Kirsten Bond1, Ian M Anderson2. 1. Specialist Service for Affective Disorders, Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust, Manchester, UK. 2. Neuroscience and Psychiatry Unit, Institute of Brain, Behaviour and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Previous reviews have concluded that interventions including psychoeducation are effective in preventing relapse in bipolar disorder, but the efficacy of psychoeducation itself has not been systematically reviewed. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of psychoeducation for bipolar disorder in preventing relapse and other outcomes, and to identify factors that relate to clinical outcomes. METHODS: We employed the systematic review of randomized controlled trials of psychoeducation in participants with bipolar disorder not in an acute illness episode, compared with treatment-as-usual, and placebo or active interventions. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) for non-relapse into any episode, mania/hypomania, and depression were calculated using an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, assigning dropouts to relapse, with a sensitivity analysis in which dropouts were assigned to non-relapse (optimistic ITT). RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included, eight of which provided data on relapse. Although heterogeneity in the data warrants caution, psychoeducation appeared to be effective in preventing any relapse [n = 7; OR: 1.98-2.75; number needed to treat (NNT): 5-7, depending on the method of analysis] and manic/hypomanic relapse (n = 8; OR: 1.68-2.52; NNT: 6-8), but not depressive relapse. Group, but not individually, delivered interventions were effective against both poles of relapse; the duration of follow-up and hours of therapy explained some of the heterogeneity. Psychoeducation improved medication adherence and short-term knowledge about medication. No consistent effects on mood symptoms, quality of life, or functioning were found. CONCLUSIONS: Group psychoeducation appears to be effective in preventing relapse in bipolar disorder, with less evidence for individually delivered interventions. Better understanding of mediating mechanisms is needed to optimize efficacy and personalize treatment.
OBJECTIVES: Previous reviews have concluded that interventions including psychoeducation are effective in preventing relapse in bipolar disorder, but the efficacy of psychoeducation itself has not been systematically reviewed. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of psychoeducation for bipolar disorder in preventing relapse and other outcomes, and to identify factors that relate to clinical outcomes. METHODS: We employed the systematic review of randomized controlled trials of psychoeducation in participants with bipolar disorder not in an acute illness episode, compared with treatment-as-usual, and placebo or active interventions. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) for non-relapse into any episode, mania/hypomania, and depression were calculated using an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, assigning dropouts to relapse, with a sensitivity analysis in which dropouts were assigned to non-relapse (optimistic ITT). RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included, eight of which provided data on relapse. Although heterogeneity in the data warrants caution, psychoeducation appeared to be effective in preventing any relapse [n = 7; OR: 1.98-2.75; number needed to treat (NNT): 5-7, depending on the method of analysis] and manic/hypomanic relapse (n = 8; OR: 1.68-2.52; NNT: 6-8), but not depressive relapse. Group, but not individually, delivered interventions were effective against both poles of relapse; the duration of follow-up and hours of therapy explained some of the heterogeneity. Psychoeducation improved medication adherence and short-term knowledge about medication. No consistent effects on mood symptoms, quality of life, or functioning were found. CONCLUSIONS: Group psychoeducation appears to be effective in preventing relapse in bipolar disorder, with less evidence for individually delivered interventions. Better understanding of mediating mechanisms is needed to optimize efficacy and personalize treatment.
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: A Carlo Altamura; Massimiliano Buoli; Bruno Cesana; Bernardo Dell'Osso; Gianluigi Tacchini; Umberto Albert; Andrea Fagiolini; Andrea de Bartolomeis; Giuseppe Maina; Emilio Sacchetti Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 5.270
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: Thilo Deckersbach; Amy T Peters; Conor Shea; Aishwarya Gosai; Jonathan P Stange; Andrew D Peckham; Kristen K Ellard; Michael W Otto; Scott L Rauch; Darin D Dougherty; Andrew A Nierenberg Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 4.839
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
Authors: Elisabet Casellas; Beatriz Raventós; Marina Piñeiro-Ríos; Helena Navarro-Martínez; Maite Castillón-Espezel; Maria J Portella; Ana Martín-Blanco Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 3.390