Browsing by Subject "Pandemics"
Now showing 1 - 20 of 82
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II Trial of Intravenous Allogeneic Non-HLA Matched, Unrelated Donor, Cord Blood Infusion for Ischemic Stroke.(Stem cells translational medicine, 2024-02) Laskowitz, Daniel T; Troy, Jesse; Poehlein, Emily; Bennett, Ellen R; Shpall, Elizabeth J; Wingard, John R; Freed, Brian; Belagaje, Samir R; Khanna, Anna; Jones, William; Volpi, John J; Marrotte, Eric; Kurtzberg, JoanneStroke remains a leading cause of death and disability in the US, and time-limited reperfusion strategies remain the only approved treatment options. To address this unmet clinical need, we conducted a phase II randomized clinical trial to determine whether intravenous infusion of banked, non-HLA matched unrelated donor umbilical cord blood (UCB) improved functional outcome after stroke. Participants were randomized 2:1 to UCB or placebo within strata of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale Score (NIHSS) and study center. Study product was infused 3-10 days following index stroke. The primary endpoint was change in modified Rankin Scale (mRS) from baseline to day 90. Key secondary outcomes included functional independence, NIHSS, the Barthel Index, and assessment of adverse events. The trial was terminated early due to slow accrual and logistical concerns associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, and a total of 73 of a planned 100 participants were included in primary analyses. The median (range) of the change in mRS was 1 point (-2, 3) in UCB and 1 point (-1,4) in Placebo (P = 0.72). A shift analysis comparing the mRS at day 90 utilizing proportional odds modeling showed a common odds ratio of 0.9 (95% CI: 0.4, 2.3) after adjustment for baseline NIHSS and randomization strata. The distribution of adverse events was similar between arms. Although this study did not suggest any safety concerns related to UCB in ischemic stroke, we did not show a clinical benefit in the reduced sample size evaluated.Item Open Access A survey and panel discussion of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on paediatric urological productivity, guideline adherence and provider stress.(Journal of pediatric urology, 2020-08) O'Kelly, Fardod; Sparks, Scott; Seideman, Casey; Gargollo, Patricio; Granberg, Candace; Ko, Joan; Malhotra, Neha; Hecht, Sarah; Swords, Kelly; Rowe, Courtney; Whittam, Ben; Spinoit, Anne-Francoise; Dudley, Anne; Ellison, Jonathan; Chu, David; Routh, Jonathan; Cannon, Glenn; Kokorowski, Paul; Koyle, Martin; Silay, Mesrur Selcuk; APAUC (Academic Paediatric and Adolescent Urology Collaborative) and the YAU (Young Academic Urologists) GroupIntroduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented need to re-organise and re-align priorities for all surgical specialties. Despite the current declining numbers globally, the direct effects of the pandemic on institutional practices and on personal stress and coping mechanisms remains unknown. The aims of this study were to assess the effect of the pandemic on daily scheduling and work balances, its effects on stress, and to determine compliance with guidelines and to assess whether quarantining has led to other areas of increased productivity.Methods
A trans-Atlantic convenience sample of paediatric urologists was created in which panellists (Zoom) discussed the direct effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on individual units, as well as creating a questionnaire using a mini-Delphi method to provide current semi-quantitative data regarding practice, and adherence levels to recently published risk stratification guidelines. They also filled out a Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) questionnaire to assess contemporary pandemic stress levels.Results
There was an 86% response rate from paediatric urologists. The majority of respondents reported near complete disruption to planned operations (70%), and trainee education (70%). They were also worried about the effects of altered home-lives on productivity (≤90%), as well as a lack of personal protective equipment (57%). The baseline stress rate was measured at a very high level (PSS) during the pandemic. Adherence to recent operative guidelines for urgent cases was 100%.Conclusion
This study represents a panel discussion of a number of practical implications for paediatric urologists, and is one of the few papers to assess more pragmatic effects and combines opinions from both sides of the Atlantic. The impact of the pandemic has been very significant for paediatric urologists and includes a decrease in the number of patients seen and operated on, decreased salary, increased self-reported stress levels, substantially increased telemedicine usage, increased free time for various activities, and good compliance with guidelines and hospital management decisions.Item Open Access Abatacept, Cenicriviroc, or Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.(JAMA, 2023-07) O'Halloran, Jane A; Ko, Emily R; Anstrom, Kevin J; Kedar, Eyal; McCarthy, Matthew W; Panettieri, Reynold A; Maillo, Martin; Nunez, Patricia Segura; Lachiewicz, Anne M; Gonzalez, Cynthia; Smith, P Brian; de Tai, Sabina Mendivil-Tuchia; Khan, Akram; Lora, Alfredo J Mena; Salathe, Matthias; Capo, Gerardo; Gonzalez, Daniel Rodríguez; Patterson, Thomas F; Palma, Christopher; Ariza, Horacio; Lima, Maria Patelli; Blamoun, John; Nannini, Esteban C; Sprinz, Eduardo; Mykietiuk, Analia; Alicic, Radica; Rauseo, Adriana M; Wolfe, Cameron R; Witting, Britta; Wang, Jennifer P; Parra-Rodriguez, Luis; Der, Tatyana; Willsey, Kate; Wen, Jun; Silverstein, Adam; O'Brien, Sean M; Al-Khalidi, Hussein R; Maldonado, Michael A; Melsheimer, Richard; Ferguson, William G; McNulty, Steven E; Zakroysky, Pearl; Halabi, Susan; Benjamin, Daniel K; Butler, Sandra; Atkinson, Jane C; Adam, Stacey J; Chang, Soju; LaVange, Lisa; Proschan, Michael; Bozzette, Samuel A; Powderly, William G; ACTIV-1 IM Study Group MembersImportance
Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19.Objective
To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia.Design, setting, and participants
Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 substudies are reported from 95 hospitals at 85 clinical research sites in the US and Latin America. Hospitalized patients 18 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days and evidence of pulmonary involvement underwent randomization between October 2020 and December 2021.Interventions
Single infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg; maximum dose, 1000 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg) or a 28-day oral course of cenicriviroc (300-mg loading dose followed by 150 mg twice per day).Main outcomes and measures
The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 28 evaluated using an 8-point ordinal scale (higher scores indicate better health). Recovery was defined as the first day the participant scored at least 6 on the ordinal scale.Results
Of the 1971 participants randomized across the 3 substudies, the mean (SD) age was 54.8 (14.6) years and 1218 (61.8%) were men. The primary end point of time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly different for abatacept (recovery rate ratio [RRR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]; P = .09), cenicriviroc (RRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.18]; P = .94), or infliximab (RRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99-1.28]; P = .08) compared with placebo. All-cause 28-day mortality was 11.0% for abatacept vs 15.1% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94]), 13.8% for cenicriviroc vs 11.9% for placebo (OR, 1.18 [95% CI 0.72-1.94]), and 10.1% for infliximab vs 14.5% for placebo (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90]). Safety outcomes were comparable between active treatment and placebo, including secondary infections, in all 3 substudies.Conclusions and relevance
Time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia among hospitalized participants was not significantly different for abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab vs placebo.Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940.Item Open Access An Agile Systems Modeling Framework for Bed Resource Planning During COVID-19 Pandemic in Singapore.(Frontiers in public health, 2022-01) Lam, Sean Shao Wei; Pourghaderi, Ahmad Reza; Abdullah, Hairil Rizal; Nguyen, Francis Ngoc Hoang Long; Siddiqui, Fahad Javaid; Ansah, John Pastor; Low, Jenny G; Matchar, David Bruce; Ong, Marcus Eng HockBackground
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on health systems globally. The sufficiency of hospitals' bed resource is a cornerstone for access to care which can significantly impact the public health outcomes.Objective
We describe the development of a dynamic simulation framework to support agile resource planning during the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore.Materials and methods
The study data were derived from the Singapore General Hospital and public domain sources over the period from 1 January 2020 till 31 May 2020 covering the period when the initial outbreak and surge of COVID-19 cases in Singapore happened. The simulation models and its variants take into consideration the dynamic evolution of the pandemic and the rapidly evolving policies and processes in Singapore.Results
The models were calibrated against historical data for the Singapore COVID-19 situation. Several variants of the resource planning model were rapidly developed to adapt to the fast-changing COVID-19 situation in Singapore.Conclusion
The agility in adaptable models and robust collaborative management structure enabled the quick deployment of human and capital resources to sustain the high level of health services delivery during the COVID-19 surge.Item Open Access Assessment of an Online Tool to Simulate the Effect of Pooled Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Populations.(JAMA network open, 2020-12) Polage, Christopher R; Lee, Mark J; Hubbard, Christopher; Rehder, Catherine; Cardona, Diana; Denny, Thomas; Datto, Michael BItem Open Access Bilateral anterior and intermediate uveitis in SARS-CoV-2 associated multisystem inflammatory syndrome in a pediatric patient.(Pediatric rheumatology online journal, 2022-07) Shantha, Jessica; Reddy, Amit K; Sura, Amol; Tsang, Adrian; Moussa, Kareem; Acharya, Nisha; Gonzales, John; Doan, ThuyPurpose
To report a case of bilateral anterior intermediate uveitis after recovery from SARS-CoV-2 associated multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).Case report
A 9-year-old male presented with bilateral anterior intermediate uveitis with fluorescein angiography (FA) leakage of the disc and peripheral vasculature 1 month after recovery from MIS-C. He was treated with difluprednate 0.05% in both eyes with resolution of FA leakage, but our patient has required an extended treatment of topical therapy and the need long term immunosuppression.Conclusions
This is a case of uveitis presenting after recent MIS-C related to SARS-CoV-2. Ongoing follow up and monitoring is required, and it is important for the ophthalmologist and rheumatologist to be aware of this rare complication during the current COVID-19 pandemic.Item Open Access Caring for Caregivers During COVID-19.(Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2020-10) Dang, Stuti; Penney, Lauren S; Trivedi, Ranak; Noel, Polly H; Pugh, Mary Jo; Finley, Erin; Pugh, Jacqueline A; Van Houtven, Courtney H; Leykum, LuciItem Open Access Cell-based therapy to reduce mortality from COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis of human studies on acute respiratory distress syndrome.(Stem cells translational medicine, 2020-09) Qu, Wenchun; Wang, Zhen; Hare, Joshua M; Bu, Guojun; Mallea, Jorge M; Pascual, Jorge M; Caplan, Arnold I; Kurtzberg, Joanne; Zubair, Abba C; Kubrova, Eva; Engelberg-Cook, Erica; Nayfeh, Tarek; Shah, Vishal P; Hill, James C; Wolf, Michael E; Prokop, Larry J; Murad, M Hassan; Sanfilippo, Fred PSevere cases of COVID-19 infection, often leading to death, have been associated with variants of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Cell therapy with mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) is a potential treatment for COVID-19 ARDS based on preclinical and clinical studies supporting the concept that MSCs modulate the inflammatory and remodeling processes and restore alveolo-capillary barriers. The authors performed a systematic literature review and random-effects meta-analysis to determine the potential value of MSC therapy for treating COVID-19-infected patients with ARDS. Publications in all languages from 1990 to March 31, 2020 were reviewed, yielding 2691 studies, of which nine were included. MSCs were intravenously or intratracheally administered in 117 participants, who were followed for 14 days to 5 years. All MSCs were allogeneic from bone marrow, umbilical cord, menstrual blood, adipose tissue, or unreported sources. Combined mortality showed a favorable trend but did not reach statistical significance. No related serious adverse events were reported and mild adverse events resolved spontaneously. A trend was found of improved radiographic findings, pulmonary function (lung compliance, tidal volumes, PaO2 /FiO2 ratio, alveolo-capillary injury), and inflammatory biomarker levels. No comparisons were made between MSCs of different sources.Item Open Access Challenges of COVID-19 Case Forecasting in the US, 2020-2021.(PLoS computational biology, 2024-05) Lopez, Velma K; Cramer, Estee Y; Pagano, Robert; Drake, John M; O'Dea, Eamon B; Adee, Madeline; Ayer, Turgay; Chhatwal, Jagpreet; Dalgic, Ozden O; Ladd, Mary A; Linas, Benjamin P; Mueller, Peter P; Xiao, Jade; Bracher, Johannes; Castro Rivadeneira, Alvaro J; Gerding, Aaron; Gneiting, Tilmann; Huang, Yuxin; Jayawardena, Dasuni; Kanji, Abdul H; Le, Khoa; Mühlemann, Anja; Niemi, Jarad; Ray, Evan L; Stark, Ariane; Wang, Yijin; Wattanachit, Nutcha; Zorn, Martha W; Pei, Sen; Shaman, Jeffrey; Yamana, Teresa K; Tarasewicz, Samuel R; Wilson, Daniel J; Baccam, Sid; Gurung, Heidi; Stage, Steve; Suchoski, Brad; Gao, Lei; Gu, Zhiling; Kim, Myungjin; Li, Xinyi; Wang, Guannan; Wang, Lily; Wang, Yueying; Yu, Shan; Gardner, Lauren; Jindal, Sonia; Marshall, Maximilian; Nixon, Kristen; Dent, Juan; Hill, Alison L; Kaminsky, Joshua; Lee, Elizabeth C; Lemaitre, Joseph C; Lessler, Justin; Smith, Claire P; Truelove, Shaun; Kinsey, Matt; Mullany, Luke C; Rainwater-Lovett, Kaitlin; Shin, Lauren; Tallaksen, Katharine; Wilson, Shelby; Karlen, Dean; Castro, Lauren; Fairchild, Geoffrey; Michaud, Isaac; Osthus, Dave; Bian, Jiang; Cao, Wei; Gao, Zhifeng; Lavista Ferres, Juan; Li, Chaozhuo; Liu, Tie-Yan; Xie, Xing; Zhang, Shun; Zheng, Shun; Chinazzi, Matteo; Davis, Jessica T; Mu, Kunpeng; Pastore Y Piontti, Ana; Vespignani, Alessandro; Xiong, Xinyue; Walraven, Robert; Chen, Jinghui; Gu, Quanquan; Wang, Lingxiao; Xu, Pan; Zhang, Weitong; Zou, Difan; Gibson, Graham Casey; Sheldon, Daniel; Srivastava, Ajitesh; Adiga, Aniruddha; Hurt, Benjamin; Kaur, Gursharn; Lewis, Bryan; Marathe, Madhav; Peddireddy, Akhil Sai; Porebski, Przemyslaw; Venkatramanan, Srinivasan; Wang, Lijing; Prasad, Pragati V; Walker, Jo W; Webber, Alexander E; Slayton, Rachel B; Biggerstaff, Matthew; Reich, Nicholas G; Johansson, Michael ADuring the COVID-19 pandemic, forecasting COVID-19 trends to support planning and response was a priority for scientists and decision makers alike. In the United States, COVID-19 forecasting was coordinated by a large group of universities, companies, and government entities led by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org). We evaluated approximately 9.7 million forecasts of weekly state-level COVID-19 cases for predictions 1-4 weeks into the future submitted by 24 teams from August 2020 to December 2021. We assessed coverage of central prediction intervals and weighted interval scores (WIS), adjusting for missing forecasts relative to a baseline forecast, and used a Gaussian generalized estimating equation (GEE) model to evaluate differences in skill across epidemic phases that were defined by the effective reproduction number. Overall, we found high variation in skill across individual models, with ensemble-based forecasts outperforming other approaches. Forecast skill relative to the baseline was generally higher for larger jurisdictions (e.g., states compared to counties). Over time, forecasts generally performed worst in periods of rapid changes in reported cases (either in increasing or decreasing epidemic phases) with 95% prediction interval coverage dropping below 50% during the growth phases of the winter 2020, Delta, and Omicron waves. Ideally, case forecasts could serve as a leading indicator of changes in transmission dynamics. However, while most COVID-19 case forecasts outperformed a naïve baseline model, even the most accurate case forecasts were unreliable in key phases. Further research could improve forecasts of leading indicators, like COVID-19 cases, by leveraging additional real-time data, addressing performance across phases, improving the characterization of forecast confidence, and ensuring that forecasts were coherent across spatial scales. In the meantime, it is critical for forecast users to appreciate current limitations and use a broad set of indicators to inform pandemic-related decision making.Item Open Access Changing trends in mortality among solid organ transplant recipients hospitalized for COVID-19 during the course of the pandemic.(American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, 2022-01) Heldman, Madeleine R; Kates, Olivia S; Safa, Kassem; Kotton, Camille N; Georgia, Sarah J; Steinbrink, Julie M; Alexander, Barbara D; Hemmersbach-Miller, Marion; Blumberg, Emily A; Multani, Ashrit; Haydel, Brandy; La Hoz, Ricardo M; Moni, Lisset; Condor, Yesabeli; Flores, Sandra; Munoz, Carlos G; Guitierrez, Juan; Diaz, Esther I; Diaz, Daniela; Vianna, Rodrigo; Guerra, Giselle; Loebe, Matthias; Rakita, Robert M; Malinis, Maricar; Azar, Marwan M; Hemmige, Vagish; McCort, Margaret E; Chaudhry, Zohra S; Singh, Pooja P; Hughes Kramer, Kailey; Velioglu, Arzu; Yabu, Julie M; Morillis, Jose A; Mehta, Sapna A; Tanna, Sajal D; Ison, Michael G; Derenge, Ariella C; van Duin, David; Maximin, Adrienne; Gilbert, Carlene; Goldman, Jason D; Lease, Erika D; Fisher, Cynthia E; Limaye, Ajit P; UW COVID-19 SOT Study TeamMortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 has declined over the course of the pandemic. Mortality trends specifically in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) are unknown. Using data from a multicenter registry of SOTR hospitalized for COVID-19, we compared 28-day mortality between early 2020 (March 1, 2020-June 19, 2020) and late 2020 (June 20, 2020-December 31, 2020). Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess comorbidity-adjusted mortality. Time period of diagnosis was available for 1435/1616 (88.8%) SOTR and 971/1435 (67.7%) were hospitalized: 571/753 (75.8%) in early 2020 and 402/682 (58.9%) in late 2020 (p < .001). Crude 28-day mortality decreased between the early and late periods (112/571 [19.6%] vs. 55/402 [13.7%]) and remained lower in the late period even after adjusting for baseline comorbidities (aOR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.98, p = .016). Between the early and late periods, the use of corticosteroids (≥6 mg dexamethasone/day) and remdesivir increased (62/571 [10.9%] vs. 243/402 [61.5%], p < .001 and 50/571 [8.8%] vs. 213/402 [52.2%], p < .001, respectively), and the use of hydroxychloroquine and IL-6/IL-6 receptor inhibitor decreased (329/571 [60.0%] vs. 4/492 [1.0%], p < .001 and 73/571 [12.8%] vs. 5/402 [1.2%], p < .001, respectively). Mortality among SOTR hospitalized for COVID-19 declined between early and late 2020, consistent with trends reported in the general population. The mechanism(s) underlying improved survival require further study.Item Open Access Continuing versus suspending angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers: Impact on adverse outcomes in hospitalized patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)--The BRACE CORONA Trial.(American heart journal, 2020-08) Lopes, Renato D; Macedo, Ariane Vieira Scarlatelli; de Barros E Silva, Pedro Gabriel Melo; Moll-Bernardes, Renata Junqueira; Feldman, Andre; D'Andréa Saba Arruda, Guilherme; de Souza, Andrea Silvestre; de Albuquerque, Denilson Campos; Mazza, Lilian; Santos, Mayara Fraga; Salvador, Natalia Zerbinatti; Gibson, C Michael; Granger, Christopher B; Alexander, John H; de Souza, Olga Ferreira; BRACE CORONA investigatorsAngiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) expression may increase due to upregulation in patients using angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Because renin-angiotensin system blockers increase levels of ACE2, a protein that facilitates coronavirus entry into cells, there is concern that these drugs could increase the risk of developing a severe and fatal form of COVID-19. The impact of discontinuing ACEI and ARBs in patients with COVID-19 remains uncertain. DESIGN: BRACE CORONA is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, phase IV, clinical trial that aims to enroll around 500 participants at 34 sites in Brazil. Participants will be identified from an ongoing national registry of suspected and confirmed cases of COVID-19. Eligible patients using renin-angiotensin system blockers (ACEI/ARBs) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 will be randomized to a strategy of continued ACEI/ARB treatment versus temporary discontinuation for 30 days. The primary outcome is the median days alive and out of the hospital at 30 days. Secondary outcomes include progression of COVID-19 disease, all-cause mortality, death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, new or worsening heart failure, myocarditis, pericarditis, arrhythmias, thromboembolic events, hypertensive crisis, respiratory failure, hemodynamic decompensation, sepsis, renal failure, and troponin, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), N-terminal-proBNP, and D-dimer levels. SUMMARY: BRACE CORONA will evaluate whether the strategy of continued ACEI/ARB therapy compared with temporary discontinuation of these drugs impacts clinical outcomes among patients with COVID-19.Item Open Access Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): an evidence map of medical literature.(BMC medical research methodology, 2020-07-02) Liu, Nan; Chee, Marcel Lucas; Niu, Chenglin; Pek, Pin Pin; Siddiqui, Fahad Javaid; Ansah, John Pastor; Matchar, David Bruce; Lam, Sean Shao Wei; Abdullah, Hairil Rizal; Chan, Angelique; Malhotra, Rahul; Graves, Nicholas; Koh, Mariko Siyue; Yoon, Sungwon; Ho, Andrew Fu Wah; Ting, Daniel Shu Wei; Low, Jenny Guek Hong; Ong, Marcus Eng HockBackground
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak in December 2019, a substantial body of COVID-19 medical literature has been generated. As of June 2020, gaps and longitudinal trends in the COVID-19 medical literature remain unidentified, despite potential benefits for research prioritisation and policy setting in both the COVID-19 pandemic and future large-scale public health crises.Methods
In this paper, we searched PubMed and Embase for medical literature on COVID-19 between 1 January and 24 March 2020. We characterised the growth of the early COVID-19 medical literature using evidence maps and bibliometric analyses to elicit cross-sectional and longitudinal trends and systematically identify gaps.Results
The early COVID-19 medical literature originated primarily from Asia and focused mainly on clinical features and diagnosis of the disease. Many areas of potential research remain underexplored, such as mental health, the use of novel technologies and artificial intelligence, pathophysiology of COVID-19 within different body systems, and indirect effects of COVID-19 on the care of non-COVID-19 patients. Few articles involved research collaboration at the international level (24.7%). The median submission-to-publication duration was 8 days (interquartile range: 4-16).Conclusions
Although in its early phase, COVID-19 research has generated a large volume of publications. However, there are still knowledge gaps yet to be filled and areas for improvement for the global research community. Our analysis of early COVID-19 research may be valuable in informing research prioritisation and policy planning both in the current COVID-19 pandemic and similar global health crises.Item Open Access Countering misinformation via WhatsApp: Preliminary evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic in Zimbabwe.(PloS one, 2020-01) Bowles, Jeremy; Larreguy, Horacio; Liu, ShelleyWe examine how information from trusted social media sources can shape knowledge and behavior when misinformation and mistrust are widespread. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in Zimbabwe, we partnered with a trusted civil society organization to randomize the timing of the dissemination of messages aimed at targeting misinformation about the virus to 27,000 newsletter WhatsApp subscribers. We examine how exposure to these messages affects individuals' beliefs about how to deal with the virus and preventative behavior. In a survey of 864 survey respondents, we find a 0.26σ increase in knowledge about COVID-19 as measured by responses to factual questions. Through a list experiment embedded in the survey, we further find that potentially harmful behavior-not abiding by lockdown guidelines-decreased by 30 percentage points. The results show that social media messaging from trusted sources may have substantively large effects not only on individuals' knowledge but also ultimately on related behavior.Item Open Access COVID's Impact on Non-communicable Diseases: What We Do Not Know May Hurt Us.(Current cardiology reports, 2022-07) Gordon Patti, Karl; Kohli, PayalPurpose of review
In this review, we outline the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on non-communicable diseases around the world.Recent findings
The mechanisms of COVID-19's impact on non-communicable diseases are both direct and indirect. The direct mechanisms include direct vascular and myocardial injury as well as pancreatic injury increasing incidence of new-onset diabetes. Indirect effects of the pandemic on non-communicable disease include delayed presentation for acute illness including STEMI and the impact of social distancing and quarantine policies on socialization, mental health, physical activity, and the downstream health impacts of inactivity and deconditioning. International focus has been on disease variants, infection control and management, healthcare system, and resource utilization and infection incidence. However, the impact of this pandemic on non-communicable diseases has been largely overlooked but will manifest itself in the coming years to decades.Item Open Access COVID-19 and the need for disability conscious medical education, training, and practice.(Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine, 2020-01) Doebrich, Adrienne; Quirici, Marion; Lunsford, ChristopherThe COVID-19 era exposes what was already a crisis in the medical profession: structural racism, ageism, sexism, classism, and ableism resulting in healthcare disparities for Persons with Disabilities (PWD). Early research highlights these disparities, but we do not yet know the full impact of this pandemic on PWD. Over the last 20 years, many medical schools have attempted to develop disability competency trainings, but discrimination and inequities remain, resulting in a pervasive distrust of medicine by the disability community at large. In this commentary, we suggest that disability competency is insufficient because the healthcare disparities experienced by PWD are not simply a matter of individual biases, but structural and systemic factors requiring a culture shift in the healthcare professions. Recognizing that disability is a form of diversity that is experienced alongside other systemic disadvantages like social class, race, age, sex, gender identity, and geographic location, we explore the transformative potential of disability conscious medical education, training, and practice that draws on insights from intersectional disability justice activism. Disability conscious medicine is a novel approach, which improves upon competency programs by utilizing disability studies and the principles of disability justice to guide us in the critique of norms, traditions, and institutions to more fully promote the respect, beneficence, and justice that patients deserve.Item Open Access COVID-19 mortality risk for older men and women.(BMC public health, 2020-11) Yanez, N David; Weiss, Noel S; Romand, Jacques-André; Treggiari, Miriam MBackground
Case-fatality from COVID-19 has been reported to be relatively high in patients age 65 years or older. We sought to determine the age-specific rates of COVID-19 mortality at the population level.Methods
We obtained information regarding the total number of COVID-19 reported deaths for six consecutive weeks beginning at the 50th recorded death, among 16 countries that reported a relatively high number of COVID-19 cases as of April 12, 2020. We performed an ecological study to model COVID-19 mortality rates per week by age group (54 years or younger, 55-64 years, and 65 years or older) and sex using a Poisson mixed effects regression model.Results
Over the six-week period of data, there were 178,568 COVID-19 deaths from a total population of approximately 2.4 billion people. Age and sex were associated with COVID-19 mortality. Compared with individuals ages 54 years or younger, the incident rate ratio (IRR) was 8.1, indicating that the mortality rate of COVID-19 was 8.1 times higher (95%CI = 7.7, 8.5) among those 55 to 64 years, and more than 62 times higher (IRR = 62.1; 95%CI = 59.7, 64.7) among those ages 65 or older. Mortality rates from COVID-19 were 77% higher in men than in women (IRR = 1.77, 95%CI = 1.74, 1.79).Conclusions
In the 16 countries examined, persons age 65 years or older had strikingly higher COVID-19 mortality rates compared to younger individuals, and men had a higher risk of COVID-19 death than women.Item Open Access COVID-19-associated brief psychotic disorder.(BMJ case reports, 2020-08-11) Smith, Colin M; Komisar, Jonathan R; Mourad, Ahmad; Kincaid, Brian RA 36-year-old previously healthy woman with no personal or family history of mental illness presented with new-onset psychosis after a diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19. Her psychotic symptoms initially improved with antipsychotics and benzodiazepines and further improved with resolution of COVID-19 symptoms. This is the first case of COVID-19-associated psychosis in a patient with no personal or family history of a severe mood or psychotic disorder presenting with symptomatic COVID-19, highlighting the need for vigilant monitoring of neuropsychiatric symptoms in these individuals.Item Open Access COVID-19: The Time for Collaboration Between Long-Term Services and Supports, Health Care Systems, and Public Health Is Now.(The Milbank quarterly, 2021-06) Dawson, Walter D; Boucher, Nathan A; Stone, Robyn; VAN Houtven, Courtney HPolicy Points To address systemic problems amplified by COVID-19, we need to restructure US long-term services and supports (LTSS) as they relate to both the health care systems and public health systems. We present both near-term and long-term policy solutions. Seven near-term policy recommendations include requiring the uniform public reporting of COVID-19 cases in all LTSS settings; identifying and supporting unpaid caregivers; bolstering protections for the direct care workforce; increasing coordination between public health departments and LTSS agencies and providers; enhancing collaboration and communication across health, LTSS, and public health systems; further reducing barriers to telehealth in LTSS; and providing incentives to care for vulnerable populations. Long-term reform should focus on comprehensive workforce development, comprehensive LTSS financing reform, and the creation of an age-friendly public health system.Context
The heavy toll of COVID-19 brings the failings of the long-term services and supports (LTSS) system in the United States into sharp focus. Although these are not new problems, the pandemic has exacerbated and amplified their impact to a point that they are impossible to ignore. The primary blame for the high rates of COVID-19 infections and deaths has been assigned to formal LTSS care settings, specifically nursing homes. Yet other systemic problems have been unearthed during this pandemic: the failure to coordinate the US public health system at the federal level and the effects of long-term disinvestment and neglect of state- and local-level public health programs. Together these failures have contributed to an inability to coordinate with the LTSS system and to act early to protect residents and staff in the LTSS care settings that are hotspots for infection, spread, and serious negative health outcomes.Methods
We analyze several impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the US LTSS system and policy arrangements. The economic toll on state budgets has been multifaceted, and the pandemic has had a direct impact on Medicaid, the primary funder of LTSS, which in turn has further exacerbated the states' fiscal problems. Both the inequalities across race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status as well as the increased burden on unpaid caregivers are clear. So too is the need to better integrate LTSS with the health, social care, and public health systems.Findings
We propose seven near-term actions that US policymakers could take: implementing a uniform public reporting of COVID-19 cases in LTSS settings; identifying and supporting unpaid caregivers; bolstering support for the direct care workforce; increasing coordination between public health departments and LTSS agencies and providers; enhancing collaboration and communication across health, LTSS, and public health systems; further reducing the barriers to telehealth in LTSS; and providing incentives to care for our most vulnerable populations. Our analysis also demonstrates that our nation requires comprehensive reform to build the LTSS system we need through comprehensive workforce development, universal coverage through comprehensive financing reform, and the creation of an age-friendly public health system.Conclusions
COVID-19 has exposed the many deficits of the US LTSS system and made clear the interdependence of LTSS with public health. Policymakers have an opportunity to address these failings through a substantive reform of the LTSS system and increased collaboration with public health agencies and leaders. The opportunity for reform is now.Item Open Access Developing Treatment Guidelines During a Pandemic Health Crisis: Lessons Learned From COVID-19.(Annals of internal medicine, 2021-08) Kuriakose, Safia; Singh, Kanal; Pau, Alice K; Daar, Eric; Gandhi, Rajesh; Tebas, Pablo; Evans, Laura; Gulick, Roy M; Lane, H Clifford; Masur, Henry; NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel; Aberg, Judith A; Adimora, Adaora A; Baker, Jason; Kreuziger, Lisa Baumann; Bedimo, Roger; Belperio, Pamela S; Cantrill, Stephen V; Coopersmith, Craig M; Davis, Susan L; Dzierba, Amy L; Gallagher, John J; Glidden, David V; Grund, Birgit; Hardy, Erica J; Hinkson, Carl; Hughes, Brenna L; Johnson, Steven; Keller, Marla J; Kim, Arthur Y; Lennox, Jeffrey L; Levy, Mitchell M; Li, Jonathan Z; Martin, Greg S; Naggie, Susanna; Pavia, Andrew T; Seam, Nitin; Simpson, Steven Q; Swindells, Susan; Tien, Phyllis; Waghmare, Alpana A; Wilson, Kevin C; Yazdany, Jinoos; Zachariah, Philip; Campbell, Danielle M; Harrison, Carly; Burgess, Timothy; Francis, Joseph; Sheikh, Virginia; Uyeki, Timothy M; Walker, Robert; Brooks, John T; Ortiz, Laura Bosque; Davey, Richard T; Doepel, Laurie K; Eisinger, Robert W; Han, Alison; Higgs, Elizabeth S; Nason, Martha C; Crew, Page; Lerner, Andrea M; Lund, Claire; Worthington, ChristopherThe development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines began in March 2020 in response to a request from the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Within 4 days of the request, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel was established and the first meeting took place (virtually-as did subsequent meetings). The Panel comprises 57 individuals representing 6 governmental agencies, 11 professional societies, and 33 medical centers, plus 2 community members, who have worked together to create and frequently update the guidelines on the basis of evidence from the most recent clinical studies available. The initial version of the guidelines was completed within 2 weeks and posted online on 21 April 2020. Initially, sparse evidence was available to guide COVID-19 treatment recommendations. However, treatment data rapidly accrued based on results from clinical studies that used various study designs and evaluated different therapeutic agents and approaches. Data have continued to evolve at a rapid pace, leading to 24 revisions and updates of the guidelines in the first year. This process has provided important lessons for responding to an unprecedented public health emergency: Providers and stakeholders are eager to access credible, current treatment guidelines; governmental agencies, professional societies, and health care leaders can work together effectively and expeditiously; panelists from various disciplines, including biostatistics, are important for quickly developing well-informed recommendations; well-powered randomized clinical trials continue to provide the most compelling evidence to guide treatment recommendations; treatment recommendations need to be developed in a confidential setting free from external pressures; development of a user-friendly, web-based format for communicating with health care providers requires substantial administrative support; and frequent updates are necessary as clinical evidence rapidly emerges.Item Open Access Distressed Work: Chronic Imperatives and Distress in Covid-19 Critical Care.(The Hastings Center report, 2023-01) Navuluri, Neelima; Solomon, Harris S; Hargett, Charles W; Kussin, Peter SThis ethnographic study introduces the term "distressed work" to describe the emergence of chronic frictions between moral imperatives for health care workers to keep working and the dramatic increase in distress during the Covid-19 pandemic. Interviews and observant participation conducted in a hospital intensive care unit during the Covid-19 pandemic reveal how health care workers connected job duties with extraordinary emotional, physical, and moral burdens. We explore tensions between perceived obligations of health care professionals and the structural contexts of work. Key findings cluster around the moral imperatives of health care work and the distress that work engendered as work spaces, senses of vocation, patient and family interactions, and end-of-life care shifted. While the danger of working beyond limits has long been an ordinary feature of health care work, it has now become a chronic crisis. Assessing this problem in terms of distressed work and its structural contexts can better address effective, worker-informed responses to current health care labor dilemmas.