COMVC-19: A Program to protect healthcare workers' mental health during the COVID-19 Pandemic. What we have learned

OBJECTIVE: In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic brought a work and stress overload to healthcare workers, increasing their vulnerability to mental health impairments. In response, the authors created the COMVC-19 program. The program offered preventive actions and mental health treatment for the 22,000 workers of The Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (HCFMUSP). This paper aims to describe its implementation and share what we have learned from this experience. METHODS: Workers were able to easily access the program through a 24/7 hotline. Additionally, a mobile phone app that screened for signs and symptoms of emotional distress and offered psychoeducation and/or referral to treatment was made available. Data from both these sources as well as any subsequent psychiatric evaluations were collected. RESULTS: The first 20 weeks of our project revealed that most participants were female, and part of the nursing staff working directly with COVID-19 patients. The most frequently reported symptoms were: anxiety, depression and sleep disturbances. The most common diagnoses were Adjustment, Anxiety, and Mood disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a mental health program in a multimodal intervention was feasible in a major quaternary public hospital. Our data also suggests that preventive actions should primarily be aimed at anxiety and depression symptoms, with a particular focus on the nursing staff. &nbsp

Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study

Summary Background Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally. Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung’s disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status. We did a complete case analysis. Findings We included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung’s disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middleincome countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58·0%) were male. Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36–39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2·8 kg (2·3–3·3). Mortality among all patients was 37 (39·8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20·4%) of 2860 in middle-income countries, and 50 (5·6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0·0001 between all country income groups). Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90·0%] of ten in lowincome countries, 97 [31·9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1·4%] of 139 in high-income countries; p≤0·0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2·78 [95% CI 1·88–4·11], p<0·0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2·11 [1·59–2·79], p<0·0001), sepsis at presentation (1·20 [1·04–1·40], p=0·016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention (ASA 4–5 vs ASA 1–2, 1·82 [1·40–2·35], p<0·0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1–2, 1·58, [1·30–1·92], p<0·0001]), surgical safety checklist not used (1·39 [1·02–1·90], p=0·035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed (ventilation 1·96, [1·41–2·71], p=0·0001; parenteral nutrition 1·35, [1·05–1·74], p=0·018). Administration of parenteral nutrition (0·61, [0·47–0·79], p=0·0002) and use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (0·65 [0·50–0·86], p=0·0024) or percutaneous central line (0·69 [0·48–1·00], p=0·049) were associated with lower mortality. Interpretation Unacceptable differences in mortality exist for gastrointestinal congenital anomalies between lowincome, middle-income, and high-income countries. Improving access to quality neonatal surgical care in LMICs will be vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 of ending preventable deaths in neonates and children younger than 5 years by 2030

Comparative study of esketamine and racemic ketamine in treatment-resistant depression: Protocol for a non-inferiority clinical trial

Carvalho, Lucas Pedreira de. Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Laboratório de Pesquisa Clínica. Salvador, BA, Brasil. a Postgraduate Program in Medicine and Health, b Psychiatry Service, University Hospital, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, c LiNC—Laboratório Interdisciplinar de Neurociências Clínicas, d Depatment of Anesthesiology, e PRODAF—Programa de Transtornos Afetivos, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, f Postgraduate Program in Psychology, Institute of Psychology, g Immunology Service, Universidade Federal da Bahial, h Clinical Research Laboratory (LAPEC), Gonçalo Moniz Institute, Fiocruz-Bahia, Salvador, Brazil, i McGill Group for Suicide Studies, Douglas Mental Health University Institute & Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, j Center for Research and Clinical Trials Sinapse-Bairral, Instituto Bairral de Psiquiatria, Itapira, Brazil.Submitted by Ana Maria Fiscina Sampaio ([email protected]) on 2018-12-21T16:28:46Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Melo FSC Comparative_study_of_esketamine_and_racemic.64.pdf: 212500 bytes, checksum: 350198044d38100f8cc9dd703451de7c (MD5)Approved for entry into archive by Ana Maria Fiscina Sampaio ([email protected]) on 2018-12-21T16:45:26Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Melo FSC Comparative_study_of_esketamine_and_racemic.64.pdf: 212500 bytes, checksum: 350198044d38100f8cc9dd703451de7c (MD5)Made available in DSpace on 2018-12-21T16:45:26Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Melo FSC Comparative_study_of_esketamine_and_racemic.64.pdf: 212500 bytes, checksum: 350198044d38100f8cc9dd703451de7c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018Allergan and Lundbeck and research fees from Janssen Pharmaceutical during the last 12 months. ALTL has received consulting fees from Janssen Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo Brasil, Cristalia Produtos Químicos e Farmacêuticos, Libbs Farmacêutica and SanofiAventis and has received research fees from Eli Lilly, H. Lundbeck A/S, Servier Laboratories, Hoffman-La Roche and Forum Pharmaceuticals during the last 12 months.Múltipla - ver em NotasThe use of ketamine as an option in the treatment of depressive disorder is growing rapidly, supported by numerous clinical trials attesting its efficacy and safety. Esketamine, the S (+) enantiomer of ketamine, is the most widely used form in the anesthetic environment in some countries, and new studies have shown that it may also be effective in depression and with better tolerability. However, no study so far has directly compared esketamine with racemic ketamine. Here we propose a protocol of a clinical trial to evaluate esketamine as a noninferior medicationMethods/design: This study protocol is for a randomized, controlled, double-blind noninferiority clinical trial. Subjects will be 18 years or older, with major depression characterized as treatment-resistant. Participants will receive a single infusion of either esketamine (0.25mg/kg) or ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) over 40 minutes. The primary outcome will be the difference in remission rates between the 2 treatment arms at 24 and 72hours after drug infusion. Secondary outcomes will include other timepoints, measurements of cognition, dissociation, and blood biomarkers. Discussion: A head-to-head study is the best way to evaluate whether the esketamine is in fact comparable to the racemic ketamine in terms of both efficacy and safety, and, if positive, it would be an initial step to increase the access to that type of treatment worldwide. Ethics and dissemination: The study was approved by the local Institutional Review Board (University Hospital Professor Edgard Santos—Federal University of Bahia—Number: 46657415.0.0000.0049). Subjects will only participate after voluntarily agreeing and signing the Informed Consent Form. The study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. Trial registration: This trial has been registered in the Japan Primary Registries Network (JPRN): UMIN000032355, which is affiliated with the World Health Organization. when compared to ketamine in the treatment of patients with treatment-resistant depression