol groups at any assessment except Day 21. The only common adverse event with quetiapine was somnolence (12.7%). Extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), including akathisia, occurred at 59.6% with haloperidol, 12.7% with quetiapine, 15.8% with placebo. Most quetiapine responders (84%) received a dose of 400-800 mg/day. CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine was effective and well tolerated. The efficacy and tolerability profile of haloperidol (including its propensity for EPS) supported study validity.     

卡马西平单用及其与逍遥散合用治疗双相情感障碍随机双盲安慰剂对照临床研究

目的 评估卡马西平单用及其与逍遥散合用治疗双相情感障碍的疗效和安全性。方法 用随机双盲安慰剂对照方法，双相躁狂82例，双相抑郁76例，各随机分为3组。双相躁狂疗程8周，双相抑郁疗程12周。用Young与Bech—Rafaelsen躁狂量表、Hamilton与Montgomery—Asberg抑郁量表和临床总体印象量表评定疗效，用副反应量表观察药物不良反应。结果 双相躁狂患者3组药物临床有效率分别为：逍遥散合用卡马西平为79％，卡马西平单用为64％，安慰剂为45％，3组比较有显著性差异（P〈0．05）。双相抑郁患者3组药物临床有效率分别为：逍遥散合用卡马西平为75％，卡马西平单用为59％，安慰剂为33％，3组比较有显著性差异（P〈0．05）。逍遥散合用卡马西平较卡马西平单用，在头昏、视力模糊、皮疹、恶心发生率增加。结论 逍遥散作为辅助药物治疗双相障碍有效，但能增加卡马西平药物不良反应发生率。     

Quetiapine: a review of its use in the management of bipolar depression

Quetiapine (Seroquel?) is an orally administered atypical antipsychotic that is indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, including bipolar depression. An extended-release (XR) formulation of quetiapine is also available. This review summarizes the pharmacological properties, efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine and quetiapine XR in patients with bipolar depression. Quetiapine is an antagonist at both serotonin 5-HT2 and dopamine D2 receptors, and its antipsychotic effects are thought to stem from interactions at these receptors. The antidepressant effects of quetiapine are poorly understood, but may be related to antagonism of 5-HT2A receptors in cortical regions, partial agonism of 5-HT1A in the prefrontal cortex in association with increased extracellular dopamine release in the region, or to reduced synaptic reuptake of noradrenaline resulting from inhibition of the noradrenaline reuptake transporter by the quetiapine metabolite norquetiapine. The efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine was evaluated in five 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre or multinational trials in patients with a major depressive episode (MDE) associated with bipolar disorder. Across trials, monotherapy with oral quetiapine 300 or 600?mg/day (or quetiapine XR 300?mg/day) produced significantly greater improvements than placebo in depressive symptoms (primary endpoint), according to the change in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score. In general, quetiapine and quetiapine XR were also associated with significantly higher MDE response and remission rates than placebo. Across trials, quetiapine and quetiapine XR produced significantly greater improvements in global severity of illness scores than placebo, according to changes in the Clinical Global Impressions scale score. There were no differences in treatment outcomes between quetiapine 300?mg/day and 600?mg/day dosage groups. Patients with bipolar depression who responded to quetiapine during two 8-week acute treatment trials also benefited from continuing quetiapine therapy for up to 52 weeks. Compared with quetiapine responders randomized to placebo, quetiapine responders who continued quetiapine 300 or 600?mg/day had a significantly reduced risk of recurrence of any mood events and of depression mood events, but not of hypomanic/manic events. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, quetiapine maintenance therapy for up to 104 weeks was more efficacious than placebo or lithium in prolonging the time to recurrence of any mood event (primary endpoint). Patients in this trial had bipolar I disorder with mania, depression or a mixed episode as the index episode, and the trial included only patients who were responsive to acute phase quetiapine, which may have introduced a positive bias in favour of quetiapine over lithium during maintenance therapy. Quetiapine 300 or 600?mg/day and quetiapine XR 300?mg/day was generally well tolerated in patients with bipolar depression, with most treatment-emergent adverse events being of mild to moderate severity. The most frequent adverse events occurring during the acute treatment phase were dry mouth, sedation, somnolence, dizziness (quetiapine and quetiapine XR), constipation (quetiapine) and increased appetite (quetiapine XR). Extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) occurred across quetiapine and placebo groups, but there were no significant differences between quetiapine and placebo recipients on objective measures of EPS and akathisia. In some trials, quetiapine recipients experienced significantly greater weight gain than placebo recipients. Across trials, some quetiapine recipients had clinically relevant increases in blood glucose or lipid parameters, although these also occurred in patients from other treatment groups. The clinical significance of these changes is uncertain. In conclusion, quetiapine and quetiapine XR are valuable additions to the first-line treatments for bipolar depression. Further head-to-head trials of quetiapine versus other drug regimens that are effective in bipolar depression would be of considerable interest.     

A double-blind, randomized, prospective evaluation of the efficacy and safety of risperidone versus haloperidol in the treatment of schizoaffective disorder

The relative efficacy and safety of risperidone versus haloperidol in the treatment of schizoaffective disorder was studied. Sixty-two patients (29 depressed type; 33 bipolar type) entered a three-site, randomized, double-blind, 6-week trial of risperidone (up to 10 mg/day) or haloperidol (up to 20 mg/day). Trained raters assessed baseline, weekly, and end-of-study levels of psychopathology with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-24) and the Clinician-Administered Rating Scale for Mania (CARS-M). The authors were unable to statistically distinguish between risperidone and haloperidol in the amelioration of psychotic and manic symptoms. In addition, there was no difference in worsening of mania between the two agents in either subgroup (i.e., depressed or bipolar subgroups). For the total PANSS, risperidone produced a mean decrease of 16 points from baseline compared with a 14-point decrease with haloperidol. For the total CARS-M scale, risperidone and haloperidol produced mean change scores of 5 and 8 points, respectively, and for the CARS-M Mania subscale, 3 and 7 points, respectively. Additionally, risperidone produced a mean decrease of 13 points from the baseline 24-item HAM-D, compared with an 8-point decrease with haloperidol. In those patients who had more severe depressive symptoms (i.e., HAM-D baseline score >20), risperidone produced at least a 50% mean improvement in 12 (75%) of 16 patients in comparison to 8 (38%) of 21 patients receiving haloperidol. Haloperidol produced significantly more extrapyramidal side effects and resulted in more dropouts caused by any side effect. There was no difference between risperidone and haloperidol in reducing both psychotic and manic symptoms in this group of patients with schizoaffective disorder. Risperidone did not demonstrate a propensity to precipitate mania and was better tolerated than haloperidol. In those subjects with higher baseline HAM-D scores (i.e., >20), risperidone produced a greater improvement in depressive symptoms than haloperidol.     

Switching from other agents to extended-release carbamazepine in acute mania

There is a dearth of available knowledge relating to the efficacy of switching from one psychotropic agent to another in treating patients with acute mania. Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of data from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials of carbamazepine extended-release capsules (CBZ-ERC) in the treatment of mania, to evaluate the efficacy of CBZ-ERC in patients previously nonresponsive to lithium (n 5 40), olanzapine (n 5 38), or valproate (VPA, n 5 77). Results: In patients previously on lithium, Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores improved significantly from baseline to end point (27.4 6 SD 3.5 vs. 15.8 6 11.1; P 5 .0002). In patients previously on VPA or olanzapine, YMRS scores significantly improved in both CBZ-ERC- and placebo-treated groups (VPA: CBZ-ERC, P , .0001; placebo, P 5 .0002; olanzapine: CBZ-ERC, P , .0001; placebo, P 5 .0054). Improvement in YMRS was significantly greater in CBZ-ERC-treated patients versus placebo in subjects previously nonresponsive to lithium (CBZ-ERC 11.6 6 10.3 vs. placebo 4.0 6 11.2, P 5 .03), or VPA (CBZ-ERC 10.8 6 11.9 vs. placebo 5.7 6 9.2; P 5 .04), and trending to be greater for those previously nonresponsive to olanzapine (olanzapine 13.2 6 9.3 vs. placebo 7.3 6 9.7, P 5 .06). Conclusions: CBZ-ERC is an effective therapy for bipolar patients previously nonresponsive to lithium or valproate. Medication switch is frequently associated with symptom improvement.     

Relationship of mania symptomatology to maintenance treatment response with divalproex, lithium, or placebo.

Euphoric and mixed (dysphoric) manic symptoms have different response patterns to divalproex and lithium in acute mania treatment, but have not been studied in relationship to maintenance treatment outcomes. We examined the impact of initial euphoric or dysphoric manic symptomatology on maintenance outcome. Randomized maintenance treatment with divalproex, lithium, or placebo was provided for 372 bipolar I patients, who met improvement criteria during open phase treatment for an index manic episode. The current analysis grouped patients according to the index manic episode subtype (euphoric or dysphoric), and evaluated the impact on maintenance treatment outcome. The rate of early discontinuation due to intolerance during maintenance treatment was higher for initially dysphoric patients (N=249) than euphoric patients (N=123; 15.7 vs 7.3%, respectively; p=0.032). Both lithium (23.2%) and divalproex (17.1%) were associated with more premature discontinuations due to intolerance than placebo (4.8%; p=0.003 and 0.02, respectively) in the initially dysphoric patients. Among initially euphoric patients, treatment with lithium was associated with significantly more premature discontinuations due to intolerance compared to placebo (18.2 vs 0%; p=0.03), and divalproex was significantly (p=0.05) more effective than lithium, but not placebo in delaying time to a depressive episode. Initial euphoric mania appeared to predispose to better outcomes on indices of depression and overall function with divalproex maintenance than with either placebo or lithium. Dysphoric mania appeared to predispose patients to more side effects when treated with either divalproex or lithium during maintenance therapy.     

Effectiveness of psychotropic medications in the maintenance phase of bipolar disorder: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine the efficacy of maintenance treatments for bipolar disorder. Placebo-controlled or active comparator bipolar maintenance clinical trials of ≥6 months' duration with at least 15 patients/treatment group were identified using Medline, EMBASE, clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane databases (1993 to July 2010). The main outcome measure was relative risk for relapse for patients in remission. Twenty trials (5,364 patients) were identified. Overall, lithium and quetiapine were the most studied agents (eight and five trials, respectively). The majority of studies included patients who had previously responded to treatment for an acute episode. All interventions, with the exception of perphenazine+mood stabilizer, showed a relative risk for manic/mixed or depressive relapse below 1.0, although there was variation in the statistical significance of the findings vs. placebo. No monotherapy was associated with a significantly reduced risk for both manic/mixed and depressed relapse. Of the combination treatments, only quetiapine+lithium/divalproex, was associated with a significantly reduced risk vs. comparator (placebo+lithium/valproate) for relapse at both the manic/mixed and depressed poles of bipolar illness. Limitations for the analysis include differences in study durations and definitions of relapse. In conclusion, available maintenance therapies show considerable variation in efficacy. The efficacy of lithium and divalproex has been confirmed, but newer therapies, such as a number of atypical antipsychotics were also shown to be effective in bipolar disorder. Efficacy of all maintenance interventions needs to be balanced against the safety and tolerability profiles of individual agents.     

The efficacy of olanzapine monotherapy for acute hypomania or mania in an outpatient setting

Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of olanzapine for treating acute mania or depression symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of this medication in more usual care outpatient settings. A consecutive series of 15 patients entered an open, uncontrolled 8-week trial of olanzapine monotherapy. Inclusion criteria included significant hypomanic or manic symptoms greater than or equal to 15 on the Young Mania Rating Scale and no psychotic symptoms. The majority of patients experienced significant decreases in mania ratings and more limited improvement on depression ratings. Most patients reported adverse events consistent with other studies, but few discontinued due to these complaints. This case series highlights the individual variation in response to a proven medication. Furthermore, it highlights that those medications effective at one end of the mood spectrum may not be equally or simultaneously effective with other symptoms, emphasizing the complexity of treating bipolar illness.