Search

BackgroundMajor depressive disorder (MDD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) are highly comorbid, with greater clinical complexity and psychosocial impairment. Several antidepressants have been used in this population, with mixed results. This preliminary study aims to investigate the effects of the multimodal antidepressant vortioxetine in MDD + AUD subjects.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated 57 MDD + AUD and 56 MDD outpatients, matched for baseline characteristics. Patients were assessed after 1, 3, and 6 months treatment with vortioxetine (10-20 mg/d, flexibly dosed) in combination with continuous psychosocial support. The primary outcome was improvement in depressive symptoms measured by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale. We also investigated changes in anxiety, anhedonia, cognition, functioning, quality of life, and clinical global severity using the following instruments: Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, Perceived Deficits Questionnaire-Depression, Functioning Assessment Short Test, Quality of Life Index, and Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale.ResultsVortioxetine significantly improved mood in MDD + AUD patients (P P = .36). A substantial rate (45.6%) of comorbid subjects obtained clinical remission at endpoint (P = .36 vs MDD). We additionally observed baseline to endpoint improvements on all secondary outcomes (P ConclusionsGiven its effectiveness on mood, cognition, and functioning, its good safety and tolerability profile, and low potential for abuse, vortioxetine could represent a valid pharmacological intervention in MDD + AUD patients as part of an integrated therapeutic-rehabilitation program.

Introduction The novel coronavirus SARS-Cov-2 can infect the respiratory tract causing a spectrum of disease varying from mild to fatal pneumonia, and known as COVID-19. Ongoing clinical research is assessing the potential for long-term respiratory sequelae in these patients. We assessed the respiratory function in a cohort of patients after recovering from SARS-Cov-2 infection, stratified according to PaO2/FiO2 (p/F) values. Method Approximately one month after hospital discharge, 86 COVID-19 patients underwent physical examination, arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis, pulmonary function tests (PFTs), and six-minute walk test (6MWT). Patients were also asked to quantify the severity of dyspnoea and cough before, during, and after hospitalization using a visual analogic scale (VAS). Seventy-six subjects with ABG during hospitalization were stratified in three groups according to their worst p/F values: above 300 (n = 38), between 200 and 300 (n = 30) and below 200 (n = 20). Results On PFTs, lung volumes were overall preserved yet, mean percent predicted residual volume was slightly reduced (74.8 ± 18.1%). Percent predicted diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) was also mildly reduced (77.2 ± 16.5%). Patients reported residual breathlessness at the time of the visit (VAS 19.8, p Conclusion Approximately one month after hospital discharge, patients with COVID-19 can have residual respiratory impairment, including lower exercise tolerance. The extent of this impairment seems to correlate with the severity of respiratory failure during hospitalization.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic represents an unprecedented traumatic stressor to mental health. Psychological distress is considered a reliable proxy for psychopathology and can be negatively influenced by childhood trauma through sensitization effects. Emotion dysregulation has been proposed as a potential mediator of this mechanism. We aimed to test this hypothesis in a national Italian sample assessed in the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. Methods: We investigated the relationship between psychological distress and childhood trauma in 500 healthy participants assessed through a survey-based study, after the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic lockdown in Italy. Levels of psychological distress and history of childhood trauma were obtained using the Kessler-10 (K10) and the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, respectively. We used bootstrapped mediation analysis to test the mediator role of emotional dysregulation, measured through the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, on the effect of childhood trauma on psychological distress. Results: In total, 190 (38%) reported psychological distress related to the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. Individuals with psychological distress experienced more childhood trauma, specifically emotional abuse ( F = 23.51, df = 1, p Conclusion: Childhood trauma is associated with increased vulnerability to the stressful effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. Our data suggest that emotional dysregulation may represent a dimension mediating the impact of childhood trauma on coronavirus disease 2019-related psychological distress and may be considered as specific target for interventions aiming at empowering resilience.

The outbreak of COVID-19 is severely affecting mental health worldwide, although individual response may vary. This study aims to investigate the psychological distress perceived by the Italian general population during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to analyze affective temperament and adult attachment styles as potential mediators. Through an online survey, we collected sociodemographic and lockdown-related information and evaluated distress, temperament, and attachment using the Kessler 10 Psychological Distress Scale (K10), the Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris and San Diego-Autoquestionnaire short version (TEMPS-A) and the Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ). In our sample (n = 500), 62% of the individuals reported no likelihood of psychological distress, whereas 19.4% and 18.6% displayed mild and moderate-to-severe likelihood. Cyclothymic (OR: 1.24; p < 0.001), depressive (OR: 1.52; p < 0.001) and anxious (OR: 1.58; p = 0.002) temperaments, and the ASQ “Need for approval” (OR: 1.08; p = 0.01) were risk factors for moderate-to-severe psychological distress compared to no distress, while the ASQ “Confidence” (OR: 0.89; p = 0.002) and “Discomfort with closeness” were protective (OR: 0.92; p = 0.001). Cyclothymic (OR: 1.17; p = 0.008) and depressive (OR: 1.32; p = 0.003) temperaments resulted as risk factors in subjects with moderate-to-severe psychological distress compared to mild distress, while the ASQ “Confidence” (OR: 0.92; p = 0.039) and “Discomfort with closeness” (OR: 0.94; p = 0.023) were protective. Our data indicated that a relevant rate of individuals may have experienced psychological distress following the COVID-19 outbreak. Specific affective temperament and attachment features predict the extent of mental health burden. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first data available on the psychological impact of the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic on a sizeable sample of the Italian population. Moreover, our study is the first to investigate temperament and attachment characteristics in the psychological response to the ongoing pandemic. Our results provide further insight into developing targeted intervention strategies.

To study the long-term psychological effects of Covid-19 disease, we recruited 61 patients older than 60 years of age and administered the Kessler questionnaire K10 to assess psychological distress and classify them according to mental health risk groups. Patients' affective temperaments were assessed with the 39-item form of the Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris, and San Diego (TEMPS-A-39) and emotional dysregulation with the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS). Patients were divided in two samples according to their scores on the K10, i.e., a high likelihood of psychological distress group (N = 18) and a low likelihood of psychological distress group (N = 43). The two groups differed on their gender composition, in that more women (N = 11) were in the former and more men in the latter (N = 29) (χ2 = 4.28; p = 0.039). The high likelihood of psychological distress group scored higher on the Cyclothymic (3.39 ± 3.45 vs. 0.93 ± 1.08, p < 0.001) and the Depressive (2.28 ± 2.82 vs. 0.65 ± 1.09, p = 0.01) affective temperaments of the TEMPS and on the lack of Impulse control (12.67 ± 4.04 vs. 9.63 ± 3.14, p = 0.003) and lack of Clarity (15.00 ± 5.56 vs. 9.85 ± 4.67, p = 0.004) scales of the DERS. Our results show that having had Covid-19 may be related with high likelihood for psychological distress in advanced-age people and this may in turn be associated with impaired emotional regulation and higher scores on depressive and cyclothymic temperaments.

Background and Objectives: Gambling disorder (GD) leads to impaired socioeconomical functioning and increased social costs. Although the research on GD has been rising over the years, approved treatment guidelines are currently not available. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the pharmacological and psychosocial treatment of adults with GD, and to identify possible agreed-upon standards of care. Methods: MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Embase, and CINAHL electronic databases were searched up to April 2019 for systematic reviews on pharmacological, psychosocial, and combined treatment of adults with GD. Twenty-six studies were eventually included in this meta-review. Results: Studies reported promising results of opioid antagonists and mood stabilizers in reducing GD-related symptomatology. Lithium was particularly effective in subjects with comorbid bipolar disorders. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was the most commonly used psychological intervention and reduced global severity, gambling frequency, and financial loss. Motivational interviewing (MI) seemed to improve several GD domains, alone or in combination with CBT. Self-help interventions (SHIs) showed some efficacy in promoting treatment-seeking, and in combination with other treatments. Conclusions: We found moderate evidence of effect for CBT, but weaker evidence for pharmacotherapy and SHIs. Results suggested some efficacy for MI in the short but not in the long term. It is likely that certain interventions might be more effective than others on specific features of GD. Further studies are needed to compare the efficacy and acceptability of individual and combined psychosocial and pharmacological interventions, to deliver patient-tailored treatments.