Trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonists offer a new approach, but there is uncertainty regarding their effects, exact mechanism of action and potential role in treating psychosis.

To evaluate the available evidence on TAAR1 agonists in psychosis, using triangulation of the output of living systematic reviews (LSRs) of animal and human studies, and provide recommendations for future research prioritisation.

This study is part of GALENOS (Global Alliance for Living Evidence on aNxiety, depressiOn and pSychosis). In the triangulation process, a multidisciplinary group of experts, including those with lived experience, met and appraised the first co-produced living systematic reviews from GALENOS, on TAAR1 agonists.

The animal data suggested a potential antipsychotic effect, as TAAR1 agonists reduced locomotor activity induced by pro-psychotic drug treatment. Human studies showed few differences for ulotaront and ralmitaront compared with placebo in improving overall symptoms in adults with acute schizophrenia (four studies, n = 1291 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.15, 95% CI −0.05 to 0.34). Large placebo responses were seen in ulotaront phase three trials. Ralmitaront was less efficacious than risperidone (one study, n = 156 participants, SMD = −0.53, 95% CI −0.86 to −0.20). The side-effect profile of TAAR1 agonists was favourable compared with existing antipsychotics. Priorities for future studies included (a) using different animal models of psychosis with greater translational validity; (b) animal and human studies with wider outcomes including cognitive and affective symptoms and (c) mechanistic studies and investigations of other potential applications, such as adjunctive treatments and long-term outcomes. Recommendations for future iterations of the LSRs included (a) meta-analysis of individual human participant data, (b) including studies that used different methodologies and (c) assessing other disorders and symptoms.

This co-produced, international triangulation examined the available evidence and developed recommendations for future research and clinical applications for TAAR1 agonists in psychosis. Broader challenges included difficulties in assessing the risk of bias, reproducibility, translation and interpretability of animal models to clinical outcomes, and a lack of individual and clinical characteristics in the human data. The research will inform a separate, independent prioritisation process, led by lived experience experts, to prioritise directions for future research.

Antidepressants’ effects are established in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), but not in the real world.

To investigate real-world comparative effects of antidepressants for depression and compare them with RCTs.

We performed a cohort study based on the QResearch database. We included people with a newly recorded diagnosis of depression, exposed to licensed antidepressants in the UK. We assessed all-cause dropouts (acceptability), dropouts for adverse events (tolerability), occurrence of at least one adverse event (safety), and response and remission on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 (effectiveness) at 2 and 12 months. Logistic regressions were used to compute adjusted-odds ratio (aOR) with 99% CIs, assessing the associations between exposure to each antidepressant against fluoxetine (comparator) and outcomes of interest. We compared estimates from the real world with RCTs using ratio-of-odds ratio (ROR) with 95% CI.

A total of 673 177 depressed people were studied: females 57.1%, mean age 42.8 (s.d. 17.7) years, mean baseline PHQ-9 17.1 (s.d. 5.0) (moderately severe depression). At 2 months, antidepressant acceptability was 61.4%, tolerability 94.4%, safety 54.5%, PHQ-9 decreased to 12.3 (s.d. 6.5). At 12 months, acceptability was 12.3%, tolerability 87.5%, safety 28.8%, PHQ-9 12.9 (s.d. 6.8). In the short and long term, tricyclics, mirtazapine and trazodone were worse than fluoxetine for most outcomes; citalopram had better acceptability than fluoxetine (aOR 0.95; 99% CI 0.92, 0.97), sertraline had lower tolerability (aOR 1.12; 99% CI 1.06, 1.18), and both citalopram and sertraline had lower safety (aOR 1.17 and 1.25, respectively). In the long term, citalopram had better acceptability (aOR 0.78; 99% CI 0.76, 0.81) and effectiveness (aOR 1.12 for both response and remission), but worse tolerability (aOR 1.09; 99% CI 1.06, 1.13) and safety (aOR 1.12; 99% CI 1.08, 1.16). Observational and randomised data were similar for citalopram and sertraline, while there was some difference for drugs less prescribed in the real world.

Antidepressants showed low acceptability, moderate-to-high tolerability and safety, and small-to-moderate effectiveness in the real world. Real-world and RCT estimates showed similar findings only when the analyses were carried out using large datasets; otherwise, the results diverged.

Urbanisation is taking place worldwide and rates of mental illness are rising. There has been increasing interest in ‘nature’ and how it may benefit mental health and well-being.

To understand how the literature defines nature; what the characteristics of the nature intervention are; what mental health and well-being outcomes are being measured; and what the evidence shows, in regard to how nature affects the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents.

A meta-review was conducted, searching three databases for relevant primary and secondary studies, using key search terms including ‘nature’ and ‘mental health’ and ‘mental well-being’. Inclusion criteria included published English-language studies on the child and adolescent population. Authors identified the highest quality evidence from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and analysed using descriptive content analysis.

Sixteen systematic reviews, two scoping reviews and five good quality cohort studies were included. ‘Nature’ was conceptualised along a continuum (the ‘nature research framework’) into three categories: a human-designed environment with natural elements; a human-designed natural environment; and a natural environment. The nature ‘intervention’ falls into three areas (the ‘nature intervention framework’): access, exposure and engagement with nature, with quantity and quality of nature relevant to all areas. Mental health and well-being outcomes fit along a continuum, with ‘disorder’ at one end and ‘well-being’ at the other. Nature appears to have a beneficial effect, but we cannot be certain of this.

Nature appears to have a beneficial effect on mental health and well-being of children and adolescents. Evidence is lacking on clinical populations, ethnically diverse populations and populations in low- and middle-income countries. Our results should be interpreted considering the limitations of the included studies and confidence in findings.

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.

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.

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.

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%.

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.

A short yet reliable cognitive measure is needed that separates treatment and placebo for treatment trials for Alzheimer’s disease. Hence, we aimed to shorten the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) and test its use as an efficacy measure.

Secondary data analysis of participant-level data from five pivotal clinical trials of donepezil compared with placebo for Alzheimer’s disease (N = 2,198). Across all five trials, cognition was appraised using the original 11-item ADAS-Cog. Statistical analysis consisted of sample characterization, item response theory (IRT) to identify an ADAS-Cog short version, and mixed models for repeated-measures analysis to examine the effect sizes of ADAS-Cog change on the original and short versions in the placebo versus donepezil groups.

Based on IRT, a short ADAS-Cog was developed with seven items and two response options. The original and short ADAS-Cog correlated at baseline and at weeks 12 and 24 at 0.7. Effect sizes based on mixed modeling showed that the short and original ADAS-Cog separated placebo and donepezil comparably (ADAS-Cog original ES = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.29, 0.40, ADAS-Cog short ES = 0.25, 95% CI =0.23, 0.34).

IRT identified a short ADAS-cog version that separated donepezil and placebo, suggesting its clinical potential for assessment and treatment monitoring.

Studies about brain structure in bipolar disorder have reported conflicting findings. These findings may be explained by the high degree of heterogeneity within bipolar disorder, especially if structural differences are mapped to single brain regions rather than networks.

We aim to complete a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify brain networks underlying structural abnormalities observed on T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging scans in bipolar disorder across the lifespan. We also aim to explore how these brain networks are affected by sociodemographic and clinical heterogeneity in bipolar disorder.

We will include case–control studies that focus on whole-brain analyses of structural differences between participants of any age with a standardised diagnosis of bipolar disorder and controls. The electronic databases Medline, PsycINFO and Web of Science will be searched. We will complete an activation likelihood estimation analysis and a novel coordinate-based network mapping approach to identify specific brain regions and brain circuits affected in bipolar disorder or relevant subgroups. Meta-regressions will examine the effect of sociodemographic and clinical variables on identified brain circuits.

Findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis will enhance understanding of the pathophysiology of bipolar disorder. The results will identify brain circuitry implicated in bipolar disorder, and how they may relate to relevant sociodemographic and clinical variables across the lifespan.

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.