High Plasma tPAPAI-1C Levels May Be Related to a Poor Prognosis in Patients with Severe or Critical COVID-19: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Severe novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have a high incidence of thrombotic complications and mortality. The pathophysiology of coagulopathy involves fibrinolytic system impairment and vascular endothelial damage. This study examined coagulation and fibrinolytic markers as outcome predictors. In an observational study of 164 COVID-19 patients admitted to our emergency intensive care unit, hematological parameters on days 1, 3, 5, and 7 were retrospectively compared between survivors and nonsurvivors. Nonsurvivors had a higher APACHE II score, SOFA score, and age than survivors. Nonsurvivors also had a significantly lower platelet count and significantly higher plasmin/α2plasmin inhibitor complex (PIC), tissue plasminogen activator/plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 complex (tPAPAI-1C), D-dimer, and fibrin/fibrinogen degradation product (FDP) levels than survivors throughout the measurement period. The 7-day maximum or minimum values of the tPAPAI-1C, FDP, and D-dimer levels were significantly higher in nonsurvivors. A multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the maximum tPAPAI-1C (OR = 1.034;95% CI,1.014–1.061;p = 0.0041) was an independent factor affecting mortality, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.713 (optimum cut-off of 51 ng/mL;sensitivity, 69.2%;and specificity, 68.4%). COVID-19 patients with poor outcomes exhibit exacerbated coagulopathy with fibrinolysis inhibition and endothelial damage. Consequently, plasma tPAPAI-1C might be a useful predictor of the prognosis in patients with severe or critical COVID-19.

High Plasma tPAPAI-1C Levels May Be Related to a Poor Prognosis in Patients with Severe or Critical COVID-19: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

Severe novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have a high incidence of thrombotic complications and mortality. The pathophysiology of coagulopathy involves fibrinolytic system impairment and vascular endothelial damage. This study examined coagulation and fibrinolytic markers as outcome predictors. In an observational study of 164 COVID-19 patients admitted to our emergency intensive care unit, hematological parameters on days 1, 3, 5, and 7 were retrospectively compared between survivors and nonsurvivors. Nonsurvivors had a higher APACHE II score, SOFA score, and age than survivors. Nonsurvivors also had a significantly lower platelet count and significantly higher plasmin/α2plasmin inhibitor complex (PIC), tissue plasminogen activator/plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 complex (tPAPAI-1C), D-dimer, and fibrin/fibrinogen degradation product (FDP) levels than survivors throughout the measurement period. The 7-day maximum or minimum values of the tPAPAI-1C, FDP, and D-dimer levels were significantly higher in nonsurvivors. A multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the maximum tPAPAI-1C (OR = 1.034; 95% CI,1.014-1.061; p = 0.0041) was an independent factor affecting mortality, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.713 (optimum cut-off of 51 ng/mL; sensitivity, 69.2%; and specificity, 68.4%). COVID-19 patients with poor outcomes exhibit exacerbated coagulopathy with fibrinolysis inhibition and endothelial damage. Consequently, plasma tPAPAI-1C might be a useful predictor of the prognosis in patients with severe or critical COVID-19.

Prognostic Factors Associated With Mortality of Patients With COVID-19 Requiring Ventilator Management: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Aim There are few reports on the prognostic factors associated with mortality in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients with critical disease. This study assessed prognostic factors associated with mortality of patients with critical COVID-19 who required ventilator management. Methods This single-center, retrospective cohort study used medical record data of COVID-19 patients admitted to an emergency ICU at a hospital in Japan between March 1, 2020 and September 30, 2021, and provided with ventilator management. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with mortality. Results Seventy patients were included, of whom 29 (41.4%) died. The patients who died were significantly older (median: 69 years) (interquartile range [IQR]: 47-82 years) than the patients who survived (62 years [38-84 years], p<0.007). In addition, patients who died were significantly less likely to have received steroid therapy than patients who survived (25 [86.2%] vs. 41 [100%], p=0.026). In the multivariable analysis, age was identified as a significant prognostic factor for mortality and the risk of death increased by 6% for every one-year increase in age (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.00-1.13; p=0.048). Medical history was not a risk factor for death. Conclusion Age was a predictor of mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Therefore, the indications for critical care in older patients with COVID-19 should be carefully considered.

Effect of Tocilizumab Treatment on Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Bacteremia: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Introduction This study aimed to determine if tocilizumab treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) increases bacteremia and suppresses fever and inflammatory reactants. Methods In this single-center, retrospective, observational study, all patients with COVID-19 admitted to our emergency intensive care unit from March 2020 to August 2021 were categorized into tocilizumab-treated and tocilizumab-naïve groups, and the incidence of bacteremia and other factors between the two groups were compared. Patients with bacteremia were further classified into tocilizumab-treated and tocilizumab-naïve groups to determine if fever and inflammatory reactants were suppressed. Results Overall, 144 patients were included in the study, 51 of whom received tocilizumab, which was administered on the day of admission. Further, of the 24 (16.7%) patients with bacteremia, 13 were in the tocilizumab-treated group. Results revealed a significant difference in the C-reactive protein level (p < 0.001) at the onset of bacteremia between the tocilizumab-treated group [median 0.42 mg/dL (0.27–0.44 mg/dL)] and the tocilizumab-naïve group [7.48 mg/dL (4.56–13.9 mg/dL)]. The median number of days from admission to onset of bacteremia was not significantly different between the tocilizumab-treated group [10 days (9–12 days)] and the tocilizumab-naïve group [9 days (7.5–11 days)] (p = 0.48). There was no significant difference in fever between the groups. Multivariate logistic analysis showed that tocilizumab treatment did not affect the probability of bacteremia. Conclusion Treatment of patients with COVID-19 with tocilizumab does not increase the risk of bacteremia. Tocilizumab suppresses C-reactive protein levels but not fever. Therefore, careful monitoring of fever can reduce the risk of missed bacteremia.

Effect of Tocilizumab Treatment on Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Bacteremia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to determine if tocilizumab treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) increases bacteremia and suppresses fever and inflammatory reactants. METHODS: In this single-center, retrospective, observational study, all patients with COVID-19 admitted to our emergency intensive care unit from March 2020 to August 2021 were categorized into tocilizumab-treated and tocilizumab-naïve groups, and the incidence of bacteremia and other factors between the two groups were compared. Patients with bacteremia were further classified into tocilizumab-treated and tocilizumab-naïve groups to determine if fever and inflammatory reactants were suppressed. RESULTS: Overall, 144 patients were included in the study, 51 of whom received tocilizumab, which was administered on the day of admission. Further, of the 24 (16.7%) patients with bacteremia, 13 were in the tocilizumab-treated group. Results revealed a significant difference in the C-reactive protein level (p < 0.001) at the onset of bacteremia between the tocilizumab-treated group [median 0.42 mg/dL (0.27-0.44 mg/dL)] and the tocilizumab-naïve group [7.48 mg/dL (4.56-13.9 mg/dL)]. The median number of days from admission to onset of bacteremia was not significantly different between the tocilizumab-treated group [10 days (9-12 days)] and the tocilizumab-naïve group [9 days (7.5-11 days)] (p = 0.48). There was no significant difference in fever between the groups. Multivariate logistic analysis showed that tocilizumab treatment did not affect the probability of bacteremia. CONCLUSION: Treatment of patients with COVID-19 with tocilizumab does not increase the risk of bacteremia. Tocilizumab suppresses C-reactive protein levels but not fever. Therefore, careful monitoring of fever can reduce the risk of missed bacteremia.

Traditional Gender Differences Create Gaps in the Effect of COVID-19 on Psychological Distress of Japanese Workers.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused Japanese workers psychological distress through crises of health, economics, and social relationships. To assess whether these effects are amplified by the gender bias that exists in Japan, we examined male and female worker's psychological distress and difficulties during the pandemic. An online "COVID-19-related difficulties" questionnaire, based on item response theory, gathered responses from 3464 workers in October and November 2020. The workers' psychological distress was found concerned to be significantly worse than before the pandemic. Basic stressors related to infection anxiety, economic anxiety, and restrictions on social interactions and outings. Men's and women's experiences of difficulties were consistent with traditional gender roles in Japan: men were more likely to face job-related stressors, such as economic insecurity and work-style changes; women were more likely to face non-job-related stressors, such as increased living costs and reduced social interactions. Policymakers and employers should consider the association between gender differences and industry types, and implement measures to strengthen the acceptability of mental health care.

Associations of the COVID-19 pandemic with the economic status and mental health of people affected by the Fukushima disaster using the difference-in-differences method: The Fukushima Health Management Survey.

Although the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and relevant preventive measures can affect the economic status and mental health of the public, their effect remains unraveled owing to a limited number of surveys conducted before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigated the association of COVID-19 and relevant measures with multivariate outcomes among people affected by the Fukushima disaster in 2011 using the difference-in-differences (DID) method. We then analyzed the associations between sociodemographic factors and outcomes. We assessed psychological distress, problem drinking, insomnia state, unemployment, household economic decline, and interpersonal problems using three questionnaire surveys administered in 2018, 2019, and 2020. Participants were grouped according to three time periods by dates of voluntary stay-at-home requests (February 26) and the declaration of emergency (April 16) in Japan. The years 2020 and 2019 were regarded as the treatment group and control group, respectively, after confirming that no DIDs were found between 2018 and 2019. We performed regression analyses to identify the risk factors for outcomes. The DIDs were significant for household economic decline after the declaration of emergency, whereas problem drinking significantly improved. No significant DIDs were observed for other mental health outcomes including psychological distress and insomnia state. Absence of counselors was positively and significantly associated with all outcomes in 2020. Overall, people affected by the Fukushima disaster experienced more economic damage after the declaration of emergency during the COVID-19 pandemic but their mental health status did not reduce. Identifying people who have no counselors and providing them with support are emergent requirements to prevent a subsequent mental health decline.

Reviews on common objectives and evaluation indicators for risk communication activities from 2011 to 2017.

BACKGROUND: Risk communication is widely accepted as a significant factor for policy makers, academic researchers, and practitioners in diverse fields. However, there remains a lack of comprehensive knowledge about how risk communication is currently conducted across fields and about the way risk communication is evaluated. METHODOLOGY: This study systematically searched for materials from three scholarly search engines and one journal with a single search term of "risk communication." The eligibility assessment selected peer-reviewed articles published in English that evaluated risk communication activities. Emphasis was placed on articles published in recent years accounting for about half of the pre-selected ones. Data on field of study, intervention timing, target audience, communication type, and objectives/evaluation indicators was extracted from the articles. Patterns of objectives/evaluation indicators used in risk communication activities were compared with those of the definitions and purposes of risk communication stated by relevant organizations. Association analysis was conducted based on study fields and objectives/evaluation indicators. RESULTS: The screening process yielded 292 articles that were published between 2011 and 2017 in various fields, such as medicine, food safety, chemical substances, and disasters/emergencies. The review process showed that many activities were performed in the medical field, during non-/pre-crisis periods. Recent activities primarily targeted citizens/Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs), and was disseminated in the form of large group or mass communication. While "knowledge increase," "change in risk perception and concern alleviation," and "decision making and behavior change" were commonly addressed in practice, "trust-building" and "reduction in psychological distress" were rarely focused. The analysis also indicated that the medical field tends to perform risk communication at the individual or small group level, in contrast to the food safety field. Further, risk communications in the non-/pre-crisis period are more likely to aim at "changes in risk perception and concern alleviation" than those in the crisis period. Risk communications that aim at "changes in risk perception and concern alleviation" are likely to be presented in a large group or mass communication, whereas those that aim at "decision making and behavior change" are likely to be conducted at the individual or small group level. CONCLUSION: An overview of recent activities may provide those who engage in risk communication with an opportunity to learn from practices in different fields or those conducted in different intervention timings. Devoting greater attention to trust building and reduction in psychological distress and exploring non-citizen/NPO stakeholders' needs would be beneficial across academic and professional disciplines.