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.

Fifty years of imported Lassa fever: a systematic review of primary and secondary cases.

RATIONALE FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: Lassa fever is the most common cause of imported haemorrhagic fevers cases in non-endemic countries. As a disease with a high case fatality rate that has regularly caused clusters of nosocomial transmission in endemic areas, prompt diagnosis is vital. We conducted a systematic review of imported cases of the last 50 years with the aim of defining the clinical and epidemiological characteristics that will enhance early diagnosis, prompt initiation of treatment and an appropriate public health response to Lassa fever cases. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, systematic review of 36 primary and two secondary cases of Lassa fever in non-endemic countries outside West Africa by searching the PubMed database. This yielded 56 relevant publications that were included in our analysis. RESULTS: The case fatality rate of 35.1% for imported cases was higher than that reported for endemic countries. The majority of patients showed clinical features consistent with Lassa fever and had a typical exposure. There was a considerable delay in diagnosis in imported cases with high associated numbers of contacts. Ribavirin was rarely used for post-exposure prophylaxis. Only two secondary transmissions occurred. Thirty-one percent of patients received Lassa fever-specific treatment and five required intensive care. CONCLUSIONS: Although importation of Lassa fever to non-endemic countries is a rare event, it has repeatedly happened over five decades. Suspicion of Lassa fever should be based on careful consideration of clinical features and exposure history in order to assist early diagnosis in returning travellers from West Africa.