COVID-19 and post-traumatic stress disorder: The perfect 'storm' for mental health (Review).

Since its outbreak, in December, 2019, in the Chinese city of Wuhan, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has evolved into an ongoing global pandemic. Due to the novel antigenic properties of this virus, the world population could not develop immunity effectively and this led to the subsequent spread of COVID-19. This caused an unprecedented emergency situation with significant negative effects on health and well-being both on an individual and societal level. Apart from health, economic and social consequences, the impact of this pandemic on mental health is increasingly being reported in the scientific literature. The present review aimed to provide a comprehensive discussion of the possible neurological and neuropsychiatric manifestations of SARS-CoV-2, together with the related underlying molecular pathways. In addition, the present review focused on populations which are at a higher risk of developing psychiatric disturbances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and discussed possible routes of clinical management and therapeutics to minimize the burden associated with psychiatric disorders. Moreover, research findings exploring the prevalence of COVID-19-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms across vulnerable groups, including children, adolescents and COVID-19 survivors are presented, with particular emphasis on those with severe disease who required hospitalization and/or intensive care unit admission. Based on the available literature, the identification of potential determinants associated with PTSD across the different populations is underlined. Lessons learnt from the pandemics across the globe together with the ongoing research on COVID-19 and its impact on mental health, highlight the utmost importance for evidence-based, proactive and targeted interventions in high-risk groups aiming to mitigate the risks and manage vulnerabilities

Effect of intravenous clarithromycin in patients with sepsis, respiratory and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome: a randomized clinical trial.

Clarithromycin may act as immune-regulating treatment in sepsis and acute respiratory dysfunction syndrome. However, clinical evidence remains inconclusive. We aimed to evaluate whether clarithromycin improves 28-day mortality among patients with sepsis, respiratory and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, clinical trial in patients with sepsis. Participants with ratio of partial oxygen pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen less than 200 and more than 3 SOFA points from systems other than the respiratory function were enrolled between December 2017 and September 2019. Patients were randomized to receive 1 gr of clarithromycin or placebo intravenously once daily for 4 consecutive days. The primary endpoint was 28-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were 90-day mortality; sepsis response (defined as at least 25% decrease in SOFA score by day 7); sepsis recurrence; and differences in peripheral blood cell populations and leukocyte transcriptomics. Fifty-five patients were allocated to each arm. By day 28, 27 (49.1%) patients in the clarithromycin and 25 (45.5%) in the placebo group died (risk difference 3.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) - 15.7 to 22.7]; P = 0.703, adjusted OR 1.03 [95%CI 0.35-3.06]; P = 0.959). There were no statistical differences in 90-day mortality and sepsis response. Clarithromycin was associated with lower incidence of sepsis recurrence (OR 0.21 [95%CI 0.06-0.68]; P = 0.012); significant increase in monocyte HLA-DR expression; expansion of non-classical monocytes; and upregulation of genes involved in cholesterol homeostasis. Serious and non-serious adverse events were equally distributed. Clarithromycin did not reduce mortality among patients with sepsis with respiratory and multiple organ dysfunction. Clarithromycin was associated with lower sepsis recurrence, possibly through a mechanism of immune restoration. Clinical trial registration clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT03345992 registered 17 November 2017; EudraCT 2017-001056-55

Use of IFN gamma/IL10 Ratio for Stratification of Hydrocortisone Therapy in Patients With Septic Shock

Large clinical trials testing hydrocortisone therapy in septic shock have produced conflicting results. Subgroups may benefit of hydrocortisone treatment depending on their individual immune response. We performed an exploratory analysis of the database from the international randomized controlled clinical trial Corticosteroid Therapy of Septic Shock (CORTICUS) employing machine learning to a panel of 137 variables collected from the Berlin subcohort comprising 83 patients including demographic and clinical measures, organ failure scores, leukocyte counts and levels of circulating cytokines. The identified theranostic marker was validated against data from a cohort of the Hellenic Sepsis Study Group (HSSG) (n = 246), patients enrolled in the clinical trial of Sodium Selenite and Procalcitonin Guided Antimicrobial Therapy in Severe Sepsis (SISPCT, n = 118), and another, smaller clinical trial (Crossover study, n = 20). In addition, in vitro blood culture experiments and in vivo experiments in mouse models were performed to assess biological plausibility. A low serum IFNγ/IL10 ratio predicted increased survival in the hydrocortisone group whereas a high ratio predicted better survival in the placebo group. Using this marker for a decision rule, we applied it to three validation sets and observed the same trend. Experimental studies in vitro revealed that IFNγ/IL10 was negatively associated with the load of (heat inactivated) pathogens in spiked human blood and in septic mouse models. Accordingly, an in silico analysis of published IFNγ and IL10 values in bacteremic and non-bacteremic patients with the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome supported this association between the ratio and pathogen burden. We propose IFNγ/IL10 as a molecular marker supporting the decision to administer hydrocortisone to patients in septic shock. Prospective clinical studies are necessary and standard operating procedures need to be implemented, particularly to define a generic threshold. If confirmed, IFNγ/IL10 may become a suitable theranostic marker for an urging clinical need

Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice

Background Patient‐reported outcomes measures (PROMs) assess a patient’s subjective appraisal of health outcomes from their own perspective. Despite hypothesised benefits that feedback on PROMs can support decision‐making in clinical practice and improve outcomes, there is uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of PROMs feedback. Objectives To assess the effects of PROMs feedback to patients, or healthcare workers, or both on patient‐reported health outcomes and processes of care. Search methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, two other databases and two clinical trial registries on 5 October 2020. We searched grey literature and consulted experts in the field. Selection criteria Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We included randomised trials directly comparing the effects on outcomes and processes of care of PROMs feedback to healthcare professionals and patients, or both with the impact of not providing such information. Data collection and analysis Two groups of two authors independently extracted data from the included studies and evaluated study quality. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted meta‐analyses of the results where possible. Main results We identified 116 randomised trials which assessed the effectiveness of PROMs feedback in improving processes or outcomes of care, or both in a broad range of disciplines including psychiatry, primary care, and oncology. Studies were conducted across diverse ambulatory primary and secondary care settings in North America, Europe and Australasia. A total of 49,785 patients were included across all the studies. The certainty of the evidence varied between very low and moderate. Many of the studies included in the review were at risk of performance and detection bias. The evidence suggests moderate certainty that PROMs feedback probably improves quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.26; 11 studies; 2687 participants), and leads to an increase in patient‐physician communication (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.52; 5 studies; 658 participants), diagnosis and notation (risk ratio (RR) 1.73, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.08; 21 studies; 7223 participants), and disease control (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.41; 14 studies; 2806 participants). The intervention probably makes little or no difference for general health perceptions (SMD 0.04, 95% CI ‐0.17 to 0.24; 2 studies, 552 participants; low‐certainty evidence), social functioning (SMD 0.02, 95% CI ‐0.06 to 0.09; 15 studies; 2632 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), and pain (SMD 0.00, 95% CI ‐0.09 to 0.08; 9 studies; 2386 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of PROMs feedback on physical functioning (14 studies; 2788 participants) and mental functioning (34 studies; 7782 participants), as well as fatigue (4 studies; 741 participants), as the certainty of the evidence was very low. We did not find studies reporting on adverse effects defined as distress following or related to PROM completion. Authors' conclusions PROM feedback probably produces moderate improvements in communication between healthcare professionals and patients as well as in diagnosis and notation, and disease control, and small improvements to quality of life. Our confidence in the effects is limited by the risk of bias, heterogeneity and small number of trials conducted to assess outcomes of interest. It is unclear whether many of these improvements are clinically meaningful or sustainable in the long term. There is a need for more high‐quality studies in this area, particularly studies which employ cluster designs and utilise techniques to maintain allocation concealment

The Clinical Impact of Copy Number Variants in Inherited Bone Marrow Failure Syndromes

Inherited bone marrow failure syndromes (IBMFSs) comprise a genetically heterogeneous group of diseases with hematopoietic failure and a wide array of physical malformations. Copy number variants (CNVs) were reported in some IBMFSs. It is unclear what impact CNVs play in patients evaluated for a suspected diagnosis of IBMFS. Clinical and genetic data of 323 patients from the Canadian Inherited Marrow Failure Registry from 2001 to 2014, who had a documented genetic work-up, were analyzed. Cases with pathogenic CNVs (at least 1 kilobasepairs) were compared to cases with other mutations. Genotype-phenotype correlations were performed to assess the impact of CNVs. Pathogenic nucleotide-level mutations were found in 157 of 303 tested patients (51.8%). Genome-wide CNV analysis by single nucleotide polymorphism arrays or comparative genomic hybridization arrays revealed pathogenic CNVs in 11 of 67 patients tested (16.4%). In four of these patients, identification of CNV was crucial for establishing the correct diagnosis as their clinical presentation was ambiguous. Eight additional patients were identified to harbor pathogenic CNVs by other methods. Of the 19 patients with pathogenic CNVs, four had compound-heterozygosity of a CNV with a nucleotide-level mutation. Pathogenic CNVs were associated with more extensive non-hematological organ system involvement