Non-suicidal self-injury among individuals with an eating disorder: A systematic review and prevalence meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to quantify the prevalence of non-suicidal self-injury across eating disorders (EDs) and within diagnostic categories through systematic review and proportional, or so-called prevalence, meta-analysis. METHOD: Included studies had to contain individuals with a verified diagnosis of an ED. The last literature search was conducted on September 11, 2023, for studies published on or before September 2023 without a restriction on earliest publication year. Results were synthesized and analyzed using the "metaprop" package in R and presented using forest plots. Bias was assessed by a Peters' regression test and funnel plot. RESULTS: 79 studies published between 1985 and 2023 were included encompassing 32,334 individuals with an ED. Importantly, 42 studies were not included in any other meta-analyses on self-injury in EDs to date. Overall prevalence of non-suicidal self-injury was 34.59% (95%CI = 30.49-38.81). Prevalence in anorexia nervosa restrictive type, binge/purge type, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder and other specified feeding/eating disorder were 23.19% (95%CI = 16.96-30.03%), 41.98% (95%CI = 32.35-51.91%), 36.97% (95%CI = 30.69-43.46%), 21.21% (95%CI = 14.93-28.12%) and 37.65% (95%CI = 28.59-47.09%), respectively. Prevalence estimations could not be estimated for other ED categories due to lack of a sufficient number of studies. DISCUSSION: Non-suicidal self-injury is prevalent across both binge/purge and restrictive EDs. Considering the transdiagnostic nature of self-injurious behaviors in ED, the results highlight the importance of assessment and monitoring of self-injury in people with ED, irrespective of specific diagnoses. The method of determining self-injury varied across studies and may limit this study. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: This study highlights the prevalence of self-injury across eating disorders irrespective of diagnosis and within specific EDs. While diagnoses known to exhibit self-injurious behaviors (e.g., bulimia nervosa, anorexia nervosa binge/purge subtype) demonstrated the highest prevalence of self-injury, all diagnoses were found to have a prevalence greater than 20%. These findings suggest the importance of assessing and monitoring all individuals with an eating disorder for the presence of self-injury.

OBJETIVO: Este estudio tuvo como objetivo cuantificar la prevalencia de la autolesión no suicida en los trastornos de la conducta alimentaria (TCA) y dentro de las categorías diagnósticas mediante una revisión sistemática y un metaanálisis proporcional, también llamado metaanálisis de prevalencia. MÉTODO: Los estudios incluidos debían contener individuos con un diagnóstico verificado de un TCA. La última búsqueda bibliográfica se realizó el 11 de septiembre de 2023, para estudios publicados en o antes de septiembre de 2023 sin restricción en el año de publicación más temprano. Los resultados fueron sintetizados y analizados utilizando el paquete "metaprop" en R y presentados mediante gráficos de bosque. El sesgo se evaluó mediante una prueba de regresión de Peters y un gráfico de embudo. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 79 estudios publicados entre 1985 y 2023 que abarcaron a 32,334 individuos que padecían un TCA. Es importante destacar que 42 estudios no se incluyeron en ningún otro metaanálisis sobre autolesión en TCA hasta la fecha. La prevalencia general de la autolesión no suicida fue del 34.59% (IC del 95% = 30.49-38.81). La prevalencia en la anorexia nerviosa subtipo restrictivo, subtipo atracones/purga, bulimia nerviosa, trastorno de atracones y otros trastornos especificados de la conducta alimentaria y de la alimentación fue del 23.19% (IC del 95% = 16.96-30.03%), 41.98% (IC del 95% = 32.35-51.91%), 36.97% (IC del 95% = 30.69-43.46%), 21.21% (IC del 95% = 14.93-28.12%) y 37.65% (IC del 95% = 28.59-47.09%), respectivamente. No se pudieron estimar las estimaciones de prevalencia para otras categorías de TCA debido a la falta de un número suficiente de estudios. DISCUSIÓN: La autolesión no suicida es prevalente tanto en los TCA subtipo de atracón/purgación como en los restrictivos. Dada la naturaleza transdiagnóstica de los comportamientos autolesivos en los TCA, los resultados resaltan la importancia de la evaluación y el monitoreo de la autolesión en personas que padecen TCA, independientemente de los diagnósticos específicos. El método para determinar la autolesión varió entre los estudios y puede limitar este estudio.

IN Esketamine and IV Ketamine: Results of a multi-site observational study assessing the effectiveness and tolerability of two novel therapies for treatment-resistant depression.

Intravenous (IV) ketamine and intranasal (IN) esketamine are novel therapies to manage treatment resistant depression within major depressive disorder (MDD-TRD). This is a multi-site observational study aiming to assess the real-world effectiveness and tolerability of these novel therapies in the management of MDD-TRD. 53 patients were referred to receive IV ketamine (n = 26, 69.23 % female, 52.81 ± 14.33 years old) or IN esketamine (n = 27, 51.85 % female, 43.93 ± 13.57 years old). Treatment effectiveness was assessed using the Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) for depression severity and item 10 of the MADRS for suicidal ideation (SI). Tolerability was assessed by systematically tracking side effects and depersonalization using the 6-item Clinician administered dissociative symptom scale (CADSS-6). The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, risk ratio and effect size. Both IV ketamine and IN esketamine significantly reduced depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation by treatment endpoint. Patients receiving IN esketamine, and patients receiving IV ketamine had a similar risk of developing side effects. All side effects reported were mild and transient. These results suggested that both IV ketamine and IN esketamine are effective in the management of depressive symptoms and were well tolerated. Therefore, the results of this study could serve to inform clinical practice.

Long-Term Treatment of Bipolar Disorder with Valproate: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analyses.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE: After participating in this activity, learners should be better able to:• Evaluate the evidence regarding the effectiveness of long-term treatment of bipolar disorder with valproate. BACKGROUND: Prophylactic treatment is critical for bipolar disorder (BD) patients. Valproate is commonly used for this purpose but lacks regulatory approval and carries appreciable risks. METHODS: Systematic literature searching through June 2020 sought prospective trials lasting ≥12 months with adults diagnosed with BD to support comparisons of risk of new illness episodes with valproate versus placebo or other agents. RESULTS: Included were 13 reports involving 9240 subjects treated for an average of 29.1 months (range, 12-124) in 21 trials: 9 were blinded, randomized trials (RCTs) of valproate versus placebo (n = 3), lithium (5), or olanzapine (1); 2 were unblinded RCTs versus lithium (1) or quetiapine (1); and 10 were open-label trials versus lithium (5), quetiapine (2), carbamazepine (1), lamotrigine (1), or olanzapine (1). Random-effects meta-analysis found valproate superior to placebo in 3 trials (odds ratio [OR] = 0.42 [95% confidence level (CI), 0.30-0.60]; p < .0001). In 11 trials, protective effects with valproate and lithium were similar (OR = 1.20 [CI, 0.81-1.79]; p = .36), as well in 5 comparisons versus antipsychotics quetiapine and olanzapine (OR = 0.96 [CI, 0.66-1.40]; p = .84), and 2 versus other mood-stabilizing anticonvulsants (carbamazepine and lamotrigine) (OR = 1.30 [CI, 0.75-2.26]; p = .34). Valproate was nonsignificantly more effective versus new mania than depression (χ2 = 3.03; p = .08). CONCLUSIONS: Valproate was more effective than placebo in preventing new BD episodes of mania or depression, and not significantly different from lithium, second-generation antipsychotics, or other anticonvulsants. Overall benefits were nonsignificantly greater versus mania than bipolar depression.