A naturalistic effectiveness study of maintenance therapies for the bipolar disorders

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundTreatment decision‐making for individuals with bipolar disorder can be difficult. Recommendations from clinical practice guidelines can be affected by multiple methodological limitations, while pharmaco‐epidemiological data suggest great variety in prescription practices across regions. Given these inconsistencies, this study aimed to provide an alternative perspective on the effectiveness of common bipolar disorder maintenance treatments through considering naturalistic data.MethodsA total of 246 individuals with bipolar disorder (84 bipolar I [BP‐I], 162 bipolar II [BP‐II]) were recruited through clinics and/or websites. All were euthymic and had trialled at least one mood stabiliser. They completed an online survey containing questions on demographics, clinical variables, symptomatology, and the effectiveness/side effect profiles of any mood stabilisers (MSTs) or atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) that they have taken.ResultsLithium and lamotrigine were the most commonly prescribed MSTs and the most effective at mood stabilisation. Lithium and lamotrigine appeared marginally more effective for BP‐I and BP‐II respectively, however, only the latter difference was statistically significant. Furthermore, lamotrigine had the more favourable side effect profile. Amongst the AAPs, quetiapine and olanzapine were the most commonly prescribed, but they were negligibly superior to other AAPs.ConclusionThis study clearly established a preference for lamotrigine in the maintenance treatment of BP‐II. While the literature consistently emphasises the primacy of lithium in bipolar disorder treatment, its side effect profile as observed in this study remains a concern. Future research considering moderators of treatment response and concomitant medications could help to identify further nuances to consider for treatment decision‐making.