Treatment guesses in the Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study: Accuracy, unblinding and influence on outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the presence and impact of unblinding during the influential Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00006286). METHOD: Our analysis was part of a Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials reanalysis. Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study trialled fluoxetine, placebo, cognitive behaviour therapy or their combination, in treating adolescents with major depressive disorder. We analysed the accuracy of guesses of fluoxetine or placebo allocation, and their effects on change in Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Of 221 participants allocated to fluoxetine or placebo, 151 adolescents (68%) had their guess about pill-treatment-arm allocation recorded at week 6, and guesses were recorded for 154 independent evaluators, 159 parents and 164 pharmacotherapists. All of these groups guessed treatment allocation more accurately than would be expected by chance (60-66% accuracy; all p-values ⩽ 0.004). Guesses did not become more accurate between 6 and 12 weeks and were not predicted by adverse events, though event documentation was poor. Treatment guess had a substantial and statistically significant effect on outcome (Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised change mean difference 9.12 [4.69; 13.55], ß = 0.334, p < 0.001), but actual treatment arm did not (1.53 [-2.83; 5.89], ß = 0.056, p = 0.489). Removing guess from the analysis increased the apparent effect of treatment arm, making it almost statistically significant at the conventional alpha-level of 0.05 (p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: For Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study, treatment guesses strongly predicted outcomes and may have led to the exaggeration of drug effectiveness in the absence of actual effects. The integrity of double-blinding in trials should be routinely assessed and reported.

Experiences of reduction and discontinuation of antipsychotics: a qualitative investigation within the RADAR trial.

Background: Antipsychotics are a core treatment for psychosis, but the evidence for gradual dose reductions guided by clinicians is under-developed. The RADAR randomised controlled trial (RCT) compared antipsychotic reduction and possible discontinuation with maintenance treatment for people with recurrent psychotic disorders. The current study explored participants' experiences of antipsychotic reduction or discontinuation within this trial. Methods: This qualitative study was embedded within the RADAR RCT (April 2017-March 2022) that recruited 253 participants from specialist community mental health services in 19 public healthcare localities in England. Participants were adults with recurrent non affective psychosis who were taking antipsychotic medication. Semi-structured interviews, lasting 30-90 min, were conducted after the trial final 24-month follow-up with 26 people who reduced and/or discontinued antipsychotics within the trial, sampled purposively for diversity in sociodemographic characteristics, trial variables, and pre-trial medication and clinical factors. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and findings are reported qualitatively. Findings: Most participants reported reduced adverse effects of antipsychotics with dose reductions, primarily in mental clouding, emotional blunting and sedation, and some positive impacts on social functioning and sense of self. Over half experienced deteriorations in mental health, including psychotic symptoms and intolerable levels of emotional intensity. Nine had a psychotic relapse. The trial context in which medication reduction was explicitly part of clinical care provided various learning opportunities. Some participants were highly engaged with reduction processes, and despite difficulties including relapses, developed novel perspectives on medication, dose optimisation, and how to manage their mental health. Others were more ambivalent about reduction or experienced less overall impact. Interpretation: Experiences of antipsychotic reductions over two years were dynamic and diverse, shaped by variations in dose reduction profiles, reduction effects, personal motivation and engagement levels, and relationships with prescribers. There are relapse risks and challenges, but some people experience medication reduction done with clinical guidance as empowering. Clinicians can use findings to inform and work flexibly with service users to establish optimal antipsychotic doses. Funding: National Institute for Health Research.

Antipsychotic dose reduction and discontinuation versus maintenance treatment in people with schizophrenia and other recurrent psychotic disorders in England (the RADAR trial): an open, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance antipsychotic medication is recommended for people with schizophrenia or recurrent psychosis, but the adverse effects are burdensome, and evidence on long-term outcomes is sparse. We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of a gradual process of antipsychotic reduction compared with maintenance treatment. Our hypothesis was that antipsychotic reduction would improve social functioning with a short-term increase in relapse. METHODS: RADAR was an open, parallel-group, randomised trial done in 19 National Health Service Trusts in England. Participants were aged 18 years and older, had a diagnosis of recurrent, non-affective psychotic disorder, and were prescribed an antipsychotic. Exclusion criteria included people who had a mental health crisis or hospital admission in the past month, were considered to pose a serious risk to themselves or others by a treating clinician, or were mandated to take antipsychotic medication under the Mental Health Act. Through an independent, internet-based system, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to gradual, flexible antipsychotic reduction, overseen by treating clinicians, or to maintenance. Participants and clinicians were aware of treatment allocations, but assessors were masked to them. Follow-up was for 2 years. Social functioning, assessed by the Social Functioning Scale, was the primary outcome. The principal secondary outcome was severe relapse, defined as requiring admission to hospital. Analysis was done blind to group identity using intention-to-treat data. The trial is completed and has been registered with ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN90298520) and with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03559426). FINDINGS: 4157 people were screened, of whom 253 were randomly allocated, including 168 (66%) men, 82 (32%) women, and 3 (1%) transgender people, with a mean age of 46 years (SD 12, range 22-79). 171 (67%) participants were White, 52 (21%) were Black, 16 (6%) were Asian, and 12 (5%) were of other ethnicity. The median dose reduction at any point during the trial was 67% in the reduction group and zero in the maintenance group; at 24 months it was 33% versus zero. At the 24-month follow-up, we assessed 90 of 126 people assigned to the antipsychotic dose reduction group and 94 of 127 assigned to the maintenance group, finding no difference in the Social Functioning Scale (ß 0·19, 95% CI -1·94 to 2·33; p=0·86). There were 93 serious adverse events in the reduction group affecting 49 individuals, mainly comprising admission for a mental health relapse, and 64 in the maintenance group, relating to 29 individuals. INTERPRETATION: At 2-year follow-up, a gradual, supported process of antipsychotic dose reduction had no effect on social functioning. Our data can help to inform decisions about the use of long-term antipsychotic medication. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

RELEASE (REdressing Long-tErm Antidepressant uSE): protocol for a 3-arm pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial effectiveness-implementation hybrid type-1 in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Many people experience withdrawal symptoms when they attempt to stop antidepressants. Withdrawal symptoms are readily misconstrued for relapse or ongoing need for medication, contributing to long-term use (> 12 months). Long-term antidepressant use is increasing internationally yet is not recommended for most people. Long-term use is associated with adverse effects including weight gain, sexual dysfunction, lethargy, emotional numbing and increased risk of falls and fractures. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of two multi-strategy interventions (RELEASE and RELEASE+) in supporting the safe cessation of long-term antidepressants, estimate cost-effectiveness, and evaluate implementation strategies. METHODS: DESIGN: 3-arm pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial effectiveness-implementation hybrid type-1. SETTING: primary care general practices in southeast Queensland, Australia. POPULATION: adults 18 years or older taking antidepressants for longer than 1 year. Practices will be randomised on a 1.5:1:1 ratio of Usual care:RELEASE:RELEASE+. INTERVENTION: RELEASE for patients includes evidence-based information and resources and an invitation to medication review; RELEASE for GPs includes education, training and printable resources via practice management software. RELEASE+ includes additional internet support for patients and prescribing support including audit and feedback for GPs. OUTCOME MEASURES: the primary outcome is antidepressant use at 12 months self-reported by patients. Cessation is defined as 0 mg antidepressant maintained for at least 2 weeks. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: at 6 and 12 months are health-related quality of life, antidepressant side effects, well-being, withdrawal symptoms, emotional numbing, beliefs about antidepressants, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms; and at 12 months 75% reduction in antidepressant dose; aggregated practice level antidepressant prescribing, and health service utilisation for costs. SAMPLE SIZE: 653 patients from 28 practices. A concurrent evaluation of implementation will be through mixed methods including interviews with up to 40 patients and primary care general practitioners, brief e-surveys, and study administrative data to assess implementation outcomes (adoption and fidelity). DISCUSSION: The RELEASE study will develop new knowledge applicable internationally on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and implementation of two multi-strategy interventions in supporting the safe cessation of long-term antidepressants to improve primary health care and outcomes for patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR, ACTRN12622001379707p. Registered on 27 October 2022.

The need for antidepressant withdrawal support services: Recommendations from 708 patients.

Approximately half of the tens of millions of people currently taking antidepressants will experience withdrawal symptoms when they try to reduce or come off them. Nearly half of these describe their symptoms as severe in surveys. Many prescribing doctors seem ill-informed and unprepared to provide effective discontinuation advice and support, often misdiagnosing withdrawal as a relapse of depression or anxiety. 708 members of online support groups for people on antidepressants, from 31 countries, completed a sentence in an online survey: 'A public health service to help people come off antidepressants should include ................'. Two independent researchers categorised their responses into themes, and then reached consensus via discussion. Seven themes emerged: 'Prescriber Role', 'Information', 'Other Supports/Services', 'Strong Negative Feelings re Doctors/Services etc.', Informed Consent When Prescribed', 'Drug Companies' and: 'Public Health Campaign'. The most frequently mentioned requirements of the Prescriber Role were that prescribers be properly informed, provide small doses/liquid/tapering strips, develop a withdrawal plan and believe patients about their withdrawal experiences. The most frequently recommended other services were psychotherapy/counselling, support groups, patient led/informed services, nutrition advice, 24-hour crisis support and 'holistic/lifestyle' approaches. Many respondents were angry about how uninformed their doctors were and how they had been treated.

A comparison of opioid prescription trends in England and the United States from 2008 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: The prescription opioid epidemic in the United States (US) is well documented, and recent measures have reduced prescribing rates in that country. Evidence suggests opioid prescriptions have been rising recently in other countries too. OBJECTIVE: The current paper aimed to compare trends in opioid prescribing in England and the US. METHODS: Trends in rates of prescriptions per 100 members of the population were calculated for England and the US using publicly available government data on prescriptions and population statistics. RESULTS: Rates of prescribing are converging. At the peak of the US epidemic in 2012, there were 81.3 prescriptions per 100 people, but this had fallen to 43.3 by 2020. Prescribing peaked in England in 2016 at 43.2 prescriptions per 100 people, but has fallen only slightly, so that in 2020 there were 40.9 prescriptions per 100 people. CONCLUSION: The data indicate that levels of opioid prescribing in England are now similar to those in the US. They remain high in both countries, despite recent falls. This suggests the need for further measures to prevent over-prescribing and to support people who would benefit from withdrawing from these drugs.

"Stabilise-reduce, stabilise-reduce": A survey of the common practices of deprescribing services and recommendations for future services.

BACKGROUND: Public Health England recently called for the establishment of services to help people to safely stop prescribed drugs associated with dependence and withdrawal, including benzodiazepines, z-drugs, antidepressants, gabapentinoids and opioids. NICE identified a lack of knowledge about the best model for such service delivery. Therefore, we performed a global survey of existing deprescribing services to identify common practices and inform service development. METHODS: We identified existing deprescribing services and interviewed key personnel in these services using an interview co-produced with researchers with lived experience of withdrawal. We summarised the common practices of the services and analysed the interviews using a rapid form of qualitative framework analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen deprescribing services were included (8 UK, 5 from other countries). The common practices in the services were: gradual tapering of medications often over more than a year, and reductions made in a broadly hyperbolic manner (smaller reductions as total dose became lower). Reductions were individualised so that withdrawal symptoms remained tolerable, with the patient leading this decision-making in most services. Support and reassurance were provided throughout the process, sometimes by means of telephone support lines. Psychosocial support for the management of underlying conditions (e.g. CBT, counselling) were provided by the service or through referral. Lived experience was often embedded in services through founders, hiring criteria, peer support and sources of information to guide tapering. CONCLUSION: We found many common practices across existing deprescribing services around the world. We suggest that these ingredients are included in commissioning guidance of future services and suggest directions for further research to clarify best practice.

Designing withdrawal support services for antidepressant users: Patients' views on existing services and what they really need.

BACKGROUND: Public Health England has recommended that services be put in place to support people who choose to withdraw from antidepressants because of a current gap. This study aims to explore the views of members of online withdrawal peer-support groups about existing healthcare and what additional support is needed. METHODS: The administrators of 15 online support groups for people stopping antidepressants were asked to advertise an online survey to their members. The survey, which was online from May 2021 to April 2022, was completed by 1276 people from 49 countries. RESULTS: 71% of respondents found their doctors' advice unhelpful (57% 'very unhelpful') regarding stopping an antidepressant; the main reasons being 'Recommended a reduction rate that was too quick for me', 'Not familiar enough with withdrawal symptoms to advise me' and 'Suggested stopping antidepressants would not cause withdrawal symptoms'. One in three did not seek advice from their prescriber when deciding whether to withdraw, with the main reasons being 'I felt they would not be supportive' (58%) and 'I felt that they didn't have the expertise to help me' (51%). The most common prescriber responses to those who did seek advice was 'Suggested a quick withdrawal schedule' (56%) and 'Not supportive and offered no guidance' (27%). The most common discontinuation periods recommended by doctors were one month (23%) and two weeks (19%). A range of potential professional services were rated 'very useful', most frequently: 'Access to smaller doses (e.g. tapering strips, liquid, smaller dose tablets) to ensure gradual reduction' (88%) and 'A health professional providing a personalised, flexible reduction plan' (79%). LIMITATIONS: This was a convenience sample, which may have been biased towards people who took longer to withdraw, and experienced more withdrawal symptoms, than antidepressant users in general. Black and ethnic minority people, and people without access to the internet, were underrepresented. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants reported their prescribers were unable to help them safely stop antidepressants, compelling them to turn to online peer-support groups instead. Our findings indicate, in keeping with previous studies, that clinicians require upskilling in safe tapering of antidepressants, and that patients need specialised services to help them stop safely.

Recruitment to a trial of antipsychotic reduction: impact of an acceptability study.

OBJECTIVES: Pre-trial acceptability studies may boost recruitment, especially in trials comparing distinctly different interventions. We evaluated the impact of an acceptability study on recruitment to a randomised trial of antipsychotic reduction versus maintenance treatment and explored demographic and clinical predictors of subsequent enrolment. METHODS: Participants with a diagnosis of a schizophrenia spectrum disorder who were taking antipsychotic medication were interviewed about their views of taking part in a future trial. RESULTS: In a sample of 210 participants, 151 (71.9%) expressed an interest in taking part in the future trial, 16 (7.6%) said they might be interested, and 43 (20.5%) said they were not. Altruistic reasons were most commonly given for wanting to take part, and concern about randomisation for not wanting to. Ultimately 57 people enrolled in the trial (27.1% of the original sample). Eighty-five people who initially expressed an interest did not enrol due to declining or not being eligible (for clinical reasons). Women and people from a white ethnic background were more likely to enrol in the trial, but no illness or treatment-related characteristics were associated with enrolment. CONCLUSION: An acceptability study can be a useful tool for recruitment to challenging trials, but it may over-estimate recruitment.

The risks of adverse events with venlafaxine and mirtazapine versus 'active placebo', placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for two separate systematic reviews with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder causes a great burden on patients and societies. Venlafaxine and mirtazapine are commonly prescribed as second-line treatment for patients with major depressive disorder worldwide. Previous systematic reviews have concluded that venlafaxine and mirtazapine reduce depressive symptoms, but the effects seem small and may not be important to the average patient. Moreover, previous reviews have not systematically assessed the occurrence of adverse events. Therefore, we aim to investigate the risks of adverse events with venlafaxine or mirtazapine versus 'active placebo', placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder in two separate systematic reviews. METHODS: This is a protocol for two systematic reviews with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. The assessments of the effects of venlafaxine or mirtazapine will be reported in two separate reviews. The protocol is reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols, risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2, clinical significance will be assessed using our eight-step procedure, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We will search for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases and trial registers. Two review authors will independently screen the results from the literature searches, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We will include published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing venlafaxine or mirtazapine with 'active placebo', placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The primary outcomes will be suicides or suicide attempts, serious adverse events, and non-serious adverse events. Exploratory outcomes will include depressive symptoms, quality of life, and individual adverse events. If feasible, we will assess the intervention effects using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. DISCUSSION: Venlafaxine and mirtazapine are frequently used as second-line treatment of major depressive disorder worldwide. There is a need for a thorough systematic review to provide the necessary background for weighing the benefits against the harms. This review will ultimately inform best practice in the treatment of major depressive disorder. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022315395.

The serotonin theory of depression: a systematic umbrella review of the evidence.

The serotonin hypothesis of depression is still influential. We aimed to synthesise and evaluate evidence on whether depression is associated with lowered serotonin concentration or activity in a systematic umbrella review of the principal relevant areas of research. PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched using terms appropriate to each area of research, from their inception until December 2020. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large data-set analyses in the following areas were identified: serotonin and serotonin metabolite, 5-HIAA, concentrations in body fluids; serotonin 5-HT1A receptor binding; serotonin transporter (SERT) levels measured by imaging or at post-mortem; tryptophan depletion studies; SERT gene associations and SERT gene-environment interactions. Studies of depression associated with physical conditions and specific subtypes of depression (e.g. bipolar depression) were excluded. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the quality of included studies using the AMSTAR-2, an adapted AMSTAR-2, or the STREGA for a large genetic study. The certainty of study results was assessed using a modified version of the GRADE. We did not synthesise results of individual meta-analyses because they included overlapping studies. The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020207203). 17 studies were included: 12 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 1 collaborative meta-analysis, 1 meta-analysis of large cohort studies, 1 systematic review and narrative synthesis, 1 genetic association study and 1 umbrella review. Quality of reviews was variable with some genetic studies of high quality. Two meta-analyses of overlapping studies examining the serotonin metabolite, 5-HIAA, showed no association with depression (largest n = 1002). One meta-analysis of cohort studies of plasma serotonin showed no relationship with depression, and evidence that lowered serotonin concentration was associated with antidepressant use (n = 1869). Two meta-analyses of overlapping studies examining the 5-HT1A receptor (largest n = 561), and three meta-analyses of overlapping studies examining SERT binding (largest n = 1845) showed weak and inconsistent evidence of reduced binding in some areas, which would be consistent with increased synaptic availability of serotonin in people with depression, if this was the original, causal abnormaly. However, effects of prior antidepressant use were not reliably excluded. One meta-analysis of tryptophan depletion studies found no effect in most healthy volunteers (n = 566), but weak evidence of an effect in those with a family history of depression (n = 75). Another systematic review (n = 342) and a sample of ten subsequent studies (n = 407) found no effect in volunteers. No systematic review of tryptophan depletion studies has been performed since 2007. The two largest and highest quality studies of the SERT gene, one genetic association study (n = 115,257) and one collaborative meta-analysis (n = 43,165), revealed no evidence of an association with depression, or of an interaction between genotype, stress and depression. The main areas of serotonin research provide no consistent evidence of there being an association between serotonin and depression, and no support for the hypothesis that depression is caused by lowered serotonin activity or concentrations. Some evidence was consistent with the possibility that long-term antidepressant use reduces serotonin concentration.

Melatonin for sleep disorders in children with neurodevelopmental disorders: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of randomised clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: Neurodevelopmental disorders are a group of disorders thought to be associated with the functioning of the brain and the nervous system. Children with neurodevelopmental disorders often have sleep-related comorbidities that may negatively affect quality of life for both the children and their families. Melatonin is one of the most used interventions in children with neurodevelopmental disorders and sleep disorders. Previous reviews have investigated the effects of melatonin for sleep disorders in children with neurodevelopmental disorders, but these had important limitations, such as inadequate analysis of adverse effects, small sample sizes and short follow-up. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of randomised clinical trials. The protocol is reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We will search for published and unpublished trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We will search the databases from their inception without language restrictions. We will also request clinical study reports from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Review authors working in pairs will screen reports, extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We will include randomised clinical trials comparing melatonin versus placebo or no intervention for sleep disorders in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Primary outcomes will be total sleep time and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life of the child and caregivers and sleep onset latency. Data will be analysed using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. Certainty of evidence will be assessed with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was not required for this protocol. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022337530.

Effects of lithium on suicide and suicidal behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

AIMS: Lithium has long been believed to reduce the risk of suicide and suicidal behaviour in people with mood disorders. Previous meta-analyses appeared to support this belief, but excluded relevant data due to the difficulty of conducting meta-analysis of rare events. The current study is an updated systematic review and meta-analysis that includes all eligible data, and evaluates suicide, non-fatal suicidal behaviour (including suicidal ideation) and suicide attempts. METHODS: We searched PubMed, PsycINFO and Embase and some trial registers. We included all randomised trials comparing lithium and placebo or treatment as usual in mood disorders published after 2000, to ensure suicide was reliably reported. Trial quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Pooled data were analysed using Fisher's Exact test. In addition, meta-analysis was conducted using various methods, prioritizing the Exact method. All trials were included in the analysis of suicide initially, regardless of whether they reported on suicide or not. We conducted a sensitivity analysis with trials that specifically reported on suicides and one that included trials published before 2000. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed involving suicide prevention trials, trials excluding people already taking lithium, trials involving people with bipolar disorder exclusively and those involving people with mixed affective diagnoses. Non-fatal suicidal behaviour and suicide attempts were analysed using the same methods, but only trials that reported these outcomes were included. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021265809. RESULTS: Twelve eligible studies involving 2578 participants were included. The pooled suicide rate was 0.2% for people randomised to lithium and 0.4% with placebo or treatment as usual, which was not a statistically significant difference; odds ratio (OR) = 0.41 (95% confidence interval 0.03-2.49), p = 0.45. Meta-analysis using the Exact method produced an OR of 0.42 (95% confidence interval 0.01-4.5). The result was not substantially different when restricted to 11 trials that explicitly reported suicides and remained statistically non-significant when including 15 trials published before 2000 (mostly in the 1970s). There were no significant differences in any subgroup analysis. There was no difference in rates of all non-fatal suicidal behaviour in seven trials that reported this outcome, or in five trials that reported suicide attempts specifically. Meta-analyses using other methods also revealed no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from randomised trials is inconclusive and does not support the idea that lithium prevents suicide or suicidal behaviour.