Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (56)
Document Type
- Journal article (49)
- Doctoral Thesis (7)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (56) (remove)
Institute
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie (ab 2004) (15)
- Institut für Klinische Epidemiologie und Biometrie (8)
- Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik II (6)
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie, Psychosomatik und Psychotherapie (5)
- Institut für Psychologie (4)
- Institut für Virologie und Immunbiologie (4)
- Theodor-Boveri-Institut für Biowissenschaften (4)
- Institut für Hygiene und Mikrobiologie (3)
- Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I (3)
- Neurologische Klinik und Poliklinik (3)
Sonstige beteiligte Institutionen
EU-Project number / Contract (GA) number
- ZAM 5-85018031 (1)
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the novel coronavirus had an impact not only on public health but also on the mental health of the population. Public sentiment on mental health and depression is often captured only in small, survey-based studies, while work based on Twitter data often only looks at the period during the pandemic and does not make comparisons with the pre-pandemic situation. We collected tweets that included the hashtags #MentalHealth and #Depression from before and during the pandemic (8.5 months each). We used LDA (Latent Dirichlet Allocation) for topic modeling and LIWC, VADER, and NRC for sentiment analysis. We used three machine-learning classifiers to seek evidence regarding an automatically detectable change in tweets before vs. during the pandemic: (1) based on TF-IDF values, (2) based on the values from the sentiment libraries, (3) based on tweet content (deep-learning BERT classifier). Topic modeling revealed that Twitter users who explicitly used the hashtags #Depression and especially #MentalHealth did so to raise awareness. We observed an overall positive sentiment, and in tough times such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, tweets with #MentalHealth were often associated with gratitude. Among the three classification approaches, the BERT classifier showed the best performance, with an accuracy of 81% for #MentalHealth and 79% for #Depression. Although the data may have come from users familiar with mental health, these findings can help gauge public sentiment on the topic. The combination of (1) sentiment analysis, (2) topic modeling, and (3) tweet classification with machine learning proved useful in gaining comprehensive insight into public sentiment and could be applied to other data sources and topics.
Die Bauchlagerung von intubierten ARDS-Patient/innen mit einer schlechten Oxygenierung wird laut Leitlinie seit mehreren Jahren als supportive Therapiemaßnahme empfohlen. Im Rahmen der COVID-19 Pandemie wurde nun erstmalig die Bauchlagerung auch bei hypoxämischen, nicht-intubierten Patient/innen untersucht. Diese Fragestellung wurde in der vorliegenden Arbeit mittels einer systematischen Übersichtsarbeit betrachtet. Aufgrund der aktuellen Pandemiesituation wurden neben ARDS-Patient/innen im Allgemeinen insbesondere COVID-19 Patient/innen mit einem akuten Lungenversagen als Subgruppe untersucht.
Am 21.11.2020 wurde eine systematische Suche nach Studien in den Datenbanken MEDLINE, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register und Living Overview of the Evidence platform durchgeführt. Die Ergebnisse wurden, wo möglich, in Form einer Meta-Analyse zusammengefasst, in Tabellen darstellt oder deskriptiv beschrieben. Das Risiko für Bias wurde jeweils für die eingeschlossenen kontrollierten Studien mittels ROBINS-I beurteilt. Die Vertrauenswürdigkeit der Evidenz der gesamten Arbeit wurde mit Hilfe des GRADE-Ansatzes untersucht.
Insgesamt wurden 30 Studien eingeschlossen, davon 4 kontrollierte Studien, keine RCTs. In 3 der kontrollierten Studien wurde die Bauchlagerung bei COVID-19 Patient/innen untersucht, in einer bei Patient/innen mit einem anderweitig verursachten ARDS. Es ist unklar, ob die Bauchlagerung die Intubationsrate (RR = 0,92; 95% KI: 0,59 - 1,44; I² = 65%; sehr niedrige Vertrauenswürdigkeit der Evidenz), die Mortalität (RR = 0,55; 95% KI: 0,23 - 1,30; I² = 60%; sehr niedrige Vertrauenswürdigkeit der Evidenz) und die Wahrscheinlichkeit für eine Aufnahme auf die Intensivstation (RR = 0,94; 95% KI: 0,54 - 1,63; I2 = 71%; sehr niedrige Vertrauenswürdigkeit der Evidenz) verringern kann. Auch für die anderen betrachteten Endpunkte konnte kein signifikanter Effekt der Bauchlagerung nachgewiesen werden Im Vergleich der Subgruppen „Nicht-COVID-19“ (8 Studien) und „COVID-19“ (22 Studien) konnten in Bezug auf alle betrachteten Endpunkte keine relevanten Unterschiede festgestellt werden.
Insgesamt ist die Evidenz nicht ausreichend, um Vor- und Nachteile der Bauchlagerung für nicht-intubierte ARDS Patient/innen gegenüber der üblichen Rückenlagerung aufzuzeigen und diese für die Praxis zu empfehlen.
COVID-19 Patientinnen und Patienten haben ein hohes thrombotisches Risiko. Die
Sicherheit und Wirksamkeit verschiedener Antikoagulationsschemata bei COVID-19
Patientinnen und Patienten sind unklar. Acht RCTs mit 5580 Patientinnen und Patienten
wurden identifiziert, wovon zwei RCTs Antikoagulation in halbtherapeutischer und sechs
RCTs Antikoagulation in therapeutischer Dosierung mit der Standard
Thromboembolieprophylaxe verglichen haben. Die halbtherapeutische Antikoagulation
kann wenig oder gar keinen Einfluss auf thrombotische Ereignisse oder Todesfälle haben
(RR 1,03, 95% KI 0,86-1,24), kann aber schwere Blutungen (RR 1,48, 95% KI 0,53-4,15) bei
mittelschweren bis schweren COVID-19 Patientinnen und Patienten verstärken.
Therapeutische Antikoagulation kann thrombotische Ereignisse oder den Tod bei
Patientinnen und Patienten mit mittelschwerem COVID-19 (RR 0,64, 95% KI 0,38-1,07)
verringern, kann aber bei Patientinnen und Patienten mit schwerer Erkrankung (RR 0,98,
95% KI 0,86-1,12) wenig oder keine Wirkung haben. Das Risiko schwerer Blutungen kann
unabhängig vom Schweregrad der Erkrankung zunehmen (RR 1,78, 95% KI 1,15-2,74). Die
Evidenzsicherheit ist immer noch gering. Mäßig betroffene COVID-19 Patientinnen und
Patienten können von einer therapeutischen Antikoagulation profitieren, jedoch ist das
Blutungsrisiko erhöht.
Background
Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is the cornerstone in the treatment of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and novel substances such as sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have demonstrated marked clinical benefits. We investigated their implementation into real-world HF care in Germany before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic period.
Methods
The IQVIA LRx data set is based on ∼80% of 73 million people covered by the German statutory health insurance. Prescriptions of S/V were used as a proxy for HFrEF. Time trends were analysed between Q1/2016 and Q2/2023 for prescriptions for S/V alone and in combination therapy with SGLT2i.
Findings
The number of patients treated with S/V increased from 5260 in Q1/2016 to 351,262 in Q2/2023. The share of patients with combination therapy grew from 0.6% (29 of 5260) to 14.2% (31,128 of 219,762) in Q2/2021, and then showed a steep surge up to 54.8% (192,429 of 351,262) in Q2/2023, coinciding with the release of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for HF in Q3/2021. Women and patients aged >80 years were treated less often with combined therapy than men and younger patients. With the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of patients with new S/V prescriptions dropped by 17.5% within one quarter, i.e., from 26,855 in Q1/2020 to 22,145 in Q2/2020, and returned to pre-pandemic levels only in Q1/2021.
Interpretation
The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a 12-month deceleration of S/V uptake in Germany. Following the release of the ESC HF guidelines, the combined prescription of S/V and SGLT2i was readily adopted. Further efforts are needed to fully implement GDMT and strengthen the resilience of healthcare systems during public health crises.
While there is abounding literature on virus-induced pathology in general and coronavirus in particular, recent evidence accumulates showing distinct and deleterious brain affection. As the respiratory tract connects to the brain without protection of the blood–brain barrier, SARS-CoV-2 might in the early invasive phase attack the cardiorespiratory centres located in the medulla/pons areas, giving rise to disturbances of respiration and cardiac problems. Furthermore, brainstem regions are at risk to lose their functional integrity. Therefore, long-term neurological as well as psychiatric symptomatology and eventual respective disorders cannot be excluded as evidenced from influenza-A triggered post-encephalitic Parkinsonism and HIV-1 triggered AIDS–dementia complex. From the available evidences for coronavirus-induced brain pathology, this review concludes a number of unmet needs for further research strategies like human postmortem brain analyses. SARS-CoV-2 mirroring experimental animal brain studies, characterization of time-dependent and region-dependent spreading behaviours of coronaviruses, enlightening of pathological mechanisms after coronavirus infection using long-term animal models and clinical observations of patients having had COVID-19 infection are calling to develop both protective strategies and drug discoveries to avoid early and late coronavirus-induced functional brain disturbances, symptoms and eventually disorders. To fight SARS-CoV-2, it is an urgent need to enforce clinical, molecular biological, neurochemical and genetic research including brain-related studies on a worldwide harmonized basis.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a flood of — often contradictory — evidence. HCWs had to develop strategies to locate information that supported their work. We investigated the information-seeking of different HCW groups in Germany. Methods: In December 2020, we conducted online surveys on COVID-19 information sources, strategies, assigned trustworthiness, and barriers — and in February 2021, on COVID-19 vaccination information sources. Results were analyzed descriptively; group comparisons were performed using χ\(^2\)-tests. Results: For general COVID-19-related medical information (413 participants), non-physicians most often selected official websites (57%), TV (57%), and e-mail/newsletters (46%) as preferred information sources — physicians chose official websites (63%), e-mail/newsletters (56%), and professional journals (55%). Non-physician HCWs used Facebook/YouTube more frequently. The main barriers were insufficient time and access issues. Non-physicians chose abstracts (66%), videos (45%), and webinars (40%) as preferred information strategy; physicians: overviews with algorithms (66%), abstracts (62%), webinars (48%). Information seeking on COVID-19 vaccination (2700 participants) was quite similar, however, with newspapers being more often used by non-physicians (63%) vs. physician HCWs (70%). Conclusion: Non-physician HCWs more often consulted public information sources. Employers/institutions should ensure the supply of professional, targeted COVID-19 information for different HCW groups.
This compilation focuses on adolescent mental disorders and their prevention. It comprises three distinct studies, each contributing to a deeper understanding of this critical topic. This work addresses a critical gap in the understanding of, and approach to, adolescent mental health, and as a result reveals a critically important and urgently needed policy implication for action. The thematic structure of these studies begins with an examination of the epidemiology of child and adolescent mental disorders. Baseline data were collected from N = 877 adolescents with a mean age of 12.43 years (SD = 0.65). Mental health problems, such as depressive symptoms, non-suicidal self-injury, suicidal ideation, symptoms of eating disorders, and gender differences, are thoroughly examined. Results revealed a significant portion of our sample displaying mental health problems as early as the 6th and 7th grades, with girls generally being more affected than boys. The findings underscore the importance of early adolescence in the emergence of mental health problems and thereby emphasize the need for preventive measures. Moving beyond prevalence estimates, the compilation delves into the etiology of these disorders, exploring their potential correlation with a COVID-19 infection. Understanding the early signs and risk factors is crucial for timely support. While numerous studies have investigated potential risk and protective factors during the pandemic, our focus shifts to adolescents’ coping when an infection with the virus was involved (N = 2,154, M = 12.31, SD = 0.67). We hypothesized that students infected or with close family members infected, would exhibit an increased psychopathology and a decreased functioning of protective factors such as self-efficacy or self-esteem. We found no connection between infection and the mental health status within our sample, but protective factors and mental well-being were positively associated. Thus, universal primary prevention appears to be the preferred approach for promoting mental health. Lastly, the compilation introduces LessStress, a noteworthy contribution to more evidence-based prevention programs. This universal approach is designed to reduce stress in schools, accompanied by a cluster-randomized trial to evaluate its effectiveness (estimated sample size N = 1,894). Existing studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of stress prevention, leading us to introduce a short and easy-to-implement prevention program. There is positive evidence for one-lesson interventions in schools for promoting well-being and health behaviors among adolescents. LessStress is designed based on a life skills approach that not only imparts psychoeducational content but also teaches skills relevant to everyday life and directly applicable. Throughout these studies, a common thread emerges: the pressing need to address mental disorders during childhood and adolescence. These formative years play a pivotal role in the development of mental health problems. These formative years play a crucial role in the development of mental health problems. They highlight the importance of epidemiological data collection and analysis based on the latest models to develop prevention interventions that are not only effective but also reach young people on a global level.
Psychopathology, protective factors, and COVID-19 among adolescents: a structural equation model
(2023)
Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in December 2019 and the associated restrictions, mental health in children and adolescents has been increasingly discussed in the media. Negative impacts of the pandemic, including a sharp increase in psychopathology and, consequently, reduced quality of life, appear to have particularly affected children and young people, who may be especially vulnerable to the adverse effects of isolation. Nevertheless, many children and adolescents have managed to cope well with the restrictions, without deterioration of their mental health. The present study therefore explored the links between COVID-19 infection (in oneself or a family member, as well as the death of a family member due to the virus), protective factors such as self-efficacy, resilience, self-esteem, and health-related quality of life, and measures of psychopathology such as depression scores, internalizing/externalizing problems, emotion dysregulation, and victimization. For this purpose, we examined data from 2129 adolescents (mean age = 12.31, SD = 0.67; 51% male; 6% born outside of Germany) using a structural equation model. We found medium to high loadings of the manifest variables with the latent variables (COVID-19, protective factors, and psychopathology). Protective factors showed a significant negative correlation with psychopathology. However, COVID-19 had a weak connection with psychopathology in our sample. External pandemic-related factors (e.g., restrictions) and their interaction with existing psychopathology or individual protective factors appear to have a greater influence on young people’s mental health than the impact of the virus per se. Sociopolitical efforts should be undertaken to foster prevention and promote individual resilience, especially in adolescence.
Medical tourism is a rapidly growing sector of economic growth and diversification. However, data on the demographics and characteristics of the traveling patients are sparse. In this study, we analyzed the common demographic properties and characteristics of the inbound medical tourists seeking orthopedic medical care in Germany for the years 2010 to 2019 compared to a domestic group. At the same time, we examined how the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak of 2020 changed the field of medical tourism in Germany. Calculations were performed using administrative hospital data provided by the Federal Statistical Department of Germany. Data were analyzed from the years 2010 to 2020. A total of six elective orthopedic surgery codes (bone biopsy, knee arthroplasty, foot surgery, osteotomy, hardware removal, and arthrodesis) were identified as key service indicators for medical tourism and further analyzed. Factors including residence, sex, year, and type of elective surgery were modeled using linear regression analysis. Age and sex distributions were compared between patients living inside Germany (DE) or outside Germany (non-DE). Between 2010 and 2020, 6,261,801 orthopedic procedures were coded for the DE group and 27,420 key procedures were identified for the non-DE group. Medical tourists were predominantly male and significantly younger than the domestic population. The linear regression analysis of the OPS codes over the past years showed a significantly different slope between the DE and non-DE groups only for the OPS code “hardware removal”. With the COVID-19 pandemic, an overall decline in performed orthopedic procedures was observed for the non-DE and the DE group. A significant reduction below the 95% prediction bands for the year 2020 could be shown for hardware removal and foot surgery (for DE), and for hardware removal, knee arthroplasty, foot surgery, and osteotomy (for non-DE). This study is the first to quantify inbound medical tourism in elective orthopedic surgery in Germany. The COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected many — but not all — areas of orthopedic surgery. It has to be seen how this negative trend will develop in the future.