Towards precision in the diagnostic profiling of patients: leveraging symptom dynamics as a clinical characterisation dimension in the assessment of major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines present overall symptom severity as the key dimension for clinical characterisation of major depressive disorder (MDD). However, differences may reside within severity levels related to how symptoms interact in an individual patient, called symptom dynamics. AIMS: To investigate these individual differences by estimating the proportion of patients that display differences in their symptom dynamics while sharing the same overall symptom severity. METHOD: Participants with MDD (n = 73; mean age 34.6 years, s.d. = 13.1; 56.2% female) rated their baseline symptom severity using the Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (IDS-SR). Momentary indicators for depressive symptoms were then collected through ecological momentary assessments five times per day for 28 days; 8395 observations were conducted (average per person: 115; s.d. = 16.8). Each participant's symptom dynamics were estimated using person-specific dynamic network models. Individual differences in these symptom relationship patterns in groups of participants sharing the same symptom severity levels were estimated using individual network invariance tests. Subsequently, the overall proportion of participants that displayed differential symptom dynamics while sharing the same symptom severity was calculated. A supplementary simulation study was conducted to investigate the accuracy of our methodology against false-positive results. RESULTS: Differential symptom dynamics were identified across 63.0% (95% bootstrapped CI 41.0-82.1) of participants within the same severity group. The average false detection of individual differences was 2.2%. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of participants within the same depressive symptom severity group displayed differential symptom dynamics. Examining symptom dynamics provides information about person-specific psychopathological expression beyond severity levels by revealing how symptoms aggravate each other over time. These results suggest that symptom dynamics may be a promising new dimension for clinical characterisation, warranting replication in independent samples. To inform personalised treatment planning, a next step concerns linking different symptom relationship patterns to treatment response and clinical course, including patterns related to spontaneous recovery and forms of disorder progression.

An online evidence-based dictionary of common adverse events of antidepressants: a new tool to empower patients and clinicians in their shared decision-making process.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events (AEs) are commonly reported in clinical studies using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), an international standard for drug safety monitoring. However, the technical language of MedDRA makes it challenging for patients and clinicians to share understanding and therefore to make shared decisions about medical interventions. In this project, people with lived experience of depression and antidepressant treatment worked with clinicians and researchers to co-design an online dictionary of AEs associated with antidepressants, taking into account its ease of use and applicability to real-world settings. METHODS: Through a pre-defined literature search, we identified MedDRA-coded AEs from randomised controlled trials of antidepressants used in the treatment of depression. In collaboration with the McPin Foundation, four co-design workshops with a lived experience advisory panel (LEAP) and one independent focus group (FG) were conducted to produce user-friendly translations of AE terms. Guiding principles for translation were co-designed with McPin/LEAP members and defined before the finalisation of Clinical Codes (CCs, or non-technical terms to represent specific AE concepts). FG results were thematically analysed using the Framework Method. RESULTS: Starting from 522 trials identified by the search, 736 MedDRA-coded AE terms were translated into 187 CCs, which balanced key factors identified as important to the LEAP and FG (namely, breadth, specificity, generalisability, patient-understandability and acceptability). Work with the LEAP showed that a user-friendly language of AEs should aim to mitigate stigma, acknowledge the multiple levels of comprehension in 'lay' language and balance the need for semantic accuracy with user-friendliness. Guided by these principles, an online dictionary of AEs was co-designed and made freely available ( https://thesymptomglossary.com ). The digital tool was perceived by the LEAP and FG as a resource which could feasibly improve antidepressant treatment by facilitating the accurate, meaningful expression of preferences about potential harms through a shared decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS: This dictionary was developed in English around AEs from antidepressants in depression but it can be adapted to different languages and cultural contexts, and can also become a model for other interventions and disorders (i.e., antipsychotics in schizophrenia). Co-designed digital resources may improve the patient experience by helping to deliver personalised information on potential benefits and harms in an evidence-based, preference-sensitive way.

Comparative effects of pharmacological interventions for the acute and long-term management of insomnia disorder in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Behavioural, cognitive, and pharmacological interventions can all be effective for insomnia. However, because of inadequate resources, medications are more frequently used worldwide. We aimed to estimate the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the acute and long-term treatment of adults with insomnia disorder. METHODS: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and websites of regulatory agencies from database inception to Nov 25, 2021, to identify published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. We included studies comparing pharmacological treatments or placebo as monotherapy for the treatment of adults (≥18 year) with insomnia disorder. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (ie, quality of sleep measured by any self-rated scale), treatment discontinuation for any reason and due to side-effects specifically, and safety (ie, number of patients with at least one adverse event) both for acute and long-term treatment. We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PU4QJ. FINDINGS: We included 170 trials (36 interventions and 47 950 participants) in the systematic review and 154 double-blind, randomised controlled trials (30 interventions and 44 089 participants) were eligible for the network meta-analysis. In terms of acute treatment, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than placebo (SMD range: 0·36-0·83 [CINeMA estimates of certainty: high to moderate]). Benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD 0·27-0·71 [moderate to very low]). Intermediate-acting benzodiazepines, long-acting benzodiazepines, and eszopiclone had fewer discontinuations due to any cause than ramelteon (OR 0·72 [95% CI 0·52-0·99; moderate], 0·70 [0·51-0·95; moderate] and 0·71 [0·52-0·98; moderate], respectively). Zopiclone and zolpidem caused more dropouts due to adverse events than did placebo (zopiclone: OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·28-3·13; very low]; zolpidem: 1·79 [1·25-2·50; moderate]); and zopiclone caused more dropouts than did eszopiclone (OR 1·82 [95% CI 1·01-3·33; low]), daridorexant (3·45 [1·41-8·33; low), and suvorexant (3·13 [1·47-6·67; low]). For the number of individuals with side-effects at study endpoint, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were worse than placebo, doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon (OR range 1·27-2·78 [high to very low]). For long-term treatment, eszopiclone and lemborexant were more effective than placebo (eszopiclone: SMD 0·63 [95% CI 0·36-0·90; very low]; lemborexant: 0·41 [0·04-0·78; very low]) and eszopiclone was more effective than ramelteon (0.63 [0·16-1·10; very low]) and zolpidem (0·60 [0·00-1·20; very low]). Compared with ramelteon, eszopiclone and zolpidem had a lower rate of all-cause discontinuations (eszopiclone: OR 0·43 [95% CI 0·20-0·93; very low]; zolpidem: 0·43 [0·19-0·95; very low]); however, zolpidem was associated with a higher number of dropouts due to side-effects than placebo (OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·11-3·70; very low]). INTERPRETATION: Overall, eszopiclone and lemborexant had a favorable profile, but eszopiclone might cause substantial adverse events and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive. Doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon were well tolerated, but data on efficacy and other important outcomes were scarce and do not allow firm conclusions. Many licensed drugs (including benzodiazepines, daridorexant, suvorexant, and trazodone) can be effective in the acute treatment of insomnia but are associated with poor tolerability, or information about long-term effects is not available. Melatonin, ramelteon, and non-licensed drugs did not show overall material benefits. These results should serve evidence-based clinical practice. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

Community interventions for anxiety and depression in adults and young people: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence suggests that community-based interventions may be effective for anxiety and depression. This study aimed to describe studies of community interventions delivered to adults and/or young people, either in person or online, evaluated in randomised controlled trials and provide an indication as to their effectiveness, acceptability, quality of data and where possible, mechanisms of action. We included interventions delivered at and/or by museums, art galleries, libraries, gardens, music groups/choirs and sports clubs. METHOD: We developed and followed a preregistered protocol: PROSPERO CRD42020204471. Randomised controlled trials in adults and young people were identified in an extensive search with no date/time, language, document type and publication status limitations. Studies were selected according to predetermined eligibility criteria and data independently extracted and then assessed using Risk of Bias 1. The studies were deemed too heterogeneous for meta-analysis and were therefore reported using a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Our analysis included 31 studies, with 2898 participants. Community interventions most studied in randomised controlled trials were community music (12 studies, 1432 participants), community exercise (14 studies, 955 participants) and community gardens/gardening (6 studies, 335 participants). The majority of studies were from high-income countries - many were in specific populations (such as those with physical health problems) and were generally of low quality. Dropout rates across the included studies were low (1 participant on average per 100 participants). The inadequate description of interventions limited identification of potential mechanisms of action. DISCUSSION: The uncertainty of the evidence allows only a weak recommendation in support of community interventions for anxiety and depression. The results suggest community engagement is a promising area for wide-reaching interventions to be implemented and evaluated, but more high-quality trials are needed, especially in young people and under-represented communities.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Associated Control Measures on the Mental Health of the General Population : A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To what extent the COVID-19 pandemic and its containment measures influenced mental health in the general population is still unclear. PURPOSE: To assess the trajectory of mental health symptoms during the first year of the pandemic and examine dose-response relations with characteristics of the pandemic and its containment. DATA SOURCES: Relevant articles were identified from the living evidence database of the COVID-19 Open Access Project, which indexes COVID-19-related publications from MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase via Ovid, and PsycInfo. Preprint publications were not considered. STUDY SELECTION: Longitudinal studies that reported data on the general population's mental health using validated scales and that were published before 31 March 2021 were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION: An international crowd of 109 trained reviewers screened references and extracted study characteristics, participant characteristics, and symptom scores at each timepoint. Data were also included for the following country-specific variables: days since the first case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the stringency of governmental containment measures, and the cumulative numbers of cases and deaths. DATA SYNTHESIS: In a total of 43 studies (331 628 participants), changes in symptoms of psychological distress, sleep disturbances, and mental well-being varied substantially across studies. On average, depression and anxiety symptoms worsened in the first 2 months of the pandemic (standardized mean difference at 60 days, -0.39 [95% credible interval, -0.76 to -0.03]); thereafter, the trajectories were heterogeneous. There was a linear association of worsening depression and anxiety with increasing numbers of reported cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and increasing stringency in governmental measures. Gender, age, country, deprivation, inequalities, risk of bias, and study design did not modify these associations. LIMITATIONS: The certainty of the evidence was low because of the high risk of bias in included studies and the large amount of heterogeneity. Stringency measures and surges in cases were strongly correlated and changed over time. The observed associations should not be interpreted as causal relationships. CONCLUSION: Although an initial increase in average symptoms of depression and anxiety and an association between higher numbers of reported cases and more stringent measures were found, changes in mental health symptoms varied substantially across studies after the first 2 months of the pandemic. This suggests that different populations responded differently to the psychological stress generated by the pandemic and its containment measures. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Swiss National Science Foundation. (PROSPERO: CRD42020180049).

Optimal dose of aripiprazole for augmentation therapy of antidepressant-refractory depression: preliminary findings based on a systematic review and dose-effect meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Aripiprazole augmentation is proven effective for antidepressant-refractory depression, but its licensed dose range is wide and optimal dosage remains unclear. AIMS: To find the optimal dosage of aripiprazole augmentation. METHOD: Multiple electronic databases were searched (from inception to 16 February 2021) to identify all assessor-masked randomised controlled trials evaluating aripiprazole augmentation therapy in adults (≥18 years old, both genders) with major depressive disorder showing inadequate response to at least one antidepressant treatment. A random-effects, one-stage dose-effect meta-analysis with restricted cubic splines was conducted. Outcomes were efficacy (treatment response: ≥50% reduction in depression severity), tolerability (drop-out due to adverse effects) and acceptability (drop-out for any reason) after 8 weeks of treatment (range 4-12 weeks). RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. All were individually randomised, placebo-controlled, multi-centre, parallel studies including 2625 participants in total. The maximum target dose-efficacy curve showed an increase up to doses between 2 mg (odds ratio OR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.15-1.85) and 5 mg (OR = 1.93, 95% CI 1.33-2.81), and then a non-increasing trend through the higher licensed doses up to 20 mg (OR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.52-2.37). Tolerability showed a similar trend with greater uncertainty. Acceptability showed no significant difference through the examined dose range. Certainty of evidence was low to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose aripiprazole as augmentation treatment might achieve the optimal balance between efficacy, tolerability and acceptability in the acute treatment of antidepressant-refractory depression. However, the small number of included studies and the overall moderate to high risk of bias seriously compromise the reliability of the results. Further research is required to investigate the benefits of low versus high dose.

Development and validation of a meta-learner for combining statistical and machine learning prediction models in individuals with depression.

BACKGROUND: The debate of whether machine learning models offer advantages over standard statistical methods when making predictions is ongoing. We discuss the use of a meta-learner model combining both approaches as an alternative. METHODS: To illustrate the development of a meta-learner, we used a dataset of 187,757 people with depression. Using 31 variables, we aimed to predict two outcomes measured 60 days after initiation of antidepressant treatment: severity of depressive symptoms (continuous) and all-cause dropouts (binary). We fitted a ridge regression and a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) deep neural network as two separate prediction models ("base-learners"). We then developed two "meta-learners", combining predictions from the two base-learners. To compare the performance across the different methods, we calculated mean absolute error (MAE, for continuous outcome) and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, for binary outcome) using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Compared to the best performing base-learner (MLP base-learner, MAE at 4.63, AUC at 0.59), the best performing meta-learner showed a 2.49% decrease in MAE at 4.52 for the continuous outcome and a 6.47% increase in AUC at 0.60 for the binary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: A meta-learner approach may effectively combine multiple prediction models. Choosing between statistical and machine learning models may not be necessary in practice.

COVID-19 and substance use disorders: a review of international guidelines for frontline healthcare workers of addiction services.

BACKGROUND: People with substance use disorders may be at a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 infection and developing medical complications. Several institutional and governmental health agencies across the world developed ad hoc guidance for substance use disorder services and care of individuals misusing substances. We aimed to synthesise the best available recommendations on management and care of people with or at risk of substance use disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic from existing guidelines published in UK, USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Singapore. METHODS: We systematically searched existing guidelines and websites from 28 international institutions and governmental bodies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (May 4th 2021). We summarized the extracted data as answers to specific clinical questions. RESULTS: We organised the available recommendations from 19 sources in three sections. First, we focused on general advice and recommendations for people who misuse alcohol or drugs during the COVID-19 pandemic, the design of contingency plans, safeguarding issues for children and families of service users and advice to the public, patients, and carers. Then, we summarised specific guidelines for people who use illicit drugs and related services, such as opioid substitution treatment and needle and syringe programmes. Finally, we provided a synthesis on specific recommendations for services supporting people who misuse alcohol and key topics in the field, such as management of alcohol detoxification and safe transition between supervised and unsupervised consumption. CONCLUSIONS: Available guidance reflected different approaches, ranging from being extremely cautious in providing recommendations other than generic statements to proposing adaptation of previously available guidelines to confront the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. After the early phase, guidance focused on reduction of infection transmission and service delivery. Guidance did not provide advice on infection prevention via vaccination programmes and service access strategies tailored to individuals with substance use disorders.

Off-label long acting injectable antipsychotics in real-world clinical practice: a cross-sectional analysis of prescriptive patterns from the STAR Network DEPOT study.

INTRODUCTION: Information on the off-label use of Long-Acting Injectable (LAI) antipsychotics in the real world is lacking. In this study, we aimed to identify the sociodemographic and clinical features of patients treated with on- vs off-label LAIs and predictors of off-label First- or Second-Generation Antipsychotic (FGA vs. SGA) LAI choice in everyday clinical practice. METHOD: In a naturalistic national cohort of 449 patients who initiated LAI treatment in the STAR Network Depot Study, two groups were identified based on off- or on-label prescriptions. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to test several clinically relevant variables and identify those associated with the choice of FGA vs SGA prescription in the off-label group. RESULTS: SGA LAIs were more commonly prescribed in everyday practice, without significant differences in their on- and off-label use. Approximately 1 in 4 patients received an off-label prescription. In the off-label group, the most frequent diagnoses were bipolar disorder (67.5%) or any personality disorder (23.7%). FGA vs SGA LAI choice was significantly associated with BPRS thought disorder (OR = 1.22, CI95% 1.04 to 1.43, p = 0.015) and hostility/suspiciousness (OR = 0.83, CI95% 0.71 to 0.97, p = 0.017) dimensions. The likelihood of receiving an SGA LAI grew steadily with the increase of the BPRS thought disturbance score. Conversely, a preference towards prescribing an FGA was observed with higher scores at the BPRS hostility/suspiciousness subscale. CONCLUSION: Our study is the first to identify predictors of FGA vs SGA choice in patients treated with off-label LAI antipsychotics. Demographic characteristics, i.e. age, sex, and substance/alcohol use co-morbidities did not appear to influence the choice towards FGAs or SGAs. Despite a lack of evidence, clinicians tend to favour FGA over SGA LAIs in bipolar or personality disorder patients with relevant hostility. Further research is needed to evaluate treatment adherence and clinical effectiveness of these prescriptive patterns.

Efficacy of tiapride in the treatment of psychiatric disorders: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Tiapride is an atypical antipsychotic used to treat alcohol withdrawal, aggressiveness and agitation, headache, dyskinesias, tic and Tourette's disorder. More recently, it has been proposed for the treatment of delirium and agitation in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Although its safety profile makes it suitable for use in vulnerable populations, the use of tiapride for psychiatric disorders is limited. This work aims to systematically review the available evidence on the efficacy and tolerability of tiapride in individuals with a psychiatric disorder. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, GreyLit, OpenGrey, and ProQuest up to March 2020 for randomised controlled trials focussing on the use of tiapride in the treatment of individuals with a psychiatric disorder (e.g., mood disorder, schizophrenia spectrum, substance use disorder). The Risk of Bias 2 was performed for the quality assessment of the included studies. RESULTS: We identified 579 records. Of them, six studies (published between 1982 and 2010) were included in the review. Four studies referred to alcohol withdrawal, and two to the management of agitation in elderly patients with dementia. None of the studies reported significant differences between tiapride and other active comparators in terms of efficacy and tolerability. The overall risk of bias was moderate to high. CONCLUSION: Tiapride may be considered as a relatively safe treatment option for selected patients with alcohol withdrawal or agitation in dementia. However, solid evidence of its efficacy in the scientific literature is lacking. High-quality trials remain necessary to fully sustain its use in clinical practice.

Optimal dose of brexpiprazole for augmentation therapy of antidepressant-refractory depression: A systematic review and dose-effect meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Brexpiprazole augmentation is an effective treatment strategy for antidepressant-refractory depression, but its optimal dosage remains unclear. AIMS: To find the optimal dosage of brexpiprazole as augmentation of other antidepressants. METHODS: We searched multiple electronic databases (from inception to September 16th, 2021) to identify double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled fixed-dose trials evaluating brexpiprazole augmentation therapy in adults (≥18 years old, both genders) with major depressive disorder not adequately responding to one or more antidepressant treatment. Our outcomes of interest at 8 weeks (range 4-12 weeks) were efficacy (treatment response defined as 50% or greater reduction in depression severity), tolerability (dropouts due to adverse effects) and acceptability (dropouts for any reason). We performed a random-effects, one-stage dose-effect meta-analysis with restricted cubic splines. RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1671 participants in total. The dose-efficacy curve showed an increase up to doses around 2 mg (odds ratio [OR] 1.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-2.06) and then a decreasing trend through the higher licensed dose up to 3 mg (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.95-2.08). The shape of the dose-tolerability curve was comparable to that of the efficacy and the dose-acceptability curve showed a monotonic increasing trend but both had wide confidence bands. CONCLUSIONS: One to two milligrams of brexpiprazole as augmentation treatment may achieve an optimal balance between efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability in the acute treatment of antidepressant-refractory depression. However, the small number of included studies limit the reliability of the results. Further research is required to validate the findings.

Efficacy of amisulpride for depressive symptoms in individuals with mental disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Depressive symptoms occur in several psychiatric disorders, often in the absence of a formal diagnosis of depression. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and the tolerability of amisulpride, both alone and as augmentation therapy, in the treatment of depressive symptoms in individuals with any major psychiatric disorder. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, GreyLit, OpenGrey and ProQuest up to March 2020 for randomised controlled trials focussing on the treatment of an acute depressive episode in any major psychiatric disorder. A random-effect meta-analysis was performed to synthesize the findings on depressive symptoms (primary outcome), response rate and tolerability. RESULTS: We retrieved 11 studies including 2065 patients with a diagnosis of dysthymia (eight studies), major depression (one study) or schizophrenia (two studies). Amisulpride 50 mg/day was associated with a larger reduction of depressive symptoms compared to placebo (standardised mean difference [SMD] = -0.70, CI 95% -0.92, -0.49; I2  = 0.0%), and was found to be comparable to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; SMD = -0.08, CI 95% -0.23, 0.06, I2  = 0.0%), amineptine, imipramine and amitriptyline in the treatment of dysthymia (three studies, not pooled). In individuals with schizophrenia, amisulpride administered at higher doses (>400 mg/day) was comparable to olanzapine and risperidone (two studies, not pooled). In terms of tolerability, amisulpride was superior to placebo for dysthymia (odds ratio [OR] = 3.94, CI 95% 1.07, 14.48; I2  = 0.0) and comparable with SSRIs (OR = 0.94, CI 95% 0.55, 1.62; I2  = 0.0%). CONCLUSION: Treatment with amisulpride could be a valid choice for selected individuals with dysthymia or depressive symptoms in the context of schizophrenia. More studies on the efficacy and tolerability of amisulpride are needed to draw firm conclusions on its potential benefits in other psychiatric disorders.

[Triple Chronotherapy approach for reducing depressive symptoms and suicidal intent in hospitalized patients: Study protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial]. / La Triple Chronotherapy come approccio per la riduzione della sintomatologia depressiva e dell'intenzionalità suicidaria in pazienti ospedalizzati: Protocollo di studio di un Trial Clinico randomizzato controllato.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are a relevant burden for public health due to their prevalence and high levels of associated disability and mortality. Recent studies suggest that the combination of multiple chronotherapuetic interventions may reveal effective in the rapid improvement of depressive symptoms. OBJECTIVES: This paper describes the protocol of a study that aims to test the efficacy of a triple chronotherapy intervention (combined total sleep deprivation, light therapy and sleep phase advance) in the improvement of depressive symptoms in individuals diagnosed with unipolar or bipolar depression. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial will be conducted in patients hospitalized with a unipolar or bipolar depression at the Servizio Psichiatrico di Diagnosi e Cura inpatient unit of the San Paolo - ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo Hospital in Milan, Italy. Individuals will be randomly assigned to the intervention (triple chronotherapy add-on to standard pharmacological treatment) or to the "control" group (standard pharmacological treatment). RESULTS: Enrolment began in December 2018 and will end in October 2020, or at any earlier point in which the expected sample size will be reached. The study protocol has already been approved by the local ethics committee and is registered as EudraCT 2019-000892-18. Outcome analyses aim to verify whether triple chronotherapy produces a rapid and stable improvement in depressive symptoms in individuals hospitalized for an acute unipolar or bipolar depressive episode.

Aripiprazole (intramuscular) for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation (rapid tranquillisation).

BACKGROUND: People experiencing psychosis may become aggressive. Antipsychotics, such as aripiprazole in intramuscular form, can be used in such situations. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of intramuscular aripiprazole in the treatment of psychosis-induced aggression or agitation (rapid tranquillisation). SEARCH METHODS: On 11 December 2014 and 11 April 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-based Register of Trials which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that randomised people with psychosis-induced aggression or agitation to receive either intramuscular aripiprazole or another intramuscular intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently inspected citations and, where possible, abstracts, ordered papers and re-inspected and quality assessed these. We included studies that met our selection criteria. At least two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We chose a fixed-effect model. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MD) and their CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: Searching found 63 records referring to 21 possible trials. We could only include three studies, all completed over the last decade, with 885 participants, of which 707 were included for quantitative analyses in this systematic review. Due to limited comparisons, small size of trials and a paucity of investigated and reported 'pragmatic' outcomes, evidence was mostly graded as low or very low quality. No trials reported useful data for one of our primary outcomes of tranquil or asleep by 30 minutes. Economic outcomes were also not reported in the trials.When compared with placebo, fewer people in the aripiprazole group needed additional injections compared to the placebo group (2 RCTs, n = 382, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.85, very low-quality evidence). Clinically important improvement in agitation at two hours favoured the aripiprazole group (2 RCTs, n = 382, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.92, very low-quality evidence). The numbers of non-responders after the first injection also favoured aripiprazole (1 RCT, n = 263, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.71, low-quality evidence). Although no effect was found, more people in the aripiprazole compared to the placebo group experienced adverse effects (1 RCT, n = 117, RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.46, very low-quality evidence).Aripiprazole required more injections compared to haloperidol (2 RCTs, n = 477, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.63, very low-quality evidence), with no significant difference in agitation (2 RCTs, n = 477, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11, very low-quality evidence), and similar non-responders after first injection (1 RCT, n = 360, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.79, low-quality evidence). Aripiprazole and haloperidol did not differ when taking into account the overall number of people that experienced at least one adverse effect (1 RCT, n = 113, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.35, very low-quality evidence).Compared to aripiprazole, olanzapine was better at reducing agitation (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99, low-quality evidence) and had a more favourable effect on global state change scores (1 RCT, n = 80, MD 0.58, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.15, low-quality evidence), both at two hours. No differences were found in terms of experiencing at least one adverse effect during the 24 hours after treatment (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.24, very low-quality evidence). However, participants allocated to aripiprazole experienced less somnolence (1 RCT, n = 80, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.82, low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is of poor quality but there is some evidence aripiprazole is effective compared to placebo and haloperidol, but not when compared to olanzapine. However, considering that evidence comes from only three studies, caution is required in generalising these results to real-world practice. This review firmly highlights the need for more high-quality trials on intramuscular aripiprazole in the management of people with acute aggression or agitation.

Risperidone for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation (rapid tranquillisation).

BACKGROUND: Aggressive, agitated or violent behaviour due to psychosis constitutes an emergency psychiatric treatment where fast-acting interventions are required. Risperidone is a widely accessible antipsychotic that can be used to manage psychosis-induced aggression or agitation. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether oral risperidone alone is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (up to April 2017); this register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rapid use of risperidone and other drugs, combinations of drugs or placebo for people exhibiting aggression or agitation (or both) thought to be due to psychosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently inspected all citations from searches, identified relevant abstracts, and independently extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and used a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: The review now contains data from nine trials (total n = 582) reporting on five comparisons. Due to risk of bias, small size of trials, indirectness of outcome measures and a paucity of investigated and reported 'pragmatic' outcomes, evidence was graded as very-low quality. None of the included studies provided useable data on our primary outcome 'tranquillisation or asleep' by 30 minutes, repeated need for tranquillisation or any economic outcomes. Data were available for our other main outcomes of agitation or aggression, needing restraint, and incidence of adverse effects.Risperidone versus haloperidol (up to 24 hours follow-up)For the outcome, specific behaviour - agitation, no clear difference was found between risperidone and haloperidol in terms of efficacy, measured as at least 50% reduction in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Psychotic Agitation Sub-score (PANSS-PAS) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26; participants = 124; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) and no effect was observed for need to use restraints (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.21; participants = 28; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). Incidence of adverse effects was similar between treatment groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; participants = 124; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence).Risperidone versus olanzapineOne small trial (n = 29) reported useable data for the comparison risperidone versus olanzapine. No effect was observed for agitation measured as PANSS-PAS endpoint score at two hours (MD 2.50, 95% CI -2.46 to 7.46; very low-quality evidence); need to use restraints at four days (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.39 to 5.28; very-low quality evidence); specific movement disorders measured as Behavioural Activity Rating Scale (BARS) endpoint score at four days (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.83; very low-quality evidence).Risperidone versus quetiapineOne trial reported (n = 40) useable data for the comparison risperidone versus quetiapine. Aggression was measured using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) endpoint score at two weeks. A clear difference, favouring quetiapine was observed (MD 1.80, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.40; very-low quality evidence). No evidence of a difference between treatment groups could be observed for incidence of akathisia after 24 hours (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 6.06; very low-quality evidence). Two participants allocated to risperidone and one allocated to quetiapine experienced myocardial ischaemia during the trial.Risperidone versus risperidone + oxcarbazepineOne trial (n = 68) measured agitation using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Excited Component.(PANSS-EC) endpoint score and found a clear difference, favouring the combination treatment at one week (MD 2.70, 95% CI 0.42 to 4.98; very low-quality evidence), but no effect was observed for global state using Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I) endpoint score at one week (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.21; very-low quality evidence). Incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms after 24 hours was similar between treatment groups (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14; very-low quality evidence).Risperidone versus risperidone + valproic acidTwo trials compared risperidone with a combination of risperidone plus valproic acid. No clear differences between the treatment groups were observed for aggression (MOAS endpoint score at three days: MD 1.07, 95% CI -0.20 to 2.34; participants = 54; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or incidence of akathisia after 24 hours: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.03; participants = 122; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, results for the main outcomes show no real effect for risperidone. The only data available for use in this review are from nine under-sampled trials and the evidence available is of very low quality. This casts uncertainty on the role of risperidone in rapid tranquillisation for people with psychosis-induced aggression. High-quality pragmatic RCTs are feasible and are needed before clear recommendations can be drawn on the use of risperidone for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.

Haloperidol for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation (rapid tranquillisation).

BACKGROUND: Haloperidol used alone is recommended to help calm situations of aggression or agitation for people with psychosis. It is widely accessible and may be the only antipsychotic medication available in limited-resource areas. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether haloperidol alone is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation, wherein clinicians are required to intervene to prevent harm to self and others. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (26th May 2016). This register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings, with no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people exhibiting aggression and/or agitation thought to be due to psychosis, allocated rapid use of haloperidol alone (by any route), compared with any other treatment. Outcomes of interest included tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes, repeated need for rapid tranquillisation within 24 hours, specific behaviours (threat or injury to others/self), adverse effects. We included trials meeting our selection criteria and providing useable data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently inspected all citations from searches, identified relevant abstracts, and independently extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR), for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), and for cognitive outcomes we derived standardised mean difference (SMD) effect sizes, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and using a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce 'Summary of findings' tables which included our pre-specified main outcomes of interest. MAIN RESULTS: We found nine new RCTs from the 2016 update search, giving a total of 41 included studies and 24 comparisons. Few studies were undertaken in circumstances that reflect real-world practice, and, with notable exceptions, most were small and carried considerable risk of bias. Due to the large number of comparisons, we can only present a summary of main results.Compared with placebo, more people in the haloperidol group were asleep at two hours (2 RCTs, n=220, RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.95, very low-quality evidence) and experienced dystonia (2 RCTs, n=207, RR 7.49, 95%CI 0.93 to 60.21, very low-quality evidence).Compared with aripiprazole, people in the haloperidol group required fewer injections than those in the aripiprazole group (2 RCTs, n=473, RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.62 to 0.99, low-quality evidence). More people in the haloperidol group experienced dystonia (2 RCTs, n=477, RR 6.63, 95%CI 1.52 to 28.86, very low-quality evidence).Four trials (n=207) compared haloperidol with lorazepam with no significant differences with regard to number of participants asleep at one hour (1 RCT, n=60, RR 1.05, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.44, very low-quality of evidence) or those requiring additional injections (1 RCT, n=66, RR 1.14, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.43, very low-quality of evidence).Haloperidol's adverse effects were not offset by addition of lorazepam (e.g. dystonia 1 RCT, n=67, RR 8.25, 95%CI 0.46 to 147.45, very low-quality of evidence).Addition of promethazine was investigated in two trials (n=376). More people in the haloperidol group were not tranquil or asleep by 20 minutes (1 RCT, n=316, RR 1.60, 95%CI 1.18 to 2.16, moderate-quality evidence). Acute dystonia was too common in the haloperidol alone group for the trial to continue beyond the interim analysis (1 RCT, n=316, RR 19.48, 95%CI 1.14 to 331.92, low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Additional data from new studies does not alter previous conclusions of this review. If no other alternative exists, sole use of intramuscular haloperidol could be life-saving. Where additional drugs are available, sole use of haloperidol for extreme emergency could be considered unethical. Addition of the sedating promethazine has support from better-grade evidence from within randomised trials. Use of an alternative antipsychotic drug is only partially supported by fragmented and poor-grade evidence. Adding a benzodiazepine to haloperidol does not have strong evidence of benefit and carries risk of additional harm.After six decades of use for emergency rapid tranquillisation, this is still an area in need of good independent trials relevant to real-world practice.

Asenapine in the Treatment of Acute Mania: A Real-World Observational Study With 6 Months Follow-Up.

Asenapine is a second-generation antipsychotic with a unique pharmacological profile that was recently approved for the treatment of moderate/severe manic episodes. Real-world data on rapidity of action in inpatient settings are lacking.The aims of the current real-world observational study were to evaluate: (i) short-term efficacy of asenapine after 7 days (T0-T1) in patients hospitalized for a manic episode in the course of bipolar I disorder or schizoaffective disorder (group A), (ii) differences in length of stay (LoS), and (iii) rehospitalization compared to a control population (group B) with a 6-month follow-up.Twenty patients were included in each group. The mean total Young Mania Rating Scale score decreased by 12.6 (SD ±10.3; t(17) = 5.2, P < 0.005), implying a mean 37.8% improvement. A statistically significant reduction was observed for all Young Mania Rating Scale items, except for "sexual interest." The mean total BPRS score decreased by 17.2 (SD ±14.9; t(17) = 4.9, P < 0.005). A statistically significant reduction was observed for several items, including "conceptual disorganization," "grandiosity," "unusual thought content," and "excitement". Length of stay was 17.9 (SD ±9.0) days for group A and 14.7 (SD ±12.7) days for group B; the result of the Kruskal-Wallis test showed no significant differences (χ = 2.199, P = 0.138). Despite a high discontinuation rate, only 17.7% of patients in group A were rehospitalized in the following 6 months compared to 41.2% of those in group B (relative risk = 0.43, 95% confidence interval, 0.13-1.39).Findings from this small, preliminary study at least partially support the results of previous trials, confirming effectiveness and tolerability in the context of comorbidity and polypsychopharmacology.

Comparing interventions for early psychosis: a systematic review and component network meta-analysis.

Background: 'Early Intervention in Psychosis' (EIP) services have been associated with improved outcomes for early psychosis. However, these services are heterogeneous and many provide different components of treatment. The impact of this variation on the sustained treatment effects is unknown. Methods: We performed a systematic review and component network meta-analysis (cNMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared specialised intervention services for early psychosis. We searched CENTRAL (published and unpublished), EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science from inception to February 2023. Primary outcomes were negative and positive psychotic symptoms at 3-month and 1-year follow-up and treatment dropouts. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms and social functioning at 1-year follow-up. We registered a protocol for our study in PROSPERO (CRD42017057420). Findings: We identified 37 RCTs including 4599 participants. Participants' mean age was 25.8 years (SD 6.0) and 64.0% were men. We found evidence that psychological interventions (this component grouped all psychological treatment intended to treat, or ameliorate the consequences of, psychotic symptoms) are beneficial for reducing negative symptoms (iSMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.05, p = 0.014) at 3-month follow-up and may be associated with clinically relevant benefits in improving social functioning scores at 1-year follow-up (iSMD -0.52, 95% CI -1.05 to 0.01, p = 0.052). The addition of case management has a beneficial effect on reducing negative symptoms (iSMD -1.17, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.11, p = 0.030) and positive symptoms (iSMD -1.05, 95% CI -2.02 to -0.08, p = 0.033) at 1-year follow-up. Pharmacotherapy was present in all trial arms, meaning it was not possible to examine the specific effects of this component. Interpretation: Our findings suggest psychological interventions and case management in addition to pharmacotherapy as the core components of services for early psychosis to achieve sustained clinical benefits. Our conclusions are limited by the small number of studies and sparsely connected networks. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Mortality and adverse events associated with statin use in primary care patients with depression: a real-world, population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: New National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance endorses the prescription of statins in larger population groups for the prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality, especially in people with severe mental illness. However, the evidence base for their safety and risk/benefit balance in depression is not established. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the real-world mortality and adverse events of statins in depressive disorders. METHODS: Population-based, nationwide (England), between-subject, cohort study. We used electronic health records (QResearch database) of people aged 18-100 years with first-episode depression, registered with English primary care practices over January 1998-August 2020 for 12(+) months, divided into statin users versus non-users.Primary safety outcomes included all-cause mortality and any adverse event measured at 2, 6 and 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression was employed to control for several potential confounders and calculate adjusted ORs (aORs) with 99% CIs. FINDINGS: From over 1 050 105 patients with depression (42.64% males, mean age 43.23±18.32 years), 21 384 (2.04%) died, while 707 111 (67.34%) experienced at least one adverse event during the 12-month follow-up. Statin use was associated with lower mortality over 12 months (range aOR2-12months 0.66-0.67, range 99% CI 0.60 to 0.73) and with lower adverse events over 6 months (range aOR2-6months 0.90-0.96, range 99% CI 0.91 to 0.99), but not at 1 year (aOR12months 0.99, 99% CI 0.96 to 1.03). No association with any other individual outcome measure (ie, any other neuropsychiatric symptoms) was identified. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that statin use among people with depression increases mortality or other adverse events. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our findings support the safety of updated NICE guidelines for prescribing statins in people with depressive disorders.