Search

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of inappropriate treatment among hospitalised patients affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection before hospital admission during the Omicron era. This single-centre, retrospective observational study included all the patients hospitalised because of SARS-CoV-2 infection during three periods characterised by the Italian prevalence of an Omicron variant of concern: (1) January–May 2022 (BA.1–BA.2), (2) June–October 2022 (BA.5), and (3) November 2022–March 2023 (BQ.1-XBB). Inappropriate treatment was defined as pre-hospitalisation exposure to antibiotics and/or steroids in the absence of a documented bacterial infection or the need for steroid treatment of an underlying medical condition. A total of 931 subjects were hospitalised: 394 in period 1, 334 in period 2, and 203 in period 3. Of the 157 patients undergoing inappropriate treatment (16.9%), 142 (15.3%) received antibiotics and 52 (5.6%) steroids. The proportion of inappropriately treated patients significantly decreased over time, from 23.1% in period 1 to 11.7% in period 2 and 13.3% in period 3 (p < 0.001), and there was a parallel decrease in antibiotic (p < 0.001) and steroid treatment (p < 0.013). Only 13 subjects (1.4%) received early pre-hospitalisation treatment for SARS-CoV-2. A significant proportion of hospitalised COVID-19 patients were exposed to inappropriate treatment before hospital admission.

Thromboprophylaxis/anticoagulation treatment is often required in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of major bleeding events in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This was a retrospective observational study including all COVID-19 hospitalized patients ≥18 years of age at one reference center in northern Italy. The crude prevalence (between February 2020–2022) of major bleeding events was estimated as the number of major bleeding episodes divided by patients at risk. Uni- and multivariable Cox models were built to assess factors potentially associated with major bleeding events. Twenty-nine (0.98%) out of 2,945 COVID-19 patients experienced a major bleeding event [prevalence of 0.55% (95%CI 0.37–0.79)], of which five were fatal. Patients who experienced a major bleeding event were older [78 years (72–84 IQR) vs. 67 years (55–78 IQR), p-value < 0.001] and more frequently exposed to anti-aggregating therapy (44.8% vs. 20.0%, p-value 0.002) when compared to those who did not. In the multivariable Cox model, age [per 1 year more AHR 1.05 (CI95% 1.02–1.09)] was independently associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events. A strict monitoring of older hospitalized COVID-19 patients is warranted due to the risk of major bleeding events.

Introduction This paper describes how mortality among hospitalised COVID-19 patients changed during the first three waves of the epidemic in Italy. Methods This prospective cohort study used the Kaplan-Meier method to analyse the time-dependent probability of death of all of the patients admitted to a COVID-19 referral centre in Milan, Italy, during the three consecutive periods of: 21 February-31 July 2020 (first wave, W1), 1 August 2020–31 January 2021 (second wave, W2), and 1 February-30 April 2021 (third wave, W3). Cox models were used to examine the association between death and the period of admission after adjusting for age, biological sex, the time from symptom onset to admission, disease severity upon admission, obesity, and the comorbidity burden. Results Of the 2,023 COVID-19 patients admitted to our hospital during the study period, 553 (27.3%) were admitted during W1, 838 (41.5%) during W2, and 632 (31.2%) during W3. The crude mortality rate during W1, W2 and W3 was respectively 21.3%, 23.7% and 15.8%. After adjusting for potential confounders, hospitalisation during W2 or W3 was independently associated with a significantly lower risk of death than hospitalisation during W1 (adjusted hazard ratios [AHRs]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59–0.95, and 0.58, 95% CI 0.44–0.77). Among the patients aged >75 years, there was no significant difference in the probability of death during the three waves (AHRs during W2 and W3 vs W1: 0.93, 95% CI 0.65–1.33, and 0.88, 95% CI 0.59–1.32), whereas those presenting with critical disease during W2 and W3 were at significantly lower risk of dying than those admitted during W1 (AHRs 0.61, 95% CI 0.43–0.88, and 0.44, 95% CI 0.28–0.70). Conclusions Hospitalisation during W2 and W3 was associated with a reduced risk of COVID-19 death in comparison with W1, but there was no difference in survival probability in patients aged >75 years.

Zero Party Data (ZPD) is a hot topic in the context of privacy-aware personalization, as the exponential growth of consumer data collected by retailers has made safeguarding data privacy a key priority. Articles arguing for the value of ZPD to improve personalization and engender consumer trust have appeared in the popular press, in business magazines as well as in academic journals. Advocates of ZDP argue that instead of inferring what customers want, retailers can simply ask them. Provided that the value exchange is clear, customers will willingly share data such as purchase intentions and preferences to improve personalization and help retailers create a picture of who they are. While the rise of ZPD is a welcome development, this paper takes issue with the claim that ZPD is necessarily accurate as it comes directly from the customer. This view is at odds with established conclusions from decades of research in the social and cognitive sciences, showing that self reports can be influenced by the instrument and that people have limited insight into the factors underlying their behavior. This paper argues that while ZDP disclosures are an important tool for retailers, it is critical to carefully understand their limitations as well. The paper also provides a catalog of biases for identifying potential problems in survey design to help practitioners collect more accurate data.

One of the most fascinating topics of current investigation in the literature on judgment and decision-making concerns the exploration of foreign language effects (henceforth, FLE). Specifically, recent research suggests that presenting information in a foreign language helps reasoners make better choices. However, this piece aims at making scholars aware of a blind spot in this stream of research. In particular, research on FLE has imported only one view of judgment and decision-making, in which the heuristics that people use are seen as conducive to biases and, in turn, to costly mistakes. But heuristics are not necessarily a liability, and this article indicates two routes to push forward research on FLE in judgment and decision-making. First, research on FLE should be expanded to explore also classes of fast and frugal heuristics, which have been shown to lead to accurate predictions in several contexts characterized by uncertainty. Second, research on FLE should be open to challenge the interpretations given to previous FLE findings, since alternative accounts are plausible and not ruled out by evidence.