Objective: Since the declaration of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak as pandemic, there are reports on the increased prevalence of physical symptoms observed in the general population. We investigated the association between psychological outcomes and physical symptoms among healthcare workers. Methods: Healthcare workers from 5 major hospitals, involved in the care for COVID-19 patients, in Singapore and India were invited to participate in a study by performing a self-administered questionnaire within the period of February 19 to April 17, 2020. Healthcare workers included doctors, nurses, allied healthcare workers, administrators, clerical staff and maintenance workers. This questionnaire collected information on demographics, medical history, symptom prevalence in the past month, Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21) and the Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R) instrument. The prevalence of physical symptoms displayed by healthcare workers and the associations between physical symptoms and psychological outcomes of depression, anxiety, stress, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were evaluated. Results: Out of the 906 healthcare workers who participated in the survey, 48 (5.3%) screened positive for moderate to very-severe depression, 79 (8.7%) for moderate to extremely-severe anxiety, 20 (2.2%) for moderate to extremely-severe stress, and 34 (3.8%) for moderate to severe levels of psychological distress. The commonest reported symptom was headache (32.3%), with a large number of participants (33.4%) reporting more than four symptoms. Participants who had experienced symptoms in the preceding month were more likely to be older, have pre-existing comorbidities and a positive screen for depression, anxiety, stress, and PTSD. After adjusting for age, gender and comorbidities, it was found that depression (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.54-5.07, p = 0.001), anxiety (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.36-3.48, p = 0.001), stress (OR 3.06, 95% CI 1.27-7.41, p = 0.13), and PTSD (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.12-4.35, p = 0.023) remained significantly associated with the presence of physical

The Covid-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented pressure on healthcare systems and workers around the world. Such pressures may impact on working conditions, psychological wellbeing and perception of safety. In spite of this, no study has assessed the relationship between safety attitudes and psychological outcomes. Moreover, only limited studies have examined the relationship between personal characteristics and psychological outcomes during Covid-19. From 22nd March 2020 to 18th June 2020, healthcare workers from the United Kingdom, Poland, and Singapore were invited to participate using a self-administered questionnaire comprising the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ), Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) to evaluate safety culture, burnout and anxiety/depression. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of burnout, anxiety and depression. Of 3,537 healthcare workers who participated in the study, 2,364 (67%) screened positive for burnout, 701 (20%) for anxiety, and 389 (11%) for depression. Significant predictors of burnout included patient-facing roles: doctor (OR 2.10; 95% CI 1.49–2.95), nurse (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.04–1.84), and ‘other clinical’ (OR 2.02; 95% CI 1.45–2.82); being redeployed (OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.02–1.58), bottom quartile SAQ score (OR 2.43; 95% CI 1.98–2.99), anxiety (OR 4.87; 95% CI 3.92–6.06) and depression (OR 4.06; 95% CI 3.04–5.42). Significant factors inversely correlated with burnout included being tested for SARS-CoV-2 (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.51–0.82) and top quartile SAQ score (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.22–0.40). Significant factors associated with anxiety and depression, included burnout, gender, safety attitudes and job role. Our findings demonstrate a significant burden of burnout, anxiety, and depression amongst healthcare workers. A strong association was seen between SARS-CoV-2 testing, safety attitudes, gender, job role, redeployment and psychological state. These findings highlight the importance of targeted support services for at risk groups and proactive SARS-CoV-2 testing of healthcare workers.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to significant strain on front-line healthcare workers. Aims In this multicentre study, we compared the psychological outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in various countries in the Asia-Pacific region and identified factors associated with adverse psychological outcomes. Method From 29 April to 4 June 2020, the study recruited healthcare workers from major healthcare institutions in five countries in the Asia-Pacific region. A self-administrated survey that collected information on prior medical conditions, presence of symptoms, and scores on the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales and the Impact of Events Scale-Revised were used. The prevalence of depression, anxiety, stress and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) relating to COVID-19 was compared, and multivariable logistic regression identified independent factors associated with adverse psychological outcomes within each country. Results A total of 1146 participants from India, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam were studied. Despite having the lowest volume of cases, Vietnam displayed the highest prevalence of PTSD. In contrast, Singapore reported the highest case volume, but had a lower prevalence of depression and anxiety. In the multivariable analysis, we found that non-medically trained personnel, the presence of physical symptoms and presence of prior medical conditions were independent predictors across the participating countries. Conclusions This study highlights that the varied prevalence of psychological adversity among healthcare workers is independent of the burden of COVID-19 cases within each country. Early psychological interventions may be beneficial for the vulnerable groups of healthcare workers with presence of physical symptoms, prior medical conditions and those who are not medically trained.

Importance Coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) causes an immunosuppressed state and increases risk of secondary infections like mucormycosis. We evaluated clinical features, predisposing factors, diagnosis and outcomes for mucormycosis among patients with COVID‐19 infection. Methods This prospective, observational, multi‐centre study included 47 consecutive patients with mucormycosis, diagnosed during their course of COVID‐19 illness, between January 3 and March 27, 2021. Data regarding demography, underlying medical conditions, COVID‐19 illness and treatment were collected. Clinical presentations of mucormycosis, imaging and biochemical characteristics and outcome were recorded. Results Of the 2567 COVID‐19 patients admitted to 3 tertiary centres, 47 (1.8%) were diagnosed with mucormycosis. Mean age was 55 ± 12.8years, and majority suffered from diabetes mellitus (n = 36, 76.6%). Most were not COVID‐19 vaccinated (n = 31, 66.0%) and majority (n = 43, 91.5%) had developed moderate‐to‐severe pneumonia, while 20 (42.6%) required invasive ventilation. All patients had received corticosteroids and broad‐spectrum antibiotics while most (n = 37, 78.7%) received at least one anti‐viral medication. Mean time elapsed from COVID‐19 diagnosis to mucormycosis was 12.1 ± 4.6days. Eleven (23.4%) subjects succumbed to their disease, mostly (n = 8, 72.7%) within 7 days of diagnosis. Among the patients who died, 10 (90.9%) had pre‐existing diabetes mellitus, only 2 (18.2%) had received just one vaccine dose and all developed moderate‐to‐severe pneumonia, requiring oxygen supplementation and mechanical ventilation. Conclusions Mucormycosis can occur among COVID‐19 patients, especially with poor glycaemic control, widespread and injudicious use of corticosteroids and broad‐spectrum antibiotics, and invasive ventilation. Owing to the high mortality, high index of suspicion is required to ensure timely diagnosis and appropriate treatment in high‐risk populations.

Objective In the fight against coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), vaccination is vital in achieving herd immunity, with many Asian countries starting to vaccinate frontline workers. However, expedited vaccine development has led to hesitancy amongst the general population. We evaluated the willingness of healthcare workers to receive COVID-19 vaccine. Methods From 12 th to 21 st December 2020, we recruited 1720 healthcare workers from six countries, including China, India, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam and Bhutan. The self-administrated survey collected information on willingness to vaccinate, perception of COVID-19, vaccine concerns, COVID-19 risk profile, stigma, pro-socialness scale, and trust in health authorities. Results More than 95% of healthcare workers were willing to vaccinate. These participants were more likely to perceive the pandemic as severe, considered the vaccine safe, had less financial concerns, less stigmatization to the vaccine, increased pro-socialness mindset, and trust in health authorities. In multivariable analysis, high perceived risk index of the pandemic, lower physical harm index of vaccine, and high pro-socialness index were independent predictors. Conclusions Majority of healthcare workers in Asia are willing to receive COVID-19 vaccination. The perceived susceptibility, potential low risk of harm from the vaccine and pro-socialness are main drivers. These encouraging findings may help formulate vaccination strategies in other countries.

TCD-derived PI could be used to identify patients with CSF-P ≥ 20 cm H2 0 and may play an important role as a monitoring tool.

No abstract

Background: Emerging data indicates an increased risk for cerebrovascular events with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and highlights the potential impact of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on the management and outcomes of acute stroke. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the aforementioned considerations. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of observational cohort studies reporting on the occurrence and/or outcomes of patients with cerebrovascular events in association with their SARS-CoV-2 infection status. We used a random-effects model. Summary estimates were reported as odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Results: We identified 16 cohort studies including 44,004 patients. Among patients with SARS-CoV-2, 1.3% (95%CI: 0.9-1.8%; I 2 =88%) were hospitalized for cerebrovascular events, 1.2% (95%CI: 0.8-1.5%; I 2 =85%) for ischemic stroke, and 0.2% (95%CI: 0.1-0.4%; I 2 =69%) for hemorrhagic stroke. Compared to non-infected contemporary or historical controls, patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection had increased odds of ischemic stroke (OR=3.58, 95%CI: 1.43-8.92; I 2 =43%) and cryptogenic stroke (OR=3.98, 95%CI: 1.62-9.77; I 2 =0%). Odds for in-hospital mortality were higher among SARS-CoV-2 stroke patients compared to non-infected contemporary or historical stroke patients (OR=5.60, 95%CI: 3.19-9.80; I 2 =45%). SARS-CoV-2 infection status was not associated to the likelihood of receiving intravenous thrombolysis (OR=1.42, 95%CI: 0.65-3.10; I 2 =0%) or endovascular thrombectomy (OR=0.78, 95%CI: 0.35-1.74; I 2 =0%) among hospitalized ischemic stroke patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Diabetes mellitus was found to be more prevalent among SARS-CoV-2 stroke patients compared to non-infected contemporary or historical controls (OR=1.39, 95%CI: 1.04-1.86; I 2 =0%). Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 appears to be associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, particularly the cryptogenic subtype. SARS-CoV-2 infection in stroke substantially increases the mortality risk.