Search

Background The appropriate response to mass causality biological events requires well-established preparedness and providing a surge capacity. In such a situation, a practical solution is to convert large public venues into shelter hospitals. Due to the lack of a guideline for the transformation of a large public center into a hospital, the present study collected the design criteria for the transformation of public buildings into shelter hospitals in response to biological events such as epidemics or mass causality biological accidents. Methods The keywords were searched in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases until November 2021. This systematic review was conducted using terms related to mass causality biological accidents, shelter hospitals, and design criteria. Results Of 1802 extracted articles, duplicates (n = 280) and unrelated publications (n = 1342) were left out in the initial evaluation. Among 180 remained papers, 29 records satisfied our criteria after reviewing abstracts and full texts. Most of the included studies were related to the transformation of public venues into hospitals in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The investigated themes included site selection, layout and structure, waste and wastewater management, ventilation, communication, food and medicine delivery, humanitarians and social supports, post-treatment care, and Management measures. Conclusions In summary, large public venues are highly recommended alternatives for surge capacity in response to mass causality biological accidents. However, the main challenges for using these centers are the provision of basic requirements such as water and electricity, ventilation, and available space. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In February, the emergence of COronaVIrus Disease 2019 (COVID - 19) in France made it necessary to rapidly adapt emergency and SAMU services in order to take care of many infected patients. To respond to the increase in the number of calls in the dispatch centers, reinforcements were necessary on the fronts of the Medical Regulation Assistants (ARM). The aim of this study was to assess the relevance of medical students' responses to first calls exclusively concerning COVID-19. Methods: This prospective, observational cohort study was carried out at the University Hospital Centre (CHU) in Angers. Twenty medical students mostly in the 5th year were voluntarily enrolled in the first line COVID-19 call taker team. Calls on the 1st, 3 rd , and 5th starting day for each medical student, and randomly selected calls from the experienced first-line call taker were listened to by a medical expert to assess the adequate level of prioritization and orientation (emergency physician or general practitioner). The percentage of agreement between the expert, students, and experienced first-line call handlers were assessed. All participants gave their free consent to participate. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Angers (N° 2020-48). Results: From March 18 to April 23, 2020, 302 calls from medical students (n = 20 students) and 40 calls from experienced first-line call handlers were analyzed. The average prioritization agreement rate between the expert and students was 76.16% (95% Confidence Interval: 71.04 to 80.62%) (n = 230/302) compared to 87.50% (95% CI: 73.9 to 94.5%) (n = 45/50) for the experienced first-line call handlers (P = 0.15). Medical students took more time per call with an absolute difference of 2 minutes 16 seconds (P < 0.001). Conclusion: The lessons to be observed from this COVID-19 crisis are that in the early days of increasing calls heralding a strain on the healthcare system, support by medical students must be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) is a new viral zoonosis of global concern that could cause psychological sequelae. We examined the levels of psychological distress, anxiety, depression, and stress during the COVID-19 outbreak in a Mexican sample. Methods: An online survey was applied that collected information on demographic and financial status data, physical status, contact history, knowledge, concerns, and precautionary measures concerning COVID-19. Impact of Event Scale-Revised and Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale were included. Results: A total of 50.3% of respondents rated psychological distress as moderate-severe; 15.7% reported moderate-severe depressive symptoms; 22.6% reported moderate-severe anxiety symptoms; and 19.8% reported moderate-severe stress levels. Female gender, older age, divorced status, lack of confidence related to security of the test, lower satisfaction of health information concerning COVID-19, history of direct or indirect contact with a COVID-19 confirmed case, live with just 1 other person, and spent >9 h/d at home were associated with greater psychological distress and/or higher levels of stress, anxiety, and depression. By contrast, precautionary measures, such as hand hygiene and wearing masks, were associated with lower levels of psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and stress. Conclusions: COVID-19 outbreak results in considerable psychological effects among the Mexican sample. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate the rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody among unvaccinated voluntary blood donors in Chongqing, and to provide evidence for epidemic surveillance. Methods: A total of 10,208 voluntary blood donors from January 5 to January 20, 2021, in the Chongqing area were collected, and the SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgM antibodies were detected by chemiluminescence, and the differences of antibody-positive rate in different gender, age, ABO blood group, and different risk areas were analyzed. Results: Among 10208 blood donors, 10 were found to be positive for SARS-COV-2 IgG antibody, giving a positivity rate of SARS-COV-2 IgG at 0.10%, and 29 were positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgM antibody, with a positivity rate of SARS-CoV-2 IgM at 0.28%. There was no statistical difference in the positive rate of antibody among different genders, ages, and ABO blood types, but it was related to the number of confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases in each city. Conclusions: The SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rate in Chongqing was low and correlated with the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The restrictions put in place in 2020 to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 limited or eliminated social connections that are vital for psychosocial well-being. The objectives of this research were to examine the impact of early pandemic-related restrictions on feelings of loneliness, depression, and anxiety as well as social activity disruption and their concomitant associations in a sample of community-dwelling older adults residing in a small-town region in the USA. Design and Setting: Cross-sectional data collected from an ongoing population-based cohort study in Southwestern, Pennsylvania. Participants: Analyses included 360 adults aged 65 years and older whose annual study assessment occurred during the first 120 days of pandemic-related restrictions. Measurements: Self-reported feelings of loneliness, depression, and anxiety due to the pandemic-related restrictions were each measured using a single question. Depressive symptoms and anxiety were also assessed with the modified Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 item tools. Disruption in a variety of common social activities was also assessed. Results: Feeling lonely affected 36% of participants who were more likely to be female, not currently married, and living alone. Giving up in-person visits with family was associated with significantly higher odds of feeling lonely, and feeling lonely was associated with significantly higher odds of feelings of anxiety and depression. Conclusions: Loneliness is a serious outcome of pandemic-related restrictions among older adults, potentially linked to loss of connection with family, and may be associated with increased feelings of depression and anxiety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Internet-based interventions produce comparable effectiveness rates as face-to-face therapy in treating depression. Still, more than half of patients do not respond to treatment. Machine learning (ML) methods could help to overcome these low response rates by predicting therapy outcomes on an individual level and tailoring treatment accordingly. Few studies implemented ML algorithms in internet-based depression treatment using baseline self-report data, but differing results hinder inferences on clinical practicability. This work compares algorithms using features gathered at baseline or early in treatment in their capability to predict non-response to a 6-week online program targeting depression. Methods: Our training and test sample encompassed 1270 and 318 individuals, respectively. We trained random forest algorithms on self-report and process features gathered at baseline and after 2 weeks of treatment. Non-responders were defined as participants not fulfilling the criteria for reliable and clinically significant change on PHQ-9 post-treatment. Our benchmark models were logistic regressions trained on baseline PHQ-9 sum or PHQ-9 early change, using 100 iterations of randomly sampled 80/20 train-test-splits. Results: Best performances were reached by our models involving early treatment characteristics (recall: 0.75–0.76; AUC: 0.71–0.77). Therapeutic alliance and early symptom change constituted the most important predictors. Models trained on baseline data were not significantly better than our benchmark. Conclusions: Fair accuracies were only attainable by involving information from early treatment stages. In-treatment adaptation, instead of a priori selection, might constitute a more feasible approach for improving response when relying on easily accessible self-report features. Implementation trials are needed to determine clinical usefulness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper titled "A systematic review of psychosocial protective factors against suicide and suicidality among older adults" by Ki and colleagues is a thought-provoking review that emphasizes the importance of improving protective factors for the development of suicide prevention and intervention in older adults, rather than just focusing on risk factors. Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, media coverage of mental health and suicide has gained widespread attention. Suicide may become a more pressing issue due to the enormous economic and social toll of the spreading epidemic. Therefore, this systematic review is relevant in preventing suicide among older adults in the "post-pandemic" periods of COVID-19. In this study, the authors highlight the importance of examining the moderating or mediating role of protective factors in suicide, due to the fact that suicide prevention must take into account a variety of factors simultaneously. More importantly, most studies focused primarily on received support among interpersonal protective factors, neglecting the role of support given to others, which might be more beneficial for older adults' well-being. The thought that ensues is what role will social support reciprocity play in specific risk factors and suicidal behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The post-COVID-19 condition describes the persistence or onset of somatic symptoms (e.g. fatigue) after acute COVID-19. Based on an existing cognitive-behavioral treatment protocol, we developed a specialized group intervention for individuals with post-COVID-19 condition. The present study examines the feasibility, acceptance, and effectiveness of the program for inpatients in a neurological rehabilitation setting. Methods: The treatment program comprises eight sessions and includes psychoeducational and experience-based interventions on common psychophysiological mechanisms of persistent somatic symptoms. A feasibility trial was conducted using a one-group design in a naturalistic setting. N = 64 inpatients with a history of mild COVID-19 that fulfilled WHO criteria for post-COVID-19 condition were enrolled. After each session, evaluation forms were completed and psychometric questionnaires on somatic and psychopathological symptom burden were collected pre- and post-intervention. Results: The treatment program was well received by participants and therapists. Each session was rated as comprehensible and overall satisfaction with the sessions was high. Pre-post effect sizes (of standard rehabilitation incl. new treatment program; intention-to-treat) showed significantly reduced subjective fatigue (p < 0.05, d av = 0.33) and improved disease coping (ps < 0.05, d av = 0.33–0.49). Conclusions: Our results support the feasibility and acceptance of the newly developed cognitive-behavioral group intervention for individuals with post-COVID-19 condition. Yet, findings have to be interpreted cautiously due to the lack of a control group and follow-up measurement, the small sample size, and a relatively high drop-out rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), was identified in Wuhan, China. Since then, the novel coronavirus started to be compared to influenza. The haematological parameters and inflammatory indexes are associated with severe illness in COVID-19 patients. In this study, the laboratory data of 120 COVID-19 patients, 100 influenza patients and 61 healthy controls were evaluated. Lower lymphocytes, eosinophils, basophils, platelets and higher delta neutrophil index (DNI), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) were found in COVID-19 and influenza groups compared to healthy controls. The eosinophils, lymphocytes and PLR made the highest contribution to differentiate COVID-19 patients from healthy controls (area under the curves (AUCs): 0.819, 0.817 and 0.716, respectively; P-value is <0.0001 for all). The NLR, the optimal cut-off value was 3.58, which resulted in a sensitivity of 30.8 and a specificity of 100 (AUC: 0.677, P < 0.0001). Higher leucocytes, neutrophils, DNI, NLR, PLR and lower lymphocytes, red blood cells, haemoglobin, haematocrit levels were found in severe patients at the end of treatment. Nonsevere patients showed an upward trend for lymphocytes, eosinophils and platelets, and a downward trend for neutrophils, DNI, NLR and PLR. However, there was an increasing trend for eosinophils, platelets and PLR in severe patients. In conclusion, NLR and PLR can be used as biomarkers to distinguish COVID-19 patients from healthy people and to predict the severity of COVID-19. The increasing value of PLR during follow-up may be more useful compared to NLR to predict the disease severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Philippines confirmed local transmission of COVID-19 on 7 March 2020. We described the characteristics and epidemiological time-to-event distributions for laboratory-confirmed cases in the Philippines recorded up to 29 April 2020 and followed until 22 May 2020. The median age of 8212 cases was 46 years (IQR 32–61), with 46.2% being female and 68.8% living in the National Capital Region. Health care workers represented 24.7% of all detected infections. Mean length of hospitalisation for those who were discharged or died were 16.00 days (95% CI 15.48–16.54) and 7.27 days (95% CI 6.59–8.24). Mean duration of illness was 26.66 days (95% CI 26.06–27.28) and 12.61 days (95% CI 11.88–13.37) for those who recovered or died. Mean serial interval was 6.90 days (95% CI 5.81–8.41). Epidemic doubling time prior to the enhanced community quarantine (ECQ; 11 February and 19 March) was 4.86 days (95% CI 4.67–5.07) and the reproductive number was 2.41 (95% CI 2.33–2.48). During the ECQ (20 March to 9 April), doubling time was 12.97 days (95% CI 12.57–13.39) and the reproductive number was 0.89 (95% CI 0.78–1.02). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a public health emergency of international concern. The current study aims to explore whether the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-tolymphocyte ratio (PLR) are associated with the development of death in patients with COVID-19. A total of 131 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from 13 February 2020 to 14 March 2020 in a hospital in Wuhan designated for treating COVID-19 were enrolled in the current study. These 131 patients had a median age of 64 years old (interquartile range: 56–71 years old). Furthermore, among these patients, 111 (91.8%) patients were discharged and 12 (9.2%) patients died in the hospital. The pooled analysis revealed that the NLR at admission was significantly elevated for non-survivors, when compared to survivors (P < 0.001). The NLR of 3.338 was associated with all-cause mortality, with a sensitivity of 100.0% and a specificity of 84.0% (area under the curve (AUC): 0.963, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.911–1.000; P < 0.001). In view of the small number of deaths (n = 12) in the current study, NLR of 2.306 might have potential value for helping clinicians to identify patients with severe COVID-19, with a sensitivity of 100.0% and a specificity of 56.7% (AUC: 0.729, 95% CI 0.563–0.892; P = 0.063). The NLR was significantly associated with the development of death in patients with COVID-19. Hence, NLR is a useful biomarker to predict the all-cause mortality of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a tremendous impact in China and abroad since its onset in December 2019 and poses a major threat to human health. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at the forefront of the response to outbreaks. This study reviewed literature data and found that HCWs were at high risk of infection during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially at the early stage of the epidemic, and many factors greatly affected their occupational safety. Although SARS-CoV-2 transmission was controlled in China, the Chinese experience can help protect HCWs from COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We report a family cluster of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection involving five patients in a family cluster in Dazhou, China, including the epidemiological, clinical, laboratory and radiological findings. Three-generation transmission was observed. Through epidemiological investigation, we observed asymptomatic transmission to a cohabiting family member, as well as person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 outside Wuhan city. The asymptomatic transmission demonstrated here provides evidence that there could be a greater risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread. This cluster also demonstrated that COVID-19 is transmissible during the incubation period of an asymptomatic person. Early isolation and treatment, stressing prevention of cluster outbreaks, could help prevent further spread of the epidemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our understanding of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to evolve and there are many unknowns about its epidemiology. This study aims to synthesise case fatality rate (CFR) among confirmed COVID-19 patients, incubation period and time from onset of COVID-19 symptoms to first medical visit, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, recovery, and death. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, and bibliographies of relevant articles from 01 December 2019 to 11 March 2020 without any language restrictions. Quantitative studies that recruited people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis were included. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. Out of 1675 non-duplicate studies, 43 were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled mean incubation period was 5.68 (99% confidence interval [CI]: 4.78, 6.59) days. The pooled mean number of days from the onset of COVID 19 symptoms to first clinical visit was 4.92 (95% CI: 3.95, 5.90), ICU admission was 9.84 (95% CI: 8.78, 10.90), recovery was 18.55 (95% CI: 13.69, 23.41), and death was 15.93 (95% CI: 13.07, 18.79). Pooled CFR among confirmed COVID-19 patients was 0.02 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.03). We found that the incubation period and lag between the onset of symptoms and first clinical visit for COVID-19 are longer than other respiratory viral infections including Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome; however, the current policy of 14 days of mandatory quarantine for everyone potentially exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) might be too conservative. Longer quarantine periods might be more justified for extreme cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]