Understanding psychosis complexity through a syndemic framework: A systematic review.

Psychotic conditions pose significant challenges due to their complex aetiology and impact on individuals and communities. Syndemic theory offers a promising framework to understand the interconnectedness of various health and social problems in the context of psychosis. This systematic review aims to examine existing literature on testing whether psychosis is better understood as a component of a syndemic. We conducted a systematic search of 7 databases, resulting in the inclusion of five original articles. Findings from these studies indicate a syndemic characterized by the coexistence of various health and social conditions, are associated with a greater risk of psychosis, adverse health outcomes, and disparities, especially among ethnic minorities and deprived populations. This review underscores the compelling need for a new paradigm and datasets that can investigate how psychosis emerges in the context of a syndemic, ultimately guiding more effective preventive and care interventions as well as policies to improve the health of marginalised communities living in precarity.

Ethnic inequality, multimorbidity and psychosis: can a syndemic framework resolve disputed evidence?

Syndemic theory is described as population-level clustering or co-occurrence of health conditions in the context of shared aetiologies that interact and can act synergistically. These influences appear to act within specific places of high disadvantage. We suggest ethnic inequality in experiences and outcomes of multimorbidity, including psychosis, may be explained through a syndemic framework. We discuss the evidence for each component of syndemic theory in relation to psychosis, using psychosis and diabetes as an exemplar. Following this, we discuss the practical and theoretical adaptations to syndemic theory in order to apply it to psychosis, ethnic inequality and multimorbidity, with implications for research, policy, and practice.

Ethnic inequalities in clozapine use among people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a retrospective cohort study using data from electronic clinical records.

PURPOSE: Clozapine is the most effective intervention for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS). Several studies report ethnic disparities in clozapine treatment. However, few studies restrict analyses to TRS cohorts alone or address confounding by benign ethnic neutropenia. This study investigates ethnic equity in access to clozapine treatment for people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia spectrum disorder. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study, using information from 11 years of clinical records (2007-2017) from the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust. We identified a cohort of service-users with TRS using a validated algorithm. We investigated associations between ethnicity and clozapine treatment, adjusting for sociodemographic factors, psychiatric multi-morbidity, substance misuse, neutropenia, and service-use. RESULTS: Among 2239 cases of TRS, Black service-users were less likely to be receive clozapine compared with White British service-users after adjusting for confounders (Black African aOR = 0.49, 95% CI [0.33, 0.74], p = 0.001; Black Caribbean aOR = 0.64, 95% CI [0.43, 0.93], p = 0.019; Black British aOR = 0.61, 95% CI [0.41, 0.91], p = 0.016). It was additionally observed that neutropenia was not related to treatment with clozapine. Also, a detention under the Mental Health Act was negatively associated clozapine receipt, suggesting people with TRS who were detained are less likely to be treated with clozapine. CONCLUSION: Black service-users with TRS were less likely to receive clozapine than White British service-users. Considering the protective effect of treatment with clozapine, these inequities may place Black service-users at higher risk for hospital admissions and mortality.

COVID-related hospitalization, intensive care treatment, and all-cause mortality in patients with psychosis and treated with clozapine.

Clozapine, an antipsychotic, is associated with increased susceptibility to infection with COVID-19, compared to other antipsychotics. Here, we investigate associations between clozapine treatment and increased risk of adverse outcomes of COVID-19, namely COVID-related hospitalisation, intensive care treatment, and death, amongst patients taking antipsychotics with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Using the clinical records of South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, we identified 157 individuals who had an ICD-10 diagnosis of schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, were taking antipsychotics (clozapine or other antipsychotics) at the time of COVID-19 pandemic in the UK and had a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection. The following health outcomes were measured: COVID-related hospitalisation, COVID-related intensive care treatment and death. We tested associations between clozapine treatment and each outcome using logistic regression models, adjusting for gender, age, ethnicity, neighbourhood deprivation, obesity, smoking status, diabetes, asthma, bronchitis and hypertension using propensity scores. Of the 157 individuals who developed COVID-19 while on antipsychotics (clozapine or other antipsychotics), there were 28% COVID-related hospitalisations, 8% COVID-related intensive care treatments and 8% deaths of any cause during the 28 days follow-up period. amongst those taking clozapine, there were 25% COVID-related hospitalisations, 7% COVID-related intensive care treatments and 7% deaths. In both unadjusted and adjusted analyses, we found no significant association between clozapine and any of the outcomes. Thus, we found no evidence that patients with clozapine treatment at time of COVID-19 infection had increased risk of hospitalisation, intensive care treatment or death, compared to non-clozapine antipsychotic-treated patients. However, further research should be considered in larger samples to confirm this.

Gender disparities in clozapine prescription in a cohort of treatment-resistant schizophrenia in the South London and Maudsley case register.

BACKGROUND: Gender disparities in treatment are apparent across many areas of healthcare. There has been little research into whether clozapine prescription, the first-line treatment for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS), is affected by patient gender. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified 2244 patients with TRS within the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust, by using a bespoke method validated against a gold-standard, manually coded, dataset of TRS cases. The outcome and exposures were identified from the free-text using natural language processing applications (including machine learning and rules-based approaches) and from information entered in structured fields. Multivariable logistic regression was carried out to calculate the odds ratios for clozapine prescription according to patients' gender, and adjusting for numerous potential confounders including sociodemographic, clinical (e.g., psychiatric comorbidities and substance use), neutropenia, functional factors (e.g., problems with occupation), and clinical monitoring. RESULTS: Clozapine was prescribed to 77% of the women and 85% of the men with TRS. Women had reduced odds of being prescribed clozapine as compared to men after adjusting for all factors included in the present study (adjusted OR: 0.66; 95% CI 0.44-0.97; p = 0.037). CONCLUSION: Women with TRS are less likely to be prescribed clozapine than men with TRS, even when considering the effects of multiple clinical and functional factors. This finding suggests there could be gender bias in clozapine prescription, which carries ramifications for the relatively poorer care of women with TRS regarding many outcomes such as increased hospitalisation, mortality, and poorer quality of life.