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.

Introduction: Polypharmacy is commonly associated with adverse health outcomes. There are currently no meta-analyses of the prevalence of polypharmacy or factors associated with polypharmacy. We aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of polypharmacy and factors associated with polypharmacy in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies with no restrictions on date. We included observational studies that reported on the prevalence of polypharmacy among individuals over age 19. Two reviewers extracted study characteristics including polypharmacy definitions, study design, setting, geography, and participant demographics. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scales. The main outcome was the prevalence of polypharmacy and factors associated with polypharmacy prevalence. The pooled prevalence estimates of polypharmacy with 95% confidence intervals were determined using random effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to evaluate factors associated with polypharmacy such as polypharmacy definitions, study setting, study design and geography. Meta-regression was conducted to assess the associations between polypharmacy prevalence and study year. Results: 106 full-text articles were identified. The pooled estimated prevalence of polypharmacy in the 54 studies reporting on polypharmacy in all medication classes was 37% (95% CI: 31-43%). Differences in polypharmacy prevalence were reported for studies using different numerical thresholds, study setting, and publication year. Sex, study geography, study design and geographical location were not associated with differences in polypharmacy prevalence. Discussion: Our review highlights that polypharmacy is common particularly among older adults and those in inpatient settings. Clinicians should be aware of populations who have an increased likelihood of experiencing polypharmacy and efforts should be made to review the appropriateness of prescribed medications and occurrence of adverse effects potentially associated with polypharmacy. Conclusions and implications: Clinicians should be aware of the common occurrence of polypharmacy and undertake efforts to minimize inappropriate polypharmacy whenever possible.

Intranasal esketamine has received regulatory approvals for the treatment of depression. Recently a large trial of repeated dose racemic ketamine also demonstrated efficacy in severe depression. However, uncertainties remain regarding comparative efficacy, dosage, and the time course of response. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Embase, Medline, Pubmed, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL up to April 13, 2023, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating ketamine for depression. Two investigators independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted the data on depression severity scores, response and remission rates, and all-cause dropouts. Multivariable mixed-effects meta-regressions incorporated drug formulation (racemic (Rac) or esketamine (Esket)) and dose (Low or High) as covariates. Treatment effects were assessed: immediately following the first dose, during further repeated dosing, and follow-up after the final dose of a treatment course. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021221157). The systematic review identified 687 articles, of which 49 RCTs were eligible for analysis, comprising 3299 participants. Standardised mean differences (95% confidence intervals) immediately following the first/single treatment were moderate-high for all conditions (Rac-High: -0.73, -0.91 to -0.56; Esket-High: -0.48, -0.75 to -0.20; Rac-Low: -0.33, -0.54 to -0.12; Esket-Low: -0.55, -0.87 to -0.24). Ongoing effects during repeated dosing were significantly greater than the control for Rac-High (-0.61; -1.02 to -0.20) and Rac-Low (-0.55, -1.09 to -0.00), but not Esket-Low (-0.15, -0.49 to 0.19) or Esket-High (-0.22, -0.54 to 0.10). At follow-up effects remained significant for racemic ketamine (-0.65; -1.23 to -0.07) but not esketamine (-0.33; -0.96 to 0.31). All-cause dropout was similar between experiment and control conditions for both formulations combined (Odds Ratio = 1.18, 0.85-1.64). Overall heterogeneity varied from 5.7% to 87.6. Our findings suggested that effect sizes for depression severity, as well as response and remission rates, were numerically greater for racemic ketamine than esketamine. Higher doses were more effective than low doses. Differences were evident in initial effects, ongoing treatment, and lasting effects after the final dose. None.