COVID-19 Gender Disparities and Mitigation Recommendations: A Narrative Review

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly created widespread impacts on global health and the economy. Data suggest that women are less susceptible to severe illness. However, sex-disaggregated data are incomplete, leaving room for misinterpretation, and focusing only on biologic sex underestimates the gendered impact of the pandemic on women. This narrative review summarizes what is known about gender disparities during the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic, domestic, and health burdens along with overlapping vulnerabilities related to the pandemic. In addition, this review outlines recommended strategies that advocacy groups, community leaders, and policymakers should implement to mitigate the widening gender disparities related to COVID-19.     

Emergency Care EMTALA Alterations During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States

The coronavirus 2019 pandemic has affected almost every aspect of health care delivery in the United States, and the emergency medicine system has been hit particularly hard while dealing with this public health crisis. In an unprecedented time in our history, medical systems and clinicians have been asked to be creative, flexible, and innovative, all while continuing to uphold the important standards in the US health care system. To continue providing quality services to patients during this extraordinary time, care providers, organizations, administrators, and insurers have needed to alter longstanding models and procedures to respond to the dynamics of a pandemic. The Emergency Medicine Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986, or EMTALA, is 1 example of where these alterations have allowed health care facilities and clinicians to continue their work of caring for patients while protecting both the patients and the clinicians themselves from infectious exposures at the same time.     

The impact of the housing status on clinical outcomes and health care utilization among individuals living with HIV

ABSTRACT

The lack of stable housing can impair access and continuity of care for patients living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). This study investigated the relationship between housing status assessed at multiple time points and several core HIV-related outcomes within the same group of HIV patients experiencing homelessness. Patients with consistently stable housing (CSH) during the year were compared to patients who lacked CSH (non-CSH group). The study outcomes included HIV viral load (VL), CD4 counts, and health care utilization. Multivariable and propensity weighted analyses were used to assess outcomes adjusting for potential group differences. Of 208 patients, 88 (42%) had CSH and 120 (58%) were non-CSH. Patients with CSH had significantly higher proportion of VL suppression and higher mean CD4 counts. The frequency of nurse visits in the CSH group was less than a half of that in the non-CSH group. Patients with CSH were less likely to be admitted to the medical respite facility, and if admitted, their length of stay was about a half of that for the non-CSH group. Our study findings show that patients with CSH had significantly better HIV virologic control and immune status as well as improved health care utilization.     

The influence of smoking on foot and ankle surgery: a review of the literature

The effect of tobacco smoking on foot and ankle procedures is likely to be more pronounced when compared to other orthopaedic surgery. This is due to the peripheral nature of the vasculature involved. This paper reviews the current clinical evidence on the effects of smoking foot and ankle surgery. In the trauma setting, the evidence suggests that wound complications and non-unions are significantly higher in the smoking population. In the elective setting there is a significantly increased risk of non-union in ankle and hindfoot arthrodeses in smokers. In the setting of diabetes, ulceration rate in smokers is higher and there may be a higher risk of amputation.     

Efficacy and safety of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) created using covered stents of different diameters: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to make a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the stent diameter (8 mm vs. 10 mm) that conveys better safety and clinical efficacy for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS).Materials and methodsFour databases were used to identify clinical trials published from inception until March 2020. Data were extracted to estimate and compare one-year and three-year overall survivals, hepatic encephalopathy, variceal rebleeding, and shunt dysfunction rates between patients with 8 mm covered stents and those with 10 mm covered stents.ResultsFive eligible studies were selected, which included 489 patients (316 men, 173 women). The 8 mm covered stent group had higher efficacy regarding one-year or three-year overall survival (odds ratio [OR], 2.88; P = 0.003) and (OR, 1.81; P = 0.04) and lower hepatic encephalopathy (OR, 0.69; P = 0.04) compared with 10 mm covered stent group. There were no significant differences in variceal rebleeding rate (OR 0.80; P = 0.67). However, shunt dysfunction was lower in 10 mm covered stent group (OR, 2.26; P = 0.003).ConclusionsOur results suggest that the use of 8 mm covered stents should be preferred to that of 10 mm covered stents for TIPS placement when portal pressure is frequently monitored.