RESUMEN
Anaphylaxis is a rare side-effect of COVID-19 vaccines. To (a) provide direct advice and reassurance to certain persons with a history of anaphylaxis/complex allergy, in addition to that available in national guidelines, and (b) to provide a medically supervised vaccination, a specialist regional vaccine allergy clinic was established. The main objective was to determine if risk stratification through history can lead to safe COVID-19 vaccination for maximum population coverage. A focused history was taken to establish contraindications to giving COVID-19 vaccines. People who reported a high-risk allergy history were given a vaccine not containing the excipient thought to have directly caused previous anaphylaxis. All vaccines were monitored for 30 min after administration. A total of 206 people were vaccinated between 6 July 2021 and 31 August 2021; Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) (n = 34), and Janssen (n = 172). In total, 78% were women. Ninety-two people (45%) reported a high-risk allergy history. There were no cases of anaphylaxis. Three people developed urticaria and one of these also developed transient tachycardia. One vaccinee developed a pseudoseizure. Two of 208 people (<1%) referred during this time declined vaccination based on personal preference, despite the assessment of low clinical risk. In our experience, all vaccines with high-risk allergy histories were administered Pfizer BioNTech or Janssen Covid-19 vaccines uneventfully following screening based on allergy-focussed history. Our data support that drug allergy is not associated with a higher risk of vaccine-related anaphylaxis but may act to guide the administration of alternate vaccines to people with polyethylene glycol/polysorbate 80/trometamol allergies or anaphylaxis after the first dose.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Vacunas , Anafilaxia/etiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Medición de RiesgoRESUMEN
Long-term exposure to a diabetic environment leads to changes in bone metabolism and impaired bone micro-architecture through a variety of mechanisms on molecular and structural levels. These changes predispose the bone to an increased fracture risk and impaired osseus healing. In a clinical practice, adequate control of diabetes mellitus is essential for preventing detrimental effects on bone health. Alternative fracture risk assessment tools may be needed to accurately determine fracture risk in patients living with diabetes mellitus. Currently, there is no conclusive model explaining the mechanism of action of diabetes mellitus on bone health, particularly in view of progenitor cells. In this review, the best available literature on the impact of diabetes mellitus on bone health in vitro and in vivo is summarised with an emphasis on future translational research opportunities in this field.
Asunto(s)
Huesos/metabolismo , Complicaciones de la Diabetes/metabolismo , Diabetes Mellitus/metabolismo , Diástasis Ósea/etiología , Diástasis Ósea/metabolismo , Animales , Biomarcadores , Densidad Ósea , Remodelación Ósea , Huesos/diagnóstico por imagen , Huesos/patología , Epigénesis Genética , Humanos , Células Madre Mesenquimatosas/metabolismo , Transducción de SeñalRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: This study investigates the management of hip fractures in a German maximum care hospital and compares these data to evidence-based standard and practice in 180 hospitals participating in the UK National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) and 16 hospitals participating in the Irish Hip Fracture Database (IHFD). This is the first study directly comparing the management of hip fractures between 3 separate health-care systems within Europe. METHODS: Electronic medical data were collected retrospectively describing the care pathway of elderly patients with a hip fracture admitted to a large trauma unit in the south of Germany "University Hospital Freiburg" (UHF). The audit evaluated demographics, postoperative outcome, and the adherence to the 6 "Blue Book" standards of care. These data were directly compared with the data from the UK NHFD and the IHFD acquired from 180 and 16 hospitals, respectively. RESULTS: At 36 hours, 95.8% of patients had received surgery in UHF, compared to 71.5% in the NHFD and 58% of patients in the IHFD. The rate of in-hospital mortality was 4.7% compared to 7.1% in the NHFD and 5% in the IHFD. The mean average acute length of stay was 13.4 days compared to 16.4 days in the NHFD and 20 days in the IHFD. Reoperation rates are 3.3% compared to 1% in the NHFD and 1.1% in the IHFD; 50.5% of patients were discharged on bone protection medication, compared to 47% in the IHFD and 79.3% in the UK NHFD. DISCUSSION: Despite uniformly acknowledged evidence-based treatment guidelines, the management of hip fractures remains heterogeneous within Europe. CONCLUSION: These data show that different areas of the hip fracture care pathway in Germany, England, and Ireland, respectively, show room for improvement in light of the growing socioeconomic burden these countries are expected to face.