Search

COVID-19 pandemic had a great impact on mental health, both in the general population and psychiatric patients. Little is known about the difference between these two populations in perceiving the pandemic as a traumatic event. The aim of the study was to compare psychiatric patients and healthy controls (HC) in terms of change over time of post-traumatic (PTSD) symptoms. Demographic and clinical variables were collected. Impact of Event Scale Revised (IES-R) scores were registered at T1 as lockdown period (March–April 2020) and T2 as restarting (May–June 2020). Descriptive analyses and linear regression models were performed. A total of 166 outpatients and 57 HC were recruited. Time (F = 15.76; p < 0.001) and diagnosis (F = 4.94; p < 0.001) had a significant effect on the change of IES-R scores, which resulted T1 > T2 (p < 0.001), except for subjects affected by Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Overall, IES-R scores were < in patients than in HC (p = 0.02), particularly in the schizophrenia (SKZ) subgroup (p < 0.001). IES-R scores of subjects with personality disorders (PDs) resulted to be > HC, although not statistically significant. The lockdown period was perceived as more traumatic than the reopening phase by both groups, with the exception of OCD patients, probably because of the clinical worsening associated with the urge of control against risks of contamination. Overall, HC reported more PTSD symptoms than psychiatric patients did, particularly SKZ ones. PD patients, in contrast, may be more vulnerable to PTSD symptoms probably as a result of poor coping skills. Together with OCD patients, subjects with PDs may need closer monitoring during the different phases of the pandemic. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04694482.

SARS-CoV-2 infection causes a pulmonary disease (COVID-19) which spread worldwide generating fear, anxiety, depression in the general population as well as among subjects affected by mental disorders. Little is known about which different psychopathological changes the pandemic caused among individuals affected by different psychiatric disorders, which represents the aim of the present study. Specific psychometric scales were administered at three time points: T0 as outbreak of pandemic, T1 as lockdown period, T2 as reopening. Descriptive analyses and linear regression models were performed. A total of 166 outpatients were included. Overall, psychometric scores showed a significant worsening at T1 with a mild improvement at T2. Only psychopathology in schizophrenia (SKZ) patients and obsessive-compulsive (OC) symptoms did not significantly improve at T2. Subjects affected by personality disorders (PDs) resulted to be more compromised in terms of general psychopathology than depressed and anxiety/OC ones, and showed more severe anxiety symptoms than SKZ patients. In conclusion, subjects affected by PDs require specific clinical attention during COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the worsening of SKZ and OC symptoms should be strictly monitored by clinicians, as these aspects did not improve with the end of lockdown measures. Further studies on larger samples are needed to confirm our results. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04694482

Background: Feasibility trials are often undertaken to determine whether a larger randomised controlled trial (RCT) is achievable. In a recent review, 15 feasibility trials accessed routinely collected health data (RCHD) from UK national databases and registries. This paper looks at attributes of these trials and the reasons why they accessed RCHD. Methods: We extracted data from all publicly available sources for the 15 feasibility studies found in a previous review of trials successfully accessing RCHD in the UK between 2013–2018 for the purpose of informing or supplementing participant data. We extracted trial characteristics, the registry accessed, and the way the RCHD was used. Results: The 15 feasibility RCTs were conducted in a variety of disease areas, and were generally small (median sample size 100, range 41–4061) and individually randomised (60%, 9/15). The primary trial outcome was predominantly administrative (non-clinical) (80%, 12/15) such as feasibility of patient recruitment. They were more likely to recruit from secondary care (67%, 10/15) settings than primary (33%, 5/15). NHS Digital was the most commonly accessed registry (33% (5/15)) with SAIL databank (20% (3/15)), electronic Data Research and Innovation Service (eDRIS) and Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network (PICANET) (each 13% 2/15) also being accessed. Where the information was clear, the trials used RCHD for data collection during the trial (47%, 7/15), follow-up after the trial (27%, 4/15) and recruitment (13%, 2/15). Conclusions: Between 2013 and 2018, 15 feasibility trials successfully accessed UK RCHD. Feasibility trials would benefit, as with other trials, from guidance on reporting the use of RCHD in protocols and publications.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials generally each collect their own data despite routinely collected health data (RCHD) increasing in quality and breadth. Our aim is to quantify UK-based randomised controlled trials (RCTs) accessing RCHD for participant data, characterise how these data are used and thereby recommend how more trials could use RCHD. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of RCTs accessing RCHD from at least one registry in the UK between 2013 and 2018 for the purposes of informing or supplementing participant data. A list of all registries holding RCHD in the UK was compiled. In cases where registries published release registers, these were searched for RCTs accessing RCHD. Where no release register was available, registries were contacted to request a list of RCTs. For each identified RCT, information was collected from all publicly available sources (release registers, websites, protocol etc.). The search and data extraction were undertaken between January and May 2019. RESULTS: We identified 160 RCTs accessing RCHD between 2013 and 2018 from a total of 22 registries; this corresponds to only a very small proportion of all UK RCTs (about 3%). RCTs accessing RCHD were generally large (median sample size 1590), commonly evaluating treatments for cancer or cardiovascular disease. Most of the included RCTs accessed RCHD from NHS Digital (68%), and the most frequently accessed datasets were mortality (76%) and hospital visits (55%). RCHD was used to inform the primary trial (82%) and long-term follow-up (57%). There was substantial variation in how RCTs used RCHD to inform participant outcome measures. A limitation was the lack of information and transparency from registries and RCTs with respect to which datasets have been accessed and for what purposes. CONCLUSIONS: In the last five years, only a small minority of UK-based RCTs have accessed RCHD to inform participant data. We ask for improved accessibility, confirmed data quality and joined-up thinking b

L’11 marzo 2020 l’Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità (OMS) dichiara la malattia da nuovo coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) una pandemia globale e la Lombardia risulta fin da subito la regione italiana più drammaticamente colpita. L’impatto della pandemia e del lockdown, in termini di conseguenze sulla salute mentale di pazienti, cittadini e operatori sanitari è ormai noto, ampiamente discusso e universalmente descritto, anche in luoghi e Paesi culturalmente e socialmente molto diversi tra di loro. Tutto ciò ha condotto a profondi cambiamenti nell’organizzazione dei Servizi ad opera dei Dipartimenti di Salute Mentale e Dipendenze (DSMD) e si è globalmente assistito, soprattutto in una fase iniziale, ad una contrazione delle prestazioni erogate (sia ospedaliere che territoriali) e ad un incremento degli interventi erogati in modalità telematica, con la definizione di procedure, linee guida e modalità operative alternative nei diversi Servizi afferenti ai DSMD. In questo lavoro vengono descritti alcuni esempi dei cambiamenti avvenuti all’interno del DSMD dell’ASST di Monza nel periodo marzo-maggio 2020. La ricaduta sul lungo periodo in termini psicopatologici e psicosociali di un evento di tale portata rimane complessa e, ad ora, solo in parte prevedibile in relazione alla sua evoluzione nel prossimo futuro: tale esperienza porrà nuove e fondamentali sfide ai Dipartimenti di Salute Mentale e, più in generale, ai Servizi sanitari, che si troveranno a ridefinire priorità e a rimodulare piani di intervento che consentano una rapida riorganizzazione in caso di nuove circostanze emergenziali ed il reperimento di risorse in grado di garantire interventi più rapidi, appropriati ed efficaci.