Mortality associated with anxiolytic and hypnotic drugs-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Use of hypnotics or anxiolytic drugs is common and various studies have reported increased mortality with hypnotics or anxiolytic use. OBJECTIVE: To consolidate the evidence on mortality risk associated with hypnotics or anxiolytic use METHODS: Major databases were searched through April 2014 for studies reporting mortality risk associated with hypnotics or anxiolytics use. A pooled hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval was estimated using random-effects model. RESULTS: After screening 2188 articles, 25 studies (24 cohort, 1 case-control) enrolling 2,350,093 patients with 59% females (age 18-102 years) were included in the meta-analysis. Hypnotics or anxiolytic users had 43% higher risk of mortality than non-users (hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, [1.12, 1.84]). Eight studies reported risk estimates for each gender category and pooled results from these studies showed increased risk of mortality among men (hazard ratio = 1.60, 95% confidence interval = [1.29,1.99]) and women (hazard ratio = 1.68, 95% confidence interval = [1.38, 2.04]). Pooled results from 10 studies showed higher mortality among benzodiazepine users compared to non-users (hazard ratio = 1.60, 95% confidence interval = [1.03, 2.49]), while pooled results from five studies showed an increased risk of mortality with Z-drugs use although the effect could not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio = 1.73, 95% confidence interval = [0.95, 3.16]). Significant heterogeneity was observed in the analyses and the quality of included studies was good. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that hypnotics or anxiolytics drugs use is associated with increased mortality and hence should be used with caution. Future studies focused on underlying mechanism of increased mortality with hypnotics or anxiolytics use are required.

Involuntary detention: do psychiatrists clinically justify continuing involuntary hospitalization?

To elucidate disparities in clinical and legal documentation for patients admitted involuntarily to a county psychiatric hospital in Texas. The study sample comprised of 89 randomly selected patients, involuntarily hospitalized to our facility in September 2011. All patients met criteria for involuntary detention based on the legal documents filed by admitting psychiatrists. Electronic medical records were reviewed to assess if the clinical documentation from the same date when legal documents were filed; demonstrated criteria for involuntary detention (harm to self, harm to others, inability to care for self). A logistic regression model was used to assess the predictors of concordance between legal and clinical documentation of involuntary detention criteria. Of 89, 6 patients were made voluntary, while two were discharged within 24 h, thus removed from the analysis pool. Of 81, 31(38.2 %) patients lacked sufficient clinical documentation on medical records required for involuntary hospitalization. Patients, for whom detention was justified in clinical notes, were more likely to have single marital status, longer duration of hospitalization and they were more likely to undergo commitment for further inpatient mental health treatment. Our study found that involuntary detention of many patients based on the legal documents filed by admitting psychiatrists was not justified by the clinical documentation. This indicates that appropriate standards are not maintained when completing the medical certificates for involuntary detention. Maintaining appropriate standards may reduce the need for involuntary hospitalization, increase patient autonomy, and reduce resource utilization.

Involuntary detention: comparison of clinical practices of psychiatry residents and faculty.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to study if involuntary detention criteria in legal certificates filed by psychiatry residents and faculty psychiatrists are consistent with observations in clinical documentation. METHODS: Eighty-nine involuntarily hospitalized patients were retrospectively selected from medical records; eight patients were excluded due to change in involuntary status or immediate discharge on clinical grounds. Medical certificates filed by the residents and faculty psychiatrists were compared with clinical documentation of the same day for consistency in criteria for detention (substantial risk of harm to self or others and/or inability to care for self). RESULTS: Of 81 included patients, 38.3 % lacked sufficient documentation of clinical justification for involuntary hospitalization. The rate of inconsistency of documented clinical justification showed a greater trend among psychiatry residents compared to faculty psychiatrists (p = 0.069, not statistically significant). CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistency of documented clinical justification for involuntarily detention was higher among residents compared to faculty. There is a need for structured training and supervision of psychiatry residents as well as updated training for faculty psychiatrists with regard to involuntary detention procedures.

A Patient With Schizophrenia in Remission Relapses Following COVID-19: A Case Report.

As managing COVID-19 complications has become more prevalent in psychiatry, its effects can range from provoking new illnesses in previously healthy individuals to inducing relapses in patients in remission. However, an aspect of COVID-19's influence that is not well documented is its effect on medication responsiveness. In this case, we present a 28-year-old male diagnosed with treatment-resistant schizophrenia for eight years. While in remission on a maintenance dose of clozapine, he was admitted to the hospital with signs of severe psychosis after testing positive for COVID-19. On admission, he did not have any other major stressors and no prior comorbidities that could have induced the relapse. Despite being on a higher dose of clozapine for four weeks while hospitalized, the patient's psychosis did not improve. This raises the question if his infection had altered his response to medication that previously brought on remission.

"Esketamine" in Borderline Personality Disorder: A Look Beyond Suicidality.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is an extremely disabling condition that affects almost every dimension of a patient's life. The S-enantiomer of ketamine (esketamine) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2019 in conjunction with an oral antidepressant for the management of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in adults. Our patient is a 27-year-old female with a long-standing diagnosis of BPD and treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD) who presented to a tertiary care hospital after a baleful suicide attempt. As per treatment guidelines, "esketamine" intranasal spray in conjunction with citalopram 20 mg was started in the outpatient setting at a dose of 56 mg twice weekly for four weeks, followed by 56 mg once weekly, which was further titrated to 84 mg once weekly. Two years into treatment, the patient and her mother report around 70% improvement in her depression and anxiety with around 80% improvement in her behavioral symptoms. Esketamine's potential action on patients with BPD can be partially explained by its very well-documented effect on the glutamate receptor antagonism. Additionally, patients with stress-induced suicidal ideations (SI), which are seen in borderline patients, are better responsive to ketamine. In conclusion, we recommend a trial of intranasal esketamine in patients with BPD with treatment-resistant MDD and frequent episodes of self-harm. Treatment with esketamine could potentially reduce the number of emergency room visits for impulsive suicide attempts and help reduce the life burden of BPD and its impact on family members.

Role of Botulinum Toxin in Depression.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this review was to consolidate the evidence concerning the efficacy of botulinum toxin type A (onabotulinumtoxinA) in depression. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus through May 5, 2014, for studies evaluating the efficacy of botulinum toxin A in depression. Only randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. A pooled mean difference in primary depression score, and pooled odds ratio for response and remission rate with 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran Q test and χ statistic. RESULTS: Of the 639 articles that were initially retrieved, 5 studies enrolling 194 subjects (age 49±9.6 y) were included in the systematic review, and 3 randomized controlled trials enrolling 134 subjects were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed a significant decrease in mean primary depression scores among patients who received botulinum toxin A compared with placebo (-9.80; 95% CI, -12.90 to -6.69) with modest heterogeneity between the studies (Cochran Q test, χ=70). Response and remission rates were 8.3 and 4.6 times higher, respectively, among patients receiving botulinum toxin A compared with placebo, with no heterogeneity between the studies. The 2 studies excluded from the meta-analysis also found a significant decrease in primary depression scores in patients after receiving botulinum toxin A. A few subjects had minor side effects, which were similar between the groups receiving botulinum toxin and those receiving placebo. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that botulinum toxin A can produce significant improvement in depressive symptoms and is a safe adjunctive treatment for patients receiving pharmacotherapy for depression. Future trials are needed to evaluate the antidepressant effect per se of botulinum toxin A and to further elucidate the underlying antidepressant mechanism of botulinum toxin A.