Acute mental health presentations before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background: A number of community based surveys have identified an increase in psychological symptoms and distress but there has been no examination of symptoms at the more severe end of the mental health spectrum. // Aims: We aimed to analyse numbers and types of psychiatric presentations to inform planning for future demand on mental health services in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. // Method: We analysed electronic data between January and April 2020 for 2534 patients referred to acute psychiatric services, and tested for differences in patient demographics, symptom severity and use of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA), before and after lockdown. We used interrupted time-series analyses to compare trends in emergency department and psychiatric presentations until December 2020. // Results: There were 22% fewer psychiatric presentations the first week and 48% fewer emergency department presentations in the first month after lockdown initiated. A higher proportion of patients were detained under the MHA (22.2 v. 16.1%) and Mental Capacity Act 2005 (2.2 v. 1.1%) (χ2(2) = 16.3, P < 0.0001), and they experienced a longer duration of symptoms before seeking help from mental health services (χ2(3) = 18.6, P < 0.0001). A higher proportion of patients presented with psychotic symptoms (23.3 v. 17.0%) or delirium (7.0 v. 3.6%), and fewer had self-harm behaviour (43.8 v. 52.0%, χ2(7) = 28.7, P < 0.0001). A higher proportion were admitted to psychiatric in-patient units (22.2 v. 18.3%) (χ2(6) = 42.8, P < 0.0001) after lockdown. // Conclusions: UK lockdown resulted in fewer psychiatric presentations, but those who presented were more likely to have severe symptoms, be detained under the MHA and be admitted to hospital. Psychiatric services should ensure provision of care for these patients as well as planning for those affected by future COVID-19 waves

Cryo-thawed embryo transfer: natural versus artificial cycle. A non-inferiority trial.(ANTARCTICA trial)

Background: frozen thawed embryo transfer (FET) is a cost-effective adjunct to IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment. In order to optimize treatment outcome, FET should be carried out during a period of optimal endometrial receptivity. To optimize implantation several methods for endometrium preparation have been proposed. In natural cycle FET (NC-FET), the endometrium develops under endogenous hormonal stimulation. The development of the dominant follicle and endometrium is monitored by ultrasound and FET is timed after triggering ovulation induction or determination of the spontaneous LH surge. In an artificial cycle FET (AC-FET) estrogens and progesterone are administered to prepare the endometrium for implantation. While the currently available data show no significant difference in pregnancy rates between these methods, well designed randomized controlled trials are lacking. Moreover there is little literature on difference in cancellation rates, cost-efficiency and adverse events.Methods and design: this randomized, multi-centre, non-inferiority trial we aim to test the hypothesis that there is no significant difference in live birth rates between patients undergoing NC-FET versus AC-FET. The primary outcome will be live birth rate per embryo transfer procedure. Secondary outcomes will be ongoing and clinical pregnancy rate, cancellation rate, (serious) adverse events and cost-efficiency. Based on a live birth rate of 20% and a minimal clinical important difference of 7.5% (one-sided alpha 2.5%, beta 20%) a total of 1150 patients will be needed. Analyzes will be performed using both per protocol as well as intention to treat analyses.Discussion: this prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial aims to address the hypothesis that there is no significant difference in live birth rates between patients undergoing NC-FET versus patients undergoing AC-FET. Moreover it addresses cost-efficiency as well as the perceived burden of both treatments. TRIAL REGISTER: Netherlands trial register (NTR): 1586