Several recent trials indicate low-dose ketamine produces rapid antidepressant effects. However, uncertainty remains in several areas: dose response, consistency across patient groups, effects on suicidality, and possible biases arising from crossover trials. A systematic search was conducted for relevant randomized trials in Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO databases up to August 2014. The primary endpoints were change in depression scale scores at days 1, 3 and 7, remission, response, suicidality, safety, and tolerability. Data were independently abstracted by 2 reviewers. Where possible, unpublished data were obtained on treatment effects in the first period of crossover trials. Nine trials were identified, including 201 patients (52% female, mean age 46 years). Six trials assessed low-dose ketamine (0.5mg/kg i.v.) and 3 tested very low-dose ketamine (one trial assessed 50mg intra-nasal spray, another assessed 0.1–0.4mg/kg i.v., and another assessed 0.1–0.5mg/kg i.v., intramuscular, or s.c.). At day 3, the reduction in depression severity score was less marked in the very low-dose trials (P homogeneity <.05) and among bipolar patients. In analyses excluding the second period of crossover trials, response rates at day 7 were increased with ketamine (relative risk 3.4, 95% CI 1.6–7.1, P=.001), as were remission rates (relative risk 2.6, CI 1.2–5.7, P=.02). The absolute benefits were large, with day 7 remission rates of 24% vs 6% (P=.02). Seven trials provided unpublished data on suicidality item scores, which were reduced on days 1 and 3 (both P<.01) but not day 7. Low-dose ketamine appears more effective than very low dose. There is substantial heterogeneity in clinical response, with remission among one-fifth of patients at 1 week but most others having benefits that are less durable. Larger, longer term parallel group trials are needed to determine if efficacy can be extended and to further assess safety.

Comorbid epilepsy and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) represent a serious challenge for the clinicians. However, the frequency, associations, and outcomes of dual diagnosis of epilepsy and PNES are unclear. The aim of the review was to determine the frequency, correlates, and outcomes of a dual diagnosis. A systematic review of all published observational studies (from inception to Dec. 2016) was conducted to determine the frequency, correlates, and outcomes of dual diagnosis. We included studies of individuals of any age reporting a dual diagnosis of epilepsy and PNES. All observational study designs were included with the exception of case reports and case series with fewer than 10 participants. The mean frequency of epilepsy in patients with PNES across all studies was 22% (95% confidence intervals [CI] 20 to 25%, range: 0% to 90%) while the mean frequency of PNES in patients with epilepsy was 12% (95% CI 10 to 14%, range: 1% to 62%). High heterogeneity means that these pooled estimates should be viewed with caution. A number of correlates of dual diagnosis were reported. Some studies delineated differences in semiology of seizures in patients with dual diagnosis vs. PNES or epilepsy only. However, most of the correlates were inconclusive. Only a few studies examined outcome in patients with dual diagnosis. Dual diagnosis is common in clinical practice, especially among patients referred to specialized services, and requires careful diagnosis and management.

Whether continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment can improve depression or anxiety symptoms in obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) patients remains uncertain. Secondary analysis of the Sleep Apnea Cardiovascular Endpoints (SAVE) trial, combined with a systematic review of randomised evidence. The SAVE secondary analyses involved 2410 patients with co-existing moderate-severe OSA and established cardiovascular disease randomly allocated to CPAP treatment plus usual care or usual care alone and followed up for 3·7 (SD 1·6) years. We evaluated the effect of CPAP treatment on depression and anxiety caseness (scores ≥ 8 on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale depression and anxiety subscales [HADS-D and HADS-A]) for OSA patients. CPAP treatment was associated with reduced odds of depression caseness (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0·65-0·98, P = 0·031) compared to usual care in the SAVE trial and the treatment effect was greater in those with pre-existing depression symptoms. A systematic review of 20 randomised trials including 4255 participants confirmed a benefit of CPAP in reducing depression symptoms in OSA patients: the overall effect (standardised mean difference) was - 0·18 (95% CI - 0·24 to - 0·12). No effect of CPAP treatment on anxiety caseness was found both in patients of the SAVE study (adjusted OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·78-1·24, P = 0·89) and the systematic review. CPAP reduces depression symptoms in patients with co-existing OSA and CVD independently of improvements in sleepiness.

Objective: Depression after stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) is common but often assumed to be undertreated without reliable evidence being available. Thus, we aimed to determine treatment rates and investigate the application of guidelines in these conditions. Methods: Databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Scopus were systematically searched without language restriction from inception to June 30, 2017. Prospective observational studies with consecutive recruitment reporting any antidepressant treatment in adults with depression after stroke or MI were included. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled estimates of treatment rates. Results: Fifty-five studies reported 32 stroke cohorts (n = 8938; pooled frequency of depression = 34%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 29%–38%) and 17 MI cohorts (n = 10,767; pooled frequency of depression = 24%, 95% CI = 20%–28%). In 29 stroke cohorts, 24% (95% CI = 20%–27%) of 2280 depressed people used antidepressant medication. In 15 MI cohorts, 14% (95% CI = 8%–19%) of 2381 depressed people used antidepressant medication indicating a lower treatment rate than in stroke. Two studies reported use of psychosocial interventions, indicating that less than 10% of participants were treated. Conclusions: Despite the high frequency of depression after stroke and MI and the existence of efficacious treatment strategies, people often remain untreated. Innovative strategies are needed to increase the use of effective antidepressive interventions in patients with cardiovascular disease.