Early symptoms preceding post-infectious irritable bowel syndrome following COVID-19: a retrospective observational study incorporating daily gastrointestinal symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal microinflammation with immune dysfunction due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 reportedly precipitates post-infectious irritable bowel syndrome. This study aimed to elucidate potential risk factors for subsequent development of irritable bowel syndrome, hypothesizing that it is associated with specific symptoms or patient backgrounds. METHODS: This single-center retrospective observational study (2020-2021) included adults with confirmed coronavirus disease requiring hospital admission and was conducted using real-world data retrieved from a hospital information system. Patient characteristics and detailed gastrointestinal symptoms were obtained and compared between patients with and without coronavirus disease-induced irritable bowel syndrome. Multivariate logistic models were used to validate the risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome. Moreover, daily gastrointestinal symptoms during hospitalization were examined in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. RESULTS: Among the 571 eligible patients, 12 (2.1%) were diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome following coronavirus disease. While nausea and diarrhea during hospitalization, elevated white blood cell count on admission, and intensive care unit admission were associated with the development of irritable bowel syndrome, nausea and diarrhea were identified as risk factors for its development following coronavirus disease, as revealed by the adjusted analyses (odds ratio, 4.00 [1.01-15.84] and 5.64 [1.21-26.31], respectively). Half of the patients with irritable bowel syndrome had both diarrhea and constipation until discharge, and constipation was frequently followed by diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: While irritable bowel syndrome was rarely diagnosed following coronavirus disease, nausea and diarrhea during hospitalization precede the early signs of irritable bowel syndrome following coronavirus disease.

Threshold of increase in oxygen demand to predict mechanical ventilation use in novel coronavirus disease 2019: A retrospective cohort study incorporating restricted cubic spline regression.

BACKGROUND: Rapid deterioration of oxygenation occurs in novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and prediction of mechanical ventilation (MV) is needed for allocation of patients to intensive care unit. Since intubation is usually decided based on varying clinical conditions, such as required oxygen changes, we aimed to elucidate thresholds of increase in oxygen demand to predict MV use within 12 h. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study using data between January 2020 and January 2021was conducted. Data were retrieved from the hospital data warehouse. Adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 with a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) who needed oxygen during admission were included. Hourly increments in oxygen demand were calculated using two consecutive oxygen values. Covariates were selected from measurements at the closest time points of oxygen data. Prediction of MV use within 12 h by required oxygen changes was evaluated with the area under the receiver operating curves (AUCs). A threshold for increased MV use risk was obtained from restricted cubic spline curves. RESULTS: Among 66 eligible patients, 1835 oxygen data were analyzed. The AUC was 0.756 for predicting MV by oxygen demand changes, 0.888 by both amounts and changes in oxygen, and 0.933 by the model adjusted with respiratory rate, PCR quantification cycle (Ct), and days from PCR. The threshold of increments of required oxygen was identified as 0.44 L/min/h and the probability of MV use linearly increased afterward. In subgroup analyses, the threshold was lower (0.25 L/min/h) when tachypnea or frequent respiratory distress existed, whereas it was higher (1.00 L/min/h) when viral load is low (Ct ≥20 or days from PCR >7 days). CONCLUSIONS: Hourly changes in oxygen demand predicted MV use within 12 h, with a threshold of 0.44 L/min/h. This threshold was lower with an unstable respiratory condition and higher with a low viral load.

Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Videoconference-Based Integrated Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioral therapy is known to improve the management of chronic pain. However, the components of this therapy are still being investigated and debated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of an integrated cognitive behavioral therapy program with new components (attention-shift, memory work, video feedback, and image training) delivered via videoconferencing. METHODS: This study was unblinded and participants were recruited and assessed face-to-face in the outpatient department. We conducted a randomized controlled trial for chronic pain to compare 16 weekly videoconference-based cognitive behavioral therapy (vCBT) sessions provided by a therapist with treatment as usual (TAU). Thirty patients (age range, 22-75 years) with chronic pain were randomly assigned to either vCBT (n=15) or TAU (n=15). Patients were evaluated at week 1 (baseline), week 8 (midintervention), and week 16 (postintervention). The primary outcome was the change in pain intensity, which was recorded using the numerical rating scale at 16 weeks from the baseline. Secondary outcomes were pain severity and pain interference, which were assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory. Additionally, we evaluated disability, pain catastrophizing cognition, depression, anxiety, quality of life, and cost utility. RESULTS: In the eligibility assessment, 30 patients were eventually randomized and enrolled; finally, 15 patients in the vCBT and 14 patients in the TAU group were analyzed. Although no significant difference was found between the 2 groups in terms of changes in pain intensity by the numerical rating scale scores at week 16 from baseline (P=.36), there was a significant improvement in the comprehensive evaluation of pain by total score of Brief Pain Inventory (-1.43, 95% CI -2.49 to -0.37, df=24; P=.01). Further, significant improvement was seen in pain interference by using the Brief Pain Inventory (-9.42, 95% CI -14.47 to -4.36, df=25; P=.001) and in disability by using the Pain Disability Assessment Scale (-1.95, 95% CI -3.33 to -0.56, df=24; P=.008) compared with TAU. As for the Medical Economic Evaluation, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for 1 year was estimated at 2.9 million yen (about US $25,000) per quality-adjusted life year gained. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of our study suggest that integrated cognitive behavioral therapy delivered by videoconferencing in regular medical care may reduce pain interference but not pain intensity. Further, this treatment method may be cost-effective, although this needs to be further verified using a larger sample size. TRIAL REGISTRATION: University Hospital Medical Information Network UMIN000031124; https://tinyurl.com/2pr3xszb.

Incidence of headache after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with history of headache: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Headache is an adverse event of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. Whether patients with history of headache suffer more from vaccination-induced headaches is unknown. We aimed to uncover if headache patients develop more headaches after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination than healthy controls. METHODS: We performed a questionnaire survey for nursing staff in our hospital from April to May 2021. Based on baseline characteristics, we divided the participants into migraine, non-migrainous headache, and healthy control, and examined the occurrence and features of headache after COVID-19 vaccinations. RESULTS: We included 171 participants (15.2% migraine and 24.6% non-migrainous headache). Headache incidence after vaccinations was significantly higher in the migraine (69.2%) and non-migrainous headache (71.4%) groups than in the healthy control (37.9%) group. The incidence of headaches was significantly higher after the second dose compared to the first (45.6% vs. 20.5%). CONCLUSION: Migraineurs and non-migrainous headache participants developed more headaches compared to the healthy controls after COVID-19 vaccination.