Depot antipsychotic medications in bipolar disorder: a review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on the efficacy and safety of depot formulations of first- and second-generation antipsychotic medications (FGAs and SGAs) in patients with bipolar disorder. METHOD: We conducted a computer-aided MEDLINE search using the search terms 'depot antipsychotic', 'bipolar disorder' and 'compliance.' RESULTS: We identified eight published reports in bipolar patients regarding the use of depot FGAs, and six preliminary reports on the use of depot SGAs. These studies suggest that depots FGAs are efficacious in preventing manic episodes during the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. Several studies, however, indicate that depot FGAs may be associated with increased time with depressive symptoms, particularly in patients with a predominantly depressive course of illness. Preliminary data on the role of depot formulations of SGAs suggest that they reduce the frequency of both manic and depressive episodes during maintenance treatment, and are well tolerated by patients. CONCLUSION: After a careful risk-benefit analysis, depot antipsychotics may be considered for the long-term control of mood episodes in bipolar patients who have relapsed due to medication non-adherence or who have failed to respond to standard therapies. Depot FGAs should be avoided in patients with a high burden of illness from depressive symptoms and particularly in those judged to be at high risk of suicide. The available data on depot formulations of SGAs indicate that they are efficacious in the maintenance treatment of bipolar illness without increasing the burden of the depressive pole of the illness, but further systematic studies are required to definitively assess this.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".