Changes in telepsychiatry regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic: 17 countries and regions' approaches to an evolving healthcare landscape.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of telemedicine as a way to reduce COVID-19 infections was noted and consequently deregulated. However, the degree of telemedicine regulation varies from country to country, which may alter the widespread use of telemedicine. This study aimed to clarify the telepsychiatry regulations for each collaborating country/region before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We used snowball sampling within a global network of international telepsychiatry experts. Thirty collaborators from 17 different countries/regions responded to a questionnaire on barriers to the use and implementation of telepsychiatric care, including policy factors such as regulations and reimbursement at the end of 2019 and as of May 2020. RESULTS: Thirteen of 17 regions reported a relaxation of regulations due to the pandemic; consequently, all regions surveyed stated that telepsychiatry was now possible within their public healthcare systems. In some regions, restrictions on prescription medications allowed via telepsychiatry were eased, but in 11 of the 17 regions, there were still restrictions on prescribing medications via telepsychiatry. Lower insurance reimbursement amounts for telepsychiatry consultations v. in-person consultations were reevaluated in four regions, and consequently, in 15 regions telepsychiatry services were reimbursed at the same rate (or higher) than in-person consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that, due to COVID-19, the majority of countries surveyed are altering telemedicine regulations that had previously restricted the spread of telemedicine. These findings provide information that could guide future policy and regulatory decisions, which facilitate greater scale and spread of telepsychiatry globally.

Treatment resistance in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of prevalence and correlates.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence and correlates of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria, an electronic search was performed in PubMed and Embase through May 17, 2022. All study designs that assessed a minimum of 20 schizophrenia-spectrum patients and provided data on TRS prevalence or allowed its calculation were included. Estimates were produced using a random-effects model meta-analysis. RESULTS: The TRS prevalence across 50 studies (n = 29,390) was 36.7% (95%CI 33.1-40.5, p < 0.0001). The prevalence ranged from 22% (95%CI 18.4-25.8) in first-episode to 39.5% (95%CI 32.2-47.0) in multiple-episode samples (Q = 18.27, p < 0.0001). Primary treatment resistance, defined as no response from the first episode, was 23.6% (95%CI 20.5-26.8) vs. 9.3% (95%CI 6.8-12.2) for later-onset/secondary (≥ 6 months after initial treatment response). Longer illness duration and recruitment from long-term hospitals or clozapine clinics were associated with higher prevalence estimates. In meta-regression analyses, older age and poor functioning predicted greater TRS. When including only studies with lower bias risk, the TRS prevalence was 28.4%. CONCLUSION: Different study designs and recruitment strategies accounted for most of the observed heterogeneity in TRS prevalence rates. The results point to early-onset and later-onset TRS as two separate disease pathways requiring clinical attention.

Treatment resistance in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of prevalence and correlates

Objectives: To determine the prevalence and correlates of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria, an electronic search was performed in PubMed and Embase through May 17, 2022. All study designs that assessed a minimum of 20 schizophrenia-spectrum patients and provided data on TRS prevalence or allowed its calculation were included. Estimates were produced using a random-effects model meta-analysis. Results: The TRS prevalence across 50 studies (n = 29,390) was 36.7% (95%CI 33.1-40.5, p < 0.0001). The prevalence ranged from 22% (95%CI 18.4-25.8) in first-episode to 39.5% (95%CI 32.2-47.0) in multiple-episode samples (Q = 18.27, p < 0.0001). Primary treatment resistance, defined as no response from the first episode, was 23.6% (95%CI 20.5-26.8) vs. 9.3% (95%CI 6.8-12.2) for later-onset/secondary (≥ 6 months after initial treatment response). Longer illness duration and recruitment from long-term hospitals or clozapine clinics were associated with higher prevalence estimates. In meta-regression analyses, older age and poor functioning predicted greater TRS. When including only studies with lower bias risk, the TRS prevalence was 28.4%. Conclusion: Different study designs and recruitment strategies accounted for most of the observed heterogeneity in TRS prevalence rates. The results point to early-onset and later-onset TRS as two separate disease pathways requiring clinical attention. Registration number: PROSPERO CRD42018092033.

Reduced dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex in treatment resistant schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Treatment resistance affects up to one third of patients with schizophrenia (SCZ). A better understanding of its biological underlying processes could improve treatment. The aim of this study was to compare cortical thickness between non-resistant SCZ (NR-SCZ), treatment-resistant SCZ (TR-SCZ) patients and healthy controls (HC). METHODOLOGY: Structural MRI scans were obtained from 3 groups of individuals: 61 treatment resistant SCZ individuals, 67 non-resistant SCZ and 80 healthy controls. Images were analyzed using cortical surface modelling (implemented in freesurfer package) to identify group differences in cortical thickness. Statistical significant differences were identified using Monte-Carlo simulation method with a corrected p-cluster<0.01. RESULTS: Patients in the TR-SCZ group showed a widespread reduction in cortical thickness in frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital regions bilaterally. NR-SCZ group had reduced cortex in two regions (left superior frontal cortex and left caudal middle frontal cortex). TR-SCZ group also showed decreased thickness in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) when compared with patients from NR-SCZ group. CONCLUSIONS: The reduction in cortical thickness in DLPFC indicates a more severe form of the disease or a specific finding for this group. Alterations in this region should be explored as a putative marker for treatment resistance. Prospective studies, with individuals being followed from first episode psychosis until refractoriness is diagnosed, are needed to clarify these hypotheses.

Patterns of clozapine and other antipsychotics prescriptions in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia in community mental health centers in São Paulo, Brazil

Abstract Background Despite of its global underuse, clozapine is still the golden standard antipsychotic for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS). Objective To evaluate the patterns of clozapine and other antipsychotic drugs prescription in TRS in community mental health centers in São Paulo, Brazil. Methods A multiple-choice questionnaire was applied to fifteen psychiatrists at five centers inquiring about patients’ clinical condition, adherence to oral treatment and current antipsychotic treatment. History of previous and current antipsychotic treatment was collected through medical chart review. Results Out of 442 schizophrenia patients, 103 (23.3%) fulfilled the criteria for TRS. Fifty-eight patients (56.3%) were receiving polypharmacy; 30 (29.1%) were on atypical antipsychotic monotherapy, 14 (13.6%) were on typical antipsychotic monotherapy, 25 (24.3%) were taking depot antipsychotic medication and only 22 (21.4%) were receiving clozapine. Discussion As well as in other parts of the world, many TRS patients (78.6%) receive other drugs instead of clozapine in São Paulo, the best evidence-based medication for patients with TRS. The government should make every effort to provide medical training and the equipment and logistic support to adequately serve those who could benefit from clozapine treatment at the community health centers.