For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
0
views
36
references
 Top references
cited by
0
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      920
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Melanomversorgung während eines Jahres Pandemie in Berlin: abnehmende Terminstornierungen trotz zunehmender Besorgnis über COVID‐19

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Zusammenfassung

          Hintergrund und Ziele

          Die COVID‐19‐Pandemie stellt für Krebspatienten eine große Herausforderung dar. Unser Ziel war es, ihren Einfluss auf die Behandlung und auf Arzttermine von Melanompatienten nach einem Jahr Pandemie zu untersuchen.

          Patienten und Methodik

          Melanompatienten, die im Vivantes Hauttumorzentrum in Berlin behandelt wurden, beantworteten eine postalische Umfrage zu Pandemie‐bedingten Änderungen ihrer Melanomversorgung. Einflussfaktoren auf Terminänderungen wurden mit deskriptiven Analysen und multivariater logistischer Regression untersucht. Daten nach einem Jahr Pandemie wurden mit Daten nach der ersten Welle verglichen.

          Ergebnisse

          Von den 366 Teilnehmern (57,7 % Männer; Durchschnittsalter 69,2 Jahre, Rücklaufquote: 36,1 %) berichteten 38 (10,1 %) über verschobene oder verpasste Arzttermine, meist auf eigenen Wunsch (71,1 %) aus Angst vor COVID‐19 (52,6 %). Eine aktuelle Therapie war mit einem geringeren Risiko, Termine zu verpassen, assoziiert (Odds Ratio [OR]: 0,194, p = 0,002), höheres Alter (OR: 1,037, p = 0,039), längere Krankheitsdauer (OR: 1,007, p = 0,028) und ein höherer Schulabschluss (OR: 2,263, p = 0,043) mit höherer Wahrscheinlichkeit. Von den 177 Patienten, die aktuell eine Therapie erhielten, erfuhren nur 1,7 % Pandemie‐bedingte Behandlungsänderungen. Die Besorgnis über COVID‐19 war nach einem Jahr Pandemie signifikant größer als nach der ersten Welle, die Zahl der verpassten Arzttermine jedoch niedriger.

          Schlussfolgerungen

          Pandemie‐bedingte Änderungen waren in unserer Kohorte selten und nahmen trotz zunehmender Besorgnis mit der Zeit ab.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

          Fernando P Polack, Stephen J. Thomas, Nicholas R.E. Kitchin … (2023)
          Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. Methods In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. Results A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)
          Article 0 comments Cited 7651 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
          Article has an altmetric score of 31075
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

            Lindsey Baden, Hana El Sahly, Brandon Essink … (2020)
            Abstract Background Vaccines are needed to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and to protect persons who are at high risk for complications. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle–encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19. Methods This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Results The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001). Efficacy was similar across key secondary analyses, including assessment 14 days after the first dose, analyses that included participants who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and analyses in participants 65 years of age or older. Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. Moderate, transient reactogenicity after vaccination occurred more frequently in the mRNA-1273 group. Serious adverse events were rare, and the incidence was similar in the two groups. Conclusions The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease. Aside from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.)
            Article 0 comments Cited 5307 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Article has an altmetric score of 10287
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

              Merryn Voysey, Sue Ann Costa Clemens, Shabir Madhi … (2022)
              Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; p interaction =0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. Funding UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D’Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.
              Article 0 comments Cited 2573 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Article has an altmetric score of 12551
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Wiebke K. Peitsch: wiebke.ludwig-peitsch@vivantes.de
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Dtsch Dermatol Ges
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Dtsch Dermatol Ges
                Journal ID (doi): 10.1111/(ISSN)1610-0387
                Journal ID (publisher-id): DDG
                Title: Journal Der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft
                Publisher: John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                ISSN (Print): 1610-0379
                ISSN (Electronic): 1610-0387
                Publication date (Electronic): 26 July 2022
                Publication date (Print): July 2022
                Publication date PMC-release: 26 July 2022
                Volume: 20
                Issue: 7 ( doiID: 10.1111/ddg.v20.7 )
                Pages: 962-979
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Klinik für Dermatologie und Allergologie Vivantes Klinikum Spandau Berlin
                [ 2 ] Medizinische Fakultät Charité ‐ Universitätsmedizin Berlin Berlin Deutschland
                [ 3 ] Mannheimer Institut für Public Health Sozial‐ und Präventivmedizin Medizinische Fakultät Mannheim der Universität Heidelberg Mannheim
                [ 4 ] Institut für Medizininformatik Biometrie und Epidemiologie Professur für Epidemiologie und Public Health Friedrich‐Alexander‐Universität Erlangen‐Nürnberg (FAU) Erlangen
                [ 5 ] Klinik für Dermatologie und Phlebologie Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain Berlin
                [ 6 ] Klinik für Dermatologie Venerologie und Allergologie Universitätsklinikum Mannheim Universität Heidelberg Mannheim
                [ 7 ] Klinik für Dermatologie und Venerologie Vivantes Klinikum Neukölln Berlin
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Korrespondenzanschrift

                Prof. Dr. med. Wiebke K. Ludwig‐Peitsch

                Klinik für Dermatologie und Phlebologie

                Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain

                Landsberger Allee 49

                10249 Berlin, Deutschland

                E‐Mail: wiebke.ludwig-peitsch@ 123456vivantes.de

                Article
                Publisher ID: DDG14799_G
                DOI: 10.1111/ddg.14799_g
                PMC ID: 9350167
                PubMed ID: 35881087
                SO-VID: 1b9302f6-0463-441d-af78-f00532da31ed
                Copyright © © 2022 Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft (DDG). Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
                License:

                This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.

                History
                Date received : 31 July 2021
                Date accepted : 22 March 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 5, Pages: 18, Words: 7790
                Categories
                Subject: Originalarbeit
                Subject: Originalarbeiten
                Custom metadata
                source-schema-version-number 2.0
                cover-date July 2022
                details-of-publishers-convertor Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.1.7 mode:remove_FC converted:04.08.2022

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Dermatology
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Dermatology

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content920

                See all similar

                Most referenced authors3,550

                See all reference authors