Influenza Vaccination and COVID-19 Outcomes in People Older than 50 Years: Data from the Observational Longitudinal SHARE Study.

Existing literature on the association between influenza vaccination and COVID-19 infection/outcomes is conflicting. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the association between influenza vaccination and COVID-19 outcomes in a large cohort of adults who participated in the SHARE (Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe). Information regarding influenza vaccination in the previous year, and medical and demographic characteristics, were self-reported. Positivity for COVID-19, symptomatology, and hospitalization were also ascertained using self-reported information. An adjusted logistic regression analysis (including 15 baseline factors or propensity score) was used to assess the association between influenza vaccination and COVID-19 outcomes. A total of 48,408 participants (mean age 67 years; 54.1% females) were included. The prevalence of influenza vaccination was 38.3%. After adjusting for 15 potential confounders, influenza vaccination was significantly associated with a lower risk of positivity for COVID-19 (OR = 0.95; p < 0.0001), symptomatic forms (OR = 0.87; p < 0.0001), and hospitalization for COVID-19 (OR = 0.95; p < 0.0001). The results were similar when using a propensity score approach. In conclusion, influenza vaccination may be beneficial for the prevention of COVID-19, as the present study found that influenza vaccination was associated with a small/moderate lower risk of COVID-19 infection and adverse outcomes.

Prevalence of unwillingness and uncertainty to vaccinate against COVID-19 in older people: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been shown to have more severe health outcomes in older people specifically in relation to mortality and disability. Vaccination seems to be efficacious and safe for preventing the negative consequences of COVID-19, but vaccine hesitancy seems to be high in older adults. We therefore aimed to investigate the prevalence of unwillingness and the uncertainty to vaccinate against COVID-19 in older people and the factors that can be associated with the unwillingness to vaccinate. For this work, we searched several databases until 18th June 2021 for studies reporting the prevalence of unwillingness and the uncertainty to vaccinate against COVID-19 in people aged >60 years. A meta-analysis of the prevalence, with the correspondent 95% confidence intervals (CIs), was proposed. Factors that can be associated with the unwillingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 were explored through multivariable analyses and reported as odds ratios (ORs). Among 662 papers initially screened, we included 15 studies for a total of 9753 older adults. The prevalence of unwillingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 in older people was 27.03% (95%CI: 15.10-38.95%), whilst the correspondent figure of uncertainty was 19.33% (95%CI: 12.28-26.39). The risk of being unvaccinated was significantly higher in Hispanics (OR=1.197; 95%CI: 1.010-1.418) and in case of low education (OR=1.678; 95%CI: 1.170-2.408) and low income (OR=1.287; 95%CI: 1.127-1.469). In conclusion, the hesitancy for COVID-19 vaccination is a relevant problem in older people, particularly in those with a low income, a low level of education, and in Hispanics living in the United States.

A rapid and feasible tool for clinical decision making in community-dwelling patients with COVID-19 and those admitted to emergency departments: the Braden-LDH-HorowITZ Assessment-BLITZ.

There is no univocal standardized strategy to predict outcomes and stratify risk of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients, notably in emergency departments. Our aim is to develop an accurate indicator of adverse outcomes based on a retrospective analysis of a COVID-19 database established at the Emergency Department (ED) of a North-Italian hospital during the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Laboratory, clinical, psychosocial and functional characteristics including those obtained from the Braden Scale-a standardized scale to quantify the risk of pressure sores which takes into account aspects of sensory perception, activity, mobility and nutrition-from the records of 117 consecutive patients with swab-positive COVID-19 disease admitted to the Emergency Medicine ward between March 1, 2020 and April 15, 2020 were included in the analysis. Adverse outcomes included admission to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and in-hospital death. Among the parameters collected, the highest cutoff sensitivity and specificity scores to best predict adverse outcomes were displayed by lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) blood value at admission > 439 U/L, Horowitz Index (P/F Ratio) < 257 and Braden score < 18. The estimation power reached 93.6%. We named the assessment BLITZ (Braden-LDH-HorowITZ). Despite the retrospective and preliminary nature of the data, a multidimensional tool to assess overall functions, not chronological age, produced the highest prediction power for poor outcomes in relation to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Further analyses are now needed to establish meaningful correlations between ventilation therapies and multidimensional frailty as assessed by ad-hoc validated and standardized tools.

[COVID-Guide: an app for covid-19 triage and self-assessment.] / COVID-Guide: una app per il triage e l'autovalutazione della covid-19.

INTRODUCTION: The unprecedented covid-19 pandemic has shown the weaknesses of health systems and opened new spaces for e-health and telemedicine. Recent literature states that chatbots, if implemented effectively, could be useful tools for quickly sharing information, promoting healthy behaviors, and helping reduce the psychological burden of isolation. The aim of this project is to develop and test a secure and reliable computerized decision support system (CDSS) in web-app and evaluate its use, usability and its outputs in a pre-specified way. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team was recruited to plan and design, based on the SMASS medical CDSS, the scenarios of the COVID-Guide web-app, a self-triage system for patients with suspected covid-19. The output data for the period May-September 2020 from Germany were analyzed. RESULTS: During the period under review, the total number of consultations in Germany was 96,012. 3,415 (3.56%) consultations indicated the need for immediate evaluation, by activating the emergency service (calling an ambulance) - 1,942, equal to 2.02% - or by advising the patient to go to hospital - 1,743, equal to 1.54%. CONCLUSIONS: Data seems to show good usability and a consistent number of consultations carried out. Regular use of COVID-Guide could help collect epidemiological data on the spread of (suspected) covid-19 cases, easily and quickly available in all countries where the tool will be used. Using the SSDC could help reduce the load on operators. Furthermore, the use of anonymous and geolocatable clinical data together with the generation of alerts and indicators produced by COVID-Guide could become a useful tool for epidemiological surveillance in the future phases of the pandemic (Telemedical Syndromic Surveillance).

Spontaneous Breathing and Evolving Phenotypes of Lung Damage in Patients with COVID-19: Review of Current Evidence and Forecast of a New Scenario.

The mechanisms of acute respiratory failure other than inflammation and complicating the SARS-CoV-2 infection are still far from being fully understood, thus challenging the management of COVID-19 patients in the critical care setting. In this unforeseen scenario, the role of an individual's excessive spontaneous breathing may acquire critical importance, being one potential and important driver of lung injury and disease progression. The consequences of this acute lung damage may impair lung structure, forecasting the model of a fragile respiratory system. This perspective article aims to analyze the progression of injured lung phenotypes across the SARS-CoV-2 induced respiratory failure, pointing out the role of spontaneous breathing and also tackling the specific respiratory/ventilatory strategy required by the fragile lung type.

An umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses evaluating positive and negative outcomes of Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine therapy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are anti-malarial drugs frequently used in the rheumatologic field. They were recently identified as potential therapeutic options for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). The present study aims to map and grade the diverse health outcomes associated with HCQ/CQ using an umbrella review approach. METHODS: Umbrella review of systematic reviews of observational and intervention studies. For observational studies, random-effects summary effect size, 95% confidence interval, and 95% prediction interval were estimated. We also assessed heterogeneity, evidence for small-study effect, and evidence for excess significance bias. The quality of evidence was then graded using validated criteria from highly convincing to weak. The evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. RESULTS: From 313 articles returned in the literature search, six meta-analyses were included (n = 25 outcomes). Among meta-analyses (MAs) of observational studies, HCQ/CQ are weakly associated with a reduced risk for cardiovascular events and diabetes when used for autoimmune diseases and with spontaneous abortion; they are also associated with a higher risk of death in COVID-19 patients. Among MAs of RCTs, HCQ/CQ are associated with an improvement of articular manifestations of rheumatic diseases. CONCLUSIONS: There is high evidence of the efficacy of HCQ/CQ in the rheumatologic field. The lack of evidence for efficacy and the risk of death associated with the use of HCQ/CQ for COVID-19 indicate the inappropriateness of their inclusion in recent COVID-19 therapy guidelines and the urgent need for RCTs to determine eventual appropriateness as a COVID-19 therapy.

Use of Corticosteroids in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

The aim was to investigate the effectiveness of glucocorticoid therapy in patients with COVID-19. A systematic search of the literature across nine databases was conducted from inception until 15th March 2020, following the PRISMA guidelines. Patients with a validated diagnosis of COVID-19 and using corticosteroids were included, considering all health outcomes. Four studies with 542 Chinese participants were included. Two studies reported negative findings regarding the use of corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19, i.e., corticosteroids had a detrimental impact on clinical outcomes. One study reported no significant association between the use of corticosteroids and clinical outcomes. However, one study, on 201 participants with different stages of pneumonia due to COVID-19, found that in more severe forms, the administration of methylprednisolone significantly reduced the risk of death by 62%. The literature to date does not fully support the routine use of corticosteroids in COVID-19, but some findings suggest that methylprednisolone could lower mortality rate in more severe forms of the condition.