RESUMEN
This article is a clinical guide which discusses the "state-of-the-art" usage of the classic monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) antidepressants (phenelzine, tranylcypromine, and isocarboxazid) in modern psychiatric practice. The guide is for all clinicians, including those who may not be experienced MAOI prescribers. It discusses indications, drug-drug interactions, side-effect management, and the safety of various augmentation strategies. There is a clear and broad consensus (more than 70 international expert endorsers), based on 6 decades of experience, for the recommendations herein exposited. They are based on empirical evidence and expert opinion-this guide is presented as a new specialist-consensus standard. The guide provides practical clinical advice, and is the basis for the rational use of these drugs, particularly because it improves and updates knowledge, and corrects the various misconceptions that have hitherto been prominent in the literature, partly due to insufficient knowledge of pharmacology. The guide suggests that MAOIs should always be considered in cases of treatment-resistant depression (including those melancholic in nature), and prior to electroconvulsive therapy-while taking into account of patient preference. In selected cases, they may be considered earlier in the treatment algorithm than has previously been customary, and should not be regarded as drugs of last resort; they may prove decisively effective when many other treatments have failed. The guide clarifies key points on the concomitant use of incorrectly proscribed drugs such as methylphenidate and some tricyclic antidepressants. It also illustrates the straightforward "bridging" methods that may be used to transition simply and safely from other antidepressants to MAOIs.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to a shift from in-person to remote mental health care. While remote care methods have long existed, their widespread use is unprecedented. There is little research about mental health care user and provider experiences with this transition, and no published studies to date have compared satisfaction between these groups. METHODS: Canadian mental health care users (n = 332) and providers (n = 107) completed an online self-report survey from October 2020 to February 2021 hosted by the Canadian Biomarker Integration Network in Depression. Using a mixed-methods approach, participants were asked about their use of remote care, including satisfaction, barriers to use, helpful and unhelpful factors, and suggestions for improvement. RESULTS: Overall, 59% to 63% of health care users and 59% of health care providers were satisfied with remote care. Users reported the greatest satisfaction with the convenience of remote care, while providers were most satisfied with the speed of provision of care; all groups were least satisfied with therapeutic rapport. Health care providers were less satisfied with the user-friendliness of remote care (P < 0.001) than users, while health care users were less satisfied than providers with continuity of care (P < 0.001). The use of a video-based platform was associated with remote care satisfaction among health care users (P < 0.02), and qualitative responses support the importance of visual cues in maintaining therapeutic rapport remotely. The majority of users (55%) and providers (87%) reported a likelihood of using remote care after the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Remote mental health care is generally accepted by both users and providers, and the majority would consider using remote care following the pandemic. Suggestions for improvement include greater use of video, increased attention to body language and eye contact, consistency with in-person care, as well as increased provider training and administrative support.
