Have the COVID-19 outbreak and related restrictions affected the right to mental health of people with severe mental health conditions?

The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, and the restrictions implemented by governments to limit its public health impact, may have determined a reduction of the right to mental health of people with severe mental health conditions, that is a limitation to adequate, human, and value-based mental healthcare, with rising inequalities in comparison with the general population. This systematic review was, therefore, conducted to collate evidence on the impact of the pandemic period on the mental health of individuals with pre-existing severe mental health conditions. Of 3,774 retrieved citations, we selected 21 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The majority of the included studies assessed trends in psychological symptoms over the pandemic period, then arguing that symptoms worsened for a number of reasons, including the risk of contracting the virus, the disruption of mental health services, and the feelings of loneliness and isolation associated with the restriction measures. Even though studies provided somewhat contradictory results, the majority of evidence indicates that people with pre-existing mental health conditions were more likely to report greater self-isolation distress, anxiety, depression, COVID-19-related perceived stress, and were more likely to voluntarily self-isolate than those without a mental health condition. These findings appeared to suggest that a combination of factors related to the pandemic itself and to the prevention and mitigation strategies were responsible for a reduction of the right to mental health of people with mental health conditions, with increased inequalities in comparison with the general population.

Neonatal withdrawal syndrome following in utero exposure to antidepressants: a disproportionality analysis of VigiBase, the WHO spontaneous reporting database.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on neonatal withdrawal syndrome following antidepressant intrauterine exposure is limited, particularly for antidepressants other than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs). METHODS: In our case/non-case pharmacovigilance study, based on VigiBase®, the WHO database of suspected adverse drug reactions, we estimated reporting odds ratio (ROR) and the Bayesian information component (IC) with 95% confidence/credibility intervals (CI) as measures of disproportionate reporting of antidepressant-related neonatal withdrawal syndrome. Antidepressants were first compared to all other medications, then to methadone, and finally within each class of antidepressants: SSRIs, tricyclics (TCA) and other antidepressants. Antidepressants were ranked in terms of clinical priority, based on semiquantitative score ratings. Serious v. non-serious reports were compared. RESULTS: A total of 406 reports of neonatal withdrawal syndrome in 379 neonates related to 15 antidepressants were included. Disproportionate reporting was detected for antidepressants as a group as compared to all other drugs (ROR: 6.18, 95% CI 5.45-7.01, IC: 2.07, 95% CI 1.92-2.21). Signals were found for TCAs (10.55, 95% CI 8.02-13.88), followed by other antidepressants (ROR: 5.90, 95% CI 4.74-7.36) and SSRIs (ROR: 4.68, 95% CI 4.04-5.42). Significant disproportionality emerged for all individual antidepressants except for bupropion, whereas no disproportionality for any antidepressant was detected v. methadone. Eleven antidepressants had a moderate clinical priority score and four had a weak one. Most frequent symptoms included respiratory symptoms (n = 106), irritability/agitation (n = 75), tremor (n = 52) and feeding problems (n = 40). CONCLUSIONS: Most antidepressants are associated with moderate signals of disproportionate reporting for neonatal withdrawal syndrome, which should be considered when prescribing an antidepressant during pregnancy, irrespective of class.

Long-term effectiveness of Self-Help Plus in refugees and asylum seekers resettled in Western Europe: 12-month outcomes of a randomised controlled trial.

AIMS: As refugees and asylum seekers are at high risk of developing mental disorders, we assessed the effectiveness of Self-Help Plus (SH + ), a psychological intervention developed by the World Health Organization, in reducing the risk of developing any mental disorders at 12-month follow-up in refugees and asylum seekers resettled in Western Europe. METHODS: Refugees and asylum seekers with psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire-12 ⩾ 3) but without a mental disorder according to the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.) were randomised to either SH + or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU). The frequency of mental disorders at 12 months was measured with the M.I.N.I., while secondary outcomes included self-identified problems, psychological symptoms and other outcomes. RESULTS: Of 459 participants randomly assigned to SH + or ETAU, 246 accepted to be interviewed at 12 months. No difference in the frequency of any mental disorders was found (relative risk [RR] = 0.841; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.389-1.819; p-value = 0.659). In the per protocol (PP) population, that is in participants attending at least three group-based sessions, SH + almost halved the frequency of mental disorders at 12 months compared to ETAU, however so few participants and events contributed to this analysis that it yielded a non-significant result (RR = 0.528; 95% CI 0.180-1.544; p-value = 0.230). SH + was associated with improvements at 12 months in psychological distress (p-value = 0.004), depressive symptoms (p-value = 0.011) and wellbeing (p-value = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The present study failed to show any long-term preventative effect of SH + in refugees and asylum seekers resettled in Western European countries. Analysis of the PP population and of secondary outcomes provided signals of a potential effect of SH + in the long-term, which would suggest the value of exploring the effects of booster sessions and strategies to increase SH + adherence.

Esketamine clinical trials: reply to Maju et al.

Maju et al. provided clarifications on important and controversial issues related to esketamine clinical trial data, in response to a vivid debate triggered by the marketing authorisation recently granted by this new medicine. In this commentary, we reply to their comments attempting to critically discuss the evidence base needed to obtain regulatory approval.

Esketamine for treatment resistant depression: a trick of smoke and mirrors?

In March 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a nasal spray formulation of esketamine for the treatment of resistant depression in adults. Esketamine is the S-enantiomer of ketamine, an FDA-approved anaesthetic, known to cause dissociation and, occasionally, hallucinations. While ketamine has not been approved for depression in the USA or in any other country, it has been used off-label in cases of severe depression. This commentary critically reviewed the evidence on esketamine submitted to the FDA, aiming to draw implications for clinical practice, research and regulatory science.

Antipsychotic use and risk of life-threatening medical events: umbrella review of observational studies.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the risk of hip fracture, thromboembolism, stroke, myocardial infarction, pneumonia and sudden cardiac death associated with exposure to antipsychotics. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in Medline, Embase and PsycINFO from inception until 30/07/2018 for systematic reviews of observational studies. AMSTAR-2 was used for the quality assessment of systematic reviews, while the strength of associations was measured using GRADE and quantitative umbrella review criteria (URC). RESULTS: Sixty-eight observational studies from six systematic reviews were included. The association between antipsychotic exposure and pneumonia was the strongest [URC = class I; GRADE = low quality; odds ratio (OR) = 1.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.62-2.09; participants = 28 726; age = 76.2 ± 12.3 years], followed by the association with hip fracture (URC = class II; GRADE = low quality; OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.42-1.74; participants = 5 288 118; age = 55.4 ± 12.5 years), and thromboembolism (URC = class II; GRADE = very low quality; OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.31-1.83; participants = 31 417 175; age = 55.5 ± 3.2 years). The association was weak for stroke (URC = class III; GRADE = very low quality; OR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.24-1.70; participants = 65 700; age = 68.7 ± 13.8 years), sudden cardiac death (URC = class III; GRADE = very low quality; OR = 2.24, 95% CI = 1.45-3.46; participants = 77 488; age = 52.2 ± 6.2 years) and myocardial infarction (URC = class III; GRADE = very low quality; OR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.41-3.46; participants = 399 868; age = 74.1 ± 9.3 years). CONCLUSION: The most robust results were found for the risk of pneumonia, followed by the risk of hip fracture and thromboembolism. For stroke, sudden cardiac death and myocardial infarction, the strength of association was weak. The observational nature of the primary studies may represent a source of bias.

Can a digital medicine system improve adherence to antipsychotic treatment?

A substantial proportion of people with mental health conditions do not adhere to prescribed pharmacological treatments. Poor adherence is probably one of the most critical elements contributing to relapse in people with schizophrenia and other severe mental disorders. In order to tackle this global issue, in November 2017 the Food and Drug Administration approved a tablet formulation of the atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole embedded with a novel digital adherence-assessment device. In this commentary, we critically appraised the potential beneficial and harmful consequences of this new digital formulation of aripiprazole, and we highlighted expected implications for clinical practice.

Antipsychotic combinations in schizophrenia.

In the treatment of resistant schizophrenia, a number of meta-analyses attempted to quantify the efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotic (AP) polypharmacy v. monotherapy with contradictory results. Recently, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials investigated the efficacy and tolerability of AP combination v. monotherapy in schizophrenia. It included 31 studies: 21 double-blind (considered high-quality studies) and 10 open-label (considered low-quality studies). The meta-analysis showed that, overall, the combination of two APs was more effective than monotherapy in terms of symptom reduction (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.87 to -0.19); however, this result was confirmed only in the subgroup of low-quality studies. Negative symptoms improved when combining a D2 antagonist with a D2 partial agonist (SMD = -0.41, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.03) both in double-blind and open-label studies. In the present commentary, the results of this systematic review are critically discussed in terms of their clinical and research implications.

New EMA report on paliperidone 3-month injections: taking clinical and policy decisions without an adequate evidence base.

Three-month long-acting paliperidone is a new, recently marketed, formulation of paliperidone, characterised by the longest available dosing interval among long-acting antipsychotics. The clinical profile of 3-month long-acting paliperidone was recently summarised by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in a public assessment report, released in April 2016. In this commentary, the main strengths and limitations of the EMA assessment report were appraised and discussed, in order to highlight possible implications for clinical practice, future research and regulatory practices for drug approval.

Antipsychotic drug exposure and risk of myocardial infarction.

Patients experiencing psychoses and in need of antipsychotic agents may be exposed to a higher risk of myocardial infarction (MI) than the general population. As there have been no randomised studies investigating this association, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis included all observational studies that compared the incidence of MI among patients receiving antipsychotics v. no treatment. It found nine studies and calculated that the odds (risk) for developing MI were 1.88-fold higher in antipsychotic users compared with individuals who had not taken antipsychotic drugs. In this commentary, the results of this systematic review are discussed in view of their clinical implications for everyday clinical practice.

Drug dose as mediator of treatment effect in antidepressant drug trials: the case of fluoxetine.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at investigating whether dose is a mediator of treatment effect in fluoxetine-randomized trials. Specifically, we investigated whether dose was higher in trials in which the aim was to demonstrate fluoxetine efficacy in comparison with older antidepressants and lower in trials in which the aim was to demonstrate a new drug's efficacy against fluoxetine. METHOD: We applied the model developed by Baron and Kenny to investigate the mediational role of drug dose on treatment effect. We included all randomized controlled trials comparing fluoxetine with other antidepressants as monotherapy in the acute-phase treatment of unipolar major depression. RESULTS: A total of 173 studies were included. In 76 comparisons (44%), fluoxetine was the experimental antidepressant. A metaregression analysis indicated that after adjusting for possible confounders, studies where fluoxetine was the experimental agent were associated with a significant advantage for fluoxetine. However, the Baron and Kenny model revealed no mediational role of drug dose in influencing treatment effect. CONCLUSION: The outcome of fluoxetine-randomized trials changed according to whether this drug was used as a new compound or as a reference. This finding cannot be attributed to antidepressants dose, as dose failed to emerge as mediator of treatment effect in the Baron and Kenny approach.

Benzodiazepines and risk of dementia: true association or reverse causation?

According to a recently published population study conducted in France, exposure to benzodiazepines may be associated with an approximately 50% increase in the risk of dementia in the elderly. However, the clinical interpretation of this finding raised some concerns. A causal link between benzodiazepine use and diagnosis of dementia may be real, but it is nevertheless possible that the increased risk might be due to other confounding factors. In this article, the main strengths and weaknesses of this study are briefly analysed, including the possibility of reverse causation. Implications for research and current practice are discussed.