Prevalence of Symptoms ≤12 Months After Acute Illness, by COVID-19 Testing Status Among Adults - United States, December 2020-March 2023.

To further the understanding of post-COVID conditions, and provide a more nuanced description of symptom progression, resolution, emergence, and reemergence after SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-like illness, analysts examined data from the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE), a prospective multicenter cohort study. This report includes analysis of data on self-reported symptoms collected from 1,296 adults with COVID-like illness who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using a Food and Drug Administration-approved polymerase chain reaction or antigen test at the time of enrollment and reported symptoms at 3-month intervals for 12 months. Prevalence of any symptom decreased substantially between baseline and the 3-month follow-up, from 98.4% to 48.2% for persons who received a positive SARS-CoV-2 test results (COVID test-positive participants) and from 88.2% to 36.6% for persons who received negative SARS-CoV-2 test results (COVID test-negative participants). Persistent symptoms decreased through 12 months; no difference between the groups was observed at 12 months (prevalence among COVID test-positive and COVID test-negative participants = 18.3% and 16.1%, respectively; p>0.05). Both groups reported symptoms that emerged or reemerged at 6, 9, and 12 months. Thus, these symptoms are not unique to COVID-19 or to post-COVID conditions. Awareness that symptoms might persist for up to 12 months, and that many symptoms might emerge or reemerge in the year after COVID-like illness, can assist health care providers in understanding the clinical signs and symptoms associated with post-COVID-like conditions.

COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Hesitancy in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Little is known about COVID-19 booster vaccine hesitancy. We sought to determine the uptake of booster vaccines, as well as the prevalence of and reasons for booster hesitancy in emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey study of adult patients at 5 safety-net hospital EDs in 4 US cities from mid-January to mid-July 2022. Participants were fluent in English or Spanish and had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine. We assessed the following parameters: (1) the prevalence of nonboosted status and reasons for not getting a booster; (2) the prevalence of booster vaccine hesitancy and reasons for hesitancy; and (3) the association of hesitancy with demographic variables. RESULTS: Of 802 participants, 373 (47%) were women, 478 (60%) were non-White, 182 (23%) lacked primary care, 110 (14%) primarily spoke Spanish, and 370 (46%) were publicly insured. Of the 771 participants who completed their primary series, 316 (41%) had not received a booster vaccine; the primary reason for nonreceipt was lack of opportunity (38%). Of the nonboosted participants, 179 (57%) expressed hesitancy, citing need for more information (25%), concerns about side effects (24%), and the belief that a booster was unnecessary after the initial series (20%). In the multivariable analysis, Asian participants were less likely to be booster hesitant than White participants (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05 to 0.93), non-English-speaking participants were more likely to be booster hesitant than English-speaking participants (aOR 2.35, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.71), and Republican participants were more likely to be booster hesitant than Democrat participants (aOR 6.07, 95% CI 4.21 to 8.75). CONCLUSION: Of almost half of this urban ED population who had not received a COVID-19 booster vaccine, more than one third stated that lack of opportunity to receive one was the primary reason. Furthermore, more than half of the nonboosted participants were booster hesitant, with many expressing concerns or a desire for more information that may be addressed with booster vaccine education.

Randomized feasibility trial of remote ischemic conditioning to enhance resuscitation (RICE).

RATIONALE: Restoration of blood flow after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is associated with inflammation that causes cellular injury. The extent of this reperfusion injury (RI) is associated with the duration of ischemia and adequacy of resuscitation. Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) consists of repeated application of non-lethal ischemia then reperfusion to a limb distal to the heart by inflating a blood pressure (BP) cuff. Trials in animal models in cardiac arrest and in humans with acute infarction show RIC reduces RI. OBJECTIVE: We sought to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of RIC in patients resuscitated from OHCA and transported to hospital. METHODS: This study was conducted under exception from informed consent (EFIC) for emergency research. Eligible subjects were randomized with masked allocation to control (standard care) versus intervention (standard care and RIC). Included were adults with non-traumatic OHCA. The primary outcome was attrition, the proportion of patients enrolled and not on allocated therapy for the study duration. Key secondary outcomes were survival to discharge, neurologic status at discharge, hospital-free survival, and adverse events. Results were summarized descriptively as recommended for pilot studies. RESULTS: N = 30 patients were enrolled (n = 14 control, n = 16 intervention). Mean age of enrolled patients was 52.5 ± 16.2 years. Eight (27%) were female gender and 7 (23%) had a shockable first recorded rhythm. 100% of enrolled patients completed their allocated study intervention (i.e., 0% attrition). The RIC group had 7 (44%) survival to discharge and median Rankin score of 6 (IQR 1, 6) at discharge as compared to the standard care group which had 6 (43%) survival to discharge and median Rankin score of 6 (IQR 1.5, 6) at discharge. A single patient (6%) in the intervention group had transient occlusion of their upper extremity intravenous line, which immediately resolved on repositioning of the blood pressure cuff. CONCLUSION: Application of RIC to patients resuscitated from CA and transported to an ED is feasible and safe. An adequately powered trial is required to assess whether RIC is effective at decreasing morbidity and mortality after CA.

Promotion of Influenza Vaccination in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccine uptake is low among underserved populations whose primary health care access occurs in emergency departments. We sought to determine whether implementation of two interventions would increase 30-day influenza vaccine uptake in unvaccinated patients in the emergency department. METHODS: This three-group, prospective, cluster-randomized controlled trial compared two interventions with a control group in noncritically ill, adult patients in the emergency department who were not vaccinated for influenza in the current vaccine season. The unit of randomization was individual calendar days. Participants received either Intervention M (an influenza vaccine messaging platform consisting of a video, one-page flyer, and scripted message, followed by a vaccine acceptance question and provider notification if participants indicated vaccine acceptance), Intervention Q (no messaging but the vaccine acceptance question and provider notification), or control (usual care/no intervention). The primary outcome was receipt of an influenza vaccine at 30 days ascertained by electronic health record review and telephone follow-up, comparing the Intervention M group with the control group. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of 30-day vaccine uptake in Intervention Q versus control and Intervention M versus Intervention Q. RESULTS: Between October 2022 and February 2023, a total of 767 trial participants were enrolled at six emergency departments in five U.S. cities. Median age was 46 years; 353 (46%) participants were female, 274 (36%) were African American, and 158 (21%) were Latinx; 126 (16%) lacked health insurance, and 244 (32%) lacked primary care. The Intervention M, Intervention Q, and control groups had 30-day vaccine uptakes of 41%, 32%, and 15%, respectively (P<0.0001 for Intervention M vs. control). Comparing Intervention M versus Intervention Q, the adjusted difference in 30-day vaccine uptake was 8.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -0.1 to 17.6 percentage points). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of influenza vaccine messaging platforms (video clips, printed materials, and verbal scripts) improved 30-day vaccine uptake among unvaccinated patients in the emergency department. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05836818.).

Effect of COVID-19 Vaccine Messaging Platforms in Emergency Departments on Vaccine Acceptance and Uptake: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Large segments of the US population's primary health care access occurs in emergency departments (EDs). These groups have disproportionately high COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and lower vaccine uptake. Objective: To determine whether provision of COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in EDs increases COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted at 7 hospital EDs in 4 US cities from December 6, 2021, to July 28, 2022. Noncritically ill adult patients who had not previously received COVID-19 vaccines were enrolled. Interventions: A 3-pronged COVID-19 vaccine messaging platform (an English- or Spanish-language 4-minute video; a 1-page informational flyer; and a brief, scripted message from an ED physician or nurse) was delivered during patient waiting times. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 2 primary outcomes were (1) COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, assessed by survey responses in the ED, and (2) receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine within 30 days, ascertained by ED confirmation of vaccination, electronic health record review, and telephone follow-up. Results: Of the 496 participants enrolled (221 during intervention weeks and 275 during control weeks), the median (IQR) age was 39 (30-54) years, 205 (41.3%) were female, 193 (38.9%) were African American, 97 (19.6%) were Latinx, and 218 (44.0%) lacked primary care physicians. More intervention group participants, compared with control participants, stated that they would accept the vaccine in the ED (57 [25.8%] vs 33 [12.0%]; adjusted difference, 11.9 [95% CI, 4.5-19.3] percentage points; number needed to treat [NNT], 8 [95% CI, 5-22]). More intervention group participants than control participants received a COVID-19 vaccine within 30 days of their ED visit (44 [20.0%] vs 24 [8.7%]; adjusted difference, 7.9 [95% CI, 1.7-14.1] percentage points; NNT, 13 [95% CI, 7-60]). The intervention group had greater outcome effect sizes than the control group in participants who lacked a primary care physician (acceptance, 38 of 101 [37.6%] vs 16 of 117 [13.7%] [P for interaction = .004]; uptake, 31 of 101 [30.7%] vs 11 of 117 [9.4%] [P for interaction = .006]), as well as in Latinx persons (acceptance, 23 of 52 [44.2%] vs 5 of 48 [10.4%] [P for interaction = .004]; uptake, 22 of 52 [42.3%] vs 4 of 48 [8.3%] [P for interaction < .001]). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cluster randomized clinical trial showed that with low NNT, implementation of COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in EDs leads to greater vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated ED patients. Broad implementation in EDs could lead to greater COVID-19 vaccine delivery to underserved populations whose primary health care access occurs in EDs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05142332.

Canadian stroke best practice recommendations: Secondary prevention of stroke, sixth edition practice guidelines, update 2017.

The 2017 update of The Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations for the Secondary Prevention of Stroke is a collection of current evidence-based recommendations intended for use by clinicians across a wide range of settings. The goal is to provide guidance for the prevention of ischemic stroke recurrence through the identification and management of modifiable vascular risk factors. Recommendations include those related to diagnostic testing, diet and lifestyle, smoking, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies, carotid artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and other cardiac conditions. Notable changes in this sixth edition include the development of core elements for delivering secondary stroke prevention services, the addition of a section on cervical artery dissection, new recommendations regarding the management of patent foramen ovale, and the removal of the recommendations on management of sleep apnea. The Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations include a range of supporting materials such as implementation resources to facilitate the adoption of evidence to practice, and related performance measures to enable monitoring of uptake and effectiveness of the recommendations. The guidelines further emphasize the need for a systems approach to stroke care, involving an interprofessional team, with access to specialists regardless of patient location, and the need to overcome geographic barriers to ensure equity in access within a universal health care system.

Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations: secondary prevention of stroke guidelines, update 2014.

Every year, approximately 62,000 people with stroke and transient ischemic attack are treated in Canadian hospitals. The 2014 update of the Canadian Secondary Prevention of Stroke guideline is a comprehensive summary of current evidence-based recommendations for clinicians in a range of settings, who provide care to patients following stroke. Notable changes in this 5th edition include an emphasis on treating the highest risk patients who present within 48 h of symptom onset with transient or persistent motor or speech symptoms, who need to be transported to the closest emergency department with capacity for advanced stroke care; a recommendation for brain and vascular imaging (of the intra- and extracranial vessels) to be completed urgently using computed tomography/computed tomography angiography; prolonged cardiac monitoring for patients with suspective cardioembolic stroke but without evidence for atrial fibrillation on electrocardiogram or holter monitoring; and de-emphasizing the need for routine echocardiogram. The Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations include a range of supporting materials such as implementation resources to facilitate the adoption of evidence to practice, and related performance measures to enable monitoring of uptake and effectiveness of the recommendations using a standardized approach. The guidelines further emphasize the need for a systems approach to stroke care, involving an interprofessional team, with access to specialists regardless of patient location, and the need to overcome geographical barriers to ensure equity in access within a universal health-care system.