RESUMEN
Aims: The aim of the present study was to study the prevalence of depression, anxiety, stress, and post-traumatic symptoms in Health-Care Workers (HCWs) of three Health Authorities of Emilia-Romagna, Italy during the COVID pandemic. Material(s) and Method(s): An online questionnaire was spread to the staff of the University Hospital of Modena and the Local Health Agencies of Modena and Romagna, including the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21), the Impact of Event Scale - Revised (IES-R), and the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale - Short Version (UWES-9). The scores at DASS-21 and IES-R were used as dependent variables in multivariate logistic regression models. Result(s): A total of 5868 HCWs were reached (response rate of 22.4%), 76.1% of which were women, mostly aged between 45 and 54 years. Rates of positive scores were: 27.9% DASS-21 Depression;28.4% DASS-21 Anxiety;34.7% DASS-21 Stress;21.9% IES-R. At the multivariate logistic regression, the following were statistically significant risk factors for positive scores: female sex, young age, and working at the front line. An increase in alcohol and tobacco consumption and worsening of eating habits were also strongly associated with symptoms. At UWES-9, the three samples reported lower vigor than dedication and absorption, which are at a medium-high level. Conclusion(s): HCWs have experienced high levels of emotional distress related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Significant improvements are needed not only in terms of organization and distribution of resources, but also in provision of dedicated psycho-social interventions.Copyright © 2023
RESUMEN
Aims: Health Care Workers (HCW) have had to deal with mental health-related stressors during the COVID-19 pandemic and exhibited higher rates of anxiety, depression, insomnia, and post-traumatic stress symptoms. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health of a sample of hospital HCWs was assessed over time, relating to quality of life, post-traumatic growth, burnout, sleep changes, and resilience. Method(s): An online, three-phase, survey was sent to the whole working population of the University Hospital of Modena, covering 12 months (baseline questionnaire sent in June 2020). Sociodemographic and behavioral information related to COVID-19 were collected, together with screening for anxiety, depression, stress, and post-traumatic symptoms. A multivariate analysis was conducted to analyze changes across time. Result(s): 457 HCWs completed all three stages of the survey, M/F ratio: 28.0/71.9%. Anxiety and stress were significantly associated to having been in direct charge of COVID+ patients (anxiety OR = 2.22, 95% C.I. = 1.06-4.78, p-value = 0.04;stress OR = 2.03, 95% C.I. = 1.05-3.95, p-value = 0.04). Stress was associated to perception of increased workload both at baseline (OR = 1.79, 95% C.I. = 1.02-3.18, p-value = 0.05) and at first follow-up (OR = 1.97, 95% C.I. = 1.08-3.73, p-value = 0.03). Significant changes over time were registered as to increased alcohol consumption and a more imbalanced diet. Conclusion(s): Results are helpful to guide support interventions and organizational actions to improve the well-being and functioning of HCWs.Copyright © 2023
RESUMEN
Background: COVID-19 carries a high risk of vascular thrombosis. This joint analysis of two randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) aims to assess the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin at therapeutic dose compared to prophylactic dose in people hospitalized with COVID-19. Method(s): A joint analysis of two RCTs, COVID-19 HD (NCT044082359) and EMOS-COVID (NCT04646655), was performed. Both studies enrolled inpatients with COVID-19- associated respiratory compromise (as identified by respiratory rate >=25 breaths/min or arterial oxygen saturation <=93% at rest or PaO2/FiO2 <=300 mmHg for COVID-19 HD and by PaO2/FiO2 <=250 mmHg for EMOS-COVID) and/or coagulopathy (D-dimer > 2000 ng/ml for both RCTs or sepsis-Induced coagulopathy score >4 for COVIDHD). In both RCTs patients were randomly assigned to two arms: enoxaparin at prophylactic dose (standard 4.000 IU;in the EMOS-COVID 6000 IU if body weight >100 kg) and at therapeutic dose (70 U/Kg every 12 h). The primary efficacy endpoint of the joint analysis was clinical worsening, defined as the occurrence of at least one among: in-hospital death;acute myocardial infarction;symptomatic arterial or venous thromboembolism;need of either Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (Cpap) or Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV) in patients who were in standard oxygen therapy at randomization;need for IMV in any patient. The primary outcome was assessed as time-to-event, described with hazard ratio (HR) and with Kaplan-Meier survival estimate. The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding for both trials and for the joint analysis. Result(s): COVID-19 HD enrolled 142 people between July 2, 2020 and February 15, 2022, while EMOS-COVID enrolled 141 people from July 27, 2020 to June 5, 2021, resulting in 283 patients included in this joint analysis. Two-hundredseven (73.1%) were males, with a mean age of 61.1 years (SD +/-10.7), a mean BMI of 29.7 kg/m2 (SD +/-5.0), and 115 (40.6%) were on NIV or Cpap at randomization, with no significant difference between the study groups. 21/139 people in the high dose group reached the primary endpoint compared to 32/144 in the prophylactic group (HR 0.63, 95%CI 0.36 to 1.10). Figure 1 shows the Kaplan- Meier survival estimates of clinical worsening. No major bleeding was observed during the study time. Conclusion(s): The results of this joint analysis did not highlight significant differences in clinical worsening between COVID-19 patients that received enoxaparin at therapeutic compared to prophylactic dose. (Figure Presented).