Over the past two decades, immune–inflammatory dysregulation has emerged as a central paradigm in the biology of mood disorders. Patients with major depression (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD) frequently display low-grade systemic inflammation. Elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) identify clinically relevant subgroups of patients characterized by greater severity, cognitive impairment, and poor treatment response. Changes in the gut microbiota and disruptions of the blood–brain barrier (BBB) act as important gateways through which systemic immune activity can influence the brain. At the intracellular level, pattern-recognition receptors activate convergent hubs including NF-κB, JAK/STAT, and MAPK cascades, while the NLRP3 inflammasome integrates mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress with IL-1β release and pyroptosis. These pathways converge on glial dysregulation, impaired BDNF/TrkB signaling, and kynurenine pathway (KP) alterations, fostering excitotoxicity and synaptic deficits. Translational studies demonstrate that elevated CRP and IL-6 predict poor antidepressant outcomes. Anti-inflammatory agents such as infliximab and celecoxib show efficacy in specific subgroups of patients. Emerging multi-omics approaches identify immuno-metabolic biotypes, supporting the rationale for biomarker-guided stratification. These findings define an ‘inflammatory biotype’ of mood disorders and highlight the need for biomarkers and precision-based trials to guide treatment.

Anxiety symptoms are highly prevalent in major depressive disorder (MDD) and are associated with greater severity, functional impairment, and poorer treatment outcomes. Bupropion is widely used in clinical practice and is generally considered to have a favorable tolerability profile, but its effects on comorbid anxiety remain uncertain. We conducted a PRISMA-guided systematic review of randomized controlled trials, pooled analyses, and open-label comparative studies evaluating bupropion in adults with MDD and clinically significant anxiety symptoms. Searches of PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were performed through August 2025. Outcomes included validated measures of anxiety and depressive symptoms and reported tolerability. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Six studies (n ≈ 3700) met inclusion criteria. Anxiety was a predefined secondary outcome in some trials and a post hoc or exploratory measure in others. Across designs, bupropion was generally associated with improvements in anxiety and depressive symptoms on secondary or exploratory anxiety measures. In pooled patient-level analyses, SSRIs showed a modest advantage over bupropion in patients with high baseline anxiety, whereas individual randomized and open-label studies found no significant between-group differences. None of the included studies reported a clear signal of anxiety worsening with bupropion on the anxiety measures used. Tolerability findings indicated a lower risk of sexual dysfunction with bupropion compared with SSRIs, while insomnia occurred more frequently but was generally manageable. Low-certainty evidence suggests that bupropion may provide clinically relevant improvement in anxiety symptoms in adults with MDD, with generally comparable efficacy to SSRIs in most presentations but a modest SSRI advantage in highly anxious subgroups. Interpretation should consider that anxiety outcomes were often secondary or exploratory and that several studies were at risk of bias. Well-designed randomized trials with anxiety as a primary endpoint are needed.

Complex psychosis is a clinically relevant rehabilitation construct rather than a formal diagnostic category and refers to psychotic illness associated with treatment-resistant symptoms, functional impairment, and additional cognitive, psychiatric, neurodevelopmental, or physical health complexity. In this clinician-oriented narrative review, we synthesised current evidence on rehabilitation interventions for adults with complex psychosis, integrating direct evidence from specialist rehabilitation settings with indirect evidence from schizophrenia-spectrum studies when clinically informative. We searched major clinical databases, prioritised guidelines, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and controlled studies, and organised the synthesis by functional domain and pathway relevance. Evidence was strongest for cognitive remediation, particularly when combined with broader psychiatric rehabilitation or vocational support, for family interventions in relapse prevention, and for individual placement and support in competitive employment. Social–cognitive and metacognitive interventions appear clinically valuable, although transfer to real-world functioning is more variable. Community-based rehabilitation, supported accommodation, illness self-management, and ecological adaptation strategies remain central to functional recovery when embedded within multidisciplinary pathways. Digital and virtual interventions are promising adjuncts, but their efficacy remains heterogeneous and implementation challenges include engagement, privacy, and service integration. Overall, rehabilitation in complex psychosis is most convincing when it is personalised, measurement-based, and delivered through integrated service models linking assessment, intervention selection, supported living, and recovery-oriented care.

Background: Treatment-resistant obsessive–compulsive disorder (TR-OCD) remains a major therapeutic challenge. Although current guidelines recommend optimized serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) therapy, clomipramine switching, exposure and response prevention, and antipsychotic augmentation, a substantial proportion of patients continue to experience severe and disabling symptoms. In such cases, clinicians may consider pharmacological intensification strategies beyond guideline-endorsed algorithms. Methods: This study combines a structured narrative synthesis of pharmacological strategies for TR-OCD with a retrospective observational case series from a tertiary OCD referral clinic. Treatment resistance was defined as failure to achieve at least a 35% reduction in Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) score after at least two adequate SRI trials, including clomipramine, and optimized exposure and response prevention when available. Five patients treated with pharmacological intensification strategies were included. The primary outcome was percentage change in Y-BOCS score at 12 weeks. Results: The case series illustrates five strategies used in highly refractory OCD: supratherapeutic SSRI dosing, SSRI plus mirtazapine augmentation, dual SSRI therapy, serotonergic intensification in a clozapine-treated patient, and glutamatergic/GABAergic augmentation with topiramate. Baseline Y-BOCS scores ranged from 28 to 32. At 12 weeks, symptom reduction ranged from 23% to 36%. One patient met criteria for response, three showed near-response, and one demonstrated partial improvement. No cases of serotonin toxicity or clinically significant cardiac complications occurred. Conclusions: These cases suggest that carefully monitored pharmacological intensification may be feasible in selected specialist settings, but efficacy and safety require confirmation in prospective controlled studies. Recommendations: Pharmacological intensification should be reserved for highly refractory patients managed in specialist services, implemented with gradual titration, structured serotonin toxicity and electrocardiographic monitoring, and explicit individualized risk–benefit discussion; dual SSRI therapy should be regarded as the most experimental and highest-risk serotonergic option; and prospective controlled studies incorporating standardized functional outcomes are needed to refine patient-selection criteria and clarify which patients may benefit.