Dysregulated inflammation may predispose patients with serious mental illnesses to severe COVID‑19 (Review).
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Nadalin S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8258463 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundDigital mental health interventions offer unique advantages, and research indicates that these interventions are effective for a range of mental health concerns. Although these interventions are less established for individuals with serious mental illnesses, they demonstrate significant promise. A central consideration in traditional face-to-face therapies is the therapeutic alliance, whereas the nature of a digital therapeutic alliance and its relationship with outcomes requires further attention, particularly for individuals with serious mental illnesses.ObjectiveThis narrative review aims to encourage further consideration and critical evaluation of the therapeutic alliance in digital mental health, specifically for individuals with serious mental illnesses.MethodsA narrative review was conducted by combining 3 main areas of the literature: the first examining the evidence for digital mental health interventions for serious mental illnesses, the second illuminating the nature and role of the therapeutic alliance in digital interventions, and the third surrounding practical considerations to enhance a digital therapeutic alliance.ResultsResults indicated that a therapeutic alliance can be cultivated in digital interventions for those with serious mental illnesses, but that it may have unique, yet-to-be-confirmed characteristics in digital contexts. In addition, a therapeutic alliance appears to be less directly associated with outcomes in digital interventions than with those in face-to-face therapies. One possibility is that the digital therapeutic alliance is associated with increased engagement and adherence to digital interventions, through which it appears to influence outcomes. A number of design and implementation considerations may enhance the digital therapeutic alliance, including human support and technological features.ConclusionsMore research is required to further understand the nature and specific role of a therapeutic alliance in digital interventions for serious mental illnesses, particularly in informing their design. This review revealed several key research priorities to advance the therapeutic alliance in digital interventions.
| S-EPMC7442952 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused significant stress and mental health problems among the general public. However, persons at greatest risk for poor mental health outcomes, such as people with serious mental illness, have been largely overlooked.ObjectiveThis paper presents the protocol for a study that aims to examine the mental health impact of COVID-19 and social distancing behaviors in people with serious mental illness and the behaviors undertaken to prevent COVID-19 infection in this group.MethodsParticipants will include individuals with serious mental illness (eg, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) and nonpsychiatric control participants who are currently participating in or have previously participated in several ongoing parent observational studies. Data will be collected from April 2020 through August 2020. Participants will complete phone interviews at 2 time points to assess their current emotional functioning and discuss the measures they have taken to prevent COVID-19 infection. Baseline (pre-COVID-19) mental health, sampled by ecological momentary assessment over an extended period, will be compared with current mental health, also sampled by ecological momentary assessment over an extended period. Demographic, cognitive, and psychosocial factors at baseline will be used to examine risk and resilience to current mental health and coping.ResultsThe inclusion of participants for the first round of telephone assessments started on April 3, 2020 and will be completed by May 31, 2020. As of April 30, 2020, 101 individuals had completed these first-round assessments. The second round of telephone assessments will likely occur between June 1, 2020, and August 31, 2020. Study results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.ConclusionsOur findings will have broad implications for understanding the psychological consequences of COVID-19 among vulnerable persons with serious mental illness and will provide the opportunity to identify targets to reduce negative outcomes in the future. We also hope our efforts will provide a roadmap and resources for other researchers who would like to implement a similar approach.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/19203.
| S-EPMC7247464 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Individuals with severe mental illnesses (SMIs) may be disproportionately vulnerable to COVID-19 infection and psychological distress. This study investigated the prevalence of engagement in COVID-19 preventative behaviors, predictors of these behaviors, and COVID-19-related psychological distress. One hundred and sixty-three individuals with SMIs (94 with schizophrenia spectrum illnesses and 69 with affective disorders) and 27 psychiatrically healthy comparison participants were recruited from ongoing studies across 3 sites, to complete a phone survey querying implementation of 8 specific COVID-19 preventative behaviors that participants engaged in at least once in the past month as well as standard assessments of depression, anxiety, perceived stress, loneliness, and coping. Data were collected between 3 April 2020 and 4 June 2020. The large majority of our SMI sample, which consisted of outpatients with relatively mild symptom severity, endorsed engaging in multiple preventative behaviors. Relatively few differences were found between groups; however, individuals with SMI were less likely to work remotely than healthy individuals and individuals with schizophrenia spectrum illness were less likely to stay home as a preventative measure, wear face masks, and work remotely than individuals with affective disorders. Differences in staying home remained after controlling for potential confounds. Although individuals with SMI reported more psychological distress related to COVID-19, this distress was largely unrelated to engagement in preventative behaviors. The large majority of individuals with SMI in this outpatient sample, regardless of broad diagnostic category, reported performing multiple behaviors intended to prevent COVID-19 infection at least once a month and reported distress associated with the pandemic. These findings suggest a good level of awareness of COVID-19 among stable outpatients with SMI. The degree to which more acutely ill persons with SMI engage in such preventative behaviors, however, remains to be examined.
| S-EPMC7859192 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Medication used for acute aggression in psychiatry must have rapid onset of effect, low frequency of administration and low levels of adverse effects. Zuclopenthixol acetate is said to have these properties. OBJECTIVES:To estimate the clinical effects of zuclopenthixol acetate for the management of acute aggression or violence thought to be due to serious mental illnesses, in comparison to other drugs used to treat similar conditions. SEARCH METHODS:We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia's Group Trials Register (July 2011). We supplemented this by citation searching and personal contact with authors and relevant pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA:All randomised clinical trials involving people thought to have serious mental illnesses comparing zuclopenthixol acetate with other drugs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors extracted and cross-checked data independently. We calculated fixed-effect relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data. We analysed by intention-to-treat. We used mean differences (MD) for continuous variables. MAIN RESULTS:We found no data for the primary outcome, tranquillisation. Compared with haloperidol, zuclopenthixol acetate was no more sedating at two hours (n = 40, 1 RCT, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.34). People given zuclopenthixol acetate were not at reduced risk of being given supplementary antipsychotics (n = 134, 3 RCTs, RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.30) although additional use of benzodiazepines was less (n = 50, 1 RCT, RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.47). People given zuclopenthixol acetate had fewer injections over seven days compared with those allocated to haloperidol IM (n = 70, 1 RCT, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.84, NNT 4, CI 3 to 14). We found no data on more episodes of aggression or harm to self or others. One trial (n = 148) reported no significant difference in adverse effects for people receiving zuclopenthixol acetate compared with those allocated haloperidol at one, three and six days (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.27). Compared with haloperidol or clotiapine, people allocated zuclopenthixol did not seem to be at more risk of a range of movement disorders (< 20%). Three studies found no difference in the proportion of people getting blurred vision/dry mouth (n = 192, 2 RCTs, RR at 24 hours 0.90, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.70). Similarly, dizziness was equally infrequent for those allocated zuclopenthixol acetate compared with haloperidol (n = 192, 2 RCTs, RR at 24 hours 1.15, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.88). There was no difference between treatments for leaving the study before completion (n = 522, RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.31). One study reported no difference in adverse effects and outcome scores, when high dose (50-100 mg/injection) zuclopenthixol acetate was compared with low dose (25-50 mg/injection) zuclopenthixol acetate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Recommendations on the use of zuclopenthixol acetate for the management of psychiatric emergencies in preference to 'standard' treatment have to be viewed with caution. Most of the small trials present important methodological flaws and findings are poorly reported. This review did not find any suggestion that zuclopenthixol acetate is more or less effective in controlling aggressive acute psychosis, or in preventing adverse effects than intramuscular haloperidol, and neither seemed to have a rapid onset of action. Use of zuclopenthixol acetate may result in less numerous coercive injections and low doses of the drug may be as effective as higher doses. Well-conducted pragmatic randomised controlled trials are needed.
| S-EPMC4175533 | biostudies-other
Project description:Innate immune interferons (IFNs), including type I and III IFNs, constitute critical antiviral mechanisms. Recent studies reveal that IFN dysregulation is key to determine COVID-19 pathogenesis. Effective IFN stimulation or prophylactic administration of IFNs at the early stage prior to severe COVID-19 may elicit an autonomous antiviral state, restrict the virus infection, and prevent COVID-19 progression. Inborn genetic flaws and autoreactive antibodies that block IFN response have been significantly associated with about 14% of patients with life-threatening COVID-19 pneumonia. In most severe COVID-19 patients without genetic errors in IFN-relevant gene loci, IFN dysregulation is progressively worsened and associated with the situation of pro-inflammation and immunopathy, which is prone to autoimmunity. In addition, the high correlation of severe COVID-19 with seniority, males, and individuals with pre-existing comorbidities will be plausibly explained by the coincidence of IFN aberrance in these situations. Collectively, current studies call for a better understanding of the IFN response regarding the spatiotemporal determination and subtype-specificity against SARS-CoV-2 infections, which are warranted to devise IFN-related prophylactics and therapies.
| S-EPMC7764122 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8324043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAssociations have been found between COVID-19 and subsequent mental illness in both hospital- and population-based studies. However, evidence regarding which mental illnesses are associated with COVID-19 by vaccination status in these populations is limited.ObjectiveTo determine which mental illnesses are associated with diagnosed COVID-19 by vaccination status in both hospitalized patients and the general population.Design, setting, and participantsThis study was conducted in 3 cohorts, 1 before vaccine availability followed during the wild-type/Alpha variant eras (January 2020-June 2021) and 2 (vaccinated and unvaccinated) during the Delta variant era (June-December 2021). With National Health Service England approval, OpenSAFELY-TPP was used to access linked data from 24 million people registered with general practices in England using TPP SystmOne. People registered with a GP in England for at least 6 months and alive with known age between 18 and 110 years, sex, deprivation index information, and region at baseline were included. People were excluded if they had COVID-19 before baseline. Data were analyzed from July 2022 to June 2024.ExposureConfirmed COVID-19 diagnosis recorded in primary care secondary care, testing data, or the death registry.Main outcomes and measuresAdjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) comparing the incidence of mental illnesses after diagnosis of COVID-19 with the incidence before or without COVID-19 for depression, serious mental illness, general anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, eating disorders, addiction, self-harm, and suicide.ResultsThe largest cohort, the pre-vaccine availability cohort, included 18 648 606 people (9 363 710 [50.2%] female and 9 284 896 [49.8%] male) with a median (IQR) age of 49 (34-64) years. The vaccinated cohort included 14 035 286 individuals (7 308 556 [52.1%] female and 6 726 730 [47.9%] male) with a median (IQR) age of 53 (38-67) years. The unvaccinated cohort included 3 242 215 individuals (1 363 401 [42.1%] female and 1 878 814 [57.9%] male) with a median (IQR) age of 35 (27-46) years. Incidence of most outcomes was elevated during weeks 1 through 4 after COVID-19 diagnosis, compared with before or without COVID-19, in each cohort. Incidence of mental illnesses was lower in the vaccinated cohort compared with the pre-vaccine availability and unvaccinated cohorts: aHRs for depression and serious mental illness during weeks 1 through 4 after COVID-19 were 1.93 (95% CI, 1.88-1.98) and 1.49 (95% CI, 1.41-1.57) in the pre-vaccine availability cohort and 1.79 (95% CI, 1.68-1.90) and 1.45 (95% CI, 1.27-1.65) in the unvaccinated cohort compared with 1.16 (95% CI, 1.12-1.20) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.85-0.98) in the vaccinated cohort. Elevation in incidence was higher and persisted longer after hospitalization for COVID-19.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, incidence of mental illnesses was elevated for up to a year following severe COVID-19 in unvaccinated people. These findings suggest that vaccination may mitigate the adverse effects of COVID-19 on mental health.
| S-EPMC11339697 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPsychosocial distress among patients with limited life expectancy influences treatment decisions, treatment adherence, and physical health. Veterans may be at elevated risk of psychosocial distress at the end of life, and understanding their mental healthcare needs may help identify hospitalized patients to whom psychiatric services should be targeted.ObjectiveTo examine mental illness prevalence and mental health treatment rates among a national sample of hospitalized veterans with serious physical illnesses. Design, Subjects, and Measurements: This was a retrospective study of 11,286 veterans hospitalized in a Veterans Health Administration acute care facility in fiscal year 2011 with diagnoses of advanced cancer, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and/or advanced HIV/AIDS. Prevalent and incident mental illness diagnoses during and before hospitalization and rates of psychotherapy and psychotropic use among patients with incident depression and anxiety were measured.ResultsAt least one-quarter of the patients in our sample had a mental illness or substance use disorder. The most common diagnoses at hospitalization were depression (11.4%), followed by alcohol abuse or dependence (5.5%), and post-traumatic stress disorder (4.9%). Of the 831 patients with incident past-year depression and 258 with incident past-year anxiety, nearly two-thirds received at least some psychotherapy or guideline-concordant medication within 90 days of diagnosis. Of 191 patients with incident depression and 47 with incident anxiety at time of hospitalization, fewer than half received mental healthcare before discharge.ConclusionsMany veterans hospitalized with serious physical illnesses have comorbid mental illnesses and may benefit from depression and anxiety treatment.
| S-EPMC5333567 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The current pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) poses a global health crisis and will likely continue to impact public health for years. As the effectiveness of the innate immune response is crucial to patient outcome, huge efforts have been made to understand how dysregulated immune responses may contribute to disease progression. Here we have reviewed current knowledge of cellular innate immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, highlighting areas for further investigation and suggesting potential strategies for intervention. We conclude that in severe COVID-19 initial innate responses, primarily type I interferon, are suppressed or sabotaged which results in an early interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10 and IL-1β-enhanced hyperinflammation. This inflammatory environment is driven by aberrant function of innate immune cells: monocytes, macrophages and natural killer cells dispersing viral pathogen-associated molecular patterns and damage-associated molecular patterns into tissues. This results in primarily neutrophil-driven pathology including fibrosis that causes acute respiratory distress syndrome. Activated leukocytes and neutrophil extracellular traps also promote immunothrombotic clots that embed into the lungs and kidneys of severe COVID-19 patients, are worsened by immobility in the intensive care unit and are perhaps responsible for the high mortality. Therefore, treatments that target inflammation and coagulation are promising strategies for reducing mortality in COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7798612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPeople with serious mental illnesses experience excess morbidity and premature mortality resulting from preventable conditions. The goal was to examine disparities in preventive care that might account for poor health outcomes.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, adults (N=803,276) served by Kaiser Permanente Northwest and federally qualified health centers/safety-net community health clinics were categorized into five groups: schizophrenia spectrum disorders, bipolar disorders/affective psychoses, anxiety disorders, nonpsychotic unipolar depression, and reference groups with no evidence of these specific mental illnesses. The primary outcome was overall preventive care-gap rate, the proportion of incomplete preventive services for which each patient was eligible in 2012-2013. Secondary analyses examined Kaiser Permanente Northwest data from 2002 to 2013. Data were analyzed in 2015.ResultsControlling for patient characteristics and health services use, Kaiser Permanente Northwest mean care-gap rates were significantly lower for bipolar disorders/affective psychoses (mean=18.6, p<0.001) and depression groups (mean=18.6, p<0.001) compared with the reference group. Schizophrenia (mean=19.4, p=0.236) and anxiety groups (mean=19.9, p=0.060) did not differ from the reference group (mean=20.3). In community health clinics, schizophrenia (mean=34.1, p<0.001), bipolar/affective psychosis (mean=35.7, p<0.001), anxiety (mean=38.5, p<0.001), and depression groups (mean=36.3, p<0.001) had significantly lower care-gap rates than those in the reference group (mean=40.0). Secondary analyses of diabetes and dyslipidemia screening trends in Kaiser Permanente Northwest showed diagnostic groups consistently had fewer care gaps than patients in the reference group.ConclusionsIn vastly different settings, individuals with serious mental illnesses received preventive services at equal or better rates than the general population.
| S-EPMC5736432 | biostudies-literature