Esketamine for treatment resistant depression: a trick of smoke and mirrors?

Abstract In March 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a nasal spray formulation of esketamine for the treatment of resistant depression in adults. Esketamine is the S-enantiomer of ketamine, an FDA-approved anaesthetic, known to cause dissociation and, occasionally, hallucinations. While ketamine has not been approved for depression in the USA or in any other country, it has been used off-label in cases of severe depression. This commentary critically reviewed the evidence on esketamine submitted to the FDA, aiming to draw implications for clinical practice, research and regulatory science

Phenomenology as a resource for translational research in mental health: methodological trends, challenges and new directions

This editorial reflects on current methodological trends in translational research in mental health. It aims to build a bridge between two fields that are frequently siloed off from each other: interventional research and phenomenologically informed research. Recent years have witnessed a revival of phenomenological approaches in mental health, often - but not only - as a means of connecting the subjective character of experience with neurobiological explanatory accounts of illness. Rich phenomenological knowledge accrued in schizophrenia, and wider psychosis research, has opened up new opportunities for improving prediction, early detection, diagnosis, prognostic stratification, treatment and ethics of care. Novel qualitative studies of delusions and hallucinations have challenged longstanding assumptions about their nature and meaning, uncovering highly complex subjective dimensions that are not adequately captured by quantitative methodologies. Interdisciplinary and participatory research efforts, informed by phenomenological insights, have prompted revisions of pre-established narratives of mental disorder dominated by a dysfunction framework and by researcher-centric outcome measures. Despite these recent advances, there has been relatively little effort to integrate and translate phenomenological insights across applied clinical research, with the goal of producing more meaningful, patient-valued results. It is our contention that phenomenological psychopathology - as the basic science of psychiatry - represents an important methodology for advancing evidence-based practices in mental health, and ultimately improving real-world outcomes. Setting this project into motion requires a greater emphasis on subjectivity and the structures of experience, more attention to the quality and patient-centredness of outcome measures, and the identification of treatment targets that matter most to patients

Neonatal withdrawal syndrome following in utero exposure to antidepressants: a disproportionality analysis of VigiBase, the WHO spontaneous reporting database

Background: Evidence on neonatal withdrawal syndrome following antidepressant intrauterine exposure is limited, particularly for antidepressants other than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs). Methods: In our case/non-case pharmacovigilance study, based on VigiBase®, the WHO database of suspected adverse drug reactions, we estimated reporting odds ratio (ROR) and the Bayesian information component (IC) with 95% confidence/credibility intervals (CI) as measures of disproportionate reporting of antidepressant-related neonatal withdrawal syndrome. Antidepressants were first compared to all other medications, then to methadone, and finally within each class of antidepressants: SSRIs, tricyclics (TCA) and other antidepressants. Antidepressants were ranked in terms of clinical priority, based on semiquantitative score ratings. Serious v. non-serious reports were compared. Results: A total of 406 reports of neonatal withdrawal syndrome in 379 neonates related to 15 antidepressants were included. Disproportionate reporting was detected for antidepressants as a group as compared to all other drugs (ROR: 6.18, 95% CI 5.45-7.01, IC: 2.07, 95% CI 1.92-2.21). Signals were found for TCAs (10.55, 95% CI 8.02-13.88), followed by other antidepressants (ROR: 5.90, 95% CI 4.74-7.36) and SSRIs (ROR: 4.68, 95% CI 4.04-5.42). Significant disproportionality emerged for all individual antidepressants except for bupropion, whereas no disproportionality for any antidepressant was detected v. methadone. Eleven antidepressants had a moderate clinical priority score and four had a weak one. Most frequent symptoms included respiratory symptoms (n = 106), irritability/agitation (n = 75), tremor (n = 52) and feeding problems (n = 40). Conclusions: Most antidepressants are associated with moderate signals of disproportionate reporting for neonatal withdrawal syndrome, which should be considered when prescribing an antidepressant during pregnancy, irrespective of class. Keywords: Abstinence syndrome; antidepressants; neonates; poor neonatal adaptation syndrome; pregnancy; withdrawal syndrome

Neonatal withdrawal syndrome following in utero exposure to antidepressants: a disproportionality analysis of VigiBase, the WHO spontaneous reporting database

Evidence on neonatal withdrawal syndrome following antidepressant intrauterine exposure is limited, particularly for antidepressants other than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs)

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia: Systematic review and network meta-Analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background Psychotherapies are the treatment of choice for panic disorder, but which should be considered as first-line treatment is yet to be substantiated by evidence. Aims To examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia via a network meta-Analysis. Method We conducted a systematic review and network meta-Analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CENTRAL, from inception to 1 Jan 2021 for RCTs. Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines were used. Pairwise and network meta-Analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal and in PROSPERO (CRD42020206258). Results We included 136 RCTs in the systematic review. Taking into consideration efficacy (7352 participants), acceptability (6862 participants) and the CINeMA confidence in evidence appraisal, the best interventions in comparison with treatment as usual (TAU) were cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) (for efficacy: standardised mean differences s.m.d. =-0.67, 95% CI-0.95 to-0.39; CINeMA: moderate; for acceptability: relative risk RR = 1.21, 95% CI-0.94 to 1.56; CINeMA: moderate) and short-Term psychodynamic therapy (for efficacy: s.m.d. =-0.61, 95% CI-1.15 to-0.07; CINeMA: low; for acceptability: RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.54-1.54; CINeMA: moderate). After removing RCTs at high risk of bias only CBT remained more efficacious than TAU. Conclusions CBT and short-Term psychodynamic therapy are reasonable first-line choices. Studies with high risk of bias tend to inflate the overall efficacy of treatments. Results from this systematic review and network meta-Analysis should inform clinicians and guidelines

Which psychotherapy is effective in panic disorder? And which delivery formats are supported by the evidence? Study protocol for two systematic reviews and network meta-analyses

Introduction Panic disorder is among the most prevalent anxiety diseases. Although psychotherapy is recommended as first-line treatment for panic disorder, little is known about the relative efficacy of different types of psychotherapies. Moreover, there is little evidence concerning the effectiveness of different formats of major psychotherapeutic types, such as cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT). In this protocol, we present an overarching project consisting of two systematic reviews and network meta-analyses (NMA) to shed light on which psychotherapy (NMA-1), and specifically, which CBT delivery format (NMA-2) should be considered most effective for adults suffering from panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. Methods and analyses Starting from a common pool of data, we will conduct two systematic reviews and NMA of randomised controlled trials examining panic disorder. A comprehensive search will be performed in electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials - CENTRAL from database inception to 1 January 2021 to identify relevant studies. A systematic approach to searching, screening, reviewing and data extraction will be applied. Titles, abstract and - whenever necessary - full texts will be examined independently by at least two reviewers. The quality of the included studies will be assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool V.2. The primary efficacy outcome will be anxiety symptoms at study endpoint. The primary acceptability outcome will be all-cause discontinuation, as measured by the proportion of patients who had discontinued treatment for any reason at endpoint. Data will be pooled using a random-effects model. Pairwise and NMA will be conducted. Ethics and dissemination No ethical approval is necessary for these two studies, as there will be no collection of primary data. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international conferences and meetings

Oral and long-acting antipsychotics for relapse prevention in schizophrenia-spectrum disorders: a network meta-analysis of 92 randomized trials including 22,645 participants

According to current evidence and guidelines, continued antipsychotic treatment is key for preventing relapse in people with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, but evidence-based recommendations for the choice of the individual antipsychotic for maintenance treatment are lacking. Although oral antipsychotics are often prescribed first line for practical reasons, long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) are a valuable resource to tackle adherence issues since the earliest phase of disease. Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and CINAHL databases and online registers were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing LAIs or oral antipsychotics head-to-head or against placebo, published until June 2021. Relative risks and standardized mean differences were pooled using random-effects pairwise and network meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were relapse and dropout due to adverse events. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess study quality, and the CINeMA approach to assess the confidence of pooled estimates. Of 100 eligible trials, 92 (N=22,645) provided usable data for meta-analyses. Regarding relapse prevention, the vast majority of the 31 included treatments outperformed placebo. Compared to placebo, “high” confidence in the results was found for (in descending order of effect magnitude) amisulpride-oral (OS), olanzapine-OS, aripiprazole-LAI, olanzapine-LAI, aripiprazole-OS, paliperidone-OS, and ziprasidone-OS. “Moderate” confidence in the results was found for paliperidone-LAI 1-monthly, iloperidone-OS, fluphenazine-OS, brexpiprazole-OS, paliperidone-LAI 1-monthly, asenapine-OS, haloperidol-OS, quetiapine-OS, cariprazine-OS, and lurasidone-OS. Regarding tolerability, none of the antipsychotics was significantly worse than placebo, but confidence was poor, with only aripiprazole (both LAI and OS) showing “moderate” confidence levels. Based on these findings, olanzapine, aripiprazole and paliperidone are the best choices for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, considering that both LAI and oral formulations of these antipsychotics are among the best-performing treatments and have the highest confidence of evidence for relapse prevention. This finding is of particular relevance for low- and middle-income countries and constrained-resource settings, where few medications may be selected. Results from this network meta-analysis can inform clinical guidelines and national and international drug regulation policies

Introducing the Library of Guidance for Health Scientists (LIGHTS): a living database for methods guidance

IMPORTANCE: Improving methodological quality is a priority in the health research community. Finding appropriate methods guidance can be challenging due to heterogeneous terminology, poor indexing in medical databases, and variation in formats. The Library of Guidance for Health Scientists (LIGHTS) is a new searchable database for methods guidance articles. OBSERVATIONS: Journal articles that aim to provide guidance for performing (including planning, design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation), reporting, and assessing the quality of health-related research involving humans or human populations (ie, excluding basic and animal research) are eligible for LIGHTS. A team of health researchers, information specialists, and methodologists continuously identifies and manually indexes eligible guidance documents. The search strategy includes focused searches of specific journals, specialized databases, and suggestions from researchers. A current limitation is that a keyword-based search of MEDLINE (and other general databases) and manual screening of records were not feasible because of the large number of hits (n = 915 523). As of September 20, 2022, LIGHTS included 1246 articles (336 reporting guidelines, 80 quality assessment tools, and 830 other methods guidance articles). The LIGHTS website provides a user-oriented search interface including filters for study type, specific methodological topic, research context, guidance type, and development process of the guidance. Automated matching of alternative methodological expressions (eg, enter loss to follow-up and find articles indexed with missing data) enhances search queries. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: LIGHTS is a peer-supported initiative that is intended to increase access to and use of methods guidance relevant to health researchers, statisticians, methods consultants, methods developers, ethics boards, peer reviewers, journal editors, and funding bodies