ABSTRACT
Objective: The "centrality of events scale" (CES) was formed to determine to what extent this localisation cancer disease was by fear of COVID-19 in cancer patients or how centralised the cognitive trauma was in this patient group.Materials and Methods: In the first paragraph of the short 7-item CES, it was written, "Please think about the most stressful or traumatic event in your life", then 3 options were given. These and C) Other. After marking one of these options, the subjects were instructed to mark their level of agreement with the 7 items as stated by Berntsen and Rubin, and thus this section was the same as the original questionnaire. To be able to evaluate the questionnaire results taking the disease characteristics into account, a record was made of age, gender, treatment history (chemotherapy and radiotherapy), spread, local, metastatic).The questionnaires were administered to all the cancer patients who presented at the oncology clinic between 1 April and 1 October 2020.Results:This study was conducted to seek an answer to this question, and it was seen that of a total of 523 patients diagnosed with cancer, the vast majority (n:368, 70.4%) saw the most traumatic and stressful event of their life as cancer, with the response to option A on the questionnaire. The possibility of contracting COVID-19 was selected by 83 (15.9%) patients as the most stressful or traumatic event in their life. The option of C was marked by 72 (13.8%) patients. This showed that neither cancer nor fear of coronavirus infection was strong enough to replace the traumatic event experienced and centred in the identity of these 72 patients. These traumas of the patients were analyzed with the mean CES points. The highest points were obtained by those who marked option A, at 3.71, which was statistically significantly higher than the 3.29 points for B and 3.29 points for C (p:0.004).Conclusion:A trauma left in the past actually lives on in the cognitive memory and may even be established at the centre of the self and personal identity. Thus, by modifying the short 7-item CES, developed by Berntsen and Rubin to be an objective, measurable format, the results of this study demonstratated both the extent to which the possibility of contracting COVID-19 has started to be established in cancer patients and the unshakable but declining centrality of cancer in the traumatic past.
ABSTRACT
Background. Patients with hematological malignancy or other cancers as well as immunosuppression bear a high risk for severe COVID-19. Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) are efficient at early stages of the disease but may lose potency with new variants. Trials on plasma from convalescent donors in unselected patients have not shown clinical benefit. No randomized trials focussing on patients with underlying disease have been published. Methods. We conducted an open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to evaluate efficacy of plasma (CVP - convalescent or after vaccination) in patients with COVID-19 at high risk for adverse outcome in Germany. We assessed the effect of high-titer CVP (2 units from different donors, 238-337 ml each, on subsequent days). Patients with hematological or other malignancy (group 1), immunosuppression (group 2), age >50 and <=75 years and lymphopenia and/or high D-dimers (group 3) or age >75 years (group 4) who were hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and with an oxygen saturation <=94% were included. Primary outcome measure was time to clinical improvement on a seven-point ordinal scale, secondary outcome was mortality (Janssen et al. Trials 2020 Oct 6;21(1):828). Results. Overall, 133 patients were randomized, 68 received CVP with an additional 10 patients as a crossover on day 10. Median age (range) was 68 years (39-95) in the CVP group and 70 (38-90) in controls. For the entire cohort, no significant difference was seen in time to improvement (median days: CVP 12.5 vs. control 18;HR 1.24 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.85), p=0.29). Subgroup analysis (group 1+2) revealed shortened time to improvement (median days CVP 13 vs. control 32;HR 2.03 (95%CI 1.17-3.6), p=0.01) and mortality was reduced (mortality CVP n=6 (18%) vs. control n=10 (29%). No significant differences in time to improvement were observed in group 3 or 4 (HR 0.72 (95%CI 0.41-1.28), p=0.26). No relevant adverse events were observed. Conclusion. CVP improves time to clinical improvement and mortality for COVID-19 patients with underlying hematological disease/cancer or other reasons of impaired immune response. Even with new variants, high-titer CVP may offer a widely available and inexpensive therapy option in high-risk groups. Funding. BMBF FKZ 01KI20152;EudraCT 2020-001632-10.
ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic crisis of 2020 with its policy measures and economic impacts has negatively affected the tourism industry, which is regarded as the most negatively affected one due to the nature of the sector, both directly and indirectly. In other words, through its policy measures such as restrictions on travel, it has affected the tourism sector directly, and through its economic impacts such as decreasing GDP per capita and hence total demand, it has influenced the tourism sector indirectly. In this regard, the aim of this study is to empirically investigate the economic impacts of the pandemic on tourism of the developing world for the case of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis of 2020. This is done by a panel data analysis including 38 developing countries for the nine months of 2020, January-September, the ongoing era of pandemic crisis of 2020 considering the available data. The findings support the main hypothesis of the study. © 2021, IGI Global.
ABSTRACT
Background: Therapy options are limited for COVID-19 patients with hematological disease, cancer, immunosuppression or adanced age. Een though no benefit was obsered for conalescent plasma in unselected patients with COVID-19, retrospectie data suggest that it could be effectie in patients unable to mount a sufficient immune response upon SARS-CoV-2 infection. Plasma from accinated donors has not been systematically assessed for COVID-19 treatment. Aims: We conducted a randomized clinical trial to address plasma efficacy in patients at high risk for an aderse outcome. Methods: COVID-19 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and oxygen saturation <=94% were randomized (NCT05200754). Patients receied conalescent or accinated SARS-CoV-2 plasma in two bags (238 - 337 ml plasma each) from different donors on day 1 and 2 (PLASMA) or standard of care (CONTROL). Randomization was stratified according to four clinical patient groups, hematological/solid cancer (group-1), treatment or disease associated immunosuppression (group 2), high risk disease by standard parameters (group-3) or age >=75 years (group-4). Mechanically entilated patients were not eligible. Plasma was obtained from donors with high leel neutralizing actiity (titer >=1:80) either after SARS-CoV-2 infection (conalescent) or after accination with at least two doses of mRNA accines (accinated). Crossoer for the control group was allowed at day 10. The primary endpoint was time to improement as two points on a seen-point ordinal scale or lie discharge from the Hospital (IMPROVEMENT) with prespecified analyses of subgroups (Janssen M, et al. Trials 2020 Oct 6;21(1):828). Results: A total of 133 patients were randomized with 68 receiing PLASMA with a median age of 68 years (range 36-95) or CONTROL (n=65, of which n=10 (15.4%) crossed oer at day 10) with a median age of 70 years (range 38-90). The distribution of the four predefined groups was group-1, n=53;group-2, n=18;group-3, n=35;and group-4, n=27. The intention to treat analysis reealed a non-significant shorter time to IMPROVEMENT for patients in PLASMA (median 12.5 days, 95%-CI [10;16]) compared to patients in CONTROL (median 18 days, 95%-CI [11;28] ), hazard ratio 1.24, 95% confidence interal [0.83;1.85], p=0.29). Oerall, 27 patients died (PLASMA, n=12;CONTROL, n=15;p=0.80). Predefined subgroup analysis reealed a clinically significant benefit in patients with hematological malignancies, other cancers or immunosuppression (group-1, group-2, n=71). With a median time to improement of 13 days (95%-CI [9;19]) for PLASMA and 32 days (95%-CI [17;57]) for CONTROL(HR 2.03, 95%-CI [1.17;3.6], p=0.01). A sensitiity analysis reealed that IMPROVEMENT appeared to be seen een earlier with accinated (median 10 days, 95%-CI [8;14]) compared to conalescent SARS-CoV-2 plasma (median 13 days, 95%-CI [6;38]) and CONTROL. Within group-1 and group-2, six patients in PLASMA (18.2%) and 10 in CONTROL (28.6%) died. No significant differences in improement were obsered in group-3 and group-4 with a HR of 0.72 (95%-CI [0.41;1.28], p=0.26). Within group-3 and group-4, six patients in PLASMA (18.8%) and fie in CONTROL (16.7%) died. No preiously unknown side effects of plasma therapy emerged within the trial. Summary/Conclusion: Plasma from conalescent and particularly accinated donors improed outcome of COVID-19 patients with an underlying hematological disease /cancer or other reasons of impaired immune response. Plasma did not improe outcome in immune-competent patients with other risk factors and/or older age. (Figure Presented).
ABSTRACT
Purpose: In this study, we compared the roles of inflammatory parameters such as neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR), C-reactive protein/lymphocyte ratio (CLR), monocyte/lymphocyte ratio (MLR), neutrophil/platelet ratio (NPR), neutrophil/monocyte ratio (NMR), CRP/albumin ratio (CAR), BUN/albumin ratio (BAR), MELD-XI score and 4C mortality score in predicting in-hospital mortality risk in COVID-19. Materials and Methods: A total of 117 patients over 18 years old with a PCR-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 between June 2020 and February 2021 were retrospectively included. The roles of parameters for independently predicting in-hospital mortality were determined and compared with each other using appropriate statistical methods. Results: Age, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, acute kidney injury, and length of hospital stay, urea, creatinine, LDH, AST, ferritin, D-dimer, CRP, albumin, Hb, CLR, BAR, CAR, MELD-XI score, and 4C mortality score were significantly correlated to in-hospital mortality. However, only the 4C mortality score and AST independently predicted in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 [OR 2.08 (%95 CI 1.06-2.36), for 4C mortality score, and OR 1.05 (%95 CI 1.00-1.10), for AST]. Conclusion: Unlike other mortality-related inflammatory parameters, the 4C mortality score and AST were independent and strong predictors of mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.