Texas Medication Algorithm Project
Texas Medication Algorithm Project
PROCEDURAL MANUAL
Sherrie D. Bendele, BS
Documentation --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21
Appendix B: Communications------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 38
Sherrie D Bendele, BS
Project Coordinator
College of Pharmacy
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX
Financial Disclosures
Dr. Crismon has received grant/research support from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers
Squibb, Eli Lilly, Forest, Janssen, Pfizer and Shire; and is on the speakers/advisory board of
Astra Zeneca, Corecept Therapeutics, Cyberonics, Elli Lilly, Forest, Janssen, McNeil Specialty
and Consumer Produces, Pfizer and Shire.
Dr. Suppes has received grant/research support from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers
Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, national Institute of Mental Health, Novartis, Robert Wood
Johnson and the Stanley Medical Research Institute,; has received honoraria from Novartis;
and is a consultant for or on the speakers/advisory board of Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol-
Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer,
Pharmaceutical Research Institute, Ortho-McNeil, Shire, Solvay and UCB Pharma.
Algorithms facilitate clinical decision making by providing clinicians with large amounts of
current information on the newest psychotropic medications and research data, as well as
specific treatment sequences with tactical recommendations. Patients receive the benefit of
patient education, which should enhance adherence to the treatment program. Algorithms are
designed with the objectives of long-term safety, tolerability, and full symptom remission — not
just response. The employment of such treatment guidelines to assertively treat the severely
and persistently mentally ill (SPMI) population may enhance patient outcomes while improving
the utilization of crisis/hospital services and improving accountability for scarce resources —
thereby increasing the overall efficiency of patient care.
Beginning in 1995, The Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) was developed by the
Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (TDMHMR*) in collaboration with
Texas universities to assess the value of an algorithm-driven disease management program in
the pharmacological management of mentally ill patients. The result has been a set of
algorithms for the treatment of the three major disorders most commonly encountered in the
Texas public mental health system: schizophrenia (SCZ), bipolar I disorder (BDI), and major
depressive disorder (MDD).A best practice treatment has been defined as a series of
treatment steps that guides physicians in determining medication treatment plans, thereby
generating the best outcome for each individual consumer. The algorithms consist of both
treatment strategies (recommended sequential medication regimen options) and treatment
tactics (recommended options for optimal use of a medication regimen in a given patient).
Equal attention should be given to the treatment tactics as to the strategies.
Practitioners, patients, families, and administrators all contributed to the formulation and
implementation of TMAP, ensuring an optimum level of efficacy and practicality. Phase 1 of
TMAP dealt with the development of these algorithms using expert consensus. In Phase 2, the
feasibility of algorithm implementation in the TDMHMR system was evaluated. Phase 3
evaluated the clinical and economic impact of medication treatment algorithms for MDD, SCZ,
and BDI in comparison with Treatment As Usual (TAU). For bipolar disorder, results from each
of these phases has been published (please refer to Appendix F for a list of publications).
Implementation of the algorithms on a system wide basis was the next step in offering high
quality care to the SPMI patient population in the public mental health sector. This rollout was
referred to as Texas Implementation of Medication Algorithms (TIMA) (Phase 4 of TMAP) in
order to distinguish it from the research phases of TMAP. However, in order to retain name
identity, TMAP is once again being used for the program. The rollout began with the training of
physicians and support personnel in algorithm implementation.
Continued revision may be required in the structure and function of clinical staff to increase
patient education and adherence, to improve follow up, and to develop psychosocial supports
to improve symptom recognition, symptom control, and functional restoration. Continuous
education, consultation, and collaboration are necessary for both clinicians and administrators
*
State public mental health services are now provided as a component of the Texas Department of State Health
Services (DSHS).
For additional information regarding the development of the most current Bipolar I Disorder
Algorithms, please refer to the article: Suppes T, Dennehy E, Hirschfeld RMA, Altshuler LL,
Bowden CL, Calíbrese CR, Crismon ML, Ketter T, Sachs G, Swann AC. The Texas
Implementation of Medication Algorithms: Update to the Algorithms for Treatment of Bipolar I
Disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 2005;60:870-886.
• At baseline and throughout treatment, the patient should be evaluated for possible
psychosocial interventions, including evidence based psychotherapy.
• Use of the algorithms, assumes that the clinician has made a thorough evaluation and an
accurate diagnosis. If a patient completes trials of two stages of the algorithm without
observable positive outcomes, the patient should be re-evaluated for accuracy of diagnosis
and the occurrence of co-occurring general medical and mental disorders, including
substance abuse.
• Brief symptom ratings (BDSS, CGI) should be completed at each visit so that treatment
decisions are guided by objective data.
• Adequate documentation should be completed for each algorithm stage and treatment
choice (i.e., decision points). If algorithm stages are skipped or if treatment is different from
the algorithms, the rationale should be adequately documented.
• The frequency of clinic visits should be adequate to monitor for symptom changes and
adverse effects, to adjust doses as necessary to achieve an optimum therapeutic trial, and
change regimens when suboptimal clinical response is observed after regimen
optimization.
• All patients with bipolar I disorder who achieve a satisfactory clinical response (and
preferably symptom remission) should continue treatment until a full response to treatment
is sustained for at least four weeks. At that point, continuation treatment should begin.
• When a choice exists between brand, generic, or different formulations (e.g., slow release)
of a recommended medication, always initiate treatment with the form that is likely to be
best tolerated by the patient, which will lead to enhanced adherence with treatment.
Careful attention should be given to adequate dose and duration of treatment for each
chosen regimen.
At-a-Glance
Bipolar Disorder Medication Algorithms
Visit Frequency: While medications are being actively adjusted, patients should be seen
every 2 weeks. As medications are stabilized and patients exhibit stable, positive response,
visit intervals can be gradually lengthened to every 4 weeks. When patients achieve a stable
response, visit frequency can be scheduled for every 8-12 weeks, as individually determined.
Additional patient contact (e.g., by telephone) may be necessary to provide optimal care for a
symptomatic patient.
Assessment Frequency: The Brief Bipolar Disorder Symptom Scale (BDSS) should be
completed at each clinic visit. If the patient is contacted by phone, an Interim Contact Form
(ICF) must be completed.
Criteria for Medication Change: Medication changes are made after evaluation of
tolerability, efficacy across multiple symptom domains, and safety. Clinicians should consult the
Tactics and Critical Decision Points for the Treatment of Bipolar Disorder after review of
symptom patterns and severity on the BDSS score sheet, as well as any medication side
effects and tolerability. The goals of treatment are full symptomatic remission, return of
psychosocial functioning, and prevention of relapses and recurrences. Any symptoms, even
those in the mild to moderate range, warrant consideration of tactics that may further optimize
response. It is appropriate to try more than one combination at a given level. New trials from
each stage can be labeled Stage 2-1, Stage 2-2, etc.
Evaluations: At each visit, a physician will assess core symptom severity, overall functional
impairment, and side effect severity. The Clinical Coordinator (CC) or the physician can
complete the BDSS and patient global self-rating of symptom severity and side effects.
Medication Doses: Appropriate dosage ranges for medications used in the algorithms are
included in Appendix C. Doses outside of the ranges should have a chart note indicating
“change from algorithm recommended” and documentation of rationale for change. Doses
above the usual therapeutic range should be time limited (e.g., 4-6 weeks), and response to
this dose evaluated using the brief clinical rating scales. If improvement has not occurred with
the higher than usual dosage in this time frame, then treatment should be changed to the next
treatment stage or an alternative medication within the same stage, using an overlap and taper
strategy.
Stage 1 Li, VPA, ARP†, QTP†, RIS†, VPA, ARP†, RIS†, ZIP†
ZIP†
Monotherapy‡
1b. OLZ†§ or 1b. OLZ†§ or
Nonresponse: CBZ†§ CBZ†§ Nonresponse:
Try alternate Try alternate
monotherapy monotherapy
Full Full
Response CONT Response
Partial Partial
Response Response
Two-Drug Combination‡
Full CONT
Response
Partial Response
or Nonresponse
Li, VPA, AAPs, CBZ, OXC, TAP
Stage 3 Choose 2
(Not 2 AAPs, not CLOZ)
Two-Drug Combination‡
Full
CONT
Response
Partial Response
or Nonresponse CONT = continue treatment
Full
Response CONT
Partial Response
or Nonresponse
Full
CONT
Response
Partial Response
or Nonresponse
Combination from Li,
Stage 3 LTG, QTP, or OFC
When utilizing mood-stabilizing medications, it is recommended that the dose be maximized (either
alone or in combination) as much as tolerability allows and for an adequate duration of time to
observe symptom improvement before changing treatment stages. Switching to alternative mood
stabilizers, versus adding, is recommended in cases of intolerance or no response, using the overlap
and taper tactics provided (please refer to Appendix E for Overlap and Taper Guidelines). It is
recommended that the clinician later try to taper and discontinue the first medication so that the
patient’s clinical status can be evaluated on the second monotherapy. If a patient has partial
response to a medication, and is tolerating the medication, a new medication should be added. It is
recommended that the clinician try to taper the first medication at a later date if the patient’s mood
stabilizes.
When treating patients with hypomania or mania, a first consideration involves decreasing and/or
discontinuing antidepressant medications. This taper should be done relatively quickly, except in
cases where it is contraindicated. For those patients with rapid cycling, antidepressants should also
be tapered and discontinued.
Target serum concentrations are provided in Appendix C. For Li and VPA, evidence supports
differences in clinical response for some patients between therapeutic and high therapeutic levels.
Clinically, it is reasonably safe and well tolerated to exceed the recommended therapeutic range for
VPA (> 125 ug/ml), but few psychiatric patients appear to need these higher levels. The upper limits
of Li (1.5 mEq/L) are usually associated with unacceptable side effects, and levels over these limits
are potentially toxic, with the exception of patients in a full-blown manic episode who may tolerate and
benefit from levels of Li between 1.2 –1.5 mEq/L.
Similarly, it is necessary to obtain more frequent levels of VPA when used in combination with an
enzyme inducer such as carbamazepine. Once you have obtained a couple of levels for VPA or Li, it
is often possible to estimate the likely increase of serum concentrations with dose changes and
collect serum concentrations somewhat less often. However, the development of side effects should
always signal consideration of a serum concentration.
Routine health monitoring is an essential part of managing side effects that may result from certain
pharmacologic treatments. Atypical antipsychotics are one class of medications that have evidence
supporting their use in the treatment of hypomanic, manic, mixed, and depressed episodes of bipolar
I disorder. As use of this class of medications has continued to expand in the treatment of psychiatric
illnesses, several health implications have been recognized through post-marketing surveillance.
Taking into account these findings, the Texas public health system recently adopted the Mount Sinai
Conference monitoring guidelines (Marder SR, et al. American Journal of Psychiatry 2004;161:1334-
49.). Although these recommendations are for patients with schizophrenia, they apply to any patient
taking an antipsychotic medication. Similar recommendations have also been developed by a joint
task force of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Diabetes Association (American
Diabetes Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Association of Clinical
Endrocrinologists, et al. Consensus Development Conference on Antipsychotic Drugs and Obesity
and Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004;27:596-601. and American Diabetes Association, American
Psychiatric Association, American Association of Clinical Endrocrinologists, et al. Consensus
Development Conference on Antipsychotic Drugs and Obesity and Diabetes. J Clin Psychiatry
2004;65:267-272.)
It is extremely common for patients with bipolar disorder to have a co-occurring alcohol or other
substance abuse disorder. In this occurrence it is extremely important that both disorders be
appropriately treated. The patient is not likely to do well clinically if only one of the two disorders is
treated. Most importantly, the clinician should not wait until the patient is abstinent from substances
before beginning appropriate treatment for the bipolar disorder.
Although the data are limited regarding pharmacotherapy of bipolar disorder co-occurring with a
substance abuse disorder, some evidence suggests that divalproex and carbamazepine may be
preferred mood stabilizers for patients with concomitant alcohol or benzodiazepine abuse. Results
from an open label study suggest that patient symptoms and craving decreased when they were
switched from a first generation antipsychotic to quetiapine. It is unknown whether this is a class
effect, or whether these results will withstand the rigor of a randomized controlled trial.
Generally, in the case of partial response with good tolerability, the recommendation is to add a
second mood stabilizing medication (move to combination therapy, i.e., Stage 2) versus switching. If
the patient is intolerant or does not respond to the medication used in Stage 1, the recommendation
is to try an alternative mood stabilizer within Stage 1. This principal applies to all stages when more
than one treatment option is available. New trials from each stage can be labeled Stage 1-2, Stage 1-
3, etc. When changing medications, the recommendation is to cross over (overlap and taper), using
abrupt discontinuation only when medically necessary. However, the overlap and taper period should
be as brief as feasible (please refer to Appendix E for Overlap and Taper Guidelines).
Stage 1B. The consensus panel placed olanzapine and carbamazepine as potential monotherapy
options within a sub-stage, titled Stage 1B. These medications have equivalent efficacy to Stage 1
medications, but concern about greater potential adverse events or complexity associated with
treatment places them at Stage 1B. Olanzapine causes significant weight gain in a substantial
percentage of patients. Carbamazepine stimulates its own metabolism as well as that of numerous
other psychotropic medications. This creates complexity with its own dosing as well as concomitant
medications.
Stage 2. Stage 2 treatment includes combination treatment with two of the following: lithium,
valproate, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone. The panel does not recommend the
use of two antipsychotics, but rather suggests the combination of lithium plus valproate or lithium or
valproate plus an atypical antipsychotic (not including clozapine or aripiprazole). No evidence exists
to support superior efficacy with the use of two antipsychotics in acute mania. All of the other atypical
antipsychotics except aripiprazole and clozapine have randomized controlled trial data to support
combination use with lithium or valproate. Clozapine is also not recommended here because of its
side effect profile.
Stage 3. In Stage 3, a different two drug combination of medications is recommended, drawing from
a larger group of medication choices than described in Stage 2. Carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine,
aripiprazole, and typical antipsychotic agents were added as additional choices here. Again, the panel
does not recommend the use of two antipsychotic agents during Stage 3. Preferably, one agent from
the previous combination would be kept, and change would occur to a different second agent.
Clozapine again is not recommended at this stage due to monitoring and safety concerns.
Stage 4. Stage 4 introduces the option of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) treatment, as well as
clozapine or 3-drug combinations. 3-drug combinations would include lithium, and an anticonvulsant
mood stabilizer (valproate, carbamazepine, or oxcarbazepine), plus an atypical antipsychotic.
Clozapine may be added to lithium, an anticonvulsant mood stabilizer, or lithium plus an
anticonvulsant mood stabilizer.
Stage 3. At this point, the algorithm begins to rely more heavily on open label studies, case series,
and expert clinical consensus, as only limited data are available on treatment of bipolar depression
following failure with Stage 2 medications. Stage 3 treatment includes the combination of any two of
the four agents already introduced in this treatment guideline, namely lithium, lamotrigine, quetiapine,
and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination. These recommendations are relatively low risk for mania
induction or cycle acceleration and reflect acute strategies that may be particularly effective in longer-
term treatment. Once again, two antipsychotics are not recommended.
Stage 4. Stage 4 includes a variety of other treatment options, including ECT and combinations that
include the use of lithium, lamotrigine, quetiapine, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination, valproate, or
carbamazepine in combination with an SSRI medication, bupropion, or venlafaxine. SSRIs include
citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, and fluvoxamine. SSRIs are not
introduced until Stage 4 because controlled studies of the use of SSRIs in patients with bipolar I
depression are limited, and more recent studies suggest that the efficacy is only modest in this
population. Mania induction remains a possibility with SSRIs and should be discussed with the
patient. Given the limited efficacy of lamotrigine in preventing new manic episodes, the addition of an
antimanic is recommended when lamotrigine is used in combination with a traditional antidepressant
(i.e., three-medication combination). The use of two SSRIs or two antipsychotics is not
recommended.
Stage 5. Stage 5 offers a variety of treatment options with limited empirical evidence in support of
their use or significant adverse effects. Stage 5 suggestions include MAOIs, tricyclic antidepressants,
other atypical antipsychotics, oxcarbazepine, trials of new combinations of drugs included in the
algorithm, thyroid supplementation, as well as pramipexole, inositol and stimulant adjunctive
treatment. Clinicians may decide to use other options from earlier stages not previously used before
proceeding to Stage 5. Two SSRIs, two TCAs, or two antipsychotics are not recommended.
Critical Decision Points involve a consideration of response among all domains, symptom
improvement, tolerability, and safety. Evaluate the pattern and severity of symptoms by reviewing the
BDSS score sheet (please refer to Appendix A for score sheet). Depending on the pattern and
severity of symptom scores, the clinician may follow recommendations within the column that
includes the most severe symptoms, or the column that contains the majority of clinical symptoms.
The symptoms are loosely grouped by clinical presentation to allow for quicker assessment of
potential treatment decisions. The Tactics and Critical Decision Points for treatment of the bipolar
patient allow for clinician judgment and choice in determining where to make adjustments to
medications, responsive to the individual patient’s presentation.
Patients should return to the clinic, or be contacted by clinic personnel, every two weeks (office visit
or by phone) until symptom patterns are primarily contained within the mild range on the BDSS, or
remission is achieved. Patients will then be evaluated monthly, until the clinician determines the
patient may begin transitioning to maintenance treatment. It is recommended that clinicians see the
patient every 8-12 weeks while they are transitioning to maintenance treatment. Support personnel
may see the patient in clinic or contact patients by phone between physician visits as necessary.
All recommendations assume that side effects are tolerable. Please refer to Appendix D for
suggestions on how to manage side effects. Intolerable, unmanageable side effects may warrant
changing to a different stage of treatment with medications different than those causing the adverse
effects. Tolerability should be evaluated at each Critical Decision Point. The terms “associated or co-
existing symptoms” refers to symptoms which often accompany an exacerbation of bipolar disorder
(agitation, anxiety, insomnia) and which frequently complicate the course of illness. The treatments
used for these symptoms are generally time-limited and symptom-oriented, in contrast to the
maintenance and illness-oriented role of mood stabilizers and other primary treatments for bipolar I
disorder.
At any point within the CDPs, if medications are stabilized and patient outcomes remain positive and
stable, visit intervals can be extended to every four weeks. All patients with bipolar I disorder who
achieve a satisfactory clinical response (preferably symptom remission) should transition to
maintenance treatment. Please refer to the section on transition to maintenance treatment for further
recommendations.
Clinicians can use the scoring sheet to graph patient scores on each of these 10 symptom
domains. While the presence of one or more of these symptoms may be suggestive of different
things, they are loosely grouped within the categories of mania/hypomanic symptoms, depressive
symptoms, and psychotic symptoms. Of course, clinician judgment is necessary to evaluate the
source of particular symptoms. For example, blunted affect may be a result of increased
depression, increased psychosis, or other sources. Elevated mood may be related to increased
hypomania/mania or a manifestation of increased delusional/psychotic symptoms. The grouping is
intended to help facilitate decision-making within the algorithms, but is not exclusive.
A copy of this scale and the scoring sheet can be found in Appendix A.
Clinician Ratings
Each of the symptom clusters is rated on a 10-point scale (from “no symptoms” to “extremely
severe”). The rating is based on impression of the patient at this visit, as well as information about
the patient’s clinical status during the week prior to the visit.
• Core Symptoms: Based upon all available information, clinician impression of the presence
and severity of each of the symptoms in this patient.
• Other Symptoms: Clinician rating of other symptoms associated with the patient’s disorder,
but not core symptoms of the patient’s illness. Rate impressions for each of the specific
“other symptoms” listed (irritability, mood lability, insomnia, agitation, anxiety, level of
interest, appetite, energy level). Under “other,” specify and rate any other symptom that are
significant.
• Overall Side Effect Severity: Overall rating of side effects from all medications being taken
by the patient.
• Overall Functioning: Overall impression of this patient’s ability to function on a daily basis.
“10” is the highest possible functioning, and “1” is the lowest possible functioning.
1
Dennehy EB, Suppes T, Crismon ML, Toprac M, Carmody TJ, Rush AJ. Development of the Brief Bipolar Disorder
Symptom Scale for patients with bipolar disorder. Psychiatry Research 2004;127:137-45.
2
Overall JE, Gorham DR. Introduction - the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS): Recent developments in
ascertainment and scaling. Psychopharmacol Bull 1988;24:97-99.
3
Ventura J, Green MF, Shaner A, Liberman RP. Training and quality assurance with the Brief Psychiatric Rating
Scale: “The drift busters.” Int J Methods Psychiatric Res 1993;221-244.
Please refer to Appendix C for summary of recommended doses, titration schedules, maximum
recommended doses, side effects, monitoring parameters, and drug interactions for medications
used in the Algorithm for Treatment of BDI – Currently Hypomanic/Manic/Mixed or the Algorithm for
Treatment of BDI – Currently Depressed.
Appendix D contains recommendations for dealing with treatment-emergent side effects as well as
co-existing symptoms.
Continuation Treatment
All patients with bipolar I disorder who achieve a satisfactory clinical response (symptom remission
when possible) should continue treatment with the same agent(s), with dosage adjustments as
needed to optimize and maintain symptom resolution and good tolerability.
Continuation treatment usually lasts for 2-4 months following acute response. Continuation
treatment allows the clinician to continue to monitor the effectiveness of the regimen that provided
clinical response during acute treatment. Ongoing contact between the clinician and the patient are
important, and support personnel may contact patients in person or by phone between physician
visits in order to screen for emergent problems and encourage patient treatment adherence.
Once treatment is stabilized and patient outcomes remain positive and stable, visit intervals can be
extended to every four weeks for the first three months, then every 2-3 months thereafter. Once full
response is achieved, medication(s) should be continued. If symptoms should recur, prompt
treatment with the medication and dose previously shown to be effective during the most recent
acute episode should be initiated.
If a patient has received ECT as an acute phase treatment, medication treatment is recommended
once the initial treatment phase of ECT is completed. Selecting one or more medications that the
patient has not previously received, or medications that the patient has responded to during a
previous episode of bipolar I disorder (BDI), is generally recommended. If there is a history of
severe and/or recent mania, a mood stabilizer should be included in this medication regimen after
ECT is completed. If a patient relapses, resuming ECT should be considered. It is important to
remember that ECT should not be administered with concomitant anticonvulsant mood stabilizers or
lithium.
All patients should be actively involved in psychoeducation programs that address the patient’s
need for knowledge about the illness and its treatment, emphasize the role of healthy lifestyles,
provide emotional support, and enforce the importance of treatment adherence. Patients may also
benefit from cognitive behavioral therapy that is targeted for patients with bipolar disorder, as well
as family-focused therapy if available.
Maintenance Treatment
Maintenance treatment recommendations depend on the polarity of the most recent episode, and
levels of recommendations were hierarchically ordered by the TMAP consensus panel. The ordering
reflects the quality and quantity of research evidence balanced with safety and tolerability
information. Maintenance treatment typically begins with the same regimen that the patient received
in acute treatment. Although maintenance treatment research to date has focused on the use of
monotherapy, it is reasonable to start maintenance treatment with the medications that brought the
patient to this point in care. It is likely the majority of patients will need combination treatment to
maintain long-term stability.
The goal of maintenance treatment is to continue treatment at the minimum dose and number of
medications necessary for the patient to attain an optimal quality of life and to prevent relapse.
Thus, unless the patient’s treatment history dictates otherwise, attempts should be made to simplify
complex medication regimens. Similarly, if higher medication doses were utilized during the acute
Data regarding maintenance treatment after a depressive episode of BDI are limited. As a rule of
thumb, attempts to simplify maintenance treatment should begin about 3-6 months after resolution
of the acute episode, and changes should only be made in one medication at a time. Due to the
risks of inducing a manic episode and accelerating the cycle, antidepressant monotherapy is not
recommended as an appropriate maintenance treatment for patients with bipolar I disorder (BDI)
who have recently had a depressive episode. As well, the long-term use of antidepressants in
conjunction with a mood stabilizer in patients with BDI continues to be controversial.
For a first episode of bipolar mania with no family history of bipolar or major depression, medication
tapering and discontinuation may be considered after 6 months in remission, depending on the
severity of the first episode, surrounding factors, and prodromal history. If and when discontinuing
any ongoing medication, the dosage should be tapered no more rapidly than 25 percent per week.
Tapering and discontinuation usually can be completed over at least 1-2 month period. If symptoms
should recur, prompt treatment with the medication and dose previously shown to be effective
should be initiated.
Alternative Olanzapinea
Level II
Aripiprazoleb
Evidence:
Level III
Carbamazepine or clozapinea
Evidence:
Level IV
Quetiapineb, risperidoneb, or ziprasidoneb
Evidence:
Level V
Typical antipsychoticsa, oxcarbazepineb, ECT
Evidence:
a
Safety issues warrant careful consideration of this option for potential long-term use
b
Relatively limited information is currently available on this agent in long-term use
Bipolar Disorder Clinician’s Manual Page 19 Updated: July 2007
Maintenance Treatment Guidelines
Level II
Lithium
Evidence:
Level III Combination of antimanic and antidepressant that has been effective in the
Evidence: past, including olanzapine/fluoxetine combination
Level V
Typical antipsychoticsa, oxcarbazepineb, ECT
Evidence
a
Safety issues warrant careful consideration of this option for potential long-term use
b
Relatively limited information is currently available on this agent in long-term use
Treatment with the bipolar disorder algorithms utilizes uniform documentation developed by
TDSHS and the TMAP team, and modified for use by various centers. The critical information
from patient history needed for implementation of the BDI algorithms is:
2. Primary current diagnosis. (Please note that these algorithms were developed for
patients diagnosed with bipolar I disorder.)
3. Core symptoms
4. Other symptoms
Outpatient Documentation
Required Forms:
1. Outpatient Clinic Visit Clinical Record Form (CRF): The CRF should be completed at
each visit in which a clinician or other clinician is evaluating response to treatment.
Please note that all patients will have a stage entered for the principal treatment
algorithm.
Stage: 3
CRFs may vary in format, but all should contain the minimum data specified
appendix G. A template CRF is also included.
Optional Forms: If these forms are not used, then an alterative uniform documentation
process should be used to record this important information.
2. Outpatient Interim Contact Form: In the event that the patient does not come into the
clinic or there is not time for a complete visit, the ICF is documented by or the physician
or other clinical personnel.
Required Forms:
1. Inpatient Clinic Visit Clinical Record Form: Complete as usual. See instructions above
for “Outpatient Clinic Visit Clinical Record Form” for detailed example.
Optional Forms:
Adjustment to Critical Decision Points – The critical decision points are set at 2-week
intervals, assuming outpatient treatment. Of course, opportunities to evaluate the patient and
make clinical decisions and medication adjustments may happen on an expedited schedule
when the patient is an inpatient. Although psychotropic medications do not work faster when a
patient is hospitalized, the clinician does have an ongoing opportunity to evaluate the patient’s
response to treatment. Therefore, critical decision points to evaluate the need for mood
stabilizer dosage adjustment or medication change can be made at shorter intervals. In
general, if a patient is tolerating usual effective doses of a mood stabilizer, dose titration should
occur on a weekly basis if needed.
Patients experiencing partial response should receive medication dose titration as tolerated
and continued treatment for 2-3 more weeks.
Use of loading doses – Clinicians may utilize more assertive dosing with inpatients. Oral
loading of valproate sodium can be utilized for quick stabilization of manic patients (20 mg/kg
is the standard formula).
Please note rate of lamotrigine titration remains the same regardless of setting (please refer to
Appendix C for recommended titration schedules using lamotrigine).
The transition between inpatient and outpatient care is often problematic. Most inpatient
clinicians have dealt with the frustration of discharging a patient only to see him or her return to
the hospital within a few weeks as a result of not receiving outpatient follow-up and/or not filling
or taking prescriptions. Brief hospital stays may further aggravate the problem because
patients are discharged before they are truly stabilized. By the same token, outpatient
clinicians must constantly revise their treatment plans when their long-term treatment
intentions are not followed by the inpatient physician. The following three strategies may
improve transitions between the two treatment settings:
1. Document the treatment plan. It is imperative that all clinicians document the rationale for
treatment decisions and outline the expected treatment plan. This includes detailing
expected changes in medications, such as “I expect Mr. Doe will discontinue use of
Zolpidem for sleep once manic symptoms are controlled by increased dosing of olanzapine
and valproate into recommended therapeutic ranges.” Inpatient clinicians may want to start
notes to their outpatient colleagues with “transfer” rather than “discharge” (I am
‘transferring’ the acute care of this patient…) because the former term implies a
continuation of care while the latter suggests a disruption.
2. Ensure that patients leave the hospital with enough medication to see them through to
the first follow-up appointment. Administrative policies should not prevent patients from
receiving adequate medication to last until the first outpatient clinician appointment.
4. Use of clinical report form (CRF): If the clinician documents pharmacotherapy care on
the CRF, then a transfer of copies of the last 1 or 2 completed CRFs to the clinician
assuming care of the patient can be helpful in communicating the treatment the patient has
received as well as the clinical status the last time the patient was seen
• Tactics and Critical Decision Points (CDPs) for the Treatment of Bipolar
Disorder
• Scoring Criteria for Physician- and Patient-Rated Overall Symptom and Side
Effect Ratings
How have you been getting along with people (family, co-workers, etc.)?
Have you been irritable or grumpy lately? (How do you show it? Do you keep it to yourself?)
Were you ever so irritable that you would shout at people or start fights or arguments? (Have
you found yourself yelling at people you didn't know?)
Have you hit anyone recently?
NA Not assessed
1 Not Present
2 Very Mild
Irritable or grumpy, but not overtly expressed.
3 Mild
Argumentative or sarcastic.
4 Moderate
Overtly angry on several occasions OR yelled at others excessively.
5 Moderately Severe
Has threatened, slammed about or thrown things.
6 Severe
Has assaulted others but with no harm likely, e.g., slapped or pushed, OR destroyed
property, e.g., knocked over furniture, broken windows.
7 Extremely Severe
Has attacked others with definite possibility of harming them or with actual harm, e.g.,
assault with hammer or weapon.
Have you felt so good or high that other people thought that you were not your normal self?
Have you been feeling cheerful and “on top of the world” without any reason?
Did it seem like more than just feeling good? How long did that last?
NA Not assessed
1 Not Present
2 Very Mild
Seems to be very happy, cheerful without much reason.
3 Mild
Some unaccountable feelings of well-being that persist.
4 Moderate
Reports excessive or unrealistic feelings of well-being, cheerfulness, confidence or optimism
inappropriate to circumstances, some of the time. May frequently joke, smile, be giddy or
overly enthusiastic OR few instances of marked elevated mood with euphoria.
5 Moderately Severe
Reports excessive or unrealistic feelings of well-being, confidence or optimism inappropriate
to circumstances much of the time. May describe “feeling on top of the world,” “like
everything is falling into place," or “better than ever before,” OR several instances of marked
elevated mood with euphoria.
6 Severe
Reports many instances of marked elevated mood with euphoria OR mood definitely
elevated almost constantly throughout interview and inappropriate to content.
7 Extremely Severe
Patient reports being elated or appears almost intoxicated, laughing, joking, giggling,
constantly euphoric, feeling invulnerable, all inappropriate to immediate circumstances.
Is there anything special about you? Do you have any special abilities or powers? Have you
thought that you might be somebody rich or famous?
[If the patient reports any grandiose ideas/delusions, ask the following]:
How often have you been thinking about [use patient's description]? Have you told anyone
about what you have been thinking? Have you acted on any of these ideas?
NA Not assessed
1 Not Present
2 Very Mild
Feels great and denies obvious problems, but not unrealistic.
3 Mild
Exaggerated self-opinion beyond abilities and training.
4 Moderate
Inappropriate boastfulness, claims to be brilliant, insightful, or gifted beyond realistic
proportions, but rarely self-discloses or acts on these inflated self-concepts. Does not claim
that grandiose accomplishments have actually occurred.
5 Moderately Severe
Same as 4 but often self-discloses and acts on these grandiose ideas. May have doubts
about the reality of the grandiose ideas. Not delusional.
6 Severe
Delusional--claims to have special powers like ESP, to have millions of dollars, invented new
machines, worked at jobs when it is known that he was never employed in these capacities,
be Jesus Christ, or the President. Patient may not be very preoccupied.
7 Extremely Severe
Delusional--Same as 6 but subject seems very preoccupied and tends to disclose or act on
grandiose delusions.
How has your mood been recently? Have you felt depressed (sad, down, unhappy as if you
didn't care)?
Are you able to switch your attention to more pleasant topics when you want to?
Do you find that you have lost interest in or get less pleasure from things you used to enjoy, like
family, friends, hobbies, watching TV, eating?
How long do these feelings last? Has it interfered with your ability to perform your usual
activitieslwork?
NA Not assessed
1 Not Present
2 Very Mild
Occasionally feels sad, unhappy or depressed.
3 Mild
Frequently feels sad or unhappy but can readily turn attention to other things.
4 Moderate
Frequent periods of feeling very sad, unhappy, moderately depressed, but able to function
with extra effort.
5 Moderately Severe
Frequent, but not daily, periods of deep depression OR some areas of functioning are
disrupted by depression.
6 Severe
Deeply depressed daily but not persisting throughout the day OR many areas of functioning
are disrupted by depression.
7 Extremely Severe
Deeply depressed daily OR most areas of functioning are disrupted by depression.
5. ANXIETY: Reported apprehension, tension, fear, panic or worry. Rate only the patient's
statements, not observed anxiety that is rated under TENSION.
Have you been worried a lot during [mention time frame]? Have you been nervous or
apprehensive? (What do you worry about?)
Are you concerned about anything? How about finances or the future?
When you are feeling nervous, do your palms sweat or does your heart beat fast (or shortness
of breath, trembling, choking)?
How much of the time have you been [use patient's description]?
Has it interfered with your ability to perform your usual activitieslwork?
NA Not assessed
1 Not Present
2 Very Mild
Reports some discomfort due to worry OR infrequent worries that occur more than usual for
most normal individuals.
3 Mild
Worried frequently but can readily turn attention to other things.
4 Moderate
Worried most of the time and cannot turn attention to other things easily but no impairment
in functioning OR occasional anxiety with autonomic accompaniment but no impairment in
functioning.
5 Moderately Severe
Frequent, but not daily, periods of anxiety with autonomic accompaniment, OR some areas
of functioning are disrupted by anxiety or worry.
6 Severe
Anxiety with autonomic accompaniment daily but not persisting throughout the day OR
many areas of functioning are disrupted by anxiety or constant worry.
7 Extremely Severe
Anxiety with autonomic accompaniment persisting throughout the day OR most areas of
functioning are disrupted by anxiety or constant worry.
6. UNUSUAL THOUGHT CONTENT: Unusual, odd, strange or bizarre thought content. Rate the
degree of unusualness, not the degree of disorganization of speech. Delusions are patently
absurd, clearly false or bizarre ideas that are expressed with full conviction. Consider the patient
to have full conviction if he/she has acted as though the delusional belief were true. Ideas of
reference/persecution can be differentiated from delusions in that ideas are expressed with
much doubt and contain more elements of reality. Include thought insertion, withdrawal and
broadcast. Include grandiose, somatic and persecutory delusions even if rated elsewhere.
Note: If Somatic Concern, Guilt, Suspiciousness, or Grandiosity are rated “6” or “7" due to
delusions, then Unusual Thought Content must be rated a “4" or above.
Have you been receiving any special messages from people or from the way things are
arranged around you? Have you seen any references to yourself on TV or in the
newspapers?
Can anyone read your mind?
Do you have a special relationship with God?
Is anything like electricity, X-rays, or radio waves affecting you?
Are thoughts put into your head that are not your own?
Have you felt that you were under the control of another person or force?
NA Not assessed
1 Not Present
2 Very Mild
Ideas of reference (people may stare or may laugh at him), ideas of persecution (people
may mistreat him). Unusual beliefs in psychic powers, spirits, UFOs, or unrealistic beliefs in
one's own abilities. Not strongly held. Some doubt.
3 Mild
Same as 2, but degree of reality distortion is more severe as indicated by highly unusual
ideas or greater conviction. Content may be typical of delusions (even bizarre), but without
full conviction. The delusion does not seem to have fully formed, but is considered as one
possible explanation for an unusual experience.
4 Moderate
Delusion present but no preoccupation or functional impairment. May be an encapsulated
delusion or a firmly endorsed absurd belief about past delusional circumstances.
5 Moderately Severe
Full delusion(s) present with some preoccupation OR some areas of functioning disrupted
by delusional thinking.
6 Severe
Full delusion(s) present with much preoccupation OR many areas of functioning are
disrupted by delusional thinking.
7 Extremely Severe
Full delusions present with almost total preoccupation OR most areas of functioning are
disrupted by delusional thinking.
Rate the following items on the basis of observed behavior and speech.
NA Not assessed
1 Not Present
2 Very Mild
Subtle and fleeting or questionable increase in emotional intensity. For example, at times,
seems keyed-up or overly alert.
3 Mild
Subtle but persistent increase in emotional intensity. For example, lively use of gestures and
variation in voice tone.
4 Moderate
Definite but occasional increase in emotional intensity. For example, reacts to interviewer or
topics that are discussed with noticeable emotional intensity. Some pressured speech.
5 Moderately Severe
Definite and persistent increase in emotional intensity. For example, reacts to many stimuli,
whether relevant or not, with considerable emotional intensity. Frequent pressured speech.
6 Severe
Marked increase in emotional intensity. For example reacts to most stimuli with
inappropriate emotional intensity. Has difficulty settling down or staying on task. Often
restless, impulsive, or speech is often pressured.
7 Extremely Severe
Marked and persistent increase in emotional intensity. Reacts to all stimuli with inappropriate
intensity, impulsiveness. Cannot settle down or stay on task. Very restless and impulsive
most of the time. Constant pressured speech.
NA Not assessed
1 Not Present
2 Very Mild
Some restlessness, difficulty sitting still, lively facial expressions, or somewhat talkative.
3 Mild
Occasionally very restless, definite increase in motor activity, lively gestures, 1-3 brief
instances of pressured speech.
4 Moderate
Very restless, fidgety, excessive facial expressions or nonproductive and repetitious motor
movements. Much pressured speech, up to one third of the interview.
5 Moderately Severe
Frequently restless, fidgety. Many instances of excessive non-productive and repetitious
motor movements. On the move most of the time. Frequent pressured speech, difficult to
interrupt. Rises on 1-2 occasions to pace.
6 Severe
Excessive motor activity, restlessness, fidgety, loud tapping, noisy, etc., throughout most of
the interview. Speech can only be interrupted with much effort. Rises on 3-4 occasions to
pace.
7 Extremely Severe
Constant excessive motor activity throughout entire interview, e.g., constant pacing,
constant pressured speech with no pauses, interviewee can only be interrupted briefly and
only small amounts of relevant information can be obtained.
NA Not assessed
1 Not Present
2 Very Mild
Lack of emotional involvement shown by occasional failure to make reciprocal comments,
occasionally appearing preoccupied, or smiling in a stilted manner, but spontaneously
engages the interviewer most of the time.
3 Mild
Lack of emotional involvement shown by noticeable failure to make reciprocal comments,
appearing preoccupied, or lacking in warmth, but responds to interviewer when approached.
4 Moderate
Emotional contact not present much of the interview because subject does not elaborate
responses, fails to make eye contact, doesn't seem to care if interviewer is listening, or may
be preoccupied with psychotic material.
5 Moderately Severe
Same as “4” but emotional contact not present most of the interview.
6 Severe
Actively avoids emotional participation. Frequently unresponsive or responds with yes/no
answers (not solely due to persecutory delusions). Responds with only minimal affect.
7 Extremely Severe
Consistently avoids emotional participation. Unresponsive or responds with yes/no answers
(not solely due to persecutory delusions). May leave during interview or just not respond at
all.
10. BLUNTED AFFECT: Restricted range in emotional expressiveness of face, voice, and gestures.
Marked indifference or flatness even when discussing distressing topics. In the case of euphoric
or dysphoric patients, rate Blunted Affect if a flat quality is also clearly present.
Have you heard any good jokes lately? Would you like to hear a joke?
NA Not assessed
1 Not Present
2 Very Mild
Emotional range is slightly subdued or reserved but displays appropriate facial expressions
and tone of voice that are within normal limits.
3 Mild
Emotional range overall is diminished, subdued, or reserved, without many spontaneous
and appropriate emotional responses. Voice tone is slightly monotonous.
4 Moderate
Emotional range is noticeably diminished, patient doesn't show emotion, smile, or react to
distressing topics except infrequently. Voice tone is monotonous or there is noticeable
decrease in spontaneous movements. Displays of emotion or gestures are usually followed
by a return to flattened affect.
5 Moderately Severe
Emotional range very diminished, patient doesn't show emotion, smile or react to distressing
topics except minimally, few gestures, facial expression does not change very often. Voice
tone is monotonous much of the time.
6 Severe
Very little emotional range or expression. Mechanical in speech and gestures most of the
time. Unchanging facial expression. Voice tone is monotonous most of the time.
7 Extremely Severe
Virtually no emotional range or expressiveness, stiff movements. Voice tone is monotonous
all of the time.
Sources of information (check all applicable): Explain here if validity of assessment is questionable:
_______ Patient _______ Symptoms possibly drug-induced
_______ Parents/Relatives _______ Underreported due to lack of rapport
_______ Mental Health Professionals _______ Underreported due to negative symptoms
_______ Chart _______ Patient uncooperative
_______ Difficult to assess due to formal thought disorder
Confidence in assessment: _______ Other
_______ 1 = Not at all - 5 = Very confident
Not assessed Not present Very Mild Mild Moderate Moderately Severe Extremely
Severe Severe
Not assessed Not present Very Mild Mild Moderate Moderately Severe Extremely
Severe Severe
* Side Effects: Treatment recommendations assume that side effects are tolerable. Refer to the Side Effects Management section of the physician
manual.Intolerable, unmanageable side effects may warrant changing to a different stage of treatment. Tolerability should be evaluated at all Critical Decision
Points.
†
Once a patient sustains a full response to medication for at least four weeks, a transition to continuation treatment occurs. In general, the patient should have full
response for two consecutive visits before beginning continuation treatment. After maintaining a full response for 4-6 months, the clinician should consider
medication dosage reduction or regimen simplification in maintenance phase treatment.
0 = No Symptoms
1 = Borderline
2 = Mild
3 = Mild – Moderate
4 = Moderate
5 = Moderate – Marked
6 = Marked
7 = Marked – Severe
8 = Severe
9 = Severe – Extreme
10 = Extreme
TMAP Information
The University of Texas at Austin
College of Pharmacy PHR 5.110
1 University Station A1910
Austin, TX 78712
Antipsychotics, Atypical------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------42
Antipsychotics, Typical-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------45
Antidepressants, Miscellaneous---------------------------------------------------------------------------------49
1
Maximum daily dosage should be based upon the medication serum concentration in the individual patient in the context of clinical response and tolerability.
2
Therapeutic serum concentration monitoring of mood stabilizers should be drawn 12-hours after the last dose.
3
Recommended dose titration of lamotrigine for patients taking carbamazepine (or other enzyme-inducing drugs) and not taking valproate: 50mg daily for weeks 1 & 2; 100 mg daily (in divided doses)
for weeks 3 & 4; 200 mg daily (in divided doses) for week 5; 300 mg daily (in divided doses) for week 6; up to 400 mg daily (in divided doses) for week 7 and thereafter.
4
Recommended dose titration of lamotrigine for patients taking valproate or other forms of valproic acid: 25 mg every other day for weeks 1 & 2; 25 mg daily for weeks 3 & 4; 50 mg daily for week 5;
100mg daily for week 6 and thereafter.
• Ataxia
• Dizziness
1) Renal Function Test – baseline and as clinically
25 mg/day • Headache
Lamotrigine indicated
every 200 400 Once or • Nausea • Carbamazepine2
Generic available 25 mg/day 2) Hepatic Function Test – baseline, yearly and as
® 14 days mg/day mg/day twice daily • Rash • Valproate3
Lamictal clinically indicated
• Somnolence
3) Pregnancy Test – as clinically indicated
• Stevens Johnson
Syndrome
• Ataxia
• Diplopia • Antipsychotics
600
1) Electrolytes – baseline and as clinically indicated • Dizziness • Dihydropyridine calcium
Oxcarbazepine 600 mg/day 600-2100 2400 2 - 3 times
® • GI upset antagonists
Trileptal mg/day every mg/day mg/day daily
2) Pregnancy test – as clinically indicated • Hyponatremia • Oral contraceptive pill
7 days
• Somnolence • Vitamin D
• Tremor
5
Maximum daily dosage should be based upon the medication serum concentration in the individual patient in the context of clinical response and tolerability.
6
Use of risperidone > 6 mg/day is associated with an increased risk of EPS.
• EPS
• Glucose dysregulation • Carbamazepine
• Galactorrhea • Cimetidine
• Hyperlipidemia • Fluoxetine
Risperidone • Menstrual irregularity • Paroxetine
25 – 50 mg Every
Risperdal 25 mg (IM) N/A 50 mg (IM) See Previous Page • Orthostatic hypotension • Phenytoin
® (IM) 2 weeks
Consta • Prolactin elevation • Rifampin
• Sedation • Tricyclic
• Sexual dysfunction antidepressants
• Tardive dyskinesia
• Weight gain
• Carbamazepine
• Dizziness • Diuretics
• ECG changes • Moxifloxacin
Ziprasidone 20-40 120 200 Twice • EPS • Quinidine
® 80 mg/day 7 See Previous Page
Geodon mg/day mg/day mg/day daily • Rash • Sotalol
• Sedation • Thioridazine
• Vomiting • Tricyclic
antidepressants
7
The presence of food can increase ziprasidone’s absorption up to two-fold.
• Azole antifungals
Haloperidol
2-20 40 mg/day 1 - 3 times • Carbamazepine
Generic available 2 mg/day 2-5 mg/day See Previous Page
® mg/day daily • Rifabutin
Haldol
• Rifampin
8
Starting dose generally 1.2 times the patient's oral dose
9
The maximum volume per injection site should not exceed 3 mL.
10
Multiple injections can be given at 1-7 day intervals to provide total loading dose.
11
Starting dose generally 10-20 times the patient's oral dose. Dose of first injection should not exceed 100 mg.
• Clozapine
• Cyclosporine
• Linezolid
• MAOIs
Citalopram 10 mg
20-40 • NSAIDs
Generic available 20 mg/day every 60 mg/day Once daily
® mg/day • Pimozide
Celexa 2 weeks
• St. John’s Wort
• Sympathomimetics
• Tramadol
• Triptans
• Agitation
• Constipation
• Diarrhea
• Dizziness
• Cyclosporine
• Dry Mouth
• Linezolid
• Fatigue
• MAOIs
10 mg • Headache
Escitalopram 10-20 1) Pregnancy test – as clinically indicated • NSAIDs
® 10 mg/day every 20 mg/day Once daily • Insomnia
Lexapro mg/day • St. John’s Wort
2 weeks • Loss of appetite
• Sympathomimetics
• Nausea
• Tramadol
• Nervousness
• Triptans
• Sexual dysfunction
• Somnolence
• Sweating
• Carbamazepine
• Clozapine
• Cyclosporine
• Hydantoins
• Linezolid
• MAOIs
Fluoxetine 10-20 mg
20-40 • NSAIDs
Generic available 20 mg/day every 80 mg/day Once daily
® mg/day • St. John’s Wort
Prozac 4 weeks
• Sympathomimetics
• Thioridazine
• Tramadol
• Triptans
• Tricyclic
antidepressants
12
Generic only available for immediate release formulation
• Carbamazepine
400 Twice daily • Constipation
• Cyclosporine
Bupropion 150 mg/day (SR) • Dry mouth
• Linezolid
Generic available 150 mg/day 300 • Headache
® 1) Pregnancy test – as clinically indicated • MAOIs
Wellbutrin SR mg/day at mg/day 450 Once daily • Insomnia
® • Ritonavir
Wellbutrin XL 3-7 days mg/day(XL (XL) • Nausea
• Tricyclic
) • Seizures
antidepressants
• Anxiety • Linezolid
Venlafaxine 37.5 – 1) Pregnancy test – as clinically indicated. • Decreased appetite • MAOIs
13
Generic available 37.5 75 mg/day 150-225 375 • Dizziness • St. John’s Wort
Once daily
Effexor mg/day every mg/day mg/day 2) Blood pressure during dosage titration and as • Insomnia • Sympathomimetics
®
Effexor XR 5-7 days clinically necessary • Nausea • Tramadol
• Sweating • Triptans
• Atomoxetine
• Bupropion
Phenelzine 15 60-90 2 - 3 times • Carbamazepine
® 45 mg/day 90 mg/day • Dextromethorphan
Nardil mg/week mg/day daily
• Insulins
1) Blood chemistries with emphasis on hepatic and renal • Levodopa
functions; baseline, yearly and as clinically indicated • Edema • Linezolid
during prolonged or high dose therapy
• Insomnia • Meperidine
• Orthostatic • SSRIs
2) Pregnancy test – as clinically indicated
hypotension • St. John’s Wort
3) Blood pressure at baseline and during dosage • Sexual dysfunction • Sulfonylureas
adjustments and as clinically indicated. Therapeutic • Weight gain • Sympathomimetics
Tranylcypromine ranges for the lab used should be listed on the report • Tramadol
20-30 10 20-40 2 - 3 times • Triptans
Generic available 60 mg/day
® mg/day mg/week mg/day daily • Tricyclic
Parnate
antidepressants
• Tyramine foods
• Venlafaxine
13
Generic only available for immediate release formulation
• Carbamazepine
1) EKG – baseline and as clinically indicated • Ciimetidine
Desipramine 25-50 • Clonidine
2) Pregnancy test – as clinically indicated • Fluoxetine
Generic available 25-75 mg/day 150 300
® Once daily • Guanethidine
Norpramin mg/day every mg/day mg/day 3) Blood levels as clinically indicated. • Blurred Vision
Pertofrane
®
1-2 days • Linezolid
• Constipation
• MAOIs
** Desipramine: 100-300 ng/mL • Dry Mouth
• Paroxetine
• Orthostatic hypotension
• Procainamide
• Sedation
• Quinidine
1) EKG – baseline and as clinically indicated • Tachycardia
• Quinolones
25-50 • Urinary retention
Doxepin 2) Pregnancy test – as clinically indicated • Rifabutin
25-75 mg/day 150 300 Once or • Weight gain
Generic available • Rifampin
® mg/day every mg/day mg/day twice daily 3) Blood levels as clinically indicated. • St. John’s Wort
Sinequan
1-2 days • Sympathomimetics
**Doxepin + Nordoxepin: 150-250 ng/mL • Valproate
• Ziprasidone
** Therapeutic drug monitoring of tricyclic antidepressants can be performed after 5-7 days of consistent dosing. Dosing adjustments should be made to achieve 12-hour blood levels within a therapeutic
range.
• Constipation • Cimetidine
0.375
• Insomnia • Diltiazem
Pramipexole 0.375 mg/day 1 - 3 times
® 1-3 mg/day 5 mg/day None • Nausea • Ranitidine
Mirapex mg/day every 7 daily
days • Psychosis • Triamterene
• Somnolence • Verapamil
• Anorexia
Amphetamine • Guanethidine
• Insomnia
Mixed Salts 10-60 2 - 3 times • MAOIs
10 mg/day None 60 mg/day • Nervousness
Generic available mg/day daily • SSRIs
Adderall XR
® • Psychosis
• Urinary Alkalinizers
• Tachycardia
1) Height and weight in children (baseline and
as clinically indicated)
Methylphenidate • Anorexia • Guanethidine
Generic
14 • Insomnia • Hydantoins
available 20-40 2 - 3 times
® 20 mg/day None 60 mg/day • Nervousness • MAOIs
Ritalin mg/day daily
Ritalin SR
® • Psychosis • Tricyclic
Concerta
® • Tachycardia antidepressants
T3 • Diarrhea
• Anticoagulants
(Liothyronine) • Headache
• Hypoglycemics
Generic available 25 25-50 160 • Irritability
® None Once daily None • Oral contraceptives
Cytomel mcg/day mcg/day mg/day • Nervousness
Triostat
® • Tricyclic
• Sweating
antidepressants
• Tachycardia
• Diarrhea • Anticoagulants
T4
50 • Headache • Cholestyramine
(Levothyroxine)
50 mcg/day 300-500 500 • Irritability • Digoxin
Generic available Once daily None
® mcg/day every 3 mcg/day mcg/day • Nervousness • Estrogens
Synthroid
® days • Sweating • Iron
Levoxyl
• Tachycardia • Theophyllines
14
Generic only available in IR and SR formulations
Benzodiazepines are best avoided in patients with prior history of substance abuse/dependence or
who are at risk for substance abuse. Nonaddicting agents are preferred.
Co-Existing Recommendations
Symptom
- Consider adjunctive medications, including as needed use of oral and intramuscular
medications including benzodiazepines, typical antipsychotics, and atypical
antipsychotics:
• Lorazepam 1-4 mg or clonazepam 0.5-2 mg may be used in treating acute
agitation. In emergent situations where rapid reduction of agitation is necessary,
lorazapam 1-2 mg given intramuscularly may be preferable to oral dosing. The
dose may be repeated every 1-2 hours as needed, and onset of effect is
generally seen within 15-30 minutes.
• Haloperidol 5 mg orally or intramuscularly may be given every 30-60 minutes
until patient is calm.
• Atypical antipsychotics in intramuscular or oral formulations may be given on an
as needed basis to control acute agitation. If oral dosing is used, doses should
be initiated at the low end of the dosing range. Intramuscular olanzapine,
Agitation/ risperidone oral solution, and intramuscular ziprasidone act more rapidly than
their oral counterparts and their use may be warranted in cases where the
Excitement patient can not tolerate or does not respond to typical antipsychotic agents
and/or benzodiazepines.
o Intramuscular olanzapine 2.5-10 mg, may repeat 2 hours after initial
dose and 4 hours after second dose, with a maximum of 30 mg daily.
o Intramuscular ziprasidone 10-20 mg as needed to a maximum dose of
40 mg daily. The 10 mg dose may be given every 2 hours, and the 20
mg dose may be given every 4 hours.
o Intramuscular aripiprazole 5.25 – 9.75 mg as needed every two hours
to a maximum of 30 mg daily.
• Risperidone oral solution is available in 1mg/mL.
- Failure of the first trial of pharmacotherapy should be followed by a second trial of an
alternative agent above.
- After failure of multiple trials of agents to control acute agitiation/excitement,
consider moving treatment to the next algorithm stage.
− Lithium, valproate and carbamazepine are all therapeutic options for the
Persistent management of aggression and hostility associated with acute exacerbations in
symptoms of schizophrenia
Aggression/Hostility/ − If there is no discernible change in the clinical picture after 1-3 weeks, the clinician
Mood Lability should discontinue the adjuvant mood stabilizer and consider switching the patient to
clozapine.
− Medication treatments for depression in schizophrenia are the same as those used
in major depressive disorder.
Depression
− SSRIs, venlafaxine XR, bupropion SR/XL, duloxetine and mirtazapine are
recommended as first line treatments.
Considerable evidence in patients with bipolar disorder suggests that a sudden discontinuation of
lithium maintenance treatment is associated with a greater relapse of affective illness than a gradual
taper1. Some evidence in patients with schizophrenia suggests that the abrupt discontinuation of
maintenance antipsychotic treatment is also associated with a greater risk of relapse than is a gradual
taper2. Thus, a gradual tapering of psychotropic medications in persons with bipolar disorder is
strongly recommended when possible to minimize exacerbation or relapse of mood symptoms.
Exceptions to this rule would be when severe or potentially life-threatening side effects occur or if
manic symptoms develop during antidepressant therapy.
In general, if a medication is to be discontinued, the new medication should be started and titrated to
a therapeutic dose. Then the medication to be discontinued is tapered at a maximum of 25% the dose
every 1-2 weeks.
If during the increasing dose period of the second medication, presumptive side effects from the first
medication increase, it would be reasonable to begin tapering the first medication prior to reaching full
therapeutic dose of the second new medication. If a patient’s clinical status improves during the
overlap and taper period, it is impossible to determine whether the improvement occurred due to the
second medication or to the combination. The clinician should continue with the overlap and taper in
order to evaluate clinical response on the second medication monotherapy. If clinical status
deteriorates with discontinuation of the first medication, it can be restarted in combination with the
second medication.
1. Baldessarini RJ, Tondo L, Faedda GL, Suppes TR, Floris G, Rudas N. Effects of the reate of discontinuing lithium
maintenance treatment in bipolar disorders. J Clin Psychiatry 1996; 57(10):441-8.
2. Viguera AC, Baldessarini RJ, Hegarty JD, Van Kammen DP, Tohen M. Clinical risk following abrupt and gradual
withdrawal of maintenance neuroleptic treatment. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1997; 54(1):49-55.
Brown ES, Rush AJ, Biggs MM, Shores-Wilson K, Carmody TJ, Suppes T, Texas Medication Algorithm
Project. Clinician ratings vs. global ratings of symptom severity: a comparison of symptom
measures in the bipolar disorder module, phase II, Texas Medication Algorithm Project.
Psychiatry Research 2003;117:167-75.
Dennehy EB, Suppes T, Crismon ML, Toprac M, Carmody TJ, Rush AJ. Development of the Brief
Bipolar Disorder Symptom Scale for patients with bipolar disorder. Psychiatry Research
2004;127:137-45.
Dennehy EB, Suppes T, Rush AJ, Crismon ML, Witte B, Webster J. Development of a computerized
assessment of clinician adherence to a treatment guideline for patients with bipolar disorder.
Journal of Psychiatric Research 2004;38:285-94.
Dennehy EB, Suppes T, Rush AJ, Miller AL, Trivedi MH, Crismon ML, Carmody TJ, Kashner TM.
Does provider adherence to a treatment guideline change clinical outcomes for patients with
bipolar disorder? Results from the Texas Medication Algorithm Project. Psychological Medicine
2005;35:1695-1706.
Gilbert DA, Altshuler KZ, Rago WV, Shon SP, Crismon ML, Toprac MG, Rush AJ. Texas Medication
Algorithm Project: Definitions, rationale and methods to develop medication algorithms. Journal
of Clinical Psychiatry 1998;59:345-51.
Kashner TK, Rush AJ, Crismon ML, Toprac M, Carmody TJ, Miller AL, Trivedi M, Wicker A, Suppes
T. An empirical analysis of cost-outcomes of the Texas medication algorithm project.
Psychiatric Services 2006:57:648-659.
Kashner TM, Carmody TJ, Suppes T, Rush AJ, Crismon ML, Miller AL, Toprac M, Trivedi M. Catching-
up on health outcomes: The Texas Medication Algorithm Project. Health Services Research
2003;38:311-31.
Kashner TM, Rush AJ, Surís A, Biggs MM.; Gajewski VL, Hooker DJ, Shoaf T, Altshuler KZ. Impact
of Structured Clinical Interviews on Physician Behavior in Community Mental Health Settings.
Psychiatric Services 2003;54:712-718.
Mellman TA, Miller AL, Weissman E, Crismon ML, Essock SM, Marder SR. Evidence based
medication treatment for severe mental illness: a focus on guidelines and algorithms. Psychiatric
Services, 2001; 52:619-625.
Rago WV, Shon SP. “The Texas Medication Algorithm Project.” In Improving Mental Health Care.
Commitment to Quality, Dickey B and Sederer LI (eds). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Publishing, Inc., 2001.
Rush AJ, Crismon ML, Kashner TM, Toprac MG, Carmody TJ, Trivedi MH, Suppes T, Miller AL, Biggs
MM, Shores-Wilson K, Witte B, Shon SP, Rago WV, Altshuler KZ. Texas Medication Algorithm
Project – Phase III (TMAP-III): rationale and design. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2003;64:357-
69.
Rush AJ, Rago WV, Crismon ML, Toprac MG, Shon SP, Suppes T, Miller AL, Trivedi MH, Swann A,
Biggs MM, Shores-Wilson K, Kashner M, Pigott TA, Chiles CA, Gilbert DA, Altshuler KZ.
Medication treatment for the severely and persistently mentally ill: The Texas Medication
Algorithm Project. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 1999;60:284-291.
Shon SP, Crismon ML, Toprac MG, Trivedi M, Miller AL, Suppes T, Rush AJ. Mental health care from
the public perspective: The Texas Medication Algorithm Project. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
1999;60 (suppl 3):16-20.
Shon SP, Toprac MG, Crismon ML, Rush AJ. Strategies for implementing psychiatric medication
algorithms in the public sector. Journal of Practical Psychiatry & Behavioral Health 1999;5:32-36.
Starkweather K, Shon SP, Crismon ML. A Texas-sized prescription: providers report progress with
medication guidelines. Behavioral Healthcare Tomorrow 2000;9(4):44-46.
Starkweather K, Shon SP. Implementing Medication Algorithms: The Texas Experience. Psychiatrist
Administrator 2001;1:13-18.
Suppes T, Dennehy E, Hirschfeld RMA, Altshuler LL, Bowden CL, Calíbrese CR, Crismon ML, Ketter
T, Sachs G, Swann AC. The Texas implementation of medication algorithms: Update to the
algorithms for treatment of bipolar I disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 2005;60:870-886.
Suppes T, Dennehy E, Rush AJ, Crismon ML, Kashner, TM, Carmody TJ, Toprac MG, Biggs MM,
Shores-Wilson K, Witte B, Trivedi MH, Steven SP. Texas Medication Algorithm Project: clinical
results for patients with a history of mania. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2003;64:370-82.
Suppes T, Swann AC, Dennehy EB, Habermacher ED, Mason M, Crismon ML, Toprac MG, Rush AJ,
Shon SP, Altshuler KZ. Texas Medication Algorithm Project – development and feasibility testing
of a treatment algorithm for patients with bipolar disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
2001;62:439-447.
Toprac MG, Rush AJ, Conner TM, Crismon ML, Dees M, Hopkins C, Rowe V, Shon SP. The Texas
Medication Algorithm Project patient and family education program: a consumer-guided initiative.
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2000;61:477-486.
Toprac MG, Dennehy EB, Carmody TJ, Crismon ML, Miller AL, Trivedi MH, Suppes T, Rush AJ.
Implementation of the Texas Medication Algorithm Project Patient and Family Education
Program. J Clin Psychiatry 2006;67:1362-1372.
Trivedi MH, Rush AJ, Crismon ML, O’Neal B, Toprac MG. Treatment guidelines and algorithms. In:
Dunner DL, Rosenbaum JF, eds. The Psychiatric Clinics of North America Annual Review of
Drug Therapy 2000. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company, 2000;7:1-22.
The following information should be entered on the Clinical Record Form at each patient visit:
2. Date
Date of visit (month/day/year)
5. Duration of visit
Record start and end times of visit (hour:minute am/pm).
6. Current diagnoses
Record the current psychiatric diagnoses using DSM IV-TR codes. Please place primary diagnosis first.
7. Current algorithm
Check box of the specific algorithm that is being used.
8. Current stage in algorithm at beginning of visit and weeks in this current stage
Record current stage in algorithm at the beginning of this visit and how many weeks the patient has been in this
stage.
9. Vital signs
Record current vital signs: weight, height, blood pressure; pulse rate.