Search

Daniele Zizolfi, Nicola Poloni, Ivano Caselli, Marta Ielmini, Giulia Lucca, Marcello Diurni, Greta Cavallini, Camilla CallegariDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Psychiatry, University of Insubria, Varese, VA 21100, ItalyBackground: Personal resources have been identified as important factors in predicting patient healing or symptoms control in schizophrenia. This observational retrospective study aims to explore the influence of resilience and recovery style on the modalities of clinical presentation of the disease, as well as individual functioning and quality of life.Methods: Participants were patients affected by schizophrenia spectrum disorders assessed at different mental health facilities. The rating scales considered are the following: Resilience Scale 10-items (RS); Recovery Style Questionnaire (RSQ); Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); Schizophrenia Quality of Life Scale (SQLS); Life Skills Profile (LSP); Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS).Results: Forty-four patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 46 years; the average length of the history of the disease at recruitment was 23 years with an average age at first episode of psychosis (FEP) of 23 years. General psychopathology, neurocognition, and integration recovery style can predict psychosocial functioning and explain ∼54% of the LSP variance; RS total score and PANSS general psychopathology score can predict and explain ∼29% of the LSP variance. A negative association between PANSS general psychopathology and LSP total score supports the need to reduce first the symptomatology, and then successfully apply other types of interventions. A strong positive association between neurocognition and life functioning was detected, showing that deficits in neurocognition have proved to be important predictors of the functional outcome. Integration was also proven to be significantly associated with a good functional outcome. Psychotic symptoms turn out to be a negative predictive factor, whereas resilience can be hypothesized as a protective factor.Conclusions: Resilience and recovery style “integration” can be considered as two complementary predictive resources for a good outcome; this result supports the need to set up personalized treatments, based on the characteristics of the patients.Keywords: mental health recovery, psychological resilience, schizophrenia, cognition, life quality, community functioning

Nicola Poloni, Daniele Zizolfi, Marta Ielmini, Roberto Pagani, Ivano Caselli, Marcello Diurni, Anna Milano, Camilla Callegari Department of Medicine and Surgery, Division of Psychiatry, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy Objective: Resilience is a multidimensional process of adaptation aimed to overcome stressful or traumatic life experiences; only in the last few years it has been considered as a personal resource in psychosis and schizophrenia. This study aimed to assess the relationship between intrapersonal and interpersonal resilience factors and schizophrenia, particularly whether and how resilience can improve the course of psychotic illness. Patients and methods: In this observational study, all patients recruited had to fulfill the following inclusion criteria: diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorder (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5); aged between 18 and 65 years; provided written informed consent; to be clinically stable (Clinical Global Impression Scale

Marta Ielmini,1 Nicola Poloni,1 Ivano Caselli,1 Jordi Espadaler,2 Miquel Tuson,2 Alessandro Grecchi,3 Camilla Callegari1 1Department of Medicine and Surgery, Division of Psychiatry, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy; 2AB-BIOTICS S.A, R&D Unit, Sant Cugat del Valles, Barcelona, Spain; 3ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo Borromeo, Division of Psychiatry, Milan, Italy Background: Bipolar disorder (BD) is a frequent cause of disability, health care costs, and risk of suicide. Pharmacogenetic tests (PGTs) could help clinicians to identify those patients predisposed to the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) improving the understanding of the correlation between genetic variants and drug response.Materials and methods: The study evaluated 30 patients affected by BD type I or II (according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, version 5) who underwent the PGT Neurofarmagen® (AB-BIOTICS SA, Barcelona, Spain) between March 2016 and March 2017. The primary aim of this study was to identify if the treatment prescribed by the psychiatrists was consistent with the treatment suggested by the PGT at T0 (corresponding to the test report communication). As a secondary aim, we wanted to assess if clinicians had changed the treatment (in case of discordance) at T1 (3-month follow-up visit) according to the results of the PGT.Results: At T0, only 4 patients (13%) had an optimal therapy in line with the PGT suggestions. At 3-month follow-up, 13 patients (40%) had received a change of therapy consistent to the test, showing a significant statistical improvement in the Clinical Global Impression item Severity (CGI-S) score over time compared to those not having changes consistent with the test. Regarding AEs, at baseline 9 out of 10 (90%) of the patients who received a therapy modification according to the test presented AEs, and a significant within-group reduction was observed after 3 months (p = 0.031).Conclusion: Despite the small sample size, the study shows promising data about the usefulness of PGT to support clinicians in reaching a more effective and tolerated treatment in the routine approach of BD. Keywords: pharmacogenetics testing, bipolar disorder, personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, adverse events, tolerability, mood disorder

Ivano Caselli, Nicola Poloni, Marta Ielmini, Marcello Diurni, Camilla Callegari Department of Medicine and Surgery, Section of Psychiatry, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy Abstract: A systematic search for all case reports and case series of adult patients with factitious disorders (FD) in the databases MEDLINE, Scopus, and PsycINFO was conducted. FD is a psychiatric disorder in which sufferers intentionally fabricate physical or psychological symptoms in order to assume the role of a patient, without any obvious gain. The clinical and demographic profile of patients with FD has not been sufficiently clear. Thus, the aims of this study were to outline a demographic and clinical profile of a large sample of patients with FD and to study the evolution of the position of FD in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. One thousand six hundred thirty-six records were obtained based on key search terms, after exclusion of duplicate records. Five hundred seventy-seven articles were identified as potentially eligible for the study, of which 314 studies were retrieved for full-text review. These studies included 514 cases. Variables extracted included age, gender, reported occupation, comorbid psychopathology, clinical presentation, and factors leading to the diagnosis of FD. In the sample, 65.4% of patients were females. Mean age at presentation was 33.5 years. A health care profession was reported most frequently (n=113). Patients were most likely to present in psychiatry, neurology, emergency, and internal medicine departments. The broad survey of sociodemographic profile of the sample has highlighted some important points for early diagnosis and early psychiatric treatment. The study showed that the patients did not meet Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 diagnostic criteria in 11.3% of cases. Keywords: fabricated illness, factitious disorder, medically unexplained symptoms, Munchausen syndrome

Bernardo Dell’Osso,1,2,* Umberto Albert,3,* Anna Rita Atti,4 Claudia Carmassi,5 Giuseppe Carrà,6 Fiammetta Cosci,7 Valeria Del Vecchio,8 Marco Di Nicola,9 Silvia Ferrari,10 Arianna Goracci,11 Felice Iasevoli,12 Mario Luciano,8 Giovanni Martinotti,13 Maria Giulia Nanni,14 Alessandra Nivoli,15,16 Federica Pinna,17 Nicola Poloni,18 Maurizio Pompili,19 Gaia Sampogna,8 Ilaria Tarricone,20 Sarah Tosato,21 Umberto Volpe,8 Andrea Fiorillo8 1Department of Psychiatry, University of Milan, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy; 2Bipolar Disorders Clinic, Stanford Medical School, Stanford University, CA, USA; 3Rita Levi Montalcini Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Torino, 4Department of Biomedical and NeuroMotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, 5Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; 6Division of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK; 7Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, 8Department of Psychiatry, University of Naples SUN, Naples, 9Institute of Psychiatry and Psychology, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, 10Department of Diagnostic-Clinical Medicine and Public Health, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, 11Department of Molecular Medicine and Clinical Department of Mental Health, University of Siena, Siena, 12Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University Federico II of Naples, Naples, 13Department of Neuroscience, Imaging, and Clinical Science, University G.d Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, 14Section of Psychiatry, Department of Biomedical and Specialty Surgical Sciences, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, 15Psychiatric Institute, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy; 16Bipolar Disorder Unit, CIBERSAM, IDIBAPS, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; 17Department of Public Health, Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Unit of Psychiatry, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, 18Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Psychiatric Division, University of Insubria, Varese, 19Department of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Sensory Organs, Suicide Prevention Center, Sant’ Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, 20Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Bologna University, Bologna, 21Section of Psychiatry, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy *These authors contributed equally as first authors Abstract: More than half a century after their discovery, benzodiazepines (BDZs) still represent one of the largest and most widely prescribed groups of psychotropic compounds, not only in clinical psychiatry but also in the entire medical field. Over the last two decades, however, there has been an increased focus on the development of antidepressants and antipsychotics on the part of the pharmaceutical industry, clinicians, and researchers, with a reduced interest in BDZs, in spite of their widespread clinical use. As a consequence, many psychiatric residents, medical students, nurses, and other mental health professionals might receive poor academic teaching and training regarding these agents, and have the false impression that BDZs represent an outdated chapter in clinical psychopharmacology. However, recent advances in the field, including findings concerning epidemiology, addiction risk, and drug interactions, as well as the introduction of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition with related diagnostic changes, strongly encourage an updated appraisal of the use of BDZs in clinical practice. During a recent thematic event convened with the aim of approaching this topic in a critical manner, a group of young Italian psychiatrists attempted to highlight possible flaws in current teaching pathways, identify the main clinical pros and cons regarding current use of BDZs in clinical practice, and provide an updated overview of their use across specific clinical areas and patient populations. The main results are presented and discussed in this review. Keywords: benzodiazepines, psychiatric clinical practice, teaching issues, risks and benefits

Abstract Background Polypharmacy is regarded as an important risk factor for fallingand several studies and meta-analyses have shown an increased fall risk in users of diuretics, type 1a antiarrhythmics, digoxin and psychotropic agents. In particular, recent evidence has shown that fall risk is associated with the use of polypharmacy regimens that include at least one established fall risk-increasing drug, rather than with polypharmacy per se. We studied the role of polypharmacy and the role of well-known fall risk-increasing drugs on the incidence of injurious falls. Methods A retrospective observational study was carried out in a population of elderly nursing home residents. An unmatched, post-stratification design for age class, gender and length of stay was adopted. In all, 695 falls were recorded in 293 residents. Results 221 residents (75.4%) were female and 72 (24.6%) male, and 133 (45.4%) were recurrent fallers. 152 residents sustained no injuries when they fell, whereas injuries were sustained by 141: minor in 95 (67.4%) and major in 46 (32.6%). Only fall dynamics (p = 0.013) and drugs interaction between antiarrhythmic or antiparkinson class and polypharmacy regimen (≥7 medications) seem to represent a risk association for injuries (p = 0.024; OR = 4.4; CI 95% 1.21 - 15.36). Conclusion This work reinforces the importance of routine medication reviews, especially in residents exposed to polypharmacy regimens that include antiarrhythmics or antiparkinson drugs, in order to reduce the risk of fall-related injuries during nursing home stays.