Background: Clozapine is associated with increased risk of myocarditis. However, many common side-effects of clozapine overlap with the clinical manifestations of myocarditis. As a result, there is uncertainty about which signs, symptoms and investigations are important in distinguishing myocarditis from benign adverse effects of clozapine. Clarity on this issue is important, since missing a diagnosis of myocarditis or discontinuing clozapine unnecessarily may both have devastating consequences.Aims: To examine the clinical characteristics of clozapine-induced myocarditis and to identify which signs and symptoms distinguish true myocarditis from other clozapine adverse effects.Method: A retrospective analysis of the record database for 247 621 patients was performed. A natural language processing algorithm identified the instances of patients in which myocarditis was suspected. The anonymised case notes for the patients of each suspected instance were then manually examined, and those whose instances were ambiguous were referred for an independent assessment by up to three cardiologists. Patients with suspected instances were classified as having confirmed myocarditis, myocarditis ruled out or undetermined.Results: Of 254 instances in 228 patients with suspected myocarditis, 11.4% (n = 29 instances) were confirmed as probable myocarditis. Troponin and C-reactive protein (CRP) had excellent diagnostic value (area under the curve 0.975 and 0.896, respectively), whereas tachycardia was of little diagnostic value. All confirmed instances occurred within 42 days of clozapine initiation.Conclusions: Suspicion of myocarditis can lead to unnecessary discontinuation of clozapine. The ‘critical period’ for myocarditis emergence is the first 6 weeks, and clinical signs including tachycardia are of low specificity. Elevated CRP and troponin are the best markers for the need for further evaluation.

Purpose: Clozapine is the most effective intervention for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS). Several studies report ethnic disparities in clozapine treatment. However, few studies restrict analyses to TRS cohorts alone or address confounding by benign ethnic neutropenia. This study investigates ethnic equity in access to clozapine treatment for people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia spectrum disorder. Methods: A retrospective cohort study, using information from 11 years of clinical records (2007–2017) from the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust. We identified a cohort of service-users with TRS using a validated algorithm. We investigated associations between ethnicity and clozapine treatment, adjusting for sociodemographic factors, psychiatric multi-morbidity, substance misuse, neutropenia, and service-use. Results: Among 2239 cases of TRS, Black service-users were less likely to be receive clozapine compared with White British service-users after adjusting for confounders (Black African aOR = 0.49, 95% CI [0.33, 0.74], p = 0.001; Black Caribbean aOR = 0.64, 95% CI [0.43, 0.93], p = 0.019; Black British aOR = 0.61, 95% CI [0.41, 0.91], p = 0.016). It was additionally observed that neutropenia was not related to treatment with clozapine. Also, a detention under the Mental Health Act was negatively associated clozapine receipt, suggesting people with TRS who were detained are less likely to be treated with clozapine. Conclusion: Black service-users with TRS were less likely to receive clozapine than White British service-users. Considering the protective effect of treatment with clozapine, these inequities may place Black service-users at higher risk for hospital admissions and mortality.

Mental health clinicians have previously been reported to express reservations regarding the utility and accuracy of the psychiatric classification systems. In this study we aimed to examine clinicians’ experiences with instances of perceived inaccuracy of a schizophrenia diagnosis. Mental health clinicians (N = 175) participated in an online survey assessing prevalence and perceived reasons for inaccuracies of a schizophrenia diagnosis. Respondents included psychiatric ward directors (13.1%), senior psychiatrists and psychologists (40.5%), and psychiatry and clinical psychology residents (36%). Fifty-three percent of respondents reported encountering instances where a schizophrenia diagnosis was assigned even though clinical presentation did not match diagnostic criteria. Seventy-three percent of senior psychiatrists in a position to determine a diagnosis declared assigning schizophrenia even when controversial among clinical staff, and 15% of them declared doing so frequently. The likelihood of frequently assigning a schizophrenia diagnosis even when clearly controversial was predicted by the perception that an inaccurate diagnosis is assigned due to the presence of negative symptoms (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.04–4.66, p = 0.039) and due to patient-related factors, such as the need to facilitate rehabilitation (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.07–2.90, p = 0.024). Although a schizophrenia diagnosis is considered relatively stable and clear, our study indicates that, in clinical practice, the assignment of this diagnosis is frequently controversial. These controversies are associated with the perception that an inaccurate diagnosis is assigned due to diagnostic considerations, or due to the possibility that patients might benefit from such a diagnosis. Implications and limitations for psychiatric practice and discourse are discussed.

COVID19 infection was associated with possible psychiatric manifestations, including psychosis and mania. In addition, psychiatric disorders might be triggered by severe psychological reactions to the pandemic or the measures taken to contain it. This study aimed to assess the trends of new-onset psychosis/mania during the pandemic timeline. Psychiatric emergency department records during January-July 2019 and 2020 of two regional mental health centers were manually examined. Cases of new-onset psychosis or mania were found in 326 out of 5161 records examined. The ratio of these cases increased by 45.5% in 2020 compared to 2019 (189 out of 2367, 137 out of 2479, respectively, p = 0.001). The peak increase was in April 2020 (9.4% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.015). There was no association between the rise of new-onset psychotic or manic episodes and national incidence of COVID19 cases, as observed during Israel 2nd wave. PCR tests were negative, except a single case. In this study, an increase in new-onset psychosis/mania was identified during the initial phase of the pandemic. Though causality could not be directly inferred, lack of infection symptoms, negative PCR testing and temporal distribution incongruent with COVID19 caseload did not support a direct effect of SARS-CoV-2. Alternative explanations are discussed, such as psychological reaction to stress and preventive measures, as well as case-shifting between different mental health settings.

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet

Objectives: To develop a prognostic tool of treatment resistant schizophrenia (TRS) in a large and diverse clinical cohort, with comprehensive coverage of patients using mental health services in four London boroughs.Methods: We used the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) for time-to-event data, to develop a risk prediction model from the first antipsychotic prescription to the development of TRS, using data from electronic health records.Results: We reviewed the clinical records of 1,515 patients with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder and observed that 253 (17%) developed TRS. The Cox LASSO survival model produced an internally validated Harrel’s C index of 0.60. A Kaplan-Meier curve indicated that the hazard of developing TRS remained constant over the observation period. Predictors of TRS were: having more inpatient days in the three months before and after the first antipsychotic, more community face-to-face clinical contact in the three months before the first antipsychotic, minor cognitive problems, and younger age at the time of the first antipsychotic.Conclusions: Routinely collected information, readily available at the start of treatment, gives some indication of TRS but is unlikely to be adequate alone. These results provide further evidence that earlier onset is a risk factor for TRS.