Dataset Information

Frequency and Type of Red Flags in Patients With Covid-19 and Headache: A Series of 104 Hospitalized Patients.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the frequency of the main red flags in patients with headache who do have Covid-19.

Background

Headache is one of the most frequent neurologic symptoms of Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Diagnosis of secondary headache disorders is still based on the presence of red flags.

Design and methods

Cross-sectional study of hospitalized patients with confirmed Covid-19 disease. We interrogated every patient about the presence of headache and if so, a headache expert conducted a structured interview assessing the presence and type of the main red flags. We evaluated the presence of laboratory abnormalities on admission.

Results

We screened 576 consecutive patients, 130/576 (22.6%) described headache, and 104 were included in the study. Mean age of patients was 56.7 (standard deviation: 11.2) and 66/104 (63.4%) were female. Red flags concerning prior medical history were present in 79/104 (76.0%) cases, and those related to the headache itself were observed in 99/104 (95.2%) patients. All patients 104/104 (100%) described systemic symptoms and 86/104 (82.7%) some neurologic symptoms. Laboratory results were abnormal in 98/104 (94.2%) cases. The most frequent red flags were fever, in 93/104 (89.4%) patients, cough, in 89/104 (85.6% cases), and increased C-reactive protein in 84/100 (84.0%) cases.

Conclusion

In patients with Covid-19 that described the headache red flags were present in most cases. There was not any universal red flag, being necessary the comprehensive evaluation of all of them.

SUBMITTER: Garcia-Azorin D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7436570 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe presence of headache during the acute phase of COVID-19 could be associated with the innate response and the cytokine release. We aim to compare the cytokine and interleukin profile in hospitalized COVID-19 patients at the moment of admission with and without headache during the course of the disease.MethodsAn observational analytic study with a case control design was performed. Hospitalized patients from a tertiary hospital with confirmed COVID-19 disease were included. Patients were classified into the headache or the control group depending on whether they presented headache not better accounted for by another headache disorder other than acute headache attributed to systemic viral infection. Several demographic and clinical variables were studies in both groups. We determined the plasmatic levels of 45 different cytokines and interleukins from the first hospitalization plasma extraction in both groups.ResultsOne hundred and four patients were included in the study, aged 67.4 (12.8), 43.3% female. Among them, 29 (27.9%) had headache. Patients with headache were younger (61.8 vs. 69.5 years, p = 0.005) and had higher frequency of fever (96.6 vs. 78.7%, p = 0.036) and anosmia (48.3% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.016). In the comparison of the crude median values of cytokines, many cytokines were different between both groups. In the comparison of the central and dispersion parameters between the two groups, GROa, IL-10, IL1RA, IL-21, IL-22 remained statistically significant. After adjusting the values for age, sex, baseline situation and COVID-19 severity, IL-10 remained statistically significant (3.3 vs. 2.2 ng/dL, p = 0.042), with a trend towards significance in IL-23 (11.9 vs. 8.6 ng/dL, p = 0.082) and PIGF1 (1621.8 vs. 110.6 ng/dL, p = 0.071).ConclusionsThe higher levels of IL-10 -an anti-inflammatory cytokine- found in our sample in patients with headache may be explained as a counteract of cytokine release, reflecting a more intense immune response in these patients.

Project description:Despite its widespread use in North America and many other parts of the world, the safety of etomidate as an induction agent for rapid sequence intubation in septic patients is still debated. In this article, we evaluate the current literature on etomidate, review its clinical history, and discuss the controversy regarding its use, especially in sepsis. We address eight questions: (i) When did concern over the safety of etomidate first arise? (ii) What is the mechanism by which etomidate is thought to affect the adrenal axis? (iii) How has adrenal insufficiency in relation to etomidate use been defined or identified in the literature? (iv) What is the evidence that single dose etomidate is associated with subsequent adrenal-cortisol dysfunction? (v) What is the clinical significance of adrenal insufficiency or dysfunction associated with single dose etomidate, and where are the data that support or refute the contention that single-dose etomidate is associated with increased mortality or important post emergency department (ED) clinical outcomes? (vi) How should etomidate's effects in septic patients best be measured? (vii) What are alternative induction agents and what are the advantages and disadvantages of these agents relative to etomidate? (viii) What future work is needed to further clarify the characteristics of etomidate as it is currently used in patients with sepsis? We conclude that the observational nature of almost all available data suggesting adverse outcomes from etomidate does not support abandoning its use for rapid sequence induction. However, because we see a need to balance theoretical harms and benefits in the presence of data supporting the non-inferiority of alternative agents without similar theoretical risks associated with them, we suggest that the burden of proof to support continued widespread use may rest with the proponents of etomidate. We further suggest that practitioners become familiar with the use of more than one agent while awaiting further definitive data.