Background: To investigate whether vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is associated with the onset of retinal vascular occlusive disease (RVOD). Methods: In this multicentre study, data from patients with central and branch retinal vein occlusion (CRVO and BRVO), central and branch retinal artery occlusion (CRAO and BRAO), and anterior ischaemic optic neuropathy (AION) were retrospectively collected during a 2-month index period (1 June–31 July 2021) according to a defined protocol. The relation to any previous vaccination was documented for the consecutive case series. Numbers of RVOD and COVID-19 vaccination were investigated in a case-by-case analysis. A case–control study using age- and sex-matched controls from the general population (study participants from the Gutenberg Health Study) and an adjusted conditional logistic regression analysis was conducted. Results: Four hundred and twenty-one subjects presenting during the index period (61 days) were enrolled: one hundred and twenty-one patients with CRVO, seventy-five with BRVO, fifty-six with CRAO, sixty-five with BRAO, and one hundred and four with AION. Three hundred and thirty-two (78.9%) patients had been vaccinated before the onset of RVOD. The vaccines given were BNT162b2/BioNTech/Pfizer (n = 221), followed by ChadOx1/AstraZeneca (n = 57), mRNA-1273/Moderna (n = 21), and Ad26.COV2.S/Johnson & Johnson (n = 11; unknown n = 22). Our case–control analysis integrating population-based data from the GHS yielded no evidence of an increased risk after COVID-19 vaccination (OR = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.60–1.45, p = 0.75) in connection with a vaccination within a 4-week window. Conclusions: To date, there has been no evidence of any association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and a higher RVOD risk.

ObjectivesTo identify approaches for an effective patient-centred care of depressed employees, we investigated occupational physicians’ (OPs) and psychotherapists’ (PTs) knowledge about job stressors on the development of depression, application of this knowledge, interdisciplinary cooperation and perceived barriers.Study designA cross-sectional online survey.ParticipantsOPs (163; 48.5% male) and PTs (69; 43.5% male) providing complete data on the survey out of 257 OPs and 112 PTs who started the survey. There have been 458 (OPs) and 821 (PTs) initial clicks.MethodsMain outcome measures were the importance ratings of specific job stressors, the frequency of asking patients about those stressors, the need for interdisciplinary cooperation, as well as perceived barriers for cooperation. We performed multivariate analysis of variance, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Spearman’s rank-order correlations.ResultsThe achieved response rate for OPs was 56.1% and for PTs 13.6%. Both disciplines agreed on the importance of job stressors regarding depression (ICC=0.90; 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.98), but both ranked these factors differently from the current state of research. As to knowledge application, OPs showed positive associations between the importance of job stressors and the frequency of asking employees about them (eg, job insecurity (rs=0.20, p=0.005)) and PTs for social stressors (eg, interpersonal conflicts (rs=0.38, p=0.001)). OPs (mean=3.41) reported a higher necessity of interdisciplinary cooperation than PTs (mean=3.17; F(1,230)=7.02, p=0.009). Furthermore, cooperation was reported as difficult to implement. PTs perceived barriers (eg, time restriction) as more hindering (mean=3.2) than OPs (mean=2.8; F(1,171)=8.16, p=0.005).ConclusionsBoth disciplines are aware of the relevance of job stressors as risk factors for depression, but should be encouraged to ask employees more frequently about them. The need for interdisciplinary cooperation and possible barriers are discussed. It is crucial to emphasise the meaning of sufficient cooperation, since closing this gap for improving patient-centred care especially for employees suffering from depression is necessary.

No abstract

BackgroundPharmacological neuroenhancement (PNE) is discussed as coping strategy in academic and work-related contexts. Depending on the definition of PNE and sample population, different prevalence rates for various groups have been reported. In the three parts of the study, prevalence rates for work and student populations in Germany are detected and the reasons for PNE and possible causal associations between PNE, stress and resilience are investigated.MethodsIn part 1 of the study, 152 occupational physicians (OPs) were surveyed about prevalence rates and reasons for PNE. In part 2 of the study, 1,077 German students reported on their PNE behavior. 704 students were then longitudinally considered to draw conclusions on causal associations between PNE, stress, and resilience.ResultsThe OPs' estimated prevalence rate of 10.9% in a working population is higher than the prevalence rate of 5.4% for prescription and illicit substances found in the student sample in part 2 of the study. The reason suspected by OPs to be most important for PNE with prescription drugs were performance pressure and long working hours. Using soft enhancers, such as caffeine, is most common with a prevalence rate of 76.8% in the student sample. Stress predicts a higher (β = 0.179, p < 0.001) and resilience a lower use of PNE (β = −0.13, p = 0.001). Resilience predicts a lower (β = −0.35, p < 0.001) and PNE a higher level of stress (β = 0.11, p < 0.001).ConclusionOPs suspect a prevalence rate of 10.9% among the working population, while we found a prevalence rate of 5.4% among students. Caffeine is the most used substance for PNE, while the use of prescription and illicit substances remains low. Higher levels of stress and lower levels of resilience result in a higher use of PNE. Universities should therefore include the promotion of resilience and methods for dealing with study stress in health programs to reduce PNE.