Pharmacological interventions for co-occurring psychopathology in people with borderline personality disorder: secondary analysis of the Cochrane systematic review with meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Medications are commonly used to treat co-occurring psychopathology in persons with borderline personality disorder (BPD). AIMS: To systematically review and integrate the evidence of medications for treatment of co-occurring psychopathology in people with BPD, and explore the role of comorbidities. METHOD: Building on the current Cochrane review of medications in BPD, an update literature search was done in March 2024. We followed the methods of this Cochrane review, but scrutinised all identified placebo-controlled trials post hoc for reporting of non BPD-specific ('co-occurring') psychopathology, and explored treatment effects in subgroups of samples with and without defined co-occurring disorders. GRADE ratings were done to assess the evidence certainty. RESULTS: Twenty-two trials were available for quantitative analyses. For antipsychotics, we found very-low-certainty evidence (VLCE) of an effect on depressive symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, P = 0.04), and low-certainty evidence (LCE) of an effect on psychotic-dissociative symptoms (SMD -0.28, P = 0.007). There was evidence of effects of anticonvulsants on depressive (SMD -0.44, P = 0.02; LCE) and anxious symptoms (SMD -1.11, P < 0.00001; VLCE). For antidepressants, no significant findings were observed (VLCE). Exploratory subgroup analyses indicated a greater effect of antipsychotics in samples including participants with co-occurring substance use disorders on psychotic-dissociative symptoms (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings, based on VLCE and LCE only, do not support the use of pharmacological interventions in people with BPD to target co-occurring psychopathology. Overall, the current evidence does not support differential treatment effects in persons with versus without defined comorbidities. Medications should be used cautiously to target co-occurring psychopathology.

Reductions in inpatient and outpatient mental health care in germany during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic - What can we learn for a better crisis preparedness?

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, reports from several European mental health care systems hinted at important changes in utilization. So far, no study examined changes in utilization in the German mental health care inpatient and outpatient mental health care system comprehensively. METHODS: This longitudinal observational study used claims data from two major German statutory health insurances, AOK PLUS and BKK, covering 162,905 inpatients and 2,131,186 outpatients with mental disorders nationwide. We analyzed changes in inpatient and outpatient mental health service utilization over the course of the first two lockdown phases (LDPs) of the pandemic in 2020 compared to a pre-COVID-19 reference period dating from March 2019 to February 2020 using a time series forecast model. RESULTS: We observed significant decreases in the number of inpatient hospital admissions by 24-28% compared to the reference period. Day clinic admissions were even further reduced by 44-61%. Length of stay was significantly decreased for day clinic care but not for inpatient care. In the outpatient sector, the data showed a significant reduction in the number of incident outpatient diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Indirect evidence regarding the consequences of the reductions in both the inpatient and outpatient sector of care described in this study is ambiguous and direct evidence on treatment outcomes and quality of trans-sectoral mental healthcare is sparse. In line with WHO and OECD we propose a comprehensive mental health system surveillance to prepare for a better oversight and thereby a better resilience during future global major disruptions.

Outpatient mental health care during high incidence phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany - changes in utilization, challenges and post-COVID care.

BACKGROUND: As only a few studies have examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health outpatient system so far, the aim of the COVID Ψ Outpatient Survey was to gain insight from outpatient providers in Germany regarding changes in utilization; associated problems and challenges; telemedicine services; interactions with inpatient and nursing home services; and experiences with post-COVID syndromes. METHODS: Between July and September 2021, we invited 351 randomly selected outpatient mental health specialists to take part in the online survey via e-mail. Additionally, we extended an invitation to professional associations to encourage their members to participate. N = 105 physicians of most regions of Germany took part in the survey. RESULTS: Survey participants reported changes in utilization during the high incidence phases (HIP) of the pandemic using pre-formulated categories: For the first HIP in spring 2020, 31% of the survey participants reported a decrease > 20% and 5% an increase > 20% of patient contacts. For the third HIP in spring 2021, 4% reported a decrease > 20% of contacts, while 30% an increase > 20%. Participants chose "patient's fears of infection" and "providers protection measures" as reasons for decreases, and "pandemic related anxieties", "economic stressors", and "capacity reductions of the inpatient system" as reasons for increases of patient contact. Many providers introduced telemedicine services. A majority reported consultations for post-COVID syndromes already in spring 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The survey hinted at changes in utilization, multiple problems but as well good-practice-solutions in the mental health outpatient system during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Psychometric properties of the German version of the brief resilience scale in persons with mental disorders.

The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) was developed to assess individual differences in the ability to recover from stress despite adversity and has been translated into several languages. This study aimed to examine the psychometric properties (i.e., item characteristics, reliability, factor structure, measurement invariance, and validity) of the German version of the BRS in persons with mental disorders. A total of N = 5,986 persons admitted to inpatient treatment completed the German version of the BRS and other questionnaires. The discriminating power of the items, the difficulty of the items, and the internal consistency were all sufficient. Moreover, confirmatory factor analysis supported the two-factor structure of the BRS, consistent with the findings of the German validation study in a non-clinical sample. The BRS also had strict measurement invariance across diagnostic groups for mental disorders according to ICD-10. Validity was examined using a network analysis, in which the BRS demonstrated positive correlations with life satisfaction, self-efficacy and optimism and negative correlations with somatic symptoms, anxiety, insomnia, and depression. The BRS can serve as a reliable and valid tool for assessing resilience in clinical settings, facilitating the identification of persons with potentially lower psychosocial resources.

Remote Exercise Training Intervention During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Societal measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 (eg, lockdown and contact restrictions) have been associated with decreased health and well-being. A multitude of prepandemic studies identified the beneficial effects of physical exercise on both physical and mental health. OBJECTIVE: We report on the feasibility of a remote physical exercise intervention and its stress-buffering potential in 2 untrained cohorts: a pre-COVID-19 cohort that completed the intervention in 2019 and a lockdown cohort that started the intervention shortly before pandemic-related restrictions were implemented. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, participants were assigned to either an intervention group (IG; pre-COVID-19 cohort: n=7 and lockdown cohort: n=9) or a control group (CG; pre-COVID-19 cohort: n=6 and lockdown cohort: n=6). IG participants received weekly individualized training recommendations delivered via web-based support. The intervention period was initially planned for 8 weeks, which was adhered to in the pre-COVID-19 cohort (mean 8.3, SD 0.5 weeks) but was extended to an average of 17.7 (SD 2.0) weeks in the lockdown cohort. Participants' health parameters were assessed before and after the intervention: aerobic capacity was measured as peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) via cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Depressive symptoms were scored via the depression subscale of the Brief Symptom Inventory-18. RESULTS: Dropout rates were low in both cohorts in the IG (pre-COVID-19 cohort: n=0, 0% and lockdown cohort: n=2, 16.7%) and the CG (pre-COVID-19 cohort: n=0, 0% and lockdown cohort: n=2, 20%). The mean adherence to the training sessions of the IG for both cohorts was 84% (pre-COVID-19 cohort: SD 5.5% and lockdown cohort: SD 11.6%). Aligned rank transform ANOVAs in the lockdown cohort indicated deterioration of VO2peak and depressive symptoms from before to after the intervention in the CG but no longitudinal changes in the IG. Analyses in the pre-COVID-19 cohort revealed significant increases in VO2peak for the IG compared to the CG (P=.04) but no intervention effects on depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: With low dropout rates and high adherence, the remote intervention was feasible for healthy adults under regular conditions and in the face of pandemic-related stressors. Moreover, our results hint at a stress-buffering effect as well as a buffering of a lockdown-induced deconditioning of remote physical exercise interventions in the pandemic scenario, which can be used in future studies to overcome equally stressful periods of life. However, due to limited statistical power, these findings should be replicated in similar scenarios. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00018078; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00018078.

Pandemic Preparedness - A Proposal for a Research Infrastructure and its Functionalities for a Resilient Health Research System. / Pandemic Preparedness ­ Ein Vorschlag für eine Forschungsinfrastruktur und ihre Funktionalitäten für ein resilientes Gesundheitsforschungssystem.

Während einer Pandemie muss Resilienz nicht nur als Eigenschaft des Gesundheitssystems, sondern auch des umgebenden Forschungsumfelds betrachtet werden. Um verlässliche, evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen aus der Universitätsmedizin an die Gesundheitspolitik und die Entscheidungsträger bereitstellen zu können, müssen wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse schnell, integrativ und multidisziplinär generiert, synthetisiert und kommuniziert werden. Die Resilienz der öffentlichen Gesundheitssysteme und der Gesundheitsforschungssysteme sind somit eng verknüpft. Die Reaktion auf die SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie in Deutschland wurde jedoch durch das Fehlen einer adäquat vernetzten Gesundheitsforschungsinfrastruktur erschwert. Das Netzwerk Universitätsmedizin (NUM) wurde zu Beginn der Pandemie mit dem Ziel gegründet, Deutschland auf zukünftige Pandemien vorzubereiten. Ziel des Projektes "PREparedness and PAndemic REsponse in Deutschland (PREPARED)" ist es, ein ganzheitliches Konzept für eine kooperative, adaptierbare und nachhaltige Gesundheitsforschungsinfrastruktur innerhalb des NUM zu entwickeln und damit einen Beitrag zu einer umfassenden Pandemiebereitschaft zu leisten. Das vorgeschlagene Konzept dieser Infrastruktur vereint vier Kern- und drei Unterstützungsfunktionalitäten in vier verschiedenen Handlungsfeldern. Die Funktionalitäten gewährleisten im Falle zukünftiger Gesundheitskrisen ein effizientes Funktionieren des Gesundheitsforschungssystems und eine rasche Übertragung entsprechender Implikationen in andere Systeme. Die vier Handlungsfelder sind (a) Monitoring und Surveillance, (b) Synthese und Transfer, (c) Koordination und Organisation sowie (d) Kapazitäten und Ressourcen. Die sieben Funktionalitäten umfassen 1) eine Monitoring- und Surveillance-Einheit, 2) eine Pathogenkompetenz-Plattform, 3) Evidenzsynthese und vertrauenswürdige Empfehlungen, 4) eine Einheit zur regionalen Vernetzung und Implementierung, 5) eine Strategische Kommunikationseinheit, 6) Human Resources Management und 7) ein Rapid Reaction & Response (R3)-Cockpit. Die Governance wird als Kontroll- und Regulierungssystem eingerichtet, wobei agile Management-Methoden in interpandemischen Phasen trainiert werden, um die Reaktionsfähigkeit zu verbessern sowie die Eignung agiler Methoden für die wissenschaftliche Infrastruktur für die Pandemiebereitschaft zu untersuchen. Der Aufbau der PREPARED-Forschungsinfrastruktur muss vor der nächsten Pandemie erfolgen, da Training und regelmäßige Stresstests grundlegende Voraussetzungen für deren Funktionieren sind.During a pandemic, resilience must be considered not only as an attribute of the health care system, but also of the surrounding research environment. To provide reliable evidence-based advice from university medicine to health policy and decision makers, scientific evidence must be generated, synthesized and communicated in a rapid, integrative and multidisciplinary manner. The resilience of public health systems and the health research systems are thus closely linked. However, the response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Germany was hampered by the lack of an adequate health research infrastructure. The Network University Medicine (NUM) was founded at the beginning of the pandemic with the aim of preparing Germany for future pandemics. The aim of the project "PREparedness and PAndemic REsponse in Deutschland (PREPARED)" is to develop a holistic concept for a cooperative, adaptable and sustainable health research infrastructure within the NUM and thus contribute to pandemic preparedness and rapid response. The proposed concept for a health research infrastructure includes four core and three supporting functionalities in four different fields of action. The functionalities aim to ensure efficient functioning within the health research system and a rapid translation to other systems in future health crises. The four fields of action are (a) monitoring and surveillance, (b) synthesis and transfer, (c) coordination and organization, and (d) capacities and resources. The seven functionalities include 1) a monitoring and surveillance unit, 2) a pathogen competence platform, 3) evidence synthesis and trustworthy recommendations, 4) a regional networking and implementation unit, 5) a strategic communication unit, 6) human resources management, and 7) a rapid reaction and the response (R3)-cockpit. A governance will be established as a control and regulatory system for all structures and processes, testing agile management in non-pandemic times to improve responsiveness and flexibility and to investigate the suitability of the methods for scientific pandemic preparedness. The establishment of the PREPARED health research infrastructure must take place before the next pandemic, as training and regular stress tests are its fundamental prerequisites.

Coping with COVID: risk and resilience factors for mental health in a German representative panel study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic might affect mental health. Data from population-representative panel surveys with multiple waves including pre-COVID data investigating risk and protective factors are still rare. METHODS: In a stratified random sample of the German household population (n = 6684), we conducted survey-weighted multiple linear regressions to determine the association of various psychological risk and protective factors assessed between 2015 and 2020 with changes in psychological distress [(PD; measured via Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression and Anxiety (PHQ-4)] from pre-pandemic (average of 2016 and 2019) to peri-pandemic (both 2020 and 2021) time points. Control analyses on PD change between two pre-pandemic time points (2016 and 2019) were conducted. Regularized regressions were computed to inform on which factors were statistically most influential in the multicollinear setting. RESULTS: PHQ-4 scores in 2020 (M = 2.45) and 2021 (M = 2.21) were elevated compared to 2019 (M = 1.79). Several risk factors (catastrophizing, neuroticism, and asking for instrumental support) and protective factors (perceived stress recovery, positive reappraisal, and optimism) were identified for the peri-pandemic outcomes. Control analyses revealed that in pre-pandemic times, neuroticism and optimism were predominantly related to PD changes. Regularized regression mostly confirmed the results and highlighted perceived stress recovery as most consistent influential protective factor across peri-pandemic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several psychological risk and protective factors related to PD outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. A comparison of pre-pandemic data stresses the relevance of longitudinal assessments to potentially reconcile contradictory findings. Implications and suggestions for targeted prevention and intervention programs during highly stressful times such as pandemics are discussed.

Completeness and consistency of primary outcome reporting in COVID-19 publications in the early pandemic phase: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic saw a steep increase in the number of rapidly published scientific studies, especially early in the pandemic. Some have suggested COVID-19 trial reporting is of lower quality than typical reports, but there is limited evidence for this in terms of primary outcome reporting. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of completely defined primary outcomes reported in registry entries, preprints, and journal articles, and to assess consistent primary outcome reporting between these sources. METHODS: This is a descriptive study of a cohort of registered interventional clinical trials for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, drawn from the DIssemination of REgistered COVID-19 Clinical Trials (DIRECCT) study dataset. The main outcomes are: 1) Prevalence of complete primary outcome reporting; 2) Prevalence of consistent primary outcome reporting between registry entry and preprint as well as registry entry and journal article pairs. RESULTS: We analyzed 87 trials with 116 corresponding publications (87 registry entries, 53 preprints and 63 journal articles). All primary outcomes were completely defined in 47/87 (54%) registry entries, 31/53 (58%) preprints and 44/63 (70%) journal articles. All primary outcomes were consistently reported in 13/53 (25%) registry-preprint pairs and 27/63 (43%) registry-journal article pairs. No primary outcome was specified in 13/53 (25%) preprints and 8/63 (13%) journal articles. In this sample, complete primary outcome reporting occurred more frequently in trials with vs. without involvement of pharmaceutical companies (76% vs. 45%), and in RCTs vs. other study designs (68% vs. 49%). The same pattern was observed for consistent primary outcome reporting (with vs. without pharma: 56% vs. 12%, RCT vs. other: 43% vs. 22%). CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 trials in the early phase of the pandemic, all primary outcomes were completely defined in 54%, 58%, and 70% of registry entries, preprints and journal articles, respectively. Only 25% of preprints and 43% of journal articles reported primary outcomes consistent with registry entries.

The mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, many experts pointed to potential adverse mental health effects for older adults. By contrast, many studies in young to middle-aged adults found older age to be associated with reduced mental burden. However, a systematic review on older adults is missing. OBJECTIVES: To comprehensively assess the pandemic's mental health impact on older adults. DATA SOURCES: We searched nine databases from December 2019 to April 2022. STUDY SELECTION: We included longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional studies assessing pre- and/or peri-pandemic mental distress and/or positive mental health indicators (e.g. wellbeing) on at least two occasions. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 108 studies comprising 102,136 participants (≥60 years). After removal of outliers, there was a small increase in mental distress from pre-to-peri-pandemic assessments, standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.01, 0.18]. Furthermore, a small peri-pandemic decrease in anxiety symptoms was observed, whereas other symptoms remained unchanged. For positive mental health indicators, wellbeing and quality of life showed an initial decrease, whereas overall positive mental health increased during the pandemic, SMD = 0.08, 95% CI [0.01, 0.15]. Being female was related to larger peri-pandemic increases in mental distress. CONCLUSIONS: Based on many studies, this review demonstrated small decreases in mental health during early stages of the pandemic in older adults, with evidence for later recovery. These findings are similar to those for younger adults and correct earlier claims that older adults are at particular risk for negative mental health consequences. The results ask for further research into resilience and adaptation processes in older adults.

Prevalence of COVID-19 and Psychotropic Drug Treatment in Psychiatric In-patients in Germany in 2020: Results from a Nationwide Pilot Survey.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with a pre-existing mental disorder, an increased risk for a first manifestation of a psychiatric disorder in COVID-19 patients, a more severe course of COVID-19 and an increased mortality have been described. Conversely, observations of lower COVID-19 incidences in psychiatric in-patients suggested protective effects of psychiatric treatment and/or psychotropic drugs against COVID-19. METHODS: A retrospective multi-center study was conducted in 24 German psychiatric university hospitals. Between April and December 2020 (the first and partly second wave of COVID-19), the effects of COVID-19 were assessed on psychiatric in-patient care, the incidence and course of a SARS-CoV-2 infection, and treatment with psychotropic drugs. RESULTS: Patients (n=36,322) were admitted to the hospitals. Mandatory SARS-CoV-2 tests before/during admission were reported by 23 hospitals (95.8%), while 18 (75%) conducted regular testing during the hospital stay. Two hundred thirty-two (0.6%) patients were tested SARS-CoV-2-positive. Thirty-seven (16%) patients were receiving medical treatment for COVID-19 at the psychiatric hospital, ten (4.3%) were transferred to an intermediate/intensive care unit, and three (1.3%) died. The most common prescription for SARS-CoV-2-positive patients was for second-generation antipsychotics (n=79, 28.2%) and antidepressants (SSRIs (n=38, 13.5%), mirtazapine (n=36, 12.9%) and SNRIs (n=29, 10.4%)). DISCUSSION: Contrary to previous studies, our results showed a low number of infections and mortality in SARS-CoV-2-positive psychiatric patients. Several preventive measures seem effective to protect this vulnerable group. Our observations are compatible with the hypothesis of a protective effect of psychotropic drugs against COVID-19 as the overall mortality and need for specific medical treatment was low.

How do spine surgeons cope with psychological distress: results of a cross-sectional study.

Cross Sectional Study/Online Survey. In this study, we sought to assess stress, psychological distress, resilience, and coping strategies among spine surgeons in German-speaking countries. Recent studies have reported high rates of stress and burnout among surgeons. A survey via Survey Monkey™ was conducted among spine surgeons practicing in German-speaking countries using validated questionnaires for perceived stress, mental burden, resilience, and quality of life. Data on working situation and demographics were also collected. 582 surgeons responded to the survey, representing 15% of those surveyed. 79% of respondents were satisfied with their professional success. Mental burden was higher than in the general population, as was perceived stress. Chairpersons were exposed to the lowest levels of perceived stress and mental burden. Mental distress was high (GHQ ≥ 12) in 59% of residents and 27% chairpersons. Self-reported psychological resilience was higher than levels found in the general population and highest among chairpersons. Quality of life was comparable to levels reported in the general population. There were statistically significant correlations between perceived stress and mental burden scores (r s = 0.65, p < 0.001). Career level (senior physicians vs. residents, OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.10-0.66), perceived stress (OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.33-1.77), self-reported resilience (OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.33-0.84), and mental composite score (SOR 0.86; 95% CI 0.83-0.90) were predictors of high mental burden. There was no interaction between perceived stress and resilience on mental burden (p = 0.835). Spine surgeons are exposed to higher levels of stress than the general population, which are associated with higher mental distress. More professional experience and higher levels of psychological resilience are associated with lower levels of stress.

Interventions to build resilience and to ameliorate negative psychosocial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The psychosocial health of children and adolescents has been particularly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Containment measures have restricted social development, education and recreational activities, may have increased family conflicts and, in many cases, led to feelings of loneliness, sleep disturbances, symptoms of anxiety and depression. We conducted a systematic review to identify interventions that seek to ameliorate these detrimental effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and to build resilience in children and adolescents. Literature searches were conducted in the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (up to 30 June 2022). The searches retrieved 9557 records of which we included 13 randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) for evidence synthesis. Included studies predominantly implemented online group sessions for school-aged children with either a psychological component, a physical activity component, or a combination of both. A meta-analysis of seven studies on anxiety and five on depressive symptoms provided evidence for a positive effect of interventions by reducing anxiety (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) (95% CI): - 0.33 (- 0.59; - 0.06)) and depressive symptoms (SMD (95% CI): - 0.26 (- 0.36; - 0.16)) compared to the control interventions. Studies also showed improvements in positive mental health outcomes, such as resilience (n = 2) and mental and psychological wellbeing (n = 2). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested a greater effectiveness of interventions that (i) are of higher frequency and duration, (ii) enable personal interaction (face-to-face or virtually), and (iii) include a physical activity component. Almost all studies were judged to be at high risk of bias and showed considerable heterogeneity. Further research may focus on the contribution of different intervention components or distinct subgroups and settings, and should examine children and adolescents over longer follow-up periods.

Resilience and depressive symptoms in inpatients with depression: A cross-lagged panel model.

BACKGROUND: Resilience-the ability to bounce back or quickly recover from stress-has been found to predict treatment outcome in patients with mental disorders such as depression. The current study aimed to test whether resilience itself changes during treatment and whether resilience exclusively predicts changes in depressive symptoms or whether depressive symptoms also predict changes in resilience. METHODS: Inpatients with depression (N = 2165; average length of stay M = 60 days, SD = 32) completed the Brief Resilience Scale and the Patient Health Questionnaire Depression Scale at admission and discharge, scores of which were used to run a cross-lagged panel model. RESULTS: Resilience increased and depressive symptoms decreased from admission to discharge. Cross-sectionally, higher resilience was related to lower depressive symptoms at admission and at discharge. Prospectively, higher resilience at admission predicted stronger decreases in depressive symptoms, and higher depressive symptoms at admission predicted smaller increases in resilience. LIMITATIONS: Self-report questionnaires may potentially be biased (e.g., through recall bias, social desirability, or demand effects). CONCLUSIONS: The current study further supports that resilience is related not only to fewer mental health problems cross-sectionally but also is sensitive to change and a predictor of treatment outcome in patients with mental disorders. Given this pivotal role in mental health, the current findings highlight the importance of prevention and intervention approaches for promoting resilience in the general population and in persons with mental disorders in particular.

[German S3 guidelines on borderline personality disorder]. / S3-Leitlinie Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung.

Research on the understanding and especially on the treatment of borderline personality disorder (borderline PD) has made considerable progress in recent years, so that evidence-based German treatment guidelines have now been produced for the first time. This article highlights the development as well as the main content priorities and recommendations of the guidelines: first, the recommendations on the diagnostics are presented and in this context the upcoming changes to the International Classification of Diseases 11th reversion (ICD-11) are also explained. Subsequently, the most important recommendations on guideline-compliant psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy and treatment settings are presented. Finally, the recommendations concerning relatives (or other significant persons for people with borderline PD) as well as parenthood and borderline PD are presented.

[COVID-19 vaccination for people with severe mental diseases : Results of the COVID Ψ outpatient survey and recommendations for psychiatry]. / COVID-19-Impfung für Menschen mit schweren psychischen Erkrankungen : Ergebnisse des COVID-Ψ-Ambulant-Surveys und Empfehlungen für die Psychiatrie.

BACKGROUND: Severe mental illnesses are risk factors for SARS-CoV-2-related morbidity and mortality. Vaccination is an effective protection; therefore, high vaccination rates should be a major priority for people with mental illnesses. OBJECTIVES: (1) Identification of at-risk groups for non-vaccination and structures and interventions needed for widespread vaccination among people with mental illnesses from the perspective of outpatient psychiatrists and neurologists, (2) discussion of the results in the context of the international literature and (3) recommendations derived from them. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Qualitative content analysis of COVID-19 vaccination-related questions from the COVID Ψ online survey of n = 85 psychiatrists and neurologists in Germany. RESULTS: In the survey, people with schizophrenia, severe lack of drive, low socioeconomic status and homelessness were seen as risk groups for non-vaccination. Increased and targeted information, education, addressing and motivation and easily accessible vaccination offers by general practitioners, psychiatrists, and neurologists as well as complementary institutions were considered as important interventions. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 vaccinations as well as information, motivation and access support should be systematically offered by as many institutions of the psychiatric, psychotherapeutic and complementary care systems in Germany as possible.

Surprise: Unexpected Action Execution and Unexpected Inhibition Recruit the Same Fronto-Basal-Ganglia Network.

Unexpected and thus surprising events are omnipresent and oftentimes require adaptive behavior such as unexpected inhibition or unexpected action. The current theory of unexpected events suggests that such unexpected events just like global stopping recruit a fronto-basal-ganglia network. A global suppressive effect impacting ongoing motor responses and cognition is specifically attributed to the subthalamic nucleus (STN). Previous studies either used separate tasks or presented unexpected, task-unrelated stimuli during response inhibition tasks to relate the neural signature of unexpected events to that of stopping. Here, we aimed to test these predictions using a within task design with identical stimulus material for both unexpected action and unexpected inhibition using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) for the first time. To this end, 32 healthy human participants of both sexes performed a cue-informed go/nogo task comprising expected and unexpected action and inhibition trials during fMRI. Using conjunction, contrast, and Bayesian analyses, we demonstrate that unexpected action elicited by an unexpected go signal and unexpected inhibition elicited by an unexpected nogo signal recruited the same fronto-basal-ganglia network which is usually assigned to stopping. Furthermore, the stronger the unexpected action-related activity in the STN region was the more detrimental was the effect on response times. The present results thus complement earlier findings and provide direct evidence for the unified theory of unexpected events while ruling out alternative task and novelty effects.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT This is the first study using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to test whether unexpected events regardless of whether they require unexpected action or inhibition recruit a fronto-basal-ganglia network just like stopping. In contrast to previous studies, we used identical stimulus material for both conditions within one task. This enabled us to directly test predictions of the current theory of unexpected events and, moreover, to test for condition-specific neural signatures. The present results underpin that both processes recruit the same neural network while excluding alternative task and novelty effects. The simple task design thus provides an avenue to studying surprise as a pure form of reactive inhibition in neuropsychiatric patients displaying inhibitory deficits who often have a limited testing capacity.

Borderline personality disorder.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a mental disorder with a high burden on patients, family members, and health-care systems. The condition was previously regarded as untreatable, but progress in understanding and management has resulted in earlier diagnosis and better treatment outcomes. A coherent syndrome of BPD typically onsets during adolescence (after age 12 years). BPD is often preceded by or co-develops with symptoms of internalising disorders (depression and anxiety), externalising disorders (conduct problems, hyperactivity, and substance use), or both. BPD is associated with various poor outcomes, including low occupational and educational attainment, lack of long-term relationships, increased partner conflict, sexual risk-taking, low levels of social support, low life satisfaction, and increased service use. Psychotherapy is the main treatment for BPD; drug treatment is only indicated for comorbid conditions that require medication, or during a crisis if psychosocial interventions are insufficient. Awareness of BPD by non-specialists, as well as specialists, is key to appropriate early intervention.

Psychotherapies for borderline personality disorder: a focused systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A recently updated Cochrane review supports the efficacy of psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder (BPD). AIMS: To evaluate the effects of standalone and add-on psychotherapeutic treatments more concisely. METHOD: We applied the same methods as the 2020 Cochrane review, but focused on adult samples and comparisons of active treatments and unspecific control conditions. Standalone treatments (i.e. necessarily including individual psychotherapy as either the sole or one of several treatment components) and add-on interventions (i.e. complementing any ongoing individual BPD treatment) were analysed separately. Primary outcomes were BPD severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were remaining BPD diagnostic criteria, depression and attrition. RESULTS: Thirty-one randomised controlled trials totalling 1870 participants were identified. Among standalone treatments, statistically significant effects of low overall certainty were observed for dialectical behaviour therapy (self-harm: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.54, P = 0.006; psychosocial functioning: SMD -0.51, P = 0.01) and mentalisation-based treatment (self-harm: risk ratio 0.51, P < 0.0007; suicide-related outcomes: risk ratio 0.10, P < 0.0001). For adjunctive interventions, moderate-quality evidence of beneficial effects was observed for DBT skills training (BPD severity: SMD -0.66, P = 0.002; psychosocial functioning: SMD -0.45, P = 0.002), and statistically significant low-certainty evidence was observed for the emotion regulation group (BPD severity: mean difference -8.49, P < 0.00001), manual-assisted cognitive therapy (self-harm: mean difference -3.03, P = 0.03; suicide-related outcomes: SMD -0.96, P = 0.005) and the systems training for emotional predictability and problem-solving (BPD severity: SMD -0.48, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: There is reasonable evidence to conclude that psychotherapeutic interventions are helpful for individuals with BPD. Replication studies are needed to enhance the certainty of findings.

Pharmacological interventions for people with borderline personality disorder.

BACKGROUND: Among people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) who are engaged in clinical care, prescription rates of psychotropic medications are high, despite the fact that medication use is off-label as a treatment for BPD. Nevertheless, people with BPD often receive several psychotropic drugs at a time for sustained periods. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological treatment for people with BPD. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers up to February 2022. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatment to placebo, other pharmacologic treatments or a combination of pharmacologic treatments in people of all ages with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were individual BPD symptoms, depression, attrition and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 46 randomised controlled trials (2769 participants) in this review, 45 of which were eligible for quantitative analysis and comprised 2752 participants with BPD in total. This is 18 more trials than the 2010 review on this topic. Participants were predominantly female except for one trial that included men only. The mean age ranged from 16.2 to 39.7 years across the included trials. Twenty-nine different types of medications compared to placebo or other medications were included in the analyses. Seventeen trials were funded or partially funded by the pharmaceutical industry, 10 were funded by universities or research foundations, eight received no funding, and 11 had unclear funding. For all reported effect sizes, negative effect estimates indicate beneficial effects by active medication. Compared with placebo, no difference in effects were observed on any of the primary outcomes at the end of treatment for any medication. Compared with placebo, medication may have little to no effect on BPD symptom severity, although the evidence is of very low certainty (antipsychotics: SMD -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 0.08; 8 trials, 951 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.65 to 1.18; 2 trials, 87 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.57; 4 trials, 265 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on self-harm, indicating little to no effect (antipsychotics: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.84; 2 trials, 76 participants; antidepressants: MD 0.45 points on the Overt Aggression Scale-Modified-Self-Injury item (0-5 points), 95% CI -10.55 to 11.45; 1 trial, 20 participants; mood stabilisers: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.48; 1 trial, 276 participants). The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on suicide-related outcomes, with little to no effect (antipsychotics: SMD 0.05, 95 % CI -0.18 to 0.29; 7 trials, 854 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.26, 95% CI -1.62 to 1.09; 2 trials, 45 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.36, 95% CI -1.96 to 1.25; 2 trials, 44 participants). Very low-certainty evidence shows little to no difference between medication and placebo on psychosocial functioning (antipsychotics: SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.00; 7 trials, 904 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.06; 4 trials, 161 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26; 2 trials, 214 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests that antipsychotics may slightly reduce interpersonal problems (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.08; 8 trials, 907 participants), and that mood stabilisers may result in a reduction in this outcome (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.02; 4 trials, 300 participants). Antidepressants may have little to no effect on interpersonal problems, but the corresponding evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.55; 2 trials, 119 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about dropout rates compared with placebo by antipsychotics (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.38; 13 trials, 1216 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference in dropout rates between antidepressants (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.76; 6 trials, 289 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.15; 9 trials, 530 participants), compared to placebo. Reporting on adverse events was poor and mostly non-standardised. The available evidence on non-serious adverse events was of very low certainty for antipsychotics (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.29; 5 trials, 814 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; 1 trial, 276 participants). For antidepressants, no data on adverse events were identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review included 18 more trials than the 2010 version, so larger meta-analyses with more statistical power were feasible. We found mostly very low-certainty evidence that medication may result in no difference in any primary outcome. The rest of the secondary outcomes were inconclusive. Very limited data were available for serious adverse events. The review supports the continued understanding that no pharmacological therapy seems effective in specifically treating BPD pathology. More research is needed to understand the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of BPD better. Also, more trials including comorbidities such as trauma-related disorders, major depression, substance use disorders, or eating disorders are needed. Additionally, more focus should be put on male and adolescent samples.

[Willingness to get vaccinated among hospital staff in Germany: What is the role of COVID-19 conspiracy assumptions?] / Impfbereitschaft von Krankenhauspersonal in Deutschland: Welche Rolle spielen Verschwörungsannahmen zu COVID-19?

BACKGROUND: A critical factor in achieving widespread immunity against COVID-19 is the willingness of previously unvaccinated individuals to get vaccinated. Medical staff play a key role in this, as they ensure healthcare during the pandemic and for many serve as a source of information about vaccinations. Among the factors that negatively influence the general willingness to get vaccinated are conspiracy assumptions and the spread of misinformation. OBJECTIVE: The willingness of hospital staff in Germany to get vaccinated and various influencing variables were examined to obtain indicators that could help increase the general willingness to get vaccinated. METHODS: Between January and June 2021, a voluntary and anonymous online survey conducted as part of the egePan joint project of the national network for university medicine (funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research) was used to assess the willingness to be vaccinated, individual social characteristics, the belief in conspiracy assumptions, and communication items in German hospitals. RESULTS: In comparison with the general population, physicians and scientific staff in particular indicated an increased willingness to get vaccinated. Conspiracy assumptions were not very widespread but most frequent among administrative and nursing staff. Conspiracy assumptions were negatively associated with the willingness to get vaccinated. Predictors for a higher willingness to get vaccinated were the perceived safety and effectiveness of vaccinations and a higher age. DISCUSSION: Since the perceived safety and effectiveness of vaccinations have a positive effect on the willingness to get vaccinated, educational work and transparent information transfer could counteract the spread of conspiracy assumptions and increase vaccination rates among hospital staff.