Search

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been as unprecedented as unexpected, affecting more than 105 million people worldwide as of 8 February 2020 and causing more than 2.3 million deaths according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Not only affecting the lungs but also provoking acute respiratory distress, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is able to infect multiple cell types including cardiac and vascular cells. Hence a significant proportion of infected patients develop cardiac events, such as arrhythmias and heart failure. Patients with cardiovascular comorbidities are at highest risk of cardiac death. To face the pandemic and limit its burden, health authorities have launched several fast-track calls for research projects aiming to develop rapid strategies to combat the disease, as well as longer-term projects to prepare for the future. Biomarkers have the possibility to aid in clinical decision-making and tailoring healthcare in order to improve patient quality of life. The biomarker potential of circulating RNAs has been recognized in several disease conditions, including cardiovascular disease. RNA biomarkers may be useful in the current COVID-19 situation. The discovery, validation, and marketing of novel biomarkers, including RNA biomarkers, require multi-centre studies by large and interdisciplinary collaborative networks, involving both the academia and the industry. Here, members of the EU-CardioRNA COST Action CA17129 summarize the current knowledge about the strain that COVID-19 places on the cardiovascular system and discuss how RNA biomarkers can aid to limit this burden. They present the benefits and challenges of the discovery of novel RNA biomarkers, the need for networking efforts, and the added value of artificial intelligence to achieve reliable advances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In high-income countries that were first to roll out coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, older adults have thus far usually been prioritized for these vaccines over younger adults. Age-based priority primarily resulted from interpreting evidence available at the time, which indicated that vaccinating the elderly first would minimize COVID-19 deaths and hospitalizations. The World Health Organization counsels a similar approach for all countries. This paper argues that some low- and middle-income countries that are short of COVID-19 vaccine doses might be justified in revising this approach and instead prioritizing certain younger persons when allocating current vaccines or future variant-specific vaccines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has affected the functioning and capacity of healthcare systems worldwide. COVID-19 has also disproportionately affected older adults. In the context of COVID-19, decision-making surrounding place of care (PoC) and place of death (PoD) in older adults involves significant new challenges. Aims To explore key factors that influence PoC and PoD decisions in older adults. A secondary aim was to investigate key factors that influence the process and outcome of these decisions in older adults. To apply findings from current evidence to the context of COVID-19. Methods Rapid review of reviews, undertaken using WHO guidance for rapid reviews for the production of actionable evidence. Data extracted was synthesised using narrative synthesis, with thematic analysis and tabulation. Results 10 papers were included for full data extraction. These papers were published between 2005 and 2020. Papers included discussed actual PoD, as well as preferred. Results were divided into papers that explored the process of decision-making, and those that explored decision-making outcomes. Conclusions The process and outcomes of decision-making for older people are affected by many factors—all of which have the potential to influence both patients and caregivers experience of illness and dying. Within the context of COVID-19, such decisions may have to be made rapidly and be reflexive to changing needs of systems and of families and patients. [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]

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]