Stressors and Information-Seeking by Dialysis and Transplant Patients During COVID-19, Reported on a Telephone Hotline: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Rationale & Objective: In early 2020, we activated a telephone hotline, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Kidney or Transplant Listening and Resource Center, to learn more about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the stress and information-seeking behaviors of dialysis and transplant patients. Study Design: A mixed-methods study including semi-structured, qualitative interviews probing about emotional, health, and financial challenges experienced and quantitative surveys assessing depression and anxiety levels and information-seeking behaviors. Setting & Participants: 99 participants (28 dialysis patients; 71 transplant patients), varying by race and ethnicity (Hispanic, 25.3%; White, 23.2%; Asian, 24.2%; Black, 24.2%), shared their COVID-19 pandemic experiences and information-seeking behaviors by telephone. Interviews and surveys were conducted from June 17, 2020, to November 24, 2020. Analytical Approach: Qualitative themes were identified using thematic analysis. Frequencies were calculated to assess levels of depression and anxiety using the Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression and Anxiety and types of information-seeking behaviors. Results: 7 themes and 16 subthemes emerged. Themes of commonly reported stressors include postponing medical visits; decreased accessibility of getting medication; difficulty in receiving up-to-date, patient-focused health information and dialysis supplies; and delays in medical appointments. Other stressors include losses of health insurance and income, and increased vigilance in behaviors to avoid contracting COVID-19. 15 participants had moderate to severe anxiety and depression symptoms and reported more frequent and severe panic attacks after the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants sought emotional support from family, friends, and faith communities. They also commonly obtained information from news media and reported needing more transplant-specific updates about COVID-19, and frequent communication from their kidney and transplant specialists. Limitations: This convenience sample of individuals willing to share their experiences through a telephone hotline may not generalize to all dialysis and transplant patients; stressors related to the COVID-19 pandemic for these patients continue to change. Conclusions: As the impact of the pandemic continues, needs-based interventions tailored for the kidney and transplant community, including access to mental health resources, education, and support for care transitions, should continue.

Patients Recently Treated for B-lymphoid Malignancies Show Increased Risk of Severe COVID-19.

Patients with B-lymphoid malignancies have been consistently identified as a population at high risk of severe COVID-19. Whether this is exclusively due to cancer-related deficits in humoral and cellular immunity, or whether risk of severe COVID-19 is increased by anticancer therapy, is uncertain. Using data derived from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19), we show that patients treated for B-lymphoid malignancies have an increased risk of severe COVID-19 compared with control populations of patients with non-B-lymphoid malignancies. Among patients with B-lymphoid malignancies, those who received anticancer therapy within 12 months of COVID-19 diagnosis experienced increased COVID-19 severity compared with patients with non-recently treated B-lymphoid malignancies, after adjustment for cancer status and several other prognostic factors. Our findings suggest that patients recently treated for a B-lymphoid malignancy are at uniquely high risk for severe COVID-19. SIGNIFICANCE: Our study suggests that recent therapy for a B-lymphoid malignancy is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 severity. These findings provide rationale to develop mitigation strategies targeted at the uniquely high-risk population of patients with recently treated B-lymphoid malignancies. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 171.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), also known as pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome, is a new dangerous childhood disease that is temporally associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to describe the typical presentation and outcomes of children diagnosed with this hyperinflammatory condition. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to communicate the clinical signs and symptoms, laboratory findings, imaging results, and outcomes of individuals with MIS-C. We searched four medical databases to encompass studies characterizing MIS-C from January 1st, 2020 to July 25th, 2020. Two independent authors screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. This review was registered with PROSPERO CRD42020191515. FINDINGS: Our search yielded 39 observational studies (n = 662 patients). While 71·0% of children (n = 470) were admitted to the intensive care unit, only 11 deaths (1·7%) were reported. Average length of hospital stay was 7·9 ± 0·6 days. Fever (100%, n = 662), abdominal pain or diarrhea (73·7%, n = 488), and vomiting (68·3%, n = 452) were the most common clinical presentation. Serum inflammatory, coagulative, and cardiac markers were considerably abnormal. Mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were necessary in 22·2% (n = 147) and 4·4% (n = 29) of patients, respectively. An abnormal echocardiograph was observed in 314 of 581 individuals (54·0%) with depressed ejection fraction (45·1%, n = 262 of 581) comprising the most common aberrancy. INTERPRETATION: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome is a new pediatric disease associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that is dangerous and potentially lethal. With prompt recognition and medical attention, most children will survive but the long-term outcomes from this condition are presently unknown. FUNDING: Parker B. Francis and pilot grant from 2R25-HL126140. Funding agencies had no involvement in the study.

Factors Associated with Health Inequalities in Infectious Disease Pandemics Predating COVID-19 in the United States: A Systematic Review.

Objective: Previous pandemics may offer evidence on mediating factors that contributed to disparities in infection and poor outcomes, which could inform the effort to mitigate potential unequal outcomes during the current COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review sought to examine those factors. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane to May 2020. We included studies examining health disparities in adult U.S. populations during infectious disease epidemics or pandemics. Two investigators screened abstracts and full text. We assessed study quality using the Newcastle/Ottawa Scale or the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist for Qualitative Studies. Results: Sixteen articles were included, of which 14 focused on health disparities during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Studies showed that disparities during the H1N1 pandemic were more related to differential exposure to the virus than to susceptibility or access to care. Overall, pandemic-related disparities emanate primarily from inequalities in social conditions that place racial and ethnic minorities and low socioeconomic status populations at greater risk of exposure and infection, rather than individual-level factors such as health behaviors and comorbidities. Conclusions: Policy- and systems-level interventions should acknowledge and address these social determinants of heightened risk, and future research should evaluate the effects of such interventions to avoid further exacerbation of health inequities during the current and future pandemics.

Coinfections in Patients With Cancer and COVID-19: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) Study.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of coinfections and their association with outcomes have not been adequately studied among patients with cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a high-risk group for coinfection. METHODS: We included adult (≥18 years) patients with active or prior hematologic or invasive solid malignancies and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection, using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19, NCT04354701). We captured coinfections within ±2 weeks from diagnosis of COVID-19, identified factors cross-sectionally associated with risk of coinfection, and quantified the association of coinfections with 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 8765 patients (hospitalized or not; median age, 65 years; 47.4% male), 16.6% developed coinfections: 12.1% bacterial, 2.1% viral, 0.9% fungal. An additional 6.4% only had clinical diagnosis of a coinfection. The adjusted risk of any coinfection was positively associated with age >50 years, male sex, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and renal comorbidities, diabetes, hematologic malignancy, multiple malignancies, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, progressing cancer, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and baseline corticosteroids; the adjusted risk of superinfection was positively associated with tocilizumab administration. Among hospitalized patients, high neutrophil count and C-reactive protein were positively associated with bacterial coinfection risk, and high or low neutrophil count with fungal coinfection risk. Adjusted mortality rates were significantly higher among patients with bacterial (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.33-1.95) and fungal (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.28-3.76) coinfections. CONCLUSIONS: Viral and fungal coinfections are infrequent among patients with cancer and COVID-19, with the latter associated with very high mortality rates. Clinical and laboratory parameters can be used to guide early empiric antimicrobial therapy, which may improve clinical outcomes.

Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for 29 Cancer Groups From 2010 to 2019: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

IMPORTANCE: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 (GBD 2019) provided systematic estimates of incidence, morbidity, and mortality to inform local and international efforts toward reducing cancer burden. OBJECTIVE: To estimate cancer burden and trends globally for 204 countries and territories and by Sociodemographic Index (SDI) quintiles from 2010 to 2019. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The GBD 2019 estimation methods were used to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2019 and over the past decade. Estimates are also provided by quintiles of the SDI, a composite measure of educational attainment, income per capita, and total fertility rate for those younger than 25 years. Estimates include 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). FINDINGS: In 2019, there were an estimated 23.6 million (95% UI, 22.2-24.9 million) new cancer cases (17.2 million when excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 10.0 million (95% UI, 9.36-10.6 million) cancer deaths globally, with an estimated 250 million (235-264 million) DALYs due to cancer. Since 2010, these represented a 26.3% (95% UI, 20.3%-32.3%) increase in new cases, a 20.9% (95% UI, 14.2%-27.6%) increase in deaths, and a 16.0% (95% UI, 9.3%-22.8%) increase in DALYs. Among 22 groups of diseases and injuries in the GBD 2019 study, cancer was second only to cardiovascular diseases for the number of deaths, years of life lost, and DALYs globally in 2019. Cancer burden differed across SDI quintiles. The proportion of years lived with disability that contributed to DALYs increased with SDI, ranging from 1.4% (1.1%-1.8%) in the low SDI quintile to 5.7% (4.2%-7.1%) in the high SDI quintile. While the high SDI quintile had the highest number of new cases in 2019, the middle SDI quintile had the highest number of cancer deaths and DALYs. From 2010 to 2019, the largest percentage increase in the numbers of cases and deaths occurred in the low and low-middle SDI quintiles. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this systematic analysis suggest that the global burden of cancer is substantial and growing, with burden differing by SDI. These results provide comprehensive and comparable estimates that can potentially inform efforts toward equitable cancer control around the world.

Technology-based interventions for nursing home residents: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: A growing number of technology-based interventions are used to support the health and quality of life of nursing home residents. The onset of COVID-19 and recommended social distancing policies that followed led to an increased interest in technology-based solutions to provide healthcare and promote health. Yet, there are no comprehensive resources on technology-based healthcare solutions that describe their efficacy for nursing home residents. This systematic review will identify technology-based interventions designed for nursing home residents and describe the characteristics and effects of these interventions concerning the distinctive traits of nursing home residents and nursing facilities. Additionally, this paper will present practical insights into the varying intervention approaches that can assist in the delivery of broad digital health solutions for nursing home residents amid and beyond the impact of COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Databases including the PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus will be used to identify articles related to technology-based interventions for nursing home residents published between 1 January 2010 to 30 September 2021. Titles, abstracts and full-text papers will be reviewed against the eligibility criteria. The Cochrane Collaboration evaluation framework will be adopted to examine the risk of bias of the included study. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses procedures will be followed for the reporting process and implications for existing interventions and research evaluated by a multidisciplinary research team. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As the study is a protocol for a systematic review, ethical approval is not required. The study findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD 42020191880.

A systematic review of the smartphone applications available for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID19) and their assessment using the mobile app rating scale (MARS)

The global impact of COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need to rapidly develop and improve utilization of mobile applications across the healthcare continuum to address rising barriers of access to care due to social distancing challenges and allow continuity in sharing of health information, assist with COVID-19 activities including contact tracing, and providing useful information as needed. Here we provide an overview of mobile applications being currently utilized for COVID-19 related activities. We performed a systematic review of the literature and mobile platforms to assess mobile applications been currently utilized for COVID-19, and quality assessment of these applications using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) for overall quality, Engagement, Functionality, Aesthetics, and Information. Finally, we provide an overview of the key salient features that should be included in mobile applications being developed for future use. Our search identified 63 apps that are currently being used for COVID-19. Of these, 25 were selected from the Google play store and Apple App store in India, and 19 each from the UK and US. 18 apps were developed for sharing up to date information on COVID-19, and 8 were used for contact tracing while 9 apps showed features of both. On MARS Scale, overall scores ranged from 2.4 to 4.8 with apps scoring high in areas of functionality and lower in Engagement. Future steps should involve developing and testing of mobile applications using assessment tools like the MARS scale and the study of their impact on health behaviors and outcomes.

Gun violence incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic is higher than before the pandemic in the United States.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, gun violence (GV) in the United States (U.S.) was postulated to increase strain on already taxed healthcare resources, such as blood products, intensive care beds, personal protective equipment, and even hospital staff. This report aims to estimate the relative risk of GV in the U.S. during the pandemic compared to before the pandemic. Daily police reports corresponding to gun-related injuries and deaths in the 50 states and the District of Columbia from February 1st, 2019, to March 31st, 2021 were obtained from the GV Archive. Generalized linear mixed-effects models in the form of Poisson regression analysis were utilized to estimate the state-specific rates of GV. Nationally, GV rates were 30% higher between March 01, 2020, and March 31, 2021 (during the pandemic), compared to the same period in 2019 (before the pandemic) [intensity ratio (IR) = 1.30; 95% CI 1.29, 1.32; p < 0.0001]. The risk of GV was significantly higher in 28 states and significantly lower in only one state. National and state-specific rates of GV were higher during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the same timeframe 1 year prior. State-specific steps to mitigate violence, or at a minimum adequately prepare for its toll during the COVID-19 pandemic, should be taken.

Serum magnesium levels in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2.

Early studies have reported various electrolyte abnormalities at admission in patients with severe COVID-19. 104 out of 193 patients admitted to our institution presented with hypermagnesemia at presentation. It is believed this may be important in the evaluation of severe SARS-CoV-2 infections. This study evaluated the outcomes of hypermagnesemia in patients with COVID-19. A retrospective chart review of patients admitted to the hospital with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was conducted. A review of the medical literature regarding hypermagnesemia, magnesium levels in critical care illness and electrolyte abnormalities in patients with COVID-19 was performed. Differences in demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with hypermagnesemia and normomagnesemia were evaluated using descriptive statistics. Other known variables of disease severity were analyzed. 104 patients (54%) were identified with hypermagnesemia (≥2.5 mg/dL). 48 of those patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (46%, p<0.001). 34 patients required ventilator support (32%, p<0.0001). With age-adjusted logistic regression analysis hypermagnesemia was associated with mortality (p=0.007). This study demonstrates that hypermagnesemia is a significant marker of disease severity and adverse outcome in SARS-CoV-2 infections. We recommend serum magnesium be added to the panel of tests routinely ordered in evaluation of severe SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods.

BACKGROUND: Critical knowledge of what we know about health and disease, risk factors, causation, prevention, and treatment, derives from epidemiology. Unfortunately, its methods and language can be misused and improperly applied. A repertoire of methods, techniques, arguments, and tactics are used by some people to manipulate science, usually in the service of powerful interests, and particularly those with a financial stake related to toxic agents. Such interests work to foment uncertainty, cast doubt, and mislead decision makers by seeding confusion about cause-and-effect relating to population health. We have compiled a toolkit of the methods used by those whose interests are not aligned with the public health sciences. Professional epidemiologists, as well as those who rely on their work, will thereby be more readily equipped to detect bias and flaws resulting from financial conflict-of-interest, improper study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, bringing greater clarity-not only to the advancement of knowledge, but, more immediately, to policy debates. METHODS: The summary of techniques used to manipulate epidemiological findings, compiled as part of the 2020 Position Statement of the International Network for Epidemiology in Policy (INEP) entitled Conflict-of-Interest and Disclosure in Epidemiology, has been expanded and further elucidated in this commentary. RESULTS: Some level of uncertainty is inherent in science. However, corrupted and incomplete literature contributes to confuse, foment further uncertainty, and cast doubt about the evidence under consideration. Confusion delays scientific advancement and leads to the inability of policymakers to make changes that, if enacted, would-supported by the body of valid evidence-protect, maintain, and improve public health. An accessible toolkit is provided that brings attention to the misuse of the methods of epidemiology. Its usefulness is as a compendium of what those trained in epidemiology, as well as those reviewing epidemiological studies, should identify methodologically when assessing the transparency and validity of any epidemiological inquiry, evaluation, or argument. The problems resulting from financial conflicting interests and the misuse of scientific methods, in conjunction with the strategies that can be used to safeguard public health against them, apply not only to epidemiologists, but also to other public health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: This novel toolkit is for use in protecting the public. It is provided to assist public health professionals as gatekeepers of their respective specialty and subspecialty disciplines whose mission includes protecting, maintaining, and improving the public's health. It is intended to serve our roles as educators, reviewers, and researchers.

Impartially Validated Multiple Deep-Chain Models to Detect COVID-19 in Chest X-ray Using Latent Space Radiomics.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread globally at a rapid pace, and its rapid detection remains a challenge due to its rapid infectivity and limited testing availability. One of the simply available imaging modalities in clinical routine involves chest X-ray (CXR), which is often used for diagnostic purposes. Here, we proposed a computer-aided detection of COVID-19 in CXR imaging using deep and conventional radiomic features. First, we used a 2D U-Net model to segment the lung lobes. Then, we extracted deep latent space radiomics by applying deep convolutional autoencoder (ConvAE) with internal dense layers to extract low-dimensional deep radiomics. We used Johnson-Lindenstrauss (JL) lemma, Laplacian scoring (LS), and principal component analysis (PCA) to reduce dimensionality in conventional radiomics. The generated low-dimensional deep and conventional radiomics were integrated to classify COVID-19 from pneumonia and healthy patients. We used 704 CXR images for training the entire model (i.e., U-Net, ConvAE, and feature selection in conventional radiomics). Afterward, we independently validated the whole system using a study cohort of 1597 cases. We trained and tested a random forest model for detecting COVID-19 cases through multivariate binary-class and multiclass classification. The maximal (full multivariate) model using a combination of the two radiomic groups yields performance in classification cross-validated accuracy of 72.6% (69.4-74.4%) for multiclass and 89.6% (88.4-90.7%) for binary-class classification.

The eyes see what the mind seeks: a systematic review of abdominal imaging findings in patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: With the increasing recognition of gastrointestinal (GI) manifestation of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), various abdominal imaging findings are increasingly being noted. We scoped the existing literature on the abdominal imaging findings in COVID-19. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Google scholar and World Health Organization COVID-19 database. RESULTS: 35 studies were included in the final descriptive synthesis. Among the studies reporting positive abdominal imaging findings in patients with COVID-19, majority described imaging abnormalities of the GI tract (16 studies), of which bowel wall thickening was most frequently reported. Other findings noted were abdominal imaging manifestations of bowel ischemia with thrombosis of the splanchnic vasculature, and imaging features suggestive of pancreatitis. Imaging findings suggestive of solid organ infarction were reported in nine studies. An association between imaging evidence of hepatic steatosis and COVID-19 was noted in three studies. Incidental lung base findings on abdominal imaging were noted in 18 studies, where patients presented with predominant GI symptoms. The most common finding was bilateral ground glass opacities (90.7%) with predominant multilobar (91.1%) and peripheral (64.4%) distribution. CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides insight into the abdominal imaging findings in patients with COVID-19. Knowledge of these imaging manifestations will not only help in further research but also will aid in curtailing transmission of the SARS-CoV-2. Further prospective studies are needed to gain better insight into the pathophysiology of these imaging manifestations. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This review highlights the abdominal imaging findings in patients with COVID-19, to gain insight into the disease pathophysiology and gear the abdominal radiologist through the pandemic.

Frailty as a mortality predictor in older adults with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which has caused the coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, continues to spread rapidly worldwide and is associated with high rates of mortality among older adults, those with comorbidities, and those in poor physiological states. This paper aimed to systematically identify the impact of frailty on overall mortality among older adults with COVID-19. We conducted a systematic review of the literature indexed in 4 databases. A random-effects model with inverse variance-weighted meta-analysis using the odds ratio was used to study the association of frailty levels with clinical outcomes among older adults with COVID-19. Heterogeneity was measured using the I2 statistic and Egger's test. We identified 22 studies that met our inclusion criteria, including 924,520 total patients. Overall, frailty among older adults was associated with high rates of COVID-19-related mortality compared with non-frail older adults (OR [odds ratio]:5.76; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 3.85-8.61, I2: 40.5%). Our results show that physical limitations, such as those associated with frailty among older adults, are associated with higher rates of COVID-19-related mortality.

Global prevalence of mental health problems among healthcare workers during the Covid-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers are at high risk of developing mental health issues during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, there is a need for a full picture of mental health problems with comprehensive analysis among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to systematically identify the mental health problems among healthcare workers in various countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed of the following databases: PubMed, Academic Search Complete, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science, MEDLINE Complete, and SocINDEX. The last date of our search was November 2, 2020. We included all cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies and used the Joanna Briggs Institute tool to assess their quality. A meta-analysis was performed to synthesize the pooled prevalence of mental health problems using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was measured using the I2 statistic and Egger's test was used to assess publication bias. RESULTS: A total of 38 studies were identified that reported the mental health problems of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The distribution of healthcare workers analyzed in this review included 27.9% doctors, 43.7% nurses, and 7.0% allied health workers. The pooled prevalence of mental health problems for post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and distress was 49% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 22-75%), 40% (95% CI: 29-52%), 37% (95% CI: 29-45%), and 37% (95% CI: 25-50%), respectively. CONCLUSION: This review yielded evidence that estimated the global prevalence of mental health problems among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Post-traumatic stress disorder was the most common mental health disorder reported by healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by anxiety, depression, and distress. Additional studies remain necessary to assess the appropriate management strategies for treating and preventing mental health disorders among healthcare workers during the pandemic.

Impact of Underlying Comorbidities on Mortality in SARS-COV-2 Infected Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The evidence has shown that SARS CoV-2 infected patients with comorbidities are more likely to have severe disease sequel and mortality. In SARS-CoV-2 infected cancer patients risks associated with other underlying comorbidities might vary from those in non-cancer SARS CoV-2 infected patients. The relative impact of different underlying health conditions among patients with cancer and SARS CoV-2 infection remains yet to be explored. This systematic review aims to explore the prevalence of comorbidities among cancer patients with SARS CoV-2 infection and their impact on mortality. METHODS: Online databases PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of science were searched for articles published between 9th July 2019 to July 8th 2020.Studies of cancer patients (>18 years) with diagnosis of SARS CoV-2 infection, published in English were included. A random-effects modelling for the meta-analyses was applied to assess the pooled prevalence and odds ratio for mortality due to comorbidities in SARS CoV-2 infected cancer patients. RESULTS: Total 31studies with 4086 SARS-CoV-2 infectedcancer patientsmet the inclusion criteria. Most prevalent co-morbidities in cancer patients with SARS CoV-2 infection were hypertension [42.3% (95%CI:37.5- 47.0)], diabetes [17.8% (95% CI: 15.3-20.4)] and cardiovascular diseases [16.7% (95%CI:12.9-20.4)].The risk of mortality (pOR) was significantly higher in individuals with hypertension[1.6(95%CI 1.24-2.00)], cardiovascular diseases [2.2 (95%CI 1.49- 3.27)], chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases [1.4(95% CI 1.05-2.00)] and diabetes [1.35(95%CI 1.06-1.73)]. CONCLUSION: Our results indicates that the mortality in SARS-CoV-2 infected cancer patients is affected by preexisting non-cancer comorbidities. By identifying the comorbidities predictive for mortality, clinicians can better stratify the risk of cancer patients presenting with SARS-COV-2, on their initial contact with health services.
.

Lung histopathological findings in COVID-19 disease - a systematic review.

Since December 2019, the global burden of the COVID-19 pandemic has increased rapidly and has impacted nearly every country in the world, affecting those who are elderly or with underlying comorbidities or immunocompromised states. Aim of this systematic review is to summarize lung histopathological characteristics of COVID-19, not only for diagnostic purpose but also to evaluate changes that can reflect pathophysiological pathways that can inform clinicians of useful treatment strategies. We identified following histopathological changes among our patients:: hyaline membranes; endothelial cells/ interstitial cells involvement; alveolar cells, type I pneumocytes/ type II pneumocytes involvement; interstitial and/ or alveolar edema; evidence of hemorrhage, of inflammatory cells, evidence of microthrombi; evidence of fibrin deposition and of viral infection in the tissue samples.The scenario with proliferative cell desquamation is typical of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) that can be classified as diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) and not DAD-ARDS. The proposed pathological mechanism concerns the role of both innate and adaptive components of the immune system. COVID-19 lethal cases present themselves as a heterogeneous disease, characterized by the different simultaneous presence of different histological findings, which reflect histological phases with corresponding different pathological pathways (epithelial, vascular and fibrotic changes), in the same patient.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in COVID-19-Related Infections, Hospitalizations, and Deaths : A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Data suggest that the effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) differ among U.S. racial/ethnic groups. PURPOSE: To evaluate racial/ethnic disparities in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection rates and COVID-19 outcomes, factors contributing to disparities, and interventions to reduce them. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus, searched from inception through 31 August 2020. Gray literature sources were searched through 2 November 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies examining SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations, or deaths by race/ethnicity in U.S. settings. DATA EXTRACTION: Single-reviewer abstraction confirmed by a second reviewer; independent dual-reviewer assessment of quality and strength of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: 37 mostly fair-quality cohort and cross-sectional studies, 15 mostly good-quality ecological studies, and data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and APM Research Lab were included. African American/Black and Hispanic populations experience disproportionately higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and COVID-19-related mortality compared with non-Hispanic White populations, but not higher case-fatality rates (mostly reported as in-hospital mortality) (moderate- to high-strength evidence). Asian populations experience similar outcomes to non-Hispanic White populations (low-strength evidence). Outcomes for other racial/ethnic groups have been insufficiently studied. Health care access and exposure factors may underlie the observed disparities more than susceptibility due to comorbid conditions (low-strength evidence). LIMITATIONS: Selection bias, missing race/ethnicity data, and incomplete outcome assessments in cohort and cross-sectional studies must be considered. In addition, adjustment for key demographic covariates was lacking in ecological studies. CONCLUSION: African American/Black and Hispanic populations experience disproportionately higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related mortality but similar rates of case fatality. Differences in health care access and exposure risk may be driving higher infection and mortality rates. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research & Development. (PROSPERO: CRD42020187078).

Disparities in H1N1 Vaccination Rates: a Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis to Inform COVID-19 Vaccination Efforts.

BACKGROUND: Data suggest that there were disparities in H1N1 vaccine uptake, and these may inform COVID-19 vaccination efforts. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate disparities in H1N1 vaccine uptake, factors contributing to disparities, and interventions to reduce them. METHODS: We searched English-language articles in MEDLINE ALL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception through May 8, 2020. Observational studies examining H1N1 vaccine uptake by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, rurality, and disability status in US settings were included. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility. Single-reviewer data abstraction was confirmed by a second reviewer. We conducted independent dual quality assessment, and collective strength of evidence assessment. RESULTS: We included 21 studies. African American/Black, Latino, and low-socioeconomic status participants had disproportionately lower H1N1 vaccination rates (low- to moderate-strength evidence). However, Latinos were more likely than Whites to intend to be vaccinated, and African American/Blacks and participants with lower-socioeconomic status were just as likely to intend to be vaccinated as their White and higher-socioeconomic status counterparts (low-strength evidence). Vaccine uptake for other groups has been insufficiently studied. Factors potentially contributing to disparities in vaccine uptake included barriers to vaccine access, inadequate information, and concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy. Studies were largely cross-sectional. Many of the studies are a decade old and were conducted in the context of a different pandemic. The categorization of racial and ethnic groups was not consistent across studies and not all groups were well-studied. DISCUSSION: Efforts to avoid disparities in COVID-19 vaccination uptake should prioritize vaccine accessibility and convenience in African American/Black, Latino, and low-SES communities; engage trusted stakeholders to share vaccine information; and address concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research & Development. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020187078.