Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), commonly affects the lungs, but the involvement of other organs, particularly the heart, is highly prevalent as has been reported in several studies. The overall aim of this review was to provide an in-depth description of the available literature related to the cardiac system and COVID-19 infection. It focuses on type and the frequency of cardiac manifestations, clinical parameters and cardiac biomarkers that support the prognosis of COVID-19 patients, and the cardiac adverse events and outcomes related to pharmacotherapy.MethodsA scoping review was conducted searching Embase, PubMed, Epistomonikos, Medrxiv, BioRxiv databases, up to November 2020, for systematic reviews relevant to cardiac manifestations in adult COVID-19 patients. Relevant articles were screened and extracted to summarize key outcomes and findings.ResultsA total of 63 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. The overall frequency of acute cardiac injury ranged from 15% to 33% in the reporting studies. The main cardiac complications were arrhythmias (3.1% to 6.9% in non-severe patients, 33.0% to 48.0% in severe disease), acute coronary syndromes (6% to 33% in severe disease), and myocarditis. Most studies found no association with the use of Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASI) with COVID-19 outcomes such as susceptibility to infection, hospitalization, severity, and mortality.ConclusionThis study provided an overview of the several cardiac complications associated with Covid-19. Cardiac injury, arrhythmias, myocarditis, cardiac failure, and acute coronary syndrome, are prevalent and clinically significant and associated with COVID-19 disease severity and mortality. Other studies are needed to clearly identify what is the part of viral heart infection and what is the part of cardiac injury secondary to acute respiratory failure and inflammation. In the therapeutic field, these systematic reviews gave heterogenous results. This underlines the importance of randomized trials to determine the right therapeutic approach.

Project description:Several reports have been published on Aspergillus findings in COVID-19 patients leading to a proposition of new disease entity COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis. This scoping review is designed at clarifying the concepts on how the findings of Aspergillus spp. in COVID-19 patients were interpreted. We searched Medline to identify the studies on Aspergillus spp. findings in COVID-19 patients. Included were observational studies containing the following information: explicit mention of the total number of the study population, study period, reason for obtaining respiratory samples, case definition, and clinical outcomes. Excluded were case series, case reports and reviews. Identified were 123 publications, and 8 observational studies were included. From the included studies the following issues were identified. The proportion of immunocompromised patients considered as host factors varied from 0 to 17%. Most of the studies did not mention radiographic findings explicitly. Respiratory samples were mostly obtained to investigate clinical deterioration. Aspergillus culture, antigen or PCR testing on bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid were performed in between 23.3% and 66.3% of the study population. Two studies performed periodic samples of BAL. Galactomannan index (GI) positivity in BAL was between 10% and 28%. GI in blood was found in 0.9% to 6.7% of the available samples. The prevalence of COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis ranged from 2.7% to 27.7%. Studies compared the mortality between defined cases and non-cases, and all showed increased mortality in cases. No studies showed that antifungal treatment reduced mortality. Concluding, this review showed how studies defined the clinical entity COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis where positive Aspergillus test in the respiratory sample was the main driver for the diagnosis. There were many differences between studies in terms of test algorithm and Aspergillus test used that largely determined the prevalence. Whether antifungal therapy, either as prophylaxis, pre-emptive or targeted therapy will lead to better outcomes of COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis patients is still need to be answered.

Project description:BackgroundCancer screening tests are recommended to prevent cancer-associated mortality by detecting precancerous and cancerous lesions in early stages. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the use of preventive health care services. Although there was an increase in the number of cancer screening tests beginning in late 2020, screenings remained 29% to 36% lower than in the prepandemic era.ObjectiveThe aim of this review is to assist health care providers in identifying approaches for prioritizing patients and increasing breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening during the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe used the scoping review framework to identify articles on PubMed and EBSCO databases. A total of 403 articles were identified, and 23 articles were selected for this review. The literature review ranged from January 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021.ResultsThe articles included two primary categories of recommendations: (1) risk stratification and triage to prioritize screenings and (2) alternative methods to conduct cancer screenings. Risk stratification and triage recommendations focused on prioritizing high-risk patients with an abnormal or suspicious result on the previous screening test, patients in certain age groups and sex, patients with a personal medical or family cancer history, patients that are currently symptomatic, and patients that are predisposed to hereditary cancers and cancer-causing mutations. Other recommended strategies included identifying areas facing the most disparities, creating algorithms and using artificial intelligence to create cancer risk scores, leveraging in-person visits to assess cancer risk, and providing the option of open access screenings where patients can schedule screenings and can be assigned a priority category by health care staff. Some recommended using telemedicine to categorize patients and determine screening eligibility for patients with new complaints. Several articles noted the importance of implementing preventive measures such as COVID-19 screening prior to the procedures, maintaining hygiene measures, and social distancing in waiting rooms. Alternative screening methods that do not require an in-person clinic visit and can effectively screen patients for cancers included mailing self-collection sampling kits for cervical and colorectal cancers, and implementing or expanding mobile screening units.ConclusionsAlthough the COVID-19 pandemic had devastating effects on population health globally, it could be an opportunity to adapt and evolve cancer screening methods. Disruption often creates innovation, and focus on alternative methods for cancer screenings may help reach rural and underresourced areas after the pandemic has ended.

Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesize the nature and extent of research on rehabilitation care provision to patients with COVID-19. Specifically, we aimed to (1) describe the impact of COVID on patients and associated rehabilitation needs, (2) outline the adaptations and preparations required to enable the provision of COVID rehabilitation, (3) describe the types of rehabilitation services and treatments provided to COVID patients, and (4) identify barriers and facilitators to delivering COVID rehabilitation.Literature surveyWe searched Medline, PsychINFO, Embase, and CINAHL on June 26, 2020 using key words such as "rehabilitation," "physical medicine," "allied health professionals," and variations of "COVID." The search was updated on October 13, 2020. We included articles published in English and that focused on some aspect of COVID rehabilitation for adults. We excluded articles focused on pediatric populations and those not focused (or minimally focused) on rehabilitation for COVID patients.MethodologyData were charted based on article type (ie, primary data, secondary data, guidelines). Key information extracted included (1) COVID sequelae; (2) rehabilitation adaptations; (3) structure, function, and content of rehabilitation services/programs; (4) facilitators and/or barriers to providing COVID rehabilitation; and (5) recommendations for COVID rehabilitation programming. Data were synthesized narratively.SynthesisIn total, 128 articles were included in the review that reported primary data (n = 33), secondary data (n = 82), and clinical practice/patient self-management guidelines (n = 13). Evidence begins to suggest that rehabilitation is necessary and valuable for addressing COVID-related declines in health, function, and well-being. Most articles recommended that an individualized rehabilitation program be provided across the continuum of care by an interdisciplinary team of professionals and that the nature and extent of rehabilitation be informed by the care setting and COVID severity. Most issues that challenged COVID rehabilitation delivery were directly addressed by the facilitators and adaptations identified.ConclusionsFuture recommendations include a greater emphasis on the psychosocial aspects of COVID rehabilitation, inclusion of families in rehabilitation planning, and the use of qualitative approaches to complement clinical data.

Project description:BackgroundHospital settings are at increased risk of spreading Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections, hence non-pharmaceutical prevention interventions (NPPIs) and prioritized vaccination of healthcare workers and resident patients are critical. The status of COVID-19 hospital acquired infections (HAIs) in low-income settings is unclear. We aimed to identify and summarize the existing evidence on COVID-19 HAIs amongst patients, prior to the rollout of vaccines in countries worldwide.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review of English peer-reviewed literature in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus using a combination of selected search terms. Full texts articles presenting results on COVID-19 HAIs in hospitalised patients before the rollout of vaccines in countries worldwide were eligible. Data extracted from eligible articles included estimates of COVID-19 HAIs, country, and type of hospital setting, and was summarized narratively. Quality assessment of included articles was not possible.ResultsLiterature searches generated a total of 5920 articles, and 45 were eligible for analysis. Eligible articles were from Europe, North America, Asia, and Brazil and none were from low-income countries. The proportion of COVID-19 HAIs ranged from 0% when strict NPPIs were applied, to 65% otherwise. The estimates of COVID-19 HAIs did not differ by country but were lower in studies conducted after implementation of NPPIs and in specialized hospital settings for operative surgery. Studies conducted before the implementation of NPPIs or in long-term care and psychiatric wards often reported high estimates of HAI. Although there was no clear trend in general wards, those situated in academic hospitals managed to reduce HAI rates under strict NPPI protocols. Operative surgery settings, unlike psychiatric settings, effectively prevented COVID-19 HAI using tailored NPPIs.ConclusionThe available evidence shows a high risk of COVID-19 HAIs, the feasibility of preventing HAIs in different healthcare settings and the importance of appropriately tailored NPPIs. There were no data from low-income settings, therefore, it is unclear whether the reported NPPI approaches could be equally effective elsewhere. We recommend routine monitoring of COVID-19 HAIs in countries with low vaccination coverage, to identify and close gaps in NPPIs and understand gains made from vaccinating healthcare workers and hospitalized patients.

Project description:BackgroundThe mortality of critically ill patients with COVID-19 is high, particularly among those receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). Despite the high number of patients treated worldwide, data on respiratory mechanics are currently scarce and the optimal setting of MV remains to be defined. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of available data about respiratory mechanics, gas exchange and MV settings in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) for COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure, and to identify knowledge gaps.Main textPubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases were searched from inception to October 30, 2020 for studies providing at least one ventilatory parameter collected within 24 h from the ICU admission. The quality of the studies was independently assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies. A total of 26 studies were included for a total of 14,075 patients. At ICU admission, positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) values ranged from 9 to 16.5 cm of water (cmH2O), suggesting that high levels of PEEP were commonly used for setting MV for these patients. Patients with COVID-19 are severely hypoxemic at ICU admission and show a median ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ranging from 102 to 198 mmHg. Static respiratory system compliance (Crs) values at ICU admission were highly heterogenous, ranging between 24 and 49 ml/cmH2O. Prone positioning and neuromuscular blocking agents were widely used, ranging from 17 to 81 and 22 to 88%, respectively; both rates were higher than previously reported in patients with "classical" acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).ConclusionsAvailable data show that, in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, respiratory mechanics and MV settings within 24 h from ICU admission are heterogeneous but similar to those reported for "classical" ARDS. However, to date, complete data regarding mechanical properties of respiratory system, optimal setting of MV and the role of rescue treatments for refractory hypoxemia are still lacking in the medical literature.

Dataset Information

Scoping review on the prevalence of cancer in COVID-19 patients.

Publications

Scoping review on the prevalence of cancer in COVID-19 patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets