American Journal of Medicine最新文献

Background: Commonly reported symptoms of long COVID may have different patterns of prevalence and presentation across different countries. While some limited data have been reported for the United Kingdom, national specificity for Scotland is less clear. We present a cross-sectional survey to examine the symptom prevalence, frequency, and severity of long COVID for people living with the condition in Scotland.

Methods: An online survey was created in the English language and was available between April 21, 2022 and August 5, 2022. Participants were included if they were ≥18 years old, living in Scotland, and had self-diagnosed or confirmed long COVID; and excluded if they were hospitalized during their initial infection. Within this article we quantify symptom prevalence, frequency, severity, and duration.

Results: Participants (n = 253) reported the most prevalent long-COVID symptoms to be post-exertional malaise (95%), fatigue/tiredness (85%), and cognitive impairment (68%). Fatigue/tiredness, problems with activities of daily living (ADL), and general pain were most frequently occurring, while sleep difficulties, problems with ADL, and nausea were the most severe. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation associated with symptom number, severity, and frequency, whereas vaccine status, age, sex, and smoking status had limited or no association.

Conclusions: These findings outline the challenges faced for those living with long COVID and highlight the need for longitudinal research to ascertain a better understanding of the condition and its longer-term societal impact.

This narrative review takes a personal approach in detailing the progression of cognitive decline in a loved one, and the measures taken to care for the patient. The author provides suggestions for a compassionate care plan and advice for clinicians helpful to both patient and caregiver.

Background: Acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes various cardiovascular complications. However, it is unknown if there are cardiovascular sequelae in the medium and long-term. The aim of this study was dual. Firstly, we wanted to investigate symptomatology and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at medium-term follow-up (6 months post-COVID). Secondly, we wanted to assess whether history of COVID-19 and persistent shortness of breath at medium-term follow-up are associated with ongoing inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and cardiac injury.

Methods: A case-control study was performed. Virologically proven COVID-19 cases and age- and gender-matched controls were interviewed to assess symptoms and HRQoL. Biochemical tests were also performed.

Results: The study comprised 174 cases and 75 controls. The mean age of the participants was 46.1±13.8 years. The median follow-up was 173.5 days (interquartile range 129-193.25 days). There was no significant difference in the demographics between cases and controls. At follow-up, cases had a higher frequency of shortness of breath, fatigue, arthralgia, abnormal taste of food (P <.001), and anosmia. Cases also exhibited worse scores in the general health and role physical domains of the Short Form Survey-36. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) was significantly higher in the cases, and there was a positive correlation of hsCRP with time. Significant determinants of shortness of breath were age, female gender and white cell count, troponin I, and lower hemoglobin levels at follow-up.

Conclusion: Post-COVID-19 patients have persistent symptomatology at medium-term follow-up. Higher hsCRP in cases and the positive association of hsCRP with time suggest ongoing systemic inflammation in patients persisting for months after COVID-19.

While there has been a decline in the use of digoxin in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation, acute and chronic digoxin toxicity remains a significant clinical problem. Digoxin's narrow therapeutic window and nonspecific signs and symptoms of toxicity create clinical challenges and uncertainty around the diagnostic criteria of toxicity and responsive treatment choices for the bedside clinician. A systematic review of published literature on digoxin toxicity (34,587 publications over 6 decades, with 114 meeting inclusion criteria) was performed to develop 33 consensus statements on diagnostic and therapeutic approaches which were then evaluated through a modified Delphi process involving a panel of experts in cardiology, nursing, emergency medicine, and medical toxicology. The results demonstrate agreement about the need to consider time of ingestion and nature of the exposure (ie, acute, acute-on-chronic, chronic) and the use of digoxin immune Fab for life-threatening exposure to decrease risk of death. While several areas of continued uncertainty were identified, this work offers formalized guidance that may help providers better manage this persistent clinical challenge.

Background: Awareness of long coronavirus disease (COVID) began primarily through media and social media sources, which eventually led to the development of various definitions based on methodologies of varying quality. We sought to characterize comparison groups in long COVID studies and evaluate comparability of the different groups.

Methods: We searched Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed for original research articles published in high-impact journals. We included studies on human patients with long COVID outcomes, and we abstracted study-related characteristics, as well as long COVID characteristics.

Results: Of the 83 studies, 3 were randomized controlled trials testing interventions for long COVID, and 80 (96.4%) were observational studies. Among the 80 observational studies, 76 (95%) were trying to understand the incidence, prevalence, and risk factors for long COVID, 2 (2.5%) examined prevention strategies, and 2 (2.5%) examined treatment strategies. Among those 80 studies, 45 (56.2%) utilized a control or comparison group and 35 (43.8%) did not. Compared with 95% of observational studies that documented symptoms or assessed risk factors, all randomized studies assessed treatment strategies. We found 48.8% of observational studies did any adjustment for covariates, including demographics or health status. Of those that did adjust for covariates, 15 (38.5%) adjusted for 4 or fewer variables. We found that 26.5% of all studies and 45.8% of studies with a control/comparator group matched participants on at least 1 variable.

Conclusion: Long COVID studies in high-impact journals primarily examine symptoms and risk factors of long COVID; often lack an adequate comparison group and often do not control for potential confounders. Our results suggest that standardized definitions for long COVID, which are often based on data from uncontrolled and potentially biased studies, should be reviewed to ensure that they are based on objective data.