Health Implications of Lipedema: Analysis of Patient Questionnaires and Population-Based Matched Controls.

We conducted a comparative study involving 39 female patients with lipedema and group-matched controls at a ratio of 1:5. The primary survey tool was the German Health Update (GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS) questionnaire, which was developed by the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Germany. The secondary survey tool was the German Pain Questionnaire. The prevalence of hypertension (p = 0.041) and high blood lipids (p = 0.024) was lower in the lipedema group compared to the control group. General health and well-being indicators demonstrated lower overall health ratings (p < 0.001) and higher physiotherapy use in patients with lipedema (p = 0.016). Mental health assessment revealed higher depression prevalence and severity (p = 0.001), together with a lower number of close contacts (p = 0.032). Furthermore, patients with lipedema experienced higher levels of pain (p < 0.001) and more significant pain-related disability in daily activities (p < 0.001) than controls. Correlation analysis among patients with lipedema showed a positive correlation between pain severity and depressive symptoms (ρ = 0.612, p < 0.001) and a moderate positive correlation with impaired health-related quality of life (ρ = 0.418, p = 0.010). In summary, our findings highlight significant differences in health and well-being between patients with lipedema and matched controls, especially in overall, metabolic, and mental health, as well as pain perception. The findings emphasize the need for a validated lipedema-specific questionnaire and a multidisciplinary treatment approach with a combination of physical therapies, lifestyle adjustments, and psychological strategies.

Vaccine-Preventable Infections in Childcare Workers.

BACKGROUND: Adequate immunity to so-called childhood diseases can lower the occupational risk of vaccine-preventable infectious diseases in persons who work in day-care centers for children. METHODS: A systematic literature survey was carried out in PubMed and Embase for the period January 2000 to February 2019. Studies on immune status and vaccination status were included. In addition, data from the first wave of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (Studie zur Gesundheit Erwachsener in Deutschland, DEGS1) and surveillance data on notifiable infections in Germany were evaluated. RESULTS: Six studies and the DEGS1 analysis of vaccination or immune status for varicella zoster, rubella, hepatitis A (HAV), pertussis, measles, and mumps in persons caring for children in day-care centers, most of whom are women, were included in this review. According to DEGS1, childcare workers are more commonly vaccinated against HAV and pertussis than the general female population (prevalence ratios [PR]: 1.46 [1.12; 1.90] and 1.57 [1.05; 2.36]), yet 57% had not been vaccinated against HAV and 77% had not been vaccinated against pertussis. Childcare workers were found to be less commonly vaccinated against rubella than the general female population, although the difference was not statistically significant (PR: 0.87 [0.71; 1.07]). In a Canadian study, positive HAV serology was found to be correlated with the duration of activity as a childcare worker. In the DEGS1 study, large proportions of the younger childcare workers in particular were seronegative against measles (16%), mumps (19%), and HAV (37%). Notifiable disease statistics show that those working in community facilities had a markedly higher risk of mumps, pertussis, and varicella (relative risk [RR]: 1.8-2.6) and a somewhat higher risk of rubella and HAV (RR: 1.47 and 1.21, respectively). CONCLUSION: Childcare workers have a higher occupational risk of infection but do not always receive the appropriate vaccinations. In particular, women of child-bearing age working in day-care centers should be made more aware of the need for vaccination.

The risk of cytomegalovirus infection in daycare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this review was to summarize the evidence on the relationship between being a daycare worker working with children and the possible increased risk of cytomegalovirus infection. METHODS: We searched the Medline and Embase databases using search strings defined according to the population, exposure, comparison, and outcomes (PECO) applicable to our research questions in order to find studies published since 2000. Two independent reviewers evaluated the search hits using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A manual search was performed to identify additional relevant literature. We extracted the resulting studies and assessed them in eight domains of bias. The pooled CMV seroprevalence for daycare workers compared to the general population was calculated. RESULTS: After evaluating the 6879 records, six methodologically adequate studies were identified: five cross-sectional studies and one cohort study. The pooled seroprevalence of daycare workers was 59.3% (95% CI 47.6-70.9). The four studies investigating risk of infection indicated an increased seroprevalence for daycare workers compared to a reference population (prevalence ratio, PR = 1.54, 95% CI 1.33-1.77). No study evaluated CMV seroconversions for daycare workers. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a higher CMV seroprevalence for daycare workers compared to the general population. Notwithstanding the need for longitudinal and intervention studies, preventative efforts are needed. A pooled PR of 1.54 is compatible with a doubled seroconversion risk corresponding to a vocational probability of 50% if the substantial underestimation of the actual occupational seroconversion risk by prevalence-based estimators is considered.

Are Daycare Workers at a Higher Risk of Parvovirus B19 Infection? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: In this systematic review, we aimed to summarize the evidence on the association between being a daycare educator working with children and the possible increased risk of parvovirus B19 infection compared to the general population. Methods: The Medline and Embase databases were searched using a defined search to find studies published since 2000. Two reviewers evaluated the search hits using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The resulting studies were extracted and were assessed in eight domains of bias. A pooled relative risk (RR) of parvovirus infection for daycare workers compared to the general population was calculated. Results: After evaluating the 7781 search hits and manual search, four methodologically-adequate studies were identified: three cross-sectional studies and one retrospective cohort study. Of the three studies investigating the risk of infection, one evaluated parvovirus B19 seroconversion rates for daycare workers. There was an indication for an increased risk for daycare workers compared to the unexposed population (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.98-1.27) using prevalence estimators. Furthermore, daycare workers had a higher seroconversion rate compared to the unexposed population (RR = 2.63, 95% 1.27-5.45) in the low risk of bias study. Conclusions: Our findings suggest a higher risk of parvovirus B19 infection for daycare workers compared to an unexposed comparison population, which necessitate preventative efforts. Considering the underestimation of the occupational seroconversion risk by prevalence-based estimators, parvovirus B19 infections among daycare workers might mostly be occupationally acquired.