Fatigue is a common symptom in those presenting with symptomatic COVID-19 infection. However, it is unknown if COVID-19 results in persistent fatigue in those recovered from acute infection. We examined the prevalence of fatigue in individuals recovered from the acute phase of COVID-19 illness using the Chalder Fatigue Score (CFQ-11). We further examined potential predictors of fatigue following COVID-19 infection, evaluating indicators of COVID-19 severity, markers of peripheral immune activation and circulating pro-inflammatory cytokines. Of 128 participants (49.5 ± 15 years; 54% female), more than half reported persistent fatigue (52.3%; 45/128) at 10 weeks (median) after initial COVID-19 symptoms. There was no association between COVID-19 severity (need for inpatient admission, supplemental oxygen or critical care) and fatigue following COVID-19. Additionally, there was no association between routine laboratory markers of inflammation and cell turnover (leukocyte, neutrophil or lymphocyte counts, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lactate dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein) or pro-inflammatory molecules (IL-6 or sCD25) and fatigue post COVID-19. Female gender and those with a pre-existing diagnosis of depression/anxiety were over-represented in those with fatigue. Our findings demonstrate a significant burden of post-viral fatigue in individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection after the acute phase of COVID-19 illness. This study highlights the importance of assessing those recovering from COVID-19 for symptoms of severe fatigue, irrespective of severity of initial illness, and may identify a group worthy of further study and early intervention.
Efforts to reduce non-urgent hospital attendances during the COVID-19 pandemic have been the focus of much attention by healthcare professionals worldwide. In Ireland due to funding constraints omalizumab has only been available for hospital-based administration. Fifty-eight patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria and angioedema (CSU) receiving omalizumab in our centre were rapidly transitioned to home self-administration at the start of the pandemic. We conducted an anonymised patient survey after three months of home therapy with the aim of characterizing the patient experience throughout this period. 41 patients participated in our questionnaire (71% response rate). 93% of patients favoured self-injection of Omalizumab from home, with respondents citing cost savings, time savings, improved flexibility, fewer hospital visits and less risk of exposure to COVID-19 infection as particular benefits. Concerns regarding home administration including injecting incorrectly, forgetting a dose or having a reaction were reported very infrequently. 83% of patients wished to continue with home therapy long-term. This survey highlights broadly positive experiences for patients rapidly transitioning to home omalizumab administration. This data will be useful to inform healthcare funders in decisions regarding patient-centred care in CSU. Facilitating home omalizumab therapy in suitable CSU patients should be strongly considered in the post-pandemic setting.
Background Internet search engines are increasingly being utilized as the first port of call for medical information by the public. The prevalence of allergies in developed countries has risen steadily over time. There exists significant variability in the quality of health-related information available on the web. Inaccurately diagnosed and mismanaged allergic disease has major downstream effects on patients, general practitioners, and regional allergy services. Objective This study aimed to verify whether Ireland has a relatively high rate of web-based allergy-related searches, to establish the proportion of medically accurate web pages encountered by the public, and to compare current search results localized to Dublin, Ireland with urban centers elsewhere. Methods Google Trends was used to evaluate regional interest of allergy-related search terms over a 10-year period using terms “allergy,” “allergy test,” “food allergy,” and “food intolerance.” These terms were then inputted into Google search, localizing them to cities in Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Output for each search was reviewed by two independent clinicians and deemed rational or nonevidence based, as per current best practice guidelines. Searches localized to Dublin were initially completed in 2015 and repeated in 2019 to assess for changes in the quality of search results over time. Results Ireland has a persistently high demand for web-based information relating to allergy and ranks first worldwide for “allergy test,” second for “food allergy” and “food intolerance,” and seventh for “allergy” over the specified 10-year timeframe. Results for each of the four subsearches in Dublin (2015) showed that over 60% of websites promoted nonevidence-based diagnostics. A marginal improvement in scientifically robust information was seen in 2019, but results for “allergy test” and “food intolerance” continued to promote alternative testing 57% (8/14) of the time. This strongly contrasted with results localized to Southampton and Rochester, where academic and hospital-affiliated web pages predominantly featured. Government-funded Department of Health websites did not feature in the top five results for Dublin searches “allergy testing,” “food allergy,” or “food intolerance” in either 2015 or 2019. Conclusions The Irish public demonstrates a keen interest in seeking allergy-related information on the web. The proportion of evidence-based websites encountered by the Irish public is considerably lower than that encountered by patients in other urban centers. Factors contributing to this are the lack of a specialist register for allergy in Ireland, inadequate funding for allergy centers currently in operation, and insufficient promotion by the health service of their web-based health database, which contains useful patient-oriented information on allergy. Increased funding of clinical allergology services will more meaningfully impact the health of patients if there is a parallel investment by the health service in information and communication technology consultancy to amplify their presence on the web.
Influenza is a potential cause of severe disease in the immunocompromised. Patients with hypogammaglobulinemia, in spite of adequate replacement therapy, are at risk of significant morbidity and adverse outcomes. A seasonal vaccine is the primary prophylactic countermeasure to limit disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the attitude, knowledge, and influenza vaccine uptake among Irish patients receiving immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT), as well as uptake in co-habitants. Fifty-seven percent of patients receiving IgRT at a regional immunology referral center completed a questionnaire evaluation. Seventy-six percent of IgRT patients received the influenza vaccine for the 2019 season. Ninety-eight percent recognized that influenza could be prevented with vaccination, and 81% deemed it a safe treatment. Ninety-three percent correctly identified that having a chronic medical condition, independent of age, was an indication for vaccination. Despite excellent compliance and knowledge, many were not aware that vaccination was recommended for co-habitants, and only 24% had full vaccine coverage at home. Those who received advice regarding vaccination of household members had higher rates of uptake at home. This study demonstrates awareness and adherence to seasonal influenza vaccine recommendations among patients receiving IgRT. Over three quarters felt adequately informed, the majority stating physicians as their information source. We identified an easily modifiable knowledge gap regarding vaccination of household members. This data reveals a need to emphasize the importance of vaccination for close contacts of at-risk patients, to maintain optimal immunity and health outcome.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.