Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 3.065
Filter
1.
Can J Psychiatry ; 66(6): 577-585, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2214280

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The co-occurrence of different classes of population-level stressors, such as social unrest and public health crises, is common in contemporary societies. Yet, few studies explored their combined mental health impact. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of repeated exposure to social unrest-related traumatic events (TEs), coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic-related events (PEs), and stressful life events (SLEs) on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depressive symptoms, and the potential mediating role of event-based rumination (rumination of TEs-related anger, injustice, guilt, and insecurity) between TEs and PTSD symptoms. METHODS: Community members in Hong Kong who had utilized a screening tool for PTSD and depressive symptoms were invited to complete a survey on exposure to stressful events and event-based rumination. RESULTS: A total of 10,110 individuals completed the survey. Hierarchical regression analysis showed that rumination, TEs, and SLEs were among the significant predictors for PTSD symptoms (all P < 0.001), accounting for 32% of the variance. For depression, rumination, SLEs, and PEs were among the significant predictors (all P < 0.001), explaining 24.9% of the variance. Two-way analysis of variance of different recent and prior TEs showed significant dose-effect relationships. The effect of recent TEs on PTSD symptoms was potentiated by prior TEs (P = 0.005). COVID-19 PEs and prior TEs additively contributed to PTSD symptoms, with no significant interaction (P = 0.94). Meanwhile, recent TEs were also potentiated by SLEs (P = 0.002). The effects of TEs on PTSD symptoms were mediated by rumination (ß = 0.38, standard error = 0.01, 95% confidence interval: 0.36 to 0.41), with 40.4% of the total effect explained. All 4 rumination subtypes were significant mediators. CONCLUSIONS: Prior and ongoing TEs, PEs, and SLEs cumulatively exacerbated PTSD and depressive symptoms. The role of event-based rumination and their interventions should be prioritized for future research.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Depression , Rumination, Cognitive/classification , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic , Stress, Psychological , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/psychology , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Depression/diagnosis , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/etiology , Female , Hong Kong/epidemiology , Humans , Life Change Events , Male , Mass Screening/methods , Mental Health , Psychological Techniques , Public Health , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , Sociological Factors , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/diagnosis , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/epidemiology , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/etiology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Surveys and Questionnaires
2.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 43(8): 963-967, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2185251

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Public health authorities recommend symptom monitoring of healthcare personnel (HCP) after defined exposures to monkeypox. We report on the rapid development and implementation of mobile responsive survey solutions for notification of possible exposure, exposure risk assessment and stratification, and symptom monitoring. SETTING: An academic health center in Boston, Massachusetts, after admission of first diagnosed case of monkeypox in the United States during the current global outbreak. PARTICIPANTS: Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) design and programmers, infection control, occupational health, and emergency preparedness specialists, and HCP with possible exposure to monkeypox. INTERVENTIONS: Design and deployment of REDCap tools to identify HCP with possible exposure to monkeypox, to perform exposure risk assessment and stratification for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP), and to conduct symptom monitoring during the exposure window. Project enhancements included dashboards for HCP tracking and short message service (SMS text) reminders for symptom monitoring. RESULTS: Tools to support the contact tracing and exposure investigation were deployed within 24 hours of identification of a patient with suspected monkeypox, with the full suite in production within 4 days of confirmation of the monkeypox diagnosis. Clinical follow-up of HCP was integrated into the design, and real-time versioning allowed for improvements in HCP symptom monitoring compliance and enhanced tracking. CONCLUSIONS: During the current monkeypox outbreak, timely and comprehensive evaluation of potential HCP exposures is necessary but presents logistical challenges. Rapid development of monkeypox-specific solutions using REDCap facilitated flexibility in design and approach, and integration of targeted clinical support enhanced functionality.


Subject(s)
Monkeypox , Occupational Exposure , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Monkeypox/diagnosis , Monkeypox/epidemiology , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Post-Exposure Prophylaxis , Risk Assessment , United States
3.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 7(6): e26784, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2197902

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite recent achievements in vaccines, antiviral drugs, and medical infrastructure, the emergence of COVID-19 has posed a serious threat to humans worldwide. Most countries are well connected on a global scale, making it nearly impossible to implement perfect and prompt mitigation strategies for infectious disease outbreaks. In particular, due to the explosive growth of international travel, the complex network of human mobility enabled the rapid spread of COVID-19 globally. OBJECTIVE: South Korea was one of the earliest countries to be affected by COVID-19. In the absence of vaccines and treatments, South Korea has implemented and maintained stringent interventions, such as large-scale epidemiological investigations, rapid diagnosis, social distancing, and prompt clinical classification of severely ill patients with appropriate medical measures. In particular, South Korea has implemented effective airport screenings and quarantine measures. In this study, we aimed to assess the country-specific importation risk of COVID-19 and investigate its impact on the local transmission of COVID-19. METHODS: The country-specific importation risk of COVID-19 in South Korea was assessed. We investigated the relationships between country-specific imported cases, passenger numbers, and the severity of country-specific COVID-19 prevalence from January to October 2020. We assessed the country-specific risk by incorporating country-specific information. A renewal mathematical model was employed, considering both imported and local cases of COVID-19 in South Korea. Furthermore, we estimated the basic and effective reproduction numbers. RESULTS: The risk of importation from China was highest between January and February 2020, while that from North America (the United States and Canada) was high from April to October 2020. The R0 was estimated at 1.87 (95% CI 1.47-2.34), using the rate of α=0.07 for secondary transmission caused by imported cases. The Rt was estimated in South Korea and in both Seoul and Gyeonggi. CONCLUSIONS: A statistical model accounting for imported and locally transmitted cases was employed to estimate R0 and Rt. Our results indicated that the prompt implementation of airport screening measures (contact tracing with case isolation and quarantine) successfully reduced local transmission caused by imported cases despite passengers arriving from high-risk countries throughout the year. Moreover, various mitigation interventions, including social distancing and travel restrictions within South Korea, have been effectively implemented to reduce the spread of local cases in South Korea.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Communicable Diseases, Imported/epidemiology , Humans , Models, Statistical , Republic of Korea/epidemiology , Risk Assessment
4.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(40): e27422, 2021 Oct 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2191077

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 continues to spread, easy-to-use risk models that predict hospital mortality can assist in clinical decision making and triage. We aimed to develop a risk score model for in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) that was robust across hospitals and used clinical factors that are readily available and measured standardly across hospitals.In this retrospective observational study, we developed a risk score model using data collected by trained abstractors for patients in 20 diverse hospitals across the state of Michigan (Mi-COVID19) who were discharged between March 5, 2020 and August 14, 2020. Patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 during hospitalization or were discharged with an ICD-10 code for COVID-19 (U07.1) were included. We employed an iterative forward selection approach to consider the inclusion of 145 potential risk factors available at hospital presentation. Model performance was externally validated with patients from 19 hospitals in the Mi-COVID19 registry not used in model development. We shared the model in an easy-to-use online application that allows the user to predict in-hospital mortality risk for a patient if they have any subset of the variables in the final model.Two thousand one hundred and ninety-three patients in the Mi-COVID19 registry met our inclusion criteria. The derivation and validation sets ultimately included 1690 and 398 patients, respectively, with mortality rates of 19.6% and 18.6%, respectively. The average age of participants in the study after exclusions was 64 years old, and the participants were 48% female, 49% Black, and 87% non-Hispanic. Our final model includes the patient's age, first recorded respiratory rate, first recorded pulse oximetry, highest creatinine level on day of presentation, and hospital's COVID-19 mortality rate. No other factors showed sufficient incremental model improvement to warrant inclusion. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for the derivation and validation sets were .796 (95% confidence interval, .767-.826) and .829 (95% confidence interval, .782-.876) respectively.We conclude that the risk of in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients can be reliably estimated using a few factors, which are standardly measured and available to physicians very early in a hospital encounter.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Hospital Mortality/trends , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Body Mass Index , Comorbidity , Creatinine/blood , Female , Health Behavior , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Michigan/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Oximetry , Prognosis , ROC Curve , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Sex Factors , Socioeconomic Factors
5.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(19): e25917, 2021 May 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2191007

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic. Invasive mechanical ventilation is recommended for the management of patients with COVID-19 who have severe respiratory symptoms. However, various complications can develop after its use. The efficient and appropriate management of patients requires the identification of factors associated with an aggravation of COVID-19 respiratory symptoms to a degree where invasive mechanical ventilation becomes necessary, thereby enabling clinicians to prevent such ventilation. This retrospective study included 138 inpatients with COVID-19 at a tertiary hospital. We evaluated the differences in the demographic and clinical data between 27 patients who required invasive mechanical ventilation and 111 patients who did not. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that the duration of fever, national early warning score (NEWS), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels on admission were significantly associated with invasive mechanical ventilation in this cohort. The optimal cut-off values were: fever duration ≥1 day (sensitivity 100.0%, specificity 54.95%), NEWS ≥7 (sensitivity 72.73%, specificity 92.52%), and LDH >810 mg/dL (sensitivity 56.0%, specificity 90.29%). These findings can assist in the early identification of patients who will require invasive mechanical ventilation. Further studies in larger patient populations are recommended to validate our findings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/physiopathology , Early Warning Score , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Female , Fever/physiopathology , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , L-Lactate Dehydrogenase/blood , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Republic of Korea , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Sex Factors , Socioeconomic Factors , Tertiary Care Centers , Young Adult
6.
BMC Cardiovasc Disord ; 22(1): 26, 2022 02 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2153508

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Ethiopia has a high acute rheumatic fever (ARF) and rheumatic heart disease (RHD) prevalence, and to our knowledge, there are no data on the status of secondary prevention in children with RHD. This study describes the status of secondary RHD prevention. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective study was performed on children aged 5-17 years with RHD in Ethiopia. Good adherence was defined as at least 80% completion of benzathine penicillin (BPG) or oral Amoxicillin within the previous year. The primary outcome measure was adherence to prophylaxis, expressed as a proportion. Socio-demographics, severity of RHD, and ARF recurrence were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 337 children with a mean age of 12.9 ± 2.6 years were included. The majority (73%) had severe aortic/mitral disease. Participants were on BPG (80%) or Amoxicillin (20%) prophylaxis. Female sex (P = 0.04) use of BPG (0.03) and shorter mean duration of prophylaxis in months (48.5 ± 31.5 vs. 60.7 ± 33, respectively, P < 0.008) predicted good adherence. Running out of medications (35%), interrupted follow-up (27%), and the COVID-19 pandemic (26%) were the most common reasons for missing prophylaxis. Recurrence of ARF was higher in participants on Amoxicillin compared with BPG (40% vs. 16%, P < 0.001) and in those with poor adherence compared with good adherence (36.8% vs. 17.9%, respectively, P = 0.005). Type and duration of prophylaxis (OR 0.5, CI = 0.24, 0.9, P = 0.02; OR = 1.1, CI = 1.1, 1.2, P = 0.04, respectively), and sex (OR = 1.9, CI = 1.1, 3.4, P = 0.03) were independent predictors of poor adherence. CONCLUSION: Poor adherence is prevalent in Ethiopian children living with RHD. Amoxicillin is a suboptimal option for prophylaxis as its use is associated with lower adherence and a higher rate of ARF recurrence.


Subject(s)
Amoxicillin/therapeutic use , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Penicillin G Benzathine/therapeutic use , Rheumatic Heart Disease/prevention & control , Secondary Prevention , Adolescent , Child , Child, Preschool , Ethiopia/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Medication Adherence , Prevalence , Prospective Studies , Recurrence , Rheumatic Heart Disease/diagnosis , Rheumatic Heart Disease/epidemiology , Rheumatic Heart Disease/microbiology , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
7.
Lancet Digit Health ; 4(9): e628-e629, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2150899
8.
Hypertension ; 76(5): 1350-1367, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2153223

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is associated with significant morbidity and mortality throughout the world, predominantly due to lung and cardiovascular injury. The virus responsible for COVID-19-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-gains entry into host cells via ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2). ACE2 is a primary enzyme within the key counter-regulatory pathway of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), which acts to oppose the actions of Ang (angiotensin) II by generating Ang-(1-7) to reduce inflammation and fibrosis and mitigate end organ damage. As COVID-19 spans multiple organ systems linked to the cardiovascular system, it is imperative to understand clearly how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 may affect the multifaceted RAS. In addition, recognition of the role of ACE2 and the RAS in COVID-19 has renewed interest in its role in the pathophysiology of cardiovascular disease in general. We provide researchers with a framework of best practices in basic and clinical research to interrogate the RAS using appropriate methodology, especially those who are relatively new to the field. This is crucial, as there are many limitations inherent in investigating the RAS in experimental models and in humans. We discuss sound methodological approaches to quantifying enzyme content and activity (ACE, ACE2), peptides (Ang II, Ang-[1-7]), and receptors (types 1 and 2 Ang II receptors, Mas receptor). Our goal is to ensure appropriate research methodology for investigations of the RAS in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and COVID-19 to ensure optimal rigor and reproducibility and appropriate interpretation of results from these investigations.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Hypertension/epidemiology , Peptidyl-Dipeptidase A/metabolism , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Renin-Angiotensin System/physiology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/metabolism , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 , Blood Pressure Determination/methods , COVID-19 , China/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Hypertension/physiopathology , Incidence , Male , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Prognosis , Research Design , Risk Assessment , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology
9.
Epidemiol Prev ; 46(5-6): In press, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2145850

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: the influenza and SARS-CoV-2 viruses share a common respiratory symptomatology and transmission mode. COVID-19 and influenza R0 overlapped in the first epidemic wave. In autumn 2021-winter 2022, the influenza epidemic had a delayed onset compared to pre-COVID-19 years and lower incidence rates than in the pre-pandemic period. The SARS-CoV-2 and influenza vaccination campaign overlapped in 2021-2022. OBJECTIVES: to evaluate in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated cohort the effect of different timing of influenza vaccination on hospitalisations for COVID-19 and overall mortality. DESIGN: prospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: subjects aged 65 years or older who were administered the first booster dose of SARS-COV-2 vaccine between 01.10.2021 and 01.03.2022. Based on the date of influenza vaccination, subjects were divided into the following 4 different mutually exclusive groups: 1. two vaccinations in the same vaccination session; 2. influenza vaccination following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination; 3. influenza vaccination preceding SARS-CoV-2 vaccination; 4. no influenza vaccination. Using Cox regression models, hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of hospitalisation and death were estimated for the influenza-vaccinated subjects compared to influenza-unvaccinated subjects. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ordinary hospital admissions for COVID-19 and general mortality. RESULTS: the cohort included 618,964 subjects: 16.3% received two vaccinations in the same vaccination session, 8.5% received the influenza vaccination after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, 33.9% received it before and 41.1% did not receive an influenza vaccination. Those vaccinated against both SARS-CoV-2 and influenza had a combined HR of 0.73 (0.62-0.86) of hospitalisation for COVID-19 and 0.55 (0.49-0.62) of overall mortality compared to those vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 only. CONCLUSIONS: influenza vaccination combined with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination increases the protective effect against hospitalisations and overall mortality compared to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination alone. Both organisational and communication actions aimed to promote and encourage vaccination are required.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Prospective Studies , Italy/epidemiology , Vaccination , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Hospitalization , Risk Assessment
10.
Front Public Health ; 10: 992466, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2142334

ABSTRACT

During this pandemic, it is crucial to implement early interventions to help nurses manage their mental wellbeing by providing them with information regarding coping skills, preventive risk assessment approaches (such as hospital preparedness and rapid risk assessment), and the ability to respond. This study evaluated the effect of fear and risk assessment management on nurses' mental wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia. A total of 507 nurses who worked in tertiary public hospitals were asked to take a descriptive design survey. Three survey scales were used to assess the survey: the Risk Assessment Scale, the Fear of COVID-19 Scale, and the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale. Independent t-tests and a one-way ANOVA were used to examine the association between fear of COVID-19 and nurses' demographic characteristics on their mental wellbeing. A multiple regression analysis was performed to examine the predictors associated with mental wellbeing. Findings revealed that almost half of the participants showed moderate positive mental wellbeing, 49.7%, while only 14% had low levels of fear on the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well being Scale. Most of the respondents had low levels of fear on the Fear of COVID-19 Scale, 45%, while only 15% had high levels of fear on the scale. Then, some demographic variables, such as "age," "nationality," "total years of experience in the current hospital," and "region you work at" had statistically significant differences with p < 0.5. Meanwhile, risk assessment is also associated with mental wellbeing scores. All items on the Fear of COVID-19 Scale showed no significant difference with a P > 0.05. In conclusion, most nurses providing direct patient care to a patient with COVID-19 emphasized the importance of wearing PPE and performing hand hygiene before and after any clean or aseptic procedure. Meanwhile, although almost all nurses were vaccinated, they were still afraid of a COVID-19 infection. Additionally, the results reported that the older the nurses are, the better their mental wellbeing scores. Non-Saudi nurses had higher perceived mental wellbeing scores than Saudi nurses, and different working environments corresponded to different mental wellbeing scores. Finally, nurses' risk assessment was associated with mental wellbeing scores.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Nurses , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Fear , Risk Assessment , Perception
11.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 7(4): e25075, 2021 04 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2141297

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment of patients with acute COVID-19 in a telemedicine context is not well described. In settings of large numbers of patients, a risk assessment tool may guide resource allocation not only for patient care but also for maximum health care and public health benefit. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine whether a COVID-19 telemedicine risk assessment tool accurately predicts hospitalizations. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of a COVID-19 telemedicine home monitoring program serving health care workers and the community in Atlanta, Georgia, with enrollment from March 24 to May 26, 2020; the final call range was from March 27 to June 19, 2020. All patients were assessed by medical providers using an institutional COVID-19 risk assessment tool designating patients as Tier 1 (low risk for hospitalization), Tier 2 (intermediate risk for hospitalization), or Tier 3 (high risk for hospitalization). Patients were followed with regular telephone calls to an endpoint of improvement or hospitalization. Using survival analysis by Cox regression with days to hospitalization as the metric, we analyzed the performance of the risk tiers and explored individual patient factors associated with risk of hospitalization. RESULTS: Providers using the risk assessment rubric assigned 496 outpatients to tiers: Tier 1, 237 out of 496 (47.8%); Tier 2, 185 out of 496 (37.3%); and Tier 3, 74 out of 496 (14.9%). Subsequent hospitalizations numbered 3 out of 237 (1.3%) for Tier 1, 15 out of 185 (8.1%) for Tier 2, and 17 out of 74 (23%) for Tier 3. From a Cox regression model with age of 60 years or older, gender, and reported obesity as covariates, the adjusted hazard ratios for hospitalization using Tier 1 as reference were 3.74 (95% CI 1.06-13.27; P=.04) for Tier 2 and 10.87 (95% CI 3.09-38.27; P<.001) for Tier 3. CONCLUSIONS: A telemedicine risk assessment tool prospectively applied to an outpatient population with COVID-19 identified populations with low, intermediate, and high risk of hospitalization.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care , COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Risk Assessment/methods , Telemedicine , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , Young Adult
12.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 7(4): e24292, 2021 04 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2141292

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Significant uncertainty has existed about the safety of reopening college and university campuses before the COVID-19 pandemic is better controlled. Moreover, little is known about the effects that on-campus students may have on local higher-risk communities. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate the range of potential community and campus COVID-19 exposures, infections, and mortality under various university reopening plans and uncertainties. METHODS: We developed campus-only, community-only, and campus × community epidemic differential equations and agent-based models, with inputs estimated via published and grey literature, expert opinion, and parameter search algorithms. Campus opening plans (spanning fully open, hybrid, and fully virtual approaches) were identified from websites and publications. Additional student and community exposures, infections, and mortality over 16-week semesters were estimated under each scenario, with 10% trimmed medians, standard deviations, and probability intervals computed to omit extreme outliers. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to inform potential effective interventions. RESULTS: Predicted 16-week campus and additional community exposures, infections, and mortality for the base case with no precautions (or negligible compliance) varied significantly from their medians (4- to 10-fold). Over 5% of on-campus students were infected after a mean of 76 (SD 17) days, with the greatest increase (first inflection point) occurring on average on day 84 (SD 10.2 days) of the semester and with total additional community exposures, infections, and mortality ranging from 1-187, 13-820, and 1-21 per 10,000 residents, respectively. Reopening precautions reduced infections by 24%-26% and mortality by 36%-50% in both populations. Beyond campus and community reproductive numbers, sensitivity analysis indicated no dominant factors that interventions could primarily target to reduce the magnitude and variability in outcomes, suggesting the importance of comprehensive public health measures and surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Community and campus COVID-19 exposures, infections, and mortality resulting from reopening campuses are highly unpredictable regardless of precautions. Public health implications include the need for effective surveillance and flexible campus operations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Universities/organization & administration , COVID-19/mortality , Community-Acquired Infections/epidemiology , Humans , Models, Theoretical , Risk Assessment , Uncertainty , United States/epidemiology
13.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 7(1): e22794, 2021 01 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2141286

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19, a viral respiratory disease first reported in December 2019, quickly became a threat to global public health. Further understanding of the epidemiology of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the risk perception of the community may better inform targeted interventions to reduce the impact and spread of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to examine the association between chronic diseases and serious outcomes following COVID-19 infection, and to explore its influence on people's self-perception of risk for worse COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: This study draws data from two databases: (1) the nationwide database of all confirmed COVID-19 cases in Portugal, extracted on April 28, 2020 (n=20,293); and (2) the community-based COVID-19 Barometer survey, which contains data on health status, perceptions, and behaviors during the first wave of COVID-19 (n=171,087). We assessed the association between relevant chronic diseases (ie, respiratory, cardiovascular, and renal diseases; diabetes; and cancer) and death and intensive care unit (ICU) admission following COVID-19 infection. We identified determinants of self-perception of risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Respiratory, cardiovascular, and renal diseases were associated with mortality and ICU admission among patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 infection (odds ratio [OR] 1.48, 95% CI 1.11-1.98; OR 3.39, 95% CI 1.80-6.40; and OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.66-3.06, respectively). Diabetes and cancer were associated with serious outcomes only when considering the full sample of COVID-19-infected cases in the country (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03-1.64; and OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03-1.89, respectively). Older age and male sex were both associated with mortality and ICU admission. The perception of risk for severe COVID-19 disease in the study population was 23.9% (n=40,890). This was markedly higher for older adults (n=5235, 46.4%), those with at least one chronic disease (n=17,647, 51.6%), or those in both of these categories (n=3212, 67.7%). All included diseases were associated with self-perceptions of high risk in this population. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the association between some prevalent chronic diseases and increased risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes. It also brings forth a greater understanding of the community's risk perceptions of serious COVID-19 disease. Hence, this study may aid health authorities to better adapt measures to the real needs of the population and to identify vulnerable individuals requiring further education and awareness of preventive measures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Chronic Disease/epidemiology , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , Comorbidity , Databases, Factual , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Portugal/epidemiology , Risk Assessment , Surveys and Questionnaires , Treatment Outcome
14.
Anesth Analg ; 132(1): 2-14, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2140282

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created an extraordinary demand for N95 and similarly rated filtering facepiece respirators (FFR) that remains unmet due to limited stock, production constraints, and logistics. Interest in decontamination and reuse of FFR, a product class designed for single use in health care settings, has undergone a parallel surge due to shortages. A worthwhile decontamination method must provide effective inactivation of the targeted pathogen(s), and preserve particle filtration, mask fit, and safety for a subsequent user. This discussion reviews the background of the current shortage, classification, structure, and functional aspects of FFR, and potentially effective decontamination methods along with reference websites for those seeking updated information and guidance. The most promising techniques utilize heat, hydrogen peroxide, microwave-generated steam, or ultraviolet light. Many require special or repurposed equipment and a detailed operational roadmap specific to each setting. While limited, research is growing. There is significant variation between models with regard to the ability to withstand decontamination yet remain protective. The number of times an individual respirator can be reused is often limited by its ability to maintain a tight fit after multiple uses rather than by the decontamination method itself. There is no single solution for all settings; each individual or institution must choose according to their need, capability, and available resources. As the current pandemic is expected to continue for months to years, and the possibility of future airborne biologic threats persists, the need for plentiful, effective respiratory protection is stimulating research and innovation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Decontamination , Equipment Contamination , Equipment Reuse , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Inhalation Exposure/prevention & control , N95 Respirators/virology , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Humans , Inhalation Exposure/adverse effects , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Occupational Health , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors
15.
Cancer Cell ; 38(2): 161-163, 2020 08 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2130226

ABSTRACT

Two recent Lancet and Lancet Oncology papers report that cancer patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection have higher mortality rates. Common independent factors associated with increased risk of death were older age, history of smoking status, number of comorbidities, more advanced performance status, and active cancer.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Infection Control/standards , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Neoplasms/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Age Factors , Aged , Betacoronavirus/immunology , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Humans , Neoplasms/immunology , Neoplasms/therapy , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
16.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 19773, 2022 Nov 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2119294

ABSTRACT

In response to the COVID-19 epidemic, Egypt established a unique care model based on quarantine hospitals where only externally-referred confirmed COVID-19 patients were admitted, and healthcare workers resided continuously over 1- to 2-week working shifts. Using a mathematical model accounting for the false-negative rates of RT-PCR tests, we computed the incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs, while unveiling the proportion of infections remaining undiagnosed despite routine testing. We relied on longitudinal data, including results of routine RT-PCR tests, collected within three Egyptian quarantine hospitals. We estimated an incidence rate (per 100 person-day, PD) of 1.05 (95% CrI 0.58-1.65) at Hospital 1, 1.92 (95% CrI 0.93-3.28) at Hospital 2 and 7.62 (95% CrI 3.47-13.70) at Hospital 3. We found that the risk for an HCW to be infected during a working shift lay within the range of risk levels previously documented in standard healthcare settings for Hospitals 1-2, whereas it was > threefold higher for Hospital 3. This large variation suggests that HCWs from quarantine hospitals may face a high occupational risk of infection, but that, with sufficient infection control measures, this risk can be brought down to levels similar to those observed in standard healthcare settings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Personnel , Quarantine , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Egypt/epidemiology , Hospitals , SARS-CoV-2 , Risk Assessment
17.
Work ; 73(3): 799-808, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2118957

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Given the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) risk, it is essential to develop a comprehensive risk assessment method to manage the risk of the infectious diseases. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a risk assessment method for infectious diseases focusing on COVID-19. METHOD: This study was based on the fuzzy Delphi method (FDM) and fuzzy analytical hierarchical process (FAHP) in three steps: (a) designing the preliminary risk assessment algorithm by reviewing the literature, (b) corroborating the designed structure based on the majority opinions of the expert panel and assigning scores to different factors according to the Delphi method, and (c) determining the weight of components and their factors based on the FAHP. RESULTS: The COVID-19 risk index (CVRI) was found to be affected by four components and 19 factors. The four components consisted of the probability of getting sick (5 factors), disease severity (4 factors), health beliefs level (3 factors), and exposure rate (6 factors). The identified components and their relevant factors had different weights and effects on the CVIR. The weights of probability, severity, health beliefs level, and exposure rate components were 0.27, 0.20, 0.14, and 0.38, respectively. The CVRI was found to range from 0.54 to 0.82, defined in three levels. CONCLUSION: Given the significant effects of identified components, factors, and parameters on the incidence of COVID-19 on the one hand and using the FDM and FAHP on the other, the proposed method can be considered as an appropriate method for managing the risk of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Diseases , Humans , Fuzzy Logic , Delphi Technique , Analytic Hierarchy Process , COVID-19/epidemiology , Risk Assessment/methods
18.
Lancet Oncol ; 23(2): 270-278, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2115061

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic surveillance is recommended for patients with Barrett's oesophagus because, although the progression risk is low, endoscopic intervention is highly effective for high-grade dysplasia and cancer. However, repeated endoscopy has associated harms and access has been limited during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the role of a non-endoscopic device (Cytosponge) coupled with laboratory biomarkers and clinical factors to prioritise endoscopy for Barrett's oesophagus. METHODS: We first conducted a retrospective, multicentre, cross-sectional study in patients older than 18 years who were having endoscopic surveillance for Barrett's oesophagus (with intestinal metaplasia confirmed by TFF3 and a minimum Barrett's segment length of 1 cm [circumferential or tongues by the Prague C and M criteria]). All patients had received the Cytosponge and confirmatory endoscopy during the BEST2 (ISRCTN12730505) and BEST3 (ISRCTN68382401) clinical trials, from July 7, 2011, to April 1, 2019 (UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio 9461). Participants were divided into training (n=557) and validation (n=334) cohorts to identify optimal risk groups. The biomarkers evaluated were overexpression of p53, cellular atypia, and 17 clinical demographic variables. Endoscopic biopsy diagnosis of high-grade dysplasia or cancer was the primary endpoint. Clinical feasibility of a decision tree for Cytosponge triage was evaluated in a real-world prospective cohort from Aug 27, 2020 (DELTA; ISRCTN91655550; n=223), in response to COVID-19 and the need to provide an alternative to endoscopic surveillance. FINDINGS: The prevalence of high-grade dysplasia or cancer determined by the current gold standard of endoscopic biopsy was 17% (92 of 557 patients) in the training cohort and 10% (35 of 344) in the validation cohort. From the new biomarker analysis, three risk groups were identified: high risk, defined as atypia or p53 overexpression or both on Cytosponge; moderate risk, defined by the presence of a clinical risk factor (age, sex, and segment length); and low risk, defined as Cytosponge-negative and no clinical risk factors. The risk of high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal cancer in the high-risk group was 52% (68 of 132 patients) in the training cohort and 41% (31 of 75) in the validation cohort, compared with 2% (five of 210) and 1% (two of 185) in the low-risk group, respectively. In the real-world setting, Cytosponge results prospectively identified 39 (17%) of 223 patients as high risk (atypia or p53 overexpression, or both) requiring endoscopy, among whom the positive predictive value was 31% (12 of 39 patients) for high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal cancer and 44% (17 of 39) for any grade of dysplasia. INTERPRETATION: Cytosponge atypia, p53 overexpression, and clinical risk factors (age, sex, and segment length) could be used to prioritise patients for endoscopy. Further investigation could validate their use in clinical practice and lead to a substantial reduction in endoscopy procedures compared with current surveillance pathways. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Innovate UK.


Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Barrett Esophagus/pathology , COVID-19 , Esophageal Neoplasms/pathology , Patient Selection , Watchful Waiting/methods , Adenocarcinoma/diagnostic imaging , Adenocarcinoma/metabolism , Aged , Barrett Esophagus/diagnostic imaging , Barrett Esophagus/metabolism , Barrett Esophagus/therapy , Biomarkers/metabolism , COVID-19/prevention & control , Clinical Decision-Making , Clinical Trials as Topic , Cross-Sectional Studies , Decision Trees , Disease Progression , Esophageal Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Esophageal Neoplasms/metabolism , Esophagoscopy , Feasibility Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pilot Projects , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Trefoil Factor-3/metabolism , Tumor Suppressor Protein p53/metabolism
19.
Int J Infect Dis ; 111: 211-218, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2113619

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Thromboinflammation, resulting from a complex interaction between thrombocytopathy, coagulopathy, and endotheliopathy, contributes to increased mortality in COVID-19 patients. MR-proADM, as a surrogate of adrenomedullin system disruption, leading to endothelial damage, has been reported as a promising biomarker for short-term prognosis. We evaluated the role of MR-proADM in the mid-term mortality in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A prospective, observational study enrolling COVID-19 patients from August to October 2020. A blood sample for laboratory test analysis was drawn on arrival in the emergency department. The primary endpoint was 90-day mortality. The area under the curve (AUC) and Cox regression analyses were used to assess discriminatory ability and association with the endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 359 patients were enrolled, and the 90-day mortality rate was 8.9%. ROC AUC for MR-proADM predicting 90-day mortality was 0.832. An optimal cutoff of 0.80 nmol/L showed a sensitivity of 96.9% and a specificity of 58.4%, with a negative predictive value of 99.5%. Circulating MR-proADM levels (inverse transformed), after adjusting by a propensity score including eleven potential confounders, were an independent predictor of 90-day mortality (HR: 0.162 [95% CI: 0.043-0.480]) CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm that MR-proADM has a role in the mid-term prognosis of COVID-19 patients and might assist physicians with risk stratification.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Thrombosis , Adrenomedullin , Biomarkers , Humans , Inflammation , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , Protein Precursors , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2
20.
Environ Toxicol Chem ; 41(12): 3095-3115, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2103551

ABSTRACT

Use of three topical antiseptic compounds-benzalkonium chloride (BAC), benzethonium chloride (BZT), and chloroxylenol (PCMX)-has recently increased because of the phaseout of other antimicrobial ingredients (such as triclosan) in soaps and other disinfecting and sanitizing products. Further, use of sanitizing products in general increased during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. We assessed the environmental safety of BAC, BZT, and PCMX based on best available environmental fate and effects data from the scientific literature and privately held sources. The ecological exposure assessment focused on aquatic systems receiving effluent from wastewater-treatment plants (WWTPs) and terrestrial systems receiving land-applied WWTP biosolids. Recent exposure levels were characterized based on environmental monitoring data supplemented by modeling, while future exposures were modeled based on a hypothetical triclosan replacement scenario. Hazard profiles were developed based on acute and chronic studies examining toxicity to aquatic life (fish, invertebrates, algae, vascular plants) and terrestrial endpoints (plants, soil invertebrates, and microbial functions related to soil fertility). Risks to higher trophic levels were not assessed because these compounds are not appreciably bioaccumulative. The risk analysis indicated that neither BZT nor PCMX in any exposure media is likely to cause adverse ecological effects under the exposure scenarios assessed in the present study. Under these scenarios, total BAC exposures are at least three times less than estimated effect thresholds, while margins of safety for freely dissolved BAC are estimated to be greater than an order of magnitude. Because the modeling did not specifically account for COVID-19 pandemic-related usage, further environmental monitoring is anticipated to understand potential changes in environmental exposures as a result of increased antiseptic use. The analysis presented provides a framework to interpret future antiseptic monitoring results, including monitoring parameters and modeling approaches to address bioavailability of the chemicals of interest. Environ Toxicol Chem 2022;41:3095-3115. © 2022 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local , COVID-19 , Triclosan , Animals , Humans , Benzethonium , Benzalkonium Compounds/toxicity , Chlorides , Triclosan/toxicity , Pandemics , Anti-Infective Agents, Local/toxicity , Soil , Risk Assessment
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL