Evaluation of the epidemiological behavior of mortality due to COVID-19 in Brazil: A time series study.

The World Health Organization declared, at the end of 2019, a pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2, a virus that causes Coronavirus Disease-COVID-19. Currently, Brazil has become the epicenter of the disease, registering approximately 345 thousand deaths. Thus, the study has scientific relevance in health surveillance as it identifies, quantifies and monitors the main behavioral patterns of the mortality rate due to COVID-19, in Brazil and in their respective regions. In this context, the study aims to assess the epidemiological behavior of mortality due to COVID-19 in Brazil: a time series study, referring to the year 2020. This is an ecological time series study, constructed using secondary data. The research was carried out in Brazil, having COVID-19 deaths as the dependent variable that occurred between the 12th and 53rd Epidemiological Week of 2020. The independent variable will be the epidemiological weeks. The data on deaths by COVID-19 were extracted in February 2021, on the Civil Registry Transparency Portal. The cleaning of the database and the information were treated in the Microsoft Excel® Software and, for statistical analysis, the JoinPoint software, version 4.7.0.0 was used. It was observed that Brazil presents an upward curve between the 12th and 19th SE, when it reaches saturation at the peak of mortality, which remains until the 35th SE and, subsequently, a downward curve was identified until the 47th SE, period in the which curve turns back up.

[Prevalence of anxiety among health professionals in times of COVID-19: a systematic review with meta-analysis]. / Prevalência de ansiedade em profissionais da saúde em tempos de COVID-19: revisão sistemática com metanálise.

This study sets out to identify the prevalence of anxiety among health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. It involves a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published in any language in 2020. A search was conducted in the Embase, LILACS and PubMed databases using the keywords anxiety, COVID-19, health workers, and synonyms. The estimated overall prevalence of anxiety with a 95% confidence interval was calculated using the random effects model. Of the 861 records identified, 36 articles were included in the systematic review and 35 in the meta-analysis. The overall prevalence of anxiety was 35% (95%CI: 29-40). A higher risk of anxiety was identified among women compared to men (Odds Ratio: 1.64 [95%CI: 1.47-1.84]), and in nurses, in comparison with physicians (Odds Ratio: 1.19 [95%CI: 1.07-1.33]). Being on the front line of COVID-19, being infected with coronavirus and having chronic diseases were also factors associated with a higher risk of anxiety. A high prevalence of anxiety among health professionals was observed, with higher risk among women and nurses. There is a pressing need for measures aimed at prevention of anxiety and providing early and appropriate treatment for those suffering from moderate and severe anxiety.

O objetivo deste estudo é identificar a prevalência de ansiedade em profissionais de saúde durante a pandemia da COVID-19. Trata-se de revisão sistemática de estudos publicados em qualquer idioma em 2020. Foi realizada busca nas bases de dados Embase, LILACS e PubMed utilizando os descritores anxiety, COVID-19, health workers, e sinônimos. A estimativa da prevalência geral de ansiedade com intervalo de confiança de 95% foi calculada utilizando o modelo de efeitos aleatórios. Dos 861 registros identificados, 36 artigos foram incluídos na revisão sistemática e 35 na metanálise. A prevalência geral de ansiedade foi de 35% (IC95%: 29-40). Foi identificado maior risco de ansiedade nas mulheres em relação aos homens (Odds Ratio: 1.64 [IC95%: 1,47-1,84]), e nos enfermeiros, na comparação com médicos (Odds Ratio: 1.19 [IC95%: 1,07-1,33]). Atuar na linha de frente no combate a COVID-19, estar infectado com coronavírus e apresentar doenças crônicas também foram fatores associados com maior risco de ansiedade. Observa-se alta prevalência de ansiedade entre profissionais de saúde, com maior risco entre mulheres e enfermeiros. Há necessidade de medidas que visem sua prevenção, bem como o fornecimento de tratamento precoce e adequado aos com ansiedade moderada e grave.

Nutritional Risk Screening Tools for Older Adults with COVID-19: A Systematic Review.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with high risk of malnutrition, primarily in older people; assessing nutritional risk using appropriate screening tools is critical. This systematic review identified applicable tools and assessed their measurement properties. Literature was searched in the MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases. Four studies conducted in China met the eligibility criteria. Sample sizes ranged from six to 182, and participants' ages from 65 to 87 years. Seven nutritional screening and assessment tools were used: the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), the MNA-short form (MNA-sf), the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), the Nutritional Risk Index (NRI), the Geriatric NRI (GNRI), and modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically ill (mNUTRIC) score. Nutritional risk was identified in 27.5% to 100% of participants. The NRS-2002, MNA, MNA-sf, NRI, and MUST demonstrated high sensitivity; the MUST had better specificity. The MNA and MUST demonstrated better criterion validity. The MNA-sf demonstrated better predictive validity for poor appetite and weight loss; the NRS-2002 demonstrated better predictive validity for prolonged hospitalization. mNUTRIC score demonstrated good predictive validity for hospital mortality. Most instruments demonstrate high sensitivity for identifying nutritional risk, but none are acknowledged as the best for nutritional screening in older adults with COVID-19.

Nutritional Risk Screening Tools for Older Adults with COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with high risk of malnutrition, primarily in older people;assessing nutritional risk using appropriate screening tools is critical. This systematic review identified applicable tools and assessed their measurement properties. Literature was searched in the MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases. Four studies conducted in China met the eligibility criteria. Sample sizes ranged from six to 182, and participants"ages from 65 to 87 years. Seven nutritional screening and assessment tools were used: the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), the MNA-short form (MNA-sf), the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), the Nutritional Risk Index (NRI), the Geriatric NRI (GNRI), and modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically ill (mNUTRIC) score. Nutritional risk was identified in 27.5% to 100% of participants. The NRS-2002, MNA, MNA-sf, NRI, and MUST demonstrated high sensitivity;the MUST had better specificity. The MNA and MUST demonstrated better criterion validity. The MNA-sf demonstrated better predictive validity for poor appetite and weight loss;the NRS-2002 demonstrated better predictive validity for prolonged hospitalization. mNUTRIC score demonstrated good predictive validity for hospital mortality. Most instruments demonstrate high sensitivity for identifying nutritional risk, but none are acknowledged as the best for nutritional screening in older adults with COVID-19.