Cited by 104Bipolar Disorder and TreatmentSchizophrenia research and treatmentTreatment of Major Depression

A randomized, double‐blind, controlled trial evaluating the effect of intranasal insulin on neurocognitive function in euthymic patients with bipolar disorder

McIntyre, Roger S, Soczynska, Joanna K, Woldeyohannes, Hanna O, Miranda, Andrew, Vaccarino, Anthony, MacQueen, Glenda, Lewis, Gary F, Kennedy, Sidney H·2012·Bipolar Disorders

Abstract

McIntyre RS, Soczynska JK, Woldeyohannes HO, Miranda A, Vaccarino A, MacQueen G, Lewis GF, Kennedy SH. A randomized, double‐blind, controlled trial evaluating the effect of intranasal insulin on neurocognitive function in euthymic patients with bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord 2012: 14: 697–706. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Background: Neurocognitive deficits are prevalent, persistent, and implicated as mediators of functional impairment in adults with bipolar disorder. Notwithstanding progress in the development of pharmacological treatments for various phases of bipolar disorder, no available treatment has been proven to be reliably efficacious in treating neurocognitive deficits. Emerging evidence indicates that insulin dysregulation may be pertinent to neurocognitive function. In keeping with this view, we tested the hypothesis that intranasal insulin administration would improve measures of neurocognitive performance in euthymic adults with bipolar disorder. Methods: Sixty‐two adults with bipolar I/II disorder (based on the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview 5.0) were randomized to adjunctive intranasal insulin 40 IU q.i.d. (n = 34) or placebo (n = 28) for eight weeks. All subjects were prospectively verified to be euthymic on the basis of a total score of ≤ 3 on the seven‐item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD‐7) and ≤ 7 on the 11‐item Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) for a minimum of 28 consecutive days. Neurocognitive function and outcome was assessed with a neurocognitive battery. Results: There were no significant between‐group differences in mean age of the subjects {i.e., mean age 40 [standard deviation (SD) = 10.15] years in the insulin and 39 [SD = 10.41] in the placebo groups, respectively}. In the insulin group, n = 27 (79.4%) had bipolar I disorder, while n = 7 (21.6%) had bipolar II disorder. In the placebo group, n = 25 (89.3%) had bipolar I disorder, while n = 3 (10.7%) had bipolar II disorder. All subjects received concomitant medications; medications remained stable during study enrollment. A significant improvement versus placebo was noted with intranasal insulin therapy on executive function (i.e., Trail Making Test–Part B). Time effects were significant for most California Verbal Learning Test indices and the Process Dissociation Task–Habit Estimate, suggesting an improved performance from baseline to endpoint with no between‐group differences. Intranasal insulin was well tolerated; no subject exhibited hypoglycemia or other safety concerns. Conclusions: Adjunctive intranasal insulin administration significantly improved a single measure of executive function in bipolar disorder. We were unable to detect between‐group differences on other neurocognitive measures, with improvement noted in both groups. Subject phenotyping on the basis of pre‐existing neurocognitive deficits and/or genotype [e.g., apolipoprotein E (ApoE)] may possibly identify a more responsive subgroup.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bdi.12006

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • An RCT among euthymic patients with bipolar disorder documented that individuals treated with intranasal insulin exhibited significant improvements in one measure of executive function, in the absence of improvement across other cognitive domains, compared with a placebo group.

    “An RCT among euthymic patients with bipolar disorder documented that individuals treated with intranasal insulin exhibited significant improvements in one measure of executive function (in the absence of improvement across other cognitive domains) compared with a placebo group [114].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McIntyre, R. S., Soczynska, J. K., Woldeyohannes, H. O., Miranda, A., Vaccarino, A., MacQueen, G., Lewis, G. F., & Kennedy, S. H.
Affiliations
  • University Health Network (CA)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
McIntyre, Roger S
Venue
Bipolar Disorders
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-10-29
Volume
14
Issue
7
Pages
697-706
ISSN
  • 1398-5647 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-5618
OpenAlex
W1794396397
Cited by
104
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4
FWCI
4.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Bipolar Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
intranasal insulin, bipolar disorder, neurocognitive impairment, executive function, insulin resistance, euthymic bipolar patients, Trail Making Test Part B, verbal learning, adjunctive therapy, cognitive impairment treatment, insulin dysregulation, safety and tolerability, hypoglycemia risk, treatment-resistant bipolar disorder, mood stabilizers, antipsychotic drugs
MeSH terms
Administration, Intranasal, Adult, Bipolar Disorder, Cognition Disorders, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review