Psychotropics and COVID-19: An analysis of safety and prophylaxis.

The use of psychotropics during the COVID-19 pandemic has raised two questions, in order of importance: first, what changes should be made to pharmacological treatments prescribed to mental health patients? Secondly, are there any positive side effects of these substances against SARS-CoV-2? Our aim was to analyze usage safety of psychotropics during COVID-19; therefore, herein, we have studied: (i) the risk of symptomatic complications of COVID-19 associated with the use of these drugs, notably central nervous system activity depression, QTc interval enlargement and infectious and thromboembolic complications; (ii) the risk of mistaking the iatrogenic impact of psychotropics with COVID-19 symptoms, causing diagnostic error. Moreover, we provided a summary of the different information available today for these risks, categorized by mental health disorder, for the following: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, ADHD, sleep disorders and suicidal risk. The matter of psychoactive substance use during the pandemic is also analyzed in this paper, and guideline websites and publications for psychotropic treatments in the context of COVID-19 are referenced during the text, so that changes on those guidelines and eventual interaction between psychotropics and COVID-19 treatment medication can be reported and studied. Finally, we also provide a literature review of the latest known antiviral properties of psychotropics against SARS-CoV-2 as complementary information.

[Health professionals facing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: What are the mental health risks?] / Les professionnels de santé face à la pandémie de la maladie à coronavirus (COVID-19) : quels risques pour leur santé mentale ?

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused major sanitary crisis worldwide. Half of the world has been placed in quarantine. In France, this large-scale health crisis urgently triggered the restructuring and reorganization of health service delivery to support emergency services, medical intensive care units and continuing care units. Health professionals mobilized all their resources to provide emergency aid in a general climate of uncertainty. Concerns about the mental health, psychological adjustment, and recovery of health care workers treating and caring for patients with COVID-19 are now arising. The goal of the present article is to provide up-to-date information on potential mental health risks associated with exposure of health professionals to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Authors performed a narrative review identifying relevant results in the scientific and medical literature considering previous epidemics of 2003 (SARS-CoV-1) and 2009 (H1N1) with the more recent data about the COVID-19 pandemic. We highlighted most relevant data concerning the disease characteristics, the organizational factors and personal factors that may contribute to developing psychological distress and other mental health symptoms. RESULTS: The disease characteristics of the current COVID-19 pandemic provoked a generalized climate of wariness and uncertainty, particularly among health professionals, due to a range of causes such as the rapid spread of COVID-19, the severity of symptoms it can cause in a segment of infected individuals, the lack of knowledge of the disease, and deaths among health professionals. Stress may also be caused by organizational factors, such as depletion of personal protection equipment, concerns about not being able to provide competent care if deployed to new area, concerns about rapidly changing information, lack of access to up-to-date information and communication, lack of specific drugs, the shortage of ventilators and intensive care unit beds necessary to care for the surge of critically ill patients, and significant change in their daily social and family life. Further risk factors have been identified, including feelings of being inadequately supported, concerns about health of self, fear of taking home infection to family members or others, and not having rapid access to testing through occupational health if needed, being isolated, feelings of uncertainty and social stigmatization, overwhelming workload, or insecure attachment. Additionally, we discussed positive social and organizational factors that contribute to enhance resilience in the face of the pandemic. There is a consensus in all the relevant literature that health care professionals are at an increased risk of high levels of stress, anxiety, depression, burnout, addiction and post-traumatic stress disorder, which could have long-term psychological implications. CONCLUSIONS: In the long run, this tragic health crisis should significantly enhance our understanding of the mental health risk factors among the health care professionals facing the COVID-19 pandemic. Reporting information such as this is essential to plan future prevention strategies. Protecting health care professionals is indeed an important component of public health measures to address large-scale health crisis. Thus, interventions to promote mental well-being in health care professionals exposed to COVID-19 need to be immediately implemented, and to strengthen prevention and response strategies by training health care professionals on mental help and crisis management.

[Informations on psychotropics and their adaptations for patients suffering from mental disorders in France during the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic]. / Informations relatives aux psychotropes et à leurs adaptations éventuelles pour les patients souffrant de troubles psychiques en France pendant l'épidémie à SARS-CoV-2.

The 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic (SARS-CoV-2; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) has dramatic consequences on populations in terms of morbidity and mortality and in social terms, the general confinement of almost half of the world's population being a situation unprecedented in history, which is difficult today to measure the impact at the individual and collective levels. More specifically, it affects people with various risk factors, which are more frequent in patients suffering from psychiatric disorders. Psychiatrists need to know: (i) how to identify, the risks associated with the prescription of psychotropic drugs and which can prove to be counterproductive in their association with COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019), (ii) how to assess in terms of benefit/risk ratio, the implication of any hasty and brutal modification on psychotropic drugs that can induce confusion for a differential diagnosis with the evolution of COVID-19. We carried out a review of the literature aimed at assessing the specific benefit/risk ratio of psychotropic treatments in patients suffering from COVID-19. Clinically, symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 (fever, cough, dyspnea, digestive signs) can be caused by various psychotropic drugs and require vigilance to avoid false negatives and false positives. In infected patients, psychotropic drugs should be used with caution, especially in the elderly, considering the pulmonary risk. Lithium and Clozapine, which are the reference drugs in bipolar disorder and resistant schizophrenia, warrant specific attention. For these two treatments the possibility of a reduction in the dosage - in case of minimal infectious signs and in a situation, which does not allow rapid control - should ideally be considered taking into account the clinical response (even biological; plasma concentrations) observed in the face of previous dose reductions. Tobacco is well identified for its effects as an inducer of CYP1A2 enzyme. In a COVID+ patient, the consequences of an abrupt cessation of smoking, particularly related with the appearance of respiratory symptoms (cough, dyspnea), must therefore be anticipated for patients receiving psychotropics metabolized by CYP1A2. Plasma concentrations of these drugs are expected to decrease and can be related to an increase risk of relapse. The symptomatic treatments used in COVID-19 have frequent interactions with the most used psychotropics. If there is no curative treatment for infection to SARS-CoV-2, the interactions of the various molecules currently tested with several classes of psychotropic drugs (antidepressants, antipsychotics) are important to consider because of the risk of changes in cardiac conduction. Specific knowledge on COVID-19 remains poor today, but we must recommend rigor in this context in the use of psychotropic drugs, to avoid adding, in patients suffering from psychiatric disorders, potentially vulnerable in the epidemic context, an iatrogenic risk or loss of efficiency.

The three cultures of computational psychiatry

Introduction: Whether on the social, economic or scientific level, the digital sciences tend to change the conception of health. Computational Psychiatry, in the sense of a psychiatry based on “numbers” and information flow, has evolved rapidly. Methods: In this article, we propose the distinction between three fields of Computational Psychiatry. A first field corresponds to “Digital Psychiatry”, i.e. a field using digital, connected, tools in the main goal to collect digital data (especially important in this period of COVID-19). A second field corresponds to “Big Psychiatry”, or Big Data Psychiatry, which deals with large amounts of data, e.g. through recent methodologies in Machine learning or artificial intelligence. A third field corresponds to “Psychiatry Modeling”, which corresponds to the utilization of formal hypothesis (i.e. mathematical models) about brain and behavior (and their dysfunctions) in line with computational neurosciences. Results: The collection of digital data fits into methodologies of assessments and interventions in daily life, named Ecological Momentary Assessment. Of course, these digital data, which differ quantitatively and qualitatively from what psychiatry has been able to collect in its history, raise numerous epistemological and ethical questions. In the field of Big Psychiatry, most Machine learning techniques provide predictions rather than pathophysiological mechanisms, and these Machine learning techniques makes it possible to propose new delineations of disorders in a logic of stratified medicine. Lastly, resulting from studies in computational neurosciences, explanatory modeling of the brain (often called “Generative modeling”) proposes a number of theories to understand the functioning of the brain in psychiatric disorder (e.g. predictive coding, reinforcement learning, decision making theories, but also dynamical systems theories and graph and network theory). Discussion and conclusion: This field could offer a framework to characterize the origin of the psychiatric symptoms. Obviously, these three fields are highly mutually dependent, with for instance a data access provided by Digital Psychiatry (with Digital Tools), a data processing operated by Big Psychiatry (with Machine learning) and a formalization of hypotheses offered by Generative modeling of the brain from Psychiatry Modeling. This triple organization of Computational Psychiatry offers a robust framework for personalized and precision psychiatry, articulated around statistical and mathematical methodologies, focused on prediction and explanation and using qualitatively and quantitatively varied data. However, such a framework is necessarily geared to a common subject: the patient of the psychiatric clinic.