ObjectivesThyroid abnormalities in patients with bipolar disorder (BD) have been linked to lithium treatment for decades, yet other drugs have been less well studied. Our objective was to compare hypothyroidism risk for lithium versus the anticonvulsants and second‐generation antipsychotics commonly prescribed for BD.MethodsAdministrative claims data on 24,574 patients with BD were analyzed with competing risk survival analysis. Inclusion criteria were (i) one year of no prior hypothyroid diagnosis nor BD drug treatment, (ii) followed by at least one thyroid test during BD monotherapy on lithium carbonate, mood‐stabilizing anticonvulsants (lamotrigine, valproate, oxcarbazepine, or carbamazepine) or antipsychotics (aripiprazole, olanzapine, risperidone, or quetiapine). The outcome was cumulative incidence of hypothyroidism per drug, in the presence of the competing risk of ending monotherapy, adjusted for age, sex, physician visits, and thyroid tests.ResultsAdjusting for covariates, the four‐year cumulative risk of hypothyroidism for lithium (8.8%) was 1.39‐fold that of the lowest risk therapy, oxcarbazepine (6.3%). Lithium was non‐statistically significantly different from quetiapine. While lithium conferred a higher risk when compared to all other treatments combined as a group, hypothyroidism risk error bars overlapped for all drugs. Treatment (p = 3.86e‐3), age (p = 6.91e‐10), sex (p = 3.93e‐7), and thyroid testing (p = 2.79e‐87) affected risk. Patients taking lithium were tested for hypothyroidism 2.26–3.05 times more frequently than those on other treatments.ConclusionsThyroid abnormalities occur frequently in patients with BD regardless of treatment. Therefore, patients should be regularly tested for clinical or subclinical thyroid abnormalities on all therapies and treated as indicated to prevent adverse effects of hormone imbalances on mood.

Background Incomplete suicidality coding in administrative claims data is a known obstacle for observational studies. With most of the negative outcomes missing from the data, it is challenging to assess the evidence on treatment strategies for the prevention of self-harm in bipolar disorder (BD), including pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy. There are conflicting data from studies on the drug-dependent risk of self-harm, and there is major uncertainty regarding the preventive effect of monotherapy and drug combinations. Objective The aim of this study was to compare all commonly used BD pharmacotherapies, as well as psychotherapy for the risk of self-harm, in a large population of commercially insured individuals, using self-harm imputation to overcome the known limitations of this outcome being underrecorded within US electronic health care records. Methods The IBM MarketScan administrative claims database was used to compare self-harm risk in patients with BD following 65 drug regimens and drug-free periods. Probable but uncoded self-harm events were imputed via machine learning, with different probability thresholds examined in a sensitivity analysis. Comparators included lithium, mood-stabilizing anticonvulsants (MSAs), second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs), and five classes of antidepressants. Cox regression models with time-varying covariates were built for individual treatment regimens and for any pharmacotherapy with or without psychosocial interventions (“psychotherapy”). Results Among 529,359 patients, 1.66% (n=8813 events) had imputed and/or coded self-harm following the exposure of interest. A higher self-harm risk was observed during adolescence. After multiple testing adjustment (P≤.012), the following six regimens had higher risk of self-harm than lithium: tri/tetracyclic antidepressants + SGA, FGA + MSA, FGA, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) + SGA, lithium + MSA, and lithium + SGA (hazard ratios [HRs] 1.44-2.29), and the following nine had lower risk: lamotrigine, valproate, risperidone, aripiprazole, SNRI, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), “no drug,” bupropion, and bupropion + SSRI (HRs 0.28-0.74). Psychotherapy alone (without medication) had a lower self-harm risk than no treatment (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.52-0.60; P=8.76×10-58). The sensitivity analysis showed that the direction of drug-outcome associations did not change as a function of the self-harm probability threshold. Conclusions Our data support evidence on the effectiveness of antidepressants, MSAs, and psychotherapy for self-harm prevention in BD. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02893371; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02893371

BACKGROUND Incomplete suicidality coding in administrative claims data is a known obstacle for observational studies. With most of the negative outcomes missing from the data, it is challenging to assess the evidence on treatment strategies for the prevention of self-harm in bipolar disorder (BD), including pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy. There are conflicting data from studies on the drug-dependent risk of self-harm, and there is major uncertainty regarding the preventive effect of monotherapy and drug combinations. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to compare all commonly used BD pharmacotherapies, as well as psychotherapy for the risk of self-harm, in a large population of commercially insured individuals, using self-harm imputation to overcome the known limitations of this outcome being underrecorded within US electronic health care records. METHODS The IBM MarketScan administrative claims database was used to compare self-harm risk in patients with BD following 65 drug regimens and drug-free periods. Probable but uncoded self-harm events were imputed via machine learning, with different probability thresholds examined in a sensitivity analysis. Comparators included lithium, mood-stabilizing anticonvulsants (MSAs), second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs), and five classes of antidepressants. Cox regression models with time-varying covariates were built for individual treatment regimens and for any pharmacotherapy with or without psychosocial interventions (“psychotherapy”). RESULTS Among 529,359 patients, 1.66% (n=8813 events) had imputed and/or coded self-harm following the exposure of interest. A higher self-harm risk was observed during adolescence. After multiple testing adjustment (<i>P</i>≤.012), the following six regimens had higher risk of self-harm than lithium: tri/tetracyclic antidepressants + SGA, FGA + MSA, FGA, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) + SGA, lithium + MSA, and lithium + SGA (hazard ratios [HRs] 1.44-2.29), and the following nine had lower risk: lamotrigine, valproate, risperidone, aripiprazole, SNRI, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), “no drug,” bupropion, and bupropion + SSRI (HRs 0.28-0.74). Psychotherapy alone (without medication) had a lower self-harm risk than no treatment (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.52-0.60; <i>P</i>=8.76×10^-58). The sensitivity analysis showed that the direction of drug-outcome associations did not change as a function of the self-harm probability threshold. CONCLUSIONS Our data support evidence on the effectiveness of antidepressants, MSAs, and psychotherapy for self-harm prevention in BD. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02893371; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02893371

Background On March 11, 2020, the New Mexico Governor declared a public health emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The New Mexico medical advisory team contacted University of New Mexico (UNM) faculty to form a team to consolidate growing information on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its disease to facilitate New Mexico’s pandemic management. Thus, faculty, physicians, staff, graduate students, and medical students created the “UNM Global Health COVID-19 Intelligence Briefing.” Objective In this paper, we sought to (1) share how to create an informative briefing to guide public policy and medical practice and manage information overload with rapidly evolving scientific evidence; (2) determine the qualitative usefulness of the briefing to its readers; and (3) determine the qualitative effect this project has had on virtual medical education. Methods Microsoft Teams was used for manual and automated capture of COVID-19 articles and composition of briefings. Multilevel triaging saved impactful articles to be reviewed, and priority was placed on randomized controlled studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, practice guidelines, and information on health care and policy response to COVID-19. The finalized briefing was disseminated by email, a listserv, and posted on the UNM digital repository. A survey was sent to readers to determine briefing usefulness and whether it led to policy or medical practice changes. Medical students, unable to partake in direct patient care, proposed to the School of Medicine that involvement in the briefing should count as course credit, which was approved. The maintenance of medical student involvement in the briefings as well as this publication was led by medical students. Results An average of 456 articles were assessed daily. The briefings reached approximately 1000 people by email and listserv directly, with an unknown amount of forwarding. Digital repository tracking showed 5047 downloads across 116 countries as of July 5, 2020. The survey found 108 (95%) of 114 participants gained relevant knowledge, 90 (79%) believed it decreased misinformation, 27 (24%) used the briefing as their primary source of information, and 90 (79%) forwarded it to colleagues. Specific and impactful public policy decisions were informed based on the briefing. Medical students reported that the project allowed them to improve on their scientific literature assessment, stay current on the pandemic, and serve their community. Conclusions The COVID-19 briefings succeeded in informing and guiding New Mexico policy and clinical practice. The project received positive feedback from the community and was shown to decrease information burden and misinformation. The virtual platforms allowed for the continuation of medical education. Variability in subject matter expertise was addressed with training, standardized article selection criteria, and collaborative editing led by faculty.

BACKGROUND On March 11, 2020, the New Mexico (NM) Governor declared a Public Health Emergency in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The NM Medical Advisory Team (MAT) contacted faculty at the University of New Mexico (UNM) to form a team to assist in consolidating available information on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and COVID-19 to facilitate NM’s pandemic management. In response, faculty, physicians, staff, graduate students, and medical students created the “UNM Global Health COVID-19 Intelligence Briefing.” OBJECTIVE Based on the growing number of daily scientific publications and news reports and the potential risk of community misinformation, we formed a team of academics to consolidate and disseminate relevant daily briefings with a goal of informing healthcare and public policy decisions for the state of NM. METHODS Microsoft Teams™ was used for manual and automated capture of COVID-19 articles (daily average=456), and composition of briefings. Articles were summarized according to relevant content and statistical findings. Multi-level triaging allowed for the most impactful articles to be reviewed and summarized with priority placed on randomized controlled studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, practice guidelines, and other topics informing on healthcare and policy response to COVID-19. Team members met virtually to edit the briefing on clarity and grammar, and to prioritize articles based on scientific merit. The finalized briefing was emailed to a LISTSERV® and posted on the UNM Digital Repository. An IRB-approved survey to assess the impact of the briefing was sent to readers. RESULTS The briefings reached approximately 1,000 people by email alone. This number was likely higher with direct subscribers forwarding to colleagues. Tracking showed 5,047 downloads across 116 countries as of July 5, 2020. The survey received 114 respondents consisting of physicians, academic faculty, administrators, government employees, students, and nurses. Respondent feedback showed 95% gained relevant knowledge of the pandemic, 79% believed it decreased misinformation, 24% used the briefing as their primary source of information, and 79% forwarded to colleagues. CONCLUSIONS Variability in subject matter expertise was addressed with training, standardized article selection criteria, and collaborative editing. The UNM Global Health COVID-19 Intelligence Briefing accomplished the goal of disseminating relevant COVID-19 information to help guide NM government policy and clinical practice. A secondary benefit included advancing medical student education.