Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Disorder

Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Disorder

Definition
Treatment of bipolar illness involves four primary aims: treatment of mania, treatment of depression, prevention of manic recurrences, and prevention of depressive recurrences. Lithium has come to be regarded as the treatment of choice for bipolar illness, since double-blind controlled trials have demonstrated its efficacy for all four treatment goals (Goodwin et al. 1969; Maggs 1963; Stallone et al. 1973; Stokes et al. 1971). The concept of treatment resistance is often applied to bipolar illness when one or more of these goals are not achieved despite adequate treatment with lithium or another appropriate medication.

Kraepelin's (1921) naturalistic data suggested that, if untreated, many individuals with bipolar disorder are likely to have one or more acute episodes yearly. Kraepelin believed that resolution of mood symptoms with complete restitution of functioning was the defining feature of the illness. As applied to bipolar illness, treatment resistance can be defined as failure to effect recovery from an episode within a reasonable time frame despite receiving adequate treatment and/or as failure to prevent recurrences despite institution of appropriate prophylactic regimens.

Estimating the prevalence of treatment-resistant bipolar illness is hampered by the clinical complexity of the illness. Research on unipolar illness has been aided by relatively straightforward definitions of recovery, relapse, and recurrence. However, the nature of bipolar illness, with its various irregular episodic courses and the potential for mislabeling a switch in polarity as recovery from the preceding phase, makes it inappropriate to apply the same definitions to bipolar illness. Thus, the absence of consensus regarding appropriate definitions of recovery and treatment resistance continues to present a significant obstacle to research in this important public health problem. Even interpreting the available literature can be frustrating.

Typical of the conundrums presented by patients with bipolar disorder is the treatment of rapid cycling. Studies of treatment outcome may define recovery or marked improvement in rapid cycling as the cessation (or near cessation) of the occurrence of new episodes. This definition appears reasonable but fails to distinguish treatment success (euthymia without functional impairment) from a clear treatment failure (the induction of a prolonged depression). Furthermore, interpreting the results of interventions for any particular phase of rapid cycling is always clouded by the possibility that the improvement is merely part of the natural transition of the illness to the next episode.

Prevalence estimates for treatment-resistant bipolar illness are highly dependent on the definition chosen. The duration of acute episodes and the frequency of recurrence provide two reasonable and distinct measures of treatment response. First, the median duration of acute episodes provides a context for defining treatment resistance. Keller et al. (1986) followed the course of illness in 155 patients during open naturalistic treatment. The reported median duration of acute episodes was 10 weeks for pure mania, 19 weeks for pure depression, and 36 weeks for mixed episodes.