• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

DOI:10.25302/03.2021.CER.150731607
PMID:38771925
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder (BD) is associated with frequent hospitalizations, a high risk of suicide, and multiple comorbidities. BD pharmacotherapy is often administered by trial and error due to a lack of personalized treatment algorithms accounting for patient age, medical history, and concomitant drugs in use. In addition, BD medications are often poorly tolerated due to adverse effects, which leads to low adherence to treatment. Drug-related long-term comorbidities are still poorly understood, because adverse outcomes vary in their rates and severity, particularly in unique subpopulations. The main question expressed by patients is “What drug is best for me?” Systematic reviews and comparative effectiveness studies addressing this question are still lacking. Randomized clinical trials have provided evidence of limited external validity because they have often excluded youth, patients aged ≥65 years, and patients with mental/medical comorbidities; have had a short follow-up with relatively small sample sizes; and rarely have compared multidrug regimens. We set out to address these gaps in evidence using observational studies, selecting the outcomes most important to patients. Our patient partners identified several primary outcomes of interest for our research: the risks of psychiatric hospitalization (PH), self-harm, metabolic abnormalities, and kidney disorders (KDs). We sought to verify the importance of these outcomes, as well as identify other areas of concern for a larger group of patients, guiding study design and dissemination with iterative feedback.

OBJECTIVES

Our specific aims were to (1) identify patient-centered outcomes of longitudinal BD treatment, (2) compare patient-centered outcomes for commonly prescribed BD medications, and (3) assess heterogeneity of treatment effects in youth (ie, aged ≤18 years) and in older patient (ie, aged ≥65 years) subpopulations.

METHODS

To identify patient-centered outcomes, we conducted 3 focus groups with patients with BD and their relatives. Participants shared their feedback on the challenges faced while managing BD via questionnaires and prioritized their research questions via an affinity-mapping exercise. A causal systems model of BD challenges was built based on the data obtained, using a Theory of Constraints approach. A series of retrospective observational studies were then conducted using an administrative claims database to compare BD drug regimens for the risk of PH, self-harm, KDs, and diabetes mellitus (DM). Intermediate results from our comparative effectiveness studies were shared with participants of 6 subsequent focus groups, and patient feedback was obtained via questionnaires. The data obtained were used to interpret the findings, enhance the study methodology, and plan the information dissemination. During the last 3 focus groups, the study results were presented to youth and patients aged ≥65 years with BD, who shared their feedback on age-specific challenges of BD management. Our retrospective observational studies used the IBM MarketScan administrative claims database (2003-2016) containing information on 1.3 million commercially insured US patients with BD. Dozens of psychotropic drugs and drug combinations were compared for the risk of PH, self-harm, KDs, and DM among patients with BD. Lithium and a no-drug regimen were chosen as comparators. Survival analyses, employing Cox regression, competing risk regression, and time-fixed and time-varying covariates were used. Machine learning was applied to identify uncoded self-harm events in the database.

RESULTS

From a systems perspective, 2 core conflicts underlie most of the patient-reported challenges of BD management: taking medications vs not, and health care quality vs quantity. The patients' top research priorities were alternatives and adjuncts to pharmacotherapy and choice of pharmacotherapy. Drug-free options are of particular concern for youth, and drug physical safety is of concern for those aged ≥65 years. Compared with lithium, antidepressants and first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) were associated with a higher risk of PH, whereas aripiprazole, valproate, and bupropion had a lower risk of PH. Multidrug pharmacotherapy was associated with an increased risk of KDs and DM. Lithium and monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) were associated with a significantly higher risk of KDs than was no-drug treatment. The risk of DM was higher with antipsychotics than with no drug, but lithium, mood-stabilizing anticonvulsants (MSAs), and bupropion had lower DM risk. Compared with lithium, a lower risk of self-harm was associated with the use of lamotrigine, valproate, oxcarbazepine, olanzapine, risperidone, aripiprazole, bupropion, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). A higher risk of self-harm was associated with FGAs and some multidrug combinations. We also found that only 1 in 19 of imputed self-harm events were coded in the database and that most patients with BD discontinue monotherapy within 2 months after their treatment starts.

CONCLUSIONS

Relatively beneficial profiles for several BD outcomes were observed for valproate, aripiprazole, and bupropion. Our data support existing concerns about lithium nephrotoxicity and highlight the potential risks of MAOIs, MSAs, and antipsychotics for KDs. Antidepressants and MSAs are associated with lower self-harm risk in BD. The inconsistent drug adherence and poor self-harm coding identified in our study highlight areas where patient care and observational studies may be improved.

LIMITATIONS

The assignment of patients to treatment groups was nonrandomized. Certain unmeasured indications could distort drug risk estimates (eg, family and medical history, ethnicity, and lifestyle). No correction was made for medication dosage, route of administration, or release mechanism (eg, long-acting injectables vs oral).

摘要

相似文献

1
2
Using Machine Learning Imputed Outcomes to Assess Drug-Dependent Risk of Self-Harm in Patients with Bipolar Disorder: A Comparative Effectiveness Study.利用机器学习估算结果评估双相情感障碍患者自我伤害的药物依赖风险:一项比较有效性研究。
JMIR Ment Health. 2021 Apr 21;8(4):e24522. doi: 10.2196/24522.
3
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
4
Comparison of 71 bipolar disorder pharmacotherapies for kidney disorder risk: The potential hazards of polypharmacy.71 种双相情感障碍药物治疗方案对肾脏疾病风险的比较:药物治疗方案多样化的潜在危害。
J Affect Disord. 2019 Jun 1;252:201-211. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2019.04.009. Epub 2019 Apr 8.
5
Prescription of Controlled Substances: Benefits and Risks管制药品的处方:益处与风险
6
[Guidelines for the prescription of mood stabilizers for adolescents: A literature review].青少年情绪稳定剂处方指南:文献综述
Encephale. 2017 Oct;43(5):464-470. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2016.09.005. Epub 2016 Nov 18.
7
[Antipsychotics in bipolar disorders].[双相情感障碍中的抗精神病药物]
Encephale. 2004 Sep-Oct;30(5):417-24. doi: 10.1016/s0013-7006(04)95456-5.
8
Vesicoureteral Reflux膀胱输尿管反流
9
Self-harm, Unintentional Injury, and Suicide in Bipolar Disorder During Maintenance Mood Stabilizer Treatment: A UK Population-Based Electronic Health Records Study.双相情感障碍维持期心境稳定剂治疗期间的自伤、意外伤害和自杀:一项英国基于人群的电子健康记录研究。
JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 1;73(6):630-7. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.0432.
10
Antidepressants for smoking cessation.用于戒烟的抗抑郁药。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Apr 22;4(4):CD000031. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000031.pub5.