Knowledge of sex differences in risk factors for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can contribute to the development of refined preventive interventions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine if women and men differ in their vulnerability to risk factors for PTSD.

As part of the longitudinal AURORA study, 2924 patients seeking emergency department (ED) treatment in the acute aftermath of trauma provided self-report assessments of pre- peri- and post-traumatic risk factors, as well as 3-month PTSD severity. We systematically examined sex-dependent effects of 16 risk factors that have previously been hypothesized to show different associations with PTSD severity in women and men.

Women reported higher PTSD severity at 3-months post-trauma. Z-score comparisons indicated that for five of the 16 examined risk factors the association with 3-month PTSD severity was stronger in men than in women. In multivariable models, interaction effects with sex were observed for pre-traumatic anxiety symptoms, and acute dissociative symptoms; both showed stronger associations with PTSD in men than in women. Subgroup analyses suggested trauma type-conditional effects.

Our findings indicate mechanisms to which men might be particularly vulnerable, demonstrating that known PTSD risk factors might behave differently in women and men. Analyses did not identify any risk factors to which women were more vulnerable than men, pointing toward further mechanisms to explain women's higher PTSD risk. Our study illustrates the need for a more systematic examination of sex differences in contributors to PTSD severity after trauma, which may inform refined preventive interventions.

To document changes in evaluation protocols for acute invasive fungal sinusitis during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and to analyse concordance between clinical and histopathological diagnoses based on new practice guidelines.

Protocols for the evaluation of patients with suspected acute invasive fungal sinusitis both prior and during the coronavirus disease 2019 period are described. A retrospective analysis of patients presenting with suspected acute invasive fungal sinusitis from 1 May to 30 June 2021 was conducted, with assessment of the concordance between clinical and final diagnoses.

Among 171 patients with high clinical suspicion, 160 (93.6 per cent) had a final histopathological diagnosis of invasive fungal sinusitis, concordant with the clinical diagnosis, with sensitivity of 100 per cent, positive predictive value of 93.6 per cent and negative predictive value of 100 per cent.

The study highlights a valuable screening tool with good accuracy, involving emphasis on ‘red flag’ signs in high-risk populations. This could be valuable in situations demanding the avoidance of aerosol-generating procedures and in resource-limited settings facilitating early referral to higher level care centres.

People presenting with first-episode psychosis (FEP) have heterogenous outcomes. More than 40% fail to achieve symptomatic remission. Accurate prediction of individual outcome in FEP could facilitate early intervention to change the clinical trajectory and improve prognosis.

We aim to systematically review evidence for prediction models developed for predicting poor outcome in FEP.

A protocol for this study was published on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, registration number CRD42019156897. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance, we systematically searched six databases from inception to 28 January 2021. We used the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies and the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool to extract and appraise the outcome prediction models. We considered study characteristics, methodology and model performance.

Thirteen studies reporting 31 prediction models across a range of clinical outcomes met criteria for inclusion. Eleven studies used logistic regression with clinical and sociodemographic predictor variables. Just two studies were found to be at low risk of bias. Methodological limitations identified included a lack of appropriate validation, small sample sizes, poor handling of missing data and inadequate reporting of calibration and discrimination measures. To date, no model has been applied to clinical practice.

Future prediction studies in psychosis should prioritise methodological rigour and external validation in larger samples. The potential for prediction modelling in FEP is yet to be realised.

The current study argues that population prevalence estimates for mental health disorders, or changes in mean scores over time, may not adequately reflect the heterogeneity in mental health response to the COVID-19 pandemic within the population.

The COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) Study is a longitudinal, nationally representative, online survey of UK adults. The current study analysed data from its first three waves of data collection: Wave 1 (March 2020, N = 2025), Wave 2 (April 2020, N = 1406) and Wave 3 (July 2020, N = 1166). Anxiety-depression was measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (a composite measure of the PHQ-9 and GAD-7) and COVID-19-related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with the International Trauma Questionnaire. Changes in mental health outcomes were modelled across the three waves. Latent class growth analysis was used to identify subgroups of individuals with different trajectories of change in anxiety-depression and COVID-19 PTSD. Latent class membership was regressed on baseline characteristics.

Overall prevalence of anxiety-depression remained stable, while COVID-19 PTSD reduced between Waves 2 and 3. Heterogeneity in mental health response was found, and hypothesised classes reflecting (i) stability, (ii) improvement and (iii) deterioration in mental health were identified. Psychological factors were most likely to differentiate the improving, deteriorating and high-stable classes from the low-stable mental health trajectories.

A low-stable profile characterised by little-to-no psychological distress (‘resilient’ class) was the most common trajectory for both anxiety-depression and COVID-19 PTSD. Monitoring these trajectories is necessary moving forward, in particular for the ~30% of individuals with increasing anxiety-depression levels.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emergency has led to numerous attempts to assess the impact of the pandemic on population mental health. The findings indicate an increase in depression and anxiety but have been limited by the lack of specificity about which aspects of the pandemic (e.g. viral exposure or economic threats) have led to adverse mental health outcomes.

Network analyses were conducted on data from wave 1 (N = 2025, recruited 23 March–28 March 2020) and wave 2 (N = 1406, recontacts 22 April–1 May 2020) of the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium Study, an online longitudinal survey of a representative sample of the UK adult population. Our models included depression (PHQ-9), generalized anxiety (GAD-7) and trauma symptoms (ITQ); and measures of COVID-specific anxiety, exposure to the virus in self and close others, as well as economic loss due to the pandemic.

A mixed graphical model at wave 1 identified a potential pathway from economic adversity to anxiety symptoms via COVID-specific anxiety. There was no association between viral exposure and symptoms. Ising network models using clinical cut-offs for symptom scores at each wave yielded similar findings, with the exception of a modest effect of viral exposure on trauma symptoms at wave 1 only. Anxiety and depression symptoms formed separate clusters at wave 1 but not wave 2.

The psychological impact of the pandemic evolved in the early phase of lockdown. COVID-related anxiety may represent the mechanism through which economic consequences of the pandemic are associated with psychiatric symptoms.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created an unprecedented global crisis, necessitating drastic changes to living conditions, social life, personal freedom and economic activity. No study has yet examined the presence of psychiatric symptoms in the UK population under similar conditions.

We investigated the prevalence of COVID-19-related anxiety, generalised anxiety, depression and trauma symptoms in the UK population during an early phase of the pandemic, and estimated associations with variables likely to influence these symptoms.

Between 23 and 28 March 2020, a quota sample of 2025 UK adults aged 18 years and older, stratified by age, gender and household income, was recruited by online survey company Qualtrics. Participants completed standardised measures of depression, generalised anxiety and trauma symptoms relating to the pandemic. Bivariate and multivariate associations were calculated for demographic and health-related variables.

Higher levels of anxiety, depression and trauma symptoms were reported compared with previous population studies, but not dramatically so. Anxiety or depression and trauma symptoms were predicted by young age, presence of children in the home, and high estimates of personal risk. Anxiety and depression were also predicted by low income, loss of income and pre-existing health conditions in self and others. Specific anxiety about COVID-19 was greater in older participants.

This study showed a modest increase in the prevalence of mental health problems in the early stages of the pandemic, and these problems were predicted by several specific COVID-related variables. Further similar surveys, particularly of those with children at home, are required as the pandemic progresses.

Les troubles dépressifs concernent près de deux fois plus de femmes que d’hommes [1]. Cette prévalence pourrait être due à une sensibilité accrue des femmes aux émotions négatives [2]. Peu d’études d’imagerie cérébrale ont comparé l’activité cérébrale des hommes et des femmes lors de la présentation de stimuli émotionnels.

Notre objectif était d’étudier les activations cérébrales des hommes et des femmes lors d’une tâche émotionnelle. Nous avons émis l’hypothèse que le pattern d’activations cérébrales diffère selon le sexe des individus et la valence des stimuli.

Nous avons mené une étude en imagerie par résonance magnétique fonctionnelle (IRMf) chez 30 participants sains (15 hommes et 15 femmes). Des stimuli à valence positive, négative et neutre étaient présentés aux sujets. Les participants ont évalué subjectivement la valence et l’intensité des stimuli.

Nous observons une activité plus importante chez les femmes que chez les hommes dans plusieurs régions clés du traitement des émotions lors de la présentation de stimuli négatifs. Aucune différence significative entre les hommes et les femmes n’a été relevée concernant l’évaluation subjective des stimuli en termes de valence et d’intensité.

Les résultats suggèrent qu’il existe bien une différence de patterns d’activation entre les hommes et les femmes lors de la perception des émotions négatives, qui irait dans le sens d’une sensibilité accrue chez les femmes. Celle-ci pourrait expliquer leur plus grande vulnérabilité aux troubles dépressifs. Il pourrait être intéressant de répliquer cette étude chez des patients qui souffrent de troubles de l’humeur.

Partial or non-adherence to medication is high amongst patients with schizophrenia. Rates of non-adherence of up to 72% have being reported depending on the method used and the patient population. Adherence is essential for optimal long-term patient outcomes in schizophrenia and failure to adhere to medication can have a major impact on the course of illness and treatment outcomes.

The objective of the EMEA (Europe, Middle east and Africa) ADHES survey was to collect psychiatrist's perceptions of the assessment, reasons and management of partial and non-adherence to medication.

The aim of this poster is to present psychiatrist's perceptions collected in the EMEA ADHES survey.

The survey was devised to ascertain psychiatrists’ preferred methods of assessing adherence, their perceptions of the level of adherence, reasons for non-adherence and on strategies to improve adherence.

Psychiatrists estimated that during the previous month more than half of their patients (53%) were partially or non-adherent. They estimated that as few as a third of patients who deteriorated after stopping medication was able to attribute this to their non-adherence. 76% of psychiatrists assessed adherence most frequently by asking their patient explicitly. Use of long-acting treatment was the preferred choice to address adherence problems for 62% of respondents.

This EMEA-wide survey illustrates that while respondents recognised the relevance and importance of partial and non-adherence to medication, there remains a need for more proactive management of treatment adherence of patients with schizophrenia to reduce the frequency and consequences of relapse.

Partial or non-adherence to medication is high amongst patients with schizophrenia. Many and often overlapping factors are considered to impact on treatment adherence, including: patient-related (lack of insight, psychotic, negative or cognitive symptoms), treatment-related (adverse effects, insufficient efficacy), environmental (living situation, negative attitudes of relatives/friends), and physician-related (patient-healthcare professionals relationship) factors.

The objective of the ADHES EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) survey was to collect psychiatrist's perceptions of the assessment, reasons and management of partial and non-adherence to medication.

To present psychiatrist's opinion through EMEA of potential reasons for partial or non-adherence

The ADHES survey comprised 20 questions and was conducted in 36 countries across EMEA (over 4500 psychiatrists treating patients with schizophrenia).

Across EMEA 37% of psychiatrists viewed lack of insight as the most important reason for their patients stopping medication. 23% of psychiatrists viewed patient's feeling better and thinking it unnecessary to take medication as the most important reason for their patients stopping medication. 7% or less of psychiatrists viewed undesirable side effects, insufficient efficacy, cognitive impairment or drug/alcohol abuse as the most important reasons for their patients stopping medication.

In this survey, psychiatrists estimated that patient’s lack of insight and subjective improvement could constitute the main factors explaining poor adherence. Other factors (i.e., side effects, substance abuse) were regarded as less important. Strategies aimed at raising awareness of maintaining treatment, are warranted within EMEA, with the aim of improving clinical outcomes.

Rates of non-adherence of up to 72% have being reported, in schizophrenia, depending on the method used and the patient population. Rates of approximately 59% over 1 year have been reported for individuals with a first episode. Patients who stop medication are almost five times more likely to experience relapse than adherent patients. Failure to adhere to medication can have a major impact on the course of illness and treatment outcomes.

The EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) ADHES schizophrenia survey was a survey of psychiatrists across the region, treating patients with schizophrenia, designed to canvas their perceptions of assessment, potential reasons and management for partial or non-adherence to medication amongst their patients.

To present methodology and demographics of the EMEA ADHES survey in schizophrenia.

The EMEA ADHES survey comprised 20 questions and was conducted in 36 countries across EMEA. In addition to recording the gender, age and practice setting of the respondents, questions related directly to the issue of partial-/non-adherence in patients with schizophrenia.

The survey was conducted amongst psychiatrists (including neurologists with psychiatric background in Germany) from January - March 2010. Results were obtained from 4722 respondents. Psychiatrists perceived that during the previous month more than half of their patients (53%) were partially or non-adherent across all EMEA regions

The EMEA ADHES schizophrenia survey is a large and geographically broad survey providing insight on psychiatrists’ perceptions of the assessment, causes and management of partial and non-adherence to medication.

Partial/non-adherence to medication is common amongst patients with schizophrenia. Nurses play an important role in assessing and managing mental health problems and are often involved in helping patients manage and adhere to their medication. As such, the perception of nurses regarding the burden and potential causes of non-adherence is vital in addressing the adherence problem.

The ADHES nurses survey collected opinions of nurses across the EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) region.

To ascertain nurses' perceptions of assessment, potential causes and management of partial/non-adherence to medication in patients with schizophrenia.

The survey was conducted from January-March 2010 in 29 countries across EMEA, comprising 14 questions addressing the issue of partial/non-adherence and the use of long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic medication in patients with schizophrenia.

Results were obtained from 4120 respondents. Nurses estimated high levels of partial/non-adherence (mean 54%) amongst patients with schizophrenia and 85% believed improving medication adherence would have a huge/sizable impact on patient outcomes. 93% believed that continuous medication with an LAI would have long-term benefits for patients with schizophrenia, and that many patients (mean 40%) would prefer LAI medication.

Nurses recognize the issue of partial/non-adherence to medication in patients with schizophrenia. Most nurses believe patients are well informed about LAI antipsychotics, however, approximately a third of nurses believe patients to be poorly informed. There is a need to address the problem of partial/non-adherence in clinical practice with a multidisciplinary approach to avoid suboptimal treatment outcomes in patients with schizophrenia.