Detecting Orthostatic Intolerance in Long COVID in a Clinic Setting.

INTRODUCTION: A likely mechanism of Long COVID (LC) is dysautonomia, manifesting as orthostatic intolerance (OI). In our LC service, all patients underwent a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Lean Test (NLT), which can detect OI syndromes of Postural Tachycardia Syndrome (PoTS) or Orthostatic Hypotension (OH) in a clinic setting. Patients also completed the COVID-19 Yorkshire Rehabilitation Scale (C19-YRS), a validated LC outcome measure. Our objectives in this retrospective study were (1) to report on the findings of the NLT; and (2) to compare findings from the NLT with LC symptoms reported on the C19-YRS. METHODS: NLT data, including maximum heart rate increase, blood pressure decrease, number of minutes completed and symptoms experienced during the NLT were extracted retrospectively, together with palpitation and dizziness scores from the C19-YRS. Mann-Witney U tests were used to examine for statistical difference in palpitation or dizziness scores between patients with normal NLT and those with abnormal NLT. Spearman's rank was used to examine the correlation between the degree of postural HR and BP change with C19-YRS symptom severity score. RESULTS: Of the 100 patients with LC recruited, 38 experienced symptoms of OI during the NLT; 13 met the haemodynamic screening criteria for PoTS and 9 for OH. On the C19-YRS, 81 reported dizziness as at least a mild problem, and 68 for palpitations being at least a mild problem. There was no significant statistical difference between reported dizziness or palpitation scores in those with normal NLT and those with abnormal NLT. The correlation between symptom severity score and NLT findings was <0.16 (poor). CONCLUSIONS: We have found evidence of OI, both symptomatically and haemodynamically in patients with LC. The severity of palpitations and dizziness reported on the C19-YRS does not appear to correlate with NLT findings. We would recommend using the NLT in all LC patients in a clinic setting, regardless of presenting LC symptoms, due to this inconsistency.

Human bite injuries to the head and neck: current trends and management protocols in England and Wales.

INTRODUCTION: Human bite injuries can be challenging in their presentation to the examining physician. In a study by Merchant et al., 18% of patients presenting with a human bite injury had suffered wounds to the head and neck region. Current trends in their initial management at presentation to emergency departments throughout England and Wales will be discussed in this paper. MATERIALS AND METHOD: A postal survey was sent out to 100 A&E lead clinicians. This was followed up by telephone enquiries to improve the response rate. The collated results of the survey were entered onto a spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel©) for the purpose of statistical review. RESULTS: A 68% response rate from A&E departments throughout England and Wales demonstrated a lack of consensus in the initial management and subsequent treatment of human bite injuries. Written protocols are in place for human bite injuries in 54.4% of units. In 100% of units, initial management involves irrigation +/- debridement of the wound, though there is a lack of agreement on the surgical management of the wound. 77.9% of units follow 'needle stick protocols' when stratifying risk for blood-borne viruses. CONCLUSION: Human bites pose a number of unique problems, ranging from cellulitis to the transmission of communicable diseases. The maxillofacial surgeon has the added dilemmas surrounding subsequent repair and reconstruction. Appreciation of the complexity of human bite injuries will ensure optimal care for the patient. We propose a set of guidelines developed 'in-house' to assist in the management of human bite injuries.

Is there Progress? An Overview of Selecting Biomarker Candidates for Major Depressive Disorder.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) contributes to a significant worldwide disease burden, expected to be second only to heart disease by 2050. However, accurate diagnosis has been a historical weakness in clinical psychiatry. As a result, there is a demand for diagnostic modalities with greater objectivity that could improve on current psychiatric practice that relies mainly on self-reporting of symptoms and clinical interviews. Over the past two decades, literature on a growing number of putative biomarkers for MDD increasingly suggests that MDD patients have significantly different biological profiles compared to healthy controls. However, difficulty in elucidating their exact relationships within depression pathology renders individual markers inconsistent diagnostic tools. Consequently, further biomarker research could potentially improve our understanding of MDD pathophysiology as well as aid in interpreting response to treatment, narrow differential diagnoses, and help refine current MDD criteria. Representative of this, multiplex assays using multiple sources of biomarkers are reported to be more accurate options in comparison to individual markers that exhibit lower specificity and sensitivity, and are more prone to confounding factors. In the future, more sophisticated multiplex assays may hold promise for use in screening and diagnosing depression and determining clinical severity as an advance over relying solely on current subjective diagnostic criteria. A pervasive limitation in existing research is heterogeneity inherent in MDD studies, which impacts the validity of biomarker data. Additionally, small sample sizes of most studies limit statistical power. Yet, as the RDoC project evolves to decrease these limitations, and stronger studies with more generalizable data are developed, significant advances in the next decade are expected to yield important information in the development of MDD biomarkers for use in clinical settings.