Why No Single Med Works as a Mood Stabilizer
Warning: The messages in this forum are the personal views and opinions of individuals. NEVER act on any advice or opinion posted in this forum without FIRST checking with your personal physician! Mood Tracker Web Media, LLC is not obligated to check forum postings for accuracy nor does it endorse the opinions of any person using the forum.
December 27, 2017 - 3:32 pm
This article helps us to understand why most of us need a cocktail of prescribed medicines to treat and prevent hypomania, mania, depression, anxiety, insomnia, etc. In summary, there is no one medication that can treat all of these conditions and symptoms.
People who are diagnosed bipolar should expect to need two or more medications because there are four general concerns: (1) short-term treatment of mania, (2) long-term prevention of mania, (3) short-term alleviation of depression, and (4) prevention of relapse into depression.
No known single medication accomplishes all of these goals.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b...
"8.1.3. Mood stabiliser – a term best avoided
There is confusion over what the term ‘mood stabiliser’ refers to. Although the term is widely used in clinical practice, there is no universally accepted definition. The most rigorous definition of a mood stabiliser is that it is a drug that treats both poles of bipolar disorder and is protective against a return of both poles (Bauer & Mitchner, 2004).
A less stringent criterion is that it is an agent that is effective in treating one pole of the disorder and in preventing a recurrence at that pole but that does not increase the risk of the opposite pole of the illness appearing.
Adopting either criterion still leaves open the issues of how one (1) defines effectiveness, that is, what additional benefit above placebo is required to regard a drug as effective and (2) how one distinguishes between acute and maintenance treatment.
It has been argued that the most stringent definition of a mood stabiliser (that is, a drug that has short and long-term efficacy at both poles) is only fulfilled by lithium. However, even with lithium the data relating to efficacy in the treatment of bipolar depression is limited and that which does exist indicates only a modest effect.
In contrast there is stronger evidence that lithium is effective in the acute and long-term treatment of mania. If one required evidence from at least two RCTs to indicate a clinically significant benefit in the acute and long-term treatment of both phases of bipolar disorder (that is, efficacy in four separate domains) then no drug would fulfil the criteria for a mood stabiliser.
For this reason the less stringent criterion of acute and long-term efficacy and prophylaxis at one pole, without evidence of a worsening of the opposite pole, seems a more clinically useful definition and is the one that is adopted by many professionals.
Even this restricted definition of a mood stabiliser is associated with problems. The term may imply that these drugs cause absolute tranquillity of mood in any setting; in reality RCTs indicate that drugs labelled as mood stabilisers are effective, to varying degrees, in the treatment and prophylaxis of a limited number of affective syndromes in bipolar disorder, with most RCTs being limited to major depression or mania.
To extrapolate from this to assume that these drugs are effective in sub-syndromal forms of these syndromes plus other affective states is to go beyond the evidence.
For some patients the idea of a mood stabiliser, perceived as a drug that ‘flattens’ mood, may be off-putting. Another concern is that ‘mood stabiliser’ becomes a marketing label used by the pharmaceutical industry to promote drugs in bipolar disorder.
In this context the term ‘mood stabilisers’ may lead prescribers to conclude all so-called ‘mood stabilisers’ have identical properties rather than to question the evidence for each drug in turn."
People who are diagnosed bipolar should expect to need two or more medications because there are four general concerns: (1) short-term treatment of mania, (2) long-term prevention of mania, (3) short-term alleviation of depression, and (4) prevention of relapse into depression.
No known single medication accomplishes all of these goals.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b...
"8.1.3. Mood stabiliser – a term best avoided
There is confusion over what the term ‘mood stabiliser’ refers to. Although the term is widely used in clinical practice, there is no universally accepted definition. The most rigorous definition of a mood stabiliser is that it is a drug that treats both poles of bipolar disorder and is protective against a return of both poles (Bauer & Mitchner, 2004).
A less stringent criterion is that it is an agent that is effective in treating one pole of the disorder and in preventing a recurrence at that pole but that does not increase the risk of the opposite pole of the illness appearing.
Adopting either criterion still leaves open the issues of how one (1) defines effectiveness, that is, what additional benefit above placebo is required to regard a drug as effective and (2) how one distinguishes between acute and maintenance treatment.
It has been argued that the most stringent definition of a mood stabiliser (that is, a drug that has short and long-term efficacy at both poles) is only fulfilled by lithium. However, even with lithium the data relating to efficacy in the treatment of bipolar depression is limited and that which does exist indicates only a modest effect.
In contrast there is stronger evidence that lithium is effective in the acute and long-term treatment of mania. If one required evidence from at least two RCTs to indicate a clinically significant benefit in the acute and long-term treatment of both phases of bipolar disorder (that is, efficacy in four separate domains) then no drug would fulfil the criteria for a mood stabiliser.
For this reason the less stringent criterion of acute and long-term efficacy and prophylaxis at one pole, without evidence of a worsening of the opposite pole, seems a more clinically useful definition and is the one that is adopted by many professionals.
Even this restricted definition of a mood stabiliser is associated with problems. The term may imply that these drugs cause absolute tranquillity of mood in any setting; in reality RCTs indicate that drugs labelled as mood stabilisers are effective, to varying degrees, in the treatment and prophylaxis of a limited number of affective syndromes in bipolar disorder, with most RCTs being limited to major depression or mania.
To extrapolate from this to assume that these drugs are effective in sub-syndromal forms of these syndromes plus other affective states is to go beyond the evidence.
For some patients the idea of a mood stabiliser, perceived as a drug that ‘flattens’ mood, may be off-putting. Another concern is that ‘mood stabiliser’ becomes a marketing label used by the pharmaceutical industry to promote drugs in bipolar disorder.
In this context the term ‘mood stabilisers’ may lead prescribers to conclude all so-called ‘mood stabilisers’ have identical properties rather than to question the evidence for each drug in turn."
I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me.
This article helps us to understand why most of us need a cocktail of prescribed medicines to treat and prevent hypomania, mania, depression, anxiety, insomnia, etc. In summary, there is no one medication that can treat all of these conditions and symptoms.
People who are diagnosed bipolar should expect to need two or more medications because there are four general concerns: (1) short-term treatment of mania, (2) long-term prevention of mania, (3) short-term alleviation of depression, and (4) prevention of relapse into depression.
No known single medication accomplishes all of these goals.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b...
"8.1.3. Mood stabiliser – a term best avoided
There is confusion over what the term ‘mood stabiliser’ refers to. Although the term is widely used in clinical practice, there is no universally accepted definition. The most rigorous definition of a mood stabiliser is that it is a drug that treats both poles of bipolar disorder and is protective against a return of both poles (Bauer & Mitchner, 2004).
A less stringent criterion is that it is an agent that is effective in treating one pole of the disorder and in preventing a recurrence at that pole but that does not increase the risk of the opposite pole of the illness appearing.
Adopting either criterion still leaves open the issues of how one (1) defines effectiveness, that is, what additional benefit above placebo is required to regard a drug as effective and (2) how one distinguishes between acute and maintenance treatment.
It has been argued that the most stringent definition of a mood stabiliser (that is, a drug that has short and long-term efficacy at both poles) is only fulfilled by lithium. However, even with lithium the data relating to efficacy in the treatment of bipolar depression is limited and that which does exist indicates only a modest effect.
In contrast there is stronger evidence that lithium is effective in the acute and long-term treatment of mania. If one required evidence from at least two RCTs to indicate a clinically significant benefit in the acute and long-term treatment of both phases of bipolar disorder (that is, efficacy in four separate domains) then no drug would fulfil the criteria for a mood stabiliser.
For this reason the less stringent criterion of acute and long-term efficacy and prophylaxis at one pole, without evidence of a worsening of the opposite pole, seems a more clinically useful definition and is the one that is adopted by many professionals.
Even this restricted definition of a mood stabiliser is associated with problems. The term may imply that these drugs cause absolute tranquillity of mood in any setting; in reality RCTs indicate that drugs labelled as mood stabilisers are effective, to varying degrees, in the treatment and prophylaxis of a limited number of affective syndromes in bipolar disorder, with most RCTs being limited to major depression or mania.
To extrapolate from this to assume that these drugs are effective in sub-syndromal forms of these syndromes plus other affective states is to go beyond the evidence.
For some patients the idea of a mood stabiliser, perceived as a drug that ‘flattens’ mood, may be off-putting. Another concern is that ‘mood stabiliser’ becomes a marketing label used by the pharmaceutical industry to promote drugs in bipolar disorder.
In this context the term ‘mood stabilisers’ may lead prescribers to conclude all so-called ‘mood stabilisers’ have identical properties rather than to question the evidence for each drug in turn."
People who are diagnosed bipolar should expect to need two or more medications because there are four general concerns: (1) short-term treatment of mania, (2) long-term prevention of mania, (3) short-term alleviation of depression, and (4) prevention of relapse into depression.
No known single medication accomplishes all of these goals.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b...
"8.1.3. Mood stabiliser – a term best avoided
There is confusion over what the term ‘mood stabiliser’ refers to. Although the term is widely used in clinical practice, there is no universally accepted definition. The most rigorous definition of a mood stabiliser is that it is a drug that treats both poles of bipolar disorder and is protective against a return of both poles (Bauer & Mitchner, 2004).
A less stringent criterion is that it is an agent that is effective in treating one pole of the disorder and in preventing a recurrence at that pole but that does not increase the risk of the opposite pole of the illness appearing.
Adopting either criterion still leaves open the issues of how one (1) defines effectiveness, that is, what additional benefit above placebo is required to regard a drug as effective and (2) how one distinguishes between acute and maintenance treatment.
It has been argued that the most stringent definition of a mood stabiliser (that is, a drug that has short and long-term efficacy at both poles) is only fulfilled by lithium. However, even with lithium the data relating to efficacy in the treatment of bipolar depression is limited and that which does exist indicates only a modest effect.
In contrast there is stronger evidence that lithium is effective in the acute and long-term treatment of mania. If one required evidence from at least two RCTs to indicate a clinically significant benefit in the acute and long-term treatment of both phases of bipolar disorder (that is, efficacy in four separate domains) then no drug would fulfil the criteria for a mood stabiliser.
For this reason the less stringent criterion of acute and long-term efficacy and prophylaxis at one pole, without evidence of a worsening of the opposite pole, seems a more clinically useful definition and is the one that is adopted by many professionals.
Even this restricted definition of a mood stabiliser is associated with problems. The term may imply that these drugs cause absolute tranquillity of mood in any setting; in reality RCTs indicate that drugs labelled as mood stabilisers are effective, to varying degrees, in the treatment and prophylaxis of a limited number of affective syndromes in bipolar disorder, with most RCTs being limited to major depression or mania.
To extrapolate from this to assume that these drugs are effective in sub-syndromal forms of these syndromes plus other affective states is to go beyond the evidence.
For some patients the idea of a mood stabiliser, perceived as a drug that ‘flattens’ mood, may be off-putting. Another concern is that ‘mood stabiliser’ becomes a marketing label used by the pharmaceutical industry to promote drugs in bipolar disorder.
In this context the term ‘mood stabilisers’ may lead prescribers to conclude all so-called ‘mood stabilisers’ have identical properties rather than to question the evidence for each drug in turn."
I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me.
January 6, 2018 - 10:31 pm
Total Posts: 1
Joined: 01-06-2018
Joined: 01-06-2018
Very interesting post. I've never thought about the implications of the term mood stabilizers before. It is complex. I certainly agree that the term can befuddle prescribers especially those who don't treat lots of people with bipolar illness. I agree that, sadly, many people who could benefit from medication are put off by the term mood stabilizer thinking that they'll become zombies.
CaryJ
Very interesting post. I've never thought about the implications of the term mood stabilizers before. It is complex. I certainly agree that the term can befuddle prescribers especially those who don't treat lots of people with bipolar illness. I agree that, sadly, many people who could benefit from medication are put off by the term mood stabilizer thinking that they'll become zombies.
CaryJ
January 12, 2018 - 10:48 am
Total Posts: 658
Joined: 10-21-2012
Joined: 10-21-2012
The people that wrote this definitely haven’t met me, I take 5 meds in the morning and 6 in the evening. I know this isn’t necessarily the norm but you use what works
The people that wrote this definitely haven’t met me, I take 5 meds in the morning and 6 in the evening. I know this isn’t necessarily the norm but you use what works
January 12, 2018 - 1:18 pm
Total Posts: 1532
Joined: 08-11-2012
Joined: 08-11-2012
Bluedragon, it seems like your experience confirms the theme of the article: There is no one "mood stabilizer" medicine that will successfully treat the depression and mania, acute and long-term, of Bipolar I or Bipolar II.
For example, there's no pne medicine that will treat both acute mania *and* the depression that frequently follows when the mania passes.
Valproic acid, I've heard, helps some people with mania, but it doesn't to my knowledge, treat depression or anxiety. That's why virtually everyone we know takes more than one medication if they take any medication at all.
For example, there's no pne medicine that will treat both acute mania *and* the depression that frequently follows when the mania passes.
Valproic acid, I've heard, helps some people with mania, but it doesn't to my knowledge, treat depression or anxiety. That's why virtually everyone we know takes more than one medication if they take any medication at all.
I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me.
Bluedragon, it seems like your experience confirms the theme of the article: There is no one "mood stabilizer" medicine that will successfully treat the depression and mania, acute and long-term, of Bipolar I or Bipolar II.
For example, there's no pne medicine that will treat both acute mania *and* the depression that frequently follows when the mania passes.
Valproic acid, I've heard, helps some people with mania, but it doesn't to my knowledge, treat depression or anxiety. That's why virtually everyone we know takes more than one medication if they take any medication at all.
For example, there's no pne medicine that will treat both acute mania *and* the depression that frequently follows when the mania passes.
Valproic acid, I've heard, helps some people with mania, but it doesn't to my knowledge, treat depression or anxiety. That's why virtually everyone we know takes more than one medication if they take any medication at all.
I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me.
January 12, 2018 - 1:52 pm
Total Posts: 1532
Joined: 08-11-2012
Joined: 08-11-2012
Bluedragon, it seems like your experience confirms the theme of the article: There is no one "mood stabilizer" medicine that will successfully treat the depression and mania, acute and long-term, of Bipolar I or Bipolar II.
For example, there's no pne medicine that will treat both acute mania *and* the depression that frequently follows when the mania passes.
Valproic acid, I've heard, helps some people with mania, but it doesn't to my knowledge, treat depression or anxiety. That's why virtually everyone we know takes more than one medication if they take any medication at all.
For example, there's no pne medicine that will treat both acute mania *and* the depression that frequently follows when the mania passes.
Valproic acid, I've heard, helps some people with mania, but it doesn't to my knowledge, treat depression or anxiety. That's why virtually everyone we know takes more than one medication if they take any medication at all.
I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me.
Bluedragon, it seems like your experience confirms the theme of the article: There is no one "mood stabilizer" medicine that will successfully treat the depression and mania, acute and long-term, of Bipolar I or Bipolar II.
For example, there's no pne medicine that will treat both acute mania *and* the depression that frequently follows when the mania passes.
Valproic acid, I've heard, helps some people with mania, but it doesn't to my knowledge, treat depression or anxiety. That's why virtually everyone we know takes more than one medication if they take any medication at all.
For example, there's no pne medicine that will treat both acute mania *and* the depression that frequently follows when the mania passes.
Valproic acid, I've heard, helps some people with mania, but it doesn't to my knowledge, treat depression or anxiety. That's why virtually everyone we know takes more than one medication if they take any medication at all.
I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me.
January 20, 2018 - 10:07 am
Total Posts: 658
Joined: 10-21-2012
Joined: 10-21-2012
Persistence after rereading the article I agree with you, I think I was having a brain fart kinda day when I first read it. Lol must be all the meds.
Persistence after rereading the article I agree with you, I think I was having a brain fart kinda day when I first read it. Lol must be all the meds.
February 16, 2018 - 6:37 pm
Total Posts: 3
Joined: 02-16-2018
Joined: 02-16-2018
This makes a lot of sense to me, my son is autistic and bipolar, when he's down it's not depression...he just has great behavior but when he is manic...holy cow!!! Crabby and can't handle any dicipline or stress. Can't even look at him at times without him getting upset. I think I'm calling his Dr Tuesday 1st thing.
A.M. dose
Lithium 400 mg
Seroquel 200mg
Buspar 10mg
P.M. dose
Lithium 300 mg
Seroquel 300mg
Buspar 10mg
This makes a lot of sense to me, my son is autistic and bipolar, when he's down it's not depression...he just has great behavior but when he is manic...holy cow!!! Crabby and can't handle any dicipline or stress. Can't even look at him at times without him getting upset. I think I'm calling his Dr Tuesday 1st thing.
A.M. dose
Lithium 400 mg
Seroquel 200mg
Buspar 10mg
P.M. dose
Lithium 300 mg
Seroquel 300mg
Buspar 10mg
Joined: 08-11-2012