Towards a better future for Canadians with bipolar disorder:principles and implementation of a community-based participatory research model

The Collaborative RESearch Team to study psychosocial factors in bipolar disorder (CREST.BD) is a multidisciplinary network dedicated to advancing science and practice around psychosocial issues associated with bipolar disorder (BD), improving the care and wellness of people living with bipolar disorder, and strengthening services and supports for these individuals. CREST.BD specializes in community-based participatory research, in which research is conducted as a partnership between researchers and community members. This article describes the evolution of the CREST.BD network and CREST.BD’s commitment to community-based participatory research in bipolar disorder research. Examples of CREST.BD projects using community-based participatory research to study stigma, quality of life, psychosocial interventions, and creativity in bipolar disorder are highlighted, and opportunities and challenges of engaging in community-based participatory research in bipolar disorder specifically and the mental health field more broadly are discussed. This article demonstrates how CBPR can be used to enhance the relevance of research practices and products through community engagement, and how community-based participatory research can enrich knowledge exchange and mobilization

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) collaborative update of CANMAT guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder: Update 2013

The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments published guidelines for the management of bipolar disorder in 2005, with updates in 2007 and 2009. This third update, in conjunction with the International Society for Bipolar Disorders, reviews new evidence and is designed to be used in conjunction with the previous publications.The recommendations for the management of acute mania remain largely unchanged. Lithium, valproate, and several atypical antipsychotic agents continue to be first-line treatments for acute mania. Monotherapy with asenapine, paliperidone extended release (ER), and divalproex ER, as well as adjunctive asenapine, have been added as first-line options.For the management of bipolar depression, lithium, lamotrigine, and quetiapine monotherapy, as well as olanzapine plus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), and lithium or divalproex plus SSRI/bupropion remain first-line options. Lurasidone monotherapy and the combination of lurasidone or lamotrigine plus lithium or divalproex have been added as a second-line options. Ziprasidone alone or as adjunctive therapy, and adjunctive levetiracetam have been added as not-recommended options for the treatment of bipolar depression. Lithium, lamotrigine, valproate, olanzapine, quetiapine, aripiprazole, risperidone long-acting injection, and adjunctive ziprasidone continue to be first-line options for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. Asenapine alone or as adjunctive therapy have been added as third-line options. © 2012 John Wiley and Sons A/S

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) 2018 guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder

The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) previously published treatment guidelines for bipolar disorder in 2005, along with international commentaries and subsequent updates in 2007, 2009, and 2013. The last two updates were published in collaboration with the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD). These 2018 CANMAT and ISBD Bipolar Treatment Guidelines represent the significant advances in the field since the last full edition was published in 2005, including updates to diagnosis and management as well as new research into pharmacological and psychological treatments. These advances have been translated into clear and easy to use recommendations for first, second, and third- line treatments, with consideration given to levels of evidence for efficacy, clinical support based on experience, and consensus ratings of safety, tolerability, and treatment-emergent switch risk. New to these guidelines, hierarchical rankings were created for first and second- line treatments recommended for acute mania, acute depression, and maintenance treatment in bipolar I disorder. Created by considering the impact of each treatment across all phases of illness, this hierarchy will further assist clinicians in making evidence-based treatment decisions. Lithium, quetiapine, divalproex, asenapine, aripiprazole, paliperidone, risperidone, and cariprazine alone or in combination are recommended as first-line treatments for acute mania. First-line options for bipolar I depression include quetiapine, lurasidone plus lithium or divalproex, lithium, lamotrigine, lurasidone, or adjunctive lamotrigine. While medications that have been shown to be effective for the acute phase should generally be continued for the maintenance phase in bipolar I disorder, there are some exceptions (such as with antidepressants); and available data suggest that lithium, quetiapine, divalproex, lamotrigine, asenapine, and aripiprazole monotherapy or combination treatments should be considered first-line for those initiating or switching treatment during the maintenance phase. In addition to addressing issues in bipolar I disorder, these guidelines also provide an overview of, and recommendations for, clinical management of bipolar II disorder, as well as advice on specific populations, such as women at various stages of the reproductive cycle, children and adolescents, and older adults. There are also discussions on the impact of specific psychiatric and medical comorbidities such as substance use, anxiety, and metabolic disorders. Finally, an overview of issues related to safety and monitoring is provided. The CANMAT and ISBD groups hope that these guidelines become a valuable tool for practitioners across the globe

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) 2018 guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142934/1/bdi12609.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142934/2/bdi12609_am.pd

Common Data Elements to Facilitate Sharing and Re-use of Participant-Level Data: Assessment of Psychiatric Comorbidity Across Brain Disorders

The Ontario Brain Institute\u27s “Brain-CODE” is a large-scale informatics platform designed to support the collection, storage and integration of diverse types of data across several brain disorders as a means to understand underlying causes of brain dysfunction and developing novel approaches to treatment. By providing access to aggregated datasets on participants with and without different brain disorders, Brain-CODE will facilitate analyses both within and across diseases and cover multiple brain disorders and a wide array of data, including clinical, neuroimaging, and molecular. To help achieve these goals, consensus methodology was used to identify a set of core demographic and clinical variables that should be routinely collected across all participating programs. Establishment of Common Data Elements within Brain-CODE is critical to enable a high degree of consistency in data collection across studies and thus optimize the ability of investigators to analyze pooled participant-level data within and across brain disorders. Results are also presented using selected common data elements pooled across three studies to better understand psychiatric comorbidity in neurological disease (Alzheimer\u27s disease/amnesic mild cognitive impairment, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, cerebrovascular disease, frontotemporal dementia, and Parkinson\u27s disease)

Changes in pain following bilateral intermittent theta-burst, transcranial magnetic stimulation for depression: A retrospective chart review

ABSTRACTIntroduction Pain management in patients with chronic pain and comorbid depression is challenging and understudied. There is interest in intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS), a new modality of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). This retrospective review describes changes in pain, anxiety and depression throughout iTBS treatment at the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients who underwent their first acute series of iTBS treatments at the DLPFC for depression at a single institution between 2020 and 2023. Data on depression, anxiety, and pain were collected throughout iTBS treatment using the Beck Depression Inventory–II (BDI-II; higher scores indicate worse depression) and visual analogue scale (VAS; 0–100, higher scores indicate worse pain, anxiety, and depression). Nonparametric tests were used for all analyses.Results Of 104 patients, 52 reported moderate pain at baseline (50.0%). Median BDI-II scores decreased from 38.0 (interquartile range [IQR] = 29.0–44.0) to 24.0 (IQR = 9.0–36.0) from pre- to posttreatment (P < 0.001). Of the 32 patients with both pre- and posttreatment pain scores, there was a significant decrease from 40.0 (IQR = 5.5–71.8) to 15.0 (IQR = 3.5–53.8; P = 0.037). In patients with at least moderate pain at baseline, pain scores decreased from 71.0 (IQR = 55.0–80.0) to 20.0 (IQR = 11.0–71.0; P = 0.004). Ten of 32 patients with available pre- and posttreatment scores reported ≥30% reduction in pain scores (31.2%).Conclusion These preliminary results, suggesting decreases in pain following iTBS treatment, provide a rationale for future rigorous investigations to evaluate this intervention for depression and comorbid chronic pain

Pretreatment anxious depression as a predictor of side effect frequency and severity in escitalopram and aripiprazole adjunctive therapy

Abstract Objective To report side effect frequency and severity in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) receiving escitalopram and aripiprazole adjunctive therapy and to examine whether pretreatment anxious depression is associated with the number and presence of specific side effects. Methods 188 of the 211 trial participants provided information on side effects during treatment with escitalopram (10–20 mg) for 8 weeks, and nonresponders received further augmentation on aripiprazole (2–10 mg) adjunctive therapy for another 8 weeks, whereas responders remained on escitalopram. Participants completed the Toronto Side Effects Scale at weeks 2, 4, 10, and 12. Covariate‐adjusted negative binomial regression and Wilcoxon tests examined the association between anxious depression (GAD‐7 ≥ 10) and number of side effects. Covariate‐adjusted logistic regression and chi‐square tests explored the association between anxious depression and specific side effects. Results For both therapies, the most frequent side effects were also the most severe. They mostly related to the central nervous system (CNS) (i.e., drowsiness and nervousness). Between baseline and week 2, the number of side effects participants experienced (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.38, p = .010) or had trouble with (IRR = 1.34, p = .026) was significantly higher among those with anxious depression for escitalopram but not adjunctive aripiprazole. Further, odds of experiencing and having trouble with nervousness and agitation were also significantly higher in anxious depression for escitalopram only (p < .05). Conclusion Patients on escitalopram and aripiprazole adjunctive therapy may experience and have trouble with CNS side effects. Pretreatment anxious depression may predispose escitalopram recipients with MDD to developing side effects, especially those related to anxiety

Functional neuroimaging biomarkers of anhedonia response to escitalopram plus adjunct aripiprazole treatment for major depressive disorder

Background Identifying neuroimaging biomarkers of antidepressant response may help guide treatment decisions and advance precision medicine. Aims To examine the relationship between anhedonia and functional neurocircuitry in key reward processing brain regions in people with major depressive disorder receiving aripiprazole adjunct therapy with escitalopram. Method Data were collected as part of the CAN-BIND-1 study. Participants experiencing a current major depressive episode received escitalopram for 8 weeks; escitalopram non-responders received adjunct aripiprazole for an additional 8 weeks. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (on weeks 0 and 8) and clinical assessment of anhedonia (on weeks 0, 8 and 16) were completed. Seed-based correlational analysis was employed to examine the relationship between baseline resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC), using the nucleus accumbens (NAc) and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) as key regions of interest, and change in anhedonia severity after adjunct aripiprazole. Results Anhedonia severity significantly improved after treatment with adjunct aripiprazole. There was a positive correlation between anhedonia improvement and rsFC between the ACC and posterior cingulate cortex, ACC and posterior praecuneus, and NAc and posterior praecuneus. There was a negative correlation between anhedonia improvement and rsFC between the ACC and anterior praecuneus and NAc and anterior praecuneus. Conclusions Eight weeks of aripiprazole, adjunct to escitalopram, was associated with improved anhedonia symptoms. Changes in functional connectivity between key reward regions were associated with anhedonia improvement, suggesting aripiprazole may be an effective treatment for individuals experiencing reward-related deficits. Future studies are required to replicate our findings and explore their generalisability, using other agents with partial dopamine (D2) agonism and/or serotonin (5-HT2A) antagonism

Pain severity and pain interference during major depressive episodes treated with escitalopram and aripiprazole adjunctive therapy: a CAN-BIND-1 report

Escitalopram may have pain-alleviating effects for patients with comorbid pain and depression. This study aimed to quantify improvements in pain for patients on escitalopram and adjunctive aripiprazole. A secondary analysis of the CAN-BIND-1 trial was conducted which only included participants with a current depressive episode and pain. Participants received escitalopram (10–20mg) for eight weeks and treatment response was defined as a reduction in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) of at least 50% from baseline. Non-responders at week 8 received adjunctive aripiprazole (2–10mg) for another eight weeks. The Brief Pain Inventory's pain severity (PSC) and pain interference (PIC) composite scores were measured at baseline, week 8, and week 16. Linear regression was used to determine how PSC and PIC differed between treatment responders and non-responders. Eighty-two participants with pain and depression received escitalopram. PSC and PIC decreased significantly regardless of treatment response at week 8, although responders had significantly lower PSC and PIC than non-responders. For the group receiving aripiprazole after week 8, neither PSC nor PIC improved further. Further research is needed to identify interventions that might treat both pain and depression symptoms