Serum catestatin is correlated with clinical parameters in non-critical COVID-19 patients

Introduction: Catestatin (CST) is a peptid with imunomodulatory, antiinflammatory, and antimicrobial activities. Acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus can cause a systemic disease range unpredictably from mild flu-like disease to multiple organ failure. Despite many studies and scientific interest for COVID 19, there is lack of information regarding correlation between serum CST levels and clinical course od COVID 19. There are only few studies investigated CST plasma levels at COVID 19 patients, but mostly at ICU-patients, and those studies revealed that COVID 19 patients release significant amounts of CST in the plasma and CST predicts a poor COVID-19 outcome. In our work the aim was to demonstrate plasma CST levels and correlation with clinical outcome in a group of severe COVID 19 patients admitted in non-ICU department. Method(s): The subjects were patients admitted during second surge of COVID 19 in April and May 2020 in non-ICU unit for COVID 19 patients (high dependency unit) in Infectology department of University Hospital Split, Croatia. The reason of admission was pulmonary infiltrates and COVID 19 positivity confirmed with nucleic acid test. In study were included 32 subjects (25 females, 7 males) (Table 1). An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used for serum CST levels assessment. Result(s): We found significant positive correlation between serum CST levels and: C-reactive protein (r = 0.423, p = 0.008), D-dimers (r = 0.395, p = 0.013), hsTNT (high sensitivity troponin T) (r = 0.603, p < 0.001), proBNP (N-terminal-pro brain natriuretic peptide) (r = 0.569, p < 0.001), and hospitalisation days (r = 0.388, p = 0.014). There was significant difference between groups of participants with SOFA < 3 (n = 18) and SOFA > 3 (n = 14) in catestatin serum levels (7.25 +/- 3.66 vs. 11.05 +/- 9.52 ng/ml;p = 0.065). Conclusion(s): This study confirmed that serum CST levels could have important role as clinical prognostic parameter among non-ICU COVID 19 patients.

Emotional changes in people with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction. Given the dependence on other people and special services, and their increased susceptibility to COVID-19 infection, people with disabilities can be considered a vulnerable group in this crisis. Therefore, it was interesting to examine the differences in various emotional states in people with disabilities. Objectives. The first objective was to determine whether there was a difference between the experienced emotional states (loneliness, helplessness, insecurity, happiness, fulfillment, security) before and since the beginning of the pandemic. The second objective was to examine whether there was a difference between the experienced emotional states in relation to the number of household members. Methods. The study included a total of 230 participants, 52.2% of whom were male and 47.8% female. Data were collected through an online survey, and a small percentage of participants used the paper-pencil survey method. Data collection lasted for two months, from January to March 2021. A part of the online form contained questions about emotional states before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to the number of household members. Results. The t-test for dependent samples and a series of ANOVA were conducted. The results of the conducted t-tests for each emotional state indicated a statistically significant difference in the level of experience of each observed emotional state before and since the beginning of the pandemic. The results of the ANOVA showed that those who lived with three or more household members felt less lonely, insecure and helpless, and also happier and more fulfilled compared to those who lived alone or with one or two people. Conclusion. Our role is to think, devise, advocate and implement ways to improve and encourage mental health care, especially in people with disabilities, bearing in mind possible future crisis situations. © 2022,Specijalna Edukacija i Rehabilitacija.All Rights Reserved

Cancer treatment during the COVID19 pandemic at the clinic for radiotherapy and oncology, clinical hospital center rijeka

Introduction: Consequences of COVID19 disease have mostly affected the health care system worldwide, including Croatia. A particularly vulnerable group of oncology patients found themselves in a sensitive and dangerous situation. At the Clinic for Radiotherapy and Oncology of the Clinical Hospital Center Rijeka, we were guided by ESMO guidelines as well as the guidelines of the Croatian Oncology Society, which soon issued instructions for the organization of the oncology service and oncology treatment. Numerous papers and large studies cite different delays in oncology treatment as well as the inability to tumor diagnose in a timely manner. In this research, we will present some of our results and challenges in oncology treatment at our Clinic. Methods: Retrospectively, 55 patients with a diagnosis of malignant disease who had a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 virus were detected from the database of the Clinical Hospital Center Rijeka. In time between March 2020 and February 2021, the same patients were oncologically treated or were in oncological follow-up. The date of a positive PCR test was taken as the first day of COVID19. Results: The median age of the patients was 64 years. The study group consisted of 35 women and 20 men. Most patients had stage IV disease (n=32). At the time of COVID19, 21 patients were receiving chemotherapy, 8 were on hormone therapy, 1 patient was ongoing radiochemotherapy and 1 ongoing radiotherapy, 4 were being treated with immunotherapy, 8 were ongoing biotherapy. Also, 13 patients were not in active treatment but in oncological follow-up. It is interesting to note that patients in chemotherapy treatment became positive on average 11 days after the application of the planned cycle. The primary cancer site of COVID19 patients followed current epidemiological trends, with the largest number of patients with breast cancer (n=19) and colon cancer (n=14). 16 patients state that their possible source of SARSCoV-2 virus infection is a health facility. If we analyze the severity of COVID19 disease, 43 patients had a mild or asymptomatic form of the disease, 6 patients had a developed moderate clinical picture and at some point needed oxygenation. In the analyzed group, we detected 4 patients who had a severe form of the disease, 3 of them died of COVID19 disease. 18 patients were hospitalized in one of the COVID depart ments of our Institution with an average hospitalization time of 8 days. We specifically analyzed the delay in oncology treatment. In 31 patients there was a delay of an average of 22 days. When we analyze the type of oncology therapy, the next cycle of chemotherapy was delayed by an average of 22 days, biological therapy by 28 days while the delay in immunotherapy was 20 days. Conclusion: Cancer therapies are of proven benefit, but in light of the serious consequences of potential concurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection, risk-to-benefit considerations are becoming increasingly important. A multidisciplinary approach as well as a personalized treatment plan seems more important than ever for successful oncology treatment during the COVID19 pandemic.

Characteristics of COVID-19 infection among nursing home residents – A cross sectional study from Croatia

Given high risk of infection-related mortality due to impaired immunity, elderly patients are at increased risk with COVID-19. In its diagnostic procedure clinical laboratory medicine has a pivotal role. The aim of this study was to investigate clinical and laboratory specificities in Croatian population of nursing home residents affected by coronavirus. One hundred and six residents of nursing homes that were hospitalized due to COVID-19 infection, were included in this retrospective study. Clinical and laboratory findings at three time points were extracted from medical records. There were 86 females and 20 males, with median of age 84 (min-max: 47–97) years. Patients were divided into three groups: Survivors (S), patients who are still alive (N=65), In-Hospital Non-Survivors (IHNS), patients who died from coronavirus during hospitalization (N=31) and Out-of-Hospital Non-Survivors (OHNS), patients who recovered from infection but died during the period of three months of the follow-up (N=10). We have established differences between these three groups in laboratory findings (p<0.05). At the admission, survivors had lower values of lactate dehydrogenase, aspartate trans-aminase, sedimentation ratio, ferritin and C-reactive protein, OHNS were in the middle, and IHNS had the highest values. Leukocytes and absolute lymphocyte count were greater in OHNS group, and same between survivors and IHNS. After 7 days, we noticed increase in leukocyte and neutrophils count among IHNS. Assessing of complete blood count, differential blood count, reactants of acute infection and combination of their ratios might predict worse outcome in nursing home residents due to coronavirus infection. © 2020, Croatian Anthropological Society. All rights reserved.

Effect of SARS-CoV-2 antibody screening on participants' attitudes and behaviour: a study of industry workers in Split, Croatia.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the changes in personal attitudes and behaviour before and after negative serological test results for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional questionnaire survey. METHODS: A survey questionnaire was conducted with 200 industry workers (68% males and 32% females) who had previously tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The survey examined participants' self-reported general attitudes towards coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), their sense of fear, as well as their behaviour towards protective measures before and after the testing. RESULTS: Participants perceived the disease as a severe health threat and acknowledged that the protective measures were appropriate. Respondents reported a high level of adherence to measures and low level of fear, both before and after the testing. Although these indicators were statistically significantly reduced after the test (P < 0.004), they did not result in irresponsible non-adherence behaviours. Almost all respondents attributed their application of personal protection measures to factors other than the results of serological screening. CONCLUSIONS: Serological tests do not contribute to irresponsible non-adherence behaviours in an environment where protective measures are efficient. However, they may help reduce fear within society and working environments.