Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may occur in individuals who have experienced a traumatic event. Previous coronavirus epidemics were associated with PTSD diagnoses in postillness stages, with meta-analytic findings indicating a prevalence of 32.2% (95% CI, 23.7-42.0). 1 However, information after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is piecemeal. We aimed at filling this gap by studying a group of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who sought treatment at the emergency department, most of whom required hospitalization, eventually recovered, and were subsequently referred to a postacute care service for multidisciplinary assessment.
Background: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a highly prevalent, severe, and chronic disease. There is a need for alternative strategies for treatment-resistant OCD. Objective: This review aims to assess the effect of brain stimulation techniques in OCD. Methods: We included papers published in peer-reviewed journals dealing with brain stimulation techniques in OCD. We conducted treatment-specific searches for OCD (Technique AND ((randomized OR randomised) AND control* AND trial) AND (magnetic AND stimulation OR (rTMS OR dTMS)) AND (obsess* OR compuls* OR OCD)) on six databases, i.e., PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science to identify randomised controlled trials and ClinicalTrials.gov for possible additional results. Results: Different add-on stimulation techniques could be effective for severely ill OCD patients unresponsive to drugs and/or behavioural therapy. Most evidence regarded deep brain stimulation (DBS) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), while there is less evidence regarding transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), electroconvulsive therapy, and vagus nerve stimulation (for these last two there are no sham-controlled studies). Low-frequency TMS may be more effective over the supplementary motor area or the orbitofrontal cortex. DBS showed best results when targeting the crossroad between the nucleus accumbens and the ventral capsule or the subthalamic nucleus. Cathodal tDCS may be better than anodal in treating OCD. Limitations. We had to include methodologically inconsistent underpowered studies. Conclusion: Different brain stimulation techniques are promising as an add-on treatment of refractory OCD, although studies frequently reported inconsistent results. TMS, DBS, and tDCS could possibly find some use with adequate testing, but their standard methodology still needs to be established.
SSRI/clomipramine in combination with CBT/ERP is associated with the optimal response compared to each treatment alone or to other treatments. New strategies for refractory OCD are needed. The role of pharmacogenomics could become preponderant in the coming years.
Background: Trichotillomania (TTM), excoriation (or skin-picking) disorder and some severe forms of onychophagia are classified under obsessive-compulsive and related disorders. There are different interacting neurotransmitter systems involved in the pathophysiology of impulse-control disorders, implicating noradrenaline, serotonin, dopamine, opioid peptides and glutamate, hence investigators focused on drugs able to act on these transmitters. Our aim was to critically review the efficacy of the drugs employed in impulse-control disorders. Methods: We searched for controlled drug trials to treat TTM, excoriation, and/or nail-biting six databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO/PsycARTICLES, and Web of Science), using the search strategy: (trichotillomania OR “excoriation disorder” OR “face picking” OR “skin picking” OR “hair pulling” OR onychophagia OR “nail-biting”) AND drug treatment on 12 March 2018 for all databases. We followed in our method of identifying relevant literature the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Results: SSRIs and clomipramine are considered first-line in TTM. In addition, family members of TTM patients are often affected by obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders. Other drugs used in the treatment of TTM are lamotrigine, olanzapine, N-Acetylcysteine, inositol, and naltrexone. Conclusion: The treatment of TTM, excoriation disorder and nail-biting is still rather disappointing. Conjectures made from preclinical studies and the relative pathophysiological hypotheses found poor confirmations at a clinical level. There is a need for further studies and the integration of pharmacological and psychotherapeutic. Our results point to the need of integrating personalised medicine principles in the treatment of these patients.
To study the long-term psychological effects of Covid-19 disease, we recruited 61 patients older than 60 years of age and administered the Kessler questionnaire K10 to assess psychological distress and classify them according to mental health risk groups. Patients' affective temperaments were assessed with the 39-item form of the Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris, and San Diego (TEMPS-A-39) and emotional dysregulation with the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS). Patients were divided in two samples according to their scores on the K10, i.e., a high likelihood of psychological distress group ( N = 18) and a low likelihood of psychological distress group ( N = 43). The two groups differed on their gender composition, in that more women ( N = 11) were in the former and more men in the latter ( N = 29) (χ 2 = 4.28; p = 0.039). The high likelihood of psychological distress group scored higher on the Cyclothymic (3.39 ± 3.45 vs. 0.93 ± 1.08, p < 0.001) and the Depressive (2.28 ± 2.82 vs. 0.65 ± 1.09, p = 0.01) affective temperaments of the TEMPS and on the lack of Impulse control (12.67 ± 4.04 vs. 9.63 ± 3.14, p = 0.003) and lack of Clarity (15.00 ± 5.56 vs. 9.85 ± 4.67, p = 0.004) scales of the DERS. Our results show that having had Covid-19 may be related with high likelihood for psychological distress in advanced-age people and this may in turn be associated with impaired emotional regulation and higher scores on depressive and cyclothymic temperaments.
Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics (LAIs) are used to overcome non-compliance in psychoses, mainly schizophrenia spectrum disorders. We aimed to summarize available evidence of studies comparing the efficacy of LAIs to placebo or oral medications for Bipolar Disorder JID: NEUPSY [m6+; February 12, 2019;11:45 ] Long-acting injectable antipsychotic treatment; Risperidone long-acting; Paliperidone palmitate long-acting injectable; Aripiprazole monohydrate long-acting injectable (BD) and/or Schizoaffective Disorder (SAD). We searched six databases from inception to 28-March-2018, using the strategy: long-acting antipsychotics AND (bipolar disorder OR schizoaffective disorder OR mania OR manic OR bipolar depression). We included peer-reviewed double-blind comparisons of LAIs for any clinical outcome occurrence in BD, or open mirror studies with same prospective as retrospective assessment periods. We excluded studies reporting on mixed schizophrenia/SAD populations without reporting results separately. The pooled records amounted to 642. After duplicate removal and inclusion/exclusion criteria application, we included 15 studies, 6 double-blind and 9 open, 13 assessing BD and 2 SAD. Depot neuroleptics prevented manic, but not depressive recurrences and may worsen depressive symptoms. Risperidone long-acting injectable was found to be effective in protecting from any mood/manic symptom compared to placebo, but not from depressive recurrences. Add-on or monotherapy paliperidone palmitate in SAD patients protected from psychotic, depressive, and manic symptoms. In patients with BD-I with a manic episode at study enrolment, aripiprazole monohydrate significantly delayed time to recurrence of manic episodes without inducing depressive episodes. LAIs are effective and well-tolerated maintenance treatments for BD and SAD. They showed better efficacy in preventing mania than depression. LAIs may be first-line for BD-I and SAD patients with a manic predominant polarity and with non-adherence problems.
BackgroundTo overcome nonadherence in patients with psychosis switch to long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic formulations is adopted. Most oral versus LAI comparisons showed similar antipsychotic responses. Psychoses often overlap with substance use disorder (SUD). Head-to-head LAI comparisons have hitherto focused only on non-comorbid populations.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to compare two LAIs, administered for 12 months, in initially hospitalized patients with psychosis comorbid with SUD in their clinical and quality of life (QoL) outcomes.Patients and methodsInpatients were recruited during 2016 and switched randomly to 400 mg intramuscular aripiprazole monohydrate (AM) (N=50) or to 100 mg intramuscular paliperidone palmitate (PP) once-monthly (N=51); patients were discharged and followed up for 12 months. Patients were rated at baseline and after 1 year through the Clinical Global Impression scale – severity (CGIs), substance craving intensity was rated through a visual analog scale for substance craving, and QoL through the World Health Organization (WHOQOL-BREF) scale. We addressed confounders with backward stepwise logistic regression and three-way analysis of variance.ResultsPP were older and had more cases of schizophrenia spectrum and less bipolar disorders than AM, but AM had a stronger craving for substances at baseline. Both LAIs were associated with significant improvements in all outcomes, with AM displaying stronger effect sizes than PP. The two groups did not differ on baseline WHOQOL-BREF scores in any domain, but at the 1-year follow-up, AM fared better on all domains. The two groups did not differ in final severity, but PP scored higher than AM in craving at the 1-year endpoint.Limitation: The CGIs is not a refined tool for severity and the substance craving may be subject to recall bias.Conclusion1-year AM and PP was followed by improved clinical status and QoL and reduced substance craving in a population with psychosis and SUD comorbidity. AM, compared to PP, improved craving and QoL at the 1-year follow-up.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.