Korean Medication Algorithm for Bipolar Disorder 2006(VI): Comparisons with Other Treatment Guidelines.
- Author:
Bo Hyun YOON
1
;
Won Myong BAHK
;
Seung Oh BAE
;
Duk In JON
;
Kyong Joon MIN
;
Young Chul SHIN
;
Hyun Sang CHO
;
Sang Keun CHUNG
;
Kyu Sub HA
;
Joon Soo KWON
;
Jeong Suk SEO
;
Won KIM
;
Eun LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Psychiatry, Naju National Hospital, Naju, Korea.
- Publication Type:Review
- Keywords:
Bipolar disorder;
Pharmacotherapy;
Treatment guideline;
Algorithm
- MeSH:
Aged;
Antipsychotic Agents;
Bipolar Disorder;
Complement System Proteins;
Humans;
Judgment;
Lithium;
Obesity;
Pregnancy;
Triazines;
Valproic Acid
- From:Korean Journal of Psychopharmacology
2008;19(1):5-18
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
The Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder (KMAP-BP) was developed in 2002 and revised in 2006. The aim of this study was to compare the KMAP-BP 2006 with other recently published treatment guidelines for bipolar disorder. We conducted a systematic review of the six most recently published guidelines and treatment algorithms for bipolar disorder to compare the similarities and differences between these guidelines and the KMAPBP 2006. Most treatment guidelines had similarities in their treatment options. The guidelines generally advocated atypical antipsychotics as first-line treatment in the manic phase and lamotrigine in the depressive phase. While lithium and divalproex were commonly used as mood stabilizers in the manic phase, divalproex was recommended in mixed or dysphoric mania. Mood stabilizers or atypical antipsychotics were selected as first-line treatment in maintenance. Some guidelines were more concerned about special clinical situations such as pregnancy, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and elderly patients, which were not described in the KMAP-BP 2006. Our findings suggest that the medication strategies for bipolar disorder are based on data from recent studies and clinical experiences. Useful information and a rationale for making sequential treatment decisions can be provided by critically reviewing the treatment guidelines. The treatment algorithms and guidelines are not substitutes for clinical judgment, but can serve as critical references to complement individual clinical assessments.
