Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of buspirone as an adjunctive therapy for alleviating anxiety symptoms in patients with depressive disorders who are already taking antidepressants. Methods: This was an open-label prospective multicenter non-interventional observational study conducted over 12 weeks. We enrolled 180 patients diagnosed with depressive disorders according to DSM-5 criteria and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores ≥ 18. Participants were already taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotoninnorepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and were prescribed adjunctive buspirone. Efficacy was assessed using HAMA, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Clinical Global Impression Scale-Improvement, Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity, Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Results: The efficacy analysis included 161 patients. HAMA scores decreased significantly from 25.2 ± 6.7 at baseline to 15.4 ± 8.6 at 12 weeks (p ＜ 0.001), whereas HAMD scores decreased from 19.4 ± 4.6 to 12.7 ± 5.7 (p ＜ 0.001).WHO-5 and SDS scores showed significant improvements. The HAMA response rate was 39.1% and the remission rate was 13.7% at 12 weeks. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 3.7% of participants. Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in treatment response based on buspirone dosage, baseline anxiety/depression severity, or benzodiazepine use. Conclusion Adjunctive buspirone therapy effectively improved anxiety symptoms in depressed patients taking antidepressants, regardless of baseline symptom severity or buspirone dosage. The treatment was well-tolerated with few adverse events. Future studies using a control group are needed.

Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of buspirone as an adjunctive therapy for alleviating anxiety symptoms in patients with depressive disorders who are already taking antidepressants. Methods: This was an open-label prospective multicenter non-interventional observational study conducted over 12 weeks. We enrolled 180 patients diagnosed with depressive disorders according to DSM-5 criteria and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores ≥ 18. Participants were already taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotoninnorepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and were prescribed adjunctive buspirone. Efficacy was assessed using HAMA, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Clinical Global Impression Scale-Improvement, Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity, Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Results: The efficacy analysis included 161 patients. HAMA scores decreased significantly from 25.2 ± 6.7 at baseline to 15.4 ± 8.6 at 12 weeks (p ＜ 0.001), whereas HAMD scores decreased from 19.4 ± 4.6 to 12.7 ± 5.7 (p ＜ 0.001).WHO-5 and SDS scores showed significant improvements. The HAMA response rate was 39.1% and the remission rate was 13.7% at 12 weeks. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 3.7% of participants. Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in treatment response based on buspirone dosage, baseline anxiety/depression severity, or benzodiazepine use. Conclusion Adjunctive buspirone therapy effectively improved anxiety symptoms in depressed patients taking antidepressants, regardless of baseline symptom severity or buspirone dosage. The treatment was well-tolerated with few adverse events. Future studies using a control group are needed.

Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of buspirone as an adjunctive therapy for alleviating anxiety symptoms in patients with depressive disorders who are already taking antidepressants. Methods: This was an open-label prospective multicenter non-interventional observational study conducted over 12 weeks. We enrolled 180 patients diagnosed with depressive disorders according to DSM-5 criteria and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores ≥ 18. Participants were already taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotoninnorepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and were prescribed adjunctive buspirone. Efficacy was assessed using HAMA, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Clinical Global Impression Scale-Improvement, Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity, Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Results: The efficacy analysis included 161 patients. HAMA scores decreased significantly from 25.2 ± 6.7 at baseline to 15.4 ± 8.6 at 12 weeks (p ＜ 0.001), whereas HAMD scores decreased from 19.4 ± 4.6 to 12.7 ± 5.7 (p ＜ 0.001).WHO-5 and SDS scores showed significant improvements. The HAMA response rate was 39.1% and the remission rate was 13.7% at 12 weeks. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 3.7% of participants. Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in treatment response based on buspirone dosage, baseline anxiety/depression severity, or benzodiazepine use. Conclusion Adjunctive buspirone therapy effectively improved anxiety symptoms in depressed patients taking antidepressants, regardless of baseline symptom severity or buspirone dosage. The treatment was well-tolerated with few adverse events. Future studies using a control group are needed.

Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of buspirone as an adjunctive therapy for alleviating anxiety symptoms in patients with depressive disorders who are already taking antidepressants. Methods: This was an open-label prospective multicenter non-interventional observational study conducted over 12 weeks. We enrolled 180 patients diagnosed with depressive disorders according to DSM-5 criteria and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores ≥ 18. Participants were already taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotoninnorepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and were prescribed adjunctive buspirone. Efficacy was assessed using HAMA, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Clinical Global Impression Scale-Improvement, Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity, Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Results: The efficacy analysis included 161 patients. HAMA scores decreased significantly from 25.2 ± 6.7 at baseline to 15.4 ± 8.6 at 12 weeks (p ＜ 0.001), whereas HAMD scores decreased from 19.4 ± 4.6 to 12.7 ± 5.7 (p ＜ 0.001).WHO-5 and SDS scores showed significant improvements. The HAMA response rate was 39.1% and the remission rate was 13.7% at 12 weeks. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 3.7% of participants. Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in treatment response based on buspirone dosage, baseline anxiety/depression severity, or benzodiazepine use. Conclusion Adjunctive buspirone therapy effectively improved anxiety symptoms in depressed patients taking antidepressants, regardless of baseline symptom severity or buspirone dosage. The treatment was well-tolerated with few adverse events. Future studies using a control group are needed.

Background: Associations between metabolic abnormalities and poor treatment outcomes in bipolar disorder (BD) have been reported. This study examined the influence of metabolic abnormalities on remission in Korean inpatients with BD. Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed the chart of 128 adult patients with BD who were hospitalized at a university hospital in Korea. The collected data included fasting plasma glucose, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and high-density lipoprotein levels at admission, as well as height, weight, and blood pressure measurements. The prevalence of metabolic abnormalities was compared between the remission (17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scalescore of ≤7 and Young Mania Rating Scale score of <8) and nonremission groups. Results: Prevalence of hyperglycemia and hypertriglyceridemia significantly differed between the nonremission and remission groups. Multivariate analysis revealed hyperglycemia as the only significant risk factor for nonremission in subjects with mood and manic/hypomanic episodes. Conclusion The study findings reveal a negative effect of hyperglycemia on the treatment outcome of BD. Clinical attention to metabolic abnormalities, specifically insulin resistance and hyperglycemia, is recommended during early stages of the disease.

Background: Metformin (MET) has been used to prevent weight gain in patients treated with antipsychotic drugs. However, liraglutide (LIRA), initially used for diabetes, is now considered for obesity treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness and safety of these drugs in patients with psychiatric disorders. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients prescribed and administered MET and LIRA from January 1, 2017 to August 31, 2023. To assess treatment efficacy, the mean change in the body mass index of the patients before and after drug use was calculated for both medications. Drug safety was evaluated by determining the early discontinuation and occurrence of adverse effects. Results: We collected data from 45 patients, with the majority being women (84.4%). The most frequently diagnosed psychiatric disorders were depressive disorder for LIRA (35.3%) and psychotic disorder for MET (63.6%). No demographic variations were observed between patients who were administered the two types of drugs. The treatment efficacy and safety of both drugs did not show any statistically significant difference. When conducting a subgroup analysis exclusively on patients diagnosed with psychotic disorders (n = 14), MET showed better efficacy; however, no statistically significant difference was observed (−2.48±3.17 vs. 0.56±2.93, t=−1.860, p=0.088). Conclusion LIRA and MET did not show any significant differences in terms of therapeutic efficacy and safety. However, in patients diagnosed with psychotic disorders, MET showed better efficacy and was cost-effective than LIRA. Future studies with larger sample sizes are required to confirm these findings.

Background: Phentermine-topiramate (PT) and naltrexone-bupropion (NB) are widely used combination treatments for obesity and overweight. However, no study has yet compared the efficacy and safety of the two drugs in patients with comorbid psychiatric disorders. Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients who were prescribed with the PT and NB combination treatments was conducted from January 1, 2017, to August 31, 2023. To compare the treatment efficacy, the mean body mass index change rates of both drugs before and after drug use were calculated. The safety of the drug was compared by identifying whether the drug was discontinued early and any side effects that occurred. Results A total of 55 patients were enrolled, most of whom were women (89.1%), and the most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorder was depressive disorder (37.5% for NB and 40.0% for PT). No demographic differences were observed between the patients using the two drugs. The two drugs showed no statistically significant difference in the treatment efficacy. However, in terms of safety, PT had a lower incidence of adverse effects than NB (6.7% vs.40.0%, p=0.022) Conclusion: No significant difference in the treatment efficacy between PT and NB was observed, but PT showed a more favorable safety profile in psychiatric patients. Further large-scale multicenter studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Objective: The present study was performed to investigate the validity and reliability of the Korean version of the THINC-it tool (THINC-it-K) in adult patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Methods: Subjects aged 19−65 years with recurrent MDD experiencing moderate to severe major depressive episode (n = 44) were evaluated and compared to age and sex matched healthy controls (n = 44). Subjects completed the THINC-it-K which includes variants of the Identification Task (IDN) using Choice Reaction Time, One-Back Test, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, Trail Making Test-Part B, and the Perceived Deficits Questionnaire for Depression-5-item (PDQ-5-D). Results: A total of 75.0% of patients with MDD exhibited cognitive performance 1 standard deviation or below. The differences in Spotter (p = 0.001), Codebreaker (p = 0.001), PDQ-5-D (p ＜ 0.001) and objective THINC-it-K composite score (p = 0.002) were significant between the two groups. Concurrent validity of the THINC-it-K based on a calculated composite score was good (r = 0.856, p ＜ 0.001), and ranges for each component tests were from 0.076 (IDN) to 0.928 (PDQ-5-D). Conclusion The THINC-it-K exhibits good reliability and validity in adults with MDD. It could be a useful tool for the measurement of cognitive deficits in persons with MDD and should be implemented in clinical practice.

Objective: This study determined the threshold for recurrent depressive episodes that predicted conversion from major depressive disorder (MDD) to bipolar disorder (BD). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 296 patients diagnosed with MDD for a minimum of 5 years in two university hospitals. We examined their the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition diagnoses and detailed clinical information at the initial admission and yearly assessments after discharge to establish the threshold for recurrent depressive episodes indicating a risk of diagnostic conversion from MDD to BD. Optimal cut-offs were derived using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results: ROC curve analysis revealed that more than four recurrent depressive episodes was indicative of potential diagnostic conversion from MDD to BD (area under the curve, 0.604; sensitivity, 0.353; specificity, 0.855; positive predictive value, 0.421; negative predictive value, 0.816). Conclusion These findings suggest that the best predictor of conversion from MDD to BD is more than four recurrent depressive episodes. Our findings have the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy and treatment efficiency. To validate our results, longitudinal prospective studies are necessary.

Objective: This study tried to observe clinical benefit of aripiprazole augmentation (ARPA) treatment for major depressive disorder with anxious distress (MDDA) in routine practice. Methods: Retrospective chart review (n = 41) was conducted for clinical benefit of ARPA in patients with MDDA in routine practice. The primary endpoint was the mean change of Hamilton Anxiety Rating scale (HAMA) total scores from baseline to the endpoint. Additional secondary endpoints were also retrieved. Results: The changes of primary endpoint HAMA (t = 5.731, −4.6, p = 0.001), and secondary endpoints including Hamilton Depression Rating scale (HAMD, t = 4.284, −3.4, p ＜ 0.001), Clinical Global Impression-Clinical Benefit (CGI-CB, −0.9, t = 1.821, p = 0.026), and Clinical Global Impression Score-Severity (CGI-S, t = 3.556, −0.4, p ＜ 0.001) scores were also significantly improved during the study. No significant adverse events were observed. Conclusion This study has shown additional benefit of ARPA treatment for MDDA patients in routine practice. However, adequately-powered and well-controlled studies are necessary for generalization of the present findings.