Health Disparities and Comparison of Psychiatric Medication Use before and after the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown among General Practitioner Practices in the North East of England.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric medications play a vital role in the management of mental health disorders. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown limited access to primary care services, leading to an increase in remote assessment and treatment options to maintain social distancing. This study aimed to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown on the use of psychiatric medication in primary care settings. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective claims-based analysis of anonymized monthly aggregate practice-level data on anxiolytics and hypnotics use from 322 general practitioner (GP) practices in the North East of England, where health disparities are known to be higher. Participants were all residents who took anxiolytics and hypnotics from primary care facilities for two financial years, from 2019/20 to 2020/21. The primary outcome was the volume of Anxiolytics and Hypnotics used as the standardized, average daily quantities (ADQs) per 1000 patients. Based on the OpenPrescribing database, a random-effect model was applied to quantify the change in the level and trend of anxiolytics and hypnotics use after the UK national lockdown in March 2020. Practice characteristics extracted from the Fingertips data were assessed for their association with a reduction in medication use following the lockdown. RESULTS: This study in the North East of England found that GP practices in higher health disparate regions had a lower workload than those in less health disparate areas, potentially due to disparities in healthcare utilization and socioeconomic status. Patients in the region reported higher levels of satisfaction with healthcare services compared to the England average, but there were differences between patients living in higher versus less health disparate areas. The study highlights the need for targeted interventions to address health disparities, particularly in higher health disparate areas. The study also found that psychiatric medication use was significantly more common in residents living in higher health disparate areas. Daily anxiolytics and hypnotics use decreased by 14 items per 1000 patients between the financial years 2019/20 and 2020/21. A further nine items per 1000 decreased for higher health disparate areas during the UK national lockdown. CONCLUSIONS: People during the COVID-19 lockdown were associated with an increased risk of unmet psychiatric medication demand, especially for higher health disparate areas that had low-socioeconomic status.

Exploring Australian pharmacists' views toward reducing the risk of medicines-related harm in aged care residents.

Medicines-related harm is common in older people living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). Pharmacists offering services in the aged care sector may play a key role in reducing medicines-related injury. This study aimed to explore Australian pharmacists' views toward reducing the risk of medicines-related harm in older residents. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 Pharmacists across Australia providing services (e.g., through the provision of medication reviews, supplying medications, or being an embedded pharmacist) to RACFs identified via convenience sampling. Data were analyzed by thematic analysis using an inductive approach. Medicines-related harm was thought to occur due to polypharmacy, inappropriate medicines, anticholinergic activity, sedative load, and lack of reconciliation of medicines. Pharmacists reported that strong relationships, education of all stakeholders, and funding for pharmacists were facilitators in reducing medicines-related harm. Pharmacists stated that renal impairment, frailty, staff non-engagement, staff burnout, family pressure, and underfunding were barriers to reducing medicines-related harm. Additionally, the participants suggested pharmacist education, experience, and mentoring improve aged care interactions. Pharmacists believed that the irrational use of medicines increases harm in aged care residents, and medicines-specific (e.g., sedative load) and patient-specific risk factors (e.g., renal impairment) are associated with injuries in residents. To reduce medicines-related harm, the participants highlighted the need for increased funding for pharmacists, improving all stakeholders' awareness about medicines-associated harms through education, and ensuring collaboration between healthcare professionals caring for older residents.

Rethink analgo-sedation in digestive endoscopy: the role of scientific societies in tracing training path.

OBJECTIVE: The Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Reanimation and Intensive Care Medicine (SIAARTI) and the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) worked together to produce a joint Good Clinical Practice (GCP) on analgo-sedation in digestive endoscopy and launched a survey to support the document. The aim was to identify and describe the actual clinical practice of sedation in Italian digestive endoscopy units and offer material for a wider and more widespread discussion among anesthetists and endoscopists. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A national survey was planned, in order to support the statements of the GCP. Twelve thousand and five hundred questionnaires were sent to the members of SIAARTI and SIED in June 2020. RESULTS: A total of 662 forms (5.3%) returned completed. Highly complex procedures are performed according to 70% of respondents; daily anesthesiologist's assistance is guaranteed in 26%, for scheduled sessions in 14.5% and as needed in 8%. 69% of respondents declared not to have a dedicated team of anesthesiologists, while just 5% reported an anesthesiologist in charge. A complete monitoring system was assured by 70% of respondents. Dedicated pathways for COVID-19-positive patients were confirmed in <40% of the answers. With regard to moderate/deep sedation, 90% of respondents stated that an anesthetist decides timing and doses. Propofol was exclusively administered by anesthetists according to 94% of answers, and for 6% of respondents the endoscopist is allowed to administer propofol in presence of a dedicated nurse, but with a readily available anesthetist. Only 32.8% of respondents reported institutional training courses on procedural analgo-sedation. CONCLUSIONS: The need to provide patients scheduled for endoscopy procedures with an adequate analgo-sedation is becoming an increasing concern, well-known in almost all countries, but many factors compromise the quality of patient care. Results of a national survey would give strength to the need for a shared GCP in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Training and certification of non-anesthetist professionals should be one of the main ways to center the objective.

Refractory atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response as a heralding sign of propofol infusion syndrome in a patient with COVID-19.

A woman in her 40s was transferred to the medical intensive care unit due to severe COVID-19 infection causing respiratory failure. Her respiratory failure worsened rapidly, requiring intubation and continuous sedation with fentanyl and propofol infusions. She required progressive increases in the rates of the propofol infusion, as well as addition of midazolam and cisatracurium due to ventilator dyssynchrony. To support the high sedative doses, norepinephrine was administered as a continuous infusion. She developed atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response, with rates ranging between 180 and 200 s which did not respond to intravenous adenosine, metoprolol, synchronised cardioversion or amiodarone. A blood draw revealed lipaemia, and triglyceride levels were noted to be elevated to 2018. The patient developed high-grade fevers up to 105.3 and acute renal failure with severe mixed respiratory and metabolic acidosis, indicating propofol-related infusion syndrome. Propofol was promptly discontinued. An insulin-dextrose infusion was initiated which improved patient's fevers and hypertriglyceridaemia.

Prescription of anxiolytics, sedatives, hypnotics and antidepressants in outpatient, universal care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Portugal: a nationwide, interrupted time-series approach.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the population's mental health. However, its impact on the consumption of anxiolytics, sedatives, hypnotics and antidepressants remains to be evaluated. Hence, this article aims to assess the prescription trends of these drugs in Portugal, from January 2018 to March 2021, while critically examining whether the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on these prescription trends or not. METHODS: A nationwide interrupted time-series analysis of the prescription data of anxiolytics, sedatives, hypnotics and antidepressants in outpatient setting of the public health sector was conducted. The data encompassed the defined daily dose per month, age range and sex and were analysed following a segmented regression approach. RESULTS: The pandemic preceded an immediate reduction in the prescription of anxiolytics, sedatives and hypnotics for children and adolescents. However, an increasing trend throughout the pandemic has been noted in the prescription of these drugs, especially among adults aged 65 years or above. A drop in antidepressant prescription was observed as an immediate effect of the pandemic among male and female adolescents and elderly women. From March 2020 to March 2021, a decreasing prescription trend has been noted among men. CONCLUSIONS: When analysing specific genders and age ranges, differences can be noted, in terms of both immediate impact and prescribing trends throughout 1 year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of the pandemic on mental health and its association with the consumption trends of psychoactive drugs, and with the access to mental health treatments, should be further assessed.

Case report on intervention of sedative drug dependence with "simple and quick reconstruction method" in psychological crisis assistance.

INTRODUCTION: In the past, the problem of sedation drug dependence has been reported in psychological counseling cases, but it is rare to use the rapid reconstruction method for psychological emergency intervention. This article reports the applying of rapid reconstruction method in the intervention of sedation drug dependence during psychological emergency in the context of the Corona Virus Disease-2019 public health events. THE MAIN THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTIONS: Firstly present the problem including presenting experiences related to psychological stress, troubles of events, core problems and self-assessment based on a score of 0 to 10, secondly transfer information including normalizing relevant reactions and providing useful knowledge, thirdly cope with strategies of seeking internal and external resources, reassessing and making improvement plans, at last improve the summary which includes reviewing the process to summarize gains, initiate actions and commit. OUTCOMES: The author discussed the current psychological crisis with the patient, scored the tense and anxious situation, normalized the response to the patient and passed on the knowledge about controlling Corona Virus Disease-2019 prevention and sedative drugs, helped him find the method to adjust himself and the social resources he confided to his friends during the similar period, scored again, put forward the plan, reviewed the conversation process and made a commitment to not use sedative drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Through the "simple and quick reconstruction method," the patient was able to solve the problem of dependence on sedative drugs, relieve tension and anxiety, find resources, and keep living.

[Appropriate Use and Abuse of Sedative-Hypnotic Drugs].

The incidence of insomnia has been increasing in recent years. In addition, due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, more and more people are experiencing a variety of insomniac problems, including having difficulty in sleep initation, waking up too early, and short sleep duration. Chronic insomnia may seriously affect patients' life and work, increase their risks of developing physical and mental illnesses, and cause crushing social and economic burdens. Sedative-hypnotics, including benzodiazepine agonists, melatonin receptor agonists, orexin receptor antagonists, and antidepressants with hypnotic effects, are widely used to treat most patients suffering from insomnia. However, there is the phenomenon of the non-medical use and abuse of sedative-hypnotic drugs, especially benzodiazepine receptor agonists. The abuse of sedative-hypnotic drugs may lead to mental and physical dependence, cognitive impairment, depression and anxiety, as well as an increased risks of falls and death. Therefore, drug regulatory authorities in China and other countries have issued relevant policies to reinforce regulation. Herein, we reviewed the prevalent use and safety of sedative-hypnotic drugs and proposed suggestions concerning their appropriate use. Both the efficacy and safety of sedative-hypnotic drugs should be carefully considered so that patients suffering from insomnia receive thorough and prompt treatment and the problem of potential abuse of sedative-hypnotic drugs is assessed in an objective and scientific manner. We also hope to provide references for the standardized clinical use of insomnia drugs.

Management of long-COVID-19 patients with sleep disorders: practical advice to general practitioners.

Given the high prevalence of sleep disorders (e.g. insomnia) among long-COVID-19 patients (LC19Ps), approaches to tackle these disorders should not only depend on sleep specialists, but they should also involve general practitioners (GPs). Indeed, according to the World Health Organization, GPs should be on the front line in the management of LC19Ps. However, in real practice, little data with regard to the management of LC19Ps are available for GPs, which represents an embarrassing situation. Thus, the main aim of this correspondence was to provide GPs with some advice related to the management of sleep disorders in LC19Ps. The pieces advice presented in this correspondence are related to: i) Early and accurate recognition of sleep disorders, ii) General recommendations to manage sleep disorders in LC19Ps (e.g. encouraging vaccination against the virus); and iii) Specific recommendations, such as improving sleep hygiene (patients' behavior and diet), psychological or behavioral therapies (stimulus control therapy, relaxation, sleep restriction), promising tools (heart coherence, neurofeedback), and pharmacological treatment. The authors of this correspondence deeply believe that given the undesirable side effects associated with the use of hypnotics, the pharmacological approach must only be a "last resort". The authors believe that an important percentage of pharmacological prescriptions could be avoided if more focus is put on educating GPs to provide LC19Ps with more tools to deal with sleep disorders. The pieces advice presented in this correspondence are indispensable to resume the normal life of LC19Ps and to promote their mental health recovery.

Psychotropic consumption before and during COVID-19 in Asturias, Spain.

BACKGROUND: Spain as multiple other countries has been experiencing an increasing and sustained trend in the use of psychotropic medications since the mid 90s. Recent studies show public health measures implemented to control SARS-Cov2, such as mobility restrictions and the shutdown of nonessential activities increased mental suffering, even contributing to a higher number of anxiety, depression and insomnia disorders that could lead to an increase in the consumption of psychotropics. The aims were: 1) Evaluate the temporal trend in psychotropic consumption by pharmacological subgroup, sex, and age group 2) Estimate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic in the use of psychotropic drugs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study, retrieving all prescriptions of anxiolytics, hypnotics and sedatives, and antidepressants dispensed in pharmacies of Asturias (Northern Spain) for Primary Care patients for the period 2018-2021. We presented the data expressed in Daily Defined Doses (DDDs) for 1000 persons/day (DHD). To estimate changes in DHDs by year and age group we conducted two multiple linear regressions (one for males and one for females) for every pharmacological subgroup studied. Changes were considered statistically significant when the regression coefficient was p < 0.05. We used the Software R 4.1.0. RESULTS: For the studied period, the highest DHDs are for antidepressants, although all of the subgroups experienced an increase in consumption rates. Women consumed more psychotropic drugs than men. In 2021, 372 out of every 1000 women were taking daily 1 DDD of these drugs versus 184 out of every 1000 men. Consumption rates for all psychotropic drugs progressively increases with age. Conversely, the biggest increases in consumption were among the youngest age groups (0-14 and 15-29 years) for women, while for men there is more variability. The regression models suggest an upward trend in psychotropic consumption during all the period, especially remarkable from 2020, for both genders and all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: - The consumption of psychotropic drugs has gradually increased over the last 4 years, with a significant boost starting in 2020 for both sexes, matching the start of the SARS-COV2 pandemic and the implementation of strict Public Health measures to contain it. - The increase observed on children and adolescents is a matter of concern.

The clinical practice of palliative sedation in patients dying from COVID-19: a retrospective chart review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical experts experienced challenges in the practice of palliative sedation (PS) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rapid deterioration in patients' situation was observed while the indications for starting PS seemed to differ compared to other terminal patients. It is unclear to which extent clinical trajectories of PS differ for these COVID patients compared to regular clinical practice of PS. OBJECTIVES: To describe the clinical practice of PS in patients with COVID versus non-COVID patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data from a Dutch tertiary medical centre was performed. Charts of adult patients who died with PS during hospitalisation between March '20 and January '21 were included. RESULTS: During the study period, 73 patients received PS and of those 25 (34%) had a COVID infection. Refractory dyspnoea was reported as primary indication for starting PS in 84% of patients with COVID compared to 33% in the other group (p < 0.001). Median duration of PS was significantly shorter in the COVID group (5.8 vs. 17.1 h, p < 0.01). No differences were found for starting dosages, but median hourly dose of midazolam was higher in the COVID group (4.2 mg/hr vs. 2.4 mg/hr, p < 0.001). Time interval between start PS and first medication adjustments seemed to be shorter in COVID patients (1.5 vs. 2.9 h, p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: PS in COVID patients is characterized by rapid clinical deterioration in all phases of the trajectory. What is manifested by earlier dose adjustments and higher hourly doses of midazolam. Timely evaluation of efficacy is recommended in those patients.

Perceptions and practices regarding light sedation in mechanically ventilated patients: a survey on the attitudes of Brazilian critical care physicians. / Percepções e práticas sobre sedação superficial em pacientes sob ventilação mecânica: um inquérito sobre as atitudes de médicos intensivistas brasileiros.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the knowledge and perceived attitudes toward pharmacologic interventions for light sedation in mechanically ventilated patients and to understand the current gaps comparing current practice with the recommendations of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional cohort study based on the application of an electronic questionnaire focused on sedation practices. RESULTS: A total of 303 critical care physicians provided responses to the survey. Most respondents reported routine use of a structured sedation scale (281; 92.6%). Almost half of the respondents reported performing daily interruptions of sedation (147; 48.4%), and the same percentage of participants (48.0%) agreed that patients are often over sedated. During the COVID-19 pandemic, participants reported that patients had a higher chance of receiving midazolam compared to before the pandemic (178; 58.8% versus 106; 34.0%; p = 0.05), and heavy sedation was more common during the COVID-19 pandemic (241; 79.4% versus 148; 49.0%; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: This survey provides valuable data on the perceived attitudes of Brazilian intensive care physicians regarding sedation. Although daily interruption of sedation was a well-known concept and sedation scales were often used by the respondents, insufficient effort was put into frequent monitoring, use of protocols and systematic implementation of sedation strategies. Despite the perception of the benefits linked with light sedation, there is a need to identify improvement targets to propose educational strategies to improve current practices.

OBJETIVO: Caracterizar o conhecimento e as atitudes percebidas em relação às intervenções farmacológicas para sedação superficial em pacientes sob ventilação mecânica e entender as lacunas atuais, comparando a prática atual com as recomendações das Diretrizes de Prática Clínica para a Prevenção e Tratamento da Dor, Agitação/Sedação, Delirium, Imobilidade e Interrupção do Sono em Pacientes Adultos na Unidade de Terapia Intensiva. MÉTODOS: Trata-se de estudo de coorte transversal baseado na aplicação de um questionário eletrônico centrado nas práticas de sedação. RESULTADOS: Responderam ao inquérito 303 médicos intensivistas. A maioria dos entrevistados relatou uso de rotina de uma escala de sedação estruturada (281; 92,6%). Quase metade dos entrevistados relatou realizar interrupções diárias da sedação (147; 48,4%), e a mesma percentagem de participantes (48,0%) concordou com a afirmação de que os pacientes costumam ser sedados em excesso. Durante a pandemia da COVID-19, os participantes relataram que os pacientes tinham maior chance de receber midazolam do que antes da pandemia (178; 58,8% versus 106; 34,0%; p = 0,05); além disso, a sedação profunda foi mais comum durante a pandemia da COVID-19 (241; 79,4% versus 148; 49,0%; p = 0,01). CONCLUSÃO: Este inquérito fornece dados valiosos sobre as atitudes percebidas dos médicos intensivistas brasileiros em relação à sedação. Embora a interrupção diária da sedação fosse um conceito bem conhecido e as escalas de sedação fossem frequentemente utilizadas pelos entrevistados, foi colocado esforço insuficiente no monitoramento frequente, no uso de protocolos e na implementação sistemática de estratégias de sedação. Apesar da percepção dos benefícios associados à sedação superficial, há necessidade de identificar metas de melhoria para se proporem estratégias educacionais que melhorem as práticas atuais.

Impact of CytoSorb Hemoadsorption on Sedation Requirements in Patients With Severe COVID-19 on Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

Hemoadsorption with CytoSorb has been used as an adjunct in the treatment of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related respiratory failure. It remains unknown if CytoSorb hemoadsorption will alter sedative and analgesic dosing in critically ill patients on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). We conducted a retrospective review of patients with severe COVID-19 requiring VV-ECMO for respiratory support. Patients who were enrolled in a clinical study of CytoSorb were compared with patients on VV-ECMO alone. Data were collected for the 72-hour CytoSorb therapy and an additional 72 hours post-CytoSorb, or a corresponding control time period. Sedative and analgesic doses were totaled for each day and converted to midazolam or fentanyl equivalents, respectively. The primary endpoint, change in sedative and analgesic requirements over time, were compared using a two-way mixed analysis of variance. Of the 30 patients cannulated for VV-ECMO for COVID-19, 4 were excluded, leaving 8 patients in the CytoSorb arm and 18 in the Control. There was no effect of CytoSorb therapy on midazolam equivalents over the 72-hour therapy (p = 0.71) or the 72 hours post-CytoSorb (p = 0.11). In contrast, there was a significant effect of CytoSorb therapy on fentanyl equivalents over the first 72 hours (p = 0.01), but this was not consistent over the 72-hours post-CytoSorb (p = 0.23). CytoSorb therapy led to significant increases in analgesic requirements without impacting sedative requirements. Further research is needed to define the relevance of CytoSorb hemoadsorption on critical care pharmacotherapy.

Use of volatile anesthetics for sedation in the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national survey in France (VOL'ICU 2 study).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the number of patients in ICUs leading to a worldwide shortage of the intravenous sedative agents obligating physicians to find alternatives including inhaled sedation. Inhaled sedation in French ICU has been previously explored in 2019 (VOL'ICU study). This survey was designed to explore the use of inhaled sedation two years after our first survey and to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the use of inhaled sedation. METHODS: We designed a national survey, contacting medical directors of French ICUs between June and October 2021. Over a 50-item questionnaire, the survey covered the characteristics of the ICU, data on inhaled sedation, and practical aspects of inhaled ICU sedation for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Answers were compared with the previous survey, VOL'ICU. RESULTS: Among the 405 ICUs contacted, 25% of the questionnaires were recorded. Most ICU directors (87%) knew about the use of inhaled ICU sedation and 63% of them have an inhaled sedation's device in their unit. The COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of inhaled sedation in French ICUs. The main reasons said by the respondent were "need for additional sedative" (62%), "shortage of intravenous sedatives" (38%) and "involved in a clinical trial" (30%). The main reasons for not using inhaled ICU sedation were "device not available" (76%), "lack of familiarity" (60%) and "no training for the teams" (58%). More than 70% of respondents were overall satisfied with the use of inhaled sedation. Almost 80% of respondents stated that inhaled sedation was a seducing alternative to intravenous sedation for management of COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: The use of inhaled sedation in ICU has increased fastly in the last 2 years, and is frequently associated with a good satisfaction among the users. Even if the COVID-19 pandemic could have impacted the widespread use of inhaled sedation, it represents an alternative to intravenous sedation for more and more physicians.

The impact of the coronavirus pandemic on sedation in critical care: volatile anesthetics in the ICU.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To reflect on the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on sedation for mechanically ventilated patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Shortages of intravenous sedatives during coronavirus pandemic renewed interest in using widely available inhaled anaesthetics for sedation of critically ill patients. Universally used for surgical anaesthesia, inhaled anaesthetics may offer therapeutic advantages in patients with acute lung injury with good sedation profiles, rapid clearance and lower lung inflammation in pilot trials. However, enabling ICU sedation with inhaled anaesthetics required technological and human resource innovation during the chaos of the global pandemic. The disruption of standard sedation practices is challenging during normal operations, yet pandemic facilitated innovation in this field by fostering cross-discipline collaboration supported by healthcare professionals, hospitals, research institutes and regulators. SUMMARY: Although further research is needed to establish the role of inhaled anaesthetics in critical care sedation toolkit, maintaining the spirit of innovation ignited during the recent coronavirus pandemic would require ongoing collaboration and streamlining of processes among healthcare, research and regulatory institutions.

[Clinical aspects of the use of imidazopyridine derivatives in the treatment of sleep disorders associated with post-COVID syndrome]. / Klinicheskie aspekty primeneniya preparatov gruppy imidazopiridinov v terapii narushenii sna, assotsiirovannykh s postkovidnym sindromom.

In 2019, a pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus began. The fight against COVID-19 required the introduction of a number of restrictive measures, in particular the introduction of quarantine for the population and isolation of the sick, which, along with the direct effect of the virus on the nervous system, led to a significant spread of sleep disorders. In this regard, questions have become relevant about the choice of drugs for the correction of sleep disorders, about which sleeping pills will be safe in conditions of acute illness and during the recovery period after COVID-19. The article discusses the prevalence and therapy of insomnia in patients with acute COVID-19 and in patients with postcovid syndrome. The pharmacological effects and safety of zolpidem, a non-benzodiazepine short-acting hypnotic drug belonging to the class of imidazopyridines, which is used in short courses for both acute and transient insomnia and chronic insomnia, are described. The data on the ability of zolpidem to improve memory after a night's sleep are given. The possibility of its use in acute COVID-19 and postcovid syndrome is being evaluated.

Tracheotomy in ventilator-dependent patients with COVID-19: a cross-sectional study of analgesia and sedative requirements.

OBJECTIVE: During March 2020 in the United States, demand for sedatives increased by 91%, that for analgesics rose by 79%, and demand for neuromuscular blockers increased by 105%, all owing to the number of COVID-19 cases requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (MV). We hypothesize that analgesic and sedative requirements decrease following tracheotomy in this patient population. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we conducted a retrospective chart review to identify patients with COVID-19 who underwent tracheotomy (T) at an academic medical center between March 2020 and January 2021. We used a paired Student t-test to compare total oral morphine equivalents (OMEs), total lorazepam equivalents, 24-hour average dexmedetomidine dosage in µg/kg/hour, and 24-hour average propofol dosage in µg/kg/minute on days T-1 and T+2 for each patient. RESULTS: Of 50 patients, 46 required opioids before and after tracheotomy (mean decrease of 49.4 mg OMEs). Eight patients required benzodiazepine infusion (mean decrease of 45.1 mg lorazepam equivalents. Fifteen patients required dexmedetomidine infusion (mean decrease 0.34 µg/kg/hour). Seventeen patients required propofol (mean decrease 20.5 µg/kg/minute). CONCLUSIONS: When appropriate personal protective equipment is available, use of tracheotomy in patients with COVID-19 who require MV may help to conserve medication supplies in times of extreme shortages.

Use of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Psychostimulants, and Sedatives before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic among Students in 40 European Countries.

In March 2020, the WHO announced the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been ongoing for over 2 years. To stop the spread of the virus, the governments of many countries decided to introduce reasonable social restrictions that were suitable for pandemic waves. This led to radical changes in people's lives, especially among students, who are very active in society. Before COVID-19, being of student age was associated with the highest frequency of stimulants use. It is important to note that drugs are taken disparately in various areas. Therefore, using the Computer-Assisted Web Interview type of study, the impact of the pandemic on the use of alcohol, cannabinoids, psychostimulants (e.g., amphetamine, methamphetamine, ecstasy) and sedatives (e.g., zolpidem, zopiclone, alprazolam, lorazepam, etc.) was assessed among students from European countries. The questionnaire included single- and multiple-answer questions. The first part concerned sociodemographic questions, while the second included questions about the use of stimulants in the last 3 months prior to participation in the study. Distribution of the survey covered the period from 31 January 2016 to 30 April 2021. A total of 17,594 European students participated in the study. The vast majority of participants were women (80.4%) and students of non-medical universities (77.2%) living in Eastern European countries (86.1%). Of all students, 15,613 (89.6%) reported alcohol drinking, 2538 (14.1%) the use of cannabinoids, 650 (3.6%) psychostimulants, and 2252 (12.5%) sedatives in the past three months. It has been shown that women are far less likely to use alcohol (OR 0.81), psychostimulants (OR 0.44) and cannabinoids (OR 0.49), while they are more likely to use sedatives (OR 1.41). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the consumption of alcohol (OR 0.55) and psychostimulants (OR 0.72) decreased and that of sleep medications increased (OR 1.17). To conclude, the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the pattern of stimulants used by students in European countries. The restriction of social interactions contributed to the decrease in the consumption of alcohol and psychostimulants but increased the use of sedatives and the frequency of their use. Women were found to use sedatives more often, while men preferred to drink alcohol and use cannabinoids or psychostimulants. It has also been shown that students of Central and Eastern Europe more often use alcohol and sedatives, while in Southern European countries psychostimulants and cannabinoids are preferred.

Actionable Predictive Factors of Homelessness in a Psychiatric Population: Results from the REHABase Cohort Using a Machine Learning Approach.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of knowledge regarding the actionable key predictive factors of homelessness in psychiatric populations. Therefore, we used a machine learning model to explore the REHABase database (for rehabilitation database-n = 3416), which is a cohort of users referred to French psychosocial rehabilitation centers in France. METHODS: First, we analyzed whether the different risk factors previously associated with homelessness in mental health were also significant risk factors in the REHABase. In the second step, we used unbiased classification and regression trees to determine the key predictors of homelessness. Post hoc analyses were performed to examine the importance of the predictors and to explore the impact of cognitive factors among the participants. RESULTS: &nbsp;First, risk factors that were previously found to be associated with homelessness were also significant risk factors in the REHABase. Among all the variables studied with a machine learning approach, the most robust variable in terms of predictive value was the nature of the psychotropic medication (sex/sex relative mean predictor importance: 22.8, σ = 3.4). Post hoc analyses revealed that first-generation antipsychotics (15.61%; p < 0.05 FDR corrected), loxapine (16.57%; p < 0.05 FWER corrected) and hypnotics (17.56%; p < 0.05 FWER corrected) were significantly associated with homelessness. Antidepressant medication was associated with a protective effect against housing deprivation (9.21%; p < 0.05 FWER corrected). CONCLUSIONS: Psychotropic medication was found to be an important predictor of homelessness in our REHABase cohort, particularly loxapine and hypnotics. On the other hand, the putative protective effect of antidepressants confirms the need for systematic screening of depression and anxiety in the homeless population.