Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 20(3)2023 01 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2216056

ABSTRACT

There is a broad consensus accepting that psychological variables such as stress, anxiety, or depression play an important role in bruxism. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in stress, anxiety, and depression levels. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on possible awake and sleep bruxism prevalence and on the psychological factors associated with bruxism, comparing pre-pandemic, pandemic/lockdown, and post-pandemic samples of first-year students. A total of 274 dentistry students from the Complutense University of Madrid participated in the study: 92 from 2018/2019 (pre-pandemic), 90 from 2020/2021 (pandemic), and 92 students from 2021/2022 (post-pandemic) academic years. The participants filled out a thorough battery of validated questionnaires evaluating bruxism and different psychological characteristics, such as anxiety, depression, somatization, personality, and stress coping styles. While sleep bruxism prevalence was significantly higher for the pandemic group, awake bruxism was smaller in comparison to pre-pandemic and post-pandemic groups. The post-pandemic group also presented higher levels of neuroticism and agreeableness personality traits, and positive reappraisal than the pre-pandemic group, with the pandemic group somewhere in between. Additionally, both the pandemic and post-pandemic group showed higher levels of depression and acceptance/resignation coping styles than the pre-pandemic group. Thus, among the three groups of students, the post-pandemic group was the one that showed a larger effect of the pandemic situation in their psychological variables, presenting higher levels of anxiety (state and trait), depression, acceptation/resignation coping style, higher neuroticism (emotional instability trait), and lower agreeableness trait. Nonetheless, the increase of positive reappraisal in the post-pandemic group (an adaptive coping stress style) might be also a sign of recovery. The higher sleep bruxism for the pandemic group might be related to the pandemic situation and lockdown, passively suffered, possibly promoting feelings of impotency, increased levels of depression and acceptance/resignation (normally considered a passive/maladaptive coping style), while acute stressful situations derived from daily personal social interactions might have increased anxiety levels and induced higher levels of awake bruxism observed in both the pre-pandemic and post-pandemic groups. However, further research, including larger and more representative samples, is needed to confirm this possible relationship.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Sleep Bruxism , Humans , Pandemics , Sleep Bruxism/epidemiology , Prevalence , Universities , Wakefulness , Stress, Psychological/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Adaptation, Psychological , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/psychology , Students
2.
BMJ Open ; 12(6): e057464, 2022 06 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1901997

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To determine the disease burden of acute lower respiratory tract disease (aLRTD) and its subsets (pneumonia, lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) and heart failure) in hospitalised adults in Bristol, UK. SETTING: Single-centre, secondary care hospital, Bristol, UK. DESIGN: We estimated aLRTD hospitalisations incidence in adults (≥18 years) in Bristol, UK, using two approaches. First, retrospective International Classification of Diseases 10th revision (ICD-10) code analysis (first five positions/hospitalisation) identified aLRTD events over a 12-month period (March 2018 to February 2019). Second, during a 21-day prospective review (19 August 2019 to 9 September 2019), aLRTD admissions were identified, categorised by diagnosis and subsequently annualised. Hospital catchment denominators were calculated using linked general practice and hospitalisation data, with each practice's denominator contribution calculated based on practice population and per cent of the practices' hospitalisations admitted to the study hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Prospective review: 1322 adults screened; 410 identified with aLRTD. Retrospective review: 7727 adult admissions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence of aLRTD and its subsets in the adult population of Southmead Hospital, Bristol UK. RESULTS: Based on ICD-10 code analysis, annual incidences per 100 000 population were: aLRTD, 1901; pneumonia, 591; LRTI, 739; heart failure, 402. aLRTD incidence was highest among those ≥65 years: 65-74 (3684 per 100 000 adults), 75-84 (6962 per 100 000 adults) and ≥85 (11 430 per 100 000 adults). During the prospective review, 410/1322 (31%) hospitalised adults had aLRTD signs/symptoms and annualised incidences closely replicated retrospective analysis results. CONCLUSIONS: The aLRTD disease burden was high, increasing sharply with age. The aLRTD incidence is probably higher than estimated previously due to criteria specifying respiratory-specific symptoms or radiological change, usage of only the first diagnosis code and mismatch between case count sources and population denominators. This may have significant consequences for healthcare planning, including usage of current and future vaccinations against respiratory infection.


Subject(s)
Heart Failure , Pneumonia , Respiration Disorders , Respiratory Tract Infections , Adult , Heart Failure/epidemiology , Heart Failure/therapy , Hospitalization , Humans , Incidence , Pneumonia/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , United Kingdom/epidemiology
3.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 21(11): 1539-1548, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1633405

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: On Dec 8, 2020, deployment of the first SARS-CoV-2 vaccination authorised for UK use (BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine) began, followed by an adenoviral vector vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 on Jan 4, 2021. Care home residents and staff, frontline health-care workers, and adults aged 80 years and older were vaccinated first. However, few data exist regarding the effectiveness of these vaccines in older people with many comorbidities. In this post-implementation evaluation of two COVID-19 vaccines, we aimed to determine the effectiveness of one dose in reducing COVID-19-related admissions to hospital in people of advanced age. METHODS: This prospective test-negative case-control study included adults aged at least 80 years who were admitted to hospital in two NHS trusts in Bristol, UK with signs and symptoms of respiratory disease. Patients who developed symptoms before receiving their vaccine or those who received their vaccine after admission to hospital were excluded, as were those with symptoms that started more than 10 days before hospital admission. We did logistic regression analysis, controlling for time (week), sex, index of multiple deprivations, and care residency status, and sensitivity analyses matched for time and sex using a conditional logistic model adjusting for index of multiple deprivations and care residency status. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number 39557. FINDINGS: Between Dec 18, 2020, and Feb 26, 2021, 466 adults were eligible (144 test-positive and 322 test-negative). 18 (13%) of 135 people with SARS-CoV-2 infection and 90 (34%) of 269 controls received one dose of BNT162b2. The adjusted vaccine effectiveness was 71·4% (95% CI 46·5-90·6). Nine (25%) of 36 people with COVID-19 infection and 53 (59%) of 90 controls received one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. The adjusted vaccine effectiveness was 80·4% (95% CI 36·4-94·5). When BNT162b2 effectiveness analysis was restricted to the period covered by ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, the estimate was 79·3% (95% CI 47·0-92·5). INTERPRETATION: One dose of either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 resulted in substantial risk reductions of COVID-19-related hospitalisation in people aged at least 80 years. FUNDING: Pfizer.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Age Factors , Aged, 80 and over , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Case-Control Studies , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , England/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Immunization Schedule , Incidence , Male , Mass Vaccination/methods , Mass Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Treatment Outcome
4.
J Clin Med ; 10(19)2021 Sep 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1438633

ABSTRACT

STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective, multicenter, and observational study with the aim of describing physiological characteristics, respiratory management, and outcomes of children with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) from different etiologies receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) compared with those affected by SARS-CoV-2. METHODS AND MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria: 9 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 19 patients without COVID-19. Non-COVID-19 patients had more pre-existing comorbidities (78.9% vs. 44.4%) than COVID-19 patients. At AHRF onset, non-COVID-19 patients had worse oxygenation (PaO2/FiO2 = 95 mmHg (65.5-133) vs. 150 mmHg (105-220), p = 0.04), oxygenation index = 15.9 (11-28.4) vs. 9.3 (6.7-10.6), p = 0.01), and higher PaCO2 (48 mmHg (46.5-63) vs. 41 mmHg (40-45), p = 0.07, that remained higher at 48 h: 54 mmHg (43-58.7) vs. 41 (38.5-45.5), p = 0.03). In 12 patients (5 COVID-19 and 7 non-COVID-19), AHRF evolved to pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS). All non-COVID-19 patients had severe PARDS, while 3 out of 5 patients in the COVID-19 group had mild or moderate PARDS. Overall Pediatric Intensive Care Medicine (PICU) mortality was 14.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Children with AHRF due to SARS-CoV2 infection had fewer comorbidities and better oxygenation than patients with non-COVID-19 AHRF. In this study, progression to severe PARDS was rarely observed in children with COVID-19.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL