Non-binary gender, vulnerable populations and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: Data from the COVID-19 MEntal health inTernational for the general population (COMET-G) study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought significant mental health challenges, particularly for vulnerable populations, including non-binary gender individuals. The COMET international study aimed to investigate specific risk factors for clinical depression or distress during the pandemic, also in these special populations. METHODS: Chi-square tests were used for initial screening to select only those variables which would show an initial significance. Risk Ratios (RR) were calculated, and a Multiple Backward Stepwise Linear Regression Analysis (MBSLRA) was followed with those variables given significant results at screening and with the presence of distress or depression or the lack of both of them. RESULTS: The most important risk factors for depression were female (RR = 1.59-5.49) and non-binary gender (RR = 1.56-7.41), unemployment (RR = 1.41-6.57), not working during lockdowns (RR = 1.43-5.79), bad general health (RR = 2.74-9.98), chronic somatic disorder (RR = 1.22-5.57), history of mental disorders (depression RR = 2.31-9.47; suicide attempt RR = 2.33-9.75; psychosis RR = 2.14-10.08; Bipolar disorder RR = 2.75-12.86), smoking status (RR = 1.15-5.31) and substance use (RR = 1.77-8.01). The risk factors for distress or depression that survived MBSLRA were younger age, being widowed, living alone, bad general health, being a carer, chronic somatic disorder, not working during lockdowns, being single, self-reported history of depression, bipolar disorder, self-harm, suicide attempts and of other mental disorders, smoking, alcohol, and substance use. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted preventive interventions are crucial to safeguard the mental health of vulnerable groups, emphasizing the importance of diverse samples in future research. LIMITATIONS: Online data collection may have resulted in the underrepresentation of certain population groups.

Somatic multicomorbidity and disability in patients with psychiatric disorders in comparison to the general population: a quasi-epidemiological investigation in 54,826 subjects from 40 countries (COMET-G study).

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of medical illnesses is high among patients with psychiatric disorders. The current study aimed to investigate multi-comorbidity in patients with psychiatric disorders in comparison to the general population. Secondary aims were to investigate factors associated with metabolic syndrome and treatment appropriateness of mental disorders. METHODS: The sample included 54,826 subjects (64.73% females; 34.15% males; 1.11% nonbinary gender) from 40 countries (COMET-G study). The analysis was based on the registration of previous history that could serve as a fair approximation for the lifetime prevalence of various medical conditions. RESULTS: About 24.5% reported a history of somatic and 26.14% of mental disorders. Mental disorders were by far the most prevalent group of medical conditions. Comorbidity of any somatic with any mental disorder was reported by 8.21%. One-third to almost two-thirds of somatic patients were also suffering from a mental disorder depending on the severity and multicomorbidity. Bipolar and psychotic patients and to a lesser extent depressives, manifested an earlier (15-20 years) manifestation of somatic multicomorbidity, severe disability, and probably earlier death. The overwhelming majority of patients with mental disorders were not receiving treatment or were being treated in a way that was not recommended. Antipsychotics and antidepressants were not related to the development of metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: The finding that one-third to almost two-thirds of somatic patients also suffered from a mental disorder strongly suggests that psychiatry is the field with the most trans-specialty and interdisciplinary value and application points to the importance of teaching psychiatry and mental health in medical schools and also to the need for more technocratically oriented training of psychiatric residents.

Results of the COVID-19 mental health international for the health professionals (COMET-HP) study: depression, suicidal tendencies and conspiracism.

INTRODUCTION: The current study aimed to investigate the rates of anxiety, clinical depression, and suicidality and their changes in health professionals during the COVID-19 outbreak. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data came from the larger COMET-G study. The study sample includes 12,792 health professionals from 40 countries (62.40% women aged 39.76 ± 11.70; 36.81% men aged 35.91 ± 11.00 and 0.78% non-binary gender aged 35.15 ± 13.03). Distress and clinical depression were identified with the use of a previously developed cut-off and algorithm, respectively. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics were calculated. Chi-square tests, multiple forward stepwise linear regression analyses, and Factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tested relations among variables. RESULTS: Clinical depression was detected in 13.16% with male doctors and 'non-binary genders' having the lowest rates (7.89 and 5.88% respectively) and 'non-binary gender' nurses and administrative staff had the highest (37.50%); distress was present in 15.19%. A significant percentage reported a deterioration in mental state, family dynamics, and everyday lifestyle. Persons with a history of mental disorders had higher rates of current depression (24.64% vs. 9.62%; p < 0.0001). Suicidal tendencies were at least doubled in terms of RASS scores. Approximately one-third of participants were accepting (at least to a moderate degree) a non-bizarre conspiracy. The highest Relative Risk (RR) to develop clinical depression was associated with a history of Bipolar disorder (RR = 4.23). CONCLUSIONS: The current study reported findings in health care professionals similar in magnitude and quality to those reported earlier in the general population although rates of clinical depression, suicidal tendencies, and adherence to conspiracy theories were much lower. However, the general model of factors interplay seems to be the same and this could be of practical utility since many of these factors are modifiable.

The effect of different degrees of lockdown and self-identified gender on anxiety, depression and suicidality during the COVID-19 pandemic: Data from the international COMET-G study.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic various degrees of lockdown were applied by countries around the world. It is considered that such measures have an adverse effect on mental health but the relationship of measure intensity with the mental health effect has not been thoroughly studied. Here we report data from the larger COMET-G study pertaining to this question. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, data were gathered with an online questionnaire from 55,589 participants from 40 countries (64.85% females aged 35.80 ± 13.61; 34.05% males aged 34.90±13.29 and 1.10% other aged 31.64±13.15). Anxiety was measured with the STAI, depression with the CES-D and suicidality with the RASS. Distress and probable depression were identified with the use of a previously developed cut-off and algorithm respectively. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: It included the calculation of Relative Risk (RR), Factorial ANOVA and Multiple backwards stepwise linear regression analysis RESULTS: Approximately two-thirds were currently living under significant restrictions due to lockdown. For both males and females the risk to develop clinical depression correlated significantly with each and every level of increasing lockdown degree (RR 1.72 and 1.90 respectively). The combined lockdown and psychiatric history increased RR to 6.88 The overall relationship of lockdown with severity of depression, though significant was small. CONCLUSIONS: The current study is the first which reports an almost linear relationship between lockdown degree and effect in mental health. Our findings, support previous suggestions concerning the need for a proactive targeted intervention to protect mental health more specifically in vulnerable groups.

Results of the COVID-19 mental health international for the general population (COMET-G) study.

INTRODUCTION: There are few published empirical data on the effects of COVID-19 on mental health, and until now, there is no large international study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, an online questionnaire gathered data from 55,589 participants from 40 countries (64.85% females aged 35.80 ± 13.61; 34.05% males aged 34.90±13.29 and 1.10% other aged 31.64±13.15). Distress and probable depression were identified with the use of a previously developed cut-off and algorithm respectively. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics were calculated. Chi-square tests, multiple forward stepwise linear regression analyses and Factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tested relations among variables. RESULTS: Probable depression was detected in 17.80% and distress in 16.71%. A significant percentage reported a deterioration in mental state, family dynamics and everyday lifestyle. Persons with a history of mental disorders had higher rates of current depression (31.82% vs. 13.07%). At least half of participants were accepting (at least to a moderate degree) a non-bizarre conspiracy. The highest Relative Risk (RR) to develop depression was associated with history of Bipolar disorder and self-harm/attempts (RR = 5.88). Suicidality was not increased in persons without a history of any mental disorder. Based on these results a model was developed. CONCLUSIONS: The final model revealed multiple vulnerabilities and an interplay leading from simple anxiety to probable depression and suicidality through distress. This could be of practical utility since many of these factors are modifiable. Future research and interventions should specifically focus on them.

Medications for Maintenance Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder in Adolescents: A Narrative Review and Assessment of Clinical Benefits and Potential Risks.

OBJECTIVE: Methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone are evidence-based treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD). A large body of evidence supports their effectiveness in adults with OUD. However, few studies have tested their efficacy in adolescents. This study summarizes the clinical benefits and risks of three medications for the treatment of OUD in adolescents. METHOD: We review and synthesize the published evidence about the efficacy and potential risks (including safety concerns) associated with methadone, buprenorphine, or naltrexone for the treatment of OUD in adolescents and compare their benefits and risks with that of no treatment or treatment without medications. We also discuss adolescent-specific treatment needs and strategies to overcome potential challenges in prescribing medications for adolescents with OUD. RESULTS: Methadone appears to be effective in promoting treatment retention among adolescents with heroin use disorder. Data from three randomized controlled trials suggest that buprenorphine treatment improves the likelihood of opioid abstinence and treatment retention. Although these medications have a potential risk of overdose when misused or used illegally, evidence suggests this risk is much lower for buprenorphine than methadone. Emerging data also suggest that naltrexone is a safe and feasible option for adolescents. Vast evidence demonstrates that the risks of untreated OUD far outweigh the risks of any of the previously discussed medications. CONCLUSIONS: Little published evidence specifically examines the efficacy and safety of using medications for OUD in adolescents, and more research is needed. It is essential for healthcare professionals to determine whether their adolescent patients may benefit from medications for the treatment of OUD.

Grave Concerns Expressed by Psychiatrists Over Current Immigration Policies.

As members of the Global Mental Health and Psychiatry Caucus of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), we would like to express our grave concerns about the ongoing policies and treatment of asylum seekers, refugees, and immigrants coming to the United States, and the adverse mental health sequelae that such policies will have on these individuals and populations.

The mind with a radio of its own: a case report and review of the literature on the treatment of musical hallucinations.

Musical hallucinations (MH) have been labeled Oliver Sacks syndrome, and in the majority of cases, they occur in the context of a hearing loss. In these instances, they have been described as auditory Charles Bonnet syndrome because they are thought to represent a cortical release phenomenon. Patients with MH tend to have intact reality testing, and as such, the condition may also be described as musical hallucinosis. The temporal course of MH is variable, but given that they may improve or remit with time, education on their benign nature is often sufficient. MH also may improve when hearing loss is reversed. The use of ambient noise potentially ameliorates mild to moderate MH; however, where this is insufficient, somatic treatments may be considered. Case reports have documented successful use of low-dose antiepileptics, atypical antipsychotics and donepezil. We present a case of a 52-year-old man who received only partial relief from serial treatment with several psychotropic agents. He developed major depression with suicidal ideation in the context of persistent, intrusive MH that were refractory to several medication trials, and whereas a course of electroconvulsive therapy led to remission of depressive and suicidal symptoms, it provided only transient relief of his MH. In this article, we also provide a review of the literature on the neurobiology and treatment of MH.