Seasonal respiratory virus circulation was diminished during the COVID‐19 pandemic

BackgroundMeasures introduced during the COVID‐19 pandemic intended to address the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2 may also influence the incidence of other common seasonal respiratory viruses (SRV). This evaluation reports laboratory‐confirmed cases of common SRV in a well‐defined region of central Canada to address this issue.MethodsSurveillance data for common non‐SARS‐CoV‐2 SRV in Ottawa, Canada, was provided by the Eastern Ontario Regional Laboratory Association (EORLA) reference virology lab. Weekly reports of the number of positive tests and the proportion that yielded positive results were analyzed from August 26, 2018, to January 2, 2022.ResultsA drastic reduction in influenza and other common SRV was observed during the 2020–2021 influenza season in the Ottawa region. Influenza was virtually undetected post‐SARS‐CoV‐2 emergence. Rhinoviruses and enteroviruses were the only viruses that remained relatively unaffected during this period.ConclusionsWe speculated that the introduction of nonpharmaceutical measures including masking to prevent SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission contributed to the near absence of SRV in the Ottawa region. These measures should remain a key component in addressing spikes in SRV activity and future pandemics.     

Severity of the COVID‐19 pandemic assessed with all‐cause mortality in the United States during 2020

BackgroundIn the United States, infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 caused 380,000 reported deaths from March to December 2020.MethodsWe adapted the Moving Epidemic Method to all‐cause mortality data from the United States to assess the severity of the COVID‐19 pandemic across age groups and all 50 states. By comparing all‐cause mortality during the pandemic with intensity thresholds derived from recent, historical all‐cause mortality, we categorized each week from March to December 2020 as either low severity, moderate severity, high severity, or very high severity.ResultsNationally for all ages combined, all‐cause mortality was in the very high severity category for 9 weeks. Among people 18 to 49 years of age, there were 29 weeks of consecutive very high severity mortality. Forty‐seven states, the District of Columbia, and New York City each experienced at least 1 week of very high severity mortality for all ages combined.ConclusionsThese periods of very high severity of mortality during March through December 2020 are likely directly or indirectly attributable to the COVID‐19 pandemic. This method for standardized comparison of severity over time across different geographies and demographic groups provides valuable information to understand the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic and to identify specific locations or subgroups for deeper investigations into differences in severity.     

Disaster hypertension and cardiovascular events in disaster and COVID‐19 pandemic

The incidence of large disasters has been increasing worldwide. This has led to a growing interest in disaster medicine. In this review, we report current evidence related to disasters and coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, such as cardiovascular diseases during disasters, management of disaster hypertension, and cardiovascular diseases associated with COVID‐19. This review summarizes the time course and mechanisms of disaster‐related diseases. It also discusses the use of information and communication technology (ICT) as a cardiovascular risk management strategy to prevent cardiovascular events. During the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, we used the “Disaster Cardiovascular Prevention” system that was employed for blood pressure (BP) monitoring and risk management using ICT. We introduced an ICT‐based BP monitoring device at evacuation centers and shared patients’ BP values in the database to support BP management by remote monitoring, which led to improved BP control. Effective use of telemedicine using ICT is important for risk management of cardiovascular diseases during disasters and pandemics in the future.     

Implementation of diabetes care and educational program via telemedicine in patients with COVID‐19 in home isolation in Thailand: A real‐worldexperience

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) outbreak in Bangkok led to a shortage of hospital capacity, and a home isolation system was set up. We described the process of diabetes self‐management education and support (DSMES) and glycemic management via telemedicine, along with outcomes in home‐isolated patients with COVID‐19 infection.MethodsA retrospective chart review of glucose values, insulin and corticosteroids use, and outcomes was performed.ResultsA volunteer group of 21 endocrinologists and 21 diabetes educators/nurses formed the consultation team. Patients with diabetes or at high‐risk of diabetes and receiving corticosteroids were referred by primary volunteer physicians. Glucometers and related supplies, and insulin were donated, and delivered via same‐day delivery services. A chat group of an individual patient/their caregiver, diabetes educator, endocrinologist, and primary physician was formed (majority via LINE^® platform) to assess the patient''s clinical status and need. Real‐time virtual DSMES sessions were performed and treatments were adjusted via smartphone application or telephone. There were 119 patients (1,398 service days), mean (SD) age 62.0 (13.6) years, 85.7% had a history of type 2 diabetes, and 84.0% received corticosteroids. Insulin was used in 88 patients; 69 of whom were insulin‐naïve. During the first 10 days, there were 2,454 glucose values. The mean glucose level on day 1 was 280.6 (122.3) mg/dL, and declined to 167.7 (43.4) mg/dL on day 10. Hypoglycemia occurred in 1.4% of the values. A majority of patients (79.5%) recovered at home.ConclusionDiabetes care and DSMES delivered via telemedicine to patients on home isolation during COVID‐19 pandemic was safe and effective.     

Prevalence and impact of diabetes in hospitalized COVID‐19 patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

BackgroundDiabetes is a cardiometabolic comorbidity that may predispose COVID‐19 patients to worse clinical outcomes. This study sought to determine the prevalence of diabetes in hospitalized COVID‐19 patients and investigate the association of diabetes severe COVID‐19, rate of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), mortality, and need for mechanical ventilation by performing a systematic review and meta‐analysis.MethodsIndividual studies were selected using a defined search strategy, including results up until July 2021 from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. A random‐effects meta‐analysis was performed to estimate the proportions and level of association of diabetes with clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID‐19 patients. Forest plots were generated to retrieve the odds ratios (OR), and the quality and risk assessment was performed for all studies included in the meta‐analysis.ResultsThe total number of patients included in this study was 10 648, of whom 3112 had diabetes (29.23%). The overall pooled estimate of prevalence of diabetes in the meta‐analysis cohort was 31% (95% CI, 0.25‐0.38; z = 16.09, P < .0001). Diabetes significantly increased the odds of severe COVID‐19 (OR 3.39; 95% CI, 2.14‐5.37; P < .0001), ARDS (OR 2.55; 95% CI, 1.74‐3.75; P = <.0001), in‐hospital mortality (OR 2.44; 95% CI, 1.93‐3.09; P < .0001), and mechanical ventilation (OR 3.03; 95% CI, 2.17‐4.22; P < .0001).ConclusionsOur meta‐analysis demonstrates that diabetes is significantly associated with increased odds of severe COVID‐19, increased ARDS rate, mortality, and need for mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients. We also estimated an overall pooled prevalence of diabetes of 31% in hospitalized COVID‐19 patients.     

Safety of ACEi and ARB in COVID‐19 management: A retrospective analysis

Background & AimsSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV2)is a highly contagious virus that has infected 260 million individuals since December 2019. The severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) depends upon the complex interplay between viral factors and the host''s inflammatory response, which can trigger a cascadeeventually leading to multiorgan failure. There is contradictory evidence that angiotensin‐converting enzyme (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may affect mortality in patients with severe COVID‐19, theoretically due to interaction with the bradykinin pathway. Therefore, we aim to explore the association between ACEi and ARB use and mortality in severe SARS‐CoV2 infection.Severe acute respiratory yndrome with coronavirus (SARS‐CoV2) is a highly contagious virus that has infected 260 million individuals since December 2019. The severity of COVID‐19 depends upon the complex interplay between viral factors and the host''s inflammatory response, which can trigger a cascadeeventually leading to multiorgan failure. There is contradictory evidence that angiotensin‐converting enzyme (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may affect mortality in patients with severe COVID‐19, theoretically due to interaction with the bradykinin pathway. Therefore, we aim to explore the association between ACEi and ARB use and mortality in severe SARS‐CoV2 infection.Materials & MethodologyThis multicenter retrospective observational study enrolled 2935 COVID‐19 patients admitted at six hospitals in Southern California, USA, between March 2020 and August 2021. Our primary outcome was the association of pre‐hospital use of ACEi and ARB on in‐hospital mortality in COVID‐19 patients. First, relevant deidentified patient data were extracted using an SQL program from the electronic medical record. Then, a bivariate analysis of the relationship between ACEi and ARB use and different study variables using χ ² and t test was done. Finally, we did a backward selection Cox multivariate regression analysis using mortality as a dependent variable.ResultsOf the 2935 patients in the study, hypertension was present in 40.6%, and congestive heart failure in 13.8%. ACEi and ARB were used by 17.5% and 11.3% of patients, respectively, with 28.8% of patients on either medication. After adjusting for confounding variables in the multivariate analysis, the use of ACEi (HR: 1.226, 95% CI: 0.989–1.520) or ARB (HR: 0.923, 95% CI: 0.701–1.216) was not independently associated with increased mortality.ConclusionOur results are consistent with the clinical guidelines and position statements per the International Society of Hypertension, that there is no indication to stop the use of ACEi/ARB in COVID‐19 patients.     

Acute cardiovascular hospitalizations and illness severity before and during the COVID‐19 pandemic

BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) hospitalizations declined worldwide during the COVID‐19 pandemic. It is unclear how shelter‐in‐place orders affected acute CVD hospitalizations, illness severity, and outcomes.HypothesisCOVID‐19 pandemic was associated with reduced acute CVD hospitalizations (heart failure [HF], acute coronary syndrome [ACS], and stroke [CVA]), and worse HF illness severity.MethodsWe compared acute CVD hospitalizations at Duke University Health System before and after North Carolina''s shelter‐in‐place order (January 1–March 29 vs. March 30–August 31), and used parallel comparison cohorts from 2019. We explored illness severity among admitted HF patients using ADHERE (“high risk”: >2 points) and GWTG‐HF (“>10%”: >57 points) in‐hospital mortality risk scores, as well as echocardiography‐derived parameters.ResultsComparing hospitalizations during January 1–March 29 (N = 1618) vs. March 30–August 31 (N = 2501) in 2020, mean daily CVD hospitalizations decreased (18.2 vs. 16.1 per day, p = .0036), with decreased length of stay (8.4 vs. 7.5 days, p = .0081) and no change in in‐hospital mortality (4.7 vs. 5.3%, p = .41). HF hospitalizations decreased (9.0 vs. 7.7 per day, p = .0019), with higher ADHERE (“high risk”: 2.5 vs. 4.5%; p = .030), but unchanged GWTG‐HF (“>10%”: 5.3 vs. 4.6%; p = .45), risk groups. Mean LVEF was lower (39.0 vs. 37.2%, p = .034), with higher mean LV mass (262.4 vs. 276.6 g, p = .014).ConclusionsCVD hospitalizations, HF illness severity, and echocardiography measures did not change between admission periods in 2019. Evaluating short‐term data, the COVID‐19 shelter‐in‐place order was associated with reductions in acute CVD hospitalizations, particularly HF, with no significant increase in in‐hospital mortality and only minor differences in HF illness severity.     

Day‐by‐day blood pressure variability in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19

In a retrospective analysis, the authors investigated day‐by‐day blood pressure variability (BPV) and its association with clinical outcomes (critical vs. severe and discharged) in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19. The study participants were hospitalized in Tongji Hospital, Guanggu Branch, Wuhan, China, between February 1 and April 1, 2020. BPV was assessed as standard derivation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), and variability independent of mean (VIM). The 79 participants included 60 (75.9%) severe patients discharged from the hospital after up to 47 days of hospitalization, and 19 (24.1%) critically ill patients transferred to other hospitals for further treatment (n = 13), admitted to ICU (n = 3) or died (n=3). Despite similar use of antihypertensive medication (47.4% vs. 41.7%) and mean levels of systolic/diastolic blood pressure (131.3/75.2 vs. 125.4/77.3 mmHg), critically ill patients, compared with severe and discharged patients, had a significantly (p ≤ .04) greater variability of systolic (SD 14.92 vs. 10.84 mmHg, CV 11.39% vs. 8.56%, and VIM 15.15 vs. 10.75 units) and diastolic blood pressure (SD 9.38 vs. 7.50 mmHg, CV 12.66% vs. 9.80%, and VIM 9.33 vs. 7.50 units). After adjustment for confounding factors, the odds ratios for critical versus severe and discharged patients for systolic BPV were 3.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20‐9.66, p = .02), 4.09 (95% CI 1.14‐14.67, p = .03), and 2.81 (95% CI 1.12‐7.05, p = .03) for each 5‐mmHg increment in SD, 5% increment in CV, and 5‐unit increment in VIM, respectively. Similar trends were observed for diastolic BPV indices (p ≤ .08). In conclusion, in patients with COVID‐19, BPV was greater and associated with worse clinical outcomes.     

The role of non‐pharmaceutical interventions on influenza circulation during the COVID‐19 pandemic in nine tropical Asian countries

BackgroundLow global influenza circulation was reported during the coronavirus‐19 pandemic. We explored relationships between non‐pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and influenza in tropical Asian countries.MethodsUsing World Health Organization (WHO) surveillance data from 2015 to 2019 and the WHO shiny app, we constructed expected seasonal influenza epidemic curves from March 2020 to June 2021 and compared the timing, and average percent positivity with observed data. We used multivariate regression to test associations between ordinal NPI data (from the Oxford Stringency Index) 4 weeks before the expected 2020/21 epidemics and present adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) or relative proportion ratio (RPR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsData from nine countries predicted 18 seasonal epidemics; seven were observed. Five started 6–24 weeks later, and all were 4–21 weeks shorter than expected. Five epidemics had lower maximum peak values (percent positivity), and all but one had lower average percent positivity than expected. All countries implemented NPIs. Each increased level of school closure reduced risk of an epidemic by 43% (IRR = 0.57, CI: 0.34, 0.95). Each increased level of canceling public events reduced the average percent positivity across the season by 44% (RPR = 0.56, CI: 0.39, 0.82) and each increased level in restricting internal movements reduced it by 41% (RPR = 0.59, CI: 0.36, 0.96). Other NPIs were not associated with changes.ConclusionsAmong nine countries, the 2020/21 seasonal epidemics were delayed, shorter, and less intense than expected. Although layered NPIs were difficult to tease apart, school closings, canceling public events, and restricting internal movements before influenza circulation seemed to reduce transmission.     

International changes in respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) epidemiology during the COVID‐19 pandemic: Association with school closures

BackgroundLittle RSV activity was observed during the first expected RSV season since the COVID‐19 pandemic. Multiple countries later experienced out‐of‐season RSV resurgences, yet their association with non‐pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) is unclear. This study aimed to describe the changes in RSV epidemiology during the COVID‐19 pandemic and to estimate the association between individual NPIs and the RSV resurgences.MethodsRSV activity from Week (W)12‐2020 to W44‐2021 was compared with three pre‐pandemic seasons using RSV surveillance data from Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Israel, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, the Netherlands and the United States. Changes in nine NPIs within 10 weeks before RSV resurgences were described. Associations between NPIs and RSV activity were assessed with linear mixed models. Adherence to NPIs was not taken into account.ResultsAverage delay of the first RSV season during the COVID‐19 pandemic was 39 weeks (range: 13–88 weeks). Although the delay was <40 weeks in six countries, a missed RSV season was observed in Brazil, Chile, Japan, Canada and South Korea. School closures, workplace closures, and stay‐at‐home requirements were most commonly downgraded before an RSV resurgence. Reopening schools and lifting stay‐at‐home requirements were associated with increases of 1.31% (p = 0.04) and 2.27% (p = 0.06) in the deviation from expected RSV activity.ConclusionThe first RSV season during the COVID‐19 pandemic was delayed in the 11 countries included. Reopening of schools was consistently associated with increased RSV activity. As NPIs were often changed concomitantly, the association between RSV activity and school closures may be partly attributed to other NPIs.     

Antibody responses to COVID‐19 vaccination in people with obesity: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

COVID‐19 vaccine is critical in preventing SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and transmission. However, obesity''s effect on immune responses to COVID‐19 vaccines is still unknown. We performed a meta‐analysis of the literature and compared antibody responses with COVID‐19 vaccines among persons with and without obesity. We used Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify all related studies up to April 2022. The Stata.14 software was used to analyze the selected data. Eleven studies were included in the present meta‐analysis. Five of them provided absolute values of antibody titers in the obese group and non‐obese group. Overall, we found that the obese population was significantly associated with lower antibody titers (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −0.228, 95% CI [−0.437, −0.019], P < 0.001) after COVID‐19 vaccination. Significant heterogeneity was present in most pooled analyses but was reduced after subgroup analyses. No publication bias was observed in the present analysis. The Trim and Fill method did not change the results in the primary analysis. The present meta‐analysis suggested that obesity was significantly associated with decreased antibody responses to SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines. Future studies should be performed to unravel the mechanism of response to the COVID‐19 vaccine in obese individuals.     

COVID‐19 vaccine hesitancy and attitudes in Qatar: A national cross‐sectional survey of a migrant‐majority population

BackgroundVaccine hesitancy is a global threat undermining control of preventable infections. Emerging evidence suggests that hesitancy to COVID‐19 vaccination varies globally. Qatar has a unique population with around 90% of the population being economic migrants, and the degree and determinants of hesitancy are not known.MethodsThis study was carried out to evaluate the degree of vaccine hesitancy and its socio‐demographic and attitudinal determinants across a representative sample. A national cross‐sectional study using validated hesitancy measurement tool was carried out from October 15, 2020, to November 15, 2020. A total of 7821 adults completed the survey. Relevant socio‐demographic data along with attitudes and beliefs around COVID‐19 vaccination were collected from the respondents.Results20.2% of the respondents stated they would not take the vaccine and 19.8% reported being unsure about taking the prospective COVID‐19 vaccine. Citizens and females were more likely to be vaccine hesitators than immigrants and males, respectively. Concerns around the safety of COVID‐19 vaccine and its longer‐term side effects were the main concerns cited. Personal research around COVID‐19 and vaccine were by far the most preferred methods that would increase confidence in accepting the vaccine across all demographic groups.ConclusionsThis study reports an overall vaccine hesitancy of 20% toward the COVID‐19 vaccine and the influence of social media on attitudes toward vaccination which is in keeping with emerging evidence. This finding comes at a time that is close to the start of mass immunization and reports from a migrant‐majority population highlighting important socio‐demographic determinants around vaccine hesitancy.     

Hospitalization deficit of in‐ and outpatient cases with cardiovascular diseases and utilization of cardiological interventions during the COVID‐19 pandemic: Insights from the German‐wide helios hospital network

BackgroundTreatment numbers of various cardiovascular diseases were reduced throughout the early phase of the ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic. Aim of this study was to (a) expand previous study periods to examine the long‐term course of hospital admission numbers, (b) provide data for in‐ and outpatient care pathways, and (c) illustrate changes of numbers of cardiovascular procedures.Methods and ResultsAdministrative data of patients with ICD‐10‐encoded primary diagnoses of cardiovascular diseases (heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, valvular heart disease, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease) and in‐ or outpatient treatment between March, 13th 2020 and September, 10th 2020 were analyzed and compared with 2019 data. Numbers of cardiovascular procedures were calculated using OPS‐codes. The cumulative hospital admission deficit (CumAD) was computed as the difference between expected and observed admissions for every week in 2020. In total, 80 hospitals contributed 294 361 patient cases to the database without relevant differences in baseline characteristics between the studied periods. There was a CumAD of −10% to −16% at the end of the study interval in 2020 for all disease groups driven to varying degrees by both reductions of in‐ and outpatient case numbers. The number of performed interventions was significantly reduced for all examined procedures (catheter ablations: −10%; cardiac electronic device implantations: −7%; percutaneous cardiovascular interventions: −9%; cardiovascular surgery: −15%).ConclusionsThis study provides data on the long‐term development of cardiovascular patient care during the COVID‐19 pandemic demonstrating a significant CumAD for several cardiovascular diseases and a concomitant performance deficit of cardiovascular interventions.     

Association between electrocardiographic features and mortality in COVID‐19 patients

BackgroundCardiovascular events have been reported in the setting of coronavirus disease‐19 (COVID‐19). It has been hypothesized that systemic inflammation may aggravate arrhythmias or trigger new‐onset conduction abnormalities. However, the specific type and distribution of electrocardiographic disturbances in COVID‐19 as well as their influence on mortality remain to be fully characterized.MethodsElectrocardiograms (ECGs) were obtained from 186 COVID‐19‐positive patients at a large tertiary care hospital in Northern Nevada. The following arrhythmias were identified by cardiologists: sinus bradycardia, sinus tachycardia, atrial fibrillation (A‐Fib), atrial flutter, multifocal atrial tachycardia (MAT), premature atrial contraction (PAC), premature ventricular contraction (PVC), atrioventricular block (AVB), and right bundle branch block (RBBB). The mean PR interval, QRS duration, and corrected QT interval were documented. Fisher''s exact test was used to compare the ECG features of patients who died during the hospitalization with those who survived. The influence of ECG features on mortality was assessed with multivariable logistic regression analysis.ResultsA‐Fib, atrial flutter, and ST‐segment depression were predictive of mortality. In addition, the mean ventricular rate was higher among patients who died as compared to those who survived. The use of therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with reduced odds of death; however, this association did not reach statistical significance.ConclusionThe underlying pathogenesis of COVID‐19‐associated arrhythmias remains to be established, but we postulate that systemic inflammation and/or hypoxia may induce potentially lethal conduction abnormalities in affected individuals. Longitudinal studies are warranted to evaluate the risk factors, pathogenesis, and management of COVID‐19‐associated cardiac arrhythmias.     

Mortality associated with COVID‐19 and hypertension in sub‐Saharan Africa. A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Hypertension is a common comorbidity in COVID‐19 patients. However, little data is available on mortality in COVID‐19 patients with hypertension in sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA). Herein, the authors conducted a systematic review of research articles published from January 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021. Our aim was to evaluate the magnitude of COVID‐19 mortality in patients with hypertension in SSA. Following the PRISMA guidelines, two independent investigators conducted the literature review to collect relevant data. The authors used a random effect model to estimate the odds ratio, or hazard ratio, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Furthermore, the authors used Egger''s tests to check for publication bias. For mortality analysis, the authors included data on 29 945 COVID‐19 patients from seven publications. The authors assessed the heterogeneity across studies with the I² test. Finally, the pooled analysis revealed that hypertension was associated with an increased odds of mortality among COVID‐19 inpatients (OR 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13–1.50). Our analysis revealed neither substantial heterogeneity across studies nor a publication bias. Therefore, our prespecified results provided new evidence that hypertension could increase the risk of mortality from COVID‐19 in SSA.     

The role of ventilatory support for long‐term outcomes after critical infection with COVID‐19: A prospective cohort study

ObjectivesThe full range of long‐term health consequences in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors with COVID‐19 is unclear. This study aims to investigate the role of ventilatory support for long‐term pulmonary impairment in critically ill patients and further to identify risk factors for prolonged radiological recovery.MethodsA prospective observational study from a single general hospital, including all with COVID‐19 admitted to ICU between March and August 2020, investigating the association between ventilatory support and the extent of residual parenchymal changes on chest computed tomography (CT) scan and measurement of lung volumes at follow‐up comparing high‐flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) or non‐invasive ventilation (NIV) with invasive ventilation. A semi‐quantitative score (CT involvement score) based on lobar involvement and a total score for all five lobes was used to estimate residual parenchymal changes. The association was calculated with logistic regression and adjusted for age, sex, smoking, and severity of illness.ResultsAmong the 187 eligible, 86 had a chest CT scan and 76 a pulmonary function test at the follow‐up with a median time of 6 months after ICU discharge. Residual lung changes were seen in 74%. The extent of pulmonary changes was similar regardless of ventilatory support, but patients with invasive ventilation had a lower total lung capacity 84% versus 92% of predicted (p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe majority of ICU‐treated patients with COVID‐19 had residual lung changes at 6 months of follow‐up regardless of ventilator support or not, but the total lung capacity was lower in those treated with invasive ventilation.     

Implications of the unexpected persistence of human rhinovirus/enterovirus during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Canada

Stringent public health measures imposed across Canada to control the COVID‐19 pandemic have nearly suppressed most seasonal respiratory viruses, with the notable exception of human rhinovirus/enterovirus (hRV/EV). Thanks to this unexpected persistence, we highlight that hRV/EV could serve as a sentinel for levels of contact rate in populations to inform on the efficiency, or the need of, public health measures to control the subsequent COVID‐19 epidemic, but also for future epidemics from other seasonal or emerging respiratory pathogens.