Article

The International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) Task Force report on the nomenclature of course and outcome in bipolar disorders.

Department of Psychiatry, Division of Mood and Anxiety Disorders, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, MC 7792, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.
Bipolar Disorders (Impact Factor: 4.62). 09/2009; 11(5):453-73. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-5618.2009.00726.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Via an international panel of experts, this paper attempts to document, review, interpret, and propose operational definitions used to describe the course of bipolar disorders for worldwide use, and to disseminate consensus opinion, supported by the existing literature, in order to better predict course and treatment outcomes.
Under the auspices of the International Society for Bipolar Disorders, a task force was convened to examine, report, discuss, and integrate findings from the scientific literature related to observational and clinical trial studies in order to reach consensus and propose terminology describing course and outcome in bipolar disorders.
Consensus opinion was reached regarding the definition of nine terms (response, remission, recovery, relapse, recurrence, subsyndromal states, predominant polarity, switch, and functional outcome) commonly used to describe course and outcomes in bipolar disorders. Further studies are needed to validate the proposed definitions.
Determination and dissemination of a consensus nomenclature serve as the first step toward producing a validated and standardized system to define course and outcome in bipolar disorders in order to identify predictors of outcome and effects of treatment. The task force acknowledges that there is limited validity to the proposed terms, as for the most part they represent a consensus opinion. These definitions need to be validated in existing databases and in future studies, and the primary goals of the task force are to stimulate research on the validity of proposed concepts and further standardize the technical nomenclature.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
224 Views
  • Fortschritte der Neurologie-Psychiatrie. 06/2014; 82(6):346-360.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BackgroundA large number of patients with bipolar disorder (BD) can be characterized by predominant polarity (PP), which has important implications for relapse prevention. Recently, Popovic et al. (EUR NEUROPSYCHOPHARM 22(5): 339¿346, 2012) proposed the Polarity Index (PI) as a helpful tool in the maintenance treatment of BD. As a numeric expression, it reflects the efficacy of drugs used in treatment of BD. In the present retrospective study, we aimed to validate this Index in a large and well characterized German bipolar sample.Methods We investigated 336 bipolar patients (BP) according to their PP and calculated the PI for each patient in order to prove if maintenance treatment differs according to their PP. Furthermore, we analysed whether PP is associated with demographic and clinical characteristics of BP.ResultsIn our sample, 63.9% of patients fulfilled criteria of PP: 169 patients were classified as depressive predominant polarity (DPP), 46 patients as manic predominant polarity (MPP). The two groups differed significantly in their drug regime: Patients with DPP were more often medicated with lamotrigine and antidepressants, patients with MPP were more often treated with lithium, valproate, carbamazepine and first generation antipsychotics. However, patients with DPP and MPP did not differ significantly with respect to the PI, although they received evidence-based and guideline-driven treatment.Conclusion The reason for this negative finding might well be that for several drugs, which were used frequently, no PI value is available. Nevertheless we suggest PP as an important concept in the planning of BD maintenance treatment.
    BMC Psychiatry 11/2014; 14(1):322. · 2.24 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background In a previous meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing lithium with placebo as a long-term treatment in bipolar disorders, we observed a clear preventative effect for manic episodes; however, the effect was equivocal for depressive episodes. Since then, the evidence base has grown further. In this update, we furthermore present the data on efficacy of lithium in comparison to alternative drug treatments. In addition, we analyze the data comparing lithium with placebo and other treatments regarding drop-outs due to reasons other than a mood episode and completion of study (no mood episode and no drop-out to reasons other than a mood episode). Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were sought comparing lithium with placebo and lithium with an alternative treatment in bipolar disorders where the stated intent of treatment was prevention of mood episodes. To this purpose, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was searched. Reference lists of relevant papers and major textbooks of mood disorders were examined. Authors, other experts in the field, and pharmaceutical companies were contacted for knowledge of suitable trials, published or unpublished. Results For the comparison of lithium with placebo, seven trials (1,580 participants) were included. Lithium was more effective than placebo in preventing overall mood episodes (random effects RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.82), manic episodes (random effects RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.71), and, dependent on the type of analyses applied, depressive episodes (random effects RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.03; fixed effect RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.88). Lithium was inferior to placebo in leading to drop-outs for reasons other than a mood episode (random effects RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.65) but superior to placebo on study completion (random effects RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.55). For the comparison of lithium with anticonvulsants, seven trials were included (n = 1,305). In prevention of manic episodes, lithium showed superiority compared to anticonvulsants (random effects RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.00). However, there was no significant difference regarding prevention of overall mood episodes, depressive episodes, dropping-out to reasons other than a mood episode, or study completion. Conclusions The evidence base for lithium in the long-term treatment of bipolar disorders has strengthened. With no other drug available having such ample and consistent evidence for its efficacy lithium remains the most valuable treatment option in this indication.
    International Journal of Bipolar Disorders. 12/2014; 2(1).

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
27 Downloads
Available from
May 31, 2014