4 results
Concomitant pulmonary and neurological embolisation in a Down patient after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: what is missing?
- Arianna Di Molfetta, Sonia Volpe, Marco Cesario, Pasquale Mollo, Duino Boncompagni, Giancarlo Di Ruzza, Maurizio Menichelli
-
- Journal:
- Cardiology in the Young / Volume 32 / Issue 9 / September 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 24 January 2022, pp. 1538-1540
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
A 40-year-old Down patient without previous cardiological history was admitted to our institution for dyspnoea after COVID-19 vaccine. CT scan revealed a pulmonary thromboembolism. One week later, he developed neurological impairment and CT scan evidenced a left parietal ischaemic lesion. Concomitantly, he underwent echocardiography showing an atrioventricular septal defect typically associated to Down syndrome and never diagnosed earlier. The diagnosis of paradoxical embolisation was then supposed. Echocardiography also revealed a severe right heart section dilatation, with bidirectional shunt on the septal defects and systemic right heart pressure. Down patients affected by CHD are more prone to develop pulmonary vasculopathy than non-syndromic patients. In this case, the pulmonary vasculopathy was further exacerbated by the pulmonary embolism and by the late diagnosis of CHD. Finally, an appropriate timely diagnosis of atrioventricular septal defect could potentially avoid the neurological complication in this patient.
Lo studio internazionale multicentrico dell'Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità sui disturbi psichici nella medicina generale: risultati relativi all'area di Verona1
- Marco Piccinelli, Stefano Pini, Cesario Bellantuono, Paola Bonizzato, Elisabetta Paltrinieri, T. Bedirhan Üstün, Norman Sartorius, Michele Tansella
-
- Journal:
- Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale / Volume 4 / Issue 1 / Gennaio-Aprile 1995
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 07 August 2014, pp. 27-50
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objectives - To present the results obtained from a cross-sectional evaluation of a sample of primary care attenders selected in Verona in the framework of the World Health Organization International Multicentre Study on Psychological Problems in Primary Care Settings. Methods - Among consecutive attenders at 16 primary care clinics in Verona during the period April 1991/February 1992, a random sample, stratified on the basis of GHQ-12 scores, was selected for a thorough evaluation of psychological status, physical status and disability in occupational and other daily activities. All patients with psychopathological symptoms at baseline assessment and a 20% random sample of those without psychopathological symptoms were interviewed again after 3 and 12 months (data not presented here). Results - Overall, 1,656 subjects were approached at the primary care clinics and 1,625 met inclusion criteria. The screening procedure was completed by 1,558 subjects and the second-stage evaluation by 250. Psychiatric disorders according to ICD-10 criteria were diagnosed in 12.4% of consecutive primary care attenders; of these, about one-third (4.5% of consecutive primary care attenders) satisfied ICD-10 diagnostic criteria for two or more disorders. Current Depressive Episode (4.7%) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (3.7%) were the most common diagnoses. In addition, 11.2% of consecutive primary care attenders had ‘sub-threshold’ psychiatric disorders (i.e., they suffered from symptoms in at least two different areas among those listed in ICD-10, but they did not satisfy diagnostic criteria for well-defined disorders). Psychiatric disorders were more common among females and those aged 24-44 years. Only 20.6% of the subjects with psychiatric disorders contacted the general practitioner for their psychological symptoms, 5.7% complained of symptoms which might have had a psychological origin, whereas in about 70% of the cases the psychiatric disorder was concealed behind the presentation of somatic symptoms, pains in various parts of the body or chronic physical illness. Sixty-two percent of the subjects with psychiatric disorders rated their health status as fair or poor, as compared to 52.0% of those with chronic physical illness and 31.3% of those without such disorders. According to the general practitioner, 40.1% of the subjects with psychiatric disorders and 45.3% of those with chronic physical illness had a fair or poor health status, compared to 14.4% of those without such disorders. Disability in occupational and other daily activities was reported by 52.5% of the subjects with psychiatric disorders (in 40.1% of the cases disability was moderate or severe), 44.4% of those with chronic physical illness (in 26.8% of the cases disability was moderate or severe), and 15.0% of the subjects without such disorders (in 9.1% of the cases disability was moderate or severe). According to the interviewer, disability was identified in 48.4% of the subjects with psychiatric disorders, 39.0% of those with chronic physical illness, and 27.6% of the subjects without such disorders. Sixty per cent of the subjects with psychiatric disorders suffered from concurrent chronic physical illness; these subjects had a poorer health status and higher disability levels than those with psychiatric disorders only. Conclusions - Psychiatric disorders among primary care attenders are frequent and represents a major public health problem, since they entail severe functional limitations for the patients and high costs for the society. Thus, appropriate programs for their recognition and treatment are needed.
Clinical vs. structured interview on anxiety and affective disorders by primary care physicians. Understanding diagnostic discordance
- Matteo Balestrieri, Sandra Baldacci, Antonello Bellomo, Cesario Bellantuono, Luciano Conti, Giulio Perugi, Marcello Nardini, Marco Borbotti, Giovanni Viegi
-
- Journal:
- Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale / Volume 16 / Issue 2 / June 2007
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 18 May 2011, pp. 144-151
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Aims — To assess in a national sample the ability of GPs to detect psychiatric disorders using a clinical vs. a standardized interview and to characterize the patients that were falsely diagnosed with an anxiety or affective disorder. Methods — This is a national, cross—sectional, epidemiological survey, carried out by GPs on a random sample of their patients. The GPs were randomly divided into two groups. Apart from the routine clinical interview, the experimental group (group A) had to administer the Mini—International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Results — Data was collected by 143 GPs. 17.2% of all patients had a clinical diagnosis of an affective disorder, and 25.4% a clinical diagnosis of an anxiety disorder. In group A, the number of clinical diagnoses was about twice that of MINI diagnoses for affective disorders and one and a half times that for anxiety disorders. The majority of clinical diagnoses were represented by MINI subsyndromal cases (52.3%). Females showed a higher OR of being over—detected by GPs with anxiety disorders or of not being diagnosed with an affective disorder. Being divorced/separated/widowed increased the OR of over—detection of affective and anxiety disorders. The OR of over—detection of an affective or an anxiety disorder was higher for individuals with a moderate to poor quality of life. Conclusions — In the primary care a gap exists between clinical and standardized interviews in the detection of affective and anxiety disorders. Some experiential and social factors can increase this tendency. The use of a psycho.
Declaration of Interest: GlaxoSmithKline provided unrestricted economic and organizational support to the study. No further declarations on other form of financing or any other involvement that might be considered a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.
Efficacy of Drug Treatment in Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder: a Meta-Analytic Review
- Marco Piccinelli, Stefano Pini, Cesario Bellantuono, Greg Wilkinson
-
- Journal:
- The British Journal of Psychiatry / Volume 166 / Issue 4 / April 1995
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 January 2018, pp. 424-443
- Print publication:
- April 1995
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Background
A review of the efficacy of antidepressant drug treatment in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), using a meta-analytic approach.
MethodRandomised double-blind clinical trials of antidepressant drugs, carried out among patients with OCD and published in peer-reviewed journals between 1975 and May 1994, were selected together with three studies currently in press. Forty-seven trials were located by searching the Medline and Excerpta Medica – Psychiatry data bases, scanning psychiatric and psychopharmacological journals, consulting recent published reviews and bibliographies, contacting pharmaceutical companies and through cross-references. Hedges' g was computed in pooled data at the conclusion of treatment under double-blind conditions or at the latest reported point of time during this treatment period. For each trial, effect sizes were computed for all available outcome measures of the following dependent variables: obsessive–compulsive symptoms considered together; obsessions; compulsions; depression; anxiety; global clinical improvement; psychosocial adjustment; and physical symptoms.
ResultsClomipramine was superior to placebo in reducing both obsessive–compulsive symptoms considered together (g = 1.31; 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.47) as well as obsessions (g = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.36 to 1.42) and compulsions (g = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.34 to 1.24) taken separately. Also, selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as a class were superior to placebo, weighted mean g being respectively 0.47 (95% CI = 0.33 to 0.61), 0.54 (95% CI = 0.34 to 0.74) and 0.52 (95% CI = 0.34 to 0.70) for obsessive–compulsive symptoms considered together, and obsessions and compulsions taken separately. Although on Y–BOCS the increase in improvement rate over placebo was 61.3%, 28.5%, 28.2% and 21.6% for clomipramine, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, and sertraline respectively, the trials testing clomipramine against fluoxetine and fluvoxamine showed similar therapeutic efficacy between these drugs. Finally, both clomipramine and fluvoxamine proved superior to antidepressant drugs with no selective serotonergic properties.
ConclusionAntidepressant drugs are effective in the short-term treatment of patients suffering from OCD; although the increase in improvement rate over placebo was greater for clomipramine than for SSRIs, direct comparison between these drugs showed that they had similar therapeutic efficacy on obsessive–compulsive symptoms; clomipramine and fluvoxamine had greater therapeutic efficacy than antidepressant drugs with no selective serotonergic properties; concomitant high levels of depression at the outset did not seem necessary for clomipramine and for SSRIs to improve obsessive–compulsive symptoms.