-
Molecular Psychiatry Aug 2021We searched Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL from inception until 22 May 2020 to investigate which antipsychotics and/or mood stabilizers are better for patients with bipolar...
We searched Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL from inception until 22 May 2020 to investigate which antipsychotics and/or mood stabilizers are better for patients with bipolar disorder in the maintenance phase. We performed two categorical network meta-analyses. The first included monotherapy studies and studies in which the two drugs used were specified (i.e., aripiprazole, aripiprazole once monthly, aripiprazole+lamotrigine, aripiprazole+valproate, asenapine, carbamazepine, lamotrigine, lamotrigine+valproate, lithium, lithium+oxcarbazepine, lithium+valproate, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone long-acting injection, valproate, and placebo). The second included studies on second-generation antipsychotic combination therapies (SGAs) (i.e., aripiprazole, lurasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, and ziprasidone) with lithium or valproate (LIT/VAL) compared with placebo with LIT/VAL. Outcomes were recurrence/relapse rate of any mood episode (RR-any, primary), depressive episode (RR-dep) and manic/hypomanic/mixed episode (RR-mania), discontinuation, mortality, and individual adverse events. Risk ratios and 95% credible interval were calculated. Forty-one randomized controlled trials were identified (n = 9821; mean study duration, 70.5 ± 36.6 weeks; percent female, 54.1%; mean age, 40.7 years). All active treatments other than carbamazepine, lamotrigine+valproate (no data) and paliperidone outperformed the placebo for RR-any. Aripiprazole+valproate, lamotrigine, lamotrigine+valproate, lithium, olanzapine, and quetiapine outperformed placebo for RR-dep. All active treatments, other than aripiprazole+valproate, carbamazepine, lamotrigine, and lamotrigine+valproate, outperformed placebo for RR-mania. Asenapine, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, and valproate outperformed placebo for all-cause discontinuation. All SGAs+LIT/VALs other than olanzapine+LIT/VAL outperformed placebo+LIT/VAL for RR-any. Lurasidone+LIT/VAL and quetiapine+LIT/VAL outperformed placebo+LIT/VAL for RR-dep. Aripiprazole+LIT/VAL and quetiapine+LIT/VAL outperformed placebo+LIT/VAL for RR-mania. Lurasidone+LIT/VAL and quetiapine+LIT/VAL outperformed placebo+LIT/VAL for all-cause discontinuation. Treatment efficacy, tolerability, and safety profiles differed among treatments.
Topics: Adult; Antimanic Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Female; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33177610
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-020-00946-6 -
BMC Psychiatry Jan 2020Medicinal cannabis has received increased research attention over recent years due to loosening global regulatory changes. Medicinal cannabis has been reported to have...
BACKGROUND
Medicinal cannabis has received increased research attention over recent years due to loosening global regulatory changes. Medicinal cannabis has been reported to have potential efficacy in reducing pain, muscle spasticity, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and intractable childhood epilepsy. Yet its potential application in the field of psychiatry is lesser known.
METHODS
The first clinically-focused systematic review on the emerging medical application of cannabis across all major psychiatric disorders was conducted. Current evidence regarding whole plant formulations and plant-derived cannabinoid isolates in mood, anxiety, sleep, psychotic disorders and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is discussed; while also detailing clinical prescription considerations (including pharmacogenomics), occupational and public health elements, and future research recommendations. The systematic review of the literature was conducted during 2019, assessing the data from all case studies and clinical trials involving medicinal cannabis or plant-derived isolates for all major psychiatric disorders (neurological conditions and pain were omitted).
RESULTS
The present evidence in the emerging field of cannabinoid therapeutics in psychiatry is nascent, and thereby it is currently premature to recommend cannabinoid-based interventions. Isolated positive studies have, however, revealed tentative support for cannabinoids (namely cannabidiol; CBD) for reducing social anxiety; with mixed (mainly positive) evidence for adjunctive use in schizophrenia. Case studies suggest that medicinal cannabis may be beneficial for improving sleep and post-traumatic stress disorder, however evidence is currently weak. Preliminary research findings indicate no benefit for depression from high delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) therapeutics, or for CBD in mania. One isolated study indicates some potential efficacy for an oral cannabinoid/terpene combination in ADHD. Clinical prescriptive consideration involves caution in the use of high-THC formulations (avoidance in youth, and in people with anxiety or psychotic disorders), gradual titration, regular assessment, and caution in cardiovascular and respiratory disorders, pregnancy and breast-feeding.
CONCLUSIONS
There is currently encouraging, albeit embryonic, evidence for medicinal cannabis in the treatment of a range of psychiatric disorders. Supportive findings are emerging for some key isolates, however, clinicians need to be mindful of a range of prescriptive and occupational safety considerations, especially if initiating higher dose THC formulas.
Topics: Adolescent; Anxiety; Cannabidiol; Cannabinoids; Cannabis; Child; Humans; Medical Marijuana
PubMed: 31948424
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-019-2409-8 -
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue... May 2023Given the increasing acceptability and legalization of cannabis in some jurisdictions, clinicians need to improve their understanding of the effect of cannabis use on... (Review)
Review
Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) Task Force Report: A Systematic Review and Recommendations of Cannabis use in Bipolar Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder.
BACKGROUND
Given the increasing acceptability and legalization of cannabis in some jurisdictions, clinicians need to improve their understanding of the effect of cannabis use on mood disorders.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this task force report is to examine the association between cannabis use and incidence, presentation, course and treatment of bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, and the treatment of comorbid cannabis use disorder.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, searching PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to October 2020 focusing on cannabis use and bipolar disorder or major depressive disorder, and treatment of comorbid cannabis use disorder. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and clinical considerations were integrated to generate Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments recommendations.
RESULTS
Of 12,691 publications, 56 met the criteria: 23 on bipolar disorder, 21 on major depressive disorder, 11 on both diagnoses and 1 on treatment of comorbid cannabis use disorder and major depressive disorder. Of 2,479,640 participants, 12,502 were comparison participants, 73,891 had bipolar disorder and 408,223 major depressive disorder without cannabis use. Of those with cannabis use, 2,761 had bipolar disorder and 5,044 major depressive disorder. The lifetime prevalence of cannabis use was 52%-71% and 6%-50% in bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, respectively. Cannabis use was associated with worsening course and symptoms of both mood disorders, with more consistent associations in bipolar disorder than major depressive disorder: increased severity of depressive, manic and psychotic symptoms in bipolar disorder and depressive symptoms in major depressive disorder. Cannabis use was associated with increased suicidality and decreased functioning in both bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder. Treatment of comorbid cannabis use disorder and major depressive disorder did not show significant results.
CONCLUSION
The data indicate that cannabis use is associated with worsened course and functioning of bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder. Future studies should include more accurate determinations of type, amount and frequency of cannabis use and select comparison groups which allow to control for underlying common factors.
Topics: Humans; Bipolar Disorder; Depressive Disorder, Major; Cannabis; Marijuana Abuse; Canada; Anxiety; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 35711159
DOI: 10.1177/07067437221099769 -
World Journal of Psychiatry Dec 2021Bipolar disorder (BD) is a severe psychiatric disorder characterized by mood swings. Psychosocial interventions, such as psychoeducation, play an essential role in...
BACKGROUND
Bipolar disorder (BD) is a severe psychiatric disorder characterized by mood swings. Psychosocial interventions, such as psychoeducation, play an essential role in promoting social rehabilitation and improving pharmacological treatment.
AIM
To investigate the role of psychoeducation in BD.
METHODS
A systematic review of original studies regarding psychoeducation interventions in patients with BD and their relatives was developed. A systematic literature search was performed using the Medline, Scopus, and Lilacs databases. No review articles or qualitative studies were included in the analysis. There were no date restriction criteria, and studies published up to April 2021 were included.
RESULTS
A total of forty-seven studies were selected for this review. Thirty-eight studies included patients, and nine included family members. Psychoeducation of patients and family members was associated with a lower number of new mood episodes and a reduction in number and length of stay of hospitalizations. Psychoeducational interventions with patients are associated with improved adherence to drug treatment. The strategies studied in patients and family members do not interfere with the severity of symptoms of mania or depression or with the patient's quality of life or functionality. Psychoeducational interventions with family members do not alter patients' adherence to pharmacotherapy.
CONCLUSION
Psychoeducation as an adjunct strategy to pharmacotherapy in the treatment of BD leads to a reduction in the frequency of new mood episodes, length of hospital stay and adherence to drug therapy.
PubMed: 35070785
DOI: 10.5498/wjp.v11.i12.1407 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Sep 2023This review and meta-analysis aimed to describe the existing literature on interventions for bipolar disorder (BD) targeting the 6 pillars of Lifestyle Psychiatry: diet,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This review and meta-analysis aimed to describe the existing literature on interventions for bipolar disorder (BD) targeting the 6 pillars of Lifestyle Psychiatry: diet, physical activity (PA), substance use (SU), sleep, stress management, and social relationships (SR). Randomized Controlled Trials that examined the efficacy of lifestyle interventions targeting improvement in depressive/(hypo)manic symptom severity, lifestyle patterns, functioning, quality of life, and/or circadian rhythms were included. The systematic review included 18 studies, while the meta-analysis included studies targeting the same lifestyle domains and outcomes. Sleep (n = 10), PA (n = 9), and diet (n = 8) were the most targeted domains, while SU, SM and SR were least targeted (n = 4 each). Combined diet and PA interventions led to significant improvements in depressive symptoms (SMD: -0.46; 95%CI: -0.88, -0.04; p = 0.03), and functioning (SMD: -0.47; 95%CI: -0.89, -0.05; p = 0.03). Sleep interventions also led to significant improvements in depressive symptoms (SMD: -0.80; 95%CI: -1.21, -0.39; p < 0.01). Future research should focus on developing more multidimensional lifestyle interventions for a potentially greater impact on clinical and functional outcomes of BD.
Topics: Humans; Bipolar Disorder; Quality of Life; Life Style; Exercise; Psychotherapy
PubMed: 37263531
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105257 -
Bipolar Disorders Mar 2022The association between impaired social cognition and bipolar disorder (BD) is well established. However, to our knowledge, there has not been a recent systematic review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The association between impaired social cognition and bipolar disorder (BD) is well established. However, to our knowledge, there has not been a recent systematic review that characterizes disparate dimensions of social cognition in BD. Herein, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize the literature on core aspects of social cognition (i.e., Theory of Mind, emotion recognition, and social judgment) to identify potential areas of impairment.
METHODS
Online databases (i.e., PubMed, Cochrane Libraries, PsycINFO) and Google Scholar were searched from inception to May 2021. Studies with populations ages ≥16 with DSM-IV or DSM-5 defined BD (I or II) either in a euthymic or symptomatic state were included. The risk of bias was measured using the ROBINS-1 tool, and the quality of the sources was evaluated using GRADE criteria. The results of the studies were quantitatively measured by synthesizing Hedge's g effect sizes through a random effects meta-analytic approach.
RESULTS
A total of 29 studies were included in the final review (i.e., 12 studies on the Theory of Mind, 11 on emotion recognition, and 6 on social judgment). Overall, results demonstrated social cognition to be moderately impaired in individuals with BD (d = 0.59). The individual domains ranged in effect size (0.38 < d < 0.70), providing evidence for variation in impairment within social cognition.
DISCUSSION
Individuals with BD exhibit clinically significant deficits in social cognition during euthymic and symptomatic states. Social cognition impairments in individuals with BD are an important therapeutic target for treatment discovery and development.
Topics: Bipolar Disorder; Cognition; Cognitive Dysfunction; Cyclothymic Disorder; Humans; Social Cognition; Theory of Mind
PubMed: 34825440
DOI: 10.1111/bdi.13163 -
European Neuropsychopharmacology : the... Jan 2022Uncertainty remains regarding the relative efficacy of maintenance pharmacotherapy for bipolar disorder (BD), and available data require updating. The present systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Uncertainty remains regarding the relative efficacy of maintenance pharmacotherapy for bipolar disorder (BD), and available data require updating. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to consolidate the evidence from the highest quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to July 2021, overcoming the limitations of earlier reviews. The PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for double-blind RCTs involving lithium, mood stabilizing anticonvulsants (MSAs), antipsychotics, antidepressants, and other treatments. Rates of new mood episodes with test vs. reference treatments (placebo or alternative active agent) were compared by random-effects meta-analysis. Polarity index was calculated for each treatment type. Eligible trials involved ≥6 months of maintenance follow up. Of 2,158 identified reports, 22 met study eligibility criteria, and involved 7,773 subjects stabilized for 1-12 weeks and followed-up for 24-104 weeks. Psychotropic monotherapy overall (including lithium, MSAs, and second generation antipsychotics (SGA) was more effective in preventing new BD episodes than placebo (odds ratio, OR=0.42; 95% confidence interval, CI 0.34-0.51, p<0.00001). Significantly lower risk of new BD episodes was observed with the following individual drugs: aripiprazole, asenapine, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone long-acting (ORs varied 0.19-0.46). Adding aripiprazole, divalproex, quetiapine, or olanzapine/risperidone to lithium or an MSA was more effective compared with lithium or MSA monotherapy (OR=0.37; 95%CI 0.25-0.55, p<0.00001). Active treatment favored prevention of mania over depression. The key limitations were "responder-enriched" design in most trials and high outcomes heterogeneity. PROSPERO registration number is CRD42020162663.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Lithium; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone
PubMed: 34489127
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2021.08.264 -
Chronobiology International Oct 2021Blue-blocking glasses, also known as amber glasses, are plastic glasses that primarily block blue light. Blue-blocking glasses have been studied as a sleep intervention...
Blue-blocking glasses, also known as amber glasses, are plastic glasses that primarily block blue light. Blue-blocking glasses have been studied as a sleep intervention for insomnia, delayed sleep-phase disorder, shift work, jet lag, and nonpathologic sleep improvement. Blue-blocking glasses have also been studied as a treatment for bipolar disorder, major depression, and postpartum depression. Blue-blocking glasses improve sleep by inducing dim-light melatonin onset by reducing activation of intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs) which are most sensitive to blue light and are a major input for circadian regulation; their mechanism for mood regulation is unclear but may be similar to that of dark therapy for bipolar disorder where patients are kept in darkness for an extended period every night. A systematic search of the scientific literature identified a total of 29 experimental publications involving evening wear of blue-blocking glasses for sleep or mood disorders. These consisted of 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in journals with a total of 453 patients, 5 uncontrolled trials, 1 case series, 1 case study, and 6 abstracts from conference proceedings. Only 1 case study and 1 RCT were for acutely manic patients but both found substantial decreases in manic symptoms with the use of blue-blocking glasses; these give preliminary clinical evidence of efficacy that makes blue-blocking glasses a high-yield intervention to study for bipolar disorder. Findings in the 3 publications for major depression and postpartum depression were heterogeneous and conflicting as to their efficacy. Out of the 24 publications focusing on sleep, there was substantial evidence for blue-blocking glasses being a successful intervention for reducing sleep onset latency in patients with sleep disorders, jet lag, or variable shift work schedules. Given the well-established biological mechanism and clinical research showing that blue-blocking glasses are effective for inducing sleep, they are a viable intervention to recommend to patients with insomnia or a delayed sleep phase.
Topics: Bipolar Disorder; Circadian Rhythm; Depressive Disorder, Major; Eyeglasses; Female; Humans; Light; Melatonin; Sleep
PubMed: 34030534
DOI: 10.1080/07420528.2021.1930029 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Aug 2022Rapid cycling is a phase of bipolar disorder with increased episode frequencies. It is a severe and disabling condition that often poses a major challenge to the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Rapid cycling is a phase of bipolar disorder with increased episode frequencies. It is a severe and disabling condition that often poses a major challenge to the clinician. The aim of this paper is to give an overview of the evidence-based treatment options for rapid cycling.
METHODS
A systematic search on Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases from inception until December 2021 was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. An additional search on clinicaltrials.gov was done. References of retrieved papers and key reviews were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials including at least 10 patients with bipolar disorder, rapid cycling, reporting an objective outcome measure were selected.
RESULTS
Our search, initially revealing 1330 articles, resulted in 16 papers about treatment of an acute mood episode, relapse prevention or both. Lithium, anticonvulsants, second generation antipsychotics, antidepressants and thyroid hormone were assessed as treatment options in the presented data. Evidence supporting the use of aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, valproate and lamotrigine for treatment of rapid cycling bipolar disorder was found.
LIMITATIONS
Small sample sizes, different index episodes and variety of outcome measures.
CONCLUSION
Evidence regarding treatment of rapid cycling remains scarce. Evidence supports the use of aripiprazole, olanzapine, and valproate for acute manic or mixed episodes, quetiapine for acute depressive episodes and aripiprazole and lamotrigine for relapse prevention. Given the paucity of available evidence, and the burden that accompanies rapid cycling, future research is warranted.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Lamotrigine; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 35545157
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.05.017 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Jul 2020Before the COVID-19 pandemic, coronaviruses caused two noteworthy outbreaks: severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), starting in 2002, and Middle East respiratory... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations associated with severe coronavirus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis with comparison to the COVID-19 pandemic.
BACKGROUND
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, coronaviruses caused two noteworthy outbreaks: severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), starting in 2002, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), starting in 2012. We aimed to assess the psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases (from their inception until March 18, 2020), and medRxiv, bioRxiv, and PsyArXiv (between Jan 1, 2020, and April 10, 2020) were searched by two independent researchers for all English-language studies or preprints reporting data on the psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations of individuals with suspected or laboratory-confirmed coronavirus infection (SARS coronavirus, MERS coronavirus, or SARS coronavirus 2). We excluded studies limited to neurological complications without specified neuropsychiatric presentations and those investigating the indirect effects of coronavirus infections on the mental health of people who are not infected, such as those mediated through physical distancing measures such as self-isolation or quarantine. Outcomes were psychiatric signs or symptoms; symptom severity; diagnoses based on ICD-10, DSM-IV, or the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (third edition) or psychometric scales; quality of life; and employment. Both the systematic review and the meta-analysis stratified outcomes across illness stages (acute vs post-illness) for SARS and MERS. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analysis, and the meta-analytical effect size was prevalence for relevant outcomes, I statistics, and assessment of study quality.
FINDINGS
1963 studies and 87 preprints were identified by the systematic search, of which 65 peer-reviewed studies and seven preprints met inclusion criteria. The number of coronavirus cases of the included studies was 3559, ranging from 1 to 997, and the mean age of participants in studies ranged from 12·2 years (SD 4·1) to 68·0 years (single case report). Studies were from China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Canada, Saudi Arabia, France, Japan, Singapore, the UK, and the USA. Follow-up time for the post-illness studies varied between 60 days and 12 years. The systematic review revealed that during the acute illness, common symptoms among patients admitted to hospital for SARS or MERS included confusion (36 [27·9%; 95% CI 20·5-36·0] of 129 patients), depressed mood (42 [32·6%; 24·7-40·9] of 129), anxiety (46 [35·7%; 27·6-44·2] of 129), impaired memory (44 [34·1%; 26·2-42·5] of 129), and insomnia (54 [41·9%; 22·5-50·5] of 129). Steroid-induced mania and psychosis were reported in 13 (0·7%) of 1744 patients with SARS in the acute stage in one study. In the post-illness stage, depressed mood (35 [10·5%; 95% CI 7·5-14·1] of 332 patients), insomnia (34 [12·1%; 8·6-16·3] of 280), anxiety (21 [12·3%; 7·7-17·7] of 171), irritability (28 [12·8%; 8·7-17·6] of 218), memory impairment (44 [18·9%; 14·1-24·2] of 233), fatigue (61 [19·3%; 15·1-23·9] of 316), and in one study traumatic memories (55 [30·4%; 23·9-37·3] of 181) and sleep disorder (14 [100·0%; 88·0-100·0] of 14) were frequently reported. The meta-analysis indicated that in the post-illness stage the point prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder was 32·2% (95% CI 23·7-42·0; 121 of 402 cases from four studies), that of depression was 14·9% (12·1-18·2; 77 of 517 cases from five studies), and that of anxiety disorders was 14·8% (11·1-19·4; 42 of 284 cases from three studies). 446 (76·9%; 95% CI 68·1-84·6) of 580 patients from six studies had returned to work at a mean follow-up time of 35·3 months (SD 40·1). When data for patients with COVID-19 were examined (including preprint data), there was evidence for delirium (confusion in 26 [65%] of 40 intensive care unit patients and agitation in 40 [69%] of 58 intensive care unit patients in one study, and altered consciousness in 17 [21%] of 82 patients who subsequently died in another study). At discharge, 15 (33%) of 45 patients with COVID-19 who were assessed had a dysexecutive syndrome in one study. At the time of writing, there were two reports of hypoxic encephalopathy and one report of encephalitis. 68 (94%) of the 72 studies were of either low or medium quality.
INTERPRETATION
If infection with SARS-CoV-2 follows a similar course to that with SARS-CoV or MERS-CoV, most patients should recover without experiencing mental illness. SARS-CoV-2 might cause delirium in a significant proportion of patients in the acute stage. Clinicians should be aware of the possibility of depression, anxiety, fatigue, post-traumatic stress disorder, and rarer neuropsychiatric syndromes in the longer term.
FUNDING
Wellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and University College London.
Topics: COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Fatigue; Humans; Mental Disorders; Nervous System Diseases; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
PubMed: 32437679
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30203-0