The Combined Dexamethasone/CRH Test (DEX/CRH Test) and Prediction of Acute Treatment Response in Major Depression

In this study the predictive value of the combined dexamethasone/CRH test (DEX/CRH test) for acute antidepressant response was investigated. In 114 depressed inpatients suffering from unipolar or bipolar depression (sample 1) the DEX/CRH test was performed at admission and shortly before discharge. During their stay in the hospital patients received different antidepressant treatment regimens. At admission, the rate of nonsuppression (basal cortisol levels >75.3 nmol/l) was 24.6% and was not related to the later therapeutic response. Moreover, 45 out of 114 (39.5%) patients showed an enhancement of HPA axis function at discharge in spite of clinical improvement. In a second sample, 40 depressed patients were treated either with reboxetine or mirtazapine for 5 weeks. The DEX/CRH test was performed before, after 1 week, and after 5 weeks of pharmacotherapy. Attenuation of HPA axis activity after 1 week was associated with a more pronounced alleviation of depressive symptoms after 5-week mirtazapine treatment, whereas downregulation of HPA system activity after 5 weeks was related to clinical response to reboxetine. However, early improvement of HPA axis dysregulation was not necessarily followed by a beneficial treatment outcome. Taken together, performance of a single DEX/CRH test does not predict the therapeutic response. The best predictor for response seems to be an early attenuation of HPA axis activity within 1 or 2 weeks. However, early improvement of HPA system dysfunction is not a sufficient condition for a favourable response. Since a substantial part of depressive patients display a persistence of HPA axis hyperactivity at discharge, downregulation of HPA system function is not a necessary condition for acute clinical improvement either. Our data underline the importance of HPA axis dysregulation for treatment outcome in major depression, although restoration of HPA system dysfunction seems to be neither a necessary nor a sufficient determinant for acute treatment response

Lithium side effects and toxicity: prevalence and management strategies

Despite its virtually universal acceptance as the gold standard in treating bipolar disorder, prescription rates for lithium have been decreasing recently. Although this observation is multifactorial, one obvious potential contributor is the side effect and toxicity burden associated with lithium. Additionally, side effect concerns assuredly play some role in lithium nonadherence. This paper summarizes the knowledge base on side effects and toxicity and suggests optimal management of these problems. Thirst and excessive urination, nausea and diarrhea and tremor are rather common side effects that are typically no more than annoying even though they are rather prevalent. A simple set of management strategies that involve the timing of the lithium dose, minimizing lithium levels within the therapeutic range and, in some situations, the prescription of side effect antidotes will minimize the side effect burden for patients. In contrast, weight gain and cognitive impairment from lithium tend to be more distressing to patients, more difficult to manage and more likely to be associated with lithium nonadherence. Lithium has adverse effects on the kidneys, thyroid gland and parathyroid glands, necessitating monitoring of these organ functions through periodic blood tests. In most cases, lithium-associated renal effects are relatively mild. A small but measurable percentage of lithium-treated patients will show progressive renal impairment. Infrequently, lithium will need to be discontinued because of the progressive renal insufficiency. Lithium-induced hypothyroidism is relatively common but easily diagnosed and treated. Hyperparathyroidism from lithium is a relatively more recently recognized phenomenon

Aripiprazole in the Maintenance Treatment of Bipolar Disorder: A Critical Review of the Evidence and Its Dissemination into the Scientific Literature

A systematic search of the literature reveals limited evidence to support use of aripiprazole, a second-generation antipsychotic medication, in maintenance therapy of bipolar disorder, despite widespread use

Systematic review of interventions for treating or preventing antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia

Background: Antipsychotic medication can cause tardive dyskinesia (TD) – late-onset, involuntary, repetitive movements, often involving the face and tongue. TD occurs in > 20% of adults taking antipsychotic medication (first-generation antipsychotics for > 3 months), with this proportion increasing by 5% per year among those who continue to use these drugs. The incidence of TD among those taking newer antipsychotics is not different from the rate in people who have used older-generation drugs in moderate doses. Studies of TD have previously been found to be limited, with no treatment approach shown to be effective. Objectives: To summarise the clinical effectiveness and safety of treatments for TD by updating past Cochrane reviews with new evidence and improved methods; to undertake public consultation to gauge the importance of the topic for people living with TD/the risk of TD; and to make available all data from relevant trials. Data sources: All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Review methods: Cochrane review methods, network meta-analysis (NMA). Design: Systematic reviews, patient and public involvement consultation and NMA. Setting: Any setting, inpatient or outpatient. Participants: For systematic reviews, adults with TD who have been taking a stable antipsychotic drug dose for > 3 months. Interventions: Any, with emphasis on those relevant to UK NHS practice. Main outcome measures: Any measure of TD, global assessments and adverse effects/events. Results: We included 112 studies (nine Cochrane reviews). Overall, risk of bias showed little sign of improvement over two decades. Taking the outcome of ‘TD symptoms improved to a clinically important extent’, we identified two trials investigating reduction of antipsychotic dose [n = 17, risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.04; very low quality]. Switching was investigated twice in trials that could not be combined (switching to risperidone vs. antipsychotic withdrawal: one RCT, n = 42, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.89; low quality; switching to quetiapine vs. haloperidol: one RCT, n = 45, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.22; low quality). In addition to RCTs, six observational studies compared antipsychotic discontinuation with decreased or increased dosage, and there was no clear evidence that any of these strategies had a beneficial effect on TD symptoms (very low-quality evidence). We evaluated the addition to standard antipsychotic care of several treatments, but not anticholinergic treatments, for which we identified no trials. We found no clear effect of the addition of either benzodiazepines (two RCTs, n = 32, RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.6 to 2.09; very low quality) or vitamin E (six RCTs, n = 264, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.01; low quality). Buspirone as an adjunctive treatment did have some effect in one small study (n = 42, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.84; low quality), as did hypnosis and relaxation (one RCT, n = 15, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.94; very low quality). We identified no studies focusing on TD in people with dementia. The NMA model found indirect estimates to be imprecise and failed to produce useful summaries on relative effects of interventions or interpretable results for decision-making. Consultation with people with/at risk of TD highlighted that management of TD remains a concern, and found that people are deeply disappointed at the length of time it has taken researchers to address the issue. Limitations: Most studies remain small and poorly reported. Conclusions: Clinicians, policy-makers and people with/at risk of TD are little better informed than they were decades ago. Underpowered trials of limited quality repeatedly fail to provide answers. Future work: TD reviews have data from current trials extracted, tabulated and traceable to source. The NMA highlights one context in which support for this technique is ill advised. All relevant trials, even if not primarily addressing the issue of TD, should report appropriate binary outcomes on groups of people with this problem. Randomised trials of treatments for people with established TD are indicated. These should be large (> 800 participants), necessitating accrual through accurate local/national registers, including an intervention with acceptable treatments and recording outcomes used in clinical practice. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD4201502045. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme