Helle K Schoeyen1, Ute Kessler, Ole A Andreassen, Bjoern H Auestad, Per Bergsholm, Ulrik F Malt, Gunnar Morken, Ketil J Oedegaard, Arne Vaaler. 1. From the Division of Psychiatry and the Research Department, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway; the Division of Psychiatry, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway; the Institute of Clinical Medicine and Neuropsychiatry, the Department of Emergency Mental Health Services, and the Gerontopsychiatric Unit, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevaal, Norway; the Østmarka Department of Psychiatry, St. Olav University Hospital of Trondheim, Trondheim, Norway; the Psychiatry Clinic, Oslo University Hospital, Aker, Norway; and the Psychiatry Clinic, Østfold County Hospital, Fredrikstad, Norway.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is regarded by many clinicians as the most effective treatment for treatment-resistant bipolar depression, but no randomized controlled trials have been conducted, to the authors' knowledge. They compared efficacy measures of ECT and algorithm-based pharmacological treatment in treatment-resistant bipolar depression. METHOD: This multicenter, randomized controlled trial was carried out at seven acute-care psychiatric inpatient clinics throughout Norway and included 73 bipolar disorder patients with treatment-resistant depression. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either ECT or algorithm-based pharmacological treatment. ECT included three sessions per week for up to 6 weeks, right unilateral placement of stimulus electrodes, and brief pulse stimulation. RESULTS: Linear mixed-effects modeling analysis revealed that ECT was significantly more effective than algorithm-based pharmacological treatment. The mean scores at the end of the 6-week treatment period were lower for the ECT group than for the pharmacological treatment group: by 6.6 points on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (SE=2.05, 95% CI=2.5-10.6), by 9.4 points on the 30-item version of the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician-Rated (SE=2.49, 95% CI=4.6-14.3), and by 0.7 points on the Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder (SE=0.31, 95% CI=0.13-1.36). The response rate was significantly higher in the ECT group than in the group that received algorithm-based pharmacological treatment (73.9% versus 35.0%), but the remission rate did not differ between the groups (34.8% versus 30.0%). CONCLUSION:Remission rates remained modest regardless of treatment choice for this challenging clinical condition.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is regarded by many clinicians as the most effective treatment for treatment-resistant bipolar depression, but no randomized controlled trials have been conducted, to the authors' knowledge. They compared efficacy measures of ECT and algorithm-based pharmacological treatment in treatment-resistant bipolar depression. METHOD: This multicenter, randomized controlled trial was carried out at seven acute-care psychiatric inpatient clinics throughout Norway and included 73 bipolar disorderpatients with treatment-resistant depression. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either ECT or algorithm-based pharmacological treatment. ECT included three sessions per week for up to 6 weeks, right unilateral placement of stimulus electrodes, and brief pulse stimulation. RESULTS: Linear mixed-effects modeling analysis revealed that ECT was significantly more effective than algorithm-based pharmacological treatment. The mean scores at the end of the 6-week treatment period were lower for the ECT group than for the pharmacological treatment group: by 6.6 points on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (SE=2.05, 95% CI=2.5-10.6), by 9.4 points on the 30-item version of the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician-Rated (SE=2.49, 95% CI=4.6-14.3), and by 0.7 points on the Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder (SE=0.31, 95% CI=0.13-1.36). The response rate was significantly higher in the ECT group than in the group that received algorithm-based pharmacological treatment (73.9% versus 35.0%), but the remission rate did not differ between the groups (34.8% versus 30.0%). CONCLUSION: Remission rates remained modest regardless of treatment choice for this challenging clinical condition.
Authors: Konstantinos N Fountoulakis; Lakshmi Yatham; Heinz Grunze; Eduard Vieta; Allan Young; Pierre Blier; Siegfried Kasper; Hans Jurgen Moeller Journal: Int J Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 5.176
Authors: Victor M. Tang; Daniel M. Blumberger; Julia Dimitrova; Alanah Throop; Shawn M. McClintock; Daphne Voineskos; Jonathan Downar; Yuliya Knyahnytska; Benoit H. Mulsant; Paul B. Fitzgerald; Zafiris J. Daskalakis Journal: J Psychiatry Neurosci Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 6.186
Authors: Bernardo Sampaio-Junior; Gabriel Tortella; Lucas Borrione; Adriano H Moffa; Rodrigo Machado-Vieira; Eric Cretaz; Adriano Fernandes da Silva; Renério Fraguas; Luana V Aparício; Izio Klein; Beny Lafer; Stephan Goerigk; Isabela Martins Benseñor; Paulo Andrade Lotufo; Wagner F Gattaz; André Russowsky Brunoni Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Lakshmi N Yatham; Sidney H Kennedy; Sagar V Parikh; Ayal Schaffer; David J Bond; Benicio N Frey; Verinder Sharma; Benjamin I Goldstein; Soham Rej; Serge Beaulieu; Martin Alda; Glenda MacQueen; Roumen V Milev; Arun Ravindran; Claire O'Donovan; Diane McIntosh; Raymond W Lam; Gustavo Vazquez; Flavio Kapczinski; Roger S McIntyre; Jan Kozicky; Shigenobu Kanba; Beny Lafer; Trisha Suppes; Joseph R Calabrese; Eduard Vieta; Gin Malhi; Robert M Post; Michael Berk Journal: Bipolar Disord Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 6.744
Authors: G M Goodwin; P M Haddad; I N Ferrier; J K Aronson; Trh Barnes; A Cipriani; D R Coghill; S Fazel; J R Geddes; H Grunze; E A Holmes; O Howes; S Hudson; N Hunt; I Jones; I C Macmillan; H McAllister-Williams; D R Miklowitz; R Morriss; M Munafò; C Paton; B J Saharkian; Kea Saunders; Jma Sinclair; D Taylor; E Vieta; A H Young Journal: J Psychopharmacol Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 4.153