Palliative care for cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A narrative synthesis from 36 studies of 16 countries.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 epidemic, palliative care has become even more indispensable for cancer patients. AIM: To identify the changes in palliative care for cancer patients and improvements in palliative care quality during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: A systematic review and narrative synthesis was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. An evaluation tool using mixed methods was used to assess the quality of the study. The main relevant themes identified were used to group qualitative and quantitative findings. RESULTS: A total of 36 studies were identified, primarily from different countries, with a total of 14,427 patients, 238 caregivers and 354 health care providers. Cancer palliative care has been experiencing several difficulties following the COVID-19 pandemic, including increased mortality and infection rates as well as delays in patient treatment that have resulted in poorer prognoses. Treatment providers are seeking solutions such as electronic management of patients and integration of resources to care for the mental health of patients and staff. Telemedicine plays an important role in many ways but cannot completely replace traditional treatment. Clinicians strive to meet patients' palliative care needs during special times and improve their quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative care faces unique challenges during the COVID-19 epidemic. With adequate support to alleviate care-related challenges, patients in the home versus hospital setting will be able to receive better palliative care. In addition, this review highlights the importance of multiparty collaboration to achieve personal and societal benefits of palliative care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution.

Clinical outcomes of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron and Delta variant: systematic review and meta-analysis of 33 studies covering 6 037 144 coronavirus disease 2019-positive patients.

BACKGROUND: Although the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant is considered to induce less severe disease, there have been no consistent results on the extent of the decrease in severity. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical outcomes of COVID-19-positive patients with Omicron and Delta variant infection. DATA SOURCES: Searches were implemented up to 8 November 2022 in PubMed, Web of Science, BioRvix, and MedRvix. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies were cohort studies reporting the clinical outcomes of COVID-19-positive patients with Omicron and Delta variant infection, including hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and death. PARTICIPANTS: COVID-19-positive patients with Omicron and Delta variant infection. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Risk of bias was assessed employing the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effect models were employed to pool the ORs and 95% CIs to compare the risk of clinical outcome. I2 was employed to evaluate the heterogeneity between studies. RESULTS: A total of 33 studies with 6 037 144 COVID-19-positive patients were included in this meta-analysis. In the general population of COVID-19-positive patients, compared with Delta, Omicron variant infection resulted in a decreased risk of hospitalization (10.24% vs. 4.14%, OR = 2.91, 95% CI = 2.35-3.60), ICU admission (3.67% vs. 0.48%, OR = 3.64, 95% CI = 2.63-5.04), receiving IMV (3.93% vs. 0.34%, OR = 3.11, 95% CI = 1.76-5.50), and death (2.40% vs. 0.46%, OR = 2.97, 95% CI = 2.17-4.08). In the hospitalized patients with COVID-19, compared with Delta, Omicron variant infection resulted in a decreased risk of ICU admission (20.70% vs. 12.90%, OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.32-2.02), receiving IMV (10.90% vs. 5.80%, OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.28-2.14), and death (10.72% vs. 7.10%, OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.22-1.71). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Delta, the severity of Omicron variant infection decreased.

COVID-19 pandemic increases the occurrence of nursing burnout syndrome: an interrupted time-series analysis of preliminary data from 38 countries.

AIM: To evaluate the trends in nursing burnout rates before and during the coronavirus 2019 restrictions. METHOD: Meta-analysis was used to extract the data on global nursing burnout from 1 Jan. 2010-15 Dec. 2022. An interrupted time-series analysis using segmented ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models was used to explore if the nursing burnout were affected by the epidemic. Newey-West standard error was used to adjust for autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity. RESULTS: Before the epidemic (April 2020), the nursing burnout rate rose with 0.0007497 (95% CI: 0.0000316, 0.0014677, t = 2.07, P = 0.041) per month. The trend of nursing burnout rate has increased by 0.0231042 (95 CI%:0.0086818, 0.0375266, t = 3.18, P = 0.002). The increasing trend of nursing burnout rate after the COVID-19 restrictions is 0.0007497 + 0.0231042 = 0.0238539 per month. CONCLUSION: The study indicated that the Covid-19 restrictions had an impact on nursing burnout, increasing the occurrence of nursing burnout syndrome.

COVID-19 in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: A systematic review.

The objectives of the study were to review the articles to identify (a) the epidemiology of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); (b) the clinical characteristics of SLE patients with COVID-19; (c) the treatment of COVID-19 in SLE patients; and (d) the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on SLE patients. PubMed was systematically reviewed for literature published from December 2019 to June 2021. Our search was limited to human studies, with language restriction of English. Studies were included if they reported COVID-19 in SLE patients. Our systematic review included 52 studies. The prevalence of COVID-19 infection ranged from 0.0% to 18.1% in SLE patients, and the hospitalisation rates ranged from 0.24% to 10.6%. COVID-19 infection is likely to mimic SLE flare. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was ineffective in prevention of COVID-19, and SLE patients with COVID-19 faced difficulty in healthcare access, had financial constraints and suffered from psychological distress during the pandemic. The pandemic had a significant effect on mental and physical health. Adequate healthcare access, along with containment policies, social distancing measures and psychological nursing was required.

COVID-19 related pressure injuries in patients and personnel: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is causing a rapid and tragic health emergency worldwide. Because of the particularity of COVID-19, people are at a high risk of pressure injuries during the prevention and treatment process of COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to summarize the pressure injuries caused by COVID-19 and the corresponding preventive measures and treatments. METHODS: This systematic review was according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. PubMed, Web of science and CNKI (Chinese) were searched for studies on pressure injuries caused by COVID-19 published up to August 4, 2020. The quality of included studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) and the CARE guidelines. RESULTS: The data were extracted from 16 studies involving 7,696 participants in 7 countries. All studies were published in 2020. There are two main types of pressure injuries caused by the COVID-19: 1) Pressure injuries that caused by protective equipment (masks, goggles and face shield, etc.) in the prevention process; 2) pressure injuries caused by prolonged prone position in the therapy process. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, the included studies showed that wearing protective equipment for a long time and long-term prone positioning with mechanical ventilation will cause pressure injuries in the oppressed area. Foam dressing may need to be prioritized in the prevention of medical device related pressure injuries. The prevention of pressure injuries should be our particular attention in the course of clinical treatment and nursing.