Amisulpride and l-DOPA modulate subcortical brain nuclei connectivity in resting-state pharmacologic magnetic resonance imaging

The precise understanding of the dopaminergic (DA) system and its pharmacological modifications is crucial for diagnosis and treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders, as well as for understanding basic processes, such as motivation and reward. We probed the functional connectivity (FC) of subcortical nuclei related to the DA system according to seed regions defined according to an atlas of subcortical nuclei. We conducted a large pharmaco-fMRI study using a double-blind, placebo-controlled design, where we examined the effect of l -DOPA, a dopamine precursor, and amisulpride, a D2/D3-receptor antagonist on resting-state FC in 45 healthy young adults using a cross-over design. We examined the FC of subcortical nuclei with connection to the reward system and their reaction to opposing pharmacological probing. Amisulpride increased FC from the putamen to the precuneus and from ventral striatum to precentral gyrus. l -DOPA increased FC from the ventral tegmental area (VTA) to the insula/operculum and between ventral striatum and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and it disrupted ventral striatal and dorsal caudate FC with the medial prefrontal cortex. In an exploratory analysis, we demonstrated that higher self-rated impulsivity goes together with a significant increase in VTA-mid-cingulate gyrus FC during l -DOPA-challenge. Therefore, our DA challenge modulated distinct large-scale subcortical connectivity networks. A dopamine-boost can increase midbrain DA nuclei connectivity to the cortex. The involvement of the VTA-cingulum connectivity in dependence of impulsivity has implications for diagnosis and therapy in disorders like ADHD

Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Patient Perspective

(1) Background: Uncertainty is typical for a pandemic or similar healthcare crisis. This affects patients with resulting decisional conflicts and disturbed shared decision making during their treatment occurring to a very different extent. Sociodemographic factors and the individual perception of pandemic-related problems likely determine this decisional dilemma for patients and can characterize vulnerable groups with special susceptibility for decisional problems and related consequences. (2) Methods: Cross-sectional data from the OnCoVID questionnaire study were used involving 540 patients from 11 participating institutions covering all major regions in Germany. Participants were actively involved in clinical treatment in oncology or psychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, perception of consequences for patients) and very basic demographic data (age, gender, stage of treatment and educational background). Decision uncertainties and distress were operationalized using equidistant five-point scales. Data analysis was performed using descriptive and various multivariate approaches. (3) Results: A total of 11.5% of all patients described intensive uncertainty in their clinical decisions that was significantly correlated with anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress. Younger and female patients and those of higher educational status and treatment stage had the highest values for these stressors (p p = 0.021) considered the additional risk of COVID-19 infections as very important for their disease-related decisions. Regression analysis identified determinants for patients at risk of a decisional dilemma, including information availability, educational level, age group and requirement of treatment decision making. (4) Conclusions: In patients, the COVID-19 pandemic induced specific decisional uncertainty and distress accompanied by intensified stress and psychological disturbances. Determinants of specific vulnerability were related to female sex, younger age, education level, disease stages and perception of pandemic-related treatment modifications, whereas availability of sufficient pandemic-related information prevented these problems. The most important decisional criteria for patients under these conditions were expected side effects/complications and treatment responses

Differences in Stakeholders’ Perception of the Impact of COVID-19 on Clinical Care and Decision-Making

Background: Pandemics are related to changes in clinical management. Factors that are associated with individual perceptions of related risks and decision-making processes focused on prevention and vaccination, but perceptions of other healthcare consequences are less investigated. Different perceptions of patients, nurses, and physicians on consequences regarding clinical management, decisional criteria, and burden were compared. Study Design: Cross-sectional OnCoVID questionnaire studies. Methods: Data that involved 1231 patients, physicians, and nurses from 11 German institutions that were actively involved in clinical treatment or decision-making in oncology or psychiatry were collected. Multivariate statistical approaches were used to analyze the stakeholder comparisons. Results: A total of 29.2% of professionals reported extensive changes in workload. Professionals in psychiatry returned severe impact of pandemic on all major aspects of their clinical care, but less changes were reported in oncology (p < 0.001). Both patient groups reported much lower recognition of treatment modifications and consequences for their own care. Decisional and pandemic burden was intensively attributed from professionals towards patients, but less in the opposite direction. Conclusions: All of the groups share concerns about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare management and clinical processes, but to very different extent. The perception of changes is dissociated in projection towards other stakeholders. Specific awareness should avoid the dissociated impact perception between patients and professionals potentially resulting in impaired shared decision-making