Risk factors, prevention and treatment of weight gain associated with the use of antidepressants and antipsychotics: a state-of-the-art clinical review.

INTRODUCTION: People with severe mental illness have poor cardiometabolic health. Commonly used antidepressants and antipsychotics frequently lead to weight gain, which may further contribute to adverse cardiovascular outcomes. AREAS COVERED: We searched MEDLINE up to April 2023 for umbrella reviews, (network-)meta-analyses, trials and cohort studies on risk factors, prevention and treatment strategies of weight gain associated with antidepressants/antipsychotics. We developed 10 clinical recommendations. EXPERT OPINION: To prevent, manage, and treat antidepressant/antipsychotic-related weight gain, we recommend i) assessing risk factors for obesity before treatment, ii) monitoring metabolic health at baseline and regularly during follow-up, iii) offering lifestyle interventions including regular exercise and healthy diet based on patient preference to optimize motivation, iv) considering first-line psychotherapy for mild-moderate depression and anxiety disorders, v)choosing medications based on medications' and patient's weight gain risk, vi) choosing medications based on acute vs long-term treatment, vii) using effective, tolerated medications, viii) switching to less weight-inducing antipsychotics/antidepressants where possible, ix) using early weight gain as a predictor of further weight gain to inform the timing of intervention/switch options, and x) considering adding metformin or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, or topiramate(second-line due to potential adverse cognitive effects) to antipsychotics, or aripiprazole to clozapine or olanzapine.

Effects of antipsychotic treatment on cardio-cerebrovascular related mortality in schizophrenia: A subanalysis of a systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression of moderators.

To further explore the role of different antipsychotic treatments for cardio-cerebrovascular mortality, we performed several subgroup, sensitivity and meta-regression analyses based on a large previous meta-analysis focusing on cohort studies assessing mortality relative risk (RR) for cardio-cerebrovascular disorders in people with schizophrenia, comparing antipsychotic treatment versus no antipsychotic. Quality assessment through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and publication bias was measured. We meta-analyzed 53 different studies (schizophrenia patients: n = 2,513,359; controls: n = 360,504,484) to highlight the differential effects of antipsychotic treatment regimens on cardio-cerebrovascular-related mortality in incident and prevalent samples of patients with schizophrenia. We found first generation antipsychotics (FGA) to be associated with higher mortality in incident samples of schizophrenia (oral FGA [RR=2.20, 95 %CI=1.29-3.77, k = 1] and any FGA [RR=1.70, 95 %CI=1.20-2.41, k = 1]). Conversely, second generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and clozapine were associated with reduced cardio-cerebrovascular-related mortality, in prevalent samples of schizophrenia. Subgroup analyses with NOS score ≥7 (higher quality) demonstrated a significantly increased cardio-cerebrovascular disorder-related mortality, among those exposed to FGAs vs SGAs. Meta-regression analyses demonstrated a larger association between antipsychotics and decreased risk of mortality with longer follow-up, recent study year, and higher number of adjustment variables. Overall, this subanalysis of a systematic review contributes to the evolving understanding of the complex role of antipsychotic treatment for cardio-cerebrovascular mortality in schizophrenia, paving the way for more targeted interventions and improved patient outcomes.

The top 10 priorities in adults living with type 1 diabetes in Ireland and the United Kingdom - A James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership.

AIMS: To undertake a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP), identifying the most important unanswered questions in type 1 diabetes in Ireland and the United Kingdom and to compare these to priorities identified in a 2011 PSP. METHODS: A steering committee (including eight individuals with lived experience/charity representatives and six clinicians) designed a survey which asked stakeholders to list three questions about type 1 diabetes. This was disseminated through social media, direct email contact, and printed posters. Following analysis, a second survey asked participants to rank these priorities in order of importance. The top questions were then carried forward to an online, 2 days final workshop where the final top 10 were ranked. RESULTS: There were 1050 responses (64% female, 78% adults living with type 1 diabetes, 9% healthcare professionals, 9% family members) to the first survey and 2937 individual questions were submitted. Sixty-five summary questions were submitted into a second survey, completed by 497 individuals (76% adults living with type 1 diabetes, 9% healthcare professionals, and 11% family members). Nineteen questions from the interim survey progressed to a final workshop, which identified the top 10 priorities through group discussion. As in 2011, there was emphasis on psychological health, diabetes-related complications, and hypoglycaemia. New themes prioritised included artificial intelligence and women's health. CONCLUSIONS: The research priorities, which have been identified using a robust and proven methodology, highlight the key concerns of those living with type 1 diabetes, their families and representatives, as well as clinicians in Ireland and the UK.

Consensus guidance for monitoring individuals with islet autoantibody-positive pre-stage 3 type 1 diabetes.

Given the proven benefits of screening to reduce diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) likelihood at the time of stage 3 type 1 diabetes diagnosis, and emerging availability of therapy to delay disease progression, type 1 diabetes screening programmes are being increasingly emphasised. Once broadly implemented, screening initiatives will identify significant numbers of islet autoantibody-positive (IAb+) children and adults who are at risk of (confirmed single IAb+) or living with (multiple IAb+) early-stage (stage 1 and stage 2) type 1 diabetes. These individuals will need monitoring for disease progression; much of this care will happen in non-specialised settings. To inform this monitoring, JDRF in conjunction with international experts and societies developed consensus guidance. Broad advice from this guidance includes the following: (1) partnerships should be fostered between endocrinologists and primary-care providers to care for people who are IAb+; (2) when people who are IAb+ are initially identified there is a need for confirmation using a second sample; (3) single IAb+ individuals are at lower risk of progression than multiple IAb+ individuals; (4) individuals with early-stage type 1 diabetes should have periodic medical monitoring, including regular assessments of glucose levels, regular education about symptoms of diabetes and DKA, and psychosocial support; (5) interested people with stage 2 type 1 diabetes should be offered trial participation or approved therapies; and (6) all health professionals involved in monitoring and care of individuals with type 1 diabetes have a responsibility to provide education. The guidance also emphasises significant unmet needs for further research on early-stage type 1 diabetes to increase the rigour of future recommendations and inform clinical care.

Consensus Guidance for Monitoring Individuals With Islet Autoantibody-Positive Pre-Stage 3 Type 1 Diabetes.

Given the proven benefits of screening to reduce diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) likelihood at the time of stage 3 type 1 diabetes diagnosis, and emerging availability of therapy to delay disease progression, type 1 diabetes screening programs are being increasingly emphasized. Once broadly implemented, screening initiatives will identify significant numbers of islet autoantibody-positive (IAb+) children and adults who are at risk for (confirmed single IAb+) or living with (multiple IAb+) early-stage (stage 1 and stage 2) type 1 diabetes. These individuals will need monitoring for disease progression; much of this care will happen in nonspecialized settings. To inform this monitoring, JDRF, in conjunction with international experts and societies, developed consensus guidance. Broad advice from this guidance includes the following: 1) partnerships should be fostered between endocrinologists and primary care providers to care for people who are IAb+; 2) when people who are IAb+ are initially identified, there is a need for confirmation using a second sample; 3) single IAb+ individuals are at lower risk of progression than multiple IAb+ individuals; 4) individuals with early-stage type 1 diabetes should have periodic medical monitoring, including regular assessments of glucose levels, regular education about symptoms of diabetes and DKA, and psychosocial support; 5) interested people with stage 2 type 1 diabetes should be offered trial participation or approved therapies; and 6) all health professionals involved in monitoring and care of individuals with type 1 diabetes have a responsibility to provide education. The guidance also emphasizes significant unmet needs for further research on early-stage type 1 diabetes to increase the rigor of future recommendations and inform clinical care.

The effect of diabetes management on the workload of district and community nursing teams in the UK.

AIMS: The number of older people with diabetes requiring care from district nursing teams is increasing. The role of district nursing teams in diabetes management has expanded to involve diagnosis, treatment and medication administration. As the complexity of caseloads increases, the current model is likely unsustainable. This study aims to understand the current diabetes workload of district nursing teams. METHODS: An online survey was distributed via social media and key stakeholder networks to district nursing teams. Survey items were designed by the researchers prior to pilot testing with potential participants. Descriptive statistical and qualitative analyses were conducted. Data are median ± IQR. RESULTS: 159 district nursing teams completed the survey. The median caseload per team was 300 (IQR 176-407) patients including 21 with diabetes (IQR 14-40; 8.7% (4-20%)). 1.09 home visits per day per person with diabetes lasting 13.8 minutes (excluding travel time) were needed, with most requiring insulin administration. 96% of nursing teams undertake multiple daily visits for some patients. 91% reported workloads relating to diabetes management had increased over the last 2 years; 76% stated current diabetes workloads were unsustainable. More insulin usage, more referrals and a lack of ability or willingness to self-administer insulin has increased the diabetes workload. Possible solutions include better collaboration between healthcare professionals, simplification of insulin administration and glucose monitoring, better training and upskilling of healthcare assistants and promotion of self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes management forms an increasing component of district nursing workload and is likely to be unsustainable unless new models are found.

Towards the standardisation of adult person-reported outcome domains in diabetes research: A Consensus Statement development panel.

Diabetes is unique among chronic diseases because clinical outcomes are intimately tied to how the person living with diabetes reacts to and implements treatment recommendations. It is further characterised by widespread social stigma, judgement and paternalism. This physical, social and psychological burden collectively influences self-management behaviours. It is widely recognised that the individual's perspective about the impact of trying to manage the disease and the burden that self-management confers must be addressed to achieve optimal health outcomes. Standardised, rigorous assessment of mental and behavioural health status, in interaction with physical health outcomes is crucial to aid understanding of person-reported outcomes (PROs). Whilst tempting to conceptualise PROs as an issue of perceived quality of life (QoL), in fact health-related QoL is multi-dimensional and covers indicators of physical or functional health status, psychological and social well-being. This complexity is illuminated by the large number of person reported outcome measures (PROMs) that have been developed across multiple psychosocial domains. Often measures are used inappropriately or because they have been used in the scientific literature rather than based on methodological or outcome assessment rigour. Given the broad nature of psychosocial functioning/mental health, it is important to broadly define PROs that are evaluated in the context of therapeutic interventions, real-life and observational studies. This report summarises the central themes and lessons derived in the assessment and use of PROMs amongst adults with diabetes. Effective assessment of PROMs routinely in clinical research is crucial to understanding the true impact of any intervention. Selecting appropriate measures, relevant to the specific factors of PROs important in the research study will provide valuable data alongside physical health data.

Regional differences in mortality risk and in attenuating or aggravating factors in schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

People with schizophrenia die prematurely, yet regional differences are unclear. PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review/random-effects meta-analysis of cohort studies assessing mortality relative risk (RR) versus any control group, and moderators, in people with ICD/DSM-defined schizophrenia, comparing countries and continents. We conducted subgroup, meta-regression analyses, and quality assessment. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were suicide-, /natural-cause- and other-cause-related mortality. We included 135 studies from Europe (n = 70), North-America (n = 29), Asia (n = 33), Oceania (n = 2), Africa (n = 1). In incident plus prevalent schizophrenia, differences across continents emerged for all-cause mortality (highest in Africa, RR=5.98, 95 %C.I.=4.09-8.74, k = 1, lowest in North-America, RR=2.14, 95 %C.I.=1.92-2.38, k = 16), suicide (highest in Oceania, RR=13.5, 95 %C.I.=10.08-18.07, k = 1, lowest in North-America, RR=4.4, 95 %C.I.=4.07-4.76, k = 6), but not for natural-cause mortality. Europe had the largest association between antipsychotics and lower all-cause mortality/suicide (Asia had the smallest or no significant association, respectively), without differences for natural-cause mortality. Higher country socio-demographic index significantly moderated larger suicide-related and smaller natural-cause-related mortality risk in incident schizophrenia, with reversed associations in prevalent schizophrenia. Antipsychotics had a larger/smaller protective association in incident/prevalent schizophrenia regarding all-cause mortality, and smaller protective association for suicide-related mortality in prevalent schizophrenia. Additional regional differences emerged in incident schizophrenia, across countries, and secondary outcomes. Significant regional differences emerged for all-cause, cause-specific and suicide-related mortality. Natural-cause death was homogeneously increased globally. Moderators differed across countries. Global initiatives are needed to improve physical health in people with schizophrenia, local studies to identify actionable moderators.

Diabetes and infection: review of the epidemiology, mechanisms and principles of treatment.

An association between diabetes and infection has been recognised for many years, with infection being an important cause of death and morbidity in people with diabetes. The COVID-19 pandemic has re-kindled an interest in the complex relationship between diabetes and infection. Some infections occur almost exclusively in people with diabetes, often with high mortality rates without early diagnosis and treatment. However, more commonly, diabetes is a complicating factor in many infections. A reciprocal relationship occurs whereby certain infections and their treatments may also increase the risk of diabetes. People with diabetes have a 1.5- to 4-fold increased risk of infection. The risks are the most pronounced for kidney infection, osteomyelitis and foot infection, but are also increased for pneumonia, influenza, tuberculosis, skin infection and general sepsis. Outcomes from infection are worse in people with diabetes, with the most notable example being a twofold higher rate of death from COVID-19. Hyperglycaemia has deleterious effects on the immune response. Vascular insufficiency and neuropathy, together with altered skin, mucosal and gut microbial colonisation, contribute to the increased risk of infection. Vaccination is important in people with diabetes although the efficacy of certain immunisations may be compromised, particularly in the presence of hyperglycaemia. The principles of treatment largely follow those of the general population with certain notable exceptions.

A core outcome set for trials evaluating self-management interventions in people with severe mental illness and coexisting type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illness (SMI), such as schizophrenia, have higher rates of type 2 diabetes and worse outcomes, compared to those without SMI and it is not known whether diabetes self-management interventions are effective for people who have both conditions. Research in this area has been impeded by a lack of consensus on which outcomes to prioritise in people with co-existing SMI and diabetes. AIMS: To develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in effectiveness trials of diabetes self-management interventions in adults with both type 2 diabetes and SMI. METHODS: The COS was developed in three stages: (i) identification of outcomes from systematic literature review of intervention studies, followed by multi-stakeholder and service user workshops; (ii) rating of outcomes in a two-round online Delphi survey; (iii) agreement of final 'core' outcomes through a stakeholder consensus workshop. RESULTS: Seven outcomes were selected: glucose control, blood pressure, body composition (body weight, BMI, body fat), health-related quality of life, diabetes self-management, diabetes-related distress and medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: This COS is recommended for future trials of effectiveness of diabetes self-management interventions for people with SMI and type 2 diabetes. Its use will ensure trials capture important outcomes and reduce heterogeneity so findings can be readily synthesised to inform practice and policy.

The psychosocial burdens of living with diabetes.

AIM: To better understand the prevalence of self-reported psychosocial burdens and the unmet needs identified by people with diabetes in relation to routine diabetes visits. METHODS: An English language, online survey was distributed via social media, key stakeholder networks, charity and advocacy groups to adults with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes. Survey items were designed by members of the FDA RESCUE Collaborative Community Governing Committee prior to pilot testing with potential participants. Descriptive statistical analyses were conducted, as well as thematic analyses on free-text responses using NVivo v14. RESULTS: Four hundred and seventy-eight participants completed the survey: 373 (78%) had type 1 diabetes, 346 (73%) identified as a woman and 433 (91%) were white. Most participants had experienced self-reported (rather than diagnosed) anxiety and depression (n = 323 and n = 313, respectively), as well as fear of low blood sugars (n = 294), low mood (n = 290) and diabetes-related distress (n = 257). Sixty-eight percent reported that diabetes had negatively affected self-esteem, 62% reported the feelings of loneliness, but 93% reported that friends/family/work colleagues were supportive when needed. Two hundred and seventy-two percent (57%) reported that their diabetes team had never raised the topic of mental health. The overwhelming majority stated that the best thing their diabetes team could do to help was to simply ask about mental well-being, listen with empathy and without judgement, and practice skills to understand psychosocial issues in diabetes. CONCLUSION: Integrating psychosocial discussions and support within routine healthcare visits is crucial to improve outcomes for people with diabetes. Such a biopsychosocial model of healthcare has long been advocated by regulatory bodies.

The Fusion Clinic: Integrating the care of people with severe mental illness and diabetes.

AIM: People with coexisting severe mental illness (SMI) and type 2 diabetes have a shorter life expectancy and poorer diabetes outcomes than those without SMI. This is partly explained by the separate treatment of diabetes and SMI, which occurs in parallel silos in many healthcare systems. The Steno Diabetes Center Sjaelland and Region Zealand established the Fusion Clinic to offer combined psychiatric and diabetes care delivered by both diabetes and mental healthcare professionals. This study describes how the clinic was established and the initial diabetes outcomes. METHODS: The Fusion Clinic was co-designed by people with diabetes and SMI and healthcare professionals to improve the care of adults with diabetes and SMI. The clinic approach utilised the F-ACT model. The 63 people referred to the Fusion Clinic between 01.02.2020 and 01.01.2022 who attended the clinic for more than 6 months were included in this study. Diabetes outcomes were recorded in the electronic medical records (Sundhedsplatformen EPIC). RESULTS: There was a high prevalence of diabetes complications at baseline. Furthermore, 70% had one or more additional concomitant diseases, as well as SMI and diabetes. Assessment of diabetes complications and measurements of HbA1c and lipid profile improved after referral to the clinic. HbA1c declined during the first 6 months of attendance at the clinic. CONCLUSIONS: This model of service delivery has the potential to improve the quality of care for people with SMI and type 2 diabetes.

Bringing an end to diabetes stigma and discrimination: an international consensus statement on evidence and recommendations.

People with diabetes often encounter stigma (ie, negative social judgments, stereotypes, prejudice), which can adversely affect emotional, mental, and physical health; self-care, access to optimal health care; and social and professional opportunities. To accelerate an end to diabetes stigma and discrimination, an international multidisciplinary expert panel (n=51 members, from 18 countries) conducted rapid reviews and participated in a three-round Delphi survey process. We achieved consensus on 25 statements of evidence and 24 statements of recommendations. The consensus is that diabetes stigma is driven primarily by blame, perceptions of burden or sickness, invisibility, and fear or disgust. On average, four in five adults with diabetes experience diabetes stigma and one in five experience discrimination (ie, unfair and prejudicial treatment) due to diabetes, such as in health care, education, and employment. Diabetes stigma and discrimination are harmful, unacceptable, unethical, and counterproductive. Collective leadership is needed to proactively challenge, and bring an end to, diabetes stigma and discrimination. Consequently, we achieved unanimous consensus on a pledge to end diabetes stigma and discrimination.

Copenhagen Diabetes Consensus (CODIAC) 2021: User involvement in diabetes care, prevention and research.

AIMS: User involvement is pivotal for health development, but there are significant gaps in our understanding of the concept. The Copenhagen Diabetes Consensus on User Involvement in Diabetes Care, Prevention and Research (CODIAC) was established to address these gaps, share knowledge and develop best practices. METHODS: A literature review of user involvement was undertaken in diabetes care, prevention and research. Moreover, a Group Concept Mapping (GCM) survey synthesized the knowledge and opinions of researchers, healthcare professionals and people with diabetes and their carers to identify gaps between what is important for user involvement and what is being done in practice. Finally, a consensus conference discussed the main gaps in knowledge and practice while developing plans to address the shortcomings. RESULTS: The literature review demonstrated that user involvement is an effective strategy for diabetes care, prevention and research, given the right support and conditions, but gaps and key challenges regarding the value and impact of user involvement approaches were found. The GCM process identified 11 major gaps, where important issues were not being sufficiently practised. The conference considered these gaps and opportunities to develop new collaborative initiatives under eight overall themes. CONCLUSIONS: User involvement is effective and adds value to diabetes care, prevention and research when used under the right circumstances. CODIAC developed new learning about the way in which academic and research knowledge can be transferred to more practice-oriented knowledge and concrete collaborative initiatives. This approach may be a potential new framework for initiatives in which coherence of process can lead to coherent outputs.

Risk factors associated with overweight and obesity in people with severe mental illness in South Asia: cross-sectional study in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan.

Obesity is one of the major contributors to the excess mortality seen in people with severe mental illness (SMI) and in low- and middle-income countries people with SMI may be at an even greater risk. In this study, we aimed to determine the prevalence of obesity and overweight in people with SMI and investigate the association of obesity and overweight with sociodemographic variables, other physical comorbidities, and health-risk behaviours. This was a multi-country cross-sectional survey study where data were collected from 3989 adults with SMI from three specialist mental health institutions in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. The prevalence of overweight and obesity was estimated using Asian BMI thresholds. Multinomial regression models were then used to explore associations between overweight and obesity with various potential determinants. There was a high prevalence of overweight (17·3 %) and obesity (46·2 %). The relative risk of having obesity (compared to normal weight) was double in women (RRR = 2·04) compared with men. Participants who met the WHO recommendations for fruit and vegetable intake had 2·53 (95 % CI: 1·65-3·88) times greater risk of having obesity compared to those not meeting them. Also, the relative risk of having obesity in people with hypertension is 69 % higher than in people without hypertension (RRR = 1·69). In conclusion, obesity is highly prevalent in SMI and associated with chronic disease. The complex relationship between diet and risk of obesity was also highlighted. People with SMI and obesity could benefit from screening for non-communicable diseases, better nutritional education, and context-appropriate lifestyle interventions.