COVID-19 and first manic episodes: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Russo M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9181635 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
COVID-19 and first manic episodes: a systematic review.
Russo Mirella M Calisi Dario D De Rosa Matteo A MA Evangelista Giacomo G Consoli Stefano S Dono Fedele F Santilli Matteo M Gambi Francesco F Onofrj Marco M Di Giannantonio Massimo M Parruti Giustino G Sensi Stefano L SL
Psychiatry research 20220609
Sars-CoV-2 is a respiratory virus that can access the central nervous system, as indicated by the presence of the virus in patients' cerebrospinal fluid and the occurrence of several neurological syndromes during and after COVID-19. Growing evidence indicates that Sars-CoV-2 can also trigger the acute onset of mood disorders or psychotic symptoms. COVID-19-related first episodes of mania, in subjects with no known history of bipolar disorder, have never been systematically analyzed. Thus, the pr ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesComposite diagnostic criteria alone are likely to create and introduce biases into diagnoses that subsequently have poor relationships with input symptoms. This study aims to understand the relationships between the diagnoses and the input symptoms, as well as the magnitudes of biases created by diagnostic criteria and introduced into the diagnoses of mental illnesses with large disease burdens (major depressive episodes, dysthymic disorder, and manic episodes).SettingsGeneral psychiatric care.ParticipantsWithout real-world data available to the public, 100 000 subjects were simulated and the input symptoms were assigned based on the assumed prevalence rates (0.05, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 and 0.7) and correlations between symptoms (0, 0.1, 0.4, 0.7 and 0.9). The input symptoms were extracted from the diagnostic criteria. The diagnostic criteria were transformed into mathematical equations to demonstrate the sources of biases and convert the input symptoms into diagnoses.Primary and secondary outcomesThe relationships between the input symptoms and diagnoses were interpreted using forward stepwise linear regressions. Biases due to data censoring or categorisation introduced into the intermediate variables, and the three diagnoses were measured.ResultsThe prevalence rates of the diagnoses were lower than those of the input symptoms and proportional to the assumed prevalence rates and the correlations between the input symptoms. Certain input or bias variables consistently explained the diagnoses better than the others. Except for 0 correlations and 0.7 prevalence rates of the input symptoms for the diagnosis of dysthymic disorder, the input symptoms could not fully explain the diagnoses.ConclusionsThere are biases created due to composite diagnostic criteria and introduced into the diagnoses. The design of the diagnostic criteria determines the prevalence of the diagnoses and the relationships between the input symptoms, the diagnoses, and the biases. The importance of the input symptoms has been distorted largely by the diagnostic criteria.
| S-EPMC7656951 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic emerged suddenly in early 2020, posing a serious health threat and creating tremendous stress and distress across the world. Religion has been shown to play important and varied roles in previous disasters and health crises, but its roles in the pandemic have yet to be outlined. We aimed to summarize the research conducted on religion and COVID-19 in the first year of the pandemic with a systematic review of studies that specifically involved individual-level religiousness and COVID-19. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO covering a one-year period from the first published mention of the novel coronavirus (Jan. 5, 2020) through January 4, 2021. We included articles about COVID-19 that were peer-reviewed and empirical, measured and reported results on religion on an individual level, and were available in English. Our search produced 137 empirical articles that met the inclusion criteria. In the course of sorting studies by their primary focus, eight categories of empirical findings emerged: general distress and wellbeing (53 articles), COVID-19-specific stress (24 articles), beliefs in science, conspiracies, and misinformation (15 articles), COVID-19 public health behaviors (12 articles), perceived risk of COVID-19 (10 articles), perceived growth or positive changes taking place during the pandemic (nine articles), health behaviors (three articles), and consumer behavior (three articles). Findings indicated that religiousness was associated with both unique benefits and challenges and played a significant role in the pandemic. Religiousness was associated with a broad range of outcomes across geographical regions and populations during the first year of COVID-19. It was a commonly reported coping mechanism with varying levels of favorable associations with mental health and COVID-19-related behaviors.
| S-EPMC9694412 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aims and objectivesTo synthesise evidence regarding vaccination intention, identify factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy among healthcare professionals and the general populations globally.BackgroundAs COVID-19 vaccine becomes available worldwide, attention is being directed to community vaccine uptake, to achieve population-wide immunity. A number of factors have been reported to influence vaccine intention.MethodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic search of COVID-19 vaccination intention related literature published on or before 31 December 2020 from seven databases was undertaken.ResultsThirty articles were included in this systematic review. Overall COVID-19 vaccination intention during the first year of the pandemic ranged from 27.7% to 93.3%. Findings highlighted that socio-demographic differences, perceptions of risk and susceptibility to COVID-19 and vaccine attributes influenced vaccination intention. Healthcare professionals particularly, nurses have higher vaccine hesitancy reportedly due to concerns regarding vaccine safety and efficacy and mistrust of health authorities. Negative information about COVID-19 vaccines in the social media and low confidence in the health system were associated with lower acceptability among the community. Interestingly, cumulative increase in COVID-19 caseloads of countries over time was not associated with vaccination intention.ConclusionsThe significant variability in vaccine intention rates worldwide would hamper efforts to achieve immunity against COVID-19. Nurses' concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy need to be addressed to increase vaccine acceptance and maximise their influence on vaccination decision in the community. As misinformation through social media negatively impacts vaccination uptake, authoritative and reliable information on vaccine attributes, disease risks and vaccination benefits are needed.Relevance to clinical practiceConcerns about vaccine safety and efficacy including misinformation are important contributors to vaccine hesitancy. Addressing these factors, particularly among nurses who are considered trusted influencers of vaccination decisions in the community is an important strategy for pandemic preparedness.
| S-EPMC8447353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The emergence of SARS-CoV-2/2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has created a global pandemic with no approved treatments or vaccines. Many treatments have already been administered to COVID-19 patients but have not been systematically evaluated. We performed a systematic literature review to identify all treatments reported to be administered to COVID-19 patients and to assess time to clinically meaningful response for treatments with sufficient data. We searched PubMed, BioRxiv, MedRxiv, and ChinaXiv for articles reporting treatments for COVID-19 patients published between 1 December 2019 and 27 March 2020. Data were analyzed descriptively. Of the 2706 articles identified, 155 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 9152 patients. The cohort was 45.4% female and 98.3% hospitalized, and mean (SD) age was 44.4 years (SD 21.0). The most frequently administered drug classes were antivirals, antibiotics, and corticosteroids, and of the 115 reported drugs, the most frequently administered was combination lopinavir/ritonavir, which was associated with a time to clinically meaningful response (complete symptom resolution or hospital discharge) of 11.7 (1.09) days. There were insufficient data to compare across treatments. Many treatments have been administered to the first 9152 reported cases of COVID-19. These data serve as the basis for an open-source registry of all reported treatments given to COVID-19 patients at www.CDCN.org/CORONA . Further work is needed to prioritize drugs for investigation in well-controlled clinical trials and treatment protocols.
| S-EPMC7251321 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBipolar disorder is a mental illness in which manic and depressive states are repeated, causing psychosocial dysfunction. Manic/hypomanic episodes cause problems with interpersonal, social and financial activities, but there is limited evidence regarding the predictors of manic/hypomanic episodes in real-world clinical practice.MethodsThe multicenter treatment survey on bipolar disorder (MUSUBI) in Japanese psychiatric clinics was administered in an observational study that was conducted to accumulate evidence regarding bipolar disorder in real-world clinical practice. Psychiatrists were asked to complete a questionnaire about patients with bipolar disorder who visited 176 member clinics of the Japanese Association of Neuro-Psychiatric Clinics by conducting a retrospective medical record survey. Our study extracted baseline patient characteristics from September to October 2016, including comorbidities, mental status, duration of treatment, Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score, and pharmacological treatment details. We investigated the presence or absence of manic/hypomanic episodes over the course of one year from baseline to September-October 2017.ResultsIn total, 2231 participants were included in our study, 29.1% of whom had manic/hypomanic episodes over the course of one year from baseline. Binomial logistic regression analysis revealed that the presence of manic/hypomanic episodes was correlated with lower baseline GAF scores, rapid cycling, personality disorder, bipolar I disorder, and a mood state with manic or mixed features. Substance abuse was also a risk factor for manic episodes. There was no significant association between a baseline antidepressant prescription and manic/hypomanic episodes.ConclusionsIn Japan, 29.1% of outpatients with bipolar disorder had manic/hypomanic episodes over the course of one year. Our study suggested that a low GAF score, rapid cycling, personality disorder, bipolar I disorder, substance abuse, and baseline mood state could be predictors of manic/hypomanic episodes. Based on our findings, an antidepressant prescription is not a predictor of manic/hypomanic episodes.
| S-EPMC8719757 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAntidepressants are increasingly prescribed to pediatric patients with unipolar depression, but little is known about the risk of treatment-emergent mania. Previous research suggests pediatric patients may be particularly vulnerable to this adverse outcome.ObjectiveTo estimate whether pediatric patients treated with antidepressants have an increased incidence of mania/hypomania compared with patients not treated with antidepressants and to identify patient characteristics associated with the risk of mania/hypomania.Design, setting, and participantsIn a cohort study applying the target trial emulation framework, nationwide inpatient and outpatient care in Sweden from July 1, 2006, to December 31, 2019, was evaluated. Follow-up was conducted for 12 and 52 weeks after treatment initiation, with administrative follow-up ending December 31, 2020. Data were analyzed between May 1, 2022, and June 28, 2023. Individuals aged 4 to 17 years with a diagnosis of depression, but without a prior diagnosis of mania/hypomania, bipolar disorder, or psychosis or treatment with mood stabilizer (lithium, valproate, or carbamazepine), prescriptions were included.ExposuresThe treatment group included patients who initiated any antidepressant medication within 90 days of diagnosis. The control group included patients who did not initiate antidepressants within 90 days.Main outcomes and measuresDiagnosis of mania/hypomania or initiation of mood stabilizer therapy. Incidences were estimated with Kaplan-Meier estimator, and inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for group differences at baseline.ResultsThe cohort included 43 677 patients (28 885 [66%] girls); 24 573 in the treatment group and 19 104 in the control group. The median age was 15 (IQR, 14-16) years. The outcome occurred in 96 individuals by 12 weeks and in 291 by 52 weeks. The cumulative incidence of mania was 0.26% (95% CI, 0.19%-0.33%) in the treatment group and 0.20% (95% CI, 0.13%-0.27%) in the control group at 12 weeks, with a risk difference of 0.06% (95% CI, -0.04% to 0.16%). At 52 weeks, the cumulative incidence was 0.79% (95% CI, 0.68%-0.91%) in the treatment group and 0.52% (95% CI, 0.40%-0.63%) in the control group (risk difference, 0.28%; 95% CI, 0.12%-0.44%). Hospitalizations, parental bipolar disorder, and use of antipsychotics and antiepileptics were the most important predictors of mania/hypomania by 12 weeks.ConclusionThis cohort study found no evidence of treatment-emergent mania/hypomania by 12 weeks in children and adolescents. This corresponds to the time frame for antidepressants to exert their psychotropic effect. A small risk difference was found only with longer follow-up. Certain patient characteristics were associated with mania/hypomania, which warrants clinical attention.
| S-EPMC10534997 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) and their secreted products are a promising therapy for COVID-19 given their immunomodulatory and tissue repair capabilities. Many small studies were launched at the onset of the pandemic, and repeated meta-analysis is critical to obtain timely and sufficient statistical power to determine efficacy. All English-language published studies identified in our systematic search (up to February 3, 2021) examining the use of MSC-derived products to treat patients with COVID-19 were identified. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed for all studies. Nine studies were identified (189 patients), four of which were controlled (93 patients). Three of the controlled studies reported on mortality (primary analysis) and were pooled through random-effects meta-analysis. MSCs decreased the risk of death at study endpoint compared with controls (risk ratio, 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04 to 0.74; P = .02; I2 = 0%), although follow-up differed. Among secondary outcomes, interleukin-6 levels were most commonly reported and were decreased compared with controls (standardized mean difference, -0.69; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.22; P = .004; I2 = 0%) (n = 3 studies). Other outcomes were not reported consistently, and pooled estimates of effect were not performed. Substantial heterogeneity was observed between studies in terms of study design. Adherence to published ISCT criteria for MSC characterization was low. In two of nine studies, RoB analysis revealed a low to moderate risk of bias in controlled studies, and uncontrolled case series were of good (3 studies) or fair (2 studies) quality. Use of MSCs to treat COVID-19 appears promising; however, few studies were identified, and potential risk of bias was detected in all studies. More controlled studies that report uniform clinical outcomes and use MSC products that meet standard ISCT criteria should be performed. Future iterations of our systematic search should refine estimates of efficacy and clarify potential adverse effects.
| S-EPMC8802614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Psychiatric symptoms have been frequently reported in patients affected by COVID-19, both as new occurring and recurrences of pre-existing diseases. Depressive symptoms are estimated to affect at least 30% of patients following infection, with specific physical and cognitive features and relevant immune-inflammatory alterations. This study aimed to retrospectively characterize post-COVID-19 first-onset and recurrent major depressive episodes (MDE) and to evaluate the effects of antidepressants on physical and cognitive correlates of depression, in addition to mood, anxiety, and underlying inflammatory status. We evaluated 116 patients (44.8% males, 51.1 ± 17 years) with post-COVID-19 first-onset (38.8%) and recurrent (61.2%) MDE at baseline and after one- and three-month treatment with antidepressants (31% SSRIs, 25.9% SNRIs, 43.1% others). We assessed sociodemographic and clinical features and psychopathological dimensions through: Hamilton Depression and Anxiety Rating Scales; Short Form-36 Health Survey Questionnaire; Perceived Deficits Questionnaire-Depression 5-items. The systemic immune-inflammatory index was calculated to measure inflammation levels. Alongside the reduction of depression and anxiety (p < 0.001), physical and cognitive symptoms improved (p < 0.001) and inflammatory levels decreased (p < 0.001) throughout treatment in both groups. Post-COVID-19 recurrent MDE showed a significantly more severe course of physical and cognitive symptoms and persistently higher levels of inflammation than first-onset episodes. Antidepressants proved to be effective in both post-COVID-19 first-onset and recurrent MDE. However, a sustained inflammatory status might blunt treatment response in patients with recurrent depression in terms of physical correlates and cognition. Therefore, personalized approaches, possibly involving combinations with anti-inflammatory compounds, could promote better outcomes in this clinical population.
| S-EPMC10166052 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 that induces a generalized inflammatory state. Organokines (adipokines, osteokines, myokines, hepatokines, and cardiokines) can produce beneficial or harmful effects in this condition. This study aimed to systematically review the role of organokines on COVID-19. PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases were searched, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and 37 studies were selected, comprising more than 2700 individuals infected with the virus. Among COVID-19 patients, organokines have been associated with endothelial dysfunction and multiple organ failure due to augmented cytokines and increased SARS-CoV-2 viremia. Changes in the pattern of organokines secretion can directly or indirectly contribute to aggravating the infection, promoting immune response alterations, and predicting the disease progression. These molecules have the potential to be used as adjuvant biomarkers to predict the severity of the illness and severe outcomes.
| S-EPMC10216619 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:To describe perinatal and neonatal outcomes in newborns exposed to SARS-CoV-2. Methods:A systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed Central, LILACS, and Google Scholar using the keywords 'covid ' AND 'newborn' OR 'child' OR 'infant,' on 18 March 2020, and again on 17 April 2020. One researcher conducted the search and extracted data on demographics, maternal outcomes, diagnostic tests, imaging, and neonatal outcomes. Results:Of 256 publications identified, 20 met inclusion criteria and comprised neonatal outcome data for 222 newborns whose mothers were suspected or confirmed to be SARS-CoV-2 positive perinatally (17 studies) or of newborns referred to hospital with infection/pneumonia (3 studies). Most (12 studies) were case-series reports; all were from China, except three (Australia, Iran, and Spain). Of the 222 newborns, 13 were reported as positive for SARS-CoV-2; most of the studies reported no or mild symptoms and no adverse perinatal outcomes. Two papers among those from newborns who tested positive reported moderate or severe clinical characteristics. Five studies using data on umbilical cord blood, placenta, and/or amniotic fluid reported no positive results. Nine studies reported radiographic imaging, including 5 with images of pneumonia, increased lung marking, thickened texture, or high-density nodular shadow. Minor, non-specific changes in biochemical variables were reported. Studies that tested breast milk reported negative SARS-CoV-2 results. Conclusions:Given the paucity of studies at this time, vertical transmission cannot be confirmed or denied. Current literature does not support abstaining from breastfeeding nor separating mothers and newborns. Further evidence and data collection networks, particularly in the Americas, are needed for establishing definitive guidelines and recommendations.
| S-EPMC7241573 | biostudies-literature