a b s t r a c t Aims:The comparison of what physicians and patients consider important in being cured from depression. Methods: 426 outpatients (in primary care and in psychiatric care) with a clinical diagnosis of major depression were included: at the start of antidepressant treatment, the importance of a range of items for being cured from depression (depressive, anxious and somatic symptoms, positive affect, functional impairment, quality of life) was assessed in physicians and patients separately and a ranking was made; after 3 months of treatment, the importance of these items for being cured from depression was re-assessed in the patients. Results: The items ranked top 10 by physicians mainly contain depressive symptoms while those ranked top 10 by patients mainly contain positive affect items and this attention to positive affect even increases at 3 months follow-up and is higher in patients with recurrent depression than in patients with a first episode of depression. Somatic symptoms consistently get the lowest ranking, as well in physicians as in patients. Conclusions: Physicians differ significantly from patients in what they consider important for 'being cured from depression': physicians mainly focus on alleviation of depressive symptoms while patients mainly focus on the restoration of positive affect.

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Radiation therapy is a cornerstone of the therapeutic modalities used in modern oncology. However, it is sometimes limited in its ability to achieve optimal tumor control by radiation-induced normal tissue toxicity. In delivering radiation therapy, a balance must be achieved between maximizing the dose to the tumor and minimizing any injury to the normal tissues. Amifostine was the first Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved clinical radiation protector intended to reduce the impact of radiation on normal tissue, lessening its toxicity and potentially allowing for increased tumor dose/control. Despite being FDA-approved almost 20 years ago, Amifostine has yet to achieve widespread clinical use. <b><i>Summary:</i></b> A thorough review of Amifostine’s development, mechanism of action, and current clinical status were conducted. A brief history of Amifostine is given, from its development at Walter Reid Institute of Research to its approval for clinical use. The mechanism of action of Amifostine is explored. The results of a complete literature review of all prospective randomized trials to date involving the use of Amifostine in radiation therapy are presented. The results are arranged by treatment site and salient findings discussed. Side effects and complications to consider in using Amifostine are reviewed. <b><i>Key Messages:</i></b> Amifostine has been explored as a radiation protectant in most radiation treatment sites. Studies have demonstrated efficacy of Amifostine in all treatment sites reviewed, but results are heterogeneous. The heterogeneity of studies looking at Amifostine as a clinical radiation protectant has precluded a definitive answer on its efficacy. Complicating its clinical use is its toxicity and delivery requirements. Amifostine has largely fallen out of use with the advent of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). However, side effects with IMRT remain a challenge and concern. The use of Amifostine in the IMRT era has been poorly explored and is worthy of future study.

COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for people living with HIV (PLWH), among whom social inequities and co-morbidities may drive risks of COVID-19 infection and outcome severity. Among a provincial (British Columbia) sample, we determined the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine intention by HIV status and assessed socio-demographic, vaccine hesitancy, and psychological predictors of vaccine intention. Individuals (25–69 years) recruited from province-wide research cohorts and the general public completed an online survey examining COVID-19 impacts (August/2020-March/2021). In an analysis restricted to women and gender diverse participants (n = 5588), we compared intention to receive a recommended COVID-19 vaccine (Very likely/Likely vs Neutral/Unlikely/Very Unlikely) by self-reported HIV status. Logistic regression models assessed the independent effect of HIV status and other factors on COVID-19 vaccine intention. Of 5588 participants, 69 (1.2%) were living with HIV, of whom 79.7% were on antiretroviral therapy. In bivariate analyses, intention to vaccinate was significantly lower among PLWH compared to participants not living with HIV (65.2% vs 79.6%; OR 0.44; 95%CI 0.32–0.60). However, this association was not statistically significant after adjustment for ethnicity, income, education, and essential worker status (aOR 0.85; 95%CI 0.48–1.55). Among PLWH, those with greater vaccine confidence, positive attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine, and more strongly influenced by direct and indirect social norms to vaccinate had significantly higher odds of vaccine intention. Tailored messaging is needed to build vaccine confidence, address questions about vaccine benefits, and support informed vaccination decision-making to promote COVID-19 vaccine uptake among women and gender diverse people living with HIV. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10461-022-03577-w.

Although there are some differences, the SPIN Cohort is broadly comparable with other large prevalent SSc cohorts, increasing confidence that insights gained from the SPIN Cohort should be generalizable, although it should be noted that all three cohorts include primarily White participants.

Introduction No studies have reported mental health symptom comparisons prior to and during COVID-19 in vulnerable medical populations. Objective To compare anxiety and depression symptoms among people with a pre-existing medical condition and factors associated with changes. Methods Pre-COVID-19 Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort data were linked to COVID-19 data from April 2020. Multiple linear and logistic regression were used to assess factors associated with continuous change and ≥ 1 minimal clinically important difference (MCID) change for anxiety (PROMIS Anxiety 4a v1.0; MCID = 4.0) and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-8; MCID = 3.0) symptoms, controlling for pre-COVID-19 levels. Results Mean anxiety symptoms increased 4.9 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.0 to 5.7). Depression symptom change was negligible (0.3 points; 95% CI -0.7 to 0.2). Compared to France ( N = 159), adjusted anxiety symptom change scores were significantly higher in the United Kingdom ( N = 50; 3.3 points, 95% CI 0.9 to 5.6), United States ( N = 128; 2.5 points, 95% CI 0.7 to 4.2), and Canada ( N = 98; 1.9 points, 95% CI 0.1 to 3.8). Odds of ≥1 MCID increase were 2.6 for the United Kingdom (95% CI 1.2 to 5.7) but not significant for the United States (1.6, 95% CI 0.9 to 2.9) or Canada (1.4, 95% CI 0.7 to 2.5). Older age and adequate financial resources were associated with less continuous anxiety increase. Employment and shorter time since diagnosis were associated with lower odds of a ≥ 1 MCID increase. Conclusions Anxiety symptoms, but not depression symptoms, increased dramatically during COVID-19 among people with a pre-existing medical condition.