Profiling the combination of bupropion and dextromethorphan as a treatment option for major depressive disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a common mental health disorder marked by sadness, hopelessness, and anhedonia. Various therapies exist, but their effectiveness is limited. Dextromethorphan hydrobromide combined with bupropion hydrochloride (Auvelity®) is a recently approved alternative for treating this condition in adults. AREAS COVERED: This review summarizes the neurobiology of major depression and delves into the pharmacology, efficacy, safety, and tolerability of dextromethorphan plus bupropion in adult patients. It is based on observational studies, clinical trials, and other secondary studies obtained through systematic literature searches. EXPERT OPINION: The combination of bupropion and dextromethorphan as a new pharmacotherapy for mental health is an interesting addition to the treatment options that can be used for MDD. The combination can be used in a range of scenarios, including as a first line therapy, as a second option when a patient has failed to achieve remission with a serotonin targeting agent, and for treatment resistant depression. Further research for other indications, including addiction disorders, may provide exciting results. Although a new combination, clinicians will be very familiar with both agents, increasing their acceptability. This pharmacotherapy also may bring increased impetus for discovering other combinations that may have beneficial synergistic effects.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of cytisine for the treatment of smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Smoking is considered the main cause of preventable death world-wide. This study aimed to review the efficacy and safety of cytisine for smoking cessation. METHODS: This review included an exhaustive search of databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in health centers of any level with smokers of any age or gender investigating the effects of cytisine at standard dosage versus placebo, varenicline or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). RESULTS: We identified 12 RCTs. Eight RCTs compared cytisine with placebo at the standard dose covering 5922 patients, 2996 of whom took cytisine, delivering a risk ratio (RR) of 2.25 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.42-3.56; I2  = 88%; moderate-quality evidence]. The greater intensity of behavioral therapy was associated directly with the efficacy findings (moderate-quality evidence). The confirmed efficacy of cytisine was not evidenced in trials conducted in low- and middle-income countries. We estimate a number needed to treat (NNT) of 11. Two trials compared the efficacy of cytisine versus NRT, and the combination of both studies yields modest results in favor of cytisine. Three trials compared cytisine with varenicline, without a clear benefit for cytisine. Meta-analyses of all non-serious adverse events in the cytisine group versus placebo groups yielded a RR of 1.24 (95% CI = 1.11-1.39; participants = 5895; studies = 8; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Cytisine increases the chances of successful smoking cessation by more than twofold compared with placebo and has a benign safety profile, with no evidence of serious safety concerns. Limited evidence suggests that cytisine may be more effective than nicotine replacement therapy, with modest cessation rates.

Evaluación en la vida real de la combinación naltrexona y bupropion para el tratamiento de adultos con sobrepeso y obesidad / Real-life evaluation of the combination naltrexone and bupropion for the treatment of overweight and obese adults

Objetive: Overweight and obesity represent a global epidemic of increasing prevalence associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality. In clinical trials, the combination of naltrexone/bupropion (NB), together with a hypocaloric diet and exercise, was superior to placebo in achieving a sustained reduction of body weight (BW). The purpouse of our investigation was to evaluate the clinical benefit of NB in reallife conditions. Methods: Ambispective and observational research, in a 225 patient's cohort with obesity, or overweight plus related comorbidities, under usual medical care and 16-week follow-up period. The management of the patients was under the usual conditions of practice, therefore, the performance of any diagnostic or therapeutic procedure was not imposed. Results: Unlike clinical trials, we included patients > 65 years old, with a body mass index (BMI) > 45 kg/m2, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). NB was associated with significant reduction of baseline BMI (-3.1 kg/m2, IC 95%: -2.8 to -3.4, p < 0.0001) was observed, and 65% of the patients achieved a ≥5% reduction of their BW, despite lower medication compliance and the use of lower doses than the ones recommended. Conclusion: NB was effective and well tolerated to induce an initial reduction in BW. These results were similar to those reported in clinical trials in the same follow-up period, and even better than the ones observed in retrospective, real-life trials.

Objetivo: El sobrepeso y la obesidad representan una epidemia global de prevalencia creciente, asociada con aumento de la morbilidad y la mortalidad. En los ensayos clínicos centrales, la combinación de naltrexona/bupropion (NB), junto con una dieta hipocalórica y ejercicio, fue superior al placebo para lograr una reducción sostenida del peso corporal (PC). El propósito de nuestra investigación fue evaluar el beneficio clínico de la NB en pacientes con sobrepeso/obesidad en las condiciones de la vida real. Métodos: Investigación ambispectiva y observacional, en una cohorte de 225 pacientes con obesidad o sobrepeso más comorbilidades relacionadas, bajo atención médica habitual y un seguimiento de 16 semanas. El abordaje de los pacientes fue en las condiciones habituales de la práctica, por lo tanto, no se impuso la realización de procedimiento diagnóstico o terapéutico alguno. Resultados: A diferencia de los ensayos clínicos, se incluyeron pacientes > 65 años, con un índice de masa corporal (IMC) > 45 kg/m2 y diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (DBT2). La combinación NB se asoció con una reducción significativa del IMC inicial (-3.1 kg/m2; intervalo de confianza del 95% [IC 95%]: -2.8 a -3.4, p < 0.0001) y el 65 % de los pacientes logró una reducción ≥ 5% de su PC, a pesar de tener menor cumplimiento del tratamiento y del uso de dosis inferiores a las recomendadas. Conclusión: La combinación NB fue efectiva y bien tolerada para inducir una reducción inicial del PC. Estos resultados fueron similares a los informados en ensayos clínicos en el mismo período de seguimiento, e, incluso, mejores que los observados en estudios retrospectivos de la práctica clínica real.

Lo clásico y lo nuevo en el tratamiento del sobrepeso y la obesidad / The classic and the new in the treatment of overweight and obesity

Así como planteamos en la primera entrega de esta serie de artículos de actualización sobre la obesidad, resulta urgente revisar el abordaje tradicional que la comunidad médica le ofrece a las personas con cuerpos gordos. En este segundo artículo desarrollaremos en profundidad diferentes alternativas terapéuticas para los pacientes que desean bajar de peso:plan alimentario, actividad física, tratamiento farmacológico y cirugía metabólica. (AU)

As we proposed in the first issue of this series of articles, it is urgent to review the traditional approach that the medical community offers to people with fat bodies. This second article will develop different therapeutic alternatives for patients who want to lose weight: eating plans, physical activity, pharmacological treatment, and metabolic surgery. (AU)

Environmental enrichment affects behavioral and pharmacological response to antidepressants in CF1 mice.

It has been described that environmental enrichment (EE) exerts beneficial effects on cognitive and emotional performances, dendritic branching, synaptic density, neurogenesis and modulation of neurotrophic systems and neurotransmitters in rodents. However, the influence of EE on pharmacological and behavioral responses in animal models of psychiatric disorders has not been fully established. In this context, the aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of exposure to EE on mice behavior in the open field test (OFT) and forced swimming tests (FST), as well as the response to antidepressant drugs (fluoxetine 30 mg/kg and bupropion 30 mg/kg, p.o.). CF1 mice were exposed to an enriched housing condition at different developmental stages: from mating to postnatal day (PND) 55 (lifelong enrichment), from mating to PND21 (perinatal enrichment) and from PND21 to PND55 (post-weaning enrichment). At PND58 the male offspring were evaluated in the OFT and FST. BDNF gene expression in the hippocampus was determined through qPCR. Mice exposed to perinatal enrichment remained longer in the peripheral zone of the OFT and performed fewer grooming than mice housed under standard condition, and these effects were independent of drug treatment. Post-weaning and lifelong enrichment increased grooming behavior. Bupropion reduced grooming in all groups except in perinatal enriched. In turn, fluoxetine decreased grooming only in post-weaning enriched group. None of the enriched housing conditions altered the immobility time in the FST, which indicates that EE had no antidepressant-like effect. However, all enriched housing conditions abolished the anti-immobility effect of bupropion. None of the EE protocols affected BDNF hippocampal expression. The main conclusion is that mice behavior in the OFT is sensitive to alterations in the housing environment and depends on the developmental stage of exposure. Bupropion and fluoxetine yielded divergent responses depending on the housing condition, which suggests that EE modulates monoaminergic neurotransmission pathways.

Smoking cessation and vaccination.

A significant proportion of COPD patients (∼40%) continue smoking despite knowing that they have the disease. Smokers with COPD exhibit higher levels of nicotine dependence, and have lower self-efficacy and self-esteem, which affects their ability to quit smoking. Treatment should be adapted to the needs of individual patients with different levels of tobacco dependence. The combination of counselling plus pharmacotherapy is the most effective cessation treatment for COPD. In patients with severe COPD, varenicline and bupropion have been shown to have the highest abstinence rates compared with nicotine replacement therapy. There is a lack of evidence to support that smoking cessation reduction or harm reduction strategies have benefits in COPD patients. The long-term efficacy and safety of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation need to be evaluated in high-risk populations; therefore, it is not possible to recommend their use for smoking cessation in COPD. Future studies with the new generation of nicotine vaccines are necessary to determine their effectiveness in smokers in general and in COPD patients.

Efficacy of bupropion and cognitive behavioral therapy in the treatment of methamphetamine use disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy and bupropion compared to cognitive behavioral therapy alone for methamphetamine use disorder. METHODS: The selection criteria for this systematic review study with meta-analysis were randomized clinical trials on the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy and bupropion in the treatment for methamphetamine use disorder (assessed by urine metabolites). The search was conducted in PubMed, PubMed Central, LILACS, SciELO, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, Ovid Medline, Clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The primary outcome was relapse. Risk of bias was assessed with the RoB 2 tool. The results of each clinical trial were input into an Excel spreadsheet. We performed a meta-analysis using relative risk and a 95%CI. RESULTS: Of the 597 initial articles (498 after removing duplicate records), five were included in the meta-analysis, with an aggregate sample of 539 patients. An overall relative risk of 0.91 (95%CI 0.78-1.05) was estimated for relapse. CONCLUSION: Our study limitations included publication bias and heterogeneous populations. We found no evidence that cognitive behavioral therapy and bupropion reduced the risk of relapse compared to cognitive behavioral therapy and placebo.

Eficacia y seguridad de naltrexona/bupropión en pacientes adultos con obesidad que persisten sin pérdida de peso luego de terapia nutricional y actividad física a seis meses / Efficacy and safety of naltrexone/bupropion in adult patients with obesity who persist without weight loss after nutritional therapy and physical activity at six months

ANTECEDENTES: En el marco de la metodología ad hoc para evaluar solicitudes de tecnologías sanitarias, aprobada mediante Resolución del Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación N° 111-IETSI-ESSALUD-2021, se ha elaborado el presente dictamen, el cual expone la evaluación de la eficacia y seguridad de naltrexona/bupropión en pacientes adultos con obesidad que persisten sin pérdida de peso luego de terapia nutricional y actividad física a seis meses. ASPECTOS GENERALES: Los aspectos generales sobre las características de la obesidad se detallan en el Dictamen Preliminar de Evaluación de Tecnología Sanitaria N° 005-DETS-IETSI-2023. Brevemente, la obesidad es una enfermedad crónica multifactorial que aumenta el riesgo de complicaciones a largo plazo y genera un deterioro de la calidad de vida y disminuye la esperanza de vida (Blüher, 2019). En el Perú, la prevalencia de obesidad incrementó de 17.8 % en 2015 a 24.6 % en 2020, donde las mujeres tienen una mayor proporción de obesidad en comparación con los hombres (28.1 % vs. 20.7 %) (INEI, 2020). En EsSalud, los pac entes con obesidad (índice de masa corporal [IMC] k 30 kg/m2) son tratados mediante la combinación de cambios en el comportamiento, cambios en la dieta y aumento de la actividad física para alcanzar una pérdida de peso de al menos 5 % en 6 meses. La adición de la farmacoterapia a las intervenciones de estilos de vida es una estrategia propuesta para cuando existe el antecedente de fracaso de la pérdida de peso o cuando se mantiene un IMC k 27 kg/m2con una o más comorbilidades o un IMC >30 kg/m2con o sin efectos metabólicos asociados (Apovian et al., 2015). Actualmente, EsSalud no dispone de medicamentos para el manejo de la obesidad. Por ello, especialistas de EsSalud sugieren que la combinación naltrexona/bupropión sería de utilidad para la pérdida de peso, el control metabólico y la calidad de vida de los pacientes con obesidad que no han perdido peso luego de seis meses de terapia nutricional y actividad física. METODOLOGÍA: La búsqueda sistemática se realizó en las bases de datos bibliográficas PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science y LILACS (Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud). Asimismo, se realizó una búsqueda dentro de la información generada en las páginas web de grupos o instituciones que realizan revisiones sistemáticas (RS), evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias (ETS) y guías de práctica clínica (GPC), tales como: el National Institute for Health and Care Exc:ellence (NICE), la Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), el Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), la Haute Authorité de Santé (HAS), el Institute for Quality and Efficiency in HealthCare (IQWiG), el Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) y en la Base Regional de Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud de las Américas (BRISA), y en las principales instituciones o sociedades especializadas en endocrinología: la American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, la Obesity Society, la Endocrine Society, y la European Association for the Study of Obesity. Además, se llevó a cabo una búsqueda manual en el motor de búsqueda Google utilizando los términos: "Obesity guidelines"; revisando en las diez primeras páginas de resultados, a fin de poder identificar otras publicaciones de relevancia que pudiesen haber sido omitidas por la estrategia de búsqueda o que no hayan sido publicadas en las bases de datos bibliográficas consideradas. Finalmente, se realizó una búsqueda manual en ClinicalTrials.gov para identificar ensayos clínicos aleatorizados (ECA) en curso o que no hayan sido publicados aún. RESULTADOS: Luego de la búsqueda bibliojáfica realizada hasta abril de 2022, se incluyeron: tres GPC (NICE, 2014; ES, 2015; y MSPS 2016), tres ETS (NICE, 2017; MSA, 2018; y CADTH, 2020), una RS (Khera et al., 2016), cinco ECA de fase III (Greenway et al., 2010; Apoviarl et al., 2013; Wadden et al., 2011; Hollander et al., 2013; Nissen et al., 2016). Por otro lado, se excluyeron seis GPC: dos (SIGN, 2010; y AHAJACC/TOS, 2013) por haberse publicado antes de haberse autorizado por primera vez el uso de naltrexona/bupropión para el tratamiento de pacientes con sobrepeso u obesidad; y cuatro (MSA, 2014; AACE, 2016; OC/CABPS, 2020; y VA/DoD, 2020) porque no brindan recomendaciones para la población objetivo del presente dictamen. Además, se excluyeron seis RS (Qingyang et al., 2022; Singh et al., 2020; Khera et al., 2018, Onakpoya et al., 2020, Sposilo et al., 2017 y Kane et al., 2019). Dado que, las siete RS encontradas incluyen los mismos ECA pivotales, se incluyó la de mayor calidad metodológica (Khera et al., :2016), según la herramienta AMSTAR. Finalmente, se excluyó un estudio (Kolotkin et al., 2015) que evaluó la calidad de vida mediante un análisis combinado de datos a nivel de paciente (pooled analysis of patient level data) de cuatro ECA de fase III. Este estudio se excluyó porque el análisis combinado no tomó en cuenta las diferencias en los diseños de estudio de los cuatro ECA. Por ello, los resultados de calidad de vida fueron analizados en cada estudio, individualmente. CONCLUSIÓN: Por lo expuesto, el Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación - IETSI no aprueba el uso de naltrexona/bupropión en pacientes adultos con obesidad que persisten sin pérdida de peso luego de terapia nutricional y actividad física a seis meses, como producto farmacéutico no incluido en el Petitorio Farmacológico de EsSalud. Se recomienda a los especialistas que, en caso de identificar nueva evidencia que responda a la población de la PICO de interés, envíen sus propuestas para ser evaluadas en el marco de la Directiva N° 003-IETSI-ESSALUD-2016.

Are all antidepressants the same? The consumer has a point.

BACKGROUND: Although a large variety of antidepressants agents (AD) with different mechanisms of action are available, no significant differences in efficacy and safety have been shown. However, there have been few attempts to incorporate data on subjective experiences under different AD. METHOD: We conducted a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the posts from the website www.askapatient.com from different AD. We reviewed a random sample of 1000 posts. RESULT: After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included a final sample of 450 posts, 50 on each of the most used AD: sertraline, citalopram, paroxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, venlafaxine, duloxetine, mirtazapine, and bupropion. Bupropion, citalopram, and venlafaxine had the higher overall satisfaction ratings. Sertraline, paroxetine, and fluoxetine had high reports of emotional blunting, while bupropion very few. Overall satisfaction with AD treatment was inversely associated with the presence of the following side-effects: suicidality, irritability, emotional blunting, cognitive disturbances, and withdrawal symptoms. After adjusting for confounders, only emotional blunting was shown to be more frequently reported by users of serotonergic agents, as compared to non-serotoninergic agents. CONCLUSION: This research points out that the subjective experience of patients under treatment should be taken into consideration when selecting an AD as differences between agents were evident. In contrast to the more frequent treatment decisions, users might prefer receiving a non-serotoninergic agent over a serotonergic one due to their lower propensity to produce emotional blunting.

Varenicline for Tobacco-Dependent Adults Who Are Not Ready to Discontinue Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Rationale: Not all individuals with tobacco dependence are ready to give up smoking. Research reveals behavioral differences between adults ready to discontinue tobacco use and those who are not. Thus, the interventions applied to these populations might differ. However, the evidence of using varenicline in individuals who are not ready to discontinue tobacco use is uncertain. Objectives: To determine if, in tobacco-dependent adults who report not being ready to discontinue tobacco use, clinicians should begin treatment with varenicline or wait until subjects are ready to discontinue tobacco use. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to assess the effectiveness and safety of treatment with varenicline in tobacco-dependent adults who are not ready to discontinue tobacco use. We systematically searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials comparing varenicline versus placebo for individuals who were not ready to discontinue tobacco use. Outcomes of interest include point prevalence abstinence during treatment or at six months or longer, smoking reduction, motivation to quit, adverse events, and withdrawal symptoms. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed eligibility and risk of bias using a standardized data collection form. We followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Results: Five trials met our inclusion criteria. All 2,616 participants were adults who were not ready to discontinue tobacco use at study entry. For 7-day point prevalence abstinence at six months or longer, high-certainty evidence suggested that varenicline increased abstinence compared with placebo (relative risk, 2.00 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.70-2.35]; absolute risk reduction, 173 more per 1,000 [95% CI, 121 more to 234 more]). We identified moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that varenicline increased serious adverse events (relative risk, 1.75 [95% CI, 0.98-3.13]; absolute risk reduction, 12 more per 1,000 [95% CI, 0 fewer to 35 more]). For withdrawal, low-certainty evidence suggested that varenicline treatment was associated with a lower symptom score (mean difference, 1.54 points lower; 95% CI, 2.15-0.93 points lower; low certainty) assessed using the Brief Questionnaire of Smoking Urges. Conclusions: In tobacco-dependent adults who are not ready to discontinue tobacco use, initiating varenicline treatment results in a large increase in abstinence and likely results in a slight increase in serious adverse events.

Effects of topiramate, bupropion and naltrexone isolated or combined on subcutaneous adipose tissue in obese rats.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of combining topiramate, bupropion and naltrexone in obesity-induced rats on their weight and subcutaneous adipose tissue. METHODS: A total of 40 male Wistar rats were induced to obesity for 8 weeks and the animals were divided into 8 groups: Ctr - control, G0 - Sham, G1 - oral saline solution (1.0mL/day), G2 - topiramate (20.0mg/kg) and bupropion (5.0mg/kg), G3 - naltrexone (20.0mg/kg), G4 - topiramate (20.0mg/kg), G5 - bupropion (5.0mg/kg) and G6 - topiramate (20.0mg/kg), bupropion (5.0mg/kg) and naltrexone (20.0mg/kg). During the experiment, all animals were weighed weekly. After 30 days of treatment animals were euthanized and their skin fragments were processed and stained with hematoxylin and eosin for morphological, morphometric and biochemical analyzes. RESULTS: The only group that presented a decrease in the volume of subcutaneous adipose tissue was G3, but this decrease was not significant when compared with the other groups. The G4, the G5 and the G6 presented increased adipose tissue volume. Data showed that until the eighth week all animals increased their weight by approximately 50%. After treatment animals of all groups, except G3, increased their weight from 4% to 9% approximately. The G3 was the only group that lost weight, but this decrease was not significant. CONCLUSION: The medicines studied were not efficient in reducing weight in obese rats. However, it should be considered that 30-day treatment period is not enough to observe the stronger effects of these drugs.

Naltrexone/bupropion modifies weight, food intake, and Drd2 gene expression in rats.

Obesogenic diets are known to induce obesity and changes in food intake in experimental animals. Obesity negatively affects the peripheral metabolism and neural aspects, such as changes in eating behavior. In obese animals, dopamine (DA) receptor levels are reduced. DA is one of the main peptides involved in the motivation and pleasure of eating. A combination of naltrexone/bupropion (NB) has shown promise in controlling metabolic alterations, but there are few studies on how they modulate dopaminergic expression. NB, in addition to reducing food intake and body weight, can modify tyrosine hydroxylase (Th) and DA receptor D2 (Drd2) levels in the mesolimbic areas of rats submitted to a high-fat diet (HF). The study evaluated the effect of NB on food intake, body weight, and expression levels of Th, Drd1a, and Drd2, in the nucleus accumbens and striatum of rats fed on HF diet. Wistar rats were grouped according to diet: standard (n = 20) and HF diet (n = 20). The food intake and body weight were analyzed. The gene expression of Th, Drd1a, and Drd2 was evaluated using real-time PCR. NB combination of 1 mg/kg and 20 mg/kg reduced food intake and body weight, increased Drd2 expression in rats on HF diet, and increased Th in rats on both experimental diets. The level of Drd1a was unchanged. We concluded that bodyweight reduction may be associated with decreased food intake in response to the increased Drd2 expression in the mesolimbic areas of rats that received an HF diet.

Eficácia e segurança de Duloxetina comparado a outros antidepressivos disponíveis no SUS para o tratamento de depressão maior: revisão rápida de evidências / Effectiveness and safety of Duloxetine compared to other antidepressant agents available in Brazilian Public Health for treatment of major depression: rapid response review of evidence

Tecnologia: Duloxetina e outros antidepressivos disponíveis no Sistema Único de Saúde (amitriptilina, nortriptilina, clomipramina, fluoxetina e bupropiona). Indicação: Tratamento do primeiro episódio depressivo no transtorno de depressão maior em adultos. Pergunta: A duloxetina é mais eficaz e tolerável que a amitriptilina, nortriptilina, clomipramina, fluoxetina e bupropiona para o tratamento do primeiro episódio de depressão maior em adultos? Métodos: Revisão rápida de evidências (overview) de revisões sistemáticas, com levantamento bibliográfico realizado na base de dados PUBMED, utilizando estratégia estruturada de busca. A qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas foi avaliada com AMSTAR-2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Resultados: Foi selecionada 1 revisão sistemática, que atendia aos critérios de inclusão. Conclusão: Os antidepressivos, comparados ao placebo, tinham maior taxa de resposta, taxa de remissão e taxa de descontinuação devido a efeitos colaterais, no tratamento de curto prazo. Duloxetina tinha taxa de resposta similar a amitriptilina, clomipramina, fluoxetina e bupropiona. Duloxetina e amitriptilina tinham maior taxa de remissão que fluoxetina. Comparando-se as taxas de abandono de tratamento devido a efeitos colaterais, clomipramina era menos seguro, amitriptilina, bupropiona e duloxetina eram parecidos entre si, e fluoxetina era o antidepressivo mais seguro

Technology: Duloxetine and other antidepressants available in the Brazilian Public Health System (amitriptyline, nortriptyline, clomipramine, fluoxetine and bupropion). Indication: Treatment of the first depressive episode in adult major depressive disorder. Question: Is duloxetine more effective and tolerable than amitriptyline, nortriptyline, clomipramine, fluoxetine and bupropion for the treatment of first episode of major depression in adults? Methods: Rapid response review of evidence (overview) from systematic reviews, with a bibliographic search in the PUBMED database, using a structured strategy. The methodological quality of systematic reviews was assessed with AMSTAR-2 (Methodological Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews). Results: One systematic review was selected, which met the inclusion criteria. Conclusion: In short-term treatment, antidepressants, compared to placebo, had a higher rate of response, rate of remission and rate drop-out due to side effects. Duloxetine had a similar response rate to amitriptyline, clomipramine, fluoxetine and bupropion. Duloxetine and amitriptyline had higher remission rates than fluoxetine. Comparing rates of dropout due to side effects, clomipramine had the worst rates, amitriptyline, bupropion, and duloxetine were similar to each other, and fluoxetine had the better rates

Lisdexanfetamina comparada a Metilfenidato ou antidepressivos no tratamento de TDAH em crianças e adolescentes: revisão rápida de evidências / Lisdexamfetamine compared to Methylphenidate or antidepressants for treatment of ADHD: rapid response review of evidence

Lisdexanfetamina e drogas disponíveis no SUS (metilfenidato, bupropiona, amitriptilina, clomipramina, nortriptilina). Indicação: Transtorno do Déficit de Atenção e Hiperatividade (TDAH) em crianças e adolescentes. Pergunta: Lisdexanfetamina é eficaz e segura para melhoria de sintomática, comparada ao placebo e medicações disponíveis no SUS, no tratamento de crianças e adolescentes com TDAH? Métodos: Revisão rápida de evidências (overview) de revisões sistemáticas, com levantamento bibliográfico realizado na base de dados PUBMED, utilizando estratégia estruturada de busca. A qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas foi avaliada com AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews). Resultados: Foram selecionadas 3 revisões sistemáticas, que atenderam aos critérios de inclusão. Conclusão: Lisdexanfetamina e metilfenidato são mais eficazes que placebo, e similares entre si, para reduzir sintomas em escalas de avaliação. Lisdexanfetamina e metilfenidato têm risco similar ao placebo de abandono do tratamento devido a efeitos adversos. Bupropiona não é mais eficaz que placebo para alívio sintomático. Lisdexanfetamina tem efeitos adversos de redução do apetite e insônia/ dificuldades do sono. Não foram encontradas evidências na literatura sobre os efeitos terapêuticos de amitriptilina, clomipramina e nortriptilina no tratamento de crianças e adolescentes com TDAH

Lisdexamfetamine and drugs available in the Brazilian Public Health System (BPHS) (methylphenidate, bupropion, amitriptyline, clomipramine, nortriptyline, bupropion). Indication: Children and adolescents with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Question: Lisdexamfetamine is effective and safe for symptomatic improvement, compared to placebo and drugs available in the BPHS, for treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD? Methods: Rapid response review of evidence (overview) of systematic reviews, with bibliographic search in the PUBMED database, using a structured strategy. The methodological quality of systematic reviews was assessed with AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews). Results: 3 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria and were selected. Conclusion: Lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate are more effective than placebo, and similar to each other, to reduce symptoms on rating scales. Lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate are not different from placebo in the risk of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects. Bupropion is no more effective than placebo for symptomatic relief. Lisdexamfetamine has adverse effects of decreased appetite and insomnia/sleep troubles. No evidence was found in the literature about therapeutic effects of amitriptyline, clomipramine and nortriptyline for treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD

Cardiovascular safety of naltrexone and bupropion therapy: Systematic review and meta-analyses.

Despite being approved for clinical use, evidence of cardiovascular safety (CV) is lacking for treatment with bupropion, naltrexone, or their combination (B-N). The purpose of the study is to determine the relationship between these treatments and the risk of major cardiovascular adverse events (MACE). Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCT) evaluating bupropion, naltrexone, or B-N versus control with reported incidence of MACE. The meta-analysis included 12 RCTs, 69% for weight loss and 29% for smoking cessation, with 19,176 patients and 7354 patient-years who were randomized to an active treatment (bupropion [n = 2965] or B-N [n = 6980] or naltrexone [n = 249]) versus control (placebo [n = 6968] or nicotine patch [n = 2014]). The mean age was 54 ± 8 years (55% female), and the baseline BMI was 32 ± 5 kg/m2 . The additive network meta-analysis model for random effects showed no association between bupropion, B-N, or naltrexone and MACE (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90 [95%CI 0.65-1.25], p = 0.52; OR = 0.97 [95%CI 0.75-1.24], p = 0.79; OR = 1.08 [95%CI 0.71-1.63], p = 0.73, respectively; I2 = 0%, p = 0.86). Meta-regression analyses showed no significant association between MACE and potential confounders from RCT demographic disparities (p = 0.58). The statistical power (post hoc two-tailed) for non-inferiority was 91%, giving a strong probability of validity. Naltrexone, bupropion, or B-N is not associated with the incidence of MACE as compared with placebo.

Immediate-release methylphenidate for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterized by symptoms of inattention or impulsivity or both, and hyperactivity, which affect children, adolescents, and adults. In some countries, methylphenidate is the first option to treat adults with moderate or severe ADHD. However, evidence on the efficacy and adverse events of immediate-release (IR) methylphenidate in the treatment of ADHD in adults is limited and controversial. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and harms (adverse events) of IR methylphenidate for treating ADHD in adults. SEARCH METHODS: In January 2020, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight additional databases and three trial registers. We also searched internal reports on the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration websites. We checked citations of included trials to identify additional trials not captured by the electronic searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IR methylphenidate, at any dose, with placebo or other pharmacological interventions (including extended-release formulations of methylphenidate) for ADHD in adults. Primary outcomes comprised changes in the symptoms of ADHD (efficacy) and harms. Secondary outcomes included changes in the clinical impression of severity and improvement, level of functioning, depression, anxiety and quality of life. Outcomes could have been rated by investigators or participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data independently on the characteristics of the trials, participants, interventions; outcomes and financial conflict of interests. We resolved disagreements by discussion or consulting a third review author. We obtained additional, unpublished information from the authors of one included trial that had reported efficacy data in a graph. We calculated mean differences (MDs) or standardized MDs (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data reported on the same or different scales, respectively. We summarized dichotomous variables as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 trials published between 2001 and 2016 involving 497 adults with ADHD. Three trials were conducted in Europe and one in Argentina; the remaining trials did not report their location. The RCTs compared IR methylphenidate with placebo, an osmotic-release oral system (OROS) of methylphenidate (an extended-release formulation), an extended-release formulation of bupropion, lithium, and Pycnogenol® (maritime pine bark extract). Participants comprised outpatients, inpatients in addiction treatment, and adults willing to attend an intensive outpatient program for cocaine dependence. The duration of the follow-up ranged from 6 to 18 weeks. IR methylphenidate versus placebo We found very low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may reduce symptoms of ADHD when measured with investigator-rated scales (MD -20.70, 95% CI -23.97 to -17.43; 1 trial, 146 participants; end scores; Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Report Scale (AISRS), scored from 0 to 54), but the evidence is uncertain. The effect of IR methylphenidate on ADHD symptoms when measured with participant-rated scales was moderate, but the certainty of the evidence is very low (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -1.25 to 0.06; I2 = 69%; 2 trials, 138 participants; end scores). There is very low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may reduce the clinical impression of the severity of ADHD symptoms (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.28; 2 trials, 139 participants; I2 = 0%; change and end scores; Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity scale (scored from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse))). There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may slightly impact the clinical impression of an improvement in symptoms of ADHD (MD -0.94, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.51; 1 trial, 49 participants; end scores; CGI-Improvement scale (scored from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse))). There is no clear evidence of an effect on anxiety (MD -0.20, 95% CI -4.84 to 4.44; 1 trial, 19 participants; change scores; Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A; scored from 0 to 56); very low-certainty evidence) or depression (MD 2.80, 95% CI -0.09 to 5.69; 1 trial, 19 participants; change scores; Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D; scored from 0 to 52); very low-certainty evidence) in analyses comparing IR methylphenidate with placebo. IR methylphenidate versus lithium Compared with lithium, it is uncertain whether IR methylphenidate increases or decreases symptoms of ADHD (MD 0.60, 95% CI -3.11 to 4.31; 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (scored from 0 to 198); very low-certainty evidence); anxiety (MD -0.80, 95% CI -4.49 to 2.89; 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; HAM-A; very low-certainty evidence); or depression (MD -1.20, 95% CI -3.81 to 1.41, 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; HAM-D scale; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials assessed participant-rated changes in symptoms of ADHD, or clinical impression of severity or improvement in participants treated with IR methylphenidate compared with lithium. Adverse events were poorly assessed and reported. We rated all trials at high risk of bias due to selective outcome reporting of harms and masking of outcome assessors (failure to blind outcome assessor to measure adverse events). Overall, four trials with 203 participants who received IR methylphenidate and 141 participants who received placebo described the occurrence of harms. The use of IR methylphenidate in these trials increased the risk of gastrointestinal complications (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.95) and loss of appetite (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.96). Cardiovascular adverse events were reported inconsistently, preventing a comprehensive analysis. One trial comparing IR methylphenidate to lithium reported five and nine adverse events, respectively. We considered four trials to have notable concerns of vested interests influencing the evidence, and authors from two trials omitted information related to the sources of funding and conflicts of interest. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no certain evidence that IR methylphenidate compared with placebo or lithium can reduce symptoms of ADHD in adults (low- and very low-certainty evidence). Adults treated with IR methylphenidate are at increased risk of gastrointestinal and metabolic-related harms compared with placebo. Clinicians should consider whether it is appropriate to prescribe IR methylphenidate, given its limited efficacy and increased risk of harms. Future RCTs should explore the long-term efficacy and risks of IR methylphenidate, and the influence of conflicts of interest on reported effects.

Ketamine treatment protects against oxidative damage and the immunological response induced by electroconvulsive therapy.

BACKGROUND: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is often recommended for major depressive disorder (MDD) for those who do not respond to the first and second antidepressant trials. A combination of two therapies could improve antidepressant efficacy. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the synergistic effects of ECT combined to antidepressants with a different mechanism of action. METHODS: Rats were treated once a day, for five days with ketamine (5 mg/kg), fluoxetine (1 mg/kg), and bupropion (4 mg/kg) alone or in combination with ECT (1 mA; 100 V). After, oxidative damage and antioxidant capacity were assessed in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and hippocampus, and pro-inflammatory cytokines levels were evaluated in the serum. RESULTS: ECT alone increased lipid peroxidation in the PFC and hippocampus. In the PFC of rats treated with ECT in combination with fluoxetine and bupropion, and in the hippocampus of rats treated with ECT combined with ketamine and bupropion there was a reduction in the lipid peroxidation. The nitrite/nitrate was increased by ECT alone but reverted by combination with ketamine in the hippocampus. Superoxide dismutase (SOD) was increased by ECT and maintained by fluoxetine and bupropion in the PFC. ECT alone increased interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß) and the administration of ketamine was able to revert this increase showing a neuroprotective effect of this drug when in combination with ECT. CONCLUSION: The treatment with ECT leads to an increase in oxidative damage and alters the immunological system. The combination with ketamine was able to protect against oxidative damage and the immunological response induced by ECT.

Development and Validation of a Model to Predict Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate clinical risk prediction tools for neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). STUDY DESIGN: We developed prediction models for NAS based on a set of 30 demographic and antenatal exposure covariates collected during pregnancy. Data (outpatient prescription, vital, and administrative records), were obtained from enrollees in the Tennessee Medicaid Program from 2009 to 2014. Models were created using logistic regression and backward selection based on improvement in the Akaike information criterion, and internally validated using bootstrap cross-validation. RESULTS: A total of 218 020 maternal and infant dyads met inclusion criteria, of whom 3208 infants were diagnosed with NAS. The general population model included age, hepatitis C virus infection, days of opioid used by type, number of cigarettes used daily, and the following medications used in the last 30 day of pregnancy: bupropion, antinausea medicines, benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and gabapentin. Infant characteristics included birthweight, small for gestational age, and infant sex. A high-risk model used a smaller number of predictive variables. Both models discriminated well with an area under the curve of 0.89 and were well-calibrated for low-risk infants. CONCLUSIONS: We developed 2 predictive models for NAS based on demographics and antenatal exposure during the last 30 days of pregnancy that were able to risk stratify infants at risk of developing the syndrome.

Methylglyoxal-Mediated Dopamine Depletion, Working Memory Deficit, and Depression-Like Behavior Are Prevented by a Dopamine/Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitor.

Methylglyoxal (MGO) is an endogenous toxin, mainly produced as a by-product of glycolysis that has been associated to aging, Alzheimer's disease, and inflammation. Cell culture studies reported that MGO could impair the glyoxalase, thioredoxin, and glutathione systems. Thus, we investigated the effect of in vivo MGO administration on these systems, but no major changes were observed in the glyoxalase, thioredoxin, and glutathione systems, as evaluated in the prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus of mice. A previous study from our group indicated that MGO administration produced learning/memory deficits and depression-like behavior. Confirming these findings, the tail suspension test indicated that MGO treatment for 7 days leads to depression-like behavior in three different mice strains. MGO treatment for 12 days induced working memory impairment, as evaluated in the Y maze spontaneous alternation test, which was paralleled by low dopamine and serotonin levels in the cerebral cortex. Increased DARPP32 Thr75/Thr34 phosphorylation ratio was observed, suggesting a suppression of phosphatase 1 inhibition, which may be involved in behavioral responses to MGO. Co-treatment with a dopamine/noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (bupropion, 10 mg/kg, p.o.) reversed the depression-like behavior and working memory impairment and restored the serotonin and dopamine levels in the cerebral cortex. Overall, the cerebral cortex monoaminergic system appears to be a preferential target of MGO toxicity, a new potential therapeutic target that remains to be addressed.

Bupropion in dermatology: A brief update.

There is currently an interest in evaluating the role that antidepressants may play in the treatment of primary cutaneous disorders. It has been proposed that antidepressants could have anti-inflammatory effects, but the clinical relevance of this effect has not been adequately established. In the case of bupropion, evidence for its specific use in dermatologic conditions currently come only from a pilot study and a case report. While this level of evidence is unlikely to be sufficient to guide clinical practice, the authors of this brief update hope to sort the available information to serve as a guide and provide a structure for future research.