Insomnia symptoms during the covid-19 pandemic: a case-control study

OBJECTIVE To identify lifestyle-related, sociodemographic, and mental health characteristics of people with insomnia symptoms and people without insomnia during the pandemic. METHODS A case-control study was conducted with data collected by snowball sampling using an online questionnaire. From November 2020 to April 2021, 6,360 people with a mean age of 43.5 years (SD = 14.3) participated in the survey. For this study, we considered 158 cases of insomnia disorder and 476 controls (three controls per case) randomly selected from the participants without sleep problems. RESULTS The results of the comparative analysis between cases and controls showed that sleeping less than six hours daily (OR = 3.89;95%CI 2.50–6.05), feeling sadness frequently (OR = 2.95;95%CI 1.69–5.17), residing in metropolitan areas (OR = 1.71;95%CI 1.04–2.84), being 40 years or older (OR = 1.93;95%CI 1.22–3.06), and the interaction between occupation and poorer education (OR = 2.12;95%CI 1.22–3.69) were predictors for symptoms of insomnia disorder during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS In addition to confirming the hypothesis that mental health problems are associated with insomnia symptoms, the results point to insomnia as an important outcome for studies on the effects of unemployment, vulnerability and low education of the population, especially in large cities, highlighting that the effects of the crisis on health and the economy are extremely unequally distributed.

Teleconsultations in neurology in a universal health system amid COVID-19: a descriptive study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize teleconsultations in neurology executed by Regula+Brasil project in Recife, a capital city in northeastern Brazil. METHODS: A descriptive study carried out by four private hospitals, in a partnership with the Ministry of Health in Brazil. Teleconsultation was performed preferably in the video modality. Conditions eligible for teleconsultation were headache, epilepsy, and cerebrovascular disorders. Period of analysis was May to September 2020. RESULTS: A total of 243 teleconsultations were analyzed, of which 76.95% was a first appointment. In 48.97% of cases, the teleconsultation represented the first opportunity for the patient to be consulted with the specialist. Among cases of first appointment, 20.16% were further referred to a face-to-face consultation and 21.81% could be redirected to primary health care. Headache disorders were the most predominant clinical conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation and development of telemedicine by Regula+Brasil during the COVID-19 pandemic represented an opportunity to assess the value of having teleconsultations added along the line of care from primary care to a medical specialty, promoting the coordination of care across different levels of complexity of care in the health system and improving access to specialized care.

Telehealth for Supporting Referrals to Specialized Care During COVID-19.

Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to the suspension or postponement of care for non-urgent conditions worldwide. Regula Mais Brasil is an initiative of the Unified Health System (SUS) in Brazil to optimize the management of referrals to specialized care by using telehealth. Objectives: To report the expansion of telehealth activities of Regula Mais Brasil in response to COVID-19 and to assess qualification of referrals in primary health care (PHC) units as well as the added value of teleconsultation in qualifying referral cases. Methods: Descriptive study of the teleconsultations carried out as an additional strategy to the remotely operated referral management system, responsible for navigating cases from PHC units to specialized care in Recife, Brazil, between May 6, 2020 and September 30, 2020. Teleconsultation was implemented as a tool for reducing delays in the access to health care due to COVID-19 and ultimately allowed for reclassification of the referral adequacy and priority. Changes in referral priority ratings and referral decisions after teleconsultation were analyzed. Results: A total of 622 referral cases were analyzed. Approved referrals represented 51.9% of cases. The main reason for approved referrals was the need for diagnostic resources. There was a reduction in priority ratings in 449 cases (72.2%) after teleconsultation. There was a statistically significant association between the change of priority ratings and the decision on referral (Pearson's χ2, p-value <0.0001). Results show that telemedicine had an impact on the prioritization and qualification of cases referred to specialized services. Conclusions: A need was detected to rapidly adapt tools available for telemedicine in Brazil. Our results demonstrate that teleconsultation as an additional strategy to the remotely operated referral management system has contributed toward improving equitable access to specialized services.

Delays and Disruptions in Cancer Health Care Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: There has been noteworthy concern about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on health services including the management of cancer. In addition to being considered at higher risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, people with cancer may also experience disruptions or delays in health services. This systematic review aimed to identify the delays and disruptions to cancer services globally. METHODS: This is a systematic review with a comprehensive search including specific and general databases. We considered any observational longitudinal and cross-sectional study design. The selection, data extraction, and methodological assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by specific tools. The delays and disruptions identified were categorized, and their frequency was presented. RESULTS: Among the 62 studies identified, none exhibited high methodological quality. The most frequent determinants for disruptions were provider- or system-related, mainly because of the reduction in service availability. The studies identified 38 different categories of delays and disruptions with impact on treatment, diagnosis, or general health service. Delays or disruptions most investigated included reduction in routine activity of cancer services and number of cancer surgeries; delay in radiotherapy; and delay, reschedule, or cancellation of outpatient visits. Interruptions and disruptions largely affected facilities (up to 77.5%), supply chain (up to 79%), and personnel availability (up to 60%). CONCLUSION: The remarkable frequency of delays and disruptions in health care mostly related to the reduction of the COVID-19 burden unintentionally posed a major risk on cancer care worldwide. Strategies can be proposed not only to mitigate the main delays and disruptions but also to standardize their measurement and reporting. As a high number of publications continuously are being published, it is critical to harmonize the upcoming reports and constantly update this review.

Diretrizes para o tratamento farmacológico da COVID-19. Consenso da Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, da Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia e da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia

INTRODUCTION: Different therapies are currently used, considered, or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19;for many of those therapies, no appropriate assessment of effectiveness and safety was performed. This document aims to provide scientifically available evidence-based information in a transparent interpretation, to subsidize decisions related to the pharmacological therapy of COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: A group of 27 experts and methodologists integrated a task-force formed by professionals from the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB), the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (Sociedad Brasileira de Infectologia - SBI) and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT). Rapid systematic reviews, updated on April 28, 2020, were conducted. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the development of recommendations followed the GRADE system. The recommendations were written on May 5, 8, and 13, 2020. RESULTS: Eleven recommendations were issued based on low or very-low level evidence. We do not recommend the routine use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, or tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19. Prophylactic heparin should be used in hospitalized patients, however, no anticoagulation should be provided for patients without a specific clinical indication. Antibiotics and oseltamivir should only be considered for patients with suspected bacterial or influenza coinfection, respectively. CONCLUSION: So far no pharmacological intervention was proven effective and safe to warrant its use in the routine treatment of COVID-19 patients;therefore such patients should ideally be treated in the context of clinical trials. The recommendations herein provided will be revised continuously aiming to capture newly generated evidence.

Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19. The task-force/consensus guideline of the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine, the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology. / Diretrizes para o tratamento farmacológico da COVID-19. Consenso da Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, da Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia e da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia.

INTRODUCTION: Different therapies are currently used, considered, or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19; for many of those therapies, no appropriate assessment of effectiveness and safety was performed. This document aims to provide scientifically available evidence-based information in a transparent interpretation, to subsidize decisions related to the pharmacological therapy of COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: A group of 27 experts and methodologists integrated a task-force formed by professionals from the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB), the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (Sociedad Brasileira de Infectologia - SBI) and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT). Rapid systematic reviews, updated on April 28, 2020, were conducted. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the development of recommendations followed the GRADE system. The recommendations were written on May 5, 8, and 13, 2020. RESULTS: Eleven recommendations were issued based on low or very-low level evidence. We do not recommend the routine use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, or tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19. Prophylactic heparin should be used in hospitalized patients, however, no anticoagulation should be provided for patients without a specific clinical indication. Antibiotics and oseltamivir should only be considered for patients with suspected bacterial or influenza coinfection, respectively. CONCLUSION: So far no pharmacological intervention was proven effective and safe to warrant its use in the routine treatment of COVID-19 patients; therefore such patients should ideally be treated in the context of clinical trials. The recommendations herein provided will be revised continuously aiming to capture newly generated evidence.