Using a generative model of affect to characterize affective variability and its response to treatment in bipolar disorder.

The affective variability of bipolar disorder (BD) is thought to qualitatively differ from that of borderline personality disorder (BPD), with changes in affect persisting longer in BD. However, quantitative studies have not been able to confirm this distinction. It has therefore not been possible to accurately quantify how treatments like lithium influence affective variability in BD. We assessed the affective variability associated with BD and BPD as well as the effect of lithium using a computational model that defines two subtypes of variability: affective changes that persist (volatility) and changes that do not (noise). We hypothesized that affective volatility would be raised in the BD group, noise would be raised in the BPD group, and that lithium would impact affective volatility. Daily affect ratings were prospectively collected for up to 3 y from patients with BD or BPD and nonclinical controls. In a separate experimental medicine study, patients with BD were randomized to receive lithium or placebo, with affect ratings collected from week -2 to +4. We found a diagnostically specific pattern of affective variability. Affective volatility was raised in patients with BD, whereas affective noise was raised in patients with BPD. Rather than suppressing affective variability, lithium increased the volatility of positive affect in both studies. These results provide a quantitative measure of the affective variability associated with BD and BPD. They suggest a mechanism of action for lithium, whereby periods of persistently low or high affect are avoided by increasing the volatility of affective responses.

Artificial intelligence and increasing misinformation.

With the recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), patients are increasingly exposed to misleading medical information. Generative AI models, including large language models such as ChatGPT, create and modify text, images, audio and video information based on training data. Commercial use of generative AI is expanding rapidly and the public will routinely receive messages created by generative AI. However, generative AI models may be unreliable, routinely make errors and widely spread misinformation. Misinformation created by generative AI about mental illness may include factual errors, nonsense, fabricated sources and dangerous advice. Psychiatrists need to recognise that patients may receive misinformation online, including about medicine and psychiatry.

Implications of Online Self-Diagnosis in Psychiatry.

Online self-diagnosis of psychiatric disorders by the general public is increasing. The reasons for the increase include the expansion of Internet technologies and the use of social media, the rapid growth of direct-to-consumer e-commerce in healthcare, and the increased emphasis on patient involvement in decision making. The publicity given to artificial intelligence (AI) has also contributed to the increased use of online screening tools by the general public. This paper aims to review factors contributing to the expansion of online self-diagnosis by the general public, and discuss both the risks and benefits of online self-diagnosis of psychiatric disorders. A narrative review was performed with examples obtained from the scientific literature and commercial articles written for the general public. Online self-diagnosis of psychiatric disorders is growing rapidly. Some people with a positive result on a screening tool will seek professional help. However, there are many potential risks for patients who self-diagnose, including an incorrect or dangerous diagnosis, increased patient anxiety about the diagnosis, obtaining unfiltered advice on social media, using the self-diagnosis to self-treat, including online purchase of medications without a prescription, and technical issues including the loss of privacy. Physicians need to be aware of the increase in self-diagnosis by the general public and the potential risks, both medical and technical. Psychiatrists must recognize that the general public is often unaware of the challenging medical and technical issues involved in the diagnosis of a mental disorder, and be ready to treat patients who have already obtained an online self-diagnosis.

Gabapentin and pregabalin in bipolar disorder, anxiety states, and insomnia: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and rationale.

The gabapentinoids, gabapentin, and pregabalin, target the α2δ subunits of voltage-gated calcium channels. Initially licensed for pain and seizures, they have become widely prescribed drugs. Many of these uses are off-label for psychiatric indications, and there is increasing concern about their safety, so it is particularly important to have good evidence to justify this usage. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence for three of their common psychiatric uses: bipolar disorder, anxiety, and insomnia. Fifty-five double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 open-label studies were identified. For bipolar disorder, four double-blind RCTs investigating gabapentin, and no double-blind RCTs investigating pregabalin, were identified. A quantitative synthesis could not be performed due to heterogeneity in the study population, design and outcome measures. Across the anxiety spectrum, a consistent but not universal effect in favour of gabapentinoids compared to placebo was seen (standardised mean difference [SMD] ranging between -2.25 and -0.25). Notably, pregabalin (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.18) and gabapentin (SMD -0.92, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.52) were more effective than placebo in reducing preoperative anxiety. In insomnia, results were inconclusive. We conclude that there is moderate evidence of the efficacy of gabapentinoids in anxiety states, but minimal evidence in bipolar disorder and insomnia and they should be used for these disorders only with strong justification. This recommendation applies despite the attractive pharmacological and genetic rationale for targeting voltage-gated calcium channels.

Telepsychiatry in an Era of Digital Mental Health Startups.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Telepsychiatry practiced by psychiatrists is evidence-based, regulated, private, and effective in diverse settings. The use of telemedicine has grown since the COVID-19 pandemic as people routinely obtain more healthcare services online. At the same time, there has been a rapid increase in the number of digital mental health startups that offer various services including online therapy and access to prescription medications. These digital mental health firms advertise directly to the consumer primarily through digital advertising. The purpose of this narrative review is to contrast traditional telepsychiatry and the digital mental health market related to online therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: In contrast to standard telepsychiatry, most of the digital mental health startups are unregulated, have unproven efficacy, and raise concerns related to self-diagnosis, self-medicating, and inappropriate prescribing. The role of digital mental health firms for people with serious mental illness has not been determined. There are inadequate privacy controls for the digital mental health firms, including for online therapy. We live in an age where there is widespread admiration for technology entrepreneurs and increasing emphasis on the role of the patient as a consumer. Yet, the business practices of digital mental health startups may compromise patient safety for profits. There is a need to address issues with the digital mental health startups and to educate patients about the differences between standard medical care and digital mental health products.

Challenges and Ethical Considerations to Successfully Implement Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Medicine and Neuroscience: a Narrative Review.

This narrative review discusses how the safe and effective use of clinical artificial intelligence (AI) prediction tools requires recognition of the importance of human intelligence. Human intelligence, creativity, situational awareness, and professional knowledge, are required for successful implementation. The implementation of clinical AI prediction tools may change the workflow in medical practice resulting in new challenges and safety implications. Human understanding of how a clinical AI prediction tool performs in routine and exceptional situations is fundamental to successful implementation. Physicians must be involved in all aspects of the selection, implementation, and ongoing product monitoring of clinical AI prediction tools.

A co-produced online cultural experience compared to a typical museum website for mental health in people aged 16-24: A proof-of-principle randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare a co-produced online intervention encompassing the diverse human stories behind art and artefacts, named Ways of Being (WoB), with a typical museum website, the Ashmolean (Ash) on negative affect (NA), positive affect (PA) and psychological distress (K10). METHODS: In this parallel group RCT, 463 YP aged 16-24 were randomly assigned, 231 to WoB and 232 to Ash. RESULTS: Over the intervention phase (an aggregate score including all post-allocation timepoints to day-five) a group difference was apparent in favour of WoB for NA (WoB-Ash n=448, NA -0.158, p=0.010) but no differences were detected for PA or K10 and differences were not detected at week six. Group differences in NA in favour of WoB were detected in specific subgroups, e.g. ethnic minorities and males. Across participants (from both groups) mean K10 and NA improved between baseline and six weeks despite increased COVID-19 restrictions. Trial recruitment was rapid, retention high and feedback positive with broad geographical, occupational and ethnic diversity. CONCLUSIONS: Online engagement with arts and culture has the potential to impact on mental health in a measurable way in YP with high unmet mental health needs.

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

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

Association between serum lithium level and incidence of COVID-19 infection.

An antiviral effect of lithium has been proposed, but never investigated for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Using electronic health records of 26 554 patients with documented serum lithium levels during the pandemic, we show that the 6-month COVID-19 infection incidence was lower among matched patients with 'therapeutic' (0.50-1.00) versus 'subtherapeutic' (0.05-0.50) lithium levels (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.97, P = 0.017) and among patients with 'therapeutic' lithium levels versus matched patients using valproate (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.67-0.92, P = 0.0023). Lower rates of infection were observed for both new COVID-19 diagnoses and positive polymerase chain reaction tests, regardless of underlying psychiatric diagnosis and vaccination status.

Incidence, co-occurrence, and evolution of long-COVID features: A 6-month retrospective cohort study of 273,618 survivors of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Long-COVID refers to a variety of symptoms affecting different organs reported by people following Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. To date, there have been no robust estimates of the incidence and co-occurrence of long-COVID features, their relationship to age, sex, or severity of infection, and the extent to which they are specific to COVID-19. The aim of this study is to address these issues. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on linked electronic health records (EHRs) data from 81 million patients including 273,618 COVID-19 survivors. The incidence and co-occurrence within 6 months and in the 3 to 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis were calculated for 9 core features of long-COVID (breathing difficulties/breathlessness, fatigue/malaise, chest/throat pain, headache, abdominal symptoms, myalgia, other pain, cognitive symptoms, and anxiety/depression). Their co-occurrence network was also analyzed. Comparison with a propensity score-matched cohort of patients diagnosed with influenza during the same time period was achieved using Kaplan-Meier analysis and the Cox proportional hazard model. The incidence of atopic dermatitis was used as a negative control. Among COVID-19 survivors (mean [SD] age: 46.3 [19.8], 55.6% female), 57.00% had one or more long-COVID feature recorded during the whole 6-month period (i.e., including the acute phase), and 36.55% between 3 and 6 months. The incidence of each feature was: abnormal breathing (18.71% in the 1- to 180-day period; 7.94% in the 90- to180-day period), fatigue/malaise (12.82%; 5.87%), chest/throat pain (12.60%; 5.71%), headache (8.67%; 4.63%), other pain (11.60%; 7.19%), abdominal symptoms (15.58%; 8.29%), myalgia (3.24%; 1.54%), cognitive symptoms (7.88%; 3.95%), and anxiety/depression (22.82%; 15.49%). All 9 features were more frequently reported after COVID-19 than after influenza (with an overall excess incidence of 16.60% and hazard ratios between 1.44 and 2.04, all p < 0.001), co-occurred more commonly, and formed a more interconnected network. Significant differences in incidence and co-occurrence were associated with sex, age, and illness severity. Besides the limitations inherent to EHR data, limitations of this study include that (i) the findings do not generalize to patients who have had COVID-19 but were not diagnosed, nor to patients who do not seek or receive medical attention when experiencing symptoms of long-COVID; (ii) the findings say nothing about the persistence of the clinical features; and (iii) the difference between cohorts might be affected by one cohort seeking or receiving more medical attention for their symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Long-COVID clinical features occurred and co-occurred frequently and showed some specificity to COVID-19, though they were also observed after influenza. Different long-COVID clinical profiles were observed based on demographics and illness severity.

Prediction of individuals at high risk of chronic kidney disease during treatment with lithium for bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: Lithium is the most effective treatment in bipolar disorder. Its use is limited by concerns about risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD). We aimed to develop a model to predict risk of CKD following lithium treatment initiation, by identifying individuals with a high-risk trajectory of kidney function. METHODS: We used United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) electronic health records (EHRs) from 2000 to 2018. CPRD Aurum for prediction model development and CPRD Gold for external validation. We used elastic net regularised regression to generate a prediction model from potential features. We performed discrimination and calibration assessments in an external validation data set. We included all patients aged ≥ 16 with bipolar disorder prescribed lithium. To be included patients had to have ≥ 1 year of follow-up before lithium initiation, ≥ 3 estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) measures after lithium initiation (to be able to determine a trajectory) and a normal (≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2) eGFR at lithium initiation (baseline). In the Aurum development cohort, 1609 fulfilled these criteria. The Gold external validation cohort included 934 patients. We included 44 potential baseline features in the prediction model, including sociodemographic, mental and physical health and drug treatment characteristics. We compared a full model with the 3-variable 5-year kidney failure risk equation (KFRE) and a 3-variable elastic net model. We used group-based trajectory modelling to identify latent trajectory groups for eGFR. We were interested in the group with deteriorating kidney function (the high-risk group). RESULTS: The high risk of deteriorating eGFR group included 191 (11.87%) of the Aurum cohort and 137 (14.67%) of the Gold cohort. Of these, 168 (87.96%) and 117 (85.40%) respectively developed CKD 3a or more severe during follow-up. The model, developed in Aurum, had a ROC area of 0.879 (95%CI 0.853-0.904) in the Gold external validation data set. At the empirical optimal cut-point defined in the development dataset, the model had a sensitivity of 0.91 (95%CI 0.84-0.97) and a specificity of 0.74 (95% CI 0.67-0.82). However, a 3-variable elastic net model (including only age, sex and baseline eGFR) performed similarly well (ROC area 0.888; 95%CI 0.864-0.912), as did the KFRE (ROC area 0.870; 95%CI 0.841-0.898). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals at high risk of a poor eGFR trajectory can be identified before initiation of lithium treatment by a simple equation including age, sex and baseline eGFR. Risk was increased in individuals who were younger at commencement of lithium, female and had a lower baseline eGFR. We did not identify strong predicters of eGFR decline specific to lithium-treated patients. Notably, lithium duration and toxicity were not associated with high-risk trajectory.

Incidence and outcomes of eating disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic.

There are concerns that eating disorders have become commoner during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Using the electronic health records of 5.2 million people aged under 30, mostly in the USA, we show that the diagnostic incidence was 15.3% higher in 2020 overall compared with previous years (relative risk 1.15, 95% CI 1.12-1.19). The relative risk increased steadily from March 2020 onwards, exceeding 1.5 by the end of the year. The increase occurred solely in females, and primarily related to teenagers and anorexia nervosa. A higher proportion of patients with eating disorders in 2020 had suicidal ideation (hazard ratio HR = 1.30, 1.16-1.47) or attempted suicide (HR = 1.69, 1.21-2.35).

Effect of lithium on circadian rhythm in bipolar disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Circadian rhythm disruption is commonly reported in patients with bipolar disorder. Lithium has been suggested to have effects on the circadian clock, the biological basis of the circadian rhythm. The objective of the current review was to review systematically the existing studies on the effect of lithium on circadian rhythm in patients with bipolar disorder. METHODS: We systematically searched the scientific literature up to September 2020 for experimental or observational studies which measured circadian rhythm in bipolar patients taking lithium (in comparison with placebo or other active treatments) and carried out a meta-analysis. Circadian rest-activity was our primary outcome, but we also collected data about sleep quality and chronotype (Morningness-Eveningness). The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018109790). RESULTS: Four observational studies (n = 668) and one experimental study (n = 29) were included. Results from the meta-analysis suggest a potential association between lithium and shifts towards morningness (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.05 to 0.90). One cohort study with 21 days of follow-up found that patients treated with lithium had significantly larger amplitude (0.68, 0.01 to 1.36) when compared to anticonvulsants. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the insufficient evidence to inform us about the effect of lithium on circadian rhythm. However, we found that chronotype can be a potential target for further exploration of biomarkers or biosignatures of lithium treatment in patients with bipolar disorder. Further studies with prospective and longitudinal study design, adopting actigraphy to monitor daily circadian rest-activity changes are needed.

Melatonin In Acute Mania Investigation (MIAMI-UK). A randomized controlled trial of add-on melatonin in bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Current options for treating emergent episodes of hypomania and mania in bipolar disorder are limited. Our objective was to compare the effectiveness and safety of add-on melatonin in hypomania or mania over 3 weeks as a well-tolerated therapy. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 3-week comparison of modified release melatonin (n = 21) vs placebo (n = 20) in adult bipolar patients aged 18-65 years. Permuted block randomization was used with participants and investigators masked to treatment allocation. Trial registration is ISRCTN28988273 and EUdraCT2008-000281-23. Approved by the South Central National Research Ethics Service (Oxford REC A) ref: 09/H0604/63. RESULTS: The trial was negative as there was no significant difference between melatonin and placebo on the primary outcome-mean Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score at Day 21: (mean difference [MD] -1.77 ([95% CI: -6.39 to 2.85]; P = .447). Significantly fewer patients on melatonin scored 10 or more on the Altman Self Rating Mania Scale: (odds ratio [OR] 0.164 [95% CI: 0.0260-1.0002]; P = .05). Quick Inventory of Depression Symptomatology Clinician Version-16 (QIDS-C16) scores were not significantly different. (OR 1.77 [95% CI: 0.43-7.29]; P = .430). The proportion of patients scoring less than or equal to 5 on the self-report QIDS-SR16 at end-point was greater for the melatonin group (OR 8.35 [95% CI: 1.04-67.23]; P = .046). CONCLUSIONS: In this small trial, melatonin did not effectively treat emerging hypomania or mania as there was no significant difference on the primary outcome. The sample size limitation and secondary outcomes suggest further investigation of melatonin treatment in mood episodes is indicated.

Study protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled trial of pramipexole in addition to mood stabilisers for patients with treatment resistant bipolar depression (the PAX-BD study).

BACKGROUND: Treatment Resistant Bipolar Depression (TRBD) is a major contributor to the burden of disease associated with Bipolar Disorder (BD). Treatment options for people experiencing bipolar depression are limited to three interventions listed by National Institute for Health and Care: lamotrigine, quetiapine and olanzapine, of which the latter two are often not well tolerated. The majority of depressed people with BD are therefore prescribed antidepressants despite limited efficacy. This demonstrates an unmet need for additional interventions. Pramipexole has been shown to improve mood symptoms in animal models of depression, in people with Parkinson's Disease and two proof of principle trials of pramipexole for people with BD who are currently depressed. METHODS: The PAX-BD study, funded by the United Kingdom (UK) National Institute for Health Research, aims to extend previous findings by assessing the efficacy, safety and health economic impact of pramipexole in addition to mood stabilisers for patients with TRBD. A randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled design is conducted in a naturalistic UK National Health Service setting. An internal pilot study to examine feasibility and acceptability of the study design is included. Participants with TRBD are screened from National Health Service secondary care services in up to 40 mental health trusts in the UK, with the aim of recruiting approximately 414 participants into a pre-randomisation phase to achieve a target of 290 randomised participants. Primary safety and efficacy measures are at 12 weeks following randomisation, with follow up of participants to 52 weeks. The primary outcome is depressive symptoms as measured by Quick Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology - Self Report. Secondary outcomes include changes in anxiety, manic symptoms, tolerability, acceptability, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Outcome measures are collected remotely using self-report tools implemented online, and observer-rated assessments conducted via telephone. ANCOVA will be used to examine the difference in rating scale scores between treatment arms, and dependent on compliance in completion of weekly self-report measures. A mixed effects linear regression model may also be used to account for repeated measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN72151939. Registered on 28 August 2019, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN72151939 Protocol Version: 04-FEB-2021, Version 9.0.

Informing National Health Service patients about participation in clinical research: A comparison of opt-in and opt-out approaches across the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: Recruitment to clinical research in the National Health Service remains challenging. One barrier is accessing patients to discuss research participation. Two general approaches are used in the United Kingdom to facilitate this: an 'opt-in' approach (when clinicians communicate research opportunities to patients) and an 'opt-out' approach (all patients have the right to be informed of relevant research opportunities). No evidence-based data are available, however, to inform the decision about which approach is preferable. This study aimed to collect information from 'opt-in' and 'opt-out' Trusts and identify which of the two approaches is optimal for ensuring National Health Service patients are given opportunities to discuss research participation. METHOD: This sequential mixed methods study comprised three phases: (1) an Appreciative Inquiry across UK Trusts, (2) online surveys and (3) focus groups with National Health Service staff and patients at a representative mental health Trust. RESULTS: The study was conducted between June and October 2019. Out of seven National Health Service Mental Health Trusts contacted (three 'opt-out' and four 'opt-in'), only four took part in phase 1 of the study and three of them were 'opt-out' Trusts. Benefits of an 'opt-out' approach included greater inclusivity of patients and the removal of research gatekeepers, while the involvement of research-active clinicians and established patient-clinician relationships were cited as important to 'opt-in' success. Phases 2 and 3 were conducted at a different Trust (Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust) which was using an 'opt-in' approach. Of 333 staff and member survey responders, 267 (80.2%) favoured moving to an 'opt-out' approach (phase 2). Nineteen staff and 16 patients and carers participated in focus groups (phase 3). Concern was raised by staff regarding the lack of time for clinical research, with clinical work taking precedence over research; patients were concerned about a lack of research activity; all considered research to be beneficial and were supportive of a move to 'opt-out'. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that 'opt-out' is more beneficial than 'opt-in', with the potential to vastly increase patient access to research opportunities and to enable greater equality of information provision for currently marginalised groups. This should ensure that healthcare research is more representative of the entire population, including those with a mental health diagnosis.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide in adults. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are available; however, because of inadequate resources, antidepressants are used more frequently than psychological interventions. Prescription of these agents should be informed by the best available evidence. Therefore, we aimed to update and expand our previous work to compare and rank antidepressants for the acute treatment of adults with unipolar major depressive disorder. METHODS: We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS database, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, PsycINFO, the websites of regulatory agencies, and international registers for published and unpublished, double-blind, randomised controlled trials from their inception to Jan 8, 2016. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 21 antidepressants used for the acute treatment of adults (≥18 years old and of both sexes) with major depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. We excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials that were incomplete or included 20% or more of participants with bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, or treatment-resistant depression; or patients with a serious concomitant medical illness. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy. In network meta-analysis, we used group-level data. We assessed the studies' risk of bias in accordance to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (response rate) and acceptability (treatment discontinuations due to any cause). We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012002291. FINDINGS: We identified 28 552 citations and of these included 522 trials comprising 116 477 participants. In terms of efficacy, all antidepressants were more effective than placebo, with ORs ranging between 2·13 (95% credible interval [CrI] 1·89-2·41) for amitriptyline and 1·37 (1·16-1·63) for reboxetine. For acceptability, only agomelatine (OR 0·84, 95% CrI 0·72-0·97) and fluoxetine (0·88, 0·80-0·96) were associated with fewer dropouts than placebo, whereas clomipramine was worse than placebo (1·30, 1·01-1·68). When all trials were considered, differences in ORs between antidepressants ranged from 1·15 to 1·55 for efficacy and from 0·64 to 0·83 for acceptability, with wide CrIs on most of the comparative analyses. In head-to-head studies, agomelatine, amitriptyline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine were more effective than other antidepressants (range of ORs 1·19-1·96), whereas fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, and trazodone were the least efficacious drugs (0·51-0·84). For acceptability, agomelatine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were more tolerable than other antidepressants (range of ORs 0·43-0·77), whereas amitriptyline, clomipramine, duloxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, trazodone, and venlafaxine had the highest dropout rates (1·30-2·32). 46 (9%) of 522 trials were rated as high risk of bias, 380 (73%) trials as moderate, and 96 (18%) as low; and the certainty of evidence was moderate to very low. INTERPRETATION: All antidepressants were more efficacious than placebo in adults with major depressive disorder. Smaller differences between active drugs were found when placebo-controlled trials were included in the analysis, whereas there was more variability in efficacy and acceptability in head-to-head trials. These results should serve evidence-based practice and inform patients, physicians, guideline developers, and policy makers on the relative merits of the different antidepressants. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

Treatment-resistant and multi-therapy-resistant criteria for bipolar depression: consensus definition.

BACKGROUND: Most people with bipolar disorder spend a significant percentage of their lifetime experiencing either subsyndromal depressive symptoms or major depressive episodes, which contribute greatly to the high levels of disability and mortality associated with the disorder. Despite the importance of bipolar depression, there are only a small number of recognised treatment options available. Consecutive treatment failures can quickly exhaust these options leading to treatment-resistant bipolar depression (TRBD). Remarkably few studies have evaluated TRBD and those available lack a comprehensive definition of multi-therapy-resistant bipolar depression (MTRBD).AimsTo reach consensus regarding threshold definitions criteria for TRBD and MTRBD. METHOD: Based on the evidence of standard treatments available in the latest bipolar disorder treatment guidelines, TRBD and MTRBD criteria were agreed by a representative panel of bipolar disorder experts using a modified Delphi method. RESULTS: TRBD criteria in bipolar depression was defined as failure to reach sustained symptomatic remission for 8 consecutive weeks after two different treatment trials, at adequate therapeutic doses, with at least two recommended monotherapy treatments or at least one monotherapy treatment and another combination treatment. MTRBD included the same initial definition as TRBD, with the addition of failure of at least one trial with an antidepressant, a psychological treatment and a course of electroconvulsive therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed TRBD and MTRBD criteria may provide an important signpost to help clinicians, researchers and stakeholders in judging how and when to consider new non-standard treatments. However, some challenging diagnostic and therapeutic issues were identified in the consensus process that need further evaluation and research.Declaration of interestIn the past 3 years, M.B. has received grant/research support from the NIH, Cooperative Research Centre, Simons Autism Foundation, Cancer Council of Victoria, Stanley Medical Research Foundation, MBF, NHMRC, Beyond Blue, Rotary Health, Geelong Medical Research Foundation, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Glaxo SmithKline, Meat and Livestock Board, Organon, Novartis, Mayne Pharma, Servier, Woolworths, Avant and the Harry Windsor Foundation, has been a speaker for Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Glaxo SmithKline, Janssen Cilag, Lundbeck, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi Synthelabo, Servier, Solvay and Wyeth and served as a consultant to Allergan, Astra Zeneca, Bioadvantex, Bionomics, Collaborative Medicinal Development, Eli Lilly, Grunbiotics, Glaxo SmithKline, Janssen Cilag, LivaNova, Lundbeck, Merck, Mylan, Otsuka, Pfizer and Servier. A.C. has received fees for lecturing from pharmaceutical companies namely Lundbeck and Sunovion. A.J.C. has in the past 3 years received honoraria for speaking from Astra Zeneca and Lundbeck, honoraria for consulting from Allergan, Janssen, Lundbeck and LivaNova and research grant support from Lundbeck. G.M.G. holds shares in P1Vital and has served as consultant, advisor or CME speaker for Allergan, Angelini, Compass pathways, MSD, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Takeda, Medscape, Minervra, P1Vital, Pfizer, Servier, Shire and Sun Pharma. J.G. has received research funding from National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, Stanley Medical Research Institute and Wellcome. H.G. received grants/research support, consulting fees or honoraria from Gedeon Richter, Genericon, Janssen Cilag, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Pfizer and Servier. R.H.M.-W. has received support for research, expenses to attend conferences and fees for lecturing and consultancy work (including attending advisory boards) from various pharmaceutical companies including Astra Zeneca, Cyberonics, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Liva Nova, Lundbeck, MyTomorrows, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, SPIMACO and Sunovion. R.M. has received research support from Big White Wall, Electromedical Products, Johnson and Johnson, Magstim and P1Vital. S.N. received honoraria from Lundbeck, Jensen and Otsuka. J.C.S. has received funds for research from Alkermes, Pfizer, Allergan, J&J, BMS and been a speaker or consultant for Astellas, Abbott, Sunovion, Sanofi. S.W has, within the past 3 years, attended advisory boards for Sunovion and LivaNova and has undertaken paid lectures for Lundbeck. D.J.S. has received honoraria from Lundbeck. T.S. has reported grants from Pathway Genomics, Stanley Medical Research Institute and Palo Alto Health Sciences; consulting fees from Sunovion Pharamaceuticals Inc.; honoraria from Medscape Education, Global Medical Education and CMEology; and royalties from Jones and Bartlett, UpToDate and Hogrefe Publishing. S.P. has served as a consultant or speaker for Janssen, and Sunovion. P.T. has received consultancy fees as an advisory board member from the following companies: Galen Limited, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd, myTomorrows and LivaNova. E.V. received grants/ research support, consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, AB-Biotics, Allergan, Angelini, Dainippon Sumitomo, Ferrer, Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, Otsuka and Sunovion. L.N.Y. has received grants/research support, consulting fees or honoraria from Allergan, Alkermes, Dainippon Sumitomo, Janssen, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Sanofi, Servier, Sunovion, Teva and Valeant. A.H.Y. has undertaken paid lectures and advisory boards for all major pharmaceutical companies with drugs used in affective and related disorders and LivaNova. He has also previously received funding for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck and Wyeth. P.R.A.S. has received research funding support from Corcept Therapeutics Inc. Corcept Therapeutics Inc fully funded attendance at their internal conference in California USA and all related expenses. He has received grant funding from the Medical Research Council UK for a collaborative study with Janssen Research and Development LLC. Janssen Research and Development LLC are providing non-financial contributions to support this study. P.R.A.S. has received a presentation fee from Indivior and an advisory board fee from LivaNova.

Plasma glutathione suggests oxidative stress is equally present in early- and late-onset bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVES: We previously demonstrated oxidative stress in bipolar patients and a relationship between the age of illness onset and total glutathione, a principal antioxidant. In this study, we sought to replicate these findings in a new cohort of patients. METHODS: We recruited bipolar patients from Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK, of similar age and grouped them according to age of onset of illness. The early-onset group comprised patients with onset at <23 years, and the late group comprised patients with onset at >30 years. A third group, comprising age-matched healthy volunteers, was also included. Reduced and oxidized glutathione, cysteine, and cystine were determined in plasma, using high-performance liquid chromatography. Mitochondrial DNA copy number, measured in whole blood, was also compared between patients and healthy controls. RESULTS: Significant increases in oxidative stress were observed in the patient groups, compared with the control group; however, no differences in glutathione-related oxidative stress measures were detected between the early- and late-onset bipolar patient groups. No differences were observed in the amount of mitochondrial DNA, and there was no correlation with mood state. CONCLUSION: Using a more accurate method to quantify oxidative stress than in our previous study, we show that oxidative stress is a consistent feature of bipolar disorder. Although we did not reproduce our finding correlating age of onset of illness to oxidative stress, we have shown, once again, that oxidative stress is a consistent feature of bipolar disorder.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder in adults: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines about post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) recommend broad categories of drugs, but uncertainty remains about what pharmacological treatment to select among all available compounds. METHODS: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials register, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, National PTSD Center Pilots database, PubMed, trial registries, and databases of pharmaceutical companies were searched until February 2016 for double-blind randomised trials comparing any pharmacological intervention or placebo as oral therapy in adults with PTSD. Initially, we performed standard pairwise meta-analyses using a random effects model. We then carried out a network meta-analysis. The main outcome measures were mean change on a standardised scale and all-cause dropout rate. Acute treatment was defined as 8-week follow up. RESULTS: Desipramine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, phenelzine, risperidone, sertraline, and venlafaxine were more effective than placebo; phenelzine was better than many other active treatments and was the only drug, which was significantly better than placebo in terms of dropouts (odds ratio 7.50, 95% CI 1.72-32.80). Mirtazapine yielded a relatively high rank for efficacy, but the respective value for acceptability was not among the best treatments. Divalproex had overall the worst ranking. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and acceptability hierarchies generated by our study were robust against many sources of bias. The differences between drugs and placebo were small, with the only exception of phenelzine. Considering the small amount of available data, these results are probably not robust enough to suggest phenelzine as a drug of choice. However, findings from this review reinforce the idea that phenelzine should be prioritised in future trials in PTSD.