RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Coercive treatment comprises a broad range of practices, ranging from implicit or explicit pressure to accept certain treatment to the use of forced practices such as involuntary admission, seclusion and restraint. Coercion is common in mental health services. AIMS: To evaluate the strength and credibility of evidence on the efficacy of interventions to reduce coercive treatment in mental health services. Protocol registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/S76T3. METHOD: Systematic literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Campbell Collaboration, and Epistemonikos from January 2010 to January 2020 for meta-analyses of randomised studies. Summary effects were recalculated using a common metric and random-effects models. We assessed between-study heterogeneity, predictive intervals, publication bias, small-study effects and whether the results of the observed positive studies were more than expected by chance. On the basis of these calculations, strength of associations was classified using quantitative umbrella review criteria, and credibility of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 23 primary studies (19 conducted in European countries and 4 in the USA) enrolling 8554 participants were included. The evidence on the efficacy of staff training to reduce use of restraint was supported by the most robust evidence (relative risk RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.87; suggestive association, GRADE: moderate), followed by evidence on the efficacy of shared decision-making interventions to reduce involuntary admissions of adults with severe mental illness (RR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.92; weak association, GRADE: moderate) and by the evidence on integrated care interventions (RR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.46-0.95; weak association, GRADE: low). By contrast, community treatment orders and adherence therapy had no effect on involuntary admission rates. CONCLUSIONS: Different levels of evidence indicate the benefit of staff training, shared decision-making interventions and integrated care interventions to reduce coercive treatment in mental health services. These different levels of evidence should be considered in the development of policy, clinical and implementation initiatives to reduce coercive practices in mental healthcare, and should lead to further studies in both high- and low-income countries to improve the strength and credibility of the evidence base.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Self-Help Plus (SH+) is a group-based psychological intervention developed by the World Health Organization for managing stress. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of SH+ in preventing mental disorders in refugees and asylum seekers in Western Europe. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 5 European countries. Refugees and asylum seekers with psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire score ≥3), but without a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) or ICD/10 diagnosis of mental disorder, as assessed with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), were randomized to SH+ or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU). The primary outcome was the frequency of mental disorders with the MINI at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of mental disorders at postintervention, self-identified problems, psychological symptoms, and other outcomes. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-nine individuals were randomly assigned to SH+ or ETAU. For the primary outcome, we found no difference in the frequency of mental disorders at 6 months (Cramer V = 0.007, p = 0.90, RR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.52-1.78), while the difference significantly favored SH+ at after the intervention (secondary outcome, measured within 2 weeks from the last session; Cramer V = 0.13, p = 0.01, RR = 0.50; 95% CI 0.29-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomized indicated prevention study with the aim of preventing the onset of mental disorders in asylum seekers and refugees in Western Europe. As a prevention effect of SH+ was not observed at 6 months, but rather after the intervention only, modalities to maintain its beneficial effect in the long term need to be identified.
Asunto(s)
Trastornos Mentales , Distrés Psicológico , Refugiados , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Trastornos Mentales/terapiaRESUMEN
An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus pandemic calls for a rapid adaptation of conventional medical practices to meet the evolving needs of such vulnerable patients. People with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) may frequently require treatment with psychotropic medications, but are at the same time at higher risk for safety issues because of the complex underlying medical condition and the potential interaction with medical treatments. METHODS: In order to produce evidence-based practical recommendations on the optimal management of psychotropic medications in people with COVID-19, an international, multi-disciplinary working group was established. The methodology of the WHO Rapid Advice Guidelines in the context of a public health emergency and the principles of the AGREE statement were followed. Available evidence informing on the risk of respiratory, cardiovascular, infective, hemostatic, and consciousness alterations related to the use of psychotropic medications, and drug-drug interactions between psychotropic and medical treatments used in people with COVID-19, was reviewed and discussed by the working group. RESULTS: All classes of psychotropic medications showed potentially relevant safety risks for people with COVID-19. A set of practical recommendations was drawn in order to inform frontline clinicians on the assessment of the anticipated risk of psychotropic-related unfavorable events, and the possible actions to take in order to effectively manage this risk, such as when it is appropriate to avoid, withdraw, switch, or adjust the dose of the medication. CONCLUSIONS: The present evidence-based recommendations will improve the quality of psychiatric care in people with COVID-19, allowing an appropriate management of the medical condition without worsening the psychiatric condition and vice versa.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Coronavirus/complicaciones , Interacciones Farmacológicas , Trastornos Mentales/tratamiento farmacológico , Neumonía Viral/complicaciones , Psicotrópicos/efectos adversos , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Humanos , Trastornos Mentales/epidemiología , Pandemias , Psicotrópicos/uso terapéutico , Salud Pública , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Riesgo , SARS-CoV-2 , Revisiones Sistemáticas como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In recent years there has been a progressive rise in the number of asylum seekers and refugees displaced from their country of origin, with significant social, economic, public health and mental health implications. The aim of this study is to (1) describe the level of psychological distress and frequency of psychiatric disorders in a sample of male asylum seekers and refugees across different ethnic groups resettled in Italy; (2) establish whether the number of traumatic events experienced before, during and after the migration process is associated with level of psychological distress and depressive symptoms. METHODS: In two large Italian catchment areas, over a period of 1 year a consecutive series of male asylum seekers and refugees, aged 18 or above and included in the Italian protection system, were screened for psychological distress and psychiatric disorders using validated questionnaires. RESULTS: During the study period, 252 male asylum seekers or refugees were recruited. More than one-third of the participants (34.5%) showed clinically relevant psychological distress, and one-fourth (22.2%), met the criteria for a psychiatric diagnosis, mainly Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and depressive disorders. The number of traumatic events turned out to be a risk factor for both clinically relevant psychological distress and depressive disorders. Receiving good social support emerged as a protective factor, while migrants with unclear status were at higher risk of psychological distress than those holding or awaiting a permission. DISCUSSION: In an unselected sample of male asylum seekers and refugees, after around 1 year of resettlement in Italy, the frequency of psychological distress and psychiatric disorders was substantial and clinically relevant. The association between traumatic events, especially post-migration problems, and mental health conditions suggests the need of developing services to assist refugees and asylum seekers to address the multi-faceted problems they experience, such as social support in host country, legal problems concerning permit status and asylum procedure, and family reunification, as well as addressing trauma and mental health issues.
Asunto(s)
Refugiados , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático , Adolescente , Depresión , Humanos , Italia , Masculino , Distrés Psicológico , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático/diagnóstico , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation is often associated with use of first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs). However, other factors require appropriate consideration, including age and gender, the role of other known medications associated with QTc prolongation, and severe comorbid conditions, such as co-occurring alcohol abuse/dependence. We aimed to study potential mediating roles of different, related, candidate variables on QTc. METHODS: We capitalized on data from a large (N = 2366), cross-sectional, national survey, the STAR Network QTc study, using a representative sample of people taking FGAs, and recruited from mental health services across Italy. RESULTS: About one-third of the sample was treated with FGAs, and almost one-tenth of the subjects took a different, additional, drug known to cause QTc prolongation. Our findings confirmed that there is an impact from FGAs, age, gender, alcohol misuse, and concurrent risky drugs on QTc. However, comorbid alcohol abuse/dependence and concurrent risky drugs did not mediate the effect of FGAs on QTc. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed that FGAs, concurrent risky drugs, and alcohol use disorders prolonged QTc. FGAs had a direct effect on QTc, confirming the need for clinicians to monitor a risk that could lead to sudden unexplained death. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Asunto(s)
Antipsicóticos/efectos adversos , Electrocardiografía/efectos de los fármacos , Frecuencia Cardíaca/efectos de los fármacos , Síndrome de QT Prolongado/inducido químicamente , Trastornos Mentales/tratamiento farmacológico , Adulto , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Frecuencia Cardíaca/fisiología , Humanos , Italia/epidemiología , Síndrome de QT Prolongado/epidemiología , Síndrome de QT Prolongado/fisiopatología , Masculino , Trastornos Mentales/epidemiología , Trastornos Mentales/fisiopatología , Persona de Mediana EdadRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Pneumonia is one of the major leading causes of morbidity and mortality among persons aged 65 years or older. Recently, several studies suggested an association between antipsychotic (AP) use and risk of pneumonia in elderly patients. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies was to investigate if first-generation and second-generation AP drugs increase the risk of pneumonia in the elderly and also in the younger population, and to ascertain the risk associated with exposure to individual drugs. METHODS: All observational cohort or case-control studies that reported data on pneumonia outcomes in individuals exposed to AP drugs as compared with individuals unexposed or with past exposure to AP drugs were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Study participants were of either sex and of any age with no restrictions in terms of diagnostic categories. RESULTS: The risk of pneumonia was significantly increased by exposure to first-generation AP drugs (odds ratio (OR) 1.68, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 1.39-2.04, I(2) = 47%) and exposure to second-generation AP drugs (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.67-2.35, I(2) = 36.7%). The risk was similar among different diagnostic categories and age groups, in elderly and young-adult populations; the finding on age was corroborated by a meta-regression analysis, which did not detect any relationship between age and risk of pneumonia. Only few studies provided data on individual drugs. CONCLUSION: Systematic review of current observational evidence suggests that exposure to first-generation and second-generation AP drugs is associated with an increased risk of pneumonia. The present systematic review expands previous knowledge by showing that the increased risk not only applies to elderly individuals but also to younger patients. The information about the risk of pneumonia for individual compounds is still very limited.
Asunto(s)
Antipsicóticos/efectos adversos , Neumonía/inducido químicamente , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Observacionales como Asunto , Oportunidad Relativa , Neumonía/diagnóstico , Neumonía/epidemiología , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Background: Scalable psychological interventions such as the WHO's Self-Help Plus (SH+) have been developed for clinical and non-clinical populations in need of psychological support. SH+ has been successfully implemented to prevent common mental disorders among asylum seekers and refugees who are growing in number due to increasing levels of forced migration. These populations are often exposed to multiple, severe sources of traumatisation, and evidence of the effect of such events on treatment is insufficient, especially for non-clinical populations.Objective: We aim to study the effect of potentially traumatic experiences (PTEs) and the mediating role of symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on the improvement following SH+.Method: Participants allocated to SH+ who received at least three sessions (N = 345) were extracted from two large, randomised, European prevention trials involving asylum seekers and refugees. Measures of distress, depression, functional impairment, and post-traumatic stress symptoms were administered at baseline and 6 months post-intervention, together with measures of well-being and quality of life. Adjusted models were constructed to examine the effect of PTEs on post-intervention improvement. The possible mediating role of PTSD symptoms in this relationship was then tested.Results: Increasing numbers of PTEs decreased the beneficial effect of SH+ for all measures. This relationship was mediated by symptoms of PTSD when analysing measures of well-being and quality of life. However, this did not apply for measures of mental health problems.Conclusions: Exposure to PTEs may largely reduce benefits from SH+. PTSD symptomatology plays a specific, mediating role on psychological well-being and quality of life of participants who experienced PTE. Healthcare professionals and researchers should consider the role of PTEs and PTSD symptoms in the treatment of migrants and refugees and explore possible feasible add-on solutions for cases exposed to multiple PTEs.
Increasing numbers of potentially traumatic experiences can decrease the beneficial effect of a manualized group psychotherapeutic intervention in migrants and refugees across multiple countries.In absence of a full threshold diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, post-traumatic stress symptoms still mediate the relation between potentially traumatic experiences and some outcome improvements at follow-up.While the moderating role of number of potentially traumatic experiences applies to all outcomes (depression symptoms, psychological distress, functional impairment, well-being, and quality of life), the mediating role of post-traumatic stress symptoms in this relation only applies to well-being and quality of life.
Asunto(s)
Refugiados , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático , Humanos , Refugiados/psicología , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático/terapia , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático/psicología , Masculino , Femenino , Adulto , Intervención Psicosocial , Calidad de Vida/psicologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Long-term studies for patients with resistant schizophrenia are necessary to assess the effectiveness of combination strategies on persisting positive symptoms. AIMS AND METHODS: This multicenter, naturalistic, randomized, superiority study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00395915) aimed to compare clinical efficacy and tolerability of haloperidol versus aripiprazole as combination treatment with clozapine in patients with resistant schizophrenia. RESULTS: One hundred six patients were followed up for 12 months. After 12 months, the proportion of patients who discontinued treatment was not significantly different between aripiprazole and haloperidol (37% vs 28%, respectively; P = 0.431). The change in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale score was similar in the aripiprazole and haloperidol groups (-7.0 vs -7.9, respectively; P = 0.389), whereas the tolerability total score decreased significantly more in the aripiprazole group (-7.2 vs -2.3; P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: While the effectiveness of clozapine augmentation with a second antipsychotic agent is not clearly demonstrated yet, results from this study suggest that augmentation with aripiprazole offers no substantial benefit over haloperidol in efficacy. Aripiprazole was perceived more tolerable than haloperidol, but it is uncertain how this finding may translate into the real world of clinical practice.
Asunto(s)
Antipsicóticos/uso terapéutico , Clozapina/uso terapéutico , Resistencia a Medicamentos , Haloperidol/uso terapéutico , Piperazinas/uso terapéutico , Quinolonas/uso terapéutico , Esquizofrenia/tratamiento farmacológico , Antipsicóticos/efectos adversos , Aripiprazol , Clozapina/efectos adversos , Supervivencia sin Enfermedad , Quimioterapia Combinada , Haloperidol/efectos adversos , Humanos , Italia , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Modelos Lineales , Análisis Multivariante , Piperazinas/efectos adversos , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Escalas de Valoración Psiquiátrica , Quinolonas/efectos adversos , Esquizofrenia/diagnóstico , Psicología del Esquizofrénico , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Data on therapeutic interventions following deliberate self harm (DSH) in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) are very scant and there is no unanimous consensus on the best pharmacological option for these patients. There is some evidence that lithium treatment might be effective in reducing the risk of completed suicide in adult patients with unipolar affective disorders, however no clear cut results have been found so far. The primary aim of the present study is to assess whether adding lithium to standard therapy is an effective treatment strategy to reduce the risk of suicidal behaviour in long term treatment of people with TRD and previous history of DSH. METHODS/DESIGN: We will carry out a randomised, parallel group, assessor-blinded superiority clinical trial. Adults with a diagnosis of major depression, an episode of DSH in the previous 12 months and inadequate response to at least two antidepressants given sequentially at an adequate dose for an adequate time for the current depressive episode will be allocated to add lithium to current therapy (intervention arm) or not (control arm). Following randomisation, treatment is to be taken daily for 1 year unless some clear reason to stop develops. Suicide completion and acts of DSH during the 12 months of follow-up will constitute the composite primary outcome. To preserve outcome assessor blindness, an independent adjudicating committee, blind to treatment allocation, will anonymously review all outcome events. DISCUSSION: The results of this study should indicate whether lithium treatment is associated with lower risk of completed suicide and DSH in adult patients with treatment resistant unipolar depression, who recently attempted suicide. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00927550.
Asunto(s)
Antidepresivos/uso terapéutico , Trastorno Depresivo Resistente al Tratamiento/tratamiento farmacológico , Litio/uso terapéutico , Adulto , Antimaníacos/uso terapéutico , Protocolos Clínicos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Proyectos de Investigación , Riesgo , Conducta Autodestructiva , Suicidio , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had major and potentially long-lasting effects on mental health and wellbeing across populations worldwide. However, these impacts were not felt equally, leading to an exacerbation of health inequalities, especially affecting vulnerable populations such as migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Aiming to inform the adaptation and implementation of psychological intervention programmes, the present study investigated priority mental health needs in this population group. METHODS: Participants were adult asylum seekers, refugees and migrants (ARMs) and stakeholders with experience in the field of migration living in Verona, Italy, and fluent in Italian and English. A two-stage process was carried out to examine their needs using qualitative methods including free listing interviews and focus group discussions, according to Module One of the DIME (Design, Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation) manual. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic analyses approach. RESULTS: A total of 19 participants (12 stakeholders, 7 ARMs) completed the free listing interviews and 20 participants (12 stakeholders and 8 ARMs) attended focus group discussions. Salient problems and functions that emerged during free listing interviews were discussed during the focus group discussions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, ARMs struggled with many everyday living difficulties in their resettlement country due to social and economic issues, revealing a strong influence of contextual factors in determining mental health. Both ARMs and stakeholders highlighted a mismatch between needs, expectations and interventions as factors that may hamper proper implementation of health and social programmes. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings could help in the adaptation and implementation of psychological interventions targeting the needs of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants aiming to find a match between needs, expectations, and the corresponding interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration number 2021-UNVRCLE-0106707, February 11 2021.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Migrantes , Adulto , Humanos , Pandemias , COVID-19/epidemiología , Investigación Cualitativa , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de SaludRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In asylum seekers and refugees, the frequency of mental disorders, such as depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, is higher than the general population, but there is a lack of data on risk factors for the development of mental disorders in this population. AIM: This study investigated the risk factors for mental disorder development in a large group of asylum seekers and refugees resettled in high- and middle-income settings. METHODS: Participant-level data from two randomized prevention studies involving asylum seekers and refugees resettled in Western European countries and in Turkey were pooled. The two studies randomized participants with psychological distress, but without a diagnosis of mental disorder, to the Self-Help Plus psychological intervention or enhanced care as usual. At baseline, exposure to potentially traumatic events was measured using the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire-part I, while psychological distress and depressive symptoms were assessed with the General Health Questionnaire and the Patient Health Questionnaire. After 3 and 6 months of follow-up, the proportion of participants who developed a mental disorder was calculated using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. RESULTS: A total of 1,101 participants were included in the analysis. At 3- and 6-month follow-up the observed frequency of mental disorders was 13.51% (115/851) and 24.30% (207/852), respectively, while the frequency estimates after missing data imputation were 13.95% and 23.78%, respectively. After controlling for confounders, logistic regression analysis showed that participants with a lower education level (p = .034), a shorter duration of journey (p = .057) and arriving from countries with war-related contexts (p = .017), were more at risk of developing mental disorders. Psychological distress (p = .004), depression (p = .001) and exposure to potentially traumatic events (p = .020) were predictors of mental disorder development. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several risk factors for the development of mental disorders in asylum seekers and refugees, some of which may be the target of risk reduction policies. The identification of asylum seekers and refugees at increased risk of mental disorders should guide the implementation of focused preventative psychological interventions.
Asunto(s)
Refugiados , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático , Humanos , Refugiados/psicología , Turquía/epidemiología , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático/epidemiología , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático/psicología , Europa (Continente)/epidemiología , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
Introduction: Migrant populations, including workers, undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, internationally displaced persons, and other populations on the move, are exposed to a variety of stressors and potentially traumatic events before, during, and after the migration process. In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic has represented an additional stressor, especially for migrants on the move. As a consequence, migration may increase vulnerability of individuals toward a worsening of subjective wellbeing, quality of life, and mental health, which, in turn, may increase the risk of developing mental health conditions. Against this background, we designed a stepped-care programme consisting of two scalable psychological interventions developed by the World Health Organization and locally adapted for migrant populations. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this stepped-care programme will be assessed in terms of mental health outcomes, resilience, wellbeing, and costs to healthcare systems. Methods and analysis: We present the study protocol for a pragmatic randomized study with a parallel-group design that will enroll participants with a migrant background and elevated level of psychological distress. Participants will be randomized to care as usual only or to care a usual plus a guided self-help stress management guide (Doing What Matters in Times of Stress, DWM) and a five-session cognitive behavioral intervention (Problem Management Plus, PM+). Participants will self-report all measures at baseline before random allocation, 2 weeks after DWM delivery, 1 week after PM+ delivery and 2 months after PM+ delivery. All participants will receive a single-session of a support intervention, namely Psychological First Aid. We will include 212 participants. An intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed models will be conducted to explore the programme's effect on anxiety and depression symptoms, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-Anxiety and Depression Scale summary score 2 months after PM+ delivery. Secondary outcomes include post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, resilience, quality of life, resource utilization, cost, and cost-effectiveness. Discussion: This study is the first randomized controlled trial that combines two World Health Organization psychological interventions tailored for migrant populations with an elevated level of psychological distress. The present study will make available DWM/PM+ packages adapted for remote delivery following a task-shifting approach, and will generate evidence to inform policy responses based on a more efficient use of resources for improving resilience, wellbeing and mental health. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04993534.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Migrantes , Humanos , Intervención Psicosocial , Pandemias , Calidad de Vida , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Although pharmacological and psychological interventions are both effective for major depression, in primary and secondary care settings antidepressant drugs remain the mainstay of treatment. Amongst antidepressants many different agents are available. Duloxetine hydrochloride is a dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine and has been licensed by the Food and Drug Administration in the US for major depressive disorder (MDD), generalised anxiety disorder, diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia and chronic musculoskeletal pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of duloxetine in comparison with all other antidepressant agents in the acute-phase treatment of major depression. SEARCH METHODS: MEDLINE (1966 to 2012), EMBASE (1974 to 2012), the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2012. No language restriction was applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were hand-searched. Pharmaceutical company marketing duloxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials allocating patients with major depression to duloxetine versus any other antidepressive agent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and a double-entry procedure was employed. Information extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome measures in terms of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 16 randomised controlled trials (overall 5735 participants) were included in this systematic review. Of these, three trials were unpublished. We found 11 studies (overall 3304 participants) comparing duloxetine with one selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) (six studies versus paroxetine, three studies versus escitalopram and two versus fluoxetine), four studies (overall 1978 participants) comparing duloxetine with a newer antidepressants (three with venlafaxine and one with desvenlafaxine, respectively) and one study (overall 453 participants) comparing duloxetine with an antipsychotic drug which is also used as an antidepressive agent, quetiapine. No studies were found comparing duloxetine with tricyclic antidepressants. The pooled confidence intervals were rather wide and there were no statistically significant differences in efficacy when comparing duloxetine with other antidepressants. However, when compared with escitalopram or venlafaxine, there was a higher rate of drop out due to any cause in the patients randomised to duloxetine (odds ratio (OR) 1.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 2.62 and OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.15, respectively). There was also some weak evidence suggesting that patients taking duloxetine experienced more adverse events than paroxetine (OR 1.24; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.55). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine did not seem to provide a significant advantage in efficacy over other antidepressive agents for the acute-phase treatment of major depression. No differences in terms of efficacy were found, even though duloxetine was worse than some SSRIs (most of all, escitalopram) and newer antidepressants (like venlafaxine) in terms of acceptability and tolerability. Unfortunately, we only found evidence comparing duloxetine with a handful of other active antidepressive agents and only a few trials per comparison were found (in some cases we retrieved just one trial). This limited the power of the review to detect moderate, but clinically meaningful differences between the drugs. As many statistical tests have been used in the review, the findings from this review are better thought of as hypothesis forming rather than hypothesis testing and it would be very comforting to see the conclusions replicated in future trials. Most of included studies were sponsored by the drug industry manufacturing duloxetine. As for all other new investigational compounds, the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be borne in mind. In the present review no trials reported economic outcomes. Given that several SSRIs and the great majority of antidepressants are now available as generic formulation (only escitalopram, desvenlafaxine and duloxetine are still on patent), more comprehensive economic estimates of antidepressant treatment effect should be considered to better inform healthcare policy.
Asunto(s)
Antidepresivos/uso terapéutico , Tiofenos/uso terapéutico , Citalopram/uso terapéutico , Ciclohexanoles/uso terapéutico , Depresión/tratamiento farmacológico , Succinato de Desvenlafaxina , Dibenzotiazepinas/uso terapéutico , Clorhidrato de Duloxetina , Fluoxetina/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Paroxetina/uso terapéutico , Fumarato de Quetiapina , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Clorhidrato de VenlafaxinaRESUMEN
AIMS: Almost no data are available on whether patients and doctors have similar or dissimilar opinions on the presence and level of distress due to antipsychotic adverse effects. The aim of this survey is to compare doctors' versus patients' perspective on the presence and level of distress due to antipsychotic adverse effects in a sample of patients under the care of the South-Verona mental health services. METHODS: All patients exposed to antipsychotic drugs during a census period of 6 months were identified. For each included subject, socio-demographic, clinical and treatment data were extracted. Patients' perspective on antipsychotic adverse effects was measured by means of the Liverpool University Neuroleptic Side Effect Rating Scale (LUNSERS). The LUNSERS was similarly employed to measure doctors' perspective on antipsychotic adverse effects. RESULTS: During the recruitment period, 243 patients taking antipsychotic drugs were enrolled. The correlation between the total LUNSERS score reported by patients and doctors was very low (correlation coefficient 0.22, 95% confidence interval 0.15-0.30). On average, patients perceived more adverse effects and with a significant higher distress than doctors. Multivariate analyses found no factors simultaneously associated with both patient and doctor ratings of adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that doctors, researchers and health care providers should increasingly consider patient and doctor perspectives as two complementary dimensions that may provide different insights in the evaluation of antipsychotic drugs. Integrating different points of view may represent a way to develop a better therapeutic alliance that might decrease the likelihood of nonadherence.
Asunto(s)
Antipsicóticos/efectos adversos , Actitud del Personal de Salud , Actitud Frente a la Salud , Médicos , Adulto , Antipsicóticos/uso terapéutico , Servicios Comunitarios de Salud Mental , Recolección de Datos , Femenino , Humanos , Italia , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Relaciones Médico-Paciente , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Academic institutions have shown an increased interest in the so-called third mission to offer an impactful contribution to society. Indeed, public engagement programs ensure knowledge transfer and help to inspire positive public discourse. We aimed to propose a comprehensive framework for academic institutions planning to implement a public engagement intervention and to suggest potential indicators to measure its impact. To inform the framework development, we searched the literature on public engagement, the third mission, and design theory in electronic databases and additional sources (e.g., academic recommendations) and partnered with a communication agency offering non-academic advice. In line with this framework, we designed a public engagement intervention to foster scientific literacy in Italian youth, actively involving them in the development of the intervention. Our framework is composed of four phases (planning/design, implementation, immediate impact assessment, and medium- and long-term assessment). Impact indicators were subdivided into outcome variables that were immediately describable (e.g., changed understanding and awareness of the target population) and measurable only in the medium or long run (e.g., adoption of the intervention by other institutions). The framework is expected to maximize the impact of public engagement interventions and ultimately lead to better reciprocal listening and mutual understanding between academia and the public.
Asunto(s)
OrganizacionesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Although antipsychotic maintenance treatment is widely recommended to prevent relapse in chronic psychoses, evidence-based guidelines do not provide clear indications on different maintenance treatment strategies, including continuing the antipsychotic at standard doses, reducing the dose, switching to another antipsychotic, or even stopping the antipsychotic. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of these maintenance treatment strategies, hypothesising the superiority of all strategies over stopping, and of continuing at standard doses over both switching and reducing the dose. METHODS: We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated antipsychotics for relapse prevention in adults with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders who were clinically stable, and which compared four treatment strategies: continuing the current antipsychotic at standard doses recommended for acute treatment; reducing the current antipsychotic dose; switching to a different antipsychotic; and stopping the antipsychotic and replacing it with placebo. We excluded RCTs with fewer than 25 individuals, a prerandomisation washout period greater than 4 weeks, a follow-up shorter than 6 weeks, and those recruiting treatment-resistant individuals. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and online trial registers for published and unpublished RCTs from inception to Sept 1, 2021, combining terms describing all available antipsychotics, and terms describing continuation, maintenance, or long-term treatment for schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Relative risks (RRs) and standardised mean differences were pooled using random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses. We assessed risk of bias of each RCT with the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool, and confidence of pooled estimates with CINeMA. The primary outcome was relapse prevention. The study protocol was registered in advance in the Open Science Forum registry. FINDINGS: Of 3936 records identified, 119 records, reporting on 101 RCTs, were eligible, 98 of which (including 13 988 individuals) provided data that could be meta-analysed for at least one outcome. The mean proportion of female participants per study was 38% (range 0-100; median 39%, IQR 29-50), whereas for male participants it was 62% (range 0-100; median 61%, IQR 50-71), and the overall mean age was 38·8 years (range 23·2-63·9; median 39·3, IQR 35·0-43·9). Of the 98 RCTs meta-analysed, 89·8% were done in high-income and upper-middle-income countries. The ethnic group White or so-called Caucasian was the most represented (mean 56% participants per study), although this information was relatively scarce. All continuation strategies were significantly more effective in preventing relapse than stopping antipsychotic treatment, with a large risk reduction for continuing at standard doses (RR 0·37, 95% CI 0·32-0·43; number-needed-to-treat [NNT] 3·17, 95% CI 2·94-3·51) and antipsychotic switching (RR 0·44, 0·37-0·53; NNT 3·57, 3·17-4·25), and moderate risk reduction for dose reduction (RR 0·68, 0·51-0·90; NNT 6·25, 4·08-20·00). Continuing and switching antipsychotics did not differ significantly (RR 0·84, 0·69-1·02; with lower values favouring continuing), whereas reducing antipsychotic dose was outperformed by both continuing (RR 0·55, 0·42-0·71; NNT 4·44, 3·45-6·90) and switching (RR 0·65, 0·47-0·89; NNT 5·17, 3·77-18·18). Results were supported by moderate confidence of evidence and confirmed by secondary analyses and by several sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including removing studies with abrupt antipsychotic discontinuation or fast tapering (≤4 weeks). No tolerability differences emerged between treatment strategies. According to the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool, version 2, 16·8% of included RCTs had an overall high risk of bias for the primary outcome. We found moderate heterogeneity (τ2=0·13; I2=61%) and no overall incoherence for the primary analysis. Results were supported by moderate confidence of evidence and confirmed by secondary analyses. INTERPRETATION: Contrary to our original hypothesis, we found that continuing antipsychotic treatment at standard doses or switching to a different antipsychotic are similarly effective treatment strategies, whereas reducing antipsychotic doses below standard doses is associated with higher risk of relapse than the other two maintenance treatment strategies and should therefore be limited to selected cases. Despite limitations, including moderate heterogeneity and moderate certainty of evidence, these results are of pragmatic relevance for clinicians, and should support the update of evidence-based guidelines. FUNDING: None.
Asunto(s)
Antipsicóticos , Esquizofrenia , Adulto , Antipsicóticos/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Metaanálisis en Red , Recurrencia , Esquizofrenia/tratamiento farmacológico , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Refugees are at high risk of developing mental disorders. There is no evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that psychological interventions can prevent the onset of mental disorders in this group. We assessed the effectiveness of a self-help psychological intervention developed by the World Health Organization, called Self-Help Plus, in preventing the development of mental disorders among Syrian refugees experiencing psychological distress in Turkey. A two-arm, assessor-masked RCT was conducted in two Turkish areas. Eligible participants were adult Syrian refugees experiencing psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire ≥3), but without a diagnosis of mental disorder. They were randomly assigned either to the Self-Help Plus arm (consisting of Self-Help Plus combined with Enhanced Care as Usual, ECAU) or to ECAU only in a 1:1 ratio. Self-Help Plus was delivered in a group format by two facilitators over five sessions. The primary outcome measure was the presence of any mental disorder assessed by the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview at six-month follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were the presence of mental disorders at post-intervention, and psychological distress, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, personally identified psychological outcomes, functional impairment, subjective well-being, and quality of life at post-intervention and six-month follow-up. Between October 1, 2018 and November 30, 2019, 1,186 refugees were assessed for inclusion. Five hundred forty-four people were ineligible, and 642 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either Self-Help Plus (N=322) or ECAU (N=320). Self-Help Plus participants were significantly less likely to have any mental disorders at six-month follow-up compared to the ECAU group (21.69% vs. 40.73%; Cramer's V = 0.205, p<0.001, risk ratio: 0.533, 95% CI: 0.408-0.696). Analysis of secondary outcomes suggested that Self-Help Plus was not effective immediately post-intervention, but was associated with beneficial effects at six-month follow-up in terms of symptoms of depression, personally identified psychological outcomes, and quality of life. This is the first prevention RCT ever conducted among refugees experiencing psychological distress but without a mental disorder. Self-Help Plus was found to be an effective strategy for preventing the onset of mental disorders. Based on these findings, this low-intensity self-help psychological intervention could be scaled up as a public health strategy to prevent mental disorders in refugee populations exposed to ongoing adversities.
RESUMEN
Background: Longitudinal studies examining mental health trajectories in refugees and asylum seekers are scarce. Objectives: To investigate trajectories of psychological symptoms and wellbeing in refugees and asylum seekers, and identify factors associated with these trajectories. Method: 912 asylum seekers and refugees from the control arm of three trials in Europe (n = 229), Turkey (n = 320), and Uganda (n = 363) were included. We described trajectories of psychological symptoms and wellbeing, and used trauma exposure, age, marital status, education, and individual trial as predictors. Then, we assessed the bidirectional interactions between wellbeing and psychological symptoms, and the effect of each predictor on each outcome controlling for baseline values. Results: Symptom improvement was identified in all trials, and for wellbeing in 64.7% of participants in Europe and Turkey, versus 31.5% in Uganda. In Europe and Turkey domestic violence predicted increased symptoms at post-intervention (ß = 1.36, 95% CI 0.17-2.56), whilst murder of family members at 6-month follow-up (ß = 1.23, 95% CI 0.27-2.19). Lower wellbeing was predicted by murder of family member (ß = -1.69, 95% CI -3.06 to -0.32), having been kidnapped (ß = -1.67, 95% CI -3.19 to -0.15), close to death (ß = -1.38, 95% CI -2.70 to -0.06), and being in the host country ≥2 years (ß = -1.60, 95% CI -3.05 to -0.14). In Uganda at post-intervention, having been kidnapped predicted increased symptoms (ß = 2.11, 95% CI 0.58-3.65), and lack of shelter (ß = -2.51, 95% CI -4.44 to -0.58) and domestic violence predicted lower wellbeing (ß = -1.36, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.05). Conclusion: Many participants adapt to adversity, but contextual factors play a critical role in determining mental health trajectories.
Antecedentes: Estudios longitudinales que examinan las trayectorias de la salud mental en los refugiados y solicitantes de asilo son escasos.Objetivos: Investigar las trayectorias de los síntomas psicológicos y el bienestar en refugiados y solicitantes de asilo, e identificar factores asociados a estas trayectorias.Métodos: Se incluyeron 912 solicitantes de asilos y refugiados del brazo control de tres ensayos clínicos en Europa (n = 229), Turquía (n = 320) y Uganda (n = 363). Describimos las trayectorias psicológicas de los síntomas y el bienestar, y utilizamos la exposición traumática, la edad, el estado marital, la educación y el juicio individual como predictores. Después, evaluamos las interacciones bidireccionales entre el bienestar y los síntomas psicológicos, y el efecto de cada uno de los predictores en cada resultado controlando por los valores iniciales.Resultados: Se identificó una mejoría en los síntomas en todos los ensayos, y del bienestar en el 64.7% de los participantes en Europa y Turquía, versus el 31.5% en Uganda. En Europa y en Turquía, la violencia doméstica predijo el incremento de síntomas de después de la intervención (ß = 1.36, 95% CI 0.17 a 2.56), mientras que el homicidio de algún miembro familiar a los 6 meses de seguimiento (ß = 1.23, 95% CI 0.27 a 2.19). Un menor bienestar fue predicho por el homicidio de algún miembro de la familia (ß = −1.69, 95% CI −3.06 a −0.32), haber sido secuestrado (ß = −1.67, 95% CI −3.19 a −0.15), haber estado próximo a la muerte (ß = −1.38, 95% CI −2.70 a −0.06), y estar en el país de acogida ≥2 años (ß = −1.60, 95% CI −3.05 a −0.14). En Uganda, después de la intervención, haber sido secuestrado predijo un aumento de los síntomas (ß =2.11, 95% CI 0.58 a 3.65), y la falta de refugio (ß = −2.51, 95% CI −4.44 a −0.58) y la violencia doméstica predijo un menor bienestar (ß = −1.36, 95% CI −2.67 a −0.05).Conclusión: Muchos participantes se adaptan a la adversidad, pero los factores contextuales juegan un papel crítico en determinar las trayectorias de la salud mental.
Asunto(s)
Refugiados , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático , Europa (Continente)/epidemiología , Humanos , Refugiados/psicología , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático/diagnóstico , Turquía , Uganda/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Importance: The cost-effectiveness of the Self-Help Plus (SH+) program, a group-based, guided, self-help psychological intervention developed by the World Health Organization for people affected by adversity, is unclear. Objective: To investigate the cost-utility of providing the SH+ intervention combined with enhanced usual care vs enhanced usual care alone for Syrian refugees or asylum seekers hosted in Turkey. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation was performed as a prespecified part of an assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial conducted between October 1, 2018, and November 30, 2019, with 6-month follow-up. A total of 627 adults with psychological distress but no diagnosed psychiatric disorder were randomly assigned to the intervention group or the enhanced usual care group. Interventions: The SH+ program was a 5-session (2 hours each), group-based, stress management course in which participants learned self-help skills for managing stress by listening to audio sessions. The SH+ sessions were facilitated by briefly trained, nonspecialist individuals, and an illustrated book was provided to group members. Th intervention group received the SH+ intervention plus enhanced usual care; the control group received only enhanced usual care from the local health care system. Enhanced usual care included access to free health care services provided by primary and secondary institutions plus details on nongovernmental organizations and freely available mental health services, social services, and community networks for people under temporary protection of Turkey and refugees. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the Turkish health care system. An intention-to-treat analysis was used including all participants who were randomized and for whom baseline data on costs and QALYs were available. Data were analyzed September 30, 2020, to July 30, 2021. Results: Of 627 participants (mean [SD] age, 31.3 [9.0] years; 393 [62.9%] women), 313 were included in the analysis for the SH+ group and 314 in the analysis for the enhanced usual care group. An incremental cost-utility ratio estimate of T£6068 ($1147) per QALY gained was found when the SH+ intervention was provided to groups of 10 Syrian refugees. At a willingness to pay per QALY gained of T£14â¯831 ($2802), the SH+ intervention had a 97.5% chance of being cost-effective compared with enhanced usual care alone. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation suggests that implementation of the SH+ intervention compared with enhanced usual care alone for adult Syrian refugees or asylum seekers hosted in Turkey is cost-effective from the perspective of the Turkish health care system when both international and country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds were applied.