Caregiving in long-term care before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic magnified pre-existing socioeconomic, operational, and structural challenges in long-term care across the world. In Canada, the long-term care sector's dependence on caregivers as a supplement to care workers became apparent once restrictive visitation policies were employed. We conducted a scoping review to better understand the associations between caregiving and resident, formal and informal caregiver health in long-term care before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, AgeLine, Google Advanced, ArXiv, PROSPERO, and OSF. Pairs of independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts followed by a review of full texts. Studies were included if they reported biological, psychological, or social health outcomes associated with caregiving (or lack thereof). RESULTS: After screening and reviewing 252 records identified by the search strategy, a total of 20 full-text records were eligible and included in this review. According to our results, research on caregiving increased during the pandemic, and researchers noted restrictive visitation policies had an adverse impact on health outcomes for residents and formal and informal caregivers. In comparison, caregiving in long-term care prior to the pandemic, and once visitation policies became less restrictive, led to mostly beneficial health outcomes. CONCLUSION: Caregiver interventions, for the most part, appear to promote better health outcomes for long-term care residents and formal and informal caregivers. Suggestions to better support caregiving in long-term care settings are offered.

Risk of ocular adverse events with aromatase inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are a class of medications used for adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. Recent case reports suggest that AIs may be associated with various ocular adverse events (AEs). This study evaluates the risk of ocular AEs in patients who take AIs. METHOD: Disproportionality analysis was performed using data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Events Reporting System database from 2004 to 2022. All cases of vitreomacular traction, macular edema, retinal deposits, retinal artery occlusion, macular hole, retinal hemorrhage, uveitis, retinal tear, retinal detachment, dry eye disease, blepharitis, and optic neuropathy were searched for the 3 AIs anastrozole, letrozole, and exemestane. A search also was performed on trastuzumab as a control. Reported odds ratios (RORs) and corresponding 95% CIs were computed. RESULTS: We identified 322 ocular AEs of interest for the 3 AIs and 55 for trastuzumab. Anastrozole had the most AEs (n = 163) and was found to have strong associations with vitreomacular traction (ROR = 665; 95% CI, 352-1255), macular edema (ROR = 37; 95% CI, 25-54), retinal deposits (ROR = 11; 95% CI, 2-77), and uveitis (ROR = 6; 95% CI, 4-9). Letrozole had strong associations with retinal deposits (ROR = 8, 95% CI, 1-57) and retinal artery occlusion (ROR = 6; 95% CI, 3-11). Exemestane had a strong association with macular holes (ROR = 10; 95% CI, 3-30). CONCLUSION: Disproportionality analysis revealed an increased risk of ocular AEs with each of the AIs. This study calls for clinicians, especially oncologists and ophthalmologists, to be vigilant in patients who are on AI therapy, allowing them to provide prompt interventions to mitigate further ocular morbidities.