Have the COVID-19 outbreak and related restrictions affected the right to mental health of people with severe mental health conditions?

The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, and the restrictions implemented by governments to limit its public health impact, may have determined a reduction of the right to mental health of people with severe mental health conditions, that is a limitation to adequate, human, and value-based mental healthcare, with rising inequalities in comparison with the general population. This systematic review was, therefore, conducted to collate evidence on the impact of the pandemic period on the mental health of individuals with pre-existing severe mental health conditions. Of 3,774 retrieved citations, we selected 21 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The majority of the included studies assessed trends in psychological symptoms over the pandemic period, then arguing that symptoms worsened for a number of reasons, including the risk of contracting the virus, the disruption of mental health services, and the feelings of loneliness and isolation associated with the restriction measures. Even though studies provided somewhat contradictory results, the majority of evidence indicates that people with pre-existing mental health conditions were more likely to report greater self-isolation distress, anxiety, depression, COVID-19-related perceived stress, and were more likely to voluntarily self-isolate than those without a mental health condition. These findings appeared to suggest that a combination of factors related to the pandemic itself and to the prevention and mitigation strategies were responsible for a reduction of the right to mental health of people with mental health conditions, with increased inequalities in comparison with the general population.

Neonatal withdrawal syndrome following in utero exposure to antidepressants: a disproportionality analysis of VigiBase, the WHO spontaneous reporting database.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on neonatal withdrawal syndrome following antidepressant intrauterine exposure is limited, particularly for antidepressants other than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs). METHODS: In our case/non-case pharmacovigilance study, based on VigiBase®, the WHO database of suspected adverse drug reactions, we estimated reporting odds ratio (ROR) and the Bayesian information component (IC) with 95% confidence/credibility intervals (CI) as measures of disproportionate reporting of antidepressant-related neonatal withdrawal syndrome. Antidepressants were first compared to all other medications, then to methadone, and finally within each class of antidepressants: SSRIs, tricyclics (TCA) and other antidepressants. Antidepressants were ranked in terms of clinical priority, based on semiquantitative score ratings. Serious v. non-serious reports were compared. RESULTS: A total of 406 reports of neonatal withdrawal syndrome in 379 neonates related to 15 antidepressants were included. Disproportionate reporting was detected for antidepressants as a group as compared to all other drugs (ROR: 6.18, 95% CI 5.45-7.01, IC: 2.07, 95% CI 1.92-2.21). Signals were found for TCAs (10.55, 95% CI 8.02-13.88), followed by other antidepressants (ROR: 5.90, 95% CI 4.74-7.36) and SSRIs (ROR: 4.68, 95% CI 4.04-5.42). Significant disproportionality emerged for all individual antidepressants except for bupropion, whereas no disproportionality for any antidepressant was detected v. methadone. Eleven antidepressants had a moderate clinical priority score and four had a weak one. Most frequent symptoms included respiratory symptoms (n = 106), irritability/agitation (n = 75), tremor (n = 52) and feeding problems (n = 40). CONCLUSIONS: Most antidepressants are associated with moderate signals of disproportionate reporting for neonatal withdrawal syndrome, which should be considered when prescribing an antidepressant during pregnancy, irrespective of class.

Remote mental health care interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic: An umbrella review.

Mitigating the COVID-19 related disruptions in mental health care services is crucial in a time of increased mental health disorders. Numerous reviews have been conducted on the process of implementing technology-based mental health care during the pandemic. The research question of this umbrella review was to examine what the impact of COVID-19 was on access and delivery of mental health services and how mental health services have changed during the pandemic. A systematic search for systematic reviews and meta-analyses was conducted up to August 12, 2022, and 38 systematic reviews were identified. Main disruptions during COVID-19 were reduced access to outpatient mental health care and reduced admissions and earlier discharge from inpatient care. In response, synchronous telemental health tools such as videoconferencing were used to provide remote care similar to pre-COVID care, and to a lesser extent asynchronous virtual mental health tools such as apps. Implementation of synchronous tools were facilitated by time-efficiency and flexibility during the pandemic but there was a lack of accessibility for specific vulnerable populations. Main barriers among practitioners and patients to use digital mental health tools were poor technological literacy, particularly when preexisting inequalities existed, and beliefs about reduced therapeutic alliance particularly in case of severe mental disorders. Absence of organizational support for technological implementation of digital mental health interventions due to inadequate IT infrastructure, lack of funding, as well as lack of privacy and safety, challenged implementation during COVID-19. Reviews were of low to moderate quality, covered heterogeneously designed primary studies and lacked findings of implementation in low- and middle-income countries. These gaps in the evidence were particularly prevalent in studies conducted early in the pandemic. This umbrella review shows that during the COVID-19 pandemic, practitioners and mental health care institutions mainly used synchronous telemental health tools, and to a lesser degree asynchronous tools to enable continued access to mental health care for patients. Numerous barriers to these tools were identified, and call for further improvements. In addition, more high quality research into comparative effectiveness and working mechanisms may improve scalability of mental health care in general and in future infectious disease outbreaks.

Adverse childhood experiences and global mental health: avenues to reduce the burden of child and adolescent mental disorders.

Mental disorders are one of the largest contributors to the burden of disease globally, this holds also for children and adolescents, especially in low- and middle-income countries. The prevalence and severity of these disorders are influenced by social determinants, including exposure to adversity. When occurring early in life, these latter events are referred to as adverse childhood experiences (ACEs).In this editorial, we provide an overview of the literature on the role of ACEs as social determinants of mental health through the lenses of global mental health. While the relation between ACEs and mental health has been extensively explored, most research was centred in higher income contexts. We argue that findings from the realm of global mental health should be integrated into that of ACEs, e.g. through preventative and responsive psychosocial interventions for children, adolescents and their caregivers. The field of global mental health should also undertake active efforts to better address ACEs in its initiatives, all with the goal of reducing the burden of mental disorders among children and adolescents globally.

Long-term effectiveness of Self-Help Plus in refugees and asylum seekers resettled in Western Europe: 12-month outcomes of a randomised controlled trial.

AIMS: As refugees and asylum seekers are at high risk of developing mental disorders, we assessed the effectiveness of Self-Help Plus (SH + ), a psychological intervention developed by the World Health Organization, in reducing the risk of developing any mental disorders at 12-month follow-up in refugees and asylum seekers resettled in Western Europe. METHODS: Refugees and asylum seekers with psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire-12 ⩾ 3) but without a mental disorder according to the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.) were randomised to either SH + or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU). The frequency of mental disorders at 12 months was measured with the M.I.N.I., while secondary outcomes included self-identified problems, psychological symptoms and other outcomes. RESULTS: Of 459 participants randomly assigned to SH + or ETAU, 246 accepted to be interviewed at 12 months. No difference in the frequency of any mental disorders was found (relative risk [RR] = 0.841; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.389-1.819; p-value = 0.659). In the per protocol (PP) population, that is in participants attending at least three group-based sessions, SH + almost halved the frequency of mental disorders at 12 months compared to ETAU, however so few participants and events contributed to this analysis that it yielded a non-significant result (RR = 0.528; 95% CI 0.180-1.544; p-value = 0.230). SH + was associated with improvements at 12 months in psychological distress (p-value = 0.004), depressive symptoms (p-value = 0.011) and wellbeing (p-value = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The present study failed to show any long-term preventative effect of SH + in refugees and asylum seekers resettled in Western European countries. Analysis of the PP population and of secondary outcomes provided signals of a potential effect of SH + in the long-term, which would suggest the value of exploring the effects of booster sessions and strategies to increase SH + adherence.

Mapping the selection, availability, price and affordability of essential medicines for mental health conditions at a global level.

AIMS: To provide a cross-country analysis of selection, availability, prices and affordability of essential medicines for mental health conditions, aiming to identify areas for improvement. METHODS: We used the World Health Organization (WHO) online repository of national essential medicines lists (EMLs) to extract information on the inclusion of essential psychotropic medicines within each country's EML. Data on psychotropic medicine availability, price and affordability were obtained from the Health Action International global database. Additional information on country availability, prices and affordability of essential medicines for mental disorders was identified by searching, up to January 2021, PubMed/Medline, CINAHIL, Scopus and the WHO Regional Databases. We summarised and compared the indicators across lowest-price generic and originator brand medicines in the public and private sectors, and by country income groups. RESULTS: A total of 112 national EMLs were analysed, and data on psychotropic medicine availability, price and affordability were obtained from 87 surveys. While some WHO essential psychotropic medicines, such as chlorpromazine, haloperidol, amitriptyline, carbamazepine and diazepam, were selected by most national lists, irrespective of the country income level, other essential medicines, such as risperidone or clozapine, were included by most national lists in high-income countries, but only by a minority of lists in low-income countries. Up to 40% of low-income countries did not include medicines that have been in the WHO list for decades, such as long-acting fluphenazine, lithium carbonate and clomipramine. The availability of generic and originator psychotropic medicines in the public sector was below 50% for all medicines, with low-income countries showing rates lower than the overall average. Analysis of price data revealed that procurement prices were lower than patient prices in the public sector, and medicines in the private sector were associated with the highest prices. In low-income countries, the average patient price for amitriptyline and fluoxetine was three times the international unit reference price, while the average patient price for diazepam was ten times the international unit reference price. Affordability was higher in the public than the private sector, and in high-income than low-income countries. CONCLUSION: Access to medicines for mental health conditions is an ongoing challenge for health systems worldwide, and no countries can claim to be fully aligned with the general principle of providing full access to essential psychotropic medicines. Low availability and high costs are major barriers to the use of and adherence to essential psychotropic medicines, particularly in low-and middle-income countries.

Reducing stigma and discrimination associated with COVID-19: early stage pandemic rapid review and practical recommendations.

AIMS: To develop recommendations for strategies and interventions to reduce stigma and discrimination related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), through reviewing and synthesising evidence in relation to COVID-19 and other disease outbreaks and infectious/stigmatised conditions from systematic reviews and primary studies and recommendations from additional materials. METHODS: Rapid review, drawing on the World Health Organization's (WHO) methodology for developing interim guidelines during health emergencies. PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central and Campbell Collaboration searched up to mid-April 2020. Searches were supplemented by reference-searching and expert recommendations. Searches were designed to identify: (1) systematic reviews (<10 years), or (2) primary intervention studies (no date limit) reporting evidence on anti-stigma interventions (in relation to COVID-19 or other infectious/stigmatised conditions) or (3) additional relevant materials. Data were extracted on population, intervention, outcome and results. These data were compiled into evidence summary tables and narrative overviews. Recommendations on strategies for COVID-19 stigma-reduction were developed using the WHO 'Evidence to Decision' framework approach. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration ID: CRD42020177677). RESULTS: The searches identified a total of 4150 potentially relevant records, from which 12 systematic reviews and 29 additional articles were included. Overarching considerations and specific recommendations focus on: (1) language/words used in relation to COVID-19 and affected people; (2) media/journalistic practices; (3) public health interventions; (4) targeted public health interventions for key groups and (5) involving communities and key stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations represent the first consolidated evidence-based guidance on stigma and discrimination reduction in relation to COVID-19. Mitigating the impact of stigma is critical in reducing distress and negative experiences, and strengthening communities' resolve to work together during exceptional circumstances. Ultimately, reducing stigma helps addressing structural inequalities that drive marginalisation and exacerbate both health risks and the impact of stigma. Administrations and decision makers are urged to consider integrating these recommendations into the ongoing COVID-19 response.

Impact of maternal mental health interventions on child-related outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Observational studies have shown a relationship between maternal mental health (MMH) and child development, but few studies have evaluated whether MMH interventions improve child-related outcomes, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The objective of this review is to synthesise findings on the effectiveness of MMH interventions to improve child-related outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials conducted in LMICs evaluating interventions with a MMH component and reporting children's outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed on outcomes included in at least two trials. RESULTS: We identified 21 trials with 28 284 mother-child dyads. Most trials were conducted in middle-income countries, evaluating home visiting interventions delivered by general health workers, starting in the third trimester of pregnancy. Only ten trials described acceptable methods for blinding outcome assessors. Four trials showed high risk of bias in at least two of the seven domains assessed in this review. Narrative synthesis showed promising but inconclusive findings for child-related outcomes. Meta-analysis identified a sizeable impact of interventions on exclusive breastfeeding (risk ratio = 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13-1.71, ten trials, N = 4749 mother-child dyads, I2 = 61%) and a small effect on child height-for-age at 6-months (std. mean difference = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.02-0.24, three trials, N = 1388, I2 = 0%). Meta-analyses did not identify intervention benefits for child cognitive and other growth outcomes; however, few trials measured these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the importance of MMH to improve child-related outcomes in LMICs, particularly exclusive breastfeeding. Given, the small number of trials and methodological limitations, more rigorous trials should be conducted.

Esketamine clinical trials: reply to Maju et al.

Maju et al. provided clarifications on important and controversial issues related to esketamine clinical trial data, in response to a vivid debate triggered by the marketing authorisation recently granted by this new medicine. In this commentary, we reply to their comments attempting to critically discuss the evidence base needed to obtain regulatory approval.

Esketamine for treatment resistant depression: a trick of smoke and mirrors?

In March 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a nasal spray formulation of esketamine for the treatment of resistant depression in adults. Esketamine is the S-enantiomer of ketamine, an FDA-approved anaesthetic, known to cause dissociation and, occasionally, hallucinations. While ketamine has not been approved for depression in the USA or in any other country, it has been used off-label in cases of severe depression. This commentary critically reviewed the evidence on esketamine submitted to the FDA, aiming to draw implications for clinical practice, research and regulatory science.

Antipsychotic use and risk of life-threatening medical events: umbrella review of observational studies.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the risk of hip fracture, thromboembolism, stroke, myocardial infarction, pneumonia and sudden cardiac death associated with exposure to antipsychotics. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in Medline, Embase and PsycINFO from inception until 30/07/2018 for systematic reviews of observational studies. AMSTAR-2 was used for the quality assessment of systematic reviews, while the strength of associations was measured using GRADE and quantitative umbrella review criteria (URC). RESULTS: Sixty-eight observational studies from six systematic reviews were included. The association between antipsychotic exposure and pneumonia was the strongest [URC = class I; GRADE = low quality; odds ratio (OR) = 1.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.62-2.09; participants = 28 726; age = 76.2 ± 12.3 years], followed by the association with hip fracture (URC = class II; GRADE = low quality; OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.42-1.74; participants = 5 288 118; age = 55.4 ± 12.5 years), and thromboembolism (URC = class II; GRADE = very low quality; OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.31-1.83; participants = 31 417 175; age = 55.5 ± 3.2 years). The association was weak for stroke (URC = class III; GRADE = very low quality; OR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.24-1.70; participants = 65 700; age = 68.7 ± 13.8 years), sudden cardiac death (URC = class III; GRADE = very low quality; OR = 2.24, 95% CI = 1.45-3.46; participants = 77 488; age = 52.2 ± 6.2 years) and myocardial infarction (URC = class III; GRADE = very low quality; OR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.41-3.46; participants = 399 868; age = 74.1 ± 9.3 years). CONCLUSION: The most robust results were found for the risk of pneumonia, followed by the risk of hip fracture and thromboembolism. For stroke, sudden cardiac death and myocardial infarction, the strength of association was weak. The observational nature of the primary studies may represent a source of bias.

Efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions in asylum seekers and refugees: systematic review and meta-analysis.

AimsIn the past few years, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of forcibly displaced migrants worldwide, of which a substantial proportion is refugees and asylum seekers. Refugees and asylum seekers may experience high levels of psychological distress, and show high rates of mental health conditions. It is therefore timely and particularly relevant to assess whether current evidence supports the provision of psychosocial interventions for this population. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions compared with control conditions (treatment as usual/no treatment, waiting list, psychological placebo) aimed at reducing mental health problems in distressed refugees and asylum seekers. METHODS: We used Cochrane procedures for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. We searched for published and unpublished RCTs assessing the efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions in adults and children asylum seekers and refugees with psychological distress. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depressive and anxiety symptoms at post-intervention were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes include: PTSD, depressive and anxiety symptoms at follow-up, functioning, quality of life and dropouts due to any reason. RESULTS: We included 26 studies with 1959 participants. Meta-analysis of RCTs revealed that psychosocial interventions have a clinically significant beneficial effect on PTSD (standardised mean difference [SMD] = -0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.01 to -0.41; I2 = 83%; 95% CI 78-88; 20 studies, 1370 participants; moderate quality evidence), depression (SMD = -1.02; 95% CI -1.52 to -0.51; I2 = 89%; 95% CI 82-93; 12 studies, 844 participants; moderate quality evidence) and anxiety outcomes (SMD = -1.05; 95% CI -1.55 to -0.56; I2 = 87%; 95% CI 79-92; 11 studies, 815 participants; moderate quality evidence). This beneficial effect was maintained at 1 month or longer follow-up, which is extremely important for populations exposed to ongoing post-migration stressors. For the other secondary outcomes, we identified a non-significant trend in favour of psychosocial interventions. Most evidence supported interventions based on cognitive behavioural therapies with a trauma-focused component. Limitations of this review include the limited number of studies collected, with a relatively low total number of participants, and the limited available data for positive outcomes like functioning and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the epidemiological relevance of psychological distress and mental health conditions in refugees and asylum seekers, and in view of the existing data on the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions, these interventions should be routinely made available as part of the health care of distressed refugees and asylum seekers. Evidence-based guidelines and implementation packages should be developed accordingly.

Medicine-based evidence: the case of antidepressants in patients with coronary artery disease.

In individuals with coronary artery disease and concurrent depressive symptomatology, the evidence on the beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants is very limited. Recently, a study was carried out to describe depressive symptoms and the treatments provided under real-world circumstances to cardiac patients who entered the Mayo Clinic cardiac rehabilitation program. Antidepressant use was associated with reductions in depressive symptoms, but also with poorer cardiovascular outcomes. In this commentary, the results of this study are discussed in view of their clinical implications for everyday clinical practice and for the production of knowledge.

Public health psychopharmacology: a new research discipline comes of age?

Research evidence guiding the identification of pragmatic and effective actions aimed at improving the selection, availability, affordability and rational prescribing of medicines for mental disorders is sparse and inconsistent. In order to boost the development of new research, in this commentary we suggest to organise and classify all the activities in this area under a common theoretical framework and nomenclature, adopting the term 'public health psychopharmacology'. Public health psychopharmacology is proposed as a research discipline, based on contributions from the fields of regulatory science, health services research and implementation science. Implementing the term public health psychopharmacology may offer advantages, as the scientific community would be more focused on common goals and objectives, with, likely, an increasing body of research evidence of practical use.

A systematic review of cognitive effects of exercise in depression.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the impact of physical exercise on cognitive symptoms in depressed adult patients. METHODS: Systematic literature search was performed in Web of Science™ and CINAHL from inception to August 2016. Two reviewers independently selected randomized trials evaluating the effect of exercise on cognitive functions in patients with a validated diagnosis of depression. Outcome measures included global cognition and different cognitive domains (speed of processing, attention/vigilance, working memory, verbal and visual memory, and reasoning). RESULTS: Eight trials met inclusion criteria (637 patients). A fixed-effects model showed absence of beneficial effect on global cognition (Hedges' g = 0.07, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.24, I2  = 0%) as well as on specific cognitive domains. Sensitivity analyses did not show an impact of exercise in studies with shorter intervention duration compared to longer trials (between group heterogeneity Q = 3.564, df = 1, P = 0.059), single session per week compared to multiple sessions (Q = 2.691, df = 1, P = 0.101) and low exercise intensity compared with moderate/high intensity (Q = 2.952, df = 1, P = 0.086). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis did not observe a substantial benefit of physical exercise on cognitive symptoms in depression.