Safety, tolerability, and risks associated with first- and second-generation antipsychotics: a state-of-the-art clinical review Marco Solmi,1,2 Andrea Murru,3 Isabella Pacchiarotti,3 Juan Undurraga,4,5 Nicola Veronese,2,6 Michele Fornaro,7,8 Brendon Stubbs,2,9–11 Francesco Monaco,2 Eduard Vieta,3 Mary V Seeman,12 Christoph U Correll,13,14 André F Carvalho2,15 1Neuroscience Department, University of Padua, 2Institute for Clinical Research and Education in Medicine, Padua, Italy; 3Bipolar Disorders Unit, Institute of Neuroscience, Hospital Clínic, University of Barcelona, IDIBAPS, CIBERSAM, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain; 4Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, 5Early Intervention Program, J. Horwitz Psychiatric Institute, Santiago, Chile; 6National Research Council, Ageing Section, Padua, 7Laboratory of Molecular and Translational Psychiatry, Department of Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University “Federico II”, Naples, Italy; 8New York State Psychiatric Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA; 9Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, 10Physiotherapy Department, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, 11Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, UK; 12Institute of Medical Science, Toronto, ON, Canada; 13Department of Psychiatry Research, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, 14Department of Psychiatry and Molecular Medicine Hempstead, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Hempstead, NY, USA; 15Translational Psychiatry Research Group and Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil Since the discovery of chlorpromazine (CPZ) in 1952, first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) have revolutionized psychiatric care in terms of facilitating discharge from hospital and enabling large numbers of patients with severe mental illness (SMI) to be treated in the community. Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) ushered in a progressive shift from the paternalistic management of SMI symptoms to a patient-centered approach, which emphasized targets important to patients – psychosocial functioning, quality of life, and recovery. These drugs are no longer limited to specific Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) categories. Evidence indicates that SGAs show an improved safety and tolerability profile compared with FGAs. The incidence of treatment-emergent extrapyramidal side effects is lower, and there is less impairment of cognitive function and treatment-related negative symptoms. However, treatment with SGAs has been associated with a wide range of untoward effects, among which treatment-emergent weight gain and metabolic abnormalities are of notable concern. The present clinical review aims to summarize the safety and tolerability profile of selected FGAs and SGAs and to link treatment-related adverse effects to the pharmacodynamic profile of each drug. Evidence, predominantly derived from systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials of the drugs amisulpride, aripiprazole, asenapine, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, clozapine, iloperidone, lurasidone, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, sertindole, ziprasidone, CPZ, haloperidol, loxapine, and perphenazine, is summarized. In addition, the safety and tolerability profiles of antipsychotics are discussed in the context of the “behavioral toxicity” conceptual framework, which considers the longitudinal course and the clinical and therapeutic consequences of treatment-emergent side effects. In SMI, SGAs with safer metabolic profiles should ideally be prescribed first. However, alongside with safety, efficacy should also be considered on a patient-tailored basis. Keywords: antipsychotics, side effects, tolerability, safety, psychosis, psychiatry

Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is common among cancer patients, with prevalence rates up to four-times higher than the general population. Depression confers worse outcomes, including non-adherence to treatment and increased mortality in the oncology setting. Advances in the understanding of neurobiological underpinnings of depression have revealed shared biobehavioral mechanisms may contribute to cancer progression. Moreover, psychosocial stressors in cancer promote: (1) inflammation and oxidative/nitrosative stress; (2) a decreased immunosurveillance; and (3) a dysfunctional activation of the autonomic nervous system and of the hypothalamic-pituitaryadrenal axis. Consequently, the prompt recognition of depression among patients with cancer who may benefit of treatment strategies targeting depressive symptoms, cognitive dysfunction, fatigue and sleep disturbances, is a public health priority. Moreover, behavioral strategies aiming at reducing psychological distress and depressive symptoms, including addressing unhealthy diet and life-style choices, as well as physical inactivity and sleep dysfunction, may represent important strategies not only to treat depression, but also to improve wider cancer-related outcomes. Herein, we provide a comprehensive review of the intertwined biobehavioral pathways linking depression to cancer progression. In addition, the clinical implications of these findings are critically reviewed.

Mounting evidence suggests that aberrations in immune-inflammatory pathways contribute to the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder (MDD), and individuals with MDD may have elevated levels of predominantly pro-inflammatory cytokines and C-reactive protein. In addition, previous meta-analyses suggest that antidepressant drug treatment may decrease peripheral levels of interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β) and IL-6. Recently, several new studies examining the effect of antidepressants on these cytokines have been published, and so we performed an updated meta-analysis of studies that measured peripheral levels of cytokines and chemokines during antidepressant treatment in patients with MDD. The PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycInfo databases were searched from inception through March 9, 2017. Forty-five studies met inclusion criteria (N = 1517). Peripheral levels of IL-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), IL-1β, IL-10, IL-2, IL-4, interferon-γ, IL-8, the C-C motif ligand 2 chemokine (CCL-2), CCL-3, IL-1 receptor antagonist, IL-13, IL-17, IL-5, IL-7, and the soluble IL-2 receptor were measured in at least three datasets and thus were meta-analyzed. Antidepressant treatment significantly decreased peripheral levels of IL-6 (Hedges g = −0.454, P <0.001), TNF-α (g = −0.202, P = 0.015), IL-10 (g = −0.566, P = 0.012), and CCL-2 (g = −1.502, P = 0.006). These findings indicate that antidepressants decrease several markers of peripheral inflammation. However, this meta-analysis did not provide evidence that reductions in peripheral inflammation are associated with antidepressant treatment response although few studies provided separate data for treatment responders and non-responders.

The neurotrophic hypothesis postulates that mood disorders such as bipolar disorder (BD) are associated with a lower expression of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). However, its role in peripheral blood as a biomarker of disease activity and of stage for BD, transcending pathophysiology, is still disputed. In the last few years an increasing number of clinical studies assessing BDNF in serum and plasma have been published. Therefore, it is now possible to analyse the association between BDNF levels and the severity of affective symptoms in BD as well as the effects of acute drug treatment of mood episodes on BDNF levels. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies on serum and plasma BDNF levels in bipolar disorder. Through a series of meta-analyses including a total of 52 studies with 6,481 participants, we show that, compared to healthy controls, peripheral BDNF levels are reduced to the same extent in manic (Hedges’ g = −0.57, P = 0.010) and depressive (Hedges’ g = −0.93, P = 0.001) episodes, while BDNF levels are not significantly altered in euthymia. In meta-regression analyses, BDNF levels additionally negatively correlate with the severity of both manic and depressive symptoms. We found no evidence for a significant impact of illness duration on BDNF levels. In addition, in plasma, but not serum, peripheral BDNF levels increase after the successful treatment of an acute mania episode, but not of a depressive one. In summary, our data suggest that peripheral BDNF levels, more clearly in plasma than in serum, is a potential biomarker of disease activity in BD, but not a biomarker of stage. We suggest that peripheral BDNF may, in future, be used as a part of a blood protein composite measure to assess disease activity in BD.