RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic globally impacted healthcare provision. Prescribing changes in common medications can be used as a marker for new diagnoses. We describe how the prescribing of specific psychotropics was impacted by the pandemic. METHODS: Primary Care Prescribing data for different classes of drugs from March 2017 to February 2022 were considered. To capture the impact during periods of restricted access to health services for new diagnoses/existing conditions, repeat prescriptions/episodic prescribing were included with account taken of historical trends. The pre-pandemic prescriptions issued each month from March 2018 to February 2020 were linearly extrapolated forward to give an expected annual growth (EAG). The monthly average expected prescriptions for the pandemic period (March 2020-February 2022) were compared. RESULTS: Physical health medications had lower monthly prescriptions during the pandemic, most markedly for antibiotics - 12.5% (EAG - 1.3%). Bronchodilator prescribing showed a marked increase in the early pandemic months from March 2020 of 5% (EAG 0.1%). Mental health medication prescribing increased above trend for hypnotics/anxiolytics by 0.2% (EAG - 2.3%), while antidepressants fell by - 0.2% (EAG 5.0%), with no net change for antipsychotics (EAG 2.8%), but a temporary increase in antipsychotic prescribing in the early pandemic period. For all the main antidepressants prescribed in England (Sertraline, Mirtazapine, Venlafaxine, Fluoxetine and Citalopram), prescribing actually decreased in the main pandemic period vs historical trend. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in anxiolytic/hypnotic prescribing above trend links to pandemic effects on anxiety/worry. If anything, there was a slight fall in prescribing of the main antidepressants prescribed, which given prevailing circumstances at the time, suggests that access to services may have restricted access to timely assessment.
RESUMEN
Study design: Systematic review. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitors on neurobehavioral outcomes in preclinical models of traumatic and non-traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019150639). Searches were performed in MEDLINE and Embase. Studies were included if they evaluated the impact of PDE inhibitors on neurobehavioral outcomes in preclinical models of traumatic or non-traumatic SCI. Data were extracted from relevant studies, including sample characteristics, injury model, and neurobehavioral assessment and outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the SYRCLE checklist. Results: The search yielded a total of 1,679 studies, of which 22 met inclusion criteria. Sample sizes ranged from 11 to 144 animals. PDE inhibitors used include rolipram (n = 16), cilostazol (n = 4), roflumilast (n = 1), and PDE4-I (n = 1). The injury models used were traumatic SCI (n = 18), spinal cord ischemia (n = 3), and degenerative cervical myelopathy (n = 1). The most commonly assessed outcome measures were Basso, Beattie, Bresnahan (BBB) locomotor score (n = 13), and grid walking (n = 7). Of the 22 papers that met the final inclusion criteria, 12 showed a significant improvement in neurobehavioral outcomes following the use of PDE inhibitors, four papers had mixed findings and six found PDE inhibitors to be ineffective in improving neurobehavioral recovery following an SCI. Notably, these findings were broadly consistent across different PDE inhibitors and spinal cord injury models. Conclusion: In preclinical models of traumatic and non-traumatic SCI, the administration of PDE inhibitors appeared to be associated with statistically significant improvements in neurobehavioral outcomes in a majority of included studies. However, the evidence was inconsistent with a high risk of bias. This review provides a foundation to aid the interpretation of subsequent clinical trials of PDE inhibitors in spinal cord injury. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=150639, identifier: CRD42019150639.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: There is considerable evidence for diabetes reducing quality of life. The impact of such a diagnosis on mental health is less well understood and was subsequently explored here. METHODS: Online PHQ-9 scores (which calculate the severity of depression), Diabetes Distress Screening Scale (DDSS) and EQ-5D-5L (quality-of-life) questionnaires were completed by patients with diabetes, followed by the extraction of data where possible from responders' clinical records. RESULTS: A total of 133 people submitted questionnaires. However, not all data items could be completed by each patient; 35% (45/130) had type I diabetes mellitus (T1DM); 55% (64/117) were women. The overall median age of 117 responders was 60 (IQR 50-68 years). The median aggregated response scores were: EQ-5D-5L 0.74 (IQR 0.64-0.85) (lower quality of life than UK population median of 0.83), DDSS 1.9 (IQR1.3-2.7) (≥ 2 indicates moderate distress) and PHQ-9 5 (IQR2-11) (≥ 5 indicates depression). Higher diabetes distress (DDSS)/lower quality of life EQ-5D-5L/higher depressive symptoms (PHQ-9) linked to female sex (DDSS 0.5/25% above median), younger age (< 50 years DDSS 0.7/35% above median), fewer years after diagnosis (< 10 years DDSS 0.8/40% above median), and obesity (BMI > 35 DDSS 0.6/30% above median). Additionally, a HbA1c reading of ≤ 48 mmol/mol was associated with higher DDSS scores, as did a reduction of more than 5 mmol/mol in HbA1c over the last three HbA1c measurements. The 30 individuals with a history of prescribed antidepressant medication also showed higher diabetes distress scores (DDSS 0.9, equating to 45% above the median). The DDSS score elevation came from an increase in emotional burden and regimen-related distress. DDSS scores were not significantly linked to diabetes type, insulin use, absolute level/change in blood glucose HbA1c. Physician-related distress showed a similar pattern. CONCLUSIONS: A low level of stress in relation to diabetes management may be associated with lower HbA1c. The larger impact of diabetes on mental health in younger women/people with shorter diabetes duration should be noted when considering psychosocial intervention/behavior change messaging. Physician-related distress is a potentially remediable factor. However, this sample was self-selecting, limiting generalization to other samples.
RESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of cannabinoids on neurobehavioral outcomes in preclinical models of nontraumatic and traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI), with the aim of determining suitability for clinical trials involving SCI patients. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE and Embase databases, following registration with PROPSERO (CRD42019149671). Studies evaluating the impact of cannabinoids (agonists or antagonists) on neurobehavioral outcomes in preclinical models of nontraumatic and traumatic SCI were included. Data extracted from relevant studies, included sample characteristics, injury model, neurobehavioural outcomes assessed and study results. PRISMA guidelines were followed and the SYRCLE checklist was used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: The search returned 8714 studies, 19 of which met our inclusion criteria. Sample sizes ranged from 23 to 390 animals. WIN 55,212-2 (n = 6) and AM 630 (n = 8) were the most used cannabinoid receptor agonist and antagonist respectively. Acute SCI models included traumatic injury (n = 16), ischaemia/reperfusion injury (n = 2), spinal cord cryoinjury (n = 1) and spinal cord ischaemia (n = 1). Assessment tools used assessed locomotor function, pain and anxiety. Cannabinoid receptor agonists resulted in statistically significant improvement in locomotor function in 9 out of 10 studies and pain outcomes in 6 out of 6 studies. CONCLUSION: Modulation of the endo-cannabinoid system has demonstrated significant improvement in both pain and locomotor function in pre-clinical SCI models; however, the risk of bias is unclear in all studies. These results may help to contextualise future translational clinical trials investigating whether cannabinoids can improve pain and locomotor function in SCI patients.