Objective

Despite the high prevalence of mental disorders in Mexico, minimal mental health services are available and there are large gaps in mental health treatment. Community-based primary care settings are often the first contact between patients and the health system and thus could serve as important settings for assessing and treating mental disorders. However, no formal assessment has been undertaken regarding the feasibility of implementing these services in Mexico. Before tools are developed to undertake such an assessment, a more nuanced understanding of the microprocesses affecting mental health service delivery must be acquired.

Methods

A qualitative study used semistructured interviews to gather information from 25 staff in 19 community-based primary care clinics in Mexico City. Semistructured interviews were analyzed by using the meaning categorization method. In a second phase of coding, emerging themes were compared with an established typology of barriers to health care access.

Results

Primary care staff reported a number of significant barriers to implementing mental health services in primary care clinics, an already fragile and underfunded system. Barriers included the following broad thematic categories: service issues, language and cultural issues, care recipient characteristics, and issues with lack of knowledge.

Conclusions

Results indicate that the implementation of mental health services in primary care clinics in Mexico will be difficult. However, the information in this study can help inform the integration of mental health into community-based primary care in Mexico through the development of adequate evaluative tools to assess the feasibility and progress of integrating these services.

Background

The mechanisms and outcomes in coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-associated stroke are unique from those of non-COVID-19 stroke.

Objective

To describe the efficacy and outcomes of acute revascularization of large vessel occlusion (LVO) in the setting of COVID-19 in an international cohort.

Methods

We conducted an international multicenter retrospective study of consecutively admitted patients with COVID-19 with concomitant acute LVO across 50 comprehensive stroke centers. Our control group constituted historical controls of patients presenting with LVO and receiving a mechanical thrombectomy between January 2018 and December 2020.

Results

The total cohort was 575 patients with acute LVO; 194 patients had COVID-19 while 381 patients did not. Patients in the COVID-19 group were younger (62.5 vs 71.2; P < .001) and lacked vascular risk factors (49, 25.3% vs 54, 14.2%; P = .001). Modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 3 revascularization was less common in the COVID-19 group (74, 39.2% vs 252, 67.2%; P < .001). Poor functional outcome at discharge (defined as modified Ranklin Scale 3-6) was more common in the COVID-19 group (150, 79.8% vs 132, 66.7%; P = .004). COVID-19 was independently associated with a lower likelihood of achieving modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 3 (odds ratio [OR]: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.2-0.7; P < .001) and unfavorable outcomes (OR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.4-4.5; P = .002).

Conclusion

COVID-19 was an independent predictor of incomplete revascularization and poor outcomes in patients with stroke due to LVO. Patients with COVID-19 with LVO were younger, had fewer cerebrovascular risk factors, and suffered from higher morbidity/mortality rates.

Background and purpose

Previous studies suggest that mechanisms and outcomes in patients with COVID-19-associated stroke differ from those in patients with non-COVID-19-associated strokes, but there is limited comparative evidence focusing on these populations. The aim of this study, therefore, was to determine if a significant association exists between COVID-19 status with revascularization and functional outcomes following thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion (LVO), after adjustment for potential confounding factors.

Methods

A cross-sectional, international multicenter retrospective study was conducted in consecutively admitted COVID-19 patients with concomitant acute LVO, compared to a control group without COVID-19. Data collected included age, gender, comorbidities, clinical characteristics, details of the involved vessels, procedural technique, and various outcomes. A multivariable-adjusted analysis was conducted.

Results

In this cohort of 697 patients with acute LVO, 302 had COVID-19 while 395 patients did not. There was a significant difference (p < 0.001) in the mean age (in years) and gender of patients, with younger patients and more males in the COVID-19 group. In terms of favorable revascularization (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction [mTICI] grade 3), COVID-19 was associated with lower odds of complete revascularization (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.48; p < 0.001), which persisted on multivariable modeling with adjustment for other predictors (adjusted odds ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.12-0.77; p = 0.012). Moreover, endovascular complications, in-hospital mortality, and length of hospital stay were significantly higher among COVID-19 patients (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

COVID-19 was an independent predictor of incomplete revascularization and poor functional outcome in patients with stroke due to LVO. Furthermore, COVID-19 patients with LVO were more often younger and had higher morbidity/mortality rates.

Background

While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection.

Methods

In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7-15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures.

Findings

Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05-0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01-0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease.

Interpretation

Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection.

Funding

National Institutes of Health.