Search

This article describes a method for the modification of paper with single-wall carbon nanohorns (SWCNHs) to form stable suprastructures. The SWCNHs form stable dahlia-like aggregates in solution that are then self-assembled into superior structures if the solvent is evaporated. Dipping paper sections into a dispersion of SWCNHs leads to the formation of a thin film that can be used for microextraction purposes. The coated paper can be easily handled with a simple pipette tip, paving the way for disposable extraction units. As a proof of concept, the extraction of antidepressants from urine and their determination by direct infusion mass spectrometry is studied. Limits of detection (LODs) were 10 ng/L for desipramine, amitriptyline, and mianserin, while the precision, expressed as a relative standard deviation, was 7.2%, 7.3%, and 9.8%, respectively

Recent studies have suggested a lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients receiving selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). The current study aimed to provide an updated and comprehensive assessment of the association between SSRI use and development of HCC.This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of all observational studies published until June 2021. We comprehensively searched PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and Embase to identify studies comparing SSRIs use with control in relation to the risk of HCC. We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between SSRI use and incident HCC risk using random-effects meta-analysis. A dose-response analysis was conducted to evaluate the HCC risk according to the defined daily dose (DDD) of SSRI use.Eight observational studies, comprising 1,051,096 participants and 22,316 incidences of HCC, examining the association between SSRIs use and HCC risk, were included in the systematic review (adjusted RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.56-0.79; P ≤ 0.001). In subgroup analysis, the magnitude of benefit associated with SSRIs was significantly higher in patients with hepatitis infection (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51-0.95) than the general population (PThe results of this review show that SSRI use was associated with a 34% lower risk of HCC, which tend to be dose dependent. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm these observations across the spectrum of chronic liver disease and hepatitis infection.

Background The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) is a widely used measure of depression in primary care. It was, however, originally designed as a diagnostic screening tool, and not for measuring change in response to antidepressant treatment. Although the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomology (QIDS-SR-16) has been extensively validated for outcome measurement, it is poorly adopted in UK primary care, and, although free for clinicians, has licensing restrictions for healthcare organisation use. Aims We aimed to develop a modified version of the PHQ-9, the Maudsley Modified PHQ-9 (MM-PHQ-9), for tracking symptom changes in primary care. We tested the measure's validity, reliability and factor structure. Method A sample of 121 participants was recruited across three studies, and comprised 78 participants with major depressive disorder and 43 controls. MM-PHQ-9 scores were compared with the QIDS-SR-16 and Clinical Global Impressions improvement scale, for concurrent validity. Internal consistency of the scale was assessed, and principal component analysis was conducted to determine the items’ factor structure. Results The MM-PHQ-9 demonstrated good concurrent validity with the QIDS-SR-16, and excellent internal consistency. Sensitivity to change over a 14-week period was d = 0.41 compared with d = 0.61 on the QIDS-SR-16. Concurrent validity between the paper and mobile app versions of the MM-PHQ-9 was r = 0.67. Conclusions These results indicate that the MM-PHQ-9 is a valid and reliable measure of depressive symptoms in paper and mobile app format, although further validation is required. The measure was sensitive to change, demonstrating suitability for use in routine outcome assessment.

The aim of the present study was to explore the effect of baseline beliefs about medication on therapeutic outcomes of antidepressants in inpatients with first-diagnosed depression under supervised therapeutic compliance. Ninety-seven inpatients with first-diagnosed depression were included to collect their baseline demographic data to evaluate the Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD) scores and the beliefs about medicine questionnaire-specific (BMQ-S) scores at baseline and the end of the eight-week treatment. Additionally, we explored the relationship between inpatients’ medication beliefs and therapeutic effect of antidepressants. The inpatients were divided into remitted depression and unremitted depression groups according to outcomes at the end of the eight-week treatment. There was no significant difference in the baseline HAMD between the two groups (P > 0.050). The scores on the BMQ-S of the unremitted group were significantly lower than those of the remitted group (P < 0.001). The HAMD scores were significantly reduced in both groups after the eight-week treatment (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the BMQ-S scores before and after the treatment (P > 0.050). The medication beliefs of the unremitted inpatients after the treatment were still lower than those of the remitted inpatients (P < 0.001). Logistic-regression analysis showed that low BMQ-S scores at the baseline were an independent risk factor for antidepressant efficacy. Beliefs about medication at baseline may be correlated with the therapeutic efficacy in inpatients with first-diagnosed depression under supervised therapeutic compliance.

Purpose According to the revised Japanese medical service fees aimed at reducing irrational psychotropic polypharmacy, medical service fees are reduced if the number of simultaneously prescribed psychotropic drugs exceeds the standard. This study primarily aims to examine the effect of the 2018 revision. Methods Using a large Japanese administrative claims database, we retrospectively identified five groups (April 2013–September 2018) prescribed at least one drug from the following drug groups: anxiolytics, hypnotics, sum of anxiolytics and hypnotics, antipsychotics, and antidepressants (study population in each group: 547,511, 406,524, 759,137, 112,929, and 201,046, respectively). We used an interrupted time-series design to evaluate changes in the proportion of patients prescribed more than the standard number of drugs. Results After the 2018 revision, the proportion of patients prescribed more than the standard number of drugs significantly decreased only for the sum of anxiolytics and hypnotics; estimated changes in level and trend were − 0.60% [− 0.69%, − 0.52%] and − 0.04% [− 0.06%, − 0.02%] per month, respectively. The proportion of patients exhibiting a decrease in the number of prescribed drugs from more than the standard to within the standard increased when the revision was enforced (April 2018); this proportion in April 2018 was 36.3%, while all other proportions were in the range of 12.1–22.3%. Conclusion The 2018 revision promoted a reduction in the number of prescribed drugs, which served as an important factor in the decrease in the proportion of patients prescribed more than the standard number of drugs for the sum of anxiolytics and hypnotics.

BackgroundInfluential theories predict that antidepressant medication and psychological therapies evoke distinct neural changes.AimsTo test the convergence and divergence of antidepressant- and psychotherapy-evoked neural changes, and their overlap with the brain's affect network.MethodWe employed a quantitative synthesis of three meta-analyses (n = 4206). First, we assessed the common and distinct neural changes evoked by antidepressant medication and psychotherapy, by contrasting two comparable meta-analyses reporting the neural effects of these treatments. Both meta-analyses included patients with affective disorders, including major depressive disorder, generalised anxiety disorder and panic disorder. The majority were assessed using negative-valence tasks during neuroimaging. Next, we assessed whether the neural changes evoked by antidepressants and psychotherapy overlapped with the brain's affect network, using data from a third meta-analysis of affect-based neural activation.ResultsNeural changes from psychotherapy and antidepressant medication did not significantly converge on any region. Antidepressants evoked neural changes in the amygdala, whereas psychotherapy evoked anatomically distinct changes in the medial prefrontal cortex. Both psychotherapy- and antidepressant-related changes separately converged on regions of the affect network.ConclusionsThis supports the notion of treatment-specific brain effects of antidepressants and psychotherapy. Both treatments induce changes in the affect network, but our results suggest that their effects on affect processing occur via distinct proximal neurocognitive mechanisms of action.

Background: There is a lack of evidence to guide treatment of comorbid depression and anxiety. Preliminary evidence suggests mirtazapine may be effective in treating patients with both depression and anxiety symptoms. Methods: We undertook a secondary analysis of mirtazapine (MIR): a placebo-controlled trial of the addition of mirtazapine to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in primary care. We subdivided participants into three groups by baseline generalized anxiety disorder score (GAD-7): severe (GAD-7 ⩾ 16), moderate (GAD-7 = 11–15), no/mild (GAD-7 ⩽ 10). We used linear regression including likelihood-ratio testing of interaction terms to assess how baseline anxiety altered the response of participants to mirtazapine as measured by 12-week GAD-7 and Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) scores. Results: Baseline generalized anxiety moderated mirtazapine’s effect as measured by GAD-7 ( p = 0.041) and BDI-II ( p = 0.088) at 12 weeks. Participants with severe generalized anxiety receiving mirtazapine had lower 12-week GAD-7 score (adjusted difference between means (ADM) −2.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.69 to −4.95) and larger decreases in BDI-II score (ADM −6.36, 95% CI −1.60 to −10.84) than placebo. Conversely, there was no anxiolytic benefit (ADM 0.28, 95% CI −1.05 to 1.60) or antidepressant benefit (ADM −0.17, 95% CI −3.02 to 2.68) compared with placebo in those with no/mild generalized anxiety. Conclusions: These findings extend the evidence for the effectiveness of mirtazapine to reduce generalized anxiety in TRD in primary care. These results may inform targeted prescribing in depression based on concurrent anxiety symptoms, although these conclusions are constrained by the post-hoc nature of this analysis.

Over the past 2 decades, polypharmacy has become the de-facto standard of acute treatment in psychiatry where patients with psychiatric disorders receive a multiple medication regimen. There is growing evidence for a potential link between major psychiatric disorders and inflammatory processes. Combining these two aspects aims at avoiding polypharmacy attempts among patients with inflammatory activation through alternative treatment strategies. In this study, we addressed the following questions: (1) to what extent can polypharmacy be explained through the factors “diagnosis”, “previous history”, “severity at baseline”, “age”, “gender”, and “psychiatrist in charge”; (2) what are the differences between polypharmacy and monotherapy regarding efficacy and side effect profiles; and (3) what amount of between-patient variance is explainable by the natural antibody immunoglobulin M (IgM) within each diagnostic group. This naturalistic longitudinal study was comprised of 279 patients under therapy with a clinical diagnosis of depressive (ICD-10: “F3x.x”;n = 195) or schizophrenic disorders (ICD-10: “F2x.x”;n = 84). The study protocol included (1) assessment of previous history by the SADS Syndrome Check List SSCL-16 (lifetime version); (2) repeated measurements over 5 weeks assessing the time course of improvement by the Hamilton Depression Scale HAM-D and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale PANSS, along with medication and unwanted side effects through the Medication and Side Effects Inventory MEDIS; and (3) the collection of blood samples from which DNA and serum were extracted. The association between inflammatory response system and psychiatric disorders was detailed by fitting multi-layer Neural Net (NN) models to the observed data (“supervised learning”). The same approach was used to set up prediction models of side effects. Our data showed that polypharmacy was omnipresent. Yet the various polypharmacy regimens had no advantage over monotherapy: we even found slightly larger baseline score reductions under monotherapy, independent of primary diagnoses and for comparable baseline severities. Most patients experienced unwanted side effects. The close link between side effects and treatment regimen was revealed by a linear model in which the mere number of drugs explained a significant (p r = 0.746 (p = 0.0004) between global schizophrenia scores and IgM levels, along with a correct prediction of response of 94.4%, thus explaining 55.7% of the observed between-patient variance. For the F3 patients, our NN model identified a 19.6% subgroup exhibiting a significant correlation ofr = 0.644 (p = 0.00003) between global depression scores and IgM levels, along a correct prediction of response of 89.6%, thus explaining 41.4% of the observed between-patient variance. Polypharmacy is omnipresent in today’s acute treatment of psychiatric disorders. Given the large proportion of patients with unwanted side effects and the strong correlation between side effects and the number of drugs, polypharmacy approaches are not equally suited for every patient. In terms of efficacy, there are no advantages of polypharmacy over monotherapy. Most notably, our study appears to have cleared the way for the reliable identification of a subgroup of patients for whom the inflammatory response system is a promising target of therapeutic intervention.

Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic with 1771514 cases identified in the world and 70029 cases in Iran until April 12, 2020. The co-prescription of psychotropics with COVID-19 medication is not uncommon. Healthcare providers should be familiar with many Potential Drug-Drug Interactions (DDIs) between COVID-19 therapeutic agents and psychotropic drugs based on cytochrome P450 metabolism. This review comprehensively summarizes the current literature on DDIs between antiretroviral drugs and chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, and psychotropics, including antidepressants, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, and anxiolytics. Methods: Medical databases, including Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched to identify studies in English with keywords related to psychiatric disorders, medications used in the treatment of psychiatric disorders and COVID-19 medications. Results: There is a great potential for DDIs between psychiatric and COVID-19 medications ranging from interactions that are not clinically apparent (minor) to those that produce life-threatening adverse drug reactions, or loss of treatment efficacy. The majority of interactions are pharmacokinetic interactions via the cytochrome P450 enzyme system. Conclusion: DDIs are a major concern in the comorbidity of psychiatric disorders and COVID-19 infection resulting in the alteration of expected therapeutic outcomes. The risk of toxicity or lack of efficacy may occur due to a higher or lower plasma concentration of medications. However, psychiatric medication can be safely used in combination with COVID-19 pharmacotherapy with either a wise selection of medication with the least possibility of interaction or careful patient monitoring and management.

BackgroundDuring the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, patients with confirmed cases in New York State accounted for roughly 25% of total US cases, with psychiatric hospital in-patients at particularly high risk for COVID-19 infection.AimsThe beneficial effects of mental health medications, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), on the severity of COVID-19 disease outcomes have been documented. Protective effects against infection have also been suggested for these medications. We therefore tested the hypothesis that medication use modifies the risk of COVID-19 infection in a long-stay, chronic in-patient psychiatry setting, where the potential for exposure was likely uniform across the facility, and where these medications were routinely prescribed.MethodThis was a retrospective cohort study of an adult psychiatric facility operated by the New York State Office of Mental Health. Current medication information and COVID-19 status was collected from electronic medical records for 165 people who were in-patients during the period January to July 2020, and logistic regression was employed to model the main effects of medication use on COVID-19 infection.ResultsA significant protective association was observed between antidepressant use and COVID-19 infection (odds ratio (OR) = 0.33, 95% CI 0.15–0.70, adjusted P < 0.05). Analysis of individual antidepressant classes showed that SSRI, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor and the serotonin-2 antagonist reuptake inhibitor classes of antidepressants, drove this protective effect. Exploratory analyses of individual antidepressants demonstrated an association between lower risk of infection and fluoxetine use (P = 0.023), as well as trazodone use (P = 0.001).ConclusionsThe novel finding of reduced COVID-19 infection risk for psychiatric in-patients taking antidepressants, suggests that antidepressants may be an important weapon in the continued fight against COVID-19 disease. This finding may become particularly salient for in-patient settings if vaccine-resistant strains of the virus appear.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the use of antidepressants over 6 years between family caregivers providing high-intensity care and a matched control population using register-based data. Methods The study includes all individuals, who received family caregiver’s allowance in Finland in 2012 (n = 29,846 females, mean age 66 years; n = 12,410 males, mean age 71 years) and a control population matched for age, sex, and municipality of residence (n = 59,141 females; n = 24,477 males). Information on purchases of antidepressants, including the number of defined daily doses (DDD) purchased, between 2012 and 2017 was obtained from the national drugs reimbursement register. Results During the follow-up, 28.5% of female caregivers and 23.5% of the female controls used antidepressants, while the numbers for males were 21.1% and 16.4%, respectively. Adjusted for socioeconomic status, female caregivers used 43.7 (95% confidence interval 42.4–45.0) and their controls used 36.2 (35.3–37.2) DDDs of antidepressants per person-year. Male caregivers used 29.6 (27.6–31.6) and their controls used 21.6 (20.2–23.0) DDDs of antidepressants per person-year. Among female caregivers, the relative risk for use of antidepressants was similar (about 1.3) from 20 to 70 years, after which the relative risk declined. In male caregivers, the relative risk was highest (about 1.4–1.5) between 45 and 65 years. Conclusions Family caregivers providing high-intensity care use more antidepressants and hence, are likely to have poorer mental health than the age-matched general population in virtually all age groups. However, the magnitude of the higher use varies as a function of age and gender.

Background Despite policy pressure and concerns regarding the use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines, many care home residents with dementia are prescribed psychotropic medication, often off licence. This is the first large study to report psychotropic prescribing and ‘as required’ administration patterns in English care homes. Aims To explore the prevalence and associates of psychotropic prescription in care home residents with dementia and compare the results with national guidance. Method We collected data in a longitudinal cohort study of residents with diagnosed or probable dementia in 86 care homes in England in 2014–2016. We reported the prevalence of psychotropic (antipsychotics, anxiolytics/hypnotics, antidepressants) prescriptions and drug receipt. We explored the associations between resident factors (sociodemographic, agitation [Cohen–Mansfield Agitation Inventory], dementia severity [Clinical Dementia Rating]) and care home factors (type, ownership, size, dementia registration/specialism, quality rating) in prescription and ‘as required’ administration, using multilevel regression models. Results We analysed data from 1425 residents. At baseline, 822 residents (57.7%, 95% CI: 55.1–60.2) were prescribed a psychotropic drug, 310 residents (21.8% 95% CI: 19.7–24.0) were prescribed an anxiolytic/hypnotic, 232 (94.3%, 95% CI: 90.6–96.6) were prescribed one antipsychotic and 14 (5.7%, 95% CI: 3.4–9.4) were prescribed two antipsychotics. The median prescription duration during the study was 1 year. Residents with clinically significant agitation were prescribed more antipsychotics (odds ratio [OR] = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.64–2.45) and anxiolytics/hypnotics (OR = 2.81, 95% CI: 2.31–3.40). Conclusions Antipsychotics and anxiolytics/hypnotics are more commonly prescribed for people with dementia in care homes than in the community, and prescribing may not reflect guidelines. Policies which advocate reduced use of psychotropics should better support psychosocial interventions.

Background This study summarizes the experiences of patients, who have multiple comorbidities, with 15 mono-treated antidepressants. Methods This is a retrospective, observational, matched case control study. The cohort was organized using claims data available through OptumLabs for depressed patients treated with antidepressants between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2018. The cohort included patients from all states within United States of America. The analysis focused on 3,678,082 patients with major depression who had 10,221,145 antidepressant treatments. Using the robust, and large predictors of remission, and propensity to prescribe an antidepressant, the study created 16,770 subgroups of patients. The study reports the remission rate for the antidepressants within the subgroups. The overall impact of antidepressant on remission was calculated as the common odds ratio across the strata. Findings The study accurately modelled clinicians’ prescription patterns (cross-validated Area under the Receiver Operating Curve, AROC, of 82.0%, varied from 77% to 90%) and patients’ remission (cross-validated AROC of 72.0%, varied from 69.5% to 78%). In different strata, contrary to published randomized studies, remission rates differed significantly and antidepressants were not equally effective. For example, in age and gender subgroups, the best antidepressant had an average remission rate of 50.78%, 1.5 times higher than the average antidepressant (30.30% remission rate) and 20 times higher than the worst antidepressant. The Breslow-Day chi-square test for homogeneity showed that across strata a homogenous common odds-ratio did not exist (alpha

BackgroundImprovement in depression within the first 2 weeks of antidepressant treatment predicts good outcomes, but non-improvers can still respond or remit, whereas improvers often do not.AimsWe aimed to investigate whether early improvement of individual depressive symptoms better predicts response or remission.MethodWe obtained individual patient data of 30 trials comprising 2184 placebo-treated and 6058 antidepressant-treated participants. Primary outcome was week 6 response; secondary outcomes were week 6 remission and week 12 response and remission. We compared models that only included improvement in total score by week 2 (total improvement model) with models that also included improvement in individual symptoms.ResultsFor week 6 response, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and negative and positive predictive values of the total improvement model were 0.73, 0.67 and 0.74 compared with 0.77, 0.70 and 0.71 for the item improvement model. Model performance decreased for week 12 outcomes. Of predicted non-responders, 29% actually did respond by week 6 and 43% by week 12, which was decreased from the baseline (overall) probabilities of 51% by week 6 and 69% by week 12. In post hoc analyses with continuous rather than dichotomous early improvement, including individual items did not enhance model performance.ConclusionsExamining individual symptoms adds little to the predictive ability of early improvement. Additionally, early non-improvement does not rule out response or remission, particularly after 12 rather than 6 weeks. Therefore, our findings suggest that routinely adapting pharmacological treatment because of limited early improvement would often be premature.Declaration of interestNone.

Background Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a safe and effective treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). ECT treatment effect relies on induced generalised seizures. Most anaesthetics raise the seizure threshold and shorten seizure duration. There are no conclusive studies on the effect of anaesthetic dose on response and remission rates with ECT for MDD. Aims We aimed to examine the effect of different dose intervals of anaesthetics on response and remission after ECT for MDD. Method We conducted a nationwide cohort study, using data from Swedish registers. Low-, medium- and high-dose intervals, adjusted for age and gender, were constructed for each anaesthetic drug. Response and remission were measured with the Clinical Global Impression – Severity and Improvement scales (CGI-I and CGI-S), and a self-rated version of the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS-S). Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios for response and remission rates. Results The study included 7917 patients who received ECT for MDD during 2012–2018. Patients were given either thiopental (64.1%) or propofol (35.9%). Low-dose intervals of anaesthetics were associated with increased rates of response (CGI-I: odds ratio 1.22, 95% CI 1.07–1.40, P = 0.004; MADRS-S: odds ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.09–1.56, P = 0.004) and remission (CGI-S: odds ratio 1.37, 95% CI 1.17–1.60, P ≤ 0.001; MADRS-S: odds ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.10–1.54, P = 0.002). Conclusions We found improved treatment outcomes with low- compared with high-dose anaesthetic during ECT for MDD. To enhance treatment effect, deep anaesthesia during ECT for MDD should be avoided.

BackgroundAntidepressants are known to show heterogeneous effects across individuals and conditions, posing challenges to understanding their efficacy in mental health treatment. Social media platforms enable individuals to share their day-to-day concerns with others and thereby can function as unobtrusive, large-scale, and naturalistic data sources to study the longitudinal behavior of individuals taking antidepressants.ObjectiveWe aim to understand the side effects of antidepressants from naturalistic expressions of individuals on social media.MethodsOn a large-scale Twitter data set of individuals who self-reported using antidepressants, a quasi-experimental study using unsupervised language analysis was conducted to extract keywords that distinguish individuals who improved and who did not improve following the use of antidepressants. The net data set consists of over 8 million Twitter posts made by over 300,000 users in a 4-year period between January 1, 2014, and February 15, 2018.ResultsFive major side effects of antidepressants were studied: sleep, weight, eating, pain, and sexual issues. Social media language revealed keywords related to these side effects. In particular, antidepressants were found to show a spectrum of effects from decrease to increase in each of these side effects.ConclusionsThis work enhances the understanding of the side effects of antidepressants by identifying distinct linguistic markers in the longitudinal social media data of individuals showing the most and least improvement following the self-reported intake of antidepressants. One implication of this work concerns the potential of social media data as an effective means to support digital pharmacovigilance and digital therapeutics. These results can inform clinicians in tailoring their discussion and assessment of side effects and inform patients about what to potentially expect and what may or may not be within the realm of normal aftereffects of antidepressants.

Background: Differences in serotonergic neurotransmission could lead to sex differences in depressive symptoms and tolerability after treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Aims: We investigated whether women have greater reductions in depressive symptoms than men after treatment with an SSRI (citalopram) compared with a noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (reboxetine) control, and after antidepressant treatment irrespective of class. We also investigated tolerability and the influence of menopausal status. Methods: Secondary analyses of the GENPOD (GENetic and clinical Predictors Of treatment response in Depression) trial. Six hundred and one people with depression were recruited from UK primary care and randomized to citalopram or reboxetine. Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) score at 6 weeks was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included BDI-II score at 12 weeks, and physical symptoms and treatment discontinuation. We calculated main effects and interaction terms using linear and logistic regression models. Results: There was no evidence that women experienced greater reductions in depressive symptoms than men when treated with citalopram compared with reboxetine. We also found no evidence of sex differences at six or 12 weeks (irrespective of antidepressant class): men scored −0.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) −2.23 to 1.62) BDI-II points lower than women at six weeks and −0.44 (95% CI −2.62 to 1.74) points lower at 12 weeks. There was no evidence of sex differences in physical symptoms or treatment discontinuation and no evidence for an influence of menopausal status. Conclusion: Citalopram was not more effective in women compared with men and there was no difference in tolerability. Women and men had similar prognosis after SSRI treatment and similar prognosis regardless of antidepressant class. Findings were unaltered by menopausal status.

Background Depression is characterised by negative views of the self. Antidepressant treatment may remediate negative self-schema through increasing processing of positive information about the self. Changes in affective processing during social interactions may increase expression of prosocial behaviours, improving interpersonal communications. Aims To examine whether acute administration of citalopram is associated with an increase in positive affective learning biases about the self and prosocial behaviour. Method Healthy volunteers (n = 41) were randomised to either an acute 20 mg dose of citalopram or matched placebo in a between-subjects double-blind design. Participants completed computer-based cognitive tasks designed to measure referential affective processing, social cognition and expression of prosocial behaviours. Results Participants administered citalopram made more cooperative choices than those administered placebo in a prisoner's dilemma task (β = 20%, 95% CI: 2%, 37%). Exploratory analyses indicated that participants administered citalopram showed a positive bias when learning social evaluations about a friend (β = 4.06, 95% CI: 0.88, 7.24), but not about the self or a stranger. Similarly, exploratory analyses found evidence of increased recall of positive words and reduced recall of negative words about others (β = 2.41, 95% CI: 0.89, 3.93), but not the self, in the citalopram group. Conclusions Participants administered citalopram showed greater prosocial behaviours, increased positive recall and increased positive learning of social evaluations towards others. The increase in positive affective bias and prosocial behaviours towards others may, at least partially, be a mechanism of antidepressant effect. However, we found no evidence that citalopram influenced self-referential processing.

Background Maternal depressed mood during pregnancy may shape a child's adaptation to their environment and engagement in goal-directed behaviour such as executive functions. Whether everyday household context also alters executive functions in children with prenatal selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant exposure remains to be determined. Aims To examine the impact of prenatal depressed maternal mood and SSRI exposure on child executive functions and to determine whether these exposures shape a susceptibility to household chaos. Method A prospective cohort study of mothers and their children (118 mother–children dyads (47 SSRI-exposed, 71 non-exposed)) followed from the second trimester to 6 years. Regression models examined relationships between maternal depressed mood and household chaos on maternal report of child executive functions. Competitive-confirmatory regression models examined whether children were susceptible to household chaos or were positively influenced by less chaos. Results Prenatal SSRI exposure, third-trimester maternal depressed mood and household chaos in a three-way interaction were associated with executive functions within a model of differential susceptibility. When household chaos was low, children of non-prenatally depressed mothers had better executive function than children of prenatally depressed mothers, regardless of whether the mothers were SSRI-treated. However, when household chaos was high, SSRI-exposed children of mothers who were not depressed during pregnancy had poorer executive functions at 6 years of age compared with SSRI-exposed children whose mothers were symptomatic during pregnancy. Conclusions The impact of household chaos depended on whether mothers were prenatally depressed and whether mothers were SSRI-treated.

Background There has been a recent rise in antidepressant prescriptions. After the episode for which it was prescribed, the patient should ideally be supported in withdrawing the medication. There is increasing evidence for withdrawal symptoms (sometimes called discontinuation symptoms) occurring on ceasing treatment, sometimes having severe or prolonged effects. Aims To identify and compare current knowledge, attitudes and practices of general practitioners (GPs) and psychiatrists in Cornwall, UK, concerning antidepressant withdrawal symptoms. Method Questions about withdrawal symptoms and management were asked of GPs and psychiatrists in a multiple-choice cross-sectional study co-designed with a lived experience expert. Results Psychiatrists thought that withdrawal symptoms were more severe than GPs did (P = 0.003); 53% (22/42) of GPs and 69% (18/26) of psychiatrists thought that withdrawal symptoms typically last between 1 and 4 weeks, although there was a wide range of answers given; 35% (9/26) of psychiatrists but no GPs identified a pharmacist as someone they may use to help manage antidepressant withdrawal. About three-quarters of respondents claimed they usually or always informed patients of potential withdrawal symptoms when they started a patient on antidepressants, but patient surveys say only 1% are warned. Conclusions Psychiatrists and GPs need to effectively warn patients of potential withdrawal effects. Community pharmacists might be useful in supporting GP-managed antidepressant withdrawal. The wide variation in responses to most questions posed to participants reflects the variation in results of research on the topic. This highlights a need for more reproducible studies to be carried out on antidepressant withdrawal, which could inform future guidelines.