ADHD Follow-Up in Adulthood among Subjects Treated for the Disorder in a Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service from 1995 to 2015

Background and Objectives: ADHD is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity and can persist in adulthood. The aim of this study is to deepen knowledge about adult ADHD follow-up. Materials and Methods: This observational study consists of one retrospective part aimed at collecting records of children and adolescents treated for ADHD in the Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) from 1995 to 2015 and, successively, at identifying their adult follow-up in Adult Mental Health Service (AMHS); the second part consists of ADHD scale administration, Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults (DIVA 2-0) and Adult Self Rating Scale (ASRSv1.1), for the subjects currently being treated at AMHS who agreed to participate in the study. Results: We observed that among the 55 patients treated at CAMHS between 1995 and 2015 for ADHD and subsequently at the AMHS, none presented a diagnosis of ADHD; instead, they were treated for Intellectual Dysfunction (33%), Borderline Personality Disorder (15%) and Anxiety Disorders (9%), and two individuals were also diagnosed with comorbid substance/alcohol abuse (4%). Of the 55 patients, only 25 (45%) were treated at AMHS during the study period. Though we asked for their informed consent to administer the questionnaires, we were able to test only seven patients. The ASRS-V1.1 score showed that 43% of patients reported symptoms of ADHD persistence in adulthood. For DIVA 2.0, 57% of individuals reported scores indicating the persistence of the ADHD inattention component, and 43% the persistence of both ADHD dimensions. Conclusions: ADHD cannot be considered a disorder confined to childhood/adolescence but instead is a chronic and complex condition that can persist into adulthood. The very small size of our final sample may account for both the high ADHD dropout rate over the long follow-up period and the difficult transition from child to adult health care in ADHD treatment. Our investigation suggests the need for specific training in the diagnosis and treatment of adult ADHD and the implementation of transition protocols between minor and adult services to improve long-term treatments

Perceptions of Caring Behavior Among Undergraduate Nursing Students: A Three-Cohort Observational Study

Introduction: Increase in the knowledge of “caring science” among nurses plays a key role in ensuring a correct caring behavior towards patients. Caring training for students is a priority in nursing education, but unfortunately there are limited and conflicting studies which explore this outcome. The purpose of this observational study was to explore the perceptions of caring behaviors by nursing students during their clinical practice training in order to highlight if the level of caring behaviors changes as the nursing course progresses. Materials and Methods: The Caring Behaviors Inventory-24 (CBI-24) was administered to 331 students, enrolled in the three years of an Italian Nursing Course, who accepted to participate in the study (89.2% response rate). The data were analyzed using SPSS software version 26.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Results: The total mean score of CBI-24 was 4.82 in the first, 5.12 in the second and 5.26 in the third-year students. The CBI-24 dimensions “Responding to individual needs” and “Being with” obtained the highest scores among the students of the first year. At the end of the first year, our students were already able to perform expressive caring, whereas instrumental caring developed at a high level in the second and third years. We did not highlight any statistically significant difference between the two gender CBI-24 item scores. Conclusion: In light of our results, we put in evidence that Nursing Degree Programme favours the development in students of both relational and technical components of caring behaviors. We hope that in future students’ self-assessment of caring behaviors could be considered an educational outcome for Nursing Programme

Chlorophyll fluorescence quenching as a tool to screen olive cultivars tolerant to drought stress

The measurements of fluorescence chlorophyll is considered a promising technique to rapidly quantify the response to physiological stress in higher plants. Drought stress can be considered one of the most frequent environmental constraints causing the failure of newly planted trees. Olive tree (Olea europaea), a representative drought stress tolerant plant, is one of the most typical and economically relevant plant species grown in the Mediterranean area. However, as different cultivars may exhibit different drought tolerance level, the selection of the most drought tolerant cultivars acquires relevance. The objective of this study was to determine whether information obtained with chlorophyll fluorescence measurements carried out on detached olive leaves subjected to dehydration in vitro, may be translated on the whole olive plant. Results revealed that in vitro measurements were effective to evidence strong differences in the Fv/Fm ratio decline among the cultivars, following 24 hours of dehydration, and it was possible to distinguish different level of putative tolerances. Measurements carried out on whole plants of different cultivars confirmed, indeed, the results obtained in vitro. The results indicated that the chlorophyll fluorescence measurement represents a valid technique for a rapid screening of olive cultivars tolerance to drought stress

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Psychiatric Emergencies in Two Different Settings: Emergency Room and Community Mental Health Service

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic caused a public health emergency with profound consequences on the physical and mental health of individuals. Emergency Rooms (ER) and Community Mental Health Services (CMHS) played a key role in the management of psychiatric emergencies during the pandemic. The purpose of the study was to evaluate urgent psychiatric consultations (UPCs) in the ERs of the General Hospitals and in the CMHS of a Northern Italian town during the pandemic period. Methods: This monocentric observational study collected UPCs carried out in ER from 01/03/2020 to 28/02/2021 (the so-called “COVID-19 period”) and the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients who required UPCs in the 12-months period, comparing these data with those collected from 01/03/2019 to 29/02/2020 (the so-called “pre-COVID-19 period”). The same variables were collected for UPCs carried out in CMHS from 01/03/2020 to 31/01/2021 and compared with those collected from 01/03/2019 to 31/01/2020. The data were statistically analyzed through STATA 12-2011. Results: In ER, we reported a 24% reduction in UPCs during the COVID-19 period (n = 909) in comparison with the pre-COVID-19 period (n = 1,194). Differently, we observed an increase of 4% in UPCs carried out in CMHS during the COVID-19 period (n = 1,214) in comparison with the previous period (n = 1,162). We observed an increase of UPCs in ER required by people who lived in psychiatric facilities or with disability pension whereas more UPCs in CMHS were required by older people or those living in other institutions compared to the previous period. In the COVID-19 period, the most frequent reasons for UPCs in ER were aggressiveness, socio-environmental maladjustment and psychiatric symptoms in organic disorders whereas in CMHS we reported an increase of UPCs for control of psychopharmacology therapy and mixed state/mania. Conclusion: In light of our findings, we conclude that the most vulnerable people required more frequent attention and care in both ER and CMHS during pandemic, which disrupted individuals’ ability to adapt and induced many stressful reactive symptoms. In order to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health, psychological support interventions for the general population should be implemented, having particular regard for more psychologically fragile people

SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 is associated with greater disease severity among hospitalised women but not men: multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 has been associated with an increased rate of transmission and disease severity among subjects testing positive in the community. Its impact on hospitalised patients is less well documented. METHODS: We collected viral sequences and clinical data of patients admitted with SARS-CoV-2 and hospital-onset COVID-19 infections (HOCIs), sampled 16 November 2020 to 10 January 2021, from eight hospitals participating in the COG-UK-HOCI study. Associations between the variant and the outcomes of all-cause mortality and intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission were evaluated using mixed effects Cox models adjusted by age, sex, comorbidities, care home residence, pregnancy and ethnicity. FINDINGS: Sequences were obtained from 2341 inpatients (HOCI cases=786) and analysis of clinical outcomes was carried out in 2147 inpatients with all data available. The HR for mortality of B.1.1.7 compared with other lineages was 1.01 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.28, p=0.94) and for ITU admission was 1.01 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.37, p=0.96). Analysis of sex-specific effects of B.1.1.7 identified increased risk of mortality (HR 1.30, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.78, p=0.096) and ITU admission (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.90, p=0.011) in females infected with the variant but not males (mortality HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.10, p=0.177; ITU HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.04, p=0.086). INTERPRETATION: In common with smaller studies of patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2, we did not find an overall increase in mortality or ITU admission associated with B.1.1.7 compared with other lineages. However, women with B.1.1.7 may be at an increased risk of admission to intensive care and at modestly increased risk of mortality.This report was produced by members of the COG-UK-HOCI Variant substudy consortium. COG-UK-HOCI is part of COG-UK. COG-UK is supported by funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC) part of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute

Procalcitonin Is Not a Reliable Biomarker of Bacterial Coinfection in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Undergoing Microbiological Investigation at the Time of Hospital Admission

Abstract Admission procalcitonin measurements and microbiology results were available for 1040 hospitalized adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (from 48 902 included in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium World Health Organization Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK study). Although procalcitonin was higher in bacterial coinfection, this was neither clinically significant (median [IQR], 0.33 [0.11–1.70] ng/mL vs 0.24 [0.10–0.90] ng/mL) nor diagnostically useful (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.56 [95% confidence interval, .51–.60]).</jats:p

Implementation of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 in the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK:prospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone was the first intervention proven to reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19 being treated in hospital. We aimed to evaluate the adoption of corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 in the UK after the RECOVERY trial publication on June 16, 2020, and to identify discrepancies in care. METHODS: We did an audit of clinical implementation of corticosteroids in a prospective, observational, cohort study in 237 UK acute care hospitals between March 16, 2020, and April 14, 2021, restricted to patients aged 18 years or older with proven or high likelihood of COVID-19, who received supplementary oxygen. The primary outcome was administration of dexamethasone, prednisolone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN66726260. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2020, and April 14, 2021, 47 795 (75·2%) of 63 525 of patients on supplementary oxygen received corticosteroids, higher among patients requiring critical care than in those who received ward care (11 185 [86·6%] of 12 909 vs 36 415 [72·4%] of 50 278). Patients 50 years or older were significantly less likely to receive corticosteroids than those younger than 50 years (adjusted odds ratio 0·79 [95% CI 0·70–0·89], p=0·0001, for 70–79 years; 0·52 [0·46–0·58], p80 years), independent of patient demographics and illness severity. 84 (54·2%) of 155 pregnant women received corticosteroids. Rates of corticosteroid administration increased from 27·5% in the week before June 16, 2020, to 75–80% in January, 2021. INTERPRETATION: Implementation of corticosteroids into clinical practice in the UK for patients with COVID-19 has been successful, but not universal. Patients older than 70 years, independent of illness severity, chronic neurological disease, and dementia, were less likely to receive corticosteroids than those who were younger, as were pregnant women. This could reflect appropriate clinical decision making, but the possibility of inequitable access to life-saving care should be considered. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research and UK Medical Research Council

Investigation of hospital discharge cases and SARS-CoV-2 introduction into Lothian care homes

Background The first epidemic wave of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Scotland resulted in high case numbers and mortality in care homes. In Lothian, over one-third of care homes reported an outbreak, while there was limited testing of hospital patients discharged to care homes. Aim To investigate patients discharged from hospitals as a source of SARS-CoV-2 introduction into care homes during the first epidemic wave. Methods A clinical review was performed for all patients discharges from hospitals to care homes from 1st March 2020 to 31st May 2020. Episodes were ruled out based on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) test history, clinical assessment at discharge, whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data and an infectious period of 14 days. Clinical samples were processed for WGS, and consensus genomes generated were used for analysis using Cluster Investigation and Virus Epidemiological Tool software. Patient timelines were obtained using electronic hospital records. Findings In total, 787 patients discharged from hospitals to care homes were identified. Of these, 776 (99%) were ruled out for subsequent introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into care homes. However, for 10 episodes, the results were inconclusive as there was low genomic diversity in consensus genomes or no sequencing data were available. Only one discharge episode had a genomic, time and location link to positive cases during hospital admission, leading to 10 positive cases in their care home. Conclusion The majority of patients discharged from hospitals were ruled out for introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into care homes, highlighting the importance of screening all new admissions when faced with a novel emerging virus and no available vaccine

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and outcomes of COVID-19 in the ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK cohort: a matched, prospective cohort study.

Background: Early in the pandemic it was suggested that pre-existing use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) could lead to increased disease severity in patients with COVID-19. NSAIDs are an important analgesic, particularly in those with rheumatological disease, and are widely available to the general public without prescription. Evidence from community studies, administrative data, and small studies of hospitalised patients suggest NSAIDs are not associated with poorer COVID-19 outcomes. We aimed to characterise the safety of NSAIDs and identify whether pre-existing NSAID use was associated with increased severity of COVID-19 disease. Methods: This prospective, multicentre cohort study included patients of any age admitted to hospital with a confirmed or highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to COVID-19 between Jan 17 and Aug 10, 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were disease severity at presentation, admission to critical care, receipt of invasive ventilation, receipt of non-invasive ventilation, use of supplementary oxygen, and acute kidney injury. NSAID use was required to be within the 2 weeks before hospital admission. We used logistic regression to estimate the effects of NSAIDs and adjust for confounding variables. We used propensity score matching to further estimate effects of NSAIDS while accounting for covariate differences in populations. Results: Between Jan 17 and Aug 10, 2020, we enrolled 78 674 patients across 255 health-care facilities in England, Scotland, and Wales. 72 179 patients had death outcomes available for matching; 40 406 (56·2%) of 71 915 were men, 31 509 (43·8%) were women. In this cohort, 4211 (5·8%) patients were recorded as taking systemic NSAIDs before admission to hospital. Following propensity score matching, balanced groups of NSAIDs users and NSAIDs non-users were obtained (4205 patients in each group). At hospital admission, we observed no significant differences in severity between exposure groups. After adjusting for explanatory variables, NSAID use was not associated with worse in-hospital mortality (matched OR 0·95, 95% CI 0·84–1·07; p=0·35), critical care admission (1·01, 0·87–1·17; p=0·89), requirement for invasive ventilation (0·96, 0·80–1·17; p=0·69), requirement for non-invasive ventilation (1·12, 0·96–1·32; p=0·14), requirement for oxygen (1·00, 0·89–1·12; p=0·97), or occurrence of acute kidney injury (1·08, 0·92–1·26; p=0·33). Interpretation: NSAID use is not associated with higher mortality or increased severity of COVID-19. Policy makers should consider reviewing issued advice around NSAID prescribing and COVID-19 severity. Funding: National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council

Co-infections, secondary infections, and antimicrobial use in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 during the first pandemic wave from the ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study: a multicentre, prospective cohort study

Background: Microbiological characterisation of co-infections and secondary infections in patients with COVID-19 is lacking, and antimicrobial use is high. We aimed to describe microbiologically confirmed co-infections and secondary infections, and antimicrobial use, in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study is an ongoing, prospective cohort study recruiting inpatients from 260 hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales, conducted by the ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium. Patients with a confirmed or clinician-defined high likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were eligible for inclusion in the ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study. For this specific study, we excluded patients with a recorded negative SARS-CoV-2 test result and those without a recorded outcome at 28 days after admission. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, therapeutic, and outcome data were collected using a prespecified case report form. Organisms considered clinically insignificant were excluded. Findings: We analysed data from 48 902 patients admitted to hospital between Feb 6 and June 8, 2020. The median patient age was 74 years (IQR 59–84) and 20 786 (42·6%) of 48 765 patients were female. Microbiological investigations were recorded for 8649 (17·7%) of 48 902 patients, with clinically significant COVID-19-related respiratory or bloodstream culture results recorded for 1107 patients. 762 (70·6%) of 1080 infections were secondary, occurring more than 2 days after hospital admission. Staphylococcus aureus and Haemophilus influenzae were the most common pathogens causing respiratory co-infections (diagnosed ≤2 days after admission), with Enterobacteriaceae and S aureus most common in secondary respiratory infections. Bloodstream infections were most frequently caused by Escherichia coli and S aureus. Among patients with available data, 13 390 (37·0%) of 36 145 had received antimicrobials in the community for this illness episode before hospital admission and 39 258 (85·2%) of 46 061 patients with inpatient antimicrobial data received one or more antimicrobials at some point during their admission (highest for patients in critical care). We identified frequent use of broad-spectrum agents and use of carbapenems rather than carbapenem-sparing alternatives. Interpretation: In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, microbiologically confirmed bacterial infections are rare, and more likely to be secondary infections. Gram-negative organisms and S aureus are the predominant pathogens. The frequency and nature of antimicrobial use are concerning, but tractable targets for stewardship interventions exist. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, UK Department for International Development, Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, EU Platform for European Preparedness Against (Re-)emerging Epidemics, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool, and NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London