Cognitive screening for adult psychiatric outpatients: Comparison of the Cognivue® to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment

In this editorial we comment on the article by Cahn-Hidalgo D published in a recent issue of the World Journal of Psychiatry 2020;10(1);1-11.We focus on the importance of utilizing psychometrically valid cognitive screening tools when assessing for cognitive decline in older adults in a psychiatric outpatient setting.We compared the use of Cognivue®to use of the montreal cognitive assessment(MoCA)as a cognitive screening tool.A total of 58 patients aged 55 and over participated in this comparison study.Patients completed cognitive screening on Cognivue®,a new Food and Drug Administration-cleared computer screening device,and the MoCA.The results of patient performance using these two instruments were analyzed.Sixteen(28%)patients screened negative for cognitive impairment on both assessments.Forty-two(72%)patients screened positive on one or both of the assessments.There was 43%agreement between Cognivue®and the MoCA in identifying patients with cognitive impairment,and individual subtests were weakly correlated.The MoCA was determined to be the preferred instrument due to its high sensitivity and specificity(100%and 87%,respectively)when screening for cognitive impairment.We propose that the use of Cognivue®cognitive screening tool be closely reviewed until more research proves that the test meets the standards for reliability and validity.It is important for clinicians to remember that screeners should not be used to diagnosis patients with neurocognitive disorders;instead,they should be used to determine whether further evaluation is warranted.Additionally,misdiagnosing of neurocognitive disorders can pose unnecessary psychological and emotional harm to patients and their families and also lead to incorrect treatment and undue healthcare costs.

A randomized clinical trial investigating treatment choice in Chinese men receiving sildenafil citrate and tadalafil for treating erectile dysfunction

Sildenafil and tadalafil are efficacious and well tolerated in Chinese men with erectile dysfunction （ED）. Recent study results indicate that men with ED in China who were naive to phosphodiesterase inhibitor type 5 （PDE5） therapy prefer tadalafil 20-mg （on-demand） versus sildenafil 100-mg （on-demand）. Differences in psychosocial outcomes may help to explain treatment preference in favor of tadalafih This open-label, randomized, crossover study compared psychosocial outcomes and drug attribute choices between tadalafil and sildenafil in Chinese men with ED na＇（ve to PDE5 inhibitor therapy. Eligible patients were randomized to sequential 20-mg tadalafU/lOO-mg sildenafil （n = 190） or 100-mg sildenafil/20-mg tadalafil （n = 193） for 8 weeks each and were asked which treatment they preferred to take for the 8-week extension phase. Psychosocial outcomes were assessed using the Psychological and Interpersonal Relationship Scale （PAIRS）, Drug Attributes Questionnaire （DRAQ）, and Sexual Life Quality Questionnaire （SLQQ）. When taking tadalafil versus sildenafil, men had a higher mean endpoint score on the PAIRS Spontaneity Domain （tadalafil = 2.86 vs sildenafil = 2.72; P 〈 0.001）, and a lower mean endpoint score on the Time Concerns Domain （tadalafil = 2.41 vs sildenafil = 2.55; P 〈 0.001）. A numerical increase in the Sexual Self-Confidence Domain was observed when taking tadalafil versus sildenafil （tadalafil -- 2.76 vs sildenafil = 2.72; P= 0.102）. The most frequently chosen drug attributes explaining treatment preference were able to get an erection long after having drug, and ability to get an erection every time. SLQQ results were comparable between treatment groups. These psychosocial outcomes may explain why more Chinese men preferred tadalafil versus sildenafil for the treatment of ED in this clinical trial.

Mental health outcomes among patients from Fangcang shelter hospitals exposed to coronavirus disease 2019: An observational cross-sectional study

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is not only attacking physical health, but it is also increasing psychological suffering. This study aimed to observe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health outcomes among patients with mild to moderate illness in Fangcang shelter hospitals.Methods: We conducted an observational, cross-sectional study of 129 patients with mild to moderate illness from Jiangxia Fangcang shelter hospitals in Wuhan, China. The participants were assessed by quantifying their symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and stressful life events and analyzing potential risk factors associated with these symptoms. Using correlation analysis, we examined associations between exposure to COVID-19 and subsequent psychological distress in response to the outbreak.Results: In total, 49.6% of participants had depressive or anxiety symptoms. The depressive and anxiety symptoms were highly related to sleep disturbances and hypochondriasis (allr > 0.50,P < 0.01). The impact of the event was positively related to depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, sleep disturbances, hypochondriasis and life events (allr > 0.35,P < 0.01) but was negatively related to psychological resilience (r = -0.41,P < 0.01). The presence of the COVID-19 infection in this setting was associated with increased anxiety, depression and stress levels, and decreased sleep quality, and seriously affected patients’ quality of life as well as adversely affecting the course and prognosis of physical diseases.Conclusion: The sleep quality, anxiety, and depression of COVID-19 patients in Fangcang shelter hospitals were significantly related to the impact of the epidemic.