Postnatal depression in Southern Brazil: prevalence and its demographic and socioeconomic determinants

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Studies investigating the prevalence of postnatal depression (PND) show rates ranging from 5% to 36.7%. The investigation of age, race, educational levels, religion and income as risk factors for PND has yielded conflicting results. The aim of this study is to investigate the prevalence of PND in women residing in Southern Brazil and the associated risk factors.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is population-based cross-sectional study of women residing in Porto Alegre who delivered in June 2001. A sample of 271 participants were selected from the Record of Living Newborn Infants of the State Health Department (the official Brazilian database and stores the name and address of all women who give birth to living newborn infants) using a process based on pseudo-random numbers which choose a random sample from 2.000 records. Once the addresses were identified, the women were visited at their place of residence (home, hotel, boarding house and prison), with the interviews taking place between the 6^thand the 8^thweek after delivery.</p> <p>The association between the risk factors and PND was investigated through bivariate analysis using Pearson's chi-square test. Student's t-test was used to analyze the continuous variables. To identify independent risk factors, multivariate analysis was performed using hierarchical levels with a predefined model that took into account the time relationship between PND and the risk factors. Cox's regression was used to calculate the prevalence ratios.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The PND prevalence rate found was 20.7% (CI 95% 15.7 – 25.7). After adjusting for confounding variables, per capita income was found to have a significant association with PND.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The prevalence of PND is higher than the figures found in most developed countries and similar to the figures found in developing countries. Differences in PND by regions or countries can be partially explained by the effect of income on the mediation of risk factors. In low income populations, women should be routinely evaluated for postnatal depression, and those with no partner or spouse are likely to require further care from health services and should be given the benefit of mental health prevention programs.</p

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

A mãe em sofrimento psíquico: objeto da ciência ou sujeito da clínica? La madre en sufrimiento psíquico: ¿objeto de la ciencia o sujeto de la clínica? Mother in psychic suffering: object of science or subject of the clinic?

A vivência da maternidade é abordada no modelo médico científico do ponto de vista orgânico. Porém, para algumas mulheres, isso se dá como uma experiência de intenso sofrimento psíquico. Desenvolvemos uma reflexão teórica visando refletir acerca das possibilidades de abordagem dessa questão na perspectiva de uma clínica do sujeito, conforme delimitado na abordagem psicanalítica, contrapondo-a à visão do modelo médico científico. A ciência moderna institui-se como práxis pela exclusão do sujeito, e é esta racionalidade que subsidia a abordagem dos sintomas psíquicos no modelo médico, percebidos como algo a ser eliminado. A psicanálise surge a partir da descoberta do inconsciente e do sintoma como portando uma verdade sobre o sujeito que sofre. Consideramos que os conceitos apontados pela perspectiva psicanalítica podem nos apoiar na construção de uma clínica menos objetificadora, que permita ao próprio sujeito se interrogar sobre o sentido daquilo que o faz sofrer.<br>La experiencia de la maternidad es mirada en el modelo médico científico y discutida bajo la perspectiva orgánica. Sin embargo, para algunas mujeres, esto se realiza como una experiencia de gran sufrimiento psíquico. Desarrollamos una reflexión teórica con el fin de reflexionar sobre las posibilidades de abordar esta cuestión desde la perspectiva de una clínica del sujeto, definida en el abordaje psicoanalítico, en contraste con la visión del modelo médico científico. La ciencia moderna se ha establecido como práctica para la exclusión del sujeto, y es esta racionalidad que subsidia el abordaje de los síntomas psicológicos en el modelo médico, que se percibe como algo que debe eliminarse. El psicoanálisis surge a través del descubrimiento del inconsciente y del síntoma como una verdad sobre el sujeto que sufre. Creemos que los conceptos subrayados por la perspectiva psicoanalítica nos pueden ayudar en la construcción de una clínica menos objetiva, que permita al propio sujeto la pregunta sobre el significado de lo que le hace sufrir.<br>The maternity experience is seen in the medical scientific model and approached under the organic point of view. However, for some women this is an experience of intense psychic suffering. We developed a theoretical reflection aiming to reflect on the possibilities of approaching this matter in the perspective of a clinic of subject as delimited in the psychoanalytic approach, opposing it to the medical scientific model view. The modern science institutes the exclusion of the subject as praxis, and it is this rationality that supports the approach of psychic symptoms in the medical model, seen as something to be eliminated. Psychoanalysis comes from the discovery of the unconscious and the symptom as a truth on the subject in suffering. We consider that the concepts pointed by the psychoanalytic perspective can support us on the construction of a less objectifying clinic that allows the subject to interrogate himself on the meaning of what makes him suffer

Magnitude da depressão pós-parto no Brasil: uma revisão sistemática The extent of post-partum depression in Brazil: a systematic review

OBJETIVOS: realizar uma revisão sistemática dos estudos sobre a magnitude da depressão pós-parto (DPP) no Brasil. MÉTODOS: a busca e seleção da literatura baseouse em artigos publicados em periódicos nacionais e internacionais, nas bases de dados eletrônicas Lilacs, SciELO e Medline. RESULTADOS: foram selecionados 14 estudos, sendo que 13 deles reportavam a prevalência de DPP e apenas um estudo de seguimento com limitada casuística (n=21) trazia estimativa da incidência do agravo (42,8%). A grande heterogeneidade em relação à população de estudo, método diagnóstico utilizado e período pós-parto focalizado dificultou a obtenção de uma estimativa agregada da prevalência de DPP no Brasil. Contudo, estudos conduzidos em unidades básicas de saúde, no âmbito da Estratégia de Saúde da Família ou em populações carentes apontaram uma prevalência entre 30 e 40% de DPP, enquanto pesquisas que incluíram amostras de base populacional e populações de unidades hospitalares terciárias revelaram uma prevalência de cerca de 20%. CONCLUSÕES: embora novos estudos sejam necessários para melhor caracterizar as peculiaridades que envolvem a magnitude da DPP no Brasil, as evidências disponíveis justificam uma atenção prioritária para os agravos à saúde mental materna no âmbito da saúde pública no país.<br>OBJECTIVES: to carry out a systematic review of studies of the extent of post-partum depression (PPD) in Brazil. METHODS: articles were searched for and selected from national and international periodicals included in the Lilacs, SciELO and Medline electronic databases. RESULTS: fourteen studies were selected, thirteen of which reported the prevalence of PPD and one, which followed up a limited number of cases (n=21) estimated the incidence of the disorder at 42.8%. The wide range of different populations studied, diagnostic methods used, and post-partum period monitored made it difficult to obtain an aggregate estimate for the prevalence of PPD in Brazil. Nevertheless, studies conducted at Family Health Program basic health units and among underprivileged populations suggest a prevalence of around 30 to 40%, although studies that are based on population-wide samples and tertiary hospital units reveal a prevalence of around 20%. CONCLUSIONS: although further studies are needed to characterize the specific features of the extent of PPD in Brazil, the available evidence provides sufficient justification for prioritizing treatment of mental health disorders in mothers attending the public health services