Immediate Psychosocial Impact on Healthcare Workers During COVID-19 Pandemic in China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objectives: The corona virus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic spread globally, and we aimed to investigate the psychosocial impact on healthcare workers (HWs) in China during the pandemic. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched seven electronic databases for cross-sectional studies on psychosocial impact on HWs in relation to COVID-19 from January 1, 2020 to October 7, 2020. We included primary studies involving Chinese HWs during the pandemic, and data were extracted from the published articles. Our primary outcome was prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress disorders. We pooled prevalence value with their 95% confidence interval using random effect models and assessed study quality on the basis of an 11-item checklist recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020195843). Results: We identified 25 articles comprising a total of 30,841 completed questionnaires and 22 studies for meta-analysis. The prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress disorders was 34.4% (29.5-39.4%), 31.1% (24.5-37.7%), and 29.1% (24.3-33.8%) for HWs. The pooled prevalence of anxiety disorders for HWs from late January to early February was 46.4% (42.9-49.9%), significantly higher than those in mid-term February (28.0%, 23.9-32.1%) and after late February (27.6%, 16.0-39.2%). The pooled prevalence of depression disorders for HWs from late January to early February was 46.5% (38.8-54.2%), significantly higher than those in mid-term February (27.1%, 19.8-34.5%) and after late February (32.9%, 16.2-49.5%). HWs working in Hubei Province had a higher prevalence of anxiety (37.9 vs. 30.8%) and a lower prevalence of depression (27.5 vs. 34.7%) than those working in other regions. Nurses had a higher prevalence of anxiety (44.1 vs. 29.0%) and depression (34.1 vs. 29.2%) than other HWs. Conclusions: About one-third of HWs in China suffered anxiety, depression, and stress at the early epidemic of COVID-19. HWs in Hubei Province, especially nurses, had a higher prevalence of psychological disorders. During the pandemic, a negative psychological state may persist in a proportion of Chinese HWs, fluctuating with the control of the pandemic. The long-term impact should continue to be observed. Attention should be paid to HWs for their psychological impact due to the pandemic. Systematic Review Registration: The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020195843).

A living systematic review of the psychological problems in people suffering from COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the psychological problems on people infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the pandemic. METHODS: In this living systematic review and meta-analyses, we searched seven electronic databases for cross-sectional studies and longitudinal studies on psychological problems on COVID-19 patients from Jan 1, 2020 to Oct 7, 2020. The primary outcome was prevalence of various psychological problems such as anxiety, depression, stress, insomnia, somatization, and fear. We pooled data for prevalence with their 95% confidence interval (CI) using random effect models and assessed the study quality based on the 11-item checklist recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. RESULTS: Fourty-four studies, including studies from China(35), Italy(2), Iran(2), India(1), Korea(1), Ecuador(1), Switzerland(1), Germany(1), were identified by comprising a total of 8587 completed questionnaires and 38 studies for meta-analyses. The prevalence of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder(PTSD), insomnia, somatization, and fear in patients with COVID-19 was 16.6% (10.1%-23.1%), 37.7% (29.3%-46.2%), 41.5% (9.3%-73.7%), 68.3% (48.6%-88.0%), 36.5% (20.2%-52.8%), 47.6% (9.4%-85.7%), respectively. The prevalence of anxiety, depression, and insomnia in severe COVID-19 patients (intensive care unit inpatients) was higher than mild or clinically stable COVID-19 patients. LIMITATIONS: A significant degree of heterogeneity in terms of populations, sampling methods, scales was noted across studies. CONCLUSIONS: There existed high proportions of COVID-19 patients with psychological problem. The prevalence of psychological problems was closely related to the patients themselves, their surroundings and social support. It is imperative to provide ontime psychological care service for COVID-19 patients and to follow-up them for a longer period.

Prevalence and Persistent Shedding of Fecal SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Patients With COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence and shedding of fecal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA indicate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and likely infectivity. We performed a systemic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the prevalence and the duration of shedding of fecal RNA in patients with COVID-19 infection. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Chinese databases Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Data up to June 2020 were searched for studies evaluating fecal SARS-CoV-2 RNA, including anal and rectal samples, in patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. The pooled prevalence of fecal RNA in patients with detectable respiratory RNA was estimated. The days of shedding and days to loss of fecal and respiratory RNA from presentation were compared. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies (N = 1,636) met criteria. The pooled prevalence of fecal RNA in COVID-19 patients was 43% (95% confidence interval [CI] 34%-52%). Higher proportion of patients with GI symptoms (52.4% vs 25.9%, odds ratio = 2.4, 95% CI 1.2-4.7) compared with no GI symptoms, specifically diarrhea (51.6% vs 24.0%, odds ratio = 3.0, 95% CI 1.9-4.8), had detectable fecal RNA. After loss of respiratory RNA, 27% (95% CI 15%-44%) of the patients had persistent shedding of fecal RNA. Days of RNA shedding in the feces were longer than respiratory samples (21.8 vs 14.7 days, mean difference = 7.1 days, 95% CI 1.2-13.0). Furthermore, days to loss of fecal RNA lagged respiratory RNA by a mean of 4.8 days (95% CI 2.2-7.5). DISCUSSION: Fecal SARS-CoV-2 RNA is commonly detected in COVID-19 patients with a 3-fold increased risk with diarrhea. Shedding of fecal RNA lasted more than 3 weeks after presentation and a week after last detectable respiratory RNA.

Chinese Herbal Medicine Used With or Without Conventional Western Therapy for COVID-19: An Evidence Review of Clinical Studies.

Objective: To present the evidence of the therapeutic effects and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) used with or without conventional western therapy for COVID-19. Methods: Clinical studies on the therapeutic effects and safety of CHM for COVID-19 were included. We summarized the general characteristics of included studies, evaluated methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, analyzed the use of CHM, used Revman 5.4 software to present the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) to estimate the therapeutic effects and safety of CHM. Results: A total of 58 clinical studies were identified including RCTs (17.24%, 10), non-randomized controlled trials (1.72%, 1), retrospective studies with a control group (18.97%, 11), case-series (20.69%, 12) and case-reports (41.38%, 24). No RCTs of high methodological quality were identified. The most frequently tested oral Chinese patent medicine, Chinese herbal medicine injection or prescribed herbal decoction were: Lianhua Qingwen granule/capsule, Xuebijing injection and Maxing Shigan Tang. In terms of aggravation rate, pooled analyses showed that there were statistical differences between the intervention group and the comparator group (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.82, six RCTs; RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.64, five retrospective studies with a control group), that is, CHM plus conventional western therapy appeared better than conventional western therapy alone in reducing aggravation rate. In addition, compared with conventional western therapy, CHM plus conventional western therapy had potential advantages in increasing the recovery rate and shortening the duration of fever, cough and fatigue, improving the negative conversion rate of nucleic acid test, and increasing the improvement rate of chest CT manifestations and shortening the time from receiving the treatment to the beginning of chest CT manifestations improvement. For adverse events, pooled data showed that there were no statistical differences between the CHM and the control groups. Conclusion: Current low certainty evidence suggests that there maybe a tendency that CHM plus conventional western therapy is superior to conventional western therapy alone. The use of CHM did not increase the risk of adverse events.