This international guideline proposes improving clozapine package inserts worldwide by using ancestry-based dosing and titration. Adverse drug reaction (ADR) databases suggest that clozapine is the third most toxic drug in the United States (US), and it produces four times higher worldwide pneumonia mortality than that by agranulocytosis or myocarditis. For trough steady-state clozapine serum concentrations, the therapeutic reference range is narrow, from 350 to 600 ng/mL with the potential for toxicity and ADRs as concentrations increase. Clozapine is mainly metabolized by CYP1A2 (female non-smokers, the lowest dose; male smokers, the highest dose). Poor metabolizer status through phenotypic conversion is associated with co-prescription of inhibitors (including oral contraceptives and valproate), obesity, or inflammation with C-reactive protein (CRP) elevations. The Asian population (Pakistan to Japan) or the Americas’ original inhabitants have lower CYP1A2 activity and require lower clozapine doses to reach concentrations of 350 ng/mL. In the US, daily doses of 300–600 mg/day are recommended. Slow personalized titration may prevent early ADRs (including syncope, myocarditis, and pneumonia). This guideline defines six personalized titration schedules for inpatients: 1) ancestry from Asia or the original people from the Americas with lower metabolism (obesity or valproate) needing minimum therapeutic dosages of 75–150 mg/day, 2) ancestry from Asia or the original people from the Americas with average metabolism needing 175–300 mg/day, 3) European/Western Asian ancestry with lower metabolism (obesity or valproate) needing 100–200 mg/day, 4) European/Western Asian ancestry with average metabolism needing 250–400 mg/day, 5) in the US with ancestries other than from Asia or the original people from the Americas with lower clozapine metabolism (obesity or valproate) needing 150–300 mg/day, and 6) in the US with ancestries other than from Asia or the original people from the Americas with average clozapine metabolism needing 300–600 mg/day. Baseline and weekly CRP monitoring for at least four weeks is required to identify any inflammation, including inflammation secondary to clozapine rapid titration.

Psychosocial training of caregivers can minimise caregiver distress and help them to develop problem-solving strategies. A PIP improves quality of life and the perceived health of caregivers of patients with AD.

Discontinuation effects following cessation of 12 and 24 wk of pregabalin treatment for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) were evaluated in a placebo- and lorazepam-controlled, randomized, double-blind, multicentre trial conducted in 16 countries. The study design consisted of two 12-wk treatment periods (periods 1 and 2), each followed by a 1-wk taper and two post-discontinuation assessments, one immediately following the taper and one 1-wk post-taper. Patients were assigned to receive an initially flexible dose of pregabalin 450-600 mg/d, pregabalin 150-300 mg/d, or lorazepam 3-4 mg/d for 6 wk; responders continued fixed-dose therapy for 6 additional weeks. Patients entering period 2 continued on the same fixed dose or switched to placebo. Discontinuation effects were evaluated with the Physician Withdrawal Checklist (PWC) and reported discontinuation-emergent signs and symptoms. Rebound anxiety was measured with the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale. GAD symptoms improved with all treatments and improvements were maintained over 12 and 24 wk. Low levels of discontinuation symptoms were evident in all treatment groups. For patients who received active treatment during both periods, mean (95% confidence interval) increases on the PWC from last visit on active treatment to the second post-discontinuation assessment were: pregabalin 450-600 mg/d: 2.8 (1.6-3.9), pregabalin 150-300 mg/d: 1.7 (0.7-2.8), lorazepam 3-4 mg/d: 2.2 (1.0-3.5). Rates of rebound anxiety were also low at both 12 and 24 wk (0-6%). This suggests that risk of discontinuation symptoms and rebound anxiety are low for pregabalin after 12 and 24 wk of treatment.

BackgroundSystematic screening for depression in high-risk patients is recommended but remains controversial. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of such screening in everyday clinical practice on depression recognition.MethodsA pragmatic, cluster randomized, controlled study that randomized primary care physicians (PCPs) in Spain either to an intervention or control group. The intervention group (35-PCPs) received training in depression screening and used depression screening routinely for at least 6 months. The control group (34-PCPs) managed depression in their usual manner. Adherence to (1–6; never-very frequently), feasibility (1–4; unfeasible-very feasible), and acceptance (1–5; very poor-very good) of the screening were evaluated. Underrecognition (primary outcome) and undertreatment rates of major depressive disorder (MDD) in the two groups were compared 6 months after randomization in a random sample of 3737 patients assigned to these PCPs using logistic regression adjusting for the clustering effect.ResultsNo significant differences were found for recognition rates (58.0% vs. 48.1% intervention vs. control; OR [95%CI] 1.40 [0.73-2.68], p = 0.309). The undertreatment rate did not differ significantly either (p = 0.390). The mean adherence to depression screening was 4.4 ± 1.0 (‘occasionally’), the mean feasibility was 3.1 ± 0.5 (‘moderately feasible’), and the mean acceptance was 4.2 ± 0.6 (‘good’).ConclusionsThis research was not able to show effectiveness of the systematic screening for MDD in high-risk patients on depression recognition in primary care. The poor adherence to screening implementation could partially explain the results. These reflect the difficulties of putting into practice the clinical guidelines usually based on interventional research.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01662817

Background A previously published meta-analysis found that about one-third of the general population experienced some mental health problem during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially leading to a late mental health crisis. We aimed to describe the acute, short-term, and long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health. Methods A one-year online survey (S) was conducted in Spain (April 2020 - March 2021). We recruited 18 180 subjects using a virtual respondent-driven snowball sampling method (S1 April 2020, n = 6108; S2 October-November 2020, n = 6418; S3 March 2021, n = 5654). Participants completed the Spanish Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21). Results Overall, our results suggest a progressive increase in the prevalence of anxiety and stress throughout the pandemic waves and relative stability of depression. Women had a greater probability of having depression, anxiety, or stress than men in each survey ( P < 0.001). The youngest group (aged 18-24) reported a higher probability ( P < 0.05) of having depression, anxiety, or stress than the older groups in S1 and S2. Middle-aged people (25-59) had a greater probability of being a case in the DASS-21 scales than the oldest group (60+), except for depression in men ( P = 0.179). In S3, the trend changed: the youngest group showed a decrease in depression and stress while the oldest group showed a dramatic increase (anxiety: men = 664.5%, women = 273.52%; stress: men = 786%, women = 431.37%). Conclusions It is plausible to conclude that COVID-19 psychological fatigue exists, especially in middle-aged and older adults. Strategies to assist people who have fewer coping skills should be implemented in the near future.

No abstract

SYNOPSISThis epidemiological investigation examines factors determining medical consultation in people with probable minor psychiatric morbidity. About 54% of people with probable minor psychiatric morbidity and about 23% of the (numerically much greater) remainder with lower probability of psychiatric morbidity consulted a doctor, usually a primary care physician, in the two weeks prior to a research interview. Medical consultation rates were higher in females than in males.The dominant finding was that in people with probable minor psychiatric morbidity physical illness was strongly associated with medical consultation. Almost 89% of males and 97% of females with probable minor psychiatric morbidity and physical illness consulted a doctor in the two weeks prior to interview. Logistic regression modelling was used to investigate the joint effects on medical consultation of physical illness and six socio-demographic variables, and physical illness emerged as the major single determinant of medical consultation in women and, in men, it exerted its effect through an interaction with lower educational level.

No abstract