Background

The prescribing of ‘new-generation antidepressants’ to children and adolescents with depression has been controversial in the UK since the publication of the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) report in 2003 (Committee on Safety of Medicines 2003a). This report highlighted the important matter of the non-publication of negative trial results, and questioned both the effectiveness and safety of these medications, particularly an increased risk of suicidality. The controversy over effectiveness has now spread to prescription of these drugs to adults (Reference Kirsch, Deacon and Huedo-MedinaKirsch 2008). Concerns have also been expressed regarding the unbalanced media coverage of these issues and the potential detrimental effect of such negative publicity on the treatment of major depressive disorder (Reference Nutt and MaliziaNutt 2008). Before discussing the practicalities of prescribing, we will review the evidence for the CSM findings.

The tricyclic antidepressants will not be discussed here, as the adverse side-effect profile associated with these drugs outweighs the relatively small benefits that may be gained (Reference Varley and McClellanVarley 1997; Reference Hazell, O'Connell and HeathcoteHazell 2002).

Evidence base for effectiveness and suicidality

Suicidality

Meta-analyses conducted since the CSM report (Committee on Safety of Medicines 2003a) generally indicate that there appears to be a small, non-significant increased risk of suicidality with the new-generation antidepressants compared with placebo, but no deaths by suicide have been reported (Reference Dubicka, Hadley and RobertsDubicka 2006; Reference Hammad, Laughren and RacoosinHammad 2006; Reference Bridge, Iyengar and SalaryBridge 2007). One analysis, for example, reported a rate of 4.8% for all suicide-related events and self-harm in children and adolescents receiving new-generation antidepressants v. 3.0% for those receiving placebo in the short term (Reference Dubicka, Hadley and RobertsDubicka 2006). Although these findings are concerning, a number of other issues need to be considered.

First, in most trials suicidality was examined in clinical notes retrospectively and there was no predetermined agreed definition of suicidal events or standardised way of data collection, weaknesses that undermine the certainty of their findings (Reference Kutcher and GardnerKutcher 2008). Only TADS examined suicidality prospectively. This four-arm study (fluoxetine; CBT; fluoxetine plus CBT; pill placebo) found a reduction in suicidality in all four groups and no significant differences between groups for suicidal ideation at 12 weeks (Reference Emslie, Kratochvil and VitielloEmslie 2006). However, there did appear to be an increased risk of suicidal events in adolescents receiving fluoxetine alone at both 12 and 36 weeks (Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study Team (TADS) 2007).

Second, evidence from other sources does not consistently support an increased risk of suicidality. For example, the risk is highest in the month before treatment is started (Reference Simon, Savarino and OperskalskiSimon 2006); longer-term treatment is associated with a reduction in suicide attempts (Reference Valuck, Libby and SillsValuck 2004) and fewer attempts occur if depression has been treated with antidepressants (Reference Gibbons, Brown and HurGibbons 2007a). As regards completed suicide, antidepressants are rarely found in post-mortem examinations of child and adolescent suicides (Reference Leon, Marzuk and TardiffLeon 2006), ecological studies do not support an increased risk of suicide with the general rise in antidepressant prescribing (Reference Baldessarini, Tondo and StrombomBaldessarini 2007), and the decrease in antidepressant prescribing in the USA and The Netherlands following the public health warnings on their use has been associated with an increase in child and adolescent suicide (Reference Gibbons, Brown and HurGibbons 2007b). Although a similar association has not been reported in the UK (Reference Wheeler, Gunnell and MetcalfeWheeler 2008), a UK study confirms that affective disorder remains the most common psychiatric diagnosis in child and adolescent suicides and that new-generation antidepressants had been prescribed to only 8% of those who had taken their lives (Reference Windfuhr, While and HuntWindfuhr 2008).

Third, the antidepressant trials excluded the most suicidal children and adolescents, so the balance of risks and benefits remains speculative in this group.

Last, it is mental illness that remains untreated owing to a reluctance to seek help that has been most strongly implicated in child and adolescent suicides, rather than the adverse effects of receiving treatment (Reference Moskos, Olson and HalbernMoskos 2007).

Overall, therefore, the evidence suggests that anti-depressants are an important therapeutic option for moderate to severe adolescent depression, and although clinicians need to continue to monitor the risk of suicidality, this is likely to be far greater in untreated depression.

Guidelines for antidepressant use

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines on the management of depression in children and adolescents advocate the use of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) fluoxetine as the first-line pharmacological treatment, with citalopram and sertraline as the second-line choice (National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health 2005). This is broadly consistent with the guidelines produced by the Texas Consensus Conference Panel on Medication Treatment of Childhood Major Depressive Disorder in the USA (Reference Hughes, Emslie and CrismonHughes 2007), although the Texas guidelines advise the use of any of these three SSRIs as a first-line medication. However, NICE advises starting SSRIs only in combination with a specific psychological treatment, and only if there has been no response to psychological treatment over 4–6 weeks. The Texas guidelines advise a non-specific treatment intervention initially, which concurs with our findings from the UK Adolescent Depression Antidepressant and Psychotherapy Trial (ADAPT) (Reference Goodyer, Dubicka and WilkinsonGoodyer 2007), in which 20% of adolescents with moderate to severe depression responded to our brief ‘specialised treatment as usual’ (STAU).

Key points of pharmacological treatment guidelines and drug licensing are summarised in Table 1.

TABLE 1 Pharmacological treatment for depression in children and adolescents: UK and US guidelines and licensing

	Guideline advice in terms of pharmacological treatment		Minimum age for licensed prescribing, years
Drug	NICE	Texasa	UK	USA
Citalopram	Second-line	First-line	≥18	≥18
Escitalopram	Not discussed	Second-line	≥18	≥12
Fluoxetine	First-line	First-line	≥8b	≥8
Paroxetine	Contraindicated by CSM	Second-linec	≥18	≥18
Sertraline	Second-line	First-line	≥18	≥18
Venlafaxine	Contraindicated by CSM	Third-line	≥18	≥18

Specialised treatment as usual

In CAMHS, specialised treatment as usual (Box 1) amounts to active routine clinical care and we suggest that it be adopted as the initial intervention for depression, before medication or more specialised psychological treatments are added (Reference Kelvin, Wilkinson, Goodyer, Rey and BirmaherKelvin 2009). The duration of initial STAU should depend on the response to treatment and the severity of the presentation. In more severe depression, with continuing significant impairment, suicidality and/or psychosis, we suggest that antidepressant treatment be started after 2–4 weeks of non-response; for patients at high risk, antidepressants might be prescribed even sooner. Individuals who do not wish or are unable to take medication and those with less severe depression who fail to respond to initial STAU should be offered specialised psychological treatment. As recommended in similar frameworks suggested in other guidelines (Reference Hughes, Emslie and CrismonHughes 2007; American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2007a), SSRIs should not be given without STAU.

The ADAPT study found that CBT plus STAU did not confer any additional advantage in terms of improved clinical outcomes or a protective effect against suicidality over and above an SSRI plus STAU. This questions the need for more specialised specific psychological treatment as an initial adjunct to medication in order to effect remission within 28 weeks of the start of treatment.

Prescribing

Starting doses should be low (e.g. fluoxetine 10 mg) and the dose should be gradually titrated according to response and side-effects. Although there is a widely held belief regarding delayed onset of action of antidepressants, this does not concur with trial data in adults, which suggest that 35% of eventual improvement occurs in the first week (Reference Posternak and ZimmermanPosternak 2005). As regards continuation treatment, current evidence suggests that continuing antidepressants for 6 months after an adequate response at 12 weeks significantly reduces the risk of relapse when compared to placebo (Reference Emslie, Kennard and MayesEmslie 2008). The NICE guidelines on child and adolescent depression recommend continuing treatment for at least 6 months after recovery (full functioning for 8 weeks and no symptoms) (National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health 2005).

Discontinuation should be gradual (Reference Hughes, Emslie and CrismonHughes 2007; Reference Anderson, Ferrier and BaldwinAnderson 2008) as discontinuation symptoms may occur, although fluoxetine is less likely to lead to such symptoms because of its long half-life. These symptoms are usually self-limiting and of short duration. The Texas guidelines suggest tapering the dose by 25% per week over 2–3 months, and NICE suggests tapering over 6–12 weeks. Before stopping medication, consideration needs to be given to any current stresses that may increase the risk of relapse and may make discontinuation unadvisable. In addition, those with a history of chronic depression or a history of recurrence should be considered for longer maintenance treatment of more than a year (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2007a). Relapse is most likely to occur within the first 6 months following discontinuation, so close monitoring is recommended during this time.

Adverse effects

The SSRIs are associated with side-effects such as sedation, insomnia and gastrointestinal disturbances, although these are uncommon (< 5%) (Reference Emslie, Kratochvil and VitielloEmslie 2006). Even more rarely, SSRIs can induce bleeding, serotonin syndrome, mania and agitation (Reference Cheung, Emslie and MayesCheung 2005; Reference Emslie, Kratochvil and VitielloEmslie 2006; American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2007a; Reference Anderson, Ferrier and BaldwinAnderson 2008).

Predictors of response

Factors associated with better response to treatment include younger age, less severe depression, higher functioning, less comorbidity and suicidality, lower levels of family conflict and fewer adverse life events (Reference Curry, Rodhe and SimonsCurry 2006; Reference Asarnow, Emslie and ClarkeAsarnow 2009; Reference Wilkinson, Dubicka and KelvinWilkinson 2009); however, more severe depression has also been associated with a larger drug v. placebo response (Reference Bridge, Birmaher and IyengarBridge 2009). Better response to SSRIs has also been found in children and adolescents with anxiety and depression who are homozygous for the more functional long allele of the promoter of the serotonin transporter gene (Reference Kronenberg, Apter and BrentKronenberg 2007).

Failure to respond

About one-third of adolescents fail to show an adequate response to antidepressants (Box 2). The rate of improvement in the early weeks of treatment is a good indicator of eventual remission (Reference Rongrong, Emslie and MayesRongrong 2009). Before considering alternative treatment strategies, reassessment is required to review possible reasons for non-response. These can include misdiagnosis, comorbidity, inadequate treatment, non-adherence, side-effects and life events (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2007a). After reassessment, increasing the dose (up to 40 mg with fluoxetine, depending on the side-effect profile) may be a reasonable first strategy before considering switching, although there is limited evidence for this (Reference Anderson, Ferrier and BaldwinAnderson 2008).

The NICE guidelines on child and adolescent depression recommend using either sertraline or citalopram if there is no response to fluoxetine, and this advice is consistent with the results of the more recent Treatment of SSRI-Resistant Depression In Adolescents (TORDIA) study (Reference Brent, Emslie and ClarkeBrent 2008). This study found that in adolescents who failed to respond to an SSRI, switching to another SSRI was as effective as switching to the serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor venlafaxine at 12 weeks, with fewer adverse effects. Nearly half of these treatment-resistant adolescents showed a positive response to a second-line SSRI. Direct switching of SSRIs without a washout period seems to be well tolerated (Reference Anderson, Ferrier and BaldwinAnderson 2008). The Texas guidelines include escitalopram and paroxetine as second-line SSRIs, although the evidence base for escitalopram is limited (Reference Wagner, Jonas and FindlingWagner 2006). Note that in the UK paroxetine is currently contraindicated for patients under 18 years of age because of its adverse risk–benefit profile (Committee on Safety of Medicines 2003b).

With regard to third-line treatment, the Texas guidelines suggest using an antidepressant from a different class. However, there have been no positive RCTs of other classes of antidepressants in children and adolescents. Again, note that venlafaxine is contraindicated in the UK for use in people under 18, owing to its adverse risk–benefit profile (Committee on Safety of Medicines 2003c). The Texas guidelines also suggest augmentation strategies in the event of partial response to an SSRI, but the evidence base for this in children and adolescents is sparse.

Adjunctive psychological treatment

Although the NICE guidelines on child and adolescent depression advise the prescription of antidepressants together with a specialised psychological treatment, the ADAPT study and other treatment guidelines (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2007a; Reference Hughes, Emslie and CrismonHughes 2007; Reference Anderson, Ferrier and BaldwinAnderson 2008) would suggest that this is not always necessary. TADS reported an advantage of combining fluoxetine with CBT over fluoxetine alone (without STAU), although this advantage was lost in more severe cases (Reference Curry, Rodhe and SimonsCurry 2006). The TORDIA study also reported an advantage of combined treatment (Reference Brent, Emslie and ClarkeBrent 2008), but this effect was not consistent on all measures. Two other studies in addition to ADAPT did not find an advantage (Reference Clarke, Debar and LynchClarke 2005; Reference Melvin, Tonge and KingMelvin 2006). Although TADS indicated that CBT was protective against suicidality when combined with fluoxetine, neither the ADAPT nor the TORDIA studies found this effect and a meta-analysis of these treatment studies found a limited effect of combined treatment (Reference Dubicka, Elvins and RobertsDubicka 2010). We would therefore suggest that an adjunctive specialised psychological treatment should be targeted at children and adolescents who are receiving STAU and do not respond to antidepressants and require either treatment augmentation or a change of treatment. Currently the strongest evidence base for psychological treatments exists for CBT and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2007a).

Adjunctive pharmacological treatment

In psychotic depression the addition of an atypical antipsychotic may need to be considered, although the evidence base for this is limited (Reference Hughes, Emslie and CrismonHughes 2007; Reference Anderson, Ferrier and BaldwinAnderson 2008). The choice of antipsychotic should be determined on an individual basis after a discussion of side-effect profiles with the young person and their family. The dose should be continued for 2–3 months following remission of psychotic symptoms and then slowly discontinued (Reference Hughes, Emslie and CrismonHughes 2007).

There is some evidence that antipsychotics may be effective as an augmentation strategy in treatment-resistant depression in adults (Reference Anderson, Ferrier and BaldwinAnderson 2008), but there remains little evidence to guide clinicians in the management of children and adolescents with treatment resistance. Various strategies have been tried with adults but any extrapolation from the adult literature to children and adolescents needs to be treated with caution (for review, see Reference Anderson, Ferrier and BaldwinAnderson 2008).

Alternative treatment strategies

Interestingly, a small study found a significant effect, compared with placebo, for omega-3 fatty acids in alleviating depression in children (Reference Nemets, Nemets and ApterNemets 2006). There is some evidence that omega-3 fatty acids are effective as an augmentation strategy in treatment-resistant depression in adults (Reference Anderson, Ferrier and BaldwinAnderson 2008).

St John's wort appears to be effective for depression in adults (Reference Szegedi, Kohnen and DienelSzegedi 2005). Although results from an open-label study of St John's wort for juvenile depression are promising (Reference Findling, McNamara and O'RiordanFindling 2003), data relating to its use in children and adolescents remain limited and NICE does not recommend it for children and adolescents.

Diagnostic issues

The diagnosis of bipolar disorder and mania in children and adolescents is controversial. Pre-pubertal mania is recognised more commonly in the USA than in the UK (Reference Dubicka, Carlson and VailDubicka 2008) and more individuals, including adults, are being diagnosed with an ‘atypical’ presentation of bipolar disorder (Reference CarlsonCarlson 2005). Rates of diagnosis of bipolar disorder have increased dramatically in recent years in the USA (Reference Moreno, Laje and BlancoMoreno 2007), but it is not clear whether this is due to increased recognition, increased prevalence or overly inclusive diagnoses.

This review will focus on the DSM–IV–TR (American Psychiatric Association 1994) and ICD–10 (World Health Organization 1992) definitions of bipolar disorder (Box 3), which are broadly consistent with existing guidelines regarding diagnosis and treatment (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2007b). The NICE guidelines on bipolar disorder specify that adult criteria should be used with children and adolescents but that mania must be present (not just depression and a family history of bipolar disorder); that euphoria should be present most of the time for at least a week; and that irritability should not be used as a core criterion, except in older adolescents, since this symptom is non-specific in younger children (National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health 2006). However, controversy still remains regarding the interpretation of core symptoms, namely elation or grandiosity, as it depends on the subjective view of the clinician (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2007b; Reference Dubicka, Carlson and VailDubicka 2008). The NICE guidelines also state that bipolar II disorder should not be diagnosed in children and younger adolescents, in view of the uncertainties regarding the diagnostic criteria.

BOX 3 DSM–IV–TR and ICD–10 criteria for bipolar affective disorder

DSM–IV–TR a	ICD–10 b
Manic episode	Manic episode
Mood elation, expansiveness or irritability Minimum 7 days' duration (less if admitted to hospital) Specify three additional listed symptoms (four if irritability present), e.g. grandiosity, decreased need for sleep, pressured speech, flight of ideas Marked impairment or hospital admission or psychosis Mixed episode excluded	Mood elation or irritability or suspiciousness Minimum 7 days' duration Several other symptoms should be present in addition to mood change and increased energy (number of symptoms not specified) Significant impairment Psychosis may be present
Hypomania	Hypomania
Lesser degree of mania (no psychosis)	Lesser degree of mania (no psychosis)
Bipolar I	Bipolar affective disorder
Presence of manic or mixed episode (therefore can be diagnosed in absence of depression); minimum 7 days' duration (less if admitted to hospital) Significant impairment	At least two episodes where mood (hypomania/mania and depression) and activity levels are significantly disturbed
Bipolar II
Periods of major depression and hypomania lasting at least 4 days
Rapid cycling
At least four mood episodes in one year

The prognostic and treatment implications of subthreshold bipolar disorder not meeting diagnostic criteria are unclear, but there is some evidence to suggest that, although only a minority of affected individuals develop a more classic disorder over 4 years, young people with subthreshold symptoms show lower rates of recovery compared with those with bipolar I or II disorder, and also have similar levels of impairment and suicidality (Reference Birmaher, Axelson and GoldsteinBirmaher 2009). However, it remains unknown how many will progress to more classic presentations in adulthood, and therefore the reliability of early diagnosis in such cases is unclear. A prospective study of children diagnosed with mania using modified criteria for elation and grandiosity demonstrated that their illness had a chronic, impaired course with strong continuity into adulthood (Reference Geller, Tillman and BolhofnerGeller 2008). However, the use of these broader diagnostic criteria in children remains a topic of much debate and is an area that requires further research (Reference GoodwinGoodwin 2009).

Evidence base for pharmacological treatment

There have been few studies of pharmacological treatment of bipolar disorder in children and adolescents (Reference Consoli, Deniau and HuynhConsoli 2007; Reference Smarty and FindlingSmarty 2007; Reference Carlson and DubickaCarlson 2010). The studies that have been published are problematic as they include few RCTs, most of which have been small and in which treatment response rates have varied widely, partly a result of inconsistent definitions of bipolar disorder and differing response criteria.

Lithium has been the most widely studied pharmacological treatment for mania in children and adolescents and in adults. Trials support its use in adults (Reference GoodwinGoodwin 2009) and early trials of lithium in children and adolescents were generally positive, although their conclusions are limited owing to methodological problems (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2007b). Of the more recent placebo-controlled trials, one study in adolescents with bipolar disorder and substance dependence reported improved functioning with lithium compared with placebo (Reference Geller, Cooper and SunGeller 1998). However, another study in adolescents with mania found no difference in relapse rates between lithium and placebo (Reference Kafantaris, Coletti and DickerKafantaris 2004). Further data are therefore needed on the use of lithium in bipolar disorder and a large RCT is now underway (Reference Findling, Frazier and KafantarisFindling 2008). Interestingly, a recent placebo-controlled trial of lithium in 7- to 17-year-olds with severe mood dysregulation did not provide any support for using lithium (Reference Dickstein, Towbin and Van Der VeenDickstein 2009).

As regards anticonvulsants, a recent RCT comparing valproate semisodium (divalproex) with placebo in children and adolescents with bipolar I disorder, mixed or manic states, did not provide support for the drug (Reference Wagner, Redden and KowatchWagner 2009). An RCT of valproate in children and adolescents with bipolar-spectrum disorder who had a parent with bipolar disorder was also negative (Reference Findling, Frazier and YoungstromFindling 2007), in contrast to adult results for acute mania (Reference Fountoulakis and VietaFountoulakis 2008).

There is very little evidence to support the use of carbamazepine in children and adolescents (Reference Consoli, Deniau and HuynhConsoli 2007; Reference Smarty and FindlingSmarty 2007; Reference Carlson and DubickaCarlson 2010), although there is an evidence base for adults (Reference Fountoulakis and VietaFountoulakis 2008; Reference GoodwinGoodwin 2009).

Lamotrigine is approved for maintenance treatment in adults in the USA and is preferentially effective in depression (Reference Fountoulakis and VietaFountoulakis 2008; Reference GoodwinGoodwin 2009). Open-label studies in adolescents suggest that lamotrigine may be effective in bipolar depression as well as controlling manic symptoms (Reference Chang, Saxena and HoweChang 2006; Reference Pavuluri, Henry and MossPavuluri 2009; Reference Biederman, Joshi and MickBiederman 2010). Overall, therefore, there is little evidence currently supporting the use of anticonvulsants for bipolar disorder in children and adolescents.

There is increasing evidence that the second-generation antipsychotics are effective in adults with bipolar disorder (Reference GoodwinGoodwin 2009) and one placebo-controlled trial has been conducted involving adolescents with mania. This large study demonstrated that olanzapine was efficacious but weight gain and metabolic adverse effects were a problem (Reference Tohen, Kryzhanovskaya and CarlsonTohen 2007). Although the combination of quetiapine with valproate has been shown to be superior to valproate plus placebo in adolescents with mania (Reference DelBello, Schwiers and RosenbergDelBello 2002), this finding needs to be considered in the context of the above negative trial of valproate (Reference Wagner, Redden and KowatchWagner 2009) and, since quetiapine was not studied without adjunctive valproate, the implications of this study are unclear. Open trials suggest that risperidone may be effective (Reference Smarty and FindlingSmarty 2007).

Pharmacological treatment guidelines

Owing to the lack of a strong evidence base for treatment of bipolar disorder in children and adolescents, guidelines are largely extrapolated from the adult literature, although even this evidence base is limited (Reference Fountoulakis and VietaFountoulakis 2008). As this is a rapidly changing area, clinicians need to keep abreast of the emerging literature. Medication remains the first-line treatment for cases of bipolar disorder that meet diagnostic criteria, although caution should be used with early-onset mania as the effectiveness and safety of medication has not yet been established in this age group (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2007b).

UK and US pharmacological treatment guidelines are discussed separately below and key points are summarised in Table 2.

TABLE 2 Pharmacological treatment for mania/hypomania and bipolar disorder in children and adolescents: UK and US guidelines and licensing^a

	Guideline adviceb		Age for licensed prescribing in bipolar disorder/mania/hypomania, years
Drug	NICE	AACAPc	UK	USA
Aripiprazole	–	First-line	≥18 (mania; for prophylaxis if previous response)	≥10 (mania/mixed)
Carbamazepine	Third-line	Second-line (although first-line in another US guidelined)	≥18 (in non-responders to lithium for prophylaxis of ‘manic–depressive psychosis’)	≥18 (mania/mixed)
Lamotrigine	Third-line, especially in bipolar II disorder and recurrent depression	Maintenance	≥18 (prevention of depressive episodes in bipolar I disorder if past history of depression)	≥18 (maintenance treatment and acute mood episode)
Lithium carbonate	Second-line for augmentation (first-line only if previously successful); maintenance treatment	First-line and maintenance	12 and over (450 mg lithium carbonate, extended release only; mania and prophylaxis)	≥12 (mania/mixed)
Olanzapine	First-line and maintenance	First-line, maintenance	≥18 (monotherapy in mania, prophylaxis)	≥13 (mania/mixed and maintenance)
Quetiapine	First-line, and chronic and recurrent depression	First-line	≥18 (acute manic and depressive episodes in bipolar disorder; prophylaxis if previous response)	≥10 (mania: standard-release formulation; extended-release formulation for ≥18)
Risperidone	First-line	First-line	≥18 (mania)	≥10 (mania/mixed)
Valproate semisodium	Second-line for augmentation (first-line if previously successful); maintenance. Not to be used in girls <18 years and avoid in women of child-bearing potential	First-line	≥18 (mania)	≥18 (mania: extended-release tablets also approved)
Ziprasidone	–	First-line	Not licensed	≥18 (adjunct maintenance treatment – under review for children and adolescents)
Asenapine	–	–	Under European review	≥18 (acute manic/mixed episodes)
Olanzapine/fluoxetine combination	–	Bipolar depression	Not licensed	≥18 (bipolar depression)

Adverse effects

All mood stabilisers and second-generation antipsychotics are associated with potentially harmful adverse effects, and should therefore be used judiciously, with careful monitoring.

Principles of prescribing

In view of the paucity of the evidence base and concerns regarding potentially serious adverse effects, the risks and benefits of medication for bipolar disorder in children and adolescents need careful consideration with the family and young person. If medication is commenced, the principle is to ‘start low, go slow’, with closer monitoring than in adults (National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health 2006). Medication should be prescribed in a psychosocial therapeutic framework with an emphasis on managing overactivity, sleep hygiene, diet and structured activities. Bipolar disorder affects numerous developmental processes, including academic, social and family functioning, therefore treatment needs to be multimodal, including liaising with appropriate agencies and targeting relapse prevention (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2007b).

Other adjunctive treatment

Functional family therapy (psychoeducation, medication adherence sessions, communication training, problem-solving and relapse prevention) seems to be an effective adjunct to medication for reducing depressive symptoms in adolescents with bipolar disorder over the longer term (Reference Miklowitz, Axelson and BirmaherMiklowitz 2008) and for reducing recurrence and hospital admissions in adults with the disorder (Reference Rea, Tompson and MiklowitzRea 2003).

Fluoxetine is licensed by the Food and Drugs Administration in the USA in combination with olanzapine for depression in adult bipolar disorder, but the usefulness of antidepressants for the disorder remains controversial (Reference Fountoulakis and VietaFountoulakis 2008). NICE does not recommended antidepressants for rapid-cycling or mixed affective states (National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health 2006).