Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab ; 106(11): e4708-e4715, 2021 10 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1484819

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: One risk factor for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is postulated to be vitamin D deficiency. To better understand the role of vitamin D deficiency in the disease course of COVID-19, we undertook a retrospective case-control study in North West England. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether hospitalization with COVID-19 is more prevalent in individuals with lower vitamin D levels. METHODS: The study included individuals with test results for serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) between April 1, 2020, and January 29, 2021, from 2 districts in North West England. The last 25(OH)D level in the previous 12 months was categorized as "deficient" if less than 25 nmol/L and "insufficient" if 25 to 50 nmol/L. RESULTS: The study included 80 670 participants. Of these, 1808 were admitted to the hospital with COVID-19, of whom 670 died. In a primary cohort, median serum 25(OH)D in nonhospitalized participants with COVID-19 was 50.0 nmol/L (interquartile range [IQR], 34.0-66.7) vs 35.0 nmol/L (IQR, 21.0-57.0) in those admitted with COVID-19 (P < 0.005). In a validation cohort, median serum 25(OH)D was 47.1 nmol/L (IQR, 31.8-64.7) in nonhospitalized vs 33.0 nmol/L (IQR, 19.4-54.1) in hospitalized patients. Age-, sex-, and season-adjusted odds ratios for hospital admission were 2.3 to 2.4 times higher among participants with serum 25(OH)D <50 nmol/L compared with those with normal serum 25(OH)D levels, without excess mortality risk. CONCLUSION: Vitamin D deficiency is associated with higher risk of COVID-19 hospitalization. Widespread measurement of serum 25(OH)D and treatment of insufficiency or deficiency may reduce this risk.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/etiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Vitamin D Deficiency/complications , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Severity of Illness Index , Vitamin D/analogs & derivatives , Vitamin D/blood
2.
Indian J Anaesth ; 65(1): 17-22, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1325869

ABSTRACT

Paediatric anaesthesia is an upcoming speciality which is gaining wide interest and can be a career choice for the new trainees. The need to develop paediatric anaesthesia as a speciality was realised with the progress in the field of paediatric surgery. The profile of the 'patient' encountered by a paediatric anaesthesiologist spans from an extremely premature neonate on the fringes of survival, to a full-grown adolescent equivalent to an adult. Perioperative morbidity and mortality are 2-3 times higher in infants and neonates compared to adults particularly in middle and low-income countries. The anatomical, physiological, pharmacological variations and presence of congenital cardiac, pulmonary and metabolic diseases in young children make perioperative management challenging. Special expertise and training are required for anaesthetic management of these preverbal children. In India, 3-years DM and 1-year Fellowship courses in paediatric anaesthesia are now available for specialisation. An ideal paediatric anaesthesia training centre should have substantial paediatric and neonatal patient load with exclusive intensive care facility. Paediatric anaesthesiologists, having knowledge of several facets of paediatrics and anaesthesia are capable of coordinating with health care professionals performing procedures outside the operating room. Paediatric anaesthesia, as a career thus offers a great opportunity to enhance quality and safety of anaesthesia in this high-risk surgical population. Persistent coordinated team efforts improve patient outcomes, reduce stress at work and increase job satisfaction.

3.
Nutrients ; 13(6)2021 May 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1256618

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has been present for many months, influencing diets such as the gluten-free diet (GFD), which implies daily challenges even in non-pandemic conditions. Persons following the GFD were invited to answer online ad hoc and validated questionnaires characterizing self-perceptions of the pandemic, current clinical condition, dietary characteristics, adherence to GFD, anxiety, and depression. Of 331 participants, 87% experienced shortage and higher cost of food and 14.8% lost their jobs. Symptoms increased in 29% and 36.6% failed to obtain medical help. Although 52.3% increased food preparation at home and purchased alternative foodstuffs, 53.8% had consumed gluten-containing foods. The Health Eating Index was intermediate/"needs improvement" (mean 65.6 ± 13.3 points); in 49.9% (perception) and 44.4% (questionnaire), adherence was "bad". Anxiety and depression scores were above the cutoff in 28% and 40.4%, respectively. Adherence and mental health were strongly related. The likelihood of poor adherence was 2.3 times higher (p < 0.004) in participants declaring that pandemic altered GFD. Those suffering depressive symptoms were 1.3 times more likely to have poor adherence (p < 0.000). Depression and faulty GFD (mandatory for treatment) appear, affecting a high proportion of participants, suggesting that support measures aimed at these aspects would help improve the health condition of people that maintain GFD. Comparisons of data currently appearing in the literature available should be cautious because not only cultural aspects but conditions and timing of data collection are most variable.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Celiac Disease/psychology , Diet, Gluten-Free/psychology , Patient Compliance/psychology , Quarantine/psychology , Adult , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/psychology , Celiac Disease/diet therapy , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/psychology , Diet, Gluten-Free/statistics & numerical data , Diet, Healthy , Female , Food Supply/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Patient Compliance/statistics & numerical data , Quarantine/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
4.
J Intensive Care Med ; 36(6): 681-688, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1119375

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic reached Germany in spring 2020. No proven treatment for SARS-CoV-2 was available at that time, especially for severe COVID-19-induced ARDS. We determined whether the infusion of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) would help to improve pulmonary function and overall outcome in patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS. We offered MSC infusion as an extended indication to all critically ill COVID-19 patients with a Horovitz index <100. We treated 5 out of 23 patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS with an infusion of MSCs. One million MSCs/kg body weight was infused over 30 minutes, and the process was repeated in 3 patients twice and in 2 patients 3 times. RESULT: Four out of 5 MSC-treated patients compared to 50% of control patients (9 out of 18) received ECMO support (80%). The MSC group showed a higher Murray score on admission than control patients, reflecting more severe pulmonary compromise (3.5 ± 0.2 versus 2.8 ± 0.3). MSC infusion was safe and well tolerated. The MSC group had a significantly higher Horovitz score on discharge than the control group. Compared to controls, patients with MSC treatment showed a significantly lower Murray score upon discharge than controls. In the MSC group, 4 out of 5 patients (80%) survived to discharge and exhibited good pulmonary function, whereas only 8 out of 18 patients (45%) in the control group survived to discharge. CONCLUSION: MSC infusion is a safe treatment for COVID-19 ARDS that improves pulmonary function and overall outcome in this patient population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care , Mesenchymal Stem Cell Transplantation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , Cohort Studies , Female , Germany , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Survival Rate , Treatment Outcome
5.
Crit Care Explor ; 2(12): e0309, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-998498

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of anticoagulation on inhospital mortality among coronavirus disease 2019-positive patients with the a priori hypothesis that there would be a lower risk of inhospital mortality with use of preemptive therapeutic over prophylactic dose enoxaparin or heparin. DESIGN SETTING: Retrospective cohort study from April 1, 2020, to April 25, 2020. The date of final follow-up was June 12, 2020 Two large, acute-care hospitals in Western Connecticut. PATIENTS: Five hundred and one inpatients were identified after discharge as 18 years or older and positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The final sample size included 374 patients after applying exclusion criteria. Demographic variables were collected via hospital billing inquiries, whereas the clinical variables were abstracted from patients' medical records. EXPOSURE: Preemptive enoxaparin or heparin at a therapeutic or prophylactic dose. MAIN RESULTS: When comparing treatments through multivariable analysis, risk of inhospital mortality was 2.3 times greater in patients receiving preemptive therapeutic anticoagulation (95% CI = 1.0-4.9; p = 0.04). Additionally, the average treatment effects were higher (ß = 0.11, p = 0.01) in the therapeutic group. CONCLUSIONS: An increase in inhospital mortality was observed among patients on preemptive therapeutic anticoagulation. Thus, in the management of coronavirus disease 2019 and its complications, we recommend further research and cautious use of preemptive therapeutic over prophylactic anticoagulation.

6.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(40): 1443-1449, 2020 Oct 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-842498

ABSTRACT

Washing hands often, especially during times when one is likely to acquire and spread pathogens,* is one important measure to help prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), as well as other pathogens spread by respiratory or fecal-oral transmission (1,2). Studies have reported moderate to high levels of self-reported handwashing among adults worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic (3-5)†; however, little is known about how handwashing behavior among U.S. adults has changed since the start of the pandemic. For this study, survey data from October 2019 (prepandemic) and June 2020 (during pandemic) were compared to assess changes in adults' remembering to wash their hands in six situations.§ Statistically significant increases in reported handwashing were seen in June 2020 compared with October 2019 in four of the six situations; the odds of remembering to wash hands was 2.3 times higher among respondents after coughing, sneezing, or blowing their nose, 2.0 times higher before eating at a restaurant, and 1.7 times higher before eating at home. Men, young adults aged 18-24 years, and non-Hispanic White (White) adults were less likely to remember to wash hands in multiple situations. Strategies to help persons remember to wash their hands frequently and at important times should be identified and implemented, especially among groups reporting low prevalence of remembering to wash their hands.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Hand Disinfection , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL