Search

BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of telemedicine as a way to reduce COVID-19 infections was noted and consequently deregulated. However, the degree of telemedicine regulation varies from country to country, which may alter the widespread use of telemedicine. This study aimed to clarify the telepsychiatry regulations for each collaborating country/region before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe used snowball sampling within a global network of international telepsychiatry experts. Thirty collaborators from 17 different countries/regions responded to a questionnaire on barriers to the use and implementation of telepsychiatric care, including policy factors such as regulations and reimbursement at the end of 2019 and as of May 2020.ResultsThirteen of 17 regions reported a relaxation of regulations due to the pandemic; consequently, all regions surveyed stated that telepsychiatry was now possible within their public healthcare systems. In some regions, restrictions on prescription medications allowed via telepsychiatry were eased, but in 11 of the 17 regions, there were still restrictions on prescribing medications via telepsychiatry. Lower insurance reimbursement amounts for telepsychiatry consultations v. in-person consultations were reevaluated in four regions, and consequently, in 15 regions telepsychiatry services were reimbursed at the same rate (or higher) than in-person consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic.ConclusionsOur results confirm that, due to COVID-19, the majority of countries surveyed are altering telemedicine regulations that had previously restricted the spread of telemedicine. These findings provide information that could guide future policy and regulatory decisions, which facilitate greater scale and spread of telepsychiatry globally.

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare malignancies of mesenchymal cell origin that display a heterogenous mix of clinical and pathologic characteristics. STS can develop from fat, muscle, nerves, blood vessels, and other connective tissues. The evaluation and treatment of patients with STS requires a multidisciplinary team with demonstrated expertise in the management of these tumors. The complete NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Soft Tissue Sarcoma provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of extremity/superficial trunk/head and neck STS, as well as retroperitoneal/intra-abdominal STS, desmoid tumors, and rhabdomyosarcoma. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines discusses general principles for the diagnosis and treatment of retroperitoneal/intra-abdominal STS, outlines treatment recommendations, and reviews the evidence to support the guidelines recommendations.

The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative aims to organize research according to domains of brain function. Dysfunction within these domains leads to psychopathology that is classically measured with rating scales. Examining the correspondence between the specific measures assessed within rating scales and RDoC domains is necessary to assess the needs for new RDoC-focused scales. Such RDoC-focused scales have the potential of allowing translation of this work into the clinical domain of measuring psychopathology and designing treatment. Here, we describe an initial qualitative assessment by a group of 10 clinician-scientists of the alignment between RDoC domains and the items within five commonly used rating scales. In this commentary, we report limited correspondence and make recommendations for future work needed to address these limitations.

BackgroundMalhi et al. in this issue critique the clinical high risk (CHR) syndrome for psychosis.MethodResponse to points of critique.ResultsWe agree that inconsistency in CHR nomenclature should be minimized. We respectfully disagree on other points. In our view: a) individuals with CHR and their families need help, using existing interventions, even though we do not yet fully understand disease mechanisms; b) substantial progress has been made in identification of biomarkers; c) symptoms used to identify CHR are specific to psychotic illnesses; d) CHR diagnosis is not "extremely difficult"; e) the pattern of progression, although heterogenous, is discernible; f) "psychosis-like symptoms" are common but are not used to identify CHR; and g) on the point described as 'the real risk,' CHR diagnosis does not frequently cause harmful stigma.DiscussionMalhi et al.'s arguments do not fairly characterize progress in the CHR field nor efforts to minimize stigma. That said, much work remains in areas of consistent nomenclature, mechanisms of disease, dissecting heterogeneity, and biomarkers. With regard to what the authors term the "real risk" of stigma associated with a CHR "label," however, our view is that avoiding words like "risk" and "psychosis" reinforces the stigma that both they and we mean to oppose. Moreover, patients and their families benefit from being given a term that describes what is happening to them.

BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of telemedicine as a way to reduce COVID-19 infections was noted and consequently deregulated. However, the degree of telemedicine regulation varies from country to country, which may alter the widespread use of telemedicine. This study aimed to clarify the telepsychiatry regulations for each collaborating country/region before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe used snowball sampling within a global network of international telepsychiatry experts. Thirty collaborators from 17 different countries/regions responded to a questionnaire on barriers to the use and implementation of telepsychiatric care, including policy factors such as regulations and reimbursement at the end of 2019 and as of May 2020.ResultsThirteen of 17 regions reported a relaxation of regulations due to the pandemic; consequently, all regions surveyed stated that telepsychiatry was now possible within their public healthcare systems. In some regions, restrictions on prescription medications allowed via telepsychiatry were eased, but in 11 of the 17 regions, there were still restrictions on prescribing medications via telepsychiatry. Lower insurance reimbursement amounts for telepsychiatry consultations v. in-person consultations were reevaluated in four regions, and consequently, in 15 regions telepsychiatry services were reimbursed at the same rate (or higher) than in-person consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic.ConclusionsOur results confirm that, due to COVID-19, the majority of countries surveyed are altering telemedicine regulations that had previously restricted the spread of telemedicine. These findings provide information that could guide future policy and regulatory decisions, which facilitate greater scale and spread of telepsychiatry globally.

Treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS), the persistence of positive symptoms despite ≥2 trials of adequate dose and duration of antipsychotic medication with documented adherence, is a serious clinical problem with heterogeneous presentations. TRS can vary in its onset (at the first episode of psychosis or upon relapse), in its severity, and in the response to subsequent therapeutic interventions (i.e., clozapine, electroconvulsive therapy). The heterogeneity of TRS indicates that the underlying neurobiology of TRS may differ not only from treatment-responsive schizophrenia but also among patients with TRS. Several hypotheses have been proposed for the neurobiological mechanisms underlying TRS, including dopamine supersensitivity, hyperdopaminergic and normodopaminergic subtypes, glutamate dysregulation, inflammation and oxidative stress, and serotonin dysregulation. Research supporting these hypotheses is limited in part by variations in the criteria used to define TRS, as well as by the biological and clinical heterogeneity of TRS. Clinical trial designs for new treatments should be informed by this heterogeneity, and further clinical research is needed to more clearly understand the underlying neurobiology of TRS and to optimize treatment for patients with TRS.

ObjectiveThe emphasis on reducing the duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) has highlighted complex barriers to accessing appropriate services. Internet and social media use by individuals with first-episode psychosis (FEP) was examined to explore how these platforms might be used to facilitate treatment initiation.MethodsParticipants ages 15-35 were interviewed with the Pathways to Care for Psychosis Questionnaire, an 81-item instrument designed to explore online activity during symptom emergence.ResultsOf 112 participants, 90% used the Internet and social media daily. The Internet was listed as the most used resource (62%) for information while symptoms were emerging. A minority (19%) shared concerns via social media, and 76% responded favorably to the possibility of receiving online mental health support.ConclusionsThe Internet and social media were part of daily life for participants with FEP. Activity continued throughout the DUP, offering the prospect of earlier intervention. Participants expressed positive attitudes toward Internet-based outreach and engagement efforts.

Introduction: Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic medications and clozapine are effective yet underutilized medical therapies in early intervention services. The purpose of this study was to conduct a pre-implementation evaluation of contextual determinants of early intervention programs to implement innovations optimizing LAI antipsychotic and clozapine use within a shared decision-making model. Methods: Semi-structured interviews explored barriers and facilitators to implementing LAI antipsychotics and clozapine in early intervention services. Participants were: prescribers (n = 2), non-prescribing clinicians (n = 5), administrators (n = 3), clients (n = 3), and caregivers (n = 3). Interviews were structured and analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR 2.0). Results: Participants were supportive of using LAI antipsychotics, despite barriers (e.g., transportation, insurance coverage), while most were unfamiliar with clozapine (Innovation). Critical incidents (e.g., COVID-19) did not interfere with implementation, while barriers included lack of performance measures; stigma affecting willingness to take medication; and clozapine considered to be a "last resort" (Outer Setting). Treatment culture was described as clientcentered and collaborative, and most participants indicated LAI antipsychotic use was compatible with clinic workflows, but some were in need of resources (e.g., individuals trained to administer LAI antipsychotics; Inner Setting). Participants on the healthcare team expressed confidence in their roles. Family education and collaborative decision-making were recommended to improve client/family engagement (Individuals). Participants related the importance of tracking medication compliance, addressing client concerns, and providing prescribers with updated guidelines on evidence-based treatment (Implementation Process). Discussion: Results may guide implementation strategy selection for future programs seeking to optimize the use of LAI antipsychotics and clozapine for early-phase schizophrenia, when appropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with first-episode psychosis experience psychotic symptoms for a mean of up to 2 years prior to initiation of treatment, and long duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Meanwhile, evidence compiled from numerous studies suggests that longer DUP is not associated with structural brain abnormalities. To date, few studies have examined the relationship between DUP and functional neuroimaging measures. In the present study, we used seed-based resting-state functional connectivity to examine the impact of DUP on corticostriatal circuitry. We included 83 patients with early phase schizophrenia and minimal exposure to antipsychotic drugs (

Background The role of duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) as an early detection and intervention target to improve outcomes for individuals with first-episode psychosis is unknown. Study Design PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant systematic review to identify studies until February 1, 2023, with an intervention and a control group, reporting DUP in both groups. Random effects meta-analysis to evaluate (1) differences in DUP in early detection/intervention services vs the control group, (2) the efficacy of early detection strategies regarding eight real-world outcomes at baseline (service entry), and (3) the efficacy of early intervention strategies on ten real-world outcomes at follow-up. We conducted quality assessment, heterogeneity, publication bias, and meta-regression analyses (PROSPERO: CRD42020163640). Study Results From 6229 citations, 33 intervention studies were retrieved. The intervention group achieved a small DUP reduction (Hedges' g  = 0.168, 95% CI = 0.055–0.283) vs the control group. The early detection group had better functioning levels (g  = 0.281, 95% CI = 0.073–0.488) at baseline. Both groups did not differ regarding total psychopathology, admission rates, quality of life, positive/negative/depressive symptoms, and employment rates (P  > .05). Early interventions improved quality of life (g  = 0.600, 95% CI = 0.408–0.791), employment rates (g  = 0.427, 95% CI = 0.135–0.718), negative symptoms (g  = 0.417, 95% CI = 0.153–0.682), relapse rates (g  = 0.364, 95% CI = 0.117–0.612), admissions rates (g  = 0.335, 95% CI = 0.198–0.468), total psychopathology (g  = 0.298, 95% CI = 0.014–0.582), depressive symptoms (g  = 0.268, 95% CI = 0.008–0.528), and functioning (g  = 0.180, 95% CI = 0.065–0.295) at follow-up but not positive symptoms or remission (P  > .05). Conclusions Comparing interventions targeting DUP and control groups, the impact of early detection strategies on DUP and other correlates is limited. However, the impact of early intervention was significant regarding relevant outcomes, underscoring the importance of supporting early intervention services worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]