Search

The prevalence of late-life depression (LLD) depends on the study sample, measurements, and diagnostic approaches. We estimated the 30 item-Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-30) accuracy against the gold standard LLD diagnosis made with the Semi-structured Clinical Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders, focusing on the prevalence of a late-life major depressive disorder (MDD), in a population-based sample of 843 subjects aged>65 years, subdivided into three groups: normal cognition, subjective memory complaints, and mild cognitive impairment. At the optimal cut-off score (≥4), the GDS-30 showed 65.1% sensitivity and 68.4% specificity for LLD (63% and 66% for late-life MDD, respectively). Using the standard cut-off score (≥10), the GDS-30 specificity reached 91.2%, while sensitivity dropped to 37.7%, indicating a lower screening accuracy [area under the curve(AUC):0.728, 95% confidence interval(CI):0.67-0-78]. The GDS-30 performance was associated with educational level, but not with age, gender, cognition, apathy, and somatic/psychiatric multimorbidity. For subjective memory complaints subjects, at the optimal cut-off score (≥7), the GDS-30 showed better discrimination performances (AUC=0.792,95%CI:0.60-0.98), but again the educational level affected the diagnostic performance. In subjective memory complaints subjects, symptom-based scales like the GDS-30 may feature a better performance for diagnosing depression in older age, but the GDS-30 seems to require adjustment to the patient's educational level., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Diverse gender and geographical representation matters in research. We aimed to review medical and global health journals' sex/gender reporting, and the gender and geography of authorship., Methods: 542 research and non-research articles from 14 selected journals were reviewed using a retrospective survey design. Paper screening and systematic data extraction was conducted with descriptive statistics and regression analyses calculated from the coded data. Outcome measures were journal characteristics, the extent to which published articles met sex/gender reporting guidelines, plus author gender and location of their affiliated institution., Results: Five of the fourteen journals explicitly encourage sex/gender analysis in their author instructions, but this did not lead to increased sex/gender reporting beyond the gender of study participants (OR=3.69; p=0.000 (CI 1.79 to 7.60)). Just over half of research articles presented some level of sex/gender analysis, while 40% mentioned sex/gender in their discussion. Articles with women first and last authors were 2.4 times more likely to discuss sex/gender than articles with men in those positions (p=0.035 (CI 1.062 to 5.348)). First and last authors from high-income countries (HICs) were 19 times as prevalent as authors from low-income countries; and women from low-income and middle-income countries were at a disadvantage in terms of the impact factor of the journals they published in., Conclusion: Global health and medical research fails to consistently apply a sex/gender lens and remains largely the preserve of authors in HIC. Collaborative partnerships and funding support are needed to promote gender-sensitive research and dismantle historical power dynamics in authorship., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: In recent years, a number of pharmacological approaches for treating neuropsychiatric conditions at older age have proven to be inadequate. The resulting increased prevalence of therapeutic failures (TF) and a worsening of clinical symptoms often linked to adverse reactions (ADRs), are perhaps among the major causes of the increasing rate of hospitalizations and institutionalizations observed in these patients. Areas covered: This review underlines the importance of pharmacogenetic data to fingerprint the pharmacological treatment of neuropsychiatric late-life conditions throughout the analysis of metabolizing enzymes and transporters of psychotropic drugs, mainly those of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) family. Pharmacodynamic response measures as treatment effects mediated through targets (i.e., receptors in the brain) may also contribute to this image. Expert opinion: CYP genetics is the basis of a continuum on which environmental and physiological factors act, modeling the phenotype observed in clinical practice with advancing age. Furthermore, other specific polymorphic genes influence drug response through differential effects of their functional genetic variants. The known genotypes associated with an altered metabolizer status and drug transporters may help clinical decision-making to avoid concomitant treatments, reduce therapeutic attempts and increase drug safety in neuropsychiatric conditions in older age, after controlling for other clinical variables.

Background: Depression is a recurrent illness with high rates of chronicity, treatment-resistance and significant economic impact. There is evidence in the literature that S-adenosyl methionine (SAMe), a naturally occurring compound in the human body, has antidepressant efficacy. This product may be an important addition to the armamentarium of antidepressant agents., Objectives: To assess the effects of SAMe in comparison with placebo or antidepressants for the treatment of depression in adults., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's Specialised Register (CCMDCTR Studies and Reference Register), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, international trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal (ICTRP). We checked reference lists, performed handsearching and contacted experts in the field. The CCMDCTR literature search was last updated on 5 February 2016., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing SAMe with placebo or antidepressants in adults with a diagnosis of major depression., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently performed extraction of data and assessment of risk of bias. We contacted trialists of included studies for additional information., Main Results: This systematic review included eight trials comparing SAMe with either placebo, imipramine, desipramine or escitalopram. We accepted trials that used SAMe as monotherapy or as add-on therapy to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and we accepted both oral and parenteral administration. The review involved 934 adults, of both sexes, from inpatient and outpatient settings.The trials were at low risk of reporting bias. We judged the risk of selection, performance, detection and attrition bias as unclear or low, and one study was at high risk of attrition bias.There was no strong evidence of a difference in terms of change in depressive symptoms from baseline to end of treatment between SAMe and placebo as monotherapy (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.54 to 0.46; P = 0.29; 142 participants; 2 studies; very low quality evidence). There was also no strong evidence of a difference in terms of drop-out rates due to any reason between SAMe and placebo, when used as monotherapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; P = 0.52; 142 participants; 2 studies; low quality evidence).Low quality evidence showed that the change in depressive symptoms from baseline to end of treatment was similar between SAMe and imipramine, both as monotherapy (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.27; P = 0.82; 619 participants; 4 studies). There was also no strong evidence of a difference between SAMe and a tricyclic antidepressant in terms of drop-outs due to any reason (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.31; P = 0.2; 78 participants; 3 studies; very low quality evidence).There was little evidence of a difference in terms of change in depressive symptoms from baseline to end of treatment between SAMe and escitalopram, both as monotherapy (MD 0.12, 95% CI -2.75 to 2.99; P = 0.93; 129 participants; 1 study; low quality evidence). There was no strong evidence of a difference between SAMe and escitalopram in terms of drop-outs due to any reason (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.16; P = 0.26; 129 participants; 1 study; low quality evidence).There was low quality evidence that SAMe is superior to placebo as add-on to SSRIs in terms of change in depressive symptoms from baseline to end of treatment (MD -3.90, 95% CI -6.93 to -0.87; P = 0.01; 73 participants; 1 study). There was no strong evidence of a difference between SAMe and placebo as adjunctive therapy to an SSRI in terms of drop-outs due to any reason (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.56; P = 0.38; 73 participants; 1 study; very low quality evidence).For all comparisons, secondary outcome measures of response and remission rates were consistent with these primary outcome measures.With regard to all extractable measures of the acceptability of SAMe, the quality of the evidence was low to very low. SAMe was not different from placebo and established antidepressants. The exception was that compared to imipramine, fewer participants experienced troublesome adverse effects when treated with parenteral SAMe.The specific adverse effects were not detailed in most of the included studies. There were two reports of mania/hypomania recorded for 441 participants in the SAMe arm., Authors' Conclusions: Given the absence of high quality evidence and the inability to draw firm conclusions based on that evidence, the use of SAMe for the treatment of depression in adults should be investigated further. Future trials should be in the form of large randomised controlled clinical trials of high methodological quality, with particular attention given to randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding and the handling of missing data. Comparator antidepressants from all classes should be used. Adverse events should be detailed for each participant, bearing in mind that induction of mania is of particular interest.

Background: Bipolar disorder is a common recurrent illness with high levels of chronicity. Previous trials have suggested that the anticonvulsant topiramate may be efficacious in bipolar disorder. This is an update of a previous Cochrane review (last published 2006) on the role of topiramate in bipolar disorder., Objectives: To assess the effects of topiramate for acute mood episodes in bipolar disorder in adults compared to placebo, alternative pharmacological treatment, and combination pharmacological treatment as measured by treatment of symptoms on specific rating scales for individual episodes., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register to 13 October 2015, which includes records from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) all years; MEDLINE 1950-; EMBASE 1974-; and PsycINFO 1967-.We performed handsearching, reviewing of grey literature and reference lists, and correspondence with authors and pharmaceutical companies., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing topiramate with placebo or with active agents in the treatment of acute mood episodes in adult male and female patients with bipolar disorder., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently performed data extraction and methodological quality assessment. For analysis, we used odds ratio (OR) for binary efficacy outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuously distributed outcomes., Main Results: This review included six studies with a total of 1638 male and female participants, of all ethnic backgrounds in both inpatient and outpatient settings. In five studies, participants were experiencing a manic or mixed episode, and in the other study the participants met the criteria for a depressive phase. Topiramate was compared with placebo and alternative pharmacological treatment as both monotherapy and as adjunctive treatment.Moderate-quality evidence showed topiramate to be no more or less efficacious than placebo as monotherapy, in terms of mean change on Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) (range 0 to 60), at endpoint 3 weeks (MD 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to 2.86; participants = 664; studies = 3; P = 0.17) and at endpoint 12 weeks (MD -0.58, 95% CI -3.45 to 2.29; participants = 212; studies = 1; P = 0.69; low-quality evidence). For the same outcome, low-quality evidence also showed topiramate to be no more or less efficacious than placebo as add-on therapy (endpoint 12 weeks) (MD -0.14, 95% CI -2.10 to 1.82; participants = 287; studies = 1; P = 0.89) in the treatment of manic and mixed episodes. We found high-quality evidence that lithium was more efficacious than topiramate as monotherapy in the treatment of manic and mixed episodes in terms of mean change on YMRS (range 0 to 60) (endpoint 12 weeks) (MD 8.46, 95% CI 5.86 to 11.06; participants = 449; studies = 2; P < 0.00001).For troublesome side effects experienced of any nature, we found no difference between topiramate and placebo as monotherapy (endpoint 12 weeks) (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.40; participants = 212; studies = 1; P = 0.30; low-quality evidence) or as add-on therapy (endpoint 12 weeks) (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.10; participants = 287; studies = 1; P = 0.76; low-quality evidence). In terms of participants experiencing side effects of any nature, we found no difference between topiramate and an alternative drug as monotherapy (endpoint 12 weeks) (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.52; participants = 230; studies = 1; P = 0.63; low-quality evidence) or as add-on therapy (endpoint 8 weeks) (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.90; participants = 36; studies = 1; P = 0.50; very low-quality evidence).We considered five of the studies to be at low risk of selection bias for random sequence generation, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting biases, and at unclear risk for allocation concealment and other potential sources of bias. We considered the McIntyre 2000 study to be at high risk of performance bias; unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment, and other potential sources of bias; and at low risk for attrition bias and reporting bias., Authors' Conclusions: It is not possible to draw any firm conclusions about the use of topiramate in clinical practice from this evidence. The only high-quality evidence found was that lithium is more efficacious than topiramate when used as monotherapy in the treatment of acute affective episodes in bipolar disorder, and we note that this evidence came from only two studies. Moderate-quality evidence showed that topiramate was no more or less efficacious than placebo as monotherapy when a 3-week endpoint was used, but the quality of the evidence for this outcome at a 12-week endpoint dropped to low. As we graded the quality of the evidence for the other findings as low and very low, it was not possible to draw any conclusions from the results.To best address this research question, if investigators see the indication in so doing, more double-blind randomised controlled trials could be conducted that are more explicit with regard to methodological issues. In particular, investigators could compare placebo, alternative, and combination treatments (including a wide range of mood stabilisers), atypical antipsychotics for manic and mixed episodes, and antidepressants in combination with mood stabilisers or atypical antipsychotics for depressive episodes.

Pharmacological manipulation of tau protein in Alzheimer's disease included microtubule-stabilizing agents, tau protein kinase inhibitors, tau aggregation inhibitors, active and passive immunotherapies and, more recently, inhibitors of tau acetylation. Animal studies have shown that both active and passive approaches can remove tau pathology and, in some cases, improve cognitive function. Two active vaccines targeting either nonphosphorylated (AAD-vac1) and phosphorylated tau (ACI-35) have entered Phase I testing. Notwithstanding, the recent discontinuation of the monoclonal antibody RG7345 for Alzheimer's disease, two other antitau antibodies, BMS-986168 and C2N-8E12, are also currently in Phase I testing for progressive supranuclear palsy. After the recent impressive results in animal studies obtained by salsalate, the dimer of salicylic acid, inhibitors of tau acetylation are being actively pursued.

Probiotics (bacteria or yeasts) were defined by the Food Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) joint report as live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts (in food or as a dietary supplement) confer a health benefit on the host. The best-demonstrated potential clinical benefits of probiotic agents, specifically in the pediatric population, are in the prevention and management of acute diarrhea, antibiotic associated diarrhea, and evidence is mounting on their potential benefits in atopic disease, inflammatory bowel conditions, and necrotizing enterocolitis. Their beneficial effects seem to be strain specific, thus, pooling data from different strains may result in misleading conclusions. Because there was no international consensus on methodology to assess efficiency and safety of probiotics, in 2001 the FAO/WHO undertook work to compile and evaluate the scientific evidence on functional and safety aspects of probiotics. International criteria have been developed to formulate unequivocal criteria for probiotic bacterial strains and products that contain them. More recently, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) highlighted as critical factors for probiotic health claim submissions genetic typing, internationally recognised naming protocols and evidence of consistency in the final product.