Efficacy and acceptability of noninvasive brain stimulation for treating posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Despite its high lifetime prevalence rate and the elevated disability caused by posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), treatments exhibit modest efficacy. In consideration of the abnormal connectivity between the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and amygdala in PTSD, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the efficacy of different noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) modalities for PTSD management have been undertaken. However, previous RCTs have reported inconsistent results. The current network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy and acceptability of various NIBS protocols in PTSD management. METHODS: We systematically searched ClinicalKey, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, ProQuest, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify relevant RCTs. The targeted RCTs was those comparing the efficacy of NIBS interventions, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and transcutaneous cervical vagal nerve stimulation, in patients with PTSD. The NMA was conducted using a frequentist model. The primary outcomes were changes in the overall severity of PTSD and acceptability (to be specific, rates of dropouts for any reason). RESULTS: We identified 14 RCTs that enrolled 686 participants. The NMA demonstrated that among the investigated NIBS types, high-frequency rTMS over bilateral DLPFCs was associated with the greatest reduction in overall PTSD severity. Further, in comparison with the sham controls, excitatory stimulation over the right DLPFC with/without excitatory stimulation over left DLPFC were associated with significant reductions in PTSD-related symptoms, including depression and anxiety symptoms, and overall PTSD severity. CONCLUSIONS: This NMA demonstrated that excitatory stimulation over the right DLPFC with or without excitatory stimulation over left DLPFC were associated with significant reductions in PTSD-related symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023391562.

Efficacy and safety of established and off-label ADHD drug therapies for cognitive impairment or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms in bipolar disorder: A systematic review by the ISBD Targeting Cognition Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Abnormalities in dopamine and norepinephrine signaling are implicated in cognitive impairments in bipolar disorder (BD) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This systematic review by the ISBD Targeting Cognition Task Force therefore aimed to investigate the possible benefits on cognition and/or ADHD symptoms and safety of established and off-label ADHD therapies in BD. METHODS: We included studies of ADHD medications in BD patients, which involved cognitive and/or safety measures. We followed the procedures of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO from inception until June 2023. Two authors reviewed the studies independently using the Revised Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool for Randomized trials. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were identified (N = 2136), investigating armodafinil (k = 4, N = 1581), methylphenidate (k = 4, N = 84), bupropion (k = 4, n = 249), clonidine (k = 1, n = 70), lisdexamphetamine (k = 1, n = 25), mixed amphetamine salts (k = 1, n = 30), or modafinil (k = 2, n = 97). Three studies investigated cognition, four ADHD symptoms, and 10 the safety. Three studies found treatment-related ADHD symptom reduction: two involved methylphenidate and one amphetamine salts. One study found a trend towards pro-cognitive effects of modafinil on some cognitive domains. No increased risk of (hypo)mania was observed. Five studies had low risk of bias, eleven a moderate risk, and one a serious risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Methylphenidate or mixed amphetamine salts may improve ADHD symptoms in BD. However, there is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness on cognition. The medications produced no increased mania risk when used alongside mood stabilizers. Further robust studies are needed to assess cognition in BD patients receiving psychostimulant treatment alongside mood stabilizers.

Mortality and Lithium-Protective Effects after First-Episode Mania Diagnosis in Bipolar Disorder: A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study in Taiwan.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to estimate all-cause mortality in patients after a first-episode mania (FEM) and examine whether six guideline-recommended medications can reduce mortality. METHODS: The cohort included population-based FEM samples and matched controls from Taiwan, spanning 2007 to 2018. The primary outcomes assessed were all-cause/suicide-related mortality, while the secondary outcome focused on mortality associated with pharmacological treatments. We compared mortality in post-FEM patients and age-/sex-matched controls without any diagnosed bipolar disorders and patients with and without psychopharmacological treatment using Cox regression analysis, respectively. Statistics were presented with time-to-event adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The study included 54,092 post-FEM patients and 270,460 controls, totaling 2,467,417 person-years of follow-up. Post-FEM patients had higher risks of all-cause mortality (AHR 2.38, 95% CI: 2.31-2.45) and suicide death (10.80, 5.88-19.84) than controls. Lithium (0.62, 0.55-0.70), divalproex (0.89, 0.83-0.95), and aripiprazole (0.81, 0.66-1.00) were associated with reduced all-cause mortality compared to non-users. There were no significant all-cause mortality differences for quetiapine (0.95, 0.89-1.01), risperidone (0.92, 0.82-1.02), and paliperidone (1.24, 0.88-1.76) users. When accounting for drug action onset times in sensitivity analyses, only lithium significantly reduced all-cause mortality (AHR range 0.65-0.72). There were 35 and 16 suicide deaths in post-FEM patients and controls, respectively. No drug had a significant effect on suicide deaths (lithium: 6; divalproex: 7; aripiprazole: 0; quetiapine: 10; risperidone: 4; paliperidone: 1). CONCLUSION: Post-FEM patients had a higher risk of all-cause/suicide-related mortality, and lithium treatment might reduce all-cause mortality.

Outcomes in people with eating disorders: a transdiagnostic and disorder-specific systematic review, meta-analysis and multivariable meta-regression analysis.

Eating disorders (EDs) are known to be associated with high mortality and often chronic and severe course, but a recent comprehensive systematic review of their outcomes is currently missing. In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we examined cohort studies and clinical trials published between 1980 and 2021 that reported, for DSM/ICD-defined EDs, overall ED outcomes (i.e., recovery, improvement and relapse, all-cause and ED-related hospitalization, and chronicity); the same outcomes related to purging, binge eating and body weight status; as well as mortality. We included 415 studies (N=88,372, mean age: 25.7±6.9 years, females: 72.4%, mean follow-up: 38.3±76.5 months), conducted in persons with anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), binge eating disorder (BED), other specified feeding and eating disorders (OSFED), and/or mixed EDs, from all continents except Africa. In all EDs pooled together, overall recovery occurred in 46% of patients (95% CI: 44-49, n=283, mean follow-up: 44.9±62.8 months, no significant ED-group difference). The recovery rate was 42% at <2 years, 43% at 2 to <4 years, 54% at 4 to <6 years, 59% at 6 to <8 years, 64% at 8 to <10 years, and 67% at ≥10 years. Overall chronicity occurred in 25% of patients (95% CI: 23-29, n=170, mean follow-up: 59.3±71.2 months, no significant ED-group difference). The chronicity rate was 33% at <2 years, 40% at 2 to <4 years, 23% at 4 to <6 years, 25% at 6 to <8 years, 12% at 8 to <10 years, and 18% at ≥10 years. Mortality occurred in 0.4% of patients (95% CI: 0.2-0.7, n=214, mean follow-up: 72.2±117.7 months, no significant ED-group difference). Considering observational studies, the mortality rate was 5.2 deaths/1,000 person-years (95% CI: 4.4-6.1, n=167, mean follow-up: 88.7±120.5 months; significant difference among EDs: p<0.01, range: from 8.2 for mixed ED to 3.4 for BN). Hospitalization occurred in 26% of patients (95% CI: 18-36, n=18, mean follow-up: 43.2±41.6 months; significant difference among EDs: p<0.001, range: from 32% for AN to 4% for BN). Regarding diagnostic migration, 8% of patients with AN migrated to BN and 16% to OSFED; 2% of patients with BN migrated to AN, 5% to BED, and 19% to OSFED; 9% of patients with BED migrated to BN and 19% to OSFED; 7% of patients with OSFED migrated to AN and 10% to BN. Children/adolescents had more favorable outcomes across and within EDs than adults. Self-injurious behaviors were associated with lower recovery rates in pooled EDs. A higher socio-demographic index moderated lower recovery and higher chronicity in AN across countries. Specific treatments associated with higher recovery rates were family-based therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), psychodynamic therapy, and nutritional interventions for AN; self-help, CBT, dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), psychodynamic therapy, nutritional and pharmacological treatments for BN; CBT, nutritional and pharmacological interventions, and DBT for BED; and CBT and psychodynamic therapy for OSFED. In AN, pharmacological treatment was associated with lower recovery, and waiting list with higher mortality. These results should inform future research, clinical practice and health service organization for persons with EDs.

The association of total pulses with the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant major depression: A dose-response meta-analysis.

AIM: This study aimed to examine dose-effects of total pulses on improvement of depressive symptoms in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) receiving repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the left dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrial.gov databases were systematically searched. We included randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCT) that used rTMS over left DLPFC in patients with TRD. Excluded studies were non-TRD, non-RCTs, or combined other brain stimulation interventions. The outcome of interest was the difference between rTMS arms and sham controls in improvement of depressive symptoms in a dose-response manner. A random-effects meta-analysis and dose-response meta-analysis(DRMA) was used to examine antidepressant efficacy of rTMS and association with total pulses. RESULTS: We found that rTMS over left DLPFC is superior to sham controls (reported as standardized mean difference[SMD] with 95% confidence interval: 0.77; 0.56-0.98). The best-fitting model of DRMA was bell-shaped (estimated using restricted cubic spline model; R2 =0.42), indicating that higher doses (>26,660 total pulses) were not associated with increased improvement of depressive symptoms. Stimulation frequency(R2 =0.53) and age(R2 =0.51) were significant moderators for the dose-response curve. Furthermore, 15-20 Hz rTMS was superior to 10 Hz rTMS (0.61, 0.15-1.10) when combining all doses. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest higher doses(total pulses) of rTMS were not always associated with increased improvement of depressive symptoms in patients with TRD, and that the dose-response relationship was moderated by stimulation frequency and age. These associations emphasize the importance of determining dosing parameters to achieve maximum efficacy.

Nutraceuticals and phytoceuticals in the treatment of schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Sub-optimal response in schizophrenia is frequent, warranting augmentation strategies over treatment-as-usual (TAU). Methods: We assessed nutraceuticals/phytoceutical augmentation strategies via network meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials in schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder were identified via the following databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Change (Standardized Mean Difference=SMD) in total symptomatology and acceptability (Risk Ratio=RR) were co-primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were positive, negative, cognitive, and depressive symptom changes, general psychopathology, tolerability, and response rates. We conducted subset analyses by disease phase and sensitivity analyses by risk of bias and assessed global/local inconsistency, publication bias, risk of bias, and confidence in the evidence. Results: The systematic review included 49 records documenting 50 studies (n=2,384) documenting 22 interventions. Citicoline (SMD=-1.05,95%CI=-1.85; -.24), L-lysine (SMD=-1.04,95%CI=-1.84;-.25), N-acetylcysteine (SMD=-.87,95%CI=-1.27;-.47) and sarcosine (SMD=-.5,95%CI=-.87-.13) outperformed placebo for total symptomatology. High heterogeneity (tau2=.10, I2=55.9%) and global inconsistency (Q=40.79, df=18, p=.002) emerged without publication bias (Egger's test, p=.42). Sarcosine improved negative symptoms (SMD=-.65, 95%CI=-1.10; -.19). N-acetylcysteine improved negative symptoms (SMD=-.90, 95%CI=-1.42; -.39)/general psychopathology (SMD=-.76, 95%CI=-1.39; -.13). No compound improved total symptomatology within acute phase studies (k=7, n=422). Sarcosine (SMD=-1.26,95%CI=-1.91; -.60), citicoline (SMD=-1.05,95%CI=-1.65;-.44), and N-acetylcysteine (SMD=-.55,95%CI=-.92,-.19) outperformed placebo augmentation in clinically stable participants. Sensitivity analyses removing high-risk-of-bias studies confirmed overall findings in all phases and clinically stable samples. In contrast, the acute phase analysis restricted to low risk-of-bias studies showed a superior effect vs. placebo for N-acetylcysteine (SMD=-1.10,95%CI=-1.75,-.45), L-lysine (SMD=-1.05,95%CI=-1.55,-.19), omega-3 fatty acids (SMD=-.83,95%CI=-1.31,-.34) and withania somnifera (SMD=-.71,95%CI=-1.21,-.22). Citicoline (SMD=-1.05,95%CI=-1.86,-.23), L-lysine (SMD=-1.04,95%CI=-1.84,-.24), N-acetylcysteine (SMD=-.89,95%CI=-1.35,-.43) and sarcosine (SMD=-.61,95%CI=-1.02,-.21) outperformed placebo augmentation of TAU ("any phase"). Drop-out due to any cause or adverse events did not differ between nutraceutical/phytoceutical vs. placebo+TAU. Conclusions: Sarcosine, citicoline, and N-acetylcysteine are promising augmentation interventions in stable patients with schizophrenia, yet the quality of evidence is low to very low. Further high-quality trials in acute phases/specific outcomes/difficult-to-treat schizophrenia are warranted.

Comparing different non-invasive brain stimulation interventions for bipolar depression treatment: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is a promising treatment for bipolar depression. We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials on NIBS for treating bipolar depression (INPLASY No: 202340019). Eighteen articles (N = 617) were eligible for network meta-analysis. Effect sizes were reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over F3 plus cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation over F4 (a-tDCS-F3 +c-tDCS-F4; SMD = -1.18, 95%CIs = -1.66 to -0.69, N = 77), high-definition tDCS over F3 (HD-tDCS-F3; -1.17, -2.00 to -0.35, 25), high frequency deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-dTMS; -0.81, -1.62 to -0.001, 25), and high frequency repetitive TMS over F3 plus low frequency repetitive TMS over F4 (HF-rTMS-F3 +LF-rTMS-F4; -0.77, -1.43 to -0.11, 38) significantly improved depressive symptoms compared to sham controls. Only a-tDCS-F3 +c-tDCS-F4 (OR = 4.53, 95%CIs = 1.51-13.65) and HF-rTMS-F3 +LF-rTMS-F4 (4.69, 1.02-21.56) showed higher response rates. No active NIBS interventions exhibited significant differences in dropout or side effect rates, compared with sham controls.

High Dosage Omega-3 Fatty Acids Outperform Existing Pharmacological Options for Migraine Prophylaxis: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Migraine is a highly prevalent neurologic disorder with prevalence rates ranging from 9% to 18% worldwide. Current pharmacologic prophylactic strategies for migraine have limited efficacy and acceptability, with relatively low response rates of 40% to 50% and limited safety profiles. Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are considered promising therapeutic agents for migraine prophylaxis. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and acceptability of various dosages of EPA/DHA and other current Food and Drug Administration-approved or guideline-recommended prophylactic pharmacologic interventions for migraine. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion if they enrolled participants with a diagnosis of either episodic or chronic migraine. All NMA procedures were conducted under the frequentist model. The primary outcomes assessed were 1) changes in migraine frequency and 2) acceptability (i.e., dropout for any reason). Secondary outcomes included response rates, changes in migraine severity, changes in the frequency of using rescue medications, and frequency of any adverse events. Forty RCTs were included (N = 6616; mean age = 35.0 y; 78.9% women). Our analysis showed that supplementation with high dosage EPA/DHA yields the highest decrease in migraine frequency [standardized mean difference (SMD): -1.36; 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.32, -0.39 compared with placebo] and the largest decrease in migraine severity (SMD: -2.23; 95% CI: -3.17, -1.30 compared with placebo) in all studied interventions. Furthermore, supplementation with high dosage EPA/DHA showed the most favorable acceptability rates (odds ratio: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.06, 17.41 compared with placebo) of all examined prophylactic treatments. This study provides compelling evidence that high dosage EPA/DHA supplementation can be considered a first-choice treatment of migraine prophylaxis because this treatment displayed the highest efficacy and highest acceptability of all studied treatments. This study was registered in PROSPERO as CRD42022319577.

The difference in all-cause mortality between COVID-19 patients treated with standard of care plus placebo and those treated with standard of care alone: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of immunomodulatory kinase inhibitors.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to assess whether participants assigned to a placebo and standard of care (SoC) group had different major coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related outcomes than those assigned to SoC alone. DESIGN: Frequentist model-based NMA. SETTING: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of Janus kinase/Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the management of COVID-19. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with COVID-19 infection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the 28-day all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes were: (1) use of mechanical ventilation; (2) secondary bacterial infection; (3) acceptability (i.e. drop-out rate); and (4) safety (i.e. serious adverse events). We conducted an NMA using the frequentist model. Effect sizes were estimated using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: We identified 14 eligible RCTs enrolling a total of 13,568 participants with COVID-19. Participants assigned to placebo plus SoC had a significantly higher risk of 28-day all-cause mortality than those receiving SoC alone (OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.07-1.79). This finding did not change substantially by subgroup analysis stratified by epidemiology factor, pandemic history progression and statistical methodologic consideration. In addition, none of the treatments investigated were associated with a significantly different risk of secondary bacterial infection, acceptability or safety compared with the SoC group. CONCLUSIONS: This NMA suggested a higher all-cause mortality in patients treated with placebo plus SoC compared with those treated with SoC alone. However, caution is advised in interpreting these results due to the absence of a direct head-to-head comparison. Future research should critically evaluate the necessity of placebo administration in COVID-19 RCTs and consider alternative study designs to minimise potential biases.Trial registration: The current study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan (TSGHIRB No. B-109-29) and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022376217).

Major depressive disorder as a neuro-immune disorder: Origin, mechanisms, and therapeutic opportunities.

Notwithstanding advances in understanding the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder (MDD), no single mechanism can explain all facets of this disorder. An expanding body of evidence indicates a putative role for the inflammatory response. Several meta-analyses showed an increase in systemic peripheral inflammatory markers in individuals with MDD. Numerous conditions and circumstances in the modern world may promote chronic systemic inflammation through mechanisms, including alterations in the gut microbiota. Peripheral cytokines may reach the brain and contribute to neuroinflammation through cellular, humoral, and neural pathways. On the other hand, antidepressant drugs may decrease peripheral levels of inflammatory markers. Anti-inflammatory drugs and nutritional strategies that reduce inflammation also could improve depressive symptoms. The present study provides a critical review of recent advances in the role of inflammation in the pathophysiology of MDD. Furthermore, this review discusses the role of glial cells and the main drivers of changes associated with neuroinflammation. Finally, we highlight possible novel neurotherapeutic targets for MDD that could exert antidepressant effects by modulating inflammation.

Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have evaluated the prevalence of different reasons for retraction in samples of retraction notices. We aimed to perform a systematic review of such empirical studies of retraction causes. METHODS: The PubMed/MEDLINE database and the Embase database were searched in June 2023. Eligible studies were those containing sufficient data on the reasons for retraction across samples of examined retracted notices. RESULTS: A 11,181 potentially eligible items were identified, and 43 studies of retractions were included in this systematic review. Studies limited to retraction notices of a specific subspecialty or country, journal/publication type are emerging since 2015. We noticed that the reasons for retraction are becoming more specific and more diverse. In a meta-analysis of 17 studies focused on different subspecialties, misconduct was responsible for 60% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53-67%) of all retractions while error and publication issues contributed to 17% (95% CI, 12-22%) and 9% (95% CI, 6-13%), respectively. The end year of the retraction period in all included studies and the proportion of misconduct presented a weak positive association (coefficient = 1.3% per year, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Misconduct seems to be the most frequently recorded reason for retraction across empirical analyses of retraction notices, but other reasons are not negligible. Greater specificity of causes and standardization is needed in retraction notices.

Incidence, prevalence, and global burden of ADHD from 1990 to 2019 across 204 countries: data, with critical re-analysis, from the Global Burden of Disease study.

Data on incidence, prevalence and burden of ADHD are crucial for clinicians, patients, and stakeholders. We present the incidence, prevalence, and burden of ADHD globally and across countries from 1990 to 2019 from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study. We also: (1) calculated the ADHD prevalence based on data actually collected as opposed to the prevalence estimated by the GBD with data imputation for countries without prevalence data; (2) discussed the GBD estimated ADHD burden in the light of recent meta-analytic evidence on ADHD-related mortality. In 2019, GBD estimated global age-standardized incidence and prevalence of ADHD across the lifespan at 0.061% (95%UI = 0.040-0.087) and 1.13% (95%UI = 0.831-1.494), respectively. ADHD accounted for 0.8% of the global mental disorder DALYs, with mortality set at zero by the GBD. From 1990 to 2019 there was a decrease of -8.75% in the global age-standardized prevalence and of -4.77% in the global age-standardized incidence. The largest increase in incidence, prevalence, and burden from 1990 to 2019 was observed in the USA; the largest decrease occurred in Finland. Incidence, prevalence, and DALYs remained approximately 2.5 times higher in males than females from 1990 to 2019. Incidence peaked at age 5-9 years, and prevalence and DALYs at age 10-14 years. Our re-analysis of data prior to 2013 showed a prevalence in children/adolescents two-fold higher (5.41%, 95% CI: 4.67-6.15%) compared to the corresponding GBD estimated prevalence (2.68%, 1.83-3.72%), with no significant differences between low- and middle- and high-income countries. We also found meta-analytic evidence of significantly increased ADHD-related mortality due to unnatural causes. While it provides the most detailed evidence on temporal trends, as well as on geographic and sex variations in incidence, prevalence, and burden of ADHD, the GBD may have underestimated the ADHD prevalence and burden. Given the influence of the GBD on research and policies, methodological issues should be addressed in its future editions.

Comorbidity between major depressive disorder and physical diseases: a comprehensive review of epidemiology, mechanisms and management.

Populations with common physical diseases - such as cardiovascular diseases, cancer and neurodegenerative disorders - experience substantially higher rates of major depressive disorder (MDD) than the general population. On the other hand, people living with MDD have a greater risk for many physical diseases. This high level of comorbidity is associated with worse outcomes, reduced adherence to treatment, increased mortality, and greater health care utilization and costs. Comorbidity can also result in a range of clinical challenges, such as a more complicated therapeutic alliance, issues pertaining to adaptive health behaviors, drug-drug interactions and adverse events induced by medications used for physical and mental disorders. Potential explanations for the high prevalence of the above comorbidity involve shared genetic and biological pathways. These latter include inflammation, the gut microbiome, mitochondrial function and energy metabolism, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis dysregulation, and brain structure and function. Furthermore, MDD and physical diseases have in common several antecedents related to social factors (e.g., socioeconomic status), lifestyle variables (e.g., physical activity, diet, sleep), and stressful live events (e.g., childhood trauma). Pharmacotherapies and psychotherapies are effective treatments for comorbid MDD, and the introduction of lifestyle interventions as well as collaborative care models and digital technologies provide promising strategies for improving management. This paper aims to provide a detailed overview of the epidemiology of the comorbidity of MDD and specific physical diseases, including prevalence and bidirectional risk; of shared biological pathways potentially implicated in the pathogenesis of MDD and common physical diseases; of socio-environmental factors that serve as both shared risk and protective factors; and of management of MDD and physical diseases, including prevention and treatment. We conclude with future directions and emerging research related to optimal care of people with comorbid MDD and physical diseases.

Twelve years after the ARRIVE guidelines: Animal research has not yet arrived at high standards.

The reproducibility crisis across animal studies jeopardizes the credibility of the main findings derived from animal research, even though these findings are critical for informing human studies. To clarify and improve transparency among animal studies, the ARRIVE reporting guidelines were first announced in 2010 and upgraded to version 2.0 in 2020. However, compliance with and awareness of those reporting guidelines has remained suboptimal. Journal editors should encourage the authors to adhere to those guidelines. Authors, editors, referees, and reviewers should be aware of the ARRIVE guideline 2.0 when assessing and evaluating the methodology and findings of animal studies. However, we should also question whether reporting guidelines alone can change a research culture and improve the reproducibility of animal investigations. Reported research may not reflect actual research. Large segments of animal research efforts are wasted because of poor design choices and because of non-publication rather than suboptimal reporting. Better training of the scientific workforce, interventions at improving animal research at the design stage, registration practices, and alignment of the reward system with the publication of rigorous animal research may achieve more than reporting guidelines alone.

Placebo effects on all-cause mortality of patients with COVID-19 in randomized controlled trials of interleukin 6 antagonists: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

AIM: Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the use of interleukin 6 antagonists for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yielding inconsistent results. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to identify the source of these inconsistent results by reassessing whether participants treated with standard of care (SoC) plus placebo have different all-cause mortality from those treated with SoC alone and to reevaluate the efficacy of interleukin 6 antagonists in the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search for relevant RCTs from the inception of electronic databases through 1 September 2022. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were the incidences of major medical events, secondary infections, all-cause discontinuation, and serious adverse events. RESULTS: The results of NMA of 33 RCTs showed that patients with COVID-19 treated with SoC plus placebo had lower odds of all-cause mortality than those who received SoC alone (OR, 0.75 [95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.97]). This finding remained consistent after excluding studies with no incident deaths. In addition, when we consider the impact of the widely promoted COVID-19 vaccination and newly developed antiviral treatment strategy, the results from the analysis of the RCT published in 2021 and 2022 remained similar. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest the potential influence of placebo effects on the treatment outcomes of COVID-19 in RCTs. When evaluating the efficacy of treatment strategies for COVID-19, it is crucial to consider the use of placebo in the design of clinical trials.

Treatment Efficacy of Pharmacotherapies for Frontotemporal Dementia: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: The neuropsychiatric symptoms of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) have a profound negative impact on disease outcomes and care burden. Available pharmacotherapies might be supported by small-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, clinical recommendations might not be conclusive. METHODS: We systematically searched several databases from inception to April 30, 2022, for RCTs of drug therapy in patients with FTD and neuropsychiatric symptoms (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes included changes in caregiver stress, daily interactive activities, cognitive function, and acceptability (adverse event or dropout rates). The network meta-analysis (NMA) procedure was performed under the frequency model, showing effect sizes as standardized mean differences (SMD) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: Seven RCTs with 243 participants were included. Compared with placebo, high-dose oxytocin (72 international units) was associated with the greatest improvement in patients' neuropsychiatric symptoms (SMD = -1.17, 95% CIs = -2.25 to -0.08, z = -2.10, p = 0.035). Piracetam significantly worsened neuropsychiatric symptoms (SMD = 3.48, 95% CIs = 1.58 to 5.37, z = 3.60, p < 0.001) and caregiver stress (SMD = 2.40, 95% CIs = 0.80-4.01, z = 2.94, p = 0.003). Trazodone had significantly higher rates of adverse events (OR = 9.53, 95% CIs = 1.85-49.20, z = 2.69, p = 0.007). No pharmacological intervention significantly benefited cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first NMA for clinical recommendation to support the use of high-dose oxytocin and caution regarding the use of piracetam for neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with FTD.

Balancing risks and benefits of cannabis use: umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess credibility and certainty of associations between cannabis, cannabinoids, and cannabis based medicines and human health, from observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN: Umbrella review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, PsychInfo, Embase, up to 9 February 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies and RCTs that have reported on the efficacy and safety of cannabis, cannabinoids, or cannabis based medicines were included. Credibility was graded according to convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or not significant (observational evidence), and by GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) (RCTs). Quality was assessed with AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2). Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: 101 meta-analyses were included (observational=50, RCTs=51) (AMSTAR 2 high 33, moderate 31, low 32, or critically low 5). From RCTs supported by high to moderate certainty, cannabis based medicines increased adverse events related to the central nervous system (equivalent odds ratio 2.84 (95% confidence interval 2.16 to 3.73)), psychological effects (3.07 (1.79 to 5.26)), and vision (3.00 (1.79 to 5.03)) in people with mixed conditions (GRADE=high), improved nausea/vomit, pain, spasticity, but increased psychiatric, gastrointestinal adverse events, and somnolence among others (GRADE=moderate). Cannabidiol improved 50% reduction of seizures (0.59 (0.38 to 0.92)) and seizure events (0.59 (0.36 to 0.96)) (GRADE=high), but increased pneumonia, gastrointestinal adverse events, and somnolence (GRADE=moderate). For chronic pain, cannabis based medicines or cannabinoids reduced pain by 30% (0.59 (0.37 to 0.93), GRADE=high), across different conditions (n=7), but increased psychological distress. For epilepsy, cannabidiol increased risk of diarrhoea (2.25 (1.33 to 3.81)), had no effect on sleep disruption (GRADE=high), reduced seizures across different populations and measures (n=7), improved global impression (n=2), quality of life, and increased risk of somnolence (GRADE=moderate). In the general population, cannabis worsened positive psychotic symptoms (5.21 (3.36 to 8.01)) and total psychiatric symptoms (7.49 (5.31 to 10.42)) (GRADE=high), negative psychotic symptoms, and cognition (n=11) (GRADE=moderate). In healthy people, cannabinoids improved pain threshold (0.74 (0.59 to 0.91)), unpleasantness (0.60 (0.41 to 0.88)) (GRADE=high). For inflammatory bowel disease, cannabinoids improved quality of life (0.34 (0.22 to 0.53) (GRADE=high). For multiple sclerosis, cannabinoids improved spasticity, pain, but increased risk of dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, somnolence (GRADE=moderate). For cancer, cannabinoids improved sleep disruption, but had gastrointestinal adverse events (n=2) (GRADE=moderate). Cannabis based medicines, cannabis, and cannabinoids resulted in poor tolerability across various conditions (GRADE=moderate). Evidence was convincing from observational studies (main and sensitivity analyses) in pregnant women, small for gestational age (1.61 (1.41 to 1.83)), low birth weight (1.43 (1.27 to 1.62)); in drivers, car crash (1.27 (1.21 to 1.34)); and in the general population, psychosis (1.71 (1.47 to 2.00)). Harmful effects were noted for additional neonatal outcomes, outcomes related to car crash, outcomes in the general population including psychotic symptoms, suicide attempt, depression, and mania, and impaired cognition in healthy cannabis users (all suggestive to highly suggestive). CONCLUSIONS: Convincing or converging evidence supports avoidance of cannabis during adolescence and early adulthood, in people prone to or with mental health disorders, in pregnancy and before and while driving. Cannabidiol is effective in people with epilepsy. Cannabis based medicines are effective in people with multiple sclerosis, chronic pain, inflammatory bowel disease, and in palliative medicine but not without adverse events. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018093045. FUNDING: None.

Major depressive disorder.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is characterized by persistent depressed mood, loss of interest or pleasure in previously enjoyable activities, recurrent thoughts of death, and physical and cognitive symptoms. People with MDD can have reduced quality of life owing to the disorder itself as well as related medical comorbidities, social factors, and impaired functional outcomes. MDD is a complex disorder that cannot be fully explained by any one single established biological or environmental pathway. Instead, MDD seems to be caused by a combination of genetic, environmental, psychological and biological factors. Treatment for MDD commonly involves pharmacological therapy with antidepressant medications, psychotherapy or a combination of both. In people with severe and/or treatment-resistant MDD, other biological therapies, such as electroconvulsive therapy, may also be offered.

Trajectory of changes in depressive symptoms after acute repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: A meta-analysis of follow-up effects.

BACKGROUND: The follow-up effect after acute repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for major depressive episodes remains unclear. Furthermore, the benefits of maintenance rTMS are poorly understood. AIM: To investigate the trajectory of changes in depressive symptoms after acute rTMS and effects of maintenance rTMS during this period. METHOD: This meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42022374077) searched major databases up to October 1, 2022. Treatment outcome was depressive scores collected at least 3 months after the end of an acute rTMS course for depression. We extracted data at different time points after acute rTMS and categorized by whether maintenance rTMS was performed. A single-stage random-effects dose-response meta-analysis was undertaken to model the nonlinear relationships. Effect sizes were calculated as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: 24 eligible studies comprising 911 total patients-225 of whom received maintenance rTMS-were included. Maintenance rTMS contributed to relative stability in patients' mood symptoms during the first 5 months (SMD [95% CI]: 3rd month, -0.10 [-0.30 to 0.10]; 5th month, 0.00 [-0.55 to 0.55]), with heterogeneity characterized as low to moderate. Further analysis revealed that maintenance rTMS performed monthly or more frequently provided sustained benefits for up to 6-12 months. Conversely, patients without maintenance rTMS had moderate to high heterogeneity, although the change in mean mood symptom scores during the 12-month follow-up was also minor (6th month, 0.03 [-0.51 to 0.56]; 12th month, 0.10 [-0.59 to 0.79]). CONCLUSION: Maintenance rTMS might keep patients' mood relatively stable for up to 5 months after acute rTMS. Monthly or more frequent maintenance rTMS offers greater benefits.