Mirtazapine-induced Acute Pancreatitis in Patients With Depression: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Antidepressant-induced pancreatitis is a rare, albeit serious, adverse effect, with a frequency of occurrence that is not equally distributed among antidepressant drugs. The goal of this study was to investigate the association and causal relationship between mirtazapine treatment of patients with depression and pancreatitis. METHODS: The study was designed as a systematic review of the literature, accompanied by the description of a new case of mirtazapine-associated acute pancreatitis. RESULTS: Nine cases of mirtazapine-associated pancreatitis have been reported, involving 7 female patients and 2 male patients with a mean age of 46.4 years (range: 26 to 83 y of age). All of the patients were hospitalized, with an average length of stay of 16.2 days (range: 3 to 34 d). In 6 cases, "de-challenge" followed by improvement was reported. The patients for whom the outcome was reported (7 of 9) recovered completely. CONCLUSION: Although a rare adverse effect, mirtazapine-induced pancreatitis should be considered when patients taking mirtazapine report abdominal discomfort.

Trazodone and Mianserin for Delirium: A Retrospective Chart Review.

BACKGROUND: Although antipsychotics are commonly used for delirium, their adverse effects are a serious concern in light of extrapyramidal symptoms and cardiovascular disturbances. In clinical practice, sedative antidepressants are frequently used as an alternative treatment for delirium; however, there is scarce evidence. Thus, we conducted a retrospective chart review to examine the use and effectiveness of trazodone and mianserin for delirium. METHODS: Patients who were admitted to a university hospital during 4 years and received either trazodone or mianserin on a regular schedule as monotherapy for the treatment of delirium were included. The rates of and times to the improvement of delirium were compared. RESULTS: Among 3971 patients who developed delirium, 379 (9.5%) and 341 (8.6%) patients received trazodone and mianserin on a regular schedule; 52 and 46 patients met the eligibility criteria (ie, monotherapy) for trazodone and mianserin, respectively. The percentages of patients 65 years or older were 86.5% (n = 45) for trazodone and 89.1% (n = 41) for mianserin. The rates of the improvement of delirium were 63.5% for trazodone and 50.0% for mianserin. Times to the improvement of delirium were 5.3 days (95% confidence interval, 3.2-7.4 days) for trazodone and 9.3 days (95% confidence interval, 5.3-13.3 days) for mianserin. There were no significant differences in the primary outcomes between the 2 groups ( P = 0.17 and P = 0.13, respectively). CONCLUSION: Considering potentially serious, sometimes lethal, adverse effects of antipsychotics, sedative antidepressants such as trazodone and mianserin may be a treatment option for delirium, especially in the elderly.

Asymptomatic syndrome of inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) following duloxetine treatment for pain with depression: Two case reports.

BACKGROUND: Syndrome of inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) is a common side effect in patients treated with SSRIs and venlafaxine, while there is little information on SIADH in the treatment of duloxetine for pain. CASE PRESENTATION: The patients were an 83-year-old Japanese male and a 71-year-old Japanese female. Several years earlier, they complained of pain. Accidentally, blood tests revealed hyponatremia of 110 mmol/L and 108 mmol/L 35 days and 40 days after initiating duloxetine 20 mg/day, respectively. The hyponatremia of both patients recovered after switching from duloxetine to mianserin. CONCLUSION: We conclude that asymptomatic SIADH was induced by use of duloxetine. Psychiatrists should be aware of this syndrome.

Mirtazapine in schizophrenia - an undeservedly overlooked option?

Mirtazapine has often been prescribed as add-on treatment for schizophrenia in patients with suboptimal response to conventional treatments. In this review, we evaluate the existing evidence for efficacy and effectiveness of add-on mirtazapine in schizophrenia and reappraise the practical and theoretical aspects of mirtazapine-antipsychotic combinations. In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), mirtazapine demonstrated favourable effects on negative and cognitive (although plausibly not depressive) symptoms, with no risk of psychotic exacerbation. Mirtazapine also may have a desirable effect on antipsychotic-induced sexual dysfunction, but seems not to alleviate extrapyramidal symptoms, at least if combined with second-generation antipsychotics. It is noteworthy that all published RCTs have been underpowered and relatively short in duration. In the only large pragmatic effectiveness study that provided analyses by add-on antidepressant, only mirtazapine was associated with both decreased rate of hospital admissions and number of in-patient days. Mirtazapine hardly affects the pharmacokinetics of antipsychotics. However, possible pharmacodynamic interactions (sedation and metabolic offence) should be borne in mind. The observed desired clinical effects of mirtazapine may be due to its specific receptor-blocking properties. Alternative theoretical explanations include its possible neuroprotective effect. Further well-designed RCTs and real-world effectiveness studies are needed to determine whether add-on mirtazapine should be recommended for difficult-to-treat schizophrenia.

The Hunger for Mirtazapine: A Discontinuation Syndrome.

While mirtazapine is primarily prescribed for major depressive disorder, it is less commonly prescribed for anorexia related to various disease states. Mirtazapine is associated with few adverse events but potential for a discontinuation syndrome does exist. Here we describe a case of a 53-year-old man prescribed mirtazapine 15 mg/day for appetite stimulation who experienced anxiousness, nausea, tremor, loss of appetite, lack of desire for food, and an 8-pound weight loss after abrupt, inadvertent discontinuation. Symptom onset was acute and presented within 48-hours of stopping his medication. Mirtazapine was restarted at the same dose after 14 days of ongoing symptoms and his symptoms subsided immediately. Scant literature exists to highlight the potentially serious adverse events associated with abrupt mirtazapine discontinuation, even at low doses, and this case contributes to advocating for the need of mirtazapine taper when medication cessation is being considered.

[Serotonin syndrome shortly after the administration of low-dose mirtazapine].

Serotonin syndrome is a rare neuropsychiatric complication caused by serotonergic drugs. Symptoms include confusion, psychosis, tremor, palpitations, hyperthermia, and the neurological examination shows signs of central nervous system deficits. This is a case report of a 67-year-old woman, who developed serotonin syndrome in the form of delusions, tremor, cerebellar ataxia and upper neuron signs one day after administration of low-dose mirtazapine therapy. Complete symptom remission occurred one week after the discontinuation of mirtazapine.

Mirtazapine for fibromyalgia in adults.

BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia is a clinically defined chronic condition of unknown etiology characterised by chronic widespread pain, sleep disturbance, cognitive dysfunction, and fatigue. Many patients report high disability levels and poor quality of life. Drug therapy aims to reduce key symptoms, especially pain, and improve quality of life. The tetracyclic antidepressant, mirtazapine, may help by increasing serotonin and noradrenaline in the central nervous system (CNS). OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of the tetracyclic antidepressant, mirtazapine, compared with placebo or other active drug(s) in the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, the US National Institutes of Health, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for published and ongoing trials, and examined reference lists of reviewed articles, to 9 July 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any formulation of mirtazapine against placebo, or any other active treatment of fibromyalgia, in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, outcomes of efficacy, tolerability and safety, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias, resolving discrepancies by discussion. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief (at least 50% or 30% pain reduction), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC; much or very much improved), safety (serious adverse events), and tolerability (adverse event withdrawal). Other outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improved by 20% or more, fatigue, sleep problems, mean pain intensity, negative mood and particular adverse events. We used a random-effects model to calculate risk difference (RD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and numbers needed to treat. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies with 606 participants compared mirtazapine with placebo (but not other drugs) over seven to 13 weeks. Two studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in six or seven of eight domains. We judged the evidence for all outcomes to be low- or very low-quality because of poor study quality, indirectness, imprecision, risk of publication bias, and sometimes low numbers of events.There was no difference between mirtazapine and placebo for any primary outcome: participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater (22% versus 16%; RD 0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.12; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); no data available for PGIC; only a single serious adverse event for evaluation of safety (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; three studies with 606 participants; very low-quality evidence); and tolerability as frequency of dropouts due to adverse events (3% versus 2%; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence).Mirtazapine showed a clinically-relevant benefit compared to placebo for some secondary outcomes: participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater (47% versus 34%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.21; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 8, 95% CI 5 to 20; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported mean pain intensity (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.13; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); and participant-reported sleep problems (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.06; three studies with 573 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no benefit for improvement of participant-reported improvement of HRQoL of 20% or greater (58% versus 50%; RD 0.08, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.16; three studies with 586 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported fatigue (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.16; two studies with 533 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported negative mood (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.44 to 0.10; three studies with 588 participants; low-quality evidence); or withdrawals due to lack of efficacy (1.5% versus 0.1%; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; three studies with 605 participants; very low-quality evidence).There was no difference between mirtazapine and placebo for participants reporting any adverse event (76% versus 59%; RD 0.12, 95 CI -0.01 to 0.26; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence). There was a clinically-relevant harm with mirtazapine compared to placebo: in the number of participants with somnolence (42% versus 14%; RD 0.24, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.30; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 5, 95% CI 3 to 6; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence); weight gain (19% versus 1%; RD 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.23; NNTH 6, 95% CI 5 to 10; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence); and elevated alanine aminotransferase (13% versus 2%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.22; NNTH 8, 95% CI 5 to 25; two studies with 566 participants; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Studies demonstrated no benefit of mirtazapine over placebo for pain relief of 50% or greater, PGIC, improvement of HRQoL of 20% or greater, or reduction of fatigue or negative mood. Clinically-relevant benefits were shown for pain relief of 30% or greater, reduction of mean pain intensity, and sleep problems. Somnolence, weight gain, and elevated alanine aminotransferase were more frequent with mirtazapine than placebo. The quality of evidence was low or very low, with two of three studies of questionable quality and issues over indirectness and risk of publication bias. On balance, any potential benefits of mirtazapine in fibromyalgia were outweighed by its potential harms, though, a small minority of people with fibromyalgia might experience substantial symptom relief without clinically-relevant adverse events.

Risk of Diabetes Hospitalization or Diabetes Drug Intensification in Patients With Depression and Diabetes Using Second-Generation Antipsychotics Compared to Other Depression Therapies.

OBJECTIVE: Use of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for treatment of depression has increased, and patients with depression and comorbid diabetes or cardiovascular disease are more likely to use SGAs than those without these conditions. We compared SGA and non-SGA depression pharmacotherapies on the risk of diabetes hospitalization or treatment intensification in adults with depression and preexisting diabetes. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of US commercially insured adults (2009-2015 Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database) aged 18-64 years old with type 2 diabetes mellitus and unipolar depression previously treated with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. New users of SGAs versus non-SGAs, as well as specific treatments (aripiprazole, quetiapine, bupropion, mirtazapine, and tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs]) were matched on class/medication-specific high-dimensional propensity score. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the risk of diabetes-related hospitalization or treatment intensification. RESULTS: We identified 6,625 SGA (aripiprazole = 3,461; quetiapine = 1,977; other = 1,187) and 23,921 non-SGA patients for inclusion (bupropion = 15,511; mirtazapine = 1,837; TCAs = 5,989; other = 584) with a mean age of 51 years. In the matched cohort, the rate of diabetes-related hospitalization or drug intensification was 47.9 per 100 person-years in the SGA group and 43.5 per 100 person-years in the non-SGA group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.11). When comparing treatment subgroups, the risk of events was lower for bupropion versus TCAs (aHR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98), quetiapine versus mirtazapine (aHR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.67-0.99), and quetiapine versus TCAs (aHR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98). For other comparisons, differences were small and not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: While drug-specific effects on risk of diabetes hospitalization or treatment intensification most likely guide clinical decision making, we observed only modest differences in risk. The overall impact of SGAs on diabetes control depends not only on direct effects on glucose metabolism but also on effectiveness of depression symptom relief. Future studies evaluating other diabetes outcomes (glycosylated hemoglobin, diabetes complications) are needed.

Association of Antidepressant Use With Drug-Related Extrapyramidal Symptoms: A Pharmacoepidemiological Study.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are one of the most prescribed classes of medications. A number of case reports have linked these drugs to extrapyramidal symptoms (EPSs), but no large epidemiologic study to date has examined this association. We sought to quantify the association of EPSs with different antidepressants by undertaking a large pharmacoepidemiologic study. METHODS: A nested case-control study was conducted using a large health claims database in the United States from June 2006 to December 2015. Subjects with a diagnosis of primary Parkinson disease and those who received prescriptions of levodopa, ropinirole, pramipexole, domperidone, metoclopramide, entacapone, benztropine, selegiline, rasagiline, diphenhydramine, trihexyphenidyl, typical and atypical antipsychotics, and tricyclic antidepressants were excluded. Cases were followed to the first billing code for an extrapyramidal event or last date of enrollment in the cohort. For each case, 10 control subjects were matched by follow-up time, calendar time, and age through density-based sampling. Rate ratios were computed using conditional logistic regression adjusting for other covariates. RESULTS: We identified 3,838 subjects with EPSs compared with 38,380 age-matched control subjects. Rate ratios with respect to EPSs were as follows: duloxetine, 5.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.29-7.53); mirtazapine, 3.78 (95% CI, 1.71-8.32); citalopram, 3.47 (95% CI, 2.68-4.50); escitalopram, 3.23 (95% CI, 2.44-4.26); paroxetine, 3.07 (95% CI, 2.15-4.40); sertraline, 2.57 (95% CI, 2.02-3.28); venlafaxine, 2.37 (95% CI, 1.71-3.29); bupropion, 2.31 (95% CI, 1.67-3.21); and fluoxetine, 2.03 (95% CI, 1.48-2.78). CONCLUSIONS: This observational study demonstrates a harmful association between the incidence of Parkinson disease or associated EPSs and use of the antidepressants duloxetine, mirtazapine, citalopram, escitalopram, paroxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, bupropion, and fluoxetine.

[Antipsychotic induced rhabdomyolysis]. / Rhabdomyolyse induite par un traitement antipsychotique.

We report the case of a 40-year-old patient followed for post-traumatic stress disorder. A re-evaluation of its pharmacological treatment with the introduction of mirtazapine (30 mg/day) was associated with a rhabdomyolysis (CK> 20,000 IU/L at day 3). The diagnosis of mirtazapine induced rhabdomyolysis was made. After withdrawal of this drug combined with a symptomatic treatment (hydratation), the patient recovered well and was discharged without any nephrological sequelae. This article is intended to underline the diagnostic approach to elevated CK activity and the potential role of the "medical biologist" as a consultant for the relevant use of biological examinations. A physiopathological mechanism of this rhabdomyolysis is also proposed.

Antidepressants for insomnia in adults.

BACKGROUND: Insomnia disorder is a subjective condition of unsatisfactory sleep (e.g. sleep onset, maintenance, early waking, impairment of daytime functioning). Insomnia disorder impairs quality of life and is associated with an increased risk of physical and mental health problems including anxiety, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, and increased health service use. hypnotic medications (e.g. benzodiazepines and 'Z' drugs) are licensed for sleep promotion, but can induce tolerance and dependence, although many people remain on long-term treatment. Antidepressant use for insomnia is widespread, but none is licensed for insomnia and the evidence for their efficacy is unclear. This use of unlicensed medications may be driven by concern over longer-term use of hypnotics and the limited availability of psychological treatments. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of antidepressants for insomnia in adults. SEARCH METHODS: This review incorporated the results of searches to July 2015 conducted on electronic bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1950 to 2015), Embase (1980 to 2015) and PsycINFO (1806 to 2015). We updated the searches to December 2017, but these results have not yet been incorporated into the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults (aged 18 years or older) with a primary diagnosis of insomnia and all participant types including people with comorbidities. Any antidepressant as monotherapy at any dose whether compared with placebo, other medications for insomnia (e.g. benzodiazepines and 'Z' drugs), a different antidepressant, waiting list control or treatment as usual. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and extracted data using a data extraction form. A third review author resolved disagreements on inclusion or data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 23 RCTs (2806 participants).Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared with placebo: three studies (135 participants) compared SSRIs with placebo. Combining results was not possible. Two paroxetine studies showed significant improvements in subjective sleep measures at six (60 participants, P = 0.03) and 12 weeks (27 participants, P < 0.001). There was no difference in the fluoxetine study (low quality evidence).There were either no adverse events or they were not reported (very low quality evidence).Tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) compared with placebo: six studies (812 participants) compared TCA with placebo; five used doxepin and one used trimipramine. We found no studies of amitriptyline. Four studies (518 participants) could be pooled, showing a moderate improvement in subjective sleep quality over placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.56 to -0.21) (moderate quality evidence). Moderate quality evidence suggested that TCAs possibly improved sleep efficiency (mean difference (MD) 6.29 percentage points, 95% CI 3.17 to 9.41; 4 studies; 510 participants) and increased sleep time (MD 22.88 minutes, 95% CI 13.17 to 32.59; 4 studies; 510 participants). There may have been little or no impact on sleep latency (MD -4.27 minutes, 95% CI -9.01 to 0.48; 4 studies; 510 participants).There may have been little or no difference in adverse events between TCAs and placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; 6 studies; 812 participants) (low quality evidence).'Other' antidepressants with placebo: eight studies compared other antidepressants with placebo (one used mianserin and seven used trazodone). Three studies (370 participants) of trazodone could be pooled, indicating a moderate improvement in subjective sleep outcomes over placebo (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.02). Two studies of trazodone measured polysomnography and found little or no difference in sleep efficiency (MD 1.38 percentage points, 95% CI -2.87 to 5.63; 169 participants) (low quality evidence).There was low quality evidence from two studies of more adverse effects with trazodone than placebo (i.e. morning grogginess, increased dry mouth and thirst). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified relatively few, mostly small studies with short-term follow-up and design limitations. The effects of SSRIs compared with placebo are uncertain with too few studies to draw clear conclusions. There may be a small improvement in sleep quality with short-term use of low-dose doxepin and trazodone compared with placebo. The tolerability and safety of antidepressants for insomnia is uncertain due to limited reporting of adverse events. There was no evidence for amitriptyline (despite common use in clinical practice) or for long-term antidepressant use for insomnia. High-quality trials of antidepressants for insomnia are needed.

Mirtazapine adjunct for people with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Many individuals who have a diagnosis of schizophrenia experience a range of distressing and debilitating symptoms. These can include positive symptoms (such as delusions, hallucinations, disorganised speech), cognitive symptoms (such as trouble focusing or paying attention or using information to make decisions), and negative symptoms (such as diminished emotional expression, avolition, alogia, and anhedonia). Antipsychotic drugs are often only partially effective, particularly in treating negative symptoms, indicating the need for additional treatment. Mirtazapine is an antidepressant drug that when taken in addition to an antipsychotic may offer some benefit for negative symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the effects of mirtazapine as adjunct treatment for people with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: The Information Specialist of Cochrane Schizophrenia searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (including registries of clinical trials) up to May 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) with useable data focusing on mirtazapine adjunct for people with schizophrenia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. For included studies we assessed risk of bias and created 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs with a total of 310 participants. All studies compared mirtazapine adjunct with placebo adjunct and were of short-term duration. We considered five studies to have a high risk of bias for either incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, or other bias.Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in mental state (negative and positive symptoms), leaving the study early for any reason, clinically important change in global state, clinically important change in quality of life, number of days in hospital and incidence of serious adverse events.One trial defined a reduction in the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) overall score from baseline of at least 20% as no important response for negative symptoms. There was no evidence of a clear difference between the two treatments with similar numbers of participants from each group showing no important response to treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.14, 1 RCT, n = 20, very low-quality evidence).Clinically important change in positive symptoms was not reported, however, clinically important change in overall mental state was reported by two trials and data for this outcome showed a favourable effect for mirtazapine (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.92; I2 = 75%, 2 RCTs, n = 77, very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a clear difference for numbers of participants leaving the study early (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.66, 9 RCTs, n = 310, moderate-quality evidence), and no evidence of a clear difference in global state Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI) severity scores (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.48, 1 RCT, n = 39, very low-quality evidence). A favourable effect for mirtazapine adjunct was found for the outcome clinically important change in akathisia (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.52, 2 RCTs, n = 86, low-quality evidence; I2 = 61%I). No data were reported for quality life or number of days in hospital.In addition to the main outcomes of interest, there was evidence relating to adverse events that the mirtazapine adjunct groups were associated with an increased risk of weight gain (RR 3.19, 95% CI 1.17 to 8.65, 4 RCTs, n = 127) and sedation/drowsiness (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.68, 7 RCTs, n = 223). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is primarily of very low quality and indicates that mirtazapine adjunct is not clearly associated with an effect for negative symptoms, but there is some indication of a positive effect on overall mental state and akathisia. No effect was found for global state or leaving the study early and data were not available for quality of life or service use. Due to limitations of the quality and applicability of the evidence it is not possible to make any firm conclusions, the role of mirtazapine adjunct in routine clinical practice remains unclear. This underscores the need for new high-quality evidence to further evaluate mirtazapine adjunct for schizophrenia.

Severe rhabdomyolysis induced by quetiapine and mirtazapine in a French military soldier.

Rhabdomyolysis is a potential complication of psychotropic drugs use and may potentially lead to life-threatening complications, such as an acute renal failure. We describe the case of a 40-year-old military soldier suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder was admitted for an adaptation of his treatment. Mirtazapine was introduced and quetiapine increased. Two days later, the patient presented with severe rhabdomyolysis syndrome. Mirtazapine administration was paused and intravenous hydration commenced. Shortly after the creatine kinase levels decreased enabling mirtazapine to be reintroduced without complication. It is our opinion that 5-hydroxytryptamine 2a serotonergic receptors inhibition (related to mirtazapine and quetiapine) associated with muscle training was responsible for inducing rhabdomyolysis. This must be kept in mind when psychotropic medications are adjusted, especially in an athletic population such as military.

Can we recommend mirtazapine and bupropion for patients at risk for bleeding?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have reported that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are associated with an increased risk of bleeding. Mirtazapine and bupropion, which commonly lack serotonin reuptake inhibition, have been recommended as alternatives for patients who are at risk for bleeding. However, the evidence for these recommendations is insufficient. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search, systematic review, and meta-analysis to investigate an evidence-based approach for the bleeding risks of mirtazapine and bupropion. From 1946 to May 2017, a total of 3981 studies were searched from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Among the studies, two independent reviewers selected studies per predefined eligibility criteria. RESULTS: A total of five meta-analyses were conducted. Patients taking mirtazapine were at a greater risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (OR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.01-1.38) than those who did not take antidepressants. No differences were observed in the bleeding risk between mirtazapine and SSRI or between bupropion and SSRI. LIMITATIONS: The number of studies included in the meta-analysis was small. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that it is premature to recommend mirtazapine and bupropion for patients who have a bleeding risk. More studies with larger sample sizes and longitudinal follow-ups are warranted.

Treatment of sleep disturbances in trauma-affected refugees: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbances are often referred to as a hallmark and as core symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Untreated sleep disturbances can contribute to the maintenance and exacerbation of PTSD symptoms, which may diminish treatment response and constitute a risk factor for poor treatment outcome. Controlled trials on treatment of sleep disturbances in refugees suffering from PTSD are scarce. The present study aims to examine sleep-enhancing treatment in refugees with PTSD. We aim to assess if add-on treatment with mianserin and/or Imagery Rehearsal Therapy (IRT) to treatment as usual (TAU) for PTSD improves sleep disturbances. We will study the relation between sleep disturbances, PTSD symptoms, psychosocial functioning and quality of life. METHODS: The study is a randomised controlled superiority trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. The study will include 230 trauma-affected refugees. The patients are randomised into four groups. All four groups receive TAU - an interdisciplinary treatment approach covering a period of 6-8 months with pharmacological treatment, physiotherapy, psychoeducation and manual-based cognitive behavioural therapy within a framework of weekly sessions with a physician, physiotherapist or psychologist. One group receives solely TAU, serving as a control group, while the three remaining groups are active-treatment groups receiving add-on treatment with either mianserin, IRT or a combination of both. Treatment outcome is evaluated using self-administered rating scales, observer ratings and actigraph measurements at baseline, during treatment and post treatment. The primary outcome is subjective sleep quality using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Secondary outcome measures are objective sleep length, nightmares, PTSD severity, symptoms of depression and anxiety, pain, quality of life and psychosocial functioning. DISCUSSION: This trial will be the first randomised controlled trial to examine sleep-enhancing treatment in trauma-affected refugees, as well as the first trial to investigate the effect of IRT and mianserin in this population. Therefore, this trial may optimise treatment recommendations for sleep disturbances in trauma-affected refugees. Based on our findings, we expect to discuss the effect of treatment, focussing on sleep disturbances. Furthermore, the results will provide new information regarding the association between sleep disturbances, PTSD symptoms, psychosocial functioning and quality of life in trauma-affected refugees. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT registration under the name 'Treatment of sleep disturbances in trauma-affected refugees - a randomised controlled trial', registration number: 2015-004153-40 , registered on 13 November 2015. ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02761161. Registered on 27 April 2016.

Mirtazapine-induced steatosis
.

Mirtazapine is a commonly used drug indicated for the treatment of severe depression. It works as a presynaptic α2-adrenoreceptor antagonist that increases central noradrenergic and serotonergic neurotransmission, and it is metabolized by the p450 cytochrome oxidase system. There is evidence within the literature to suggest a link between antidepressants and increased liver enzymes, although case reports demonstrating a link between mirtazapine specifically and steatosis are sparse. Here, we present a case of mirtazapine-induced steatosis in a 48-year-old office worker. She presented with painless jaundice of 2 days duration and generalized lethargy and peripheral edema present for 3 weeks beforehand. Extensive investigations were undertaken to identify the cause of her jaundice but no biochemical, blood-borne, or anatomical cause could be found. Mirtazapine was subsequently stopped, and her liver function, both clinically and biochemically, improved rapidly. She made a full recovery after discontinuation of her mirtazapine.
.