Publications by authors named "Giovanni Croatto"

6 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Peripheral levels of C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-6, and interleukin-1β across the mood spectrum in bipolar disorder: A meta-analysis of mean differences and variability.

Brain Behav Immun 2021 10 28;97:193-203. Epub 2021 Jul 28.

Deakin University, IMPACT - the Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, School of Medicine, Barwon Health, 75 Pigdon's Road, Waurn Ponds, Geelong, VIC 3216, Australia. Electronic address:

Importance: It is unclear whether differences exist in the magnitude and variability of pro-inflammatory mediators in the different phases of bipolar disorder (BD) and among subjects with BD, as compared to healthy controls.

Objective: To run a comparative meta-analysis of C-Reactive Protein (CRP), IL-1, IL-6, TNF-α in BD vs healthy controls, measuring mean and variability effects on all subjects. Sensitivity analyses include disease activity.

Data Sources: Systematic review of observational studies in PubMed and PsycInfo up to February 2nd, 2020.

Study Selection: Case-control studies reporting inflammatory mediators' levels in BD and controls.

Data Extraction And Synthesis: Summary distribution measures of circulating CRP, IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α in participants with BD and control groups were extracted. Random-effects multivariate meta-analyses were conducted based on individual study/mediator effect sizes (Hedge's g).

Main Outcomes And Measures: Co-primary outcomes were inflammatory mediators' levels (Hedge's g) and variability (coefficient of variance ratio (CVR)) differences between participants with BD across the mood spectrum and controls.

Results: Out of the initial 729 papers, 72 were assessed and then excluded after full-text review, and ultimately 53 studies were included in the systematic review, while 49 were included in the meta-analysis. The mean age was 36.96 (SD: 9.29) years, and the mean female percentage was 56.31 (SD: 16.61). CRP (g = 0.70, 95% CI 0.31-1.09, k = 37, BD = 2,215 vs HC = 3,750), IL-6 (g = 0.81, 95% CI 0.46-1.16, k = 45, BD = 1,956 vs HC = 4,106), TNF-α (g = 0.49, 95% CI 0.19-0.78, k = 49, BD = 2,231 vs HC = 3,017) were elevated in subjects with BD vs HC, but not IL-1β (g = -0.28, 95% CI -0.68-0.12, k = 4, BD = 87 vs HC = 66). When considering euthymic, depressive, and manic episodes separately, CRP and TNF-α were elevated in both depressive and manic episodes, but not in euthymia, while IL-6 remained elevated regardless of the disease state. No difference in CVR emerged for CRP, IL-1β, and TNF-α, while a lower CVR was observed for IL-6. When considering disease phases, CVR was higher in BD than in HCs for CRP during depressive episodes, lower for IL-6 during euthymia, and higher during manic episodes for CRP, IL-6, and TNF-α. Sensitivity analyses after excluding outliers identified with funnel plot visual inspection, low-quality studies, and considering only studies matched per body mass index confirmed the main results. Meta-regression showed that age (IL-6, TNF-α), gender (CRP), duration of illness (CRP) moderated elevated individual inflammatory levels.

Conclusions And Relevance: Peripheral pro-inflammatory marker elevations were confirmed in BD. CRP and TNF-α could represent state markers, as they were only elevated during mood episodes, while IL-6 appeared to be a trait marker for BD. Increased variability of specific inflammatory mediators in specific disease active states suggests that a subset of subjects with BD may exhibit elevated inflammation as part of a manic or depressive episode.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2021.07.014DOI Listing
October 2021

Peripheral levels of C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-6, and interleukin-1β across the mood spectrum in bipolar disorder: A meta-analysis of mean differences and variability.

Brain Behav Immun 2021 10 28;97:193-203. Epub 2021 Jul 28.

Deakin University, IMPACT - the Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, School of Medicine, Barwon Health, 75 Pigdon's Road, Waurn Ponds, Geelong, VIC 3216, Australia. Electronic address:

Importance: It is unclear whether differences exist in the magnitude and variability of pro-inflammatory mediators in the different phases of bipolar disorder (BD) and among subjects with BD, as compared to healthy controls.

Objective: To run a comparative meta-analysis of C-Reactive Protein (CRP), IL-1, IL-6, TNF-α in BD vs healthy controls, measuring mean and variability effects on all subjects. Sensitivity analyses include disease activity.

Data Sources: Systematic review of observational studies in PubMed and PsycInfo up to February 2nd, 2020.

Study Selection: Case-control studies reporting inflammatory mediators' levels in BD and controls.

Data Extraction And Synthesis: Summary distribution measures of circulating CRP, IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α in participants with BD and control groups were extracted. Random-effects multivariate meta-analyses were conducted based on individual study/mediator effect sizes (Hedge's g).

Main Outcomes And Measures: Co-primary outcomes were inflammatory mediators' levels (Hedge's g) and variability (coefficient of variance ratio (CVR)) differences between participants with BD across the mood spectrum and controls.

Results: Out of the initial 729 papers, 72 were assessed and then excluded after full-text review, and ultimately 53 studies were included in the systematic review, while 49 were included in the meta-analysis. The mean age was 36.96 (SD: 9.29) years, and the mean female percentage was 56.31 (SD: 16.61). CRP (g = 0.70, 95% CI 0.31-1.09, k = 37, BD = 2,215 vs HC = 3,750), IL-6 (g = 0.81, 95% CI 0.46-1.16, k = 45, BD = 1,956 vs HC = 4,106), TNF-α (g = 0.49, 95% CI 0.19-0.78, k = 49, BD = 2,231 vs HC = 3,017) were elevated in subjects with BD vs HC, but not IL-1β (g = -0.28, 95% CI -0.68-0.12, k = 4, BD = 87 vs HC = 66). When considering euthymic, depressive, and manic episodes separately, CRP and TNF-α were elevated in both depressive and manic episodes, but not in euthymia, while IL-6 remained elevated regardless of the disease state. No difference in CVR emerged for CRP, IL-1β, and TNF-α, while a lower CVR was observed for IL-6. When considering disease phases, CVR was higher in BD than in HCs for CRP during depressive episodes, lower for IL-6 during euthymia, and higher during manic episodes for CRP, IL-6, and TNF-α. Sensitivity analyses after excluding outliers identified with funnel plot visual inspection, low-quality studies, and considering only studies matched per body mass index confirmed the main results. Meta-regression showed that age (IL-6, TNF-α), gender (CRP), duration of illness (CRP) moderated elevated individual inflammatory levels.

Conclusions And Relevance: Peripheral pro-inflammatory marker elevations were confirmed in BD. CRP and TNF-α could represent state markers, as they were only elevated during mood episodes, while IL-6 appeared to be a trait marker for BD. Increased variability of specific inflammatory mediators in specific disease active states suggests that a subset of subjects with BD may exhibit elevated inflammation as part of a manic or depressive episode.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2021.07.014DOI Listing
October 2021

Efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological, psychosocial, and brain stimulation interventions in children and adolescents with mental disorders: an umbrella review.

World Psychiatry 2021 Jun;20(2):244-275

Neurosciences Department, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

Top-tier evidence on the safety/tolerability of 80 medications in children/adolescents with mental disorders has recently been reviewed in this jour-nal. To guide clinical practice, such data must be combined with evidence on efficacy and acceptability. Besides medications, psychosocial inter-ventions and brain stimulation techniques are treatment options for children/adolescents with mental disorders. For this umbrella review, we systematically searched network meta-analyses (NMAs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating 48 medications, 20 psychosocial interventions, and four brain stimulation techniques in children/adolescents with 52 different mental disorders or groups of mental disorders, reporting on 20 different efficacy/acceptability outcomes. Co-primary outcomes were disease-specific symptom reduction and all-cause discontinuation ("acceptability"). We included 14 NMAs and 90 MAs, reporting on 15 mental disorders or groups of mental disorders. Overall, 21 medications outperformed placebo regarding the co-primary outcomes, and three psychosocial interventions did so (while seven outperformed waiting list/no treatment). Based on the meta-analytic evidence, the most convincing efficacy profile emerged for amphetamines, methylphenidate and, to a smaller extent, behavioral therapy in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; aripiprazole, risperidone and several psychosocial interventions in autism; risperidone and behavioral interventions in disruptive behavior disorders; several antipsychotics in schizophrenia spectrum disorders; fluoxetine, the combination of fluoxetine and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and interpersonal therapy in depression; aripiprazole in mania; fluoxetine and group CBT in anxiety disorders; fluoxetine/selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, CBT, and behavioral therapy with exposure and response prevention in obsessive-compulsive disorder; CBT in post-traumatic stress disorder; imipramine and alarm behavioral intervention in enuresis; behavioral therapy in encopresis; and family therapy in anorexia nervosa. Results from this umbrella review of interventions for mental disorders in children/adolescents provide evidence-based information for clinical decision making.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wps.20881DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8129843PMC
June 2021

Risk and protective factors for cannabis, cocaine, and opioid use disorders: An umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies.

Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2021 07 15;126:243-251. Epub 2021 Mar 15.

Early Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-Detection (EPIC) Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, London, UK; Department of Brain and Behavioural Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy; Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK; Outreach and Support in South London (OASIS) Service, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Several meta-analyses of observational studies have addressed the association between risk and protective factors and cannabis/cocaine/opioid use disorders, but results are conflicting. No umbrella review has ever graded the credibility of this evidence (not significant/weak/suggestive/highly suggestive/convincing). We searched Pubmed-MEDLINE/PsycInfo, last search September 21, 2020. We assessed the quality of meta-analyses with the AMSTAR-2 tool. Out of 3,072 initial references, five were included, providing 19 associations between 12 putative risk/protective factors and cannabis/cocaine/opioid use disorders (cases: 4539; N = 1,118,872,721). While 84 % of the associations were statistically significant, none was convincing. One risk factor (smoking) had highly suggestive evidence for association with nonmedical use of prescription opioid medicines (OR = 3.07, 95 %CI:2.27 to 4.14). Convincing evidence emerged in sensitivity analyses on antisocial behavior and cannabis use disoder (OR 3.34, 95 %CI 2.53-4.41). Remaining associations had weak evidence. The quality of meta-analyses was rated as moderate in two (40 %), low in one (20 %), and critically low in two (40 %). Future research is needed to better profile risk/protective factors for cannabis/cocaine/opioid use disorders disorders informing preventive approaches.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.03.014DOI Listing
July 2021

How can we improve antidepressant adherence in the management of depression? A targeted review and 10 clinical recommendations.

Braz J Psychiatry 2021 Mar-Apr;43(2):189-202

IMPACT Strategic Research Centre, Barwon Health, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.

Adherence to antidepressants is crucial for optimal treatment outcomes when treating depressive disorders. However, poor adherence is common among patients prescribed antidepressants. This targeted review summarizes the main factors associated with poor adherence, interventions that promote antidepressant adherence, pharmacological aspects related to antidepressant adherence, and formulates 10 clinical recommendations to optimize antidepressant adherence. Patient-related factors associated with antidepressant non-adherence include younger age, psychiatric and medical comorbidities, cognitive impairment, and substance use disorders. Prescriber behavior-related factors include neglecting medical and family histories, selecting poorly tolerated antidepressants, or complex antidepressant regimens. Multi-disciplinary interventions targeting both patient and prescriber, aimed at improving antidepressant adherence, include psychoeducation and providing the patient with clear behavioral interventions to prevent/minimize poor adherence. Regarding antidepressant choice, agents with individually tailored tolerability profile should be chosen. Ten clinical recommendations include four points focusing on the patient (therapeutic alliance, adequate history taking, measurement of depressive symptoms, and adverse effects improved access to clinical care), three focusing on prescribing practice (psychoeducation, individually tailored antidepressant choice, simplified regimen), two focusing on mental health services (improved access to mental health care, incentivized adherence promotion and monitoring), and one relating to adherence measurement (adherence measurement with scales and/or therapeutic drug monitoring).
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2020-0935DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8023158PMC
April 2021

Safety of 80 antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-attention-deficit/hyperactivity medications and mood stabilizers in children and adolescents with psychiatric disorders: a large scale systematic meta-review of 78 adverse effects.

World Psychiatry 2020 Jun;19(2):214-232

Department of Psychiatry, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York, NY, USA.

Mental disorders frequently begin in childhood or adolescence. Psychotropic medications have various indications for the treatment of mental dis-orders in this age group and are used not infrequently off-label. However, the adverse effects of these medications require special attention during developmentally sensitive periods of life. For this meta-review, we systematically searched network meta-analyses and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), individual RCTs, and cohort studies reporting on 78 a priori selected adverse events across 19 categories of 80 psychotropic medications - including antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications and mood stabilizers - in children and adolescents with mental disorders. We included data from nine network meta-analyses, 39 meta-analyses, 90 individual RCTs, and eight cohort studies, including 337,686 children and adolescents. Data on ≥20% of the 78 adverse events were available for six antidepressants (sertraline, escitalopram, paroxetine, fluoxetine, venlafaxine and vilazodone), eight antipsychotics (risperidone, quetiapine, aripiprazole, lurasidone, paliperidone, ziprasidone, olanzapine and asenapine), three anti-ADHD medications (methylphenidate, atomoxetine and guanfacine), and two mood stabilizers (valproate and lithium). Among these medications with data on ≥20% of the 78 adverse events, a safer profile emerged for escitalopram and fluoxetine among antidepressants, lurasidone for antipsychotics, methylphenidate among anti-ADHD medications, and lithium among mood stabilizers. The available literature raised most concerns about the safety of venlafaxine, olanzapine, atomoxetine, guanfacine and valproate. Nausea/vomiting and discontinuation due to adverse event were most frequently associated with antidepressants; sedation, extrapyramidal side effects, and weight gain with antipsychotics; anorexia and insomnia with anti-ADHD medications; sedation and weight gain with mood stabilizers. The results of this comprehensive and updated quantitative systematic meta-review of top-tier evidence regarding the safety of antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-ADHD medications and mood stabilizers in children and adolescents can inform clinical practice, research and treatment guidelines.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wps.20765DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7215080PMC
June 2020
-->