Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Electroconvulsive Therapy Versus Algorithm-Based Pharmacological Treatment
Objective:Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is regarded by many clinicians as the most effective treatment for treatment-resistant bipolar depression, but no randomized controlled trials have been conducted, to the authors’ knowledge. They compared efficacy measures of ECT and algorithm-based pharmaco...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The American journal of psychiatry 2015-01, Vol.172 (1), p.41-51 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 51 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 41 |
container_title | The American journal of psychiatry |
container_volume | 172 |
creator | Schoeyen, Helle K. Kessler, Ute Andreassen, Ole A. Auestad, Bjoern H. Bergsholm, Per Malt, Ulrik F. Morken, Gunnar Oedegaard, Ketil J. Vaaler, Arne |
description | Objective:Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is regarded by many clinicians as the most effective treatment for treatment-resistant bipolar depression, but no randomized controlled trials have been conducted, to the authors’ knowledge. They compared efficacy measures of ECT and algorithm-based pharmacological treatment in treatment-resistant bipolar depression.Method:This multicenter, randomized controlled trial was carried out at seven acute-care psychiatric inpatient clinics throughout Norway and included 73 bipolar disorder patients with treatment-resistant depression. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either ECT or algorithm-based pharmacological treatment. ECT included three sessions per week for up to 6 weeks, right unilateral placement of stimulus electrodes, and brief pulse stimulation.Results:Linear mixed-effects modeling analysis revealed that ECT was significantly more effective than algorithm-based pharmacological treatment. The mean scores at the end of the 6-week treatment period were lower for the ECT group than for the pharmacological treatment group: by 6.6 points on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (SE=2.05, 95% CI=2.5–10.6), by 9.4 points on the 30-item version of the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Clinician-Rated (SE=2.49, 95% CI=4.6–14.3), and by 0.7 points on the Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder (SE=0.31, 95% CI=0.13–1.36). The response rate was significantly higher in the ECT group than in the group that received algorithm-based pharmacological treatment (73.9% versus 35.0%), but the remission rate did not differ between the groups (34.8% versus 30.0%).Conclusion:Remission rates remained modest regardless of treatment choice for this challenging clinical condition. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13111517 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1641859189</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1641859189</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a449t-6b9ab45479d82289be46d3958d040a27de4223f5d7fd2b00066b83d86e92297a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kctu1DAUhi1ERYfCK1SW2LDJ4FucmN10WkqlSqBqQOwsJz7peOTEwU4qldfgheth2iKxYOWLvvOfc_QhdErJktJKfjDj6JZmNy4ZoWJJOaW0pNULtKAlL4uKsfolWhBCWKFK_uMYvU5pl5-EV-wVOmYlo4rXaoF-byKYqYdhKm4guTSZYcJnbgzeRHwOY4SUXBg-4hW-MYMNvfsFFq_DMMXgfb5uojMehw5feGjzZxuGu9kndwd4s4Voxnv8HWKaE1752xDdtO2LM5Ny5detib1pgw-3rs0Zz5O8QUed8QnePp4n6Nuni836c3H95fJqvboujBBqKmSjTCNKUSlb531VA0JarsraEkEMqywIxnhX2qqzrMm7S9nU3NYSFGOqMvwEvT_kjjH8nCFNunepBe_NAGFOmkpB61LRWmX03T_oLsxxyNPtKck5UYxmSh6oNoaUInR6jK438V5Tovfa9F6bztr0Xpt-0pYLTx_j56YH-1z25CkD_AD8Cfjb-_-xD7Tap8s</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1646330921</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Electroconvulsive Therapy Versus Algorithm-Based Pharmacological Treatment</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>American Psychiatric Publishing Journals (1997-Present)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Schoeyen, Helle K. ; Kessler, Ute ; Andreassen, Ole A. ; Auestad, Bjoern H. ; Bergsholm, Per ; Malt, Ulrik F. ; Morken, Gunnar ; Oedegaard, Ketil J. ; Vaaler, Arne</creator><creatorcontrib>Schoeyen, Helle K. ; Kessler, Ute ; Andreassen, Ole A. ; Auestad, Bjoern H. ; Bergsholm, Per ; Malt, Ulrik F. ; Morken, Gunnar ; Oedegaard, Ketil J. ; Vaaler, Arne</creatorcontrib><description>Objective:Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is regarded by many clinicians as the most effective treatment for treatment-resistant bipolar depression, but no randomized controlled trials have been conducted, to the authors’ knowledge. They compared efficacy measures of ECT and algorithm-based pharmacological treatment in treatment-resistant bipolar depression.Method:This multicenter, randomized controlled trial was carried out at seven acute-care psychiatric inpatient clinics throughout Norway and included 73 bipolar disorder patients with treatment-resistant depression. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either ECT or algorithm-based pharmacological treatment. ECT included three sessions per week for up to 6 weeks, right unilateral placement of stimulus electrodes, and brief pulse stimulation.Results:Linear mixed-effects modeling analysis revealed that ECT was significantly more effective than algorithm-based pharmacological treatment. The mean scores at the end of the 6-week treatment period were lower for the ECT group than for the pharmacological treatment group: by 6.6 points on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (SE=2.05, 95% CI=2.5–10.6), by 9.4 points on the 30-item version of the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Clinician-Rated (SE=2.49, 95% CI=4.6–14.3), and by 0.7 points on the Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder (SE=0.31, 95% CI=0.13–1.36). The response rate was significantly higher in the ECT group than in the group that received algorithm-based pharmacological treatment (73.9% versus 35.0%), but the remission rate did not differ between the groups (34.8% versus 30.0%).Conclusion:Remission rates remained modest regardless of treatment choice for this challenging clinical condition.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-953X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1535-7228</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13111517</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25219389</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJPSAO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Psychiatric Association</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Antidepressive Agents - therapeutic use ; Bipolar disorder ; Bipolar Disorder - drug therapy ; Bipolar Disorder - therapy ; Clinical trials ; Comparative analysis ; Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant - drug therapy ; Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant - therapy ; Electroconvulsive therapy ; Electroconvulsive Therapy - methods ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Mental depression ; Middle Aged ; Norway ; Pharmacology ; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales ; Remission Induction - methods ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>The American journal of psychiatry, 2015-01, Vol.172 (1), p.41-51</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2015 by the American Psychiatric Association 2015</rights><rights>Copyright American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. Jan 1, 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a449t-6b9ab45479d82289be46d3958d040a27de4223f5d7fd2b00066b83d86e92297a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a449t-6b9ab45479d82289be46d3958d040a27de4223f5d7fd2b00066b83d86e92297a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://psychiatryonline.org/doi/epdf/10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13111517$$EPDF$$P50$$Gappi$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13111517$$EHTML$$P50$$Gappi$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,2855,21626,21627,21628,27924,27925,77794,77799</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25219389$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schoeyen, Helle K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kessler, Ute</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andreassen, Ole A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Auestad, Bjoern H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bergsholm, Per</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Malt, Ulrik F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morken, Gunnar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oedegaard, Ketil J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vaaler, Arne</creatorcontrib><title>Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Electroconvulsive Therapy Versus Algorithm-Based Pharmacological Treatment</title><title>The American journal of psychiatry</title><addtitle>Am J Psychiatry</addtitle><description>Objective:Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is regarded by many clinicians as the most effective treatment for treatment-resistant bipolar depression, but no randomized controlled trials have been conducted, to the authors’ knowledge. They compared efficacy measures of ECT and algorithm-based pharmacological treatment in treatment-resistant bipolar depression.Method:This multicenter, randomized controlled trial was carried out at seven acute-care psychiatric inpatient clinics throughout Norway and included 73 bipolar disorder patients with treatment-resistant depression. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either ECT or algorithm-based pharmacological treatment. ECT included three sessions per week for up to 6 weeks, right unilateral placement of stimulus electrodes, and brief pulse stimulation.Results:Linear mixed-effects modeling analysis revealed that ECT was significantly more effective than algorithm-based pharmacological treatment. The mean scores at the end of the 6-week treatment period were lower for the ECT group than for the pharmacological treatment group: by 6.6 points on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (SE=2.05, 95% CI=2.5–10.6), by 9.4 points on the 30-item version of the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Clinician-Rated (SE=2.49, 95% CI=4.6–14.3), and by 0.7 points on the Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder (SE=0.31, 95% CI=0.13–1.36). The response rate was significantly higher in the ECT group than in the group that received algorithm-based pharmacological treatment (73.9% versus 35.0%), but the remission rate did not differ between the groups (34.8% versus 30.0%).Conclusion:Remission rates remained modest regardless of treatment choice for this challenging clinical condition.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Antidepressive Agents - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Bipolar disorder</subject><subject>Bipolar Disorder - drug therapy</subject><subject>Bipolar Disorder - therapy</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant - drug therapy</subject><subject>Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant - therapy</subject><subject>Electroconvulsive therapy</subject><subject>Electroconvulsive Therapy - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mental depression</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Norway</subject><subject>Pharmacology</subject><subject>Psychiatric Status Rating Scales</subject><subject>Remission Induction - methods</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0002-953X</issn><issn>1535-7228</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kctu1DAUhi1ERYfCK1SW2LDJ4FucmN10WkqlSqBqQOwsJz7peOTEwU4qldfgheth2iKxYOWLvvOfc_QhdErJktJKfjDj6JZmNy4ZoWJJOaW0pNULtKAlL4uKsfolWhBCWKFK_uMYvU5pl5-EV-wVOmYlo4rXaoF-byKYqYdhKm4guTSZYcJnbgzeRHwOY4SUXBg-4hW-MYMNvfsFFq_DMMXgfb5uojMehw5feGjzZxuGu9kndwd4s4Voxnv8HWKaE1752xDdtO2LM5Ny5detib1pgw-3rs0Zz5O8QUed8QnePp4n6Nuni836c3H95fJqvboujBBqKmSjTCNKUSlb531VA0JarsraEkEMqywIxnhX2qqzrMm7S9nU3NYSFGOqMvwEvT_kjjH8nCFNunepBe_NAGFOmkpB61LRWmX03T_oLsxxyNPtKck5UYxmSh6oNoaUInR6jK438V5Tovfa9F6bztr0Xpt-0pYLTx_j56YH-1z25CkD_AD8Cfjb-_-xD7Tap8s</recordid><startdate>20150101</startdate><enddate>20150101</enddate><creator>Schoeyen, Helle K.</creator><creator>Kessler, Ute</creator><creator>Andreassen, Ole A.</creator><creator>Auestad, Bjoern H.</creator><creator>Bergsholm, Per</creator><creator>Malt, Ulrik F.</creator><creator>Morken, Gunnar</creator><creator>Oedegaard, Ketil J.</creator><creator>Vaaler, Arne</creator><general>American Psychiatric Association</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150101</creationdate><title>Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Electroconvulsive Therapy Versus Algorithm-Based Pharmacological Treatment</title><author>Schoeyen, Helle K. ; Kessler, Ute ; Andreassen, Ole A. ; Auestad, Bjoern H. ; Bergsholm, Per ; Malt, Ulrik F. ; Morken, Gunnar ; Oedegaard, Ketil J. ; Vaaler, Arne</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a449t-6b9ab45479d82289be46d3958d040a27de4223f5d7fd2b00066b83d86e92297a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Antidepressive Agents - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Bipolar disorder</topic><topic>Bipolar Disorder - drug therapy</topic><topic>Bipolar Disorder - therapy</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant - drug therapy</topic><topic>Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant - therapy</topic><topic>Electroconvulsive therapy</topic><topic>Electroconvulsive Therapy - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mental depression</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Norway</topic><topic>Pharmacology</topic><topic>Psychiatric Status Rating Scales</topic><topic>Remission Induction - methods</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schoeyen, Helle K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kessler, Ute</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andreassen, Ole A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Auestad, Bjoern H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bergsholm, Per</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Malt, Ulrik F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morken, Gunnar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oedegaard, Ketil J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vaaler, Arne</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American journal of psychiatry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schoeyen, Helle K.</au><au>Kessler, Ute</au><au>Andreassen, Ole A.</au><au>Auestad, Bjoern H.</au><au>Bergsholm, Per</au><au>Malt, Ulrik F.</au><au>Morken, Gunnar</au><au>Oedegaard, Ketil J.</au><au>Vaaler, Arne</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Electroconvulsive Therapy Versus Algorithm-Based Pharmacological Treatment</atitle><jtitle>The American journal of psychiatry</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Psychiatry</addtitle><date>2015-01-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>172</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>41</spage><epage>51</epage><pages>41-51</pages><issn>0002-953X</issn><eissn>1535-7228</eissn><coden>AJPSAO</coden><abstract>Objective:Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is regarded by many clinicians as the most effective treatment for treatment-resistant bipolar depression, but no randomized controlled trials have been conducted, to the authors’ knowledge. They compared efficacy measures of ECT and algorithm-based pharmacological treatment in treatment-resistant bipolar depression.Method:This multicenter, randomized controlled trial was carried out at seven acute-care psychiatric inpatient clinics throughout Norway and included 73 bipolar disorder patients with treatment-resistant depression. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either ECT or algorithm-based pharmacological treatment. ECT included three sessions per week for up to 6 weeks, right unilateral placement of stimulus electrodes, and brief pulse stimulation.Results:Linear mixed-effects modeling analysis revealed that ECT was significantly more effective than algorithm-based pharmacological treatment. The mean scores at the end of the 6-week treatment period were lower for the ECT group than for the pharmacological treatment group: by 6.6 points on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (SE=2.05, 95% CI=2.5–10.6), by 9.4 points on the 30-item version of the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Clinician-Rated (SE=2.49, 95% CI=4.6–14.3), and by 0.7 points on the Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder (SE=0.31, 95% CI=0.13–1.36). The response rate was significantly higher in the ECT group than in the group that received algorithm-based pharmacological treatment (73.9% versus 35.0%), but the remission rate did not differ between the groups (34.8% versus 30.0%).Conclusion:Remission rates remained modest regardless of treatment choice for this challenging clinical condition.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Psychiatric Association</pub><pmid>25219389</pmid><doi>10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13111517</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0002-953X |
ispartof | The American journal of psychiatry, 2015-01, Vol.172 (1), p.41-51 |
issn | 0002-953X 1535-7228 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1641859189 |
source | MEDLINE; American Psychiatric Publishing Journals (1997-Present); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Adult Aged Antidepressive Agents - therapeutic use Bipolar disorder Bipolar Disorder - drug therapy Bipolar Disorder - therapy Clinical trials Comparative analysis Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant - drug therapy Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant - therapy Electroconvulsive therapy Electroconvulsive Therapy - methods Female Humans Male Mental depression Middle Aged Norway Pharmacology Psychiatric Status Rating Scales Remission Induction - methods Treatment Outcome |
title | Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Electroconvulsive Therapy Versus Algorithm-Based Pharmacological Treatment |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T00%3A07%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Treatment-Resistant%20Bipolar%20Depression:%20A%20Randomized%20Controlled%20Trial%20of%20Electroconvulsive%20Therapy%20Versus%20Algorithm-Based%20Pharmacological%20Treatment&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20journal%20of%20psychiatry&rft.au=Schoeyen,%20Helle%20K.&rft.date=2015-01-01&rft.volume=172&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=41&rft.epage=51&rft.pages=41-51&rft.issn=0002-953X&rft.eissn=1535-7228&rft.coden=AJPSAO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13111517&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1641859189%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1646330921&rft_id=info:pmid/25219389&rfr_iscdi=true |