Article

Lithium Treatment Moderate-Dose Use Study (LiTMUS) for Bipolar Disorder: A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Optimized Personalized Treatment With and Without Lithium

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
American Journal of Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 13.56). 01/2013; 170(1):102-10. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12060751
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE Lithium salts, once the mainstay of therapy for bipolar disorder, have tolerability issues at a higher dosage that often limit adherence. The authors investigated the comparative effectiveness of more tolerable dosages of lithium as part of optimized personalized treatment (OPT). METHOD The authors randomly assigned 283 bipolar disorder outpatients to 6 months of open, flexible, moderate dosages of lithium plus OPT or to 6 months of OPT alone. The primary outcome measures were the Clinical Global Impression Scale for Bipolar Disorder-Severity (CGI-BP-S) and "necessary clinical adjustments" (medication adjustments per month). Secondary outcome measures included mood symptoms and functioning. The authors also assessed sustained remission (defined as a CGI-BP-S score ≤2 for 2 months) and treatment with second-generation antipsychotics. The authors hypothesized that lithium plus OPT would result in greater clinical improvement and fewer necessary clinical adjustments. RESULTS The authors observed no statistically significant advantage of lithium plus OPT on CGI-BP-S scores, necessary clinical adjustments, or proportion with sustained remission. Both groups had similar outcomes across secondary clinical and functional measures. Fewer patients in the lithium-plus-OPT group received second-generation antipsychotics compared with the OPT-only group (48.3% and 62.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS In this pragmatic comparative effectiveness study, a moderate but tolerated dosage of lithium plus OPT conferred no symptomatic advantage when compared with OPT alone, but the lithium-plus-OPT group had less exposure to second-generation antipsychotics. Only about one-quarter of patients in both groups achieved sustained remission of symptoms. These findings highlight the persistent and chronic nature of bipolar disorder as well as the magnitude of unmet needs in its treatment.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Charles L Bowden, Jun 23, 2015
2 Followers
 · 
136 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper describes the development and use of the Medication Recommendation Tracking Form (MRTF), a novel method for capturing physician prescribing behavior and clinical decision making. The Bipolar Trials Network developed and implemented the MRTF in a comparative effectiveness study for bipolar disorder (LiTMUS). The MRTF was used to assess the frequency, types, and reasons for medication adjustments. Changes in treatment were operationalized by the metric Necessary Clinical Adjustments (NCA), defined as medication adjustments to reduce symptoms, optimize treatment response and functioning, or to address intolerable side effects. Randomized treatment groups did not differ in rates of NCAs, however, responders had significantly fewer NCAs than non-responders. Patients who had more NCAs during their previous visit had significantly lower odds of responding at the current visit. For each one-unit increase in previous CGI-BP depression score and CGI-BP overall severity score, patients had an increased NCA rate of 13% and 15%, respectively at the present visit. Ten-unit increases in previous Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores resulted in an 18% and 14% increase in rates of NCAs, respectively. Patients with fewer NCAs had increased quality of life and decreased functional impairment. The MRTF standardizes the reporting and rationale for medication adjustments and provides an innovative metric for clinical effectiveness. As the first tool in psychiatry to track the types and reasons for medication changes, it has important implications for training new clinicians and examining clinical decision making. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00667745).
    Journal of Psychiatric Research 07/2013; 47(11). DOI:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2013.07.009 · 4.09 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Few prospective studies examine the impact of ethnicity or race on outcomes with lithium for bipolar disorder. This exploratory study examines differences in lithium response and treatment outcomes in Hispanics, African Americans, and non-Hispanic whites with bipolar disorder in the Lithium Treatment Moderate Dose Use Study (LiTMUS). LiTMUS was a six-site randomized controlled trial of low-dose lithium added to optimized treatment (OPT; personalized, evidence-based pharmacotherapy) vs. OPT alone in outpatients with bipolar disorder. Of 283 participants, 47 African Americans, 39 Hispanics, and 175 non-Hispanic whites were examined. We predicted minority groups would have more negative medication attitudes and higher attrition rates, but better clinical outcomes. African Americans in the lithium group improved more on depression and life functioning compared to whites over the 6 month study. African Americans in the OPT only group had marginal improvement on depression symptoms. For Hispanics, satisfaction with life did not significantly improve in the OPT only group, in contrast to whites and African Americans who improved over time on all measures. Attitudes toward medications did not differ across ethnic/racial groups. African Americans show some greater improvements with lithium than non-Hispanic whites, and Hispanics showed more consistent improvements in the lithium group. The impact of low-dose lithium should be studied in a larger sample as there may be particular benefit for African Americans and Hispanics. Given that the control group (regardless of ethnicity/race) had significant improvements, optimized treatment may be beneficial for any ethnic group. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 03/2015; 178:224-228. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2015.02.035 · 3.71 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Practical clinical trials (PCTs) are randomized experiments under typical practice conditions with the aim of testing the "real-life" benefits and risks of therapeutic interventions. Influential PCTs have been conducted in cardiology, oncology, and internal medicine. Psychotropic medications are widely and increasingly used in medical practice. This review examines recent progress in conducting PCTs in psychopharmacology. The January 2000 to October 2014 MEDLINE, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for peer-reviewed publications of PCTs with at least 100 subjects per treatment arm. Most PCTs in psychiatry evaluated mental health services or psychosocial interventions rather than specific pharmacotherapies. Of 157 PCTs in psychiatry, 30 (19%) were in psychopharmacology, with a median of 2 publications per year and no increase during the period of observation. Sample size ranged from 200 to 18,154; only 11 studies randomized 500 patients or more. Psychopharmacology PCTs were equally likely to be funded by industry as by public agencies. There were 10 PCTs of antidepressants, for a total of 4206 patients (in comparison with at least 46 PCTs of antihypertensive medications, for a total of 208,014 patients). Some psychopharmacology PCTs used suicidal behavior, treatment discontinuation, or mortality as primary outcome and produced effectiveness and safety data that have influenced both practice guidelines and regulatory decisions. Practical clinical trials can constitute an important source of information for clinicians, patients, regulators, and policy makers but have been relatively underused in psychopharmacology. Electronic medical records and integrated practice research networks offer promising platforms for a more efficient conduct of PCTs.
    Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 02/2015; DOI:10.1097/JCP.0000000000000295 · 3.76 Impact Factor