[COVID-19 vaccination for people with severe mental diseases : Results of the COVID Ψ outpatient survey and recommendations for psychiatry]. / COVID-19-Impfung für Menschen mit schweren psychischen Erkrankungen : Ergebnisse des COVID-Ψ-Ambulant-Surveys und Empfehlungen für die Psychiatrie.

BACKGROUND: Severe mental illnesses are risk factors for SARS-CoV-2-related morbidity and mortality. Vaccination is an effective protection; therefore, high vaccination rates should be a major priority for people with mental illnesses. OBJECTIVES: (1) Identification of at-risk groups for non-vaccination and structures and interventions needed for widespread vaccination among people with mental illnesses from the perspective of outpatient psychiatrists and neurologists, (2) discussion of the results in the context of the international literature and (3) recommendations derived from them. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Qualitative content analysis of COVID-19 vaccination-related questions from the COVID Ψ online survey of n = 85 psychiatrists and neurologists in Germany. RESULTS: In the survey, people with schizophrenia, severe lack of drive, low socioeconomic status and homelessness were seen as risk groups for non-vaccination. Increased and targeted information, education, addressing and motivation and easily accessible vaccination offers by general practitioners, psychiatrists, and neurologists as well as complementary institutions were considered as important interventions. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 vaccinations as well as information, motivation and access support should be systematically offered by as many institutions of the psychiatric, psychotherapeutic and complementary care systems in Germany as possible.

Health Care Disparities in Outpatient Diabetes Management During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Where Do We Stand Now?

OBJECTIVE: We examined diabetes outpatient management during the first 2 years of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic in an endocrinology practice with a focus on health care disparities in outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study examining adults with diabetes during 3 time periods: T1 (March 2019-February 2020), T2 (March 2020-February 2021), and T3 (March 2021-February 2022). Clinical outcomes included body mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure (SBP), Hemoglobin A1c (HgbA1c), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), and urine albumin:creatinine ratio. Appointment types (virtual vs in-person) were also collected. RESULTS: Frequencies of HgbA1c, BMI, and SBP measurements reduced by 36.0%, 46.3%, and 48.5% in T2, respectively, and remaining 8.7% (HgbA1c), 13.4% (BMI), and 15.2% (SBP) lower at the end of the study period (P < .001) compared to prepandemic levels. However, the average HgbA1c and LDL slightly improved. Clinic appointments per patient increased during the pandemic, fueled by telehealth utilization. Women had fewer in-person visits during T2, those older than 65 had better HgbA1c, and the most socioeconomically deprived group had the worst HgbA1c during every time period. In addition, black patients had worse HgbA1c, LDL, and SBP values throughout the study, which did not worsen over the pandemic. CONCLUSION: While the frequency of health measurements had not fully recovered 2 years into the pandemic, this did not translate to worse diabetes management or a widening of pre-existing disparities. Our study emphasizes the role of equitable health care in minimizing inequalities in diabetes, particularly during times of crisis.

Implementation of medication reconciliation in outpatient cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is a process where providers work with patients to document and communicate comprehensive medication information by creating a complete medication list (best possible medication history (BPMH)) then reconciling it against what patient is actually taking to identify potential issues such as drug-drug interactions. We undertook an environmental scan of current MedRec practices in outpatient cancer care to inform a quality improvement project at our centre with the aim of 30% of patients having a BPMH or MedRec within 30 days of initiating treatment with systemic therapy. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from 21 cancer centres across Canada, probing on current policies, and barriers and facilitators to MedRec. Guided by the findings of the scan, we then undertook a quality improvement project at our cancer centre, comprising six iterative improvement cycles. RESULTS: Most institutions interviewed had a process in place for collecting a BPMH (81%) and targeted patients initiating systemic therapy (59%); however, considerable practice variation was noted and completion of full MedRec was uncommon. Lack of resources, high patient volumes, lack of a common medical record spanning institutions and settings which limits access to medication records from external institutions and community pharmacies were identified as significant barriers. Despite navigating challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, we achieved 26.6% of eligible patients with a documented BPMH. However, uptake of full MedRec remained low whereby 4.7% of patients had a documented MedRec. CONCLUSIONS: Realising improvements to completion of MedRec in outpatient cancer care is possible but takes considerable time and iteration as the process is complex. Resource allocation and information sharing remain major barriers which need to be addressed in order to observe meaningful improvements in MedRec.

Epidemiology and Economic Burden of Acute Infectious Gastroenteritis Among Adults Treated in Outpatient Settings in US Health Systems.

INTRODUCTION: Acute infectious gastroenteritis (AGE) is a common reason for outpatient visits and hospitalizations in the United States. This study aimed to understand the demographic and clinical characteristics, common pathogens detected, health care resource utilization (HRU), and cost among adult outpatients with AGE visiting US health systems. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using one of the largest hospital discharge databases (PINC AI Healthcare Database) in the United States. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with a principal diagnosis of AGE during an outpatient visit between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2021, were included. Pathogen detection analysis was performed in those with microbiology data available. RESULTS: Among 248,896 patients, the mean age was 44.3 years (range 18-89+ years), 62.9% were female, and 68.5% were White. More than half (62.0%) of the patients did not have any preexisting comorbidity, and only 18.3% underwent stool workup at the hospital. Most patients (84.7%) were seen in the emergency department, and most (96.4%) were discharged home. Within 30 days of discharge, 1.0% were hospitalized, and 2.8% had another outpatient visit due to AGE. The mean cost of the index visit plus 30-day AGE-related follow-up was $1,338 per patient, amounting to $333,060,182 for the total study population. Among patients with microbiology data available (n = 12,469), common pathogens detected were Clostridioides difficile (32.2%), norovirus (6.3%), and Campylobacter spp. (4.0%). DISCUSSION: AGE is a common and costly disease affecting adults of all ages and more females than males, including individuals with or without baseline conditions in a hospital-based outpatient setting. C. difficile was the most common pathogen detected.

Efficacy of Sotrovimab (SOT), Molnupiravir (MOL), and Nirmatrelvir/Ritponavir (N/R) and Tolerability of Molnupiravir in Outpatients at High Risk for Severe COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: The main goal of this study was to assess the potential clinical impact of an outpatient administration of available antivirals including SOT, N/R, and MOL to COVID-19 patients at high risk for disease progression. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis on 2606 outpatient individuals with mild to moderate COVID-19 at risk for disease progression, hospitalization, or death. After receiving either SOT (420/2606), MOL (1788/2606), or N/R (398/2606), patients were followed-up with regarding primary (hospitalization rate) and secondary (treatment and side effects) outcomes by phone. RESULT: A total of 2606 patients were treated at the outpatient clinic (SOT: 420; N/R: 398; MOL: 1788). 3.2% of the SOT patients (1 ICU admission), 0.8% of the MOL patients (2 ICU admissions), and none of the N/R patients were hospitalized. 14.3% of the N/R patients reported strong to severe side effects, exceeding SOT (2.6%) and MOL (5%) patients. A reduction in COVID symptoms after the treatment was experienced by 43% of patients in both the SOT and MOL groups and by 67% of patients in the N/R group, respectively. Women had a higher chance of symptom improvement with MOL (OR 1.2, 95%CI 1.0-1.5). CONCLUSION: All antiviral treatment options effectively prevented hospitalization in high-risk COVID-19 patients and were well tolerated. Side effects were pronounced in patients with N/R.

The COVID-19 Pandemic and In-Person Visit Rate Disruptions Among Patients With Hematologic Neoplasms in the US in 2020 to 2021.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a reduction in routine in-person medical care; however, it is unknown whether there have been any changes in visit rates among patients with hematologic neoplasms. Objective: To examine associations between the COVID-19 pandemic and in-person visits and telemedicine use among patients undergoing active treatment for hematologic neoplasms. Design, Setting, and Participants: Data for this retrospective observational cohort study were obtained from a nationwide electronic health record-derived, deidentified database. Data for patients with hematologic neoplasms who had received at least 1 systemic line of therapy between March 1, 2016, and February 28, 2021, were included. Treatments were categorized into 3 types: oral therapy, outpatient infusions, and inpatient infusions. The data cutoff date was April 30, 2021, when study analyses were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Monthly visit rates were calculated as the number of documented visits (telemedicine or in-person) per active patient per 30-day period. We used time-series forecasting methods on prepandemic data (March 2016 to February 2020) to estimate expected rates between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021 (if the pandemic had not occurred). Results: This study included data for 24 261 patients, with a median age of 68 years (IQR, 60-75 years). A total of 6737 patients received oral therapy, 15 314 received outpatient infusions, and 8316 received inpatient infusions. More than half of patients were men (14 370 [58%]) and non-Hispanic White (16 309 [66%]). Early pandemic months (March to May 2020) demonstrated a significant 21% reduction (95% prediction interval [PI], 12%-27%) in in-person visit rates averaged across oral therapy and outpatient infusions. Reductions in in-person visit rates were also significant for all treatment types for multiple myeloma (oral therapy: 29% reduction; 95% PI, 21%-36%; P = .001; outpatient infusions: 11% reduction; 95% PI, 4%-17%; P = .002; inpatient infusions: 55% reduction; 95% PI, 27%-67%; P = .005), for oral therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (28% reduction; 95% PI, 12%-39%; P = .003), and for outpatient infusions for mantle cell lymphoma (38% reduction; 95% PI, 6%-54%; P = .003) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (20% reduction; 95% PI, 6%-31%; P = .002). Telemedicine visit rates were highest for patients receiving oral therapy, with greater use in the early pandemic months and a subsequent decrease in later months. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with hematologic neoplasms, documented in-person visit rates for those receiving oral therapy and outpatient infusions significantly decreased during the early pandemic months but returned to close to projected rates in the later half of 2020. There were no statistically significant reductions in the overall in-person visit rate for patients receiving inpatient infusions. There was higher telemedicine use in the early pandemic months, followed by a decline, but use was persistent in the later half of 2020. Further studies are needed to ascertain associations between the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent cancer outcomes and the evolution of telemedicine use for care delivery.

Non-randomized evaluation of hospitalization after a prescription for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus molnupiravir in high-risk COVID-19 outpatients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare subsequent hospital admissions within 30 days for patients after receiving a prescription for either oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or oral molnupiravir. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 3207 high-risk, non-hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients who received a prescription for molnupiravir (n = 209) or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 2998) at an academic medical centre in New York City from April to December 2022. Variables including age, vaccination status, high-risk conditions and demographic factors were pulled from the electronic medical record. We used multivariable logistic regression to adjust for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: All-cause 30 day hospitalization was not significantly different between patients who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir compared with molnupiravir (1.4% versus 1.9%, P value = 0.55). The association between COVID-related hospitalization and medication was also not significant (0.7%versus 0.5%, P value = 0.99). Patients who received molnupiravir were more likely to have more underlying high-risk conditions. After adjusting for potential confounders, the odds of all-cause hospitalizations were not significantly different between patients who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir compared with molnupiravir (OR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.4-3.3, P value = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: These data provide additional evidence to support molnupiravir as a suitable alternative when other COVID-19 antivirals cannot be given.

A one-year follow-up study of systematic impact of long COVID symptoms among patients post SARS-CoV-2 omicron variants infection in Shanghai, China.

Long COVID hinders people from normal life and work, posing significant medical and economic challenges. Nevertheless, comprehensive studies assessing its impact on large populations in Asia are still lacking. We tracked over 20,000 patients infected with COVID-19 for the first time during the Omicron BA.2 outbreak in Shanghai from March-June 2022 for one year. Of the 21,799 COVID-19 patients who participated in the 6-month telephone follow-up, 1939 (8.89%) had self-reported long COVID symptoms. 450 long COVID patients participated in the 6-month outpatient follow-up. Participants underwent healthy physical examinations and questionnaires focused on long-COVID-related symptoms and mental health. Mobility problem (P < 0.001), personal care problem (P = 0.003), usual activity problem (P < 0.001), pain/discomfort (P < 0.001), anxiety/depression (P = 0.001) and PTSD (P = 0.001) were more prevalent in long COVID patients than in healthy individuals, but no significant differences were found between the two groups on chest CT and laboratory examinations. Of the 856 long COVID patients who participated in the 12-month follow-up, 587 (68.5%) had their symptoms resolved. In the multivariable logistic analysis, females (P < 0.001), youth (age <40 years) (P < 0.001), ≥ 2 comorbidities (P = 0.009), and severe infection in the acute phase (P = 0.006) were risk factors for developing long COVID. Middle age (40-60 years) was a risk factor for persistent long COVID one year after hospital discharge (P = 0.013). The study found that long COVID mainly manifested as subjective symptoms and impacts partial patients' quality of life and mental status. After one year, most (68.5%) of the patients recovered from long COVID with no impairment of organ function observed.

Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against outpatient illness during widespread circulation of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, US Flu VE network.

BACKGROUND: We estimated combined protection conferred by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination against COVID-19-associated acute respiratory illness (ARI). METHODS: During SARS-CoV-2 Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant circulation between October 2021 and April 2022, prospectively enrolled adult patients with outpatient ARI had respiratory and filter paper blood specimens collected for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing and serology. Dried blood spots were tested for immunoglobulin-G antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (NP) and spike protein receptor binding domain antigen using a validated multiplex bead assay. Evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection also included documented or self-reported laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. We used documented COVID-19 vaccination status to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) by multivariable logistic regression by prior infection status. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-five (29%) of 1577 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection at enrollment; 209 (46%) case-patients and 637 (57%) test-negative patients were NP seropositive, had documented previous laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, or self-reported prior infection. Among previously uninfected patients, three-dose VE was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60%-99%) against Delta, but not statistically significant against Omicron. Among previously infected patients, three-dose VE was 57% (CI, 20%-76%) against Omicron; VE against Delta could not be estimated. CONCLUSIONS: Three mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses provided additional protection against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant-associated illness among previously infected participants.

Analysis of All-Cause Hospitalization and Death Among Nonhospitalized Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and SARS-CoV-2 Infection Treated With Molnupiravir or Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir During the Omicron Wave in Hong Kong.

Importance: Diabetes and COVID-19 are both global pandemics, and type 2 diabetes is a common comorbidity in patients with acute COVID-19 and is proven to be a key determinant of COVID-19 prognosis. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir are oral antiviral medications recently approved for nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, following demonstration of their efficacies in reducing adverse outcomes of the disease; it is crucial to clarify whether both oral antiviral medications are efficacious in a population consisting exclusively of patients with type 2 diabetes. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in a contemporary population-based cohort comprising exclusively nonhospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was performed using population-based electronic medical record data for patients in Hong Kong with type 2 diabetes and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between February 26 and October 23, 2022. Each patient was followed up until death, outcome event, crossover of oral antiviral treatment, or end of the observational period (October 30, 2022), whichever came first. Outpatient oral antiviral users were divided into molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment groups, respectively, and nontreated control participants were matched through 1:1 propensity score matching. Data analysis was performed on March 22, 2023. Exposures: Molnupiravir (800 mg twice daily for 5 days) or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (300 mg nirmatrelvir and 100 mg ritonavir twice daily for 5 days, or 150 mg nirmatrelvir and 100 mg ritonavir for patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30-59 mL/min per 1.73 m2). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and/or hospitalization. The secondary outcome was in-hospital disease progression. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated with Cox regression. Results: This study identified 22 098 patients with type 2 diabetes and COVID-19. A total of 3390 patients received molnupiravir and 2877 received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in the community setting. After application of exclusion criteria followed by 1:1 propensity score matching, this study comprised 2 groups. One group included 921 molnupiravir users (487 men [52.9%]), with a mean (SD) age of 76.7 (10.8) years, and 921 control participants (482 men [52.3%]), with a mean (SD) age of 76.6 (11.7) years. The other group included 793 nirmatrelvir-ritonavir users (401 men [50.6%]), with a mean (SD) age of 71.7 (11.5) years, and 793 control participants (395 men [49.8%]), with a mean (SD) age of 71.9 (11.6) years. At a median follow-up of 102 days (IQR, 56-225 days), molnupiravir use was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and/or hospitalization (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.64-0.79]; P < .001) and in-hospital disease progression (HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.35-0.69]; P < .001) compared with nonuse. At a median follow-up of 85 days (IQR, 56-216 days), nirmatrelvir-ritonavir use was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and/or hospitalization (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63-0.80]; P < .001) and a nonsignificantly lower risk of in-hospital disease progression (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.59-1.44]; P = .73) compared with nonuse. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that both molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir oral antiviral medications were associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalization among patients with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes. Further studies in specific populations, such as individuals in residential care homes and individuals with chronic kidney disease, are suggested.

The association between the number of symptoms and the severity of Post-COVID-Fatigue after SARS-CoV-2 infection treated in an outpatient setting.

BACKGROUND: Post-COVID-Fatigue (PCF) is one of the most reported symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Currently, research on persistent symptoms focuses mainly on severe infections, while outpatients are rarely included in observations. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the severity of PCF is related to the number of acute and persistent symptoms due to mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and to compare the most common symptoms during acute infection with the persistent symptoms in PCF patients. METHODS: A total of 425 participants were examined after COVID-19 treated as an outpatient (median 249 days [IQR: 135; 322] after acute disease) at the site of University Hospital Augsburg, Germany. The Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS) was used to quantify the severity of PCF. The number of symptoms (maximum 41) during acute infection and persistent symptoms (during the last 14 days before examination) were added up to sum scores. Multivariable linear regression models were used to show the association between the number of symptoms and PCF. RESULTS: Of the 425 participants, 37% (n = 157) developed PCF; most were women (70%). The median number of symptoms was significantly higher in the PCF group than in the non-PCF group at both time points. In multivariable linear regression models, both sum scores were associated with PCF (acute symptoms: ß-estimate per additional symptom [95%-CI]: 0.48 [0.39; 0.57], p < 0.0001); persistent symptoms: ß-estimate per additional symptom [95%-CI]: 1.18 [1.02; 1.34], p < 0.0001). The acute symptoms strongest associated with PCF severity were difficulty concentrating, memory problems, dyspnea or shortness of breath on exertion, palpitations, and problems with movement coordination. CONCLUSION: Each additional symptom that occurs in COVID-19 increases the likelihood of suffering a higher severity of PCF. Further research is needed to identify the aetiology of PCF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nr. NCT04615026. Date of registration: November 4, 2020.

Clinicians' perspectives and experiences of providing cervical ripening at home or in-hospital in the United Kingdom.

Induction of labour, or starting labour artificially, is offered when the risks of continuing pregnancy are believed to outweigh the risks of the baby being born. In the United Kingdom, cervical ripening is recommended as the first stage of induction. Increasingly, maternity services are offering this outpatient or 'at home', despite limited evidence on its acceptability and how different approaches to cervical ripening work in practice. There is also a paucity of literature on clinicians' experiences of providing induction care in general, despite their central role in developing local guidelines and delivering this care. This paper explores induction, specifically cervical ripening and the option to return home during that process, from the perspective of midwives, obstetricians and other maternity staff. As part of a process evaluation involving five case studies undertaken in British maternity services, interviews and focus groups were conducted with clinicians who provide induction of labour care. The thematic findings were generated through in-depth analysis and are grouped to reflect key points within the process of cervical ripening care: 'Implementing home cervical ripening', 'Putting local policy into practice', 'Giving information about induction' and 'Providing cervical ripening'. A range of practices and views regarding induction were recorded, showing how the integration of home cervical ripening is not always straightforward. Findings demonstrate that providing induction of labour care is complex and represents a significant workload. Home cervical ripening was seen as a solution to managing this workload; however, findings highlighted ways in which this expectation might not be borne out in practice. More comprehensive research is needed on workload impacts and possible lateral effects within other areas of maternity services.

Your Outpatient has Coronavirus Disease 2019: What Are the Treatment Options in the Current Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Variant Climate?

Mutations accumulated by novel Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Omicron sublineages contribute to evasion of previously effective monoclonal antibodies for treatment or prevention of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Other authorized or approved antiviral drugs such as nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, remdesivir, and molnupiravir are, however, predicted to maintain activity against these sublineages and are key tools to reduce severe COVID-19 outcomes in vulnerable populations. A stepwise approach may be taken to target the appropriate antiviral drug to the appropriate patient, beginning with identifying whether a patient is at high risk for hospitalization or other complications of COVID-19. Among higher risk individuals, patient profile (including factors such as age, organ function, and comedications) and antiviral drug access inform suitable antiviral drug selection. When applied in targeted fashion, these therapies serve as a complement to vital ongoing nonpharmaceutical interventions and vaccination strategies that reduce morbidity and maximize protection against COVID-19.

In outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, low-dose fluvoxamine did not reduce time to sustained recovery.

SOURCE CITATION: McCarthy MW, Naggie S, Boulware DR, et al. Effect of fluvoxamine vs placebo on time to sustained recovery in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2023;329:296-305. 36633838.

Accuracy of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection in outpatients and their household contacts during the circulation of the Omicron variant of concern.

BACKGROUND: While nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the gold standard for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) detection, several studies have shown that saliva is an alternative specimen for COVID-19 diagnosis and screening. METHODS: To analyze the utility of saliva for the diagnosis of COVID-19 during the circulation of the Omicron variant, participants were enrolled in an ongoing cohort designed to assess the natural history of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults and children. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and Cohen's kappa coefficient were calculated to assess diagnostic performance. RESULTS: Overall, 818 samples were collected from 365 outpatients from January 3 to February 2, 2022. The median age was 32.8 years (range: 3-94 years). RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 was confirmed in 97/121 symptomatic patients (80.2%) and 62/244 (25.4%) asymptomatic patients. Substantial agreement between saliva and combined nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal samples was observed with a Cohen's kappa value of 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-0.81]. Sensitivity was 77% (95% CI: 70.9-82.2), specificity 95% (95% CI: 91.9-97), PPV 89.8% (95% CI: 83.1-94.4), NPV 87.9% (95% CI: 83.6-91.5), and accuracy 88.5% (95% CI: 85.0-91.4). Sensitivity was higher among samples collected from symptomatic children aged three years and older and adolescents [84% (95% CI: 70.5-92)] with a Cohen's kappa value of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.35-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Saliva is a reliable fluid for detecting SARS-CoV-2, especially in symptomatic children and adolescents during the circulation of the Omicron variant.

The effectiveness of blended versus regular Forensic Outpatient Systemic Therapy in the treatment of juvenile antisocial behavior: a study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Antisocial behavior during adolescence can have long-lasting negative effects and leads to high societal costs. Forensic Outpatient Systemic Therapy (Forensische Ambulante Systeem Therapie; FAST) is a promising treatment for juveniles aged 12-21 showing severe antisocial behavior. The intensity, content and duration of FAST can be adjusted to the needs of the juvenile and their caregiver(s), which is considered crucial for effective treatment. Next to the regular version of FAST (FASTr), a blended version (FASTb) in which face-to-face contacts are replaced by minimally 50% online contacts over the duration of intervention was developed during the Covid-19 pandemic. The current study will investigate whether FASTb is equally effective as FASTr, and through which mechanisms of change, for whom, and under which conditions FASTr and FASTb work. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be carried out. Participants (N = 200) will be randomly assigned to FASTb (n = 100) or FASTr (n = 100). Data collection will consist of self-report questionnaires and case file analysis, and include a pre-test at the start of the intervention, a post-test immediately after the intervention, and a six month follow-up. Mechanisms of change will be investigated using monthly questionnaires of key variables during treatment. Official recidivism data will be collected at two-year follow-up. DISCUSSION: This study aims to improve the effectiveness and quality of forensic mental health care for juveniles with antisocial behavior by studying the effectiveness of blended care, which has not been studied before in treatment of externalizing behavior. If found to be at least as effective as face-to-face treatment, blended treatment can help meet the urgent need for more flexible and efficient interventions in this field. In addition, the proposed study aims to unravel what works for whom, knowledge urgently needed in mental health care for juveniles with severe antisocial behavior. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on 07/11/2022, registration number NCT05606978.

Design of effective outpatient sentinel surveillance for COVID-19 decision-making: a modeling study.

BACKGROUND: Decision-makers impose COVID-19 mitigations based on public health indicators such as reported cases, which are sensitive to fluctuations in supply and demand for diagnostic testing, and hospital admissions, which lag infections by up to two weeks. Imposing mitigations too early has unnecessary economic costs while imposing too late leads to uncontrolled epidemics with unnecessary cases and deaths. Sentinel surveillance of recently-symptomatic individuals in outpatient testing sites may overcome biases and lags in conventional indicators, but the minimal outpatient sentinel surveillance system needed for reliable trend estimation remains unknown. METHODS: We used a stochastic, compartmental transmission model to evaluate the performance of various surveillance indicators at reliably triggering an alarm in response to, but not before, a step increase in transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The surveillance indicators included hospital admissions, hospital occupancy, and sentinel cases with varying levels of sampling effort capturing 5, 10, 20, 50, or 100% of incident mild cases. We tested 3 levels of transmission increase, 3 population sizes, and conditions of either simultaneous transmission increase or lagged increase in the older population. We compared the indicators' performance at triggering alarm soon after, but not prior, to the transmission increase. RESULTS: Compared to surveillance based on hospital admissions, outpatient sentinel surveillance that captured at least 20% of incident mild cases could trigger an alarm 2 to 5 days earlier for a mild increase in transmission and 6 days earlier for a moderate or strong increase. Sentinel surveillance triggered fewer false alarms and averted more deaths per day spent in mitigation. When transmission increase in older populations lagged the increase in younger populations by 14 days, sentinel surveillance extended its lead time over hospital admissions by an additional 2 days. CONCLUSIONS: Sentinel surveillance of mild symptomatic cases can provide more timely and reliable information on changes in transmission to inform decision-makers in an epidemic like COVID-19.

Rivaroxaban for Prevention of Thrombotic Events, Hospitalization, and Death in Outpatients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) is associated with heightened risks of venous and arterial thrombosis and hospitalization due to respiratory failure. To assess whether prophylactic anticoagulation can safely reduce the frequency of venous and arterial thrombosis, hospitalization, and death in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 and at least one thrombosis risk factor, we conducted the PREVENT-HD double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial (A Study of Rivaroxaban to Reduce the Risk of Major Venous and Arterial Thrombotic Events, Hospitalization and Death in Medically Ill Outpatients With Acute, Symptomatic COVID-19] Infection). METHODS: PREVENT-HD was conducted between August 2020 and April 2022 at 14 US integrated health care delivery networks. A virtual trial design used remote informed consent and clinical monitoring and facilitated data collection through electronic health record integration with a cloud-based research platform. Nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 and at least one thrombosis risk factor were enrolled and randomly assigned to either 10 mg of oral rivaroxaban or placebo daily for 35 days. The primary efficacy outcome was time to first occurrence of a composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non-central nervous system systemic arterial embolism, hospitalization, or death through day 35. The principal safety end point was International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis critical-site or fatal bleeding. The last study visit was on day 49. RESULTS: The study was terminated prematurely because of enrollment challenges and a lower-than-expected blinded pooled event rate. A total of 1284 patients underwent randomization with complete accrual of primary events through May 2022. No patients were lost to follow-up. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 22 of 641 in the rivaroxaban group and 19 of 643 in the placebo group (3.4% versus 3.0%; hazard ratio, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.63-2.15]; P=0.63). No patient in either group experienced critical-site or fatal bleeding. One patient receiving rivaroxaban had a major bleed. CONCLUSIONS: The study was terminated prematurely after enrollment of 32% of planned accrual because of recruitment challenges and lower-than-expected event rate. Rivaroxaban prescribed for 35 days in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 at risk for thrombosis did not appear to reduce a composite end point of venous and arterial thrombotic events, hospitalization, and death. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04508023.

Research note changes in the number of outpatient visits in Japan during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the change in the number of outpatient visits in Japan since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, using data on the outpatient claims submitted by medical institutions to insurers in 2019 and 2020, from the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Check-ups. We calculated the total number of outpatient visits, and number of visits for individual diseases according to the International Classification of Diseases-10 codes on the claim form. RESULTS: The number of outpatient visits per million people decreased by 9.98% in 2020 compared to 2019. Of the diseases included in the analysis, 71 showed a decrease in the number of visits by ≥ 1%. There were significant decreases in the number of visits related to infectious diseases (influenza, acute bronchitis, and acute laryngitis, etc.), and chronic diseases (hemorrhoids, cystic kidney disease, dyspepsia, and chronic sinusitis, etc.). The observed decreased rate of outpatient visit might have been due to, a decrease in the incidence of disease, a decreased frequency of visit by patients with the disease, or both. Our analysis method using actual health insurance claim data can be applied worldwide, where researchers have access to national information on health insurance claims.

Retrospective Evaluation of COVID-19 Infection and COVID-19 Vaccines in Heart Transplant Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients who have performed solid organ transplantation in terms of COVID-19 infection are included in the high-risk group. In this study, it was aimed to evaluate the relationship between vaccination and retrospective evaluation of 32 patients who underwent a heart transplant in the clinic and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction. METHODS: In this study, demographic characteristics of the cases, comorbidities, timing of heart transplantation, immunosuppressive treatments, symptoms of COVID-19 infection, lung imaging findings, follow-up (outpatient/inpatient), treatments, 1-month mortality, and vaccination histories against COVID-19 infection were evaluated. The data obtained from the study were analyzed with SPSS version 25.0. RESULTS: The 3 most common symptoms are cough (37.5%), myalgia (28.1%), and fever (21.8%). COVID-19 infection was severe in 6.2% of the patients, moderate in 37.5%, and mild in 56.2%. Hospitalization was required in 5 patients (15.6%, 1 in the intensive care unit), and the other patients were followed up as an outpatient. Severe COVID-19 infection was seen more in 33% of unvaccinated patients; 93.5% were vaccinated. Nineteen patients (68%) were vaccinated before COVID-19 infection. Our patients received the CoronoVac (Sinovac, China) vaccine. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 infection is more likely to be severe and mortal in patients with heart transplant recipients. It is also crucial to comply with preventive measures other than immunization in this group of patients. This study is the largest series investigating COVID-19 infection in heart transplant recipient patients in our country.