Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23107222›Full record

Trial reportBipolar disorders2012

Lamotrigine as add-on treatment to lithium and divalproex: lessons learned from a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in rapid-cycling bipolar disorder.

David E Kemp, Keming Gao, Elizabeth B Fein, Philip K Chan, Carla Conroy, Sarah Obral, Stephen J Ganocy, Joseph R Calabrese

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Bipolar disorders, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David E KempDepartment of Psychiatry, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA. kemp.david@gmail.com
Keming Gao
Elizabeth B Fein
Philip K Chan
Carla Conroy
Sarah Obral
Stephen J Ganocy
Joseph R Calabrese
University Hospitals Case Medical Center · USCase Western Reserve University · US

Funding

Case Western Reserve University/Cleveland Clinic CTSA (KL2)KL2RR024990 · NCRR · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI DAVIS, PAMELA B · 2007 to 2011
$9.5M
Combination Therapy in Bipolar Rapid CyclingR21MH062650 · NIMH · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI CALABRESE, JOSEPH R · 2002 to 2004
$574k
NCRR NIH HHS 1KL2RR024990NCRR NIH HHS KL2 RR024990NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH062650NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH-62650
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA substantial portion of the morbidity associated with rapid-cycling bipolar disorder (RCBD) stems from refractory depression. This study assessed the antidepressant effects of lamotrigine as compared with placebo when used as add-on therapy for rapid-cycling bipolar depression non-responsive to the combination of lithium plus divalproex.

methodsDuring Phase 1 of this trial, hypomanic, manic, mixed, and/or depressed outpatients (n = 133) aged 18-65 years with DSM-IV RCBD type I or II were initially treated with the open combination of lithium and divalproex for up to 16 weeks. During Phase 2, subjects who did not meet the criteria for stabilization (n = 49) (i.e., remained in or cycled into the depressed phase) were randomly assigned to double-blind, adjunctive lamotrigine (n = 23) or adjunctive placebo (n = 26). The primary endpoint was the mean change in depression symptom severity from the beginning of Phase 2 to the end of Phase 2 (week 12) on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Data were analyzed by analysis of covariance with last observation carried forward and a mixed-models analysis.

resultsDuring Phase 1, a high rate of study discontinuations occurred due to intolerable side effects (13/133; 10%) and study non-adherence (22/133; 17%). Only 14% (19/133) stabilized on the open combination of lithium and divalproex. Among the 49 (37%) patients randomized to the double-blind adjunctive treatment phase, mean ± standard error change from baseline on the MADRS total score was -8.5 ± 1.7 points for lamotrigine and -9.1 ± 1.5 points for placebo (p = not significant; mixed-models analysis). No significant differences were observed in the rates of response, remission, or bimodal response between lamotrigine and placebo.

conclusionsThe poor tolerability, lack of efficacy, and high rate of early discontinuation with the combination of lithium and divalproex suggests this regimen was ineffective for the majority of patients with RCBD. Among patients who did not stabilize on lithium and divalproex, the addition of lamotrigine was no more effective than placebo in reducing depression severity. The findings suggest an opportunity for several design modifications to enhance signal detection in future trials of RCBD. The main limitation is the small number of subjects randomized to double-blind treatment.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAntimanic AgentsBipolar DisorderDouble-Blind MethodDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleHumansLamotrigineLithium ChlorideMaleMiddle AgedPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesRetrospective StudiesTriazinesAntimanic AgentsLamotrigineLithium ChlorideTriazinesValproic Acid

Identifiers

PMID23107222
PMCPMC3640341
OpenAlexW2128560634

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.