Comparative effects of drug interventions for the acute management of migraine episodes in adults: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare all licensed drug interventions as oral monotherapy for the acute treatment of migraine episodes in adults. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, as well as websites of regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies without language restrictions until 24 June 2023. METHODS: Screening, data extraction, coding, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently and in duplicate. Random effects network meta-analyses were conducted for the primary analyses. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants who were pain-free at two hours post-dose and the proportion of participants with sustained pain freedom from two to 24 hours post-dose, both without the use of rescue drugs. Certainty of the evidence was graded using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) online tool. Vitruvian plots were used to summarise findings. An international panel of clinicians and people with lived experience of migraine co-designed the study and interpreted the findings. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Double blind randomised trials of adults (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of migraine according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders. RESULTS: 137 randomised controlled trials comprising 89 445 participants allocated to one of 17 active interventions or placebo were included. All active interventions showed superior efficacy compared with placebo for pain freedom at two hours (odds ratios from 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 2.34) for naratriptan to 5.19 (4.25 to 6.33) for eletriptan), and most of them also for sustained pain freedom to 24 hours (odds ratios from 1.71 (1.07 to 2.74) for celecoxib to 7.58 (2.58 to 22.27) for ibuprofen). In head-to-head comparisons between active interventions, eletriptan was the most effective drug for pain freedom at two hours (odds ratios from 1.46 (1.18 to 1.81) to 3.01 (2.13 to 4.25)), followed by rizatriptan (1.59 (1.18 to 2.17) to 2.44 (1.75 to 3.45)), sumatriptan (1.35 (1.03 to 1.75) to 2.04 (1.49 to 2.86)), and zolmitriptan (1.47 (1.04 to 2.08) to 1.96 (1.39 to 2.86)). For sustained pain freedom, the most efficacious interventions were eletriptan and ibuprofen (odds ratios from 1.41 (1.02 to 1.93) to 4.82 (1.31 to 17.67)). Confidence in accordance with CINeMA ranged from high to very low. Sensitivity analyses on Food and Drug Administration licensed doses only, high versus low doses, risk of bias, and moderate to severe headache at baseline confirmed the main findings for both primary and secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, eletriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan had the best profiles and they were more efficacious than the recently marketed drugs lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant. Although cost effectiveness analyses are warranted and careful consideration should be given to patients with a high risk cardiovascular profile, the most effective triptans should be considered as preferred acute treatment for migraine and included in the WHO List of Essential Medicines to promote global accessibility and uniform standards of care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/kq3ys/.

An online evidence-based dictionary of common adverse events of antidepressants: a new tool to empower patients and clinicians in their shared decision-making process.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events (AEs) are commonly reported in clinical studies using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), an international standard for drug safety monitoring. However, the technical language of MedDRA makes it challenging for patients and clinicians to share understanding and therefore to make shared decisions about medical interventions. In this project, people with lived experience of depression and antidepressant treatment worked with clinicians and researchers to co-design an online dictionary of AEs associated with antidepressants, taking into account its ease of use and applicability to real-world settings. METHODS: Through a pre-defined literature search, we identified MedDRA-coded AEs from randomised controlled trials of antidepressants used in the treatment of depression. In collaboration with the McPin Foundation, four co-design workshops with a lived experience advisory panel (LEAP) and one independent focus group (FG) were conducted to produce user-friendly translations of AE terms. Guiding principles for translation were co-designed with McPin/LEAP members and defined before the finalisation of Clinical Codes (CCs, or non-technical terms to represent specific AE concepts). FG results were thematically analysed using the Framework Method. RESULTS: Starting from 522 trials identified by the search, 736 MedDRA-coded AE terms were translated into 187 CCs, which balanced key factors identified as important to the LEAP and FG (namely, breadth, specificity, generalisability, patient-understandability and acceptability). Work with the LEAP showed that a user-friendly language of AEs should aim to mitigate stigma, acknowledge the multiple levels of comprehension in 'lay' language and balance the need for semantic accuracy with user-friendliness. Guided by these principles, an online dictionary of AEs was co-designed and made freely available ( https://thesymptomglossary.com ). The digital tool was perceived by the LEAP and FG as a resource which could feasibly improve antidepressant treatment by facilitating the accurate, meaningful expression of preferences about potential harms through a shared decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS: This dictionary was developed in English around AEs from antidepressants in depression but it can be adapted to different languages and cultural contexts, and can also become a model for other interventions and disorders (i.e., antipsychotics in schizophrenia). Co-designed digital resources may improve the patient experience by helping to deliver personalised information on potential benefits and harms in an evidence-based, preference-sensitive way.

Trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonism for psychosis: a living systematic review and meta-analysis of human and non-human data.

Background: Trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonism shows promise for treating psychosis, prompting us to synthesise data from human and non-human studies. Methods: We co-produced a living systematic review of controlled studies examining TAAR1 agonists in individuals (with or without psychosis/schizophrenia) and relevant animal models. Two independent reviewers identified studies in multiple electronic databases (until 17.11.2023), extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were standardised mean differences (SMD) for overall symptoms in human studies and hyperlocomotion in animal models. We also examined adverse events and neurotransmitter signalling. We synthesised data with random-effects meta-analyses. Results: Nine randomised trials provided data for two TAAR1 agonists (ulotaront and ralmitaront), and 15 animal studies for 10 TAAR1 agonists. Ulotaront and ralmitaront demonstrated few differences compared to placebo in improving overall symptoms in adults with acute schizophrenia (N=4 studies, n=1291 participants; SMD=0.15, 95%CI: -0.05, 0.34), and ralmitaront was less efficacious than risperidone (N=1, n=156, SMD=-0.53, 95%CI: -0.86, -0.20). Large placebo response was observed in ulotaront phase-III trials. Limited evidence suggested a relatively benign side-effect profile for TAAR1 agonists, although nausea and sedation were common after a single dose of ulotaront. In animal studies, TAAR1 agonists improved hyperlocomotion compared to control (N=13 studies, k=41 experiments, SMD=1.01, 95%CI: 0.74, 1.27), but seemed less efficacious compared to dopamine D 2 receptor antagonists (N=4, k=7, SMD=-0.62, 95%CI: -1.32, 0.08). Limited human and animal data indicated that TAAR1 agonists may regulate presynaptic dopaminergic signalling. Conclusions: TAAR1 agonists may be less efficacious than dopamine D 2 receptor antagonists already licensed for schizophrenia. The results are preliminary due to the limited number of drugs examined, lack of longer-term data, publication bias, and assay sensitivity concerns in trials associated with large placebo response. Considering their unique mechanism of action, relatively benign side-effect profile and ongoing drug development, further research is warranted. Registration: PROSPERO-ID: CRD42023451628.

There is a need for more effective treatments for psychosis, including schizophrenia. Psychosis is a collection of mental health symptoms, such as hearing voices, that can cause distress and impair functioning. These symptoms are thought to be caused by changes in a chemical messenger system in the brain called dopamine. Currently used antipsychotic medications target brain receptors that respond to dopamine. They are not effective in some people and can cause uncomfortable adverse events, such as weight gain and movement disorders, especially with long-term use. A new type of drug is the trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonists. These drugs act on different brain receptors that can affect the activity of the dopamine system, but do not directly bind to dopamine receptors. We aimed to understand if TAAR1 agonists can reduce symptoms of psychosis, what adverse events they might have, and how they work. We did this by reviewing and collating all available evidence until November 2023. This is a "living" systematic review, so it will be regularly updated in the future. We looked at both human and animal studies investigating TAAR1 agonists. Human studies suggested that two TAAR1 agonists (namely, ulotaront or ralmitaront) might have little to no effect on reducing symptoms of psychosis compared to placebo in people with schizophrenia. They seemed to cause fewer adverse events than current antipsychotics. Data from animal studies suggested that TAAR1 agonists had some positive effects but potentially smaller than other antipsychotics. There were little to no data from both human and animal studies about how TAAR1 agonists actually work. From the current evidence we are uncertain about these results. With the ongoing development of new TAAR1 agonists, more evidence is needed to understand their potential role in the treatment of psychosis.

Digital Mental Health for Schizophrenia and Other Severe Mental Illnesses: An International Consensus on Current Challenges and Potential Solutions.

BACKGROUND: Digital approaches may be helpful in augmenting care to address unmet mental health needs, particularly for schizophrenia and severe mental illness (SMI). OBJECTIVE: An international multidisciplinary group was convened to reach a consensus on the challenges and potential solutions regarding collecting data, delivering treatment, and the ethical challenges in digital mental health approaches for schizophrenia and SMI. METHODS: The consensus development panel method was used, with an in-person meeting of 2 groups: the expert group and the panel. Membership was multidisciplinary including those with lived experience, with equal participation at all stages and coproduction of the consensus outputs and summary. Relevant literature was shared in advance of the meeting, and a systematic search of the recent literature on digital mental health interventions for schizophrenia and psychosis was completed to ensure that the panel was informed before the meeting with the expert group. RESULTS: Four broad areas of challenge and proposed solutions were identified: (1) user involvement for real coproduction; (2) new approaches to methodology in digital mental health, including agreed standards, data sharing, measuring harms, prevention strategies, and mechanistic research; (3) regulation and funding issues; and (4) implementation in real-world settings (including multidisciplinary collaboration, training, augmenting existing service provision, and social and population-focused approaches). Examples are provided with more detail on human-centered research design, lived experience perspectives, and biomedical ethics in digital mental health approaches for SMI. CONCLUSIONS: The group agreed by consensus on a number of recommendations: (1) a new and improved approach to digital mental health research (with agreed reporting standards, data sharing, and shared protocols), (2) equal emphasis on social and population research as well as biological and psychological approaches, (3) meaningful collaborations across varied disciplines that have previously not worked closely together, (4) increased focus on the business model and product with planning and new funding structures across the whole development pathway, (5) increased focus and reporting on ethical issues and potential harms, and (6) organizational changes to allow for true communication and coproduction with those with lived experience of SMI. This study approach, combining an international expert meeting with patient and public involvement and engagement throughout the process, consensus methodology, discussion, and publication, is a helpful way to identify directions for future research and clinical implementation in rapidly evolving areas and can be combined with measurements of real-world clinical impact over time. Similar initiatives will be helpful in other areas of digital mental health and similarly fast-evolving fields to focus research and organizational change and effect improved real-world clinical implementation.

Mortality and adverse events associated with statin use in primary care patients with depression: a real-world, population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: New National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance endorses the prescription of statins in larger population groups for the prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality, especially in people with severe mental illness. However, the evidence base for their safety and risk/benefit balance in depression is not established. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the real-world mortality and adverse events of statins in depressive disorders. METHODS: Population-based, nationwide (England), between-subject, cohort study. We used electronic health records (QResearch database) of people aged 18-100 years with first-episode depression, registered with English primary care practices over January 1998-August 2020 for 12(+) months, divided into statin users versus non-users.Primary safety outcomes included all-cause mortality and any adverse event measured at 2, 6 and 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression was employed to control for several potential confounders and calculate adjusted ORs (aORs) with 99% CIs. FINDINGS: From over 1 050 105 patients with depression (42.64% males, mean age 43.23±18.32 years), 21 384 (2.04%) died, while 707 111 (67.34%) experienced at least one adverse event during the 12-month follow-up. Statin use was associated with lower mortality over 12 months (range aOR2-12months 0.66-0.67, range 99% CI 0.60 to 0.73) and with lower adverse events over 6 months (range aOR2-6months 0.90-0.96, range 99% CI 0.91 to 0.99), but not at 1 year (aOR12months 0.99, 99% CI 0.96 to 1.03). No association with any other individual outcome measure (ie, any other neuropsychiatric symptoms) was identified. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that statin use among people with depression increases mortality or other adverse events. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our findings support the safety of updated NICE guidelines for prescribing statins in people with depressive disorders.

Combining endpoint and change data did not affect the summary standardised mean difference in pairwise and network meta-analyses: An empirical study in depression.

When studies use different scales to measure continuous outcomes, standardised mean differences (SMD) are required to meta-analyse the data. However, outcomes are often reported as endpoint or change from baseline scores. Combining corresponding SMDs can be problematic and available guidance advises against this practice. We aimed to examine the impact of combining the two types of SMD in meta-analyses of depression severity. We used individual participant data on pharmacological interventions (89 studies, 27,409 participants) and internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT; 61 studies, 13,687 participants) for depression to compare endpoint and change from baseline SMDs at the study level. Next, we performed pairwise (PWMA) and network meta-analyses (NMA) using endpoint SMDs, change from baseline SMDs, or a mixture of the two. Study-specific SMDs calculated from endpoint and change from baseline data were largely similar, although for iCBT interventions 25% of the studies at 3 months were associated with important differences between study-specific SMDs (median 0.01, IQR -0.10, 0.13) especially in smaller trials with baseline imbalances. However, when pooled, the differences between endpoint and change SMDs were negligible. Pooling only the more favourable of the two SMDs did not materially affect meta-analyses, resulting in differences of pooled SMDs up to 0.05 and 0.13 in the pharmacological and iCBT datasets, respectively. Our findings have implications for meta-analyses in depression, where we showed that the choice between endpoint and change scores for estimating SMDs had immaterial impact on summary meta-analytic estimates. Future studies should replicate and extend our analyses to fields other than depression.

Towards precision in the diagnostic profiling of patients: leveraging symptom dynamics as a clinical characterisation dimension in the assessment of major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines present overall symptom severity as the key dimension for clinical characterisation of major depressive disorder (MDD). However, differences may reside within severity levels related to how symptoms interact in an individual patient, called symptom dynamics. AIMS: To investigate these individual differences by estimating the proportion of patients that display differences in their symptom dynamics while sharing the same overall symptom severity. METHOD: Participants with MDD (n = 73; mean age 34.6 years, s.d. = 13.1; 56.2% female) rated their baseline symptom severity using the Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (IDS-SR). Momentary indicators for depressive symptoms were then collected through ecological momentary assessments five times per day for 28 days; 8395 observations were conducted (average per person: 115; s.d. = 16.8). Each participant's symptom dynamics were estimated using person-specific dynamic network models. Individual differences in these symptom relationship patterns in groups of participants sharing the same symptom severity levels were estimated using individual network invariance tests. Subsequently, the overall proportion of participants that displayed differential symptom dynamics while sharing the same symptom severity was calculated. A supplementary simulation study was conducted to investigate the accuracy of our methodology against false-positive results. RESULTS: Differential symptom dynamics were identified across 63.0% (95% bootstrapped CI 41.0-82.1) of participants within the same severity group. The average false detection of individual differences was 2.2%. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of participants within the same depressive symptom severity group displayed differential symptom dynamics. Examining symptom dynamics provides information about person-specific psychopathological expression beyond severity levels by revealing how symptoms aggravate each other over time. These results suggest that symptom dynamics may be a promising new dimension for clinical characterisation, warranting replication in independent samples. To inform personalised treatment planning, a next step concerns linking different symptom relationship patterns to treatment response and clinical course, including patterns related to spontaneous recovery and forms of disorder progression.

Comparing interventions for early psychosis: a systematic review and component network meta-analysis.

Background: 'Early Intervention in Psychosis' (EIP) services have been associated with improved outcomes for early psychosis. However, these services are heterogeneous and many provide different components of treatment. The impact of this variation on the sustained treatment effects is unknown. Methods: We performed a systematic review and component network meta-analysis (cNMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared specialised intervention services for early psychosis. We searched CENTRAL (published and unpublished), EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science from inception to February 2023. Primary outcomes were negative and positive psychotic symptoms at 3-month and 1-year follow-up and treatment dropouts. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms and social functioning at 1-year follow-up. We registered a protocol for our study in PROSPERO (CRD42017057420). Findings: We identified 37 RCTs including 4599 participants. Participants' mean age was 25.8 years (SD 6.0) and 64.0% were men. We found evidence that psychological interventions (this component grouped all psychological treatment intended to treat, or ameliorate the consequences of, psychotic symptoms) are beneficial for reducing negative symptoms (iSMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.05, p = 0.014) at 3-month follow-up and may be associated with clinically relevant benefits in improving social functioning scores at 1-year follow-up (iSMD -0.52, 95% CI -1.05 to 0.01, p = 0.052). The addition of case management has a beneficial effect on reducing negative symptoms (iSMD -1.17, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.11, p = 0.030) and positive symptoms (iSMD -1.05, 95% CI -2.02 to -0.08, p = 0.033) at 1-year follow-up. Pharmacotherapy was present in all trial arms, meaning it was not possible to examine the specific effects of this component. Interpretation: Our findings suggest psychological interventions and case management in addition to pharmacotherapy as the core components of services for early psychosis to achieve sustained clinical benefits. Our conclusions are limited by the small number of studies and sparsely connected networks. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Components and Delivery Formats of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Insomnia in Adults: A Systematic Review and Component Network Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Chronic insomnia disorder is highly prevalent, disabling, and costly. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), comprising various educational, cognitive, and behavioral strategies delivered in various formats, is the recommended first-line treatment, but the effect of each component and delivery method remains unclear. Objective: To examine the association of each component and delivery format of CBT-I with outcomes. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycInfo, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to July 21, 2023. Study Selection: Published randomized clinical trials comparing any form of CBT-I against another or a control condition for chronic insomnia disorder in adults aged 18 years and older. Insomnia both with and without comorbidities was included. Concomitant treatments were allowed if equally distributed among arms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers identified components, extracted data, and assessed trial quality. Random-effects component network meta-analyses were performed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was treatment efficacy (remission defined as reaching a satisfactory state) posttreatment. Secondary outcomes included all-cause dropout, self-reported sleep continuity, and long-term remission. Results: A total of 241 trials were identified including 31 452 participants (mean [SD] age, 45.4 [16.6] years; 21 048 of 31 452 [67%] women). Results suggested that critical components of CBT-I are cognitive restructuring (remission incremental odds ratio [iOR], 1.68; 95% CI, 1.28-2.20) third-wave components (iOR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.10-2.03), sleep restriction (iOR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.04-2.13), and stimulus control (iOR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.00-2.05). Sleep hygiene education was not essential (iOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.77-1.32), and relaxation procedures were found to be potentially counterproductive(iOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.64-1.02). In-person therapist-led programs were most beneficial (iOR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.19-2.81). Cognitive restructuring, third-wave components, and in-person delivery were mainly associated with improved subjective sleep quality. Sleep restriction was associated with improved subjective sleep quality, sleep efficiency, and wake after sleep onset, and stimulus control with improved subjective sleep quality, sleep efficiency, and sleep latency. The most efficacious combination-consisting of cognitive restructuring, third wave, sleep restriction, and stimulus control in the in-person format-compared with in-person psychoeducation, was associated with an increase in the remission rate by a risk difference of 0.33 (95% CI, 0.23-0.43) and a number needed to treat of 3.0 (95% CI, 2.3-4.3), given the median observed control event rate of 0.14. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that beneficial CBT-I packages may include cognitive restructuring, third-wave components, sleep restriction, stimulus control, and in-person delivery but not relaxation. However, potential undetected interactions could undermine the conclusions. Further large-scale, well-designed trials are warranted to confirm the contribution of different treatment components in CBT-I.

Assessing the Impact of Evidence-Based Mental Health Guidance During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review and Qualitative Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Oxford Precision Psychiatry Lab (OxPPL) developed open-access web-based summaries of mental health care guidelines (OxPPL guidance) in key areas such as digital approaches and telepsychiatry, suicide and self-harm, domestic violence and abuse, perinatal care, and vaccine hesitancy and prioritization in the context of mental illness, to inform timely clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the practice of creating evidence-based health guidelines during health emergencies using the OxPPL guidance as an example. An international network of clinical sites and colleagues (in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom) including clinicians, researchers, and experts by experience aimed to (1) evaluate the clinical impact of the OxPPL guidance, as an example of an evidence-based summary of guidelines; (2) review the literature for other evidence-based summaries of COVID-19 guidelines regarding mental health care; and (3) produce a framework for response to future global health emergencies. METHODS: The impact and clinical utility of the OxPPL guidance were assessed using clinicians' feedback via an international survey and focus groups. A systematic review (protocol registered on Open Science Framework) identified summaries or syntheses of guidelines for mental health care during and after the COVID-19 pandemic and assessed the accuracy of the methods used in the OxPPL guidance by identifying any resources that the guidance had not included. RESULTS: Overall, 80.2% (146/182) of the clinicians agreed or strongly agreed that the OxPPL guidance answered important clinical questions, 73.1% (133/182) stated that the guidance was relevant to their service, 59.3% (108/182) said that the guidelines had or would have a positive impact on their clinical practice, 42.9% (78/182) that they had shared or would share the guidance, and 80.2% (146/182) stated that the methodology could be used during future health crises. The focus groups found that the combination of evidence-based knowledge, clinical viewpoint, and visibility was crucial for clinical implementation. The systematic review identified 2543 records, of which 2 syntheses of guidelines met all the inclusion criteria, but only 1 (the OxPPL guidance) used evidence-based methodology. The review showed that the OxPPL guidance had included the majority of eligible guidelines, but 6 were identified that had not been included. CONCLUSIONS: The study identified an unmet need for web-based, evidence-based mental health care guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic. The OxPPL guidance was evaluated by clinicians as having a real-world clinical impact. Robust evidence-based methodology and expertise in mental health are necessary, but easy accessibility is also needed, and digital technology can materially help. Further health emergencies are inevitable and now is the ideal time to prepare, including addressing the training needs of clinicians, patients, and carers, especially in areas such as telepsychiatry and digital mental health. For future planning, guidance should be widely disseminated on an international platform, with allocated resources to support adaptive updates.

An umbrella review of adverse effects associated with antipsychotic medications: the need for complementary study designs.

Antipsychotic medications are widely prescribed in psychotic illnesses and other mental disorders. Effectiveness is well-established, particularly for reducing symptoms such as delusions and hallucinations, but can be impacted by tolerability. Adverse effects are wide-ranging, and vary between antipsychotics, which is clinically important. This umbrella review aimed to comprehensively summarise the extent and quality of evidence for adverse effects associated with antipsychotic use in people with mental disorders. We included 32 meta-analyses of randomised trials and observational studies. The overall robustness of reported associations was considered in terms of review quality, heterogeneity, excess significance bias, and prediction intervals. Using this approach, endocrine and metabolic, movement-related, and sedation and sleep problems were the clinical domains with strongest evidence. The overall quality of included meta-analyses was low, and individual adverse effects were not typically examined in meta-analyses of both randomised trials and observational study designs. Future reviews should focus on adhering to methodological guidelines, consider the complementary strengths of different study designs, and integrate clinically relevant information on absolute rates and severity of adverse effects.

Predicting outcomes at the individual patient level: what is the best method?

OBJECTIVE: When developing prediction models, researchers commonly employ a single model which uses all the available data (end-to-end approach). Alternatively, a similarity-based approach has been previously proposed, in which patients with similar clinical characteristics are first grouped into clusters, then prediction models are developed within each cluster. The potential advantage of the similarity-based approach is that it may better address heterogeneity in patient characteristics. However, it remains unclear whether it improves the overall predictive performance. We illustrate the similarity-based approach using data from people with depression and empirically compare its performance with the end-to-end approach. METHODS: We used primary care data collected in general practices in the UK. Using 31 predefined baseline variables, we aimed to predict the severity of depressive symptoms, measured by Patient Health Questionnaire-9, 60 days after initiation of antidepressant treatment. Following the similarity-based approach, we used k-means to cluster patients based on their baseline characteristics. We derived the optimal number of clusters using the Silhouette coefficient. We used ridge regression to build prediction models in both approaches. To compare the models' performance, we calculated the mean absolute error (MAE) and the coefficient of determination (R2) using bootstrapping. RESULTS: We analysed data from 16 384 patients. The end-to-end approach resulted in an MAE of 4.64 and R2 of 0.20. The best-performing similarity-based model was for four clusters, with MAE of 4.65 and R2 of 0.19. CONCLUSIONS: The end-to-end and the similarity-based model yielded comparable performance. Due to its simplicity, the end-to-end approach can be favoured when using demographic and clinical data to build prediction models on pharmacological treatments for depression.

New living evidence resource of human and non-human studies for early intervention and research prioritisation in anxiety, depression and psychosis.

In anxiety, depression and psychosis, there has been frustratingly slow progress in developing novel therapies that make a substantial difference in practice, as well as in predicting which treatments will work for whom and in what contexts. To intervene early in the process and deliver optimal care to patients, we need to understand the underlying mechanisms of mental health conditions, develop safe and effective interventions that target these mechanisms, and improve our capabilities in timely diagnosis and reliable prediction of symptom trajectories. Better synthesis of existing evidence is one way to reduce waste and improve efficiency in research towards these ends. Living systematic reviews produce rigorous, up-to-date and informative evidence summaries that are particularly important where research is emerging rapidly, current evidence is uncertain and new findings might change policy or practice. Global Alliance for Living Evidence on aNxiety, depressiOn and pSychosis (GALENOS) aims to tackle the challenges of mental health science research by cataloguing and evaluating the full spectrum of relevant scientific research including both human and preclinical studies. GALENOS will also allow the mental health community-including patients, carers, clinicians, researchers and funders-to better identify the research questions that most urgently need to be answered. By creating open-access datasets and outputs in a state-of-the-art online resource, GALENOS will help identify promising signals early in the research process. This will accelerate translation from discovery science into effective new interventions for anxiety, depression and psychosis, ready to be translated in clinical practice across the world.

Optimal duration of antibiotic treatment for community-acquired pneumonia in adults: a systematic review and duration-effect meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To find the optimal treatment duration with antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adults. DESIGN: Systematic review and duration-effect meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL through 25 August 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing the same antibiotics used at the same daily dosage but for different durations for CAP in adults. Both outpatients and inpatients were included but not those admitted to intensive care units. We imposed no date, language or publication status restriction. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction by two independent reviewers. We conducted a random-effects, one-stage duration-effect meta-analysis with restricted cubic splines. We tested the non-inferiority with the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10% examined against 10 days . The primary outcome was clinical improvement on day 15 (range 7-45 days). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and clinical improvement on day 30 (15-60 days). RESULTS: We included nine trials (2399 patients with a mean (SD) age of 61.2 (22.1); 39% women). The duration-effect curve was monotonic with longer duration leading to a lower probability of improvement, and shorter treatment duration (3-9 days) was likely to be non-inferior to 10-day treatment. Harmful outcome curves indicated no association. The weighted average percentage of the primary outcome in the 10-day treatment arms was 68%. Using that average, the absolute clinical improvement rates of the following durations were: 3-day treatment 75% (95% CI: 68% to 81%), 5-day treatment 72% (95% CI: 66% to 78%) and 7-day treatment 69% (95% CI: 61% to 76%). CONCLUSIONS: Shorter treatment duration (3-5 days) probably offers the optimal balance between efficacy and treatment burden for treating CAP in adults if they achieved clinical stability. However, the small number of included studies and the overall moderate-to-high risk of bias may compromise the certainty of the results. Further research on the shorter duration range is required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD 42021273357.

Community interventions for anxiety and depression in adults and young people: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence suggests that community-based interventions may be effective for anxiety and depression. This study aimed to describe studies of community interventions delivered to adults and/or young people, either in person or online, evaluated in randomised controlled trials and provide an indication as to their effectiveness, acceptability, quality of data and where possible, mechanisms of action. We included interventions delivered at and/or by museums, art galleries, libraries, gardens, music groups/choirs and sports clubs. METHOD: We developed and followed a preregistered protocol: PROSPERO CRD42020204471. Randomised controlled trials in adults and young people were identified in an extensive search with no date/time, language, document type and publication status limitations. Studies were selected according to predetermined eligibility criteria and data independently extracted and then assessed using Risk of Bias 1. The studies were deemed too heterogeneous for meta-analysis and were therefore reported using a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Our analysis included 31 studies, with 2898 participants. Community interventions most studied in randomised controlled trials were community music (12 studies, 1432 participants), community exercise (14 studies, 955 participants) and community gardens/gardening (6 studies, 335 participants). The majority of studies were from high-income countries - many were in specific populations (such as those with physical health problems) and were generally of low quality. Dropout rates across the included studies were low (1 participant on average per 100 participants). The inadequate description of interventions limited identification of potential mechanisms of action. DISCUSSION: The uncertainty of the evidence allows only a weak recommendation in support of community interventions for anxiety and depression. The results suggest community engagement is a promising area for wide-reaching interventions to be implemented and evaluated, but more high-quality trials are needed, especially in young people and under-represented communities.

Proportion attributable to contextual effects in general medicine: a meta-epidemiological study based on Cochrane reviews.

OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to examine the magnitude of the proportion attributable to contextual effects (PCE), which shows what proportion of the treatment arm response can be achieved by the placebo arm across various interventions, and to examine PCE variability by outcome type and condition. DESIGN: We conducted a meta-epidemiological study. SETTING: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews with the keyword 'placebo' in titles, abstracts and keywords on 1 January 2020. PARTICIPANTS: We included reviews that showed statistically significant beneficial effects of the intervention over placebo for the first primary outcome. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate PCEs based on the pooled result of each included review, grouped by outcome type and condition. The PCE quantifies how much of the observed treatment response can be achieved by the contextual effects. PUBLIC AND PATIENT INVOLVEMENT STATEMENT: No patient or member of the public was involved in conducting this research. RESULTS: We included 328 out of 3175 Cochrane systematic reviews. The results of meta-analyses showed that PCEs varied greatly depending on outcome type (I2=98%) or condition (I2=98%), but mostly lie between 0.40 and 0.95. Overall, the PCEs were 0.65 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.72) on average. Subjective outcomes were 0.50 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.59), which was significantly smaller than those of semiobjective (PCE 0.78; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.85) or objective outcomes (PCE 0.94; 95% CI 0.91 to 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that much of the observed benefit is not just due to the specific effect of the interventions. The specific effects of interventions may be larger for subjective outcomes than for objective or semiobjective outcomes. However, PCEs were exceptionally variable. When we evaluate the magnitude of PCEs, we should consider each PCE individually, for each condition, intervention and outcome in its context, to assess the importance of an intervention for each specific clinical setting.

Trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonists for psychosis: protocol for a living systematic review and meta-analysis of human and non-human studies.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to develop more effective and safer antipsychotics beyond dopamine 2 receptor antagonists. An emerging and promising approach is TAAR1 agonism. Therefore, we will conduct a living systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize and triangulate the evidence from preclinical animal experiments and clinical studies on the efficacy, safety, and underlying mechanism of action of TAAR1 agonism for psychosis. METHODS: Independent searches will be conducted in multiple electronic databases to identify clinical and animal experimental studies comparing TAAR1 agonists with licensed antipsychotics or other control conditions in individuals with psychosis or animal models for psychosis, respectively. The primary outcomes will be overall psychotic symptoms and their behavioural proxies in animals. Secondary outcomes will include side effects and neurobiological measures. Two independent reviewers will conduct study selection, data extraction using predefined forms, and risk of bias assessment using suitable tools based on the study design. Ontologies will be developed to facilitate study identification and data extraction. Data from clinical and animal studies will be synthesized separately using random-effects meta-analysis if appropriate, or synthesis without meta-analysis. Study characteristics will be investigated as potential sources of heterogeneity. Confidence in the evidence for each outcome and source of evidence will be evaluated, considering the summary of the association, potential concerns regarding internal and external validity, and reporting biases. When multiple sources of evidence are available for an outcome, an overall conclusion will be drawn in a triangulation meeting involving a multidisciplinary team of experts. We plan trimonthly updates of the review, and any modifications in the protocol will be documented. The review will be co-produced by multiple stakeholders aiming to produce impactful and relevant results and bridge the gap between preclinical and clinical research on psychosis. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-ID: CRD42023451628.

Pro-dopaminergic pharmacological interventions for anhedonia in depression: protocol for a living systematic review of human and non-human studies.

Background: Anhedonia is a key symptom of depression, and it has been suggested as a potential target for future individualised treatments. However, much is unknown about how interventions enhancing dopaminergic pathways may affect anhedonia symptoms in the context of depression. Methods: We will perform independent searches in multiple electronic databases to identify clinical and animal experimental studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions in individuals with depression or animal models for depression. The primary outcomes will be overall anhedonia symptoms and their behavioural proxies in animals. Secondary outcomes will include side effects and neurobiological measures. At least two independent reviewers will conduct the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments using pre-defined tools according to each record's study design. We will develop ontologies to facilitate study identification and data extraction. We will synthesise data from clinical and animal studies separately. If appropriate, we will use random-effects meta-analyses, or synthesis without meta-analyses. We will investigate study characteristics as potential sources of heterogeneity. We will evaluate the confidence in the evidence for each outcome and source of evidence, considering the summary of the association, potential concerns regarding internal and external validity, and reporting biases. When multiple sources of evidence are available for an outcome, we will draw an overall conclusion in a triangulation meeting involving a multidisciplinary team of experts. We plan updates of the review every 6 months, and any future modifications to the protocol will be documented. We will co-produce this review with multiple stakeholders. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023451821.