It is widely recognized that the COVID-19 pandemic exerted an impact on the mental health of the general population, but epidemiological evidence is surprisingly sparse. We aimed to explore the association between serologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and psychological distress – assessed by symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress – in the general adult population in southern Switzerland, a region widely affected by the pandemic. We also investigated whether this association varied over time and between pandemic waves from late 2020 through 2021.

We used data from 305 adults who participated in the Corona Immunitas Ticino prospective seroprevalence study in southern Switzerland, including results of the serological tests of SARS-CoV-2 infection collected in June 2021, and explored associations with depression, anxiety and stress scores as measured by the 21-item Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale at three time points between December 2020 and August 2021, accounting for socio-demographic and health characteristics.

In our sample, 84.3% of the participants (mean age of 51.30 years, SD = ±.93) were seronegative at baseline. Seropositive (i.e., infected) participants had a decreasing probability of being depressed and anxious through the COVID-19 pandemic waves compared to the seronegative (non-infected) participants. Further, seropositivity at baseline was also associated with more rapid decline in depressive, anxiety and stress symptomatology, and younger age and the presence of chronic diseases were independently associated with mild anxiety (OR = .97; P = 0.013; 95% CI = 0.95, 0.99; OR = 3.47; P = 0.001; 95% CI = 1.71, 7.04) and stress (OR = .96; P = 0.003; 95% CI = .94, .99; OR = 2.56; P = 0.010; 95% CI = 1.25, 5.22).

Our results suggest that the MH consequences of the pandemic may not be due to the SARS-CoV-2 infection per se, but to fears associated with the risk of infection, and to the pandemic uncertainties.

The global burden associated with common mental disorders is high, especially for people living in low resource settings. Although psychosocial interventions delivered by locally available lay or community health workers are effective, mechanisms of intervention response are poorly understood. One of the greatest barriers is that psychosocial interventions are administered as complex, multi-component “packages of care”.

Our aim is to systematically review all the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have tested the efficacy of psychosocial interventions delivered through the task shifting modality to treat people suffering from common mental disorders (depression, anxiety, and related somatic complaints) in low resource settings, dismantle the intervention protocols creating a taxonomy of active intervention components, and re-evaluate their efficacy.

We will use the component network meta-analysis (cNMA) methodology. The major benefit of cNMA is the possibility to disentangle intervention components and explore their effectiveness separately or in various combinations (even in disconnected networks). cNMA increases statistical power by combining direct and indirect comparisons while fully respecting the randomized structure of the evidence. According to the additive cNMA model which we will implement, adding a component “c” to a composite intervention “X” will lead to an increase (or decrease) of the effect size by an amount only dependent on “c”, and not on “X”. We will denote the corresponding component specific incremental standard mean difference (iSMD) so that iSMDc = SMD(X+c) v. (X). Combining these component-specific iSMDs will allow the estimation of SMD between any two composite interventions.

A network of comparisons and a hierarchy that includes all intervention components expressed as iSMD, indicating the added benefit of adding a component to an intervention, will be presented. By selecting the most effective components it will be possible to outline a novel task shifting psychosocial intervention to be tested in future RCTs.

These findings will set the basis for further investigations in the field of precision medicine. This project is funded by the European Union’s HORIZON EUROPE research programme under grant agreement No 101061648.

None Declared

The transition phase from late adolescence to early adulthood, which corresponds with the period of university life, is a time that offers important opportunities for personal growth. However, this developmental phase also concurs with the peak period of risk for the onset of mental health disorders. For this reason, the literature clearly identifies university students as a vulnerable population group for psychogical distress and mental problems. Digital psychological interventions and e-mental health solutions are emerging as a promising solution for university students, particularly appealing due to their anonymity, portability and ease of access. Hence, the World Health Organisation has developed several psychosocial e-mental health tools including Doing What Matters in Times of Stress (DWM), which has been consistently shown effective in various vulnerable populations. These data provide the framework for the CAMPUS study that is intended for students attending the University of Verona.

The main objective of this project is to adapt the WHO psychological intervention called “Doing What Matters in Times of Stress” (DWM) to this target population and to evaluate the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of WHO’s DWM as a psychological strategy for effective mental health prevention and promotion, and for reducing psychological symptoms and distress in university students. Secondary objectives of the project include to evaluate the fidelity of DWM, to assess factors associated with its implementation and effectiveness and to co-create the necessary local conditions for implementation and up-scaling of DWM.

The CAMPUS study is a prospective non-randomized follow-up study. The target population is composed by university students of University of Verona, Italy. The online assessments, which are collected pre and post intervention, consist of an ad-hoc sociodemographic information page, and four self-administered questionnaires assessing psychological distress, depression and anxiety symptoms, and psychological well-being. In addition, implementation checklists will be administered to assess the acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of the intervention.

Preliminary results on a sample of 300 students attending University of Verona show that the adapted DWM intervention promote students’ psychological well-being and reduce the level of psychological distress as well as the risk for the later development of a psychopathology. Moreover we expect that future results would include data on the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of the adapted DWM intervention among university students

These results provide valuable information for mental health promotion and support programs for university students, as well as insights into factors influencing its implementation and suggestions for future scaling of the intervention.

None Declared

Since its first publication in 1977, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) has guided the national procurement of medicines deemed essential to inform public health policy worldwide. Aiming to include the most effective, safe, and cost-effective medicines for priority conditions, WHO updates the EML every two years. However, over the past 45 years, updates to the mental health section of the EML have been infrequent, mostly involving the addition of individual medicines. A comprehensive revision of the entire section was never attempted.

The aim of this project was to update the mental health section of the EML to identify the most effective and safest medicines for mental disorders in the light of the most up-to-date evidence base.

A series of nine evidence-based applications were submitted to the WHO Expert Committee on the Selection and Use of Essential Medicines in December 2022, recommending a substantial revision of the entire mental health section.

All of our applications were accepted by the WHO Expert Committee. For psychotic disorders, aripiprazole, olanzapine, paliperidone, and quetiapine were added as therapeutic alternatives to risperidone; short-acting intramuscular chlorpromazine was replaced by short-acting intramuscular olanzapine; first-generation antipsychotics were limited to oral haloperidol and chlorpromazine. For bipolar disorder, the list now includes second-generation antipsychotics such as quetiapine, aripiprazole, olanzapine, and paliperidone. Tricyclic antidepressants for depressive disorders were limited to amitriptyline alone. Treatment options for anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder are now expanded to include SSRIs. For anxiety disorders, diazepam and lorazepam became the only benzodiazepines recommended, with the specific caveat that they should only be used for short-term emergency treatment of acute and severe anxiety symptoms. Finally, chlorpromazine and haloperidol are no longer considered essential medications for psychotic disorders in children under 13 years of age.

The WHO released the 23rd EML in July 2023. After decades of minimal and inconsistent updates, groundbreaking changes have been made to its mental health section. The updated mental health section provides a compelling opportunity to improve the quality of medicine selection at the country level, with the goal of increasing the availability of the safest and most effective psychotropic medicines worldwide.

None Declared

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders in adults. Psychotherapies are among the most recommended treatment choices for GAD, but which should be considered as first-line treatment still needs to be clarified.

To examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for GAD both in the short and long-term, via a network meta-analysis.

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials – CENTRAL, from database inception to January 1st, 2023, to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychotherapies for GAD. Eight psychotherapies (behaviour therapy, cognitive-behaviour therapy, cognitive restructuring, psychoeducation, psychodynamic therapy, relaxation therapy, supportive psychotherapy, and third-wave CBTs) were compared with each other and two control conditions (treatment as usual, waiting list). We followed Cochrane standards when extracting data and assessing data quality and used PRISMA guidelines for the reporting. We conducted random-effects model pairwise and network meta-analyses. We assessed risk of bias of individual studies through the second version of the Cochrane’s Risk of Bias tool and used the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) to rate certainty of evidence for meta-analytical results. Severity of GAD symptoms and acceptability of the psychotherapies were our outcomes of interest.

We analysed data from 66 RCTs. Effect size estimates on data from 5,597 participants suggest third wave cognitive-behavioural therapies (standardized mean differences [SMDs] =-0.78; 95%CI=-1.19 to -0.37; certainty=moderate), cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) (SMD=-0.68; 95%CI=-1.05 to -0.32 certainty=moderate), and relaxation therapy (SMD=-0.54; 95%CI=-1.04 to -0.05; certainty=low) reduced generalized anxiety symptoms more than treatment as usual (TAU). Relative risks for all-cause discontinuation signalled no differences compared with TAU for all psychotherapies. When excluding studies at high risk of bias, relaxation therapy lost its superiority over TAU. When considering anxiety severity at three to twelve months after completion of the intervention only CBT remained significantly more efficacious than TAU (SMD=-0.58; 95%CI=-0.93 to -0.23).

Image:

Given the evidence for both acute and long-term efficacy, CBT may represent the reasonable first-line psychological treatment for GAD. Third-wave CBT and relaxation therapy have short-term efficacy and may also be offered. Results from this investigation should inform patients, clinicians, and guidelines. This project is funded by the European Union’s HORIZON EUROPE research programme under grant agreement No 101061648.

None Declared

During the COVID-19 pandemic, people with mental disorders were exposed to a common and prolonged source of stress. Studies focusing on the consequences of the pandemic on individuals with a history of mental disorder are scarce, but they suggest a higher vulnerability as compared to the general population.

We aimed at identifying predictors of stress resilience maintained over time among these people during the first two years of the pandemic.

The presented study is part of a larger 2-year, 5-wave international longitudinal online survey.

The Patient Health Questionnaire, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale and the PTSD Checklist DSM-5 were used as latent class indicators for a proxy measure of distress. Specifically, a Latent-Class Analysis was performed to identify a group that showed resilient outcomes across all waves.

We investigated socio-demographic characteristics, economic and housing status, lifestyle and habits, pandemic-related issues, and chronic disease. Adherence to and approval of the restrictions imposed, trust in governments and the scientific community during the pandemic were also assessed. Social support, fear of contamination and personal values were investigated respectively through the Oslo Social Support Scale, the Padua Inventory, and the Portrait Values Questionnaire. The aforementioned characteristics were used to predict sustained resilience through a logistic regression.

A total of 1711 participants out of the total sample (8011 participants from 13 different countries) reported a diagnosis of mental disorder before the pandemic. Nine hundred forty-three participants completed at least three of the five versions of the survey and were included in the analysis. A latent class of participants with resilience maintained over time (sustained resilience) was identified, with an estimated probability of 24.8%. The demographic and clinical variables associated with a higher chance of sustained resilience were older age, maintaining a job during the pandemic, and having a larger number of people in the household. In contrast, female gender, losing job during the pandemic, having difficulty meeting basic needs, greater fear of contamination, a stronger focus on hedonism, less social support and feeling lonely resulted in a lower likelihood of being sustained resilient.

This study identified a number of factors that may help predict resilient outcomes maintained over time in people with mental disorders. COVID-19 related predictors of sustained resilience are new findings which might inform resilience-building interventions during pandemics.

None Declared

Antidepressant discontinuation may cause withdrawal syndrome in some cases. However, evidence on this syndrome related to individual antidepressants is limited, as well as about individual risk factors for severe reactions.

To ascertain whether each individual antidepressant is associated with an increased reporting of withdrawal syndrome as compared with other medications, and to examine clinical risk factors for severe reactions.

We conducted a pharmacovigilance study, with a case/non-case design. We included reports of antidepressant-related withdrawal syndrome from the VigiBase, the WHO global database of individual case safety reports of suspected adverse drug reactions. We performed a disproportionality analysis (calculating reporting odds ratio (ROR) and the Bayesian information component (IC)) of reports of antidepressant-related withdrawal syndrome, comparing antidepressants to all other drugs and to buprenorphine (as a positive control). Antidepressants with significant disproportionate reporting were ranked in terms of clinical priority. We compared serious versus non-serious reactions to determine clinical risk factors for severe reactions.

Based on 31,688 reports of antidepressant-related withdrawal syndrome, we detected a disproportionate reporting for 23 antidepressants. The ROR for antidepressants altogether, compared to all other drugs, was 14.26 (95%CI:14.08-14.45), 17.01 for other antidepressants (95%CI:16.73-17.29), 13.65 for SSRIs (95%CI:13.41-13.90) and 2.8 for tricyclics (95%CI:2.59-3.02). Based on clinical priority ranking, the strongest signals were found for paroxetine, duloxetine, venlafaxine and desvenlafaxine (figure 1), being comparable to buprenorphine. Severe reactions were more frequently reported in males, adolescents, persons with multiple medications, and with longer treatment duration.

Image:

Antidepressants are associated with increased reporting of withdrawal syndrome compared with other medications, with differences between individual antidepressants. Clinicians should be aware of such differences, when prescribing and discontinuing these drugs, as well as of the risk to experience more severe withdrawal symptoms in specific cases.

C. Gastaldon: None Declared, G. Schoretsanitis Consultant of: Dr. Schoretsanitis has served as a consultant for HLS Therapeutics, E. Arzenton : None Declared, E. Raschi : None Declared, D. Papola: None Declared, G. Ostuzzi: None Declared, U. Moretti: None Declared, E. Seifritz Grant / Research support from: Dr. Seifritz has received educational grants, consulting fees and lecture honoraria from Janssen Cilag, Lundbeck, Angelini, Otsuka, Servier, Ricordati, Vifor, Sunovion, Schwabe and Mepha, Consultant of: Dr. Seifritz has received educational grants, consulting fees and lecture honoraria from Janssen Cilag, Lundbeck, Angelini, Otsuka, Servier, Ricordati, Vifor, Sunovion, Schwabe and Mepha, J. Kane Shareolder of: LB Pharmaceuticals and Vanguard Research Group, Consultant of: Dr. Kane has been a consultant and/or advisor for or has received honoraria from Alkermes, Allergan, LB Pharmaceuticals, H. Lundbeck, Intracellular Therapies, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Minerva, Neurocrine, Newron, Otsuka, Pierre Fabre, Reviva, Roche, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Takeda, Teva and UpToDate, G. Trifirò Grant / Research support from: he was the scientific director of a Master program on pharmacovigilance, pharmacoepidemiology and real-world evidence which has received non-conditional grant from various pharmaceutical companies; he coordinated a pharmacoepidemiology team at the University of Messina until Oct 2020, which has received funding for conducting observational studies from various pharmaceutical companies (Boehringer Ingelheim, Daichii Sankyo, PTC Pharmaceuticals). He is also scientific coordinator of the academic spin-off “INSPIRE srl” which has received funding for conducting observational studies from contract research organizations (RTI Health Solutions, Pharmo Institute N.V.)., Consultant of: Dr. Trifirò has served in the last three years on advisory boards/seminars funded by SANOFI, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Servier, Mylan, Gilead, Amgen;, Speakers bureau of: Dr. Trifirò has served in the last three years on advisory boards/seminars funded by SANOFI, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Servier, Mylan, Gilead, Amgen;, C. Barbui: None Declared

Evidence on neonatal withdrawal syndrome following antidepressant intrauterine exposure is limited, particularly for antidepressants other than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

To ascertain whether maternal antidepressant treatment may be associated with withdrawal syndrome in neonates, investigating the comparative reporting between individual antidepressants and classes.

We performed a case/non-case pharmacovigilance study, searching reports of withdrawal syndrome in newborns in the VigiBase, the WHO database of suspected adverse drug reactions. Disproportionality analysis was performed, estimating reporting odds ratio (ROR) and the Bayesian information component (IC). Antidepressants were compared to all other medications, to methadone, and within each class of antidepressants (SSRIs, tricyclics (TCA) and other antidepressants). Antidepressants were ranked in terms of clinical priority, based on a semiquantitative score.

We retrieved 406 reports of neonatal withdrawal syndrome in 379 neonates related to 15 antidepressants. Compared to all other drugs, disproportionate reporting was detected for antidepressants altogether (ROR: 6.18, 95%CI:5.45-7.01), for TCAs (10.55, 95%CI:8.02-13.88), other antidepressants (ROR: 5.90, 95%CI:4.74-7.36) and SSRIs (ROR: 4.68, 95%CI:4.04-5.42). All antidepressants showed a significant disproportionality, apart from bupropion (figure 1). We did not find any disproportionate reporting for any antidepressant compared to methadone. The clinical priority ranking showed moderate clinical priority for all antidepressants, with the exception four, that had a weak one (figure 1). Most frequently reported symptoms were respiratory symptoms (n=106), irritability/agitation (n=75), tremor (n=52) and feeding problems (n=40).

Image:

Exposure to antidepressants in utero is associated with moderate signals of disproportionate reporting for neonatal withdrawal syndrome for most antidepressants. Clinicians should pay extra attention to neonates with antidepressant-treated mothers.

C. Gastaldon: None Declared, E. Arzenton : None Declared, E. Raschi: None Declared, O. Spigset: None Declared, D. Papola: None Declared, G. Ostuzzi: None Declared, U. Moretti: None Declared, G. Trifirò Grant / Research support from: he was the scientific director of a Master program on pharmacovigilance, pharmacoepidemiology and real-world evidence which has received non-conditional grant from various pharmaceutical companies; he coordinated a pharmacoepidemiology team at the University of Messina until Oct 2020, which has received funding for conducting observational studies from various pharmaceutical companies (Boehringer Ingelheim, Daichii Sankyo, PTC Pharmaceuticals). He is also scientific coordinator of the academic spin-off “INSPIRE srl” which has received funding for conducting observational studies from contract research organizations (RTI Health Solutions, Pharmo Institute N.V.)., Consultant of: has served in the last three years on advisory boards/seminars funded by SANOFI, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Servier, Mylan, Gilead, Amgen, Speakers bureau of: has served in the last three years on advisory boards/seminars funded by SANOFI, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Servier, Mylan, Gilead, Amgen, C. Barbui: None Declared, G. Schoretsanitis Consultant of: Dr. Schoretsanitis has served as a consultant for HLS Therapeutics and Thermo Fisher Scientific.

Evidence on neonatal withdrawal syndrome following antidepressant intrauterine exposure is limited, particularly for antidepressants other than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs).

In our case/non-case pharmacovigilance study, based on VigiBase®, the WHO database of suspected adverse drug reactions, we estimated reporting odds ratio (ROR) and the Bayesian information component (IC) with 95% confidence/credibility intervals (CI) as measures of disproportionate reporting of antidepressant-related neonatal withdrawal syndrome. Antidepressants were first compared to all other medications, then to methadone, and finally within each class of antidepressants: SSRIs, tricyclics (TCA) and other antidepressants. Antidepressants were ranked in terms of clinical priority, based on semiquantitative score ratings. Serious v. non-serious reports were compared.

A total of 406 reports of neonatal withdrawal syndrome in 379 neonates related to 15 antidepressants were included. Disproportionate reporting was detected for antidepressants as a group as compared to all other drugs (ROR: 6.18, 95% CI 5.45–7.01, IC: 2.07, 95% CI 1.92–2.21). Signals were found for TCAs (10.55, 95% CI 8.02–13.88), followed by other antidepressants (ROR: 5.90, 95% CI 4.74–7.36) and SSRIs (ROR: 4.68, 95% CI 4.04–5.42). Significant disproportionality emerged for all individual antidepressants except for bupropion, whereas no disproportionality for any antidepressant was detected v. methadone. Eleven antidepressants had a moderate clinical priority score and four had a weak one. Most frequent symptoms included respiratory symptoms (n = 106), irritability/agitation (n = 75), tremor (n = 52) and feeding problems (n = 40).

Most antidepressants are associated with moderate signals of disproportionate reporting for neonatal withdrawal syndrome, which should be considered when prescribing an antidepressant during pregnancy, irrespective of class.

As refugees and asylum seekers are at high risk of developing mental disorders, we assessed the effectiveness of Self-Help Plus (SH + ), a psychological intervention developed by the World Health Organization, in reducing the risk of developing any mental disorders at 12-month follow-up in refugees and asylum seekers resettled in Western Europe.

Refugees and asylum seekers with psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire-12 ⩾ 3) but without a mental disorder according to the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.) were randomised to either SH + or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU). The frequency of mental disorders at 12 months was measured with the M.I.N.I., while secondary outcomes included self-identified problems, psychological symptoms and other outcomes.

Of 459 participants randomly assigned to SH + or ETAU, 246 accepted to be interviewed at 12 months. No difference in the frequency of any mental disorders was found (relative risk [RR] = 0.841; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.389–1.819; p-value = 0.659). In the per protocol (PP) population, that is in participants attending at least three group-based sessions, SH + almost halved the frequency of mental disorders at 12 months compared to ETAU, however so few participants and events contributed to this analysis that it yielded a non-significant result (RR = 0.528; 95% CI 0.180–1.544; p-value = 0.230). SH + was associated with improvements at 12 months in psychological distress (p-value = 0.004), depressive symptoms (p-value = 0.011) and wellbeing (p-value = 0.001).

The present study failed to show any long-term preventative effect of SH + in refugees and asylum seekers resettled in Western European countries. Analysis of the PP population and of secondary outcomes provided signals of a potential effect of SH + in the long-term, which would suggest the value of exploring the effects of booster sessions and strategies to increase SH + adherence.

To provide a cross-country analysis of selection, availability, prices and affordability of essential medicines for mental health conditions, aiming to identify areas for improvement.

We used the World Health Organization (WHO) online repository of national essential medicines lists (EMLs) to extract information on the inclusion of essential psychotropic medicines within each country's EML. Data on psychotropic medicine availability, price and affordability were obtained from the Health Action International global database. Additional information on country availability, prices and affordability of essential medicines for mental disorders was identified by searching, up to January 2021, PubMed/Medline, CINAHIL, Scopus and the WHO Regional Databases. We summarised and compared the indicators across lowest-price generic and originator brand medicines in the public and private sectors, and by country income groups.

A total of 112 national EMLs were analysed, and data on psychotropic medicine availability, price and affordability were obtained from 87 surveys. While some WHO essential psychotropic medicines, such as chlorpromazine, haloperidol, amitriptyline, carbamazepine and diazepam, were selected by most national lists, irrespective of the country income level, other essential medicines, such as risperidone or clozapine, were included by most national lists in high-income countries, but only by a minority of lists in low-income countries. Up to 40% of low-income countries did not include medicines that have been in the WHO list for decades, such as long-acting fluphenazine, lithium carbonate and clomipramine. The availability of generic and originator psychotropic medicines in the public sector was below 50% for all medicines, with low-income countries showing rates lower than the overall average. Analysis of price data revealed that procurement prices were lower than patient prices in the public sector, and medicines in the private sector were associated with the highest prices. In low-income countries, the average patient price for amitriptyline and fluoxetine was three times the international unit reference price, while the average patient price for diazepam was ten times the international unit reference price. Affordability was higher in the public than the private sector, and in high-income than low-income countries.

Access to medicines for mental health conditions is an ongoing challenge for health systems worldwide, and no countries can claim to be fully aligned with the general principle of providing full access to essential psychotropic medicines. Low availability and high costs are major barriers to the use of and adherence to essential psychotropic medicines, particularly in low-and middle-income countries.

The approval of the esketamine nasal spray for treatment-resistant depression in March 2019 by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and few months later by the European Medicine Agency, triggered a vivid debate and many concerns, mainly because of the lack of convincing evidence on its efficacy and safety, based on the development programs, approval trials and few post-marketing trials.

We aimed to detect and characterize safety signals for esketamine, by analyzing relevant adverse events (AEs) reports in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database (March 2019-March 2020).

We performed disproportionality analysis through the case/non-case approach: reporting odds ratios (ROR) and information components (IC) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were estimated for esketamine-related AEs with at least four counts. We compared serious and non-serious AEs using non-parametrical tests.

The FAERS database registered 962 reports of esketamine-related AEs in one year. Signals (i.e., statistically significant disproportionality) were detected for several AEs, such as dissociation, sedation, feeling drunk, suicidal ideation and completed suicide. Signals for suicidal ideation, but not suicide attempt and completed suicide, remained significant when comparing esketamine to venlafaxine. The comparison of patients with serious vs. non-serious esketamine AEs revealed that females, patients receiving antidepressant polypharmacy, co-medication with antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, benzodiazepines or somatic medications were more likely to suffer from serious AEs.

This real-world pharmacovigilance analysis detected signals of serious unexpected esketamine-related AEs, thus reinforcing current worries regarding esketamine safety/acceptability. Further real-world studies are urgently needed to unravel the safety profile of esketamine.

No significant relationships.

People with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) may frequently require treatment with psychotropic medications, but the underlying medical condition and possible interaction with medical treatments might pose serious safety issues.

To review the direct and indirect evidence on the safety of psychotropic drugs in people with COVID-19 and provide practical recommendations for frontline clinicians.

An international, multi-disciplinary working group was established with the aim of producing evidence-based recommendations on the management of psychotropic medications in people with COVID-19, following the WHO Rapid Advice Guidelines methodology in the context of a public health emergency. Evidence retrieved was focused on the risk of respiratory, cardiovascular, infective, hemostatic, and consciousness alterations related to the use of psychotropic medications. Furthermore, drug-drug interactions between psychotropic and medical treatments used in people with COVID-19 was reviewed and critically discussed by the working group.

The analysis of available evidence, although indirect, showed that all classes of psychotropic medications might carry relevant safety risks for people with COVID-19. The working group produced a set of 12 recommendations to support clinicians in the assessment of the anticipated risk of psychotropic-related unfavourable events, and how to practically manage this risk, including when it is appropriate to avoid, withdraw, switch, or adjust the dose of the medication.

The present evidence-based recommendations will improve the quality of psychiatric care in people with COVID-19, allowing an appropriate management of the medical condition without worsening the psychiatric condition and vice versa.

No significant relationships.

Panic disorder is among the most prevalent anxiety diseases. Although psychotherapy is recommended as first-line treatment for panic disorder, little is known about the relative efficacy of different types of psychotherapies.

To evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of different types of psychotherapies for adults suffering from panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia.

We are conducting a systematic network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials examining panic disorder. A comprehensive search was performed to identify relevant studies. The primary efficacy outcome is anxiety symptoms at study endpoint. The primary acceptability outcome is all-cause trial discontinuation at endpoint. Pairwise and network meta-analysis will be conducted. We are considering any kind of psychotherapy delivered by any therapist, as long as they were trained to deliver the therapy, or as self-help.

To date we have identified 126 panic disorder and agoraphobia trials. The publication time span ranges from 1968 to 2020. We are now extracting data to provide an overview of the included study characteristics. The statistical analysis will be conducted between December 2020 and January 2021, and its results presented for the first time at the forthcoming 2021 EPA congress.

126 trials on psychotherapy for panic disorders in adults are available. Because of this huge body of knowledge, it is important that the results of these studies are summarized using network meta-analytic techniques. The findings of this study will guide future research as knowledge gaps will be easily identified. Moreover, policymakers will have the opportunity to use this summarized knowledge to inform evidence-based decision making.

No significant relationships.

To develop recommendations for strategies and interventions to reduce stigma and discrimination related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), through reviewing and synthesising evidence in relation to COVID-19 and other disease outbreaks and infectious/stigmatised conditions from systematic reviews and primary studies and recommendations from additional materials.

Rapid review, drawing on the World Health Organization's (WHO) methodology for developing interim guidelines during health emergencies. PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central and Campbell Collaboration searched up to mid-April 2020. Searches were supplemented by reference-searching and expert recommendations. Searches were designed to identify: (1) systematic reviews (<10 years), or (2) primary intervention studies (no date limit) reporting evidence on anti-stigma interventions (in relation to COVID-19 or other infectious/stigmatised conditions) or (3) additional relevant materials. Data were extracted on population, intervention, outcome and results. These data were compiled into evidence summary tables and narrative overviews. Recommendations on strategies for COVID-19 stigma-reduction were developed using the WHO ‘Evidence to Decision’ framework approach. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration ID: CRD42020177677).

The searches identified a total of 4150 potentially relevant records, from which 12 systematic reviews and 29 additional articles were included. Overarching considerations and specific recommendations focus on: (1) language/words used in relation to COVID-19 and affected people; (2) media/journalistic practices; (3) public health interventions; (4) targeted public health interventions for key groups and (5) involving communities and key stakeholders.

These recommendations represent the first consolidated evidence-based guidance on stigma and discrimination reduction in relation to COVID-19. Mitigating the impact of stigma is critical in reducing distress and negative experiences, and strengthening communities' resolve to work together during exceptional circumstances. Ultimately, reducing stigma helps addressing structural inequalities that drive marginalisation and exacerbate both health risks and the impact of stigma. Administrations and decision makers are urged to consider integrating these recommendations into the ongoing COVID-19 response.

Observational studies have shown a relationship between maternal mental health (MMH) and child development, but few studies have evaluated whether MMH interventions improve child-related outcomes, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The objective of this review is to synthesise findings on the effectiveness of MMH interventions to improve child-related outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

We searched for randomised controlled trials conducted in LMICs evaluating interventions with a MMH component and reporting children's outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed on outcomes included in at least two trials.

We identified 21 trials with 28 284 mother–child dyads. Most trials were conducted in middle-income countries, evaluating home visiting interventions delivered by general health workers, starting in the third trimester of pregnancy. Only ten trials described acceptable methods for blinding outcome assessors. Four trials showed high risk of bias in at least two of the seven domains assessed in this review. Narrative synthesis showed promising but inconclusive findings for child-related outcomes. Meta-analysis identified a sizeable impact of interventions on exclusive breastfeeding (risk ratio = 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13–1.71, ten trials, N = 4749 mother–child dyads, I2 = 61%) and a small effect on child height-for-age at 6-months (std. mean difference = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.02–0.24, three trials, N = 1388, I2 = 0%). Meta-analyses did not identify intervention benefits for child cognitive and other growth outcomes; however, few trials measured these outcomes.

These findings support the importance of MMH to improve child-related outcomes in LMICs, particularly exclusive breastfeeding. Given, the small number of trials and methodological limitations, more rigorous trials should be conducted.