Understanding Hispanic Patient Satisfaction with Telehealth During COVID-19

BackgroundRecent studies have described the use of telehealth for pediatric surgical care during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate equity in telehealth use by comparing rates of utilization and satisfaction with pediatric surgical telemedicine among Hispanic patients.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients seen by a surgical subspecialty provider in the outpatient setting at a quaternary pediatric hospital between April 1 and June 30, 2020. Patients evaluated in the same three-month period in 2019 were analyzed as a historic control. Differences in Family Experience Survey (FES) responses based on race and ethnicity and preferred language of care were assessed using univariable and multivariable generalized linear modeling.ResultsThe pandemic cohort included fewer patients of Hispanic ethnicity and fewer Spanish-speakers. After controlling for visit type, comparison of Spanish-speaking and English-speaking patients revealed that Spanish-speaking families had significantly lower scores for FES items that evaluated healthcare provider explaining (IRR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.61–0.90), listening (IRR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.63–0.92), and time spent with the family (IRR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.60–0.89). There were no differences in FES responses based on insurance status or degree of medical complexity.ConclusionsTelehealth services were less commonly used among Hispanic and Spanish-speaking patients. Language may differentially affect family satisfaction with healthcare and telehealth solutions. Strategies to mitigate these inequities are needed and may include strengthening interpreter services and providing language-concordant care.Level of evidenceLevel IV.     

Organization of the 43rd European Congress of Cytology in the SARS–CoV-2 pandemic period: A report

The 43rd European Congress of Cytology in Wrocław, Poland, was held as a hybrid meeting in the Fall of 2021. After nearly 2 years without in-person cytology conferences, the 43rd Congress represents 1 of the first major international scientific meetings to occur during the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 pandemic. Since March 2020, the pandemic situation substantially modified the organization of scientific meetings because of both domestic and international travel restrictions, new health standards, and concern among participants, resulting in new alternative forms of virtual conferencing. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2022;130:000-000. ;     

Outcome of patients hospitalized for COVID‐19 and exposure to angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin‐receptor blockers in France: results of the ACE‐CoV study

Data are lacking on the impact of ACEI/ARB exposure on unfavorable outcome in the population of patients hospitalized for COVID‐19 with hypertension/cardiovascular disease, particularly in Europe. The ACE‐CoV study was designed to assess this question. The study was conducted in the Covid‐Clinic‐Toul cohort, which contains data about all patients hospitalized at Toulouse University hospital, France with a SARS‐CoV‐2 infection since March, 2020. We selected the patients with a history of cardiovascular disease (heart failure or coronary disease) and/or arterial hypertension. We conducted a subgroup analysis in patients with arterial hypertension. ACEI/ARB exposures at admission were assessed. The outcome was composite: admission to intensive care unit, need of mechanical ventilation or death during the 14 days after admission to hospital. We used logistic regression models with propensity scores (PS) weighted by overlap weighting (OW) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Between March 2020 and April 20, 2020, the Covid‐Clinic‐Toul included 263 patients. Among them, 111 were included in the ACE‐CoV study population. In OW‐PS‐adjusted analyses, the association of exposure to ACEIs or ARBs with outcome occurrence was OR: 1.56 (95% CI: 0.73–3.33). It was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.68–1.45) for ACEIs and 1.64 (95% CI: 0.77–3.50) for ARBs. Analyses with weighting by the IPTW‐PS method gave similar results. Results were similar when considering the subgroup of patients with arterial hypertension. The ACE‐CoV study found no association between exposure to ACEIs or ARBs and unfavorable outcome in hospitalized patients for COVID‐19 with a history of cardiovascular disease/arterial hypertension.     

Peripheral blood inflammatory markers in predicting prognosis in patients with COVID‐19. Some differences with influenza A

BackgroundTo evaluate the ability of peripheral blood inflammatory markers in predicating the typing of COVID‐19, prognosis, and some differences between COVID‐19 and influenza A patients.MethodsClinical data on 285 cases laboratory‐confirmed as SARS‐CoV‐2 infection were obtained from a Wuhan local hospital''s electronic medical records according to previously designed standardized data collection forms. Additional 446 Influenza A outpatients’ hematologic data were enrolled for comparison.ResultsNLR, SII, RLR, PLR, HsCRP, and IL‐6 were significant higher and LMR was lower in severe COVID‐19 patients than in mild COVID‐19 patients (p < .001). PLR and LMR were lower in the individuals with influenza A than those with COVID‐19 (p < .01). COVID‐19 patients with higher levels of NLR, SII, RLR, PLR, HsCRP, and IL‐6 and lower LMR were significantly associated with the severe type. AUC of NLR (0.76) was larger while the specificity of IL‐6 (86%) and sensitivity of HsCRP (89%) were higher than other inflammatory markers in predicating the typing of COVID‐19. PT had obvious correlation with all the inflammatory markers except RPR. NLR showed positive correlations with AST, TP, BUN, CREA, PT, and D‐dimer. Patients with high IL‐6 levels have a relatively worse prognosis (HR = 2.30).ConclusionPeripheral blood inflammatory markers reflected the intensity of inflammation and associated with severity of COVID‐19.NLR was more useful to predict severity as well as IL‐6 to predict prognosis of COVID‐19. PLR and LMR were initially found to be higher in SARS‐CoV‐2 virus‐infected group than in influenza A.     

新型冠状病毒肺炎与传染性非典型肺炎的流行病学特征分析

新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)与非典型肺炎(严重急性呼吸综合征,SARS)均是由冠状病毒引起的严重的传染性疾病,二者的发病原因至今仍不清楚且目前均无特效的治疗药物。因此,了解COVID-19与SARS的流行病学及病理病原学特征对其预防和治疗就显得尤为重要。本文通过回顾文献,并结合国内外的最新研究现状,从病原学、三间分布和病理学等方面对COVID-19与SARS两种疾病进行了探讨。结果 显示,两种传染病在临床特征上存在很多相同点,但在疾病进程、严重程度和影像学上存在一定差异,COVID-19的传染比SARS更强,但其病死率低于SARS,并且两者的病理改变也有所不同。本文还通过对比SARS流行时的经验与教训,梳理了此次COVID-19疫情期间疾病防控存在的漏洞与不足,以及针对现阶段存在的问题提出建议,从而为两种疾病的预防、治疗及发病机制研究提供一定的科学依据。     

COVID-19, SARS and MERS: A neurological perspective

Central to COVID-19 pathophysiology is an acute respiratory infection primarily manifesting as pneumonia. Two months into the COVID-19 outbreak, however, a retrospective study in China involving more than 200 participants revealed a neurological component to COVID-19 in a subset of patients. The observed symptoms, the cause of which remains unclear, included impaired consciousness, skeletal muscle injury and acute cerebrovascular disease, and appeared more frequently in severe disease. Since then, findings from several studies have hinted at various possible neurological outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Here, we review the historical association between neurological complications and highly pathological coronaviruses including SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. We draw from evidence derived from past coronavirus outbreaks, noting the similarities and differences between SARS and MERS, and the current COVID-19 pandemic. We end by briefly discussing possible mechanisms by which the coronavirus impacts on the human nervous system, as well as neurology-specific considerations that arise from the repercussions of COVID-19.     

Recent progress on the diagnosis of 2019 Novel Coronavirus

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) has become a global pandemic. Therefore, convenient, timely and accurate detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 is urgently needed. Here, we review the types, characteristics and shortcomings of various detection methods, as well as perspectives for the SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis. Clinically, nucleic acid‐based methods are sensitive but prone to false‐positive. The antibody‐based method has slightly lower sensitivity but higher accuracy. Therefore, it is suggested to combine the two methods to improve the detection accuracy of COVID‐19.