Bipolar Treatment Comes Into Question
Reviewed By
Rating
Bipolar Treatment Comes Into Question
Our Review Summary
The story reports recent evidence that anti-depressants given in conjunction with mood stabilizing drugs (such as lithium) do not significantly improve depression or exacerbate mania in bipolar patients. The story suggests that anti-depressants are over-prescribed to patients with bipolar disorder; therefore, there is a suggestion that less treatment with anti-depressants is better.
The story appropriately describes the design and some of the quantitative results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study conducted by The Systemic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The story includes information from an author of the study, as well as from a researcher not involved in the study, but who specializes in bipolar treatment. The story notes that the study was sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health.
The story mentions the potential harm of triggering a manic episode and reports (accurately) that there was no observed difference. The story could have gone further and discussed common harms from antidepressants stacked up against this finding of no benefit – strong incentive to stop giving antidepressant to bipolar disorder.
The story also could have discussed other options (such as psychosocial treatments) and whether any of these treatments work.
Overall, though, a very complete story – and in only 406 words.
Criteria
Not Applicable
The story does not mention the cost of medication to treat bipolar disorder; however, the story and evidence from the study cited are advocating fewer anti-depressant medications. So cost seems less of an issue in this case. However, the story missed an opportunity to talk about the cost of bipolar disease (90 million work loss days annually in the U.S) and associated health care/treament costs.
Satisfactory
The story provides some absolute data on patients' self-reported recoveries and mood. At 26 weeks follow-up, of 366 bipolar patients, 27% of patients who took a mood stabilizer and placebo experienced 8 weeks of of positively improved mood, but did not become manic; 23.%5 of patients receiving anti-depressants and a mood stabilizer achieved the same 8-week period of improved mood.
Satisfactory
The story mentions the potential harm of triggering a manic episode and reports (accurately) that there was no observed difference in the groups studied. The story could have gone further and discussed common harms from antidepressants stacked up against this finding of no benefit – strong incentive to stop giving antidepressants for bipolar disorder.
Satisfactory
The story describes the study design and provides some quantitative evidence from the study of bipolar patients who were given placebos or anti-depressant medications with mood stabilizing drugs.
Satisfactory
The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story lists the estimated prevalence of bipolar disorder in the U.S.
Satisfactory
The story includes information from an author of the study cited, as well as from a researcher not involved in the study, but who specializes in bipolar treatment. The story mentions that the study was sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, and the authors disclose the potential conflicts.
Not Satisfactory
The story notes, in passing, that mood stabilizing drugs are used. It doesn't say anthing about other options (such as psychosocial treatments) and whether any of these treatments work.
Satisfactory
It's clear from the story that the drugs in question are commonly prescribed and available.
Satisfactory
The story reports on a recent evidence that anti-depressants given in conjunction with mood stabilizer drugs do not significantly improve depression in bipolar patients. This was a novel research question and finding.
Satisfactory
There was independent reporting and no evidence the information in this story is taken directly from a press release.
Total Score: 8 of 9 Satisfactory
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like