Electrical and magnetic brain stimulation techniques present distinct mechanisms and efficacy in the acute treatment of depression. This was an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of brain stimulation techniques for managing acute major depressive episodes. A systematic review was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE databases from inception until March 2020. We included the English language meta-analysis with the most randomized controlled trials on the effects of any brain stimulation technique vs. control in adults with an acute depressive episode. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were assessed. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 was applied and the credibility of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Seven meta-analyses were included (5,615 patients), providing evidence for different modalities of brain stimulation techniques. Three meta-analyses were evaluated as having high methodological quality, three as moderate, and one as low. The highest quality of evidence was found for high frequency-repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation, and bilateral rTMS. There is strong clinical research evidence to guide future clinical use of some techniques. Our results confirm the heterogeneity of the effects across these techniques, indicating that different mechanisms of action lead to different efficacy profiles.

Objective: To grade the evidence about risk factors for eating disorders (anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and binge eating disorder) with an umbrella review approach. Methods: This was a systematic review of observational studies on risk factors for eating disorders published in PubMed/PsycInfo/Embase until December 11th, 2019. We recalculated random-effect meta-analyses, heterogeneity, small-study effect, excess significance bias and 95% prediction intervals, grading significant evidence (p < 0.05) from convincing to weak according to established criteria. Quality was assessed with the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) tool. Results: Of 2,197 meta-analyses, nine were included, providing evidence on 50 risk factors, 29,272 subjects with eating disorders, and 1,679,385 controls. Although no association was supported by convincing evidence, highly suggestive evidence supported the association between childhood sexual abuse and bulimia nervosa (k = 29, 1,103 cases with eating disorders, 8,496 controls, OR, 2.73, 95%CI 1.96-3.79, p = 2.1 x 10-9, AMSTAR-2 moderate quality) and between appearance-related teasing victimization and any eating disorder (k = 10, 1,341 cases with eating disorders, 3,295 controls, OR 2.91, 95%CI 2.05-4.12, p = 1.8x10-9, AMSTAR-2 moderate quality). Suggestive, weak, or no evidence supported 11, 29, and 8 associations, respectively. Conclusions: The most credible evidence indicates that early traumatic and stressful events are risk factors for eating disorders. Larger collaborative prospective cohort studies are needed to identify risk factors for eating disorders, particularly anorexia nervosa.

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).

Objective: The field of food addiction has attracted growing research attention. The modified Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0 (mYFAS 2.0) is a screening tool based on DSM-5 criteria for substance use disorders. However, there is no validated instrument to assess food addiction. Methods: The mYFAS 2.0 has been transculturally adapted to Brazilian Portuguese. The data for this study was obtained through an anonymous web-based research platform: participants provided sociodemographic data and answered Brazilian versions of the the mYFAS 2.0 and the Barratt Impulsivity Scale (BIS-11). Analysis included an assessment of the Brazilian mYFAS 2.0’s internal consistency reliability, factor structure, and convergent validity in relation to BIS-11 scores. Results: Overall, 7,639 participants were included (71.3% females; age: 27.2±7.9 years). The Brazilian mYFAS 2.0 had adequate internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89). A single factor solution yielded the best goodness-of-fit parameters for both the continuous and categorical version of the mYFAS 2.0 in confirmatory factor analysis. In addition, mYFAS 2.0 correlated with BIS-11 total scores (Spearman’s rho = 0.26, p < 0.001) and subscores. Conclusion: The Brazilian mYFAS 2.0 demonstrated adequate psychometric properties in our sample; however, future studies should further evaluate its discriminant validity.

Objective: To evaluate the antidepressant effects of exercise in older adults, using randomized controlled trial (RCT) data. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of exercise in older adults, addressing limitations of previous works. RCTs of exercise interventions in older people with depression (≥ 60 years) comparing exercise vs. control were eligible. A random-effects meta-analysis calculating the standardized mean difference (SMD) (95% confidence interval [95%CI]), meta-regressions, and trim, fill, and fail-safe number analyses were conducted. Results: Eight RCTs were included, representing 138 participants in exercise arms and 129 controls. Exercise had a large and significant effect on depression (SMD = -0.90 [95%CI -0.29 to -1.51]), with a fail-safe number of 71 studies. Significant effects were found for 1) mixed aerobic and anaerobic interventions, 2) at moderate intensity, 3) that were group-based, 4) that utilized mixed supervised and unsupervised formats, and 5) in people without other clinical comorbidities. Conclusion: Adjusting for publication bias increased the beneficial effects of exercise in three subgroup analysis, suggesting that previous meta-analyses have underestimated the benefits of exercise due to publication bias. We advocate that exercise be considered as a routine component of the management of depression in older adults.