Trends in consultations for schizophrenia and non-affective psychoses in Italian emergency departments during and after the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown

Aims To analyse the hospital emergency department (HED) consultations for schizophrenia-spectrum disorders in nine Italian hospitals during the 2020 lockdown and post-lockdown periods, compared to the equivalent periods in 2019. Methods Characteristics of consultations, patients, and drug prescriptions were analysed. Joinpoint models were used to identify changes in the weekly trend of consultations. Results During the 2020 lockdown the overall number of HED consultations for schizophrenia decreased by 40.7% and after the lockdown by 12.2% compared with 2019. No difference was found in the proportion of consultations that led to GHPU admissions or compulsory admissions. Suicidality rates did not differ across the two years, with the exception of ideations and plans (+5.9%) during the post-lockdown period. We found an increase in benzodiazepine prescriptions in 2020 during the lockdown and post-lockdown periods (+10.6% and +20.8%, respectively), and a decrease of prescriptions for short-acting sedative agents in the post-lockdown period (-7.9%). An increase in the weekly trend of consultations occurred from March 11-17 (week 11) to June 26-June 30 (week 26). As a result, the initial gap in the number of consultations between the two years cancelled out at the end of June. Conclusions HED consultation rate for schizophrenia-spectrum disorders declined consistent with that of other psychiatric disorders. In the post-lockdown period the growth of suicidal ideation/planning and increase in the prescriptions of anxiolytic-sedating drugs may foreshadow that for some schizophrenia patients the exit from the lockdown period is not liberating, but rather a source of agitation or perturbation.

Cluster analysis of clozapine consumer perspectives and comparison to consumers on other antipsychotics

Despite its unique efficacy, clozapine remains underutilized in the United States. Perceptions about clozapine and barriers to its use have been examined among prescribers, but insufficiently studied among consumers. We surveyed 211 antipsychotic consumers (86 on clozapine and 125 on other antipsychotics) on their medication-related perspectives in a public hospital system in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. In contrast to their previous regimen, 72% of clozapine consumers reported they were more satisfied with clozapine. When compared to consumers taking other antipsychotics, clozapine consumers reported more side effects, but did not differ on other measures of satisfaction or efficacy. We found Caucasians to be overrepresented among clozapine, as compared to other antipsychotic consumers. Side effects most strongly associated with poor safety ratings were sedation, limb jerking, and dizziness when standing. However, clozapine was only rated less safe by consumers who experienced more than one of these side effects. We used an unsupervised clustering approach to identify three major groups of clozapine consumers. Cluster A (19%) had the lowest safety ratings, aversion to blood work, and a high rate of side effects that associate with lower safety ratings. Cluster B (25%) experienced more hospitalizations and reported satisfaction with clozapine that correlated with efficacy ratings, irrespective of safety ratings. Cluster C (56%) experienced fewer hospitalizations, fewer previous drug trials, greater educational attainment, lower rates of smoking, and rated clozapine more highly. This work identifies common side effects that influence subjective safety of clozapine and suggests that attitudes toward clozapine depend on context-specific factors.

Development and validation of a non-remission risk prediction model in first episode psychosis: an analysis of two longitudinal studies

Psychosis is a major mental illness with first onset in young adults. The prognosis is poor in around half of the people affected, and difficult to predict. The few tools available to predict prognosis have major weaknesses which limit their use in clinical practice. We aimed to develop and validate a risk prediction model of symptom non-remission in first-episode psychosis. Our development cohort consisted of 1027 patients with first-episode psychosis recruited between 2005 to 2010 from 14 early intervention services across the National Health Service in England. Our validation cohort consisted of 399 patients with first-episode psychosis recruited between 2006 to 2009 from a further 11 English early intervention services. The one-year non-remission rate was 52% and 54% in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was used to develop a risk prediction model for non-remission, which was externally validated. The prediction model showed good discrimination (C-statistic of 0.73 (0.71, 0.75) and adequate calibration with intercept alpha of 0.12 (0.02, 0.22) and slope beta of 0.98 (0.85, 1.11). Our model improved the net-benefit by 15% at a risk threshold of 50% compared to the strategy of treating all, equivalent to 15 more detected non-remitted first-episode psychosis individuals per 100 without incorrectly classifying remitted cases. Once prospectively validated, our first episode psychosis prediction model could help identify patients at increased risk of non-remission at initial clinical contact.