Explore the vast range of titles available.

Recent high-quality studies have confirmed the central role of lithium in the treatment of bipolar disorder and have established lithium as the drug of first choice for long-term prophylaxis in this condition. However, several indications for its use in unipolar major depression are also based on sound evidence. This includes lithium augmentation as a main strategy for depressed patients not responding to an antidepressant, lithium prophylaxis for recurrent unipolar depression as an alternative to prophylaxis with an antidepressant, and lithium’s unique anti-suicidal properties. Lithium monotherapy, on the other hand, is not established for acute treatment of depression. Lithium therapy should be a core competency of every psychiatrist, enabling the safe use of lithium, to the benefit of our patients.

Objective: Combining antidepressants (ADs) for therapy of acute depression is frequently employed, but randomized studies have yielded conflicting results. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at determining efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL databases were systematically searched through March 2014 for controlled studies comparing combinations of ADs with AD monotherapy in adult patients suffering from acute depression. The prespecified primary outcome was standardized mean difference (SMD), secondary outcomes were response, remission, and dropouts. Results: Among 8688 articles screened, 38 studies were eligible, including 4511 patients. Combination treatment was statistically, significantly superior to monotherapy (SMD 0.29; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.42). During monotherapy, slightly fewer patients dropped out due to adverse events (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.53). Studies were heterogeneous (I2 = 63%), and there was indication of moderate publication bias (fail-safe N for an effect of 0.1:44), but results remained robust across prespecified secondary outcomes and subgroups, including analyses restricted to randomized controlled trials and low risk of bias studies. Meta-regression revealed an association of SMD with difference in imipramine-equivalent dose. Combining a reuptake inhibitor with an antagonist of presynaptic α2-autoreceptors was superior to other combinations. Conclusion: Combining ADs seems to be superior to monotherapy with only slightly more patients dropping out. Combining a reuptake inhibitor with an antagonist of presynaptic α2-autoreceptors seems to be significantly more effective than other combinations. Overall, our search revealed a dearth of well-designed studies.

BackgroundThere is ongoing controversy whether antidepressant use alters suicide risk in adults with depression and other treatment indications.MethodsSystematic review of observational studies, searching MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, PsycARTICLES and SCOPUS for case–control and cohort studies. We included studies on depression and various indications unspecified (including off-label use) reporting risk of suicide and/or suicide attempt for adult patients using selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and other new-generation antidepressants relative to non-users. Effects were meta-analytically aggregated with random-effects models, reporting relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs. Publication bias was assessed via funnel-plot asymmetry and trim-and-fill method. Financial conflict of interest (fCOI) was defined present when lead authors’ professorship was industry-sponsored, they received industry-payments, or when the study was industry-sponsored.ResultsWe included 27 studies, 19 on depression and 8 on various indications unspecified (n=1.45 million subjects). SSRI were not definitely related to suicide risk (suicide and suicide attempt combined) in depression (RR=1.03, 0.70–1.51) and all indications (RR=1.19, 0.88–1.60). Any new-generation antidepressant was associated with higher suicide risk in depression (RR=1.29, 1.06–1.57) and all indications (RR=1.45, 1.23–1.70). Studies with fCOI reported significantly lower risk estimates than studies without fCOI. Funnel-plots were asymmetrical and imputation of missing studies with trim-and-fill method produced considerably higher risk estimates.ConclusionsExposure to new-generation antidepressants is associated with higher suicide risk in adult routine-care patients with depression and other treatment indications. Publication bias and fCOI likely contribute to systematic underestimation of risk in the published literature.RegistrationOpen Science Framework, https://osf.io/eaqwn/

Hyperthyroidism and clinical depression are common, and there is preliminary evidence of substantial comorbidity. The extent of the association in the general population, however, has not yet been estimated meta-analytically. Therefore we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis (registered in PROSPERO: CRD42020164791). Until May 2020, Medline (via PubMed), PsycINFO, and Embase databases were systematically searched for studies on the association of hyperthyroidism and clinical depression, without language or date restrictions. Two reviewers independently selected epidemiological studies providing laboratory or ICD-based diagnoses of hyperthyroidism and diagnoses of depression according to operationalized criteria (e.g. DSM) or to cut-offs in established rating scales. All data, including study quality based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, were independently extracted by two authors. Odds ratios for the association of clinical depression and hyperthyroidism were calculated in a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis. Out of 3372 papers screened we selected 15 studies on 239 608 subjects, with 61% women and a mean age of 50. Relative to euthyroid individuals, patients with hyperthyroidism had a higher chance of being diagnosed with clinical depression: OR 1.67 ([95% CI: 1.49; 1.87], I 2 : 6%; prediction interval: 1.40 to 1.99), a result supported in a number of sensitivity and subgroup analyses. The OR was slightly less pronounced for subclinical as opposed to overt hyperthyroidism (1.36 [1.06; 1.74] vs. 1.70 [1.49; 1.93]). This comorbidity calls for clinical awareness and its reasons need investigation and may include neurobiological mechanisms, common genetic vulnerability and a generally heightened risk for clinical depression in patients with chronic somatic disorders.

Autoimmune encephalitis (AE) can rarely manifest as a predominantly psychiatric syndrome without overt neurological symptoms. This study’s aim was to characterize psychiatric patients with AE; therefore, anonymized data on patients with suspected AE with predominantly or isolated psychiatric syndromes were retrospectively collected. Patients with readily detectable neurological symptoms suggestive of AE (e.g., epileptic seizures) were excluded. Patients were classified as “probable psychiatric AE (pAE),” if well-characterized neuronal IgG autoantibodies were detected or “possible pAE” (e.g., with detection of nonclassical neuronal autoantibodies or compatible cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) changes). Of the 91 patients included, 21 (23%) fulfilled our criteria for probable (autoantibody-defined) pAE and 70 (77%) those for possible pAE. Among patients with probable pAE, 90% had anti-NMDA receptor (NMDA-R) autoantibodies. Overall, most patients suffered from paranoid-hallucinatory syndromes (53%). Patients with probable pAE suffered more often from disorientation (p < 0.001) and impaired memory (p = 0.001) than patients with possible pAE. Immunotherapies were performed in 69% of all cases, mostly with high-dose corticosteroids. Altogether, 93% of the patients with probable pAE and 80% of patients with possible pAE reportedly benefited from immunotherapies (p = 0.251). In summary, this explorative, cross-sectional evaluation confirms that autoantibody-associated AE syndromes can predominantly manifest as psychiatric syndromes, especially in anti-NMDA-R encephalitis. However, in three out of four patients, diagnosis of possible pAE was based on nonspecific findings (e.g., slight CSF pleocytosis), and well-characterized neuronal autoantibodies were absent. As such, the spectrum of psychiatric syndromes potentially responding to immunotherapies seems not to be limited to currently known autoantibody-associated AE. Further trials are needed.

Lithium augmentation refers to the addition of lithium to an antidepressant in the acute treatment phase of patients with depressive episodes who have failed to respond satisfactorily to treatment with antidepressant monotherapy. This article reviews the clinical evidence and hypotheses on the mode of action of lithium augmentation. For this purpose, studies were identified by searching Medline and by scanning the references of published reviews and standard textbooks. With regard to efficacy, 28 prospective studies (with a total of 838 depressed patients) were identified. The majority of randomized controlled trials has demonstrated substantial efficacy of lithium augmentation. A recent meta-analysis including only double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (N = 9) provided firm evidence that lithium augmentation has a statistically significant effect on response rate compared to placebo, and showed that lithium augmentation should be administered for at least 2 weeks to allow assessment of the patient s response. A recent double-blind, placebo-controlled trial revealed that responders to lithium augmentation should be maintained on the lithium-antidepressant combination for a minimum of 12 months. From animal studies there is robust evidence that lithium augmentation increases serotonin (5-HT) neurotransmission, possibly through a synergistic action of lithium and the antidepressant on brain 5-HT pathways. Neuroendocrine studies in humans on the effects of lithium augmentation on the HPA system showed an unexpected and marked increase in the ACTH and cortisol response in the combined dexamethasone/CRH test. These results are in contrast to the established decline of HPA system activity during treatment with antidepressants. In conclusion, lithium is the foremost and most well-documented augmentation strategy in refractory depression. In international treatment guidelines and algorithms, lithium augmentation is considered a first-line treatment strategy for patients with a major depressive episode who do not adequately respond to standard antidepressant treatment.

Background: The late onset of therapeutic response and a relatively large proportion of nonresponders to antidepressants remain major concerns in clinical practice. Therefore, there is a critical need for effective medication strategies that augment treatment with antidepressants. Methods: To review the available evidence on the use of lithium as an augmentation strategy to treat depressive episodes. Results: More than 30 open-label studies and 10 placebo-controlled double-blind trials have demonstrated substantial efficacy of lithium augmentation in the acute treatment of depressive episodes. Most of these studies were performed in unipolar depression and included all major classes of antidepressants, however mostly tricyclics. A meta-analysis including 10 randomized placebo-controlled trials has provided evidence that lithium augmentation has a statistically significant effect on the response rate compared to placebo with an odds ratio of 3.11, which corresponds to a number-needed-to-treat of 5. The meta-analysis revealed a mean response rate of 41.2% in the lithium group and 14.4% in the placebo group. One placebo-controlled trial in the continuation treatment phase showed that responders to acute-phase lithium augmentation should be maintained on the lithium-antidepressant combination for at least 12 months to prevent early relapses. Preliminary studies to assess genetic influences on response probability to lithium augmentation have suggested a predictive role of the –50T/C single nucleotide polymorphism of the GSK3β gene. Conclusion: Augmentation of antidepressants with lithium is currently the best-evidenced augmentation therapy in the treatment of depressed patients who do not respond to antidepressants.