“The Tip of the Iceberg”: Commentary on Sports,Health Inequity,and Trauma Exacerbated by COVID-19

ObjectiveTo discuss the relevance of system-level health inequities and their interplay with race in sports and athletic training, particularly during and after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.BackgroundHealth inequity is a systemic and longstanding concern with dire consequences that can have marked effects on the lives of minority patients. As a result of the unequal consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, the magnitude of the outcomes from health inequity in all spheres of American health care is being brought to the fore. The discourse within athletic training practice and policy must shift to intentionally creating strategies that acknowledge and account for systemic health inequities in order to facilitate an informed, evidence-based, and safe return to sport within the new normal.ConclusionsTo continue to evolve the profession and solidify athletic trainers'' role in public health spaces post–COVID-19, professionals at all levels of athletic training practice and policy must intentionally create strategies that acknowledge and account for not only the social determinants of health but also the effects of racism and childhood trauma on overall health and well-being.     

Pediatric Emergency Department Utilization and Coronavirus Disease in Daegu,Korea

BackgroundLimited data exist on children''s utilization of the emergency department (ED) in the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Thus, we aimed to examine ED utilization among pediatric patients and the impact of COVID-19 in one large city affected by the outbreak.MethodsThis retrospective study included data from six EDs in Daegu, Korea. We compared the demographic and clinical data of patients presenting to the ED during the COVID-19 pandemic (February 1st–June 30th 2020) with those of patients who visited the ED in this period during 2018 and 2019.ResultsFewer patients, particularly children visited the EDs during the study period in 2020 than those in the previous (2018/2019) year period: the number of adult patient decreased by 46.4% and children by 76.9%. Although the number of patients increased from the lowest point of the decrease in March 2020, the number of pediatric patients visiting the ED remained less than half (45.2%) in June 2020 compared with that of previous years. The proportion of patients with severe conditions increased in adults, infants, and school-aged children, and consequently resulted in increased ambulance use and higher hospitalization rates. Fewer infants and young children but more school-aged children visited the ED with febrile illnesses in 2020 than in 2018/2019.ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to a substantial decrease in pediatric ED utilization. These findings can help reallocate human and material resources in the EDs during infectious disease outbreaks.     

Interaction Effects between COVID-19 Outbreak and Community Income Levels on Excess Mortality among Patients Visiting Emergency Departments

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to examine the effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak on excess in-hospital mortality among patients who visited emergency departments (EDs) and to assess whether the excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic varies by community income level.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional study using the National Emergency Department Information System (NEDIS) database in Korea. The study population was defined as patients who visited all 402 EDs with medical conditions other than injuries between January 27 and May 31, 2020 (after-COVID) and for the corresponding time period in 2019 (before-COVID). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The main exposure was the COVID-19 outbreak, and the interaction variable was county per capita income tax. We calculated the risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates by COVID-19 outbreak, as well as the difference-in-difference of risk-adjusted rates between the before-COVID and after-COVID groups according to the county income tax using a multilevel linear regression model with the interaction term.ResultsA total of 11,662,167 patients (6,765,717 in before-COVID and 4,896,450 in after-COVID) were included in the study with a 1.6% crude in-hospital mortality rate. The risk-adjusted mortality rate in the after-COVID group was higher than that in the before-COVID group (1.82% vs. 1.50%, difference: 0.31% [0.30 to 0.33]; adjusted odds ratio: 1.22 [1.18 to 1.25]). The excess in-hospital mortality rate of the after-COVID in the lowest quartile group of county income tax was significantly higher than that in the highest quartile group (difference-in-difference: 0.18% (0.14 to 0.23); P-for-interaction: < 0.01).ConclusionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, there was excess in-hospital mortality among patients who visited EDs, and there were disparities in excess mortality depending on community socioeconomic positions.     

The Importance of Early Recognition,Timely Management,and the Role of Healthcare Providers in Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children

In April 2020, a pediatric report of an unusual inflammatory illness associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) led to similar cases in Europe and North America, which was referred to as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). Herein, we describe the case of a 12-year-old boy who had a history of polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 and developed MIS-C approximately three weeks after an initial diagnosis of COVID-19. High fever with abdominal pain mimicking appendicitis was the initial manifestation of MIS-C, which could have been easily missed if the patient''s history of COVID-19 was ignored. Intravenous immunoglobulin was administered twice, 24 hours apart, five days after the onset of MIS-C, and the patient fully recovered without any obvious sequelae. Early recognition by disease awareness and prompt management are the keys to saving the lives of children affected by MIS-C.     

Developing a Framework for Pandemic COVID-19 Vaccine Allocation: a Modified Delphi Consensus Study in Korea

BackgroundThis study presents a framework for determining the allocation and distribution of the limited amount of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).MethodsAfter analyzing the pandemic strategies of the major organizations and countries and with a literature review conducted by a core panel, a modified Delphi survey was administered to 13 experts in the fields of vaccination, infectious disease, and public health in the Republic of Korea. The following topics were discussed: 1) identifying the objectives of the vaccination strategy, 2) identifying allocation criteria, and 3) establishing a step-by-step vaccination framework and prioritization strategy based on the allocation criteria. Two rounds of surveys were conducted for each topic, with a structured questionnaire provided via e-mail in the first round. After analyzing the responses, a meeting with the experts was held to obtain consensus on how to prioritize the population groups.ResultsThe first objective of the vaccination strategy was maintenance of the integrity of the healthcare system and critical infrastructure, followed by reduction of morbidity and mortality and reduction of community transmission. In the initial phase, older adult residents in care homes, high-risk health and social care workers, and personal support workers who work in direct contact with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients would be prioritized. Expansion of vaccine supply would allow immunization of older adults not included in phase 1, followed by healthcare workers not previously included and individuals with comorbidities. Further widespread vaccine supply would ensure availability to the extended adult age groups (50–64 years old), critical workers outside the health sector, residents who cannot socially distance, and, eventually, the remaining populations.ConclusionThis survey provides the much needed insight into the decision-making process for vaccine allocation at the national level. However, flexibility in adapting to strategies will be essential, as new information is constantly emerging.     

Prophylaxis for COVID-19: a systematic review

BackgroundWhile the landscape of vaccine and treatment candidates against the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been reviewed systematically, prophylactic candidates remain unexplored.ObjectivesTo map pre- and postexposure prophylactic (PrEP and PEP) candidate for COVID-19.Data sourcesPubMed/Medline, Embase, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform clinical trial registries and medRxiv.Study eligibility criteria and participantsAll studies in humans or animals and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in humans reporting primary data on prophylactic candidates against COVID-19, excluding studies focused on key populations.InterventionsPrEP and PEP candidate for COVID-19.MethodsSystematic review and qualitative synthesis of COVID-19 PrEP and PEP studies and RCTs complemented by search of medRxiv and PubMed and Embase for studies reporting RCT outcomes since systematic review search completion.ResultsWe identified 13 studies (from 2119 database records) and 117 RCTs (from 5565 RCTs listed in the registries) that met the inclusion criteria. Non-RCT studies reported on cross-sectional studies using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in humans (n = 2) or reported on animal studies (n = 7), most of which used antibodies. All five completed RCTs focused on the use of HCQ as either PrEP or PEP, and these and the cross-sectional studies reported no prophylactic effect. The majority of ongoing RCTs evaluated HCQ or other existing candidates including non–severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines, anti(retro)virals or use of vitamins and supplements.ConclusionsThe key message from completed studies and RCTs seems to be that HCQ does not work. There is little evidence regarding other compounds, with all RCTs using candidates other than HCQ still ongoing. It remains to be seen if the portfolio of existing molecules being evaluated in RCTs will identify successful prophylaxis against COVID-19 or if there is a need for the development of new candidates.     

Multicenter evaluation of the Panbio™ COVID-19 rapid antigen-detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

ObjectivesThe standard RT-PCR assay for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is laborious and time-consuming, limiting testing availability. Rapid antigen-detection tests are faster and less expensive; however, the reliability of these tests must be validated before they can be used widely. The objective of this study was to determine the performance of the Panbio? COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (PanbioRT) (Abbott) in detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in nasopharyngeal swab specimens.MethodsThis prospective multicentre study was carried out in ten Spanish university hospitals and included individuals with clinical symptoms or epidemiological criteria of COVID-19. Only individuals with ≤7 days from the onset of symptoms or from exposure to a confirmed case of COVID-19 were included. Two nasopharyngeal samples were taken to perform the PanbioRT as a point-of-care test and a diagnostic RT-PCR test.ResultsAmong the 958 patients studied, 325 (90.5%) had true-positive results. The overall sensitivity and specificity for the PanbioRT were 90.5% (95%CI 87.5–93.6) and 98.8% (95%CI 98–99.7), respectively. Sensitivity in participants who had a threshold cycle (C_T) < 25 for the RT-PCR test was 99.5% (95%CI 98.4–100), and in participants with ≤5 days of the clinical course it was 91.8% (95%CI 88.8–94.8). Agreement between techniques was 95.7% (κ score 0.90; 95%CI 0.88–0.93).ConclusionsThe PanbioRT performs well clinically, with even more reliable results for patients with a shorter clinical course of the disease or a higher viral load. The results must be interpreted based on the local epidemiological context.     

A real-life setting evaluation of the effect of remdesivir on viral load in COVID-19 patients admitted to a large tertiary centre in Israel

ObjectivesThe effectiveness of remdesivir, a Food and Drug Administration-approved drug for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has been repeatedly questioned during the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Most of the recently reported studies were randomized controlled multicentre clinical trials. Our goal was to test the efficiency of remdesivir in reducing nasopharyngeal viral load and hospitalization length in a real-life setting in patients admitted to a large tertiary centre in Israel.MethodsA total of 142 COVID-19 patients found to have at least three reported SARS-CoV-2 quantitative RT-PCR tests during hospitalization were selected for this study. Of these, 29 patients received remdesivir, while the remaining non-treated 113 patients served as controls.ResultsAmong the tested parameters, the control and remdesivir groups differed significantly only in the intubation rates. Remdesivir treatment did not significantly affect nasopharyngeal viral load, as determined by comparing the differences between the first and last cycle threshold values of the SARS-CoV-2 quantitative RT-PCR tests performed during hospitalization (cycle threshold 7.07 ± 6.85 vs. 7.08 ± 7.27, p 0.977 in the control and treated groups, respectively). Remdesivir treatment shortened hospitalization length by less than a day compared with non-treated controls and by 3.1 days when non-intubated patients from both groups were compared. These differences, however, were not statistically significant, possibly because of the small size of the remdesivir group.DiscussionRemdesivir was not associated with nasopharyngeal viral load changes, but our study had a significant disease severity baseline imbalance and was not powered to detect viral load or clinical differences.     

Antibiotic prescribing in patients with COVID-19: rapid review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe proportion of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 that are prescribed antibiotics is uncertain, and may contribute to patient harm and global antibiotic resistance.ObjectiveThe aim was to estimate the prevalence and associated factors of antibiotic prescribing in patients with COVID-19.Data SourcesWe searched MEDLINE, OVID Epub and EMBASE for published literature on human subjects in English up to June 9 2020.Study Eligibility CriteriaWe included randomized controlled trials; cohort studies; case series with ≥10 patients; and experimental or observational design that evaluated antibiotic prescribing.ParticipantsThe study participants were patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, across all healthcare settings (hospital and community) and age groups (paediatric and adult).MethodsThe main outcome of interest was proportion of COVID-19 patients prescribed an antibiotic, stratified by geographical region, severity of illness and age. We pooled proportion data using random effects meta-analysis.ResultsWe screened 7469 studies, from which 154 were included in the final analysis. Antibiotic data were available from 30 623 patients. The prevalence of antibiotic prescribing was 74.6% (95% CI 68.3–80.0%). On univariable meta-regression, antibiotic prescribing was lower in children (prescribing prevalence odds ratio (OR) 0.10, 95% CI 0.03–0.33) compared with adults. Antibiotic prescribing was higher with increasing patient age (OR 1.45 per 10 year increase, 95% CI 1.18–1.77) and higher with increasing proportion of patients requiring mechanical ventilation (OR 1.33 per 10% increase, 95% CI 1.15–1.54). Estimated bacterial co-infection was 8.6% (95% CI 4.7–15.2%) from 31 studies.ConclusionsThree-quarters of patients with COVID-19 receive antibiotics, prescribing is significantly higher than the estimated prevalence of bacterial co-infection. Unnecessary antibiotic use is likely to be high in patients with COVID-19.