Background: The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) last published clinical guidelines for the management of major depressive disorder (MDD) in 2016. Owing to advances in the field, an update was needed to incorporate new evidence and provide new and revised recommendations for the assessment and management of MDD in adults. Methods: CANMAT convened a guidelines editorial group comprised of academic clinicians and patient partners. A systematic literature review was conducted, focusing on systematic reviews and meta-analyses published since the 2016 guidelines. Recommendations were organized by lines of treatment, which were informed by CANMAT-defined levels of evidence and supplemented by clinical support (consisting of expert consensus on safety, tolerability, and feasibility). Drafts were revised based on review by patient partners, expert peer review, and a defined expert consensus process. Results: The updated guidelines comprise eight primary topics, in a question-and-answer format, that map a patient care journey from assessment to selection of evidence-based treatments, prevention of recurrence, and strategies for inadequate response. The guidelines adopt a personalized care approach that emphasizes shared decision-making that reflects the values, preferences, and treatment history of the patient with MDD. Tables provide new and updated recommendations for psychological, pharmacological, lifestyle, complementary and alternative medicine, digital health, and neuromodulation treatments. Caveats and limitations of the evidence are highlighted. Conclusions: The CANMAT 2023 updated guidelines provide evidence-informed recommendations for the management of MDD, in a clinician-friendly format. These updated guidelines emphasize a collaborative, personalized, and systematic management approach that will help optimize outcomes for adults with MDD.

The literature on non-genetic peripheral biomarkers for major mental disorders is broad, with conflicting results. An umbrella review of meta-analyses of non-genetic peripheral biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease, autism spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder (BD), major depressive disorder, and schizophrenia, including first-episode psychosis. We included meta-analyses that compared alterations in peripheral biomarkers between participants with mental disorders to controls (i.e., between-group meta-analyses) and that assessed biomarkers after treatment (i.e., within-group meta-analyses). Evidence for association was hierarchically graded using a priori defined criteria against several biases. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument was used to investigate study quality. 1161 references were screened. 110 met inclusion criteria, relating to 359 meta-analytic estimates and 733,316 measurements, on 162 different biomarkers. Only two estimates met a priori defined criteria for convincing evidence (elevated awakening cortisol levels in euthymic BD participants relative to controls and decreased pyridoxal levels in participants with schizophrenia relative to controls). Of 42 estimates which met criteria for highly suggestive evidence only five biomarker aberrations occurred in more than one disorder. Only 15 meta-analyses had a power >0.8 to detect a small effect size, and most (81.9%) meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. Although some associations met criteria for either convincing or highly suggestive evidence, overall the vast literature of peripheral biomarkers for major mental disorders is affected by bias and is underpowered. No convincing evidence supported the existence of a trans-diagnostic biomarker. Adequately powered and methodologically sound future large collaborative studies are warranted.

Background: Mood disorders, i.e. major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorders, are leading sources of disability worldwide. Currently available treatments do not yield remission in approximately a third of patients with a mood disorder. This is in part because these treatments do not target a specific core pathology underlying these heterogeneous disorders. In recent years, abnormal inflammatory processes have been identified as putative pathophysiological mechanisms and treatment targets in mood disorders, particularly among individuals with treatment-resistant conditions. Aims: In this selective review, we aimed to summarise recent advances in the field of immunopsychiatry, including emerging pathophysiological models and findings from treatment ttrials of immunomodulatory agents for both MDD and bipolar disorders. Method: We performed a literature review by searching Medline for clinical trials of immunomodulating agents as monotherapy or adjunctive treatments in MDD and bipolar disorders. Included studies are randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs or cross-over trials of immunomodulating agents that had an active comparator or a placebo-arm. Results: Current evidence shows an association between inflammation and mood symptoms. However, there is conflicting evidence on whether this link is causal. Conclusions: Future studies should focus on identifying specific neurobiological underpinnings for the putative causal association between an activated inflammatory response and mood disorders. Results of these studies are needed before further treatment trials of immunomodulatory agents can be justified.