search
Back to results

Comparative Effectiveness Study for Bipolar Disorder

Primary Purpose

Bipolar Disorder

Status
Completed
Phase
Phase 4
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Lithium
Quetiapine
Sponsored by
Massachusetts General Hospital
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Bipolar Disorder focused on measuring Bipolar disorder, Comparative effectiveness trial, Lithium, Quetiapine

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - 68 Years (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Meets DSM-IV criteria for BD I or II, which is the primary focus of treatment
  2. Able to give written informed consent
  3. Age > to 18 years and < 68 years
  4. Women of child bearing potential must agree to use adequate contraception (e.g. oral contraceptives, intrauterine device, barrier methods, or total abstinence from intercourse; Depo Provera is acceptable if it is started 3 months prior to enrollment), inform their doctor at the earliest possible time of their plans to conceive, and to understand the risks of lithium and other study treatments to the fetus and infant
  5. Currently symptomatic, as defined as a Clinical Global Impression - Bipolar Disorder Overall Severity (CGI-BP-S) score of at least 3 (mild)
  6. If currently taking an SGA, participants would be required to be willing to either discontinue or switch to QTP
  7. Willing to be randomized to either QTP+APT or Li+APT.

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Unwilling or unable to comply with study requirements
  2. If maintained on thyroid medication must be euthyroid for at least 1 month before Visit 1
  3. Patients who have had intolerable side effects with QTP or Li
  4. Patients whose clinical status requires inpatient care
  5. Drug/alcohol dependence within the past 30 days
  6. Pregnancy as determined by urine pregnancy test or breastfeeding
  7. History of nonresponse to Li at a serum level of ≥ 1.0 mEq/L ≥ 8 weeks
  8. History of nonresponse to QTP at doses of at least 600 mg ≥ 8 weeks.

Sites / Locations

  • University of Alabama at Birmingham
  • Stanford University School of Medicine
  • Massachusetts General Hospital
  • University of Michigan
  • Weill Cornell Medical College
  • Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine
  • The Lindner Center of HOPE
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
  • Vanderbilt University
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Other

Other

Arm Label

Li + APT

QTP + APT

Arm Description

Study participants will take lithium in addition to any other medications recommended by the study physician.

Study participants will take quetiapine in addition to any other medications recommended by the study physician.

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Clinical Global Impression-Efficacy Index (CGI-EI)
The CGI-EI integrates benefits and harms and yields a score that can be compared across interventions. It is made up of 2 subscales: therapeutic effects and side effects. Each rating is on a scale from 1 to 4. To combine these two subscales into the CGI-EI we report as our primary outcome, we subtracted the side effects subscale from the therapeutic effects subscale. Thus, the CGI-EI we report ranges the integers from -3 to +3 (i.e. possible scores are -3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3). A score of -3 is the most burdensome side effect score (4) and the least therapeutic effect score (1) and a score of +3 is the least burdensome side effect score (1) and the highest therapeutic effect score (4). Higher CGI-EI signifies better outcome (minimal side effects, maximal therapeutic effect). Lower CGI-EI signifies worse outcome (maximal side effects, minimal therapeutic effect).To compute CGI-EI score, we subtract the side effect score from the therapeutic effect score.
Necessary Clinical Adjustments
Necessary Clinical Adjustment (NCA): The Medication Recommendation Tracking Form was developed and successfully implemented in a previous study to capture recommended medication changes at each study visit 17. Clinicians record dosage changes, missed doses, new medications added or discontinued, and specify the reason for each change. Any change in psychotropic medications, or medications used to treat side effects, is coded along with the reason for the change. NCAs include those changes made for lack of effectiveness or intolerance, but not changes for planned dose titrations.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Risk of Cardiovascular Disease - Framingham Risk Score
The Framingham risk score captures the classic risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including age, sex, systolic blood pressure, total and high density lipoprotein cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, and smoking. The Framingham risk score is used as a simple predictive tool to determine 10-year (short term) risk for developing cardiovascular disease (CHD), with higher scores indicating higher risk. Established benchmarks exist for scores from 0 to 25--though it can exceed this value--that are meant to translate to the probability of developing heart disease.
Longitudinal Interval Follow up Evaluation Range of Impaired Functioning Tool (LIFE-RIFT)
The LIFE-RIFT asses the extent to which psychopathology has impacted current functioning in work, household chores, interpersonal relationships with partner, family, and friends, recreational activities, and life, satisfaction, leisure activities and social relationships. Summary scores can range from 4 to 20, with higher scores indicating greater functional impairment.

Full Information

First Posted
April 6, 2011
Last Updated
March 29, 2018
Sponsor
Massachusetts General Hospital
Collaborators
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT01331304
Brief Title
Comparative Effectiveness Study for Bipolar Disorder
Official Title
Comparative Effectiveness of a Second Generation Antipsychotic Mood Stabilizer And a Classic Mood Stabilizer for Bipolar Disorder
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
March 2018
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
September 2010 (undefined)
Primary Completion Date
April 2013 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
September 2013 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
Massachusetts General Hospital
Collaborators
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)

4. Oversight

Data Monitoring Committee
Yes

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of lithium and quetiapine for the treatment of individuals with bipolar disorder.
Detailed Description
Mood stabilizers, medications that prevent future mood episodes, are the foundation for treatment of bipolar disorder. While all published bipolar disorder treatment guidelines recommend that pharmacotherapy should include mood stabilizers for long-term maintenance treatment, no randomized comparative effectiveness studies have examined the real-world advantages and disadvantages of the newer second generation antipsychotic (SGA) mood stabilizers compared to the classic mood stabilizers, such as lithium (Li). No studies have looked at the effectiveness of SGAs compared to mood stabilizers when used in the context of other medications required to manage bipolar patients, since bipolar disorder patients take a median of 3 medications for optimal outcomes. Quetiapine (QTP) is the most extensively studied, broadly efficacious and the most widely prescribed SGA for bipolar disorder. The classic mood stabilizer Li has the largest evidence base for treating bipolar disorder, but has been largely supplanted by the SGAs. Thus, this study compares symptomatic benefits and adverse effect burden between a QTP foundation with adjunctive personalized treatments (QTP+APT) and a mood stabilizer foundation consisting of Li with APT (Li+APT). APT will include any other medication needed with the following exceptions: the QTP+APT cannot receive Li and the Li+APT group cannot receive an antipsychotic. If, however, participants clinically require a switch to, or the addition of any other SGA or mood stabilizer, then those medications can be added as a rescue strategy that will be carefully recorded. Consistent with an effectiveness trial, participants will be able to continue in the study if they require a rescue treatment. The specific plan is a randomized, open, two arm, comparative effectiveness study of QTP+APT vs. Li+APT treatment for 6 months across 10 sites. In summary, this comparative effectiveness study compares fundamentally different acute and continuation treatments for bipolar disorder. The investigators address the key question of whether to use a prototypical mood stabilizing SGA (i.e., QTP) or the classical mood stabilizer Li as the foundational treatment in the context of other necessary adjunctive personalized treatments (APT).

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Bipolar Disorder
Keywords
Bipolar disorder, Comparative effectiveness trial, Lithium, Quetiapine

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Phase 4
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
482 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Li + APT
Arm Type
Other
Arm Description
Study participants will take lithium in addition to any other medications recommended by the study physician.
Arm Title
QTP + APT
Arm Type
Other
Arm Description
Study participants will take quetiapine in addition to any other medications recommended by the study physician.
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Lithium
Other Intervention Name(s)
Lithoboid, Eskalith
Intervention Description
600-900mg per day over 6 months
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Quetiapine
Other Intervention Name(s)
Seroquel
Intervention Description
100-800mg a day over 6 months
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Clinical Global Impression-Efficacy Index (CGI-EI)
Description
The CGI-EI integrates benefits and harms and yields a score that can be compared across interventions. It is made up of 2 subscales: therapeutic effects and side effects. Each rating is on a scale from 1 to 4. To combine these two subscales into the CGI-EI we report as our primary outcome, we subtracted the side effects subscale from the therapeutic effects subscale. Thus, the CGI-EI we report ranges the integers from -3 to +3 (i.e. possible scores are -3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3). A score of -3 is the most burdensome side effect score (4) and the least therapeutic effect score (1) and a score of +3 is the least burdensome side effect score (1) and the highest therapeutic effect score (4). Higher CGI-EI signifies better outcome (minimal side effects, maximal therapeutic effect). Lower CGI-EI signifies worse outcome (maximal side effects, minimal therapeutic effect).To compute CGI-EI score, we subtract the side effect score from the therapeutic effect score.
Time Frame
Average 6 month score minus Average baseline score
Title
Necessary Clinical Adjustments
Description
Necessary Clinical Adjustment (NCA): The Medication Recommendation Tracking Form was developed and successfully implemented in a previous study to capture recommended medication changes at each study visit 17. Clinicians record dosage changes, missed doses, new medications added or discontinued, and specify the reason for each change. Any change in psychotropic medications, or medications used to treat side effects, is coded along with the reason for the change. NCAs include those changes made for lack of effectiveness or intolerance, but not changes for planned dose titrations.
Time Frame
6 Months
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Risk of Cardiovascular Disease - Framingham Risk Score
Description
The Framingham risk score captures the classic risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including age, sex, systolic blood pressure, total and high density lipoprotein cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, and smoking. The Framingham risk score is used as a simple predictive tool to determine 10-year (short term) risk for developing cardiovascular disease (CHD), with higher scores indicating higher risk. Established benchmarks exist for scores from 0 to 25--though it can exceed this value--that are meant to translate to the probability of developing heart disease.
Time Frame
Average baseline score minus Average 6 month score
Title
Longitudinal Interval Follow up Evaluation Range of Impaired Functioning Tool (LIFE-RIFT)
Description
The LIFE-RIFT asses the extent to which psychopathology has impacted current functioning in work, household chores, interpersonal relationships with partner, family, and friends, recreational activities, and life, satisfaction, leisure activities and social relationships. Summary scores can range from 4 to 20, with higher scores indicating greater functional impairment.
Time Frame
Average baseline score minus Average 6-month score

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
68 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Meets DSM-IV criteria for BD I or II, which is the primary focus of treatment Able to give written informed consent Age > to 18 years and < 68 years Women of child bearing potential must agree to use adequate contraception (e.g. oral contraceptives, intrauterine device, barrier methods, or total abstinence from intercourse; Depo Provera is acceptable if it is started 3 months prior to enrollment), inform their doctor at the earliest possible time of their plans to conceive, and to understand the risks of lithium and other study treatments to the fetus and infant Currently symptomatic, as defined as a Clinical Global Impression - Bipolar Disorder Overall Severity (CGI-BP-S) score of at least 3 (mild) If currently taking an SGA, participants would be required to be willing to either discontinue or switch to QTP Willing to be randomized to either QTP+APT or Li+APT. Exclusion Criteria: Unwilling or unable to comply with study requirements If maintained on thyroid medication must be euthyroid for at least 1 month before Visit 1 Patients who have had intolerable side effects with QTP or Li Patients whose clinical status requires inpatient care Drug/alcohol dependence within the past 30 days Pregnancy as determined by urine pregnancy test or breastfeeding History of nonresponse to Li at a serum level of ≥ 1.0 mEq/L ≥ 8 weeks History of nonresponse to QTP at doses of at least 600 mg ≥ 8 weeks.
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Andrew A Nierenberg, MD
Organizational Affiliation
Massachusetts General Hospital
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
University of Alabama at Birmingham
City
Birmingham
State/Province
Alabama
ZIP/Postal Code
35205
Country
United States
Facility Name
Stanford University School of Medicine
City
Stanford
State/Province
California
ZIP/Postal Code
94305
Country
United States
Facility Name
Massachusetts General Hospital
City
Boston
State/Province
Massachusetts
ZIP/Postal Code
02114
Country
United States
Facility Name
University of Michigan
City
Ann Arbor
State/Province
Michigan
ZIP/Postal Code
48109
Country
United States
Facility Name
Weill Cornell Medical College
City
New York
State/Province
New York
ZIP/Postal Code
10065
Country
United States
Facility Name
Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine
City
Cleveland
State/Province
Ohio
ZIP/Postal Code
44106
Country
United States
Facility Name
The Lindner Center of HOPE
City
Mason
State/Province
Ohio
ZIP/Postal Code
45040
Country
United States
Facility Name
University of Pennsylvania
City
Philadelphia
State/Province
Pennsylvania
ZIP/Postal Code
19104
Country
United States
Facility Name
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
City
Pittsburgh
State/Province
Pennsylvania
ZIP/Postal Code
15213
Country
United States
Facility Name
Vanderbilt University
City
Nashville
State/Province
Tennessee
ZIP/Postal Code
37212
Country
United States
Facility Name
The University of Texas Health Science Center
City
San Antonio
State/Province
Texas
ZIP/Postal Code
78229
Country
United States

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Citations:
PubMed Identifier
28188565
Citation
Sylvia LG, Montana RE, Deckersbach T, Thase ME, Tohen M, Reilly-Harrington N, McInnis MG, Kocsis JH, Bowden C, Calabrese J, Gao K, Ketter T, Shelton RC, McElroy SL, Friedman ES, Rabideau DJ, Nierenberg AA. Poor quality of life and functioning in bipolar disorder. Int J Bipolar Disord. 2017 Dec;5(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s40345-017-0078-4. Epub 2017 Mar 27.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
26845265
Citation
Deckersbach T, Nierenberg AA, McInnis MG, Salcedo S, Bernstein EE, Kemp DE, Shelton RC, McElroy SL, Sylvia LG, Kocsis JH, Bobo WV, Friedman ES, Singh V, Tohen M, Bowden CL, Ketter TA, Calabrese JR, Thase ME, Reilly-Harrington NA, Rabideau DJ, Kinrys G, Kamali M. Baseline disability and poor functioning in bipolar disorder predict worse outcomes: results from the Bipolar CHOICE study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016 Jan;77(1):100-8. doi: 10.4088/JCP.14m09210.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
26845264
Citation
Nierenberg AA, McElroy SL, Friedman ES, Ketter TA, Shelton RC, Deckersbach T, McInnis MG, Bowden CL, Tohen M, Kocsis JH, Calabrese JR, Kinrys G, Bobo WV, Singh V, Kamali M, Kemp D, Brody B, Reilly-Harrington NA, Sylvia LG, Shesler LW, Bernstein EE, Schoenfeld D, Rabideau DJ, Leon AC, Faraone S, Thase ME. Bipolar CHOICE (Clinical Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness): a pragmatic 6-month trial of lithium versus quetiapine for bipolar disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016 Jan;77(1):90-9. doi: 10.4088/JCP.14m09349.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
25514063
Citation
Bobo WV, Reilly-Harrington NA, Ketter TA, Brody BD, Kinrys G, Kemp DE, Shelton RC, McElroy SL, Sylvia LG, Kocsis JH, McInnis MG, Friedman ES, Singh V, Tohen M, Bowden CL, Deckersbach T, Calabrese JR, Thase ME, Nierenberg AA, Rabideau DJ, Schoenfeld DA, Faraone SV, Kamali M. Complexity of illness and adjunctive benzodiazepine use in outpatients with bipolar I or II disorder: results from the Bipolar CHOICE study. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2015 Feb;35(1):68-74. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000000257.
Results Reference
derived

Learn more about this trial

Comparative Effectiveness Study for Bipolar Disorder

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs