Adjunctive Nonconvulsive Electrotherapy for Patients with Depression: a Systematic Review.

The efficacy and safety of adjunctive nonconvulsive electrotherapy (NET) for patients with depression are undetermined. This systematic review was conducted to examine the efficacy and safety of adjunctive NET for patients with depression. Chinese (WanFang and Chinese Journal Net) and English (PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library) databases were systematically searched from their inception until Jan 27, 2021 by three independent investigators. One randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 3 treatment arms (n = 108) and two observational studies (single-group, before-after design, n = 31) were included. In the RCT, the antidepressant efficacy of NET on depression was similar to that of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) (P > 0.05) but with significantly fewer neurocognitive impairments as measured by the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) (P < 0.05). In two observational studies, the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) scores decreased significantly from baseline to post-NET (all Ps < 0.05), without adverse neurocognitive effects. In the RCT, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were not separately reported among the 3 treatment arms but a similar rate of discontinuation was reported. The currently available limited evidence from 3 studies suggests that NET as an adjunctive treatment may be a safe, well-tolerated, effective therapy for depression without serious neurocognitive impairments.

Adjunctive Reboxetine for Schizophrenia: Meta-analysis of Randomized Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Results of previous studies on the safety and efficacy of adjunctive reboxetine for schizophrenia have been inconsistent. AIM: The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and tolerability of reboxetine as an adjunct medication to antipsychotic treatment in a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Two independent investigators extracted data for a random effects meta-analysis and assessed the quality of studies using risk of bias and the Jadad scale. Weighted and standardized mean differences (WMDs/SMDs) and risk ratio (RR)±95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Nine RCTs (n=630) with double-blind design were identified. Reboxetine outperformed placebo in improving negative (9 RCTs, n=602, SMD: -0.47 [95% CI: -0.87, -0.07], p=0.02; I2=82%), but not the overall, positive, and general psychopathology scores. The significant therapeutic effect on negative symptoms disappeared in the sensitivity analysis after removing an outlying study and in 50% (6/12) of the subgroup analyses. Reboxetine outperformed placebo in reducing weight (3 RCTs, n=186, WMD: -3.83 kg, p=0.04; I2=92%) and body mass index (WMD: -2.23 kg/m2, p=0.04; I2=95%). Reboxetine caused dry mouth but was associated with less weight gain overall and weight gain of ≥7% of the initial weight. All-cause discontinuation and other adverse events were similar between reboxetine and placebo. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive reboxetine could be useful for attenuating antipsychotic-induced weight gain, but it was not effective in treating psychopathology including negative symptoms in schizophrenia.

Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation for schizophrenia: a systematic review.

Background: The efficacy and safety of deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) as an intervention for schizophrenia remain unclear. This systematic review examined the efficacy and safety of dTMS for schizophrenia. Methods: A systematic search of Chinese (WanFang and Chinese Journal Net) and English databases (PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library) were conducted. Results: Three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comprising 80 patients were included in the analyses. Active dTMS was comparable to the sham treatment in improving total psychopathology, positive symptoms, negative symptoms, and auditory hallucinations measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS), the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), and the Auditory Hallucinations Rating Scale (AHRS), respectively. Only one RCT reported the effects on neurocognitive function measured by the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB), suggesting that dTMS may only improve one Stockings of Cambridge measure (i.e., subsequent times for five move problems). All three studies reported overall discontinuation rates, which ranged from 16.7% to 44.4%. Adverse events were reported in only one RCT, the most common being tingling/twitching (30.0%, 3/10), head/facial discomfort (30.0%, 3/10), and back pain (20.0%, 2/10). Conclusion: This systematic review suggests that dTMS does not reduce psychotic symptoms in schizophrenia, but it shows potential for improving executive functions. Future RCTs with larger sample sizes focusing on the effects of dTMS on psychotic symptoms and neurocognitive function in schizophrenia are warranted to further explore these findings.

Low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for children and adolescents with first-episode and drug-naïve major depressive disorder: A systematic review.

Objective: This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to explore the therapeutic effects and safety of active low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (LF-rTMS) versus sham LF-rTMS in children and adolescent patients with first-episode and drug-naïve (FEDN) major depressive disorder (MDD). Methods: A systematic literature search was performed, and data were extracted by two independent researchers. The coprimary outcomes were study-defined response and remission. Results: A systematic search of the literature yielded 442 references, of which 3 RCTs (130 children and adolescents with FEDN MDD, 50.8% male, and mean age range from 14.5 to 17.5 years) met the inclusion criteria. Among the two RCTs (66.7%, 2/3) examining the effects of LF-rTMS on study-defined response and remission and cognitive function, active LF-rTMS was more efficacious than sham LF-rTMS in terms of study-defined response rate and cognitive function (all p < 0.05) but not regarding study-defined remission rate (all p > 0.05). No significant group differences were found with regard to adverse reactions. None of the included RCTs reported the dropout rate. Conclusion: These findings preliminarily found that LF-rTMS could benefit children and adolescents with FEDN MDD in a relatively safe manner, although further studies are warranted.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Magnetic Seizure Therapy and Electroconvulsive Therapy for Depression: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: As a new physical therapeutic technique, magnetic seizure therapy (MST) has established efficacy in the treatment of depression with few cognitive side effects, and thus appears to be a potential alternative to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of MST versus ECT for depression are inconsistent. This systematic review of RCTs was designed with the aim of assessing the safety and efficacy of MST versus ECT for patients with depression. METHODS: The WanFang, Chinese Journal Net (CNKI), EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO databases were systematically searched by three independent investigators, from their inceptions to July 24, 2021. RESULTS: In total, four RCTs (n = 86) were included and analyzed. Meta-analyses of study-defined response (risk ratio (RR) = 1.36; 95% CI = 0.78 to 2.36; p = 0.28; I2 = 0%), study-defined remission (RR = 1.17; 95% CI = 0.61 to 2.23; p = 0.64; I2 = 0%), and the improvement in depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.21; 95% CI = -0.29 to 0.71; p = 0.42; I2 = 0%) did not present significant differences between MST and ECT. Three RCTs evaluated the cognitive effects of MST compared with ECT using different cognitive measuring tools, but with mixed findings. Only two RCTs reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs), but these lacked specific data. Only one RCT reported discontinuation due to any reason. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study suggests that MST appears to have a similar antidepressant effect as ECT for depression, but mixed findings on adverse cognitive effects were reported.

Bilateral theta burst stimulation for patients with acute unipolar or bipolar depressive episodes: A systematic review of randomized controlled studies.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the overall efficacy and safety of bilateral theta-burst stimulation (TBS) as an intervention for patients with mood disorders. METHODS: A systematic search (up to December 7, 2022) of RCTs was conducted to address the study aims. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed by including study-defined responses and remission as primary outcomes. RESULTS: Analyses included six RCTs comprising 285 participants with major depressive disorder (MDD) (n = 233) or a depressive episode in the course of bipolar disorder (BD) (n = 52) who had undergone active bilateral TBS (n = 142) versus sham stimulation (n = 143). Active bilateral TBS outperformed sham stimulation with respect to study-defined improvements (55.1 % versus 20.3 %, 4 RCTs, n = 152, 95%CI: 1.63 to 4.39, P < 0.0001; I2 = 0 %) and remission rates (37.2 % versus 14.3 %, 2 RCTs, n = 85, 95%CI: 1.13 to 5.95, P = 0.02; I2 = 0 %) in MDD patients but not those with bipolar or unipolar mixed depression. Superiority of active bilateral TBS over sham stimulation was confirmed for improvements in depressive symptoms at post-bilateral TBS assessments and 8-week follow-ups in patients with either MDD or mixed depression (all P < 0.05). Discontinuation rates due to any reason and adverse events (i.e., headache, dizziness) were similar between TBS and sham stimulation groups with MDD or mixed depression (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Bilateral TBS targeting the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) appears to be a well-tolerated form of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) that has substantial antidepressant effects, particularly in patients with MDD. Effects of bilateral TBS on bipolar and unipolar mixed depression should be further investigated.

Adjunctive repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for adolescents with first-episode major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis.

Objective: This meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was conducted to explore the therapeutic effects, tolerability and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as an adjunct treatment in adolescents with first-episode major depressive disorder (FE-MDD). Methods: RCTs examining the efficacy, tolerability and safety of adjunctive rTMS for adolescents with FE-MDD were included. Data were extracted by three independent authors and synthesized using RevMan 5.3 software with a random effects model. Results: A total of six RCTs involving 562 adolescents with FE-MDD were included. Adjunctive rTMS was superior in improving depressive symptoms over the control group [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.16, -0.84; I2 = 89%, p < 0.00001] in adolescents with FE-MDD. A sensitivity analysis and two subgroup analyses also confirmed the significant findings. Adolescents with FE-MDD treated with rTMS had significantly greater response [risk ratio (RR) = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.76; I2 = 56%, p = 0.03] and remission (RR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.77; I2 = 0%, p = 0.03) over the control group. All-cause discontinuations were similar between the two groups (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.32, 1.93; I2 = 0%, p = 0.60). No significant differences were found regarding adverse events, including headache, loss of appetite, dizziness and nausea (p = 0.14-0.82). Four out of six RCTs (66.7%), showed that adjunctive rTMS was more efficacious over the control group in improving neurocognitive function (all p < 0.05). Conclusion: Adjunctive rTMS appears to be a beneficial strategy in improving depressive symptoms and neurocognitive function in adolescents with FE-MDD. Higher quality RCTs with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are warranted in the future.

Transcranial alternating current stimulation for schizophrenia: a systematic review of randomized controlled studies.

Background: In randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the application of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) in schizophrenia, inconsistent results have been reported. The purpose of this exploratory systematic review of RCTs was to evaluate tACS as an adjunct treatment for patients with schizophrenia based on its therapeutic effects, tolerability, and safety. Methods: Our analysis included RCTs that evaluated adjunctive tACS' effectiveness, tolerability, and safety in schizophrenia patients. Three independent authors extracted data and synthesized it using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Three RCTs involving 76 patients with schizophrenia were encompassed in the analysis, with 40 participants receiving active tACS and 36 receiving sham tACS. Our study revealed a significant superiority of active tACS over sham tACS in improving total psychopathology (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.12, -0.10; I2 = 16%, p = 0.02) and negative psychopathology (SMD = -0.65, 95% CI: -1.11, -0.18; I2 = 0%, p = 0.007) in schizophrenia. The two groups, however, showed no significant differences in positive psychopathology, general psychopathology, or auditory hallucinations (all p > 0.05). Two RCTs examined the neurocognitive effects of tACS, yielding varied findings. Both groups demonstrated similar rates of discontinuation due to any reason and adverse events (all p > 0.05). Conclusion: Adjunctive tACS is promising as a viable approach for mitigating total and negative psychopathology in individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia. However, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of tACS's therapeutic effects in schizophrenia, it is imperative to conduct extensive, meticulously planned, and well-documented RCTs.

Effects of ketamine in electroconvulsive therapy for major depressive disorder: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The use of ketamine in electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has been examined in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD); however, there has been no systematic review and meta-analysis of related randomised controlled trials (RCTs). AIM: To examine the efficacy and safety of ketamine augmentation of ECT in MDD treatment. METHODS: Two reviewers searched Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang) and English (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and Cochrane Library) databases from their inception to 23 July 2019. The included studies' bias risk was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was improved depressive symptoms at day 1 after a single ECT treatment session. Data were pooled to calculate the standardised mean difference and risk ratio with their 95% CIs using RevMan V.5.3. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the whole quality of evidence. RESULTS: Four RCTs (n = 239) compared ketamine alone or ketamine plus propofol (n = 149) versus propofol alone (n = 90) in patients with MDD who underwent a single ECT session. Three RCTs were considered as unclear risk with respect to random sequence generation using the Cochrane risk of bias. Compared with propofol alone, ketamine alone and the combination of ketamine and propofol had greater efficacy in the treatment of depressive symptoms at days 1, 3 and 7 after a single ECT session. Moreover, compared with propofol alone, ketamine alone and the combination of ketamine and propofol were significantly associated with increased seizure duration and seizure energy index. Compared with propofol, ketamine alone was significantly associated with increased opening-eye time. Based on the GRADE approach, the evidence level of primary and secondary outcomes ranged from very low (26.7%, 4/15) to 'low' (73.3%, 11/15). CONCLUSION: Compared with propofol, there were very low or low evidence levels showing that ketamine alone and the combination of ketamine and propofol appeared to rapidly improve depressive symptoms of patients with MDD undergoing a single ECT session. There is a need for high-quality RCTs.

Adjunctive aripiprazole for antipsychotic-related hyperprolactinaemia in patients with first-episode schizophrenia: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hyperprolactinaemia is a common antipsychotic (AP)-induced adverse effect, particularly in female patients. AIMS: This meta-analysis examined the efficacy and safety of adjunctive aripiprazole in preventing AP-related hyperprolactinaemia in patients with first-episode schizophrenia. METHODS: PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, WanFang and China Journal Net databases were searched to identify eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Primary outcomes were the reductions of serum prolactin level and prolactin-related symptoms. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers and analysed using RevMan (V.5.3). Weighted/standardised mean differences (WMDs/SMDs)±95% CIs were reported. RESULTS: In the five RCTs (n=400), the adjunctive aripiprazole (n=197) and the control groups (n=203) with a mean of 11.2 weeks of treatment duration were compared. The aripiprazole group had a significantly lower endpoint serum prolactin level in all patients (five RCTs, n=385; WMD: -50.43 ng/mL (95% CI: -75.05 to -25.81), p<0.00001; I2=99%), female patients (two RCTs, n=186; WMD: -22.58 ng/mL (95% CI: -25.67 to -19.49), p<0.00001; I2=0%) and male patients (two RCTs, n=127; WMD: -68.80 ng/mL (95% CI: -100.11 to -37.49), p<0.0001). In the sensitivity analysis for the endpoint serum prolactin level in all patients, the findings remained significant (p<0.00001; I2=96%). The aripiprazole group was superior to the control group in improving negative symptoms as assessed by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (three RCTs, n=213; SMD: -0.51 (95% CI: -0.79 to -0.24), p=0.0002; I2=0%). Adverse effects and discontinuation rates were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive aripiprazole appears to be associated with reduced AP-induced hyperprolactinaemia and improved prolactin-related symptoms in first-episode schizophrenia. Further studies with large sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings.

Adjunctive Peony-Glycyrrhiza decoction for antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinaemia: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Hyperprolactinaemia is a common adverse effect of antipsychotics (APs). The results of Peony-Glycyrrhiza decoction (PGD) as a potentially useful adjunctive treatment for hyperprolactinaemia are inconsistent. AIM: This meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examined the efficacy and safety of adjunctive PGD therapy for AP-induced hyperprolactinaemia. METHODS: English (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO) and Chinese (Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data) databases were systematically searched up to 10 June 2018. The inclusion criteria were based on PICOS-Participants: adult patients with schizophrenia; Intervention: PGD plus APs; Comparison: APs plus placebo or AP monotherapy; Outcomes: efficacy and safety; Study design: RCTs. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and risk ratio (RR) along with their 95% CIs were calculated using Review Manager (RevMan) V.5.3 software. RESULTS: Five RCTs (n=450) were included and analysed. Two RCTs (n=140) were double-blind and four RCTs (n=409) reported 'random' assignment with specific description. The PGD group showed a significantly lower serum prolactin level at endpoint than the control group (n=380, WMD: -32.69 ng/mL (95% CI -41.66 to 23.72), p<0.00001, I 2 =97%). Similarly, the superiority of PGD over the control groups was also found in the improvement of hyperprolactinaemia-related symptoms. No difference was found in the improvement of psychiatric symptoms assessed by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (n=403, WMD: -0.62 (95% CI -2.38 to 1.15), p=0.49, I 2 =0%). There were similar rates of all-cause discontinuation (n=330, RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.37), p=0.71, I 2 =0%) and adverse drug reactions between the two groups. According to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, the level of evidence of primary and secondary outcomes ranged from 'very low' (14.3%), 'low' (42.8%), 'moderate' (14.3%), to 'high' (28.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence supports the adjunctive use of PGD to suppress elevated prolactin and improve prolactin-induced symptoms without significant adverse events in adult patients with AP-induced hyperprolactinaemia. High-quality RCTs with longer duration are needed to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 42016037017.