Healthcare workers (HCW) face tremendous challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about the subjective burden, views, and COVID-19 infection status of HCWs. The aim of this work was to evaluate the subjective burden, the perception of the information policies, and the agreement on structural measures in a large cohort of German HCW during the COVID-19 pandemic. This country-wide anonymous online survey was carried out from April 15th until May 1st, 2020. 25 content-related questions regarding the subjective burden and other dimensions were evaluated. We evaluated different dimensions of subjective burden, stress, and perspectives using 5-point Likert-scale questions. Moreover, the individual COVID-19 infection status, the amount of people infected in circle of friends and acquaintances and the hours working overtime were assessed. A total of 3669 HCWs provided sufficient responses for analyses. 2.8% of HCWs reported to have been tested positive for COVID-19. Nurses reported in principle higher ratings on all questions of subjective burden and stress than doctors and other hospital staff. Doctors (3.6%) and nurses (3.1%) were more likely to be tested positive for COVID-19 than other hospital staff (0.6%, Chi 2 (2) = 17.39, p < 0.0005). HCWs who worked in a COVID-19 environment reported higher levels of subjective burden and stress compared to all other participants. Working in a COVID-19 environment increased the likelihood to be tested positive for COVID-19 (4.8% vs. 2.3%, Chi 2 (1) = 12.62, p < 0.0005) and the severity of the subjective burden. During the COVID-19 pandemic, nurses experience more stress than doctors. Overall, German HCWs showed high scores of agreement with the measures taken by the hospitals.

Background Evidence for the management of inadequate clinical response to clozapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia is sparse. Accordingly, an international initiative was undertaken with the aim of developing consensus recommendations for treatment strategies for clozapine-refractory patients with schizophrenia. Methods We conducted an online survey among members of the Treatment Response and Resistance in Psychosis (TRRIP) working group. An agreement threshold of ≥75% (responses “agree” + “strongly agree”) was set to define a first-round consensus. Questions achieving agreement or disagreement proportions of &gt;50% in the first round, were re-presented to develop second-round final consensus recommendations. Results Forty-four (first round) and 49 (second round) of 63 TRRIP members participated. Expert recommendations at ≥75% agreement included raising clozapine plasma levels to ≥350 ng/ml for refractory positive, negative, and mixed symptoms. Where plasma level-guided dose escalation was ineffective for persistent positive symptoms, waiting for a delayed response was recommended. For clozapine-refractory positive symptoms, combination with a second antipsychotic (amisulpride and oral aripiprazole) and augmentation with ECT achieved consensus. For negative symptoms, waiting for a delayed response was recommended, and as an intervention for clozapine-refractory negative symptoms, clozapine augmentation with an antidepressant reached consensus. For clozapine-refractory suicidality, augmentation with antidepressants or mood-stabilizers, and ECT met consensus criteria. For clozapine-refractory aggression, augmentation with a mood-stabilizer or antipsychotic medication achieved consensus. Generally, cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychosocial interventions reached consensus. Conclusions Given the limited evidence from randomized trials of treatment strategies for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS), this consensus-based series of recommendations provides a framework for decision making to manage this challenging clinical situation.

A recent increase in the literature regarding the evidence base for clozapine has made it increasingly difficult for clinicians to judge “best evidence” for clozapine use. As such, we aimed at elucidating the state-of-the-art for clozapine with regard to efficacy, effectiveness, tolerability, and management of clozapine and clozapine-related adverse events in neuropsychiatric disorders. We conducted a systematic PRISMA-conforming quantitative meta-review of available meta-analytic evidence regarding clozapine use. Primary outcome effect sizes were extracted and transformed into relative risk ratios (RR) and standardized mean differences (SMD). The methodological quality of meta-analyses was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 checklist. Of the 112 meta-analyses included in our review, 61 (54.5%) had an overall high methodological quality according to AMSTAR-2. Clozapine appears to have superior effects on positive, negative, and overall symptoms and relapse rates in schizophrenia (treatment-resistant and non-treatment-resistant subpopulations) compared to first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) and to pooled FGAs/second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS). Despite an unfavorable metabolic and hematological adverse-event profile compared to other antipsychotics, hospitalization, mortality and all-cause discontinuation (ACD) rates of clozapine surprisingly show a pattern of superiority. Our meta-review outlines the superior overall efficacy of clozapine compared to FGAs and most other SGAs in schizophrenia and suggests beneficial efficacy outcomes in bipolar disorder and Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP). More clinical studies and subsequent meta-analyses are needed beyond the application of clozapine in schizophrenia-spectrum disorders and future studies should be directed into multidimensional clozapine side-effect management to foster evidence and to inform future guidelines.

Background: Treatment options for clozapine resistance are diverse whereas, in contrast, the evidence for augmentation or combination strategies is sparse. Aims: We aimed to extract levels of evidence from available data and extrapolate recommendations for clinical practice. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search in the PubMed/MEDLINE database and in the Cochrane database. Included meta-analyses were assessed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria, with symptom improvement as the endpoint, in order to develop a recommendation grade for each clinical strategy identified. Results: Our search identified 21 meta-analyses of clozapine combination or augmentation strategies. No strategies met Grade A criteria. Strategies meeting Grade B included combinations with first- or second-generation antipsychotics, augmentation with electroconvulsive therapy for persistent positive symptoms, and combination with certain antidepressants (fluoxetine, duloxetine, citalopram) for persistent negative symptoms. Augmentation strategies with mood-stabilisers, anticonvulsants, glutamatergics, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation or cognitive behavioural therapy met Grades C–D criteria only. Conclusion: More high-quality clinical trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of add-on treatments for symptom improvement in patients with clozapine resistance. Applying definitions of clozapine resistance would improve the reporting of future clinical trials. Augmentation with second-generation antipsychotics and first-generation antipsychotics can be beneficial, but the supporting evidence is from low-quality studies. Electroconvulsive therapy may be effective for clozapine-resistant positive symptoms.

Objective Tobacco smoking significantly impacts clozapine blood levels and has substantial implications on individual efficacy and safety outcomes. By investigating differences in clozapine blood levels in smoking and non‐smoking patients on clozapine, we aim to provide guidance for clinicians how to adjust clozapine levels for patients on clozapine who change their smoking habits. Methods We conducted a meta‐analysis on clozapine blood levels, norclozapine levels, norclozapine/clozapine ratios, and concentration to dose (C/D) ratios in smokers and non‐smokers on clozapine. Data were meta‐analyzed using a random‐effects model with sensitivity analyses on dose, ethnic origin, and study quality. Results Data from 23 studies were included in this meta‐analysis with 21 investigating differences between clozapine blood levels of smokers and non‐smokers. In total, data from 7125 samples were included for the primary outcome (clozapine blood levels in ng/ml) in this meta‐analysis. A meta‐analysis of all between‐subject studies (N = 16) found that clozapine blood levels were significantly lower in smokers compared with non‐smokers (Standard Mean Difference (SMD) −0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.55 to −0.22, P < 0.001, I2 = 80%). With regard to the secondary outcome, C/D ratios (N = 16 studies) were significantly lower in the smoker group (n = 645) compared with the non‐smoker group (n = 813; SMD −0.70, 95%CI −0.84 to −0.56, P < 0.00001, I2 = 17%). Conclusion Smoking behavior and any change in smoking behavior is associated with a substantial effect on clozapine blood levels. Reductions of clozapine dose of 30% are recommended when a patient on clozapine stops smoking. Reductions should be informed by clozapine steady‐state trough levels and a close clinical risk‐benefit evaluation.

Objectives Clozapine levels may be a more useful predictor of therapeutic response than the dose, given the variability in clozapine metabolism between individuals. We therefore systematically reviewed and meta‐analysed the impact of clozapine levels on response and/or relapse to provide guidance on optimal clozapine levels. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, PsycInfo and Embase for studies exploring clozapine levels and response and/or relapse. Our primary meta‐analysis was rates of response above and below clozapine level thresholds of 350 ng/ml and 600 ng/ml. Secondary analyses were undertaken of mean clozapine levels, dose and concentration/dose (C/D) ratio and response and/or relapse. A meta‐regression by study duration was conducted. Results Twenty studies met inclusion criteria. Clozapine levels above 350 ng/ml were associated with statistically significantly higher rates of response (OR 2.27 95% CI 1.40–3.67, p < 0.001), but not above 600 ng/ml (OR 1.40 95% CI 0.85–2.31, p = 0.19). Higher mean clozapine levels were associated with better rates of response (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.00–0.49, p = 0.05), and lower rates of relapse (SMD −0.72, 95% CI −1.26 to −0.19, p = 0.008). By contrast, neither clozapine dose nor C/D ratio was associated with differing rates of response. Similarly, study duration did not affect outcome. Conclusions Our findings are in keeping with current guidelines that recommend targeting clozapine levels above 350 ng/ml before augmentation is considered. As some clozapine associated ADRs are dose dependent, levels above 600 ng/ml may have an unfavourable risk‐benefit ratio.

No abstract

No abstract