CoMET: a randomised controlled trial of co-commencement of metformin versus placebo as an adjunctive treatment to attenuate weight gain in patients with schizophrenia newly commenced on clozapine.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on interventions to minimise weight gain at clozapine commencement. We compared the effect of adjunctive metformin versus placebo at clozapine initiation. METHODS: People with schizophrenia commencing on clozapine were randomised to either metformin or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was difference in the change of body weight. Secondary outcomes included comparative rates of weight gain of more than 5%, overall weight gain/loss, and differences in metabolic and psychosis outcomes. RESULTS: The study was closed prematurely in March 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions. Ten participants were randomised to each of the metformin and placebo groups. Eight metformin group and five placebo group participants completed the trial and were included in the analysis. The study was insufficiently powered to detect difference between the metformin and placebo groups for the primary outcome of change in weight (0.09 kg vs 2.88 kg, p = 0.231). In terms of secondary outcomes, people in the metformin group were significantly less likely to gain >5% of their body weight (12.5% vs 80%, p = 0.015) and were more likely to lose weight (37.5% vs 0% p = 0.024) compared to placebo. There was no difference between the groups in terms of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). CONCLUSION: While limited by the forced premature closure of the trial due to COVID19, the findings from this randomised controlled trial are promising. Clozapine and metformin co-commencement may be a promising treatment to prevent clozapine-associated weight gain, especially given the low rates of ADRs associated with metformin. This supports the consideration of use of metformin to prevent weight gain in people initiated on clozapine; however, further studies are needed to confirm this finding. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12617001547336.

Teaching medical students remotely during a pandemic - what can psychiatry offer?

OBJECTIVE: The clinical teaching of psychiatry to medical students throughout the COVID-19 pandemic has presented opportunities for support, engagement and learning above and beyond usual practice. Like other teaching faculties, we needed to quickly adapt the course material to an online platform. However, for psychiatric teaching, it was also essential to find alternatives to patient interviewing, and to provide support and containment in uncertain times. We aim to describe our philosophical stance and framework for the delivery of our online course. CONCLUSIONS: Key components in the delivery of our modified course were the transition to online learning and assessment, developing a suite of surrogate clinical learning experiences, using simulated patients for online interviewing, and attention to student well-being whilst providing a supportive and contained environment for student learning. Supportive leadership and good communication assisted the teaching staff to deliver the course during COVID-19.

Occurrence, prevention, and management of the psychological effects of emerging virus outbreaks on healthcare workers: rapid review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the psychological effects on clinicians of working to manage novel viral outbreaks, and successful measures to manage stress and psychological distress. DESIGN: Rapid review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/Medline, PsycInfo, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar, searched up to late March 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Any study that described the psychological reactions of healthcare staff working with patients in an outbreak of any emerging virus in any clinical setting, irrespective of any comparison with other clinicians or the general population. RESULTS: 59 papers met the inclusion criteria: 37 were of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), eight of coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19), seven of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), three each of Ebola virus disease and influenza A virus subtype H1N1, and one of influenza A virus subtype H7N9. Of the 38 studies that compared psychological outcomes of healthcare workers in direct contact with affected patients, 25 contained data that could be combined in a pairwise meta-analysis comparing healthcare workers at high and low risk of exposure. Compared with lower risk controls, staff in contact with affected patients had greater levels of both acute or post-traumatic stress (odds ratio 1.71, 95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.29) and psychological distress (1.74, 1.50 to 2.03), with similar results for continuous outcomes. These findings were the same as in the other studies not included in the meta-analysis. Risk factors for psychological distress included being younger, being more junior, being the parents of dependent children, or having an infected family member. Longer quarantine, lack of practical support, and stigma also contributed. Clear communication, access to adequate personal protection, adequate rest, and both practical and psychological support were associated with reduced morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Effective interventions are available to help mitigate the psychological distress experienced by staff caring for patients in an emerging disease outbreak. These interventions were similar despite the wide range of settings and types of outbreaks covered in this review, and thus could be applicable to the current covid-19 outbreak.