Search

Introduction: Studies have shown that pregnant women with COVID-19 have a higher risk of intensive care unit admission and invasive mechanical ventilation support than non-pregnant women. Pregnancy-associated physiological changes in respiratory function may contribute to the elevated risk. Alteration in lung volumes and capacities are attributed to the mechanical impediment caused by the growing fetus. Multiple pregnancies may therefore compromise functional lung capacity earlier than singleton pregnancies and contribute to severe respiratory symptoms of COVID-19., Materials and Methods: A total of 5514 women with a symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy registered in the COVID-19 Related Obstetric and Neonatal Outcome Study were included. The COVID-19-related adverse maternal outcomes were compared in 165 multiple versus 5349 singleton pregnancies. Combined adverse maternal outcome was defined as presence of COVID-19-related hospitalization and/or pneumonia and/or oxygen administration and/or transfer to ICU and/or death. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated., Results: The frequency of dyspnea, likelihood of developing dyspnea in a defined pregnancy week and duration of the symptomatic phase of the COVID-19 infection did not differ between the two groups. On average, COVID-19-related combined adverse outcome occurred earlier during pregnancy in women expecting more than one child than in singleton pregnancies. The overall incidence of singular and combined COVID-19-associated adverse maternal outcomes was not significantly different between groups. However, regression analysis revealed that multiple gestation, preconceptional BMI > 30 kg/m 2 and gestational age correlated significantly with an increased risk of combined adverse maternal outcome. Conversely, maternal age and medically assisted reproduction were not significant risk factors for combined adverse maternal outcome., Conclusion: Our data show that multiple gestation alone is a risk factor for COVID-19-associated combined adverse maternal outcome. Moreover, severe courses of COVID-19 in women expecting more than one child are observed earlier in pregnancy than in singleton pregnancies., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae (NTHi) is the most common respiratory pathogen in patients with chronic obstructive disease. Limited data is available investigating the impact of NTHi infections on cellular re-differentiation processes in the bronchial mucosa. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of stimulation with NTHi on the bronchial epithelium regarding cellular re-differentiation processes using primary bronchial epithelial cells harvested from infection-free patients undergoing bronchoscopy. The cells were then cultivated using an air-liquid interface and stimulated with NTHi and TGF-β. Markers of epithelial and mesenchymal cells were analyzed using immunofluorescence, Western blot and qRT-PCR. Stimulation with both NTHi and TGF-ß led to a marked increase in the expression of the mesenchymal marker vimentin, while E-cadherin as an epithelial marker maintained a stable expression throughout the experiments. Furthermore, expression of collagen 4 and the matrix-metallopeptidases 2 and 9 were increased after stimulation, while the expression of tissue inhibitors of metallopeptidases was not affected by pathogen stimulation. In this study we show a direct pathogen-induced trans-differentiation of primary bronchial epithelial cells resulting in a co-localization of epithelial and mesenchymal markers and an up-regulation of extracellular matrix components.

Background: Incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI) leads to motor and sensory deficits. Even in ambulatory persons with good motor function an impaired proprioception may result in an insecure gait. Limited internal afferent feedback (FB) can be compensated by provision of external FB by therapists or technical systems. Progress in computational power of motion analysis systems allows for implementation of instrumented real-time FB. The aim of this study was to test if individuals with iSCI can normalize their gait kinematics during FB and more importantly maintain an improvement after therapy., Methods: Individuals with chronic iSCI had to complete 6 days (1 day per week) of treadmill-based FB training with a 2 weeks pause after 3 days of training. Each day consists of an initial gait analysis followed by 2 blocks with FB/no-FB. During FB the deviation of the mean knee angle during swing from a speed matched reference (norm distance, ND) is visualized as a number. The task consists of lowering the ND, which was updated after every stride. Prior to the tests in patients the in-house developed FB implementation was tested in healthy subjects with an artificial movement task., Results: Four of five study participants benefited from FB in the short and medium term. Decrease of mean ND was highest during the first 3 sessions (from 3.93 ± 1.54 to 2.18 ± 1.04). After the pause mean ND stayed in the same range than before. In the last 3 sessions the mean ND decreased slower (2.40 ± 1.18 to 2.20 ± 0.90). Direct influences of FB ranged from 60 to 15% of reduction in mean ND compared to initial gait analysis and from 20 to 1% compared to no-FB sessions., Conclusions: Instrumented kinematic real-time FB may serve as an effective adjunct to established gait therapies in normalizing the gait pattern after incomplete spinal cord injury. Further studies with larger patient groups need to prove long term learning and the successful transfer of newly acquired skills to activities of daily living.

This article systematically reviews the literature on the outcome of acute hospitalization for adult general psychiatric patients admitted involuntarily as compared to patients admitted voluntarily. Inclusion and exclusion criteria qualified 41 out of 3,227 references found in Medline and PSYNDEXplus literature searches for this review. The authors independently rated these articles on six pre-defined indicators of research quality, carried out statistical comparisons ex-post facto where not reported, and computed for each adequate result the effect size index d for the comparison of means, and the Phi- or contingency coefficient for cross-tabulated data. Methodological quality of the studies, coming mostly from North American and European countries, showed significant variation and was higher concerning service-related than clinical or subjective outcomes. Main deficits appeared in sample size estimation, lack of clear follow-up time-points, and the absence of standardized instruments used to assess clinical outcomes. Length of stay, readmission risk, and risk of involuntary readmission were at least equal or greater for involuntary patients. Involuntary patients showed no increased mortality, but did have higher suicide rates than voluntary patients. Further, involuntary patients demonstrated lower levels of social functioning, and equal levels of general psychopathology and treatment compliance; they were more dissatisfied with treatment and more frequently felt that hospitalization was not justified. Future methodologically-sound studies exploring this topic should focus on patient populations not represented here. Further research should also clarify if the legal admission status is sufficiently valid for differentiating the outcome of acute hospitalization.

Objective: One aim of the multi-site EUNOMIA-project was to establish a European recommendation for the best clinical practice of administering coercive measures. This article reports the results on mechanical restraint., Methods: Local expert groups in 11 countries worked out their recommendations mostly in semi-structured group discussions. By use of a system of categories developed with a content-analytical method, these national documents were comparatively assessed, and integrated into a common clinical recommendation., Results: Legal and clinical pre-conditions for the use of mechanical restraint, specific instructions for the clinical behaviour of different professional groups, ethical issues, and procedural aspects of quality assurance are reported in detail., Conclusions: Compared with established clinical guidelines, similarities concerning basic principles of clinical use appear to be higher than similarities concerning practical details. Future development of guidelines for the best practice of coercive measures urgently needs the use of advanced methodology.

Objective: Within the context of the EDEN-study, a multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing acute psychiatric day hospital with inpatient care, patients' assessments of treatment as well as their setting-preferences for future treatment have been studied., Method: Patients' assessments were collected using the Clients' Scale for Assessment of Treatment (CAT). The quantitative content analysis refers to the answers to the open questions of the CAT by all day hospital patients and inpatients in the Dresden project centre who completed the questionnaire one week after admission and again at discharge., Results: Day hospital patients as well as inpatients assessed their treatment altogether as pleasant and effective. Interpersonal contact to the staff and other patients was evaluated as sound and helpful. Differences between the settings appeared primarily with regard to criticisms: Day hospital patients were mainly dissatisfied with their daily routine, inpatients criticized particularly structural conditions such as premises and food. In case of a hospital readmission, the majority of the patients would prefer that setting they had been randomised to within the EDEN-study. However, a tendency to prefer treatment in the day hospital was found., Conclusions: Acute mentally ill patients provide a substantially favourable assessment of both day hospital and inpatient care. Particularly the criticism of the day hospital patients contains important information for improving the quality of psychiatric care.

Previous national research has shown significant variation in several aspects of coercive treatment measures in psychiatry. The EUNOMIA project, an international study funded by the European Commission, aims to assess the clinical practice of these measures and their outcomes. Its naturalistic and epidemiological design is being implemented at 13 centres in 12 European countries. This article describes the design of the study and provides preliminary data on the catchment areas, staff, available facilities and modalities of care at the participating centres.

Objective: To assess the burden on relatives as well as their mental well-being within the context of a randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of acute psychiatric day hospital treatment as compared to inpatient treatment., Method: The study was conducted at the Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Dresden University of Technology. A sample of 95 relatives was assessed at admission and after four weeks of treatment using the Involvement Evaluation Questionnaire (IEQ) and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28), the period to be rated being the last four weeks prior to assessment., Results: Relatives reported a mean level of burden, which for both settings decreased during the first four weeks of treatment. With respect to this period, burden on relatives of day hospital patients did not differ from that on relatives of inpatients. The relatives' mental well-being was markedly impaired, and only that of the inpatients' relatives did slightly improve during treatment., Conclusions: Treating acute mentally ill as day hospital patients does not result in greater burden on relatives compared to treating them as inpatients. Independently from treatment setting, relatives of psychiatric patients should be actively approached and offered information, coping strategies, and help. Further research should include qualitative methods.

Objective: So far only five randomized controlled trials on acute day hospital care have assessed direct health care costs and compared these with costs of conventional inpatient treatment. This paper aims to close this research gap for German speaking countries., Method: Another trial was conducted at the Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Dresden University of Technology. Using the Client Service Receipt Inventory interviews with patients at three time-points (admission, discharge, three months after discharge) assessed their utilization of health care services. Based on the results of a separate regional cost-calculation project, costs of individual care packages could be calculated. 144 patients (day care: n = 75, inpatient care: n = 69) with complete data sets for all time-points of assessment were included in the intention-to-treat-analysis. Means of direct costs (given in Euro and referred to Deutsche Mark prices in 2000) were computed, and t-tests and bootstrap-procedures were used for group comparison. Furthermore, missing and sensitivity analyses were conducted., Results: Patients in the acute day hospital caused mean direct health care costs of 12 401 per person within the entire period assessed. Thus, their cost level falls below the mean costs of inpatient care (15,924 euro per person) by 22.1 %. Missing analyses showed no selection effects on cost results caused by patients who could not be assessed at all defined time-points. Costs for inpatient and day care services were the most sensitive parameters for maintaining the statistically significant differences of cost means demonstrated between the two study groups., Conclusion: For German-speaking countries, this study shows for the first time that acute day care -- which has been demonstrated to be clinically at least as effective as inpatient care - is the less expensive option if these two settings are comparatively assessed.

Objective: Currently, there is still a severe lack of methodologically sound empirical studies on acute psychiatric day hospital treatment in German-speaking countries that analyse the effectiveness of this increasingly important mode of service provision., Methods: Within a randomised controlled study design implemented at the Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Dresden University of Technology, 99 general psychiatric patients received conventional inpatient treatment and 92 patients received acute day hospital treatment. At up to four time-points during the index-treatment episode patients were assessed at different levels of outcome: Psychopathology was rated by researchers using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (24-Item-Version), and patients evaluated their satisfaction with treatment (Patientenbogen zur Behandlungszufriedenheit); at admission and discharge patients also assessed their subjective quality of life (Manchester Assessment of Quality of Life). Mean scale scores of these instruments are used for the intention-to-treat-analysis. Discharge status on these scales as well as mean ratings on these scales within the index-treatment episode serve as measures of effectiveness. For statistically identifying differences between the two settings five linear (co-)variance-analytical models were calculated for each target variable. Four models were adjusted to baseline-rating or to the individual period spent in treatment., Results: Initially, both groups did not differ in their relevant socio-demographic and illness-related features. Day hospital treatment (87,7 days) lasted significantly longer than inpatient treatment (67,8 days). Only results from an unadjusted statistical model as well as from a model adjusted to the individual period of index-hospitalisation demonstrated superior effectiveness of day hospital treatment on the discharge status of psychopathological symptomatology. However, in all statistical models there were no systematic differences of treatment-effectiveness related to satisfaction with treatment and subjective quality of life., Conclusion: For the first time in German-speaking countries, this study provides evidence for the effectiveness of acute day hospital treatment as compared to conventional inpatient treatment. If detailed eligibility criteria for patients are used as defined here, approximately 30 % of the general psychiatric patients in need of acute hospital-based treatment may be cared for in this special mode of day hospital service provision.

Objective: As the use of "day hospitals" increases, conceptual models of these services are changing dramatically across Europe. Therefore, the need arises for mental health services research to assess this process cross-nationally in a standardised and systematic way. Such research approaches should seek to maximise the generalisability of results from high-quality (e.g. randomised controlled) single- or multi-site trials assessing specific models of day hospital care., Method: Using a self-developed structured questionnaire, the European Day Hospital Evaluation (EDEN) study group carried out national surveys of the characteristics of day hospitals for general psychiatric patients in Germany, England, Poland, the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic, during the period 2001--2002., Results: Response rates varied from 52 to 91 %. Findings show that day hospitals have no consistent profile of structural and procedural features. Similarities across countries focus on three main issues: on average, consideration of concepts oriented toward providing acute treatment are equivalent; disorders associated with disabled functioning in everyday life, high risk of somatic complications, and need for behaviour control are excluded to a comparable degree; and some core therapeutic activities are consistent with the main approaches of social psychiatry. Identified according to self-rated conceptions and extended with data from individual hospital's statistics on the clientele in 2000, three clusters of limited selectivity subdivide the services. One category focuses mainly on rehabilitative tasks; two categories are oriented toward providing acute treatment as an alternative to inpatient care, but combine this either with rehabilitative tasks or with equal additional functions of shortening inpatient treatment and providing psychotherapy. The distribution of services across these three clusters varies significantly in the five European countries., Conclusion: Future day hospital studies should always clarify the type of services being assessed. To fully consider the impact of their results, the current national and international health policy environment of these services should be taken into account. Such surveys require enhanced methodology, however, in order to identify clear, distinct categories of services characterised by overlapping programme functions, and to increase the generalisability of valid results from single- or multi-site trials.