BUPROPION MISUSE BY NASAL INSUFFLATION WITH A FATAL OUTCOME: CASE REPORT AND REVIEW.

Bupropion is the only FDA - approved synthetic cathinone, with increasing popularity in clinical practice due to its wide range of action, and lack of sexual side effects. However, its stimulant effect similar to amphetamines has growing the concern regarding its recreational use.

Efficacy and safety of adding fluoxetine to the treatment regimen of hospitalized patients with non-critical COVID-19 pneumonia: A double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are considered the drugs, whose effectiveness in viral pandemics has been studied. The aim of this study was to evaluate of adding fluoxetine to the treatment regimen of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This study was a double-blind randomized placebo controlled clinical trial .36 patients in the fluoxetine and 36 patients in the placebo group were enrolled. Patients in the intervention group were first treated with fluoxetine 10 mg for 4 days and then the dose of 20 mg was continued for 4 weeks. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS V. 22.0. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of clinical symptoms at the beginning of the study and also the score of anxiety and depression, oxygen saturation at the time of hospitalization, mid-hospitalization and discharge periods. The need for mechanical ventilator support (p = 1.00), the need for admission in the intensive care unit (ICU) (p = 1.00), rate for mortality (p = 1.00), and discharge with relative recovery (p = 1.00) were not significantly different between the two groups. The distribution of CRP within the study groups showed a significant decrease during different time periods (p = 0.001), and although there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups on the first day (p = 1.00) and at discharge (p = 0.585), mid-hospital CRP showed a significant decrease in the fluoxetine group (p = 0.032). CONCLUSION: Fluoxetine resulted in a faster reduction of patients' inflammation without association with depression and anxiety.

Nonpharmacologic and Pharmacologic Treatments of Adult Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for a Clinical Guideline by the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Primary care patients and clinicians may prefer alternative options to second-generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD). PURPOSE: To compare the benefits and harms of nonpharmacologic treatments with second-generation antidepressants as first-step interventions for acute MDD, and to compare second-step treatment strategies for patients who did not achieve remission after an initial attempt with antidepressants. DATA SOURCES: English-language studies from several electronic databases from 1 January 1990 to 8 August 2022, trial registries, gray literature databases, and reference lists to identify unpublished research. STUDY SELECTION: 2 investigators independently selected randomized trials of at least 6 weeks' duration. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers abstracted data about study design and conduct, participants, interventions, and outcomes. They dually rated the risk of bias of studies and the certainty of evidence for outcomes of interest. DATA SYNTHESIS: 65 randomized trials met the inclusion criteria; eligible data from nonrandomized studies were not found. Meta-analyses and network meta-analyses indicated similar benefits of most nonpharmacologic treatments and antidepressants as first-step treatments. Antidepressants had higher risks for discontinuation because of adverse events than most other treatments. For second-step therapies, different switching and augmentation strategies provided similar symptomatic relief. The certainty of evidence for most comparisons is low; findings should be interpreted cautiously. LIMITATIONS: Many studies had methodological limitations or dosing inequalities; publication bias might have affected some comparisons. In some cases, conclusions could not be drawn because of insufficient evidence. CONCLUSION: Although benefits seem to be similar among first- and second-step MDD treatments, the certainty of evidence is low for most comparisons. Clinicians and patients should focus on options with the most reliable evidence and take adverse event profiles and patient preferences into consideration. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020204703).

Bupropion Use Disorder by Chewing.

INTRODUCTION: Bupropion is a widely used antidepressant that plays an essential role in treating mental disorders. Due to its structural similarities with psychostimulants, bupropion is suggested to have addictive potential. Several case reports have been published addressing its misuse in recent years, mainly through nasal insufflation and intravenous administration. Most of the reported cases cited a history of substance use disorder. METHODS: Written informed consent was obtained from the patient to write this case report. CASE PRESENTATION: We present a case with alcohol use disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, who developed a substance use disorder to bupropion while chewing it in doses up to 2250 mg, in an attempt to get "high" with no history of seizures. DISCUSSION: Our case suggests that bupropion can also be misused by chewing even at high doses and that it can lead to a substance use disorder. Its use in various indications in treating mental disorders and its over-the-counter accessibility, along with a lower risk of stigmatization, could increase the prevalence of bupropion misuse. It is essential to know the medical consequences of bupropion misuse as there is increasing data on its addictive potential. More information is needed to clarify the impact of the route of administration on drug metabolism and adverse effects.

The Timing of Clinical Effects of Bupropion Misuse Via Insufflation Reported to a Regional Poison Center.

BACKGROUND: Bupropion is an antidepressant medication with expanding indications including smoking cessation, weight loss, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, seasonal affective disorder, and amphetamine dependence. Despite its increasing popularity among providers, it has a well-known narrow therapeutic window that can lead to delayed onset of symptoms with extended-release formulations and devastating consequences in overdose. We have noticed some patients misusing bupropion via insufflation, which added a layer of complexity with regards to the therapeutic application of the drug. This route of use created difficult decisions regarding clinical monitoring in these patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine if prolonged observation is required after insufflation of bupropion and to further describe effects from this route of use. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study reviewing all the cases of insufflated bupropion use reported to a single poison center without any other coingestants. RESULTS: The majority (85.7%) of patients had mild or moderate effects, and seizures occurred in 19.6% of cases; and the vast majority of patients were symptomatic by the time of the initial call to the poison center. We did not encounter any delayed effects after this route of use. CONCLUSIONS: This report describes the clinical effects reported, and the timing of these effects, after insufflation of bupropion.

The effects of trazodone on human cognition: a systematic review.

Trazodone is a widely used antidepressant that is also useful in the control of agitation and insomnia in Alzheimer's disease. This drug is now recognized as having a new mechanism of action, an effect on the unfolded protein response (UPR) pathway, restoring protein translation and slowing neurodegenerative progression in mice. This mechanism may have a role in dementia-modifying treatment. To explore the effects of trazodone on human cognition and to search for clinical evidence of its putative benefits in human neurodegenerative diseases, a systematic review was conducted for studies that evaluated the effect of a minimum dose of 25 mg of trazodone daily, for at least 1 week, on cognition in adult humans. The search was run in MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CENTRAL from the Cochrane databases, yielding a total of 16 studies after selection. Overall, seven studies showed no effect of trazodone on cognition, five showed a beneficial effect by improving or reducing cognitive decline, and four evidenced impaired cognitive function. Our analysis highlights the possibility of a dose-independent dual effect of trazodone on human cognition, with acute utilization associated with impaired cognitive function and long-term use with preventing cognitive deterioration. There was no clinical evidence that trazodone could be used as a specific treatment of neurodegenerative diseases. Future studies should explore the role of trazodone in the UPR pathway and the implications in neurodegenerative diseases in humans.

Clinical features of Barré-Lièou syndrome and efficacy of trazodone for its treatment: A retrospective single center study.

Barré-Lièou syndrome (BLS) is a manifestation of various autonomic and secondary symptoms including muscle stiffness, tinnitus, dizziness, and pain in various body parts. Although considered to be caused by hyperactivation of the autonomic nervous system due to trauma, there is currently no firmly established etiology or evidence on the treatment and clinical features of BLS. We retrospectively examined the clinical features of BLS and evaluated the efficacy of trazodone (TZD) for its treatment. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the data of 20 consecutive cases with suspected BLS who were treated in our hospital between 2016 and 2019. BLS symptoms were rated on a 10-point scale, and two groups were defined, that is, a mild-BLS group (BLS scores, 1-5) and a severe-BLS group (BLS scores, 6-10). Univariate analysis of patient factors was performed. The BLS score was 6.0 ± 1.7, and the maximum TZD dose was 80 ± 34 mg/day; nine patients (45%) were TZD free, and no TZD side effects were observed, while all patients had a good clinical outcome. There were significant differences between the mild-BLS and severe-BLS groups in the period from injury to diagnosis (p = 0.015), chest/back pain (p < 0.001), constipation (p = 0.001), and maximum TZD dose (p = 0.008). BLS involves posttraumatic autonomic symptoms accompanied by depression and insomnia. The sympathetic hypersensitivity theory could explain its etiology. TZD could effectively and safely treat BLS, and early diagnosis and treatment can contribute toward good clinical outcomes. Enhanced recognition and understanding of this disease are warranted.

Trial of Psilocybin versus Escitalopram for Depression.

BACKGROUND: Psilocybin may have antidepressant properties, but direct comparisons between psilocybin and established treatments for depression are lacking. METHODS: In a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with long-standing, moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder, we compared psilocybin with escitalopram, a selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor, over a 6-week period. Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two separate doses of 25 mg of psilocybin 3 weeks apart plus 6 weeks of daily placebo (psilocybin group) or two separate doses of 1 mg of psilocybin 3 weeks apart plus 6 weeks of daily oral escitalopram (escitalopram group); all the patients received psychological support. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in the score on the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (QIDS-SR-16; scores range from 0 to 27, with higher scores indicating greater depression) at week 6. There were 16 secondary outcomes, including QIDS-SR-16 response (defined as a reduction in score of >50%) and QIDS-SR-16 remission (defined as a score of ≤5) at week 6. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients were enrolled; 30 were assigned to the psilocybin group and 29 to the escitalopram group. The mean scores on the QIDS-SR-16 at baseline were 14.5 in the psilocybin group and 16.4 in the escitalopram group. The mean (±SE) changes in the scores from baseline to week 6 were -8.0±1.0 points in the psilocybin group and -6.0±1.0 in the escitalopram group, for a between-group difference of 2.0 points (95% confidence interval [CI], -5.0 to 0.9) (P = 0.17). A QIDS-SR-16 response occurred in 70% of the patients in the psilocybin group and in 48% of those in the escitalopram group, for a between-group difference of 22 percentage points (95% CI, -3 to 48); QIDS-SR-16 remission occurred in 57% and 28%, respectively, for a between-group difference of 28 percentage points (95% CI, 2 to 54). Other secondary outcomes generally favored psilocybin over escitalopram, but the analyses were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the change in depression scores on the QIDS-SR-16 at week 6, this trial did not show a significant difference in antidepressant effects between psilocybin and escitalopram in a selected group of patients. Secondary outcomes generally favored psilocybin over escitalopram, but the analyses of these outcomes lacked correction for multiple comparisons. Larger and longer trials are required to compare psilocybin with established antidepressants. (Funded by the Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust and Imperial College London's Centre for Psychedelic Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03429075.).

Second-generation antidepressants for treatment of seasonal affective disorder.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent depressive episodes that is often treated with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs), light therapy, or psychotherapy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) for the treatment of seasonal affective disorder (SAD) in adults in comparison with placebo, light therapy, other SGAs, or psychotherapy. SEARCH METHODS: This is an update of an earlier review first published in 2011. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (all years), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2011 to January 2020), together with the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR) (all available years), for reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We hand searched the reference lists of all included studies and other systematic reviews. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished/ongoing trials. We ran a separate update search for reports of adverse events in the Ovid databases.  SELECTION CRITERIA: For efficacy we included RCTs of SGAs compared with other SGAs, placebo, light therapy, or psychotherapy in adult participants with SAD. For adverse events we also included non-randomised studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. Data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment were conducted individually. We pooled data for meta-analysis where the participant groups were similar, and the studies assessed the same treatments with the same comparator and had similar definitions of outcome measures over a similar duration of treatment. MAIN RESULTS: In this update we identified no new RCT on the effectiveness of SGAs in SAD patients. We included 2 additional single-arm observational studies that reported on adverse events of SGAs.  For efficacy we included three RCTs of between five and eight weeks' duration with a total of 204 participants. For adverse events we included two RCTs and five observational (non-randomised) studies of five to eight weeks' duration with a total of 249 participants. All participants met the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) criteria for SAD. The average age ranged from 34 to 42 years, and the majority of participants were female (66% to 100%). Results from one trial with 68 participants showed that fluoxetine (20/36) was numerically superior to placebo (11/32) in achieving clinical response; however, the confidence interval (CI) included both a potential benefit as well as no benefit of fluoxetine (risk ratio (RR) 1.62, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.83, very low-certainty evidence). The number of adverse events was similar in both groups (very low-certainty evidence). Two trials involving a total of 136 participants compared fluoxetine versus light therapy. Meta-analysis showed fluoxetine and light therapy to be approximately equal in treating seasonal depression: RR of response 0.98 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.24, low-certainty evidence), RR of remission 0.81 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.71, very low-certainty evidence). The number of adverse events was similar in both groups (low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any eligible study comparing SGA with another SGA or with psychotherapy. Two RCTs and five non-randomised studies reported adverse event data on a total of 249 participants who received bupropion, fluoxetine, escitalopram, duloxetine, nefazodone, reboxetine, light therapy, or placebo. We were only able to obtain crude rates of adverse events, therefore caution is advised regarding interpretation of this information. Between 0% and 100% of participants who received an SGA suffered an adverse event, and between 0% and 25% of participants withdrew from the study due to adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for the effectiveness of SGAs is limited to one small trial of fluoxetine compared with placebo showing a non-significant effect in favour of fluoxetine, and two small trials comparing fluoxetine against light therapy suggesting equivalence between the two interventions. The lack of available evidence precluded us from drawing any overall conclusions on the use of SGAs for SAD. Further, larger RCTs are required to expand and strengthen the evidence base on this topic, and should also include comparisons with psychotherapy and other SGAs. Data on adverse events were sparse, and a comparative analysis was not possible. The data we obtained on adverse events is therefore not robust, and our confidence in the data is limited. Overall, up to 25% of participants treated with SGAs for SAD withdrew from the study early due to adverse events.