U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Cover of Treatment for Bipolar Disorder in Adults: A Systematic Review

Treatment for Bipolar Disorder in Adults: A Systematic Review

Comparative Effectiveness Review, No. 208

Investigators: , Ph.D., M.B.A., , Ph.D., L.P., , M.H.P., , Ph.D., , M.S., M.A., , M.Sc., , M.P.H., and , M.P.H.

Author Information and Affiliations
Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); .
Report No.: 18-EHC012-EF

Structured Abstract

Objective:

Assess the effect of drug and nondrug interventions for treating acute symptoms associated with bipolar disorder (BD) and preventing relapse.

Data sources:

Ovid MEDLINE® and PsycINFO®, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Ovid Embase® bibliographic databases; hand searches of references of relevant systematic reviews through May 2017.

Review methods:

Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and prospective cohorts with comparator arms enrolling adults with bipolar disorder (BD) of any type with 3 weeks followup for acute mania, 3 months for depression, and 6 months for maintenance treatments. We excluded acute mania and depression studies with greater than 50 percent attrition.

Results:

We synthesized evidence from 157 unique studies, 108 studies for 28 drugs, 49 studies for nondrug interventions. All drug study findings with at least low-strength evidence were based almost exclusively on adults with bipolar I disorder (BD-I). Asenapine, cariprazine, quetiapine, and olanzapine improved acute mania symptoms compared to placebo (low-strength evidence). However, improvements were of modest clinical significance, with values that were less than the minimally important difference, but still large enough that a reasonable proportion of participants likely received a benefit. Unpooled evidence indicated an overall beneficial effect of risperidone and ziprasidone on acute mania symptoms compared to placebo (low-strength evidence). Participants using atypical antipsychotics, except quetiapine, reported more extrapyramidal symptoms compared to placebo, and those using olanzapine reported more clinically significant weight gain. Lithium improved acute mania in the short term and prolonged time to relapse in the long term compared to placebo (low-strength evidence). No difference was found between olanzapine and divalproex/valproate for acute mania (low-strength evidence). For drugs not approved for BD, paliperidone improved acute mania compared to placebo (low-strength evidence), while topiramate and allopurinol showed no benefit (low-strength evidence). Further, lithium improved acute mania better than topiramate (low-strength evidence), although withdrawals for adverse events were lower for topiramate. Only lithium reached a minimally important difference for acute mania and maintenance treatment. All other drug comparisons to placebo or active controls for acute mania, depression, and maintenance had insufficient evidence. For psychosocial interventions, cognitive behavioral training (CBT) was no better for depression or mania symptoms than psychoeducation or other active psychosocial comparators (low-strength evidence). Systematic/collaborative care had no effect on relapse compared to inactive comparators (low-strength evidence).

Conclusions:

We found no high- or moderate-strength evidence for any intervention to effectively treat any phase of any type of BD versus placebo or an active comparator. All antipsychotics approved by the Food and Drug Administration, except aripiprazole, had low-strength evidence for benefit for acute mania in adults with BD-I. Lithium improved short-term for acute mania and resulted in longer time to relapse in the long term versus placebo in adults with BD-I. Aside from low-strength evidence showing CBT and systematic/collaborative care having no benefit for a few outcomes, evidence was insufficient for nondrug interventions. Information on harms was limited across all studies. Future research examining BD treatments will require innovative ways to increase study completion rates.

Contents

Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; www.ahrq.gov Contract No. 290-2012-00016-I Prepared by: Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center, Minneapolis, MN

Suggested citation:

Butler M, Urosevic S, Desai P, Sponheim SR, Popp J, Nelson VA, Thao V, Sunderlin B. Treatment for Bipolar Disorder in Adults: A Systematic Review. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 208. (Prepared by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2012-00016-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 18-EHC012-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; August 2018. Posted final reports are located on the Effective Health Care Program search page. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23970/AHRQEPCCER208.

This report is based on research conducted by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2012-00016-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.

The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, policymakers, and others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.

This report is made available to the public under the terms of a licensing agreement between the author and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. This report may be used and reprinted without permission except those copyrighted materials that are clearly noted in the report. Further reproduction of those copyrighted materials is prohibited without the express permission of copyright holders.

AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of any derivative products that may be developed from this report, such as clinical practice guidelines, other quality enhancement tools, or reimbursement or coverage policies, may not be stated or implied.

This report may periodically be assessed for the currency of conclusions. If an assessment is done, the resulting surveillance report describing the methodology and findings will be found on the Effective Health Care Program Web site at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. Search on the title of the report.

Persons using assistive technology may not be able to fully access information in this report. For assistance contact vog.shh.qrha@cpe.

Bookshelf ID: NBK532183PMID: 30329241

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (15M)

Other titles in this collection

Related information

Similar articles in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...