Background The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) presents unique challenges in health care, including mental health care provision. Telepsychiatry can provide an alternative to face-to-face assessment and can also be used creatively with other technologies to enhance care, but clinicians and patients may feel underconfident about embracing this new way of working. Objective The aim of this paper is to produce an open-access, easy-to-consult, and reliable source of information and guidance about telepsychiatry and COVID-19 using an evidence-based approach. Methods We systematically searched existing English language guidelines and websites for information on telepsychiatry in the context of COVID-19 up to and including May 2020. We used broad search criteria and included pre–COVID-19 guidelines and other digital mental health topics where relevant. We summarized the data we extracted as answers to specific clinical questions. Results Findings from this study are presented as both a short practical checklist for clinicians and detailed textboxes with a full summary of all the guidelines. The summary textboxes are also available on an open-access webpage, which is regularly updated. These findings reflected the strong evidence base for the use of telepsychiatry and included guidelines for many of the common concerns expressed by clinicians about practical implementation, technology, information governance, and safety. Guidelines across countries differ significantly, with UK guidelines more conservative and focused on practical implementation and US guidelines more expansive and detailed. Guidelines on possible combinations with other digital technologies such as apps (eg, from the US Food and Drug Administration, the National Health Service Apps Library, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) are less detailed. Several key areas were not represented. Although some special populations such as child and adolescent, and older adult, and cultural issues are specifically included, important populations such as learning disabilities, psychosis, personality disorder, and eating disorders, which may present particular challenges for telepsychiatry, are not. In addition, the initial consultation and follow-up sessions are not clearly distinguished. Finally, a hybrid model of care (combining telepsychiatry with other technologies and in-person care) is not explicitly covered by the existing guidelines. Conclusions We produced a comprehensive synthesis of guidance answering a wide range of clinical questions in telepsychiatry. This meets the urgent need for practical information for both clinicians and health care organizations who are rapidly adapting to the pandemic and implementing remote consultation. It reflects variations across countries and can be used as a basis for organizational change in the short- and long-term. Providing easily accessible guidance is a first step but will need cultural change to implement as clinicians start to view telepsychiatry not just as a replacement but as a parallel and complementary form of delivering therapy with its own advantages and benefits as well as restrictions. A combination or hybrid approach can be the most successful approach in the new world of mental health post–COVID-19, and guidance will need to expand to encompass the use of telepsychiatry in conjunction with other in-person and digital technologies, and its use across all psychiatric disorders, not just those who are the first to access and engage with remote treatment.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic required mental health services around the world to adapt quickly to the new restrictions and regulations put in place to reduce the risk of transmission. As face-to-face contact became difficult, virtual methods were implemented to continue to safely provide mental health care. However, it is unclear to what extent service provision transitioned to telemental health worldwide. Objective We aimed to systematically review the global research literature on how mental health service provision adapted during the first year of the pandemic. Methods We searched systematically for quantitative papers focusing on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health services published until April 13, 2021, in the PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, and bioXriv electronic bibliographic databases, using the COVID-19 Open Access Project online platform. The screening process and data extraction were independently completed by at least two authors, and any disagreement was resolved by discussion with a senior member of the team. The findings were summarized narratively in the context of each country’s COVID-19 Stringency Index, which reflects the stringency of a government’s response to COVID-19 restrictions at a specific time. Results Of the identified 24,339 records, 101 papers were included after the screening process. Reports on general services (n=72) showed that several countries’ face-to-face services reduced their activities at the start of the pandemic, with reductions in the total number of delivered visits and with some services forced to close. In contrast, telemental health use rapidly increased in many countries across the world at the beginning of the pandemic (n=55), with almost complete virtualization of general and specialistic care services by the end of the first year. Considering the reported COVID-19 Stringency Index values, the increased use of virtual means seems to correspond to periods when the Stringency Index values were at their highest in several countries. However, due to specific care requirements, telemental health could not be used in certain subgroups of patients, such as those on clozapine or depot treatments and those who continued to need face-to-face visits. Conclusions During the pandemic, mental health services had to adapt quickly in the short term, implementing or increasing the use of telemental health services across the globe. Limited access to digital means, poor digital skills, and patients’ preferences and individual needs may have contributed to differences in implementing and accessing telemental health services during the pandemic. In the long term, a blended approach, combining in-person and virtual modalities, that takes into consideration the needs, preferences, and digital skills of patients may better support the future development of mental health services. It will be required to improve confidence with digital device use, training, and experience in all modalities for both clinicians and service users.

Rationale Lithium is an effective prophylactic and anti-manic treatment in bipolar disorder; however, its use is declining through perceived poor tolerance and toxicity. Lithium inhibits inositol monophosphatase (IMPase), a probable key therapeutic mechanism. The anti-inflammatory drug, ebselen, also inhibits IMPase and appears well-tolerated and safe. Objectives To assess the efficacy of adjunctive ebselen in mania using the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) (primary outcome) and the Altman Self-Rating Mania (ASRM) Scale and Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S) among the secondary outcomes. Methods Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial conducted between October 2017 and June 2019, at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. Pharmacy-controlled randomisation was computer-generated, with full allocation concealment. In/outpatients (n = 68) aged 18–70, experiencing mania or hypomania, were assigned to 3 weeks ebselen (600 mg bd) (n = 33) or placebo (n = 35). Participants received usual clinical care and psychotropic medication. Results Ebselen was numerically, but not statistically, superior to placebo in lowering scores on the YMRS (adjusted mean difference and 95% confidence interval, − 1.71 (− 5.34 to 1.91), p = 0.35) and ASRM (− 1.36 (− 3.75 to 1.17), p = 0.29). However, scores on the CGI-S were significantly lower at week 3 in ebselen-treated participants (adjusted mean difference, − 0.58 (− 1.14 to − 0.03), p = 0.04). A post hoc analysis excluding patients taking concomitant valproate treatment magnified the difference between ebselen and placebo on the YMRS. Adverse events were comparable between groups, and mild. Conclusions Ebselen merits further investigation where concomitant psychotropic medication is better controlled and participants taking valproate are excluded. If effective, ebselen’s superior tolerance and safety could make it a useful alternative to lithium. Trial registration Trial Registry: www.clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier: NCT03013400.

ObjectiveTo ascertain patient eligibility status and describe coverage of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nMAB) as treatment for covid-19 in community settings in England.DesignRetrospective, descriptive cohort study, approved by NHS England.SettingRoutine clinical data from 23.4 million people linked to data on covid-19 infection and treatment, within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database.ParticipantsOutpatients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes.InterventionsNirmatrelvir/ritonavir (paxlovid), sotrovimab, molnupiravir, casirivimab/imdevimab, or remdesivir, used in the community by covid-19 medicine delivery units.Results93 870 outpatients with covid-19 were identified between 11 December 2021 and 28 April 2022 to be at high risk of severe outcomes and therefore potentially eligible for antiviral or nMAB treatment (or both). Of these patients, 19 040 (20%) received treatment (sotrovimab, 9660 (51%); molnupiravir, 4620 (24%); paxlovid, 4680 (25%); casirivimab/imdevimab, 50 (<1%); and remdesivir, 30 (<1%)). The proportion of patients treated increased from 9% (190/2220) in the first week of treatment availability to 29% (460/1600) in the latest week. The proportion treated varied by high risk group, being lowest in those with liver disease (16%; 95% confidence interval 15% to 17%); by treatment type, with sotrovimab favoured over molnupiravir and paxlovid in all but three high risk groups (Down's syndrome (35%; 30% to 39%), rare neurological conditions (45%; 43% to 47%), and immune deficiencies (48%; 47% to 50%)); by age, ranging from ≥80 years (13%; 12% to 14%) to 50-59 years (23%; 22% to 23%); by ethnic group, ranging from black (11%; 10% to 12%) to white (21%; 21% to 21%); by NHS region, ranging from 13% (12% to 14%) in Yorkshire and the Humber to 25% (24% to 25%) in the East of England); and by deprivation level, ranging from 15% (14% to 15%) in the most deprived areas to 23% (23% to 24%) in the least deprived areas. Groups that also had lower coverage included unvaccinated patients (7%; 6% to 9%), those with dementia (6%; 5% to 7%), and care home residents (6%; 6% to 7%).ConclusionsUsing the OpenSAFELY platform, we were able to identify patients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes who were potentially eligible to receive treatment and assess the coverage of these new treatments among these patients. In the context of a rapid deployment of a new service, the NHS analytical code used to determine eligibility could have been over-inclusive and some of the eligibility criteria not fully captured in healthcare data. However targeted activity might be needed to resolve apparent lower treatment coverage observed among certain groups, in particular (at present): different NHS regions, ethnic groups, people aged ≥80 years, those living in socioeconomically deprived areas, and care home residents.