Effects of antipsychotic treatment on cardio-cerebrovascular related mortality in schizophrenia: A subanalysis of a systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression of moderators.

To further explore the role of different antipsychotic treatments for cardio-cerebrovascular mortality, we performed several subgroup, sensitivity and meta-regression analyses based on a large previous meta-analysis focusing on cohort studies assessing mortality relative risk (RR) for cardio-cerebrovascular disorders in people with schizophrenia, comparing antipsychotic treatment versus no antipsychotic. Quality assessment through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and publication bias was measured. We meta-analyzed 53 different studies (schizophrenia patients: n = 2,513,359; controls: n = 360,504,484) to highlight the differential effects of antipsychotic treatment regimens on cardio-cerebrovascular-related mortality in incident and prevalent samples of patients with schizophrenia. We found first generation antipsychotics (FGA) to be associated with higher mortality in incident samples of schizophrenia (oral FGA [RR=2.20, 95 %CI=1.29-3.77, k = 1] and any FGA [RR=1.70, 95 %CI=1.20-2.41, k = 1]). Conversely, second generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and clozapine were associated with reduced cardio-cerebrovascular-related mortality, in prevalent samples of schizophrenia. Subgroup analyses with NOS score ≥7 (higher quality) demonstrated a significantly increased cardio-cerebrovascular disorder-related mortality, among those exposed to FGAs vs SGAs. Meta-regression analyses demonstrated a larger association between antipsychotics and decreased risk of mortality with longer follow-up, recent study year, and higher number of adjustment variables. Overall, this subanalysis of a systematic review contributes to the evolving understanding of the complex role of antipsychotic treatment for cardio-cerebrovascular mortality in schizophrenia, paving the way for more targeted interventions and improved patient outcomes.

Regional differences in mortality risk and in attenuating or aggravating factors in schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

People with schizophrenia die prematurely, yet regional differences are unclear. PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review/random-effects meta-analysis of cohort studies assessing mortality relative risk (RR) versus any control group, and moderators, in people with ICD/DSM-defined schizophrenia, comparing countries and continents. We conducted subgroup, meta-regression analyses, and quality assessment. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were suicide-, /natural-cause- and other-cause-related mortality. We included 135 studies from Europe (n = 70), North-America (n = 29), Asia (n = 33), Oceania (n = 2), Africa (n = 1). In incident plus prevalent schizophrenia, differences across continents emerged for all-cause mortality (highest in Africa, RR=5.98, 95 %C.I.=4.09-8.74, k = 1, lowest in North-America, RR=2.14, 95 %C.I.=1.92-2.38, k = 16), suicide (highest in Oceania, RR=13.5, 95 %C.I.=10.08-18.07, k = 1, lowest in North-America, RR=4.4, 95 %C.I.=4.07-4.76, k = 6), but not for natural-cause mortality. Europe had the largest association between antipsychotics and lower all-cause mortality/suicide (Asia had the smallest or no significant association, respectively), without differences for natural-cause mortality. Higher country socio-demographic index significantly moderated larger suicide-related and smaller natural-cause-related mortality risk in incident schizophrenia, with reversed associations in prevalent schizophrenia. Antipsychotics had a larger/smaller protective association in incident/prevalent schizophrenia regarding all-cause mortality, and smaller protective association for suicide-related mortality in prevalent schizophrenia. Additional regional differences emerged in incident schizophrenia, across countries, and secondary outcomes. Significant regional differences emerged for all-cause, cause-specific and suicide-related mortality. Natural-cause death was homogeneously increased globally. Moderators differed across countries. Global initiatives are needed to improve physical health in people with schizophrenia, local studies to identify actionable moderators.

Balancing risks and benefits of cannabis use: umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess credibility and certainty of associations between cannabis, cannabinoids, and cannabis based medicines and human health, from observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN: Umbrella review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, PsychInfo, Embase, up to 9 February 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies and RCTs that have reported on the efficacy and safety of cannabis, cannabinoids, or cannabis based medicines were included. Credibility was graded according to convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or not significant (observational evidence), and by GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) (RCTs). Quality was assessed with AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2). Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: 101 meta-analyses were included (observational=50, RCTs=51) (AMSTAR 2 high 33, moderate 31, low 32, or critically low 5). From RCTs supported by high to moderate certainty, cannabis based medicines increased adverse events related to the central nervous system (equivalent odds ratio 2.84 (95% confidence interval 2.16 to 3.73)), psychological effects (3.07 (1.79 to 5.26)), and vision (3.00 (1.79 to 5.03)) in people with mixed conditions (GRADE=high), improved nausea/vomit, pain, spasticity, but increased psychiatric, gastrointestinal adverse events, and somnolence among others (GRADE=moderate). Cannabidiol improved 50% reduction of seizures (0.59 (0.38 to 0.92)) and seizure events (0.59 (0.36 to 0.96)) (GRADE=high), but increased pneumonia, gastrointestinal adverse events, and somnolence (GRADE=moderate). For chronic pain, cannabis based medicines or cannabinoids reduced pain by 30% (0.59 (0.37 to 0.93), GRADE=high), across different conditions (n=7), but increased psychological distress. For epilepsy, cannabidiol increased risk of diarrhoea (2.25 (1.33 to 3.81)), had no effect on sleep disruption (GRADE=high), reduced seizures across different populations and measures (n=7), improved global impression (n=2), quality of life, and increased risk of somnolence (GRADE=moderate). In the general population, cannabis worsened positive psychotic symptoms (5.21 (3.36 to 8.01)) and total psychiatric symptoms (7.49 (5.31 to 10.42)) (GRADE=high), negative psychotic symptoms, and cognition (n=11) (GRADE=moderate). In healthy people, cannabinoids improved pain threshold (0.74 (0.59 to 0.91)), unpleasantness (0.60 (0.41 to 0.88)) (GRADE=high). For inflammatory bowel disease, cannabinoids improved quality of life (0.34 (0.22 to 0.53) (GRADE=high). For multiple sclerosis, cannabinoids improved spasticity, pain, but increased risk of dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, somnolence (GRADE=moderate). For cancer, cannabinoids improved sleep disruption, but had gastrointestinal adverse events (n=2) (GRADE=moderate). Cannabis based medicines, cannabis, and cannabinoids resulted in poor tolerability across various conditions (GRADE=moderate). Evidence was convincing from observational studies (main and sensitivity analyses) in pregnant women, small for gestational age (1.61 (1.41 to 1.83)), low birth weight (1.43 (1.27 to 1.62)); in drivers, car crash (1.27 (1.21 to 1.34)); and in the general population, psychosis (1.71 (1.47 to 2.00)). Harmful effects were noted for additional neonatal outcomes, outcomes related to car crash, outcomes in the general population including psychotic symptoms, suicide attempt, depression, and mania, and impaired cognition in healthy cannabis users (all suggestive to highly suggestive). CONCLUSIONS: Convincing or converging evidence supports avoidance of cannabis during adolescence and early adulthood, in people prone to or with mental health disorders, in pregnancy and before and while driving. Cannabidiol is effective in people with epilepsy. Cannabis based medicines are effective in people with multiple sclerosis, chronic pain, inflammatory bowel disease, and in palliative medicine but not without adverse events. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018093045. FUNDING: None.

The impact of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on physical health outcomes in people with mood disorders across the lifespan: An umbrella review of the evidence from randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: People with mood disorders have increased risk of comorbid medical diseases versus the general population. It is paramount to identify interventions to improve physical health in this population. METHODS: Umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on pharmacological/non-pharmacological interventions for physical health outcomes/intolerability-related discontinuation in mood disorders (any age). RESULTS: Ninety-seven meta-analyses were included. Among youths, against placebo, in depression, antidepressants/antipsychotics had higher discontinuation rates; in bipolar depression, olanzapine+fluoxetine worsened total cholesterol (TC)/triglycerides/weight gain (WG) (large ES). In adults with bipolar disorder, olanzapine worsened HbA1c/TC/WG (moderate/large ES); asenapine increased fasting glucose (small ES); quetiapine/cariprazine/risperidone induced WG (small/moderate ES). In bipolar depression, lurasidone was metabolically neutral. In depression, psychological interventions improved physical health-related quality of life (PHQoL) (small ES), fasting glucose/HbA1c (medium/large ES); SSRIs improved fasting glucose/HbA1c, readmission for coronary disease, pain (small ES); quetiapine/aripiprazole/olanzapine induced WG (small to large ES). Exercise improved cardiorespiratory fitness (moderate ES). In the elderly, fluoxetine yielded more detrimental cardiovascular effects than sertraline/escitalopram (large ES); antidepressants were neutral on exercise tolerance and PHQoL. In mixed age groups, in bipolar disorder aripiprazole was metabolically neutral; in depression, SSRIs lowered blood pressure versus placebo and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (small ES); brexpiprazole augmentation caused WG and was less tolerated (small ES); exercise improved PHQoL (moderate ES). CONCLUSIONS: Some interventions (psychological therapies, exercise and SSRIs) improve certain physical health outcomes in mood disorders, few are neutral, but various pharmacological interventions are associated with negative effects. Evidence from this umbrella review has limitations, should consider evidence from other disorders and should be integrated with recent evidence from individual RCTs, and observational evidence. Effective treatments with either beneficial or physically neutral profiles should be prioritized.

Efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions in schizophrenia: systematic overview and quality appraisal of the meta-analytic evidence.

Psychosocial interventions are recommended in schizophrenia and first-episode psychosis/early psychosis (EP). Nevertheless, literature is heterogeneous and often contradictory. We conducted an umbrella review of (network) meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychosocial interventions vs treatment as usual (TAU)/active interventions(ACTIVE)/MIXED controls. Primary outcome was total symptoms (TS); secondary outcomes were positive/negative/depressive symptoms (PS/NS/DS), cognition, functioning, relapse, hospitalization, quality of life (QoL), treatment discontinuation. Standardized mean difference (SMD)/odds ratio (OR)/risk ratio (RR) vs TAU/ACTIVE/MIXED were summarized at end-of-treatment (EoT)/follow-up (FU). Quality was rated as high/medium/low (AMSTAR-PLUS). Eighty-three meta-analyses were included (RCTs = 1246; n = 84,925). Against TAU, regarding TS, Early Intervention Services (EIS) were superior EoT/FU in EP (SMD = -0.32/-0.21), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in schizophrenia EoT/FU (SMD = -0.38/-0.19). Regarding secondary outcomes, in EP, EIS were superior for all outcomes EoT except cognition, and at FU for PS/NS/QoL, specific family interventions (FI-s) prevented relapse EoT; in schizophrenia, superiority emerged EoT for CBT for PS/NS/relapse/functioning/QoL; psychoeducation (EDU)/any FI for relapse; cognitive remediation therapy (CRT) for cognition/functioning; and hallucination-focused integrative treatment for PS. Against ACTIVE, in EP, mixed family interventions (FI-m) were superior at FU regarding TS (SMD = -0.61) and for functioning/relapse among secondary outcomes. In schizophrenia, regarding TS, mindfulness and social skills training (SST) were superior EoT, CBT at FU; regarding secondary outcomes superiority emerged at EoT for computerized cognitive drill-and-practice training for PS/DS, CRT for cognition/functioning, EDU for relapse, individual placement and support (IPS) for employment; and at FU CBT for PS/NS. Against MIXED, in schizophrenia, CRT/EDU were superior for TS EoT (d = -0.14/SMD = -0.33), CRT regarding secondary outcomes EoT for DS/social functioning, both EoT/FU for NS/cognition/global functioning; compensatory cognitive interventions for PS/functioning EoT/FU and NS EoT; CBT for PS at FU, and EDU/SST for relapse EoT. In conclusion, mental health services should consider prioritizing EIS/any FI in EP and CBT/CRT/any FI/IPS for schizophrenia, but other interventions may be helpful for specific outcomes.

Treatment of eating disorders: A systematic meta-review of meta-analyses and network meta-analyses.

MONTELEONE, A.M., F. Pellegrino, G. Croatto, M. Carfagno, A. Hilbert, J. Treasure, T. Wade, C. Bulik, S. Zipfel, P. Hay, U. Schmidt, G. Castellini, A. Favaro, F. Fernandez-Aranda, J. Il Shin, U. Voderholzer, V. Ricca, D. Moretti, D. Busatta, G. Abbate-Daga, F. Ciullini, G. Cascino, F. Monaco, C.U. Correll and M. Solmi. Treatment of Eating Disorders: a systematic meta-review of meta-analyses and network meta-analyses. NEUROSCI BIOBEHAV REV 21(1) XXX-XXX, 2022.- Treatment efficacy for eating disorders (EDs) is modest and guidelines differ. We summarized findings/quality of (network) meta-analyses (N)MA of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in EDs. Systematic meta-review ((N)MA of RCTs, ED, active/inactive control), using (anorexia or bulimia or eating disorder) AND (meta-analy*) in PubMed/PsycINFO/Cochrane database up to December 15th, 2020. Standardized mean difference, odds/risk ratio vs control were summarized at end of treatment and follow-up. Interventions involving family (family-based therapy, FBT) outperformed active control in adults/adolescents with anorexia nervosa (AN), and in adolescents with bulimia nervosa (BN). In adults with BN, individual cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-ED had the broadest efficacy versus active control; also, antidepressants outperformed active. In mixed age groups with binge-eating disorder (BED), psychotherapy, and lisdexamfetamine outperformed active control. Antidepressants, stimulants outperformed placebo, despite lower acceptability, as did CBT-ED versus waitlist/no treatment. Family-based therapy is effective in AN and BN (adolescents). CBT-ED has the largest efficacy in BN (adults), followed by antidepressants, as well as psychotherapy in BED (mixed). Medications have short-term efficacy in BED (adults).

Incidence, prevalence, and global burden of autism spectrum disorder from 1990 to 2019 across 204 countries.

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) substantially contributes to the burden of mental disorders. Improved awareness and changes in diagnostic criteria of ASD may have influenced the diagnostic rates of ASD. However, while data on trends in diagnostic rates in some individual countries have been published, updated estimates of diagnostic rate trends and ASD-related disability at the global level are lacking. Here, we used the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study data to address this gap, focusing on changes in prevalence, incidence, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) of ASD across the world. From 1990 to 2019, overall age-standardized estimates remained stable globally. Both prevalence and DALYs increased in countries with high socio-demographic index (SDI). However, the age-standardized incidence decreased in some low SDI countries, indicating a need to improve awareness. The male/female ratio decreased between 1990 and 2019, possibly accounted for by increasing clinical attention to ASD in females. Our results suggest that ASD detection in low SDI countries is suboptimal, and that ASD prevention/treatment in countries with high SDI should be improved, considering the increasing prevalence of the disorder. Additionally, growing attention is being paid to ASD diagnosis in females, who might have been left behind by ASD epidemiologic and clinical research previously. ASD burden estimates are underestimated as GBD does not account for mortality in ASD.

Brain stimulation and other biological non-pharmacological interventions in mental disorders: An umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: The degree of efficacy, safety, quality, and certainty of meta-analytic evidence of biological non-pharmacological treatments in mental disorders is unclear. METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review (PubMed/Cochrane Library/PsycINFO-04-Jul-2021, PROSPERO/CRD42020158827) for meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on deep brain stimulation (DBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), electro-convulsive therapy (ECT), and others. Co-primary outcomes were standardized mean differences (SMD) of disease-specific symptoms, and acceptability (for all-cause discontinuation). Evidence was assessed with AMSTAR/AMSTAR-Content/GRADE. RESULTS: We selected 102 meta-analyses. Effective interventions compared to sham were in depressive disorders: ECT (SMD=0.91/GRADE=moderate), TMS (SMD=0.51/GRADE=moderate), tDCS (SMD=0.46/GRADE=low), DBS (SMD=0.42/GRADE=very low), light therapy (SMD=0.41/GRADE=low); schizophrenia: ECT (SMD=0.88/GRADE=moderate), tDCS (SMD=0.45/GRADE=very low), TMS (prefrontal theta-burst, SMD=0.58/GRADE=low; left-temporoparietal, SMD=0.42/GRADE=low); substance use disorder: TMS (high frequency-dorsolateral-prefrontal-deep (SMD=1.16/GRADE=moderate), high frequency-left dorsolateral-prefrontal (SMD=0.77/GRADE=very low); OCD: DBS (SMD=0.89/GRADE=moderate), TMS (SMD=0.64/GRADE=very low); PTSD: TMS (SMD=0.46/GRADE=moderate); generalized anxiety disorder: TMS (SMD=0.68/GRADE=low); ADHD: tDCS (SMD=0.23/GRADE=moderate); autism: tDCS (SMD=0.97/GRADE=very low). No significant differences for acceptability emerged. Median AMSTAR/AMSTAR-Content was 8/2 (suggesting high-quality meta-analyses/low-quality RCTs), GRADE low. DISCUSSION: Despite limited certainty, biological non-pharmacological interventions are effective and safe for numerous mental conditions. Results inform future research, and guidelines. FUNDING: None.

Mortality in people with schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of relative risk and aggravating or attenuating factors.

People with schizophrenia die 15-20 years prematurely. Understanding mortality risk and aggravating/attenuating factors is essential to reduce this gap. We conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective, nationwide and targeted cohort studies assessing mortality risk in people with schizophrenia versus the general population or groups matched for physical comorbidities or groups with different psychiatric disorders, also assessing moderators. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality risk ratio (RR); key secondary outcomes were mortality due to suicide and natural causes. Other secondary outcomes included any other specific-cause mortality. Publication bias, subgroup and meta-regression analyses, and quality assessment (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) were conducted. Across 135 studies spanning from 1957 to 2021 (schizophrenia: N=4,536,447; general population controls: N=1,115,600,059; other psychiatric illness controls: N=3,827,955), all-cause mortality was increased in people with schizophrenia versus any non-schizophrenia control group (RR=2.52, 95% CI: 2.38-2.68, n=79), with the largest risk in first-episode (RR=7.43, 95% CI: 4.02-13.75, n=2) and incident (i.e., earlier-phase) schizophrenia (RR=3.52, 95% CI: 3.09-4.00, n=7) versus the general population. Specific-cause mortality was highest for suicide or injury-poisoning or undetermined non-natural cause (RR=9.76-8.42), followed by pneumonia among natural causes (RR=7.00, 95% CI: 6.79-7.23), decreasing through infectious or endocrine or respiratory or urogenital or diabetes causes (RR=3 to 4), to alcohol or gastrointestinal or renal or nervous system or cardio-cerebrovascular or all natural causes (RR=2 to 3), and liver or cerebrovascular, or breast or colon or pancreas or any cancer causes (RR=1.33 to 1.96). All-cause mortality increased slightly but significantly with median study year (beta=0.0009, 95% CI: 0.001-0.02, p=0.02). Individuals with schizophrenia <40 years of age had increased all-cause and suicide-related mortality compared to those ≥40 years old, and a higher percentage of females increased suicide-related mortality risk in incident schizophrenia samples. All-cause mortality was higher in incident than prevalent schizophrenia (RR=3.52 vs. 2.86, p=0.009). Comorbid substance use disorder increased all-cause mortality (RR=1.62, 95% CI: 1.47-1.80, n=3). Antipsychotics were protective against all-cause mortality versus no antipsychotic use (RR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.59-0.84, n=11), with largest effects for second-generation long-acting injectable anti-psychotics (SGA-LAIs) (RR=0.39, 95% CI: 0.27-0.56, n=3), clozapine (RR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.34-0.55, n=3), any LAI (RR=0.47, 95% CI: 0.39-0.58, n=2), and any SGA (RR=0.53, 95% CI: 0.44-0.63, n=4). Antipsychotics were also protective against natural cause-related mortality, yet first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) were associated with increased mortality due to suicide and natural cause in incident schizophrenia. Higher study quality and number of variables used to adjust the analyses moderated larger natural-cause mortality risk, and more recent study year moderated larger protective effects of antipsychotics. These results indicate that the excess mortality in schizophrenia is associated with several modifiable factors. Targeting comorbid substance abuse, long-term maintenance antipsychotic treatment and appropriate/earlier use of SGA-LAIs and clozapine could reduce this mortality gap.

Risk and Protective Factors for Personality Disorders: An Umbrella Review of Published Meta-Analyses of Case-Control and Cohort Studies.

The putative risk/protective factors for several personality disorders remain unclear. The vast majority of published studies has assessed personality characteristics/traits rather than disorders. Thus, the current umbrella review of meta-analyses (MAs) aims to systematically assess risk or protective factors associated with personality disorders. We searched PubMed-MEDLINE/PsycInfo databases, up to August 31, 2020. Quality of MAs was assessed with AMSTAR-2, while the credibility of evidence for each association was assessed through standard quantitative criteria. Out of 571 initial references, five meta-analyses met inclusion criteria, encompassing 56 associations of 26 potential environmental factors for antisocial, dependent, borderline personality disorder, with a median of five studies per association, and median 214 cases per association. Overall, 35 (62.5%) of the associations were nominally significant. Six associations met class II (i.e., highly suggestive) evidence for borderline personality disorder, with large effect sizes involving childhood emotional abuse (OR = 28.15, 95% CI 14.76-53.68), childhood emotional neglect (OR = 22.86, 95% CI 11.55-45.22), childhood any adversities (OR = 14.32, 95% CI 10.80-18.98), childhood physical abuse (OR = 9.30, 95% CI 6.57-13.17), childhood sexual abuse (OR = 7.95, 95% CI 6.21-10.17), and childhood physical neglect (OR = 5.73, 95% CI 3.21-10.21), plus 16 further associations supported by class IV evidence. No risk factor for antisocial or dependent personality disorder was supported by class I, II, and III, but six and seven met class IV evidence, respectively. Quality of included meta-analyses was rated as moderate in two, critically low in three. The large effect sizes found for a broad range of childhood adversities suggest that prevention of personality disorders should target childhood-related risk factors. However, larger cohort studies assessing multidimensional risk factors are needed in the field.

Increased C-reactive protein concentration and suicidal behavior in people with psychiatric disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Suicide is a leading cause of death worldwide. Identifying factors associated with suicidality (suicidal ideation [SI]/suicidal behavior) could increase our understanding of the pathophysiological underpinnings of suicide and improve its prevention. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review (PubMed/PsycInfo/Cochrane databases, up to September 2020) and random-effect meta-analysis including observational studies comparing peripheral C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in suicidal versus non-suicidal patients affected by any psychiatric disorder and healthy controls (HC). Primary outcome was the CRP standardized mean difference (SMD) between patients with high suicidality versus those with absent or low suicidality. Secondary outcomes were SMD of CRP levels between those with suicide attempt versus no suicide attempt, as well as between those with (high) versus low or absent SI. Quality of included studies was measured with Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: Out of initial 550 references, 21 observational studies involving 7682 subjects (7445 with mood disorders or first-episode psychosis, 237 HC) were included. A significant association of CRP levels with suicidality (SMD 0.688, 95% CI 0.476-0.9, p < 0.001) emerged. CRP levels were higher in individuals with high SI (SMD 1.145, 95% CI 0.273-2.018, p = 0.010) and in those with suicide attempt (SMD 0.549, 95%CI 0.363-0.735, p < 0.001) than non-suicidal individuals (either patients or HC). Main analyses were confirmed in sensitivity analysis (removing HC), and after adjusting for publication bias. The cross-sectional design of included studies, and the high heterogeneity of diagnosis and treatment limit the generalizability of these results. Median quality of included studies was high. CONCLUSION: CRP is associated with higher suicidality in patients with mental disorders. Large cohort studies longitudinally monitoring CRP levels are needed to explore its longitudinal association with suicidality.

Peripheral levels of C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-6, and interleukin-1ß across the mood spectrum in bipolar disorder: A meta-analysis of mean differences and variability.

IMPORTANCE: It is unclear whether differences exist in the magnitude and variability of pro-inflammatory mediators in the different phases of bipolar disorder (BD) and among subjects with BD, as compared to healthy controls. OBJECTIVE: To run a comparative meta-analysis of C-Reactive Protein (CRP), IL-1, IL-6, TNF-α in BD vs healthy controls, measuring mean and variability effects on all subjects. Sensitivity analyses include disease activity. DATA SOURCES: Systematic review of observational studies in PubMed and PsycInfo up to February 2nd, 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Case-control studies reporting inflammatory mediators' levels in BD and controls. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Summary distribution measures of circulating CRP, IL-1ß, IL-6, TNF-α in participants with BD and control groups were extracted. Random-effects multivariate meta-analyses were conducted based on individual study/mediator effect sizes (Hedge's g). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Co-primary outcomes were inflammatory mediators' levels (Hedge's g) and variability (coefficient of variance ratio (CVR)) differences between participants with BD across the mood spectrum and controls. RESULTS: Out of the initial 729 papers, 72 were assessed and then excluded after full-text review, and ultimately 53 studies were included in the systematic review, while 49 were included in the meta-analysis. The mean age was 36.96 (SD: 9.29) years, and the mean female percentage was 56.31 (SD: 16.61). CRP (g = 0.70, 95% CI 0.31-1.09, k = 37, BD = 2,215 vs HC = 3,750), IL-6 (g = 0.81, 95% CI 0.46-1.16, k = 45, BD = 1,956 vs HC = 4,106), TNF-α (g = 0.49, 95% CI 0.19-0.78, k = 49, BD = 2,231 vs HC = 3,017) were elevated in subjects with BD vs HC, but not IL-1ß (g = -0.28, 95% CI -0.68-0.12, k = 4, BD = 87 vs HC = 66). When considering euthymic, depressive, and manic episodes separately, CRP and TNF-α were elevated in both depressive and manic episodes, but not in euthymia, while IL-6 remained elevated regardless of the disease state. No difference in CVR emerged for CRP, IL-1ß, and TNF-α, while a lower CVR was observed for IL-6. When considering disease phases, CVR was higher in BD than in HCs for CRP during depressive episodes, lower for IL-6 during euthymia, and higher during manic episodes for CRP, IL-6, and TNF-α. Sensitivity analyses after excluding outliers identified with funnel plot visual inspection, low-quality studies, and considering only studies matched per body mass index confirmed the main results. Meta-regression showed that age (IL-6, TNF-α), gender (CRP), duration of illness (CRP) moderated elevated individual inflammatory levels. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Peripheral pro-inflammatory marker elevations were confirmed in BD. CRP and TNF-α could represent state markers, as they were only elevated during mood episodes, while IL-6 appeared to be a trait marker for BD. Increased variability of specific inflammatory mediators in specific disease active states suggests that a subset of subjects with BD may exhibit elevated inflammation as part of a manic or depressive episode.

Efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological, psychosocial, and brain stimulation interventions in children and adolescents with mental disorders: an umbrella review.

Top-tier evidence on the safety/tolerability of 80 medications in children/adolescents with mental disorders has recently been reviewed in this jour-nal. To guide clinical practice, such data must be combined with evidence on efficacy and acceptability. Besides medications, psychosocial inter-ventions and brain stimulation techniques are treatment options for children/adolescents with mental disorders. For this umbrella review, we systematically searched network meta-analyses (NMAs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating 48 medications, 20 psychosocial interventions, and four brain stimulation techniques in children/adolescents with 52 different mental disorders or groups of mental disorders, reporting on 20 different efficacy/acceptability outcomes. Co-primary outcomes were disease-specific symptom reduction and all-cause discontinuation ("acceptability"). We included 14 NMAs and 90 MAs, reporting on 15 mental disorders or groups of mental disorders. Overall, 21 medications outperformed placebo regarding the co-primary outcomes, and three psychosocial interventions did so (while seven outperformed waiting list/no treatment). Based on the meta-analytic evidence, the most convincing efficacy profile emerged for amphetamines, methylphenidate and, to a smaller extent, behavioral therapy in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; aripiprazole, risperidone and several psychosocial interventions in autism; risperidone and behavioral interventions in disruptive behavior disorders; several antipsychotics in schizophrenia spectrum disorders; fluoxetine, the combination of fluoxetine and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and interpersonal therapy in depression; aripiprazole in mania; fluoxetine and group CBT in anxiety disorders; fluoxetine/selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, CBT, and behavioral therapy with exposure and response prevention in obsessive-compulsive disorder; CBT in post-traumatic stress disorder; imipramine and alarm behavioral intervention in enuresis; behavioral therapy in encopresis; and family therapy in anorexia nervosa. Results from this umbrella review of interventions for mental disorders in children/adolescents provide evidence-based information for clinical decision making.

How can we improve antidepressant adherence in the management of depression? A targeted review and 10 clinical recommendations

Adherence to antidepressants is crucial for optimal treatment outcomes when treating depressive disorders. However, poor adherence is common among patients prescribed antidepressants. This targeted review summarizes the main factors associated with poor adherence, interventions that promote antidepressant adherence, pharmacological aspects related to antidepressant adherence, and formulates 10 clinical recommendations to optimize antidepressant adherence. Patient-related factors associated with antidepressant non-adherence include younger age, psychiatric and medical comorbidities, cognitive impairment, and substance use disorders. Prescriber behavior-related factors include neglecting medical and family histories, selecting poorly tolerated antidepressants, or complex antidepressant regimens. Multi-disciplinary interventions targeting both patient and prescriber, aimed at improving antidepressant adherence, include psychoeducation and providing the patient with clear behavioral interventions to prevent/minimize poor adherence. Regarding antidepressant choice, agents with individually tailored tolerability profile should be chosen. Ten clinical recommendations include four points focusing on the patient (therapeutic alliance, adequate history taking, measurement of depressive symptoms, and adverse effects improved access to clinical care), three focusing on prescribing practice (psychoeducation, individually tailored antidepressant choice, simplified regimen), two focusing on mental health services (improved access to mental health care, incentivized adherence promotion and monitoring), and one relating to adherence measurement (adherence measurement with scales and/or therapeutic drug monitoring).

Risk and protective factors for cannabis, cocaine, and opioid use disorders: An umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies.

Several meta-analyses of observational studies have addressed the association between risk and protective factors and cannabis/cocaine/opioid use disorders, but results are conflicting. No umbrella review has ever graded the credibility of this evidence (not significant/weak/suggestive/highly suggestive/convincing). We searched Pubmed-MEDLINE/PsycInfo, last search September 21, 2020. We assessed the quality of meta-analyses with the AMSTAR-2 tool. Out of 3,072 initial references, five were included, providing 19 associations between 12 putative risk/protective factors and cannabis/cocaine/opioid use disorders (cases: 4539; N = 1,118,872,721). While 84 % of the associations were statistically significant, none was convincing. One risk factor (smoking) had highly suggestive evidence for association with nonmedical use of prescription opioid medicines (OR = 3.07, 95 %CI:2.27 to 4.14). Convincing evidence emerged in sensitivity analyses on antisocial behavior and cannabis use disoder (OR 3.34, 95 %CI 2.53-4.41). Remaining associations had weak evidence. The quality of meta-analyses was rated as moderate in two (40 %), low in one (20 %), and critically low in two (40 %). Future research is needed to better profile risk/protective factors for cannabis/cocaine/opioid use disorders disorders informing preventive approaches.

How can we improve antidepressant adherence in the management of depression? A targeted review and 10 clinical recommendations.

Adherence to antidepressants is crucial for optimal treatment outcomes when treating depressive disorders. However, poor adherence is common among patients prescribed antidepressants. This targeted review summarizes the main factors associated with poor adherence, interventions that promote antidepressant adherence, pharmacological aspects related to antidepressant adherence, and formulates 10 clinical recommendations to optimize antidepressant adherence. Patient-related factors associated with antidepressant non-adherence include younger age, psychiatric and medical comorbidities, cognitive impairment, and substance use disorders. Prescriber behavior-related factors include neglecting medical and family histories, selecting poorly tolerated antidepressants, or complex antidepressant regimens. Multi-disciplinary interventions targeting both patient and prescriber, aimed at improving antidepressant adherence, include psychoeducation and providing the patient with clear behavioral interventions to prevent/minimize poor adherence. Regarding antidepressant choice, agents with individually tailored tolerability profile should be chosen. Ten clinical recommendations include four points focusing on the patient (therapeutic alliance, adequate history taking, measurement of depressive symptoms, and adverse effects improved access to clinical care), three focusing on prescribing practice (psychoeducation, individually tailored antidepressant choice, simplified regimen), two focusing on mental health services (improved access to mental health care, incentivized adherence promotion and monitoring), and one relating to adherence measurement (adherence measurement with scales and/or therapeutic drug monitoring).

Safety of 80 antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-attention-deficit/hyperactivity medications and mood stabilizers in children and adolescents with psychiatric disorders: a large scale systematic meta-review of 78 adverse effects.

Mental disorders frequently begin in childhood or adolescence. Psychotropic medications have various indications for the treatment of mental dis-orders in this age group and are used not infrequently off-label. However, the adverse effects of these medications require special attention during developmentally sensitive periods of life. For this meta-review, we systematically searched network meta-analyses and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), individual RCTs, and cohort studies reporting on 78 a priori selected adverse events across 19 categories of 80 psychotropic medications - including antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications and mood stabilizers - in children and adolescents with mental disorders. We included data from nine network meta-analyses, 39 meta-analyses, 90 individual RCTs, and eight cohort studies, including 337,686 children and adolescents. Data on ≥20% of the 78 adverse events were available for six antidepressants (sertraline, escitalopram, paroxetine, fluoxetine, venlafaxine and vilazodone), eight antipsychotics (risperidone, quetiapine, aripiprazole, lurasidone, paliperidone, ziprasidone, olanzapine and asenapine), three anti-ADHD medications (methylphenidate, atomoxetine and guanfacine), and two mood stabilizers (valproate and lithium). Among these medications with data on ≥20% of the 78 adverse events, a safer profile emerged for escitalopram and fluoxetine among antidepressants, lurasidone for antipsychotics, methylphenidate among anti-ADHD medications, and lithium among mood stabilizers. The available literature raised most concerns about the safety of venlafaxine, olanzapine, atomoxetine, guanfacine and valproate. Nausea/vomiting and discontinuation due to adverse event were most frequently associated with antidepressants; sedation, extrapyramidal side effects, and weight gain with antipsychotics; anorexia and insomnia with anti-ADHD medications; sedation and weight gain with mood stabilizers. The results of this comprehensive and updated quantitative systematic meta-review of top-tier evidence regarding the safety of antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-ADHD medications and mood stabilizers in children and adolescents can inform clinical practice, research and treatment guidelines.