What COVID-19 is taking away from us.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mapelli M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7239200 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused a worldwide pandemic and has led to over five million deaths. Many cardiovascular risk factors (e.g. obesity or diabetes) are associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes in COVID-19. On the other hand, it has been suggested that medications used to treat cardiometabolic conditions may have protective effects for patients with COVID-19.ObjectivesTo determine whether patients taking four classes of cardioprotective medications-aspirin, metformin, renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) and statins-have a lower risk of adverse outcomes of COVID-19.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of primary care patients at a large integrated healthcare delivery system who had a positive COVID-19 test between March 2020 and March 2021. We compared outcomes of patients who were taking one of the study medications at the time of the COVID-19 test to patients who took a medication from the same class in the past (to minimize bias by indication). The following outcomes were compared: a) hospitalization; b) ICU admission; c) intubation; and d) death. Multivariable analysis was used to adjust for patient demographics and comorbidities.ResultsAmong 13,585 study patients, 1,970 (14.5%) were hospitalized; 763 (5.6%) were admitted to an ICU; 373 (2.8%) were intubated and 720 (5.3%) died. In bivariate analyses, patients taking metformin, RAASi and statins had lower risk of hospitalization, ICU admission and death. However, in multivariable analysis, only the lower risk of death remained statistically significant. Patients taking aspirin had a significantly higher risk of hospitalization in both bivariate and multivariable analyses.ConclusionsCardioprotective medications were not associated with a consistent benefit in COVID-19. As vaccination and effective treatments are not yet universally accessible worldwide, research should continue to determine whether affordable and widely available medications could be utilized to decrease the risks of this disease.
| S-EPMC9550077 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST563 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesWe intended to assess the effectiveness of all three US Food and Drug Administration approved COVID-19 vaccines at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalisation in a large cohort of individuals on immunosuppressants for a diverse range of conditions.MethodsWe studied the effectiveness of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson-Janssen) vaccines among individuals who take immunosuppressants (including disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and glucocorticoids) by comparing vaccinated (n=97688) and unvaccinated (n=42094) individuals in the Michigan Medicine healthcare system from 1 January to 7 December 2021, using Cox proportional hazards modelling with time-varying covariates.ResultsAmong vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, taking immunosuppressants increased the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (adjusted HR (aHR)=2.17, 95% CI 1.69 to 2.79 for fully vaccinated and aHR=1.40, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.83 for unvaccinated). Among individuals taking immunosuppressants, we found: (1) vaccination reduced the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR=0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.78); (2) the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were highly effective at reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=2046, aHR=0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.91 for BNT162b2; n=2064, aHR=0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.82 for mRNA-1273); (3) with a smaller sample size (n=173), Ad26.COV2.S vaccine protection did not reach statistical significance (aHR=0.34, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.30, p=0.17); and (4) receiving a booster dose reduced the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR=0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.76).ConclusionsThe mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 vaccines are effective in individuals who take immunosuppressants. However, individuals who are vaccinated but on immunosuppressants are still at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalisation than the broader vaccinated population. Booster doses are effective and crucially important for individuals on immunosuppressants.
| S-EPMC9422955 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Major stressors can influence religiosity, making some people more religious, while making others less religious. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a mixed-method study with a nationally representative sample of religiously affiliated American adults (N = 685) to assess group differences between those who decreased, stayed the same, or increased in their religious devotion. In quantitative analyses we evaluated differences on sociodemographic variables, religious behaviors, individual differences, prosocial emotions, well-being, and COVID-19 attitudes and behaviors. Of most note, those who changed (i.e., increased or decreased) in religious devotion were more likely than those with no change in devotion to experience high levels of stress and threat related to COVID-19, but only those who increased in religious devotion had the highest dispositional prosocial emotions (i.e., gratitude and awe). Further, those who changed in religious devotion were more likely to report searching for meaning than those with no change, but only those who increased were more likely to report actual presence of meaning. Qualitative analyses revealed that those who increased in religious devotion reported increasing personal worship, the need for a higher power, and uncertainty in life as reasons for their increase in religious devotion; those who decreased reported being unable to communally worship, a lack of commitment or priority, and challenges making it hard to believe in God as reasons for their decrease in religious devotion. The findings help identify how COVID-19 has affected religious devotion, and how religion might be used as a coping mechanism during a major life stressor.
| S-EPMC9994730 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST416 | biostudies-other
Project description:The Framing Effect (FE) demonstrated that the way two alternatives are displayed affects people's inclination to make a specific choice, showing a risk aversion when alternatives are displayed on positive frames and risk seeking in negative frames. Risk seeking in negative frames is closely linked to loss aversion. Moreover, classical research and the salience-of-losses hypothesis argues that stress may enhance the FE and loss aversion. Recent studies also suggest that the trait interoception and alexithymia could interact and moderate the framing susceptibility. However, experimental paradigms on stress could ignore variables such as threat perception. In this sense, COVID-19 pandemic has become a powerful real-life stressor in many countries. We aimed to study how real-life stressors influence decision-making under risk. A total of 97 participants were divided into a control (n = 48) and an experimental group (n = 49). The experimental group were exposed to a stressor manipulation, a 5 min COVID-19 lockdown documentary. Our results show that COVID-19-related stressors significantly decreased bet acceptance regardless of the frame, also reducing loss aversion. Moreover, interoception was a significant predictor of loss aversion under stress conditions. Our results do not support classical research on stress and FE.
| S-EPMC10044126 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract Field instruction is a crucial component of natural sciences education. The COVID‐19 pandemic has shifted many university courses to an online format, significantly impacting field instruction. FRST 350, Foundational Field School, is an 8‐day University of British Columbia Forestry field course taught to incoming transfer students from partner universities in China. In August 2020, I taught this course online to students studying remotely. In re‐developing the course, I spent 9 days in the field filming high definition (HD) video, 360° video, and 360° photography to best recreate the course in a short time‐frame. A 360° video records omnidirectionally, allowing viewers to “look around” in all directions, resulting in a highly immersive experience. Students expressed favorable opinions of the course, especially traditional HD and 360° video. Students generally preferred HD videos over 360°, though this was due mostly to the high bandwidth needed for 360° video and the fact that core course content was primarily conveyed as HD videos (in recognition of bandwidth challenges), with supplementary 360° videos. Students favorably noted the interactivity and immersive feel of 360° videos and photographs. This technology is financially and logistically feasible for use in a natural sciences course. Instructors engaged in online field instruction should weigh the strengths and weaknesses of various technologies, including 360° video, when determining how to best meet their learning objectives.
| S-EPMC7995167 | biostudies-literature
Project description:5'RACE-based TCR repertoire sequencing from peripheral blood
2024-09-26 | E-MTAB-13593 | biostudies-arrayexpress