Revisiting global cognitive and functional state 13 years after a clinical trial of lithium for mild cognitive impairment

Objectives: To re-evaluate a sample of older adults enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of lithium for amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) after 11 to 15 years, re-assessing their current (or last available) global cognitive and functional state. Methods: We recalled all former participants of the Lithium-MCI trial conducted by our group between 2009 and 2012 to perform a single-blinded, cross-sectional evaluation of their global clinical state to compare the long-term outcome of those who received lithium vs. those who received placebo. Results: Of the original sample (n=61), we were able to reach 36 participants (59% of retention), of whom 22 had previously received lithium (61% of the recall sample) and 14 (39%) had received placebo. Since 30.5% of the recalled sample was deceased, psychometric data were collected only for 69.5% of the participants. We found statistically significant differences in current mean Mini Mental State Examination score according to previous treatment group (25.5 [SD, 5.3] vs. 18.3 [SD, 10.9], p = 0.04). The lithium group also had better performance in the phonemic Verbal Fluency Test than the control group (34.4 [SD, 14.4] vs. 11.6 [SD, 10.10], p < 0.001). Differences in these measures also had large effect sizes, as shown by Cohen's d values of 0.92 and 1.78, respectively. Conclusion: This data set suggests that older adults with amnestic MCI who had been treated with lithium during a previous randomized controlled trial had a better long-term global cognitive outcome than those from a matched sample who did not receive the intervention.

Revisiting global cognitive and functional state 13 years after a clinical trial of lithium for mild cognitive impairment.

OBJECTIVES: To re-evaluate a sample of older adults enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of lithium for amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) after 11 to 15 years, re-assessing their current (or last available) global cognitive and functional state. METHODS: We recalled all former participants of the Lithium-MCI trial conducted by our group between 2009 and 2012 to perform a single-blinded, cross-sectional evaluation of their global clinical state to compare the long-term outcome of those who received lithium vs. those who received placebo. RESULTS: Of the original sample (n=61), we were able to reach 36 participants (59% of retention), of whom 22 had previously received lithium (61% of the recall sample) and 14 (39%) had received placebo. Since 30.5% of the recalled sample was deceased, psychometric data were collected only for 69.5% of the participants. We found statistically significant differences in current mean Mini Mental State Examination score according to previous treatment group (25.5 [SD, 5.3] vs. 18.3 [SD, 10.9], p = 0.04). The lithium group also had better performance in the phonemic Verbal Fluency Test than the control group (34.4 [SD, 14.4] vs. 11.6 [SD, 10.10], p < 0.001). Differences in these measures also had large effect sizes, as shown by Cohen's d values of 0.92 and 1.78, respectively. CONCLUSION: This data set suggests that older adults with amnestic MCI who had been treated with lithium during a previous randomized controlled trial had a better long-term global cognitive outcome than those from a matched sample who did not receive the intervention.

Mental health interventions following COVID-19 and other coronavirus infections: a systematic review of current recommendations and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To review the most common mental health strategies aimed at alleviating and/or preventing mental health problems in individuals during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other coronavirus pandemics. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature assessing three databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, and PsycINFO). A meta-analysis was performed with data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For non-RCT studies, a critical description of recommendations was performed. RESULTS: From a total of 2,825 articles, 125 were included. Of those, three RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that the interventions promoted better overall mental health outcomes as compared to control groups (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.87 [95%CI 0.33-1.41], p < 0.001, I2 = 69.2%), but did not specifically improve anxiety (SMD = 0.98 [95%CI -0.17 to 2.13], p > 0.05; I2 = 36.8%). Concerning the systematic review, we found a large body of scientific literature proposing recommendations involving psychological/psychiatric interventions, self-care, education, governmental programs, and the use of technology and media. CONCLUSIONS: We found a large body of expert recommendations that may help health practitioners, institutional and governmental leaders, and the general population cope with mental health issues during a pandemic or a crisis period. However, most articles had a low level of evidence, stressing the need for more studies with better design (especially RCTs) investigating potential mental health interventions during COVID-19. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42020190212.