Objective The risk-benefit profile of antidepressant medications in bipolar disorder is controversial. When conclusive evidence is lacking, expert consensus can guide treatment decisions. The International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) convened a task force to seek consensus recommendations on the use of antidepressants in bipolar disorders. Method An expert task force iteratively developed consensus through serial consensus-based revisions using the Delphi method. Initial survey items were based on systematic review of the literature. Subsequent surveys included new or reworded items and items that needed to be rerated. This process resulted in the final ISBD Task Force clinical recommendations on antidepressant use in bipolar disorder. Results There is striking incongruity between the wide use of and the weak evidence base for the efficacy and safety of antidepressant drugs in bipolar disorder. Few well-designed, long-term trials of prophylactic benefits have been conducted, and there is insufficient evidence for treatment benefits with antidepressants combined with mood stabilizers. A major concern is the risk for mood switch to hypomania, mania, and mixed states. Integrating the evidence and the experience of the task force members, a consensus was reached on 12 statements on the use of antidepressants in bipolar disorder. Conclusions Because of limited data, the task force could not make broad statements endorsing antidepressant use but acknowledged that individual bipolar patients may benefit from antidepressants. Regarding safety, serotonin reuptake inhibitors and bupropion may have lower rates of manic switch than tricyclic and tetracyclic antidepressants and norepinephrine-serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The frequency and severity of antidepressant-associated mood elevations appear to be greater in bipolar I than bipolar II disorder. Hence, in bipolar I patients antidepressants should be prescribed only as an adjunct to mood-stabilizing medications.

We conducted genomewide linkage analyses on 1,152 individuals from 250 families segregating for bipolar disorder and related affective illnesses. These pedigrees were ascertained at 10 sites in the United States, through a proband with bipolar I affective disorder and a sibling with bipolar I or schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. Uniform methods of ascertainment and assessment were used at all sites. A 9-cM screen was performed by use of 391 markers, with an average heterozygosity of 0.76. Multipoint, nonparametric linkage analyses were conducted in affected relative pairs. Additionally, simulation analyses were performed to determine genomewide significance levels for this study. Three hierarchical models of affection were analyzed. Significant evidence for linkage (genomewide P<.05) was found on chromosome 17q, with a peak maximum LOD score of 3.63, at the marker D17S928, and on chromosome 6q, with a peak maximum LOD score of 3.61, near the marker D6S1021. These loci met both standard and simulation-based criteria for genomewide significance. Suggestive evidence of linkage was observed in three other regions (genomewide P<.10), on chromosomes 2p, 3q, and 8q. This study, which is based on the largest linkage sample for bipolar disorder analyzed to date, indicates that several genes contribute to bipolar disorder.

No abstract

Objective Published studies suggest associations between circadian gene polymorphisms and bipolar I disorder (BPI), as well as schizoaffective disorder (SZA) and schizophrenia (SZ). The results are plausible, based on prior studies of circadian abnormalities. As replications have not been attempted uniformly, we evaluated representative, common polymorphisms in all three disorders. Methods We assayed 276 publicly available ‘tag’ single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at 21 circadian genes among 523 patients with BPI, 527 patients with SZ/SZA, and 477 screened adult controls. Detected associations were evaluated in relation to two published genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Results Using gene-based tests, suggestive associations were noted between EGR3 and BPI (p = 0.017), and between NPAS2 and SZ/SZA (p = 0.034). Three SNPs were associated with both sets of disorders (NPAS2: rs13025524 and rs11123857; RORB: rs10491929; p < 0.05). None of the associations remained significant following corrections for multiple comparisons. Approximately 15% of the analyzed SNPs overlapped with an independent study that conducted GWAS for BPI; suggestive overlap between the GWAS analyses and ours was noted at ARNTL. Conclusions Several suggestive, novel associations were detected with circadian genes and BPI and SZ/SZA, but the present analyses do not support associations with common polymorphisms that confer risk with odds ratios greater than 1.5. Additional analyses using adequately powered samples are warranted to further evaluate these results.