Search

Bernardo Dell’Osso,1,2,* Umberto Albert,3,* Anna Rita Atti,4 Claudia Carmassi,5 Giuseppe Carrà,6 Fiammetta Cosci,7 Valeria Del Vecchio,8 Marco Di Nicola,9 Silvia Ferrari,10 Arianna Goracci,11 Felice Iasevoli,12 Mario Luciano,8 Giovanni Martinotti,13 Maria Giulia Nanni,14 Alessandra Nivoli,15,16 Federica Pinna,17 Nicola Poloni,18 Maurizio Pompili,19 Gaia Sampogna,8 Ilaria Tarricone,20 Sarah Tosato,21 Umberto Volpe,8 Andrea Fiorillo8 1Department of Psychiatry, University of Milan, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy; 2Bipolar Disorders Clinic, Stanford Medical School, Stanford University, CA, USA; 3Rita Levi Montalcini Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Torino, 4Department of Biomedical and NeuroMotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, 5Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; 6Division of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK; 7Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, 8Department of Psychiatry, University of Naples SUN, Naples, 9Institute of Psychiatry and Psychology, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, 10Department of Diagnostic-Clinical Medicine and Public Health, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, 11Department of Molecular Medicine and Clinical Department of Mental Health, University of Siena, Siena, 12Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University Federico II of Naples, Naples, 13Department of Neuroscience, Imaging, and Clinical Science, University G.d Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, 14Section of Psychiatry, Department of Biomedical and Specialty Surgical Sciences, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, 15Psychiatric Institute, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy; 16Bipolar Disorder Unit, CIBERSAM, IDIBAPS, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; 17Department of Public Health, Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Unit of Psychiatry, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, 18Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Psychiatric Division, University of Insubria, Varese, 19Department of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Sensory Organs, Suicide Prevention Center, Sant’ Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, 20Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Bologna University, Bologna, 21Section of Psychiatry, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy *These authors contributed equally as first authors Abstract: More than half a century after their discovery, benzodiazepines (BDZs) still represent one of the largest and most widely prescribed groups of psychotropic compounds, not only in clinical psychiatry but also in the entire medical field. Over the last two decades, however, there has been an increased focus on the development of antidepressants and antipsychotics on the part of the pharmaceutical industry, clinicians, and researchers, with a reduced interest in BDZs, in spite of their widespread clinical use. As a consequence, many psychiatric residents, medical students, nurses, and other mental health professionals might receive poor academic teaching and training regarding these agents, and have the false impression that BDZs represent an outdated chapter in clinical psychopharmacology. However, recent advances in the field, including findings concerning epidemiology, addiction risk, and drug interactions, as well as the introduction of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition with related diagnostic changes, strongly encourage an updated appraisal of the use of BDZs in clinical practice. During a recent thematic event convened with the aim of approaching this topic in a critical manner, a group of young Italian psychiatrists attempted to highlight possible flaws in current teaching pathways, identify the main clinical pros and cons regarding current use of BDZs in clinical practice, and provide an updated overview of their use across specific clinical areas and patient populations. The main results are presented and discussed in this review. Keywords: benzodiazepines, psychiatric clinical practice, teaching issues, risks and benefits

The aim of the study was to examine awareness of cancer and the relationship with distress and satisfaction with care among Italian cancer patients.Two hundred sixty-two cancer patients consecutively admitted to the Day Hospital of four cancer centers in Italy completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30, the EORTC Inpatient Satisfaction-32, the EORTC Information Questionnaire-25, the distress thermometer, the Mini-mental Adjustment to Cancer scale, a visual analogue scale of illness awareness, and questions related to the admission and unmet needs.Eighty-seven percent of patients were aware of their diagnosis, but 49% of those with metastatic cancer thought they have a curable disease. About one-third felt that family members often (16%) or always (13%) were hiding information or bad news in order to protect them. In multivariate analysis, the perception of being protected from bad news by the family was associated with the perceived need to talk more with the family but was not associated with demographic or clinical (Karnofsky Performance Status and stage) variables, lower emotional distress, and greater satisfaction with care and information. Also, awareness of diagnosis and prognosis was not associated with demographic or clinical variables, emotional distress, or satisfaction with care and informationMost cancer patients were fully informed about their diagnosis, although awareness of disease was not coincident with awareness of prognosis and disease progression. Information and knowledge were not destructive of hope and did not increase distress. Family issues are still a significant factor molding openness and sharing of information.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has heavily impacted social, economic and health systems worldwide. Necessary confinement measures have, in turn, contributed to the occurrence of several stress-related conditions and deterioration of pre-existing mental conditions, including insomnia. Objective: The present study sought to investigate the occurrence and severity of insomnia during the COVID-19 lockdown among psychiatric patients and in the general population in the largest Italian sample examined to date. Potential factors associated with a risk of developing insomnia in the global sample were examined as well. Methods: A sample of 20,720 people (5.5% of them being psychiatric patients) was assessed through an online survey conducted during lockdown between March and May 2020. To investigate the occurrence and severity of sleep related issues, the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) was used. In order to evaluate factors associated with the severity of insomnia in the global sample, multivariate linear regression models were performed. Results: During the lockdown, patients with pre-existing mental disorders reported a mean higher score on the ISI scale (p < 0.001) compared to the general population. According to the multivariate regression models, the first three weeks of lockdown were significantly associated with a higher risk of insomnia, but the risk disappeared in the fourth week. Other associated factors included: the presence of a pre-existing mental disorder, ages 24 to 64 years old, and/or being female (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Although containment measures represent essential public health strategies to avoid the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, sleep was one of the aspects affected during the early stages of the lockdown in both people with pre-existing mental disorders and general population. As an integral part of COVID-19 intervention, it is useful to raise awareness about these issues and to adopt both preventive and therapeutic interventions.

Background Use of social media (SM) has exponentially grown particularly among youths in the past two years, due to COVID-19-related changing lifestyles. Based on the Italian COvid Mental hEalth Trial (COMET), we investigated the association between SM use and depressive symptoms among Italian young adults (aged 18–24). Methods The COMET is a nationwide multi-center cross-sectional study that investigated socio-demographic data, social networking addiction (BSNAS), depression, anxiety, and stress (DASS-21), as well as impulsiveness (BIS-15) and aggressiveness (AQ) in a large sample of youngsters, in order to assess the association between BSNAS and DASS-21 indices. Mediation analyses were performed to evaluate the role of impulsiveness and aggressive personality traits in the association between SM use (SMU) and depression. Results 75.8% of the sample (n = 491) had a problematic SMU. SMU was reduced by high AQ and high DASS-21 scores (F = 42.338, p R2 = 0.207). Mediation analyses showed that SMU negatively predicted depressive symptomatology with the interaction mediated by AQ total (ß = − 0.1075), physical (ß = − 0.207) and anger (ß = − 0.0582), BIS-15 total (ß = − 0.0272) and attentional (ß = − 0.0302). High depressive levels were predicted by high AQ scores, low SMU levels, low verbal and physical AQ, and low attentional BIS-15 (F = 30.322, p R2 = 0.273). Depressive symptomatology negatively predicted SMU with their interaction mediated by AQ total (ß = − 0.1640), verbal (ß = 0.0436) and anger (ß = − 0.0807), BIS-15 total (ß = − 0.0448) and attentional (ß = − 0.0409). Conclusions SMU during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic could have a beneficial role in buffering negative consequences linked to social isolation due to quarantine measures, despite this association being mediated by specific personality traits.

Background Symptoms of depression are transdiagnostic heterogenous features frequently assessed in psychiatric disorders, that impact the response to first-line treatment and are associated with higher suicide risk. This study assessed whether severe mental pain could characterize a specific phenotype of severely depressed high-risk psychiatric patients. We also aimed to analyze differences in treatments administered. Methods 2,297 adult patients (1,404 females and 893 males; mean age = 43.25 years, SD = 15.15) treated in several Italian psychiatric departments. Patients were assessed for psychiatric diagnoses, mental pain, symptoms of depression, hopelessness, and suicide risk. Results More than 23% of the patients reported high depression symptomatology and high mental pain (HI DEP/HI PAIN). Compared to patients with lower symptoms of depression, HI DEP/HI PAIN is more frequent among females admitted to an inpatient department and is associated with higher hopelessness and suicide risk. In addition, HI DEP/HI PAIN (compared to both patients with lower symptoms of depression and patients with higher symptoms of depression but lower mental pain) were more frequently diagnosed in patients with personality disorders and had different treatments. Conclusions Patients reporting severe symptoms of depression and high mental pain presented a mixture of particular dangerousness (high trait hopelessness and the presence of suicide ideation with more frequency and less controllability and previous suicide behaviors). The presence of severe mental pain may act synergically in expressing a clinical phenotype that is likewise treated with a more complex therapeutic regime than that administered to those experiencing symptoms of depression without mental pain.

Background: The aim of this study was to explore the psychopathological burden related to COVID-19 together with coping strategies in healthcare workers, focusing on differences between frontline and second-line workers. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study part of the COvid Mental hEalth Trial (COMET). Participants' socio-demographic and COVID-19-related information was collected through an online survey. Psychiatric symptoms and coping strategies were also investigated. Multivariate analyses, corrected for demographic characteristics, were adopted to assess differences between frontline and second-line workers. Results: The sample consisted of 20,720 individuals. Healthcare workers (n=2907) presented with significantly higher risk for mental health disturbances as compared to the rest of the sample (p&nbsp

Background When facing a traumatic event, some people may experience positive changes, defined as posttraumatic growth (PTG). Methods Understanding the possible positive consequences of the pandemic on the individual level is crucial for the development of supportive psychosocial interventions. The present paper aims to: 1) evaluate the levels of PTG in the general population; 2) to identify predictors of each dimension of post-traumatic growth. Results The majority of the sample (67%, N = 13,889) did not report any significant improvement in any domain of PTG. Participants reported the highest levels of growth in the dimension of “appreciation of life” (2.3 ± 1.4), while the lowest level was found in the “spiritual change” (1.2 ± 1.2). Female participants reported a slightly higher level of PTG in areas of personal strength (p p B = −.107, 95% CI = −.181 to −.032, p Conclusions The assessment of the levels of PTG is of great importance for the development of ad hoc supportive psychosocial interventions. From a public health perspective, the identification of protective factors is crucial for developing ad-hoc tailored interventions and for preventing the development of full-blown mental disorders in large scale.

The COVID-19 pandemic and its related containment measures—mainly physical distancing and isolation—are having detrimental consequences on the mental health of the general population worldwide. In particular, frustration, loneliness, and worries about the future are common reactions and represent well-known risk factors for several mental disorders, including anxiety, affective, and post-traumatic stress disorders. The vast majority of available studies have been conducted in China, where the pandemic started. Italy has been severely hit by the pandemic, and the socio-cultural context is compl etel y di fferent from Eastern countri es. Therefore, there i s the need for methodologically rigorous studies aiming to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 and quarantine measures on the mental health of the Italian population. In fact, our results will help us to develop appropriate interventions for managing the psychosocial consequences of pandemic. The “COVID-IT-mental health trial” is a no-profit, not-funded, national, multicentric, cross-sectional population-based trial which has the following aims: a) to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic and its containment measures on mental health of the Italian population; b) to identify the main areas to be targeted by supportive long-term interventions for the different categories of people exposed to the pandemic. Data will be collected through a web-platform using validated assessment tools. Participants will be subdivided into four groups: a) Group 1 —COVID-19 quarantine group. This group includes the general population which are quarantined but not isolated, i.e., those not directly exposed to contagion nor in contact with COVID-19+ individuals; b) Group 2—COVID-19+ group, which includes isolated people directly/indirectly exposed to the virus; c) Group 3—COVID-19 healthcare staff group, which includes first-and second-line healthcare professionals; d) Group 4— COVID-19 mental health, which includes users of mental health services and all those who had already been diagnosed with a mental disorder. Mental health services worldwide are not prepared yet to manage the short-and long-term consequences of the pandemic. It is necessary to have a clear picture of the impact that this new stressor will have on mental health and well-being in order to develop and disseminate appropriate interventions for the general population and for the other at-risk groups.

Background The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an unprecedented traumatic event influencing the healthcare, economic, and social welfare systems worldwide. In order to slow the infection rates, lockdown has been implemented almost everywhere. Italy, one of the countries most severely affected, entered the “lockdown” on March 8, 2020. Methods The COvid Mental hEalth Trial (COMET) network includes 10 Italian university sites and the National Institute of Health. The whole study has three different phases. The first phase includes an online survey conducted between March and May 2020 in the Italian population. Recruitment took place through email invitation letters, social media, mailing lists of universities, national medical associations, and associations of stakeholders (e.g., associations of users/carers). In order to evaluate the impact of lockdown on depressive, anxiety and stress symptoms, multivariate linear regression models were performed, weighted for the propensity score. Results The final sample consisted of 20,720 participants. Among them, 12.4% of respondents (N = 2,555) reported severe or extremely severe levels of depressive symptoms, 17.6% (N = 3,627) of anxiety symptoms and 41.6% (N = 8,619) reported to feel at least moderately stressed by the situation at the DASS-21. According to the multivariate regression models, the depressive, anxiety and stress symptoms significantly worsened from the week April 9–15 to the week April 30 to May 4 (p p Conclusions Although physical isolation and lockdown represent essential public health measures for containing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, they are a serious threat for mental health and well-being of the general population. As an integral part of COVID-19 response, mental health needs should be addressed.

To summarize risks related to (1) illness and (2) second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) treatment in pregnant women and their offspring. Concerning illness-related risks, we focused on bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, psychiatric disorders for which SGAs are preferentially prescribed. Objective: To summarize risks related to (1) illness and (2) secondgeneration antipsychotic (SGA) treatment in pregnant women and their offspring. Concerning illness-related risks, we focused on bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, psychiatric disorders for which SGAs are preferentially prescribed. Data Sources: PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library were searched from the date of the first available article to October 2015 using the following key terms: pregnancy OR gestation OR bipolar disorder OR schizophrenia. We also included cross-references from identified articles. Study Selection: We included 49 English-language articles regarding illnessrelated and SGA-related risks in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. First, searches were done for epidemiologic or experimental studies (from January 2000 to October 2015), then for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Data Extraction: Data were extracted independently, after removing duplicates and studies that were not relevant or not pertinent. Results: Abrupt discontinuation of treatment-exposed mothers with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia led to a high risk of relapses during pregnancy. Both bipolar disorder and schizophrenia were linked to a slightly increased risk of obstetric complications for mothers (schizophrenia) and the newborn (bipolar disorder and schizophrenia), although data on drug exposure during pregnancy were not given in the majority of studies. Maternal morbidity (schizophrenia but not bipolar disorder) may be associated with the worst neonatal outcomes (stillbirth, neonatal or infant deaths, and intellectual disability). Untreated bipolar disorder and schizophrenia may be considered independent risk factors for congenital malformations, while SGAs were not associated with increased recurring defects in fetuses. Evidence regarding the potential effects of SGAs on child neurodevelopment remains reassuring. Conclusion: After taking into account the parents' will and after they provide informed consent, the most reasonable and less harmful choice for treating future mothers with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia appears to be maintaining them at the safest minimum dosage.

Bernardo Dell’Osso,1,2,* Umberto Albert,3,* Anna Rita Atti,4 Claudia Carmassi,5 Giuseppe Carrà,6 Fiammetta Cosci,7 Valeria Del Vecchio,8 Marco Di Nicola,9 Silvia Ferrari,10 Arianna Goracci,11 Felice Iasevoli,12 Mario Luciano,8 Giovanni Martinotti,13 Maria Giulia Nanni,14 Alessandra Nivoli,15,16 Federica Pinna,17 Nicola Poloni,18 Maurizio Pompili,19 Gaia Sampogna,8 Ilaria Tarricone,20 Sarah Tosato,21 Umberto Volpe,8 Andrea Fiorillo8 1Department of Psychiatry, University of Milan, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy; 2Bipolar Disorders Clinic, Stanford Medical School, Stanford University, CA, USA; 3Rita Levi Montalcini Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Torino, 4Department of Biomedical and NeuroMotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, 5Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; 6Division of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK; 7Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, 8Department of Psychiatry, University of Naples SUN, Naples, 9Institute of Psychiatry and Psychology, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, 10Department of Diagnostic-Clinical Medicine and Public Health, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, 11Department of Molecular Medicine and Clinical Department of Mental Health, University of Siena, Siena, 12Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University Federico II of Naples, Naples, 13Department of Neuroscience, Imaging, and Clinical Science, University G.d Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, 14Section of Psychiatry, Department of Biomedical and Specialty Surgical Sciences, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, 15Psychiatric Institute, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy; 16Bipolar Disorder Unit, CIBERSAM, IDIBAPS, Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; 17Department of Public Health, Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Unit of Psychiatry, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, 18Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Psychiatric Division, University of Insubria, Varese, 19Department of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Sensory Organs, Suicide Prevention Center, Sant’ Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, 20Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Bologna University, Bologna, 21Section of Psychiatry, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy *These authors contributed equally as first authors Abstract: More than half a century after their discovery, benzodiazepines (BDZs) still represent one of the largest and most widely prescribed groups of psychotropic compounds, not only in clinical psychiatry but also in the entire medical field. Over the last two decades, however, there has been an increased focus on the development of antidepressants and antipsychotics on the part of the pharmaceutical industry, clinicians, and researchers, with a reduced interest in BDZs, in spite of their widespread clinical use. As a consequence, many psychiatric residents, medical students, nurses, and other mental health professionals might receive poor academic teaching and training regarding these agents, and have the false impression that BDZs represent an outdated chapter in clinical psychopharmacology. However, recent advances in the field, including findings concerning epidemiology, addiction risk, and drug interactions, as well as the introduction of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition with related diagnostic changes, strongly encourage an updated appraisal of the use of BDZs in clinical practice. During a recent thematic event convened with the aim of approaching this topic in a critical manner, a group of young Italian psychiatrists attempted to highlight possible flaws in current teaching pathways, identify the main clinical pros and cons regarding current use of BDZs in clinical practice, and provide an updated overview of their use across specific clinical areas and patient populations. The main results are presented and discussed in this review. Keywords: benzodiazepines, psychiatric clinical practice, teaching issues, risks and benefits