Diverging levels of COVID-19 governmental response satisfaction across middle eastern Arab countries: a multinational study.

BACKGROUND: Public acceptance of governmental measures are key to controlling the spread of infectious diseases. The COVID-19 pandemic has placed a significant burden on healthcare systems for high-income countries as well as low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The ability of LMICs to respond to the challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic has been limited and may have affected the impact of governmental strategies to control the spread of COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate and compare public opinion on the governmental COVID-19 response of high and LMICs in the Middle East and benchmark it to international countries. METHODS: An online, self-administered questionnaire was distributed among different Middle Eastern Arab countries. Participants' demographics and level of satisfaction with governmental responses to COVID-19 were analyzed and reported. Scores were benchmarked against 19 international values. RESULTS: A total of 7395 responses were included. Bahrain scored highest for satisfaction with the governmental response with 38.29 ± 2.93 on a scale of 40, followed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (37.13 ± 3.27), United Arab Emirates (36.56 ± 3.44), Kuwait (35.74 ± 4.85), Jordan (23.08 ± 6.41), and Lebanon (15.39 ± 5.28). Participants' country of residence was a significant predictor of the satisfaction score (P < 0.001), and participants who suffered income reduction due to the pandemic, had a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and held higher educational degrees had significantly lower satisfaction scores (P < 0.001). When benchmarked with other international publics, countries from the Gulf Cooperation Council had the highest satisfaction level, Jordan had an average score, and Lebanon had one of the lowest satisfaction scores. CONCLUSION: The political crisis in Lebanon merged with the existing corruption were associated with the lowest public satisfaction score whereas the economical instability of Jordan placed the country just before the lowest position. On the other hand, the solid economy plus good planning and public trust in the government placed the other countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council on top of the scale. Further investigation is necessary to find out how the governments of other low-income countries may have handled the situation wisely and gained the trust of their publics. This may help convey a clearer picture to Arab governments that have suffered during the pandemic.

Structural and Functional Analysis of Female Sex Hormones against SARS-CoV-2 Cell Entry.

Emerging evidence suggests that males are more susceptible to severe infection by the SARS-CoV-2 virus than females. A variety of mechanisms may underlie the observed gender-related disparities including differences in sex hormones. However, the precise mechanisms by which female sex hormones may provide protection against SARS-CoV-2 infectivity remains unknown. Here we report new insights into the molecular basis of the interactions between the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein and the human ACE2 receptor. We further report that glycosylation of the ACE2 receptor enhances SARS-CoV-2 infectivity. Importantly, estrogens can disrupt glycan-glycan interactions and glycan-protein interactions between the human ACE2 and the SARS-CoV-2 thereby blocking its entry into cells. In a mouse model of COVID-19, estrogens reduced ACE2 glycosylation and thereby alveolar uptake of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. These results shed light on a putative mechanism whereby female sex hormones may provide protection from developing severe infection and could inform the development of future therapies against COVID-19.

Patient and Provider Risk in Managing ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Decision Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment strategy for treating ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is unclear given the potential risk of occupational exposure during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We quantified the impact of different STEMI treatment strategies on patient outcomes and provider risk in context of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Using a decision-analytic framework, we evaluated the effect of PPCI versus the pharmaco-invasive strategy for managing STEMI on 30-day patient mortality and individual provider infection risk based on presence of cardiogenic shock, suspected coronary territory, and presence of known or presumptive COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: For patients with low suspicion for COVID-19, PPCI had mortality benefit over the pharmaco-invasive strategy, and the risk of cardiac catheterization laboratory provider infection remained very low (<0.25%) across all subgroups. For patients with presumptive COVID-19 with cardiogenic shock, PPCI offered substantial mortality benefit to patients relative to the pharmaco-invasive strategy (7.9% absolute decrease in 30-day mortality), but also greater risk of provider infection (2.3% absolute increase in risk of provider infection). For patients with presumptive COVID-19 with nonanterior STEMI without cardiogenic shock, PPCI offered a 0.4% absolute mortality benefit over the pharmaco-invasive strategy with a 0.2% greater absolute risk of provider infection, and the tradeoff between patient and provider risk with PPCI became more apparent in sensitivity analysis with more severe COVID-19 infections. CONCLUSIONS: Usual care with PPCI remains the appropriate treatment strategy in the majority of cases presenting with STEMI in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, utilization of a pharmaco-invasive strategy in selected patients with STEMI with presumptive COVID-19 and low likelihood of mortality from STEMI and use of preventive strategies such as preprocedural intubation in high risk patients when PPCI is the preferred strategy may be reasonable to reduce provider risk of COVID-19 infection.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on STEMI care: An expanded analysis from the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic migitation measures on of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) care. BACKGROUND: We previously reported a 38% decline in cardiac catheterization activations during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic mitigation measures. This study extends our early observations using a larger sample of STEMI programs representative of different US regions with the inclusion of more contemporary data. METHODS: Data from 18 hospitals or healthcare systems in the US from January 2019 to April 2020 were collecting including number activations for STEMI, the number of activations leading to angiography and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), and average door to balloon (D2B) times. Two periods, January 2019-February 2020 and March-April 2020, were defined to represent periods before (BC) and after (AC) initiation of pandemic mitigation measures, respectively. A generalized estimating equations approach was used to estimate the change in response variables at AC from BC. RESULTS: Compared to BC, the AC period was characterized by a marked reduction in the number of activations for STEMI (29%, 95% CI:18-38, p < .001), number of activations leading to angiography (34%, 95% CI: 12-50, p = .005) and number of activations leading to PPCI (20%, 95% CI: 11-27, p < .001). A decline in STEMI activations drove the reductions in angiography and PPCI volumes. Relative to BC, the D2B times in the AC period increased on average by 20%, 95%CI (-0.2 to 44, p = .05). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 Pandemic has adversely affected many aspects of STEMI care, including timely access to the cardiac catheterization laboratory for PPCI.