Effectiveness of pharmacological or psychological interventions for smoking cessation in smokers with major depression or depressive symptoms: A systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Smokers with major depressive disorder (MDD) or depressive symptoms (DS) represent a subgroup in need of attention, since they have specific clinical features and prognosis. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature (Cochrane, MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Web of Science databases from inception to June 2017) of randomized clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of pharmacological, psychological, or combined interventions for smoking cessation in subjects with current or past MDD/DS without medical or comorbid psychiatric disorder(s) was run following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Nicotine, varenicline, and staged-care intervention were more effective in smokers with current MDD; nicotine and fluoxetine plus nicotine were more effective in smokers with DS; naltrexone and nicotine plus fluoxetine were more effective in smokers with severe current DS. Cognitive-behavioral therapy and cognitive and behavioral cessation and relapse prevention skills training were superior to placebo in smokers with past MDD. CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed into effectively addressing smoking in people with concurrent mental disorder. Data currently available need to be confirmed in randomized trials aimed at replicating the results and disentangling the effects of each therapeutic ingredient when a combination therapy is proposed. Studies on tolerability of treatments are warranted, as well as those aimed at identifying factors of vulnerability to adverse effects.

Validation of the Mnemonic Similarity Task - Context Version.

OBJECTIVE: Pattern separation (PS) is the ability to represent similar experiences as separate, non-overlapping representations. It is usually assessed via the Mnemonic Similarity Task - Object Version (MST-O) which, however, assesses PS performance without taking behavioral context discrimination into account, since it is based on pictures of everyday simple objects on a white background. We here present a validation study for a new task, the Mnemonic Similarity Task - Context Version (MST-C), which is designed to measure PS while taking behavioral context discrimination into account by using real-life context photographs. METHODS: Fifty healthy subjects underwent the two MST tasks to assess convergent evidence. Instruments assessing memory and attention were also administered to study discriminant evidence. The test-retest reliability of MST-C was analyzed. RESULTS: Weak evidence supports convergent validity between the MST-C task and the MST-O as measures of PS (rs = 0.464; p < 0.01); PS performance assessed via the MST-C did not correlate with memory or attention; a moderate test-retest reliability was found (rs = 0.595; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The MST-C seems useful for assessing PS performance conceptualized as the ability to discriminate complex and realistic spatial contexts. Future studies are welcome to evaluate the validity of the MST-C task as a measure of PS in clinical populations.

Validation of the Mnemonic Similarity Task - Context Version

Objective: Pattern separation (PS) is the ability to represent similar experiences as separate, non-overlapping representations. It is usually assessed via the Mnemonic Similarity Task - Object Version (MST-O) which, however, assesses PS performance without taking behavioral context discrimination into account, since it is based on pictures of everyday simple objects on a white background. We here present a validation study for a new task, the Mnemonic Similarity Task - Context Version (MST-C), which is designed to measure PS while taking behavioral context discrimination into account by using real-life context photographs. Methods: Fifty healthy subjects underwent the two MST tasks to assess convergent evidence. Instruments assessing memory and attention were also administered to study discriminant evidence. The test-retest reliability of MST-C was analyzed. Results: Weak evidence supports convergent validity between the MST-C task and the MST-O as measures of PS (rs = 0.464; p < 0.01); PS performance assessed via the MST-C did not correlate with memory or attention; a moderate test-retest reliability was found (rs = 0.595; p < 0.01). Conclusion: The MST-C seems useful for assessing PS performance conceptualized as the ability to discriminate complex and realistic spatial contexts. Future studies are welcome to evaluate the validity of the MST-C task as a measure of PS in clinical populations.