Mary Seeman

Dr. Mary Seeman

University of Toronto
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

29Years (1998-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
2 June 2021 in Molecular Psychiatry
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MSMarco Solm
Marco Solm
Joaquim RaduàJoaquim Raduà
Joaquim Raduà
Miriam OlivolaMiriam Olivola
Miriam Olivola
ECEnrico Croce
Enrico Croce
LSLivia Soardo
Livia Soardo
PFPaolo Fusar-Poli
Paolo Fusar-Poli
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.

1 June 2017 in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MSMarco Solm
Marco Solm
AMAndrea Murru
Andrea Murru
IPIsabella Pacchiarotti
Isabella Pacchiarotti
JUJuan Undurraga
Juan Undurraga
NVNicola Veronese
Nicola Veronese
Andre CarvalhoAndre Carvalho
Andre Carvalho
Safety, tolerability, and risks associated with first- and second-generation antipsychotics: a state-of-the-art clinical review Marco Solmi,1,2 Andrea Murru,3 Isabella Pacchiarotti,3 Juan Undurraga,4,5 Nicola Veronese,2,6 Michele Fornaro,7,8 Brendon Stubbs,2,9–11 Francesco Monaco,2 Eduard Vieta,3 Mary V Seeman,12 Christoph U Correll,13,14 André F Carvalho2,15 1Neuroscience Department, University of Padua, 2Institute for Clinical Research and Education in Medicine, Padua, Italy; 3Bipolar Disorders Unit, Institute of Neuroscience, Hospital Clínic, University of Barcelona, IDIBAPS, CIBERSAM, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain; 4Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, 5Early Intervention Program, J. Horwitz Psychiatric Institute, Santiago, Chile; 6National Research Council, Ageing Section, Padua, 7Laboratory of Molecular and Translational Psychiatry, Department of Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University “Federico II”, Naples, Italy; 8New York State Psychiatric Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA; 9Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, 10Physiotherapy Department, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, 11Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, UK; 12Institute of Medical Science, Toronto, ON, Canada; 13Department of Psychiatry Research, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, 14Department of Psychiatry and Molecular Medicine Hempstead, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Hempstead, NY, USA; 15Translational Psychiatry Research Group and Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil Since the discovery of chlorpromazine (CPZ) in 1952, first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) have revolutionized psychiatric care in terms of facilitating discharge from hospital and enabling large numbers of patients with severe mental illness (SMI) to be treated in the community. Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) ushered in a progressive shift from the paternalistic management of SMI symptoms to a patient-centered approach, which emphasized targets important to patients – psychosocial functioning, quality of life, and recovery. These drugs are no longer limited to specific Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) categories. Evidence indicates that SGAs show an improved safety and tolerability profile compared with FGAs. The incidence of treatment-emergent extrapyramidal side effects is lower, and there is less impairment of cognitive function and treatment-related negative symptoms. However, treatment with SGAs has been associated with a wide range of untoward effects, among which treatment-emergent weight gain and metabolic abnormalities are of notable concern. The present clinical review aims to summarize the safety and tolerability profile of selected FGAs and SGAs and to link treatment-related adverse effects to the pharmacodynamic profile of each drug. Evidence, predominantly derived from systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials of the drugs amisulpride, aripiprazole, asenapine, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, clozapine, iloperidone, lurasidone, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, sertindole, ziprasidone, CPZ, haloperidol, loxapine, and perphenazine, is summarized. In addition, the safety and tolerability profiles of antipsychotics are discussed in the context of the “behavioral toxicity” conceptual framework, which considers the longitudinal course and the clinical and therapeutic consequences of treatment-emergent side effects. In SMI, SGAs with safer metabolic profiles should ideally be prescribed first. However, alongside with safety, efficacy should also be considered on a patient-tailored basis. Keywords: antipsychotics, side effects, tolerability, safety, psychosis, psychiatry

1 August 2004 in American Journal of Psychiatry
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Mary SeemanMary Seeman
Mary Seeman

9 April 2008 in Schizophrenia Bulletin
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Mary SeemanMary Seeman
Mary Seeman
Context: The health burden of antipsychotic medication is well known, but the disproportionate effect on women as compared with men is underappreciated. Objective: The goal of this article is preventive—to better inform clinicians so that the risks to women and to their offspring can be diminished. Method: All PubMed sources in which the search term gender (or sex) was linked to a side effect of antipsychotic medication were reviewed. Result: There is general agreement in the literature on women's increased susceptibility to weight gain, diabetes, and specific cardiovascular risks of antipsychotics, with less consensus on malignancy risks and risks to the fetus. Cardiovascular death, to which men are more susceptible than women, is disproportionately increased in women by the use of antipsychotics. Sedating antipsychotics raise the risk of embolic phenomena during pregnancy, and postpartum. Prolactin-elevating drugs suppress gonadal hormone secretion and may enhance autoimmune proclivity. Conclusions: Clinicians need to be aware of the differential harm that women (and their offspring) can incur from the side effects of antipsychotics.

1 February 2020 in Neuropharmacology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Mary SeemanMary Seeman
Mary Seeman

27 November 2018 in Psychiatric Quarterly
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Mary SeemanMary Seeman
Mary Seeman