Risk of metabolic syndrome and its components in people with schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders,bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its components are highly predictive of cardiovascular diseases. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to assess the prevalence of MetS and its components in people with schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, comparing subjects with different disorders and taking into account demographic variables and psychotropic medication use. The secondary aim was to compare the MetS prevalence in persons with any of the selected disorders versus matched general population controls. The pooled MetS prevalence in people with severe mental illness was 32.6% (95% CI: 30.8%‐34.4%; N = 198; n = 52,678). Relative risk meta‐analyses established that there was no significant difference in MetS prevalence in studies directly comparing schizophrenia versus bipolar disorder, and in those directly comparing bipolar disorder versus major depressive disorder. Only two studies directly compared people with schizophrenia and major depressive disorder, precluding meta‐analytic calculations. Older age and a higher body mass index were significant moderators in the final demographic regression model (z = ?3.6, p = 0.0003, r² = 0.19). People treated with all individual antipsychotic medications had a significantly (p<0.001) higher MetS risk compared to antipsychotic‐naïve participants. MetS risk was significantly higher with clozapine and olanzapine (except vs. clozapine) than other antipsychotics, and significantly lower with aripiprazole than other antipsychotics (except vs. amisulpride). Compared with matched general population controls, people with severe mental illness had a significantly increased risk for MetS (RR = 1.58; 95% CI: 1.35‐1.86; p<0.001) and all its components, except for hypertension (p = 0.07). These data suggest that the risk for MetS is similarly elevated in the diagnostic subgroups of severe mental illness. Routine screening and multidisciplinary management of medical and behavioral conditions is needed in these patients. Risks of individual antipsychotics should be considered when making treatment choices.     

The efficacy and safety of nutrient supplements in the treatment of mental disorders: a meta‐review of meta‐analyses of randomized controlled trials

The role of nutrition in mental health is becoming increasingly acknowledged. Along with dietary intake, nutrition can also be obtained from “nutrient supplements”, such as polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, amino acids and pre/probiotic supplements. Recently, a large number of meta‐analyses have emerged examining nutrient supplements in the treatment of mental disorders. To produce a meta‐review of this top‐tier evidence, we identified, synthesized and appraised all meta‐analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the efficacy and safety of nutrient supplements in common and severe mental disorders. Our systematic search identified 33 meta‐analyses of placebo‐controlled RCTs, with primary analyses including outcome data from 10,951 individuals. The strongest evidence was found for PUFAs (particularly as eicosapentaenoic acid) as an adjunctive treatment for depression. More nascent evidence suggested that PUFAs may also be beneficial for attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder, whereas there was no evidence for schizophrenia. Folate‐based supplements were widely researched as adjunctive treatments for depression and schizophrenia, with positive effects from RCTs of high‐dose methylfolate in major depressive disorder. There was emergent evidence for N‐acetylcysteine as a useful adjunctive treatment in mood disorders and schizophrenia. All nutrient supplements had good safety profiles, with no evidence of serious adverse effects or contraindications with psychiatric medications. In conclusion, clinicians should be informed of the nutrient supplements with established efficacy for certain conditions (such as eicosapentaenoic acid in depression), but also made aware of those currently lacking evidentiary support. Future research should aim to determine which individuals may benefit most from evidence‐based supplements, to further elucidate the underlying mechanisms.