Only a limited number of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) respond to a first course of antidepressant medication (ADM). We investigated the feasibility of creating a baseline model to determine which of these would be among patients beginning ADM treatment in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA).

A 2018–2020 national sample of n = 660 VHA patients receiving ADM treatment for MDD completed an extensive baseline self-report assessment near the beginning of treatment and a 3-month self-report follow-up assessment. Using baseline self-report data along with administrative and geospatial data, an ensemble machine learning method was used to develop a model for 3-month treatment response defined by the Quick Inventory of Depression Symptomatology Self-Report and a modified Sheehan Disability Scale. The model was developed in a 70% training sample and tested in the remaining 30% test sample.

In total, 35.7% of patients responded to treatment. The prediction model had an area under the ROC curve (s.e.) of 0.66 (0.04) in the test sample. A strong gradient in probability (s.e.) of treatment response was found across three subsamples of the test sample using training sample thresholds for high [45.6% (5.5)], intermediate [34.5% (7.6)], and low [11.1% (4.9)] probabilities of response. Baseline symptom severity, comorbidity, treatment characteristics (expectations, history, and aspects of current treatment), and protective/resilience factors were the most important predictors.

Although these results are promising, parallel models to predict response to alternative treatments based on data collected before initiating treatment would be needed for such models to help guide treatment selection.

Aripiprazole augmentation is proven effective for antidepressant-refractory depression, but its licensed dose range is wide and optimal dosage remains unclear.

To find the optimal dosage of aripiprazole augmentation.

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).

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.

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.

To gain a deeper understanding of the use of online culture and its potential benefits to mental health and well-being, sociodemographic characteristics and self-reported data on usage, perceived mental health benefits and health status were collected in an online cross-sectional survey during COVID-19 restrictions in the UK in June–July 2020.

In total, 1056 people completed the survey. A high proportion of participants reported finding online culture helpful for mental health; all but one of the benefits were associated with regular use and some with age. Reported benefits were wide-ranging and interconnected. Those aged under 25 years were less likely to be regular users of online culture or to have increased their use during lockdown.

There may be benefits in targeting cultural resources for mental health to vulnerable groups such as young adults.

The extent and profiles of heterogeneity in cognitive functioning among participants in clinical trials of antidementia medication are unknown. We aimed to quantify and identify profiles of heterogeneity of cognition in Alzheimer’s disease.

Individual-level participant data were analyzed from five pivotal clinical trials of donepezil for Alzheimer’s disease (N = 2,919). Based on Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale total scores from baseline up to week 12, a latent class model was used to identify heterogeneous groups. A logistic regression model was used to examine factors associated with group membership. Sensitivity analysis was conducted, restricted to the donepezil, and then the placebo arm.

The latent class model identified three classes labeled as low scorers (i.e., least cognitive impairment; N = 1,666, 76.04%), improvers (N = 27, 1.23%), and high scorers (N = 498, 22.73%). Logistic modeling showed that donepezil compared to placebo was significantly (p < 0.05) positively associated with membership in the improvers class (OR = 6.88, 95% CI = 2.03, 42.95), and negatively with high scorers (OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.64, 0.98). Sensitivity analysis restricted to the placebo, then donepezil arms replicated similar heterogeneity patterns.

Our results inform clinicians regarding the extent of heterogeneity in cognitive functioning during treatment and contribute to trial design considerations.

The aim of this paper was to provide a systematic review and update on the pharmacotherapy of social anxiety disorder (SAD), including the efficacy and tolerability of these agents, the ranking of interventions, and the grading of results by quality of evidence.

The Common Mental Disorder Controlled Trial Register and two trial registries were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention or placebo in the treatment of SAD. We performed a standard pairwise meta-analysis using a random effects model and carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using the statistical package, R. Quality of evidence was also assessed.

We included 67 RCTs in the review and 21 to 45 interventions in the NMA. Paroxetine was most effective in the reduction of symptom severity as compared to placebo. Superior response to treatment was also observed for paroxetine, brofaromine, bromazepam, clonazepam, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, phenelzine, and sertraline. Higher dropout rates were found for fluvoxamine. Brofaromine, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, pregabalin, sertraline, and venlafaxine performed worse in comparison to placebo for the outcome of dropouts due to adverse events. Olanzapine yielded a relatively high rank for treatment efficacy and buspirone the worse rank for dropouts due to any cause.

The differences between drugs and placebo were small, apart from a significant reduction in symptom severity and response for paroxetine. We suggest paroxetine as a first-line treatment of SAD, with the consideration of future research on the drug olanzapine as well as brofaromine, bromazepam, clonazepam, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, phenelzine, and sertraline because we observed a response to treatment.

Most people with bipolar disorder spend a significant percentage of their lifetime experiencing either subsyndromal depressive symptoms or major depressive episodes, which contribute greatly to the high levels of disability and mortality associated with the disorder. Despite the importance of bipolar depression, there are only a small number of recognised treatment options available. Consecutive treatment failures can quickly exhaust these options leading to treatment-resistant bipolar depression (TRBD). Remarkably few studies have evaluated TRBD and those available lack a comprehensive definition of multi-therapy-resistant bipolar depression (MTRBD).

To reach consensus regarding threshold definitions criteria for TRBD and MTRBD.

Based on the evidence of standard treatments available in the latest bipolar disorder treatment guidelines, TRBD and MTRBD criteria were agreed by a representative panel of bipolar disorder experts using a modified Delphi method.

TRBD criteria in bipolar depression was defined as failure to reach sustained symptomatic remission for 8 consecutive weeks after two different treatment trials, at adequate therapeutic doses, with at least two recommended monotherapy treatments or at least one monotherapy treatment and another combination treatment. MTRBD included the same initial definition as TRBD, with the addition of failure of at least one trial with an antidepressant, a psychological treatment and a course of electroconvulsive therapy.

The proposed TRBD and MTRBD criteria may provide an important signpost to help clinicians, researchers and stakeholders in judging how and when to consider new non-standard treatments. However, some challenging diagnostic and therapeutic issues were identified in the consensus process that need further evaluation and research.

In the past 3 years, M.B. has received grant/research support from the NIH, Cooperative Research Centre, Simons Autism Foundation, Cancer Council of Victoria, Stanley Medical Research Foundation, MBF, NHMRC, Beyond Blue, Rotary Health, Geelong Medical Research Foundation, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Glaxo SmithKline, Meat and Livestock Board, Organon, Novartis, Mayne Pharma, Servier, Woolworths, Avant and the Harry Windsor Foundation, has been a speaker for Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Glaxo SmithKline, Janssen Cilag, Lundbeck, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi Synthelabo, Servier, Solvay and Wyeth and served as a consultant to Allergan, Astra Zeneca, Bioadvantex, Bionomics, Collaborative Medicinal Development, Eli Lilly, Grunbiotics, Glaxo SmithKline, Janssen Cilag, LivaNova, Lundbeck, Merck, Mylan, Otsuka, Pfizer and Servier. A.J.C. has in the past 3 years received honoraria for speaking from Astra Zeneca and Lundbeck, honoraria for consulting from Allergan, Janssen, Lundbeck and LivaNova and research grant support from Lundbeck. G.M.G. holds shares in P1Vital and has served as consultant, advisor or CME speaker for Allergan, Angelini, Compass pathways, MSD, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Takeda, Medscape, Minervra, P1Vital, Pfizer, Servier, Shire and Sun Pharma. J.G. has received research funding from National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, Stanley Medical Research Institute and Wellcome. H.G. received grants/research support, consulting fees or honoraria from Gedeon Richter, Genericon, Janssen Cilag, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Pfizer and Servier. R.H.M.-W. has received support for research, expenses to attend conferences and fees for lecturing and consultancy work (including attending advisory boards) from various pharmaceutical companies including Astra Zeneca, Cyberonics, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Liva Nova, Lundbeck, MyTomorrows, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, SPIMACO and Sunovion. R.M. has received research support from Big White Wall, Electromedical Products, Johnson and Johnson, Magstim and P1Vital. S.N. received honoraria from Lundbeck, Jensen and Otsuka. J.C.S. has received funds for research from Alkermes, Pfizer, Allergan, J&J, BMS and been a speaker or consultant for Astellas, Abbott, Sunovion, Sanofi. S.W has, within the past 3 years, attended advisory boards for Sunovion and LivaNova and has undertaken paid lectures for Lundbeck. D.J.S. has received honoraria from Lundbeck. T.S. has reported grants from Pathway Genomics, Stanley Medical Research Institute and Palo Alto Health Sciences; consulting fees from Sunovion Pharamaceuticals Inc.; honoraria from Medscape Education, Global Medical Education and CMEology; and royalties from Jones and Bartlett, UpToDate and Hogrefe Publishing. S.P. has served as a consultant or speaker for Janssen, and Sunovion. P.T. has received consultancy fees as an advisory board member from the following companies: Galen Limited, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd, myTomorrows and LivaNova. E.V. received grants/ research support, consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, AB-Biotics, Allergan, Angelini, Dainippon Sumitomo, Ferrer, Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, Otsuka and Sunovion. L.N.Y. has received grants/research support, consulting fees or honoraria from Allergan, Alkermes, Dainippon Sumitomo, Janssen, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Sanofi, Servier, Sunovion, Teva and Valeant. A.H.Y. has undertaken paid lectures and advisory boards for all major pharmaceutical companies with drugs used in affective and related disorders and LivaNova. He has also previously received funding for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck and Wyeth. P.R.A.S. has received research funding support from Corcept Therapeutics Inc. Corcept Therapeutics Inc fully funded attendance at their internal conference in California USA and all related expenses. He has received grant funding from the Medical Research Council UK for a collaborative study with Janssen Research and Development LLC. Janssen Research and Development LLC are providing non-financial contributions to support this study. P.R.A.S. has received a presentation fee from Indivior and an advisory board fee from LivaNova.

• • Understand the purpose of conducting a literature search and its integral part of the literature review process

• • Become aware of the range of sources that are available, including electronic databases of published data and trial registries to identify unpublished data

• • Understand how to develop a search strategy and apply appropriate search terms to interrogate electronic databases or trial registries

None.

Guidelines about post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) recommend broad categories of drugs, but uncertainty remains about what pharmacological treatment to select among all available compounds.

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials register, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, National PTSD Center Pilots database, PubMed, trial registries, and databases of pharmaceutical companies were searched until February 2016 for double-blind randomised trials comparing any pharmacological intervention or placebo as oral therapy in adults with PTSD. Initially, we performed standard pairwise meta-analyses using a random effects model. We then carried out a network meta-analysis. The main outcome measures were mean change on a standardised scale and all-cause dropout rate. Acute treatment was defined as 8-week follow up.

Desipramine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, phenelzine, risperidone, sertraline, and venlafaxine were more effective than placebo; phenelzine was better than many other active treatments and was the only drug, which was significantly better than placebo in terms of dropouts (odds ratio 7.50, 95% CI 1.72–32.80). Mirtazapine yielded a relatively high rank for efficacy, but the respective value for acceptability was not among the best treatments. Divalproex had overall the worst ranking.

The efficacy and acceptability hierarchies generated by our study were robust against many sources of bias. The differences between drugs and placebo were small, with the only exception of phenelzine. Considering the small amount of available data, these results are probably not robust enough to suggest phenelzine as a drug of choice. However, findings from this review reinforce the idea that phenelzine should be prioritised in future trials in PTSD.