OBJECTIVES: This review aims to clear the polemics of COVID-19 vaccine-antidepressants interaction in these 3 aspects: (1) cytokines and cytochrome P450 pathway, (2) blood-brain barrier (BBB) involvement and (3) and its interaction with polyethylene glycol (PEG), the potential allergenic culprit following COVID-19 vaccination.
METHODS: A systemic scoping approach was employed to search for peer-reviewed journal articles across four healthcare and scientific databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)).
RESULTS: Antidepressants metabolism often involve the CYP450 enzymes. Vaccine-antidepressants interactions are probable, likely to be triggered by interactions of CYP450 enzymes and inflammatory cytokines, resulting in diminished drug metabolism and chemical detoxification. Aside, PEG, the excipient in mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines and antidepressants, has been reported as the anaphylaxis causative allergen. However, whether it leads to a synergistic, potentiation or antagonistic effects when used in combination, remains to be elucidated.
CONCLUSION: Psychotropic medications, including antidepressants, showed potentially relevant safety risk for COVID-19 patients. These vulnerable patient group must be prioritized for early access to safe and efficacious COVID-19 vaccines, as vaccination remains the most important public health intervention to tackle the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS: Theme-oriented discourse analysis of two psychiatric consultation groups: control (n = 17) and intervention (n = 16). In the control group, only a doctor's conversation guide was used; in the intervention group, the conversation guide and a patient decision aid (PDA) were used.
RESULTS: Psychiatrists mainly dominated conversations in both consultation groups. They were less likely to elicit patient treatment-related perspectives in the intervention group as they focused more on delivering the information than obtaining patient perspectives. However, using PDA in the intervention group slightly encouraged patients to participate in decisional talk.
CONCLUSION: The decision support tools did promote SDM performance. Using the conversation guide in both consultation groups encouraged the elicitation of patient perspectives, which helped the psychiatrists in tailoring their recommendations of options based on patient preferences and concerns. Using the PDA in the intervention group created space for treatment discussion and fostered active collaboration in treatment decision making.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our findings have implications for SDM communication skills training and critical reflection on SDM practice.