Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24346608›Full record

Trial reportClinical trials (London, England)2014

Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness for Bipolar Disorder (Bipolar CHOICE): a pragmatic trial of complex treatment for a complex disorder.

Andrew A Nierenberg, Louisa G Sylvia, Andrew C Leon, Noreen A Reilly-Harrington, Leah W Shesler, Susan L McElroy, Edward S Friedman, Michael E Thase, Richard C Shelton, Charles L Bowden and 10 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical trials (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. NaInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Poor quality of life and functioning in bipolar disorder.International journal of bipolar disorders · 2017
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

20 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew A NierenbergaDepartment of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Louisa G Sylvia
Andrew C Leon
Noreen A Reilly-Harrington
Leah W Shesler
Susan L McElroy
Edward S Friedman
Michael E Thase
Richard C Shelton
Charles L Bowden
Mauricio Tohen
Vivek Singh
Thilo Deckersbach
Terence A Ketter
James H Kocsis
Melvin G McInnis
David Schoenfeld
William V Bobo
Joseph R Calabrese
Bipolar CHOICE Study Group
Massachusetts General Hospital · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · USCase Western Reserve University · USCornell University · USHarvard University Press · USLindner Center of HOPE · USStanford University · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center · US

Funding

Comparative Effectiveness Study for Bipolar DisorderR01HS019371 · AHRQ · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI NIERENBERG, ANDREW A · 2010 to 2010
$9.8M
TREATMENT OF BIPOLAR DISORDER-278980001N01MH080001 · NIMH · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · 1998 to 2003
$5.3M
AHRQ HHS 1R01HS019371-01AHRQ HHS R01 HS019371NIMH NIH HHS N01 MH080001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClassic and second-generation antipsychotic mood stabilizers are recommended for treatment of bipolar disorder, yet there are no randomized comparative effectiveness studies that have examined the 'real-world' advantages and disadvantages of these medications. PURPOSE: We describe the strategic decisions in the design of the Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness for Bipolar Disorder (Bipolar CHOICE). This article outlines the key issues and solutions the investigators faced in designing a clinical trial that would maximize generalizability and inform real-world clinical treatment of bipolar disorder.

methodsBipolar CHOICE was a 6-month, multi-site, prospective, randomized clinical trial of outpatients with bipolar disorder. This study compares the effectiveness of quetiapine versus lithium, each with adjunctive personalized treatments (APTs). The co-primary outcomes selected are the overall benefits and harms of the study medications (as measured by the Clinical Global Impression-Efficacy Index) and the Necessary Clinical Adjustments (a measure of the number of medication changes). Secondary outcomes are continuous measures of mood, the Framingham General Cardiovascular Risk Score, and the Longitudinal Interval Follow up Evaluation Range of Impaired Functioning Tool (LIFE-RIFT).

resultsThe final study design consisted of a single-blind, randomized comparative effectiveness trial of quetiapine versus lithium, plus APT, across 10 sites. Other important study considerations included limited exclusion criteria to maximize generalizability, flexible dosing of APT medications to mimic real-world treatment, and an intent-to-treat analysis plan. In all, 482 participants were randomized to the study, and 364 completed the study. LIMITATIONS: The potential limitations of the study include the heterogeneity of APT, selection of study medications, lack of a placebo-control group, and participants' ability to pay for study medications.

conclusionWe expect that this study will inform our understanding of the benefits and harms of lithium, a classic mood stabilizer, compared to quetiapine, a second-generation antipsychotic with broad-spectrum activity in bipolar disorder, and will provide an example of a well-designed and well-conducted randomized comparative effectiveness clinical trial.

Indexed as

Research DesignAdultAgedAntipsychotic AgentsBipolar DisorderClinical ProtocolsComparative Effectiveness ResearchDibenzothiazepinesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntention to Treat AnalysisLithiumMaleMiddle AgedPatient SelectionAntipsychotic AgentsDibenzothiazepinesLithiumQuetiapine Fumarate

Identifiers

PMID24346608
PMCPMC4495881
OpenAlexW2144786943

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.