This version of BIP! Finder aims to ease the exploration of COVID-19-related literature by enabling ranking articles based on various impact metrics.
Last Update: 18 - 01 - 2023 (628506 entries)
Popularity Influence Reader Attention Social Media Attention
|51||Digital Approaches to Remote Pediatric Healthcare Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Existing Evidence and a Call for Further Research |
The global spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak poses a public health threat and has affected people worldwide in various unprecedented ways, both personally and professionally. There is no question that the current global COVID-19 crisis, now more than ever, is underscoring the importance of leveraging digital approaches to optimize pediatric health care delivery in the era of this pandemic. In this perspective piece, we highlight some of the available digital approaches that have been and can continue to be used to streamline remote pediatric patient care in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, including but not limited to telemedicine. JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting is currently publishing a COVID-19 special theme issue in which investigators can share their interim and final research data related to digital approaches to remote pediatric health care delivery in different settings. The COVID-19 pandemic has rapidly transformed health care systems worldwide, with significant variations and innovations in adaptation. There has been rapid expansion of the leveraging and optimization of digital approaches to health care delivery, particularly integrated telemedicine and virtual health. Digital approaches have played and will play major roles as invaluable and reliable resources to overcome restrictions and challenges imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic and to increase access to effective, accessible, and consumer-friendly care for more patients and families. However, a number of challenges remain to be addressed, and further research is needed. Optimizing digital approaches to health care delivery and integrating them into the public health response will be an ongoing process during the current COVID-19 outbreak and during other possible future pandemics. Regulatory changes are essential to support the safe and wide adoption of these approaches. Involving all relevant stakeholders in addressing current and future challenges as well as logistical, technological, and financial barriers will be key for success. Future studies should consider evaluating the following research areas related to telemedicine and other digital approaches: cost-effectiveness and return on investment; impact on quality of care; balance in use and number of visits needed for the management of both acute illness and chronic health conditions; system readiness for further adoption in other settings, such as inpatient services, subspecialist consultations, and rural areas; ongoing user-centered evaluations, with feedback from patients, families, and health care providers; strategies to optimize health equity and address disparities in access to care related to race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, immigration status, and rural communities; privacy and security concerns for protected health information with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)–secured programs; confidentiality issues for some specific populations, especially adolescents and those in need of mental health services; early detection of exposure to violence and child neglect; and integration of training into undergraduate and graduate medical education and subspecialty fellowships. Addressing these research areas is essential to understanding the benefits, sustainability, safety, and optimization strategies of telemedicine and other digital approaches as key parts of modern health care delivery. These efforts will inform long-term adoption of these approaches with expanded dissemination and implementation efforts.
|JMIR Pediatr Parent||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|52||Isolation of a novel coronavirus from a man with pneumonia in Saudi Arabia |
|N Engl J Med||2012||CORD-19|
|53||Pharmacy Emergency Preparedness and Response (PEPR): a proposed framework for expanding pharmacy professionals' roles and contributions to emergency preparedness and response during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond |
BACKGROUND: Pharmacists have long been involved in public health and emergency preparedness and response (EP&R), including through preventive measures such as screening, vaccinations, testing and pharmaceutical countermeasures, as well as ensuring medication safety and access during natural disasters and pandemics. Pharmacy professionals are considered essential partners in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Community and hospital pharmacies are expanding services and hours to provide essential services, putting pharmacists and their co-workers at the frontlines for patient care and safety to improve public health. In addition, pharmacy professionals are increasingly integrating into global, national, state and local EP&R efforts, including into interprofessional teams, such as Medical Reserve Corps (MRCs). However, lacunae exist for further integration of pharmacists into public health and safety initiatives. There are increasing opportunities and recommendations that should be expanded upon to provide improved patient care and population health intervention, and to ensure healthcare worker and public health safety. OBJECTIVE: Develop a Pharmacy Emergency Preparedness and Response (PEPR) Framework and recommendations for pharmacy professional pathways towards full integration within public health EP&R efforts (such as the COVID-19 pandemic), and enhanced recognition of pharmacists’ skills, roles and contributions as integral members of the interprofessional healthcare team. METHODS: This paper draws on the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) 2003 Statement on the Role of Health-System Pharmacists in Emergency Preparedness and lessons learned from previous and current public health emergencies, such as the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and the current COVID-19 pandemic, to provide expanded guidance for pharmacists and pharmacy professionals across all practice settings in EP&R. The PEPR framework also incorporates information and recommendations from The Pharmacy Organizations’ Joint Policy Recommendations to Combat the COVID-19 Pandemic (March 2020), CDC-NIOSH, Health Departments and Emergency Preparedness guidance and resources, Boards of Pharmacy, and other pharmacy professional organizations and educational institutions. RESULTS: Based on the methods and resources utilized in developing this PEPR framework, five key focus areas were identified as follow: 1).. Emergency preparedness and response; 2).. Operations management; 3).. Patient care and population health interventions; 4).. Public health pharmacy education and continuing professional education; 5).. Evaluation, research and dissemination for impact and outcomes. CONCLUSION: and Recommendations: Pharmacists and pharmacy professionals have been at the frontlines in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, challenges remain, such as limited availability of personal protection equipment, high risk of infectious exposures inherent in healthcare professions, and legislative hurdles resulting in lack of provider status and related reimbursements. Recommendations to enhance pharmacy's scope as public health professionals involved in EP&R include targeted training and education on key framework areas and policymaking. Pharmacy professionals should further integrate with interdisciplinary public health teams. Additional research and dissemination on impacts and outcomes of EP&R can enhance recognition of pharmacy professionals' contribution and value during public health emergencies. The PEPR Framework can be utilized to develop, implement, evaluate, and disseminate results in order to strengthen existing efforts and to establish new initiatives in EP&R.
|Res Social Adm Pharm||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|54||Use of Rapid Online Surveys to Assess People's Perceptions During Infectious Disease Outbreaks: A Cross-sectional Survey on COVID-19 |
BACKGROUND: Given the extensive time needed to conduct a nationally representative household survey and the commonly low response rate of phone surveys, rapid online surveys may be a promising method to assess and track knowledge and perceptions among the general public during fast-moving infectious disease outbreaks. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to apply rapid online surveying to determine knowledge and perceptions of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among the general public in the United States and the United Kingdom. METHODS: An online questionnaire was administered to 3000 adults residing in the United States and 3000 adults residing in the United Kingdom who had registered with Prolific Academic to participate in online research. Prolific Academic established strata by age (18-27, 28-37, 38-47, 48-57, or ≥58 years), sex (male or female), and ethnicity (white, black or African American, Asian or Asian Indian, mixed, or “other”), as well as all permutations of these strata. The number of participants who could enroll in each of these strata was calculated to reflect the distribution in the US and UK general population. Enrollment into the survey within each stratum was on a first-come, first-served basis. Participants completed the questionnaire between February 23 and March 2, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 2986 and 2988 adults residing in the United States and the United Kingdom, respectively, completed the questionnaire. Of those, 64.4% (1924/2986) of US participants and 51.5% (1540/2988) of UK participants had a tertiary education degree, 67.5% (2015/2986) of US participants had a total household income between US $20,000 and US $99,999, and 74.4% (2223/2988) of UK participants had a total household income between £15,000 and £74,999. US and UK participants’ median estimate for the probability of a fatal disease course among those infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was 5.0% (IQR 2.0%-15.0%) and 3.0% (IQR 2.0%-10.0%), respectively. Participants generally had good knowledge of the main mode of disease transmission and common symptoms of COVID-19. However, a substantial proportion of participants had misconceptions about how to prevent an infection and the recommended care-seeking behavior. For instance, 37.8% (95% CI 36.1%-39.6%) of US participants and 29.7% (95% CI 28.1%-31.4%) of UK participants thought that wearing a common surgical mask was “highly effective” in protecting them from acquiring COVID-19, and 25.6% (95% CI 24.1%-27.2%) of US participants and 29.6% (95% CI 28.0%-31.3%) of UK participants thought it was prudent to refrain from eating at Chinese restaurants. Around half (53.8%, 95% CI 52.1%-55.6%) of US participants and 39.1% (95% CI 37.4%-40.9%) of UK participants thought that children were at an especially high risk of death when infected with SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: The distribution of participants by total household income and education followed approximately that of the US and UK general population. The findings from this online survey could guide information campaigns by public health authorities, clinicians, and the media. More broadly, rapid online surveys could be an important tool in tracking the public’s knowledge and misperceptions during rapidly moving infectious disease outbreaks.
|J Med Internet Res||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|55||Global trends in emerging infectious diseases |
Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) are a significant burden on global economies and public health(1–3). Their emergence is thought to be driven largely by socio-economic, environmental and ecological factors(1–9), but no comparative study has explicitly analysed these linkages to understand global temporal and spatial patterns of EIDs. Here we analyse a database of 335 EID ‘events’ (origins of EIDs) between 1940 and 2004, and demonstrate non-random global patterns. EID events have risen significantly over time after controlling for reporting bias, with their peak incidence (in the 1980s) concomitant with the HIV pandemic. EID events are dominated by zoonoses (60.3% of EIDs): the majority of these (71.8%) originate in wildlife (for example, severe acute respiratory virus, Ebola virus), and are increasing significantly over time. We find that 54.3% of EID events are caused by bacteria or rickettsia, reflecting a large number of drug-resistant microbes in our database. Our results confirm that EID origins are significantly correlated with socio-economic, environmental and ecological factors, and provide a basis for identifying regions where new EIDs are most likely to originate (emerging disease ‘hotspots’). They also reveal a substantial risk of wildlife zoonotic and vector-borne EIDs originating at lower latitudes where reporting effort is low. We conclude that global resources to counter disease emergence are poorly allocated, with the majority of the scientific and surveillance effort focused on countries from where the next important EID is least likely to originate.
|56||Risk Factors Associated With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Death in Patients With COVID-19 Pneumonia in Wuhan, China |
|JAMA Intern Med||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|57||Inappropriate risk perception for SARS-CoV-2 infection among Italian HCWs in the eve of COVID-19 pandemic |
Sir, Italy has been recently involved in the outbreak of severe interstitial pneumonia associated with the previously unknown Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (1,2). Even before the notification of the first autochthonous cases, the SARS-CoV-2 associated syndrome (COVID-19) had raised an intense attention in the public opinion (3), with a counterproductive over-abundance of mixed quality information. As even Italian healthcare workers (HCWs) were not spared by subsequent misunderstandings and knowledge gaps during the previous influenza pandemic of 2009 (4), we performed a web-based survey (Google® Modules), specifically aimed to characterize knowledge status and risk perceptions in a sample from participating to 6 Facebook discussion groups (181,684 total unique members at the time of the study). The questionnaire was made available between February 1st and 7th, 2020, i.e. around 2 weeks before the first COVID-19 was officially diagnosed in Italian residents. Overall, the sampled population included 2106 respondents (Table 1), and 39.3% were HCWs. Even though HCWs were more likely to exhibit a better understanding of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 related issues (aOR 2.195, 95%CI 1.809 to 2.664), they were not exempt for misunderstandings, particularly on actual incidence and lethality of COVID-19. Interestingly, most of respondents were aware of the main clinical features of COVID-19, with HCWs more frequently acknowledging that the COVID-19 may run pauci- or even asymptomatic (86.3% vs. 79.1%), resembling an Influenza-Like Illness (i.e. fever, cough, headache, etc.), with a potential latency up to 14 days (85·9% vs· 80·3%), eventually spreading by droplets (98.5% vs. 92.7%) rather through running water (92.3% vs· 79.8%), or blood/body fluids (88.0% vs. 70.4%). Retrospectively, the assessment of preventive measures and risk perception appears somewhat worrisome. For instance, while HCWs were more likely to acknowledge as an appropriate preventive measure wearing a filtering mask (i.e. N95/FFP2/3 mask; aOR 2.296, 95%CI 1.507 to 3.946), around ¼ of HCWs failed to recognize the importance of such personal protective equipment, while 7.4% felt as appropriate the wearing of a surgical mask. Moreover, not only COVID-19 was appropriately acknowledged as a severe disease by only 62.0% of respondents, with no differences between HCWs and non-HCWs, but an even smaller share (i.e. 8.0%) reported any concern for being infected by SARS-CoV-2 in Italy. In fact, at the time of the survey SARS-CoV-2 was more properly associated with international travelers (26.7%). Our results are therefore of certain interests for several reasons. First at all, early epidemiological reports on the Italian cases of COVID-19 hint towards some failures in the initial management of incident cases (5-6). In fact, in our survey a large share of respondents substantially overlooked the risk to interact with SARS-CoV-2 positive subjects, that was otherwise perceived as a not-so-severe disease (i.e. nothing more than a seasonal flu, as often described in some social media) (7). Moreover, around a 1/3 of HCWs participating to the study presumptively did not use proper personal protective equipment for the airways interacting with possible COVID-19 cases, either underestimating the infection risk or being unable to recognize early symptoms. Actually, the base of evidence shared by participants at the time of the study substantially ignored that COVID-19 may be characterized by dermatologic and gastro-intestinal symptoms (8-9). As most of infections may be actually pauci- or asymptomatic, such early exposure in the healthcare settings may have contributed to the quick spreading of SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Northern Italy. Therefore, despite the intrinsic limits of a convenience sampling, web-based survey (10), our study stresses the importance to improve the overall quality of information on COVID-19 conveyed not only in HCWs, but also in the general population. Moreover, our data may contribute to clarify the early stages of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Italy.
|Acta Biomed||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|58||Isolation and characterization of viruses related to the SARS coronavirus from animals in southern China |
|59||The psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the general population of Saudi Arabia |
BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an emerging infection causing a widely spread pandemic of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The current COVID-2019 pandemic is prompting fear of falling sick, dying, helplessness and stigma, urgent and timely understanding of mental health status is needed to help the community. Our investigation designed to survey the general population in Saudi Arabia to assess the degree of psychological impact during the pandemic. METHODS: During the early stage of the outbreak, we conducted an online-based survey using a snowballing sample technique. The surveys collected data about several aspects of participant sociodemographic, knowledge, concerns, psychological impact, and mental health status. We assessed the psychological impact and mental health status using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21). RESULTS: Our survey recruited 1160 respondents of the general public of Saudi Arabia. Of them, 23.6% reported moderate or severe psychological impact of the outbreak, 28.3%,24%, and 22.3% reported moderate to severe depressive, anxiety, and stress symptoms, respectively. Females reported IES-R (B: 5.46, 95% CI: 3.61 to 7.31) and DASS subscales B coefficient ranged from 1.65 to 2.63, along with high-school students, working in the medical field, and poor self-reported health status was significantly associated with a high level of IES-R and DASS scales (p < .05). Experiencing breathing difficulty and dizziness showed a stronger association with higher IES-R and DASS subscales than other somatic symptoms (e.g., headache and fever);(p < .001). Respondents who practiced specific preventative measures (e.g., hand washing, social distancing) demonstrated a protective effect against stress, anxiety, and depression symptoms. Social distancing appeared to be protective on stress and anxiety subscales (B: -1.49, 95% CI: −2.79 to −0.19),(B: -1.53, 95% CI: −2.50 to −0.57),respectively; and hand hygiene on depression subscale (B: -2.43, 95% CI: −4.44 to −0.42). CONCLUSION: Throughout the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in Saudi Arabia, the results showed that nearly one-fourth of the sampled general population experienced moderate to severe psychological impact. Following specific precautionary measures appeared to have a protective effect on the individual's mental health. Our findings can be used to construct psychological interventions directed toward vulnerable populations and to implement public mental health strategies in the early stages of the outbreak.
|Compr Psychiatry||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|60||An interactive web-based dashboard to track COVID-19 in real time||Lancet Infect Dis||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|61||A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (inactivated, Vero cell): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial |
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to evaluate the efficacy of an inactivated and aluminium hydroxide adsorbed SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac, China) in voluntary participants after 14 days of the second dose against RT-PCR confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 cases. The secondary objectives include evaluating the efficacy after at least one dose of the vaccine against RT-PCR confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 cases; the efficacy of two doses of the vaccine on the rates of hospitalization and death; the safety of the vaccine including adverse reactions up to one year after the 2(nd) dose of vaccination; and the immunogenicity of the vaccine and its duration up to 120 days. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled case driven clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. The study is planned to be carried out within two separate cohorts in voluntary participants aged between 18-59 years old. The first cohort includes healthcare professionals actively working in healthcare units, who are assumed to have higher risk of acquiring COVID-19, and the second cohort includes other immunocompetent subjects in the same age group, who are at a regular risk for COVID-19 disease. In Cohort 1, healthcare professionals will be randomized to receive two intramuscular doses of investigational product or the placebo in a 1:1 ratio and they will be monitored for 12 months by active surveillance of COVID-19. In Cohort 2, immunocompetent subjects will be randomized to receive vaccine or the placebo in a 2:1 ratio. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals of both genders, including medical doctors, nurses, cleaners, hospital technicians, and administrative personnel who work in any department of a healthcare unit and immunocompetent individuals of both genders are included. Pregnant (confirmed by positive beta-hCG test) and breastfeeding women as well as those intending to become pregnant within three months after vaccination are excluded. Other exclusion criteria include history of COVID-19 test positivity (PCR or immunoglobulin test results), any form of immunosuppressive therapy including corticosteroids within 6 months, history of bleeding disorders, asplenia, and administration of any form of immunoglobulins or blood products within 3 months. Exclusion criteria for the second dose include any serious adverse events related with the vaccine, anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity after vaccination, or any confirmed or suspected autoimmune or immunosuppressive disease (including HIV infection). Participants are only included after signing the voluntary informed consent form, ensuring cooperation in visits, undergoing screening for evaluation, and conforming to all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All clinical sites are located in Turkey. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The vaccine was manufactured by Sinovac Research & Development Co., Ltd. It is a preparation made from a novel coronavirus (strain CZ02) grown in the kidney cell cultures (Vero Cell) of the African green monkey and contains inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus, aluminium hydroxide, disodium hydrogen phosphate, sodium dihydrogen phosphate, and sodium chloride. A dose of 0.5 mL contains 600 SU of SARS-CoV-2 virus antigen. The placebo contains aluminium hydroxide, disodium hydrogen phosphate, sodium dihydrogen phosphate, and sodium chloride (0.5mL/dose). Scheduled visits and additional unscheduled weekly visits will be performed for the first 13 weeks and neutralizing antibody test, IgG test, T-Cell activation test, pregnancy test, and RT-PCR tests along with total antibody test will be performed. Adverse events and serious adverse events during the follow-up will be recorded on diary cards. Diary cards will collect information on the timing and severity of COVID-19 symptoms and solicited adverse events recorded by the subjects during one-year follow-up period. All serious adverse events will be managed and necessary treatment will be ensured according to the local regulations. All serious adverse events following vaccination will be reported to the ethics committee, the Ministry of Health, and the study sponsor within 24 hours of detection. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary efficacy endpoint is the incidence of symptomatic cases of COVID-19 disease confirmed by RT-PCR two weeks after the second dose of vaccination. Secondary efficacy endpoints are the incidence of hospitalization/mortality rates among one or two dose regimens, duration of immunogenicity rates up to 120 days, the seroconversion rate, the seropositivity rate, neutralizing antibody titer, and IgG levels 14 days after each dose of vaccination. The primary safety endpoint is the severity and frequency of local and systemic adverse reactions during the period of one week after vaccination. The study would be terminated if more than 15% of the subjects have grade ≥3 adverse events related to vaccination including local reactions. RANDOMISATION: Eligible subjects will be randomized at their Study Day 0 to two study groups using an Interactive Web Response System (IWRS; developed by Omega CRO, Ankara, Turkey) in both risk groups. The IWRS system customizes the randomization algorithm. After enrolment in the study, each participant will be randomly assigned to either of the two treatment arms at a ratio of 1:1 in the high-risk group and at a ratio of 2:1 in the normal risk group. Each enrolled participant will be assigned to a code and will receive the treatment labelled with the code. BLINDING (MASKING): The trial is a double-blind study to avoid introducing bias. The blinding may be broken by the investigator in the event of a medical emergency in which knowledge of the identity of the study vaccine is critical for management of the subject’s immediate treatment. The Data and Safety Monitoring Board is to be contacted in case of breaking the blinding for a study object. The blood samples will be taken from both placebo and vaccinated groups, in order not to break the blinding. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): The study is planned to be carried out with two separate cohorts. The Cohort 1 includes healthcare professionals working in healthcare units and the Cohort 2 consists of immunocompetent subjects having normal risk for COVID-19 disease. The Cohort 2 will be initiated after the evaluation of the interim safety report of the Cohort 1 by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board. Both cohorts will be followed-up via RT-PCR to confirm symptomatic COVID-19 cases. If the clinical efficacy of the vaccine is shown in the Cohort 1 or 2, the subjects randomized into the placebo arm will also be vaccinated. In the Cohort 1, 588 subjects should be included in both arms with the assumption that the risk of infection with COVID-19 will be 5% for the placebo arm and 2% for the vaccine arm in the high-risk group. Considering 10% of drop-out rate and 5% of seropositivity or PCR positivity at baseline, 680 subjects should be screened at both arms of the Cohort 1. Group sample sizes of 7545 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and 3773 placebo suits at a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in population proportions with a width equal to 1.0%, when the estimated incidence rate for vaccinated group is 1.0% and the estimated incidence rate for placebo group is 2.0%. Drop-out rate is assumed to be 10% and seropositivity or PCR positivity at baseline is assumed to be 5%; accordingly, 13000 participants are needed to be enrolled totally in both cohorts. The remaining 11640 subjects will be screened in the Cohort 2 and eligible subjects will be randomized at a ratio of 2:1. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version 6.0 – 15 October 2020. Recruitment started on 15.09.2020 and is expected to end on February 2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04582344. Registered 8 October 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol of the trial is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05180-1.
|Trials||2021||LitCov and CORD-19|
|62||Controlled, double-blind, randomized trial to assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine chemoprophylaxis in SARS CoV2 infection in healthcare personnel in the hospital setting: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial |
BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 infection presents a high transmission in the group of health professionals in Spain (12-15% infected). Currently there is no accepted chemoprophylaxis but hydroxychloroquine (HDQ) is known to inhibit the coronavirus in vitro. Our hypothesis is that oral administration of hydroxychloroquine to healthcare professionals can reduce the incidence and prevalence of infection as well as its severity in this group. METHODS: Design: Prospective, single center, double blind, randomised, controlled trial (RCT). Participants: Adult health-care professionals (18-65 years) working in areas of high exposure and high risk of transmission of SARS-COV-2 (COVID areas, Intensive Care Unit –ICUs-, Emergency, Anesthesia and all those performing aerosol-generating procedures) will be included. Exclusion criteria include previous infection with SARS CoV2 (positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR or IgG serology), pregnancy or lactation, any contraindication to hydroxychloroquine or evidence of unstable or clinically significant systemic disease. INTERVENTIONS: Patients will be randomized (1:1) to receive once-daily oral Hydroxychloroquine 200mg for two months (HC group) or placebo (P group) in addition to the protective measures appropriate to the level of exposure established by the hospital. A serological evaluation will be carried out every 15 days with PCR in case of seroconversion, symptoms or risk exposure. Primary outcome is the percentage of subjects presenting infection (seroconversion and/or PCR +ve) by the SARS-Cov-2 virus during the observation period. Additionally, both the percentage of subjects in each group presenting Pneumonia with severity criteria (Curb 65 ≥2) and that of subjects requiring admission to ICU will be determined. DISCUSSION: While awaiting a vaccine, hygiene measures, social distancing and personal protective equipment are the only primary prophylaxis measures against SARS-CoV-2, but they have not been sufficient to protect our healthcare professionals. Some evidence of the in vitro efficacy of hydroxychloroquine against this virus is known, along with some clinical data that would support the study of this drug in the chemoprophylaxis of infection. However, there are still no data from controlled clinical trials in this regard. If our hypothesis is confirmed, hydroxychloroquine can help professionals fight this infection with more guarantees. PARTICIPANTS: This is a single-center study that will be carried out at the Marqués de Valdecilla University Hospital. 450 health professionals working at the Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla in areas of high exposure and high risk of transmission of SARS COV2 (COVID hospital areas, Intensive Care Unit, Emergency, Anesthesia and all those performing aerosol-generating procedures) will be included. Inclusion criteria: 1) Health professionals aged between 18 and 65 years (inclusive) at the time of the first screening visit; 2) They must provide signed written informed consent and agree to comply with the study protocol; 3) Active work in high exposure areas during the last two weeks and during the following weeks. Exclusion criteria: 1) Previous infection with SARS CoV2 (positive coronavirus PCR or positive serology with SARS Cov2 negative PCR and absence of symptoms); 2) Current treatment with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine; 3) Hypersensitivity, allergy or any contraindication for taking hydroxychloroquine, in the technical sheet; 4) Previous or current treatment with tamoxifen or raloxifene; 5) Previous eye disease, especially maculopathy; 6) Known heart failure (Grade III to IV of the New York Heart Association classification) or prolonged QTc; 7) Any type of cancer (except basal cell) in the last 5 years; 6) Refusal to give informed consent; 8) Evidence of any other unstable or clinically significant untreated immune, endocrine, hematological, gastrointestinal, neurological, neoplastic or psychiatric illness; 9) Antibodies positive for the human immunodeficiency virus; 10) Significant kidney or liver disease; 11) Pregnancy or lactation. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: 1. Intervention: (n = 225): One 200 mg hydroxychloroquine sulfate coated tablet once daily for two months. 2. Comparator (control group) (n = 225): One hydroxychloroquine placebo tablet (identical to that of the drug) once daily for two months. MAIN OUTCOMES: number and percentage of healthcare personnel presenting symptomatic and asymptomatic infection (see “Diagnosis of SARS CoV2 infection” below) by the SARS-Cov2 virus during the study observation period (8 weeks) in both treatment arms; number and percentage of healthcare personnel in each group presenting with Pneumonia with severity criteria (Curb 65 ≥2) and number and percentage of healthcare personnel requiring admission to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in both treatment arms. DIAGNOSIS OF SARS COV2 INFECTION: Determination of IgA, IgM and IgG type antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 using the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA kit (EUROIMMUN Medizinische Labordiagnostika AG, Germany) every two weeks. In cases of seroconversion, a SARS-CoV-2 PCR will be performed to rule out / confirm an active infection (RT-PCR in One Step: RT performed with mastermix (Takara) and IDT probes, following protocol published and validated by the CDC Evaluation of COVID-19 in case of SARS-CoV-2 infection RANDOMISATION: Participants will be allocated to intervention and comparator groups according to a balanced randomization scheme (1: 1). The assignment will be made through a computer-generated numeric sequence for all participants BLINDING (MASKING): Both participants and investigators responsible for recruiting and monitoring participants will be blind to the assigned arm. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): Taking into account the current high prevalence of infection in healthcare personnel in Spain (up to 15%), to detect a difference equal to or greater than 8% in the percentage estimates through a two-tailed 95% CI, with a statistical power of 80% and a dropout rate of 5%, a total of 450 participants will need to be included (250 in each arm). TRIAL STATUS: The protocol approved by the health authorities in Spain (Spanish Agency for Medicines and Health Products “AEMPS”) and the Ethics and Research Committee of Cantabria (CEIm Cantabria) corresponds to version 1.1 of April 2, 2020. Currently, recruitment has not yet started, with the start scheduled for the second week of May 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Eudra CT number: 2020-001704-42 (Registered on 29 March 2020) FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).
|Trials||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|63||Pathological findings of COVID-19 associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome||Lancet Respir Med||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|64||COVID-19: a conundrum to decipher |
|Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|65||THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON SCHIZOPHRENIA PATIENTS |
|Turk Psikiyatri Derg||2021||LitCov and CORD-19|
|66||Temporal profiles of viral load in posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples and serum antibody responses during infection by SARS-CoV-2: an observational cohort study |
Summary Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes severe community and nosocomial outbreaks. Comprehensive data for serial respiratory viral load and serum antibody responses from patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are not yet available. Nasopharyngeal and throat swabs are usually obtained for serial viral load monitoring of respiratory infections but gathering these specimens can cause discomfort for patients and put health-care workers at risk. We aimed to ascertain the serial respiratory viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in posterior oropharyngeal (deep throat) saliva samples from patients with COVID-19, and serum antibody responses. Methods We did a cohort study at two hospitals in Hong Kong. We included patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. We obtained samples of blood, urine, posterior oropharyngeal saliva, and rectal swabs. Serial viral load was ascertained by reverse transcriptase quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). Antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 internal nucleoprotein (NP) and surface spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) were measured using EIA. Whole-genome sequencing was done to identify possible mutations arising during infection. Findings Between Jan 22, 2020, and Feb 12, 2020, 30 patients were screened for inclusion, of whom 23 were included (median age 62 years [range 37–75]). The median viral load in posterior oropharyngeal saliva or other respiratory specimens at presentation was 5·2 log10 copies per mL (IQR 4·1–7·0). Salivary viral load was highest during the first week after symptom onset and subsequently declined with time (slope −0·15, 95% CI −0·19 to −0·11; R 2=0·71). In one patient, viral RNA was detected 25 days after symptom onset. Older age was correlated with higher viral load (Spearman's ρ=0·48, 95% CI 0·074–0·75; p=0·020). For 16 patients with serum samples available 14 days or longer after symptom onset, rates of seropositivity were 94% for anti-NP IgG (n=15), 88% for anti-NP IgM (n=14), 100% for anti-RBD IgG (n=16), and 94% for anti-RBD IgM (n=15). Anti-SARS-CoV-2-NP or anti-SARS-CoV-2-RBD IgG levels correlated with virus neutralisation titre (R 2>0·9). No genome mutations were detected on serial samples. Interpretation Posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples are a non-invasive specimen more acceptable to patients and health-care workers. Unlike severe acute respiratory syndrome, patients with COVID-19 had the highest viral load near presentation, which could account for the fast-spreading nature of this epidemic. This finding emphasises the importance of stringent infection control and early use of potent antiviral agents, alone or in combination, for high-risk individuals. Serological assay can complement RT-qPCR for diagnosis. Funding Richard and Carol Yu, May Tam Mak Mei Yin, The Shaw Foundation Hong Kong, Michael Tong, Marina Lee, Government Consultancy Service, and Sanming Project of Medicine.
|Lancet Infect Dis||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|67||Perceptions of medical students towards online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national cross-sectional survey of 2721 UK medical students |
OBJECTIVES: To investigate perceptions of medical students on the role of online teaching in facilitating medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, online national survey. SETTING: Responses collected online from 4(th) May 2020 to 11(th) May 2020 across 40 UK medical schools. PARTICIPANTS: Medical students across all years from UK-registered medical schools. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The uses, experiences, perceived benefits and barriers of online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: 2721 medical students across 39 medical schools responded. Medical schools adapted to the pandemic in different ways. The changes included the development of new distance-learning platforms on which content was released, remote delivery of lectures using platforms and the use of question banks and other online active recall resources. A significant difference was found between time spent on online platforms before and during COVID-19, with 7.35% students before versus 23.56% students during the pandemic spending >15 hours per week (p<0.05). The greatest perceived benefits of online teaching platforms included their flexibility. Whereas the commonly perceived barriers to using online teaching platforms included family distraction (26.76%) and poor internet connection (21.53%). CONCLUSIONS: Online teaching has enabled the continuation of medical education during these unprecedented times. Moving forward from this pandemic, in order to maximise the benefits of both face-to-face and online teaching and to improve the efficacy of medical education in the future, we suggest medical schools resort to teaching formats such as team-based/problem-based learning. This uses online teaching platforms allowing students to digest information in their own time but also allows students to then constructively discuss this material with peers. It has also been shown to be effective in terms of achieving learning outcomes. Beyond COVID-19, we anticipate further incorporation of online teaching methods within traditional medical education. This may accompany the observed shift in medical practice towards virtual consultations.
|BMJ Open||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|68||Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical education: Medical students' knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding electronic learning |
The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused an unprecedented disruption in medical education and healthcare systems worldwide. The disease can cause life-threatening conditions and it presents challenges for medical education, as instructors must deliver lectures safely, while ensuring the integrity and continuity of the medical education process. It is therefore important to assess the usability of online learning methods, and to determine their feasibility and adequacy for medical students. We aimed to provide an overview of the situation experienced by medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to determine the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of medical students regarding electronic medical education. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with medical students from more than 13 medical schools in Libya. A paper-based and online survey was conducted using email and social media. The survey requested demographic and socioeconomic information, as well as information related to medical online learning and electronic devices; medical education status during the COVID-19 pandemic; mental health assessments; and e-learning knowledge, attitudes, and practices. A total of 3,348 valid questionnaires were retrieved. Most respondents (64.7%) disagreed that e-learning could be implemented easily in Libya. While 54.1% of the respondents agreed that interactive discussion is achievable by means of e-learning. However, only 21.1% agreed that e-learning could be used for clinical aspects, as compared with 54.8% who disagreed with this statement and 24% who were neutral. Only 27.7% of the respondents had participated in online medical educational programs during the COVID-19 pandemic, while 65% reported using the internet for participating in study groups and discussions. There is no vaccine for COVID-19 yet. As such, the pandemic will undeniably continue to disrupt medical education and training. As we face the prospect of a second wave of virus transmission, we must take certain measures and make changes to minimize the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak on medical education and on the progression of training. The time for change is now, and there should be support and enthusiasm for providing valid solutions to reduce this disruption, such as online training and virtual clinical experience. These measures could then be followed by hands-on experience that is provided in a safe environment.
|PLoS One||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|69||Identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Canada |
|N Engl J Med||2003||CORD-19|
|70||Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation |
The outbreak of a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) represents a pandemic threat that has been declared a public health emergency of international concern. The CoV spike (S) glycoprotein is a key target for vaccines, therapeutic antibodies, and diagnostics. To facilitate medical countermeasure development, we determined a 3.5-angstrom-resolution cryo–electron microscopy structure of the 2019-nCoV S trimer in the prefusion conformation. The predominant state of the trimer has one of the three receptor-binding domains (RBDs) rotated up in a receptor-accessible conformation. We also provide biophysical and structural evidence that the 2019-nCoV S protein binds angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) with higher affinity than does severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV S. Additionally, we tested several published SARS-CoV RBD-specific monoclonal antibodies and found that they do not have appreciable binding to 2019-nCoV S, suggesting that antibody cross-reactivity may be limited between the two RBDs. The structure of 2019-nCoV S should enable the rapid development and evaluation of medical countermeasures to address the ongoing public health crisis.
|Science||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|71||Towards the development of a vibrant, super-aged society: The future of medicine and society in Japan |
|Geriatr Gerontol Int||2021||CORD-19|
|72||Mental Health Burden in Different Professions During the Final Stage of the COVID-19 Lockdown in China: Cross-sectional Survey Study |
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 resulted in considerable mental health burden in the Chinese general population and among health care workers at the beginning and peak of the pandemic. However, little is known about potentially vulnerable groups during the final stage of the lockdown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this survey study was to assess the mental health burden of different professions in China in order to find vulnerable groups, possible influencing factors, and successful ways of coping during the last 4 weeks of the lockdown in Hubei Province. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey asked participants about current residence, daily working hours, exposure to COVID-19 at work, and media preferences. We used a shortened version of the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) to assess mental health. Further assessments included perceived stress (Simplified Chinese version of the 14-item Perceived Stress Scale), coping strategies for all participants, and specific stressors for health care workers. We followed the reporting guidelines of the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement for observational studies. RESULTS: The sample (N=687) consisted of 158 doctors, 221 nurses, 24 other medical staff, 43 students, 60 teachers/government staff, 135 economy staff, 26 workers/farmers, and 20 professions designated under the “other” category. We found increased depression (n=123, 17.9%), anxiety (n=208, 30.3%), and stress (n=94, 13.7%) in our sample. Professions that were vulnerable to depression were other medical staff and students. Doctors, nurses, and students were vulnerable to anxiety; and other medical staff, students, and economy staff were vulnerable to stress. Coping strategies were reduced to three factors: active, mental, and emotional. Being female and emotional coping were independently associated with depression, anxiety, or stress. Applying active coping strategies showed lower odds for anxiety while mental coping strategies showed lower odds for depression, anxiety, and stress. Age, being inside a lockdown area, exposure to COVID-19 at work, and having a high workload (8-12 hours per day) were not associated with depression, anxiety, or stress. WeChat was the preferred way of staying informed across all groups. CONCLUSIONS: By the end of the lockdown, a considerable part of the Chinese population showed increased levels of depression and anxiety. Students and other medical staff were the most affected, while economy staff were highly stressed. Doctors and nurses need support regarding potential anxiety disorders. Future work should focus on longitudinal results of the pandemic and develop targeted preventive measures.
|J Med Internet Res||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|73||Cohort of Four Thousand Four Hundred Four Persons Under Investigation for COVID-19 in a New York Hospital and Predictors of ICU Care and Ventilation |
ABSTRACT Study objective Most COVID-19 reports have focused on SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. However, at the time of initial presentation, most patients’ viral status is unknown. Determination of factors that predict initial and subsequent need for intensive care (ICU) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are critical for resource planning and allocation. We describe our experience with 4,404 persons under investigation (PUI) and explore predictors of ICU care and IMV at a NY COVID-19 epicenter. Methods We conducted a retrospective COHORT of all persons under investigation (PUI) presenting to a large academic medical center emergency department (ED) in NYS with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19. The association between patient predictor variables and SARS-CoV-2 status, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and mortality were explored with univariate and multivariate analyses. Results Between March 12-April 14, 2020 we saw 4,404 PUI patients of whom 68% were discharged home, 29% were admitted to a regular floor and 3% to an ICU. 1,651 of 3,369 patients tested were SARS-CoV-2 positive to date. Of regular floor admits, 13% were subsequently upgraded to the ICU after a median (IQR) of 62 (28-106) hrs. 50 patients required IMV in the ED, 4 required prehospital IMV, and another 167 subsequently required IMV in a median (IQR) of 60 (26-99) hours after admission. Testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and lower oxygen saturations were associated with need for ICU, IMV and death. High respiratory rates were associated with the need for ICU care. Conclusions PUI for COVID-19 contribute significantly to the healthcare burden beyond those ruling in for SARS-CoV-2. For every 100 admitted PUI, 9 will require ICU and/or IMV upon arrival and another 12 within 2-3 days of hospital admission, especially PUIs with lower oxygen saturations and positive SARS-CoV-2 swabs. This information should help hospitals stay ahead of the pandemic curve.
|Ann Emerg Med||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|74||Transmission dynamics and control of severe acute respiratory syndrome |
|75||Clinical features and short-term outcomes of 144 patients with SARS in the greater Toronto area |
|76||Psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations associated with severe coronavirus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis with comparison to the COVID-19 pandemic |
BACKGROUND: Before the COVID-19 pandemic, coronaviruses caused two noteworthy outbreaks: severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), starting in 2002, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), starting in 2012. We aimed to assess the psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases (from their inception until March 18, 2020), and medRxiv, bioRxiv, and PsyArXiv (between Jan 1, 2020, and April 10, 2020) were searched by two independent researchers for all English-language studies or preprints reporting data on the psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations of individuals with suspected or laboratory-confirmed coronavirus infection (SARS coronavirus, MERS coronavirus, or SARS coronavirus 2). We excluded studies limited to neurological complications without specified neuropsychiatric presentations and those investigating the indirect effects of coronavirus infections on the mental health of people who are not infected, such as those mediated through physical distancing measures such as self-isolation or quarantine. Outcomes were psychiatric signs or symptoms; symptom severity; diagnoses based on ICD-10, DSM-IV, or the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (third edition) or psychometric scales; quality of life; and employment. Both the systematic review and the meta-analysis stratified outcomes across illness stages (acute vs post-illness) for SARS and MERS. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analysis, and the meta-analytical effect size was prevalence for relevant outcomes, I(2) statistics, and assessment of study quality. FINDINGS: 1963 studies and 87 preprints were identified by the systematic search, of which 65 peer-reviewed studies and seven preprints met inclusion criteria. The number of coronavirus cases of the included studies was 3559, ranging from 1 to 997, and the mean age of participants in studies ranged from 12·2 years (SD 4·1) to 68·0 years (single case report). Studies were from China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Canada, Saudi Arabia, France, Japan, Singapore, the UK, and the USA. Follow-up time for the post-illness studies varied between 60 days and 12 years. The systematic review revealed that during the acute illness, common symptoms among patients admitted to hospital for SARS or MERS included confusion (36 [27·9%; 95% CI 20·5–36·0] of 129 patients), depressed mood (42 [32·6%; 24·7–40·9] of 129), anxiety (46 [35·7%; 27·6–44·2] of 129), impaired memory (44 [34·1%; 26·2–42·5] of 129), and insomnia (54 [41·9%; 22·5–50·5] of 129). Steroid-induced mania and psychosis were reported in 13 (0·7%) of 1744 patients with SARS in the acute stage in one study. In the post-illness stage, depressed mood (35 [10·5%; 95% CI 7·5–14·1] of 332 patients), insomnia (34 [12·1%; 8·6–16·3] of 280), anxiety (21 [12·3%; 7·7–17·7] of 171), irritability (28 [12·8%; 8·7–17·6] of 218), memory impairment (44 [18·9%; 14·1–24·2] of 233), fatigue (61 [19·3%; 15·1–23·9] of 316), and in one study traumatic memories (55 [30·4%; 23·9–37·3] of 181) and sleep disorder (14 [100·0%; 88·0–100·0] of 14) were frequently reported. The meta-analysis indicated that in the post-illness stage the point prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder was 32·2% (95% CI 23·7–42·0; 121 of 402 cases from four studies), that of depression was 14·9% (12·1–18·2; 77 of 517 cases from five studies), and that of anxiety disorders was 14·8% (11·1–19·4; 42 of 284 cases from three studies). 446 (76·9%; 95% CI 68·1–84·6) of 580 patients from six studies had returned to work at a mean follow-up time of 35·3 months (SD 40·1). When data for patients with COVID-19 were examined (including preprint data), there was evidence for delirium (confusion in 26 [65%] of 40 intensive care unit patients and agitation in 40 [69%] of 58 intensive care unit patients in one study, and altered consciousness in 17 [21%] of 82 patients who subsequently died in another study). At discharge, 15 (33%) of 45 patients with COVID-19 who were assessed had a dysexecutive syndrome in one study. At the time of writing, there were two reports of hypoxic encephalopathy and one report of encephalitis. 68 (94%) of the 72 studies were of either low or medium quality. INTERPRETATION: If infection with SARS-CoV-2 follows a similar course to that with SARS-CoV or MERS-CoV, most patients should recover without experiencing mental illness. SARS-CoV-2 might cause delirium in a significant proportion of patients in the acute stage. Clinicians should be aware of the possibility of depression, anxiety, fatigue, post-traumatic stress disorder, and rarer neuropsychiatric syndromes in the longer term. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and University College London.
|Lancet Psychiatry||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|77||Neurologic Manifestations of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 in Wuhan, China |
|JAMA Neurol||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|78||Interventions to support the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic: a mixed methods systematic review |
|Cochrane Database Syst Rev||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|79||Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 |
|Cochrane Database Syst Rev||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|80||New York Inner City Hospital COVID-19 Experience and Current Data: Retrospective Analysis at the Epicenter of the American Coronavirus Outbreak |
BACKGROUND: In the midst of the coronavirus disease pandemic, emerging clinical data across the world has equipped frontline health care workers, policy makers, and researchers to better understand and combat the illness. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to report the correlation of clinical and laboratory parameters with patients requiring mechanical ventilation and the mortality in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: We did a review of patients with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed infection admitted and managed by our institution during the last month. Patients were grouped into intubated and nonintubated, and subgrouped to alive and deceased. A comprehensive analysis using the following parameters were performed: age, sex, ethnicity, BMI, comorbidities, inflammatory markers, laboratory values, cardiac and renal function, electrocardiogram (EKG), chest x-ray findings, temperature, treatment groups, and hospital-acquired patients with SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: A total of 184 patients were included in our study with ages ranging from 28-97 years (mean 64.72 years) and including 73 females (39.67%) and 111 males (60.33%) with a mean BMI of 29.10. We had 114 African Americans (61.96%), 58 Hispanics (31.52%), 11 Asians (5.98%), and 1 Caucasian (0.54%), with a mean of 1.70 comorbidities. Overall, the mortality rate was 17.39% (n=32), 16.30% (n=30) of our patients required mechanical ventilation, and 11.41% (n=21) had hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection. Pertinent and statistically significant results were found in the intubated versus nonintubated patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 for the following parameters: age (P=.01), BMI (P=.07), African American ethnicity (P<.001), Hispanic ethnicity (P=.02), diabetes mellitus (P=.001), creatinine (P=.29), blood urea nitrogen (BUN; P=.001), procalcitonin (P=.03), C-reactive protein (CRP; P=.007), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; P=.001), glucose (P=.01), temperature (P=.004), bilateral pulmonary infiltrates in chest x-rays (P<.001), and bilateral patchy opacity (P=.02). The results between the living and deceased subgroups of patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (linking to or against mortality) were BMI (P=.04), length of stay (P<.001), hypertension (P=.02), multiple comorbidity (P=.045), BUN (P=.04), and EKG findings with arrhythmias or blocks (P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: We arrived at the following conclusions based on a comprehensive review of our study group, data collection, and statistical analysis. Parameters that were strongly correlated with the need for mechanical ventilation were younger age group, overweight, Hispanic ethnicity, higher core body temperature, EKG findings with sinus tachycardia, and bilateral diffuse pulmonary infiltrates on the chest x-rays. Those intubated exhibited increased disease severity with significantly elevated levels of serum procalcitonin, CRP, LDH, mean glucose, creatinine, and BUN. Mortality was strongly correlated with BMI, African American ethnicity, hypertension, presence of multiple comorbidities (with a mean of 2.32), worsening renal function with acute kidney injury or acute chronic kidney injury, and EKG findings of arrhythmias and heart blocks.
|J Med Internet Res||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|81||Mitigating the Psychological Impact of COVID-19 on Healthcare Workers: A Digital Learning Package |
The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) will undoubtedly have psychological impacts for healthcare workers, which could be sustained; frontline workers will be particularly at risk. Actions are needed to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19 on mental health by protecting and promoting the psychological wellbeing of healthcare workers during and after the outbreak. We developed and evaluated a digital learning package using Agile methodology within the first three weeks of UK outbreak. This e-package includes evidence-based guidance, support and signposting relating to psychological wellbeing for all UK healthcare employees. A three-step rapid development process included public involvement activities (PPIs) (STEP 1), content and technical development with iterative peer review (STEP 2), and delivery and evaluation (STEP 3). The package outlines the actions that team leaders can take to provide psychologically safe spaces for staff, together with guidance on communication and reducing social stigma, peer and family support, signposting others through psychological first aid (PFA), self-care strategies (e.g., rest, work breaks, sleep, shift work, fatigue, healthy lifestyle behaviours), and managing emotions (e.g., moral injury, coping, guilt, grief, fear, anxiety, depression, preventing burnout and psychological trauma). The e-package includes advice from experts in mental wellbeing as well as those with direct pandemic experiences from the frontline, as well as signposting to public mental health guidance. Rapid delivery in STEP 3 was achieved via direct emails through professional networks and social media. Evaluation included assessment of fidelity and implementation qualities. Essential content was identified through PPIs (n = 97) and peer review (n = 10) in STEPS 1 and 2. The most important messages to convey were deemed to be normalisation of psychological responses during a crisis, and encouragement of self-care and help-seeking behaviour. Within 7 days of completion, the package had been accessed 17,633 times, and healthcare providers had confirmed immediate adoption within their health and wellbeing provisions. Evaluation (STEP 3, n = 55) indicated high user satisfaction with content, usability and utility. Assessment of implementation qualities indicated that the package was perceived to be usable, practical, low cost and low burden. Our digital support package on ‘psychological wellbeing for healthcare workers’ is free to use, has been positively evaluated and was highly accessed within one week of release. It is available here: Supplementary Materials. This package was deemed to be appropriate, meaningful and useful for the needs of UK healthcare workers. We recommend provision of this e-package to healthcare workers alongside wider strategies to support their psychological wellbeing during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
|Int J Environ Res Public Healt||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|82||Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine |
BACKGROUND: Vaccines are needed to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and to protect persons who are at high risk for complications. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle–encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19. METHODS: This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001). Efficacy was similar across key secondary analyses, including assessment 14 days after the first dose, analyses that included participants who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and analyses in participants 65 years of age or older. Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. Moderate, transient reactogenicity after vaccination occurred more frequently in the mRNA-1273 group. Serious adverse events were rare, and the incidence was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease. Aside from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.)
|N Engl J Med||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|83||Clinical characteristics of 140 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, China |
|Allergy||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|84||Clinical characteristics of 116 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study |
BACKGROUND: A cluster of acute respiratory illness, now known as Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), has become a global pandemic. Aged population with cardiovascular diseases are more likely be to infected with SARS-CoV-2 and result in more severe outcomes and elevated case-fatality rate. Meanwhile, cardiovascular diseases have a high prevalence in the middle-aged and elderly population. However, despite of several researches in COVID-19, cardiovascular implications related to it still remains largely unclear. Therefore, a specific analysis in regard to cardiovascular implications of COVID-19 patients is in great need. METHODS: In this single-centered, retrospective, observational study, 116 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled, who admitted to the General Hospital of Central Theater Command (Wuhan, China) from January 20 to March 8, 2020. The demographic data, underlying comorbidities, clinical symptoms and signs, laboratory findings, chest computed tomography, treatment measures, and outcome data were collected from electronic medical records. Data were compared between non-severe and severe cases. RESULTS: Of 116 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the median age was 58.5 years (IQR, 47.0–69.0), and 36 (31.0%) were female. Hypertension (45 [38.8%]), diabetes (19 [16.4%]), and coronary heart disease (17 [14.7%]) were the most common coexisting conditions. Common symptoms included fever [99 (85.3%)], dry cough (61 [52.6%]), fatigue (60 [51.7%]), dyspnea (52 [44.8%]), anorexia (50 [43.1%]), and chest discomfort (50 [43.1%]). Local and/or bilateral patchy shadowing were the typical radiological findings on chest computed tomography. Lymphopenia (lymphocyte count, 1.0 × 10(9)/L [IQR, 0.7–1.3]) was observed in 66 patients (56.9%), and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (245.5 U/L [IQR, 194.3–319.8]) in 69 patients (59.5%). Hypokalemia occurred in 24 (20.7%) patients. Compared with non-severe cases, severe cases were older (64.0 years [IQR, 53.0–76.0] vs 56.0 years [IQR, 37.0–64.0]), more likely to have comorbidities (35 [63.6%] vs 24 [39.3%]), and more likely to develop acute cardiac injury (19 [34.5%] vs 4 [6.6%]), acute heart failure (18 [32.7%] vs 3 [4.9%]), and ARDS (20 [36.4%] vs 0 [0%]). During hospitalization, the prevalence of new onset hypertension was significantly higher in severe patients (55.2% vs 19.0%) than in non-severe ones. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-centered, retrospective, observational study, we found that the infection of SARS-CoV-2 was more likely to occur in middle and aged population with cardiovascular comorbidities. Cardiovascular complications, including new onset hypertension and heart injury were common in severe patients with COVID-19. More detailed researches in cardiovascular involvement in COVID-19 are urgently needed to further understand the disease.
|BMC Infect Dis||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|85||A novel coronavirus outbreak of global health concern||Lancet||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|86||COVID-19 vaccines: comparison of biological, pharmacological characteristics and adverse effects of Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines |
|Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci||2021||LitCov and CORD-19|
|87||Endothelial cell infection and endotheliitis in COVID-19||Lancet||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|88||The impact of the coronavirus pandemic on elective pediatric otolaryngology outpatient services-An analysis of virtual outpatient clinics in a tertiary referral center using the modified pediatric otolaryngology telemedicine satisfaction survey (POTSS) |
INTRODUCTION: Virtual outpatient clinics (VOPC) have been integrated into both paediatric and based adult outpatient services due to a multitude of factors, including increased demand for services, technological advances and rising morbidity secondary to ageing populations. The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has accentuated pressures on the National Health Service (NHS) infrastructure, particularly elective services, whilst radically altering patterns of practice. AIM: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on paediatric otolaryngology outpatient services whilst collating patient feedback to elicit long-term sustainability post COVID-19. METHOD: A retrospective analysis of VOPCs was undertaken at a tertiary paediatric referral centre over a 3-month capture period during the COVID-19 pandemic. Demographic, generic clinic (presenting complaint, new vs. follow-up, consultation type), as well as outcome data (medical or surgical intervention, discharge vs. ongoing review, onward referral, investigations, and conversion to face-to-face) was collated. Additionally a modified 15-point patient satisfaction survey was created. The Paediatric Otolaryngology Telemedicine Satisfaction survey (POTSS), was an adaptation of 4 validated patient satisfaction tools including the General Medical Council (GMC) patient questionnaire, the telehealth satisfaction scale (TESS), the telehealth usability questionnaire (TUQ), and the telemedicine satisfaction and usefulness questionnaire (TSUQ). RESULTS: Of 514 patients reviewed virtually over a 3-month period, 225 (45%) were randomly selected to participate, of which 200 met our inclusion criteria. The most common mode of consultation was telephony (92.5%, n=185). Non-attendance rates were reduced when compared to face-to-face clinics during an equivalent period prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. A significant proportion of patients (29% compared to 26% pre-VOPC) were discharged to primary care. Nine percent were listed for surgery compared to 19% pre-VOPC. A subsequent face-to-face appointment was required in 10% of participants. Overall, the satisfaction when assessing the doctor-patient relationship, privacy & trust, as well as consultation domains was high, with the overwhelming majority of parents’ content with the future integration and participation in VOPCs. CONCLUSION: An evolving worldwide pandemic has accelerated the need for healthcare services to reform in order to maintain a steady flow of patients within an elective outpatient setting without compromising patient care. Solutions must be sustainable long-term to account for future disruptions, whilst accounting for evolving patient demographics. Our novel survey has demonstrated the vast potential that the integration of VOPCs can offer paediatric otolaryngology services within a carefully selected cohort of patients.
|Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|89||First Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus in the United States |
An outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) that began in Wuhan, China, has spread rapidly, with cases now confirmed in multiple countries. We report the first case of 2019-nCoV infection confirmed in the United States and describe the identification, diagnosis, clinical course, and management of the case, including the patient’s initial mild symptoms at presentation with progression to pneumonia on day 9 of illness. This case highlights the importance of close coordination between clinicians and public health authorities at the local, state, and federal levels, as well as the need for rapid dissemination of clinical information related to the care of patients with this emerging infection.
|N Engl J Med||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|90||Spring in London with Covid-19: a personal view |
|Med Leg J||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|91||Antigenic relationships among the coronaviruses of man and between human and animal coronaviruses |
|92||SARS-CoV-2(SARS-CoV-2) infection during late pregnancy: a report of 18 patients from Wuhan, China |
BACKGROUND: Compared with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Corona Virus Disease 2019(COVID-19) spread more rapidly and widely. The population was generally susceptible. However, reports on pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 were very limited. By sharing the clinical characteristics, treatments and outcomes of 18 patients with COVID-19 during late pregnancy, we hope to provide some references for obstetric treatment and management. METHODS: A total of 18 patients with COVID-19 treated at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University were collected. The epidemiological characteristics, clinical manifestations, laboratory tests, chest CT and pregnancy outcomes were performed for analysis. RESULTS: 1. 18 cases of late pregnancy infected with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were delivered at 35 (+ 5) weeks to 41 weeks. According to the clinical classification of COVID-19, 1 case was mild type, 16 cases were ordinary type, and 1 case was severe type. 2. According to imaging examinations: 15 (83%) cases showed unilateral or bilateral pneumonia, 2 (11%) cases had pulmonary infection with pleural effusion, and 1 (6%) case had no abnormal imaging changes. 8 (44%) cases were positive and 10 (56%) cases were negative for nasopharyngeal-swab tests of SARS-CoV-2. 3. Among the 18 newborns, there were 3 (17%) premature infants, 1 (6%) case of mild asphyxia, 5 (28%) cases of bacterial pneumonia, 1 (6%) case of gastrointestinal bleeding, 1 (6%) case of necrotizing enteritis, 2 (11%) cases of hyperbilirubinemia and 1 (6%) case of diarrhea. All the newborns were negative for the first throat swab test of SARS-CoV-2 after birth. 4. Follow-up to Mar 7, 2020, no maternal and neonatal deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients in late term pregnancy with COVID-19 were of ordinary type, and they were less likely to develop into critical pneumonia after early isolation and antiviral treatment. Vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was not detected, but the proportion of neonatal bacterial pneumonia was higher than other neonatal diseases in newborns.
|BMC Pregnancy Childbirth||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|93||A newly discovered human pneumovirus isolated from young children with respiratory tract disease |
From 28 young children in the Netherlands, we isolated a paramyxovirus that was identified as a tentative new member of the Metapneumovirus genus based on virological data, sequence homology and gene constellation. Previously, avian pneumovirus was the sole member of this recently assigned genus, hence the provisional name for the newly discovered virus: human metapneumovirus. The clinical symptoms of the children from whom the virus was isolated were similar to those caused by human respiratory syncytial virus infection, ranging from upper respiratory tract disease to severe bronchiolitis and pneumonia. Serological studies showed that by the age of five years, virtually all children in the Netherlands have been exposed to human metapneumovirus and that the virus has been circulating in humans for at least 50 years.
|94||PROTECT Trial: A cluster-randomized study with hydroxychloroquine vs observational support for prevention or early-phase treatment of Coronavirus disease: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial |
OBJECTIVES: Hydroxychloroquine has shown to have antiviral activity in vitro against coronaviruses, specifically SARS-CoV-2. It is believed to block virus infection by increasing endosomal pH required for virus cell fusion and glycosylation of viral surface proteins. In addition to its antiviral activity, hydroxychloroquine has an immune-modulating activity that may synergistically enhance its antiviral effect in vivo, making it a potentially promising drug for the prevention and the cure of SARS-CoV-19. However, randomized controlled trials are needed to assess whether it can be used safely to treat COVID-19 patients or to prevent infection. The main objective of the present study is to evaluate the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for (I) the prevention of COVID-19 or related symptoms in SARS-CoV-2-exposed subjects, such as as household members/contacts of COVID-19 patients and (II) the treatment of early-phase asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic COVID-19 patients. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a controlled, open label, cluster-randomized, superiority trial with parallel group design. Subjects will be randomized either to receive hydroxychloroquine or to observation (2:1). PARTICIPANTS: SARS-CoV-2-exposed subjects, including household members and/or contacts of COVID-19 patients and healthcare professionals (Group 1) or patients with COVID-19 (positive PCR test on a rhinopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2), asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic in home situations who are not undergoing treatment with any anti COVID-19 medication (Group 2), will be enrolled. Paucisymptomatic patients are defined as patients with a low number of mild symptoms. All subjects must be aged ≥18 years, male or female, must be willing and able to give informed consent and must not have any contraindications to take hydroxychloroquine (intolerance or previous toxicity for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, bradycardia or reduction in heart rhythm with arrhythmia, ischemic heart disease, retinopathy, congestive heart failure with use of diuretics, favism or glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, diabetes type 1, major comorbidities such as advanced chronic kidney disease or dialysis therapy, known history of ventricular arrhythmia, any oncologic/hematologic malignancy, severe neurological and mental illness, current use of medications with known significant drug-drug interactions, and known prolonged QT syndrome or current use of drugs with known QT prolongation). The study is monocentric and will be conducted at Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST) IRCCS. Subjects will be enrolled from a large epidemic region (North-Central Italy). The Public Health Departments of several Italian regions will collaborate by identifying potentially eligible subjects. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The participants will be randomized (2:1 randomization) to receive either hydroxychloroquine (Arm A) or to Observation (Arm B). Hydroxychloroquine will be administered with the following schedule: Group1: A loading dose hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily on day 1, followed by a weekly dose of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily on days 8, 15 and 22, for a total of one month of treatment. Group 2: A loading dose hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily on day 1 followed by 200 mg twice daily for a total of 5-7 days. The comparator in this trial is observation given that currently neither treatment is administered to asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic subjects, nor prophylaxis is available for contacts. Hydroxychloroquine will be shipped to subjects within 24 hours of randomization. Given the extraordinary nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, only telephonic interviews will be carried out and electronic Patient Reported Outcomes (ePRO) completed. During treatment, each subject will be contacted every other day for the first week and weekly thereafter (Group 2) or weekly (Group 1) by a study physician to assess early onset of any COVID-19 symptom or any adverse reaction to hydroxychloroquine and to check subject compliance. Furthermore, all subjects will receive periodic ePROs which may be completed through smartphone or tablets to record drug self-administration and onset of any symptom or adverse event. All subjects will be followed up for a total of 6 months by periodic telephonic interviews and ePROs. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint/outcome measure for this trial is: for Group 1, the proportion of subjects who become symptomatic and/or swab-positive in each arm within one month of randomization; for Group 2, the proportion of subjects who become swab-negative in each arm within 14 days of randomization. RANDOMIZATION: All household members and/or contacts of each COVID-19 index case, and the COVID-19 patient himself/herself, fulfilling all inclusion criteria will be grouped into a single cluster and this cluster will be randomized (2:1) to either arm A or arm B. Information on each subject will be recorded in specific data records. Randomization lists will be stratified according to the following factors regarding COVID-19 index cases: 1. COVID-19 risk level on the basis of province of residence (high vs. low/intermediate); 2. Index case is a healthcare professional (yes vs.no) 3. Index case with COVID-19 treatment (yes vs. no) An independent statistician not otherwise involved in the trial will generate the allocation sequence, and COVID-19 response teams will be unaware of the allocation of clusters. Randomization will be performed through an interactive web-based electronic data-capturing database. An Independent Data Monitoring Committee has been established. BLINDING (MASKING): This study is open label. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): For Group 1, a sample size of about 2000 SARS-CoV-2-exposed subjects such as household members and/or contacts of COVID-19 patients will take part in the study. Assuming around 1.5-2.0 asymptomatic household members and/or contacts for each COVID-19 patient, we expect to identify approximately 1000-1300 COVID-19 index cases to be randomized. An interim analysis on efficacy is planned using standard alpha-spending function. For Group 2, sufficient power for primary objective (negative swab within 14 days of randomization) will be reached given a sample size of 300 asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic COVID-19 subjects in home situations not treated for COVID-19 (25%-30% of about 1000-1300 expected index cases). Since up to date reduced evidence about COVID-19 infection epidemiology, the continuous update of diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, the sample size estimation could be updated after a one third of population will be recruited and eventually modified according to a substantial protocol amendment. An interim analysis at 100 enrolled COVID-19 patients is planned. We have planned a Generalized Estimating Equation analysis, which is more efficient than a cluster level analysis, to take advantage of subject-specific covariates. The above reported sample size analysis is therefore to be considered conservative. TRIAL STATUS: The current version of the PROTECT trial protocol is ‘Final version, 15 April 2020’. The study started on 9(th) May 2020. The first patient was enrolled on 14(th) May 2020. Recruitment is expected to last through September 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PROTECT trial is registered in the EudraCT database (no. 2020-001501-24) and in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04363827), date of registration 24 April 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full PROTECT protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interests of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol (Protocol final version, 15(th) April 2020). The study protocol has been reported in accordance with Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).
|Trials||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|95||Bats are natural reservoirs of SARS-like coronaviruses |
|96||Mental Healthcare in French correctional facilities during the Covid-19 pandemic |
Résumé Objectif. En France, les mesures de confinement ont été accompagnées de dispositions spécifiques pour les prisons: suspension des activités, parloirs et interventions extérieures. Plus de dix mille personnes détenues ont en outre été libérées pour diminuer le taux d’occupation des établissements et limiter la propagation du virus. L’objectif de cet article est de décrire la réorganisation des soins psychiatriques en milieu pénitentiaire en contexte de pandémie de Covid-19 et d’interroger les conséquences du confinement et des libérations anticipées sur la santé mentale des personnes détenues. Méthode. Ce travail s’appuie sur une enquête menée en avril 2020 auprès des soignants de 42 unités sanitaires en milieu pénitentiaire et des 9 unités hospitalières spécialement aménagées en France. Une synthèse de la littérature internationale sur la question des soins psychiatriques en milieu pénitentiaire durant l’épidémie de Covid-19 a également été réalisée. Résultats. L’épidémie de Covid-19 semble avoir été plutôt contenue dans les prisons françaises au cours de la période de confinement mais le poids des mesures mises en place sur la population carcérale est important. Les 3 niveaux de soins psychiatriques en milieu pénitentiaire ont instauré des mesures spécifiques pour assurer la continuité des soins, accompagner les personnes incarcérées et contenir l’épidémie. Parmi les plus importantes, on note la restriction des consultations, la création de « secteurs Covid », la déprogrammation des hospitalisations non urgentes, le renforcement des mesures d’hygiène et le remaniement des effectifs. Actuellement, les soignants sont principalement confrontés à des sevrages forcés, des symptomatologies anxieuses et des décompensations de troubles psychiatriques chroniques. Certaines libérations anticipées sont aussi très préoccupantes, pouvant entraîner des ruptures de soins, par manque de préparation des relais de prise en charge. Discussion. Les remaniements en lien avec le confinement donnent une visibilité accrue au fossé qui sépare la psychiatrie en milieu libre de la psychiatrie en milieu pénitentiaire. Il nous apparaît important de rappeler la vulnérabilité des personnes incarcérées qui doivent impérativement être considérées dans les politiques de santé publique. Abstract Objective. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the 11 million people currently incarcerated worldwide is the subject of many concerns. Prisons and jails are filled with people suffering from many preexisting medical conditions increasing the risk of complications. Detainees’ access to medical services is already limited and overcrowding poses a threat of massive contagion. Beyond the health impact of the crisis, the tightening of prison conditions worries. On March 16, 2020, in France, the lockdown measures have been accompanied by specific provisions for prisons: all facilities have suspended visitations, group activities and external interventions. Over 10 000 prisoners have been released to reduce the prison population and the risk of virus propagation. These adjustments had major consequences on the healthcare system in French prisons. The objectives of this article are to describe the reorganization of the three levels of psychiatric care for inmates in France in the context of Covid-19 pandemic and to have a look at the impact of lockdown measures and early releases on mental health of prisoners. Methods. This work is based on a survey conducted in April 2020 in France among psychiatric healthcare providers working in 42 ambulatory units for inmates and in the 9 full-time inpatient psychiatric wards exclusively for inmates called “UHSAs” (which stands for “unités hospitalières spécialement aménagées”, and can be translated as “specially equipped hospital units”). A review of the international literature on mental healthcare system for inmates during the Covid-19 epidemic has also been performed. Results. The Covid-19 epidemic has been rather contained during the period of confinement in French prisons but the impact of confinement measures on the prison population is significant. The three levels of psychiatric care for inmates have implemented specific measures to ensure continuity of care, to support detainees during Coronavirus lockdown and to prevent an infection’s spread. Among the most important are: limitation of medical consultations to serious and urgent cases, creation of “Covid units”, cancellation of voluntary psychiatric hospitalizations, reinforcement of preventive hygiene measures and reshuffling of medical staff. Prolonged confinement has consequences on mental health of detainees. Currently, mental health workers are facing multiple clinical situations such as forced drug and substance withdrawal (linked to difficulties in supplying psychoactive substances), symptoms of anxiety (due to concerns for their own and their relatives’ wellbeing) and decompensation among patients with severe psychiatric conditions. Early releases from prison may also raise some issues. People recently released from prison are identified as at high risk of death by suicide and drug overdose. The lack of time to provide the necessary link between health services within prisons and health structures outside, could have serious consequences, emphasizing the well-known “revolving prison doors” effect. Discussion. The current lockdown measures applied in French jails and prisons point out the disparities between psychiatric care for inmates and psychiatric care for general population. Giving the high vulnerability of prison population, public health authorities should pay more attention to health care in prisons.
|Encephale||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|97||Unique and Conserved Features of Genome and Proteome of SARS-coronavirus, an Early Split-off From the Coronavirus Group 2 Lineage |
Abstract The genome organization and expression strategy of the newly identified severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) were predicted using recently published genome sequences. Fourteen putative open reading frames were identified, 12 of which were predicted to be expressed from a nested set of eight subgenomic mRNAs. The synthesis of these mRNAs in SARS-CoV-infected cells was confirmed experimentally. The 4382- and 7073 amino acid residue SARS-CoV replicase polyproteins are predicted to be cleaved into 16 subunits by two viral proteinases (bringing the total number of SARS-CoV proteins to 28). A phylogenetic analysis of the replicase gene, using a distantly related torovirus as an outgroup, demonstrated that, despite a number of unique features, SARS-CoV is most closely related to group 2 coronaviruses. Distant homologs of cellular RNA processing enzymes were identified in group 2 coronaviruses, with four of them being conserved in SARS-CoV. These newly recognized viral enzymes place the mechanism of coronavirus RNA synthesis in a completely new perspective. Furthermore, together with previously described viral enzymes, they will be important targets for the design of antiviral strategies aimed at controlling the further spread of SARS-CoV.
|J Mol Biol||2003||CORD-19|
|98||The Technological Impact of COVID-19 on the Future of Education and Healthcare Delivery |
|Pain Physician||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|99||Citizens' Adherence to COVID-19 Mitigation Recommendations by the Government: A 3-Country Comparative Evaluation Using Web-Based Cross-Sectional Survey Data |
BACKGROUND: Social distancing is an effective preventative policy for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) that is enforced by governments worldwide. However, significant variations are observed in following the policy across individuals and countries. Arguably, differences in citizens’ adherence actions will be influenced by their perceptions about government’s plans and the information available to guide their behaviors—more so in the digital age in the realm of mass influence of social media on citizens. Insights into the underlying factors and dynamics involved with citizens’ adherence process will inform the policy makers to follow appropriate communication and messaging approaches to influence citizens’ willingness to adhere to the recommendations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is a comparative evaluation of citizens’ adherence process to COVID-19–relevant recommendations by the government. The focus is on how three different countries’ (United States, Kuwait, and South Korea) citizens, randomly sampled, respond to governments’ pandemic guidance efforts. We draw insights into two categories of perceived government roles in managing the pandemic: (1) citizens’ perceptions of government’s role in responding to the pandemic and (2) citizens’ perceptions of government’s business reopening efforts. Undoubtedly, the internet and social media have burgeoned, with differing effects on shaping individuals’ views and assessments of the COVID-19 situation; we argue and test for the effects of information sources, social media use, and knowledge on the adherence actions. METHODS: We randomly sampled web-based survey data collected by a global firm in May 2020 from citizens of the United States, Kuwait, and South Korea. A nonlinear ordered probit regression, controlling for several counterfactuals, was used for analysis. The focal estimated effects of the study were compared across countries using the weighted distance between the parameter estimates. RESULTS: The total sample size was 482 respondents, of which 207 (43%) lived in the United States, 181 (38%) lived in Kuwait, and 94 (20%) lived in South Korea. The ordered probit estimation results suggest that overall, perception of government response efforts positively influenced self-adherence (P<.001) and others’ adherence (P<.001) to social distancing and sheltering. Perception of government business reopening efforts positively influenced others’ adherence (P<.001). A higher intensity of general health information source for COVID-19 had a positive effect on self-adherence (P=.003). A higher intensity of social media source use for COVID-19 positively influenced others’ adherence (P=.002). A higher intensity of knowledge on COVID-19 positively influenced self-adherence (P=.008) and negatively influenced others’ adherence (P<.001). There were country-level variations—broadly, the United States and Kuwait had better effects than South Korea. CONCLUSIONS: As the COVID-19 global pandemic continues to grow and governmental restrictions are ongoing, it is critical to understand people’s frustration to reduce panic and promote social distancing to facilitate the control of the pandemic. This study finds that the government plays a central role in terms of adherence to restrictions. Governments need to enhance their efforts on publicizing information on the pandemic, as well as employ strategies for improved communication management to citizens through social media as well as mainstream information sources.
|J Med Internet Res||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
|100||Remdesivir and chloroquine effectively inhibit the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in vitro||Cell Res||2020||LitCov and CORD-19|
(1) COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19). 2020. Version 2022-06-02. Retrieved from https://ai2-semanticscholar-cord-19.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/historical_releases.html. Accessed 2022-06-05. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3715506
(2) Chen Q, Allot A, & Lu Z. (2020) Keep up with the latest coronavirus research, Nature 579:193 and Chen Q, Allot A, Lu Z. LitCovid: an open database of COVID-19 literature. Nucleic Acids Research. 2020. (version 2023-01-10)
(3) Currently tweets of June 23rd to June 29th 2022 have been considered.