COVID-19 inpatients with psychiatric disorders: Real-world clinical recommendations from an expert team in consultation-liaison psychiatry.

BACKGROUND: The management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with comorbid psychiatric disorders poses several challenges, especially regarding drug interactions. METHODS: We report three representative case-scenarios on patients with psychiatric disorders and COVID-19 to provide a practical approach based on the existing literature and the clinical experience of an expert team in consultation-liaison psychiatry. CASE-CENTERED RECOMMENDATIONS: Psychopharmacological ongoing treatments should be prioritized and most doses should be reduced 25-50% of original dose if the patient receives lopinavir/ritonavir, with some exceptions including quetiapine, asenapine, olanzapine, sertraline, lamotrigine, bupropion, and methadone. If the psychopharmacological usual doses are in the low-to-median range levels, a dose change during COVID-19 drugs co-administration is not recommended, but only ECG and clinical monitoring of adverse effects and drug levels if required. Furthermore, when introducing a psychopharmacological drug, dose titration should be progressive, with ECG monitoring if cardiotoxic interactions are present. (A) In agitated delirium, olanzapine is recommended as first-line antipsychotic and quetiapine should be avoided. (B) In severe mental illness (SMI), essential treatments should be maintained. (C) In non-SMI with depressive/anxiety symptoms, psychological support should be provided and symptoms identified and treated. LIMITATIONS: Most recommendations on pharmacological interactions provide only a limited qualitative approach and quantitative recommendations are lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with psychiatric disorders and COVID-19 should be managed on a personalized basis considering several clinical criteria and, should not be excluded from receiving COVID-19 treatments. Risks of pharmacological interaction are not absolute and should be contextualized, and most psychopharmacological treatments should include an ECG with special attention to QTc interval.

Cannabis use the week before admission to psychiatric in-patient service as a marker of severity.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if cannabis dose recorded as standard joint unit (SJU) consumed before admission and other related factors have an influence on psychiatric inpatient's symptom severity and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Cross-sectional study in an acute psychiatric inpatient unit including 106 individuals. Quantity of cannabis was measured as SJU and symptoms severity through the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Secondary outcomes (e.g. length of stay) were also assessed. Bivariate analyses and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the effect of SJU consumed before admission on measures of clinical severity. RESULTS: Point prevalence of cannabis use before admission was 25.5%. Mean BPRS score was 55.8 (SD = 16.1); and 62.9 (SD = 11.1) among cannabis users. A low degree positive correlation between SJU consumed the week before admission and BPRS score (rs = 0.28, p = 0.03) was found. In the multivariate analyses both main diagnostic group, Schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders vs. others (Bipolar and Unipolar Affective Disorders and Addictive disorders) (B = 8.327; 95% CI 4.976-11.677) and need of PRN ("pre re nata" or when necessary) administration of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines (B = 12.13; 95% CI 6.868-17.393) were significant predictors, both increasing BPRS score. CONCLUSIONS: The study did not find a correlation between SJU consumed last week and psychiatric severity. On the other hand, individuals with psychotic disorders reported a higher prevalence of cannabis use the week before admission and displayed higher BPRS scores, which points to the need for the development of tailored interventions for high-risk groups. The SJU is a useful quantification tool suitable for further clinical research.

The blind men and the elephant: Systematic review of systematic reviews of cannabis use related health harms.

Cannabis is the third most used psychoactive substance worldwide. The legal status of cannabis is changing in many Western countries, while we have very limited knowledge of the public health impact of cannabis-related harms. There is a need for a summary of the evidence of harms and risks attributed to cannabis use, in order to inform the definition of cannabis risky use. We have conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews, aiming to define cannabis-related harms. We included systematic reviews published until July 2018 from six different databases and following the PRISMA guidelines. To assess study quality we applied the AMSTAR 2 tool. A total of 44 systematic reviews, including 1,053 different studies, were eligible for inclusion. Harm was categorized in three dimensions: mental health, somatic harm and physical injury (including mortality). Evidence shows a clear association between cannabis use and psychosis, affective disorders, anxiety, sleep disorders, cognitive failures, respiratory adverse events, cancer, cardiovascular outcomes, and gastrointestinal disorders. Moreover, cannabis use is a risk factor for motor vehicle collision, suicidal behavior and partner and child violence. Cannabis use is a risk factor for several medical conditions and negative social consequences. There is still little data on the dose-dependency of these effects; evidence that is essential in order to define, from a public health perspective, what can be considered risky use of cannabis. This definition should be based on quantitative and qualitative criteria that informs and permits the evaluation of current approaches to a regulated cannabis market.

Assessment of cannabis use disorders: a systematic review of screening and diagnostic instruments.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use and misuse have become a public health problem. There is a need for reliable screening and assessment tools to identify harmful cannabis use at an early stage. We conducted a systematic review of published instruments used to screen and assess cannabis use disorders. METHOD: We included papers published until January 2013 from seven different databases, following the PRISMA guidelines and a predetermined set of criteria for article selection. Only tools including a quantification of cannabis use and/or a measurement of the severity of dependence were considered. RESULTS: We identified 34 studies, of which 25 included instruments that met our inclusion criteria: 10 scales to assess cannabis use disorders, seven structured interviews, and eight tools to quantify cannabis use. Both cannabis and substance use scales showed good reliability and were validated in specific populations. Structured interviews were also reliable and showed good validity parameters. Common limitations were inadequate time-frames for screening, lack of brevity, undemonstrated validity for some populations (e.g., psychiatric patients, female gender, adolescents), and lack of relevant information that would enable routine use (e.g., risky use, regular users). Instruments to quantify consumption did not measure grams of the psychoactive compounds, which hampered comparability among different countries or regions where tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations may differ. CONCLUSIONS: Current instruments available for assessing cannabis use disorders need to be further improved. A standard cannabis unit should be studied and existing instruments should be adapted to this standard unit in order to improve cannabis use assessment.

Nalmefene and its use in alcohol dependence.

Nalmefene is the first available drug approved in the E.U. to reduce alcohol use in alcohol-dependent patients. Reduction in alcohol use in heavy drinkers diminishes mortality risk and socio-economic burden. Nalmefene has shown efficacy at 6 months in alcohol-dependent patients with high or very high drinking risk levels in reducing total alcohol consumption (-7.6 g/day [95% confidence interval (CI): -11.6 to -3.5]; P = 0.0003), heavy drinking days (-2.00 days/month [95% CI: -3.00 to -1.00]; P ⟨ 0.00001) and other secondary outcome measures such as γ-glutamyl transferase, alanine aminotransferase, drinking risk level and Clinical Global Impression. It is generally well tolerated and has limited contraindications and interactions. As-needed dosage is a novel concept in the addictions field, which may overcome limitations of traditional regimens. In the pivotal trials, nalmefene was taken 52% of the days and compliance with the as-needed treatment regimen was good (above 80% of the days) in 68% of the nalmefene-treated patients. A new pharmacological approach combined with a brief psychosocial intervention for alcoholism is available and appears to be feasible, safe and efficacious.