Converging evidence has suggested that treatment augmentation with a second-generation atypical antipsychotic (SGA) may improve treatment outcomes in major depressive disorder (MDD) patients after an incomplete response to a first-line antidepressant. Cariprazine is a recently approved SGA for MDD augmentation. Herein, we evaluate both continuous (ie, change in depressive symptom severity scores over time) and categorical (ie, remission and response rates) outcomes. Following a full-text review, four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in our meta-analysis, while five studies were included for a qualitative review. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for all included randomized controlled studies to determine the relative response and remission rates of cariprazine compared to placebo augmentation. The RR for all-cause dropout was also determined as a proxy for overall acceptability. Two studies found a statistically significant treatment response using cariprazine augmentation. One study observed depressive symptom remission for cariprazine compared to placebo. Our random-effects model revealed moderate antidepressant effects of cariprazine, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) in Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores of −1.79 (95% CI): −2.89, −0.69). Our pooled response RR and remission RR were calculated as 1.21 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.39, P=0.008) and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.84, 1.17, P=0.91), respectively. The RR for response was statistically significant (P<0.05). However, the RR for remission was not statistically significant. The findings from our meta-analysis include a variable magnitude of effects. Evidence suggests cariprazine may be an effective treatment for MDD; however, further results are needed to clarify this relation.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a complex metabolic-inflammatory disease associated with poor outcomes and decreased quality of life. NAFLD is overrepresented in patients with psychiatric disorders like depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia; however, a comprehensive review on NAFLD and psychiatric disorders remains to be delineated. This review endeavors to investigate the association of NAFLD with psychiatric disorders, including shared pathogenesis and future clinical derivatives. Extant literature suggests that patients with psychiatric disorders (in particular, mood disorders) are more susceptible to the development of NAFLD due to multiple reasons, including but not limited to hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis dysregulation, metabolic syndrome, and chronic perceived stress. Moreover, the clinical manifestations of mood disorders (e.g., anhedonia, psychomotor retardation, lifestyle modification, etc.), and potentially long-term treatment with weight-gaining agents, differentially affect these patients, making them more prone to NAFLD. Considering the increased morbidity associated with both mood disorders and NAFLD, our review recommends regular screenings for NAFLD in select patients with mood disorders exhibiting signs of increased risk (i.e., obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, or family history of NAFLD) for better diagnosis and holistic care of both potentially interrelated conditions.

Cognitive impairment is common in bipolar disorder and is emerging as a therapeutic target to enhance quality of life and function. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, PsycInfo, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov, and Embase databases for blinded or open-label randomized controlled trials evaluating the pro-cognitive effects of pharmacological, neurostimulation, or psychological interventions for bipolar disorder. Twenty-two trials were identified, evaluating a total of 16 different pro-cognitive interventions. The methodological quality of the identified trials were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Currently, no intervention (i.e., pharmacologic, neurostimulation, cognitive remediation) has demonstrated robust and independent pro-cognitive effects in adults with bipolar disorder. Findings are preliminary and methodological limitations limit the interpretation of results. Methodological considerations including, but not limited to, the enrichment with populations with pre-treatment cognitive impairment, as well as the inclusion of individuals who are in remission are encouraged. Future trials may also consider targeting interventions to specific cognitive subgroups and the use of biomarkers of cognitive function.

During the past two decades, it has been amply documented that neuropsychiatric disorders (NPDs) disproportionately account for burden of illness attributable to chronic non-communicable medical disorders globally. It is also likely that human capital costs attributable to NPDs will disproportionately increase as a consequence of population aging and beneficial risk factor modification of other common and chronic medical disorders (e.g., cardiovascular disease). Notwithstanding the availability of multiple modalities of antidepressant treatment, relatively few studies in psychiatry have primarily sought to determine whether improving cognitive function in MDD improves patient reported outcomes (PROs) and/or is cost effective. The mediational relevance of cognition in MDD potentially extrapolates to all NPDs, indicating that screening for, measuring, preventing, and treating cognitive deficits in psychiatry is not only a primary therapeutic target, but also should be conceptualized as a transdiagnostic domain to be considered regardless of patient age and/or differential diagnosis.

A significant minority of people presenting with a major depressive episode (MDE) experience co-occurring subsyndromal hypo/manic symptoms. As this presentation may have important prognostic and treatment implications, the DSM–5 codified a new nosological entity, the “mixed features specifier,” referring to individuals meeting threshold criteria for an MDE and subthreshold symptoms of (hypo)mania or to individuals with syndromal mania and subthreshold depressive symptoms. The mixed features specifier adds to a growing list of monikers that have been put forward to describe phenotypes characterized by the admixture of depressive and hypomanic symptoms (e.g., mixed depression, depression with mixed features, or depressive mixed states [DMX]). Current treatment guidelines, regulatory approvals, as well the current evidentiary base provide insufficient decision support to practitioners who provide care to individuals presenting with an MDE with mixed features. In addition, all existing psychotropic agents evaluated in mixed patients have largely been confined to patient populations meeting the DSM–IV definition of “mixed states” wherein the co-occurrence of threshold-level mania and threshold-level MDE was required. Toward the aim of assisting clinicians providing care to adults with MDE and mixed features, we have assembled a panel of experts on mood disorders to develop these guidelines on the recognition and treatment of mixed depression, based on the few studies that have focused specifically on DMX as well as decades of cumulated clinical experience.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) mixed features specifier provides a less restrictive definition of mixed mood states, compared to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), including mood episodes that manifest with subthreshold symptoms of the opposite mood state. A limited number of studies have assessed the efficacy of treatments specifically for DSM-5–defined mixed features in mood disorders. As such, there is currently an inadequate amount of data to appropriately inform evidence-based treatment guidelines of DSM-5 defined mixed features. However, given the high prevalence and morbidity of mixed features, treatment recommendations based on the currently available evidence along with expert opinion may be of benefit. This article serves to provide these interim treatment recommendations while humbly acknowledging the limited amount of evidence currently available. Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) appear to have the greatest promise in the treatment of bipolar disorder (BD) with mixed features. Conventional mood stabilizing agents (ie, lithium and divalproex) may also be of benefit; however, they have been inadequately studied. In the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) with mixed features, the comparable efficacy of antidepressants versus other treatments, such as SGAs, remains unknown. As such, antidepressants remain first-line treatment of MDD with or without mixed features; however, there are significant safety concerns associated with antidepressant monotherapy when mixed features are present, which merits increased monitoring. Lurasidone is the only SGA monotherapy that has been shown to be efficacious specifically in the treatment of MDD with mixed features. Further research is needed to accurately determine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of treatments specifically for mood episodes with mixed features to adequately inform future treatment guidelines.

Mood episodes with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5)–defined mixed features are highly prevalent in bipolar disorder (BD), affecting ~40% of patients during the course of illness. Mixed states are associated with poorer clinical outcomes, greater treatment resistance, higher rates of comorbidity, more frequent mood episodes, and increased rates of suicide. The objectives of the current review are to identify, summarize, and synthesize studies assessing the efficacy of treatments specifically for BD I and II mood episodes (ie, including manic, hypomanic, and major depressive episodes) with DSM-5–defined mixed features. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6 post-hoc analyses were identified, all of which assessed the efficacy of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for the acute treatment of BD mood episodes with mixed features. Results from these studies provide preliminary support for SGAs as efficacious treatments for both mania with mixed features and bipolar depression with mixed features. However, there are inadequate data to definitively support or refute the clinical use of specific agents. Conventional mood stabilizing agents (eg, lithium and divalproex) have yet to have been adequately studied in DSM-5–defined mixed features. Further study is required to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of treatments specifically for BD mood episodes with mixed features.