An umbrella review of candidate predictors of response, remission, recovery, and relapse across mental disorders.

We aimed to identify diagnosis-specific/transdiagnostic/transoutcome multivariable candidate predictors (MCPs) of key outcomes in mental disorders. We conducted an umbrella review (protocol  link ), searching MEDLINE/Embase (19/07/2022), including systematic reviews of studies reporting on MCPs of response, remission, recovery, or relapse, in DSM/ICD-defined mental disorders. From published predictors, we filtered MCPs, validating MCP criteria. AMSTAR2/PROBAST measured quality/risk of bias of systematic reviews/individual studies. We included 117 systematic reviews, 403 studies, 299,888 individuals with mental disorders, testing 796 prediction models. Only 4.3%/1.2% of the systematic reviews/individual studies were at low risk of bias. The most frequently targeted outcome was remission (36.9%), the least frequent was recovery (2.5%). Studies mainly focused on depressive (39.4%), substance-use (17.9%), and schizophrenia-spectrum (11.9%) disorders. We identified numerous MCPs within disorders for response, remission and relapse, but none for recovery. Transdiagnostic MCPs of remission included lower disease-specific symptoms (disorders = 5), female sex/higher education (disorders = 3), and quality of life/functioning (disorders = 2). Transdiagnostic MCPs of relapse included higher disease-specific symptoms (disorders = 5), higher depressive symptoms (disorders = 3), and younger age/higher anxiety symptoms/global illness severity/ number of previous episodes/negative life events (disorders = 2). Finally, positive trans-outcome MCPs for depression included less negative life events/depressive symptoms (response, remission, less relapse), female sex (response, remission) and better functioning (response, less relapse); for schizophrenia, less positive symptoms/higher depressive symptoms (remission, less relapse); for substance use disorder, marital status/higher education (remission, less relapse). Male sex, younger age, more clinical symptoms and comorbid mental/physical symptoms/disorders were poor prognostic factors, while positive factors included social contacts and employment, absent negative life events, higher education, early access/intervention, lower disease-specific and comorbid mental and physical symptoms/conditions, across mental disorders. Current data limitations include high risk of bias of studies and extraction of single predictors from multivariable models. Identified MCPs can inform future development, validation or refinement of prediction models of key outcomes in mental disorders.

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anticancer treatment, suicide risk and possibly the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants in this population are few and often report conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (aged 18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants, in adults (aged 18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. efficacy as a continuous outcome. Our secondary outcomes were 2. efficacy as a dichotomous outcome, 3. Social adjustment, 4. health-related quality of life and 5. dropouts. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 studies (1364 participants), 10 of which contributed to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Six of these compared antidepressants and placebo, three compared two antidepressants, and one three-armed study compared two antidepressants and placebo. In this update, we included four additional studies, three of which contributed data for the primary outcome. For acute-phase treatment response (six to 12 weeks), antidepressants may reduce depressive symptoms when compared with placebo, even though the evidence is very uncertain. This was true when depressive symptoms were measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to -0.12; 7 studies, 511 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and when measured as a proportion of people who had depression at the end of the study (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.96; 5 studies, 662 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported data on follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons, we retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and for mirtazapine versus TCAs. There was no difference between the various classes of antidepressants (continuous outcome: SSRI versus TCA: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18; 3 studies, 237 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mirtazapine versus TCA: SMD -4.80, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.10; 1 study, 25 participants). There was a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants versus placebo for the secondary efficacy outcomes (continuous outcome, response at one to four weeks; very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences for these outcomes when comparing two different classes of antidepressants, even though the evidence was very uncertain. In terms of dropouts due to any cause, we found no difference between antidepressants compared with placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; 9 studies, 889 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and between SSRIs and TCAs (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.22; 3 studies, 237 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of the heterogeneous quality of the studies, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, the available studies were few and of low quality. This review found a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants against placebo in depressed participants with cancer. However, the certainty of evidence is very low and, on the basis of these results, it is difficult to draw clear implications for practice. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which drug to prescribe may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of people with major depression, also taking into account that data on people with other serious medical conditions suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Furthermore, this update shows that the usage of the newly US Food and Drug Administration-approved antidepressant esketamine in its intravenous formulation might represent a potential treatment for this specific population of people, since it can be used both as an anaesthetic and an antidepressant. However, data are too inconclusive and further studies are needed. We conclude that to better inform clinical practice, there is an urgent need for large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer who have depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder.

Efficacy and acceptability of long-acting antipsychotics in acutely ill individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

To assess the effect of Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics in acutely ill patients, we systematically searched major databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LAIs with other LAIs, oral antipsychotics, or placebo in acutely symptomatic adults with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Data were analyzed with a random-effects network meta-analysis. Co-primary outcomes were efficacy (mean change in psychopathology rating scales) and acceptability (all-cause discontinuations) at study endpoint. Of 25 RCTs, 19 studies tested second-generation LAIs (SGA-LAIs) and six first-generation LAIs (FGA-LAIs). Due to a disconnected network, FGA-LAIs were analyzed separately, with poor data quality. The SGA-LAIs network included 8,418 individuals (males=63%, mean age=39.3 years). All SGA-LAIs outperformed placebo in reducing acute symptoms at study endpoint (median follow-up=13 weeks). They were more acceptable than placebo with the only exception of olanzapine, for which no differences with placebo emerged. Additionally, we distinguished between different LAI formulations of the same antipsychotic to explore potential pharmacokinetic differences. Most formulations outperformed placebo in the very short-term (2 weeks or less), regardless of the need for initial oral supplementation. SGA-LAIs are evidence-based treatments in acutely ill individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Findings support the use of SGA-LAIs to manage psychopathology and improve adherence right from the acute phases of illness.

Efficacy and safety of long-acting injectable versus oral antipsychotics in the treatment of patients with early-phase schizophrenia-spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) have advantages over oral antipsychotics (OAPs) in preventing relapse and hospitalization in chronically ill patients with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (SSDs), but evidence in patients with first-episode/recent-onset, that is, early-phase-SSDs is less clear. Objectives: To assess the relative medium- and long-term efficacy and safety of LAIs versus OAPs in the maintenance treatment of patients with early-phase SSDs. Method: We searched major electronic databases for head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LAIs and OAPs for the maintenance treatment of patients with early-phase-SSDs. Design: Pairwise, random-effects meta-analysis. Relapse/hospitalization and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation) measured at study-endpoint were co-primary outcomes, calculating risk ratios (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses sought to identify factors moderating differences in efficacy or acceptability between LAIs and OAPs. Results: Across 11 head-to-head RCTs (n = 2374, median age = 25.2 years, males = 68.4%, median illness duration = 45.8 weeks) lasting 13-104 (median = 78) weeks, no significant differences emerged between LAIs and OAPs for relapse/hospitalization prevention (RR = 0.79, 95%CI = 0.58-1.06, p = 0.13) and acceptability (RR = 0.92, 95%CI = 0.80-1.05, p = 0.20). The included trials were highly heterogeneous regarding methodology and patient populations. LAIs outperformed OAPs in preventing relapse/hospitalization in studies with stable patients (RR = 0.65, 95%CI = 0.45-0.92), pragmatic design (RR = 0.67, 95%CI = 0.54-0.82), and strict intent-to-treat approach (RR = 0.64, 95%CI = 0.52-0.80). Furthermore, LAIs were associated with better acceptability in studies with schizophrenia patients only (RR = 0.87, 95%CI = 0.79-0.95), longer illness duration (RR = 0.88, 95%CI = 0.80-0.97), unstable patients (RR = 0.89, 95%CI = 0.81-0.99) and allowed OAP supplementation of LAIs (RR = 0.90, 95%CI = 0.81-0.99). Conclusion: LAIs and OAPs did not differ significantly regarding relapse prevention/hospitalization and acceptability. However, in nine subgroup analyses, LAIs were superior to OAPs in patients with EP-SSDs with indicators of higher quality and/or pragmatic design regarding relapse/hospitalization prevention (four subgroup analyses) and/or reduced all-cause discontinuation (five subgroup analyses), without any instance of OAP superiority versus LAIs. More high-quality pragmatic trials comparing LAIs with OAPs in EP-SSDs are needed. Trial registration: CRD42023407120 (PROSPERO).

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to uncover whether LAIs or regular antipsychotic pills demonstrate better outcomes over the medium and long term for individuals in the early stages of schizophrenia. METHOD: We scrutinized several studies comparing LAIs to regular pills in treating early-stage schizophrenia. Employing a combined analysis, we assessed factors such as preventing relapses and hospitalizations, as well as patient treatment adherence. DESIGN: We combined different study results in one unique analysis. We delved into whether LAIs surpassed regular pills in preventing relapses and hospitalizations and in patient treatment adherence. RESULTS: In our study of 11 trials involving over 2000 participants, we observed that LAIs and regular antipsychotic pills were generally comparable regarding preventing relapses, hospitalizations, and treatment adherence. However, on closer inspection, LAIs appeared slightly more effective for specific groups in the early stages of schizophrenia. CONCLUSION: While LAIs and regular antipsychotic pills showed similar results for most individuals in the early stages of schizophrenia, our findings hint at the possibility that LAIs might have a slight edge for certain groups. Nevertheless, we emphasize the need for more high-quality studies to gain a clearer understanding. REGISTRATION: This study is registered under CRD42023407120 (PROSPERO).

Comparing long-acting injections and pills for early schizophrenia: a study review and combined analysis Background: We explored whether antipsychotics long-acting injections (LAIs) might outperform regular antipsychotics pills for people dealing with early-stage conditions like schizophrenia. While LAIs have clear benefits for those with long-term challenges, their effectiveness for those just starting to grapple with these issues is less certain.

Treatment of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer in the Era of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) involves neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus total mesorectal excision and adjuvant chemotherapy. However, total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) protocols (ie, preoperative chemotherapy in addition to radiotherapy) may allow better adherence and early treatment of distant micrometastases and may increase pathological complete response (pCR) rates. Objective: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of TNT protocols for LARC. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science Core Collection electronic databases and ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished studies were searched from inception to March 2, 2024. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials including adults with LARC who underwent rectal resection as a final treatment were included. Studies including nonoperative treatment (watch-and-wait strategy), treatments other than rectal resection, immunotherapy, or antiangiogenic agents were excluded. Among the initially identified studies, 2.9% met the selection criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two authors independently screened the records and extracted data. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-compliant pairwise and network meta-analyses with a random-effects model were performed in a frequentist framework, and the certainty of evidence was assessed according to the confidence in network meta-analysis approach. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pCR, defined as the absence of residual tumor at pathological assessment after surgery. Secondary outcomes included tolerability, toxic effects, perioperative outcomes, and long-term survival. Results: Of 925 records identified, 27 randomized clinical trials, including 13 413 adults aged 18 years or older (median age, 60.0 years [range, 42.0-63.5 years]; 67.2% male) contributed to the primary network meta-analysis. With regard to pCR, long-course chemoradiotherapy (L-CRT) plus consolidation chemotherapy (relative risk [RR], 1.96; 95% CI, 1.25-3.06), short-course radiotherapy (S-RT) plus consolidation chemotherapy (RR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.34-2.30), and induction chemotherapy plus L-CRT (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.09-2.25) outperformed standard L-CRT with single-agent fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. Considering 3-year disease-free survival, S-RT plus consolidation chemotherapy (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.14) and induction chemotherapy plus L-CRT (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24) outperformed L-CRT, in spite of an increased 5-year locoregional recurrence rate of S-RT plus consolidation chemotherapy (RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.03-2.63). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, 3 TNT protocols were identified to outperform the current standard of care in terms of pCR rates, with good tolerability and optimal postoperative outcomes, suggesting they should be recognized as first-line treatments.

Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis: Efficacy and Safety of Antipsychotics vs Antiepileptics or Lithium for Acute Mania in Children and Adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: To compare second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and mood stabilizers (MSs) in youth with a bipolar disorder type I (BD-I) manic/mixed episode. METHOD: A systematic PubMed/Embase/PsycInfo literature search until December 31, 2023, for randomized trials of SGAs or MSs in patients ≤18 years of age with BD-I manic/mixed episode was conducted. The study included a network meta-analysis comparing treatments regarding mania symptoms and mania response (co-primary outcomes), and secondary efficacy and tolerability outcomes. RESULTS: Eighteen studies (n = 2844, mean age = 11.74, female participants = 48.0%, mean study duration = 5.4 weeks) comparing 6 SGAs (aripiprazole, asenapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone) and 4 MSs (lithium, oxcarbazepine, topiramate, and valproate) were meta-analyzed. All 6 SGAs outperformed placebo in reducing manic symptomatology, including risperidone (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -1.18, 95% CI = -0.92, -1.45, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis [CINeMA] = moderate confidence), olanzapine (SMD = -0.77, 95% CI = -0.36, -1.18, low confidence), aripiprazole (SMD = -0.67, 95% CI = -0.33, -1.01, moderate confidence), quetiapine (SMD = -0.60, 95% CI = -0.32, -0.87, high confidence), asenapine (SMD = -0.54, 95% CI = -0.19, -0.89, moderate confidence), and ziprasidone (SMD = -0.43, 95% CI = -0.17, 0.70, low confidence), whereas no mood stabilizer outperformed placebo. Concerning mania response, risperidone (Risk ratio [RR] = 2.58, 95% CI = 1.88, 3.54, low confidence), olanzapine (RR = 2.42, 95% CI = 1.33, 3.54, very low confidence), aripiprazole (RR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.44, 2.92, low confidence), quetiapine (RR = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.45n 2.47, moderate confidence), asenapine (RR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.28, 2.55, very low confidence) and lithium (RR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.00, 1.83, p = .049, very low confidence) outperformed placebo, without superiority of other MSs vs placebo. Individually, risperidone was more efficacious in reducing manic symptomatology than all other comparators, except olanzapine and topiramate, yet with low/very low confidence, and was associated with increased prolactin and glucose. Pooled together, SGAs outperformed both placebo and MSs for mania symptom reduction (SMD = -0.68, 95% CI = -0.86, -0.51 and SMD = -0.61, 95% CI = -0.82, -0.40, moderate confidence), and mania response (RR = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.53, 2.24 and RR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.33, 2.04, moderate confidence) without differences between MSs and placebo. There were no significant treatment-placebo differences for all-cause discontinuation, whereas lithium, ziprasidone, and oxcarbazepine were associated with more adverse event-related drop-outs than placebo. Most SGAs were associated with more sedation, weight gain, and metabolic issues vs placebo and MSs. CONCLUSION: SGAs were more efficacious than placebo and MSs in treating acute mania symptoms, however, their use must be carefully weighed against important side effects.

Candidate diagnostic biomarkers for neurodevelopmental disorders in children and adolescents: a systematic review.

Neurodevelopmental disorders - including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, communication disorders, intellectual disability, motor disorders, specific learning disorders, and tic disorders - manifest themselves early in development. Valid, reliable and broadly usable biomarkers supporting a timely diagnosis of these disorders would be highly relevant from a clinical and public health standpoint. We conducted the first systematic review of studies on candidate diagnostic biomarkers for these disorders in children and adolescents. We searched Medline and Embase + Embase Classic with terms relating to biomarkers until April 6, 2022, and conducted additional targeted searches for genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and neuroimaging or neurophysiological studies carried out by international consortia. We considered a candidate biomarker as promising if it was reported in at least two independent studies providing evidence of sensitivity and specificity of at least 80%. After screening 10,625 references, we retained 780 studies (374 biochemical, 203 neuroimaging, 133 neurophysiological and 65 neuropsychological studies, and five GWAS), including a total of approximately 120,000 cases and 176,000 controls. While the majority of the studies focused simply on associations, we could not find any biomarker for which there was evidence - from two or more studies from independent research groups, with results going into the same direction - of specificity and sensitivity of at least 80%. Other important metrics to assess the validity of a candidate biomarker, such as positive predictive value and negative predictive value, were infrequently reported. Limitations of the currently available studies include mostly small sample size, heterogeneous approaches and candidate biomarker targets, undue focus on single instead of joint biomarker signatures, and incomplete accounting for potential confounding factors. Future multivariable and multi-level approaches may be best suited to find valid candidate biomarkers, which will then need to be validated in external, independent samples and then, importantly, tested in terms of feasibility and cost-effectiveness, before they can be implemented in daily clinical practice.

Continuing, reducing, switching, or stopping antipsychotics in individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders who are clinically stable: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although antipsychotic maintenance treatment is widely recommended to prevent relapse in chronic psychoses, evidence-based guidelines do not provide clear indications on different maintenance treatment strategies, including continuing the antipsychotic at standard doses, reducing the dose, switching to another antipsychotic, or even stopping the antipsychotic. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of these maintenance treatment strategies, hypothesising the superiority of all strategies over stopping, and of continuing at standard doses over both switching and reducing the dose. METHODS: We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated antipsychotics for relapse prevention in adults with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders who were clinically stable, and which compared four treatment strategies: continuing the current antipsychotic at standard doses recommended for acute treatment; reducing the current antipsychotic dose; switching to a different antipsychotic; and stopping the antipsychotic and replacing it with placebo. We excluded RCTs with fewer than 25 individuals, a prerandomisation washout period greater than 4 weeks, a follow-up shorter than 6 weeks, and those recruiting treatment-resistant individuals. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and online trial registers for published and unpublished RCTs from inception to Sept 1, 2021, combining terms describing all available antipsychotics, and terms describing continuation, maintenance, or long-term treatment for schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Relative risks (RRs) and standardised mean differences were pooled using random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses. We assessed risk of bias of each RCT with the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool, and confidence of pooled estimates with CINeMA. The primary outcome was relapse prevention. The study protocol was registered in advance in the Open Science Forum registry. FINDINGS: Of 3936 records identified, 119 records, reporting on 101 RCTs, were eligible, 98 of which (including 13 988 individuals) provided data that could be meta-analysed for at least one outcome. The mean proportion of female participants per study was 38% (range 0-100; median 39%, IQR 29-50), whereas for male participants it was 62% (range 0-100; median 61%, IQR 50-71), and the overall mean age was 38·8 years (range 23·2-63·9; median 39·3, IQR 35·0-43·9). Of the 98 RCTs meta-analysed, 89·8% were done in high-income and upper-middle-income countries. The ethnic group White or so-called Caucasian was the most represented (mean 56% participants per study), although this information was relatively scarce. All continuation strategies were significantly more effective in preventing relapse than stopping antipsychotic treatment, with a large risk reduction for continuing at standard doses (RR 0·37, 95% CI 0·32-0·43; number-needed-to-treat [NNT] 3·17, 95% CI 2·94-3·51) and antipsychotic switching (RR 0·44, 0·37-0·53; NNT 3·57, 3·17-4·25), and moderate risk reduction for dose reduction (RR 0·68, 0·51-0·90; NNT 6·25, 4·08-20·00). Continuing and switching antipsychotics did not differ significantly (RR 0·84, 0·69-1·02; with lower values favouring continuing), whereas reducing antipsychotic dose was outperformed by both continuing (RR 0·55, 0·42-0·71; NNT 4·44, 3·45-6·90) and switching (RR 0·65, 0·47-0·89; NNT 5·17, 3·77-18·18). Results were supported by moderate confidence of evidence and confirmed by secondary analyses and by several sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including removing studies with abrupt antipsychotic discontinuation or fast tapering (≤4 weeks). No tolerability differences emerged between treatment strategies. According to the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool, version 2, 16·8% of included RCTs had an overall high risk of bias for the primary outcome. We found moderate heterogeneity (τ2=0·13; I2=61%) and no overall incoherence for the primary analysis. Results were supported by moderate confidence of evidence and confirmed by secondary analyses. INTERPRETATION: Contrary to our original hypothesis, we found that continuing antipsychotic treatment at standard doses or switching to a different antipsychotic are similarly effective treatment strategies, whereas reducing antipsychotic doses below standard doses is associated with higher risk of relapse than the other two maintenance treatment strategies and should therefore be limited to selected cases. Despite limitations, including moderate heterogeneity and moderate certainty of evidence, these results are of pragmatic relevance for clinicians, and should support the update of evidence-based guidelines. FUNDING: None.

Oral and long-acting antipsychotics for relapse prevention in schizophrenia-spectrum disorders: a network meta-analysis of 92 randomized trials including 22,645 participants.

According to current evidence and guidelines, continued antipsychotic treatment is key for preventing relapse in people with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, but evidence-based recommendations for the choice of the individual antipsychotic for maintenance treatment are lacking. Although oral antipsychotics are often prescribed first line for practical reasons, long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) are a valuable resource to tackle adherence issues since the earliest phase of disease. Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and CINAHL databases and online registers were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing LAIs or oral antipsychotics head-to-head or against placebo, published until June 2021. Relative risks and standardized mean differences were pooled using random-effects pairwise and network meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were relapse and dropout due to adverse events. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess study quality, and the CINeMA approach to assess the confidence of pooled estimates. Of 100 eligible trials, 92 (N=22,645) provided usable data for meta-analyses. Regarding relapse prevention, the vast majority of the 31 included treatments outperformed placebo. Compared to placebo, "high" confidence in the results was found for (in descending order of effect magnitude) amisulpride-oral (OS), olanzapine-OS, aripiprazole-LAI, olanzapine-LAI, aripiprazole-OS, paliperidone-OS, and ziprasidone-OS. "Moderate" confidence in the results was found for paliperidone-LAI 1-monthly, iloperidone-OS, fluphenazine-OS, brexpiprazole-OS, paliperidone-LAI 1-monthly, asenapine-OS, haloperidol-OS, quetiapine-OS, cariprazine-OS, and lurasidone-OS. Regarding tolerability, none of the antipsychotics was significantly worse than placebo, but confidence was poor, with only aripiprazole (both LAI and OS) showing "moderate" confidence levels. Based on these findings, olanzapine, aripiprazole and paliperidone are the best choices for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, considering that both LAI and oral formulations of these antipsychotics are among the best-performing treatments and have the highest confidence of evidence for relapse prevention. This finding is of particular relevance for low- and middle-income countries and constrained-resource settings, where few medications may be selected. Results from this network meta-analysis can inform clinical guidelines and national and international drug regulation policies.

Corrigendum to "Hiatal Hernia Repair with Gore Bio-A Tissue Reinforcement: Our Experience".

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1155/2014/851278.].

Adrenal gunshot wound: Laparoscopic approach. Report of a case.

INTRODUCTION: Although there is no debate that patients with peritonitis or hemodynamic instability should undergo urgent laparotomy after penetrating abdominal injury, it is also clear that certain stable patients may be managed without operation. Controversy persists regarding use of laparoscopy. PRESENTATION OF CASE: We report a case of gunshot wounds with bullet in left adrenal gland and perirenal subcapsular hematoma. The patients had no signs of peritonitis but in the observation period we noted a significative blood loss, so we performed an exploratory laparoscopy. DISCUSSION: We found the bullet in adrenal parenchyma. The postoperative period was regular and the patient was discharged without any local or general complication. CONCLUSION: Although the data are still controversial, the importance of the laparoscopic approach is rapidly increasing also in case of penetrating trauma of the abdomen. This technique assumes both a diagnostic and therapeutic role by reducing the number of negative laparotomies.

Right diaphragmatic injury and lacerated liver during a penetrating abdominal trauma: case report and brief literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Diaphragmatic injuries are rare consequences of thoracoabdominal trauma and they often occur in association with multiorgan injuries. The diaphragm is a difficult anatomical structure to study with common imaging instruments due to its physiological movement. Thus, diaphragmatic injuries can often be misunderstood and diagnosed only during surgical procedures. Diagnostic delay results in a high rate of mortality. METHODS: We report the management of a clinical case of a 45-old man who came to our observation with a stab wound in the right upper abdomen. The type or length of the knife used as it was extracted from the victim after the fight. CT imaging demonstrated a right hemothorax without pulmonary lesions and parenchymal laceration of the liver with active bleeding. It is observed hemoperitoneum and subdiaphragmatic air in the abdomen, as a bowel perforation. A complete blood count check revealed a decrease in hemoglobin (7 mg/dl), and therefore it was decided to perform surgery in midline laparotomy. CONCLUSION: In countries with a low incidence of inter-personal violence, stab wound diaphragmatic injury is particularly rare, in particular involving the right hemidiaphragm. Diaphragmatic injury may be underestimated due to the presence of concomitant lesions of other organs, to a state of shock and respiratory failure, and to the difficulty of identifying diaphragmatic injuries in the absence of high sensitivity and specific diagnostic instruments. Diagnostic delay causes high mortality with these traumas with insidious symptoms. A diaphragmatic injury should be suspected in the presence of a clinical picture which includes hemothorax, hemoperitoneum, anemia and the presence of subdiaphragmatic air in the abdomen.

Achalasia Secondary to Submucosal Invasion by Poorly Differentiated Adenocarcinoma of the Cardia, Siewert II: Consideration on Preoperative Workup.

Secondary achalasia due to submucosal invasion of cardia by gastric cancer is a rare condition. We report a case of pseudoachalasia, secondary to the involvement of gastroesophageal junction by poorly differentiated gastric cancer, initially mistaken as idiopathic form. We focus on the difficulty to establish differential diagnosis only on the basis of routine exams and we stress the necessity of "second level" instrumental exams; EUS in routine workup in selected patients should be considered. We support that routine workup based on history, clinical presentation, radiological and endoscopic findings, and certainly manometry could be insufficient for a correct differential diagnosis between primary and secondary forms in some patients.