Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Global treatment budgets, i.e. predefined budgets for patients treated in hospital independent of the setting within the hospital, together with flexible and integrated treatment (FIT) have been introduced in some German psychiatric hospitals since 2013. We investigated pooled changes in inpatient, day-care, outpatient treatment, and continuity of care for patients with mental disorders in 12 FIT-hospitals. Methods We conducted a series of 12 controlled cohort studies regarding FIT hospitals using anonymized patient claims data from more than 70 German statutory health insurance funds. Each study compared one FIT-hospital to matched patients from equivalent non-FIT-hospitals (routine care). We included only those patients without treatment in the respective hospital within two years prior to first hospital treatment (either FIT or routine care). We contrasted results between the year prior to with the first and second year after patient’s first treatment (treatment continuity: only group comparison) using multivariate multi-level models. To approximate the difference-in-difference effect in the meta-analysis, we used the interaction terms group (FIT hospital vs. routine care) x time (year before vs. first or second patient year after study inclusion) in the Poisson models. Results The 12 studies included 36,069 patients with 2,358 patients from a Department of child and adolescent psychiatry. The pooled effect revealed a 5.1 days lower increase in inpatient treatment in FIT-hospitals during the first patient year compared to routine care. Results were statistically significant for adult care FIT-hospitals but not for child and adolescent FIT-hospitals. Utilization of day-care treatment increased more in most FIT-hospitals during the first year, while outpatient contacts increased in some and decreased in others. The odds of treatment continuity increased by 1.4 in FIT-hospitals compared to non-FIT-hospitals. Conclusions Global treatment budgets lead to the intended changes in mental health care in the majority of FIT-hospitals compared to routine care in this large real-world evidence study from Germany. For child and adolescent psychiatry, more evidence is needed to draw firm conclusions. Trial registration This study was registered in the database “Health Services Research Germany” (trial number: VVfD_EVA64_15_003713).

Background Data on resource use are frequently required for healthcare assessments. Studies on healthcare utilization (HCU) in individuals with mental disorders have analyzed both self-reports and administrative data. Source of data may affect the quality of analysis and compromise the accuracy of results. We sought to ascertain the degree of agreement between self-reports and statutory health insurance (SHI) fund claims data from patients with mental disorders. Methods Claims data from six German SHI and self-reports were obtained along with a cost-effectiveness analysis performed as a part of a controlled prospective multicenter cohort study conducted in 18 psychiatric hospitals in Germany (PsychCare), including patients with pre-defined psychiatric disorders. Self-reports were collected using the German adaption of the Client Sociodemographic and Service Receipt Inventory (CSSRI) questionnaire with a 6-month recall period. Data linkage was performed using a unique pseudonymized identifier. Missing responses were coded as non-use for all analyses. HCU was calculated for inpatient and outpatient care, day-care services, home treatment, and pharmaceuticals. Concordance was measured using Cohen’s Kappa (κ) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Regression approaches were used to investigate the effect of independent variables on the agreements. Results In total 274 participants (mean age 47.8 [SD = 14.2] years; 47.08% women) were included in the analysis. No significant differences were observed between the linked and unlinked patients in terms of baseline characteristics. Total agreements values were 63.9% (κ = 0.03; PABAK = 0.28) for outpatient contacts, 69.3% (κ = 0.25; PABAK = 0.39) for medication use, 81.0% (κ = 0.56; PABAK = 0.62) for inpatient days and 86.1% (κ = 0.67; PABAK = 0.72) for day-care services. There was varied quantitative agreement between data sources, with the poorest agreement for outpatient care (ICC [95% CI] = 0.22 [0.10–0.33]) and the best for psychiatric day-care services (ICC [95% CI] = 0.72 [0.66–0.78]). Marital status and time since first treatment positively affected the chance of agreement on utilization of outpatient services. Conclusions Although there were high levels of absolute agreement, the measures of concordance between administrative records and self-reports were generally minimal to moderate. Healthcare investigations should consider using linked or at least different data sources to estimate HCU for specific utilization areas, where unbiased information can be expected. Trial registration This study was part of the multi-center controlled PsychCare trial (German Clinical Trials Register No. DRKS00022535; Date of registration: 2020–10-02).

Background In a previous meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing lithium with placebo as a long-term treatment in bipolar disorders, we observed a clear preventative effect for manic episodes; however, the effect was equivocal for depressive episodes. Since then, the evidence base has grown further. In this update, we furthermore present the data on efficacy of lithium in comparison to alternative drug treatments. In addition, we analyze the data comparing lithium with placebo and other treatments regarding drop-outs due to reasons other than a mood episode and completion of study (no mood episode and no drop-out to reasons other than a mood episode). Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were sought comparing lithium with placebo and lithium with an alternative treatment in bipolar disorders where the stated intent of treatment was prevention of mood episodes. To this purpose, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was searched. Reference lists of relevant papers and major textbooks of mood disorders were examined. Authors, other experts in the field, and pharmaceutical companies were contacted for knowledge of suitable trials, published or unpublished. Results For the comparison of lithium with placebo, seven trials (1,580 participants) were included. Lithium was more effective than placebo in preventing overall mood episodes (random effects RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.82), manic episodes (random effects RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.71), and, dependent on the type of analyses applied, depressive episodes (random effects RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.03; fixed effect RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.88). Lithium was inferior to placebo in leading to drop-outs for reasons other than a mood episode (random effects RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.65) but superior to placebo on study completion (random effects RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.55). For the comparison of lithium with anticonvulsants, seven trials were included ( n = 1,305). In prevention of manic episodes, lithium showed superiority compared to anticonvulsants (random effects RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.00). However, there was no significant difference regarding prevention of overall mood episodes, depressive episodes, dropping-out to reasons other than a mood episode, or study completion. Conclusions The evidence base for lithium in the long-term treatment of bipolar disorders has strengthened. With no other drug available having such ample and consistent evidence for its efficacy lithium remains the most valuable treatment option in this indication.

The early recognition of psychiatric disorders has been a focus of research in the last decades and has led to improvements in clinical care, especially in the area of early psychosis. Like non-affective psychosis, bipolar disorders are often diagnosed with a delay that can lead to long periods of untreated illness and impact long-term outcomes. This article presents the rationale for early recognition in bipolar disorder and presents the current evidence for the identification of risk factors, their assessment and validity in predicting the onset of bipolar disorder.

This study aimed to build on the relationship of well-established self-report and behavioral assessments to the latent constructs positive (PVS) and negative valence systems (NVS), cognitive systems (CS), and social processes (SP) of the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework in a large transnosological population which cuts across DSM/ICD-10 disorder criteria categories. One thousand four hundred and thirty one participants (42.1% suffering from anxiety/fear-related, 18.2% from depressive, 7.9% from schizophrenia spectrum, 7.5% from bipolar, 3.4% from autism spectrum, 2.2% from other disorders, 18.4% healthy controls, and 0.2% with no diagnosis specified) recruited in studies within the German research network for mental disorders for the Phenotypic, Diagnostic and Clinical Domain Assessment Network Germany (PD-CAN) were examined with a Mini-RDoC-Assessment including behavioral and self-report measures. The respective data was analyzed with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to delineate the underlying latent RDoC-structure. A revised four-factor model reflecting the core domains positive and negative valence systems as well as cognitive systems and social processes showed a good fit across this sample and showed significantly better fit compared to a one factor solution. The connections between the domains PVS, NVS and SP could be substantiated, indicating a universal latent structure spanning across known nosological entities. This study is the first to give an impression on the latent structure and intercorrelations between four core Research Domain Criteria in a transnosological sample. We emphasize the possibility of using already existing and well validated self-report and behavioral measurements to capture aspects of the latent structure informed by the RDoC matrix.

Mental disorders pose a worldwide growing public health burden. One of the major challenges for healthcare systems remains to respond to the need of patients with mental disorders for continuous and flexible treatment. The EVA64 study evaluates novel programs of flexible and integrative treatment (FIT) in hospitals. This manuscript presents results from the evaluation of FIT hospitals in comparison to hospitals from regular routine care. In addition to data from adult patients, we also present data from affiliated child and adolescent psychiatric wards employing FIT programs. Using comprehensive claims data, primary outcomes are the utilization of inpatient care and sick leave for a priori defined clusters of mental disorders. We stratify between patients already under treatment (ongoing treatment) and patients with incident treatment cases (initial treatment) at the point of inclusion in the study. In the initial treatment group, we found a significant reduction in the length of inpatient stay of 4.1 days in FIT hospitals compared to routine care. While patients with mood affective disorders (−1.8 days) and patients with neurotic, stress-related, and somatoform disorders (−3.6 days) showed an even stronger effect of the reduction of inpatient lengths of stay, the effect was significantly weaker in patients with mental and behavioral disorders due to use of alcohol (+3.3 days). Regarding the duration of sick leave, we found no significant treatment effect of FIT programs compared to routine care. In the ongoing treatment group of adult patients, we found a significantly lower utilization of inpatient treatment by 1.3 days as well as a shorter duration of sick leave by 4.3 days in FIT hospitals compared to routine care. In the cohort of children and adolescent patients, we also did not observe a significant treatment effect in either the initial treatment group or the ongoing treatment group. Registration: this study was registered in the database “Health Services Research Germany” (trial number: VVfD_EVA64_15_003713).

Mental illness is known to come along with a large mortality gap compared to thegeneral population and it is a risk for COVID-19 related morbidity andmortality. Achieving high vaccination rates in people with mental illness is therefore important. Reports are conflicting on whether vaccination rates comparable to those of the general population can be achieved and which variables represent risk factors for nonvaccination in people with mental illness. The COVID Ψ Vac study collected routine data on vaccination status, diagnostic groups, sociodemographics, and setting characteristics from in- and day-clinic patients of 10 psychiatric hospitals in Germany in August 2021. Logistic regression modeling was used to determine risk factors for nonvaccination. Complete vaccination rates were 59% ( = 776) for the hospitalized patients with mental illness versus 64% for the regionally and age-matched general population. Partial vaccination rates were 68% ( = 893) for the hospitalised patients with mental illness versus 67% for the respective general population and six percentage ( = 74) of this hospitalized population were vaccinated during the hospital stay. Rates showed a large variation between hospital sites. An ICD-10 group F1, F2, or F4 main diagnosis, younger age, and coercive accommodation were further risk factors for nonvaccination in the model. Vaccination rates were lower in hospitalized people with mental illness than in the general population. By targeting at-risk groups with low-threshold vaccination programs in all health institutions they get in contact with, vaccination rates comparable to those in the general population can be achieved.

Multiple lines of evidence suggest that the onset and course of bipolar disorder is influenced by environmental light conditions. Increased suppression of melatonin by light (supersensitivity) in patients with bipolar disorder has been postulated as an endophenotype by several studies. However, due to methodological shortcomings, the results of these studies remain inconclusive. This study investigated melatonin suppression in euthymic patients with bipolar I disorder using evening blue light specifically targeting the melanopsin system. Melatonin suppression was assessed in euthymic patients with bipolar I disorder and healthy controls by exposure to monochromatic blue light (λmax = 475 nm; photon density = 1.6 × 1013 photons/cm2/s) for 30 minutes at 2300 h, administered via a ganzfeld dome for highly uniform light exposure. Serum melatonin concentrations were determined from serial blood sampling via radioimmunoassay. All participants received mydriatic eye drops and were genotyped for the PER3 VNTR polymorphism to avoid or adjust for potential confounding. As secondary outcomes, serum melatonin concentrations during dark conditions and after monochromatic red light exposure (λmax = 624 nm; photon density = 1.6 × 1013 photons/cm2/s) were also investigated. Changes in subjective alertness were investigated for all 3 lighting conditions. A total of 90 participants (57 controls, 33 bipolar I disorder) completed the study. Melatonin suppression by monochromatic blue light did not differ between groups (F1,80 = 0.56; p = 0.46). Moreover, there were no differences in melatonin suppression by monochromatic red light (F1,82 = 1.80; p = 0.18) or differences in melatonin concentrations during dark conditions (F1,74 = 1.16; p = 0.29). Healthy controls displayed a stronger increase in subjective alertness during exposure to blue light than patients with bipolar I disorder (t85 = 2.28; p = 0.027). Large interindividual differences in melatonin kinetics may have masked a true difference. Despite using a large cohort and highly controlled laboratory conditions, we found no differences in melatonin suppression between euthymic patients with bipolar I disorder and healthy controls. These findings do not support the notion that supersensitivity is a valid endophenotype in bipolar I disorder.

Background: The late onset of therapeutic response and a relatively large proportion of nonresponders to antidepressants remain major concerns in clinical practice. Therefore, there is a critical need for effective medication strategies that augment treatment with antidepressants. Methods: To review the available evidence on the use of lithium as an augmentation strategy to treat depressive episodes. Results: More than 30 open-label studies and 10 placebo-controlled double-blind trials have demonstrated substantial efficacy of lithium augmentation in the acute treatment of depressive episodes. Most of these studies were performed in unipolar depression and included all major classes of antidepressants, however mostly tricyclics. A meta-analysis including 10 randomized placebo-controlled trials has provided evidence that lithium augmentation has a statistically significant effect on the response rate compared to placebo with an odds ratio of 3.11, which corresponds to a number-needed-to-treat of 5. The meta-analysis revealed a mean response rate of 41.2% in the lithium group and 14.4% in the placebo group. One placebo-controlled trial in the continuation treatment phase showed that responders to acute-phase lithium augmentation should be maintained on the lithium-antidepressant combination for at least 12 months to prevent early relapses. Preliminary studies to assess genetic influences on response probability to lithium augmentation have suggested a predictive role of the –50T/C single nucleotide polymorphism of the GSK3β gene. Conclusion: Augmentation of antidepressants with lithium is currently the best-evidenced augmentation therapy in the treatment of depressed patients who do not respond to antidepressants.

Background Close, continuous and efficient collaboration between different professions and sectors of care is necessary to provide patient-centered care for individuals with mental disorders. The lack of structured collaboration between in- and outpatient care constitutes a limitation of the German health care system. Since 2012, a new law in Germany (§64b Social code book (SGB) V) has enabled the establishment of cross-sectoral and patient-centered treatment models in psychiatry. Such model projects follow a capitation budget, i.e. a total per patient budget of inpatient and outpatient care in psychiatric clinics. Providers are able to choose the treatment form and adapt the treatment to the needs of the patients. The present study (EVA64) will investigate the effectiveness, costs and efficiency of almost all model projects established in Germany between 2013 and 2016. Methods/design A health insurance data-based controlled cohort study is used. Data from up to 89 statutory health insurance (SHI) funds, i.e. 79% of all SHI funds in Germany (May 2017), on inpatient and outpatient care, pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical treatments and sick leave for a period of 7 years will be analyzed. All patients insured by any of the participating SHI funds and treated in one of the model hospitals for any of 16 pre-defined mental disorders will be compared with patients in routine care. Sick leave (primary outcome), utilization of inpatient care (primary outcome), utilization of outpatient care, continuity of contacts in (psychiatric) care, physician and hospital hopping, re-admission rate, comorbidity, mortality, disease progression, and guideline adherence will be analyzed. Cost and effectivity of model and routine care will be estimated using cost-effectiveness analyses. Up to 10 control hospitals for each of the 18 model hospitals will be selected according to a pre-defined algorithm. Discussion The evaluation of complex interventions is an important main task of health services research and constitutes the basis of evidence-guided advancement in health care. The study will yield important new evidence to guide the future provision of routine care for mentally ill patients in Germany and possibly beyond. Trial registration This study was registered in the database “Health Services Research Germany” (trial number: VVfD_EVA64_15_003713 ).