Clinical and laboratory findings in COVID-19 adult hospitalized patients from Alborz province / Iran: comparison of rRT-PCR positive and negative.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was emergency turned into global public health after the first patients were detected in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. The disease rapidly expanded and led to an epidemic throughout China, followed by the rising number of cases worldwide. Given the high prevalence of COVID-19, rapid and accurate diagnostic methods are immediately needed to identify, isolate and treat the patients as soon as possible, decreasing mortality rates and the risk of public contamination by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2(SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: This case-control study was conducted in two hospitals in Alborz Province in Iran. All recruited cases in this study were symptomatic adults hospitalized as COVID-19 patients with compatible Computed tomographic (CT) scan findings and available rRT-PCR results. The patients were recruited in this study. The patients were categorized into positive and negative rRT-PCR groups and evaluated for symptoms, initial vital signs, comorbidity, clinical and laboratory findings. Finally, the results were assessed by SPSS software. RESULTS: Between March 5 to April 5, 2020, 164 symptomatic COVID-19 patients were studied. In total, there were 111 rRT-PCR positive (67.6%) and 53 rRT-PCR negative patients (32.4%). In terms of statistics, the frequency of symptoms revealed no difference, except for cough (P.V:0.008), dizziness (PV: 0.048), and weakness (P.V:0.022). Among initial vital signs, PR (P.V:0.041) and O2 Saturation (PV: 0.014) were statistically different between the two groups. Evaluation of comorbidities revealed no difference except for hyperlipidemia (P.V:0.024). In the comparison of laboratory findings, only WBC count (PV: 0.001), lymphocyte count (PV: 0.001), and Hb (P.V:0.008) were statistically different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In case of the negative rRT-PCR result, it is necessary to take a logical approach, and we recommended that the physician decides according to clinical manifestations, laboratory findings, and positive CT results.

Recipient and donor experiences of known egg donation: implications for fertility counselling.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of known egg donors and recipients in order to inform counselling practise. BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about known egg donation as a form of family-building in the UK, and on the experiences of individuals who have sought this form of donation. As such, there is a lack of guidance for fertility counselling in this area. METHOD: This was a cross-sectional, qualitative study. A purposive sample of four recipient women were recruited via a national support group for women experiencing Premature Ovarian Insufficiency (POI). Known egg donors (n = 3) and recipient men (n = 3) were recruited via a snowball sample, as identified by recipient women. In-depth interviews were conducted with participants. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four themes were generated from the data: 1) 'Doing anything': existing relationships as the motivation to donate; 2) 'It was my duty': feelings of obligation to donate and to receive; 3) 'Woman-to-woman': a woman-centred experience; and 4) 'Going through this together': changed versus unchanged relationships. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights a number of implications in known egg donation, arising from the relationships involved. It is recommended that these implications are considered by infertility counsellors in the provision of counselling, and by those undergoing known egg donation when seeking information and support, before, during and after the donation.

Preserving fertility in women with cancer (PreFer): Decision-making and patient-reported outcomes in women offered egg and embryo freezing prior to cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Women of childbearing age with new cancer diagnoses have to make rapid decisions about fertility preservation (FP) before starting cancer treatment (CT). The aim of the PreFer study was to explore this FP decision-making process and its impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: A prospective, mixed-methods design was used (questionnaires, in-depth interviews). Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Fifty-eight women with new cancer diagnoses were recruited. Comparisons were made between women who declined FP referral in oncology (Group1) and women who chose referral (Group2). Group 2 was further split into those who had some FP (2A) and those who did not (2B). Questionnaires and PROMs were administered prior to and after the fertility consultation, before the start of CT and 3 months post CT. Interviews were conducted with one participant from Group 2. RESULTS: HRQoL was negatively affected, particularly depression. Women's lack of understanding about the relationship between CT and fertility were evident. Five themes emerged from the interviews as barriers and facilitators to the FP decision-making process. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that better information and support resources aimed at women to support their decision making are needed, such as patient decision-aids. Women from Group 1 were found to suffer significantly worse depression compared with the general UK population, highlighting the need for psychological support in the FP care-pathway and for research exploring the contributions of depression and hopelessness to the decision-making process.

Cancer, Fertility and Me: Developing and Testing a Novel Fertility Preservation Patient Decision Aid to Support Women at Risk of Losing Their Fertility Because of Cancer Treatment.

Background: Women with a new cancer diagnosis face complex decisions about interventions aiming to preserve their fertility. Decision aids are more effective in supporting decision making than traditional information provision. We describe the development and field testing of a novel patient decision aid designed to support women to make fertility preservation treatment decisions around cancer diagnosis. Methods: A prospective, mixed-method, three stage study involving: 1) co-development of the resource in collaboration with a multi-disciplinary group of key stakeholders including oncology and fertility healthcare professionals and patient partners (n=24), 2) alpha testing with a group of cancer patients who had faced a fertility preservation treatment decision in the past (n=11), and oncology and fertility healthcare professionals and stakeholders (n=14) and, 3) beta testing with women in routine care who had received a recent diagnosis of cancer and were facing a fertility preservation treatment decision (n=41) and their oncology and fertility healthcare professionals (n=3). Ten service users recruited from a closed Breast Cancer Now Facebook group and the support group Cancer and Fertility UK also provided feedback on CFM via an online survey. Results: A 60-page paper prototype of the Cancer, Fertility and Me patient decision aid was initially developed. Alpha testing of the resource found that overall, it was acceptable to cancer patients, healthcare professionals and key stakeholders and it was considered a useful resource to support fertility preservation treatment decision-making. However, the healthcare professionals felt that the length of the patient decision aid, and elements of its content may be a barrier to its use. Subsequently, the prototype was reduced to 40 pages. During beta testing of the shortened version in routine care, women who received the resource described its positive impact on their ability to make fertility preservation decisions and support them at a stressful time. However, practical difficulties emerged which impacted upon its wider dissemination in clinical practice and limited some elements of the evaluation planned. Discussion: Women receiving the decision aid within the cancer treatment pathway found it helped them engage with decisions about fertility preservation, and make better informed, values-based care plans with oncology and fertility teams. More work is needed to address access and implementation of this resource as part of routine oncology care pathways.

Shared decision-making - Rhetoric and reality: Women's experiences and perceptions of adjuvant treatment decision-making for breast cancer.

This interview-based study uses phenomenology as a theoretical framework and thematic analysis to challenge existing explanatory frameworks of shared decision-making, in an exploration of women's experiences and perceptions of shared decision-making for adjuvant treatment in breast cancer. Three themes emerged are as follows: (1) women's desire to participate in shared decision-making, (2) the degree to which shared decision-making is perceived to be shared and (3) to what extent are women empowered within shared decision-making. Studying breast cancer patients' subjective experiences of adjuvant treatment decision-making provides a broader perspective on patient participatory role preferences and doctor-patient power dynamics within shared decision-making for breast cancer.

Evaluation of Serum Levels of Inflammation, Fibrinolysis and Oxidative Stress Markers in Coronary Artery Disease Prediction: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) has long been recognized as a global health issue. Inflammation, Fibrinolysis and Oxidative Stress play an important role in the disruption of plaques leading to CAD. Markers that reflect this pathophysiologic mechanism may have prognostic value. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the serum concentrations of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), sialic acid (SA), vitronectin (VN), plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1), oxidized low density lipoprotein (OX-LDL) and malondialdehyde (MDA) with significant prognostic value in patients with CAD. METHODS: The markers included, hs-CRP, SA, VN, PAI-1, OX-LDL and MDA, were compared between 160 angiographically diagnosed CAD patients and 20 age- and sex-matched healthy individuals. The subjects were divided into 4 groups according to angiography results, and association between all risk factors of CAD was studied. Serum levels of SA, VN, PAI-1, and OX-LDL were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); MDA was measured based on reaction with thiobarbituric acid (TBA); and hs-CRP level was estimated by immunoturbidimetry using a commercial kit. The diagnostic value of these variables was further assessed by ROC curve analysis. Multiple logistic regression was used to evaluate the diagnostic power of the combination. Furthermore, p < 0.05 was considered as significant. RESULTS: Serum levels of hs-CRP, SA, VN, PAI-1, and OX-LDL were significantly higher in patient groups compared to control group (p < 0.001). Using both normal and CAD patients as subjects, ROC analysis was performed. The cutoff for OX-LDL, MDA, PAI-1, VN, hs-CRP and SA was 2.67 (ug/mL), 5.49 (mmol/mL), 67 (ng/mL), 254 (ng/mL), 3.4 (mg/dL), 7/89 (mg/dL), respectively. Eventually, the complete diagnostic efficacy was classified as: SA, hs-CRP, PAI-1, OX-LDL, MDA and VN. CONCLUSION: Serum levels SA, hs-CRP, VN, PAI-1, OX-LDL and MDA may be predictive of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Interestingly, these analyses can help as diagnostic and monitoring markers in CAD patients.

Experience of Anti-VEGF Treatment and Clinical Levels of Depression and Anxiety in Patients With Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

PURPOSE: To investigate detailed patient experiences specific to receiving vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF) for wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD), and to acquire a snapshot of the frequency of clinically significant levels of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress among patients and levels of burden in patients' carers. DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional mixed-methods study. METHODS: Three hundred patients with wAMD receiving anti-VEGF treatment and 100 patient carers were recruited. Qualitative data on patients' experience of treatment were collected using a structured survey. Standardized validated questionnaires were used to quantify clinically significant levels of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress, as well as cognitive function and carers' burden. RESULTS: Qualitative data showed that 56% of patients (n = 132) reported anxiety related to anti-VEGF treatment. The main sources of anxiety were fear of going blind owing to intravitreal injections and concerns about treatment effectiveness, rather than around pain. From validated questionnaires, 17% of patients (n = 52) showed clinical levels of anxiety and 12% (n = 36) showed clinical levels of depression. Depression levels, but not anxiety, were significantly higher in patients who received up to 3 injections compared with patients who received from 4 to 12 injections (analysis of variance [ANOVA] P = .027) and compared with patients who received more than 12 injections (ANOVA P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Anti-VEGF treatment is often experienced with some anxiety related to treatment, regardless of the number of injections received. Clinical levels of depression seem to be more frequent in patients at early stages of anti-VEGF treatment. Strategies to improve patient experience of treatment and minimize morbidity are suggested.

What factors hinder the decision-making process for women with cancer and contemplating fertility preservation treatment?

BACKGROUND: Although fertility preservation (FP) treatment options have increased, the existing evidence suggests that many women with cancer do not feel well supported in making these decisions, but find them stressful and complex and fail to take up fertility care at this crucial time. Whilst existing reviews have all made important contributions to our understanding of the FP decision-making process, none of them examine solely and specifically these processes for women of reproductive age with a diagnosis of any cancer, leaving a gap in the knowledge base. Given the expectation that care is patient-centred, our review aims to address this gap which may be of help to those managing patients struggling to make difficult decisions in the often brief period before potentially sterilizing cancer treatment is started. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: Underpinning this narrative review was the question 'What factors hinder the decision-making process for women with any cancer and contemplating FP treatment?' Our objectives were to (i) assess and summarize this existing literature, (ii) identify the factors that hinder this decision-making process, (iii) explore to what extent these factors may differ for women choosing different methods of FP and (iv) make recommendations for service delivery and future research. SEARCH METHODS: A systematic search of the medical and social science literature from the 1 January 2005 up to the end of January 2016 was carried out using three electronic databases (Web of Science (PubMed), Ovid SP Medline and CINAHL via Ebsco). Included in the review were quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies. Reference lists of relevant papers were also hand searched. From the 983 papers identified, 46 papers were included. Quality assessment was undertaken using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. OUTCOMES: From the analysis, 6 key themes with 15 sub-themes emerged: (i) fertility information provision (lack of information, timing of the information, patient-provider communication); (ii) fear concerning the perceived risks associated with pursuing FP (delaying cancer treatment, aggravating a hormone positive cancer and consequences of a future pregnancy); (iii) non-referral from oncology (personal situation, having a hormone positive cancer, FP not a priority and transition between service issues); (iv) the dilemma (in survival mode, whether to prioritize one treatment over another); (v) personal situation (parity, relationship status) and (iv) costs (financial concerns). WIDER IMPLICATIONS: This review has found that a wide range of internal and external factors impact the FP decision-making process. Key external issues related to current service delivery such as the provision and timing of FP information, and lack of referral from oncology to the fertility clinic. However, internal issues such as women's fears concerning the perceived risks associated with pursuing FP also hindered decision-making but these 'risks' were typically overestimated and non-evidence based. These findings suggest that the implementation of a range of decision support interventions may be of benefit within the clinical care pathway of FP and cancer. Women would benefit from the provision of more evidence-based FP information, ideally received at cancer diagnosis, in advance of seeing a fertility specialist, for example through the implementation of patient decision aids. Healthcare professionals in both oncology and fertility services may also benefit from the implementation of training programmes and educational tools targeted at improving the communication skills needed to improve collaborative decision-making and deliver care that is patient-centred. Exploration of the current barriers, both intellectual and practical, that prevent some patients from accepting FP will help care providers to do better for their patients in the future. Finally, the extent to which a poorer prognosis and moral, ethical and religious beliefs influence the FP decision-making process also warrant further research.

The Effectiveness of Pharmacological and Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Improving Glycaemic Control in Adults with Severe Mental Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

People with severe mental illness (SMI) have reduced life expectancy compared with the general population, which can be explained partly by their increased risk of diabetes. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for improving glycaemic control in people with SMI (PROSPERO registration: CRD42015015558). A systematic literature search was performed on 30/10/2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with SMI, with or without a diagnosis of diabetes that measured fasting blood glucose or glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Screening and data extraction were carried out independently by two reviewers. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate effectiveness, and subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression to explore heterogeneity. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to assess risk of bias. We found 54 eligible RCTs in 4,392 adults (40 pharmacological, 13 behavioural, one mixed intervention). Data for meta-analysis were available from 48 RCTs (n = 4052). Both pharmacological (mean difference (MD), -0.11mmol/L; 95% confidence interval (CI), [-0.19, -0.02], p = 0.02, n = 2536) and behavioural interventions (MD, -0.28mmol//L; 95% CI, [-0.43, -0.12], p<0.001, n = 956) were effective in lowering fasting glucose, but not HbA1c (pharmacological MD, -0.03%; 95% CI, [-0.12, 0.06], p = 0.52, n = 1515; behavioural MD, 0.18%; 95% CI, [-0.07, 0.42], p = 0.16, n = 140) compared with usual care or placebo. In subgroup analysis of pharmacological interventions, metformin and antipsychotic switching strategies improved HbA1c. Behavioural interventions of longer duration and those including repeated physical activity had greater effects on fasting glucose than those without these characteristics. Baseline levels of fasting glucose explained some of the heterogeneity in behavioural interventions but not in pharmacological interventions. Although the strength of the evidence is limited by inadequate trial design and reporting and significant heterogeneity, there is some evidence that behavioural interventions, antipsychotic switching, and metformin can lead to clinically important improvements in glycaemic measurements in adults with SMI.