Background The risk of COVID‐19 and related death in people with Parkinson's disease or parkinsonism is uncertain. The aim of the study was to assess the risk of hospitalization for COVID‐19 and death in a cohort of patients with Parkinson's disease or parkinsonism compared with a control population cohort, during the epidemic bout (March–May 2020) in Bologna, northern Italy. Methods Participants of the ParkLink study with the clinical diagnosis of Parkinson's disease or parkinsonism and people anonymously matched (ratio 1:10) for sex, age, district, and Charlson Index were included. The hospital admission rate for COVID‐19 (February 26–May 31, 2020) and the death rate for any cause were the outcomes of interest. Results The ParkLink cohort included 696 subjects with Parkinson's disease and 184 with parkinsonism, and the control cohort had 8590 subjects. The 3‐month hospitalization rate for COVID‐19 was 0.6% in Parkinson's disease, 3.3% in parkinsonism, and 0.7% in controls. The adjusted hazard ratio (age, sex, district, Charlson Index) was 0.8 (95% CI, 0.3–2.3, P = 0.74) in Parkinson's disease and 3.3 (1.4–7.6, P = 0.006) in parkinsonism compared with controls. Twenty‐nine of the infected subjects died; 30‐day fatality rate was 35.1%, without difference among the 3 groups. Six of 10 Parkinson's disease/parkinsonism patients had the infection during hospitalization or in a nursing home. Conclusions Parkinson's disease per se probably is not a risk factor for COVID‐19 hospitalization. Conversely, parkinsonism is an independent risk factor probably because of a more severe health status, entailing higher care dependence and placement in high‐infection‐risk accommodations. © 2020 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
Several modifiable organizational factors may affect the proportion of patients with hip fracture undergoing early surgery. This study suggests that the development and the implementation of an evidence-based HFP at trust level are a key point of the strategy of quality of care.
The night-time effect in trauma care was demonstrated for the first time and was maximal in transferred cases. This may explain why it was not found in previous studies where these patients were mostly excluded. Also, the use of population based data-whereby patients not accessing trauma centre care and presumably receiving poorer care were included-may have contributed to the findings.
ObjectiveTo evaluate cross-sectional patient distribution and standardised 30-day mortality in the intensive care units (ICU) of an inclusive hub and spoke trauma system.SettingICUs of the Integrated System for Trauma Patient Care (SIAT) of Emilia-Romagna, an Italian region with a population of approximately 4.5 million.Participants5300 patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15 were admitted to the regional ICUs and recorded in the Regional Severe Trauma Registry between 2007 and 2012. Patients were classified by the Abbreviated Injury Score as follows: (1) traumatic brain injury (2) multiple injuriesand (3) extracranial lesions. The SIATs were divided into those with at least one neurosurgical level II trauma centre (TC) and those with a neurosurgical unit in the level I TC only.ResultsA higher proportion of patients (out of all SIAT patients) were admitted to the level I TC at the head of the SIAT with no additional neurosurgical facilities (1083/1472, 73.6%) compared with the level I TCs heading SIATs with neurosurgical level II TCs (1905/3815; 49.9%). A similar percentage of patients were admitted to level I TCs (1905/3815; 49.9%) and neurosurgical level II TCs (1702/3815, 44.6%) in the SIATs with neurosurgical level II TCs. Observed versus expected mortality (OE) was not statistically different among the three types of centre with a neurosurgical unit; however, the best mean OE values were observed in the level I TC in the SIAT with no neurosurgical unit.ConclusionThe Hub and Spoke concept was fully applied in the SIAT in which neurosurgical facilities were available in the level I TC only. The performance of this system suggests that competition among level I and level II TCs in the same Trauma System reduces performance in both. The density of neurosurgical centres must be considered by public health system governors before implementing trauma systems.
Background and purpose The patterns of long‐term risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization for COVID‐19, and related death are uncertain in people with Parkinson disease (PD) or parkinsonism (PS). The aim of the study was to quantify these risks compared to a control population cohort, during the period March 2020–May 2021, in Bologna, Northern Italy. Methods ParkLink Bologna cohort (759 PD, 192 PS) and controls (9226) anonymously matched (ratio = 1:10) for sex, age, district, and comorbidity were included. Data were analysed in the whole period and in the two different pandemic waves (March–May 2020 and October 2020–May 2021). Results Adjusted hazard ratio of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection was 1.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04–1.7) in PD and 1.9 (95% CI = 1.3–2.8) in PS compared to the controls. The trend was detected in both the pandemic waves. Adjusted hazard ratio of hospitalization for COVID‐19 was 1.1 (95% CI = 0.8–1.7) in PD and 1.8 (95% CI = 0.97–3.1) in PS. A higher risk of hospital admission was detected in PS only in the first wave. The 30‐day mortality risk after hospitalization was higher ( p = 0.048) in PS (58%) than in PD (19%) and controls (26%). Conclusions Compared with controls, after adjustment for key covariates, people with PD and PS showed a higher risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection throughout the first 15 months of the pandemic. COVID‐19 hospitalization risk was increased only in people with PS and only during the first wave. This group of patients was burdened by a very high risk of death after infection and hospitalization.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.