Terence A Ketter1, Shefali Miller2, Bernardo Dell'Osso3, Joseph R Calabrese4, Mark A Frye5, Leslie Citrome6. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. Electronic address: tketter@stanford.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA; Sierra Pacific Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Centers, Palo Alto VA Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, University of Milan, Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda, Milan, Italy. 4. Department of Psychiatry, Case Western Reserve, Cleveland, OH, USA. 5. Department of Psychiatry & Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 6. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bipolar depression is more pervasive than mania, but has fewer evidence-based treatments. METHODS: Using data from multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials and meta-analyses, we assessed the number needed to treat (NNT) for response and the number needed to harm (NNH) for selected side effects for older and newer acute bipolar depression treatments. RESULTS: The 2 older FDA-approved treatments for bipolar depression, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (OFC) and quetiapine (QTP) monotherapy, were efficacious (response NNT=4 for OFC, NNT=6 for QTP), but similarly likely to yield harms (OFC weight gain NNH=6; QTP sedation/somnolence NNH=5). Commonly used unapproved agents (lamotrigine monotherapy and adjunctive antidepressants) tended to be well-tolerated (with double-digit NNHs), although this advantage was at the cost of inadequate efficacy (response NNT=12 for lamotrigine, NNT=29 for antidepressants). In contrast, the newly approved agent lurasidone was not only efficacious (response NNT=5 for monotherapy, NNT=7 as adjunctive therapy), but also had enhanced tolerability (NNH=15 for akathisia [monotherapy], NNH=16 for nausea [adjunctive]). Although adjunctive armodafinil appeared well tolerated, its efficacy in bipolar depression has not been consistently demonstrated in randomized controlled trials. LIMITATIONS: NNT and NNH are categorical metrics; only selected NNHs were assessed; limited generalizability of efficacy (versus effectiveness) studies. CONCLUSION: For acute bipolar depression, older approved treatments may have utility in high-urgency situations, whereas lamotrigine and antidepressants may have utility in low-urgency situations. Newly approved lurasidone may ultimately prove useful in diverse situations. New drug development needs to focus on not only efficacy but also on tolerability.
BACKGROUND:Bipolar depression is more pervasive than mania, but has fewer evidence-based treatments. METHODS: Using data from multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials and meta-analyses, we assessed the number needed to treat (NNT) for response and the number needed to harm (NNH) for selected side effects for older and newer acute bipolar depression treatments. RESULTS: The 2 older FDA-approved treatments for bipolar depression, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (OFC) and quetiapine (QTP) monotherapy, were efficacious (response NNT=4 for OFC, NNT=6 for QTP), but similarly likely to yield harms (OFC weight gain NNH=6; QTP sedation/somnolence NNH=5). Commonly used unapproved agents (lamotrigine monotherapy and adjunctive antidepressants) tended to be well-tolerated (with double-digit NNHs), although this advantage was at the cost of inadequate efficacy (response NNT=12 for lamotrigine, NNT=29 for antidepressants). In contrast, the newly approved agent lurasidone was not only efficacious (response NNT=5 for monotherapy, NNT=7 as adjunctive therapy), but also had enhanced tolerability (NNH=15 for akathisia [monotherapy], NNH=16 for nausea [adjunctive]). Although adjunctive armodafinil appeared well tolerated, its efficacy in bipolar depression has not been consistently demonstrated in randomized controlled trials. LIMITATIONS: NNT and NNH are categorical metrics; only selected NNHs were assessed; limited generalizability of efficacy (versus effectiveness) studies. CONCLUSION: For acute bipolar depression, older approved treatments may have utility in high-urgency situations, whereas lamotrigine and antidepressants may have utility in low-urgency situations. Newly approved lurasidone may ultimately prove useful in diverse situations. New drug development needs to focus on not only efficacy but also on tolerability.
Keywords:
Antidepressants; Antipsychotics; Armodafinil; Bipolar depression; Bipolar disorder; Lamotrigine; Lurasidone; Mood stabilizers; Number needed to harm; Number needed to treat; Olanzapine plus fluoxetine; Quetiapine
Authors: Sofian Berrouiguet; Maria Luisa Barrigón; Sara A Brandt; George C Nitzburg; Santiago Ovejero; Raquel Alvarez-Garcia; Juan Carballo; Michel Walter; Romain Billot; Philippe Lenca; David Delgado-Gomez; Juliette Ropars; Ivan de la Calle Gonzalez; Philippe Courtet; Enrique Baca-García Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Jonathan B Savitz; T Kent Teague; Masaya Misaki; Matt Macaluso; Brent E Wurfel; Matt Meyer; Douglas Drevets; William Yates; Ondria Gleason; Wayne C Drevets; Sheldon H Preskorn Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: M K Steinan; J Scott; T V Lagerberg; I Melle; O A Andreassen; A E Vaaler; G Morken Journal: Acta Psychiatr Scand Date: 2015-11-21 Impact factor: 6.392