COVID-19 Emotional and Mental Impact on Cancer Patients Receiving Radiotherapy: An Interpretation of Potential Explaining Descriptors.

Background: Significant changes in the accessibility and viability of health services have been observed during the COVID-19 period, particularly in vulnerable groups such as cancer patients. In this study, we described the impact of radical practice and perceived changes on cancer patients' mental well-being and investigated potential outcome descriptors. Methods: Generalized anxiety disorder assessment (GAD-7), patient health (PHQ-9), and World Health Organization-five well-being index (WHO-5) questionnaires were used to assess anxiety, depression, and mental well-being. Information on participants, disease baseline information, and COVID-19-related questions were collected, and related explanatory variables were included for statistical analysis. Results: The mean score values for anxiety, depression, and mental well-being were 4.7 ± 5.53, 4.9 ± 6.42, and 72.2 ± 18.53, respectively. GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores were statistically associated (p < 0.001), while high values of GAD-7 and PHQ-9 questionnaires were related to low values of WHO-5 (p < 0.001).Using the GAD-7 scale, 16.2% of participants were classified as having mild anxiety (GAD-7 score: 5−9).Mild to more severe anxiety was significantly associated with a history of mental health conditions (p = 0.01, OR = 3.74, 95% CI [1.372−10.21]), and stage category (stage III/IV vs. I/II, p = 0.01, OR = 3.83, 95% CI [1.38−10.64]. From the participants, 36.2% were considered to have depression (PHQ-9 score ≥ 5). Depression was related with older patients (p = 0.05, OR = 1.63, 95% CI [1.16−2.3]), those with previous mental health conditions (p = 0.03, OR = 14.24, 95% CI [2.47−81.84]), those concerned about the COVID-19 impact on their cancer treatment (p = 0.027, OR = 0.19, 95% CI [0.045−0.82]) or those who felt that COVID-19 pandemic has affected mental health (p = 0.013, OR = 3.56, 95% CI [1.30−9.72]). Additionally, most participants (86.7%) had a good well-being score (WHO-5 score ≥ 50). Mental well-being seemed more reduced among stage I−III patients than stage IV patients (p = 0.014, OR = 0.12, 95% CI [0.023−0.65]). Conclusion: There is a necessity for comprehensive cancer care improvement. These patients' main concern related to cancer therapy, yet the group of patients who were mentally affected by the pandemic should be identified and supported.

The Impact of Changes in Service Delivery in Patients With Colorectal Cancer During the Initial Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has imposed significant changes in cancer service delivery resulting in increased anxiety and distress in both patients and clinicians. We aimed to investigate how these changes have been perceived by patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer and identify determinants of increased anxiety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An anonymized 32-item survey in the specialized lower gastrointestinal cancer outpatient clinics at a tertiary cancer center in North West England between May 18 and July 1, 2020. Self-reported anxiety was based on the General Anxiety Disorder-7 screening tool. RESULTS: Of 143 participants who completed the survey (response rate, 67%), 115 (82%) were male, and the median age group was 61 to 70 years. A total of 112 (78%) participants had telephone consultation (83% met needs), and 57 (40%) had radiologic scan results discussed over the phone (96% met needs). In total, 23 (18%) participants were considered to have anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7 score ≥ 5), with 7 (5.5%) scoring for moderate or severe anxiety. Those concerned about getting COVID-19 infection, and worried COVID-19 would have effect on their mental health, and affect their experience of cancer care, were most likely to have anxiety (P < .05, multivariate analysis). The majority did not feel they needed support during this phase of the pandemic. Participants felt that friends and family had been very supportive, but less so the primary care services (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this survey suggest that some of the service changes implemented may have already improved the overall experience of cancer care among patients with colorectal cancer at our institute. Reassuringly, the incidence of participants with moderate to severe anxiety levels during the peak of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom was much lower than anticipated. Importantly, patients were much more concerned about their cancer treatment than COVID-19, emphasizing the need to continue to provide comprehensive cancer care even with a "second wave" of COVID-19.

Combined vitamin C and E supplementation during pregnancy for preeclampsia prevention: a systematic review.

UNLABELLED: The effect of combined vitamin C and E supplementation during pregnancy on the prevention of preeclampsia and major adverse infant outcomes has been reviewed. We searched MEDLINE and the Central Library of Controlled Trials of the Cochrane Library through August 2006 for relevant clinical trials. Interstudy heterogeneity was evaluated using the chi(2) statistic (Q statistic) test. Pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with a fixed or random-effects model as appropriate. Four trials that collectively randomized 4680 pregnant women to either the combination of vitamin C and vitamin E or placebo were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences between the vitamin and placebo groups in the risk of preeclampsia, 11% versus 11.4%, RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.82-1.13), fetal or neonatal loss, 2.6% versus 2.3%, RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.78-1.57), or small for gestational age (SGA) infant, 20.6% versus 20%, RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.74-1.19). Although there was a higher risk for preterm birth in the vitamin group, 19.5% versus 18%, RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.96-1.20), this finding was not significant. Combined vitamin C and E supplementation during pregnancy does not reduce the risk of preeclampsia, fetal or neonatal loss, small for gestational age infant, or preterm birth. Such supplementation should be discouraged unless solid supporting data from randomized trials become available. TARGET AUDIENCE: Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Family Physicians LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After completion of this article, the reader should be able to recall that many methods have been used to prevent preeclampsia, state that increased oxidative stress has been postulated and many trials have used antioxidants to prevent the disease, and explain that MEDLINE analysis of the literature questions the use of vitamin C and E supplements.