Search

As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread through the United States in 2020, states began to set up alert systems to inform policy decisions and serve as risk communication tools for the general public. Many of these systems included indicators based on an assessment of trends in numbers of reported cases. However, when cases are indexed by date of disease onset, reporting delays complicate the interpretation of trends. Despite a foundation of statistical literature with which to address this problem, these methods have not been widely applied in practice. In this paper, we develop a Bayesian spatiotemporal nowcasting model for assessing trends in county-level COVID-19 cases in Ohio. We compare the performance of our model with the approach used in Ohio and the approach included in decision support materials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We demonstrate gains in performance while still retaining interpretability using our model. In addition, we are able to fully account for uncertainty in both the time series of cases and the reporting process. While we cannot eliminate all of the uncertainty in public health surveillance and subsequent decision-making, we must use approaches that embrace these challenges and deliver more accurate and honest assessments to policy-makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy responses to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), particularly those related to nonpharmaceutical interventions, are unprecedented in scale and scope. However, evaluations of policy impacts require a complex combination of circumstance, study design, data, statistics, and analysis. Beyond the issues that are faced for any policy, evaluation of COVID-19 policies is complicated by additional challenges related to infectious disease dynamics and a multiplicity of interventions. The methods needed for policy-level impact evaluation are not often used or taught in epidemiology, and they differ in important ways that may not be obvious. Methodological complications of policy evaluations can make it difficult for decision-makers and researchers to synthesize and evaluate the strength of the evidence in COVID-19 health policy papers. Here we 1) introduce the basic suite of policy-impact evaluation designs for observational data, including cross-sectional analyses, pre-/post- analyses, interrupted time-series analysis, and difference-in-differences analysis; 2) demonstrate key ways in which the requirements and assumptions underlying these designs are often violated in the context of COVID-19; and 3) provide decision-makers and reviewers with a conceptual and graphical guide to identifying these key violations. Our overall goal is to help epidemiologists, policy-makers, journal editors, journalists, researchers, and other research consumers understand and weigh the strengths and limitations of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In their recent article, Dimitris et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2022;191(6):980–986) presented a series of challenges modern epidemiology has faced during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, including challenges around the scientific progress, epidemiologic methods, interventions, equity, team science, and training needed to address these issues. Here, 2 social epidemiologists who have been working on COVID-19 inequities reflect on further lessons with an added year of perspective. We focus on 2 key challenges: 1) dominant biomedical individualistic narratives around the production of population health, and 2) the role of profit in policy-making. We articulate a need to consider social epidemiologic approaches, including acknowledging the importance of considering how societal systems lead to health inequities. To address these challenges, future (and current) epidemiologists should be trained in theories of population health distribution and political structures of governance. Last, we close with the need for better investment in public health infrastructure as a crucial step toward achieving population health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION How did the first two coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) waves affect fertility rates in the USA? SUMMARY ANSWER States differed widely in how their fertility rates changed following the COVID-19 outbreak and these changes were influenced more by state-level economic, racial, political, and social factors than by COVID-19 wave severity. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to already declining fertility rates in the USA, but not equally across states. Identifying drivers of differential changes in fertility rates can help explain variations in demographic shifts across states in the USA and motivate policies that support families in general, not only during crises. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This is an ecological study using state-level data from 50 US states and the District of Columbia (n = 51). The study period extends from 2020 to 2021 with historical data from 2016 to 2019. We identified Wave 1 as the first apex for each state after February 2020 and Wave 2 as the second apex, during Fall/Winter 2020–2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS State-level COVID-19 wave severity, defined as case acceleration during each 3-month COVID-19 wave (cases/100 000 population/month), was derived from 7-day weekly moving average COVID-19 case rates from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). State-level fertility rate changes (change in average monthly fertility rate/100 000 women of reproductive age (WRA)/year) were derived from the CDC Bureau of Vital Statistics and from 2020 US Census and University of Virginia 2021 population estimates 9 months after each COVID-19 wave. We performed univariate analyses to describe national and state-level fertility rate changes following each wave, and simple and multivariable linear regression analyses to assess the relation of COVID-19 wave severity and other state-level characteristics with fertility rate changes. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Nationwide, fertility dropped by 17.5 births/month/100 000 WRA/year following Wave 1 and 9.2 births/month/100 000 WRA/year following Wave 2. The declines following Wave 1 were largest among majority-Democrat, more non-White states where people practiced greater social distancing. Greater COVID-19 wave severity was associated with steeper fertility rate decline post-Wave 1 in simple regression, but the association was attenuated when adjusted for other covariates. Adjusting for the economic impact of the pandemic (hypothesized mediator) also attenuated the effect. There was no relation between COVID-19 wave severity and fertility rate change following Wave 2. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Our study harnesses state-level data so individual-level conclusions cannot be inferred. There may be residual confounding in our multivariable regression and we were underpowered to detect some effects. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The COVID-19 pandemic initially impacted the national fertility rate but, overall, the fertility rate rebounded to the pre-pandemic level following Wave 2. Consistent with prior literature, COVID-19 wave severity did not appear to predict fertility rate change. Economic, racial, political, and social factors influenced state-specific fertility rates during the pandemic more than the severity of the outbreak alone. Future studies in other countries should also consider whether these factors account for internal heterogeneity when examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and other crises on fertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) L.G.K. received funding from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R00ES030403), M.C. from the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (20-A0-00-1005789), and M.L. and E.S. from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R01ES032808). None of the authors have competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We compared the performance of prognostic tools for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using parameters fitted either at the time of hospital admission or across all time points of an admission. This cohort study used clinical data to model the dynamic change in prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 at a single hospital center in the United Kingdom, including all patients admitted from February 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020, and then followed up for 60 days for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, death, or discharge from the hospital. We incorporated clinical observations and blood tests into 2 time-varying Cox proportional hazards models predicting daily 24- to 48-hour risk of admission to the ICU for those eligible for escalation of care or death for those ineligible for escalation. In developing the model, 491 patients were eligible for ICU escalation and 769 were ineligible for escalation. Our model had good discrimination of daily risk of ICU admission in the validation cohort (n  = 1,141; C statistic: C  = 0.91, 95% confidence interval: 0.89, 0.94) and our score performed better than other scores (National Early Warning Score 2, International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Comprehensive Clinical Characterisation Collaboration score) calculated using only parameters measured on admission, but it overestimated the risk of escalation (calibration slope = 0.7). A bespoke daily SARS-CoV-2 escalation risk prediction score can predict the need for clinical escalation better than a generic early warning score or a single estimation of risk calculated at admission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first identified in December 2019 and is currently still a public health issue affecting millions of people worldwide. Heart failure patients are known to be at higher risk of morbidity and mortality in this case. Yet, few data exist concerning COVID-19 among patients with a left ventricular assistance device, and even less among those with a total artificial heart (TAH). Case summary A 27-year-old man with Marfan syndrome underwent prophylactic ascending aorta replacement. Shortly after surgery completion, he developed refractory cardiogenic shock with biventricular dysfunction leading to veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) implantation. In the context of no appropriate eligible donor during the following 10 days while waiting on the heart transplantation list, the patient was scheduled for a TAH as a bridge to transplantation. Meanwhile, he developed an acute respiratory distress syndrome secondary to SARS-CoV-2. The patient was successfully treated with corticosteroids, prone positioning and mechanical ventilation, and heart transplantation occurred 5 weeks after COVID-19 onset. Discussion Here, we report the first case of a patient presenting with COVID-19 infection following TAH implantation in a bridge to transplantation. We highlight that (i) cardiogenic shock patients simultaneously infected by COVID-19 should be treated instantly with all-time available technology to ensure best outcomes, including TAH and prone positioning, (ii) heart transplantation safety 5 weeks after COVID-19 onset. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The worldwide shortage of vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection while the pandemic still remains uncontrolled has led many countries to the dilemma of whether or not to vaccinate previously infected persons. Understanding the level of protection conferred by previous infection compared with that of vaccination is important for policy-making. We analyzed an updated individual-level database of the entire population of Israel to assess the protection provided by both prior infection and vaccination in preventing subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), severe disease, and death due to COVID-19. Outcome data were collected from December 20, 2020, to March 20, 2021. Vaccination was highly protective, with overall estimated effectiveness of 94.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 94.3, 94.7) for documented infection, 95.8% (95% CI: 95.2, 96.2) for hospitalization, 96.3% (95% CI: 95.7, 96.9) for severe illness, and 96.0% (95% CI: 94.9, 96.9) for death. Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection provided by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was 94.8% (95% CI: 94.4, 95.1) for documented infection, 94.1% (95% CI: 91.9, 95.7) for hospitalization, and 96.4% (95% CI: 92.5, 98.3) for severe illness. Our results should be considered by policy-makers when deciding whether or not to prioritize vaccination of previously infected adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION Does maternal infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the first trimester affect the risk of miscarriage before 13 week's gestation? SUMMARY ANSWER Pregnant women with self-reported diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in the first trimester had a higher risk of early miscarriage. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Viral infections during pregnancy have a broad spectrum of placental and neonatal pathology. Data on the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy are still emerging. Two systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported an increased risk of preterm birth, caesarean delivery, maternal morbidity and stillbirth. Data on the impact of first trimester infection on early pregnancy outcomes are scarce. This is the first study, to our knowledge, to investigate the rates of early pregnancy loss during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak among women with self-reported infection. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This was a nationwide prospective cohort study of pregnant women in the community recruited using social media between 21 May and 31 December 2020. We recruited 3545 women who conceived during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic who were <13 week's gestation at the time of recruitment. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The COVID-19 Contraception and Pregnancy Study (CAP-COVID) was an on-line survey study collecting longitudinal data from pregnant women in the UK aged 18 years or older. Women who were pregnant during the pandemic were asked to complete on-line surveys at the end of each trimester. We collected data on current and past pregnancy complications, their medical history and whether they or anyone in their household had symptoms or been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection during each trimester of their pregnancy. RT-PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection from respiratory samples (e.g. nasopharynx) is the standard practice for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in the UK. We compared rate of self-reported miscarriage in three groups: 'presumed infected', i.e. those who reported a diagnosis with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first trimester; 'uncertain', i.e. those who did not report a diagnosis but had symptoms/household contacts with symptoms/diagnosis; and 'presumed uninfected', i.e. those who did not report any symptoms/diagnosis and had no household contacts with symptoms/diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE A total of 3545 women registered for the CAP-COVID study at <13 weeks gestation and were eligible for this analysis. Data for the primary outcome were available from 3041 women (86%). In the overall sample, the rate of self-reported miscarriage was 7.8% (238/3041 [95% CI, 7–9]). The median gestational age (GA) at miscarriage was 9 weeks (interquartile range 8–11). Seventy-seven women were in the 'presumed infected' group (77/3041, 2.5% [95% CI 2–3]), 295/3041 were in the uncertain group (9.7% [95% CI 9–11]) and the rest in the 'presumed uninfected' (87.8%, 2669/3041 [95% CI 87–89]). The rate of early miscarriage was 14% in the 'presumed infected' group, 5% in the 'uncertain' and 8% in the 'presumed uninfected' (11/77 [95% CI 6–22] versus 15/295 [95% CI 3–8] versus 212/2669 [95% CI 7–9], P  = 0.02). After adjusting for age, BMI, ethnicity, smoking status, GA at registration and the number of previous miscarriages, the risk of early miscarriage appears to be higher in the 'presumed infected' group (relative rate 1.7, 95% CI 1.0–3.0, P  = 0.06). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We relied on self-reported data on early pregnancy loss and SARS-CoV-2 infection without any means of checking validity. Some women in the 'presumed uninfected' and 'uncertain' groups may have had asymptomatic infections. The number of 'presumed infected' in our study was low and therefore the study was relatively underpowered. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This was a national study from the UK, where infection rates were one of the highest in the world. Based on the evidence presented here, women who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 in their first trimester may be at an increased risk of a miscarriage. However, the overall rate of miscarriage in our study population was 8%. This is reassuring and suggests that if there is an effect of SARS-CoV-2 on the risk of miscarriage, this may be limited to those with symptoms substantial enough to lead to a diagnostic test. Further studies are warranted to evaluate a causal association between SARS-CoV-2 infection in early pregnancy and miscarriage risk. Although we did not see an overall increase in the risk of miscarriage, the observed comparative increase in the presumed infected group reinforces the message that pregnant women should continue to exercise social distancing measures and good hygiene throughout their pregnancy to limit their risk of infection STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was supported by a grant from the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital Charity (G13-559194). The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the report. J.A.H. is supported by an NIHR Advanced Fellowship. A.L.D. is supported by the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi%5fdisclosure.pdf and declare: support to J.A.H. and A.L.D. as above; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nonpharmaceutical interventions, such as social distancing and lockdowns, have been essential to control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In particular, localized lockdowns in small geographic areas have become an important policy intervention for preventing viral spread in cases of resurgence. These localized lockdowns can result in lower social and economic costs compared with larger-scale suppression strategies. Using an integrated data set from Chile (March 3–June 15, 2020) and a novel synthetic control approach, we estimated the effect of localized lockdowns, disentangling its direct and indirect causal effects on transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Our results showed that the effects of localized lockdowns are strongly modulated by their duration and are influenced by indirect effects from neighboring geographic areas. Our estimates suggest that extending localized lockdowns can slow down SARS-CoV-2 transmission; however, localized lockdowns on their own are insufficient to control pandemic growth in the presence of indirect effects from contiguous neighboring areas that do not have lockdowns. These results provide critical empirical evidence about the effectiveness of localized lockdowns in interconnected geographic areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Few studies have assessed depression in healthcare workers (HCWs) in Japan owing to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and no studies have proposed effective interventions to help support their mental health. Aims To test the hypothesis that enhancing access to mental healthcare professionals helps to improve HCWs' mental health. Methods This cross-sectional study assessed depressive symptoms in HCWs at three hospitals in Osaka prefecture between May and July, 2020. The survey obtained information on HCWs' mental state and related situations/perceptions. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with depressive symptoms. Results Of the 3291 eligible HCWs, 1269 (39%) completed the survey. Of all HCWs, 87 (7%) were physicians, and 700 (55%) were nurses. A total of 181 (14%) HCWs had moderate-to-severe symptoms of depression. Being a frontline worker was not significantly associated with depressive symptoms (odds ratio: 0.86 [95% confidence intervals: 0.54–1.37], P = 0.50). The unwillingness to consult with anyone was significantly associated with more severe depressive symptoms (1.70 [1.10–2.63], P < 0.01). HCWs who had no opportunity to confide in family/friends (1.66 [1.10–2.52], P < 0.01) or colleagues/supervisors (3.19 [2.22–4.58], P < 0.001) were significantly more likely to have depressive symptoms. Conclusions Being a frontline HCW in a Japanese hospital treating patients with COVID-19 was not significantly associated with having depressive symptoms. The study highlights that encouraging daily communication with close persons (family, friends, colleagues and supervisors), rather than improving access to mental health professionals, might help to prevent depression in HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION What was the effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on healthcare and quality of life in those suffering from endometriosis? SUMMARY ANSWER Our study reveals a clear correlation between the deterioration of the reported physical and mental state and impaired medical care for patients suffering from endometriosis during the COVID-19 pandemic. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The quality of life of patients suffering from endometriosis is compromised in a variety of aspects. In response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, self-isolation practices aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19 have severely complicated the availability of proper medical care worldwide. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The study involved a cross-sectional international self-reported online survey. Responses were accepted between November 2020 and January 2021. The survey was prepared by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in a medical university setting. The survey contained 17 questions and was placed online. Cooperation with different endometriosis organizations around the world enabled distribution of the survey through their social media platforms. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The study participants (n = 3024 replies) originated from 59 countries. The questionnaire was created after a literature review and is partially based on the validated quality of life questionnaires, adjusted to the study question. The survey was then translated to 15 other languages following World Health Organization recommendations as closely as possible. Chi-square tests for independence were carried out for the analysis of the two variables: suspension of health services, and the patients mental and physical well-being. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Out of 3024 participants from 59 countries who submitted the questionnaire between November 2020 and January 2021, 2964 (98.01%) provided information that enabled a full analysis. For the 1174 participants who had their medical appointments cancelled, 43.7% (n = 513) reported that their symptoms had been aggravated, and 49.3% (n = 579) reported that their mental state had worsened. In comparison, of the 1180 participants who kept their appointments, only 29.4% (n = 347) stated that their symptoms had been aggravated, and 27.5% (n = 325) stated their mental health had worsened. The results showed that there was a significant link between the reported deterioration of mental and physical wellbeing and impaired medical care (cancellation) (P ≪ 0.001). A total of 610 participants did not have medical appointments scheduled, and these participants followed a similar pattern as the participants who kept their appointments, with 29.0% (n = 177) reporting aggravation of symptoms and 28.2% (n = 172) reporting that their mental state had worsened. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Cultural differences among international participants are to be expected and this may have affected how participants from different countries interpreted and answered the questionnaire. Translating the questionnaire into 15 different languages, even though incorporating backwards translation, could possibly lead to different interpretations of given questions, simply based on different wording in the languages. The majority of respondents (around 90%) were from Europe and South America and therefore the findings may not be generalizable to other locations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Further research is needed to assess the true impact and long-term consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic for patients living with endometriosis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study received no funding and the authors declare they have no relevant conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has precipitated a global health crisis of unprecedented proportions. Because of its severe impact, multiple COVID-19 vaccines are being rapidly developed, approved and manufactured. Among them, mRNA vaccines are considered as ideal candidates with special advantages to meet this challenge. However, some serious adverse events have been reported after their application, significantly increasing concerns about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines and doubts about the necessity of vaccination. Although several fertility societies have announced that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are unlikely to affect fertility, there is no denying that the current evidence is very limited, which is one of the reasons for vaccine hesitancy in the population, especially in pregnant women. Herein, we provide an in-depth discussion on the involvement of the male and female reproductive systems during SARS-CoV-2 infection or after vaccination. On one hand, despite the low risk of infection in the male reproductive system or fetus, COVID-19 could pose an enormous threat to human reproductive health. On the other hand, our review indicates that both men and women, especially pregnant women, have no fertility problems or increased adverse pregnancy outcomes after vaccination, and, in particular, the benefits of maternal antibodies transferred through the placenta outweigh any known or potential risks. Thus, in the case of the rapid spread of COVID-19, although further research is still required, especially a larger population-based longitudinal study, it is obviously a wise option to be vaccinated instead of suffering from serious adverse symptoms of virus infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background To investigate the knowledge, attitudes and anxiety toward COVID-19 among Chinese college students studying in China and abroad. Method A structured questionnaire, comprised of demographic characteristics, knowledge and attitudes toward COVID-19 and the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), was used to collect data for 566 domestic students and 126 students studying abroad. Results Domestic students were better than students abroad in knowledge of epidemiology and manifestations. Domestic students showed a significant higher enthusiasm for voluntary services than students abroad, including medical science popularization, community services, traffic dispersion, logistics transportation and being volunteers for vaccine trials. The scores (Mean ± SD) of S-AI and T-AI among students abroad were 59.48 ± 8.63 and 54.10 ± 7.20, respectively, which were significantly higher than those of domestic students (39.46 ± 8.16 and 39.25 ± 7.72). Conclusions Our study showed a better understanding of knowledge, more positive attitudes and less anxiety toward COVID-19 among domestic students, compared with students studying abroad. In light of this information, more attention and appropriate psychological and social intervention should be paid to college students with anxiety, especially those studying abroad. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Health care workers are at a higher risk of getting infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) than the general population. Knowledge about medical students' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 is lacking. Thus, we measured the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a cohort of Danish medical students. Methods We invited all medical students at the University of Copenhagen (UCPH) to participate. Students underwent venous blood sampling and a questionnaire about work-life behaviors possibly associated with SARS-CoV-2 exposure and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms. Samples were analyzed for total immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, and seropositive samples were screened for IgG, immunoglobulin M, and immunoglobulin A antibodies. We determined associations between seropositivity and clinical and social activities and self-reported symptoms. Results Between October 19 and 26, 1120 students participated in the questionnaire and 1096 were included. Of all included, 379 (34.58%) were seropositive. Seropositivity was associated with attendance at 2 parties at UCPH, on February 29 and March 6, 2020 (odds ratio [OR], 5.96; 95% CI, 4.34–8.24; P  < .001). Four hundred sixty-one students (42.06%) worked with COVID-19 patients, which was significantly associated with seropositivity (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03–1.85; P  = .033). The symptom most associated with seropositivity was loss of smell and/or taste (n = 183 of all, 31.35%; OR, 24.48; 95% CI, 15.49–40.60; P  < .001). Bachelor's students were significantly more likely to be seropositive than Master's students (42.28% vs 16.87%; P  < .001). Conclusions Medical students have the highest reported seropositivity in the Danish health care system. In this cohort of students at UCPH, seropositivity was associated with social behavior markers and, to a lesser extent, with self-reported contact with SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by poor outcomes and mortality, particularly in older patients. Methods post hoc analysis of the international, multicentre, 'real-world' HOPE COVID-19 registry. All patients aged ≥65 years hospitalised for COVID-19 were selected. Epidemiological, clinical, analytical and outcome data were obtained. A comparative study between two age subgroups, 65–74 and ≥75 years, was performed. The primary endpoint was all cause in-hospital mortality. Results about, 1,520 patients aged ≥65 years (60.3% male, median age of 76 [IQR 71–83] years) were included. Comorbidities such as hypertension (69.2%), dyslipidaemia (48.6%), cardiovascular diseases (any chronic heart disease in 38.4% and cerebrovascular disease in 12.5%), and chronic lung disease (25.3%) were prevalent, and 49.6% were on ACEI/ARBs. Patients aged 75 years and older suffered more in-hospital complications (respiratory failure, heart failure, renal failure, sepsis) and a significantly higher mortality (18.4 vs. 48.2%, P < 0.001), but fewer admissions to intensive care units (11.2 vs. 4.8%). In the overall cohort, multivariable analysis demonstrated age ≥75 (OR 3.54), chronic kidney disease (OR 3.36), dementia (OR 8.06), peripheral oxygen saturation at admission <92% (OR 5.85), severe lymphopenia (<500/mm3) (OR 3.36) and qSOFA (Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score) >1 (OR 8.31) to be independent predictors of mortality. Conclusion patients aged ≥65 years hospitalised for COVID-19 had high rates of in-hospital complications and mortality, especially among patients 75 years or older. Age ≥75 years, dementia, peripheral oxygen saturation <92%, severe lymphopenia and qSOFA scale >1 were independent predictors of mortality in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background While it is understood that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is primarily complicated by respiratory failure, more data are emerging on the cardiovascular complications of this disease. A subset of COVID-19 patients present with ST-elevations on electrocardiogram (ECG) yet normal coronary angiography, a presentation that can fit criteria for myocardial infarction with no obstructive coronary atherosclerosis (MINOCA). There is little known about non-coronary myocardial injury observed in patients with COVID-19, and we present a case that should encourage further conversation and study of this clinical challenge. Case summary An 86-year-old man presented to our institution with acute hypoxic respiratory failure and an ECG showing anteroseptal ST-segment elevation concerning for myocardial infarction. Mechanic ventilation was initiated prior to presentation, and emergent transthoracic echocardiography reported an ejection fraction of 50–55%, with no significant regional wall motion abnormalities. Next, emergent coronary angiography was performed, and no significant coronary artery disease was detected. The patient tested positive for COVID-19. Despite supportive management in the intensive care unit, the patient passed away. Discussion We present a case of COVID-19 that is likely associated with MINOCA. It is crucial to understand that in COVID-19 patients with signs of myocardial infarction, not all myocardial injury is due to obstructive coronary artery disease. In the case of COVID-19 pathophysiology, it is important to consider the cardiovascular effects of hypoxic respiratory failure, potential myocarditis, and significant systemic inflammation. Continued surveillance and research on the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 is essential to further elucidate management and prognosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created a significant impact on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) services. ESHRE decided to mobilize resources in order to collect, analyse, monitor, prepare and disseminate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) knowledge specifically related to ART and early pregnancy. This article presents the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic focusing on reproductive healthcare. It details the rationale behind the guidance prepared to support MAR services in organizing and managing the re-start of treatments or in case of any future wave of COVID-19 disease. The guidance includes information on patient selection and informed consent, staff and patient triage and testing, adaptation of ART services, treatment planning and code of conduct. The initiatives detailed in this article are not necessarily COVID-specific and such action plans could be applied effectively to manage similar emergency situations in different areas of medicine, in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In April 2020, there were significant reductions in prescription fills of each of the 10 most prescribed outpatient antibiotics in the United States. Monthly azithromycin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, and levofloxacin fills did not rebound significantly from April through July 2020. Coronavirus disease 2019 had an immediate and sustained impact on US outpatient antibiotic prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Various types of pulmonary diseases are associated with iron deficiency. However, information on iron status in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is scarce. Methods This study included 50 hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19. The role of serum iron in predicting severity and mortality of COVID-19 was evaluated. Results The most common symptoms of COVID-19 patients in this study were cough (82%), fever (64%), and chest distress (42%). Of the 50 patients, 45 (90%) patients had abnormally low serum iron levels (<7.8 μmol/L). The severity of COVID-19 was negatively correlated with serum iron levels before and after treatment and was positively correlated with C-reactive protein, serum amyloid A, D-dimer, lactate dehydrogenase, urea nitrogen, and myoglobin levels. Decreased serum iron level could predict the transition of COVID-19 from mild to severe and critical illness. Seven (53.8%) patients with a lower serum iron level after treatment in the critical group had died. There was a significant difference in posttreatment serum iron levels between COVID-19 survivors and nonsurvivors. Conclusions Serum iron deficiency was detected in the patients with COVID-19. The severity and mortality of the disease was closely correlated with serum iron levels. Low serum iron concentration was an independent risk factor for death in COVID-19 patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]