Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 36
Filter
1.
BMC Psychiatry ; 22(1): 486, 2022 07 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1938298

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic that began in late 2019 is caused by infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2. Since that time, many neuropsychiatric sequelae including psychosis, neurocognitive disorders, and mood disorders have been observed. The mechanism underlying these effects are currently unknown, however several mechanisms have been proposed. CASE PRESENTATION: A 47-year-old woman with past medical history including hypertension and premenstrual syndrome but no psychiatric history presented to the psychiatric hospital with new onset mania. She had developed symptoms of COVID-19 and was later diagnosed with COVID pneumonia. During quarantine, she reported high levels of stress, grief, and anxiety. Seventeen days into her illness, she developed altered mental status, sleeplessness, elevated mood, talkativeness, and preoccupations. Her spouse was concerned for her safety and contacted emergency medical services who brought her to the psychiatric hospital. She had not slept for five days prior to her arrival and exhibited flight of ideas, talkativeness, and grandiose ideas. She reported a family history of bipolar disorder but no past manic or depressive episodes. She was diagnosed with acute mania and stabilized using antipsychotics, a mood stabilizer, and a short course of a benzodiazepine. Many of her symptoms improved, including her elevated mood, increased activity level, and flight of ideas though she continued to have decreased need for sleep as her benzodiazepine was tapered. She and her partner were agreeable to transitioning to outpatient care after her mood stabilized. CONCLUSIONS: This report emphasizes the link between COVID-19 and neuropsychiatric symptoms. Acute mania has no recognized association with COVID-19, but similar presentations have been reported. The patient's age and time to onset of psychiatric symptoms is consistent with previous reports. Given the growing body of evidence, this association warrants further investigation. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 causes systemic inflammation and has been shown to be neurotropic. In addition, patients undergoing quarantine experience anxiety related to the disease in addition to social isolation. Psychiatric practitioners should be aware of these effects and advocate for psychiatric evaluation following COVID-19 infection. Understanding the sequelae of infectious disease is crucial for responding to future pandemics.


Subject(s)
Antipsychotic Agents , Bipolar Disorder , COVID-19 , Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use , Benzodiazepines/therapeutic use , Bipolar Disorder/complications , Bipolar Disorder/diagnosis , COVID-19/complications , Female , Humans , Mania , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Ann Am Thorac Soc ; 19(7): 1158-1168, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1923731

ABSTRACT

Rationale: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a dramatic increase in the number of survivors of critical illness. These survivors are at increased risk for physical, psychological, and cognitive impairments known collectively as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). Little is known about the prevalence of PICS in COVID-19 survivors. Objectives: To report the prevalence of physical, psychological, and cognitive impairment among COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) survivors receiving follow-up care in an ICU recovery clinic, to assess for associations between PICS and ICU-related factors, and to compare the cohort of ICU survivors who attended a post-ICU clinic with a cohort of ICU survivors who did not. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of COVID-19 ICU survivors admitted from March to May 2020 who were subsequently seen in a post-ICU recovery clinic in New York City. We abstracted medical chart data on available clinical screening instruments for physical, psychological, and cognitive impairment. Associations between these outcomes and care-related variables were tested. Baseline characteristics and in-hospital treatments of the post-ICU clinic cohort were compared with those of COVID-19 ICU survivors from the same institution who were not seen in the post-ICU clinic. Results: Eighty-seven COVID-19 ICU survivors were seen in our post-ICU recovery clinic. The median age was 62 years, and 74% were male. The median length of hospitalization was 51 days, and the median length of ICU stay was 22 days. At the post-ICU follow-up visit, 29%, 21%, and 13% of patients reported clinically significant levels of depressive symptoms, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, respectively. Twenty-five percent had cognitive impairment. The overall prevalence of PICS was 90%. There were no associations between length of ICU stay, delirium, and exposure to benzodiazepines, steroids, or systemic paralytics with positive screening results for physical, psychological, or cognitive impairment. Baseline characteristics and ICU-related factors were similar in the cohort of COVID-19 ICU survivors who attended the ICU recovery clinic and those who did not. Conclusions: PICS is common in COVID-19 survivors. We did not find any association with length of ICU stay or the use of benzodiazepines, steroids, or paralytics.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Benzodiazepines , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Critical Care/methods , Critical Illness/epidemiology , Critical Illness/psychology , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , New York City/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Survivors/psychology
3.
Drugs Aging ; 39(6): 467-475, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1899385

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To limit the introduction of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) into nursing homes, restrictive measures and social distancing were implemented; however, these caused an increase in affective disorders such as depression and anxiety and an alteration of the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia. Therefore, it is expected that prescription trends of psychotropic drugs in nursing homes during the pandemic may have changed significantly. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare patterns of prescribing psychotropic drugs in nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic to those of the pre-pandemic period. METHODS: This cross-sectional multicenter study was conducted in geriatric units and psychogeriatric units in seven nursing homes in Gipuzkoa, Spain. On 1 March, 2020, data regarding 511 residents in geriatric units and 163 in psychogeriatric units were recorded. This study examined utilization percentages for psychotropic drugs before the pandemic (April 2018-March 2020) and during the pandemic (April 2020-March 2021) in light of projected usage based on previous years. Following the Anatomical, Therapeutic, Chemical Classification System, four therapeutic groups were analyzed: antipsychotics (N05A), benzodiazepines (N05B and N05C), antidepressants (N06A), and antiepileptic drugs (N03A). RESULTS: In the case of geriatric units, a downward trend of prescription was reversed for antipsychotics (-0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.41, 0.60). Benzodiazepine use also decreased less than expected (-2.00; 95% CI -3.00, -1.00). Antidepressant use increased more than predicted (0.02; 95% CI -0.97, 1.01), as did antiepileptic drug use (2.93; 95% CI 2.27, 3.60). In the psychogeriatric units, the drop in antipsychotic utilization was less than expected (-2.31; 95% CI -3.68, -0.93). Although it was expected that the prescription of benzodiazepines would decrease, usage remained roughly the same (-0.28; 95% CI -2.40, 2.34). Utilization of antidepressants (8.57; 95% CI 6.89, 10.24) and antiepileptic drugs (6.10; 95% CI 3.20, 9.00) increased significantly, which was expected, based on the forecast. CONCLUSIONS: For all categories, usage of psychotropic drugs was higher than anticipated based on the forecast; this increase might be related to the worsening of emotional and behavioral disorders caused by the restrictive measures of the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Antipsychotic Agents , COVID-19 , Aged , Anticonvulsants/therapeutic use , Antidepressive Agents/therapeutic use , Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use , Benzodiazepines , COVID-19/drug therapy , Cross-Sectional Studies , Drug Prescriptions , Drug Utilization , Humans , Nursing Homes , Pandemics , Psychotropic Drugs/therapeutic use
5.
J Hosp Med ; 17(7): 539-544, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1866544

ABSTRACT

Opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing after COVID-19 hospitalization is not well understood. We aimed to characterize opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing among naïve patients hospitalized for COVID and to identify the risk factors associated with a new prescription at discharge. In this retrospective study of patients across 39 Michigan hospitals from March to November 2020, we identified 857 opioid- and benzodiazepine-naïve patients admitted with COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation. Of these, 22% received opioids, 13% received benzodiazepines, and 6% received both during the hospitalization. At discharge, 8% received an opioid prescription, and 3% received a benzodiazepine prescription. After multivariable adjustment, receipt of an opioid or benzodiazepine prescription at discharge was associated with the length of inpatient opioid or benzodiazepine exposure. These findings suggest that hospitalization represents a risk of opioid or benzodiazepine initiation among naïve patients, and judicious prescribing should be considered to prevent opioid-related harms.


Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid , COVID-19 , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Benzodiazepines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospitalization , Humans , Retrospective Studies
6.
Br J Clin Pharmacol ; 88(4): 1567-1589, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1840337

ABSTRACT

AIMS: Growing evidence suggests an association between the use of sedative-hypnotic medications and risk of dementia. The aim of this study is to examine this association using a meta-analysis approach. METHODS: MEDLINE (PubMed) and Scopus were systematically searched for studies published in English only. The quality of studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and an overall odds ratio was pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 35 articles were included in the analysis. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) for dementia from all records were (OR; 1.33, 95% CI 1.19-1.49) for benzodiazepine (BZD) combined use (Subgroup-1), (OR: 1.46, 95% CI 1.23-1.73) for short-acting BZD use (Subgroup-2), (OR: 1.72, 95% CI 1.48-1.99) for long-acting BZD use (Subgroup-3), (OR: 1.13, 95% CI 0.97-1.32) for BZDs without specification of duration of action (Subgroup-4), (OR: 1.64, 95% CI 1.13-2.38) for the combined BZDs and Z-drugs, (OR: 1.43, 95% CI 1.17-1.74) for Z-drugs only, (OR: 1.14, 95% CI 0.88-1.46) for antidepressant use, (OR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.68-1.39) for antipsychotic use and (OR: 0.98, 95% CI 0.85-1.13) for anticonvulsant use. When sensitivity analysis was performed, association between overall use of BZDs and short-acting BZDs with the increased risk of dementia disappeared after exclusion of studies that were not adjusted for age covariate (OR: 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.44) and (OR: 1.22, 95% CI 0.75-2.01), respectively. Adjustment for protopathic bias by introduction of a lag period showed no evidence of increased risk of dementia with the use of BZDs (Subgroup-1) (OR: 1.14, 95% CI 0.82-1.58), Z-drugs (OR: 1.29, 95% CI 0.78-2.13), and combined BZDs and Z-drugs (OR: 1.51, 95% CI 0.91-2.53). Combined use of BZDs and Z-drugs showed more positive association when only studies of non-user design were analysed (OR: 2.75, 95% CI 2.23-3.39). CONCLUSIONS: All the investigated sedative-hypnotics showed no association with increased risk of dementia except for BZDs. However, the observed association with BZDs did not persist after exclusion of studies with potential reverse causation and confounding by indication. Therefore, this association needs to be assessed carefully in future research.


Subject(s)
Dementia , Hypnotics and Sedatives , Antidepressive Agents/therapeutic use , Benzodiazepines/adverse effects , Dementia/chemically induced , Dementia/drug therapy , Dementia/epidemiology , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/adverse effects , Odds Ratio
7.
Lancet Psychiatry ; 9(3): 199-210, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1747370

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There are no approved pharmacological therapies to support treatment of the core communication and socialisation difficulties associated with autism spectrum disorder in adults. We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of balovaptan, a vasopressin 1a receptor antagonist, versus placebo in autistic adults. METHODS: V1aduct was a phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, conducted at 46 sites across six countries (the USA, the UK, France, Italy, Spain, and Canada). Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older with an intelligence quotient (IQ) of 70 or higher, and met the criteria for moderate-to-severe autism spectrum disorder (DSM-5 and Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule). Participants were randomly allocated (1:1), with an independent interactive voice or web-based response system, to receive balovaptan (10 mg) or placebo daily for 24 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by an individual's baseline Vineland-II two-domain composite (2DC) score (<60 or ≥60), sex, region (North America or rest of world), and age (<25 years or ≥25 years). Participants, study site personnel, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in Vineland-II 2DC score (the mean composite score across the Vineland-II socialisation and communication domains) at week 24. The primary analysis was done with ANCOVA in the intention-to-treat population. The V1aduct study was terminated for futility after around 50% of participants completed the week 24 visit. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03504917). FINDINGS: Between Aug 8, 2018, and July 1, 2020, 540 people were screened for eligibility, of whom 322 were allocated to receive balovaptan (164 [51%]) or placebo (158 [49%]). One participant from the balovaptan group was not treated before trial termination and was excluded from the analysis. 60 participants in the balovaptan group and 55 in the placebo group discontinued treatment before week 24. The sample consisted of 64 (20%) women and 257 (80%) men, with 260 (81%) participants from North America and 61 (19%) from Europe. At baseline, mean age was 27·6 years (SD 9·7) and mean IQ score was 104·8 (18·1). Two (1%) participants were American Indian or Alaska Native, eight (2%) were Asian, 15 (5%) were Black or African American, 283 (88%) were White, four (1%) were of multiple races, and nine (3%) were of unknown race. Mean baseline Vineland-II 2DC scores were 67·2 (SD 15·3) in the balovaptan group and 66·2 (17·7) in the placebo group. The interim futility analysis showed no improvement for balovaptan versus placebo in terms of Vineland-II 2DC score at week 24 compared with baseline, with a least-squares mean change of 2·91 (SE 1·52) in the balovaptan group (n=79) and 4·75 (1·60) in the placebo group (n=71; estimated treatment difference -1·84 [95% CI -5·15 to 1·48]). In the final analysis, mean change from baseline in Vineland-II 2DC score at week 24 was 4·56 (SD 10·85) in the balovaptan group (n=111) and 6·83 (12·18) in the placebo group (n=99). Balovaptan was well tolerated, with similar proportions of participants with at least one adverse event in the balovaptan group (98 [60%] of 163) and placebo group (104 [66%] of 158). The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis (14 [9%] in the balovaptan group and 19 [12%] in the placebo group), diarrhoea (11 [7%] and 14 [9%]), upper respiratory tract infection (ten [6%] and nine [6%]), insomnia (five [3%] and eight [5%]), oropharyngeal pain (five [3%] and eight [5%]), and dizziness (two [1%] and ten [6%]). Serious adverse events were reported for two (1%) participants in the balovaptan group (one each of suicidal ideation and schizoaffective disorder), and five (3%) participants in the placebo group (one each of suicidal ideation, panic disorder, limb abscess, urosepsis, colitis [in the same participant with urosepsis], and death by suicide). No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Balovaptan did not improve social communication in autistic adults. This study provides insights into challenges facing autism spectrum disorder trials, including the considerable placebo response and the selection of appropriate outcome measures. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.


Subject(s)
Antidiuretic Hormone Receptor Antagonists/administration & dosage , Autism Spectrum Disorder/drug therapy , Benzodiazepines/administration & dosage , Communication Disorders/drug therapy , Pyridines/administration & dosage , Triazoles/administration & dosage , Adult , Antidiuretic Hormone Receptor Antagonists/adverse effects , Autism Spectrum Disorder/complications , Benzodiazepines/adverse effects , Communication Disorders/etiology , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , Pyridines/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome , Triazoles/adverse effects
8.
Psychiatriki ; 33(1): 17-20, 2022 Mar 28.
Article in English, Greek | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1732591

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic is associated with increased levels of anxiety, fear, sadness, difficulty adjusting, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidality, both in the general population and specific subgroups. The presence of this type of psychopathology increases the risk of involvement with or worsens the use of addictive substances and alcohol as a maladaptive coping strategy.1 According to these data, people with substance use disorders are a population at high risk for COVID-19 infection and serious illness. Α large controlled retrospective case study in the US found that people with substance use disorders are significantly more vulnerable to COVID-19 and its complications (primarily those with opioid use disorder OR = 10.21 and with tobacco use disorder OR = 8.25), and that the course and outcome of the disease (hospitalization, death) was worse than in non-dependent individuals. The main culprits are increased physical co-morbidity (frequent respiratory and cardiovascular problems), poor health and living conditions, marginalization and difficulties in accessing health services. 2,3 Ιnternational epidemiological data during the first months of the pandemic regarding the use of addictive substances do not lead to safe conclusions. A cross-sectional online epidemiological study conducted on a sample of 36,538 adults from 21 European countries between April and July 2020 found an overall decrease in alcohol use, which was mainly attributed to the reduction of heavy episodic consumption, while at the same time an increase in alcohol consumption among people with severe alcohol use was recorded. Τhe use of cannabis and nicotine showed increasing trends, as well as the use of cocaine, but to a lesser extent, while the use of MDMA (ecstasy) showed a decrease.4 In a review of 45 cross-sectional studies conducted between December 2019 and November 2020, alcohol use was on the rise overall, despite geographical variations, as was the use of other addictive substances, cannabis in particular.5 It should be noted that those who increased alcohol use during quarantine were those exhibiting higher levels of negative emotionality mechanisms.6 In Greece, an online cross-sectional survey in April 2020 in the general population during the first lockdown showed a reduction in alcohol use (43.7% of alcohol users reduced or quit), a reduction in cannabis (67.3% quit), while 33.3% increased nicotine use. These changes were attributed to the limitation of alcohol availability, social distancing, changes in daily routine and income reduction.7,8 Also, wastewater samples from Athens, analyzed by the Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry of EKPA, showed a significant increase in the use of cocaine (67%), amphetamine (350%) and methamphetamine (37%), and a decrease in the use of MDMA (- 38%) during the first lockdown, compared to the corresponding period of the previous year.9 Analysis of wastewater samples from other European cities "suggest that levels of use of most drugs appear generally lower during the initial lockdowns, but then appear to bounce back once lockdown was lifted. A comparison with 2019 appears to suggest similar overall consumption of most drugs, and in several cities possibly even higher levels, based on this data source. Exceptions here appear to be MDMA and methamphetamine, two drugs for which the levels observed in 2020 appear lower in most of the participating cities".10,11 There were also changes in the locations of use of the substances, as with the periodic restrictions the use was transferred mainly at home and in open public spaces; in some cases, it was associated with increased intravenous use and cases of intoxication. Finally, intermittent difficulties in drug availability and trafficking have led users to search for other substances, increase experimentation and multidrug use, and make online purchases. In addition, there is concern about the increasing abuse of benzodiazepines, which are either diverted from therapeutic use or appear on the illicit market, often as new benzodiazepines.10,12 According to the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), "the drug market has been remarkably resilient to disruption caused by the pandemic" … Drug trafficking has adapted to the new conditions with changes in routes and methods of trafficking, and by further enhancing the digital presence of the drug market… "Any reductions in drug consumption seen during the initial lockdowns rapidly disappeared as social distancing measures were eased. In general terms, there appears to have been less consumer interest in drugs usually associated with recreational events, such as MDMA, and greater interest in drugs linked with home use. However, the easing of restrictions … during the summer was associated with a rebound in the levels of use". Also, "survey data suggest that those using drugs occasionally prior to COVID-19 may have reduced or even ceased their use during the pandemic, but more-regular users may have increased their drug consumption".10 Measures taken to control the pandemic have reduced and modified the mental health and addiction treatment services provided. Although services have been adequately restored, there has initially been a 60% reduction in the availability and provision of detoxification services in Europe.13 Live contact, mainly at group level, was significantly reduced or stopped altogether for a long period, as well as the frequency of individual appointments. Therapeutic programs sought to respond to the new conditions using technology and telemedicine, providing online group support and psychotherapy. Substitution treatment programs have become more flexible by providing long-term pharmaceutical substitutes (take home) to prevent users from moving. There have also been facilitations in prescribing by treating physicians. Thus, the addicts' contact with the treatment process was maintained, but it was insufficient to meet their increased needs during this period. In conclusion, it should be noted that substance use appears to have an autonomous dynamism in relation to the pandemic and the consequent psychopathology, being in a "loose" causal relationship with it. Therefore, hasty and untimely generalizations should be avoided, and easy conclusions should not be drawn through extrapolations from previous socio-economic crises of different types or through partial spatiotemporal understandings, which are usually presented by the media in the form of negative alarming information.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cocaine , Methamphetamine , N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine , Substance-Related Disorders , Adult , Benzodiazepines , COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Nicotine , Pandemics/prevention & control , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Substance-Related Disorders/epidemiology , Waste Water
9.
Australas Psychiatry ; 30(3): 334-337, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1685906

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate whether COVID-19 has led to increased usage of benzodiazepines in acute psychiatric settings. METHOD: We evaluated the rates of benzodiazepine usage in two acute psychiatric inpatient units over a period of two years, 2019 and 2020 (the year of the pandemic). Rates of oral atorvastatin usage over the same period were used as a comparator. RESULTS: We saw a significant increase in the usage of benzodiazepines in the period between April and December 2020 compared to the same period in 2019 despite a decline in the total number of admissions in 2020. Usage peaked further at the time of eased pandemic restrictions which coincided with higher rates of emergency department mental health (MH) presentations and acute MH hospital admissions. We also noticed higher rates of substance use disorder recorded on admission. Hospital leave restrictions due to COVID-19 also led to further restrictions on smoking. CONCLUSION: Benzodiazepine usage increased in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study encourages more research to better understand the impact of the pandemic on acute psychiatric settings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Benzodiazepines/therapeutic use , Humans , Inpatients , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
11.
Depress Anxiety ; 39(2): 156-162, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1540079

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Population studies have shown that rates of depressive and anxious symptoms have increased as a result of COVID-19. We analyzed trends in the dispensing rates of antidepressants and benzodiazepines in Canada to determine whether the pandemic has caused changes in rates of pharmacological treatment for depression and anxiety. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional time-series analysis of antidepressants and benzodiazepines dispensed monthly by Canadian community pharmacies between January 2017 and December 2020. We used March 2020 as the intervention month to determine if there were any significant changes in the national rate of antidepressant and benzodiazepine tablets dispensed as the result of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: There was a temporary reduction in the dispensing rate of antidepressants in April 2020 (from 489 tablets per 100 in March 2020 to 356 tablets per 100 in April 2020; p ≤ .0001); however, the rate returned to its previous level by August 2020. There were no detectable deviations in benzodiazepine dispensing after the declaration of the state of emergency in Ontario. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increased reporting of depressive and anxious symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been no changes in the dispensing trends of medications used to treat these disorders. As the pandemic continues to evolve, future research is needed to monitor the prevalence of depression and anxiety, and associated medication use, in the Canadian population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antidepressive Agents/therapeutic use , Benzodiazepines/therapeutic use , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Ontario , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
12.
Drug Alcohol Depend ; 229(Pt A): 109176, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1517124

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 and resulting mitigation measures in the United States (US) brought about limited access to medical care that has been linked to increases in mental health problems, excessive substance use, and drug overdoses. The increase in co-prescription of benzodiazepines and opioids may indicate population-level changes in health behaviors that can be exacerbated by limited access, hence necessitating the tracking of these drugs during COVID-19. We evaluated the impact of the declaration of COVID-19 as a US national emergency on prescription patterns in 2020. METHODS: Prescriptions of benzodiazepines and opioids were analyzed using data aggregated on a weekly basis across 38 states over the January 2019-December 2020 period. Data were from Bamboo Health Prescription Drug Monitoring Program and covered all individuals regardless of insurance status. Generalized additive models estimated the effects of the March 13, 2020 declaration on proportion of prescriptions to all controlled substances by comparing volumes before to after the week of March 13 in 2020 (range: January 27-May 24) and comparing this trend to its 2019 counterpart. RESULTS: When comparing the January 27-March 9 period to the March 16-May 24 period in 2020, there was a statistically significant 2.0% increase in the proportion of benzodiazepine dispensations to all controlled substances, and a significant 1.7% mean decrease in proportion of opioid dispensations to all controlled substances. A significant return approaching pre-declaration levels was observed only for opioids (beginning week of May 18, 2020). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest significant impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on dispensations of benzodiazepines and opioids across the US. Continued monitoring of prescription trends and maintenance of adequate and accessible access to mental healthcare are important for understanding public health crises related to substance use.


Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid , COVID-19 , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Benzodiazepines , Controlled Substances , Drug Prescriptions , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
13.
BMC Emerg Med ; 21(1): 131, 2021 11 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1506239

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients who experience harms from alcohol and other substance use often seek care in the emergency department (ED). ED visits related to alcohol withdrawal have increased across the world during the COVID-19 pandemic. ED clinicians are responsible for risk-stratifying patients under time and resource constraints and must reliably identify those who are safe for outpatient management versus those who require more intensive levels of care. Published guidelines for alcohol withdrawal are largely limited to the primary care and outpatient settings, and do not provide specific guidance for ED use. The purpose of this review was to synthesize published evidence on the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome in the ED. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1980 to 2020). We searched for grey literature on Google and hand-searched the conference abstracts of relevant addiction medicine and emergency medicine professional associations (2015 to 2020). We included interventional and observational studies that reported outcomes of clinical interventions aimed at treating alcohol withdrawal syndrome in adults in the ED. RESULTS: We identified 13 studies that met inclusion criteria for our review (7 randomized controlled trials and 6 observational studies). Most studies were at high/serious risk of bias. We divided studies based on intervention and summarized evidence narratively. Benzodiazepines decrease alcohol withdrawal seizure recurrence and treat other alcohol withdrawal symptoms, but no clear evidence supports the use of one benzodiazepine over another. It is unclear if symptom-triggered benzodiazepine protocols are effective for use in the ED. More evidence is needed to determine if phenobarbital, with or without benzodiazepines, can be used safely and effectively to treat alcohol withdrawal in the ED. Phenytoin does not have evidence of effectiveness at preventing withdrawal seizures in the ED. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have evaluated the safety and efficacy of pharmacotherapies for alcohol withdrawal specifically in the ED setting. Benzodiazepines are the most evidence-based treatment for alcohol withdrawal in the ED. Pharmacotherapies that have demonstrated benefit for treatment of alcohol withdrawal in other inpatient and outpatient settings should be evaluated in the ED setting before routine use.


Subject(s)
Alcohol Withdrawal Seizures , Benzodiazepines , Emergency Service, Hospital , Substance Withdrawal Syndrome , Adult , Alcohol Withdrawal Seizures/drug therapy , Alcohol Withdrawal Seizures/prevention & control , Benzodiazepines/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , Substance Withdrawal Syndrome/drug therapy , Substance Withdrawal Syndrome/prevention & control
15.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(10): e2131012, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1482078

ABSTRACT

Importance: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and associated mitigation measures have disrupted access to psychiatric medications, particularly for women. Objective: To assess the sex differences in trends in the prescribing of benzodiazepines, Z-hypnotics and serotonergic (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs] and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs]), which are commonly prescribed for anxiety, insomnia, and depression. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from Clinformatics Data Mart, one of the largest commercial health insurance databases in the US. Enrollees 18 years or older were required to have complete enrollment in a given month during our study period, January 1, 2018, to March 31, 2021, to be included for that month. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prescription of a benzodiazepine, Z-hypnotic, or SSRI or SNRI. For each month, the percentage of patients with benzodiazepine, Z-hypnotic, or SSRI or SNRI prescriptions by sex was calculated. Results: The records of 17 255 033 adults (mean [SD] age, 51.7 [19.5] years; 51.3% female) were examined in 2018, 17 340 731 adults (mean [SD] age, 52.5 [19.7] years; 51.6% female) in 2019, 16 916 910 adults (mean [SD] age, 53.7 [19.8] years; 51.9% female) in 2020, and 15 135 998 adults (mean [SD] age, 56.2 [19.8] years; 52.5% female) in 2021. Compared with men, women had a higher rate of prescriptions for all 3 drugs classes and had larger changes in prescription rates over time. Benzodiazepine prescribing decreased from January 2018 (women: 5.61%; 95% CI, 5.60%-5.63%; men: 3.03%; 95% CI, 3.02%-3.04%) to March 2021 (women: 4.91%; 95% CI, 4.90%-4.93%; men: 2.66%; 95% CI, 2.65%-2.67%), except for a slight increase in April 2020 among women. Z-hypnotic prescribing increased from January 2020 for women (1.39%; 95% CI, 1.38%-1.40%) and February 2020 for men (0.97%; 95% CI, 0.96%-0.98%) to October 2020 (women: 1.46%; 95% CI, 1.46%-1.47%; men: 1.00%; 95% CI, 0.99%-1.01%). Prescribing of SSRIs and SNRIs increased from January 2018 (women: 12.77%; 95% CI; 12.75%-12.80%; men: 5.56%; 95% CI, 5.44%-5.58%) to April 2020 for men (6.73%; 95% CI, 6.71%-6.75%) and October 2020 for women (15.18%; 95% CI, 15.16%-15.21%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic onset was an increase in Z-hypnotic as well as SSRI and SNRI prescriptions in both men and women along with an increase in benzodiazepine prescriptions in women, findings that suggest a substantial mental health impact of COVID-19-associated mitigation measures.


Subject(s)
Benzodiazepines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/psychology , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Databases, Factual , Female , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Sex Distribution
16.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(19)2021 09 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1463646

ABSTRACT

Benzodiazepines have proven to be highly effective for treating insomnia and anxiety. Although considered safe when taken for a short period of time, a major risk-benefit dilemma arises in the context of long-term use, relating to addiction, withdrawal symptoms, and potential side effects. For these reasons, benzodiazepines are not recommended for treating chronic sleep disorders, anxiety disorders, nor for people over the age of 65, and withdrawal among long-term users is a public health issue. Indeed, only 5% of patients manage to discontinue using these drugs on their own. Even with the help of a general practitioner, this rate does not exceed 25 to 30% of patients, of which approximately 7% manage to remain drug-free in the long term. Cognitive Behavioral Therapies (CBT) offer a crucial solution to this problem, having been shown to increase abstinence success to 70-80%. This article examines traditional and novel CBT techniques in this regard, such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, which address both the underlying condition (insomnia/anxiety) and the substance-related disorder. The theoretical framework and evidence supporting the use of these approaches are reviewed. Finally, current research gaps are discussed, and key research perspectives are proposed.


Subject(s)
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy , Cognitive Behavioral Therapy , Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders , Substance Withdrawal Syndrome , Anxiety Disorders/drug therapy , Benzodiazepines/therapeutic use , Humans , Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders/drug therapy , Substance Withdrawal Syndrome/drug therapy
17.
Ann Clin Psychiatry ; 32(2): 114-127, 2020 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1451576

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines are currently the most commonly prescribed medication for the treatment of anxiety in older adults, although there is a dearth of good-quality data on this subject. The aim of this review was to systematically review studies examining the efficacy and tolerability of benzodiazepines for the treatment of anxiety disorders among older adults. METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic review, searching PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All searches were limited to English-language articles. The quality of each study was appraised using criteria developed by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine for randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: A total of 8,785 citations were retrieved and pooled in EndNote and de-duplicated to 3,753. This set was uploaded to Covidence for screening. Two separate screeners (AG and SAF) evaluated the titles, abstracts, and full text of the eligible articles. Five studies met the inclusion criteria. Across all studies, benzodiazepines were associated with decreased anxiety at the end of the study period. The limited tolerability data show mild adverse effects from the benzodiazepines studied. Limitations of the trials included limited data on the long-term use of benzodiazepines for anxiety and a preponderance of trials examining generalized anxiety disorder, with relatively less data on other anxiety disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Benzodiazepines are effective for treating anxiety disorders in late life, at least in the short term, but more data is needed to establish tolerability and their long-term benefits.


Subject(s)
Anxiety Disorders/drug therapy , Benzodiazepines/therapeutic use , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Aged , Humans , Middle Aged
18.
Rev Neurol ; 73(6): 201-209, 2021 09 01.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1405636

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The consequences of the use of of benzodiazepines in coronavirus disease 2019 have not yet been studied. We compared the hospital prognosis of patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 in benzodiazepine users and non-users. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Observational study with a retrospective cohort design. All consecutive patients admitted with a confirmed diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 were included. The patients under chronic treatment with benzodiazepines at the time of admission were studied and compared with non-users. The primary objective was to analyze the mortality of patients who used chronic benzodiazepines at the time of admission and compare them with those who did not use them. The secondary objective was to analyze the risk of severe disease due to coronavirus 2019, acute respiratory distress syndrome and admission to the Intensive Care Unit in both groups of patients. RESULTS: We included 576 patients, 138 (24.0%) used benzodiazepines. After adjusting for sex, age, baseline situation and all the different variables between both groups, benzodiazepine users did not show a higher odds of mortality (OR: 1,1, IC 95%: 0,7-1,9, p = 0,682) or higher risk of severe disease due to coronavirus 2019 (OR: 1.2, 95% CI: 0.7-1.8, p = 0.523). They also did not have a higher risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR: 1.2, IC 95%: 0.8-1.9, p = 0.315) or more admission to the Intensive Care Unit (OR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.4-1.4, p = 0.433). CONCLUSION: In our sample, treatment with benzodiazepines at the time of admission was not associated with a worse hospital prognosis in patients with coronavirus disease 2019.


TITLE: Efecto del tratamiento con benzodiacepinas en el pronóstico hospitalario de la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019.Introducción. Las consecuencias del consumo de benzodiacepinas en el marco de la la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) no se habían estudiado hasta ahora. En el presente estudio se comparó el pronóstico hospitalario de pacientes ingresados por COVID-19 que tomaban benzodiacepinas con el de otros ingresados por idéntico motivo que no las tomaban. Pacientes y métodos. Estudio observacional de cohortes retrospectivo. En el estudio se admitió a todos los pacientes consecutivos ingresados con un diagnóstico confirmado de COVID-19. Se estudió a los pacientes que en el momento del ingreso estaban en tratamiento crónico con benzodiacepinas en comparación con otros que no las tomaban. El objetivo principal fue analizar la mortalidad de dichos pacientes con uso crónico de benzodiacepinas y compararla con la mortalidad de los que no tomaban. El objetivo secundario fue analizar en ambos grupos de pacientes el riesgo de padecer un cuadro grave por COVID-19, el síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda o el ingreso en la unidad de cuidados intensivos. Resultados. Se admitieron 576 pacientes, 138 (24,0%) de los cuales tomaban benzodiacepinas. Después del ajuste por sexo, edad, situación inicial y todas las variables diferentes entre ambos grupos, los pacientes que tomaban benzodiacepinas no mostraron una probabilidad mayor de muerte (odds ratio: 1,1; IC 95%: 0,7-1,9; p = 0,682) ni un riesgo más acusado de COVID-19 grave (odds ratio: 1,2; IC 95%: 0,7-1,8; p = 0,523). Tampoco presentaron un riesgo mayor de síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda (odds ratio: 1,2; IC 95%: 0,8-1,9; p = 0,315) ni de ingreso en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (odds ratio: 0,8; IC 95%: 0,4-1,4; p = 0,433). Conclusión. En esta muestra de pacientes con COVID-2019, el tratamiento con benzodiacepinas en el momento del ingreso no apareció asociado con un empeoramiento del pronóstico hospitalario.


Subject(s)
Benzodiazepines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , Adult , Aged , Benzodiazepines/adverse effects , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index
19.
Eur Neuropsychopharmacol ; 45: 39-51, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1390226

ABSTRACT

Cinazepam C19H14BrClN2O5, ("LevanaⓇ ІC") a partial GABAA receptor agonist, and its active metabolite 3-hydroxyphenazepam C15H10BrClN2O2 were comparatively assessed in vitro using nerve terminals isolated from rat cortex (synaptosomes). At the presynaptic site, cinazepam (100 and 200 µM) facilitated synaptosomal transporter-mediated [3H]GABA uptake by enhancing both the initial rate and accumulation, and decreased the ambient level and transporter-mediated release of [3H]GABA. Whereas, 3-hydroxyphenazepam decreased the uptake and did not change the ambient synaptosomal level and transporter-mediated release of [3H]GABA. To exclude GABA transporter influence, NO-711, the transporter blocker, was applied and it was found that exocytotic release of [3H]GABA decreased, whereas tonic release of [3H]GABA was not changed in the presence of both cinazepam or 3-hydroxyphenazepam after treatment of synaptosomes with NO-711. In fluorimetric studies using potential- and pH-sensitive dyes rhodamine 6G and acridine orange, respectively, it was found that cinazepam hyperpolarized the synaptosomal plasma membrane, and increased synaptic vesicle acidification, whereas, 3-hydroxyphenazepam demonstrated opposite effects on these parameters. Therefore, action of cinazepam and its active metabolite 3-hydroxyphenazepam on GABAergic neurotransmission was different. Therapeutic effects of cinazepam can be associated with its ability to hyperpolarize the plasma membrane, to increase synaptic vesicle acidification and capacity of its active metabolite 3-hydroxyphenazepam to inhibit GABA transporter functioning.


Subject(s)
Receptors, GABA-A , gamma-Aminobutyric Acid , Animals , Benzodiazepines , Benzodiazepinones , GABA Plasma Membrane Transport Proteins , GABA-A Receptor Agonists , Presynaptic Terminals , Rats , Rats, Wistar , Synaptosomes
20.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(8): e2118441, 2021 08 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1335942

ABSTRACT

Importance: COVID-19 has had devastating effects on the health and well-being of older adult residents and health care professionals in nursing homes. Uncertainty about the associated consequences of these adverse effects on the use of medications common to this care setting remains. Objective: To examine the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and prescription medication changes among nursing home residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study with an interrupted time-series analysis used linked health administrative data bases for residents of all nursing homes (N = 630) in Ontario, Canada. During the observation period, residents were divided into consecutive weekly cohorts. The first observation week was March 5 to 11, 2017; the last observation week was September 20 to 26, 2020. Exposures: Onset of the COVID-19 pandemic on March 1, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Weekly proportion of residents dispensed antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, opioids, antibiotics, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Autoregressive integrated moving average models with step and ramp intervention functions tested for level and slope changes in weekly medication use after the onset of the pandemic and were fit on prepandemic data for projected trends. Results: Across study years, the annual cohort size ranged from 75 850 to 76 549 residents (mean [SD] age, 83.4 [10.8] years; mean proportion of women, 68.9%). A significant increased slope change in the weekly proportion of residents who were dispensed antipsychotics (parameter estimate [ß] = 0.051; standard error [SE] = 0.010; P < .001), benzodiazepines (ß = 0.026; SE = 0.003; P < .001), antidepressants (ß = 0.046; SE = 0.013; P < .001), trazodone hydrochloride (ß = 0.033; SE = 0.010; P < .001), anticonvulsants (ß = 0.014; SE = 0.006; P = .03), and opioids (ß = 0.038; SE = 0.007; P < .001) was observed. The absolute difference in observed vs estimated use in the last week of the pandemic period ranged from 0.48% (for anticonvulsants) to 1.52% (for antipsychotics). No significant level or slope changes were found for antibiotics, ARBs, or ACE inhibitors. Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based cohort study, statistically significant increases in the use of antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and opioids followed the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, although absolute differences were small. There were no significant changes for antibiotics, ARBs, or ACE inhibitors. Studies are needed to monitor whether changes in pharmacotherapy persist, regress, or accelerate during the course of the pandemic and how these changes affect resident-level outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Drug Prescriptions/statistics & numerical data , Homes for the Aged/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Anticonvulsants/therapeutic use , Antidepressive Agents/therapeutic use , Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use , Benzodiazepines/therapeutic use , Cohort Studies , Databases, Factual , Female , Humans , Interrupted Time Series Analysis , Male , Ontario , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL