Search

Background: In COVID-19 patients, low serum vitamin D (VD) levels have been associated with severe acute respiratory failure and poor prognosis. In regular hemodialysis (HD) patients, there is VD deficiency and markedly reduced calcitriol levels, which may predispose them to worse outcomes of COVID-19 infection. Some hemodialysis patients receive treatment with drugs for secondary hyperparathyroidism, which have well known pleiotropic effects beyond mineral metabolism. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of VD status and the administration of active vitamin D medications, used to treat secondary hyperparathyroidism, on survival in a cohort of COVID-19 positive HD patients., Methods: A cross-sectional retrospective observational study was conducted from 12 March to 21 May 2020 in 288 HD patients with positive PCR for SARS-CoV2. Patients were from 52 different centers in Spain., Results: The percent of HD patients with COVID-19 was 6.1% (288 out of 4743). Mortality rate was 28.4% (81/285). Three patients were lost to follow-up. Serum 25(OH)D (calcidiol) level was 17.1 [10.6-27.5] ng/mL and was not significantly associated to mortality (OR 0.99 (0.97-1.01), p = 0.4). Patients receiving active vitamin D medications (16/94 (17%) vs. 65/191(34%), p = 0.003), including calcimimetics (4/49 (8.2%) vs. 77/236 (32.6%), p = 0.001), paricalcitol or calcimimetics (19/117 (16.2%) vs. 62/168 (36.9%); p < 0.001), and also those on both paricalcitol and calcimimetics, to treat secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPTH) (1/26 (3.8%) vs. 80/259 (30.9%), p < 0.001) showed a lower mortality rate than patients receiving no treatment with either drug. Multivariate Cox regression analysis confirmed this increased survival., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the use of paricalcitol, calcimimetics or the combination of both, seem to be associated with the improvement of survival in HD patients with COVID-19. No correlation was found between serum VD levels and prognosis or outcomes in HD patients with COVID-19. Prospective studies and clinical trials are needed to support these findings.

Introduction: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) increases the risk of mortality during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) episodes, and some reports have underlined the high incidence and severity of this infection in dialysis patients. Information on COVID-19 in nondialysis CKD patients is not available yet. Case Reports: Here we present 7 patients with grade 4–5 CKD who developed symptomatic COVID-19; they comprise 2.6% of our 267 advanced CKD patients. The estimated GFR was between 12 and 20 mL/min during the month prior to COVID-19. The 3 major symptoms were fever, cough, and dyspnea, and 5 patients showed bilateral pneumonia. Hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, ceftriaxone, and steroids were the most frequently prescribed drugs. Two patients needed noninvasive mechanical ventilation. All patients showed minimal to moderate kidney function deterioration during admission, with an eGFR decline below 5 mL/min in 6 cases. No patient required acute dialysis. Six patients were discharged alive and remained dialysis free athe t the time of reporting, and one 76-year-old patient died. Conclusions: COVID-19 affects grade 4–5 CKD patients, but prognosis may be acceptable if prompt supportive measures are applied. These findings should be confirmed in larger cohorts, and further observations will be needed to understand the full spectrum of clinical features and the optimal approach to COVID-19 in patients with advanced CKD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Nefrologia is the property of Revista Nefrologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The outbreak of COVID-19 in Spain started at the end of February. By 9th April 2020 Spain was the second country in confirmed cases and in deaths. On March 14, 2020, the Spanish Government declared the state of alarm to limit viral transmission. During such state, citizens must stay confined at home with few justified exceptions. This whole situation drastically changed the life of the population, which can cause a wide range of psychosocial impacts. This study explored the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the general adult population (N = 3055) during the first stages of the outbreak in Spain, as well as their anxiety, stress and depression levels. We also examined the extent to which the following variables were associated to participants' mental health: (1) demographics; (2) degree of concern about the pandemic; (3) environmental conditions during the home confinement, (4) changes in daily life as a consequence of the pandemic; (5) contact with the COVID-19 disease; (6) actual and perceived severity of the crisis; (7) information about the COVID-19, (8) perceived health status and (9) leisure activities conducted within the last 24 h. Our results show that Spanish consider the current COVID-19 health crisis as fairly severe, and the majority felt that the COVID-19 crisis had greatly impacted on their daily life, including changes in their daily routines and cancelation of important activities. About 36% of the participants reported moderate to severe psychological impact, 25% showed mild to severe levels of anxiety, 41% reported depressive symptoms, and 41% felt stressed. Women, young, and those who that lost their job during the health crisis showed the strongest negative psychological symptoms. What worried Spaniards the most was the likelihood of suffering an economic crisis derived from the pandemic. We found factors associated with better mental health, such as being satisfied with the information received about the health crisis, conducting leisure activities, and the perception of being in good health. These findings can be used to design psychological interventions to help coping with COVID-19 pandemic, both in Spain and other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Nefrologia is the property of Revista Nefrologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to frequent referrals to the emergency department on suspicion of this infection in maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) and kidney transplant (KT) patients. We aimed to describe their clinical features comparing confirmed and suspected non-confirmed COVID-19 cases during the Spanish epidemic peak. Confirmed COVID-19 ((+)COVID-19) corresponds to patient with positive RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 assay. Non-confirmed COVID-19 ((−)COVID-19) corresponds to patients with negative RT-PCR. COVID-19 was suspected in 61 patients (40/803 KT (4.9%), 21/220 MHD (9.5%)). Prevalence of (+)COVID-19 was 3.2% in KT and 3.6% in MHD patients. Thirty-four (26 KT and 8 MHD) were (+)COVID-19 and 27 (14 KT and 13 MHD) (−)COVID-19. In comparison with (−)COVID-19 patients, (+)COVID-19 showed higher frequency of typical viral symptoms (cough, dyspnea, asthenia and myalgias), pneumonia (88.2% vs. 14.3%) and LDH and CRP while lower phosphate levels, need of hospital admission (100% vs. 63%), use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (36% vs. 11%) and mortality (38% vs. 0%) (p < 0.001). Time from symptoms onset to admission was longer in patients who finally died than in survivors (8.5 vs. 3.8, p = 0.007). In KT and MHD patients, (+)COVID-19 shows more clinical severity than suspected non-confirmed cases. Prompt RT-PCR is mandatory to confirm COVID-19 diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Design Methods Results Conclusion Impact Patient or Public Contribution This study explores the mediational role of resilience, experiential avoidance and emotion regulation in the levels of anxiety, depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) of healthcare workers during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Additionally, we explored the association of such levels with personal and professional variables.Cross‐sectional study.Healthcare professionals working in Spain (N = 786) were recruited following a snowball approach in November and December 2021. Resilience, emotion regulation, experiential avoidance, depression, anxiety, PTSD and work‐related variables were measured. Mean differences and correlations were computed, and a path analysis with latent variables (PALV) model was tested.In total, 18.8% of the sample scored above the cut‐off score for depression, 24.6% for anxiety and 36.4% for PTSD. Higher resilience and lower experiential avoidance and expression suppression were correlated with better mental health. The PALV model explained 42%–53% of mental health outcomes. Experiential avoidance showed the greatest explanatory power and mediated the impact that stressors had on mental health. Some work‐related variables correlated with greater psychological impact. These factors encompassed being a nurse, feeling that their job remained stressful and had not yet returned to its pre‐pandemic state and having interacted with individuals facing economic difficulties due to the pandemic, and those who had lost their lives to COVID‐19.Healthcare workers showed high levels of psychological impact during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Such impact was predicted from some work‐stress variables and the reliance on maladaptive strategies such as experiential avoidance and expressive suppression.Training healthcare professionals to use coping strategies incompatible with experiential avoidance may improve their mental health. Additionally, better working conditions are fundamental for reducing the impact of critical situations on healthcare workers' mental health.No patient or public contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]