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.

Factors associated with prolonged viral shedding and impact of Lopinavir/Ritonavir treatment in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (preprint)

Background: The duration of viral shedding is central to guide decisions around isolation precautions and antiviral treatment. However, studies about risk factors associated with prolonged SARS-CoV-2 shedding and the potential impact of Lopinavir/Ritonavir (LPV/r) treatment remain scarce. Methods: In this retrospective study, data were collected from all SARS-CoV-2 infected patients who were admitted to isolation wards and had RT-PCR conversion at the NO.3 People's hospital of Hubei province between 31 January and 09 March 2020. We compared clinical features and SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding between patients with LPV/r treatment and those without. Logistic regression analysis was employed to evaluate risk factors associated with prolonged viral shedding. Results: Of 120 patients, the median age was 52 years, 54 (45%) were male and 78 (65%) received LPV/r treatment. The median duration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection from symptom onset was 23 days (IQR, 18-32 days). Older age (odd ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.05, p=0.03) and lack of LPV/r treatment (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.10-5.36, p=0.029) were independent risk factors for prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in multivariate logistic regression analysis. The median duration of viral shedding was shorter in the LPV/r treatment group (n=78) than that in no LPV/r treatment group (n=42) (median, 22 days vs. 28.5 days, p=0.02). Only earlier administration of LPV/r treatment ([≤]10 days from symptom onset) could shorten the duration of viral shedding. Conclusions: Older age and lack of LPV/r treatment were independently associated with prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in patients with COVID-19. Earlier administration of LPV/r treatment could shorten viral shedding.