Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:16:28.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Prophylaxis in bipolar disorder: Implications of a randomised, open lamotrigine-vs-lithium study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

R.W. Licht
Affiliation:
Mood Disorders Research Unit, Aarhus University Psychiatric Hospital, Risskov, Denmark
P. Vestergaard
Affiliation:
Mood Disorders Research Unit, Aarhus University Psychiatric Hospital, Risskov, Denmark
L.F. Gram
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background and aims:

In 2 drug approval studies lamotrigine has been shown to possess prophylactic potentials comparable with lithium in bipolar disorder. However, the generalisabilty of these results are limited. In 2001, an investigator-driven study was initiated comparing lamotrigine and lithium for prophylaxis aiming at mimicking routine clinical conditions. Data collection is not completed (until end 2006) albeit recruitment is accomplished. Based on preliminary findings, the focus will be on methodological implications.

Methods:

This is an open, multicenter, randomised trial conducted within the Danish University Antidepressant Group Subjects suffered from bipolar disorder indicating prophylaxis. Exclusion criteria were kept to a minimum. Randomisation took place when clinically appropriate The primary end-point was the need for additional medication or hospitalization, conditionally that patients were stabilized on monotherapy 6 months after randomisation. Patients were followed up to 6 years after randomisation.

Results:

Of the 155 randomised patients, 123 (79%) were recruited at the main center. So far, 25% of the patients were prematurely withdrawn within the first 6 months after randomisation, 25% were withdrawn at 6 months since they were not in monotherapy at this point, 25% have reached the primary end-point and the remaining 25% are still in trial.

Conclusions:

The large proportion of patients that needed additional medications even after 6 months indicates that previous long-term studies randomising patients on monotherapies may have limited generalisability. The uneven contribution from the main center and the other centers indicates that multicenter studies may include patients that are selected beyond the selection criteria.

Type
Poster Session 2: Depressive Disorders
Copyright
Copyright © European Psychiatric Association 2007
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.