Patients having an acute manic episode of bipolar disorder often lack insight into their condition. Because little is known about the possible effect of insight on treatment efficacy, we examined whether insight at the start of treatment affects the efficacy of antipsychotic treatment in patients with acute mania. We used individual patient data from 7 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled registration studies of 4 antipsychotics in patients with acute mania (N = 1904). Insight was measured with item 11 of the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) at baseline and study endpoint 3 weeks later. Treatment outcome was defined by (a) mean change score, (b) response defined as 50% or more improvement on YMRS, and (c) remission defined as YMRS score less than 8 at study endpoint. We used multilevel mixed effect linear (or logistic) regression analyses of individual patient data to assess the interaction between baseline insight and treatment outcomes. At treatment initiation, 1207 (63.5%) patients had impaired or no insight into their condition. Level of insight significantly modified the efficacy of treatment by mean change score (P = 0.039), response rate (P = 0.033), and remission rate (P = 0.043), with greater improvement in patients with more impaired insight. We therefore recommend that patients experiencing acute mania should be treated immediately and not be delayed until patients regain insight.

No abstract

Given globalization trends in the conduct of clinical trials, the external validity of trial results across geographic regions is questioned. The objective of this study was to examine the efficacy of treatment in acute mania in bipolar disorder across regions and to explain potential differences by differences in patient characteristics. We performed a meta-analysis of individual patient data from 12 registration studies for the indication acute manic episode of bipolar disorder. Patients (n = 3207) were classified into one of three geographic regions: Europe (n = 981), USA (n = 1270), and other regions (n = 956). Primary outcome measures were mean symptom change score on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) from baseline to endpoint and responder status (50% improvement form baseline). Effect sizes were significantly smaller in the USA (g = 0.203, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.062-0.344; odds ratio (OR) 1.406, 95% CI 0.998-1.980) than in Europe (g = 0.476, 95% CI 0.200-0.672; OR 2.380, 95% CI 1.682-3.368) or other regions (g = 0.533, 95% CI 0.399-0.667; OR 2.300, 95% CI 1.800-2.941). Regional differences in age, gender, initial severity, body mass index, placebo response, discontinuation rate, and type of compound could not explain the geographic differences in effect. Less severe symptoms at baseline in the US patients did explain some of the difference in responder status between patients in Europe and the USA. These findings suggest that the results of studies involving patients with acute mania cannot be extrapolated across geographic regions. Similar findings have been identified in schizophrenia, contraceptive, and in cardiovascular trials. Therefore, this finding may indicate a more general problem regarding the generalizability of pharmacological trials over geographic regions.

No abstract