The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has brought a great deal of pressure for medical students, who typically show elevated anxiety rates. Our aim is to investigate the prevalence of anxiety in medical students during this pandemic. This systematic review and mini meta-analysis has been conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Two researchers independently searched PubMed on 26 August 2020 for cross-sectional studies on medical students during the COVID-19 outbreak, with no language restrictions applied. We then performed a manual search to detect other potentially eligible investigations. To the 1361 records retrieved in the initial search, 4 more were added by manual search on medRxiv. Finally, eight studies were finally included for qualitative and quantitative analysis, which yielded an estimated prevalence of anxiety of 28% (95% CI: 22–34%), with significant heterogeneity between studies. The prevalence of anxiety in medical students is similar to that prior to the pandemic but correlates with several specific COVID-related stressors. While some preventive and risk factors have been previously identified in a non-pandemic context, knowledge and cognitions on COVID-19 transmission, treatment, prognosis and prevention negatively correlate with anxiety, emerging as a key preventive factor that may provide a rationale for why the levels of anxiety have remained stable in medical students during the pandemic while increasing in their non-medical peers and the general population. Other reasons for the invariability of anxiety rates in this population are discussed. A major limitation of our review is that Chinese students comprised 89% the total sample, which could compromise the external validity of our work

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most frequent cause of dementia, linked to morbidity and mortality among elderly patients. Recently, several clinical studies suggested that depression is a potential risk factor for cognitive decline and AD. A review of meta-analyses was performed, calculating pooled odds ratios to estimate the risk of AD in people with a prior diagnosis (or clinically significant symptoms) of depression. A total of six meta-analyses which represented 28 individual studies were analyzed. A significant association between depression and AD was found (OR = 1.54, 95% CI [1.02–2.31]; p = 0.038). The results showed that heterogeneity across studies was substantial. We found a significant positive effect size for clinical measures of depression, but not for symptomatic rating scales, in the association of depression with risk of AD. The type of rating scale used to assess depression and the cut-off criteria selected also moderated the relationship between depression and AD risk. We found that studies that used clinically significant criteria for diagnosis of depression had more consistent and significant results than studies that used symptomatic scales.

Although alterations in the gut microbiota have been linked to the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder (MDD), including through effects on the immune response, our understanding is deficient about the straight connection patterns among microbiota and MDD in patients. Male and female MDD patients were recruited: 46 patients with a current active MDD (a-MDD) and 22 in remission or with only mild symptoms (r-MDD). Forty-five healthy controls (HC) were also recruited. Psychopathological states were assessed, and fecal and blood samples were collected. Results indicated that the inducible nitric oxide synthase expression was higher in MDD patients compared with HC and the oxidative stress levels were greater in the a-MDD group. Furthermore, the lipopolysaccharide (an indirect marker of bacterial translocation) was higher in a-MDD patients compared with the other groups. Fecal samples did not cluster according to the presence or the absence of MDD. There were bacterial genera whose relative abundance was altered in MDD:Bilophila(2-fold) andAlistipes(1.5-fold) were higher, whileAnaerostipes(1.5-fold) andDialister(15-fold) were lower in MDD patients compared with HC. Patients with a-MDD presented higher relative abundance ofAlistipesandAnaerostipes(1.5-fold) and a complete depletion ofDialistercompared with HC. Patients with r-MDD presented higher abundance ofBilophila(2.5-fold) compared with HC. Thus, the abundance of bacterial genera and some immune pathways, both with potential implications in the pathophysiology of depression, appear to be altered in MDD, with the most noticeable changes occurring in patients with the worse clinical condition, the a-MDD group.

Background: There is evidence of a high psychological toll from the COVID-19 pandemic in healthcare workers. This paper was aimed at conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting levels of depression among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 and estimating the pooled prevalence of depression. Methods: We searched for cross-sectional studies listed on PubMed from 1 December 2019 to 15 September 2020 that reported prevalence of depression in healthcare workers, nurses, medical doctors, and COVID-19 frontline professionals. The pooled proportions of depression were calculated with random effects models. Results: We identified 57 studies from seventeen countries. The pooled prevalence of depression in healthcare workers was 24% (95% CI: 20–28%), 25% for nurses (95% CI: 18–33%), 24% for medical doctors (95% CI: 16–31%), and 43% for frontline professionals (95% CI: 28–59%). Conclusions: The proportion of depression in nurses and medical doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic was similar to that found in the general population as previously reported in other meta-analyses conducted with smaller numbers of studies. Importantly, almost half of the frontline healthcare workers showed increased levels of depression. There is need for a comprehensive, international response to prevent and treat common mental health problems in healthcare workers.

Background: Anxiety has been suggested as a potentially modifiable risk factor for dementia, but results are still controversial. Our main objectives are to develop an updated meta-analysis of prospective population-based studies on the relationship between anxiety and risk of dementia, and to estimate the population fraction of dementia attributable to anxiety (PAF). Methods: We searched for cohort studies listed on PubMed or Web of Science from January 2018 to January 2020 that reported risk estimates for the association between anxiety and incident dementia. These were added to cohort studies published before January 2018 that were used in a previously published meta-analysis. Fully adjusted RRs were pooled using random effects models. We estimated the proportion of incident dementia attributable to anxiety by using PAF. Results: The meta-analysis included nine prospective cohorts from eight studies, representing 29,608 participants. The overall relative risk (RR) of dementia was 1.24 (95% CI: 1.06–1.46) and the PAF of dementia due to anxiety was 3.9%. Conclusions: Anxiety is significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause dementia. The treatment or prevention of anxiety might help to reduce dementia incidence rates, but more research is needed to clarify whether anxiety is a cause of dementia rather than a prodrome.