Perspectives on the impact of vortioxetine on the treatment armamentarium of major depressive disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a mental health issue that significantly affects patients' quality of life and functioning. Despite available treatments, many patients continue to suffer due to incomplete symptom resolution and side effects. AREAS COVERED: This manuscript examines Vortioxetine's role in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) treatment, highlighting its potential to reshape therapeutic strategies due to its unique Multimodal action and proven broad-spectrum efficacy in multiple depressive domains. A detailed examination of Vortioxetine's pharmacological aspects, including indications, dosage, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics, is provided, emphasizing its safety and effectiveness. The discussion extends to Vortioxetine's role in acute-phase treatment and maintenance of MDD and its profound impact on specialized depression domains. EXPERT OPINION: Vortioxetine is distinguished for its novel multimodal serotonin modulation mechanism, showcasing significant promise as an innovative treatment for MDD. Its efficacy, which is dose-dependent, along with a commendable tolerability profile, positions it as a potential leading option for initial treatment strategies. The discourse on dosage titration, particularly the strategy of initiating treatment at lower doses followed by gradual escalation, underscores the approach toward minimizing initial adverse effects while optimizing therapeutic outcomes, aligning with the principles of personalized medicine in psychiatric care.

Is intravenous valproate more efficacious than oral valproate for inpatients with bipolar I disorder with a manic or depressive episode and concomitant symptoms of opposite polarity?

INTRO: Valproic acid (VPA) is a commonly prescribed mood stabilizer, available in both oral (OS) and intravenous (IV) formulations. However, few studies have compared their safety and efficacy. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of and IV-VPA in patients with Bipolar Disorder. METHODS: Fifty patients with Bipolar Disorder experiencing a manic or depressive episode, with concomitant symptoms of opposite polarity, admitted to our inpatient unit and treated with IV-VPA were included in a retrospective, single-centre, non-randomized, open-label, parallel-group comparative study. Fifty patients experiencing a manic or depressive episode, with concomitant symptoms of opposite polarity, treated with oral-VPA and selected among those who were admitted to the inpatient unit prior to the introduction of IV-VPA in our clinical practice, were included as the control group (matched based on age, gender and clinical scales score at baseline). The Clinical Global Impression (CGI), Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) scores were recorded at baseline, after 3 days of treatment and discharge from the inpatient unit. Patients were asked to respond on the basis of the symptoms present on the day the scale was administered. Response rate and the presence of adverse effects were also recorded. RESULTS: Both patients treated with oral and IV-VPA demonstrated significant improvements in all psychometric scales (p < 0.001). However, the IV group exhibited superior efficacy, with significantly lower scores on the CGI, YMRS, MADRS and HAM-A scales on Day 3 and at discharge from the inpatient unit. The IV-VPA treatment showed higher response rates on all psychometric scales, and no adverse effects were reported in either group. CONCLUSION: This retrospective study supports the use of IV-VPA as a more efficacious treatment option for patients with Bipolar Disorder, particularly in acute settings where rapid symptom improvement is crucial. Both oral and IV-VPA were found to be safe and well-tolerated.

Drug-drug interactions between COVID-19 therapeutics and psychotropic medications.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has led to as well as exacerbated mental health disorders, leading to increased use of psychotropic medications. Co-administration of COVID-19 and psychotropic medications may result in drug-drug interactions (DDIs), that may compromise both the safety and efficacy of both medications. AREAS COVERED: This review provides an update of the current evidence on DDIs between COVID-19 and psychotropic medications. The interactions are categorized into pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and other relevant types. A thorough literature search was conducted using electronic databases to identify relevant studies, and extract data to highlight potential DDIs, clinical implications, and management strategies. EXPERT OPINION: Understanding and managing potential DDIs between COVID-19 and psychotropic medications is paramount to ensuring safe and effective treatment of patients with COVID-19 and mental illness. Awareness of the diverse spectrum of DDIs, vigilant monitoring, and judicious dose modifications, while choosing pharmacotherapeutic options with low risk of interaction whenever possible, are necessary. Ongoing and future investigations should continue to review the dynamic landscape of COVID-19 therapeutic modalities and their interactions with psychotropic medications.

Effectiveness of light therapy as adjunctive treatment in bipolar depression: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: About 1 and 4 % of people suffering from depression is affected by bipolar disorder. Few patients respond to the first-line antidepressants, and a 4-week latency pharmacological treatment period has been observed. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of bright light therapy (BLT) in accelerating and increasing therapeutic response in patients with bipolar depression. METHODS: A pilot study was conducted. Patients with bipolar depression, already treated with antidepressants, were included. The treatment group was composed of patients treated with antidepressants combined with BLT (30 min/4 days a week at 10,000 lx for eight weeks). The control group included patients treated with antidepressants with exposure to red light (30 min/4 days a week at a red light for eight weeks). MADRS, HAMD-17, CGI-S, FSS, and QoLS were collected at the baseline and after 4 and 8 weeks of treatments. RESULTS: Forty-one patients (18 males and 23 females; mean age 49.1 ± 15 years) were included in the study. After four weeks, MADRS and HAMD-17 scores in treatment groups were significantly lower than those reported in the control group (p < 0.001). After eight weeks, all scales except FSS reported significantly lower values in patients treated with BLT (p < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS: Small sample size and significant heterogeneity in the antidepressant treatments. CONCLUSION: BLT has shown reliable effectiveness and safety in treating patients with bipolar depression and should be considered a clinically relevant approach in accelerating patients' therapeutic response and reducing the impact of long-lasting therapy.