Bradyarrhythmia after treatment with atenolol and mirtazapine in a cat with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

A nine-year-old spayed female domestic shorthair cat with a previous diagnosis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and treated for one month with atenolol (6.25 mg q 12 h) was referred for respiratory distress and anorexia. The cat was diagnosed with pulmonary oedema secondary to obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. After stabilisation, she was discharged with furosemide (1 mg/kg q 12 h), clopidogrel (18.75 mg q 24 h), atenolol (6.25 mg q 12 h), and mirtazapine (2 mg/cat q 24 h) to increase appetite. At recheck, the cat was lethargic and presented with severe bradycardia with a junctional escape rhythm and ventriculoatrial conduction. The mirtazapine was discontinued due to its possible side-effects on cardiac rhythm. After three days, the atenolol was halved because the bradyarrhythmia was still present. After 10 days, the rhythm returned to sinus; atenolol was reintroduced twice daily with no further side-effects. The absence of a sinus rhythm with a junctional escape rhythm and P' retroconduction is compatible with a third-degree sinus block or a sinus standstill; the differentiation of these rhythm disturbances is impossible, based on the surface electrocardiogram (ECG). The sinus rhythm was restored after mirtazapine was withdrawn. However, it is not possible to rule out the role of the atenolol or the combined effect of the two drugs. The cat was affected by hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and the role of myocardial remodelling cannot be excluded. This is the first time that a bradyarrhythmia consequent to the treatment with atenolol and mirtazapine was described in a cat.

[Pathogenetic basis of modern approaches to the therapy of sleep disorders in the clinic of depression]. / Patogeneticheskie osnovy sovremennykh podkhodov v terapii narushenii sna v klinike depressii.

Epidemiological studies indicate that about 35% of the world's population periodically suffer from insomnia. Many authors in their studies note sleep disturbances in the clinic of both somatic and mental disorders, often considering sleep disturbances as one of the predictors of these diseases. In psychiatric practice, sleep disorders are most often described in the clinic of depression, which is determined by the general pathophysiological mechanisms of their development due to disruption of the activity of the main neurotransmitter systems of the brain. The results of clinical studies show that the drug of choice in the treatment of sleep disorders in the depression clinic is the antidepressant Mirtazapine, which has a unique profile of pharmacological activity. According to international recommendations, Mirtazapine is a first-line drug in the treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders with sleep disorders and sexual dysfunction caused by taking other antidepressants.

Mirtazapine versus megestrol acetate in treatment of anorexia-cachexia in advanced cancer patients: a randomized, double-blind trial.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer-related anorexia-cachexia comprises one of the most common syndromes of advanced cancer patients. The management of cancer-related anorexia-cachexia is a great challenge in clinical practice. There are no definite practice guidelines yet for the prevention and treatment of cancer-related anorexia-cachexia. This study is considered to find out whether there is any role of mirtazapine in the improvement of anorexia in cancer patients. METHODS: A total of 80 cancer-anorexia patients were enrolled. Patients in the trial arm received the standard chemotherapy medication plus one tablet of mirtazapine 15 mg daily at night orally for 8 weeks starting from the day of an initial assessment. The control arm received the standard chemotherapy medication plus one tablet of megestrol acetate 160 mg daily orally for 8 weeks starting from the day of an initial assessment. Each patient was assessed by validated versions of Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy Anorexia/Cachexia Sub Scale v 4 questionnaires. RESULTS: After 4 and 8 weeks each patient was evaluated again using the Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy Anorexia/Cachexia Sub Scale tool. The quality of life of each patient was assessed by European Organization for Research and Treatment QLQ-C30 v 3.0. After 4 to 8 weeks of treatment, the Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy Anorexia/Cachexia Sub Scale score in cancer anorexia patients in the mirtazapine improved anorexia significantly. However, the improvement after 4 to 8 weeks was not statistically significant when it was compared with the megestrol acetate (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, the findings of this study reveal that mirtazapine might be a potential alternative to megestrol acetate, as it has shown potential efficacy as like as megestrol acetate.

Treatment-Resistant Depression (TRD): Is the Opioid System Involved?

About 30% of major depression disorder patients fail to achieve remission, hence being diagnosed with treatment-resistant major depression (TRD). Opium had been largely used effectively to treat depression for centuries, but when other medications were introduced, its use was discounted due to addiction and other hazards. In a series of previous studies, we evaluated the antinociceptive effects of eight antidepressant medications and their interaction with the opioid system. Mice were tested with a hotplate or tail-flick after being injected with different doses of mianserin, mirtazapine, trazodone, venlafaxine, reboxetine, moclobemide, fluoxetine, or fluvoxamine to determine the effect of each drug in eliciting antinociception. When naloxone inhibited the antinociceptive effect, we further examined the effect of the specific opioid antagonists of each antidepressant drug. Mianserin and mirtazapine (separately) induced dose-dependent antinociception, each one yielding a biphasic dose-response curve, and they were antagonized by naloxone. Trazodone and venlafaxine (separately) induced a dose-dependent antinociceptive effect, antagonized by naloxone. Reboxetine induced a weak antinociceptive effect with no significant opioid involvement, while moclobemide, fluoxetine, and fluvoxamine had no opioid-involved antinociceptive effects. Controlled clinical studies are needed to establish the efficacy of the augmentation of opiate antidepressants in persons with treatment-resistant depression and the optimal dosage of drugs prescribed.

Imagery rehearsal therapy and/or mianserin in treatment of refugees diagnosed with PTSD: Results from a randomized controlled trial.

Sleep disturbances are frequently part of the symptomatology in refugees with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It has been suggested that targeting sleep disturbances may enhance the outcome of PTSD treatment. However, randomized studies on the effect of treatment focusing on sleep disturbances in refugees with PTSD are lacking. The aim of this study was to examine add-on treatment with imagery rehearsal therapy (IRT) and/or mianserin against treatment as usual (TAU) alone in a sample of trauma-affected refugees with PTSD at 8-12 months follow-up. In a randomized controlled trial, 219 adult refugees diagnosed with PTSD and suffering from sleep disturbances were randomized to four groups (1:1:1:1) receiving, respectively, TAU, TAU + mianserin, TAU + IRT, and TAU + IRT + mianserin. The primary outcome was subjective sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index) and the secondary outcomes included PTSD and depression symptoms, level of functioning and subjective well-being. The data were analysed using mixed models. The only significant effect of IRT was on level of functioning (p = .040, ES 0.44), whereas there was no significant effect of mianserin on any of the measured outcomes. Low adherence to both IRT (39%) and mianserin (20%) was observed. Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find IRT or mianserin to be superior to TAU. The low adherence may potentially cause an underestimation of the effect of IRT and mianserin and indicates a necessity to further analyse the complex factors that may impact the motivation and ability of trauma-affected refugees to participate in and profit from available treatment options.

Effect of Antidepressants on Psychotic Symptoms in Parkinson Disease: A Review of Case Reports and Case Series.

OBJECTIVES: The treatment of Parkinson disease (PD) psychosis remains a challenge. Only a few treatments eliciting significant relief of psychotic symptoms have passed the test of randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Here, we conducted a review of the literature on the effect of antidepressants on PD psychosis. Because there is no randomized controlled trial that assessed the antipsychotic effects of antidepressants in PD, only case reports, case series, and open-label trials were available to review. Because of the scarce literature, statistical analysis could not be performed. RESULTS: The following antidepressants alleviated hallucinations in PD: amoxapine, citalopram, clomipramine, escitalopram, mianserin, mirtazapine, and venlafaxine. The antidepressants were generally well tolerated, with the exception of amoxapine, which exacerbated parkinsonism. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas the conclusions that can be drawn on the efficacy of antidepressants at reducing PD psychosis are limited because of the poor quality of the reported studies, it is encouraging to notice that there are positive anecdotal reports. Further studies are needed to confirm the potential of these drugs and also to determine if a subtype of patients or of psychotic features may be more likely to be improved by antidepressants.

Pharmacological interventions for treatment-resistant depression in adults.

BACKGROUND: Although antidepressants are often a first-line treatment for adults with moderate to severe depression, many people do not respond adequately to medication, and are said to have treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Little evidence exists to inform the most appropriate 'next step' treatment for these people. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of standard pharmacological treatments for adults with TRD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR) (March 2016), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science (31 December 2018), the World Health Organization trials portal and ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished and ongoing studies, and screened bibliographies of included studies and relevant systematic reviews without date or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with participants aged 18 to 74 years with unipolar depression (based on criteria from DSM-IV-TR or earlier versions, International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10, Feighner criteria or Research Diagnostic Criteria) who had not responded to a minimum of four weeks of antidepressant treatment at a recommended dose. Interventions were: (1) increasing the dose of antidepressant monotherapy; (2) switching to a different antidepressant monotherapy; (3) augmenting treatment with another antidepressant; (4) augmenting treatment with a non-antidepressant. All were compared with continuing antidepressant monotherapy. We excluded studies of non-standard pharmacological treatments (e.g. sex hormones, vitamins, herbal medicines and food supplements). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers used standard Cochrane methods to extract data, assess risk of bias, and resolve disagreements. We analysed continuous outcomes with mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated a relative risk (RR) and 95% CI. Where sufficient data existed, we conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 RCTs (2731 participants). Nine were conducted in outpatient settings and one in both in- and outpatients. Mean age of participants ranged from 42 - 50.2 years, and most were female. One study investigated switching to, or augmenting current antidepressant treatment with, another antidepressant (mianserin). Another augmented current antidepressant treatment with the antidepressant mirtazapine. Eight studies augmented current antidepressant treatment with a non-antidepressant (either an anxiolytic (buspirone) or an antipsychotic (cariprazine; olanzapine; quetiapine (3 studies); or ziprasidone (2 studies)). We judged most studies to be at a low or unclear risk of bias. Only one of the included studies was not industry-sponsored. There was no evidence of a difference in depression severity when current treatment was switched to mianserin (MD on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) = -1.8, 95% CI -5.22 to 1.62, low-quality evidence)) compared with continuing on antidepressant monotherapy. Nor was there evidence of a difference in numbers dropping out of treatment (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.59, low-quality evidence; dropouts 38% in the mianserin switch group; 18% in the control). Augmenting current antidepressant treatment with mianserin was associated with an improvement in depression symptoms severity scores from baseline (MD on HAM-D -4.8, 95% CI -8.18 to -1.42; moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in numbers dropping out (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.72; low-quality evidence; 19% dropouts in the mianserin-augmented group; 38% in the control). When current antidepressant treatment was augmented with mirtazapine, there was little difference in depressive symptoms (MD on Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) -1.7, 95% CI -4.03 to 0.63; high-quality evidence) and no evidence of a difference in dropout numbers (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.62; dropouts 2% in mirtazapine-augmented group; 3% in the control). Augmentation with buspirone provided no evidence of a benefit in terms of a reduction in depressive symptoms (MD on Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) -0.30, 95% CI -9.48 to 8.88; low-quality evidence) or numbers of drop-outs (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.53; low-quality evidence; dropouts 11% in buspirone-augmented group; 19% in the control). Severity of depressive symptoms reduced when current treatment was augmented with cariprazine (MD on MADRS -1.50, 95% CI -2.74 to -0.25; high-quality evidence), olanzapine (MD on HAM-D -7.9, 95% CI -16.76 to 0.96; low-quality evidence; MD on MADRS -12.4, 95% CI -22.44 to -2.36; low-quality evidence), quetiapine (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.18; I2 = 6%, high-quality evidence), or ziprasidone (MD on HAM-D -2.73, 95% CI -4.53 to -0.93; I2 = 0, moderate-quality evidence) compared with continuing on antidepressant monotherapy. However, a greater number of participants dropped out when antidepressant monotherapy was augmented with an antipsychotic (cariprazine RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.41; quetiapine RR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.17; ziprasidone RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.55) compared with antidepressant monotherapy, although estimates for olanzapine augmentation were imprecise (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.69). Dropout rates ranged from 10% to 39% in the groups augmented with an antipsychotic, and from 12% to 23% in the comparison groups. The most common reasons for dropping out were side effects or adverse events. We also summarised data about response and remission rates (based on changes in depressive symptoms) for included studies, along with data on social adjustment and social functioning, quality of life, economic outcomes and adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A small body of evidence shows that augmenting current antidepressant therapy with mianserin or with an antipsychotic (cariprazine, olanzapine, quetiapine or ziprasidone) improves depressive symptoms over the short-term (8 to 12 weeks). However, this evidence is mostly of low or moderate quality due to imprecision of the estimates of effects. Improvements with antipsychotics need to be balanced against the increased likelihood of dropping out of treatment or experiencing an adverse event. Augmentation of current antidepressant therapy with a second antidepressant, mirtazapine, does not produce a clinically important benefit in reduction of depressive symptoms (high-quality evidence). The evidence regarding the effects of augmenting current antidepressant therapy with buspirone or switching current antidepressant treatment to mianserin is currently insufficient. Further trials are needed to increase the certainty of these findings and to examine long-term effects of treatment, as well as the effectiveness of other pharmacological treatment strategies.

A case of autoimmune autonomic ganglionopathy with prolonged delirium.

Autoimmune autonomic ganglionopathy (AAG) is a rare acquired immune-mediated disorder that leads to autonomic failure. It is sometimes complicated by mental and behavioral symptoms. We report a case of 72-year-old male with AAG who was admitted to the psychiatric department for prolonged severe delirium. Repeated loss of consciousness attributed to severe orthostatic hypotension disturbed recovery from delirium. In addition, intracerebral hemorrhage occurred during hospitalization, and this cerebrovascular event may have been substantially affected by unstable blood pressure due to AAG. This case suggests importance of differential diagnosis of AAG in patients with mental and behavioral symptoms accompanying severe autonomic failure.

Mirtazapine for fibromyalgia in adults.

BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia is a clinically defined chronic condition of unknown etiology characterised by chronic widespread pain, sleep disturbance, cognitive dysfunction, and fatigue. Many patients report high disability levels and poor quality of life. Drug therapy aims to reduce key symptoms, especially pain, and improve quality of life. The tetracyclic antidepressant, mirtazapine, may help by increasing serotonin and noradrenaline in the central nervous system (CNS). OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of the tetracyclic antidepressant, mirtazapine, compared with placebo or other active drug(s) in the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, the US National Institutes of Health, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for published and ongoing trials, and examined reference lists of reviewed articles, to 9 July 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any formulation of mirtazapine against placebo, or any other active treatment of fibromyalgia, in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, outcomes of efficacy, tolerability and safety, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias, resolving discrepancies by discussion. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief (at least 50% or 30% pain reduction), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC; much or very much improved), safety (serious adverse events), and tolerability (adverse event withdrawal). Other outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improved by 20% or more, fatigue, sleep problems, mean pain intensity, negative mood and particular adverse events. We used a random-effects model to calculate risk difference (RD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and numbers needed to treat. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies with 606 participants compared mirtazapine with placebo (but not other drugs) over seven to 13 weeks. Two studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in six or seven of eight domains. We judged the evidence for all outcomes to be low- or very low-quality because of poor study quality, indirectness, imprecision, risk of publication bias, and sometimes low numbers of events.There was no difference between mirtazapine and placebo for any primary outcome: participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater (22% versus 16%; RD 0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.12; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); no data available for PGIC; only a single serious adverse event for evaluation of safety (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; three studies with 606 participants; very low-quality evidence); and tolerability as frequency of dropouts due to adverse events (3% versus 2%; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence).Mirtazapine showed a clinically-relevant benefit compared to placebo for some secondary outcomes: participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater (47% versus 34%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.21; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 8, 95% CI 5 to 20; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported mean pain intensity (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.13; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); and participant-reported sleep problems (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.06; three studies with 573 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no benefit for improvement of participant-reported improvement of HRQoL of 20% or greater (58% versus 50%; RD 0.08, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.16; three studies with 586 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported fatigue (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.16; two studies with 533 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported negative mood (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.44 to 0.10; three studies with 588 participants; low-quality evidence); or withdrawals due to lack of efficacy (1.5% versus 0.1%; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; three studies with 605 participants; very low-quality evidence).There was no difference between mirtazapine and placebo for participants reporting any adverse event (76% versus 59%; RD 0.12, 95 CI -0.01 to 0.26; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence). There was a clinically-relevant harm with mirtazapine compared to placebo: in the number of participants with somnolence (42% versus 14%; RD 0.24, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.30; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 5, 95% CI 3 to 6; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence); weight gain (19% versus 1%; RD 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.23; NNTH 6, 95% CI 5 to 10; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence); and elevated alanine aminotransferase (13% versus 2%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.22; NNTH 8, 95% CI 5 to 25; two studies with 566 participants; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Studies demonstrated no benefit of mirtazapine over placebo for pain relief of 50% or greater, PGIC, improvement of HRQoL of 20% or greater, or reduction of fatigue or negative mood. Clinically-relevant benefits were shown for pain relief of 30% or greater, reduction of mean pain intensity, and sleep problems. Somnolence, weight gain, and elevated alanine aminotransferase were more frequent with mirtazapine than placebo. The quality of evidence was low or very low, with two of three studies of questionable quality and issues over indirectness and risk of publication bias. On balance, any potential benefits of mirtazapine in fibromyalgia were outweighed by its potential harms, though, a small minority of people with fibromyalgia might experience substantial symptom relief without clinically-relevant adverse events.

[Antipsychotic induced rhabdomyolysis]. / Rhabdomyolyse induite par un traitement antipsychotique.

We report the case of a 40-year-old patient followed for post-traumatic stress disorder. A re-evaluation of its pharmacological treatment with the introduction of mirtazapine (30 mg/day) was associated with a rhabdomyolysis (CK> 20,000 IU/L at day 3). The diagnosis of mirtazapine induced rhabdomyolysis was made. After withdrawal of this drug combined with a symptomatic treatment (hydratation), the patient recovered well and was discharged without any nephrological sequelae. This article is intended to underline the diagnostic approach to elevated CK activity and the potential role of the "medical biologist" as a consultant for the relevant use of biological examinations. A physiopathological mechanism of this rhabdomyolysis is also proposed.

Combined treatment with aripiprazole and antidepressants reversed some MK-801-induced schizophrenia-like symptoms in mice.

BACKGROUND: Atypical antipsychotic drugs have some efficacy in alleviating the negative and some cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia but those effects are small and mechanisms of this action are still unknown A few clinical reports have suggested that antidepressants (ADs), are able to augment the activity of atypical antipsychotic drugs. Thus, in the present study, we aimed to evaluate the effect of ADs, escitalopram (ESC) or mirtazapine (MIR) and aripiprazole (an atypical antipsychotic drug) given separately or jointly, on the MK-801-induced positive and cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia in mice. METHODS: The experiments were conducted on male Albino Swiss mice. ADs and aripiprazole were given 30min before MK-801 injection. Locomotor hyperactivity induced by MK-801 (0.3mg/kg) was measured for 30min, starting 30min after MK-801 administration. In the novel object recognition test, MK-801 (0.2mg/kg) was given 30min before the first introductory session. Memory retention was evaluated for 5min, starting 90min after the introductory session. RESULTS: Aripiprazole (0.3mg/kg) reduced the locomotor hyperactivity induced by MK-801(0.3mg/kg). Co-treatment with an inactive dose of aripiprazole and ESC or MIR inhibited the effect of MK-801. Moreover, MK-801 (0.2mg/kg) decreased the memory retention. Aripiprazole (0.3mg/kg) reversed that effect. Co-treatment with an inactive dose of aripiprazole and ESC or MIR abolished the deficit of object recognition memory induced by MK-801. CONCLUSIONS: The obtained results suggest that ADs may enhance the antipsychotic-like effect of aripiprazole in the animal tests used for evaluation of some positive and cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia.

Antidepressants for insomnia in adults.

BACKGROUND: Insomnia disorder is a subjective condition of unsatisfactory sleep (e.g. sleep onset, maintenance, early waking, impairment of daytime functioning). Insomnia disorder impairs quality of life and is associated with an increased risk of physical and mental health problems including anxiety, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, and increased health service use. hypnotic medications (e.g. benzodiazepines and 'Z' drugs) are licensed for sleep promotion, but can induce tolerance and dependence, although many people remain on long-term treatment. Antidepressant use for insomnia is widespread, but none is licensed for insomnia and the evidence for their efficacy is unclear. This use of unlicensed medications may be driven by concern over longer-term use of hypnotics and the limited availability of psychological treatments. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of antidepressants for insomnia in adults. SEARCH METHODS: This review incorporated the results of searches to July 2015 conducted on electronic bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1950 to 2015), Embase (1980 to 2015) and PsycINFO (1806 to 2015). We updated the searches to December 2017, but these results have not yet been incorporated into the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults (aged 18 years or older) with a primary diagnosis of insomnia and all participant types including people with comorbidities. Any antidepressant as monotherapy at any dose whether compared with placebo, other medications for insomnia (e.g. benzodiazepines and 'Z' drugs), a different antidepressant, waiting list control or treatment as usual. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and extracted data using a data extraction form. A third review author resolved disagreements on inclusion or data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 23 RCTs (2806 participants).Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared with placebo: three studies (135 participants) compared SSRIs with placebo. Combining results was not possible. Two paroxetine studies showed significant improvements in subjective sleep measures at six (60 participants, P = 0.03) and 12 weeks (27 participants, P < 0.001). There was no difference in the fluoxetine study (low quality evidence).There were either no adverse events or they were not reported (very low quality evidence).Tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) compared with placebo: six studies (812 participants) compared TCA with placebo; five used doxepin and one used trimipramine. We found no studies of amitriptyline. Four studies (518 participants) could be pooled, showing a moderate improvement in subjective sleep quality over placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.56 to -0.21) (moderate quality evidence). Moderate quality evidence suggested that TCAs possibly improved sleep efficiency (mean difference (MD) 6.29 percentage points, 95% CI 3.17 to 9.41; 4 studies; 510 participants) and increased sleep time (MD 22.88 minutes, 95% CI 13.17 to 32.59; 4 studies; 510 participants). There may have been little or no impact on sleep latency (MD -4.27 minutes, 95% CI -9.01 to 0.48; 4 studies; 510 participants).There may have been little or no difference in adverse events between TCAs and placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; 6 studies; 812 participants) (low quality evidence).'Other' antidepressants with placebo: eight studies compared other antidepressants with placebo (one used mianserin and seven used trazodone). Three studies (370 participants) of trazodone could be pooled, indicating a moderate improvement in subjective sleep outcomes over placebo (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.02). Two studies of trazodone measured polysomnography and found little or no difference in sleep efficiency (MD 1.38 percentage points, 95% CI -2.87 to 5.63; 169 participants) (low quality evidence).There was low quality evidence from two studies of more adverse effects with trazodone than placebo (i.e. morning grogginess, increased dry mouth and thirst). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified relatively few, mostly small studies with short-term follow-up and design limitations. The effects of SSRIs compared with placebo are uncertain with too few studies to draw clear conclusions. There may be a small improvement in sleep quality with short-term use of low-dose doxepin and trazodone compared with placebo. The tolerability and safety of antidepressants for insomnia is uncertain due to limited reporting of adverse events. There was no evidence for amitriptyline (despite common use in clinical practice) or for long-term antidepressant use for insomnia. High-quality trials of antidepressants for insomnia are needed.

Mirtazapine adjunct for people with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Many individuals who have a diagnosis of schizophrenia experience a range of distressing and debilitating symptoms. These can include positive symptoms (such as delusions, hallucinations, disorganised speech), cognitive symptoms (such as trouble focusing or paying attention or using information to make decisions), and negative symptoms (such as diminished emotional expression, avolition, alogia, and anhedonia). Antipsychotic drugs are often only partially effective, particularly in treating negative symptoms, indicating the need for additional treatment. Mirtazapine is an antidepressant drug that when taken in addition to an antipsychotic may offer some benefit for negative symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the effects of mirtazapine as adjunct treatment for people with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: The Information Specialist of Cochrane Schizophrenia searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (including registries of clinical trials) up to May 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) with useable data focusing on mirtazapine adjunct for people with schizophrenia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. For included studies we assessed risk of bias and created 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs with a total of 310 participants. All studies compared mirtazapine adjunct with placebo adjunct and were of short-term duration. We considered five studies to have a high risk of bias for either incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, or other bias.Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in mental state (negative and positive symptoms), leaving the study early for any reason, clinically important change in global state, clinically important change in quality of life, number of days in hospital and incidence of serious adverse events.One trial defined a reduction in the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) overall score from baseline of at least 20% as no important response for negative symptoms. There was no evidence of a clear difference between the two treatments with similar numbers of participants from each group showing no important response to treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.14, 1 RCT, n = 20, very low-quality evidence).Clinically important change in positive symptoms was not reported, however, clinically important change in overall mental state was reported by two trials and data for this outcome showed a favourable effect for mirtazapine (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.92; I2 = 75%, 2 RCTs, n = 77, very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a clear difference for numbers of participants leaving the study early (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.66, 9 RCTs, n = 310, moderate-quality evidence), and no evidence of a clear difference in global state Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI) severity scores (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.48, 1 RCT, n = 39, very low-quality evidence). A favourable effect for mirtazapine adjunct was found for the outcome clinically important change in akathisia (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.52, 2 RCTs, n = 86, low-quality evidence; I2 = 61%I). No data were reported for quality life or number of days in hospital.In addition to the main outcomes of interest, there was evidence relating to adverse events that the mirtazapine adjunct groups were associated with an increased risk of weight gain (RR 3.19, 95% CI 1.17 to 8.65, 4 RCTs, n = 127) and sedation/drowsiness (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.68, 7 RCTs, n = 223). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is primarily of very low quality and indicates that mirtazapine adjunct is not clearly associated with an effect for negative symptoms, but there is some indication of a positive effect on overall mental state and akathisia. No effect was found for global state or leaving the study early and data were not available for quality of life or service use. Due to limitations of the quality and applicability of the evidence it is not possible to make any firm conclusions, the role of mirtazapine adjunct in routine clinical practice remains unclear. This underscores the need for new high-quality evidence to further evaluate mirtazapine adjunct for schizophrenia.

The impact of depression and antidepressant usage on primary biliary cholangitis clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Depression is prevalent in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) patients. Our aims were to examine the effects of depression and antidepressants on hepatic outcomes of PBC patients. METHODS: We used the UK Health Improvement Network database to identify PBC patients between 1974 and 2007. Our primary outcome was one of three clinical events: decompensated cirrhosis, liver transplantation and death. We assessed depression and each class of antidepressant medication in adjusted multivariate Cox proportional hazards models to identify independent predictors of outcomes. In a sensitivity analysis, the study population was restricted to PBC patients using ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). RESULTS: We identified 1,177 PBC patients during our study period. In our cohort, 86 patients (7.3%) had a depression diagnosis prior to PBC diagnosis, while 79 patients (6.7%) had a depression diagnosis after PBC diagnosis. Ten-year incidence of mortality, decompensated cirrhosis, and liver transplantation were 13.4%, 6.6%, and 2.0%, respectively. In our adjusted models, depression status was not a predictor of poor outcomes. After studying all classes of antidepressants, using the atypical antidepressant mirtazapine after PBC diagnosis was significantly protective (Adjusted HR 0.23: 95% CI 0.07-0.72) against poor liver outcomes (decompensation, liver transplant, mortality), which remained statistically significant in patients using UCDA (HR 0.21: 95% CI 0.05-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, depression was not associated with poor clinical outcomes. However, using the antidepressant mirtazapine was associated with decreased mortality, decompensated cirrhosis and liver transplantation in PBC patients. These findings support further assessment of mirtazapine as a potential treatment for PBC patients.

Validating pre-treatment body mass index as moderator of antidepressant treatment outcomes: Findings from CO-MED trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are no valid clinical or biological markers to personalize the treatment of depression. Recent evidence suggests that body mass index (BMI) may guide the selection of antidepressant medications with different mechanisms of action. METHODS: Combining Medications to Enhance Depression Outcomes (CO-MED) trial participants with BMI measurement (n = 662) were categorized as normal- or underweight (<25), overweight (25-<30), obese I (30-<35), and obese II+ (≥35). Logistic regression analysis with remission as the dependent variable and treatment arm-by-BMI category interaction as the primary independent variable was used to evaluate if BMI differentially predicted response to escitalopram (SSRI) monotherapy, bupropion-escitalopram combination, or venlafaxine-mirtazapine combination, after controlling for gender and baseline depression severity. RESULTS: Remission rates among the three treatment arms differed on the basis of pre-treatment BMI (chi-square=12.80, degrees of freedom=6, p = .046). Normal- or under-weight participants were less likely to remit with the bupropion-SSRI combination (26.8%) than SSRI monotherapy (37.3%, number needed to treat or NNT = 9.5) or venlafaxine-mirtazapine combination (44.4%, NNT = 5.7). Conversely, obese II+ participants were more likely to remit with bupropion-SSRI (47.4%) than SSRI monotherapy (28.6%, NNT = 5.3) or venlafaxine-mirtazapine combination (37.7%, NNT = 10.3). Remission rates did not differ among overweight and obese I participants. LIMITATIONS: Secondary analysis, higher rates of obesity than the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Antidepressant selection in clinical practice can be personalized with BMI measurements. Bupropion-SSRI combination should be avoided in normal- or under-weight depressed outpatients as compared to SSRI monotherapy and venlafaxine-mirtazapine combination and preferred in those with BMI≥35.

Can we recommend mirtazapine and bupropion for patients at risk for bleeding?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have reported that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are associated with an increased risk of bleeding. Mirtazapine and bupropion, which commonly lack serotonin reuptake inhibition, have been recommended as alternatives for patients who are at risk for bleeding. However, the evidence for these recommendations is insufficient. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search, systematic review, and meta-analysis to investigate an evidence-based approach for the bleeding risks of mirtazapine and bupropion. From 1946 to May 2017, a total of 3981 studies were searched from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Among the studies, two independent reviewers selected studies per predefined eligibility criteria. RESULTS: A total of five meta-analyses were conducted. Patients taking mirtazapine were at a greater risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (OR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.01-1.38) than those who did not take antidepressants. No differences were observed in the bleeding risk between mirtazapine and SSRI or between bupropion and SSRI. LIMITATIONS: The number of studies included in the meta-analysis was small. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that it is premature to recommend mirtazapine and bupropion for patients who have a bleeding risk. More studies with larger sample sizes and longitudinal follow-ups are warranted.

Antidepressant polypharmacy and the potential of pharmacokinetic interactions: Doxepin but not mirtazapine causes clinically relevant changes in venlafaxine metabolism.

BACKGROUND: To uncover pharmacokinetic interactions between venlafaxine and doxepin or mirtazapine in a naturalistic sample. METHODS: A therapeutic drug monitoring database containing plasma concentrations of venlafaxine (VEN) and its active metabolite O-desmethylvenlafaxine (ODVEN) was analyzed. We included 1067 of 1594 patients in the analysis. Three study groups were considered; a group of patients under venlafaxine without confounding medications, V0 (n = 905), a group of patients co-medicated with doxepin, VDOX (n = 25) and a second group, co-medicated with mirtazapine, VMIR, n = 137. Plasma concentrations of VEN, ODVEN and the clinically relevant active moiety, sum of venlafaxine and O-desmethylvenlafaxine (ODVEN) (AM), as well as dose-adjusted plasma concentrations (C/D) were compared. RESULTS: Median concentrations in the doxepin group showed 57.7% and 194.4% higher values for AM and VEN respectively; these differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001 for AM and p = 0.002 for VEN). Similar differences were detected for C/D concentrations of active moiety and VEN (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001) with higher values also in the doxepin group. The ratios ODVEN/VEN were lower in the doxepin group (p < 0.001). A co-medication with mirtazapine did not cause any changes in venlafaxine metabolism. CONCLUSIONS: Higher concentrations for VEN and AM imply an inhibiting effect of doxepin on the metabolism of venlafaxine, although the huge variability of concentrations has to be taken into account. It is recommended to monitor plasma concentrations in combination treatment to avoid problems in safety and efficacy. LIMITATIONS: Despite the large size of our study sample, the naturalistic nature of this data may arise some concerns of information bias potentially resulting from non-standardized data recording.

Translating the HAM-D into the MADRS and vice versa with equipercentile linking.

BACKGROUND: The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) are scales used frequently to rate the symptoms of depression. There are many situations in which it is important to know what a given total score or a percent reduction from baseline score of one scale means in relation to the other scale. METHOD: We used the equipercentile linking method to identify corresponding scores of simultaneous HAM-D and MADRS ratings in 4388 patients from 31 mirtazapine trials in major depressive disorder. Data were collected at baseline and at weeks 1, 2 and 4. RESULTS: HAM-D scores of 10, 20, 30 and 40 roughly corresponded to MADRS scores of 13, 26, 39 and 52-53, respectively. An absolute HAM-D improvement of 10, 20, 25 points corresponded to a MADRS improvement of 12, 26, and 34. A percentage improvement from baseline of the HAM-D was approximately the same as a percentage improvement on the MADRS. CONCLUSION: These results are important for the comparison of trials that used the HAM-D and MADRS. We present conversion tables for future research.