Cited by 29Bipolar Disorder and TreatmentTreatment of Major DepressionSchizophrenia research and treatment

N‐acetylcysteine as an adjunctive treatment for bipolar depression: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Nery, Fabiano G., Li, Wenbin, DelBello, Melissa P., Welge, Jeffrey A.·2021·Bipolar Disorders

Abstract

Objectives: Previous studies and meta‐analyses suggested that N‐acetylcysteine (NAC) was superior to placebo in improving depression in bipolar disorder. However, more recent data, including two larger trials, found that NAC was no more effective than placebo. We conducted a meta‐analysis to appraise the possible efficacy of NAC in treating bipolar depression. Methods: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trials of NAC as a treatment augmentation strategy for bipolar depression was carried out in PubMed (1966–2020). We utilized random‐effect analysis to evaluate improvement in depressive symptoms from baseline to endpoint as the primary efficacy measure. Results: Six trials including 248 patients were included. Treatment augmentation with NAC showed a moderate effect size favoring NAC over placebo ( d = 0.45, 95% C.I.: 0.06–0.84). There was substantial heterogeneity ( I 2 = 49%). Meta‐regression analyses did not identify any moderator that might explain variation in heterogeneity, including baseline depressive symptom scores, mean NAC dose, or duration of study. Conclusions: Results from six clinical trials suggest that treatment augmentation with NAC for bipolar depression appears to be superior to placebo, with a moderate effect size, but a large confidence interval. Larger clinical trials, investigating possible moderating factors, such as NAC dose, treatment duration, baseline depression severity, or chronicity of illness, are warranted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bdi.13039

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A review of six clinical trials reported that N-acetyl Cysteine is superior to placebo in bipolar disorder, although with a mild effect and a large confidence interval.

    “However, a review paper discussing six clinical trials reported that N-acetyl Cysteine is superior to placebo, although with a mild effect, but a large interval of confidence (Nery et al. 2021).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nery, F. G., Li, W., DelBello, M. P., & Welge, J. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Cincinnati (US)
  • Sichuan University (CN)
Corresponding author
Nery, Fabiano G.
Venue
Bipolar Disorders
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-01-15
Volume
23
Issue
7
Pages
707-714
ISSN
  • 1398-5647 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-5618
OpenAlex
W3115983550
Cited by
29
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3
FWCI
0.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Bipolar Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
N-acetylcysteine, bipolar depression, augmentation therapy, adjunctive therapy, antidepressant efficacy, placebo comparison, depressive symptoms, illness chronicity
MeSH terms
Acetylcysteine, Bipolar Disorder, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review