Search

Background: This study sought to determine the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus on surfaces that trainees and faculty of an academic eye clinic came into contact with during daily life at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City. Methods: This cross-sectional analysis involved collection of at least two samples by teams on four different days (November 9, 2020 - December 18, 2020) using sterile swabs (Puritan HydraFlock, Garden Grove, CA). Collection sites were grouped into four zones depending on proximity and amount of time personnel spent there. Samples were transported to the laboratory in transport medium and RNA was extracted using the QIAamp DSP Viral RNA Mini Kit (Qiagen, Germantown, MD). Presence of viral RNA was investigated using the Luna Universal Probe One-step RT-qPCR kit (New England Biolabs, Ipwsich, MA). Results: 834 samples were submitted. Two were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The first was a sample from a patient bathroom sink handle in the main emergency department. The second was a nasal swab sample from a staff member who had been assigned to collect samples. Prior to this positive result, this asymptomatic staff member had tested positive for COVID-19, had quarantined for two weeks, and had received a negative test. Conclusion: Though COVID-19 is currently widespread in the United States, this study shows that health care personnel working in New York City at the Columbia University Irving Medical Center have a low chance of encountering viral RNA on surfaces they are in close contact with during daily life.

Background The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic spread across Europe from February 2020. While robust SARS-CoV-2 serological assays were quickly developed, only limited information on applied serological testing is available. We describe the extent and nature of SARS-CoV-2 serological testing used in Europe and assess the links between epidemiology, mitigation strategies applied and seroprevalence. Methods An online questionnaire on SARS-CoV-2 serology was sent to the European Society of Clinical Virology and European Non-Polio Enterovirus Network members in September 2020. Data were analysed by comparing mitigation approaches, serological methods and seroprevalance studies performed. Results About 100 000 laboratory confirmed cases identified between March and June 2020 were reported by 36 participating laboratories from 20 countries. All responders experienced mitigation strategies including lockdowns and other closures. All except one participant had introduced serological testing; most had validated their assays (n = 29), but some had had difficulties in obtaining reference material. Most used commercial assays (n = 35), measuring IgG response against the spike antigen. Serology was used primarily for diagnostic purposes (n = 22) but also for convalescent plasma (n = 13) and research studies (n = 30). Seroprevalence studies targeted mainly health care workers (n = 20; seroprevalance 5% to 22%) and general population (n = 16; seroprevalance 0.88% to 5.6%). Basic demographic and clinical information were collected by most laboratories (n = 28), whereas data on long-term outcomes were rarely collected. Conclusions This is first study gathering systematic information on serological testing approaches implemented during the first pandemic wave in Europe.

Background The antiviral therapy has been considered as an ordinary intervention for COVID-19 patients. However, the effectiveness of antiviral therapy is uncertain. This study was designed to determine the association between the antiviral therapy and in-hospital mortality among severe COVID-19 patients. Methods This study enrolled severe COVID-19 patients admitted to four designated hospitals in Wuhan, China. The use of antiviral treatments, demographics, laboratory variables, co-morbidities, complications, and other treatments were compared between survival and fatal cases. The association between antiviral agents and in-hospital mortality were analyzed. Results In total, 109 severe COVID-19 patients (mean age 65.43) were enrolled for analysis, among which, 61 (56.0%) patients were discharged alive, and 48 (44.0%) died during hospitalization. We found no association between lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) treatment and the in-hospital mortality (odds ratio (OR) = 0.195, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.023-1.679). Besides, ribavirin (OR = 0.738, 95% CI = 0.344-1.582), oseltamivir (OR = 0.765, 95% CI = 0.349-1.636), and interferon-alpha (IFN-α) (OR = 0.371, 95% CI = 0.112-1.236) were not associated with the in-hospital mortality. However, arbidol monotherapy (OR = 5.027, 95% CI = 1.795-14.074) or the combination of arbidol and oseltamivir (OR = 5.900, 95% CI = 1.190-29.247) was associated with an increased in-hospital mortality. In addition, the multiple logistic regression identified a significant association between the use of arbidol and the in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR = 4.195, 95% CI = 1.221-14.408). Conclusions Our findings indicated that LPV/r, IFN-α, ribavirin, or oseltamivir have no beneficial effects on the prognosis of severe COVID-19 patients, whereas the use of arbidol is associated with increased in-hospital mortality.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in both direct and indirect impacts on patients and population health. To better understand the impact of the measures put in place by the Kenyan government on health care provision, this project sought to document and quantify the impact of the restriction measures on patients' attendance in Machakos County. Methods Hospital attendance at 10 public hospitals were obtained including Machakos Level 5 Hospital (the county referral facility) and one health facility from each of the 9 Sub-counties of Machakos County. Data on outpatient and inpatient attendance from November 2019 to May 2020 were obtained and compared with a similar calendar period from the previous year. Key informant interviews (KIIs), focused group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews were conducted with the hospital management personnel (n = 46), as well as with the patients (n = 453) who missed scheduled clinic appointments at Machakos Level 5 Hospital to understand the reasons behind the drop in attendance numbers. Results Overall, there was a decline in the number of patient attendances compared to the prior calendar period. Outpatient attendance reduced by 24.7% in April 2020 (n = 39 704) compared with April 2019 (n = 52 731). Inpatient attendance reduced by 13.7% in April 2020 (n = 3298) compared with April 2019 (n = 2845). Declines in patient attendance were observed in all hospitals that had inpatient services. A great decline in attendance was noted among larger hospitals that run specialty clinics, which were suspended mid-March 2020 when the first case of COVID-19 was announced. Some increase in attendance was noted in May when most clinics resumed operations. Most hospital management staff highlighted the closure of clinics as the main reason for reduced attendance while patients added that they also feared contracting COVID-19 at the hospital and the stigma they would face should they be quarantined. Conclusions The findings from this study provide evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak and measures put in place by the government to curb its spread disrupted the provision of health services in Machakos County. Efforts to minimize adverse impacts of indirect impacts on access to health care and preventative services to counter increased morbidity and mortality require attention throughout the pandemic.

Background: There is uncertainty with respect to SARS-CoV-2 transmission in children (0-19 years) with controversy on effectiveness of school-closures in controlling the pandemic. It is of equal importance to evaluate the risk of transmission in children who are often asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic carriers that may incidentally transmit SARS-CoV-2 in different settings. We conducted this review to assess transmission and risks for SARS-CoV-2 in children (by age-groups or grades) in community and educational-settings compared to adults. Methods: Data for the review were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, WHO COVID-19 Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Database, WanFang Database, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Google Scholar, and preprints from medRixv and bioRixv) covering a timeline from December 1, 2019 to April 1, 2021. Population-screening, contact-tracing and cohort studies reporting prevalence and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in children were included. Data were extracted according to PRISMA guidelines. Meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.3. Results: Ninety studies were included. Compared to adults, children showed comparable national (risk ratio (RR) = 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.71-1.060 and subnational (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.66-1.01) prevalence in population-screening studies, and lower odds of infection in community/household contact-tracing studies (odds ratio (OR) = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.46-0.84). On disaggregation, adolescents observed comparable risk (OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.74-2.04) with adults. In educational-settings, children attending daycare/preschools (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.38-0.72) were observed to be at lower-risk when compared to adults, with odds of infection among primary (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.55-1.31) and high-schoolers (OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 0.71-2.38) comparable to adults. Overall, children and adolescents had lower odds of infection in educational-settings compared to community and household clusters. Conclusions: Children (

Background We determined the clinical presentation, risk factors, and pregnancy and perinatal outcomes in pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 and identified if these are different based on COVID-19 severity. Methods We included all observational studies on pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 reporting clinical presentation, risk factors, and pregnancy and perinatal outcomes. We included all studies published between Dec/2019-Feb/2021 in Medline, Embase, the WHO COVID-19 databases, and clinicaltrials.gov. The methodological quality of cohort and case-series was assessed using NHLBI criteria. Results 31 016 pregnant women from 62 studies were included. Women were an average of 30.9 years of age, most (77.7%) were in the third trimester, and 16.4% developed severe COVID-19. Nearly half were asymptomatic, while the most commonly reported symptoms were cough, fever, fatigue, and anosmia/ageusia. About 7% were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), 8% required mechanical ventilation, and 2% of the women died. Almost 80% of women delivered; 48.4% had cesarean births. Among newborns, 23.4% were preterm (35 years. The risk of severe COVID-19 was significantly higher among women who were obese, had smoked, diabetic, and had pre-eclampsia. The risk of preterm birth was almost 2.4 folds among women with severe COVID-19. Conclusions Our review suggests a heightened risk of COVID-19 severity and adverse pregnancy and perinatal outcomes among women with certain demographic and health profiles. These findings can inform the formation of current guidelines; however, these should be constantly updated as the global COVID-19 scenario unfolds. Registration PROSPERO: CRD42020182048.

Background Infectious outbreaks, most recently coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), have required pervasive public health strategies, termed lockdown measures, including quarantine, social distancing, and closure of workplaces and educational establishments. Although evidence analysing immediate effects is expanding, repercussions following lockdown measures remain poorly understood. This systematic review aims to analyse the biopsychosocial consequences after lockdown measures end according to short, medium, and long-term impacts. Methods PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from inception to January 12, 2021. Reference lists were manually reviewed. Eligible studies analysed biopsychosocial functioning after lockdown measures secondary to recent infectious outbreaks ended. Lockdown measures were defined as quarantine, isolation, workplace or educational closures, social or physical distancing, and national or local closure of public institutions deemed non-essential. Studies exclusively researching outcomes during lockdown measures, examined infectious participants, or analysed lockdown measures not pertaining to an infectious outbreak were excluded. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed bias with a third resolving discrepancies. Data was extracted from published reports with further information requested from authors where necessary. The mixed methods appraisal tool assessed study quality, languages were restricted to English, German, Italian, and French and narrative synthesis was applied. Results Of 5149 identified studies, 40 were eligible for inclusion. Psychological distress, economic repercussions, social, biological, and behavioural ramifications were observed. Short to medium-term effects comprised reactions relating to early trauma processing whereas medium to long-term repercussions manifested in maladaptive behaviours and mental health deterioration. Increased alcohol intake, stigmatisation, and economic effects were also identified consequences. High-risk groups included health care workers, children, elderly, inpatients, those with pre-existing psychiatric diagnoses, and socially isolated individuals. Conclusions Supporting vulnerable groups and offering education, workplace modifications, financial, and social assistance may mitigate negative repercussions. Establishing a rapid and comprehensive evidence base appraising the efficacy of such interventions and identifying areas for development is essential. This review was limited by study heterogeneity and lack of randomisation in available literature. Given the unprecedented nature and progression of COVID-19, the relevance of previous outcomes remains uncertain. Protocol registration PROSPERO registration CRD42020181134

Background: Nurses represent the major proportion of frontline health care professionals delivering 24/7 services to patients with an increased vulnerability towards COVID-19 infection. Mental health issues among nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic are poorly reported across the globe. Henceforth, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to explore the prevalence and determinants of mental health outcomes (anxiety, stress, depression, PTSD, insomnia) among nurses across the globe due to the COVID-19. Methods: A PRISMA compliant systematic review (PROSPERO-CRD 42020204120) was carried out to identify articles from multiple databases reporting the prevalence of mental health outcomes among nurses. Proportion random effect analysis, I2 statistic, quality assessment, and sensitivity analysis were carried out. Results: Pooled data on mental health outcomes were generated from 25 cross-sectional studies: 32% anxiety (95% confidence interval (CI) = 21%-44%, n (number of studies) = 21, N (sample size) = 13 641), 40.6% stress (95% CI = 25.4%-56.8%, n = 10, N = 4204), 32% depression (95% CI = 21%-44%, n = 17, N = 12 294), 18.6% PTSD (95% CI = 4.8%-38%, n = 3, N = 638), 38.3% insomnia (95% CI = 5.8%-78.6%, n = 2, N = 261) and significant risk factors for mental ailments includes; caring for COVID-19 patients, being a female, low self-efficacy, resilience, social support and having physical symptoms (sore-throat, breathlessness, cough, lethargy, myalgia, fever). Conclusion: The study results highlighted a higher proportion of poor mental health outcomes namely, anxiety, stress, depression, PTSD and insomnia among nurses from different parts of the world. Poor mental health outcomes among nurses warrants the need to implement proactive psychological interventions to deter the collapse of health care systems in responding to the pandemic and in particular all possible efforts should be undertaken to mitigate the risk factors. Health care organizations should provide support to nurses with sufficient flexibility. The disaster preparedness plan envisaged by nations should have provisions to address the mental health of nurses. Greater investment in addressing the global shortage of nurses should be given priority in national health policies. Attractive salary packages should be offered to nurses to prevent their emigration from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020204120).

Background: In December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emerged in Wuhan city and rapidly spread throughout China. So far, it has caused ~ 4000 deaths in this country. We aimed to systematically characterize clinical features and determine risk factors of sudden death for COVID-19 patients. Methods: Deceased patients with COVID-19 in Tongji hospital from January 22 to March 23, 2020 were extracted. Patients who died within 24 hours after admission were identified as sudden deaths, and the others formed non-sudden deaths. The differences in clinical characteristics between the two groups were estimated. Risk factors associated with sudden deaths were explored by logistic regression. Results: 281 deceased patients were enrolled in this study. Sudden death occurred in 28 (10.0%) patients, including 4 (14.3%) admitted to the intensive care unit. Fatigue was more common in sudden deaths (11, 47.8%) than in non-sudden deaths (40, 17.2%). Both the count and percentage of eosinophils were lower in sudden deaths than that in non-sudden deaths (P = 0.006 and P = 0.004). Compared with non-sudden deaths, sudden deaths had higher plasma levels of procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, D-dimer, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, gamma-glutamyl transferase, lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. There were not significant differences in gender, age, chest CT image features and comorbidities observed. Conclusions: The differences between the two groups suggested more severe systemic inflammation, multi-organ dysfunction, especially impaired liver and heart function in COVID-19 patients who died suddenly after admission. More researches are needed to verify these points.

Background: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza are prevalent seasonal community viruses. Although not completely understood, SARS-CoV-2 may have the same means of transmission. Preventive social measures aimed at preventing SARS-CoV-2 spread could impact transmission of other respiratory viruses as well. The aim of this study is to report the detection of RSV and influenza during the period of social distancing due to COVID-19 pandemic in a heavily affected community. Methods: Prospective study with pediatric and adult populations seeking care for COVID-19-like symptoms during the fall and winter of 2020 at two hospitals in Southern Brazil. RT-PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A (Flu A), influenza B (Flu B) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) was performed for all participants. Results: 1435 suspected COVID-19 participants (1137 adults, and 298 children). were included between May and August. Median age was 37.7 years (IQR = 29.6-47.7), and 4.92 years (IQR = 1.96-9.53), for the adult and child cohorts, respectively. SARS-CoV-2 was positive in 469 (32.7%) while influenza and RSV were not detected at all. Conclusions: Measures to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission likely exerted a huge impact in the spread of alternate respiratory pathogens. These findings contribute to the knowledge about the dynamics of virus spread. Further, it may be considered for guiding therapeutic choices for these other viruses.

Background The focus of the study is to assess the advantages and shortcomings of China's public health system in the process of the COVID-19 prevention and to discuss the future reform of China's public health system. Methods By searching literature and reports related to the COVID-19 prevention of China, we compared the prevention effectiveness with the prevention policies in the process of the COVID-19 prevention. Results China's public health system can effectively combine national power to maximize the effectiveness of pandemic prevention. It improved the pandemic prevention ability of communities continuously and promoted the fairness of prevention. Traditional Chinese Medicine has also been used in pandemic prevention, which reduces the drug resistance of the virus. At the same time, the combination of the disease diagnosis and the Internet has reduced the spread speed of the pandemic. China's public health system also has some problems in response to the COVID-19, such as the shortage of medical resources, insufficient alerts, the low efficiency of reporting to superior government and the shortage of reward and punishment system for pandemic prevention. Conclusions China's practice and efforts of the COVID-19 prevention can provide experience for other countries to improve their public health systems and accelerate the end of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background On 12 June 2020, Brazil reached the second position worldwide in the number of COVID-19 cases. Authorities increased the number of tests performed, including the identification of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (IgG, IgA, and IgM). There was an overflooding of the market with several tests, and the presence of possible false-positive results became a challenge. The purpose of this study was to describe the seroprevalence and immunoglobulin blood levels in a group of asymptomatic individuals using the reference levels provided by the manufacturer. Methods Levels of IgG and IgA antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 were determined in blood serum by the same ELISA (enzyme-linked immunoassay) test. Patients must be free of symptoms. Results From 20 to 22 May 2020, 938 individuals were tested. There were 441 (47%) men, age 53 years (interquartile range (IQR) = 39-63.2). The sample included 335 (35.7%) subjects aged ≥60 years old. Subjects with a positive test were 54 (5.8%) for IgG and 96 (10.2%) for IgA and 42 (4.5%) for both IgG and IgA. The prevalence of IgG and IgA positive test was not different in men and women and not different in individuals under 60 and over 60 years of age. Conversely, analysing only individuals with positive tests, the levels of IgG in positive subjects were significantly higher than those with an IgA positive test, 3.00 (IQR = 1.68-5.65), and 1.95 (IQR = 1.40-3.38), respectively; P = 0.017. Additionally, individuals with isolated IgA positive tests had significantly lower levels of IgA than those with both IgA and IgG positive tests: 1.95 (IQR = 1.60-2.40) and 3.15 (IQR = 2.20-3.90), respectively, P = 0.005. These latter data suggest that IgA shows a deviation of the distribution to the left in comparison to IgG distribution data. Indeed, many subjects reported as IgA positive had immunoglobulin levels slightly elevated. Conclusions In conclusion, we strongly suggest caution in the interpretation of IgA test results. This recommendation is more important for those with positive IgA just above the reference level.

Background: Mathematical modeling constitutes an important tool for planning robust responses to epidemics. This study was conducted to guide the Qatari national response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) epidemic. The study investigated the epidemic's time-course, forecasted health care needs, predicted the impact of social and physical distancing restrictions, and rationalized and justified easing of restrictions. Methods: An age-structured deterministic model was constructed to describe SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics and disease progression throughout the population. Results: The enforced social and physical distancing interventions flattened the epidemic curve, reducing the peaks for incidence, prevalence, acute-care hospitalization, and intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalizations by 87%, 86%, 76%, and 78%, respectively. The daily number of new infections was predicted to peak at 12 750 on May 23, and active-infection prevalence was predicted to peak at 3.2% on May 25. Daily acute-care and ICU-care hospital admissions and occupancy were forecast accurately and precisely. By October 15, 2020, the basic reproduction number R0 had varied between 1.07-2.78, and 50.8% of the population were estimated to have been infected (1.43 million infections). The proportion of actual infections diagnosed was estimated at 11.6%. Applying the concept of Rt tuning, gradual easing of restrictions was rationalized and justified to start on June 15, 2020, when Rt declined to 0.7, to buffer the increased interpersonal contact with easing of restrictions and to minimize the risk of a second wave. No second wave has materialized as of October 15, 2020, five months after the epidemic peak. Conclusions: Use of modeling and forecasting to guide the national response proved to be a successful strategy, reducing the toll of the epidemic to a manageable level for the health care system.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is challenging the public health response system worldwide, especially in poverty-stricken, war-torn, and least developed countries (LDCs). Methods: We characterized the epidemiological features and spread dynamics of COVID-19 in Niger, quantified the effective reproduction number (Rt ), evaluated the impact of public health control measures, and estimated the disease burden. Results: As of 4 July 2020, COVID-19 has affected 29 communes of Niger with 1093 confirmed cases, among whom 741 (67.8%) were males. Of them 89 cases died, resulting in a case fatality rate (CFR) of 8.1%. Both attack rates and CFRs were increased with age (P < 0.0001). Health care workers accounted for 12.8% cases. Among the reported cases, 39.3% were isolated and treated at home, and 42.3% were asymptomatic. 74.6% cases were clustered in Niamey, the capital of Niger. The Rt fluctuated in correlation to control measures at different outbreak stages. After the authorities initiated the national response and implemented the strictest control measures, Rt quickly dropped to below the epidemic threshold (

Background: As an emergent and fulminant infectious disease, Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused a worldwide pandemic. The early identification and timely treatment of severe patients are crucial to reducing the mortality of COVID-19. This study aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics and early predictors for severe COVID-19, and to establish a prediction model for the identification and triage of severe patients. Methods: All confirmed patients with COVID-19 admitted by the Second Affiliated Hospital of Air Force Medical University were enrolled in this retrospective non-interventional study. The patients were divided into a mild group and a severe group, and the clinical data were compared between the two groups. Univariate and multivariate analysis were used to identify the independent early predictors for severe COVID-19, and the prediction model was constructed by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the predictive value of the prediction model and each early predictor. Results: A total of 40 patients were enrolled in this study, of whom 19 were mild and 21 were severe. The proportions of patients with venerable age (≥60 years old), comorbidities, and hypertension in severe patients were higher than that of the mild (P < 0.05). The duration of fever and respiratory symptoms, and the interval from illness onset to viral clearance were longer in severe patients (P < 0.05). Most patients received at least one form of oxygen treatments, while severe patients required more mechanical ventilation (P < 0.05). Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that venerable age, hypertension, lymphopenia, hypoalbuminemia and elevated neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) were the independent high-risk factors for severe COVID-19. ROC curves demonstrated significant predictive value of age, lymphocyte count, albumin and NLR for severe COVID-19. The sensitivity and specificity of the newly constructed prediction model for predicting severe COVID-19 was 90.5% and 84.2%, respectively, and whose positive predictive value, negative predictive value and crude agreement were all over 85%. Conclusions: The severe COVID-19 risk model might help clinicians quickly identify severe patients at an early stage and timely take optimal therapeutic schedule for them.

Background Pregnant women have been classified as at risk for COVID-19 due to previous experience with influenza and other coronaviruses. The objective of this study was to identify risk factors for the complications and death in women of childbearing age and pregnant women with suspected COVID-19. Methods This retrospective cohort study was conducted from the beginning of the epidemic in Mexico until May 25, 2020. All women of childbearing age (13-49 years) from the open national COVID-19 database from the Ministry of Health of Mexico were considered for eligibility. SARS-COV-2 infection was confirmed or ruled out by RT-qPCR. We performed a bivariate and multivariable analysis to estimate mortality risk. Results Ten (2.2%) pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 died. Positive pregnant patients did not have a higher risk of complications (admission to the ICU, pneumonia, or requirement for mechanical ventilation) or death than the controls. In the multivariate analysis, only history of diabetes and chronic kidney disease remained independently associated with death in the positive cohort. Seven (0.6%) pregnant women with a negative test died. In bivariate analysis, pregnant patients with a positive test had a higher risk of death than pregnant patients with a negative test (relative risk (RR) = 3.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.48-10.12), but no higher risk was found than in non-pregnant women with a positive test (RR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.44-1.53), and 60-day mortality did not significantly differ among pregnant patients with or without a positive test (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.12-1.30) or between COVID-19-positive patients who were pregnant or not pregnant (HR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.35-1.56). Conclusions Pregnant patients do not have a greater risk of complications or death from COVID-19 than non-pregnant patients. The presence of diabetes mellitus and chronic disease increases the risk of death in women of childbearing age, but not specifically in pregnant patients.

Background: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), a pandemic that brought the whole world to a standstill, has led to financial and health care burden. We aimed to evaluate epidemiological characteristics, needs of resources, outcomes, and global burden of the disease. Methods: Systematic review was performed searching PubMed from December 1, 2019, to March 25, 2020, for full-text observational studies that described epidemiological characteristics, following MOOSE protocol. Global data were collected from the JHU-Corona Virus Resource Center, WHO-COVID-2019 situation reports, KFF.org, and Worldometers.info until March 31, 2020. The prevalence percentages were calculated. The global data were plotted in excel to calculate case fatality rate (CFR), predicted CFR, COVID-19 specific mortality rate, and doubling time for cases and deaths. CFR was predicted using Pearson correlation, regression models, and coefficient of determination. Results: From 21 studies of 2747 patients, 8.4% of patients died, 20.4% recovered, 15.4% were admitted to ICU and 14.9% required ventilation. COVID-19 was more prevalent in patients with hypertension (19.3%), smoking (11.3%), diabetes mellitus (10%), and cardiovascular diseases (7.4%). Common complications were pneumonia (82%), cardiac complications (26.4%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (15.7%), secondary infection (11.2%), and septic shock (4.3%). Though CFR and COVID-19 specific death rates are dynamic, they were consistently high for Italy, Spain, and Iran. Polynomial growth models were best fit for all countries for predicting CFR. Though many interventions have been implemented, stern measures like nationwide lockdown and school closure occurred after very high infection rates (>10cases per 100 000population) prevailed. Given the trend of government measures and decline of new cases in China and South Korea, most countries will reach the peak between April 1-20, if interventions are followed. Conclusions: A collective approach undertaken by a responsible government, wise strategy implementation and a receptive population may help contain the spread of COVID-19 outbreak. Close monitoring of predictive models of such indicators in the highly affected countries would help to evaluate the potential fatality if the second wave of pandemic occurs. The future studies should be focused on identifying accurate indicators to mitigate the effect of underestimation or overestimation of COVID-19 burden.

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the most hectic pandemic of the era, is increasing exponentially and taking thousands of lives worldwide. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of pre-existing morbidities among COVID-19 infected patients and their mortality risks against each type of pre-existing morbidity category.MethodsTo conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were searched using specified relavent keywords. Further searches were conducted using the reference list of the selected studies, renowned pre-print servers (e.g., medRxiv, bioRixv, SSRN), and relevant journal websites. Studies written in the English language included if those were conducted among COVID-19 patients with and without comorbidities and presented survivor vs. non-survivor counts or hazard/odds of deaths or survivors against types of pre-existing morbidities. Comorbidities reported in the selected studies were grouped into eight categories. The pooled likelihoods of deaths in each category were estimated using a fixed or random-effect model, based on the heterogeneity assessment. Publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of the funnel plot asymmetry and Egger’s regression test. Trim and Fill method was used if there any publication bias was found.ResultsA total of 42 studies included in this study comprised of 39,398 samples. The most common pre-existing morbidities in COVID-19 infected patients were hypertension (36.5%), cardiovascular disease (11.9%), and diabetes (22.0%). The higher likelihood of deaths was found among COVID-19 patients who had pre-existing cardiovascular diseases (OR: 3.32, 95% CI: 2.79-3.95), immune and metabolic disorders (OR: 2.39, 95% CI: 2.00-2.85), respiratory diseases (OR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.80-2.26), cerebrovascular diseases (OR: 4.12, 95% CI: 3.04-5.58), any types of cancers (OR: 2.22, 95% CI: 1.63-3.03), renal (OR: 3.02, 95% CI: 2.60-3.52), and liver diseases (OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.21-1.71).ConclusionsThis study provides evidence of a higher likelihood of deaths among COVID-19 patients against morbidity categories. These findings could potentially help healthcare providers to sort out the most endangered COVID-19 patients by comorbidities, take precautionary measures during hospitalization, assess susceptibility to death, and prioritize their treatment, which could potentially reduce the number of fatalities in COVID-19.

Background: In a surgical setting, COVID-19 patients may trigger in-hospital outbreaks and have worse postoperative outcomes. Despite these risks, there have been no consistent statements on surgical guidelines regarding the perioperative screening or management of COVID-19 patients, and we do not have objective global data that describe the current conditions surrounding this issue. This study aimed to clarify the current global surgical practice including COVID-19 screening, preventive measures and in-hospital infection under the COVID-19 pandemic, and to clarify the international gaps on infection control policies among countries worldwide.Methods: During April 2-8, 2020, a cross-sectional online survey on surgical practice was distributed to surgeons worldwide through international surgical societies, social media and personal contacts. Main outcome and measures included preventive measures and screening policies of COVID-19 in surgical practice and centers' experiences of in-hospital COVID-19 infection. Data were analyzed by country's cumulative deaths number by April 8, 2020 (high risk, >5000; intermediate risk, 100-5000; low risk, Results: A total of 936 centers in 71 countries responded to the survey (high risk, 330 centers; intermediate risk, 242 centers; low risk, 364 centers). In the majority (71.9%) of the centers, local guidelines recommended preoperative testing based on symptoms or suspicious radiologic findings. Universal testing for every surgical patient was recommended in only 18.4% of the centers. In-hospital COVID-19 infection was reported from 31.5% of the centers, with higher rates in higher risk countries (high risk, 53.6%; intermediate risk, 26.4%; low risk, 14.8%; P Conclusions: This large international survey captured the global surgical practice under the COVID-19 pandemic and highlighted the insufficient preoperative screening of COVID-19 in the current surgical practice. More intensive screening programs will be necessary particularly in severely affected countries/institutions.Study registration: Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04344197.