Specifics of chronic fatigue syndrome coping strategies identified in a French flash survey during the COVID-19 containment

The COVID-19 pandemic has focused health systems on supporting patients affected by this virus. Meanwhile in the community, many other contained patients could only use self-care strategies, especially in countries that have set up a long and strict containment such as France. The study aimed to compare coping strategies deployed by patients with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS; a poorly recognised syndrome) to those with better known and referenced chronic conditions. An online flash survey was conducted during the containment period in partnership with French Patients Organizations including ME/CFS national association. Therefore, ‘Brief COPE’ version of Lazarus and Folkman's Ways of Coping Check List has been adapted to the specificity of the containment. The survey was e-distributed in France from 15 April to 11 May 2020. Differences of coping strategies were analyzed using Wilcoxon–Mann–Withney test. Amongst 637 responses, 192 were complete, presenting a wide variety of diseases, including 93 ME/CFS. The latter have significantly different coping strategies than recognised diagnosed diseases patients: similar uses of emotion focused coping but less uses of seek social support and problem-focused copings. In conclusion, coping strategies are different for those who deal with the daily experience of ME/CFS, highly disabling chronic condition with diagnostic ambiguity, low degree of medical and social recognition and without treatment. Better understanding of those strategies is needed to provide the means for health promotion researchers, managers and clinicians, to accompany those patients.     

及时开展新冠疫情防控与大规模核酸检测的卫生经济学评价

目的 对广州市于第二波新冠疫情及时开展疫情防控以及大规模核酸检测进行卫生经济学评价。方法 基于全社会角度,从相关部门及文献中收集数据,对广州市的所有常住居民构建改进SEIR模型,通过构建不同情景,分析真实世界情景及疫情防控措施分别推迟3天与7天的情景下的结果产出值,并对广州市四轮大规模核酸检测行成本效益分析。结果 真实世界情境下,本轮疫情的总经济负担约为344.02亿元人民币。与及时开展疫情防控措施相比,推迟3天开展疫情防控措施会带来1 391例累计确诊病例、43例死亡以及额外的141.91亿元人民币的经济负担。而推迟7天开展疫情防控措施会带来26 237例累计确诊病例、882例死亡以及额外的294.62亿元人民币的经济负担。四轮大规模核酸检测的净收益为221.82亿元人民币,效益成本比为24.23。结论 面对疫情时及时开展疫情防控措施能够极大地减少经济负担,且进行大规模核酸检测具有良好的经济性。     

Diagnostics and Treatments of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

ObjectivesAs healthcare systems continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, cost-effectiveness evidence will be needed to identify which tests and treatments for COVID-19 offer value for money. We sought to review economic evaluations of diagnostic tests and treatments for COVID-19, critically appraising the methodological approaches used and reporting cost-effectiveness estimates, using a “living” systematic review approach.MethodsKey databases (including MEDLINE, EconLit, Embase) were last searched on July 12, 2021. Gray literature and model repositories were also searched. Only full economic evaluations published in English were included. Studies were quality assessed and data were extracted into standard tables. Results were narratively summarized. The review was completed by 2 reviewers independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion with a senior reviewer.ResultsOverall, 3540 records were identified, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. After quality assessment, 6 were excluded because of very severe limitations. Of the 7 studies included, 5 were cost-utility analyses and 2 were cost-effectiveness analyses. All were model-based analyses. A total of 5 evaluated treatments (dexamethasone, remdesivir, hypothetical) and 2 evaluated hypothetical testing strategies. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to the treatment effect on survival and hospitalization, testing speed and accuracy, disease severity, and price.ConclusionsPresently, there are few economic evaluations for COVID-19 tests and treatments. They suggest treatments that confer a survival benefit and fast diagnostic tests may be cost effective. Nevertheless, studies are subject to major evidence gaps and take inconsistent analytical approaches. The evidence may improve for planned updates of this “living” review.     

Association of obesity with illness severity in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study

BackgroundAlthough recent studies have shown an association between obesity and adverse coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patient outcomes, there is a paucity in large studies focusing on hospitalized patients. We aimed to analyze outcomes associated with obesity in a large cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.MethodsWe performed a retrospective study at a tertiary care health system of adult patients with COVID-19 who were admitted between March 1 and April 30, 2020. Patients were stratified by body mass index (BMI) into obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m 2) and non-obese (BMI < 30 kg/m 2) cohorts. Primary outcomes were mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation, and 30-day readmission.ResultsA total of 1983 patients were included of whom 1031 (51.9%) had obesity and 952 (48.9%) did not have obesity. Patients with obesity were younger (P < 0.001), more likely to be female (P < 0.001) and African American (P < 0.001) compared to patients without obesity. Multivariable logistic models adjusting for differences in age, sex, race, medical comorbidities, and treatment modalities revealed no difference in 60-day mortality and 30-day readmission between obese and non-obese groups. In these models, patients with obesity had increased odds of ICU admission (adjusted OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07?1.76; P = 0.012) and intubation (adjusted OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.04?1.80; P = 0.026).ConclusionsObesity in patients with COVID-19 is independently associated with increased risk for ICU admission and intubation. Recognizing that obesity impacts morbidity in this manner is crucial for appropriate management of COVID-19 patients.     

Between a hygiene rock and a hygienic hard place: Avoiding SARS-CoV-2 while needing environmental exposures for immunity

Suboptimal understanding of concepts related to hygiene by the general public, clinicians and researchers is a persistent problem in health and medicine. Although hygiene is necessary to slow or prevent deadly pandemics of infectious disease such as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), hygiene can have unwanted effects. In particular, some aspects of hygiene cause a loss of biodiversity from the human body, characterized by the almost complete removal of intestinal worms (helminths) and protists. Research spanning more than half a century documents that this loss of biodiversity results in an increased propensity for autoimmune disease, allergic disorders, probably neuropsychiatric problems and adverse reactions to infectious agents. The differences in immune function between communities with and communities without helminths have become so pronounced that the reduced lethality of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in low-income countries compared to high-income countries was predicted early in the COVID-19 pandemic. This prediction, based on the maladaptive immune responses observed in many cases of COVID-19 in high-income countries, is now supported by emerging data from low-income countries. Herein, hygiene is subdivided into components involving personal choice versus components instituted by community wide systems such as sewage treatment facilities and water treatment plants. The different effects of personal hygiene and systems hygiene are described, and appropriate measures to alleviate the adverse effects of hygiene without losing the benefits of hygiene are discussed. Finally, text boxes are provided to function as stand-alone, public-domain handouts with the goal of informing the public about hygiene and suggesting solutions for biomedical researchers and policy makers.Lay Summary: Hygiene related to sewer systems and other technology can have adverse effects on immune function, and is distinct from personal hygiene practices such as hand washing and social distancing. Dealing with the drawbacks of hygiene must be undertaken without compromising the protection from infectious disease imposed by hygiene.     

One health disparities and COVID-19

 The global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected some communities and populations more than others. We propose that an interdisciplinary framework of ‘One Health Disparities’ advances understanding of the social and systemic issues that drive COVID-19 in vulnerable populations. One Health Disparities integrates the social environment with One Health perspectives on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health. To apply this framework, we consider One Health Disparities that emerge in three key components of disease transmission: exposure, susceptibility, and disease expression. Exposure disparities arise through variation in contact with COVID-19’s causative agent, SARS-CoV-2. Disparities in susceptibility and disease expression also exist; these are driven by biological and social factors, such as diabetes and obesity, and through variation in access to healthcare. We close by considering how One Health Disparities informs understanding of spillback into new animal reservoirs, and what this might mean for further human health disparities.Lay summaryOne Health focuses on interconnections between human, animal, and environmental health. We propose that social environments are also important to One Health and help illuminate disparities in the coronavirus pandemic, including its origins, transmission and susceptibility among humans, and spillback to other species. We call this framework One Health Disparities.     

Impact of COVID-19: Nursing challenges to meeting the care needs of people with developmental disabilities

BackgroundPeople with developmental disabilities (DD) are a population at high-risk for poor outcomes related to COVID-19. COVID-19-specific risks, including greater comorbidities and congregate living situations in persons with DD compound existing health disparities. With their expertise in care of persons with DD and understanding of basic principles of infection control, DD nurses are well-prepared to advocate for the needs of people with DD during the COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectiveTo assess the challenges faced by nurses caring for persons with DD during the COVID-19 pandemic and how the challenges impact people with DD.MethodsWe surveyed 556 DD nurses, from April 6–20, 2020. The 35-item mixed-method survey asked nurses to rate the degree of challenges faced in meeting the care needs of people with DD. We analyzed responses based on presence of COVID-19 in the care setting and geographically. One open-ended question elicited challenges not included in the survey, which we analyzed using manifest content analysis.ResultsStartlingly, nurses reported being excluded from COVID-19 planning, and an absence of public health guidelines specific to persons with DD, despite their high-risk status. Obtaining PPE and sanitizers and meeting social-behavioral care needs were the most highly ranked challenges. COVID-19 impacted nurses’ ability to maintain adequate staffing and perform essential aspects of care. No significant geographic differences were noted.ConclusionsDD nurses must be involved in public health planning and policy development to ensure that basic care needs of persons with DD are met, and the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 in this vulnerable population is reduced.     

Improving health care for disabled people in COVID-19 and beyond: Lessons from Australia and England

COVID-19 has exacerbated pre-existing difficulties children and adults with disability face accessing quality health care. Some people with disability are at greater risk of contracting COVID-19 because they require support for personal care and are unable to physically distance, e.g. those living in congregate settings. Additionally, some people with disability have health conditions that put them at higher risk of poor outcomes if they become infected. Despite this, governments have been slow to recognise, and respond to, the unique and diverse health care needs of people with disability during COVID-19. While some countries, including Australia, have improved access to high-quality health care for people with disability others, like England, have failed to support their citizens with disability. In this Commentary we describe the health care responses of England and Australia and make recommendations for rapidly improving health care for people with disability in the pandemic and beyond.     

Particle Filtration Efficiency Testing of Sterilization Wrap Masks

ObjectivesNon-traditional materials are used for mask construction to address personal protective equipment shortages during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Reusable masks made from surgical sterilization wrap represent such an innovative approach with social media frequently referring to them as “N95 alternatives.” This material was tested for particle filtration efficiency and breathability to clarify what role they might have in infection prevention and control.MethodsA heavyweight, double layer sterilization wrap was tested when new and after 2, 4, 6, and 10 autoclave sterilizing cycles and compared with an approved N95 respirator and a surgical mask via testing procedures using a sodium chloride aerosol for N95 efficiency testing similar to 42 CFR 84.181. Pressure testing to indicate breathability was also conducted.ResultsThe particle filtration efficiency for the sterilization wrap ranged between 58% to 66%, with similar performance when new and after sterilizing cycles. The N95 respirator and surgical mask performed at 95% and 68% respectively. Pressure drops for the sterilization wrap, N95 and surgical mask were 10.4 mmH₂O, 5.9 mmH₂O, and 5.1 mmH₂O, respectively, well below the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health limits of 35 mmH₂O during initial inhalation and 25 mmH₂O during initial exhalation.ConclusionsThe sterilization wrap’s particle filtration efficiency is much lower than a N95 respirator, but falls within the range of a surgical mask, with acceptable breathability. Performance testing of non-traditional mask materials is crucial to determine potential protection efficacy and for correcting misinterpretation propagated through popular media.