-
Psychiatry Research Jan 2021Geriatric patients with dementia frequently present with agitation, aggression, psychosis, and other behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). We present... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Geriatric patients with dementia frequently present with agitation, aggression, psychosis, and other behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). We present an update of our previously published algorithms for the use of psychopharmacologic agents in these patients taking into account more recent studies and findings in meta-analyses, reviews, and other published algorithms. We propose three algorithms: BPSD in an emergent, urgent, and non-urgent setting. In the emergent setting when intramuscular (IM) administration is necessary, the first-line recommendation is for olanzapine (since IM aripiprazole, previously favored, is no longer available) and haloperidol injection is the second choice, followed by possible consideration of an IM benzodiazepine. In the urgent setting, the first line would be oral second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) aripiprazole and risperidone. Perhaps next could be then prazosin, and lastly electroconvulsive therapy is a consideration. There are risks associated with these agents, and adverse effects can be severe. Dosing strategies, discontinuation considerations, and side effects are discussed. In the non-emergent setting, medications are proposed for use in the following order: trazodone, donepezil and memantine, antidepressants such as escitalopram and sertraline, SGAs, prazosin, and carbamazepine. Other options with less support but potential future promise are discussed.
Topics: Academic Medical Centers; Aged; Algorithms; Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Benzodiazepines; Citalopram; Dementia; Electroconvulsive Therapy; Haloperidol; Humans; Olanzapine; Psychopharmacology; Risperidone
PubMed: 33340800
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113641 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Aug 2022The use of low doses of psychedelic substances (microdosing) is attracting increasing interest. This systematic review summarises all empirical microdosing research to... (Review)
Review
The use of low doses of psychedelic substances (microdosing) is attracting increasing interest. This systematic review summarises all empirical microdosing research to date, including a set of infrequently cited studies that took place prior to prohibition. Specifically, we reviewed 44 studies published between 1955 and 2021, and summarised reported effects across six categories: mood and mental health; wellbeing and attitude; cognition and creativity; personality; changes in conscious state; and neurobiology and physiology. Studies showed a wide range in risk of bias, depending on design, age, and other study characteristics. Laboratory studies found changes in pain perception, time perception, conscious state, and neurophysiology. Self-report studies found changes in cognitive processing and mental health. We review data related to expectation and placebo effects, but argue that claims that microdosing effects are largely due to expectancy are premature and possibly wrong. In addition, we attempt to clarify definitional inconsistencies in the microdosing literature by providing suggested dose ranges across different substances. Finally, we provide specific design suggestions to facilitate more rigorous future research.
Topics: Affect; Creativity; Hallucinogens; Humans; Mental Health; Personality; Psilocybin
PubMed: 35609684
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104706 -
Schizophrenia Research Mar 2016The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the proportion of patients with Treatment Resistant Schizophrenia (TRS) that respond to ECT... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the proportion of patients with Treatment Resistant Schizophrenia (TRS) that respond to ECT augmentation of clozapine (C+ECT). We searched major electronic databases from 1980 to July 2015. We conducted a random effects meta-analysis reporting the proportion of responders to C+ECT in RCTs and open-label trials. Five clinical trials met our eligibility criteria, allowing us to pool data from 71 people with TRS who underwent C+ ECT across 4 open label trials (n=32) and 1 RCT (n=39). The overall pooled proportion of response to C+ECT was 54%, (95% CI: 21.8-83.6%) with some heterogeneity evident (I(2)=69%). With data from retrospective chart reviews, case series and case reports, 192 people treated with C+ECT were included. All studies together demonstrated an overall response to C+ECT of 66% (95% CI: 57.5-74.3%) (83 out of 126 patients responded to C+ECT). The mean number of ECT treatments used to augment clozapine was 11.3. 32% of cases (20 out of 62 patients) with follow up data (range of follow up: 3-468weeks) relapsed following cessation of ECT. Adverse events were reported in 14% of identified cases (24 out of 166 patients). There is a paucity of controlled studies in the literature, with only one single blinded randomised controlled study located, and the predominance of open label trials used in the meta-analysis is a limitation. The data suggests that ECT may be an effective and safe clozapine augmentation strategy in TRS. A higher number of ECT treatments may be required than is standard for other clinical indications. Further research is needed before ECT can be included in standard TRS treatment algorithms.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Clozapine; Electroconvulsive Therapy; Humans; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 26827129
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2016.01.024 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Among people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) who are engaged in clinical care, prescription rates of psychotropic medications are high, despite... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Among people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) who are engaged in clinical care, prescription rates of psychotropic medications are high, despite the fact that medication use is off-label as a treatment for BPD. Nevertheless, people with BPD often receive several psychotropic drugs at a time for sustained periods.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pharmacological treatment for people with BPD.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers up to February 2022. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatment to placebo, other pharmacologic treatments or a combination of pharmacologic treatments in people of all ages with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were individual BPD symptoms, depression, attrition and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 46 randomised controlled trials (2769 participants) in this review, 45 of which were eligible for quantitative analysis and comprised 2752 participants with BPD in total. This is 18 more trials than the 2010 review on this topic. Participants were predominantly female except for one trial that included men only. The mean age ranged from 16.2 to 39.7 years across the included trials. Twenty-nine different types of medications compared to placebo or other medications were included in the analyses. Seventeen trials were funded or partially funded by the pharmaceutical industry, 10 were funded by universities or research foundations, eight received no funding, and 11 had unclear funding. For all reported effect sizes, negative effect estimates indicate beneficial effects by active medication. Compared with placebo, no difference in effects were observed on any of the primary outcomes at the end of treatment for any medication. Compared with placebo, medication may have little to no effect on BPD symptom severity, although the evidence is of very low certainty (antipsychotics: SMD -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 0.08; 8 trials, 951 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.65 to 1.18; 2 trials, 87 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.57; 4 trials, 265 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on self-harm, indicating little to no effect (antipsychotics: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.84; 2 trials, 76 participants; antidepressants: MD 0.45 points on the Overt Aggression Scale-Modified-Self-Injury item (0-5 points), 95% CI -10.55 to 11.45; 1 trial, 20 participants; mood stabilisers: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.48; 1 trial, 276 participants). The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on suicide-related outcomes, with little to no effect (antipsychotics: SMD 0.05, 95 % CI -0.18 to 0.29; 7 trials, 854 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.26, 95% CI -1.62 to 1.09; 2 trials, 45 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.36, 95% CI -1.96 to 1.25; 2 trials, 44 participants). Very low-certainty evidence shows little to no difference between medication and placebo on psychosocial functioning (antipsychotics: SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.00; 7 trials, 904 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.06; 4 trials, 161 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26; 2 trials, 214 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests that antipsychotics may slightly reduce interpersonal problems (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.08; 8 trials, 907 participants), and that mood stabilisers may result in a reduction in this outcome (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.02; 4 trials, 300 participants). Antidepressants may have little to no effect on interpersonal problems, but the corresponding evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.55; 2 trials, 119 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about dropout rates compared with placebo by antipsychotics (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.38; 13 trials, 1216 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference in dropout rates between antidepressants (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.76; 6 trials, 289 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.15; 9 trials, 530 participants), compared to placebo. Reporting on adverse events was poor and mostly non-standardised. The available evidence on non-serious adverse events was of very low certainty for antipsychotics (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.29; 5 trials, 814 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; 1 trial, 276 participants). For antidepressants, no data on adverse events were identified.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review included 18 more trials than the 2010 version, so larger meta-analyses with more statistical power were feasible. We found mostly very low-certainty evidence that medication may result in no difference in any primary outcome. The rest of the secondary outcomes were inconclusive. Very limited data were available for serious adverse events. The review supports the continued understanding that no pharmacological therapy seems effective in specifically treating BPD pathology. More research is needed to understand the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of BPD better. Also, more trials including comorbidities such as trauma-related disorders, major depression, substance use disorders, or eating disorders are needed. Additionally, more focus should be put on male and adolescent samples.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Male; Female; Young Adult; Adult; Borderline Personality Disorder; Reproducibility of Results; Antidepressive Agents; Depressive Disorder, Major; Antipsychotic Agents
PubMed: 36375174
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012956.pub2 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Aug 2021In older age, several observational studies investigated risk factors for suicide attempts/completed suicides; however, contrasting evidence came from population-based... (Review)
Review
In older age, several observational studies investigated risk factors for suicide attempts/completed suicides; however, contrasting evidence came from population-based setting. In the present systematic review, we described through a narrative synthesis the significant associations existing among risk factors and suicide attempts/completed suicides in subjects aged >65 years. From the 39 population-based studies selected in six different databases until February 15, 2021, we analyzed the most frequent 28 risk factors for suicidal behaviour. The risk factors more associated to suicide attempts than other variables frequently related to suicidal behavior in older age were: depressive disorders, methods employed to self-harm (particularly poisoning), and psychotropic drug utilization followed by psychological factors and disability. Moreover, male sex, violent methods to self-harm, any psychiatric disorder (depression, anxiety and bipolar disorders), a poor medical condition, stressors/bereavement, and living alone appeared to be more significant for predicting completed suicides in late life. In older age, efforts for suicide prevention should be based on strategies to assess and treat psychiatric disorders along with psychological interventions, particularly in males.
Topics: Aged; Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Male; Risk Factors; Suicidal Ideation; Suicide, Attempted; Suicide, Completed
PubMed: 33878336
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.04.011 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Nov 2019Depression and anxiety are prevalent psychiatric disorders that carry significant morbidity. Pharmacological and psychosocial interventions are used to manage these...
BACKGROUND
Depression and anxiety are prevalent psychiatric disorders that carry significant morbidity. Pharmacological and psychosocial interventions are used to manage these conditions, but their efficacy is limited. Recent interest into the use of psychedelic-assisted therapy using ayahuasca, psilocybin or lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) may be a promising alternative for patients unresponsive to traditional treatments. This review aims to determine the efficacy and tolerability of psychedelics in the management of resistant depression.
METHODS
Clinical trials investigating psychedelics in patients with depression and/or anxiety were searched via MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsychINFO. Efficacy was assessed by measuring symptom improvement from baseline, and tolerability was evaluated by noting the incidence and type of adverse effects reported. Risk of bias was assessed.
RESULTS
Seven studies, with 130 patients, were analysed in this review. Three were conducted in patients with depression, two in patients with anxiety and two in patients with both. In a supportive setting, ayahuasca, psilocybin, and LSD consistently produced immediate and significant anti-depressant and anxiolytic effects that were endured for several months. Psychedelics were well-tolerated. The most common adverse effects were transient anxiety, short-lived headaches, nausea and mild increases in heart rate and blood pressure.
LIMITATIONS
At present, the number of studies on this subject is very limited; and the number of participating patients within these is also limited as the treatment under investigations is a relatively novel concept.
CONCLUSIONS
Though further evidence is required, psychedelics appear to be effective in significantly reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety and are well-tolerated.
Topics: Adult; Anxiety Disorders; Depressive Disorder; Female; Hallucinogens; Humans; Lysergic Acid Diethylamide; Psilocybin
PubMed: 31382100
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2019.07.076 -
Asian Journal of Psychiatry Jan 2023To integrate all evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of both pharmacological and nonpharmacological augmentation interventions for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Pharmacological and nonpharmacological augmentation treatments for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis with normalized entropy assessment.
OBJECTIVE
To integrate all evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of both pharmacological and nonpharmacological augmentation interventions for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS).
METHODS
Six major electronic databases were systematically searched for RCTs published until July 10, 2021. The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms, and the secondary outcomes were positive and negative symptoms and acceptability. We performed random-effects network meta-analysis. Normalized entropy was calculated to examine the uncertainty of treatment ranking.
RESULTS
We identified 35 RCTs (1472 patients with 23 active augmentation treatments) with a mean daily clozapine dose of 440.80 (91.27) mg for 1168.22 (710.28) days. Network meta-analysis of overall symptoms (reported as standardized mean difference; 95 % confidence interval) with consistent results indicated that mirtazapine (-4.41; -5.61, -3.21), electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) (-4.32; -5.43, -3.21), and memantine (-2.02; -3.14, -0.91) were ranked as the best three treatments. For positive symptoms, ECT (-5.18; -5.86, -4.49) was ranked the best with less uncertainty. For negative symptoms, memantine (-3.38; -4.50, -2.26), duloxetine (-3.27; -4.25, -2.29), and mirtazapine (-1.73; -2.71, -0.74) were ranked the best three treatments with less uncertainty. All antipsychotics, N-methyl d-aspartate receptor agonists, and antiepileptics were not associated with more efficacy than placebo. Compared to placebo, only amisulpride had statistically significant lower discontinuation rate (risk ratio: 0.21; 95 % CI: 0.05, 0.93).
CONCLUSION
Add-on mirtazapine, ECT, and memantine were the most efficacious augmentation options for CRS. Data on other important outcomes such as cognitive functioning or quality of life were rarely reported, making further large-scale, well-designed RCTs necessary. (PROSPERO number, CRD42021262197.).
Topics: Humans; Clozapine; Network Meta-Analysis; Entropy; Memantine; Mirtazapine; Antipsychotic Agents; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 36470132
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajp.2022.103375 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Many studies have recently been conducted to assess the antidepressant efficacy of glutamate modification in mood disorders. This is an update of a review first... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Many studies have recently been conducted to assess the antidepressant efficacy of glutamate modification in mood disorders. This is an update of a review first published in 2015 focusing on the use of glutamate receptor modulators in unipolar depression.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects - and review the acceptability and tolerability - of ketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators in alleviating the acute symptoms of depression in people with unipolar major depressive disorder.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO all years to July 2020. We did not apply any restrictions to date, language or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Double- or single-blinded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ketamine, memantine, esketamine or other glutamate receptor modulators with placebo (pill or saline infusion), other active psychotropic drugs, or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in adults with unipolar major depression.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently identified studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcomes were response rate (50% reduction on a standardised rating scale) and adverse events. We decided a priori to measure the efficacy outcomes at different time points and run sensitivity/subgroup analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-one new studies were identified for inclusion in this updated review. Overall, we included 64 studies (5299 participants) on ketamine (31 trials), esketamine (9), memantine (5), lanicemine (4), D-cycloserine (2), Org26576 (2), riluzole (2), atomoxetine (1), basimglurant (1), citicoline (1), CP-101,606 (1), decoglurant (1), MK-0657 (1), N-acetylcysteine (1), rapastinel (1), and sarcosine (1). Forty-eight studies were placebo-controlled, and 48 were two-arm studies. The majority of trials defined an inclusion criterion for the severity of depressive symptoms at baseline: 29 at least moderate depression; 17 severe depression; and five mild-to-moderate depression. Nineteen studies recruited only patients with treatment-resistant depression, defined as inadequate response to at least two antidepressants. The majority of studies investigating ketamine administered as a single dose, whilst all of the included esketamine studies used a multiple dose regimen (most frequently twice a week for four weeks). Most studies looking at ketamine used intravenous administration, whilst the majority of esketamine trials used intranasal routes. The evidence suggests that ketamine may result in an increase in response and remission compared with placebo at 24 hours odds ratio (OR) 3.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54 to 10.10; n = 185, studies = 7, very low-certainty evidence). Ketamine may reduce depression rating scale scores over placebo at 24 hours, but the evidence is very uncertain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.87, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.48; n = 231, studies = 8, very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants assigned to ketamine or placebo who dropped out for any reason (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.19 to 8.28; n = 201, studies = 6, very low-certainty evidence). When compared with midazolam, the evidence showed that ketamine increases remission rates at 24 hours (OR 2.21, 95% CI 0.67 to 7.32; n = 122,studies = 2, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the response efficacy of ketamine at 24 hours in comparison with midazolam, and its ability to reduce depression rating scale scores at the same time point (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.00 to 6.18; n = 296, studies = 4,very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants who dropped out of studies for any reason between ketamine and placebo (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.09; n = 72, studies = 1, low-certainty evidence). Esketamine treatment likely results in a large increase in participants achieving remission at 24 hours compared with placebo (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.40; n = 894, studies = 5, moderate-certainty evidence). Esketamine probably results in decreases in depression rating scale scores at 24 hours compared with placebo (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.17; n = 824, studies = 4, moderate-certainty evidence). Our findings show that esketamine increased response rates, although this evidence is uncertain (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.68; n = 1071, studies = 5, low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence that participants assigned to esketamine treatment dropped out of trials more frequently than those assigned to placebo for any reason (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.73; n = 773, studies = 4,moderate-certainty evidence). We found very little evidence for the remaining glutamate receptor modulators. We rated the risk of bias as low or unclear for most domains, though lack of detail regarding masking of treatment in the studies reduced our certainty in the effect for all outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our findings show that ketamine and esketamine may be more efficacious than placebo at 24 hours. How these findings translate into clinical practice, however, is not entirely clear. The evidence for use of the remaining glutamate receptor modulators is limited as very few trials were included in the meta-analyses for each comparison and the majority of comparisons included only one study. Long term non-inferiority RCTs comparing repeated ketamine and esketamine, and rigorous real-world monitoring are needed to establish comprehensive data on safety and efficacy.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Ketamine; Receptors, Glutamate
PubMed: 34510411
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011612.pub3 -
Progress in Neuro-psychopharmacology &... Aug 2021Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a severe and lifelong neurodevelopmental disorder, with high social costs and a dramatic burden on the quality of life of patients and...
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a severe and lifelong neurodevelopmental disorder, with high social costs and a dramatic burden on the quality of life of patients and family members. Despite its high prevalence, reaching 1/54 children and 1/45 adults in the United States, no pharmacological treatment is still directed to core symptoms of ASD, encompassing social and communication deficits, repetitive behaviors, restricted interests, and abnormal sensory processing. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the state-of-the-art of psychopharmacological therapy available today for ASD in children and adolescents, in order to foster best practices and to organize new strategies for future research. To date, atypical antipsychotics such as risperidone and aripiprazole represent the first line of intervention for hyperactivity, impulsivity, agitation, temper outbursts or aggression towards self or others. Tricyclic antidepressants are less prescribed because of uncertain efficacy and important side effects. SSRIs, especially fluoxetine and sertraline, may be effective in treating repetitive behaviors (anxiety and obsessive-compulsive symptoms) and irritability/agitation, while mirtazapine is more helpful with sleep problems. Low doses of buspirone have shown some efficacy on restrictive and repetitive behaviors in combination with behavioral interventions. Stimulants, and to a lesser extent atomoxetine, are effective in reducing hyperactivity, inattention and impulsivity also in comorbid ASD-ADHD, although with somewhat lower efficacy and greater incidence of side effects compared to idiopathic ADHD. Clonidine and guanfacine display some efficacy on hyperactivity and stereotypic behaviors. For several other drugs, case reports and open-label studies suggest possible efficacy, but no randomized controlled trial has yet been performed. Research in the pediatric psychopharmacology of ASD is still faced with at least two major hurdles: (a) Great interindividual variability in clinical response and side effect sensitivity is observed in the ASD population. This low level of predictability would benefit from symptom-specific treatment algorithms and from biomarkers to support drug choice; (b) To this date, no psychoactive drug appears to directly ameliorate core autism symptoms, although some indirect improvement has been reported with several drugs, once the comorbid target symptom is abated.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Antipsychotic Agents; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Psychopharmacology; Psychotropic Drugs; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 33857522
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2021.110326 -
The International Journal of... Apr 2020Resistant bipolar disorder is a major mental health problem related to significant disability and overall cost. The aim of the current study was to perform a systematic...
BACKGROUND
Resistant bipolar disorder is a major mental health problem related to significant disability and overall cost. The aim of the current study was to perform a systematic review of the literature concerning (1) the definition of treatment resistance in bipolar disorder, (2) its clinical and (3) neurobiological correlates, and (4) the evidence-based treatment options for treatment-resistant bipolar disorder and for eventually developing guidelines for the treatment of this condition.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The PRISMA method was used to identify all published papers relevant to the definition of treatment resistance in bipolar disorder and the associated evidence-based treatment options. The MEDLINE was searched to April 22, 2018.
RESULTS
Criteria were developed for the identification of resistance in bipolar disorder concerning all phases. The search of the literature identified all published studies concerning treatment options. The data were classified according to strength, and separate guidelines regarding resistant acute mania, acute bipolar depression, and the maintenance phase were developed.
DISCUSSION
The definition of resistance in bipolar disorder is by itself difficult due to the complexity of the clinical picture, course, and treatment options. The current guidelines are the first, to our knowledge, developed specifically for the treatment of resistant bipolar disorder patients, and they also include an operationalized definition of treatment resistance. They were based on a thorough and deep search of the literature and utilize as much as possible an evidence-based approach.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Antimanic Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Drug Resistance; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 31802122
DOI: 10.1093/ijnp/pyz064