Profiling the combination of bupropion and dextromethorphan as a treatment option for major depressive disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a common mental health disorder marked by sadness, hopelessness, and anhedonia. Various therapies exist, but their effectiveness is limited. Dextromethorphan hydrobromide combined with bupropion hydrochloride (Auvelity®) is a recently approved alternative for treating this condition in adults. AREAS COVERED: This review summarizes the neurobiology of major depression and delves into the pharmacology, efficacy, safety, and tolerability of dextromethorphan plus bupropion in adult patients. It is based on observational studies, clinical trials, and other secondary studies obtained through systematic literature searches. EXPERT OPINION: The combination of bupropion and dextromethorphan as a new pharmacotherapy for mental health is an interesting addition to the treatment options that can be used for MDD. The combination can be used in a range of scenarios, including as a first line therapy, as a second option when a patient has failed to achieve remission with a serotonin targeting agent, and for treatment resistant depression. Further research for other indications, including addiction disorders, may provide exciting results. Although a new combination, clinicians will be very familiar with both agents, increasing their acceptability. This pharmacotherapy also may bring increased impetus for discovering other combinations that may have beneficial synergistic effects.

Real-world treatment patterns of patients with major depressive disorder treated with Auvelity in the United States.

AIMS: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a prevalent, chronic disorder. Auvelity (dextromethorphan-bupropion) is a novel, oral N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist and sigma-1 receptor agonist approved (August 2022) by the FDA for treating MDD in adults. This is the first analysis on real-world Auvelity usage in the United States. METHODS: Adult patients initiating Auvelity in the Symphony IDV databases by September 2023 were identified (index date: the first Auvelity claim). Patients had continuous eligibility over the 12-month pre-index period and ≥1 MDD diagnosis (ICD-10-CM codes: F32.*, F33.*) over the 5-year pre-index period. Demographic and clinical characteristics, comorbidities, prior MDD-related medications, and Auvelity initiation status were assessed. RESULTS: This analysis included 22,288 patients with MDD treated with Auvelity (mean age 45.1 years; 68.1% women); 40.0% lived in the South and 58.5% had commercial insurance. Comorbidities included mental health disorders (53.5%; 47.6% had anxiety disorders). Overall, 83.7% of the patients had received treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; 54.9%), the norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor (NDRI [bupropion]; 40.4%), and/or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs; 35.9%) over the 12-month pre-index period. The last MDD-related treatment prior to Auvelity comprised SSRI (22.4%), SNRI (13.2%), and NDRI (12.8%) monotherapies; 294 (1.3%) patients received esketamine. In total, 6,418 (28.8%) patients initiated Auvelity as monotherapy vs 15,870 (71.2%) as an add-on; Auvelity was most frequently added to an SSRI alone (10.7%) or SNRI alone (6.5%). A total of 2,254 (10.1%) patients initiated Auvelity without prior treatment in the 12-month pre-index period. LIMITATIONS: Incomplete data due to reporting; diagnoses captured subject to coding error; and limited generalizability to other populations. CONCLUSIONS: Using a large demographically distributed claims database, 22,288 patients with MDD initiated Auvelity within a year of its approval; 10.1% were treatment-naïve and 28.8% initiated Auvelity as monotherapy. Most patients had mental health-related comorbidities and attempted various MDD-related treatments prior to Auvelity.

Major depressive disorder (medical terminology for "depression") is a common medical condition that makes people feel persistently sad or hopeless, affecting their ability to handle daily activities. Effective treatment, which may include medication, is crucial for improving their quality of life. This study explores how people in the United States use a new medication called Auvelity to treat depression. Researchers reviewed the medical records of over 22,000 adults with depression, looking at their age, gender, location, type of health insurance, other health conditions, and use of other depression medications. The study focused on people who started using Auvelity in the first year after its Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. On average, Auvelity users were 45 years old. They lived across various regions of the US, had different types of health insurance, and over two-thirds were women. Many Auvelity users had other mental health disorders, including anxiety. Most had tried different types of medications for depression in the previous year, while about 10% had not used any other depression medicines in the previous year. When starting Auvelity, almost one-third of patients used it as their only depression medicine. Over two-thirds of patients started Auvelity alongside another depression medicine. Initial Auvelity prescriptions were issued by a diverse range of medical professionals, including psychiatrists, primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. These findings provide valuable insights into how this new medicine is used in real life and can inform treatment decisions of healthcare providers who help manage depression in their patients.

Effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions among adults: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: This overview of reviews aims to identify evidence on the benefits (i.e. tobacco use abstinence and reduction in smoking frequency) and harms (i.e. possible adverse events/outcomes) of smoking cessation interventions among adults aged 18 years and older. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the CADTH Health Technology Assessment Database and several other websites for grey literature. Searches were conducted on November 12, 2018, updated on September 24, 2020, with publication years 2008 to 2020. Two reviewers independently performed title-abstract and full-text screening considering pre-determined inclusion criteria. Data extraction and quality assessments were initially completed by two reviewers independently (i.e. 73% of included studies (n = 22)) using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR 2), and the remainder done by one reviewer and verified by another due to resources and feasibility. The application of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was performed by one independent reviewer and verified by another. RESULTS: A total of 22 Cochrane systematic reviews evaluating the impact of smoking cessation interventions on outcomes such as tobacco use abstinence, reduction in smoking frequency, quality of life and possible adverse events were included. Pharmaceutical (i.e. varenicline, cytisine, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion) and behavioural interventions (i.e. physician advice, non-tailored print-based self-help materials, stage-based individual counselling, etc.) showed to have increased smoking cessation; whereas, data for mobile phone-based interventions including text messaging, hypnotherapy, acupuncture, continuous auricular stimulation, laser therapy, electrostimulation, acupressure, St John's wort, S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe), interactive voice response systems and other combination treatments were unclear. Considering harms related to smoking cessation interventions, small/mild harms (i.e. increased palpitations, chest pain, nausea, insomnia, headache) were observed following NRT, varenicline and cytisine use. There were no data on harms related to behavioural therapies (i.e. individual or group counselling self-help materials, internet interventions), combination therapies or other therapies (i.e. laser therapy, electrostimulation, acupressure, St John's wort, SAMe). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that pharmacological and behavioural interventions may help the general smoking population quit smoking with observed small/mild harms following NRT or varenicline. Consequently, evidence regarding ideal intervention strategies and the long-term impact of these interventions for preventing smoking was unclear. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018099691.

Medications for Obesity: A Review.

Importance: Obesity affects approximately 19% of women and 14% of men worldwide and is associated with increased morbidity. Antiobesity medications (AOMs) modify biological processes that affect appetite and significantly improve outcomes, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Observations: AOMs should be administered in combination with lifestyle interventions and can be classified according to their mechanisms of action. Orlistat modifies digestive tract absorption and causes gastrointestinal adverse effects, such as oily fecal spotting and urgency, in more than 25% of patients. Centrally acting drugs, such as phentermine-topiramate and naltrexone-bupropion, regulate appetite in the brain and are associated with constipation in approximately 20% of patients, although the incidence of other adverse effects (eg, paresthesia, nausea) varies by medication. Nutrient-stimulated hormone-based medications, such as liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide, mimic the actions of enteropancreatic hormones that modify central appetite regulation and provide multiple cardiometabolic weight-loss benefits. Adverse effects of these drugs include nausea (28%-44%), diarrhea (21%-30%), and constipation (11%-24%). The relative potency of adult obesity medications has been studied in meta-analyses. Compared with placebo, orlistat was associated with 3.1% greater weight loss (52 randomized clinical trials [RCTs]; 16 964 participants), phentermine-topiramate was associated with 8.0% greater weight loss (5 RCTs; 3407 participants), naltrexone-bupropion was associated with 4.1% greater weight loss (6 RCTs; 9949 participants), liraglutide was associated with 4.7% greater weight loss (18 RCTs; 6321 participants), semaglutide was associated with 11.4% greater weight loss (5 RCTs; 4421 participants), and tirzepatide 15 mg was associated with 12.4% greater weight loss (6 RCTs; 1972 participants). Conclusion and Relevance: Obesity is associated with increased morbidity. Antiobesity medications are effective adjunctive therapy to lifestyle changes for improved weight loss and health outcomes.

Medication-Induced Weight Change Across Common Antidepressant Treatments : A Target Trial Emulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are among the most commonly prescribed medications, but evidence on comparative weight change for specific first-line treatments is limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare weight change across common first-line antidepressant treatments by emulating a target trial. DESIGN: Observational cohort study over 24 months. SETTING: Electronic health record (EHR) data from 2010 to 2019 across 8 U.S. health systems. PARTICIPANTS: 183 118 patients. MEASUREMENTS: Prescription data determined initiation of treatment with sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, bupropion, duloxetine, or venlafaxine. The investigators estimated the population-level effects of initiating each treatment, relative to sertraline, on mean weight change (primary) and the probability of gaining at least 5% of baseline weight (secondary) 6 months after initiation. Inverse probability weighting of repeated outcome marginal structural models was used to account for baseline confounding and informative outcome measurement. In secondary analyses, the effects of initiating and adhering to each treatment protocol were estimated. RESULTS: Compared with that for sertraline, estimated 6-month weight gain was higher for escitalopram (difference, 0.41 kg [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.52 kg]), paroxetine (difference, 0.37 kg [CI, 0.20 to 0.54 kg]), duloxetine (difference, 0.34 kg [CI, 0.22 to 0.44 kg]), venlafaxine (difference, 0.17 kg [CI, 0.03 to 0.31 kg]), and citalopram (difference, 0.12 kg [CI, 0.02 to 0.23 kg]); similar for fluoxetine (difference, -0.07 kg [CI, -0.19 to 0.04 kg]); and lower for bupropion (difference, -0.22 kg [CI, -0.33 to -0.12 kg]). Escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine were associated with 10% to 15% higher risk for gaining at least 5% of baseline weight, whereas bupropion was associated with 15% reduced risk. When the effects of initiation and adherence were estimated, associations were stronger but had wider CIs. Six-month adherence ranged from 28% (duloxetine) to 41% (bupropion). LIMITATION: No data on medication dispensing, low medication adherence, incomplete data on adherence, and incomplete data on weight measures across time points. CONCLUSION: Small differences in mean weight change were found between 8 first-line antidepressants, with bupropion consistently showing the least weight gain, although adherence to medications over follow-up was low. Clinicians could consider potential weight gain when initiating antidepressant treatment. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

NRG-CC004 ancillary data study-exploring the effect of bupropion on sexual desire in female cancer survivors with and without vulvovaginal symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Female cancer survivors often experience estrogen-deprivation symptoms, which may lead to decreases in sexual desire, vulvovaginal health (lubrication, dryness, discomfort), and sexual satisfaction. Interventions are needed to address these concerns. AIM: The objective of this secondary analysis was to determine if women with higher (better) scores on the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) lubrication and pain subscales reported higher desire scores based on treatment with bupropion vs placebo. METHODS: Participants were part of NRG Oncology's NRG-CC004 (NCT03180294), a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating bupropion (150 vs 300 mg) to improve sexual desire in survivors of breast or gynecologic cancer. All participants with baseline data from the FSFI lubrication, pain, and desire subscales with 5- and/or 9-week data were analyzed. The FSFI subscale scores were correlated using Spearman correlation coefficients. Logistic regression was used to determine associations between FSFI desire and other FSFI subscales while accounting for treatment arm and other covariates. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome of NRG Oncology's NRG-CC004 (NCT03180294) randomized phase II dose-finding trial was change from baseline to 9 weeks on the FSFI desire subscale score. Similar to the parent study, the primary outcome for this ancillary data study was the FSFI desire subscale score at 5 and 9 weeks. RESULTS: Overall, 230 participants completed the FSFI at baseline and 189 at 9 weeks. The strongest correlations were between lubrication and pain at baseline (all participants, rho = 0.77; bupropion arms, rho = 0.82), week 5 (all participants, rho = 0.71; bupropion arms, rho = 0.68), and week 9 (all participants, rho = 0.75; bupropion arms, rho = 0.78), and the weakest correlations were between desire and pain. In patients in the treatment arms there were no interactions between lubrication or pain.The impact of various covariates on the FSFI score for desire at 9 weeks demonstrated that participants of non-White race (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.81; P = .010), with a high lubrication score (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21-0.61; P = .0002), with a high pain score (less pain) (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87; P = .014), or with prior pelvic surgery (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.63; P = .0002) had lower odds of having low desire. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Acute estrogen-deprivation symptoms should be addressed prior to sexual desire intervention. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This secondary analysis was not powered to examine all variables. CONCLUSION: Lubrication and pain were predictors of low desire. Therefore, vulvovaginal atrophy and associated genitourinary symptoms of menopause such as vaginal dryness and dyspareunia should be addressed prior to or in parallel with interventions for sexual desire.

Targeting self-care adherence for glycaemic control in multimorbid type 2 diabetes mellitus with depression using bupropion: a protocol for cross-over randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes and depression are among the 10 biggest health burdens globally. They often coexist and exhibit a strong bidirectional relationship. Depression leads to decreased adherence to self-care activities. This impacts glycaemic control and worsens type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D). Both conditions have a synergistic effect and lead to greater complications, hospitalisations, healthcare expenditure and a worse quality of life. There is no consensus on managing people with comorbid T2D and depression. Bupropion is an efficacious antidepressant with many properties suitable for T2D with depression, including a favourable metabolic profile, persistent weight loss and improvement in sexual dysfunction. We will assess the efficacy and safety of add-on bupropion compared with standard care in people with T2D and mild depression. This study can give valuable insights into managing the multimorbidity of T2D and depression. This can help mitigate the health, social and economic burden of both these diseases. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This cross-over randomised controlled trial will recruit people with T2D (for 5 years or more) with mild depression. They will be randomised to add-on bupropion and standard care. After 3 months of treatment, there will be a washout period of 1 month (without add-on bupropion while standard treatment will continue). Following this, the two arms will be swapped. Participants will be assessed for glycosylated haemoglobin, adherence to diabetes self-care activities, lipid profile, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, autonomic function, sexual function, quality of life and adverse events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Institutional Ethics Committee at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur has approved this study (AIIMS/IEC/2022/4172, 19 September 2022). We plan to disseminate the research findings via closed group discussions at the site of study, scientific conferences, peer-reviewed published manuscripts and social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CTRI/2022/10/046411.

Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapy Use in Pregnancy.

Importance: Significant evidence gaps exist regarding the safety of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies during pregnancy, especially for the risk of congenital malformations. Consequently, professional bodies advise against the use of varenicline and bupropion and recommend caution with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Contemporary estimates of the use of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies during pregnancy are lacking. Objective: To quantify the proportion of individuals using prescribed smoking cessation pharmacotherapies during pregnancy and during the first trimester specifically, in 4 countries. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, population-based cohort study used linked birth records, hospital admission records, and dispensing records of prescribed medications from all pregnancies resulting in birth between 2015 and 2020 in New South Wales, Australia; New Zealand; Norway; and Sweden. Data analyses were conducted in October and November 2023. Exposure: Prescribed smoking cessation pharmacotherapy use (varenicline, NRT, and bupropion) during pregnancy was defined as days' supply overlapping the period from date of conception to childbirth. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of use among all pregnancies and pregnancies with maternal smoking were calculated. Among women who used a pharmacotherapy, the proportion of women with use during the first trimester of pregnancy was also calculated. Results: Among 1 700 638 pregnancies in 4 countries, 138 033 (8.1%) had maternal smoking and 729 498 (42.9%) were younger than 30 years. The prevalences ranged from 0.02% to 0.14% for varenicline, less than 0.01% to 1.86% for prescribed NRT, and less than 0.01% to 0.07% for bupropion. Among pregnant individuals who smoked, use of pharmacotherapies was up to 10 times higher, with maximum prevalences of 1.25% for varenicline in New South Wales, 11.39% for NRT in New Zealand, and 0.39% for bupropion in New Zealand. Use in the first trimester occurred among more than 90% of individuals using varenicline, approximately 60% among those using NRT, and 80% to 90% among those using bupropion. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of pregnant individuals in 4 high-income countries, the low prevalence of varenicline and bupropion use during pregnancy and higher prevalence of NRT use aligned with current clinical guidelines. As most use occurred in the first trimester, there is a need for evidence on the risk of congenital malformations for these medications.

The efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological monotherapies and e-cigarette on smoking cessation: a systemic review and network meta-analysis.

Background and aims: Several pharmacological interventions, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, and bupropion, have been approved for clinical use of smoking cessation. E-cigarettes (EC) are increasingly explored by many RCTs for their potentiality in smoking cessation. In addition, some RCTs are attempting to explore new drugs for smoking cessation, such as cytisine. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to investigate how these drugs and e-cigarettes compare regarding their efficacy and acceptability. Materials and methods: This systematic review and NMA searched all clinical studies on smoking cessation using pharmacological monotherapies or e-cigarettes published from January 2011 to May 2022 using MEDLINE, COCHRANE Library, and PsychINFO databases. NRTs were divided into transdermal (TDN) and oronasal nicotine (ONN) by administrative routes, thus 7 network nodes were set up for direct and indirect comparison. Two different indicators measured the efficacy: prevalent and continuous smoking abstinence. The drop-out rates measured the acceptability. Results: The final 40 clinical studies included in this study comprised 77 study cohorts and 25,889 participants. Varenicline is more effective intervention to assist in smoking cessation during 16-32 weeks follow-up, and is very likely to prompt dropout. Cytisine shows more effectiveness in continuous smoking cessation but may also lead to dropout. E-cigarettes and oronasal nicotine are more effective than no treatment in encouraging prevalent abstinence, but least likely to prompt dropout. Finally, transdermal nicotine delivery is more effective than no treatment in continuous abstinence, with neither significant effect on prevalent abstinence nor dropout rate. Conclusion: This review suggested and agreed that Varenicline, Cytisine and transdermal nicotine delivery, as smoking cessation intervention, have advantages and disadvantages. However, we had to have reservations about e-cigarettes as a way to quit smoking in adolescents.

Total and H-specific growth/differentiation factor 15 levels are unaffected by liraglutide or naltrexone/bupropion administration.

AIM: To investigate growth/differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) levels in response to antiobesity medications, namely, liraglutide (Lira) and naltrexone/bupropion (N/B), in individuals with overweight or obesity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, non-randomized clinical trial with a two-arm, parallel design. A total of 42 individuals with overweight or obesity without type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus were enrolled. The participants received either Lira 3 mg or N/B 32/360 mg, along with diet and exercise, according to comorbidities, cost and method of administration. Participants underwent clinical and laboratory measurements at baseline, as well as at the 3- and 6-month time points. Anthropometric measurements and body composition analysis via bioelectrical impendence analysis were performed. Total blood samples for GDF-15 and H-specific GDF-15 were collected in the fasting state and every 30 min for 3 h after the consumption of a standardized mixed meal. RESULTS: Overall, participants' weight was reduced by 9.29 ± 5.34 kg at Month 3 and 11.52 ± 7.52 kg at Month 6. Total and H-specific GDF-15 levels did not show significant changes during the mixed meal compared to values before the meal when all participants were examined at baseline, and at 3 and 6 month follow-ups. No statistical significance was found when participants were examined by subgroup (Lira vs. N/B). No significant differences between treatment groups in postprandial area under the curve (AUC) or incremental AUC values were found at baseline or in the follow-up months with regard to total and H-specific GDF-15 levels. CONCLUSION: Neither total nor H-specific GDF-15 levels are affected by Lira or N/B treatment in patients with overweight or obesity.

Effect of combined GLP-1 analogue and bupropion/naltrexone on weight loss: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the effect of a multi-drug weight loss strategy in obesity treatment, particularly combining bupropion/naltrexone and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogue. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if there are any additive effects of prescribing bupropion/naltrexone on top of GLP-1 analogue as weight loss therapy. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2 prescribed GLP-1 analogue therapy at an obesity specialist clinic in Vancouver, Canada. We compared a 6 and 12-month change in total body weight loss (TBWL) for those receiving monotherapy from the initiation of GLP-1 analogue therapy with those receiving combination therapy from the initiation of bupropion/naltrexone added-on therapy. Patients prescribed combination therapy were stratified into responder (loss of ≥ 5% TBWL) and non-responder (TBWL < 5%) subgroups based on initial response to the GLP-1 analogue alone for any amount of time. RESULTS: The mean weight loss among patients prescribed GLP-1 analogue monotherapy at 12 months was 11.42 kg, SD 9.95 (9.6% TBWL). There was no significant difference between these two treatment strategies overall (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.14, p = 0.35). However, when stratified by response to initial GLP analogue therapy, the addition of bupropion/naltrexone was associated with a statistically significant reduction in weight in both the responder (4.3% TBWL (p < 0.01)) and non-responder groups (4.0% TBWL (p < 0.01)). CONCLUSIONS: GLP-1 analogues are an effective treatment for weight loss, and the addition of bupropion/naltrexone is associated with greater weight loss including in patients who are initially non-responsive to GLP-1 analogues.

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, 32.6% of the world's population used tobacco. Smoking contributes to many illnesses that require hospitalisation. A hospital admission may prompt a quit attempt. Initiating smoking cessation treatment, such as pharmacotherapy and/or counselling, in hospitals may be an effective preventive health strategy. Pharmacotherapies work to reduce withdrawal/craving and counselling provides behavioural skills for quitting smoking. This review updates the evidence on interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, to understand the most effective smoking cessation treatment methods for hospitalised smokers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of any type of smoking cessation programme for patients admitted to an acute care hospital. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 7 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients admitted to hospital quit. Interventions had to start in the hospital (including at discharge), and people had to have smoked within the last month. We excluded studies in psychiatric, substance and rehabilitation centres, as well as studies that did not measure abstinence at six months or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from smoking assessed at least six months after discharge or the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically-validated rates where reported. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 82 studies (74 RCTs) that included 42,273 participants in the review (71 studies, 37,237 participants included in the meta-analyses); 36 studies are new to this update. We rated 10 studies as being at low risk of bias overall (low risk in all domains assessed), 48 at high risk of bias overall (high risk in at least one domain), and the remaining 24 at unclear risk. Cessation counselling versus no counselling, grouped by intensity of intervention Hospitalised patients who received smoking cessation counselling that began in the hospital and continued for more than a month after discharge had higher quit rates than patients who received no counselling in the hospital or following hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.49; 28 studies, 8234 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might account for an additional 76 quitters in every 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 103). The evidence was uncertain (very low-certainty) about the effects of counselling interventions of less intensity or shorter duration (in-hospital only counselling ≤ 15 minutes: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1417 participants; and in-hospital contact plus follow-up counselling support for ≤ 1 month: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 7 studies, 4627 participants) versus no counselling. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that smoking cessation counselling for at least 15 minutes in the hospital without post-discharge support led to higher quit rates than no counselling in the hospital (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.58; 12 studies, 4432 participants). Pharmacotherapy versus placebo or no pharmacotherapy Nicotine replacement therapy helped more patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67; 8 studies, 3838 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 62 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 9 to 126). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision (as CI encompassed the possibility of no difference), that varenicline helped more hospitalised patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 4 studies, 829 participants). Evidence for bupropion was low-certainty; the point estimate indicated a modest benefit at best, but CIs were wide and incorporated clinically significant harm and clinically significant benefit (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43, 4 studies, 872 participants). Hospital-only intervention versus intervention that continues after hospital discharge Patients offered both smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge had higher quit rates than patients offered counselling in hospital but not offered post-discharge support (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.38; 7 studies, 5610 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 34 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 to 55). Post-discharge interventions offering real-time counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60, 8 studies, 2299 participants; low certainty-evidence) and those offering unscheduled counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 2 studies, 1598 participants; very low-certainty evidence) may have little to no effect on quit rates compared to control. Telephone quitlines versus control To provide post-discharge support, hospitals may refer patients to community-based telephone quitlines. Both comparisons relating to these interventions had wide CIs encompassing both possible harm and possible benefit, and were judged to be of very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias (post-discharge telephone counselling versus quitline referral: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.51; 3 studies, 3260 participants; quitline referral versus control: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.96; 2 studies, 1870 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Offering hospitalised patients smoking cessation counselling beginning in hospital and continuing for over one month after discharge increases quit rates, compared to no hospital intervention. Counselling provided only in hospital, without post-discharge support, may have a modest impact on quit rates, but evidence is less certain. When all patients receive counselling in the hospital, high-certainty evidence indicates that providing both counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge increases quit rates compared to no post-discharge intervention. Starting nicotine replacement or varenicline in hospitalised patients helps more patients to quit smoking than a placebo or no medication, though evidence for varenicline is only moderate-certainty due to imprecision. There is less evidence of benefit for bupropion in this setting. Some of our evidence was limited by imprecision (bupropion versus placebo and varenicline versus placebo), risk of bias, and inconsistency related to heterogeneity. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies to implement, disseminate, and sustain interventions, and to ensure cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy initiated in the hospital is sustained after discharge.

Antidepressant nonadherence and sexual dysfunction among young adult males: the cross-sectional YAMAN study.

PURPOSE: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are associated with high rates of nonadherence and sexual dysfunction, yet the correlation between these findings in young adult men is poorly characterized. We aimed to evaluate if young adult men are less willing to adhere to antidepressant treatment due to intolerable side effects, such as sexual dysfunction. METHODS: Deidentified, compensated survey that assessed baseline demographics, PHQ-8 and GAD-7 scores, attitudes towards antidepressant medication side effects, and perceptions of antidepressant medications including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, bupropion, and mirtazapine. RESULTS: From 665 delivered surveys, 505 respondents completed their survey (response rate: 76%), of which 486 were included for final analysis. After seeing common side effect profiles, our sample's willingness to take sexual function-sparing agents, such as bupropion or mirtazapine, was significantly greater than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (p < 0.001), with no significant difference between bupropion and mirtazapine (p = 0.263). The negative influence of erectile dysfunction and anorgasmia scored significantly higher than other common antidepressant side effects like weight gain, nausea, and dry mouth (range: p < 0.001, p = 0.043). With the exception of insomnia, participants indicated that experiencing sexual dysfunction while taking an antidepressant medication would lead to nonadherence at a significantly higher frequency than any other side effect assessed (range: p < 0.001, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: The risk of experiencing sexual side effects when taking antidepressants could lead young adult men to become nonadherent to these medications. Strategies to augment the effectiveness of antidepressants, such as shared decision-making and the use of sexual function-sparing agents, are critical.

Investigating disparities in smoking cessation treatment for veterans with multiple sclerosis: A national analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Smoking is a risk factor for multiple sclerosis (MS) development, symptom burden, decreased medication efficacy, and increased disease-related mortality. Veterans with MS (VwMS) smoke at critically high rates; however, treatment rates and possible disparities are unknown. To promote equitable treatment, we aim to investigate smoking cessation prescription practices for VwMS across social determinant factors. METHODS: We extracted data from the national Veterans Health Administration electronic health records between October 1, 2017, and September 30, 2018. To derive marginal estimates of the association of MS with receipt of smoking-cessation pharmacotherapy, we used propensity score matching through the extreme gradient boosting machine learning model. VwMS who smoke were matched with veterans without MS who smoke on factors including age, race, depression, and healthcare visits. To assess the marginal association of MS with different cessation treatments, we used logistic regression and conducted stratified analyses by sex, race, and ethnicity. RESULTS: The matched sample achieved a good balance across most covariates, compared to the pre-match sample. VwMS (n = 3320) had decreased odds of receiving prescriptions for nicotine patches ([Odds Ratio]OR = 0.86, p < .01), non-patch nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; OR = 0.81, p < .001), and standard practice dual NRT (OR = 0.77, p < .01), compared to matches without MS (n = 13,280). Men with MS had lower odds of receiving prescriptions for nicotine patches (OR = 0.88, p = .05), non-patch NRT (OR = 0.77, p < .001), and dual NRT (OR = 0.72, p < .001). Similarly, Black VwMS had lower odds of receiving prescriptions for patches (OR = 0.62, p < .001), non-patch NRT (OR = 0.75, p < .05), and dual NRT (OR = 0.52, p < .01). The odds of receiving prescriptions for bupropion or varenicline did not differ between VwMS and matches without MS. CONCLUSION: VwMS received significantly less smoking cessation treatment, compared to matched controls without MS, showing a critical gap in health services as VwMS are not receiving dual NRT as the standard of care. Prescription rates were especially lower for male and Black VwMS, suggesting that under-represented demographic groups outside of the white female category, most often considered as the "traditional MS" group, could be under-treated regarding smoking cessation support. This foundational work will help inform future work to promote equitable treatment and implementation of cessation interventions for people living with MS.

Discordance Between Insurance Coverage of Antiviral Medications and Nicotine Replacement Therapy Among Individuals With Human Immunodeficiency Virus Who Smoke.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco contributes to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality among persons with human immunodeficiency virus (PWHs). Nonetheless, medications for tobacco use disorder are widely underused, particularly among PWHs. We sought to characterize the extent to which insurance barriers impacted access to medications for tobacco use disorder and, in comparison, to access to antiretroviral therapy (ART). METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data on individuals enrolled in a randomized clinical trial to address tobacco use involving nicotine replacement therapy and, for some, additionally, varenicline or bupropion. Medication prescriptions are transmitted electronically from the clinic to neighborhood pharmacies. Data sources included participant assessments and intervention visit tracking forms. RESULTS: Of 93 participants enrolled from September 2020 to July 2021, 20 (22%) were unable to fill or had difficulty filling their nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) prescriptions because of insurance barriers. These fell into 2 broad categories: enrollment in a publicly insured managed care plan in which the pharmacy benefit manager excluded nonprescription NRT and lack of understanding by the pharmacy of the scope of coverage. Of these 20 participants, 5 (25%) were unable to obtain medications at all, and 3 of these participants dropped out of the study. One additional participant paid out-of-pocket to obtain NRT. No participant was denied coverage of ART, bupropion, or varenicline. CONCLUSIONS: Gaps in insurance coverage may result in PWHs receiving ART without simultaneous medical management of their tobacco use. This may undermine the efficacy of antivirals. Mandated insurance coverage of nonprescription NRT may improve the health of PWHs who smoke.

Efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching in patients with treatment-resistant depression or major depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To report the first and largest systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) or major depressive disorder(MDD). METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature retrieval via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane until April 2023 for RCT, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching for patients with TRD or MDD. Outcomes measured were changes in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), response and remission rate, and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Five RCTs, including 4480 patients, were included for meta-analysis. Among them, two RCTs were rated as "high risk" in three aspects (allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel and blinding of outcome assessment) because of the non-blind method, and the quality evaluation of the remaining works of literature was "low risk". Augmentation treatment with Aripiprazole (A-ARI) was associated with a significant higher response rate compared with augmentation treatment with bupropion (A-BUP) (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.25; P = 0.0007; I2 = 23%). Besides, A-ARI had a significant higher remission rate compared with switching to bupropion (S-BUP) (RR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.49; P = 0.05; I2 = 59%) and A-BUP had a significant higher remission rate compared with S-BUP (RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.36; P = 0.0004; I2 = 0%). In addition, there was no significant difference in remission rate(RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.17; P = 0.42; I2 = 33%), improvement of MADRS(WMD: -2.07; 95% CI: -5.84, 1.70; P = 0.28; I2 = 70%) between A-ARI and A-BUP. No significant difference was observed in adverse events and serious adverse events among the three treatment strategies. CONCLUSIONS: A-ARI may be a better comprehensive antidepressant treatment strategy than A-BUP or S-BUP for patients with TRD or MDD. More large-scale, multi-center, double-blind RCTs are needed to further evaluated the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching treatment strategies.

Effectiveness of Antidepressants in Combination with Psychotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Consensus-guidelines for prescribing antidepressants recommend that clinicians should be vigilant to match antidepressants to patient's medical history but provide no specific advice on which antidepressant is best for a given medical history. AIMS OF THE STUDY: For patients with major depression who are in psychotherapy, this study provides an empirically derived guideline for prescribing antidepressant medications that fit patients' medical history. METHODS: This retrospective, observational, cohort study analyzed a large insurance database of 3,678,082 patients. Data was obtained from healthcare providers in the U.S. between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2018. These patients had 10,221,145 episodes of antidepressant treatments. This study reports the remission rates for the 14 most commonly prescribed single antidepressants (amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, mirtazapine, nortriptyline, paroxetine, sertraline, trazodone, and venlafaxine) and a category named "Other" (other antidepressants/combination of antidepressants). The study used robust LASSO regressions to identify factors that affected remission rate and clinicians' selection of antidepressants. The selection bias in observational data was removed through stratification. We organized the data into 16,770 subgroups, of at least 100 cases, using the combination of the largest factors that affected remission and selection bias. This paper reports on 2,467 subgroups of patients who had received psychotherapy. RESULTS: We found large, and statistically significant, differences in remission rates within subgroups of patients. Remission rates for sertraline ranged from 4.5% to 77.86%, for fluoxetine from 2.86% to 77.78%, for venlafaxine from 5.07% to 76.44%, for bupropion from 0.5% to 64.63%, for desvenlafaxine from 1.59% to 75%, for duloxetine from 3.77% to 75%, for paroxetine from 6.48% to 68.79%, for escitalopram from 1.85% to 65%, and for citalopram from 4.67% to 76.23%. Clearly these medications are ideal for patients in some subgroups but not others. If patients are matched to the subgroups, clinicians can prescribe the medication that works best in the subgroup. Some medications (amitriptyline, doxepin, nortriptyline, and trazodone) always had remission rates below 11% and therefore were not suitable as single antidepressant therapy for any of the subgroups. DISCUSSIONS: This study provides an opportunity for clinicians to identify an optimal antidepressant for their patients, before they engage in repeated trials of antidepressants. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: To facilitate the matching of patients to the most effective antidepressants, this study provides access to a free, non-commercial, decision aid at http://MeAgainMeds.com. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES:  Policymakers should evaluate how study findings can be made available through fragmented electronic health records at point-of-care. Alternatively, policymakers can put in place an AI system that recommends antidepressants to patients online, at home, and encourages them to bring the recommendation to their clinicians at their next visit. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH:  Future research could investigate (i) the effectiveness of our recommendations in changing clinical practice, (ii) increasing remission of depression symptoms, and (iii) reducing cost of care. These studies need to be prospective but pragmatic. It is unlikely random clinical trials can address the large number of factors that affect remission.

5-EPIFAT trial protocol: a multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the efficacy of pharmacotherapy for fatigue using methylphenidate, bupropion, ginseng, and amantadine in advanced cancer patients on active treatment.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is still undertreated in most patients, as evidence for pharmacological treatments is limited and conflicting. Also, the efficacy of the pharmacological agents relative to each other is still unclear. Therefore, medications that may potentially contribute to improving CRF will be investigated in this head-to-head trial. Our main objective is to compare the efficacy of methylphenidate vs. bupropion vs. ginseng vs. amantadine vs. placebo in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: The 5-EPIFAT study is a 5-arm, randomized, multi-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial that will use a parallel-group design with an equal allocation ratio comparing the efficacy and safety of four medications (Methylphenidate vs. Bupropion vs. Ginseng vs. Amantadine) versus placebo for management of CRF. We will recruit 255 adult patients with advanced cancer who experience fatigue intensity ≥ 4 based on a 0-10 scale. The study period includes a 4-week intervention and a 4-week follow-up with repeated measurements over time. The primary outcome is the cancer-related fatigue level over time, which will be measured by the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy-fatigue (FACIT-F) scale. To evaluate safety, the secondary outcome is the symptomatic adverse events, which will be assessed using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events in cancer clinical trials (PRO-CTCAE). Also, a subgroup analysis based on a decision tree-based machine learning algorithm will be employed for the clinical prediction of different agents in homogeneous subgroups. DISCUSSION: The findings of the 5-EPIFAT trial could be helpful to guide clinical decision-making, personalization treatment approach, design of future trials, as well as the development of CRF management guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: IRCT.ir IRCT20150302021307N6. Registered on 13 May 2023.

Incremental net monetary benefit of using varenicline for smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies.

AIMS: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis and pool the incremental net benefits (INBs) of varenicline compared with behaviour support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), behaviour support alone and unaided cessation in adult smokers making a first-time attempt to quit. METHODS: A search for economic evaluation studies was conducted from inception to 30 September 2022, on PubMed, Embase, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry by Tufts Medical Centre, EconLit and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Eligible studies were included if they were (1) conducted among adults ages 18 years old and older who were smokers attempting to quit for the first time; (2) compared varenicline to behaviour support with bupropion or NRT, behaviour support alone and unaided cessation; and (3) performed a CEA or cost-utility analysis. The INBs were calculated and pooled across studies stratified by country income level and study perspective using the random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochrane Q statistic. RESULTS: Of the 1433 identified studies, 18 studies were included in our review. Our findings from healthcare system/payer perspective suggested that the use of varenicline is statistically significantly cost-effective compared with bupropion (pooled INB, $830.75 [95% confidence interval, $208.23, $1453.28]), NRTs ($636.16 [$192.48, $1079.84]) and unaided cessation ($4212.35 [$1755.79, $6668.92]) in high-income countries. Similarly, varenicline is also found to be cost-effective compared to bupropion ($2706.27 [$1284.44, $4128.11]), NRTs ($3310.01 [$1781.53, $4838.50]) and behavioural support alone ($5438.22 [$4105.99, $6770.46]) in low- and middle-income countries. CONCLUSION: Varenicline is cost-effective as a smoking cessation aid when compared with behavioural support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapies and behavioural support alone in both high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, from the healthcare system/payer perspective in adult smokers who attempt to quit for the first time.