Search

Purpose of the review By reviewing the most recent common mental health disorders (CMHD) studies in people living with HIV (PLWH) (2018-2020), this review discusses the prevalence of CMHD, factors associated with CMHD in PLWH, mental health in PLWH from vulnerable groups, the impact of CMHD on HIV disease progression and adherence to antiretroviral therapy and the efficacy of different treatment approaches. Recent findings After screening for eligibility 142 studies were included in the final systematic review. Only 27% of studies were conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa, which carries the highest burn of HIV disease globally. Despite the well-established increased risk of CMHD in PLWH, the current prevalence remains high, with studies reporting 28%-62% of PLWH having mental health symptoms. Conclusion Despite the significant challenges that CMHDs present to successful HIV treatment, there are many mental health treatments and interventions which can improve outcomes in PLWH and opportunities to task-shift and integrate mental health care with HIV care. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11904-021-00583-w.

Objective Although many studies report that women with HIV (WWH) are more vulnerable to cognitive impairment than men with HIV (MWH), this trend is not described consistently in the literature. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated whether the weight of evidence supports the existence of a significant sex difference in cognitive functioning among people with HIV and, if so, whether specific domains are affected. Method A systematic literature search retrieved 4,062 unique articles published between January 2000 and June 2019. Eligibility criteria were that studies directly compared adult WWH and MWH using a neuropsychological test battery. After extensive screening, we included 11 studies in the systematic review (N = 3,333) and 6 in the meta-analysis (N = 2,852). Results Six studies included in the systematic review found WWH performed significantly more poorly on measures of cognitive performance than MWH; the other five found no sex differences. Meta-analytic results indicated that WWH performed significantly more poorly than MWH in three cognitive domains (psychomotor coordination, visuospatial learning, and memory), but magnitudes of effect sizes were small (d = −.16, −.43, and − .30, respectively). Analyses detected no sex differences in global cognitive functioning and in the other cognitive domains. Conclusions Sex differences in cognitive performance are small, and sociodemographic and psychiatric characteristics of WWH and MWH differ between studies. Cognitive differences between WWH and MWH may be explained by sex-based variation in these characteristics, the impact of which seems to outweigh that of HIV-related clinical variables (e.g., CD4 count and viral load).

Although obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) is one of the most prevalent personality disorders, it is one of the least studied. There is debate as to whether pharmacotherapy is efficacious for OCPD. We aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of pharmacotherapy for OCPD.This systematic review found two randomized controlled trials investigating pharmacotherapy of OCPD. In a study of major depression (n = 308) with comorbid OCPD (n = 71), citalopram was more effective for OCPD than sertraline with fewer drop-outs from treatment. In a small study of OCPD (n = 24), fluvoxamine was more effective than placebo, and there was a low drop-out rate. Risk of bias and quality assessment of these studies was not possible, and findings have very low levels of certainty.Two studies provide preliminary evidence in support of citalopram and fluvoxamine for OCPD. Further randomized controlled trials are required before firm conclusions can be drawn regarding efficacy of pharmacotherapy for OCPD.

Objective: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.Methods: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.Results: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.Conclusion: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.

Background\ud Post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a severe and debilitating condition. Several pharmacological interventions have been proposed with the aim to prevent or mitigate it. These interventions should balance efficacy and tolerability, given that not all individuals exposed to a traumatic event will develop PTSD. There are different possible approaches to preventing PTSD; universal prevention is aimed at individuals at risk of developing PTSD on the basis of having been exposed to a traumatic event, irrespective of whether they are showing signs of psychological difficulties.\ud \ud Objectives\ud To assess the efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological interventions for universal prevention of PTSD in adults exposed to a traumatic event.\ud \ud Search methods\ud We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMDCTR), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers (November 2020). We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews. The search was last updated on 13 November 2020.\ud \ud Selection criteria\ud We included randomised clinical trials on adults exposed to any kind of traumatic event. We considered comparisons of any medication with placebo or with another medication. We excluded trials that investigated medications as an augmentation to psychotherapy.\ud \ud Data collection and analysis\ud We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. In a random‐effects model, we analysed dichotomous data as risk ratios (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial/harmful outcome (NNTB/NNTH). We analysed continuous data as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD).\ud \ud Main results\ud We included 13 studies which considered eight interventions (hydrocortisone, propranolol, dexamethasone, omega‐3 fatty acids, gabapentin, paroxetine, PulmoCare enteral formula, Oxepa enteral formula and 5‐hydroxytryptophan) and involved 2023 participants, with a single trial contributing 1244 participants. Eight studies enrolled participants from emergency departments or trauma centres or similar settings. Participants were exposed to a range of both intentional and unintentional traumatic events. Five studies considered participants in the context of intensive care units with traumatic events consisting of severe physical illness. Our concerns about risk of bias in the included studies were mostly due to high attrition and possible selective reporting. We could meta‐analyse data for two comparisons: hydrocortisone versus placebo, but limited to secondary outcomes; and propranolol versus placebo. No study compared hydrocortisone to placebo at the primary endpoint of three months after the traumatic event.\ud \ud The evidence on whether propranolol was more effective in reducing the severity of PTSD symptoms compared to placebo at three months after the traumatic event is inconclusive, because of serious risk of bias amongst the included studies, serious inconsistency amongst the studies' results, and very serious imprecision of the estimate of effect (SMD ‐0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐1.61 to 0.59; I2 = 83%; 3 studies, 86 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). No study provided data on dropout rates due to side effects at three months post‐traumatic event. The evidence on whether propranolol was more effective than placebo in reducing the probability of experiencing PTSD at three months after the traumatic event is inconclusive, because of serious risk of bias amongst the included studies, and very serious imprecision of the estimate of effect (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.92; 3 studies, 88 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). No study assessed functional disability or quality of life. \ud \ud Only one study compared gabapentin to placebo at the primary endpoint of three months after the traumatic event, with inconclusive evidence in terms of both PTSD severity and probability of experiencing PTSD, because of imprecision of the effect estimate, serious risk of bias and serious imprecision (very low‐certainty evidence). We found no data on dropout rates due to side effects, functional disability or quality of life.\ud \ud For the remaining comparisons, the available data are inconclusive or missing in terms of PTSD severity reduction and dropout rates due to adverse events. No study assessed functional disability.\ud \ud Authors' conclusions\ud This review provides uncertain evidence only regarding the use of hydrocortisone, propranolol, dexamethasone, omega‐3 fatty acids, gabapentin, paroxetine, PulmoCare formula, Oxepa formula, or 5‐hydroxytryptophan as universal PTSD prevention strategies. Future research might benefit from larger samples, better reporting of side effects and inclusion of quality of life and functioning measures.

Background Up to 75% of people with serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have co-occurring substance use disorders (dual diagnosis). Dual diagnosis can have an adverse effect on treatment and prognosis of SMI. Objectives To evaluate the effects of risperidone compared to treatment with other antipsychotics (first-generation and other second-generation antipsychotics) used in people with serious mental illness and co-occurring substance misuse. Search methods On 6 January 2016 and 9 October 2017, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (including trial registers). Selection criteria We selected randomised trials of risperidone versus any other antipsychotic in people with SMI and substance abuse (dual diagnosis). We included trials meeting our inclusion criteria and reporting useable data. We excluded trials that either did not meet our inclusion criteria or met our inclusion criteria but did not report any useable data. Data collection and analysis We independently inspected citations and selected studies. For included studies, we independently extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals. For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals. We pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the quality of evidence, creating a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach. Main results We identified eight randomised trials containing a total of 1073 participants with SMI and co-occurring substance misuse. Seven of these contributed useable data to the review. There was heterogeneity in trial design and measurement. Risperidone was compared to clozapine, olanzapine, perphenazine, quetiapine and ziprasidone. Few trials compared risperidone with first-generation agents. Few trials examined participants with a dual diagnosis from the outset and most trials only contained separate analyses of subgroups with a dual diagnosis or were secondary data analyses of subgroups of people with a dual diagnosis from existing larger trials.For risperidone versus clozapine we found no clear differences between these two antipsychotics in the reduction of positive psychotic symptoms (1 randomised controlled trial (RCT), n = 36, mean difference (MD) 0.90, 95% CI -2.21 to 4.01, very low quality evidence), or reduction in cannabis use (1 RCT, n = 14, risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.35, very low quality evidence), improvement in subjective well-being (1 RCT, n = 36, MD -6.00, 95% CI -14.82 to 2.82, very low quality evidence), numbers discontinuing medication (1 RCT, n = 36, RR 4.05, 95% CI 0.21 to 78.76, very low quality evidence), extrapyramidal side-effects (2 RCTs, n = 50, RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.30 to 24.08; I² = 0%, very low quality evidence), or leaving the study early (2 RCTs, n = 45, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.51; I² = 34%, very low quality evidence). Clozapine was associated with lower levels of craving for cannabis (1 RCT, n = 28, MD 7.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 11.63, very low quality evidence).For risperidone versus olanzapine we found no clear differences in the reduction of positive psychotic symptoms (1 RCT, n = 37, MD -1.50, 95% CI -3.82 to 0.82, very low quality evidence), reduction in cannabis use (1 RCT, n = 41, MD 0.40, 95% CI -4.72 to 5.52, very low quality evidence), craving for cannabis (1 RCT, n = 41, MD 5.00, 95% CI -4.86 to 14.86, very low quality evidence), parkinsonism (1 RCT, n = 16, MD -0.08, 95% CI -1.21 to 1.05, very low quality evidence), or leaving the study early (2 RCT, n = 77, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.35; I² = 0%, very low quality evidence).For risperidone versus perphenazine, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 281, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20, low-quality evidence).For risperidone versus quetiapine, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 294, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07, low-quality evidence).For risperidone versus ziprasidone, we found no clear differences in the number of participants leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 240, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.10, low-quality evidence).For many comparisons, important outcomes were missing; and no data were reported in any study for metabolic disturbances, global impression of illness severity, quality of life or mortality. Authors' conclusions There is not sufficient good-quality evidence available to determine the effects of risperidone compared with other antipsychotics in people with a dual diagnosis. Few trials compared risperidone with first-generation agents, leading to limited applicability to settings where access to second-generation agents is limited, such as in low- and middle-income countries. Moreover, heterogeneity in trial design and measurement of outcomes precluded the use of many trials in our analyses. Future trials in this area need to be sufficiently powered but also need to conform to consistent methods in study population selection, use of measurement scales, definition of outcomes, and measures to counter risk of bias. Investigators should adhere to CONSORT guidelines in the reporting of results.

QuestionNetwork meta-analyses (NMAs) of treatment efficacy across different pharmacological treatments help inform clinical decision-making, but their methodological quality may vary a lot depending also on the quality of the included primary studies. We therefore conducted a systematic review of NMAs of pharmacological treatment for common mental disorders in order to assess the methodological quality of these NMAs, and to relate study characteristics to the rankings of efficacy and tolerability.Study selection and analysisWe searched three databases for NMAs of pharmacological treatment used in major depression, generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), social anxiety disorder (SAD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and specific phobia.Studies were appraised using the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research checklist of good research practices for indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies.FindingsTwenty NMAs were eligible for inclusion. The number of randomised controlled trials per NMA ranged from 11 to 234, and included between 801 to more than 26 000 participants. Overall, antidepressants were found to be efficacious and tolerable agents for several disorders based on rankings (45%) or statistical significance (55%). The majority of NMAs in this review adhered to guidelines by including a network diagram (70%), assessing consistency (75%), making use of a random effects model (75%), providing information on the model used to fit the data (75%) and adjusting for covariates (75%).ConclusionsThe 20 NMAs of depression and anxiety disorders, PTSD and/or OCD included in this review demonstrate some methodological strengths in comparison with the larger body of published NMAs for medical disorders, support current treatment guidelines and help inform clinical decision-making.