Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (5) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- Corona (2)
- Epileptischer Anfall (2)
- Pandemic (2)
- Pandemie (2)
- SARS-CoV‑2 (2)
- Seizure (2)
- Status epilepticus (2)
- LABAs (1)
- aggression (1)
- bullying (1)
Institute
- Medizin (5)
Aims: Inadequate treatment is one of the factors interfering with a successful social and working life. Among students, it can impair their health and learning progress. In the field of medicine the problem of inadequate treatment seems widespread. This study examines wether inadequate treatment in internships differs between medicine and other academic disciplines.
Method: Using a questionnaire, the frequency, forms and severity of inadequate treatment among students were compared between the disciplines of medicine, civil engineering and teaching.
Results: 69,3% of medical students reported inadequate treatment during their internships, about twice as many as students of other disciplines. The ratios of verbal, non-verbal and organisational inadequate treatment were similar between the different academic disciplines. However, medical students executed tasks without receiving sufficient safety precautions or training significantly more often (sevenfold) than students of other disciplines. In total however, the experienced incidents of inadequate treatment were seen as similarly severe across the different academic fields.
Conclusion: Inadequate treatment of students during internships is a larger problem in medicine than in civil engineering or teaching, particularly concerning the performance of unsafe tasks. With regard to the health of students and patients, inadequate treatment in the medical education should be tackled. Previous studies suggest that this goal can be achieved only through longtime extensive measures on the level of students, lecturers, faculty and teaching hospitals.
Cannabinoid drugs are registered for postoperative nausea and emesis, Tourette syndrome and tumor-related anorexia, but are also used for spasticity and pain relief, among other conditions. Clinical studies for spasmolysis have been equivocal and even conclusions from meta-analyses were not consistent. This may be due to uncertainty in diagnostic criteria as well as a lack of direct spasmolytic activity (direct causality). In this review we used the Hill criteria to investigate whether a temporal association is causal or spurious. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify all clinical trials of cannabinoids for spasticity. Studies were evaluated for dose dependency and time association; all studies together were analyzed for reproducibility, coherence, analogy and mechanistic consistency. A Funnel plot was done for all studies to identify selection or publication bias. Results: Twenty-seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. The spasmolytic activity (effect strength) was weak, with a nonsignificant small effect in most studies and a large effect only in a few studies (“enriched” studies, low patient numbers). No dose dependency was seen and plotting effect size vs. daily dose resulted in a slope of 0.004. Most studies titrated the cannabinoid to the optimum dose, e.g., 20 mg/d THC. The effect decreased with longer treatment duration (3–4 months). The spasmolytic effect is consistent for different European countries but not always within a country, nor is the effect specific for an etiology (multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, others). For other criteria like plausibility, coherence or analogous effects, no data exist to support or refute them. In most studies, adverse effects were frequently reported indicating a therapeutic effect only at high doses with relevant side effects. Conclusions: Current data do not support a specific spasmolytic effect; a general decrease in CNS activity analogous to benzodiazepines appears more likely. Whether individual patients or specific subgroups benefit from cannabinoids is unclear. Further studies should compare cannabinoids with other, nonspecific spasmolytic drugs like benzodiazepines.
Tiotropium as an add-on treatment option for severe uncontrolled asthma in preschool patients
(2021)
Background: Toddlers with asthma suffer disproportionally more than school-aged children from exacerbations with emergency visits and hospital admissions despite inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) treatment. A recent trial for children ≤ 5 years showed tolerability of tiotropium and potential to reduce asthma-related events.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of electronic outpatient records (2017‒2019) of children < 6 years treated with ICS plus long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) plus tiotropium as an add-on for uncontrolled severe asthma. The primary endpoint was a comparison of systemic corticosteroid (SCS) prescriptions 6 months before and after ICS/LABA/tiotropium start. Secondary endpoints included physician visits, hospitalisations and antibiotic prescriptions. We compared outcomes with children without asthma matched for age, sex, season and screening date.
Results: Compared with a mean 2.42 (95% CI: 1.75, 3.36) SCS courses per patient within 6 months prior to ICS/LABA/tiotropium, 0.74 (95% CI: 0.25, 1.08) SCS courses per patient were prescribed within 6 months after starting ICS/LABA/tiotropium (P< 0.001). Physician visits dropped from 9.23 (95% CI: 7.15, 12.72) to 5.76 (95% CI: 3.10, 7.70) per patient (P< 0.01). Nineteen hospitalisations were recorded 6 months before ICS/LABA/tiotropium compared with one hospitalisation after (P< 0.01). A mean 1.79 antibiotic courses (95% CI: 1.22, 2.23) per patient were prescribed before ICS/LABA/tiotropium compared with 0.74 (95% CI: 0.22, 1.00) after ICS/LABA/tiotropium (P< 0.001). Hospitalisation rates for patients at observation end were not statistically different from healthy controls before/after matching.
Interpretation: Our retrospective study showed that adding tiotropium to ICS/LABA is a new treatment option for patients with severe preschool asthma; however, larger confirmatory studies are needed.
Der Vorstand der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Epileptologie und die Kommission „Epilepsie und Synkopen“ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Neurologie haben die aktuelle Datenlage zur Impfung zur Vorbeugung der Corona-Virus-Krankheit 2019 (COVID-19) sowie zur Impfpriorisierung bei Menschen mit Epilepsie gesichtet, diese zusammengefasst und geben die unten genannten Empfehlungen ab.
The Board of Directors of the German Society of Epileptology and the committee on epilepsy and syncope of the German Society of Neurology have reviewed the current data on vaccination to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and vaccination prioritization in people with epilepsy and provide a summary and recommendations.