The latest medical research on Disaster Medicine

To contain the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), several vaccines have been developed. This study is intended to elucidate the level of anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 immunoglobulin G (anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG) antibodies for COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer BioNTech [BNT162b2], Oxford/AstraZeneca [ChAdOx1], and Sinopharm [BBIBP-CorV]) among health staff from health facilities in Duhok province, and it explored the immediate adverse reactions of COVID-19 vaccines among participants.

A longitudinal study was conducted from June 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022, and 300 participants were included through simple random sampling.

The immune response 1 mo after the second dose was significantly higher than the sustained immune after 5 and 9 mo as results revealed that, in 100% of study samples who had (ChAdOx1) vaccine, their antibody titers exceeded the positivity threshold of 1 AU/m, while 96% for (BNT162b2) and 90% for (BBIBP-CorV) for the first test after 1 mo from the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and these rates were reduced to 94.6% for (ChAdOx1), 97.8% for (BNT162b2), and 81.9% for (BBIBP-CorV) at 5 mo after the second dose, while simultaneously the seropositivity rates were more reduced at 9 mo to 46.5% for (ChAdOx1), 67.5% for (BNT162b2), and 9.20% for (BBIBP-CorV). In terms of adverse reactionsss, fever was reported as the most prevalent after the first dose in 58% for ChAdOx1, 43% for BNT162b2, and 23% for BBIBP-CorV, followed by muscle pain, joint pain, and shoulder pain for both doses.

The implications of the findings from this study are that higher and potentially longer antibody responses can be obtained if the BNT162b2 is given as compared with the other 2 vaccines. Moreover, the booster doses of the COVID-19 vaccine are highly recommended because more than 50% of the participants either have become anti-spike protein negative or have a deficient level of anti-spike protein against COVD-19 vaccines.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a globally devastating psychosocial impact. A detailed understanding of the mental health implications of this worldwide crisis is critical for successful mitigation of and preparation for future pandemics. Using a large international sample, we investigated in the present study the relationship between multiple COVID-19 parameters (both disease characteristics and government responses) and the incidence of the suicide crisis syndrome (SCS), an acute negative affect state associated with near-term suicidal behavior.

Data were collected from 5528 adults across 10 different countries in an anonymous web-based survey between June 2020 and January 2021.

Individuals scoring above the SCS cut-off lived in countries with higher peak daily cases and deaths during the first wave of the pandemic. Additionally, the longer participants had been exposed to markers of pandemic severity (eg, lockdowns), the more likely they were to screen positive for the SCS. Findings reflected both country-to-country comparisons and individual variation within the pooled sample.

Both the pandemic itself and the government interventions utilized to contain the spread appear to be associated with suicide risk. Public policy should include efforts to mitigate the mental health impact of current and future global disasters.

To evaluate the effect of the Disaster Medical Assistance Team (DMAT) in an inner-city emergency department during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.

Data were abstracted from individual emergency department encounters over 6 weeks. The study compared left without being seen (LWBS) percentage, door-to-provider, and door-to-disposition times for 2 weeks before, during, and after the DMAT.

The LWBS percentages for the 2 weeks before and after the DMAT were 16.2% and 11.6%, respectively. The LWBS percentage during the DMAT was 8.1%. Door-to-disposition times for the 2 weeks before and after the DMAT were 7.36 hours and 8.53 hours, respectively. The door-to-disposition during the DMAT was 7.33 hours. Door-to-disposition was statistically significant during the 2 weeks of the DMAT compared to the 2 weeks after the DMAT (7.33 vs 8.53, P < 0.05) but not statistically significant when compared to the period before the DMAT (7.36 vs 7.33, P = 1.00). Door-to-provider time was the longest during the DMAT (122.5 minutes [2.04 hours]) when compared to the time frame before the DMAT (114.54 minutes [1.91 hours]) and after the DMAT (102.84 minutes [1.71 hours]).

The DMAT had the most positive impact on LWBS percentages. The DMAT showed no improvement in door-to-provider times in the study and only in door-to-disposition times when comparing the time the DMAT was present to after the DMAT departed.