Abstract Background Patients with a mental illness are more likely to develop, and die from, cardiovascular diseases (CVD), necessitating optimal CVD-risk (CVR)-assessment to enable early detection and treatment. Whereas psychiatrists use the metabolic syndrome (MetS)-concept to estimate CVR, GPs use absolute risk-models. Additionally, two PRIMROSE-models have been specifically designed for patients with severe mental illness. We aimed to assess the agreement in risk-outcomes between these CVR-methods. Methods To compare risk-outcomes across the various CVR-methods, we used somatic information of psychiatric outpatients from the PHAMOUS-, and MOPHAR-database, aged 40–70 years, free of past or current CVD and diabetes. We investigated: (1) the degree-of-agreement between categorical assessments (i.e. MetS-status vs. binary risk-categories); (2) non-parametric correlations between the number of MetS-criteria and absolute risks; and (3) strength-of-agreement between absolute risks. Results Seven thousand twenty-nine measurements of 3509 PHAMOUS-patients, and 748 measurements of 748 MOPHAR-patients, were included. There was systematic disagreement between the categorical CVR-assessments (all p < 0.036). Only MetS-status versus binary Framingham-assessment had a fair strength-of-agreement (κ = 0.23–0.28). The number of MetS-criteria and Framingham-scores, as well as MetS-criteria and PRIMROSE lipid-scores, showed a moderate-strong correlation (τ = 0.25–0.34). Finally, only the continuous PRIMROSE desk and lipid-outcomes showed moderate strength-of-agreement (ρ = 0.91). Conclusions The varying methods for CVR-assessment yield unequal risk predictions, and, consequently, carry the risk of significant disparities regarding treatment initiation in psychiatric patients. Considering the significantly increased health-risks in psychiatric patients, CVR-models should be recalibrated to the psychiatric population from adolescence onwards, and uniformly implemented by health care providers. Trial registration The MOPHAR research has been prospectively registered with the Netherlands Trial Register on 19th of November 2014 (NL4779).

OBJECTIVE:Psychiatric conditions are insufficiently highlighted as cardiovascular risk factors in the CVRM guideline. Objectives of this review are 1) to determine if anxiety and mood symptoms/disorders are independent cardiovascular risk factors; 2) to compare this risk to a population without these psychiatric conditions and 3) to ascertain the influence of psychiatric disease severity.DESIGN:Narrative systematic review METHOD: We searched for meta-analyses and systematic reviews in PubMed. Quality assessment by AMSTAR criteria.RESULTS:10 reviews were included from 172 hits. (Sub)clinical depression and mood disorders are associated with an increased independent risk to develop cardiovascular diseases, coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction and cerebrovascular disease. Bipolar disorders increase the cerebrovascular risk, but not myocardial infarction. Anxiety disorders/symptoms heighten the cardiovascular, myocardial and cerebrovascular risk.CONCLUSION:Anxiety and mood symptoms/disorders are independent cardiovascular risk factors. Severe anxiety and mood disorders should be included as separate risk factors in the CVRM guideline.

We describe a 66-year-old female patient with no prior psychiatric history who presented with an unusual psychotic state, largely in accordance with Fregoli syndrome (misidentification of people). Further, the patient suffered from reduplication of time, scenic hallucinations and psychotic perceptions. Symptoms were the result of a brain metastasis originating from a lung carcinoma. We describe the performed (additional) diagnostics and discuss how to differentiate between organic and functional psychosis, as well as the given psychiatric treatment. Finally, potential pathophysiological explanations are discussed that might explain the (reduction of) symptoms in the patient.