ONE MONTH WEIGHT LOSS PREDICTS THE EFFICACY OF LIRAGLUTIDE IN OBESE PATIENTS: DATA FROM A SINGLE CENTER.

Objective: Liraglutide is a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist which acts through peripheral and central receptor pathways affecting food intake. Preliminary identification of responder patients represents a crucial point to reduce an inappropriate exposure to the drug and the health expenditure. The primary endpoint of our study was to identify predictors of liraglutide efficacy in the short term follow-up. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the treatment efficacy stratified by the underlying psychiatric disorder. Methods: We evaluated a cohort of 100 patients (77 females, 23 males, mean body mass index 38.6 ± 3.2 kg/m2) who were evaluated at baseline, and after 1, 3, and 6 months of treatment. Liraglutide efficacy was defined by a weight loss ≥5% of initial weight. Sociodemographic/metabolic parameters, food intake, smoking habit, and physical activity were correlated with liraglutide efficacy. Results: There was a significant weight loss after 1 month of therapy, as well as after 3 and 6 months when compared to the baseline (P<.0001; 27%, 45%, and 57% of patients showed a weight loss ≥5%, respectively). No difference was found in weight loss between the 3 groups of patients (with binge eating, with/without psychiatric disorders). The weight loss at 1 month was the only predictor of a positive response to the treatment. Conclusion: Our results confirm the efficacy of liraglutide even at a lower dose than conventional. The early response to the drug seems to be a good predictor of long-term efficacy and it might be useful in clinical practice to identify patients in whom liraglutide may induce a significant weight loss. Abbreviations: BMI = body mass index; EMA = European Medicine Agency; FDA = Food and Drug Administration; GLP-1 RA = glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist.

Universal and Selective Interventions to Prevent Poor Mental Health Outcomes in Young People: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Much is not known about the efficacy of interventions to prevent poor mental health outcomes in young people by targeting either the general population (universal prevention) or asymptomatic individuals with high risk of developing a mental disorder (selective prevention). METHODS: We conducted a PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of Web of Science to identify studies comparing post-test efficacy (effect size [ES]; Hedges' g) of universal or selective interventions for poor mental health outcomes versus control groups, in samples with mean age <35 years (PROSPERO: CRD42018102143). Measurements included random-effects models, I2 statistics, publication bias, meta-regression, sensitivity analyses, quality assessments, number needed to treat, and population impact number. RESULTS: 295 articles (447,206 individuals; mean age = 15.4) appraising 17 poor mental health outcomes were included. Compared to control conditions, universal and selective interventions improved (in descending magnitude order) interpersonal violence, general psychological distress, alcohol use, anxiety features, affective symptoms, other emotional and behavioral problems, consequences of alcohol use, posttraumatic stress disorder features, conduct problems, tobacco use, externalizing behaviors, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder features, and cannabis use, but not eating-related problems, impaired functioning, internalizing behavior, or sleep-related problems. Psychoeducation had the highest effect size for ADHD features, affective symptoms, and interpersonal violence. Psychotherapy had the highest effect size for anxiety features. CONCLUSION: Universal and selective preventive interventions for young individuals are feasible and can improve poor mental health outcomes.

Universal and selective interventions to promote good mental health in young people: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Promotion of good mental health in young people is important. Our aim was to evaluate the consistency and magnitude of the efficacy of universal/selective interventions to promote good mental health. A systematic PRISMA/RIGHT-compliant meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42018088708) search of Web of Science until 04/31/2019 identified original studies comparing the efficacy of universal/selective interventions for good mental health vs a control group, in samples with a mean age <35 years. Meta-analytical random-effects model, heterogeneity statistics, assessment of publication bias, study quality and sensitivity analyses investigated the efficacy (Hedges' g=effect size, ES) of universal/selective interventions to promote 14 good mental health outcomes defined a-priori. 276 studies were included (total participants: 159,508, 79,142 interventions and 80,366 controls), mean age=15.0 (SD=7.4); female=56.0%. There was a significant overall improvement in 10/13 good mental health outcome categories that could be meta-analysed: compared to controls, interventions significantly improved (in descending order of magnitude) mental health literacy (ES=0.685, p<0.001), emotions (ES=0.541, p<0.001), self-perceptions and values (ES=0.49, p<0.001), quality of life (ES=0.457, p=0.001), cognitive skills (ES=0.428, p<0.001), social skills (ES=0.371, p<0.001), physical health (ES=0.285, p<0.001), sexual health (ES=0.257, p=0.017), academic/occupational performance (ES=0.211, p<0.001) and attitude towards mental disorders (ES=0.177, p=0.006). Psychoeducation was the most effective intervention for promoting mental health literacy (ES=0.774, p<0.001) and cognitive skills (ES=1.153, p=0.03). Physical therapy, exercise and relaxation were more effective than psychoeducation and psychotherapy for promoting physical health (ES=0.498, p<0.001). In conclusion, several universal/selective interventions can be effective to promote good mental health in young people. Future research should consolidate and extend these findings.

A study on the association of mood disorders and gluten-related diseases.

Our study aimed to evaluate the presence of antibodies related to gluten intolerance in patients with mood disorders. A total of 60 patients with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder or depressive disorder were recruited. Fourty-eight subjects randomly selected among unrelated family members were included as controls. Celiac disease-associated antibodies were assayed both in the patients and controls. Mean values of IgA/IgG anti-gliadin antibodies, IgA/IgG anti-deamidated gliadin peptide antibodies and IgA anti-transglutaminase (tTG) antibodies were not different between patients and controls. However, a significant difference was found for anti-tTG IgG antibodies. Even if both in controls and in patients the mean anti-tTG IgG value was below the cutoff, the estimates produced by the statistical model showed that each unit increase in the anti-tTG IgG antibody value corresponded to an approximately 5% increased chance of having a mood disorder. The patient group showed a more frequent presence of symptoms associated to non-celiac gluten sensitivity. However, as there was neither any correlation between antibody levels and gastrointestinal symptoms, nor with the intensity of the psychiatric symptoms, it may be conceivable that the increase in anti-tTG IgG antibodies is not disorder-related but possibly an outcome of the psychiatric disorder itself.

Feasibility, Adherence and Efficacy of Liraglutide Treatment in a Sample of Individuals With Mood Disorders and Obesity.

Background: Liraglutide is a once-daily injectable medication approved for the treatment of obesity. Hereby we report the feasibility, adherence and efficacy of liraglutide treatment in a sample of individuals with mood disorders and obesity. Methods and Sample: Twenty-nine patients with Bipolar or Major Depressive Disorder received liraglutide once daily subcutaneously at a dose gradually titrated from 0.6 to 3 mg. All patients were obese and had previously failed multiple healthy lifestyle interventions, including exercise and diet programs. Patients' weight was recorded before liraglutide treatment (T0) and then 1 (T1), 3 (T3), and 6 months (T6) following T0. Results: Mean baseline (T0) weight was 110.54 Kg (±24.95). Compared to baseline, the percentage of weight loss was 3.37% at T1, 7.85% at T3, and 10.20% at T6. Thirty-one percent (n = 9) of patients had no side effects, 34.48% (n = 10) had one, 24.14% (n = 7) had two, and 10.34% (n = 3) had three side effects. All 29 subjects were still on liraglutide at T1; 79.31 and 48.28% were on liraglutide at T3 and T6. No significant relationship was found between liraglutide dose and likelihood to continue the medication. No patient showed a worsening of the psychiatric condition due to liraglutide treatment. Acceptability and satisfaction with treatment were good for the 48% that completed the study. Conclusions: Liraglutide treatment was efficacious, accepted and tolerated by ~50% of our sample, followed up for a period of 180 days. Larger, longer, controlled, prospective studies are warranted.

Celiac and non-celiac gluten sensitivity: a review on the association with schizophrenia and mood disorders.

An association between many psychiatric and gluten-related disorders has been known for some time. In the case of schizophrenia and mood disorders, the major psychiatric disorders, there is much evidence, not without contradictions, of a possible association between schizophrenia and celiac disease. The association between mood disorders and gluten-related disorders, especially celiac disease, has only been studied for depression, often coupled with anxiety, and very recently for bipolar disorder. Since non-celiac gluten sensitivity is now known to be different from celiac disease, many studies have shown that gluten sensitivity is also associated with major psychiatric disorders. Here we review the literature on the association between schizophrenia/mood disorders and celiac disease/gluten sensitivity, pointing out the differences between these associations.