Future COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Refusal in Healthcare Workers after a Massive Breakthrough Infection Wave, a Nationwide Survey-Based Study.

Background: An unprecedented coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) wave occurred in China between December 2022 and January 2023, challenging the efficacy of the primary series of COVID-19 vaccines. The attitudes toward future COVID-19 booster vaccines (CBV) after the massive breakthrough infection among healthcare workers remain unknown. This study aimed to explore the prevalence and determinants of future CBV refusal after the unprecedented COVID-19 wave among healthcare workers. Methods: Between 9 and 19 February 2023, a cross-sectional nationwide online survey was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire vaccine among healthcare workers in China. Sociodemographics, profession, presence of chronic medical conditions, previous COVID-19 infection, attitudes towards future CBV, and reasons for future CBV refusal were collected. We estimated odds ratio [OR] with 95% confidence interval [CI] using a multivariable logistic regression model to explore the factors associated with future CBV refusal. Results: Among the 1618 participants who completed the survey, 1511 respondents with two or more doses of COVID-19 vaccines were analyzed. A total of 648 (41.8%) of respondents were unwilling to receive a future CBV. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed the association of CBV refusal with profession (vs. other staff, physician-adjusted OR 1.17, 95%CI 0.79-1.72, nurse-adjusted OR 1.88, 95%CI 1.24-2.85, p = 0.008), history of allergy (adjusted OR 1.72, 95%CI 1.05-2.83, p = 0.032), a lower self-perceived risk of future COVID-19 infection (p < 0.001), and a lower belief in CBV effectiveness (p = 0.014), safety (p < 0.001), and necessities for healthcare workers and the public (p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: Our findings highlight that a considerable proportion of healthcare workers were against a future booster dose after an unprecedented COVID-19 wave. Self-perception of future COVID-19 risk, and potential harm or doubtful efficacy of vaccines are the main determinants. Our findings may help public health authorities to establish future COVID-19 vaccination programs.

Psychological stress and coping strategies among frontline healthcare workers supporting patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a retrospective study and literature review.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak might have a psychological impact on frontline healthcare workers. However, the effectiveness of coping strategies was less reported. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the sources of stress and coping strategies among frontline healthcare workers fighting against COVID-19. We also performed a literature review regarding the effects of coping methods on psychological health in this population. METHODS: We included frontline healthcare workers who completed an online survey using self-made psychological stress questionnaires in a cross-sectional study. We evaluated the association between potential factors and high-stressed status using a logistic regression model. We performed the principal component analysis with varimax rotation for factor analysis. We also performed a systematic review of published randomized controlled studies that reported the effects of coping methods on psychological health in COVID-19 healthcare workers. RESULTS: We included 107 [32 (29-36) years] respondents in the final analysis, with a response rate of 80.5%. A total of 41 (38.3%) respondents were high-stressed. Compared with the low-stressed respondents, those with high-stress were less likely to be male (46.3% versus 72.7%, p = 0.006), nurses (36.6% versus 80.3%, p < 0.001), and more likely to have higher professional titles (p = 0.008). The sources of high-stress in frontline healthcare workers were categorized into 'work factor', 'personal factor', and 'role factor'. A narrative synthesis of the randomized controlled studies revealed that most of the coping methods could improve the psychological stress in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that some frontline healthcare workers experienced psychological stress during the early pandemic. Effective coping strategies are required to help relieve the stress in this population.

Association Between Previous Stroke and Severe COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study and an Overall Review of Meta-Analysis.

Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate the association between previous stroke and the risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We included 164 (61.8 ± 13.6 years) patients with COVID-19 in a retrospective study. We evaluated the unadjusted and adjusted associations between previous stroke and severe COVID-19, using a Cox regression model. We conducted an overall review of systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the relationship of previous stroke with the unfavorable COVID-19 outcomes. Results: The rate of severe COVID-19 in patients with previous stroke was 28.37 per 1,000 patient days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.65-75.59), compared to 3.94 per 1,000 patient days (95% CI: 2.66-5.82) in those without previous stroke (p < 0.001). Previous stroke was significantly associated with severe COVID-19 using a Cox regression model (unadjusted [hazard ratio, HR]: 6.98, 95% CI: 2.42-20.16, p < 0.001; adjusted HR [per additional 10 years]: 4.62, 95% CI: 1.52-14.04, p = 0.007). An overall review of systematic review and meta-analysis showed that previous stroke was significantly associated with severe COVID-19, mortality, need for intensive care unit admission, use of mechanical ventilation, and an unfavorable composite outcome. Conclusion: Previous stroke seems to influence the course of COVID-19 infection; such patients are at high risk of severe COVID-19 and might benefit from early hospital treatment measures and preventive strategies.

Should patients with epilepsy be vaccinated against coronavirus disease 2019? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination coverage, willingness, and safety profiles in patients with epilepsy remain poorly understood. We aimed to summarize the available evidence of COVID-19 vaccination coverage, willingness, and safety profiles among patients with epilepsy. METHODS: We performed a literature search in the Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register database between 1 January 2020 and 30 April 2022. We included eligible studies that provided information on the COVID-19 vaccination coverage, willingness, and safety profiles among patients with epilepsy. We investigated the association between baseline characteristics of patients with epilepsy and unvaccination status using a fixed-effect model. We calculated the pooled overall willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19. We systematically reviewed the safety profiles after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with epilepsy. RESULTS: Ten eligible observational studies and two case reports yielded 2589 participants with epilepsy or their caregivers. Among 2145 participants that provided the information of vaccination status, 1508 (70.3%) patients with epilepsy were not administered COVID-19 vaccine, and 58% (95%CI 40-75%) of respondents were willing to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Seizure status (active versus inactive, OR 1.84 95%CI 1.41-2.39, I2 = 0%) rather than seizure type (focal versus non-focal, OR 1.22 95%CI 0.94-1.58, I2 = 0%) was associated with COVID-19 unvaccination status. Vaccines were well-tolerated; epilepsy-related problems such as increase in seizure frequency and status epilepticus after COVID-19 vaccination were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a low COVID-19 vaccination coverage and willingness in patients with epilepsy. Vaccination against COVID-19 appears to be well-tolerated and safe in patients with epilepsy, supporting a positive outlook toward vaccination in this population.

Clinical characteristics of fever clinic visits during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: a retrospective case-control study.

Background: Little is known about the change in characteristics of fever-clinic visits during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We sought to examine the changes in the volume, characteristics, and outcomes of patients presenting at a fever clinic duringclinic during the first-level response to COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a single tertiary-center retrospective case-control study. We included consecutive patients aged 14 years or older who visited the fever clinic of a tertiary hospital during the period of the first-level response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Fuzhou, China (from 24 January to 26 February 2020). We also analyzed the data of patients in the same period of 2019 as a control. We compared a number of outcome measures, including the fever clinic volumes, consultation length, proportion of patients with pneumonia, hospital admission rate, and in-hospital mortality, using the fever-clinic visit data during the two periods. Results: We included 1,013 participants [median age: 35; interquartile range (IQR): 27-50, 48.7% male] in this retrospective study, including 707 in 2020 and 306 in 2019. The median daily number of participants who presented at the fever clinic in 2020 was significantly higher than that in 2019 [18 (IQR: 15-22) vs. 13 (IQR: 8-17), P=0.001]. Participants in 2020 had a longer consultation length than those in 2019 [127 (IQR: 51-204) vs. 20 (IQR: 1-60) min, P<0.001]. Participants in 2020 were also more likely to be diagnosed with acute pneumonia than those in 2019 [168 (23.8%) vs. 40 (13.1%), P<0.001]. The hospital admission rate in 2020 was higher than in 2019 [73 (10.3%) vs. 13 (4.2%), P=0.001]. No significant difference was found in terms of the in-hospital mortality of participants in 2020 and 2019 [8 (1.1%) vs. 0, P=0.114]. Conclusions: Our findings suggest a higher visits volume, proportion of acute pneumonia, and hospital admission rate among patients presenting at fever clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic. Improved measures need to be implemented.

The predictive value of serum level of cystatin C for COVID-19 severity.

To investigate the potential prognostic value of Serum cystatin C (sCys C) in patients with COVID-19 and determine the association of sCys C with severe COVID-19 illness. We performed a retrospective review of medical records of 162 (61.7 ± 13.5 years) patients with COVID-19. We assessed the predictive accuracy of sCys C for COVID-19 severity by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The participants were divided into two groups based on the sCys C cut-off value. We evaluated the association between high sCys C level and the development of severe COVID-19 disease, using a COX proportional hazards regression model. The area under the ROC curve was 0.708 (95% CI 0.594-0.822), the cut-off value was 1.245 (mg/L), and the sensitivity and specificity was 79.1% and 60.7%, respectively. A multivariable Cox analysis showed that a higher level of sCys C (adjusted HR 2.78 95% CI 1.25-6.18, p = 0.012) was significantly associated with an increased risk of developing a severe COVID-19 illness. Patients with a higher sCys C level have an increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease. Our findings suggest that early assessing sCys C could help to identify potential severe COVID-19 patients.

Six-month follow-up of functional status in discharged patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: The long-term functional outcome of discharged patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unresolved. We aimed to describe a 6-month follow-up of functional status of COVID-19 survivors. METHODS: We reviewed the data of COVID-19 patients who had been consecutively admitted to the Tumor Center of Union Hospital (Wuhan, China) between 15 February and 14 March 2020. We quantified a 6-month functional outcome reflecting symptoms and disability in COVID-19 survivors using a post-COVID-19 functional status scale ranging from 0 to 4 (PCFS). We examined the risk factors for the incomplete functional status defined as a PCFS > 0 at a 6-month follow-up after discharge. RESULTS: We included a total of 95 COVID-19 survivors with a median age of 62 (IQR 53-69) who had a complete functional status (PCFS grade 0) at baseline in this retrospective observational study. At 6-month follow-up, 67 (70.5%) patients had a complete functional outcome (grade 0), 9 (9.5%) had a negligible limited function (grade 1), 12 (12.6%) had a mild limited function (grade 2), 7 (7.4%) had moderate limited function (grade 3). Univariable logistic regression analysis showed a significant association between the onset symptoms of muscle or joint pain and an increased risk of incomplete function (unadjusted OR 4.06, 95% CI 1.33-12.37). This association remained after adjustment for age and admission delay (adjusted OR 3.39, 95% CI 1.06-10.81, p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: A small proportion of discharged COVID-19 patients may have an incomplete functional outcome at a 6-month follow-up; intervention strategies are required.

Performance of CURB-65, PSI, and APACHE-II for predicting COVID-19 pneumonia severity and mortality

No prognostic tools for the prediction of COVID-19 pneumonia severity and mortality are available. We explored whether CURB-65, PSI, and APACHE-II could predict COVID-19 pneumonia severity and mortality. We included 167 patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia in this retrospective study. The severity and 30-day mortality of COVID-19 pneumonia were predicted using PSI, CURB-65, and APACHE-II scales. Kappa test was performed to compare the consistency of the three scales. There was a significant difference in the distribution of the scores of the three scales (P < 0.001). Patients with PSI class ⩽III, CURB-65 ⩽1, and APACHE-II-I all survived. The ROC analysis showed the areas under the curve of the PSI, CURB-65, and APACHE-II scales were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74–0.93), 0.80 (95% CI, 0.69–0.90), and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.75–0.92), respectively. Our findings suggest that PSI and CURB-65 might be useful to predict the severity and mortality of COVID-19 pneumonia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of European Journal of Inflammation (Sage Publications, Ltd.) is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Does pre-existent physical inactivity have a role in the severity of COVID-19?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Physical inactivity is considered an important lifestyle factor for overweight and cardiovascular disease. We aimed to investigate the association between pre-existent physical inactivity and the risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We included 164 (61.8 ± 13.6 years) patients with COVID-19 who were admitted between 15 February and 14 March 2020 in this retrospective study. We evaluated the association between pre-existent physical inactivity and severe COVID-19 using a logistic regression model. RESULTS: Of 164 eligible patients with COVID-19, 103 (62.8%) were reported to be physically inactive. Univariable logistic regression analysis showed that physical inactivity was associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19 [unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 6.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88-22.62]. In the multivariable regression analysis, physical inactivity remained significantly associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19 (adjusted OR 4.12, 95% CI 1.12-15.14) after adjustment for age, sex, stroke, and overweight. CONCLUSION: Our data showed that pre-existent physical inactivity was associated with an increased risk of experiencing severe COVID-19. Our findings indicate that people should be encouraged to keep physically active to be at a lower risk of experiencing a severe illness when COVID-19 infection seems unpredicted.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

The effect of vascular risk factor burden on the severity of COVID-19 illness, a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cardiovascular comorbidities are at high risk of poor outcome from COVID-19. However, how the burden (number) of vascular risk factors influences the risk of severe COVID-19 disease remains unresolved. Our aim was to investigate the association of severe COVID-19 illness with vascular risk factor burden. METHODS: We included 164 (61.8 ± 13.6 years) patients with COVID-19 in this retrospective study. We compared the difference in clinical characteristics, laboratory findings and chest computed tomography (CT) findings between patients with severe and non-severe COVID-19 illness. We evaluated the association between the number of vascular risk factors and the development of severe COVID-19 disease, using a Cox regression model. RESULTS: Sixteen (9.8%) patients had no vascular risk factors; 38 (23.2%) had 1; 58 (35.4%) had 2; 34 (20.7%) had 3; and 18 (10.9%) had ≥4 risk factors. Twenty-nine patients (17.7%) experienced severe COVID-19 disease with a median (14 [7-27] days) duration between onset to developing severe COVID-19 disease, an event rate of 4.47 per 1000-patient days (95%CI 3.10-6.43). Kaplan-Meier curves showed a gradual increase in the risk of severe COVID-19 illness (log-rank P < 0.001) stratified by the number of vascular risk factors. After adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities as potential confounders, vascular risk factor burden remained associated with an increasing risk of severe COVID-19 illness. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with increasing vascular risk factor burden have an increasing risk of severe COVID-19 disease, and this population might benefit from specific COVID-19 prevention (e.g., self-isolation) and early hospital treatment measures.

Prevalence and outcomes of re-positive nucleic acid tests in discharged COVID-19 patients.

The prevalence and outcomes of patients who had re-activation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after discharge remain poorly understood. We included 126 consecutively confirmed cases of COVID-19 with 2-month follow-up data after discharge in this retrospective study. The upper respiratory specimen using a reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction test of three patients (71 years [60-76]) were positive within 11-20 days after their discharge, with an event rate of 19.8 (95%CI 2.60-42.1) per 1,000,000 patient-days. Moreover, all re-positive patients were asymptomatic. Our findings suggest that few recovered patients may still be virus carriers even after reaching the discharge criteria.