The impact of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on physical health outcomes in people with mood disorders across the lifespan: An umbrella review of the evidence from randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: People with mood disorders have increased risk of comorbid medical diseases versus the general population. It is paramount to identify interventions to improve physical health in this population. METHODS: Umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on pharmacological/non-pharmacological interventions for physical health outcomes/intolerability-related discontinuation in mood disorders (any age). RESULTS: Ninety-seven meta-analyses were included. Among youths, against placebo, in depression, antidepressants/antipsychotics had higher discontinuation rates; in bipolar depression, olanzapine+fluoxetine worsened total cholesterol (TC)/triglycerides/weight gain (WG) (large ES). In adults with bipolar disorder, olanzapine worsened HbA1c/TC/WG (moderate/large ES); asenapine increased fasting glucose (small ES); quetiapine/cariprazine/risperidone induced WG (small/moderate ES). In bipolar depression, lurasidone was metabolically neutral. In depression, psychological interventions improved physical health-related quality of life (PHQoL) (small ES), fasting glucose/HbA1c (medium/large ES); SSRIs improved fasting glucose/HbA1c, readmission for coronary disease, pain (small ES); quetiapine/aripiprazole/olanzapine induced WG (small to large ES). Exercise improved cardiorespiratory fitness (moderate ES). In the elderly, fluoxetine yielded more detrimental cardiovascular effects than sertraline/escitalopram (large ES); antidepressants were neutral on exercise tolerance and PHQoL. In mixed age groups, in bipolar disorder aripiprazole was metabolically neutral; in depression, SSRIs lowered blood pressure versus placebo and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (small ES); brexpiprazole augmentation caused WG and was less tolerated (small ES); exercise improved PHQoL (moderate ES). CONCLUSIONS: Some interventions (psychological therapies, exercise and SSRIs) improve certain physical health outcomes in mood disorders, few are neutral, but various pharmacological interventions are associated with negative effects. Evidence from this umbrella review has limitations, should consider evidence from other disorders and should be integrated with recent evidence from individual RCTs, and observational evidence. Effective treatments with either beneficial or physically neutral profiles should be prioritized.

Assessing the quality of studies in meta-research: Review/guidelines on the most important quality assessment tools.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses pool data from individual studies to generate a higher level of evidence to be evaluated by guidelines. These reviews ultimately guide clinicians and stakeholders in health-related decisions. However, the informativeness and quality of evidence synthesis inherently depend on the quality of what has been pooled into meta-research projects. Moreover, beyond the quality of included individual studies, only a methodologically correct process, in relation to systematic reviews and meta-analyses themselves, can produce a reliable and valid evidence synthesis. Hence, quality of meta-research projects also affects evidence synthesis reliability. In this overview, the authors provide a synthesis of advantages and disadvantages and main characteristics of some of the most frequently used tools to assess quality of individual studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Specifically, the tools considered in this work are the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for observational studies, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), the Jadad scale, the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 (RoB2) for randomized controlled trials, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2), and AMSTAR-PLUS for meta-analyses. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN?: The informativeness and quality of evidence synthesis inherently depend on the quality of what has been pooled into meta-research projects. Beyond the quality of included individual studies, only a methodologically correct process, in relation to systematic reviews and meta-analyses themselves, can produce a reliable and valid evidence synthesis. WHAT IS NEW?: In this overview, the authors provide a synthesis of advantages and disadvantages and main characteristics of some of the most frequently used tools to assess quality of individual studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. POTENTIAL IMPACT: This overview serves as a starting point and a brief guide to identify and understand the main and most frequently used tools for assessing the quality of studies included in meta-research. The authors here share their experience in publishing several meta-research-related articles covering different areas of medical sciences.

Assessment of Physicians' Willingness to Work with Patients Not Yet Diagnosed with COVID-19 in a Romanian Sample.

BACKGROUND: The risk to physicians who worked with patients without confirmed COVID-19 testing during the pandemic has been little studied. However, they were at high risk. METHODS: In the summer of 2020, 1285 Romanian physicians participated in a single-center study. Participants (mean age = 48.21 years; 302 males and 982 females, all specialties) completed a series of single-item measures adapted from previous studies on work ethics and responsibility. This study used Mann-Whitney comparisons between physicians who reported that they knowingly had direct contact with COVID patients and those who did not regarding their willingness to work. RESULTS: Compared with their colleagues, physicians who reported not knowingly having direct contact with COVID patients reported less access to protective equipment, less overall willingness to respond when asked to work with infected patients, more likely to work out of fear of losing their jobs, and fear of legal repercussions. They received less training in the use of protective equipment. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who worked with patients not yet diagnosed with COVID-19 were significantly less willing to work. The perception of invisible risk may explain the observed differences.

Physicians' Trust in Relevant Institutions during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Binary Logistic Model.

Little research has been done on professionals' perceptions of institutions and governments during epidemics. We aim to create a profile of physicians who feel they can raise public health issues with relevant institutions during a pandemic. A total of 1285 Romanian physicians completed an online survey as part of a larger study. We used binary logistic regression to profile physicians who felt they were able to raise public health issues with relevant institutions. Five predictors could differentiate between respondents who tended to agree with the trust statement and those who tended to disagree: feeling safe at work during the pandemic, considering the financial incentive worth the risk, receiving training on the use of protective equipment, having the same values as colleagues, and enjoying work as much as before the pandemic. Physicians who trusted the system to raise public health issues with the appropriate institutions were more likely to feel that they shared the same values as their colleagues, to say they were trained to use protective equipment during the pandemic, to feel that they were safe at work during the pandemic, to enjoy their work as much as before the pandemic, and to feel that the financial bonus justified the risk.

ADDITIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC AND CLINICAL EVIDENCES ON THE RELEVANCE OF THE SYSTEMIC THERAPY IN ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE.

The modern treatment for alcohol dependence is still problematic, in many cases with the costs exceeding benefits. In these conditions a new management approach was developed lately, known as the systemic therapy. In this way, the crystallization and practical transposition of this new treatment approach is represented by the Clubs of Alcoholics in Treatment. These clubs are in fact a form of psycho-social intervention consisting of multi-family communities in order to maintain long-term abstinence from alcohol and to change their lifestyle and behavior. Thus, in the present paper we were interested in understanding the demographics of this systemic theory and how these aspects are influencing the final results of the therapy, as well as studying/confirming how relevant is this systemic approach on the management of alcohol dependence. Our results presented in this report bring additional evidences for the superiority of the systemic, multi-family approach of alcohol-related problems, as complemented to the standard medicinal therapy. Moreover, the data collected from patients in this study might suggest that patients with a higher educational level and therefore better capacity of understanding the information, with family support, and also with a better occupational insertion, have accepted to follow The Clubs of Alcoholics in Treatment program, with a subsequently better evolution.