The impact of postpartum social support on postpartum mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Social support is an influential component of postpartum recovery, adjustment, and bonding, which was disrupted by social distancing recommendations related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports on changes in the availability of social support for postpartum women during the pandemic, investigates how those changes may have contributed to postpartum mental health, and probes how specific types of social support buffered against poor postpartum mental health and maternal-infant bonding impairment. Participants were 833 pregnant patients receiving prenatal care in an urban USA setting and using an electronic patient portal to access self-report surveys at two time points, during pregnancy (April-July 2020) and at ~12 weeks postpartum (August 2020-March 2021). Measures included an assessment of COVID-19 pandemic-related change in social support, sources of social support, ratings of emotional and practical support, and postpartum outcomes including depression, anxiety, and maternal-infant bonding. Overall self-reported social support decreased during the pandemic. Decreased social support was associated with an increased risk of postpartum depression, postpartum anxiety, and impaired parent-infant bonding. Among women reporting low practical support, emotional support appeared to protect against clinically significant depressive symptoms and impaired bonding with the infant. Decreases in social support are associated with a risk for poor postpartum mental health outcomes and impaired maternal-infant bonding. Evaluation and promotion of social support are recommended for healthy adjustment and functioning of postpartum women and families.

Projected Health Outcomes Associated With 3 US Supreme Court Decisions in 2022 on COVID-19 Workplace Protections, Handgun-Carry Restrictions, and Abortion Rights.

Importance: Several recent US Supreme Court rulings have drawn criticism from the medical community, but their health consequences have not been quantitatively evaluated. Objective: To model health outcomes associated with 3 Supreme Court rulings in 2022 that invalidated workplace COVID-19 vaccine or mask-and-test requirements, voided state handgun-carry restrictions, and revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytical modeling study estimated outcomes associated with 3 Supreme Court rulings in 2022: (1) National Federation of Independent Business v Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which invalidated COVID-19 workplace protections; (2) New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc v Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police (Bruen), which voided state laws restricting handgun carry; and (3) Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs), which revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Data analysis was performed from July 1, 2022, to April 7, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: For the OSHA ruling, multiple data sources were used to calculate deaths attributable to COVID-19 among unvaccinated workers from January 4 to May 28, 2022, and the share of these deaths that would have been prevented by the voided protections. To model the Bruen decision, published estimates of the consequences of right-to-carry laws were applied to 2020 firearm-related deaths (and injuries) in 7 affected jurisdictions. For the Dobbs ruling, the model assessed unwanted pregnancy continuations, resulting from the change in distance to the closest abortion facility, and then excess deaths (and peripartum complications) from forcing these unwanted pregnancies to term. Results: The decision model projected that the OSHA decision was associated with 1402 additional COVID-19 deaths (and 22 830 hospitalizations) in early 2022. In addition, the model projected that 152 additional firearm-related deaths (and 377 nonfatal injuries) annually will result from the Bruen decision. Finally, the model projected that 30 440 fewer abortions will occur annually due to current abortion bans stemming from Dobbs, with 76 612 fewer abortions if states at high risk for such bans also were to ban the procedure; these bans will be associated with an estimated 6 to 15 additional pregnancy-related deaths each year, respectively, and hundreds of additional cases of peripartum morbidity. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that outcomes from 3 Supreme Court decisions in 2022 could lead to substantial harms to public health, including nearly 3000 excess deaths (and possibly many more) over a decade.

Patterns in Child Health Outcomes Before and After the COVID-19 Outbreak in India.

This cross-sectional study examines prepandemic-to-postpandemic changes in mortality, nutrition and feeding practices, anthropometry, vaccination, and other measures in a sample of children from the Indian National Family Health Survey.

Outcome measures from international older adult care home intervention research: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Care homes are increasingly important settings for intervention research to enhance evidence-informed care. For such research to demonstrate effectiveness, it is essential that measures are appropriate for the population, setting and practice contexts. OBJECTIVE: To identify care home intervention studies and describe the resident outcome measures used. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: We reviewed international care home research published from 2015 to August 2022. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and ASSIA. We included any intervention study conducted in a care home, reporting resident outcomes. We extracted resident outcome measures, organised these using the domains of an adapted framework and described their use. RESULTS: From 7,330 records screened, we included 396 datasets reported in 436 publications. These included 12,167 care homes and 836,842 residents, with an average of 80 residents per study. The studies evaluated 859 unique resident outcomes 2,030 times using 732 outcome measures. Outcomes were evaluated between 1 and 112 times, with 75.1% of outcomes evaluated only once. Outcome measures were used 1-120 times, with 68.4% of measures used only once. Only 14 measures were used ≥20 times. Functional status, mood & behaviour and medications were the commonest outcome domains assessed. More than half of outcomes were assessed using scales, with a fifth using existing records or administrative data. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant heterogeneity in the choice and assessment of outcomes for intervention research in care homes. There is an urgent need to develop a consensus on useful and sensitive tools for care homes, working with residents, families and friends and staff.

A machine learning analysis to evaluate the outcome measures in inflammatory myopathies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term outcome in patients with Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies (IIM), focusing on damage and activity disease indexes using artificial intelligence (AI). BACKGROUND: IIM are a group of rare diseases characterized by involvement of different organs in addition to the musculoskeletal. Machine Learning analyses large amounts of information, using different algorithms, decision-making processes and self-learning neural networks. METHODS: We evaluate the long-term outcome of 103 patients with IIM, diagnosed on 2017 EULAR/ACR criteria. We considered different parameters, including clinical manifestations and organ involvement, number and type of treatments, serum creatine kinase levels, muscle strength (MMT8 score), disease activity (MITAX score), disability (HAQ-DI score), disease damage (MDI score), and physician and patient global assessment (PGA). The data collected were analysed, applying, with R, supervised ML algorithms such as lasso, ridge, elastic net, classification, and regression trees (CART), random forest and support vector machines (SVM) to find the factors that best predict disease outcome. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Using artificial intelligence algorithms we identified the parameters that best correlate with the disease outcome in IIM. The best result was on MMT8 at follow-up, predicted by a CART regression tree algorithm. MITAX was predicted based on clinical features such as the presence of RP-ILD and skin involvement. A good predictive capacity was also demonstrated on damage scores: MDI and HAQ-DI. In the future Machine Learning will allow us to identify the strengths or weaknesses of the composite disease activity and damage scores, to validate new criteria or to implement classification criteria.

Immune resilience despite inflammatory stress promotes longevity and favorable health outcomes including resistance to infection.

Some people remain healthier throughout life than others but the underlying reasons are poorly understood. Here we hypothesize this advantage is attributable in part to optimal immune resilience (IR), defined as the capacity to preserve and/or rapidly restore immune functions that promote disease resistance (immunocompetence) and control inflammation in infectious diseases as well as other causes of inflammatory stress. We gauge IR levels with two distinct peripheral blood metrics that quantify the balance between (i) CD8+ and CD4+ T-cell levels and (ii) gene expression signatures tracking longevity-associated immunocompetence and mortality-associated inflammation. Profiles of IR metrics in ~48,500 individuals collectively indicate that some persons resist degradation of IR both during aging and when challenged with varied inflammatory stressors. With this resistance, preservation of optimal IR tracked (i) a lower risk of HIV acquisition, AIDS development, symptomatic influenza infection, and recurrent skin cancer; (ii) survival during COVID-19 and sepsis; and (iii) longevity. IR degradation is potentially reversible by decreasing inflammatory stress. Overall, we show that optimal IR is a trait observed across the age spectrum, more common in females, and aligned with a specific immunocompetence-inflammation balance linked to favorable immunity-dependent health outcomes. IR metrics and mechanisms have utility both as biomarkers for measuring immune health and for improving health outcomes.

Robustness of reported postacute health outcomes in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the robustness of reported postacute SARS-CoV-2 infection health outcomes in children. METHODS: A search on PubMed and Web of Science was conducted to identify studies published up to 22 January 2022 that reported on postacute SARS-CoV-2 infection health outcomes in children (<18 years) with follow-up of ≥2 months since detection of infection or ≥1 month since recovery from acute illness. We assessed the consideration of confounding bias and causality, as well as the risk of bias. RESULTS: 21 studies including 81 896 children reported up to 97 symptoms with follow-up periods of 2.0-11.5 months. Fifteen studies had no control group. The reported proportion of children with post-COVID syndrome was between 0% and 66.5% in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=16 986) and between 2.0% and 53.3% in children without SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=64 910). Only two studies made a clear causal interpretation of an association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and the main outcome of 'post-COVID syndrome' and provided recommendations regarding prevention measures. The robustness of all 21 studies was seriously limited due to an overall critical risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The robustness of reported postacute SARS-CoV-2 infection health outcomes in children is seriously limited, at least in all the published articles we could identify. None of the studies provided evidence with reasonable certainty on whether SARS-CoV-2 infection has an impact on postacute health outcomes, let alone to what extent. Children and their families urgently need much more reliable and methodologically robust evidence to address their concerns and improve care.

A survey of knowledge, perceptions and use of core outcome sets among clinical trialists.

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets (COS) are standardised sets of outcomes, which represent the minimum outcomes that should be measured and reported in clinical trials. COS can enhance comparability across health trials by reducing heterogeneity of outcome measurement and reporting and potentially minimising selective outcome reporting. Examining what researchers involved in trials know and think about COS is essential to increase awareness and promote COS uptake. The aim of this study is therefore to examine clinical trialists' knowledge, perceptions and experiences of COS. METHODS: An online survey design was used. Participants were clinical trialists, operationalised for the current study as researchers named as the contact person on a trial registered on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Trial repository between 1 January 2019 and 21 July 2020. Survey items assessed clinical trialists' familiarity with and understanding of COS, along with experiences of COS use and development. RESULTS: Of 1913 clinical trialists contacted to participate, 62 (3%) completed the survey. Forty (65%) participants were familiar with COS and, of those familiar with COS, 21 (55%) had been involved in a trial that used a COS. Of clinical trialists who used COS in a trial(s), less than half (n = 9, 41%) reported that all COS outcomes were used. The main barriers to using COS are poor knowledge about COS (n = 43, 69%) and difficulties identifying relevant COS (n = 42, 68%). Clinical trialists also reported perceptions of COS as restrictive and often containing too many outcomes. The main enablers to using COS are clear understanding (n = 51, 82%) and perceived importance of COS (n = 44, 71%). CONCLUSIONS: Enhancing clinical trialists' use of all COS outcomes is needed to reduce outcome heterogeneity and enhance comparability across trial findings. Enhancing awareness of COS importance among researchers and funders is needed to ensure that COS are developed and used by clinical trialists. Education and training may further promote awareness and understanding of COS.

Improving Health Outcomes in Vulnerable Populations: The Medical-Legal Partnership-Colorado's Experience.

Medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) add legal professionals, trained specifically to tackle health-related social needs (HRSN), to the health care team. We evaluated the impact on health outcomes and health care utilization of a MLP housed in a large federally qualified health center in Colorado (MLP-CO). Clients screened for I-HELP (Income, Housing, Employment, Legal status, Personal stability) needs were surveyed at baseline and six months post-enrollment. Reasons for legal aid were legal immigration status (46.5%), income (30.8%), personal/family stability (14.8%), housing (4.8%), and education (1.2%). Overall, 61.4% attributed great/moderate improvements in their health care experience to the MLP-CO. Statistically significant improvements were noted for days with poor physical/mental health, and feelings of stress/worry. There was a reduction in emergency department visits, hospitalization days, and missed appointments, but only the latter was statistically significant. In conclusion, MLPs are a promising innovation to achieve the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's quadruple aim.

The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study: International consensus on outcome measures for trials of interventions for adults with single-sided deafness.

BACKGROUND: Single-sided deafness (SSD) has functional, psychological, and social consequences. Interventions for adults with SSD include hearing aids and auditory implants. Benefits and harms (outcome domains) of these interventions are until now reported inconsistently in clinical trials. Inconsistency in reporting outcome measures prevents meaningful comparisons or syntheses of trial results. The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) international initiative used structured communication techniques to achieve consensus among healthcare users and professionals working in the field of SSD. The novel contribution is a set of core outcome domains that experts agree are critically important to assess in all clinical trials of SSD interventions. METHODS: A long list of candidate outcome domains compiled from a systematic review and published qualitative data, informed the content of a two-round online Delphi survey. Overall, 308 participants from 29 countries were enrolled. Of those, 233 participants completed both rounds of the survey and scored each outcome domain on a 9-point scale. The set of core outcome domains was finalised via a web-based consensus meeting with 12 participants. Votes involved all stakeholder groups, with an approximate 2:1 ratio of professionals to healthcare users participating in the Delphi survey, and a 1:1 ratio participating in the consensus meeting. RESULTS: The first round of the survey listed 44 potential outcome domains, organised thematically. A further five outcome domains were included in Round 2 based on participant feedback. The structured voting at round 2 identified 17 candidate outcome domains which were voted on at the consensus meeting. Consensus was reached for a core outcome domain set including three outcome domains: spatial orientation, group conversations in noisy social situations, and impact on social situations. Seventy-seven percent of the remaining Delphi participants agreed with this core outcome domain set. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the internationally agreed core outcome domain set would promote consistent assessment and reporting of outcomes that are meaningful and important to all relevant stakeholders. This consistency will in turn enable comparison of outcomes reported across clinical trials comparing SSD interventions in adults and reduce research waste. Further research will determine how those outcome domains should best be measured.

A randomized trial of acceptance-based behavioral therapy to improve mental health outcomes for LGBTQ+ persons: Study protocol.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health measures limited social interactions as an effective and protective intervention for all. For many, however, this social isolation exacerbated mental health symptoms. People who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) were already at elevated risk of anxiety and depression, relative to cisgender and heterosexual populations, and pandemic-related social isolation likely heightened these disparities. In our prior work with sexual and gender minorities, we developed and established feasibility and acceptability of a novel acceptance-based behavioral therapy (ABBT) intervention for HIV treatment. ABBT showed promise in improving social support and reducing mental health symptoms. In the current study, we investigate the efficacy of ABBT, compared to a treatment-as-usual control condition, in a full-scale randomized controlled trial to improve social support for LGBTQ+ persons living with anxiety and depression. METHODS: Two hundred forty LGBTQ+ adults with anxiety and/or depressive symptoms will be recruited and equally randomized to receive: (a) the ABBT intervention, consisting of two 30-40 min sessions plus treatment-as-usual (TAU), or (b) TAU only. Primary outcomes are interviewer-assessed anxiety and depressive symptoms. Secondary outcomes are self-reported anxiety and depressive symptoms. Experiential avoidance and social support are hypothesized mediators and presence of an anxiety and/or depressive disorder is a hypothesized moderator. CONCLUSIONS: ABBT represents a novel, identify-affirming real-world approach to promoting social support as a means of improving mental health among individuals who identify as LGBTQ+. This study will contribute actionable data establishing the impact, mediational mechanisms, and effect modifiers of ABBT. CLINICALTRIALS: govregistration: NCT05540067.

Mental health outcomes in health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic: an umbrella review.

As we head into the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an increasing need to consider the long-term mental health outcomes of health care workers (HCWs) who have experienced overwhelming work pressure, economic and social deprivation, burnout, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This scoping umbrella review summarizes the mental health outcomes of published evidence syntheses on HCWs worldwide. We analyzed 39 evidence syntheses representing the findings from 1297 primary studies. We found several persistent fears and concerns (job-related fears, fear of stigmatization, worries about the pandemic, and infection-related fears) that shaped HCW experiences in delivering health care. We also describe several risk factors (job-related, social factors, poor physical and mental health, and inadequate coping strategies) and protective factors (individual and external factors). This is the first scoping umbrella review comprehensively documenting the various risk and protective factors that HCWs have faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. HCWs continue to fear the risk that they may infect their family and friends since they regularly interact with COVID-19 patients. This places HCWs in a precarious situation requiring them to balance risk to their family and friends and potential social deprivation from isolation.

This review summarizes the mental health outcomes of health care workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic, including their worries and concerns. The fear of infecting loved ones was one of the essential fears faced by HCWs. Job-related fears included job instability, career uncertainty, the fear of losing control in the workplace, and increased workload. Furthermore, HCWs expressed concerns about stigmatization and uncertainty associated with the pandemic's magnitude, duration, and effects. Several risk factors and protective factors for the mental health of HCWs were identified in this review. Risk factors included the lack of personal protective equipment (PPE), the increased workload, the lack of timely information regarding the pandemic, involuntary conscription, social restrictions, pre-existing physical and mental illnesses, and improper coping strategies. In contrast, protective factors included personal characteristics such as altruism and humor, perceived control and self-efficacy, adequate training and education regarding the pandemic, adequate supply of PPE, and favorable work environments. These findings can serve as a basis for the formulation of interventions by governing bodies that promote the mental health of HCWs.

Effects of Gut Microbiome Modulation on Reducing Adverse Health Outcomes among Elderly and Diabetes Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial (IMPACT Study).

Gut microbiota is believed to be a major determinant of health outcomes. We hypothesised that a novel oral microbiome formula (SIM01) can reduce the risk of adverse health outcomes in at-risk subjects during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In this single-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited subjects aged ≥65 years or with type two diabetes mellitus. Eligible subjects were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive three months of SIM01 or placebo (vitamin C) within one week of the first COVID-19 vaccine dose. Both the researchers and participants were blinded to the groups allocated. The rate of adverse health outcomes was significantly lower in the SIM01 group than the placebo at one month (6 [2.9%] vs. 25 [12.6], p < 0.001) and three months (0 vs. 5 [3.1%], p = 0.025). At three months, more subjects who received SIM01 than the placebo reported better sleep quality (53 [41.4%] vs. 22 [19.3%], p < 0.001), improved skin condition (18 [14.1%] vs. 8 [7.0%], p = 0.043), and better mood (27 [21.2%] vs. 13 [11.4%], p = 0.043). Subjects who received SIM01 showed a significant increase in beneficial Bifidobacteria and butyrate-producing bacteria in faecal samples and strengthened the microbial ecology network. SIM01 reduced adverse health outcomes and restored gut dysbiosis in elderly and diabetes patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Safer Care for Older Persons in (residential) Environments (SCOPE): a pragmatic controlled trial of a care aide-led quality improvement intervention.

BACKGROUND: The increased complexity of residents and increased needs for care in long-term care (LTC) have not been met with increased staffing. There remains a need to improve the quality of care for residents. Care aides, providers of the bulk of direct care, are well placed to contribute to quality improvement efforts but are often excluded from so doing. This study examined the effect of a facilitation intervention enabling care aides to lead quality improvement efforts and improve the use of evidence-informed best practices. The eventual goal was to improve both the quality of care for older residents in LTC homes and the engagement and empowerment of care aides in leading quality improvement efforts. METHODS: Intervention teams participated in a year-long facilitative intervention which supported care aide-led teams to test changes in care provision to residents using a combination of networking and QI education meetings, and quality advisor and senior leader support. This was a controlled trial with random selection of intervention clinical care units matched 1:1 post hoc with control units. The primary outcome, between group change in conceptual research use (CRU), was supplemented by secondary staff- and resident-level outcome measures. A power calculation based upon pilot data effect sizes resulted in a sample size of 25 intervention sites. RESULTS: The final sample included 32 intervention care units matched to 32 units in the control group. In an adjusted model, there was no statistically significant difference between intervention and control units for CRU or in secondary staff outcomes. Compared to baseline, resident-adjusted pain scores were statistically significantly reduced (less pain) in the intervention group (p=0.02). The level of resident dependency significantly decreased statistically for residents whose teams addressed mobility (p<0.0001) compared to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: The Safer Care for Older Persons in (residential) Environments (SCOPE) intervention resulted in a smaller change in its primary outcome than initially expected resulting in a study underpowered to detect a difference. These findings should inform sample size calculations of future studies of this nature if using similar outcome measures. This study highlights the problem with measures drawn from current LTC databases to capture change in this population. Importantly, findings from the trial's concurrent process evaluation provide important insights into interpretation of main trial data, highlight the need for such evaluations of complex trials, and suggest the need to consider more broadly what constitutes "success" in complex interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03426072, registered August 02, 2018, first participant site April, 05, 2018.

Food insecurity and health outcome nexus: empirical evidence from the informal sector enterprises in Bangladesh.

BACKGROUND: Food insecurity indicates the difficulty of constantly obtaining adequate food because of limited economic resources. Food insecurity challenges the desired health outcomes. Although extensive literature has examined the associations between food security and health, low-wage informal sector workers have been less frequently addressed in this topic. The present study has focused on food insecurity among the workers working in the informal sector enterprises who experienced entrenched disadvantage during COVID-19 and examines the relationship between food insecurity and health status as measured by self-reported physical and mental health conditions. METHODS: This study has utilized cross-sectional data collected from workers working in informal manufacturing and business enterprises in Dhaka city of Bangladesh. The Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) with eight items is used to screen for food insecurity, and the Short Form 12v2 (SF12v2) scale with 12 questions, and validated for use with Bengali respondents, is used to measure the health status of the informal workers. A health production function has been constructed where the health status (both physical and mental) of workers is associated with food insecurity and other socio-economic and health care factors. Empirical analyses of the study have included descriptive statistics, mean score comparisons, and multivariate regression analyses to identify the predictive factors of the physical and mental health status of the workers. RESULTS: A moderate to severe food insecurity is found to be responsible for the poor health status (both physical and mental) of the selected working group population. Moreover, age over 40 years, having a large family, dissatisfaction with the work place, and the prevalence of occupational health risks are linked to lower physical health, while dissatisfaction with the work place and the incidence of severe diseases contribute to poor mental health status along with food insecurity. CONCLUSIONS: Extending social and economic protection towards health coverage and basic consumption is suggested as an immediate action to save lives and ensure productivity of the informal workers. Besides, an increase in income and ensuring decent working conditions are also recommended for the health, safety and satisfaction of workers working in informal sector enterprises.

Indirect positive health outcomes of COVID-19: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the frequency of indirect positive health outcomes as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: This was a systematic review. METHODS: Articles were identified from four online databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Google Scholar) using predetermined search terms. After studies were systematically identified, the results were summarised narratively. The indirect positive health outcomes associated with the emergence of COVID-19 and measures taken for its prevention were categorised into four health dimensions (physical, mental, social and digital). RESULTS: After initial screening, 44 articles were assessed for eligibility, and 33 were included in the final sample. Of the included studies, 72.73% noted a benefit from COVID-19 prevention measures in the physical health dimension. In addition, 12.12%, 9.09%, 3.03% and 3.03% of articles reported a positive impact in the digital, mental, social and combined digital and mental health dimensions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the catastrophic health, socio-economic and political crises associated with the COVID-19 emergency, it has also resulted in some positive health outcomes. Reduced air pollutants, improved disease prevention practices, increased digital health delivery and improved mental and social health dimensions were reported during the pandemic. Integrated and collaborative activities for the persistence of these health benefits are recommended.

Study of perioperative outcomes of acute appendicitis during the COVID-19 pandemic: An analytical observational cohort study / Estudio de los desenlaces perioperatorios de la apendicitis aguda durante la pandemia por COVID-19: un estudio observacional analítico de cohorte

Introducción. La condición de pandemia por COVID-19 impactó a la sociedad y los sistemas de salud a nivel mundial. Las adaptaciones institucionales procuraron mantener la calidad de la atención a pesar de un contexto organizacional desfavorable. La apendicitis aguda requirió ser manejada en un nuevo escenario institucional. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la efectividad del tratamiento quirúrgico de la apendicitis durante la pandemia. Métodos. Estudio observacional analítico, retrospectivo, en el que se incluyeron pacientes sometidos a apendicectomía, antes y durante la pandemia por COVID-19. Se evaluaron las complicaciones, infección del sitio operatorio, reingresos y estancia hospitalaria. Adicionalmente, se analizaron los desenlaces en los 3 picos epidemiológicos de la pandemia. Se efectuaron estadísticas descriptivas y analíticas entre los grupos a comparar. Resultados. Se incluyeron 1521 pacientes con apendicitis, 48,3 % operados antes y 51,7 % durante la pandemia. No hubo diferencias entre los grupos en complicaciones (p=0,352), infección del sitio operatorio (p=0,191), reingreso en los primeros 30 días (p=0,605) y estancia hospitalaria (p=0,514). El manejo de la apendicitis durante el tercer pico fue similar a las prácticas habituales. El tiempo de evolución fue mayor durante la pandemia (p=0,04) y los pacientes fueron llevados a cirugía más pronto que previo a la pandemia (p<0,001). Conclusiones. No se evidenció un incremento de complicaciones quirúrgicas, reingresos, estancia hospitalaria ni infección del sitio operatorio en los pacientes operados durante la pandemia. Hubo un efecto favorable para los pacientes como consecuencia de la adaptación institucional en la pandemia por COVID-19

Introduction. COVID-19 pandemic impacted society and health systems worldwide. The institutional adaptations sought to maintain the quality of care in an unfavorable organizational context. Acute appendicitis was required to be managed in a new institutional setting. The effectiveness of surgical treatment of appendicitis during the pandemic was evaluated. Methods. Retrospective analytical observational study, in patients with appendectomy, before and during COVID-19 pandemic. Complications, surgical site infections, readmissions, and hospital stay were evaluated. Additionally, the outcomes in the 3 epidemiological peaks of the pandemic were analyzed. Descriptive and analytical statistics were performed between the groups to be compared. Results. A total of 1521 patients with appendicitis were included, 48.3% before and 51.7% during the pandemic. There were no differences in complications (p=0.352), operative site infection (p=0.191), readmission at 30 days (p=0.605), and hospital stay (p=0.514) between the groups. Management of appendicitis during the 3rd peak was like usual practices. There was a long evolution time during the pandemic (p=0.04) and the patients were taken to surgery sooner than before the pandemic (p<0.001). Conclusions. There was no evidence of an increase in surgical complications, readmissions, hospital stay, and surgical site infections during patients who underwent surgery. There was a favorable effect for patients because of institutional adaptation in the COVID-19 pandemic

Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination in transplant recipients.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is considered one of the most promising and socioeconomically sustainable strategy to help control the pandemic and several vaccines are currently being distributed in nationwide mass immunization campaigns. Very limited data are available on benefits and risks of COVID-19 vaccination in immunocompromised patients and in particular in solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients as they were excluded from phase III trials. This review summarizes current knowledge, international guidelines and controversies regarding COVID-19 vaccination in these vulnerable populations. RECENT FINDINGS: Various COVID-19 vaccine platforms showed good efficacy in phase III trials in the immunocompetent and there are data arising on the safety and immunogenicity of these vaccines in the immunocompromised population. SUMMARY: Transplant recipients could benefit significantly from COVID-19 vaccination, both through active immunization provided they elicit protective vaccine responses, and probably through cocooning by immunization of caregivers and healthcare personnel and thus reducing the risk of SARS-coronavirus-2 exposure. Although awaiting more data on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines to inform potential adaptations of vaccine regimens, we strongly recommend prioritizing COVID-19 vaccination of solid and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients to decrease COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality.