Atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) are commonly prescribed medications to treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorders and other psychotic disorders. However, they might cause metabolic syndrome (MetS) in terms of weight gain, dyslipidemia, type 2 diabetes (T2D), and high blood pressure, which are responsible for reduced life expectancy and poor adherence. Importantly, there is clear evidence that early metabolic disturbances can precede weight gain, even if the latter still remains the hallmark of AAPs use. In fact, AAPs interfere profoundly with glucose and lipid homeostasis acting mostly on hypothalamus, liver, pancreatic β-cells, adipose tissue, and skeletal muscle. Their actions on hypothalamic centers via dopamine, serotonin, acetylcholine, and histamine receptors affect neuropeptides and 5′AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) activity, thus producing a supraphysiological sympathetic outflow augmenting levels of glucagon and hepatic glucose production. In addition, altered insulin secretion, dyslipidemia, fat deposition in the liver and adipose tissues, and insulin resistance become aggravating factors for MetS. In clinical practice, among AAPs, olanzapine and clozapine are associated with the highest risk of MetS, whereas quetiapine, risperidone, asenapine and amisulpride cause moderate alterations. The new AAPs such as ziprasidone, lurasidone and the partial agonist aripiprazole seem more tolerable on the metabolic profile. However, these aspects must be considered together with the differences among AAPs in terms of their efficacy, where clozapine still remains the most effective. Intriguingly, there seems to be a correlation between AAP’s higher clinical efficacy and increase risk of metabolic alterations. Finally, a multidisciplinary approach combining psychoeducation and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is proposed as a first-line strategy to avoid the MetS. In addition, pharmacological treatments are discussed as well.

The architecture of eukaryotic cells is defined by extensive membrane-delimited compartments, which entails separate metabolic processes that would otherwise interfere with each other, leading to functional differences between cells. G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are the largest class of cell surface receptors, and their signal transduction is traditionally viewed as a chain of events initiated from the plasma membrane. Furthermore, their intracellular trafficking, internalization, and recycling were considered only to regulate receptor desensitization and cell surface expression. On the contrary, accumulating data strongly suggest that GPCRs also signal from intracellular compartments. GPCRs localize in the membranes of endosomes, nucleus, Golgi and endoplasmic reticulum apparatuses, mitochondria, and cell division compartments. Importantly, from these sites they have shown to orchestrate multiple signals that regulate different cell pathways. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge of this fascinating phenomenon, explaining how GPCRs reach the intracellular sites, are stimulated by the endogenous ligands, and their potential physiological/pathophysiological roles. Finally, we illustrate several mechanisms involved in the modulation of the compartmentalized GPCR signaling by drugs and endogenous ligands. Understanding how GPCR signaling compartmentalization is regulated will provide a unique opportunity to develop novel pharmaceutical approaches to target GPCRs and potentially lead the way towards new therapeutic approaches.

Background: In the last decade there has been a progressive increase in the use of new psychoactive substances (NPSs) that are not yet under international control. In particular, novel synthetic opioids (NSOs) have reappeared on the recreational drug market in the last few years. As a result, the use of NSOs has increased rapidly. This poses an emerging and demanding challenge to public health. Aim: To raise awareness among clinicians and other professionals about NPSs, especially NSOs, to summarize current knowledge about pharmacological properties, forms of NSO on the market, pattern of use, effects and consequences of use. Methods: An electronic search was carried out on the Medline/PubMed and Google Scholar databases to find selected search terms. Results: Some NPSs are already controlled, while others can be legally sold directly on the drug market (mainly via internet, less so by drug dealers) or be used as precursors for the synthesis of other designer drugs that mimic the psychoactive effects of controlled substances. Potential side-effects of NSOs include miosis, sedation, respiratory depression, hypothermia, inhibition of gastrointestinal propulsion, death (from opioid overdose). Conclusions: The severity of the opioid crisis has intensified with the introduction of highly potent NSOs on the drug market. As long as addicts are dying from overdose or similar causes, there is something more constructive to do than waiting for addicts to overdose on heroin at a place located near a remedy, as if to say, within reach of naloxone.

Psychiatric disorders often require pharmacological interventions to alleviate symptoms and improve quality of life. However, achieving an optimal therapeutic outcome is challenging due to several factors, including variability in the individual response, inter-individual differences in drug metabolism, and drug interactions in polytherapy. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), by measuring drug concentrations in biological samples, represents a valuable tool to address these challenges, by tailoring medication regimens to each individual. This review analyzes the current landscape of TDM in psychiatric practice, highlighting its significance in optimizing drug dosages, minimizing adverse effects, and improving therapeutic efficacy. The metabolism of psychiatric medications (i.e., mood stabilizers, antipsychotics, antidepressants) often exhibits significant inter-patient variability. TDM can help address this variability by enhancing treatment personalization, facilitating early suboptimal- or toxic-level detection, and allowing for timely interventions to prevent treatment failure or adverse effects. Furthermore, this review briefly discusses technological advancements and analytical methods supporting the implementation of TDM in psychiatric settings. These innovations enable quick and cost-effective drug concentration measurements, fostering the widespread adoption of TDM as a routine practice in psychiatric care. In conclusion, the integration of TDM in psychiatry can improve treatment outcomes by individualizing medication regimens within the so-called precision medicine.