Antidepressants for the Acute Treatment of Bipolar Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
ABSTRACT The role of antidepressants in the acute treatment of bipolar depression remains a contentious issue. A previous meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concluded that antidepressants were effective and safe for bipolar depression. Several trials published since then suggest that antidepressants may not be as beneficial as previously concluded. The current systematic review and meta-analyses reexamine the efficacy and safety of antidepressant use for the acute treatment of bipolar depression.
EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for double-blind RCTs published from 2003 to 2009 using the following diagnostic medical subject heading (MESH) terms: bipolar disorder, bipolar depression, bipolar I disorder, bipolar II disorder, bipolar III disorder, bipolar mania, cyclothymia, manic depressive psychosis, mixed mania and depression, and rapid cycling and bipolar disorder. Databases of trial registries were also searched for unpublished RCTs. These searches were supplemented by hand searches of relevant articles and review articles.
Trials that compared acute (< 16 wk) antidepressant treatment with either an active drug or a placebo comparator in adult bipolar patients, depressive phase were eligible for inclusion. Main outcome measures were clinical response, remission, and affective switch.
Six RCTs (N = 1,034) were identified since publication in 2004 of the first meta-analysis that assessed antidepressant use in the acute treatment of bipolar depression. These studies were combined with earlier studies for a total of 15 studies containing 2,373 patients. Antidepressants were not statistically superior to placebo or other current standard treatment for bipolar depression. Antidepressants were not associated with an increased risk of switch. Studies that employed more sensitive criteria to define switch did report elevated switch rates for antidepressants.
Although antidepressants were found to be safe for the acute treatment of bipolar depression, their lack of efficacy may limit their clinical utility. Further high-quality studies are required to address the existing limitations in the literature.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Migraine is frequently comorbid with major depressive disorder, the presence of which confers increased disability and various clinical challenges. The present article reviews empirically supported pharmacologic and cognitive-behavioral interventions for depression, as well as the emerging yet generally mixed efficacy for various complementary and alternative medicine depression treatments. Clinical implications and treatment strategies for migraine patients with comorbid depression are discussed. The literature reviewed here draws together clinical practice options for clinicians. © 2015 American Headache Society.Headache The Journal of Head and Face Pain 02/2015; 55(2). DOI:10.1111/head.12521 · 3.19 Impact Factor
- 03/2015; 13(1):102-112. DOI:10.1176/appi.focus.130119
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The prevalence of bipolar spectrum disorders in the community is under debate and the prescription of antidepressant drugs (ADs) in bipolar depression appears to be an underestimated problem. To evaluate the prevalence of bipolar disorders by means of a screening instrument in seven communities within six regions of Italy and evaluate the appropriateness and number of prescriptions for ADs in bipolar depression. Study design: community survey. Study population: samples randomly drawn, after stratification from the adult population of municipal records. Sample size: 4999 people from seven communities within six regions of Italy. Tools: questionnaire on psychotropic drug consumption, prescription, health services utilization; Structured Clinical Interview NP for DSM-IV modified (ANTAS); Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ). Training: interviewers were trained psychologists or medical doctors. Study limitations: the population studied did not represent a nationally representative multistage clustered area probability sample of households. 3398 subjects were interviewed (68% of recruited sample). Positivity at MDQ (MDQ+) was higher in males (3.4% vs. 2.8%) but the difference was not significant (OR=1.2, P=0.37). The association between MDQ+ and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) was statistically significant for both males (OR=14.9, P<0.0001) and females (OR=8.3, P<0.001); 30% of subjects with MDQ+ and MDD lifetime diagnosis were taking ADs. These overall rates of being MDQ+ are similar to community surveys conducted within USA and the use of ADs in people with MDQ+ and MDD diagnoses are.Journal of Affective Disorders 02/2012; 136(3):775-80. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2011.09.041 · 3.71 Impact Factor