Pharmacological Treatment and Cognition in Bipolar I Disorder: Evidence From a Prospective Study in India.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology Pub Date : 2026-07-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-13 DOI:10.1097/JCP.0000000000002162
Bhavya Bhavya, Ajay Kumar Shukla, Abhijit Rozatkar, Shubham Atal
{"title":"Pharmacological Treatment and Cognition in Bipolar I Disorder: Evidence From a Prospective Study in India.","authors":"Bhavya Bhavya, Ajay Kumar Shukla, Abhijit Rozatkar, Shubham Atal","doi":"10.1097/JCP.0000000000002162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bipolar I disorder is frequently accompanied by persistent cognitive dysfunction, but the extent to which routine pharmacological treatment influences subjective and objective cognition remains unclear. We sought to examine short-term changes in cognitive functioning among euthymic bipolar I disorder patients receiving routine pharmacotherapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective observational study, adults with bipolar I disorder in euthymia (Young Mania Rating Scale ≤10; Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ≤7) underwent cognitive assessment using the Cognitive Complaints in Bipolar Disorder Rating Assessment (COBRA) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) at baseline and again after 3 to 4 months. Medication regimens, dose stability, adherence, and clinical variables were recorded. Paired tests evaluated within-subject cognitive change; categorical shifts were examined using the McNemar test. Limitations related to study design were explicitly evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-one participants were enrolled (median age 39 years), and 50 completed follow-up. COBRA scores improved from 7.48±7.13 to 4.04±5.94 (mean change -3.44; P <0.001), and MoCA scores increased from 23.90±4.89 to 25.84±4.40 (mean change +1.94; P <0.001). The proportion with normal cognition increased from 42% to 78% on MoCA, while COBRA-defined impairment decreased from 20% to 6%. Improvements were observed across medication classes, and no regimen demonstrated consistent superiority.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Routine pharmacological treatment was associated with short-term cognitive improvement, but the findings are preliminary and not causal.</p>","PeriodicalId":15455,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology","volume":" ","pages":"420-426"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JCP.0000000000002162","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Bipolar I disorder is frequently accompanied by persistent cognitive dysfunction, but the extent to which routine pharmacological treatment influences subjective and objective cognition remains unclear. We sought to examine short-term changes in cognitive functioning among euthymic bipolar I disorder patients receiving routine pharmacotherapy.

Methods: In this prospective observational study, adults with bipolar I disorder in euthymia (Young Mania Rating Scale ≤10; Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ≤7) underwent cognitive assessment using the Cognitive Complaints in Bipolar Disorder Rating Assessment (COBRA) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) at baseline and again after 3 to 4 months. Medication regimens, dose stability, adherence, and clinical variables were recorded. Paired tests evaluated within-subject cognitive change; categorical shifts were examined using the McNemar test. Limitations related to study design were explicitly evaluated.

Results: Fifty-one participants were enrolled (median age 39 years), and 50 completed follow-up. COBRA scores improved from 7.48±7.13 to 4.04±5.94 (mean change -3.44; P <0.001), and MoCA scores increased from 23.90±4.89 to 25.84±4.40 (mean change +1.94; P <0.001). The proportion with normal cognition increased from 42% to 78% on MoCA, while COBRA-defined impairment decreased from 20% to 6%. Improvements were observed across medication classes, and no regimen demonstrated consistent superiority.

Conclusions: Routine pharmacological treatment was associated with short-term cognitive improvement, but the findings are preliminary and not causal.

双相I型障碍的药物治疗和认知:来自印度前瞻性研究的证据。
背景:双相I型障碍常伴有持续性认知功能障碍,但常规药物治疗对主客观认知的影响程度尚不清楚。我们试图研究接受常规药物治疗的I型心境双相障碍患者认知功能的短期变化。方法:在这项前瞻性观察性研究中,在基线和3 ~ 4个月后再次使用双相情感障碍认知投诉评分评估(COBRA)和蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)对成年心境双相情感障碍(Young Mania Rating Scale≤10;Hamilton Depression Rating Scale≤7)患者进行认知评估。记录用药方案、剂量稳定性、依从性和临床变量。配对测试评估受试者内部认知变化;使用McNemar检验分类移位。明确评估了与研究设计相关的局限性。结果:51名参与者入组(中位年龄39岁),50名完成随访。COBRA评分从7.48±7.13分提高到4.04±5.94分(平均变化-3.44分)。结论:常规药物治疗与短期认知改善相关,但研究结果是初步的,并非因果关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
3.40%
发文量
231
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, a leading publication in psychopharmacology, offers a wide range of articles reporting on clinical trials and studies, side effects, drug interactions, overdose management, pharmacogenetics, pharmacokinetics, and psychiatric effects of non-psychiatric drugs. The journal keeps clinician-scientists and trainees up-to-date on the latest clinical developments in psychopharmacologic agents, presenting the extensive coverage needed to keep up with every development in this fast-growing field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书