Clinical guidelines recommend psychosocial interventions for cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction as first-line treatment, but it is still unclear which intervention, if any, should be offered first. We aimed to estimate the comparative effectiveness of all available psychosocial interventions (alone or in combination) for the short- and long-term treatment of people with cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction. We searched published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any structured psychosocial intervention against an active control or treatment as usual (TAU) for the treatment of cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction in adults. Primary outcome measures were efficacy (proportion of patients in abstinence, assessed by urinalysis) and acceptability (proportion of patients who dropped out due to any cause) at the end of treatment, but we also measured the acute (12 weeks) and long-term (longest duration of study follow-up) effects of the interventions and the longest duration of abstinence. Odds ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences were estimated using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed with the Cochrane tool, and the strength of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We followed the PRISMA for Network Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-NMA) guidelines, and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42017042900). We included 50 RCTs evaluating 12 psychosocial interventions or TAU in 6,942 participants. The strength of evidence ranged from high to very low. Compared to TAU, contingency management (CM) plus community reinforcement approach was the only intervention that increased the number of abstinent patients at the end of treatment (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.24–6.51, P = 0.013), and also at 12 weeks (OR 7.60, 95% CI 2.03–28.37, P = 0.002) and at longest follow-up (OR 3.08, 95% CI 1.33–7.17, P = 0.008). At the end of treatment, CM plus community reinforcement approach had the highest number of statistically significant results in head-to-head comparisons, being more efficacious than cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.02–5.88, P = 0.045), non-contingent rewards (OR 3.31, 95% CI 1.32–8.28, P = 0.010), and 12-step programme plus non-contingent rewards (OR 4.07, 95% CI 1.13–14.69, P = 0.031). CM plus community reinforcement approach was also associated with fewer dropouts than TAU, both at 12 weeks and the end of treatment (OR 3.92, P < 0.001, and 3.63, P < 0.001, respectively). At the longest follow-up, community reinforcement approach was more effective than non-contingent rewards, supportive-expressive psychodynamic therapy, TAU, and 12-step programme (OR ranging between 2.71, P = 0.026, and 4.58, P = 0.001), but the combination of community reinforcement approach with CM was superior also to CBT alone, CM alone, CM plus CBT, and 12-step programme plus non-contingent rewards (ORs between 2.50, P = 0.039, and 5.22, P < 0.001). The main limitations of our study were the quality of included studies and the lack of blinding, which may have increased the risk of performance bias. However, our analyses were based on objective outcomes, which are less likely to be biased. To our knowledge, this network meta-analysis is the most comprehensive synthesis of data for psychosocial interventions in individuals with cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction. Our findings provide the best evidence base currently available to guide decision-making about psychosocial interventions for individuals with cocaine and/or amphetamine addiction and should inform patients, clinicians, and policy-makers.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are novel drugs approved for diabetes and obesity. They are acknowledged as a major scientific breakthrough. In addition to their metabolic effects, these medications act on other bodily systems involved in the physiopathology of various neurological and psychiatric disorders. Several stakeholders are calling for more research to investigate the repurposing potential of GLP-1RAs in cognitive and mental disorders, while others advocate for a better assessment of their safety profile from a neuropsychiatric perspective. In this Analysis, we searched for relevant literature on the effects of GLP-1RAs across a range of illnesses, gathering and describing the available pre-clinical and mechanistic (278 studies) and clinical (96 studies) evidence for cognitive disorders, substance-use disorders, psychotic disorders, mood and anxiety disorders, eating disorders, and others. By leveraging translational insights from these data, we consider potential implications for clinical practice and propose avenues for further research.

While semaglutide, approved for type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), is being investigated as a treatment for brain disorders, concerns over adverse neuropsychiatric events have emerged. More data are therefore needed to assess the effects of semaglutide on brain health. This study provides robust estimates of the risk of neurological and psychiatric outcomes following semaglutide use compared to three other antidiabetic medications. This retrospective cohort study used electronic health records from TriNetX US Collaborative Network, covering >100 million patients in the USA. Due to the exploratory nature of this study, we did not use a pre-registered protocol or statistical analysis plan. Three cohorts with T2DM prescribed semaglutide between 1st December 2017 and 31st May 2021 were propensity-score matched (1:1 using a greedy nearest-neighbour algorithm with calliper distance of 0.1) with cohorts receiving sitagliptin, empagliflozin, and glipizide. Using Cox regression analysis, we compared the risks of 22 neurological and psychiatric outcomes within one year since the index prescription: encephalitis, parkinsonism, cognitive deficit, dementia, epilepsy/seizure, migraine, insomnia, nerve disorder, myoneural junction/muscle disease, intracranial haemorrhage, ischaemic stroke, alcohol misuse, opioid misuse, cannabis misuse, stimulants misuse, nicotine misuse, psychosis, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and suicidality. Negative control outcomes (NCOs) were used to assess unmeasured confounding. Each matched cohort included 23,386 (semaglutide vs sitagliptin), 22,584 (vs empagliflozin), and 19,206 (vs glipizide) patients. Semaglutide was not associated with an increased risk of neurological and psychiatric outcomes. Instead, after multiple-testing correction, semaglutide was associated with reduced risk for several such outcomes, notably cognitive deficit compared to sitagliptin (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.80) and glipizide (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.81), dementia compared to sitagliptin (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.40-0.68), and nicotine misuse across most comparisons (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61-0.85 against glipizide; HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65-0.90 against empagliflozin; HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.95 against sitagliptin, though the latter was no longer statistically significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons). Empagliflozin showed fewest differences from semaglutide. No differences in NCOs were observed between cohorts. Semaglutide is not associated with higher 12-month risk of adverse neuropsychiatric outcomes compared to other antidiabetic medications. Potential beneficial associations with some outcomes, especially cognitive deficit and nicotine misuse, should stimulate validation in clinical trials. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre, Medical Research Council.

Opinion statement Inappropriate sexual behavior (ISB) is a relatively common and potentially disruptive form of behavior in people with dementia. It can cause considerable distress and put placements and people at risk. Yet it is poorly researched and understood. In addition to non-pharmacological approaches to management, a wide range of classes of medication has been used in ISB, and the results have been reported as single cases or short series, though none has been the subject of a randomized clinical trial, in part because of the lack of a well-defined method of observing and measuring ISB, as well as the significant ethical considerations. Pharmacological treatments for which there is low-level evidence of efficacy in the literature include antidepressants, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, cholinesterase inhibitors, hormonal agents, and beta-blockers. None of the drugs discussed here is licensed for use in ISB, and elderly people, particularly those with dementia, are at high risk of adverse effects. Caution is advised before using medication in this group of people. It is important to consider alternative non-pharmacological treatments, as well as discussing issues of ethics and consent with those involved, before initiating treatment. It is helpful to identify and monitor target symptoms. Pharmacological treatments should be started at low dose and titrated up slowly and carefully. Nevertheless, in some situations, medication may provide a useful part of a management plan for ISB.

Executive functions in obsessive–compulsive disorder: An activation likelihood estimate meta-analysis of fMRI studies. . ???aop.label???. doi: 10.3109/15622975.2015.1102323

Although trazodone is approved and marketed in most countries worldwide for the sole treatment of Major Depressive Disorder, the use for this medication is very common for many other conditions, such as primary or secondary insomnia, Generalised Anxiety Disorder, Panic Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Obsessive- Compulsive Disorder. Other, not officially approved, uses of trazodone include: the treatment of bulimia, benzodiazepine and/or alcohol dependence or abuse, fibromyalgia, degenerative diseases of the central nervous system such as dementia and other organic disorders, schizophrenia, chronic pain, and diabetic neuropathy. In addition, due to its 5HT2A receptor antagonistic action, trazodone may be used to prevent the occurrence of initial and long-term side effects of SSRI, such as anxiety, insomnia and sexual dysfunction. Despite the favorable clinical experience and the encouraging results from the studies that have tested the efficacy of trazodone for some of its off-label indications, it is paramount that large, randomized and controlled clinical trials be conducted in the near future to evaluate which of the many off-label indications are supported by a strong scientific evidence.