Developing Treatment Guidelines During a Pandemic Health Crisis: Lessons Learned From COVID-19.

The development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines began in March 2020 in response to a request from the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Within 4 days of the request, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel was established and the first meeting took place (virtually-as did subsequent meetings). The Panel comprises 57 individuals representing 6 governmental agencies, 11 professional societies, and 33 medical centers, plus 2 community members, who have worked together to create and frequently update the guidelines on the basis of evidence from the most recent clinical studies available. The initial version of the guidelines was completed within 2 weeks and posted online on 21 April 2020. Initially, sparse evidence was available to guide COVID-19 treatment recommendations. However, treatment data rapidly accrued based on results from clinical studies that used various study designs and evaluated different therapeutic agents and approaches. Data have continued to evolve at a rapid pace, leading to 24 revisions and updates of the guidelines in the first year. This process has provided important lessons for responding to an unprecedented public health emergency: Providers and stakeholders are eager to access credible, current treatment guidelines; governmental agencies, professional societies, and health care leaders can work together effectively and expeditiously; panelists from various disciplines, including biostatistics, are important for quickly developing well-informed recommendations; well-powered randomized clinical trials continue to provide the most compelling evidence to guide treatment recommendations; treatment recommendations need to be developed in a confidential setting free from external pressures; development of a user-friendly, web-based format for communicating with health care providers requires substantial administrative support; and frequent updates are necessary as clinical evidence rapidly emerges.

Seroprevalence study of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in healthcare workers following the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in a tertiary-level hospital in the south of Ireland.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG antibodies, using the Abbott antinucleocapsid IgG chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) assay, in five prespecified healthcare worker (HCW) subgroups following the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. SETTING: An 800-bed tertiary-level teaching hospital in the south of Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Serum was collected for anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid IgG using the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG CMIA qualitative assay, as per the manufacturer's specifications.The groups were as follows: (1) HCWs who had real-time PCR (RT-PCR) confirmed COVID-19 infection (>1-month postpositive RT-PCR); (2) HCWs identified as close contacts of persons with COVID-19 infection and who subsequently developed symptoms (virus not detected by RT-PCR on oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal swab); (3) HCWs identified as close contacts of COVID-19 cases and who remained asymptomatic (not screened by RT-PCR); (4) HCWs not included in the aforementioned groups working in areas determined as high-risk clinical areas; and (5) HCWs not included in the aforementioned groups working in areas determined as low-risk clinical areas. RESULTS: Six of 404 (1.49%) HCWs not previously diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection (groups 2-5) were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of recruitment into the study.Out of the 99 participants in group 1, 72 had detectable IgG to SARS-CoV-2 on laboratory testing (73%). Antibody positivity correlated with shorter length of time between RT-PCR positivity and antibody testing.Quantification cycle value on RT-PCR was not found to be correlated with antibody positivity. CONCLUSIONS: Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in HCWs who had not previously tested RT-PCR positive for COVID-19 was low compared with similar studies.

COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of EMS Physicians in a Community Response Effort.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a worldwide historical event that will continue to affect nearly every aspect of ordinary life, including affecting our economic, political, and healthcare eco-systems. An effective pandemic response demands a coordinated and integrated response across community healthcare stakeholders, including Public Health and Emergency Management Officials. EMS systems are in a unique position and perform an essential role on the frontlines of COVID-19, including facilitating coordination of response efforts to COVID-19 within their communities while supporting public health mitigation efforts to slow the spread of the SARS-CoV-2. EMS physicians serve their communities at a unique intersection as clinical leaders, population health experts, and advocates. This paper examines and recommends crucial roles for EMS physician leaders as communities work together in pandemic response.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: an update of current literature.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the etiologic agent for the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, has caused a public health emergency. The need for additional research in viral pathogenesis is essential as the number of cases and deaths rise. Understanding the virus and its ability to cause disease has been the main focus of current literature; however, there is much unknown. Studies have revealed new findings related to the full transmission potential of SARS-CoV-2 and its subsequent ability to cause infection by different means. The virus is hypothesized to be of increased virulence compared with previous coronavirus that caused epidemics, in part due to its overall structural integrity and resilience to inactivation. To date, many studies have discussed that the rationale behind its transmission potential is that viral RNA has unexpectedly been detected in multiple bodily fluids, with some samples having remained positive for extended periods of time. Additionally, the receptor by which the virus gains cellular entry, ACE2, has been found to be expressed in different human body systems, thereby potentiating its infection in those locations. In this evidence-based comprehensive review, we discuss various potential routes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2-respiratory/droplet, indirect, fecal-oral, vertical, sexual, and ocular. Understanding these different routes is important as they pertain to clinical practice, especially in taking preventative measures to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

The COVID-19 Pandemic in Brazil: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation projections and observed evolution, May-August, 2020. / A pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil: a série de projeções do Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation e a evolução observada, maio a agosto de 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) projections for the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil and the Brazilian states, present their accuracy and discuss their implications. METHODS: The IHME projections from May to August 2020 for Brazil and selected states were compared with the ensuing reported number of cumulative deaths. RESULTS: The pandemic was projected to cause 182,809 deaths by December 1, 2020 in Brazil. An increase in mask use could reduce the projected death toll by ~17,000. The mean error in the cumulative number of deaths at 2, 4 and 6 weeks after the projections were made was 13%, 18% and 22%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Short and medium-term projections provide important and sufficiently accurate data to inform health managers, elected officials, and society at large. After following an arduous course up until August, the pandemic is projected to decline steadily although slowly, with ~400 deaths/day still occurring in early December.