BackgroundPost-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is prevalent in children, adolescents and adults. It can occur alone or in comorbidity with other disorders. A broad range of psychotherapies such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) have been developed for the treatment of PTSD.AimThrough quantitative meta-analysis, we aimed to compare the efficacy of CBT and EMDR: (i) relieving the post-traumatic symptoms, and (ii) alleviating anxiety and depression, in patients with PTSD.MethodsWe systematically searched EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) for articles published between 1999 and December 2017. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compare CBT and EMDR in PTSD patients were included for quantitative meta-analysis using RevMan Version 5.ResultsFourteen studies out of 714 were finally eligible. Meta-analysis of 11 studies (n = 547) showed that EMDR is better than CBT in reducing post-traumatic symptoms [SDM (95% CI) = -0.43 (-0.73 – -0.12), p = 0.006]. However, meta-analysis of four studies (n = 186) at three-month follow-up revealed no statistically significant difference [SDM (95% CI) = -0.21 (-0.50 – 0.08), p = 0.15]. The EMDR was also better than CBT in reducing anxiety [SDM (95% CI) = -0.71 (-1.21 – -0.21), p = 0.005]. Unfortunately, there was no difference between CBT and EMDR in reducing depression [SDM (95% CI) = -0.21 (-0.44 – 0.02), p = 0.08].ConclusionThe results of this meta-analysis suggested that EMDR is better than CBT in reducing post-traumatic symptoms and anxiety. However, there was no difference reported in reducing depression. Large population randomized trials with longer follow-up are recommended to build conclusive evidence.

Objective: Gabapentin (GBP) is an anticonvulsant medication that is also used to treat restless legs syndrome (RLS) and posttherapeutic neuralgia. GBP is commonly prescribed off-label for psychiatric disorders despite the lack of strong evidence. However, there is growing evidence that GBP may be effective and clinically beneficial in both psychiatric disorders and substance use disorders. This review aimed to perform a systematic analysis of peer-reviewed published literature on the efficacy of GBP in the treatment of psychiatric disorders and substance use disorders. Methods: This review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE literature databases were screened and filtered by using specific search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria. The full texts of selected studies were subsequently retrieved and reviewed. The search terms generated 2,604 results from the databases. After excluding all duplicates, 1,088 citations were left. Thereafter, we applied inclusion and exclusion criteria; a total of 54 papers were retained for detailed review. Results: This literature review concludes that GBP appears to be effective in the treatment of various forms of anxiety disorders. It shows some effectiveness in bipolar disorder as an adjunctive therapeutic agent, while the evidence for monotherapy is inconclusive. In substance use disorders, GBP is effective for acute alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) with mild to moderate severity; it reduces cravings, improves the rate of abstinence, and delays return to heavy drinking. GBP may have some therapeutic potential in the treatment of opioid addiction and cannabis dependence, but there is limited evidence to support its use. No significant benefit of GBP has been conclusively observed in the treatment of OCD, PTSD, depression, or cocaine and amphetamine abuse. Conclusion: GBP appears to be effective in some forms of anxiety disorders such as preoperative anxiety, anxiety in breast cancer survivors, and social phobia. GBP has shown to be safe and effective in the treatment of alcohol dependence. However, the literature suggests that GBP is effective as an adjunctive medication rather than a monotherapy. More clinical trials with larger patient populations are needed to support gabapentin’s off-label use in psychiatric disorders and substance use disorders. It is worth noting that numerous clinical studies that are discussed in this review are open-label trials, which are inherently less rigorously analyzed. Therefore, more extensive investigations are required to examine not only the efficacy of GBP, but also its safety and tolerance.

AimTo assess the relative efficacies of clozapine plus Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) compared against non-clozapine typical and atypical antipsychotics plus ECT for the treatment of “Treatment Resistant Schizophrenia” (TRS). Primarily to assess if clozapine delivers a significant improvement over other antipsychotics when combined with ECT.DesignMajor electronic databases were searched between 1990 and March 2017 for trials measuring the effects of either clozapine augmented ECT, other antipsychotic-augmented ECT, or both. After the systematic review of the data, a random-effects meta-analysis was conducted measuring the relative effect sizes of the different treatment regimens.Subjects1179 patients in 23 studies reporting the usage of ECT augmentation with antipsychotics. A total of 95 patients were tested with clozapine, and ECT (9 studies) and 1084 patients were tested with non-clozapine antipsychotics (14 studies) such as flupenthixol, chlorpromazine, risperidone, sulpiride, olanzapine, and loxapine with concurrent ECT treatment considered for systematic review. Of these, 13 studies reported pre and post-treatment scores were included in the meta-analysis.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome measure was the presence and degree of both positive and negative psychotic symptoms, as measured by either of two standardized clinician administered tests, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), and the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS).ResultsThe comparison of the different antipsychotics established the supremacy of ECT-augmented clozapine treatment against other typical and atypical antipsychotics. The Forest Plot revealed that the overall standard mean difference was 0.891 for non-clozapine studies and 1.504 for clozapine studies, at a 95% interval. Furthermore, the heterogeneity plots showed that while clozapine studies showed no significant heterogeneity, non-clozapine studies showed an I2 statistic value at 42.19%, suggesting moderate heterogeneity. Lastly, publication bias showed asymmetrical plots and significant values of Kendal's tau and Egger's rank test.ConclusionECT augmentation technique was found to be effective in the reduction of psychometric scale scores, and the resulting improvement was significant. Clozapine maintained its stance as the most effective treatment for Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia, followed by flupenthixol.

No abstract

Depression is the most frequently seen neuropsychiatric manifestation in stroke patients. It hampers the ability to undergo therapy and impairs their functional outcome. Depression also increases the risk of suicide in stroke patients, therefore, increasing mortality. The etiology of post-stroke depression (PSD) is complex and reported to be multi-factorial in origin. It also depends on the size and location of the infarct. In addition, family history or prior history of depressive disorders makes them prone to be affected with depression following a stroke. In this article, we will mention various aspects of PSD, as well as the prevalence and the different screening assessment tools used in literature studies. Although there are many available testing tools, little consistency was seen in them being valid or reliable. We will also discuss the pathophysiology of depression in stroke patients with various available options for managing the condition. We will briefly review the use of alternative treatment such as Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) as well. However, we need further evidence-based research exploring the screening tool; i.e. universally acceptable for PSD and implementing an effective, non-invasive treatment modality impacting the prognosis. Also, we require further investigations to identify the role of antidepressants in the recovery of stroke patients. Keywords:Stroke, Post-stroke depression, Stroke location, Assessment and Treatment, Post-stroke Depression, Prevalence of PSD, Pathology in PSD, Mood disorders in PSD, Symptoms and diagnosis criteria in PSD, Assessment scales in PSD, Pharmacotherapy and other treatments in PSD, Depression in stroke survivors MethodologyA search for relevant published literature was performed using PubMed, Google Scholar. The keywords and phrases used included: Stroke lesion, post stroke depression, major depression, Post stroke symptoms, assessment and treatment. Other relevant studies were found by a review of the primary studies obtained in the search as well as reference tracing of selected articles. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were: Any articles that reported the symptomatology, pathophysiology, evaluation and treatment of post stroke depression. All research studies which were published in English language from Neuropsychiatry (London) (2017) 7(6) 907 Review Ali Mahmood Khan PrevalenceOn average for every 40 seconds, there is a stroke case in the United States -around 600.000 new stroke cases are evident every year [12,13]. Based on the literature studies, there is variability in data reported about PSD prevalence. These differences are usually due to the variations in criteria used to diagnose PSD and the difference in age of patients studied. The higher prevalence was seen in hospital-based settings rather than community-based settings [14].While several clinicians use DSM-III and DSM-IV criteria to reach the diagnosis of PSD, some use a different kind of scales or questionnaires. Also, different clin...