Risk factors, prevention and treatment of weight gain associated with the use of antidepressants and antipsychotics: a state-of-the-art clinical review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: People with severe mental illness have poor cardiometabolic health. Commonly used antidepressants and antipsychotics frequently lead to weight gain, which may further contribute to adverse cardiovascular outcomes. AREAS COVERED: We searched MEDLINE up to April 2023 for umbrella reviews, (network-)meta-analyses, trials and cohort studies on risk factors, prevention and treatment strategies of weight gain associated with antidepressants/antipsychotics. We developed 10 clinical recommendations. EXPERT OPINION: To prevent, manage, and treat antidepressant/antipsychotic-related weight gain, we recommend i) assessing risk factors for obesity before treatment, ii) monitoring metabolic health at baseline and regularly during follow-up, iii) offering lifestyle interventions including regular exercise and healthy diet based on patient preference to optimize motivation, iv) considering first-line psychotherapy for mild-moderate depression and anxiety disorders, v)choosing medications based on medications' and patient's weight gain risk, vi) choosing medications based on acute vs long-term treatment, vii) using effective, tolerated medications, viii) switching to less weight-inducing antipsychotics/antidepressants where possible, ix) using early weight gain as a predictor of further weight gain to inform the timing of intervention/switch options, and x) considering adding metformin or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, or topiramate(second-line due to potential adverse cognitive effects) to antipsychotics, or aripiprazole to clozapine or olanzapine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".