Efficacy and safety of ketamine and esketamine for unipolar and bipolar depression: an overview of systematic reviews with meta-analysis.

Background: Unipolar and bipolar depression present treatment challenges, with patients sometimes showing limited or no response to standard medications. Ketamine and its enantiomer, esketamine, offer promising alternative treatments that can quickly relieve suicidal thoughts. This Overview of Reviews (OoR) analyzed and synthesized systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analysis on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving ketamine in various formulations (intravenous, intramuscular, intranasal, subcutaneous) for patients with unipolar or bipolar depression. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of ketamine and esketamine in treating major depressive episodes across various forms, including unipolar, bipolar, treatment-resistant, and non-resistant depression, in patient populations with and without suicidal ideation, aiming to comprehensively assess their therapeutic potential and safety profile. Methods: Following PRIOR guidelines, this OoR's protocol was registered on Implasy (ID:202150049). Searches in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos focused on English-language meta-analyses of RCTs of ketamine or esketamine, as monotherapy or add-on, evaluating outcomes like suicide risk, depressive symptoms, relapse, response rates, and side effects. We included studies involving both suicidal and non-suicidal patients; all routes and formulations of administration (intravenous, intramuscular, intranasal) were considered, as well as all available comparisons with control interventions. We excluded meta-analysis in which the intervention was used as anesthesia for electroconvulsive therapy or with a randomized ascending dose design. The selection, data extraction, and quality assessment of studies were carried out by pairs of reviewers in a blinded manner. Data on efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability were extracted. Results: Our analysis included 26 SRs and 44 RCTs, with 3,316 subjects. The intervention is effective and well-tolerated, although the quality of the included SRs and original studies is poor, resulting in low certainty of evidence. Limitations: This study is limited by poor-quality SRs and original studies, resulting in low certainty of the evidence. Additionally, insufficient available data prevents differentiation between the effects of ketamine and esketamine in unipolar and bipolar depression. Conclusion: While ketamine and esketamine show promising therapeutic potential, the current evidence suffers from low study quality. Enhanced methodological rigor in future research will allow for a more informed application of these interventions within the treatment guidelines for unipolar and bipolar depression. Systematic review registration: [https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2021-5-0049/], identifier (INPLASY202150049).

Mental Pain Correlates with Mind Wandering, Self-Reflection, and Insight in Individuals with Psychotic Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Understanding the cognitive processes that contribute to mental pain in individuals with psychotic disorders is important for refining therapeutic strategies and improving patient outcomes. This study investigated the potential relationship between mental pain, mind wandering, and self-reflection and insight in individuals diagnosed with psychotic disorders. We included individuals diagnosed with a 'schizophrenia spectrum disorder' according to DSM-5 criteria. Patients in the study were between 18 and 65 years old, clinically stable, and able to provide informed consent. A total of 34 participants, comprising 25 males and 9 females with an average age of 41.5 years (SD 11.5) were evaluated. The Psychache Scale (PAS), the Mind Wandering Deliberate and Spontaneous Scale (MWDS), and the Self-Reflection and Insight Scale (SRIS) were administered. Statistical analyses involved Spearman's rho correlations, controlled for potential confounders with partial correlations, and mediation and moderation analyses to understand the indirect effects of MWDS and SRIS on PAS and their potential interplay. Key findings revealed direct correlations between PAS and MWDS and inverse correlations between PAS and SRIS. The mediation effects on the relationship between the predictors and PAS ranged from 9.22% to 49.8%. The largest statistically significant mediation effect was observed with the SRIS-I subscale, suggesting that the self-reflection and insight component may play a role in the impact of mind wandering on mental pain. No evidence was found to suggest that any of the variables could function as relationship moderators for PAS. The results underscore the likely benefits of interventions aimed at reducing mind wandering and enhancing self-reflection in psychotic patients (e.g., metacognitive therapy, mindfulness). Further research will be essential to elucidate the underlying mechanisms.

Antipsychotic dose reduction compared to dose continuation for people with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic drugs are the mainstay treatment for schizophrenia, yet they are associated with diverse and potentially dose-related side effects which can reduce quality of life. For this reason, the lowest possible doses of antipsychotics are generally recommended, but higher doses are often used in clinical practice. It is still unclear if and how antipsychotic doses could be reduced safely in order to minimise the adverse-effect burden without increasing the risk of relapse. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of reducing antipsychotic dose compared to continuing the current dose for people with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted a systematic search on 10 February 2021 at the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and WHO ICTRP. We also inspected the reference lists of included studies and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any dose reduction against continuation in people with schizophrenia or related disorders who were stabilised on their current antipsychotic treatment.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened relevant records for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies, and assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2. We contacted study authors for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcomes were clinically important change in quality of life,  rehospitalisations and dropouts due to adverse effects; key secondary outcomes were clinically important change in functioning, relapse, dropouts for any reason, and at least one adverse effect. We also examined scales measuring symptoms, quality of life, and functioning as well as a comprehensive list of specific adverse effects. We pooled outcomes at the endpoint preferably closest to one year. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs, of which 22 studies provided data with 2635 participants (average age 38.4 years old). The median study sample size was 60 participants (ranging from 18 to 466 participants) and length was 37 weeks (ranging from 12 weeks to 2 years). There were variations in the dose reduction strategies in terms of speed of reduction (i.e. gradual in about half of the studies (within 2 to 16 weeks) and abrupt in the other half), and in terms of degree of reduction (i.e. median planned reduction of 66% of the dose up to complete withdrawal in three studies). We assessed risk of bias across outcomes predominantly as some concerns or high risk.  No study reported data on the number of participants with a clinically important change in quality of life or functioning, and only eight studies reported continuous data on scales measuring quality of life or functioning. There was no difference between dose reduction and continuation on scales measuring quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.15, 6 RCTs, n = 719, I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) and scales measuring functioning (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.17, 6 RCTs, n = 966, I2 = 0%, high certainty evidence). Dose reduction in comparison to continuation may increase the risk of rehospitalisation based on data from eight studies with estimable effect sizes; however, the 95% CI does not exclude the possibility of no difference (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.81, 8 RCTs, n = 1413, I2 = 59% (moderate heterogeneity), very low certainty evidence). Similarly, dose reduction increased the risk of relapse based on data from 20 studies (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.06, 20 RCTs, n = 2481, I2 = 70% (substantial heterogeneity), low certainty evidence).   More participants in the dose reduction group in comparison to the continuation group left the study early due to adverse effects (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.49, 6 RCTs with estimable effect sizes, n = 1079, I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence) and for any reason (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.81, 12 RCTs, n = 1551, I2 = 48% (moderate heterogeneity), moderate certainty evidence). Lastly, there was no difference between the dose reduction and continuation groups in the number of participants with at least one adverse effect based on data from four studies with estimable effect sizes (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.12, 5 RCTs, n = 998 (4 RCTs, n = 980 with estimable effect sizes), I2 = 0%, moderate certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review synthesised the latest evidence on the reduction of antipsychotic doses for stable individuals with schizophrenia. There was no difference between dose reduction and continuation groups in quality of life, functioning, and number of participants with at least one adverse effect. However, there was a higher risk for relapse and dropouts, and potentially for rehospitalisations, with dose reduction. Of note, the majority of the trials focused on relapse prevention rather potential beneficial outcomes on quality of life, functioning, and adverse effects, and in some studies there was rapid and substantial reduction of doses. Further well-designed RCTs are therefore needed to provide more definitive answers.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy reduction versus polypharmacy continuation for people with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, different antipsychotics can be combined in the treatment of people with schizophrenia (polypharmacy). This strategy can aim at increasing efficacy, but might also increase the adverse effects due to drug-drug interactions. Reducing polypharmacy by withdrawing one or more antipsychotics may reduce this problem, but must be done carefully, in order to maintain efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects and safety of reducing antipsychotic polypharmacy compared to maintaining people with schizophrenia on the same number of antipsychotics. SEARCH METHODS: On 10 February 2021, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared reduction in the number of antipsychotics to continuation of the current number of antipsychotics. We included adults with schizophrenia or related disorders who were receiving more than one antipsychotic and were stabilised on their current treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all the identified references for inclusion, and all the full papers. We contacted study authors if we needed any further information. Two review authors independently extracted the data, assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2 and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The primary outcomes were: quality of life assessed as number of participants with clinically important change in quality of life; service use assessed as number of participants readmitted to hospital and adverse effects assessed with number of participants leaving the study early due to adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with 319 participants. Study duration ranged from three months to one year. All studies compared polypharmacy continuation with two antipsychotics to polypharmacy reduction to one antipsychotic.  We assessed the risk of bias of results as being of some concern or at high risk of bias. A lower number of participants left the study early due to any reason in the polypharmacy continuation group (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.68; I2 = 0%; 5 RCTs, n = 319; low-certainty evidence), and a lower number of participants left the study early due to inefficacy (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.65; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, n = 201).  Polypharmacy continuation resulted in more severe negative symptoms (MD 3.30, 95% CI 1.51 to 5.09; 1 RCT, n = 35). There was no clear difference between polypharmacy reduction and polypharmacy continuation on readmission to hospital, leaving the study early due to adverse effects, functioning, global state, general mental state and positive symptoms, number of participants with at least one adverse effect, weight gain and other specific adverse effects, mortality and cognition. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low or low across measured outcomes. No studies reported quality of life, days in hospital, relapse, depressive symptoms, behaviour and satisfaction with care. Due to lack of data, it was not possible to perform some planned sensitivity analyses, including one controlling for increasing the dose of the remaining antipsychotic. As a result, we do not know if the observed results might be influenced by adjustment of dose of remaining antipsychotic compound. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review summarises the latest evidence on polypharmacy continuation compared with polypharmacy reduction. Our results show that polypharmacy continuation might be associated with a lower number of participants leaving the study early, especially due to  inefficacy. However, the evidence is of low and very low certainty and the data analyses based on few study only, so that it is not possible to draw strong conclusions based on the results of the present review. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to investigate this important topic.

Family interventions for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Family interventions are efficacious for relapse prevention in schizophrenia. Multiple different models have been developed. We aimed to compare the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of family interventions for relapse prevention in schizophrenia. METHODS: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched for randomised controlled trials that investigated family intervention models aimed at preventing relapse in patients with schizophrenia. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, BIOSIS, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to Jan 20, 2020 and PubMed up to July 15, 2021. We included blinded and open-label randomised controlled trials in which at least 80% of patients had schizophrenia spectrum disorders. We excluded studies in which all patients were acutely ill, had a concurrent medical or psychiatric disorder, or were prodromal or "at risk of psychosis". Study selection and data extraction were done by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted about overall, positive, negative, and depressive symptoms of schizophrenia, quality of life, adherence, overall functioning, family burden, expressed emotion, and discontinuations due to inefficacy. The primary outcome was relapse, measured with operationalised criteria, psychiatric hospital admissions, or clinical judgement. We did a frequentist, random-effects, network meta-analysis to calculate odds ratios ([ORs]; dichotomous outcomes) or standardised mean differences (continuous outcomes) with 95% CIs. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020169951. FINDINGS: We identified 28 395 studies through the database search and 334 from references of previous studies. We compared 11 family intervention models tested on a total of 90 randomised controlled trials with 10 340 participants (3579 females and 5632 males with sex indicated; median age 31 years [range 14-65]) in the network meta-analysis. Ethnicity data were not available. All interventions, with the exception of crisis-oriented interventions and family psychoeducation with two sessions or fewer, reduced the relapse rate significantly when compared with treatment as usual at the primary timepoint of 12 months. ORs compared with treatment as usual ranged from 0·18 (95% CI 0·12-0·27) for family psychoeducation alone to 0·63 (0·42-0·94) for community-based interventions involving family members. The results were robust in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses. The confidence in the estimates ranged from moderate to very low for different comparisons. INTERPRETATION: Almost all family intervention models were efficacious in preventing relapse in schizophrenia. Family psychoeducation alone, without behavioural or skills training, was superior to the more complex models. Our results suggest that in contexts where there are financial constraints, family psychoeducation alone should be implemented. FUNDING: German Ministry for Education and Research.