Search

The COVID-19 pandemic has excluded older adults from a society based on physical social contact. Vulnerable populations like older adults also tend to be excluded from digital services because they opt not to use the internet, lack necessary devices and network connectivity, or inexperience using the technology. Older adults who are frail and are not online, many of whom are in long-term care facilities, struggle with the double burden of social and digital exclusion. This paper discusses the potential outcomes of this exclusion and provides recommendations for rectifying the situation, with a particular focus on older adults in long-term care facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has clearly shown that major challenges and threats for humankind need to be addressed with global answers and shared decisions. Data and their analytics are crucial components of such decision-making activities. Rather interestingly, one of the most difficult aspects is reusing and sharing of accurate and detailed clinical data collected by Electronic Health Records (EHR), even if these data have a paramount importance. EHR data, in fact, are not only essential for supporting day-by-day activities, but also they can leverage research and support critical decisions about effectiveness of drugs and therapeutic strategies. In this paper, we will concentrate our attention on collaborative data infrastructures to support COVID-19 research and on the open issues of data sharing and data governance that COVID-19 had made emerge. Data interoperability, healthcare processes modelling and representation, shared procedures to deal with different data privacy regulations, and data stewardship and governance are seen as the most important aspects to boost collaborative research. Lessons learned from COVID-19 pandemic can be a strong element to improve international research and our future capability of dealing with fast developing emergencies and needs, which are likely to be more frequent in the future in our connected and intertwined world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak due to the novel coronavirus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been classified as a pandemic disease by the World Health Organization on the 12th March 2020. This world-wide crisis created an urgent need to identify effective countermeasures against SARS-CoV-2. In silico methods, artificial intelligence and bioinformatics analysis pipelines provide effective and useful infrastructure for comprehensive interrogation and interpretation of available data, helping to find biomarkers, explainable models and eventually cures. One class of such tools, pathway enrichment analysis (PEA) methods, helps researchers to find possible key targets present in biological pathways of host cells that are targeted by SARS-CoV-2. Since many software tools are available, it is not easy for non-computational users to choose the best one for their needs. In this paper, we highlight how to choose the most suitable PEA method based on the type of COVID-19 data to analyze. We aim to provide a comprehensive overview of PEA techniques and the tools that implement them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The stratification of patients at risk of progression of COVID-19 and their molecular characterization is of extreme importance to optimize treatment and to identify therapeutic options. The bioinformatics community has responded to the outbreak emergency with a set of tools and resource to identify biomarkers and drug targets that we review here. Starting from a consolidated corpus of 27 570 papers, we adopt latent Dirichlet analysis to extract relevant topics and select those associated with computational methods for biomarker identification and drug repurposing. The selected topics span from machine learning and artificial intelligence for disease characterization to vaccine development and to therapeutic target identification. Although the way to go for the ultimate defeat of the pandemic is still long, the amount of knowledge, data and tools generated so far constitutes an unprecedented example of global cooperation to this threat. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective This study aims at reviewing novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) datasets extracted from PubMed Central articles, thus providing quantitative analysis to answer questions related to dataset contents, accessibility and citations. Methods We downloaded COVID-19-related full-text articles published until 31 May 2020 from PubMed Central. Dataset URL links mentioned in full-text articles were extracted, and each dataset was manually reviewed to provide information on 10 variables: (1) type of the dataset, (2) geographic region where the data were collected, (3) whether the dataset was immediately downloadable, (4) format of the dataset files, (5) where the dataset was hosted, (6) whether the dataset was updated regularly, (7) the type of license used, (8) whether the metadata were explicitly provided, (9) whether there was a PubMed Central paper describing the dataset and (10) the number of times the dataset was cited by PubMed Central articles. Descriptive statistics about these seven variables were reported for all extracted datasets. Results We found that 28.5% of 12 324 COVID-19 full-text articles in PubMed Central provided at least one dataset link. In total, 128 unique dataset links were mentioned in 12 324 COVID-19 full text articles in PubMed Central. Further analysis showed that epidemiological datasets accounted for the largest portion (53.9%) in the dataset collection, and most datasets (84.4%) were available for immediate download. GitHub was the most popular repository for hosting COVID-19 datasets. CSV, XLSX and JSON were the most popular data formats. Additionally, citation patterns of COVID-19 datasets varied depending on specific datasets. Conclusion PubMed Central articles are an important source of COVID-19 datasets, but there is significant heterogeneity in the way these datasets are mentioned, shared, updated and cited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While risk of outdoor transmission of respiratory viral infections is hypothesized to be low, there are limited data on SARS-CoV-2 transmission in outdoor compared to indoor settings.Methods: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed papers indexed in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science and preprints in Europe PMC through 12 August 2020 that described cases of human transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Reports of other respiratory virus transmission were included for reference.Results: Five identified studies found a low proportion of reported global SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred outdoors (<10%) and the odds of indoor transmission was very high compared to outdoors (18.7 times; 95% confidence interval, 6.0-57.9). Five studies described influenza transmission outdoors and 2 adenovirus transmission outdoors. There was high heterogeneity in study quality and individual definitions of outdoor settings, which limited our ability to draw conclusions about outdoor transmission risks. In general, factors such as duration and frequency of personal contact, lack of personal protective equipment, and occasional indoor gathering during a largely outdoor experience were associated with outdoor reports of infection.Conclusions: Existing evidence supports the wide-held belief that risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is lower outdoors but there are significant gaps in our understanding of specific pathways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the many challenges that has befallen the Infectious Diseases and Graduate Medical Education communities during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the maintenance of continued effective education and training of the future leaders of our field. With the remarkable speed and innovation that has characterized the responses to this pandemic, educators everywhere have adapted existing robust and safe learning environments to meet the needs of our learners. This paper will review distinct aspects of education and training of the Infectious Diseases fellows we believe the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted most, including mentoring, didactics, and wellness. We anticipate that several strategies developed in this context and described herein will help to inform training and best practices during the pandemic and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The importance of clinical supervision, a professional support and clinical governance mechanism, to patients, healthcare workers and organizations has been well documented. Clinical supervision has been shown to support healthcare workers during challenging times, by reducing burnout, enhancing mental health and wellbeing at work, and improving job satisfaction. However, clinical supervision participation and effectiveness are pre-requisites for realising these benefits. During times of stress and increased workloads (e.g. during the Coronavirus pandemic), healthcare workers tend to prioritise clinical duties and responsibilities over clinical supervision. Effective supervision practices can be restored, and healthcare workers can be better supported in their roles during and in the post-pandemic period only if healthcare workers, policy makers, healthcare organizations, clinical supervision trainers and researchers join forces. This paper sheds light on this important topic and offers a number of practical recommendations to reboot effective clinical supervision practices at the point of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: Biological, Clinical, and Technical Considerations These considerations are important when performing serology studies, with anti-S1/S2 serology tests preferably used to assess true seroprevalence; anti-RBD-specific serology immunoassays may be better suited to reflecting the presence of neutralizing antibodies. We read with interest the report by Geisler et al[1] and commend the authors for their efforts to address the important need to evaluate the clinical performance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostic assays in pediatric populations, especially with respect to serology, given the noted differences in immune responses between children and adults.[2] We do feel, however, that the title of this paper may be misleading. This behavior would make it challenging to define whether anti-RBD antibodies are false negatives or if anti-S1 antibodies are false positives. [Extracted from the article]

We encourage authors to continue to submit high-quality manuscripts on cutting-edge topics in survey statistics and methodology as well as innovative and relevant applications (combining both) to I JSSAM i . Of course, we continue to accept longer original research papers and review papers on topics related to survey methodology, survey statistics, and applications. In June 2021, I JSSAM i received its opening impact factor (1.957 for 2020), ranking I JSSAM i as 46/125 in Statistics and Probability and 29/52 in Social Sciences Mathematical Methods. [Extracted from the article]

Background While individual countries have gained considerable knowledge and experience in coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) management, an international, comparative perspective is lacking, particularly regarding the measures taken by different countries to tackle the pandemic. This paper elicits the views of health system staff, tapping into their personal expertise on how the pandemic was initially handled. Methods From May to July 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional, online, purpose-designed survey comprising 70 items. Email lists of contacts provided by the International Society for Quality in Health Care, the Italian Network for Safety in Health Care and the Australian Institute of Health Innovation were used to access healthcare professionals and managers across the world. We snowballed the survey to individuals and groups connected to these organizations. Key outcome measures were attitudes and information about institutional approaches taken; media communication; how acute hospitals were re-organized; primary health organization; personal protective equipment; and staffing and training. Results A total of 1131 survey participants from 97 countries across the World Health Organization (WHO) regions responded to the survey. Responses were from all six WHO regions; 57.9% were female and the majority had 10 or more years of experience in healthcare; almost half (46.5%) were physicians; and all other major clinical professional groups participated. As the pandemic progressed, most countries established an emergency task force, developed communication channels to citizens, organized health services to cope and put in place appropriate measures (e.g. pathways for COVID-19 patients, and testing, screening and tracing procedures). Some countries did this better than others. We found several significant differences between the WHO regions in how they are tackling the pandemic. For instance, while overall most respondents (71.4%) believed that there was an effective plan prior to the outbreak, this was only the case for 31.9% of respondents from the Pan American Health Organization compared with 90.7% of respondents from the South-East Asia Region (SEARO). Issues with swab testing (e.g. delay in communicating the swab outcome) were less frequently reported by respondents from SEARO and the Western Pacific Region compared with other regions. Conclusion The world has progressed in its knowledge and sophistication in tackling the pandemic after early and often substantial obstacles were encountered. Most WHO regions have or are in the process of responding well, although some countries have not yet instituted widespread measures known to support mitigation, for example, effective swab testing and social control measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION Does maternal infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in first trimester pregnancy have an impact on the fetal development as measured by nuchal translucency thickness and pregnancy loss? SUMMARY ANSWER Nuchal translucency thickness at the first trimester scan was not significantly different in pregnant women with versus without SARS-CoV-2 infection in early pregnancy and there was no significantly increased risk of pregnancy loss in women with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first trimester. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Pregnant women are more vulnerable to viral infections. Previous coronavirus epidemics have been associated with increased maternal morbidity, mortality and adverse obstetric outcomes. Currently, no evidence exists regarding possible effects of SARS-CoV-2 in first trimester pregnancies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Cohort study of 1019 women with a double test taken between 17 February and 23 April 2020, as a part of the combined first trimester risk assessment, and 36 women with a first trimester pregnancy loss between 14 April and 21 May 2020, prior to the double test. The study period was during the first SARS-CoV-2 epidemic wave in Denmark. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Cohort 1 included pregnant women with a double test taken within the study period. The excess serum from each double test was analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Results were correlated to the nuchal translucency thickness and the number of pregnancy losses before or at the time of the first trimester scan. Cohort 2 included women with a pregnancy loss before the gestational age for double test sample. Serum from a blood test taken the day the pregnancy loss was identified was analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The study was conducted at a public university hospital serving ∼12% of pregnant women and births in Denmark. All participants in the study provided written informed consent. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Eighteen (1.8%) women had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the serum from the double test suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection in early pregnancy. There was no significant difference in nuchal translucency thickness for women testing positive for previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 16) versus negative (n = 966) (P  = 0.62). There was no significantly increased risk of pregnancy loss for women with antibodies (n = 1) (OR 3.4, 0.08–24.3 95% CI, P  = 0.27). None of the women had been hospitalized due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. None of the women with pregnancy loss prior to the double test (Cohort 2) had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION These results may only apply to similar populations and to patients who do not require hospitalization due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. A limitation of the study is that only 1.8% of the study population had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies suggestive of previous infection. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS Maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection had no effect on the nuchal translucency thickness and there was no significantly increased risk of pregnancy loss for women with SARS-CoV-2 infection in first trimester pregnancy. Evidence concerning COVID-19 in pregnancy is still limited. These data indicate that infection with SARS-CoV-2 in not hospitalized women does not pose a significant threat in first trimester pregnancies. Follow-up studies are needed to establish any risk to a fetus exposed to maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Prof. H.S.N. and colleagues received a grant from the Danish Ministry of Research and Education for research of COVID-19 among pregnant women. The Danish government was not involved in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report or decision to submit the paper for publication. A.I. J.O.-L. J.B.-R. D.M.S. J.E.-F. and E.R.H. received funding from a Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF) Young Investigator Grant (NNF15OC0016662) and a Danish National Science Foundation Center Grant (6110-00344B). A.I. received a Novo Scholarship. J.O.-L. is funded by an NNF Pregraduate Fellowship (NNF19OC0058982). D.W. is funded by the NNF (NNF18SA0034956, NNF14CC0001, NNF17OC0027594). A.M.K. is funded by a grant from the Rigshospitalet's research fund. H.S.N. has received speaker's fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck Denmark A/S and Ibsa Nordic (outside the submitted work). N.l.C.F. has received a grant from Gedeon Richter (outside the submitted work). A.M.K. has received speaker's fee from Merck (outside the submitted work). The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Few pediatric cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported and we know little about the epidemiology in children, although more is known about other coronaviruses. We aimed to understand the infection rate, clinical presentation, clinical outcomes, and transmission dynamics for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in order to inform clinical and public health measures. Methods We undertook a rapid systematic review and narrative synthesis of all literature relating to SARS-CoV-2 in pediatric populations. The search terms also included SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. We searched 3 databases and the COVID-19 resource centers of 11 major journals and publishers. English abstracts of Chinese-language papers were included. Data were extracted and narrative syntheses conducted. Results Twenty-four studies relating to COVID-19 were included in the review. Children appear to be less affected by COVID-19 than adults by observed rate of cases in large epidemiological studies. Limited data on attack rate indicate that children are just as susceptible to infection. Data on clinical outcomes are scarce but include several reports of asymptomatic infection and a milder course of disease in young children, although radiological abnormalities are noted. Severe cases are not reported in detail and there are few data relating to transmission. Conclusions Children appear to have a low observed case rate of COVID-19 but may have rates similar to adults of infection with SARS-CoV-2. This discrepancy may be because children are asymptomatic or too mildly infected to draw medical attention and be tested and counted in observed cases of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Treatment and management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2, which causes coronavirus disease (COVID-19), requires increased adoption of personal protective equipment (PPE) to be worn by workers in healthcare and industry. In warm occupational settings, the added burden of PPE threatens worker health and productivity, a major lesson learned during the West-African Ebola outbreak which ultimately constrained disease control. In this paper, we comment on the link between COVID-19 PPE and occupational heat strain, cooling solutions available to mitigate occupational heat stress, and practical considerations surrounding their effectiveness and feasibility. While the choice of cooling solution depends on the context of the work and what is practical, mitigating occupational heat stress benefits workers in the healthcare and industrial sectors during the COVID-19 disease outbreak. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background COVID-19 has disproportionately affected older people. Objective The objective of this paper to investigate whether frailty is associated with all-cause mortality in older hospital inpatients, with COVID-19. Design Cohort study. Setting Secondary care acute hospital. Participants Participants included are 677 consecutive inpatients aged 65 years and over. Methods Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the association of frailty with mortality. Frailty was assessed at baseline, according to the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), where higher categories indicate worse frailty. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, ethnicity, previous admissions and acute illness severity. Results Six hundred and sixty-four patients were classified according to CFS. Two hundred and seventy-one died, during a mean follow-up of 34.3 days. Worse frailty at baseline was associated with increased mortality risk, even after full adjustment (P  = 0.004). Patients with CFS 4 and CFS 5 had non-significant increased mortality risks, compared to those with CFS 1–3. Patients with CFS 6 had a 2.13-fold (95% CI 1.34–3.38) and those with CFS 7–9 had a 1.79-fold (95% CI 1.12–2.88) increased mortality risk, compared to those with CFS 1–3 (P  = 0.001 and 0.016, respectively). Older age, male sex and acute illness severity were also associated with increased mortality risk. Conclusions Frailty is associated with all-cause mortality risk in older inpatients with COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To examine and summarize the current literature on serologic methods for the detection of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).Methods: A literature review was performed using searches in databases including PubMed, medRxiv, and bioRxiv. Thirty-two peer-reviewed papers and 23 preprints were examined.Results: The studies included lateral flow immunoassay, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, chemiluminescence immunoassay, and neutralizing antibody assays. The use of all major SARS-CoV-2 antigens was demonstrated to have diagnostic value. Assays measuring total antibody reactivity had the highest sensitivity. In addition, all the methods provided opportunities to characterize the humoral immune response by isotype. The combined use of IgM and IgG detection resulted in a higher sensitivity than that observed when detecting either isotype alone. Although IgA was rarely studied, it was also demonstrated to be a sensitive marker of infection, and levels correlated with disease severity and neutralizing activity.Conclusions: The use of serologic testing, in conjunction with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing, was demonstrated to significantly increase the sensitivity of detection of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. There was conflicting evidence regarding whether antibody titers correlated with clinical severity. However, preliminary investigations indicated some immunoassays may be a surrogate for the prediction of neutralizing antibody titers and the selection of recovered patients for convalescent serum donation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A number of countries are planning the use of "immunity passports" as a way to ease restrictive measures and allow infected and recovered people to return to work during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper brings together key scientific uncertainties regarding the use of serological tests to assure immune status and a public health ethics perspective to inform key considerations in the ethical implementation of immunity passport policies. Ill-conceived policies have the potential to cause severe unintended harms that could result in greater inequity, the stigmatization of certain sectors of society, and heightened risks and unequal treatment of individuals due to erroneous test results. Immunity passports could, however, be used to achieve collective benefits and benefits for specific populations besides facilitating economic recovery. We conclude that sector-based policies that prioritize access to testing based on societal need are likely to be fairer and logistically more feasible, while minimizing stigma and reducing incentives for fraud. Clear guidelines need to be set out for which sectors of society should be prioritized for testing, and rigorous mechanisms should be in place to validate test results and identify cases of reinfection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although attention is focused on addressing the acute situation created by the COVID-19 illness, it is imperative to continue our efforts to prevent cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, particularly during a period of prolonged social isolation which may limit physical activity, adversely affect mental health and reduce access to usual care. One option may be to deliver healthcare interventions remotely through digital healthcare solutions. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to bring together the evidence for remote healthcare during a quarantine situation period to support people living with cardiovascular disease during COVID-19 isolation. Methods: The PubMed, CINAHL and Google Scholar were searched using telehealth OR digital health OR mHealth OR eHealth OR mobile apps AND COVID-19 OR quarantine search terms. We also searched for literature relating to cardiovascular disease AND quarantine. Results: The literature search identified 45 potentially relevant publications, out of which nine articles were included. Three overarching themes emerged from this review: (1) preparing the workforce and ensuring reimbursement for remote healthcare, (2) supporting mental and physical health and (3) supporting usual care. Conclusion: To support people living with cardiovascular disease during COVID-19 isolation and to mitigate the effects of quarantine and adverse effect on mental and physical well-being, we should offer remote healthcare and provide access to their usual care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background the negative consequences of COVID-19 distancing measures on older adults' mental health and ability to access services have been well documented. Online cognitive behavioural therapy and mindfulness interventions for older adults, carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic, have shown that these interventions are feasible and have potential mental health benefits. However, little research has been carried out on older adults' experiences of engaging with online psychological therapy, and specifically mindfulness therapy. Objectives to understand the experience of older adults engaging with online mindfulness therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Study design a qualitative analysis of four community-based focus groups. Participants thirty-six community dwelling older adults aged between 65 and 85 years were recruited via older adult organisations, charities and the local press. Nineteen percent had long-term physical health conditions, 25% had severe and enduring mental health difficulties and 19% had mild to moderate mental health difficulties. Results there was a strong sense of group cohesion and community from the participants. Three main themes were identified: reasons for applying, experience of the mindfulness therapy and connecting at home. Conclusions the majority of participants were positive about attending a mindfulness group online. This extended to the perceived psychological and social benefits as well as practical considerations. While some participants noted technological hurdles at the beginning of the course, the findings challenge previous studies that suggest older adults are reluctant to engage in online psychological therapies and has important implications for the future provision of psychological therapies to this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 23rd March 2020, the UK government released self-isolation/social distancing guidance to reduce the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The influence such guidance has on sexual activity is not known. To investigate levels and correlates of sexual activity during COVID-19 self-isolation/social distancing in a sample of the UK public. This paper presents preplanned interim analyses of data from a cross-sectional epidemiological study, administered through an online survey. Sexual activity was measured using the following question: "On average after self-isolating how many times have you engaged in sexual activity weekly?" Demographic and clinical data were collected, including sex, age, marital status, employment, annual household income, region, current smoking status, current alcohol consumption, number of chronic physical conditions, number of chronic psychiatric conditions, any physical symptom experienced during self-isolation, and number of days of self-isolation/social distancing. The association between several factors (independent variables) and sexual activity (dependent variable) was studied using a multivariable logistic regression model. 868 individuals were included in this study. There were 63.1% of women, and 21.8% of adults who were aged between 25 and 34 years. During self-isolation/social distancing, 39.9% of the population reported engaging in sexual activity at least once per week. Variables significantly associated with sexual activity (dependent variable) were being male, a younger age, being married or in a domestic partnership, consuming alcohol, and a higher number of days of self-isolation/social distancing. In this sample of 868 UK adults self-isolating owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, the prevalence of sexual activity was lower than 40%. Those reporting particularly low levels of sexual activity included females, older adults, those not married, and those who abstain from alcohol consumption. This is the first study to investigate sexual activity during the UK COVID-19 self-isolation/social distancing. Participants were asked to self-report their sexual activity potentially introducing self-reporting bias into the findings. Second, analyses were cross-sectional and thus it is not possible to determine trajectories of sexual activity during the current pandemic. Interventions to promote health and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic should consider positive sexual health messages in mitigating the detrimental health consequences in relation to self-isolation/social distancing and should target those with the lowest levels of sexual activity. Jacob L, Smith L, Butler L, et al. Challenges in the Practice of Sexual Medicine in the Time of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom. J Sex Med 2020;17:1229–1236. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In December 2019, a working group of the European Academy of Microbiology assembled to discuss various aspects of vaccines and vaccinations. The meeting was organised by Jörg Hacker and Eliora Z. Ron and took place in the offices of the Leopoldina (German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina). Several important issues were addressed and a major part of the discussion focused on the need to develop new vaccines, especially to protect against pathogens that constitute a pandemic threat. Following the rapid and unpredicted spread of COVID-19 in the first seven months of 2020, the need to develop vaccines for pandemic viruses rapidly has been clearly established. Thus, this paper will concentrate on points that were highlighted by the recent COVID-19 pandemic and lessons learnt therefrom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The outbreak and pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 in 2019 has caused a severe public health burden and will challenge global health for the future. The discovery and mechanistic investigation of drugs against Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is in deadly demand. The paper published by Li and colleagues proposed the hypothesis that vitamin C combined with glycyrrhizic acid in treating COVID-19 and its mechanistic investigation was performed by a database-based network pharmacology. In this letter, we present critical comments on the limitations and insufficiencies involved, from both the perspective of network pharmacology and current evidence on COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dear Editor, We would like to thank Dr Kounis and his colleagues for taking interest in our paper and providing their valuable opinion.[1] In his letter, Dr Kounis highlights the possible use of corticosteroids in mild COVID-19. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 6 Sarda R, Swain S, Ray A, Wig N. COVID-19 associated mucormycosis and evolving evidence. [Extracted from the article]

'Medical consent; striking the right balance between shared decision-making and shared responsibility': A win-win scenario if done well Agarwal and colleagues illustrate in their letter[1] how balancing shared responsibility and shared decision-making can help achieve positive clinical outcomes as well as reduce the risk of litigation, which was the focus of our paper.[2] Their case of a young girl fighting metastatic bone cancer and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection on an intensive care unit (ICU) highlights the clear benefit of ensuring that treatment decisions are not made in isolation. The approach taken by Agarwal and the ICU team, nonetheless, ensured that everyone was aware of the options and on board with the treatment offered. [Extracted from the article]

I noticed a recently published paper named 'Is acupuncture effective in the treatment of COVID-19 related symptoms? Based on bioinformatics/network topology strategy' with great interest. I am inspired and also have some doubts, which are mainly about the active compounds of acupuncture treating COVID-19. The authors choose only two active compounds, which remains to be elucidated clearly with some criteria description. The 11 300 disease targets of COVID-19 were screened using the terms like the related symptoms, which might be other diseases' manifestations. So the better legends of Figures and Tables should be the terms like COVID-19-related symptoms, instead of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Health Systems Response Monitor (HSRM) was established in March 2020 at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to collect and organize up-to-date information on how 50 countries in the WHO European Region and Canada are responding to the crisis. The HSRM uses a structured template, focusing primarily on the responses of health systems but also capturing wider public health initiatives. The HSRM is a joint undertaking of the WHO Regional Office for Europe, the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, and the European Commission. The HSRM builds on the Health Systems and Policy Network of the European Observatory, which brings together an international group of high-profile institutions from Europe and beyond with high academic standing in health systems and policy analysis. The content collected on the HSRM platform has been used to enhance cross country learnings through topical snapshots, papers, webinars and more. At the end of 2020, the European Observatory initiated a Health Policy Special Issue (SI) based on the work of the HSRM containing both thematic policy papers and full comparative descriptions and analysis of country responses. Overall, work from the HSRM aims to provide coherent and comprehensive insight on lessons learned from the COVID-19 response so far to support policymakers for future waves or in case of future pandemics. This workshop aims to provide the audience with an overview of the COVID-19 HSRM and the insights gleaned from the SI. An introductory overview will briefly introduce the COVID-19 HSRM and the SI. The first presentation will compare provider payment adjustments across 20 countries. The second presentation will focus on how countries planned services for potential surge capacity, managed care provision, and maintained routine services in both hospital and outpatient settings during the first wave of the pandemic. The third presentation will zoom in on experiences in primary health care. The last presentation will feature one of the country comparison papers from social health insurance countries. The workshop will conclude with an audience discussion about the lessons learned from the COVID-19 HSRM, and future opportunities for research using the HSRM. Key messages: The COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor has tracked the progression of health policies throughout the pandemic and captures particularly policy relevant aspects. Both thematic and cross-country comparisons can illuminate how health systems have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic and provide lessons for future waves and pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We believe that periorbital erythema should also be mentioned in this comprehensive review, as this paper has the potential for being a primary resource on the cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19. Periorbital erythema is a common cutaneous manifestation in COVID-19 We read with great interest the recent elaborate review on the skin manifestations of COVID-19 in children by Andina I et i I al i .,1 published recently in I Clinical and Experimental Dermatology i . [Extracted from the article]

Background: High rates of vaccination are worldwide required to establish a herd immunity stopping the current COVID-19 pandemic evolution. Vaccine hesitancy is a major barrier in achieving herd immunity across different populations. This study sought to conduct a systematic review of the current literature regarding attitudes and hesitancy to receiving COVID-19 vaccination worldwide. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Multiple databases were searched, namely PubMed and Web of Science, on February 24th, 2021 using a set of developed keywords. Inclusion criteria included the study to be 1) conducted in English; 2) investigated attitudes, hesitancy, and/or barriers to COVID-19 vaccine acceptability among a given population; 3) utilized validated measurements techniques; 4) have the full text paper available and 5) be peer-reviewed prior to final publication. The Newcastle Ottawa (NOS) scale for cross sectional studies was used to assess the quality of the studies. Results: 73 studies were included in qualitative synthesis. Overall, vaccine acceptance rates ranged from 23.6% in Kuwait to 94.3% in Malaysia and Nepal. A variety of different factors contributed to increased hesitancy, some of which included having negative perception of vaccine efficacy, safety, convenience and price. Some of the consistent socio-demographic groups that were identified to be associated with increased hesitancy included: women, younger participants, less educated, with lower income, with no insurance, living in the rural area and self-identified as a racial/ethnic minority. Conclusions: Vaccine hesitancy rates against COVID-19 vaccine ranged widely among across different populations. Identifying the factors that interplay and result in high hesitancy rates among a population can allow formulating a directed intervention to increase their vaccination uptake rates. Key messages: • It is necessary to understand the factors that contribute to the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. • It is important to inform policy-makers and formulate direct intervention measures that will successfully handle the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In 2019, WHO classified vaccine hesitancy as one of the top 10 threats to global health. Vaccination is an area of excellence in nursing that has gained a new focus and has become a challenge in the provision of care and in the management field. Vaccine hesitation raises questions about mandatory vaccination, individual versus collective freedom that are highlighted in the current context due to the emergence of new vaccines. In this paper, we want to analyze and update knowledge about vaccines hesitancy from an ethical and bioethical perspective. Methods A combination of literature reviews on vaccine refusal/hesitancy, ethics and COVID-19 vaccine confidence, accessed on SciELO and PubMed databases and analysis of documents from General Directorate of Health and Ordem dos Enfermeiros (National Nurses Association). Results Vaccination programs aim is a collective protection. The desirable effects at individual level do not have the same ethical value at collective level, leading to cost-benefit imbalances. Moral conflicts between the individual and the collective, cost-benefit imbalances and the insufficiency of bioethics principles, lead us to the use of other moral values and principles, such as responsibility, solidarity and social justice, as a tool for ethical reflection problems related to COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusions There are no perfect solutions to ethical dilemmas and some optimal solutions could depend the context. In a pandemic situation, one of the most relevant ethical issues is the herd immunity since it leaves public health at risk. Equity and the principle of justice in vaccination campaign are shown daily in the nursing profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Motivation The emergence of a novel strain of betacoronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, has led to a pandemic that has been associated with over 700 000 deaths as of August 5, 2020. Research is ongoing around the world to create vaccines and therapies to minimize rates of disease spread and mortality. Crucial to these efforts are molecular characterizations of neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Such antibodies would be valuable for measuring vaccine efficacy, diagnosing exposure and developing effective biotherapeutics. Here, we describe our new database, CoV-AbDab, which already contains data on over 1400 published/patented antibodies and nanobodies known to bind to at least one betacoronavirus. This database is the first consolidation of antibodies known to bind SARS-CoV-2 as well as other betacoronaviruses such as SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV. It contains relevant metadata including evidence of cross-neutralization, antibody/nanobody origin, full variable domain sequence (where available) and germline assignments, epitope region, links to relevant PDB entries, homology models and source literature. Results On August 5, 2020, CoV-AbDab referenced sequence information on 1402 anti-coronavirus antibodies and nanobodies, spanning 66 papers and 21 patents. Of these, 1131 bind to SARS-CoV-2. Availabilityand implementation CoV-AbDab is free to access and download without registration at http://opig.stats.ox.ac.uk/webapps/coronavirus. Community submissions are encouraged. Supplementary information Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated policy responses to it were highly disruptive of supply chains throughout the economy in 2020 - disruptive on an unprecedented scale. Massive shocks on both the demand and supply sides of the market presented particular challenges in agricultural product markets. These were arguably most pronounced in the protein sector. This paper will examine these protein sector supply chain shocks, exploring the nature and causes of the market disruptions during the height of the pandemic, evaluating the effects of these shocks from an economic perspective, and identifying potential market and policy responses that could mitigate the adverse effects of similar events in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on Labmedicine.com website featuring papers on COVID-19 relevant to today's laboratory professionals and pathologists including utility of antigen-based rapid diagnostic test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus in routine hospital setting.

Background: This evidence summary synthesised the evidence relating to pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in the community to prevent COVID-19/progression to severe disease. An additional aim was to identify potentially modifiable lifestyle factors associated with reduced risk of infection/progression to severe disease. Methods: A systematic search of published peer-reviewed articles and non-peer-reviewed pre-prints was undertaken from 1 January 2020 to 19 April 2021; no language restrictions were applied. All potentially eligible papers were exported to Covidence. Titles/abstracts and full texts were single screened for relevance. Data extraction and quality appraisal of included studies was completed by a single reviewer and checked by a second. Results: In total, 50 studies, three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one non-RCT and 46 cohort studies were included. The four included controlled trials tested variations of the pharmacological intervention, ivermectin. While these controlled trials reported a protective effect for ivermectin use, these trials were of poor quality and had serious risk of bias. Across 46 cohort studies, the modifiable lifestyle risk factors identified were obesity, smoking, vitamin D status, physical activity, alcohol consumption and processed meat consumption. These studies reported mixed results in terms of the association between modifiable lifestyle risk factors and poor COVID-19 outcomes. Conclusions: At the time of writing there is no high quality evidence of benefit to support pharmacological interventions to prevent COVID-19. Although there were mixed results for the risk factors identified, maintenance of healthy weight, smoking cessation, engaging in physical activity and moderation of alcohol and processed meat consumption are likely to be beneficial to health and should continue to be encouraged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Since cases first emerged in December 2019, COVID‐19 (a type of coronavirus) has rapidly become pandemic. This fast‐tracked paper (published quickly) from China on COVID‐19 is written by dermatologists at the epicentre of the outbreak in Wuhan. Dermatology clinic staff may be at risk because protective equipment is not routinely available, and skin lesions might possibly transmit the virus indirectly. These authors suggest preventive measures based on experience in this and previous coronavirus outbreaks. Online consultation for non‐urgent patients reduces the numbers of patients attending clinics. Nurse‐led triage, to identify patients with possible COVID‐19, at the entrances of hospital and skin clinics directs patients with a cough or fever to a specific COVID‐19 area and a dermatologist is consulted if the fever might be related to skin disease. Clinic staff wear N95 masks and observe hand hygiene during consultations. Patients are admitted to a ward only if routine blood tests and chest CT scans exclude COVID‐19. Triage will not detect patients who are showing no symptoms but who are developing the disease, so the hospital should provide an on‐call expert team to discuss inpatients suspected or diagnosed with COVID‐19 and refer them to radiology, respiratory or intensive care colleagues as required. Confirmed cases are managed following local policies. Skin disorders in COVID‐19 inpatients can usually be managed remotely using photographs, email and teleconferencing. If necessary a multidisciplinary team (a team of medical staff from different specialties) can meet in the clean area of the isolation ward. If the dermatologist must see the patient, all records should be provided in advance to minimise exposure time. With these precautions, as of 20th February 2020 no infected patients were detected in the Wuhan Dermatology Department. This is a summary of the study: Emergency management for preventing and controlling nosocomial infection of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for the dermatology department Linked Article: Tao et al. Br J Dermatol 2020; 182:1477–1478 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]