A rating scale for drug-induced akathisia has been derived that incorporates diagnostic criteria for pseudoakathisia, and mild, moderate, and severe akathisia. It comprises items for rating the observable, restless movements which characterise the condition, the subjective awareness of restlessness, and any distress associated with the akathisia. In addition, there is an item for rating global severity. A standard examination procedure is recommended. The inter-rater reliability for the scale items (Cohen's kappa) ranged from 0.738 to 0.955. Akathisia was found in eight of 42 schizophrenic in-patients, and nine had pseudoakathisia, where the typical sense of inner restlessness was not reported.

A rating scale for drug-induced akathisia

The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) previously published treatment guidelines for bipolar disorder in 2005, along with international commentaries and subsequent updates in 2007, 2009, and 2013. The last two updates were published in collaboration with the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD). These 2018 CANMAT and ISBD Bipolar Treatment Guidelines represent the significant advances in the field since the last full edition was published in 2005, including updates to diagnosis and management as well as new research into pharmacological and psychological treatments. These advances have been translated into clear and easy to use recommendations for first, second, and third- line treatments, with consideration given to levels of evidence for efficacy, clinical support based on experience, and consensus ratings of safety, tolerability, and treatment-emergent switch risk. New to these guidelines, hierarchical rankings were created for first and second- line treatments recommended for acute mania, acute depression, and maintenance treatment in bipolar I disorder. Created by considering the impact of each treatment across all phases of illness, this hierarchy will further assist clinicians in making evidence-based treatment decisions. Lithium, quetiapine, divalproex, asenapine, aripiprazole, paliperidone, risperidone, and cariprazine alone or in combination are recommended as first-line treatments for acute mania. First-line options for bipolar I depression include quetiapine, lurasidone plus lithium or divalproex, lithium, lamotrigine, lurasidone, or adjunctive lamotrigine. While medications that have been shown to be effective for the acute phase should generally be continued for the maintenance phase in bipolar I disorder, there are some exceptions (such as with antidepressants); and available data suggest that lithium, quetiapine, divalproex, lamotrigine, asenapine, and aripiprazole monotherapy or combination treatments should be considered first-line for those initiating or switching treatment during the maintenance phase. In addition to addressing issues in bipolar I disorder, these guidelines also provide an overview of, and recommendations for, clinical management of bipolar II disorder, as well as advice on specific populations, such as women at various stages of the reproductive cycle, children and adolescents, and older adults. There are also discussions on the impact of specific psychiatric and medical comorbidities such as substance use, anxiety, and metabolic disorders. Finally, an overview of issues related to safety and monitoring is provided. The CANMAT and ISBD groups hope that these guidelines become a valuable tool for practitioners across the globe.

/pdf/canadian-network-for-mood-and-anxiety-treatments-canmat-and-3lm5mpt404.pdf

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) 2018 guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder

https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/downloads/z603r057q

Aripiprazole, a novel atypical antipsychotic drug with a unique and robust pharmacology.

Background Despite the longer duration of the depressive phase in bipolar disorder and the frequent clinical use of antidepressants combined with antipsychotics or mood stabilizers, relatively few controlled studies have examined treatment strategies for bipolar depression. Objective To examine the use of olanzapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination in the treatment of bipolar I depression. Design Double-blind, 8-week, randomized controlled trial. Setting Eighty-four sites (inpatient and outpatient) in 13 countries. Patients A total of 833 randomized adults with bipolar I depression with a Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of at least 20. Intervention Patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 377); olanzapine, 5 to 20 mg/d (n = 370); or olanzapine-fluoxetine combination, 6 and 25, 6 and 50, or 12 and 50 mg/d (n = 86). Main Outcome Measure Changes in MADRS total scores using mixed-effects model repeated-measures analyses. Results During all 8 study weeks, the olanzapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine groups showed statistically significant improvement in depressive symptoms vs the placebo group ( P Conclusions Olanzapine is more effective than placebo, and combined olanzapine-fluoxetine is more effective than olanzapine and placebo in the treatment of bipolar I depression without increased risk of developing manic symptoms.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/articlepdf/208020/YOA20722.pdf

Efficacy of Olanzapine and Olanzapine-Fluoxetine Combination in the Treatment of Bipolar I Depression

OBJECTIVE: The term “mood stabilizer” is widely used in the context of treating bipolar disorder, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not officially recognize the term, and no consensus definition is accepted among investigators. The authors propose a “two-by-two” definition by which an agent is considered a mood stabilizer if it has efficacy in treating acute manic and depressive symptoms and in prophylaxis of manic and depressive symptoms in bipolar disorder. They review the literature on the efficacy of agents in any of these four roles to determine which if any agents meet this definition of mood stabilizer. METHOD: The authors conducted a comprehensive review of English-language literature describing peer-reviewed, U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality class A controlled trials in order to identify agents with efficacy in any of the four roles included in their definition of a mood stabilizer. The trials were classified as positive or negative on the basis of primary outcom...

/pdf/what-is-a-mood-stabilizer-an-evidence-based-response-26crczq72d.pdf

What Is a “Mood Stabilizer”? An Evidence-Based Response

OBJECTIVE: The primary intent of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine and placebo in the treatment of acute mania. METHOD: The design involved a random-assignment, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group study of 3 weeks’ duration. After a 2- to 4-day screening period, qualified patients were assigned to either olanzapine (N=70) or placebo (N=69). Patients began double-blind therapy with either olanzapine, 10 mg, or placebo given once per day. After the first day of treatment, the daily dose could be adjusted upward or downward, as clinically indicated, by one capsule (olanzapine, 5 mg/day) within the allowed range of one to four capsules. The primary efficacy measure in the protocol was defined as a change from baseline to endpoint in total score on the Young Mania Rating Scale. Clinical response was defined a priori as a decrease of 50% or more from baseline in Young Mania Rating Scale total score. RESULTS: The olanzapine group experienced significantly greater mean im...

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/ajp.156.5.702

Olanzapine Versus Placebo in the Treatment of Acute Mania

Olanzapine versus placebo in the treatment of acute mania

Background: Olanzapine has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of acute mania in 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. We describe the results of the open-label extension from one of these trials. Method: In a 3-week, double-blind study of patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, olanzapine was superior to placebo for the treatment of acute manic symptoms. Of the 139 patients who entered the double-blind phase of the 3-week study, 113 patients continued into the 49-week open-label extension. Efficacy measurements including the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-21), the Clinical Global Impressions scale-Bipolar Version, and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and safety measurements including the Simpson-Angus scale, the Barnes Akathisia Scale, and the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale were completed throughout. The analysis considered all treatment results, starting with the first olanzapine dose. Adjunctive lithium and fluoxetine were allowed during the open-label extension. Results: The mean length of olanzapine treatment was 6.6 months, with a mean modal dose of 13.9 mg/day. A significant mean improvement in the YMRS total score, baseline to endpoint (-18.01, p <.001), was observed. During treatment, 88.3% of patients experienced a remission of manic symptoms (YMRS total score ≤ 12), and only 25.5% subsequently relapsed (YMRS total score ≥ 15). Significant improvement in HAM-D-21 scores was observed (p <.001). Forty-one percent of patients were maintained on olanzapine monotherapy. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events reported were somnolence (46.0%), depression (38.9%), and weight gain (36.3%). Conclusion: During up to I year of olanzapine therapy, either as monotherapy or in combination with lithium and/or fluoxetine, patients with bipolar disorder demonstrated significant improvement in mania and depression symptoms with a favorable safety profile. Further double-blind, controlled studies are needed to confirm these results.

M. Greaney

Papers

Olanzapine Versus Placebo in the Treatment of Acute Mania

Olanzapine versus placebo in the treatment of acute mania

Long-term olanzapine therapy in the treatment of bipolar I disorder: an open-label continuation phase study

Olanzapine vs placebo in the treatment of acute mania

Olanzapine: Acute and long-term efficacy in bipolar I patients