Disparities in COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation and death in people with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder: a cohort study of the UK Biobank

People with severe mental illness (SMI; including schizophrenia/psychosis, bipolar disorder (BD), major depressive disorder (MDD)) experience large disparities in physical health. Emerging evidence suggests this group experiences higher risks of infection and death from COVID-19, although the full extent of these disparities are not yet established. We investigated COVID-19 related infection, hospitalisation and mortality among people with SMI in the UK Biobank (UKB) cohort study. Overall, 447,296 participants from UKB (schizophrenia/psychosis = 1925, BD = 1483 and MDD = 41,448, non-SMI = 402,440) were linked with healthcare and death records. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to examine differences in COVID-19 outcomes by diagnosis, controlling for sociodemographic factors and comorbidities. In unadjusted analyses, higher odds of COVID-19 mortality were seen among people with schizophrenia/psychosis (odds ratio [OR] 4.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.00–7.34), BD (OR 3.76, 95% CI 2.00–6.35), and MDD (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.69–2.33) compared to people with no SMI. Higher odds of infection and hospitalisation were also seen across all SMI groups, particularly among people with schizophrenia/psychosis (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.32–1.96; OR 3.47, 95% CI 2.47–4.72) and BD (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.16–1.85; OR 3.31, 95% CI 2.22–4.73). In fully adjusted models, mortality and hospitalisation odds remained significantly higher among all SMI groups, though infection odds remained significantly higher only for MDD. People with schizophrenia/psychosis, BD and MDD have higher risks of COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation and mortality. Only a proportion of these disparities were accounted for by pre-existing demographic characteristics or comorbidities. Vaccination and preventive measures should be prioritised in these particularly vulnerable groups

Risk and protective factors for cannabis, cocaine, and opioid use disorders: An umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies

Several meta-analyses of observational studies have addressed the association between risk and protective factors and cannabis/cocaine/opioid use disorders, but results are conflicting. No umbrella review has ever graded the credibility of this evidence (not significant/weak/suggestive/highly suggestive/convincing). We searched Pubmed-MEDLINE/PsycInfo, last search September 21, 2020. We assessed the quality of meta-analyses with the AMSTAR-2 tool. Out of 3,072 initial references, five were included, providing 19 associations between 12 putative risk/protective factors and cannabis/cocaine/opioid use disorders (cases: 4539; N=1,118,872,721). While 84% of the associations were statistically significant, none was convincing. One risk factor (smoking) had highly suggestive evidence for association with nonmedical use of prescription opioid medicines (OR=3.07, 95%CI:2.27 to 4.14). Convincing evidence emerged in sensitivity analyses on antisocial behavior and cannabis use disoder (OR 3.34, 95%CI 2.53-4.41). Remaining associations had weak evidence. The quality of meta-analyses was rated as moderate in two (40%), low in one (20%), and critically low in two (40%). Future research is needed to better profile risk/protective factors for cannabis/cocaine/opioid use disorders disorders informing preventive approaches

Balancing risks and benefits of cannabis use: umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and observational studies

Objective: To systematically assess credibility and certainty of associations between cannabis, cannabinoids, and cannabis based medicines and human health, from observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Design: Umbrella review. Data Sources: PubMed, PsychInfo, Embase, up to 9 February 2022. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies and RCTs that have reported on the efficacy and safety of cannabis, cannabinoids, or cannabis based medicines were included. Credibility was graded according to convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or not significant (observational evidence), and by GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) (RCTs). Quality was assessed with AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2). Sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: 101 meta-analyses were included (observational=50, RCTs=51) (AMSTAR 2 high 33, moderate 31, low 32, or critically low 5). From RCTs supported by high to moderate certainty, cannabis based medicines increased adverse events related to the central nervous system (equivalent odds ratio 2.84 (95% confidence interval 2.16 to 3.73)), psychological effects (3.07 (1.79 to 5.26)), and vision (3.00 (1.79 to 5.03)) in people with mixed conditions (GRADE=high), improved nausea/vomit, pain, spasticity, but increased psychiatric, gastrointestinal adverse event, and somnolence among others (GRADE=moderate). Cannabidiol improved 50% reduction of seizures (0.59 (0.38 to 0.92)) and seizure events (0.59 (0.36 to 0.96)) (GRADE=high), but increased pneumonia, gastrointestinal adverse events, and somnolence (GRADE=moderate). For chronic pain, cannabis based medicines or cannabinoids reduced pain by 30% (0.59 (0.37 to 0.93), GRADE=high), across different conditions (n=7), but increased psychological distress. For epilepsy, cannabidiol increased risk of diarrhoea (2.25 (1.33 to 3.81)), had no effect on sleep disruption (GRADE=high), reduced seizures across different populations and measures (n=7), improved global impression (n=2), quality of life, and increased risk of somnolence (GRADE=moderate). In the general population, cannabis worsened positive psychotic symptoms (5.21 (3.36 to 8.01)) and total psychiatric symptoms (7.49 (5.31 to 10.42)) (GRADE=high), negative psychotic symptoms, and cognition (n=11) (GRADE=moderate). In healthy people, cannabinoids improved pain threshold (0.74 (0.59 to 0.91)), unpleasantness (0.60 (0.41 to 0.88)) (GRADE=high). For inflammatory bowel disease, cannabinoids improved quality of life (0.34 (0.22 to 0.53) (GRADE=high). For multiple sclerosis, cannabinoids improved spasticity, pain, but increased risk of dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, somnolence (GRADE=moderate). For cancer, cannabinoids improved sleep disruption, but had gastrointestinal adverse events (n=2) (GRADE=moderate). Cannabis based medicines, cannabis, and cannabinoids resulted in poor tolerability across various conditions (GRADE=moderate). Evidence was convincing from observational studies (main and sensitivity analyses); in pregnant women, small for gestational age (1.61 (1.41 to 1.83)), low birth weight (1.43 (1.27 to 1.62)); in drivers, car crash (1.27 (1.21 to 1.34)); and in the general population, psychosis (1.71 (1.47 to 2.00)). Harmful effects were noted for additional neonatal outcomes, outcomes related to car crash, outcomes in the general population including psychotic symptoms, suicide attempt, depression, and mania, and impaired cognition in healthy cannabis users (all suggestive to highly suggestive). Conclusions: Convincing or converging evidence supports avoidance of cannabis during adolescence and early adulthood, in people prone to or with mental health disorders, in pregnancy and before and while driving. Cannabidiol is effective in people with epilepsy. Cannabis based medicines are effective in people with multiple sclerosis, chronic pain, inflammatory bowel disease, and in palliative medicine, but not without adverse events

Disparities in cancer screening in people with mental illness across the world versus the general population:prevalence and comparative meta-analysis including 4 717 839 people

Background: Since people with mental illness are more likely to die from cancer, we assessed whether people with mental illness undergo less cancer screening compared with the general population. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed and PsycINFO, without a language restriction, and hand-searched the reference lists of included studies and previous reviews for observational studies from database inception until May 5, 2019. We included all published studies focusing on any type of cancer screening in patients with mental illness; and studies that reported prevalence of cancer screening in patients, or comparative measures between patients and the general population. The primary outcome was odds ratio (OR) of cancer screening in people with mental illness versus the general population. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality and I2 to assess study heterogeneity. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018114781. Findings: 47 publications provided data from 46 samples including 4 717 839 individuals (501 559 patients with mental illness, and 4 216 280 controls), of whom 69·85% were women, for screening for breast cancer (k=35; 296 699 individuals with mental illness, 1 023 288 in the general population), cervical cancer (k=29; 295 688 with mental illness, 3 540 408 in general population), colorectal cancer (k=12; 153 283 with mental illness, 2 228 966 in general population), lung and gastric cancer (both k=1; 420 with mental illness, none in general population), ovarian cancer (k=1; 37 with mental illness, none in general population), and prostate cancer (k=6; 52 803 with mental illness, 2 038 916 in general population). Median quality of the included studies was high at 7 (IQR 6–8). Screening was significantly less frequent in people with any mental disease compared with the general population for any cancer (k=37; OR 0·76 [95% CI 0·72–0·79]; I2=98·53% with publication bias of Egger's p value=0·025), breast cancer (k=27; 0·65 [0·60–0·71]; I2=97·58% and no publication bias), cervical cancer (k=23; 0·89 [0·84–0·95]; I2=98·47% and no publication bias), and prostate cancer (k=4; 0·78 [0·70–0·86]; I2=79·68% and no publication bias), but not for colorectal cancer (k=8; 1·02 [0·90–1·15]; I2=97·84% and no publication bias). Interpretation: Despite the increased mortality from cancer in people with mental illness, this population receives less cancer screening compared with that of the general population. Specific approaches should be developed to assist people with mental illness to undergo appropriate cancer screening, especially women with schizophrenia. Funding: None

Age at onset of mental disorders worldwide: large-scale meta-analysis of 192 epidemiological studies.

Promotion of good mental health, prevention, and early intervention before/at the onset of mental disorders improve outcomes. However, the range and peak ages at onset for mental disorders are not fully established. To provide robust, global epidemiological estimates of age at onset for mental disorders, we conducted a PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant systematic review with meta-analysis of birth cohort/cross-sectional/cohort studies, representative of the general population, reporting age at onset for any ICD/DSM-mental disorders, identified in PubMed/Web of Science (up to 16/05/2020) (PROSPERO:CRD42019143015). Co-primary outcomes were the proportion of individuals with onset of mental disorders before age 14, 18, 25, and peak age at onset, for any mental disorder and across International Classification of Diseases 11 diagnostic blocks. Median age at onset of specific disorders was additionally investigated. Across 192 studies (n = 708,561) included, the proportion of individuals with onset of any mental disorders before the ages of 14, 18, 25 were 34.6%, 48.4%, 62.5%, and peak age was 14.5 years (k = 14, median = 18, interquartile range (IQR) = 11-34). For diagnostic blocks, the proportion of individuals with onset of disorder before the age of 14, 18, 25 and peak age were as follows: neurodevelopmental disorders: 61.5%, 83.2%, 95.8%, 5.5 years (k = 21, median=12, IQR = 7-16), anxiety/fear-related disorders: 38.1%, 51.8%, 73.3%, 5.5 years (k = 73, median = 17, IQR = 9-25), obsessive-compulsive/related disorders: 24.6%, 45.1%, 64.0%, 14.5 years (k = 20, median = 19, IQR = 14-29), feeding/eating disorders/problems: 15.8%, 48.1%, 82.4%, 15.5 years (k = 11, median = 18, IQR = 15-23), conditions specifically associated with stress disorders: 16.9%, 27.6%, 43.1%, 15.5 years (k = 16, median = 30, IQR = 17-48), substance use disorders/addictive behaviours: 2.9%, 15.2%, 48.8%, 19.5 years (k = 58, median = 25, IQR = 20-41), schizophrenia-spectrum disorders/primary psychotic states: 3%, 12.3%, 47.8%, 20.5 years (k = 36, median = 25, IQR = 20-34), personality disorders/related traits: 1.9%, 9.6%, 47.7%, 20.5 years (k = 6, median = 25, IQR = 20-33), and mood disorders: 2.5%, 11.5%, 34.5%, 20.5 years (k = 79, median = 31, IQR = 21-46). No significant difference emerged by sex, or definition of age of onset. Median age at onset for specific mental disorders mapped on a time continuum, from phobias/separation anxiety/autism spectrum disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity disorder/social anxiety (8-13 years) to anorexia nervosa/bulimia nervosa/obsessive-compulsive/binge eating/cannabis use disorders (17-22 years), followed by schizophrenia, personality, panic and alcohol use disorders (25-27 years), and finally post-traumatic/depressive/generalized anxiety/bipolar/acute and transient psychotic disorders (30-35 years), with overlap among groups and no significant clustering. These results inform the timing of good mental health promotion/preventive/early intervention, updating the current mental health system structured around a child/adult service schism at age 18

Catechol-O-Methyltransferase (COMT) Val158Met Polymorphism and Eating Disorders:Data From a New Biobank and Meta-Analysis of Previously Published Studies

OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) Val158Met polymorphism is associated with eating disorders (EDs). METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search of studies published until 15 January 2017 and added data from the Italian 'Biobanca Veneta per i Disturbi Alimentari' biobank, performing a meta-analysis comparing COMT Val158Met genotype and allele frequencies in EDs and anorexia nervosa (AN) or bulimia nervosa (BN) patients versus controls. RESULTS: Ten studies plus Biobanca Veneta per i Disturbi Alimentari (ED: n\u2009=\u2009920, controls: n\u2009=\u2009261 controls) with 3541 ED patients (AN\u2009=\u20092388; BN\u2009=\u2009233) and 3684 controls were included. There were no significant group differences in COMT Val158Met alleles and genotype frequencies between patients and controls, for all EDs pooled together [range of odds ratios (ORs): 0.96-1.04, p-values: 0.46-0.97, I2 \u2009=\u20090%] and when analysing separately patients with AN (ORs: 0.94-1.04, p-values: 0.31-0.61, I2 \u2009=\u20090%) or BN (ORs: 0.80-1.09, p-values: 0.28-0.64, I2 \u2009=\u20090-44%). CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysing data results from 11 studies and 7225 subjects show that COMT Val158Met polymorphism is not associated with EDs