Capacity to Consent in Healthcare: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Patients with Bipolar Disorders and Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders.

Background: Mental capacity is a fundamental aspect that enables patients to fully participate in various healthcare procedures. To assist healthcare professionals (HCPs) in assessing patients' capacity, especially in the mental health field, several standardized tools have been developed. These tools include the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T), the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR), and the Competence Assessment Tool for Psychiatric Advance Directives (CAT-PAD). The core dimensions explored by these tools include Understanding, Appreciation, Reasoning, and Expression of a choice. Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to investigate potential differences in decision-making capacity within the healthcare context among groups of patients with bipolar disorders (BD) and schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD). Methods: A systematic search was conducted on Medline/Pubmed, and Scopus. Additionally, Google Scholar was manually inspected, and a manual search of emerging reviews and reference lists of the retrieved papers was performed. Eligible studies were specifically cross-sectional, utilizing standardized assessment tools, and involving patients diagnosed with BD and SSD. Data from the studies were independently extracted and pooled using random-effect models. Hedges' g was used as a measure for outcomes. Results: Six studies were identified, with three studies using the MacCAT-CR, two studies the MacCAT-T, and one the CAT-PAD. The participants included 189 individuals with BD and 324 individuals with SSD. The meta-analysis revealed that patients with BD performed slightly better compared to patients with SSD, with the difference being statistically significant in the domain of Appreciation (ES = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.04, p = 0.037). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for Understanding (ES = 0.09, 95% CI:-0.10 to 0.27, p = 0.352), Reasoning (ES = 0.18, 95% CI: -0.12 to 0.47, p = 0.074), and Expression of a choice (ES = 0.23, 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.48, p = 0.60). In the sensitivity analysis, furthermore, when considering only studies involving patients in symptomatic remission, the difference for Appreciation also resulted in non-significant (ES = 0.21, 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.46, p = 0.102). Conclusions: These findings indicate that there are no significant differences between patients with BD and SSD during remission phases, while differences are minimal during acute phases. The usefulness of standardized assessment of capacity at any stage of the illness should be considered, both for diagnostic-therapeutic phases and for research and advance directives. Further studies are necessary to understand the reasons for the overlap in capacity between the two diagnostic categories compared in this study.

The dilemma of polypharmacy in psychosis: is it worth combining partial and full dopamine modulation?

Antipsychotic polypharmacy in psychotic disorders is widespread despite international guidelines favoring monotherapy. Previous evidence indicates the utility of low-dose partial dopamine agonist (PDAs) add-ons to mitigate antipsychotic-induced metabolic adverse effects or hyperprolactinemia. However, clinicians are often concerned about using PDAs combined with high-potency, full dopaminergic antagonists (FDAs) due to the risk of psychosis relapse. We, therefore, conducted a literature review to find studies investigating the effects of combined treatment with PDAs (i.e. aripiprazole, cariprazine and brexpiprazole) and FDAs having a strong D 2 receptor binding affinity. Twenty studies examining the combination aripiprazole - high-potency FDAs were included, while no study was available on combinations with cariprazine or brexpiprazole. Studies reporting clinical improvement suggested that this may require a relatively long time (~11 weeks), while studies that found symptom worsening observed this happening in a shorter timeframe (~3 weeks). Patients with longer illness duration who received add-on aripiprazole on ongoing FDA monotherapy may be at greater risk for symptomatologic worsening. Especially in these cases, close clinical monitoring is therefore recommended during the first few weeks of combined treatment. These indications may be beneficial to psychiatrists who consider using this treatment strategy. Well-powered randomized clinical trials are needed to derive more solid clinical recommendations.

Gastrointestinal side effects associated with antidepressant treatments in patients with major depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Gastrointestinal side effects (SEs) are frequently observed in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) while taking antidepressants and may lead to treatment discontinuation. The aim of this meta-analysis is to provide quantitative measures on short-term rates of gastrointestinal SEs in MDD patients treated with second-generation antidepressants. An electronic search of the literature was conducted by using MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science - Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Library databases. Eligible studies had to focus on the use of at least one of 15 antidepressants commonly used in MDD (i.e., agomelatine, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, mirtazapine, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine) and report data on treatment-emergent gastrointestinal SEs (i.e. nausea/vomiting, diarrhoea, constipation, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, anorexia, increased appetite and dry mouth) within 12 weeks of treatment. Overall, 304 studies were included in the meta-analyses. All the considered antidepressants showed higher rates of gastrointestinal SEs than placebo. Escitalopram and sertraline were shown to be the least tolerated antidepressants on the gastrointestinal tract, being associated with all the considered SEs with the exception of constipation and increased appetite, while mirtazapine was shown to be the antidepressant with fewer side effects on the gut, being only associated with increased appetite. In conclusion, commonly used antidepressants showed different profiles of gastrointestinal SEs, possibly related to their mechanisms of action. The specific tolerability profile of each compound should be considered by clinicians when prescribing antidepressants in order to improve adherence to treatment and increase positive outcomes in patients with MDD.