27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      To submit to Bentham Journals, please click here

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Does the “ Silver Bullet” Lose its Shine Over the Time? Assessment of Loss of Lithium Response in a Preliminary Sample of Bipolar Disorder Outpatients

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Though often perceived as a “silver bullet” treatment for bipolar disorder (BD), lithium has seldom reported to lose its efficacy over the time.

          Objective:

          The aim of the present study was to assess cases of refractoriness toward restarted lithium in BD patients who failed to preserve maintenance.

          Method:

          Treatment trajectories associated with re-instituted lithium following loss of achieved lithium-based maintenance in BD were retrospectively reviewed for 37 BD-I patients (median age 52 years; F:M=17:20 or 46% of the total) over an 8.1-month period on average.

          Results:

          In our sample only 4 cases (roughly 11% of the total, of whom F:M=2:2) developed refractoriness towards lithium after its discontinuation. Thirty-three controls (F:M=15:18) maintained lithium response at the time of re-institution. No statistically significant difference between cases and controls was observed with respect to a number of demographic and clinical features but for time spent before first trial ever with lithium in life (8.5 vs. 3 years; U=24.5, Z=-2.048, p=.041) and length of lithium discontinuation until new therapeutic attempt (5.5 vs. 2 years; U=8, Z=-2.927, p=.003) between cases vs. controls respectively. Tapering off of lithium was significantly faster among cases vs. controls (1 vs. 7 days; U=22, Z=-2.187), though both subgroups had worrisome high rates of poor adherence overall.

          Conclusion:

          Although intrinsic limitations of the present preliminary assessment hamper the validity and generalizability of overall results, stating the clinical relevance of the topic further prospective research is warranted. The eventual occurrence of lithium refractoriness may indeed be associated with peculiar course trajectories and therapeutic outcomes ultimately urging the prescribing clinicians to put efforts in preserving maintenance of BD in the absence of any conclusive research insight on the matter.

          Related collections

          Most cited references86

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for the biological treatment of bipolar disorders: update 2012 on the long-term treatment of bipolar disorder.

          These guidelines are based on a first edition that was published in 2004, and have been edited and updated with the available scientific evidence up to October 2012. Their purpose is to supply a systematic overview of all scientific evidence pertaining to the long-term treatment of bipolar disorder in adults. Material used for these guidelines are based on a systematic literature search using various data bases. Their scientific rigor was categorised into six levels of evidence (A-F) and different grades of recommendation to ensure practicability were assigned. Maintenance trial designs are complex and changed fundamentally over time; thus, it is not possible to give an overall recommendation for long-term treatment. Different scenarios have to be examined separately: Prevention of mania, depression, or an episode of any polarity, both in acute responders and in patients treated de novo. Treatment might differ in Bipolar II patients or Rapid cyclers, as well as in special subpopulations. We identified several medications preventive against new manic episodes, whereas the current state of research into the prevention of new depressive episodes is less satisfactory. Lithium continues to be the substance with the broadest base of evidence across treatment scenarios. Although major advances have been made since the first edition of this guideline in 2004, there are still areas of uncertainty, especially the prevention of depressive episodes and optimal long-term treatment of Bipolar II patients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effectiveness of adjunctive antidepressant treatment for bipolar depression.

            Episodes of depression are the most frequent cause of disability among patients with bipolar disorder. The effectiveness and safety of standard antidepressant agents for depressive episodes associated with bipolar disorder (bipolar depression) have not been well studied. Our study was designed to determine whether adjunctive antidepressant therapy reduces symptoms of bipolar depression without increasing the risk of mania. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we randomly assigned subjects with bipolar depression to receive up to 26 weeks of treatment with a mood stabilizer plus adjunctive antidepressant therapy or a mood stabilizer plus a matching placebo, under conditions generalizable to routine clinical care. A standardized clinical monitoring form adapted from the mood-disorder modules of the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, was used at all follow-up visits. The primary outcome was the percentage of subjects in each treatment group meeting the criterion for a durable recovery (8 consecutive weeks of euthymia). Secondary effectiveness outcomes and rates of treatment-emergent affective switch (a switch to mania or hypomania early in the course of treatment) were also examined. Forty-two of the 179 subjects (23.5%) receiving a mood stabilizer plus adjunctive antidepressant therapy had a durable recovery, as did 51 of the 187 subjects (27.3%) receiving a mood stabilizer plus a matching placebo (P=0.40). Modest nonsignificant trends favoring the group receiving a mood stabilizer plus placebo were observed across the secondary outcomes. Rates of treatment-emergent affective switch were similar in the two groups. The use of adjunctive, standard antidepressant medication, as compared with the use of mood stabilizers, was not associated with increased efficacy or with increased risk of treatment-emergent affective switch. Longer-term outcome studies are needed to fully assess the benefits and risks of antidepressant therapy for bipolar disorder. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00012558 [ClinicalTrials.gov].). Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Lithium plus valproate combination therapy versus monotherapy for relapse prevention in bipolar I disorder (BALANCE): a randomised open-label trial.

              Lithium carbonate and valproate semisodium are both recommended as monotherapy for prevention of relapse in bipolar disorder, but are not individually fully effective in many patients. If combination therapy with both agents is better than monotherapy, many relapses and consequent disability could be avoided. We aimed to establish whether lithium plus valproate was better than monotherapy with either drug alone for relapse prevention in bipolar I disorder. 330 patients aged 16 years and older with bipolar I disorder from 41 sites in the UK, France, USA, and Italy were randomly allocated to open-label lithium monotherapy (plasma concentration 0.4-1.0 mmol/L, n=110), valproate monotherapy (750-1250 mg, n=110), or both agents in combination (n=110), after an active run-in of 4-8 weeks on the combination. Randomisation was by computer program, and investigators and participants were informed of treatment allocation. All outcome events were considered by the trial management team, who were masked to treatment assignment. Participants were followed up for up to 24 months. The primary outcome was initiation of new intervention for an emergent mood episode, which was compared between groups by Cox regression. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN 55261332. 59 (54%) of 110 people in the combination therapy group, 65 (59%) of 110 in the lithium group, and 76 (69%) of 110 in the valproate group had a primary outcome event during follow-up. Hazard ratios for the primary outcome were 0.59 (95% CI 0.42-0.83, p=0.0023) for combination therapy versus valproate, 0.82 (0.58-1.17, p=0.27) for combination therapy versus lithium, and 0.71 (0.51-1.00, p=0.0472) for lithium versus valproate. 16 participants had serious adverse events after randomisation: seven receiving valproate monotherapy (three deaths); five lithium monotherapy (two deaths); and four combination therapy (one death). For people with bipolar I disorder, for whom long-term therapy is clinically indicated, both combination therapy with lithium plus valproate and lithium monotherapy are more likely to prevent relapse than is valproate monotherapy. This benefit seems to be irrespective of baseline severity of illness and is maintained for up to 2 years. BALANCE could neither reliably confirm nor refute a benefit of combination therapy compared with lithium monotherapy. Stanley Medical Research Institute; Sanofi-Aventis. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health
                Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health
                CPEMH
                Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health : CP & EMH
                Bentham Open
                1745-0179
                23 December 2016
                2016
                : 12
                : 142-157
                Affiliations
                [1 ]New York State Psychiatric Institute (NYPSI); Columbia University, NYC, NY, USA
                [2 ]Physiotherapy Department, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London SE5 8AZ, UK
                [3 ]Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK
                [4 ]National Health Service, Department of Mental Health, Psychiatric Service of Diagnosis and Treatment, "G. Mazzini" Hospital, ASL 4 Teramo, Italy
                [5 ]Outpatient Unit on Treatment Resistant Psychosis, Department of Neuroscience, University School of Medicine Federico II, Naples, Italy
                [6 ]Department of Neurosciences, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
                [7 ]I.R.E.M. (Institute for clinical Research and Education in Medicine), Padova, Italy
                [8 ]Geriatrics Section, Department of Medicine (DIMED), University of Padova, Padova, Italy
                [9 ]Hospital "C. G. Mazzoni", Ascoli Piceno, Italy
                [10 ]Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Hermanas Hospitalarias, FoRiPsi, Villa San Benedetto Menni, Albese con Cassano, 22032 Como, Italy
                [11 ]Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6200 MD Maastricht, Netherlands
                [12 ]Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Leonard Miller School of Medicine, Miami University, Miami, FL 33136, USA
                Author notes
                [* ]Address correspondence to this author at the New York State Psychiatric Institute (NYPSI), 1051 Riverside, NYC, ZIP 10032; USA; Tel: (001) 646-705-2586; E-mail: dott.fornaro@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                CPEMH-12-142
                10.2174/1745017901612010142
                5278557
                ab79cfd7-d14b-4c77-905e-70578ac35cd1
                © Fornaro et al.; Licensee Bentham Open

                This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode), which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.

                History
                : 08 July 2016
                : 03 October 2016
                : 08 October 2016
                Categories
                Article

                Neurology
                discontinuation,maintenance,refractoriness,tolerance
                Neurology
                discontinuation, maintenance, refractoriness, tolerance

                Comments

                Comment on this article