2~ Abstract Background Depression has a high prevalence in the elderly population; however it often remains undetected. The WHO 5-item Well-Being Index (WHO-5) is a short screening instrument for the detection of depression in the general population, which has not yet been evaluated. The goals of the present study were: l ) to assess the internal and external validity of WHO-5 and 2) to compare the two recent versions of WHO-5. Study population and methods 367 subjects above 50 years of age were examined with the WHO-5. ICD-10 diagnoses were made using a structured interview (CIDI). The internal validity of the well-being index was evaluated by calculating Loevinger's and Mokken's homogeneity coefficients. External validity for detection of depression was evaluated by ROC analysis. Results The scale was sufficiently homogeneous (Loevinger's coefficient: version 1 = 0.38, version 2 = 0.47; Mokken coefficient > 0.3 in nearly all items). ROC analysis showed that both versions adequately detected depression. Version 1 additionally detected anxiety disorders, version 2 being more specific for detection of depression. Conclusion The WHO-5 showed a good internal and external validity. The second version is a stronger scale and was more specific for the detection of depression. The WHO-5 is an useful instrument for identifying elderly subjects with depression. ~] Keywords Depression. WHO Well-Being Index. elderly general population, anxiety, screening When meeting Per Bech, one has to admire his great enthusiasm for clinical and epidemiological research aimed at helping people.Reinhard Heun (1~1) 9 Marzia Bonsignore Katrin Barkow 9 Frank ]essen

Background The aim of our study was to assess the impact the impact of gender and age on reactogenicity to three COVID-19 vaccine products: Biontech/Pfizer (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273) and AstraZeneca (ChAdOx). Additional analyses focused on the reduction in working capacity after vaccination and the influence of the time of day when vaccines were administered. Methods We conducted a survey on COVID-19 vaccinations and eventual reactions among 73,000 employees of 89 hospitals of the Helios Group. On May 19th, 2021 all employees received an email, inviting all employees who received at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 to participate using an attached link. Additionally, the invitation was posted in the group’s intranet page. Participation was voluntary and non-traceable. The survey was closed on June 21st, 2021. Results 8375 participants reported on 16,727 vaccinations. Reactogenicity was reported after 74.6% of COVID-19 vaccinations. After 23.0% vaccinations the capacity to work was affected. ChAdOx induced impairing reactogenicity mainly after the prime vaccination (70.5%), while mRNA-1273 led to more pronounced reactions after the second dose (71.6%). Heterologous prime-booster vaccinations with ChAdOx followed by either mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 were associated with the highest risk for impairment (81.4%). Multivariable analyses identified the factors older age, male gender and vaccine BNT162b as independently associated with lower odds ratio for both, impairing reactogenicity and incapacity to work. In the comparison of vaccine schedules, the heterologous combination ChAdOx + BNT162b or mRNA-1273 was associated with the highest and the homologue prime-booster vaccination with BNT162b with the lowest odds ratios. The time of vaccination had no significant influence. Conclusions Around 75% of the COVID-19 vaccinations led to reactogenicity and nearly 25% of them led to one or more days of work loss. Major risk factors were female gender, younger age and the administration of a vaccine other than BNT162b2. When vaccinating a large part of a workforce against COVID-19, especially in professions with a higher proportion of young and women such as health care, employers and employees must be prepared for a noticeable amount of absenteeism. Assuming vaccine effectiveness to be equivalent across the vaccine combinations, to minimize reactogenicity, employees at risk should receive a homologous prime-booster immunisation with BNT162b2. Trial registration: The study was approved by the Ethic Committee of the Aerztekammer Berlin on May 27th, 2021 (Eth-37/21) and registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS 00025745). The study was supported by the Helios research grant HCRI-ID 2021-0272.

Background The SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.529 (Omicron) was first described in November 2021 and became the dominant variant worldwide. Existing data suggests a reduced disease severity with Omicron infections in comparison to B.1.617.2 (Delta). Differences in characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of COVID-19 patients in Germany during the Omicron period compared to Delta are not thoroughly studied. ICD-10-code-based severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) surveillance represents an integral part of infectious disease control in Germany. Methods Administrative data from 89 German Helios hospitals was retrospectively analysed. Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were identified by ICD-10-code U07.1 and SARI cases by ICD-10-codes J09-J22. COVID-19 cases were stratified by concomitant SARI. A nine-week observational period between December 6, 2021 and February 6, 2022 was defined and divided into three phases with respect to the dominating virus variant (Delta, Delta to Omicron transition, Omicron). Regression analyses adjusted for age, gender and Elixhauser comorbidities were applied to assess in-hospital patient outcomes. Results A total cohort of 4,494 inpatients was analysed. Patients in the Omicron dominance period were younger (mean age 47.8 vs. 61.6; p < 0.01), more likely to be female (54.7% vs. 47.5%; p < 0.01) and characterized by a lower comorbidity burden (mean Elixhauser comorbidity index 5.4 vs. 8.2; p < 0.01). Comparing Delta and Omicron periods, patients were at significantly lower risk for intensive care treatment (adjusted odds ratio 0.72 [0.57–0.91]; p = 0.005), mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio 0.42 [0.31–0.57]; p < 0.001), and in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.42 [0.32–0.56]; p < 0.001). This also applied mostly to the separate COVID-SARI group. During the Delta to Omicron transition, case numbers of COVID-19 without SARI exceeded COVID-SARI for the first time in the pandemic’s course. Conclusion Patient characteristics and outcomes differ during the Omicron dominance period as compared to Delta suggesting a reduced disease severity with Omicron infections. SARI surveillance might play a crucial role in assessing disease severity of future SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Objective: This study examines the relevance of variables suspected to influence mortality in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Methods: 172 subjects with AD recruited through a family study were followed up for a mean of 4.7 ± 2.6 years. Their survival was compared with that of matched control subjects using Kaplan-Meier and log-rank statistics. Variables determining mortality were examined with the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Survival in subjects with AD depended on age, the severity of cognitive decline and on the incidence of hospitalisation. Gender, the duration of the illness, the velocity of cognitive decline, the allele E4 of the apolipoprotein E genotype and the presence of other lifetime psychiatric diagnoses did not influence mortality. Conclusion: Mortality in AD depended mainly on the subjects’ age and the severity of the disorder.

Different symptoms can be used individually and in combination to predict later depression. This might allow early treatment.

No abstract

No abstract

Males have a higher risk for an adverse outcome of COVID-19. The aim of the study was to analyze sex differences in the clinical course with focus on patients who received intensive care. Research was conducted as an observational retrospective cohort study. A group of 23,235 patients from 83 hospitals with PCR-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 between 4 February 2020 and 22 March 2021 were included. Data on symptoms were retrieved from a separate registry, which served as a routine infection control system. Males accounted for 51.4% of all included patients. Males received more intensive care (ratio OR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.51–1.71) and mechanical ventilation (invasive or noninvasive, OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.73–2.01). A model for the prediction of mortality showed that until the age 60 y, mortality increased with age with no substantial difference between sexes. After 60 y, the risk of death increased more in males than in females. At 90 y, females had a predicted mortality risk of 31%, corresponding to males of 84 y. In the intensive care unit (ICU) cohort, females of 90 y had a mortality risk of 46%, equivalent to males of 72 y. Seventy-five percent of males over 90 died, but only 46% of females of the same age. In conclusion, the sex gap was most evident among the oldest in the ICU. Understanding sex-determined differences in COVID-19 can be useful to facilitate individualized treatments.