[Court-ordered treatment: Analysing a complex practise through a literature review]. / Les soins pénalement ordonnés : analyse d'une pratique complexe à travers une revue de la littérature.

INTRODUCTION: In France, there are two main types of court-ordered treatment (COT) as far as mental health is concerned: obligations of treatment and injunctions of treatment. Obligations of treatment date back from 1958 whereas the law implementing injunctions of treatment is fairly recent as it was passed in 1998. Obligations and injunctions of treatment are two different types of COT that differ in terms of proceedings (obligations of treatment require no preliminary forensic psychiatric assessment; as for injunctions of treatment, they require the appointment of a coordinating medical doctor) and that are applied for different offences. However, both are psychiatric commitment procedures connecting the judicial, medical and social fields and their overall numbers have been on the rise. These common psychiatric practices have seldom been assessed and no review of the literature on the subject has ever been published. Better knowledge of such forensic practices is essential to their improvement and even to adjust the legal framework of these measures that are enjoying a boom. The purpose of this literature review is to define the prevalence of COT as well as the sociodemographic, criminal and psychiatric characteristics of those concerned by such measures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A review of the French medical literature on COT was carried out using Science Direct up to December 2013. The results of seven studies were included and analysed. This was completed with a review of the articles listed in social sciences and law databases (Cairn and Dalloz). RESULTS: It has become increasingly frequent to rely on psychiatric teams to implement COT while at the same time public mental health services have to face a surge in activity with restricted financial means. Obligations of treatment are far more common (about 20,000 court orders a year) than injunctions of treatment (about 4000 measures are currently being enforced). However the latter have showed an increase of 506% over the 2000 decade. Both measures mainly concern men (83-99%) who are rather low on the social scale. In about half of these men, no mental disorder was found, however the prevalence of personality disorders ranged from 22 to 65% while that of psychotic disorders was low. Injunctions of treatment concerned sex offenders (90% of cases) whereas obligations of treatment concern non-sexual abusers (40-70%) rather than sex offenders (20-30%). DISCUSSION: Psychiatric research on COT is still thin on the ground and its methodology does not allow rigorous evaluation though the use of such measures is growing. When confronted with people who have not sought any care or treatment, healthcare professionals are at a loss. In France, training in forensic psychiatry is inadequate and specialised healthcare (particularly for sex offenders) need improving to reach the level of those found in many other European countries. The purpose of psychiatric treatment differs from that of lawmakers whose aim is to prevent recidivism. However, better treatment consistency requires setting up partnerships between justice, health and social services. To improve connections, there are various avenues of work such as, for instance, the creation of coordinating medical doctors for injunctions of treatment in France or European experiments using a multidisciplinary approach to prevent recidivism in sex offenders. The framework of such a partnership remains to be created as it is part and parcel of COT but has not been provided for in the law. Healthcare jurisdictions as defined in the 2009 French National Health Law might provide an appropriate framework for mental health and law professionals to collaborate.

[Assessment of metabolic impairments inducted by atypical antipsychotics among schizophrenic patients]. / Evaluation des troubles du métabolisme induits par les antipsychotiques atypiques chez les patients schizophrènes.

Conventional and atypical antipsychotics are known to induce weight gain, cause glucose and lipid impairments among schizophrenic patients. These impairments contribute to the intrinsic risk factors linked to the psychiatric pathology (sedentary state, nicotin addiction, diabetes) increasing numbers of cardiovascular complications. We propose to study ponderal modifications and presence of metabolic abnormalities in a population of schizophrenic patients treated by conventional or atypical antipsychotics, depending on the received treatment; 32 patients, whose schizophrenia diagnosis had been previously made, were consecutively included over a 4 months period. They were divided into three groups: patients treated by conventional antipsychotics (n = 6), by atypical antipsychotics (n = 16) or by a combination of both (n = 10); 6 patients (18%) display overweight problems, 4 patients (12.5%) got hypertriglyceridemia and 4 other patients (12.5%) have hypercholesterolemia. No particular drug could be directly targeted, partly because of the restricted size of our sample, but the patients presenting metabolism impairment were treated by atypical antipsychotic. The observance of these abnormalities is reflected in publications and lead to some antipsychotic treatments monitoring rules.

[Comparison of two assessment tools of antidepressant side-effects: UKU scale versus spontaneous notification]. / Comparaison de deux outils de mesure des effets indésirables d'un traitement antidépresseur: la notification spontanée et l'échelle UKU.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Overall, the efficacy of the newer antidepressants: serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), selective serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant (NaSSA) and tianeptine is similar to that of the tricyclics, and so their acceptability/safety becomes a selection criterion for the clinician. However, side-effect assessment comes up against several difficulties: distinguishing between somatic symptoms caused by the depression and those caused by the treatment -- which assessment tool to use (spontaneous notification, standardized scales that are not specific for the side effects caused by psychotropic drugs, standardised scales specific for the side effects caused by psychotropic drugs, meta-analysis, etc.) -- which data sources to consult (anecdotal reports, reviews, prospective studies), and which data set to use, etc. As a result, the question of the exhaustiveness and reliability of the data consulted by the clinician can arise. We therefore conducted a comparative study in patients treated with these newer antidepressants, of 2 antidepressants side-effect assessment tools: spontaneous notification (SN) versus the UKU scale, a standardised scale specific for the side effects of psychotropic drugs. METHODOLOGY: The depressed outpatients were selected from a psychiatric unit in a French psychiatric hospital and from a non-hospital consulting room. The main inclusion criteria were: male or female subjects, suffering from major depression without melancholia or psychotic features or suffering from mood disorders (according to DSM IV criteria), who had been treated for at least 4 weeks with one of the newer antidepressants. The main exclusion criteria were: any other psychiatric disorder, a serious physical disorder, treatment with neuroleptics, mood-changing drugs or other antidepressants, and patients who were not able to understand the questionnaire. The investigation was carried out by a clinical pharmacist. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included in the study. There were 18 men and 32 women. The mean age was 53.5 15.9 years [22 - 77], the mean period of treatment was 24 30.5 months [1 - 127] and 52% of the patients received concomitant medication with anxiolitic or hypnotic drug(s). The percentage of patients who reported at least one side effect was significantly higher for the UKU scale than for SN (84% vs 58%, p<0.01). The ratio between SN and UKU scale scores was 2/3. A similar pattern was found for the total number of side effects (n=177 vs n=47, p<0.001). The ratio between the total number of side effects for the SN and UKU scale was 1/4. The side effects were divided into five subgroups: psychiatric, neurovegetative, sexual, neurological and others. In all these subgroups, the number of side effects reported was significantly higher when the UKU scale was used than when SN was used. The values were as follows: psychiatric (n=44 vs n=15, p<0.001), neurovegetative (n=59 vs n=15, p<0.001), sexual (n=36 vs n=10, p<0.001), neurological (n=11 vs n=2, p<0.001) and other side effects (n=27 vs n=5, p<0.001). Nineteen side effects were only reported when SN was used (for example: dry eyes, incompatibility with alcohol, euphoria...). Twenty-four side effects were only reported when the UKU scale was used (for example: increased libido, loss of bodyweight...). The side effects had no impact on daily life in most of 80% of the patients; there was no significant difference between the patient's assessment of the discomfort caused by side effects and the clinician's assessment. In 90% of cases, the side effects did not lead to any change in the treatment. DISCUSSION: The findings of this study show that the collection of data regarding side effects depends on the assessment tool used: the number of side effects reported was significantly higher when the UKU scale was used than when SN was used. However, this finding must viewed with caution, because it has been showed that checklists can induce symptoms in suggestible patients. Neurovegetative troubles are the most commonly reported side effects, and neurological troubles the least often reported. This matches the tolerability profile of these antidepressants. The disorders that were least frequently spontaneously reported were the neurological, sexual and "other" side effects. These emerged only when the clinician asked the patient about them. The 19 side effects that were only reported when SN was used were side effects that were not included in the UKU scale or that had not been present during the three days before we started the investigation. The 34 side effects that were only reported when the UKU scale was used were either side effects with no apparent link with the treatment (for example: micturition troubles) or embarrassing effects (such as increased libido). CONCLUSION: Our findings show that the collection of data on side effects depends on the assessment tool used. These findings need to be confirmed by large-scale comparative studies, and the standardization of the assessment of side effects is a question that needs to be raised.

Manic episodes: the direct cost of a three-month period following hospitalisation.

INTRODUCTION: Few data exist to estimate the burden of manic episodes on healthcare systems or the therapeutic strategies used. This study was undertaken to identify treatment strategies chosen, and to assess the "real-world" direct medical cost of treating manic episodes necessitating hospitalisation. METHOD: Case record data were reviewed during the three months following hospitalisation for a manic episode in France. Healthcare resource utilisation was assessed, direct costs calculated, and treatment strategies analysed. A total of 137 patients files (51.8% female; mean age: 35 years) were reviewed and data on 185 hospitalisations collected. RESULTS: The mean duration of hospitalisation was 47 days over the study period. The most common treatment strategy during hospitalisation was the combination of a mood stabilizer with a neuroleptic drug (64% of patients at day 30). Anticonvulsants including valproate (39%) and carbamazepine (20%) were more common than lithium (42%). Treatment received during hospitalisation was generally continued after discharge, with a trend away from neuroleptics and towards mood stabilizers. The mean direct costs incurred over the three-month study period was Euro 22297, with 98.6% of those costs due to hospitalisation. CONCLUSION: These results confirm that the costs of treating a manic episode are high, and overwhelmingly due to the cost of hospitalisation.

[Current concept of mood disorders. Impact on the therapeutic management]. / La conception actuelle des troubles de l'humeur. Incidence sur la prise en charge thérapeutique.

The unipolar-bipolar distinction underlines the recurrence of the disorder (40 to 80% of unipolars and 95% of bipolars) and also the transition from one subtype to the other (10 to 15% of unipolars will become bipolars). Some semiological forms of depressive illness may give clues concerning the required management modalities. Depressions with psychotic features have a good response to ECT or to TCAs+neuroleptics. As other authors, Quitkin et al. find a good response of atypical depression to MAOIs. The comorbidity of mood disorders with personality disorders may be of poor prognosis. Akiskal suggested the presence of a depressive personality, Hudson and Pope suggest the notion of an affective disorders spectrum in which bulimia and OCD have a good response to serotoninergic antidepressants, whereas panic disorders have a good response to clomipramine, imipramine and MAOIs. Patient management should start with taking both the history of the disease and patient's previous treatment with a much precision as possible. Today the focus is on the particular progressive forms of resistant and chronic depressions, among which there are patients who have not received adequate treatment, and of rapid cyclers. The hypothesis of hypothyroïdism in rapid cyclers has been suggested recently. Carbamazepine and Valproate seem to be efficacious in several recent open studies and in controlled for carbamazepine. The initiation of chemotherapy to prevent the recurrences of depression takes into account the unipolar or bipolar aspect of the mood disorder. Lithium has emerged as the prophylactic agent of choice in bipolar disorders, especially if the index episode is manic. Early prophylaxis is justified when the first episode is manic or after two depressive episodes.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)