BackgroundMany placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is an effective therapy for treating allergies. Both commonly used routes, subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), require high patient adherence to be successful. In the literature, numbers describing adherence vary widely; this investigation compares these two routes of therapy directly.MethodsAll data were retrieved from the patient data management system of a center for dermatology, specific allergology, and environmental medicine in Germany. All 330 patients (aged 13–89 years) included in this study had commenced AIT between 2003 and 2011, thus allowing a full 3-year AIT cycle to be considered for each investigated patient.ResultsIn this specific center, SCIT was prescribed to 62.7% and SLIT to 37.3% of all included patients. The total dropout rate of the whole patient cohort was 34.8%. Overall, SLIT patients showed a higher dropout rate (39.0%) than did SCIT patients (32.4%); however, the difference between these groups was not significant. Also, no significant difference between the overall dropout rates for men and for women was observed. A Kaplan–Meier curve of the patient collective showed a remarkably high dropout rate for the first year of therapy.ConclusionThe analysis presented in this single-center study shows that most patients who discontinue AIT do so during the first year of therapy. Patients seem likely to finish the 3-year therapy cycle if they manage to adhere to treatment throughout the first year. Strategies for preventing nonadherence in AIT, therefore, need to be developed and standardized in future investigations.
Purpose SARS CoV-2 (COVID-19) represents a pandemic that has led to adjustments of routine clinical practices. The initial management in the trauma bay follows detailed international valid algorithms. This study aims to work out potential adjustments of trauma bay algorithms during a global pandemic in order to reduce contamination and to increase safety for patients and medical personnel. Methods This retrospective cohort study compared patients admitted to the trauma bay of one academic level-one trauma centre in March and April 2019 with patients admitted in March and April 2020. Based on these datasets, possible adjustments of the current international guidelines of trauma bay management were discussed. Results Group Pan (2020, n = 30) included two-thirds the number of patients compared with Group Ref (2019, n = 44). The number of severely injured patients comparable amongst these groups: mean injury severity score (ISS) was significantly lower in Group Pan (10.5 ± 4.4 points) compared with Group Ref (15.3 ± 9.2 points, p = 0.035). Duration from admission to whole-body CT was significantly higher in Group Pan (23.8 ± 9.4 min) compared with Group Ref (17.3 ± 10.7 min, p = 0.046). Number of trauma bay admissions decreased, as did the injury severity for patients admitted in March and April 2020. In order to contain spreading of SARS Cov-2, the suggested recommendations of adjusting trauma bay protocols for severely injured patients include (1) minimizing trauma bay team members with direct contact to the patient; (2) reducing repeated examination as much as possible, with rationalized use of protective equipment; and (3) preventing potential secondary inflammatory insults. Conclusion Appropriate adjustments of trauma bay protocols during pandemics should improve safety for both patients and medical personnel while guaranteeing the optimal treatment quality. The above-mentioned proposals have the potential to improve safety during trauma bay management in a time of a global pandemic.
Introduction Improvements in life expectancy imply that an increase of geriatric trauma patients occurs. These patients require special attention due to their multiple comorbidity issues. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the implementation of geriatric comanagement (GC) on the allocation and clinical outcome of geriatric trauma patients. Methods This observational cohort study aims to compare the demographic development and the clinical outcome in geriatric trauma patients (aged 70 years and older) before and after implementation of a certified geriatric trauma center (GC). Geriatric trauma patients admitted between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010 were stratified to group pre-GC and admissions between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018 to Group post-GC. We excluded patients requiring end-of-life treatment and those who died within 24 h or due to severe traumatic brain injury. Outcome parameters included demographic changes, medical complexity (measured by American Society of Anaesthesiology Score (ASA) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)), in-hospital mortality and length of hospitalization. Results This study includes 626 patients in Group pre-GC (mean age 80.3 ± 6.7 years) and 841 patients in Group post-GC (mean age 81.1 ± 7.3 years). Group pre-GC included 244 (39.0%) males, group post-GC included 361 (42.9%) males. The mean CCI was 4.7 (± 1.8) points in pre-GC and 5.1 (± 2.0) points in post-GC (p <0.001). In Group pre-GC, 100 patients (16.0%) were stratified as ASA 1 compared with 47 patients (5.6%) in Group post-GC (p <0.001). Group pre-GC had significantly less patients stratified as ASA 3 or higher (n = 235, 37.5%) compared with Group post-GC (n = 389, 46.3%, p <0.001). Length of stay (LOS) decreased significantly from 10.4 (± 20.3) days in Group pre-GC to 7.9 (±22.9) days in Group post-GC (p = 0.011). The 30-day mortality rate was comparable amongst these groups (pre-GC 8.8% vs. post-GC 8.9%). Conclusion This study appears to support the implementation of a geriatric trauma center, as certain improvements in the patient care were found: Despite a higher CCI and a higher number of patients with higher ASA classifications, Hospital LOS, complication rates and mortality did were not increased after implementation of the CG. The increase in the case numbers supports the fact that a higher degree of specialization leads to a response by admitting physicians, as it exceeded the expectable trend of demographic ageing. We feel that a larger data base, hopefully in a multi center set up should be undertaken to verify these results.
Background: Electric bicycles (E-bikes) are an increasingly popular means of transport, and have been designed for a higher speed comparable to that of small motorcycles. Accident statistics show that E-bikes are increasingly involved in traffic accidents. To test the hypothesis of whether accidents involving E-bikes bear more resemblance to motorcycle accidents than conventional bicyclists, this study evaluates the injury pattern and severity of E-bike injuries in direct comparison to injuries involving motorcycle and bicycle accidents. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, the data of 1796 patients who were treated at a Level I Trauma Center between 2009 and 2018 due to traffic accident, involving bicycles, E-bikes or motorcycles, were evaluated and compared with regard to injury patterns and injury severity. Accident victims treated as inpatients at least 16 years of age or older were included in this study. Pillion passengers and outpatients were excluded. Results: The following distribution was found in the individual groups: 67 E-bike, 1141 bicycle and 588 motorcycle accidents. The injury pattern of E-bikers resembled that of bicyclists much more than that of motorcyclists. The patients with E-bike accidents were almost 14 years older and had a higher incidence of moderate traumatic brain injuries than patients with bicycle accidents, in spite of the fact that E-bike riders were nearly twice as likely to wear a helmet as compared to bicycle riders. The rate of pelvic injuries in E-bike accidents was twice as high compared with bicycle accidents, whereas the rate of upper extremity injuries was higher following bicycle accidents. Conclusion: The overall E-bike injury pattern is similar to that of cyclists. The differences in the injury pattern to motorcycle accidents could be due to the higher speeds at the time of the accident, the different protection and vehicle architecture. What is striking, however, is the higher age and the increased craniocerebral trauma of the E-bikers involved in accidents compared to the cyclists. We speculate that older and untrained people who have a slower reaction time and less control over the E-bike could benefit from head protection or practical courses similar to motorcyclists.
Introduction Survival rate after polytrauma increased over the past decades resulting in an increase of long-term complaints. These include physical and psychological impairments. The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence and risk factors for developing depression and anxiety more than twenty years after polytrauma. Methods We contacted patients who were treated due to a polytrauma between 1973 and 1990 at one level 1 trauma center after more than 20 years. These patients received a self-administered questionnaire, to assess symptoms of depression and anxiety. Analysis based on multivariable logistic regression models include injury severity and non-injury related factors to determine risk factors associated with the development of depression and anxiety. Results Patients included in this study (n = 337) had a mean ISS of 20.3 (4 to 50) points. In total, 173 (51.3%) showed psychiatric sequelae (depression n = 163, 48.2%; anxiety n = 14, 4.1%). Injury severity was not associated with the development of depression or anxiety. However, the patients, who required psychiatric therapy prior to the injury had higher risk of developing psychiatric symptoms (OR 1.3, 95%CI 1.1 to 1.8, p = 0.018) as did patients who suffered from additional psychiatric insults after the injury (OR 1.4, 95%CI 1.2 to 2.0, p = 0.049).
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.