Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 16(6): e0253154, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1278187

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Cohorts of hospitalized COVID-19 patients have been studied in several countries since the beginning of the pandemic. So far, there is no complete survey of older patients in a German district that includes both outpatients and inpatients. In this retrospective observational cohort study, we aimed to investigate risk factors, mortality, and functional outcomes of all patients with COVID-19 aged 70 and older living in the district of Tübingen in the southwest of Germany. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed all 256 patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in one of the earliest affected German districts during the first wave of the disease from February to April 2020. To ensure inclusion of all infected patients, we analysed reported data from the public health department as well as the results of a comprehensive screening intervention in all nursing homes of the district (n = 1169). Furthermore, we examined clinical data of all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (n = 109). RESULTS: The all-cause mortality was 18%. Screening in nursing homes showed a point-prevalence of 4.6%. 39% of residents showed no COVID-specific symptoms according to the official definition at that time. The most important predictors of mortality were the need for inpatient treatment (odds ratio (OR): 3.95 [95%-confidence interval (CI): 2.00-7.86], p<0.001) and care needs before infection (non-hospitalized patients: OR: 3.79 [95%-CI: 1.01-14.27], p = 0.037, hospitalized patients: OR: 2.89 [95%-CI 1.21-6.92], p = 0.015). Newly emerged care needs were a relevant complication of COVID-19: 27% of previously self-sufficient patients who survived the disease were not able to return to their home environment after discharge from the hospital. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate the importance of a differentiated view of risk groups and long-term effects within the older population. These findings should be included in the political and social debate during the ongoing pandemic to evaluate the true effect of COVID-19 on healthcare systems and individual functional status.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Inpatients/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , Outpatients/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Data Collection/methods , Data Collection/statistics & numerical data , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/physiology
2.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 7169, 2021 03 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1160544

ABSTRACT

In current international classification systems (ICD-10, DSM5), the diagnostic criteria for psychotic disorders (e.g. schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder) are based on symptomatic descriptions since no unambiguous biomarkers are known to date. However, when underlying causes of psychotic symptoms, like inflammation, ischemia, or tumor affecting the neural tissue can be identified, a different classification is used ("psychotic disorder with delusions due to known physiological condition" (ICD-10: F06.2) or psychosis caused by medical factors (DSM5)). While CSF analysis still is considered optional in current diagnostic guidelines for psychotic disorders, CSF biomarkers could help to identify known physiological conditions. In this retrospective, partly descriptive analysis of 144 patients with psychotic symptoms and available CSF data, we analyzed CSF examinations' significance to differentiate patients with specific etiological factors (F06.2) from patients with schizophrenia, schizotypal, delusional, and other non-mood psychotic disorders (F2). In 40.3% of all patients, at least one CSF parameter was out of the reference range. Abnormal CSF-findings were found significantly more often in patients diagnosed with F06.2 (88.2%) as compared to patients diagnosed with F2 (23.8%, p < 0.00001). A total of 17 cases were identified as probably caused by specific etiological factors (F06.2), of which ten cases fulfilled the criteria for a probable autoimmune psychosis linked to the following autoantibodies: amphiphysin, CASPR2, CV2, LGl1, NMDA, zic4, and titin. Two cases presented with anti-thyroid tissue autoantibodies. In four cases, further probable causal factors were identified: COVID-19, a frontal intracranial tumor, multiple sclerosis (n = 2), and neurosyphilis. Twenty-one cases remained with "no reliable diagnostic classification". Age at onset of psychotic symptoms differed between patients diagnosed with F2 and F06.2 (p = 0.014), with the latter group being older (median: 44 vs. 28 years). Various CSF parameters were analyzed in an exploratory analysis, identifying pleocytosis and oligoclonal bands (OCBs) as discriminators (F06.2 vs. F2) with a high specificity of > 96% each. No group differences were found for gender, characteristics of psychotic symptoms, substance dependency, or family history. This study emphasizes the great importance of a detailed diagnostic workup in diagnosing psychotic disorders, including CSF analysis, to detect possible underlying pathologies and improve treatment decisions.


Subject(s)
Psychotic Disorders/cerebrospinal fluid , Adolescent , Adult , Age of Onset , Aged , Autoimmune Diseases of the Nervous System/cerebrospinal fluid , Autoimmune Diseases of the Nervous System/psychology , Biomarkers/cerebrospinal fluid , COVID-19/psychology , Cerebrospinal Fluid Proteins/analysis , Child , Child, Preschool , Humans , Middle Aged , Psychotic Disorders/etiology , Psychotic Disorders/psychology , Retrospective Studies , Schizophrenia/cerebrospinal fluid , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL