Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 16 de 16
Filter
1.
BMJ ; 381: e075719, 2023 06 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20233119

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To describe gender and geographical inequalities in invitations to review and the response to these invitations and to assess whether inequalities increased during the covid-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 19 specialist medical journals and two large general medical journals from BMJ Publishing Group. POPULATION: Reviewers invited to review manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2018 and 31 May 2021. The cohort was followed up to 28 February 2022. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reviewer's agreement to review. RESULTS: A total of 257 025 reviewers were invited (38.6% (88 454/228 869) women), and 90 467 (35.2%) agreed to review. Invited reviewers were mainly (217 682; 84.7%) affiliated with high income countries: Europe (122 414; 47.6%), North America (66 931; 26.0%), Africa (25 735; 10.0%), Asia (22 693; 8.8%), Oceania (16 175; 6.3%), and South America (3076; 1.2%). Independent factors associated with agreement to review were gender (odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 0.92, for women compared with men), geographical affiliation (2.89, 2.73 to 3.06, for Asia; 3.32, 2.94 to 3.75 for South America; 1.35, 1.27 to 1.43, for Oceania; and 0.35, 0.33 to 0.37, for Africa compared with Europe), and country income (0.47, 0.45 to 0.49, for upper middle income; 5.12, 4.67 to 5.61, for lower middle income; and 4.66, 3.79 to 5.73, for low income compared with high income country). Agreement was also independently associated with editor's gender (0.96, 0.93 to 0.99, for women compared with men), last author's geographical affiliation (0.80, 0.78 to 0.83, for Asia; 0.89, 0.85 to 0.94, for Oceania compared with Europe), impact factor (1.78, 1.27 to 2.50, for >10 compared with <5), and type of peer review process (0.52, 0.35 to 0.77, for open compared with anonymised). During the first and second phases of the pandemic, agreement was lower than in the pre-pandemic period (P<0.001). The interaction between time periods and covid-19 related topic and reviewer's gender was non-significant. However, significant interaction was found between time periods and covid-19 related topic and reviewer's geographical affiliation. CONCLUSIONS: To reduce bias and improve diversity, editors need to identify and implement effective strategies and continually evaluate progress against these to ensure that more women and researchers from upper middle income and low income countries are involved in review.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Periodicals as Topic , Male , Humans , Female , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies
2.
Sci Rep ; 13(1): 6013, 2023 04 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2299634

ABSTRACT

Two successive COVID-19 flares occurred in Switzerland in spring and autumn 2020. During these periods, therapeutic strategies have been constantly adapted based on emerging evidence. We aimed to describe these adaptations and evaluate their association with patient outcomes in a cohort of COVID-19 patients admitted to the hospital. Consecutive patients admitted to the Geneva Hospitals during two successive COVID-19 flares were included. Characteristics of patients admitted during these two periods were compared as well as therapeutic management including medications, respiratory support strategies and admission to the ICU and intermediate care unit (IMCU). A mutivariable model was computed to compare outcomes across the two successive waves adjusted for demographic characteristics, co-morbidities and severity at baseline. The main outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included ICU admission, Intermediate care (IMCU) admission, and length of hospital stay. A total of 2'983 patients were included. Of these, 165 patients (16.3%, n = 1014) died during the first wave and 314 (16.0%, n = 1969) during the second (p = 0.819). The proportion of patients admitted to the ICU was lower in second wave compared to first (7.4 vs. 13.9%, p < 0.001) but their mortality was increased (33.6% vs. 25.5%, p < 0.001). Conversely, a greater proportion of patients was admitted to the IMCU in second wave compared to first (26.6% vs. 22.3%, p = 0.011). A third of patients received lopinavir (30.7%) or hydroxychloroquine (33.1%) during the first wave and none during second wave, while corticosteroids were mainly prescribed during second wave (58.1% vs. 9.1%, p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, a 25% reduction of mortality was observed during the second wave (HR 0.75; 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.96). Among deceased patients, 82.3% (78.2% during first wave and 84.4% during second wave) died without beeing admitted to the ICU. The proportion of patients with therapeutic limitations regarding ICU admission increased during the second wave (48.6% vs. 38.7%, p < 0.001). Adaptation of therapeutic strategies including corticosteroids therapy and higher admission to the IMCU to receive non-invasive respiratory support was associated with a reduction of hospital mortality in multivariable analysis, ICU admission and LOS during the second wave of COVID-19 despite an increased number of admitted patients. More patients had medical decisions restraining ICU admission during the second wave which may reflect better patient selection or implicit triaging.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Tertiary Care Centers , Switzerland/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Length of Stay , Intensive Care Units , Hospital Mortality , Retrospective Studies
3.
Swiss Med Wkly ; 150: w20446, 2020 12 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2273782

ABSTRACT

AIMS OF THE STUDY: Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir have been used as experimental therapies to treat COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic. Randomised controlled trials have recently shown that there are no meaningful benefits of these two therapies in hospitalised patients. Uncertainty remains regarding the potential harmful impact of these therapies as very early treatments and their burden to the health care system. The present study investigated the length of hospital stay (LOS), mortality, and costs of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir or their combination in comparison with standard of care among patients hospitalised for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study took place in the Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland (n = 840) between 26 February and 31 May 2020. Demographics, treatment regimens, comorbidities, the modified National Early Warning Score (mNEWS) on admission, and contraindications to COVID-19 treatment options were assessed. Outcomes included LOS, in-hospital mortality, and drug and LOS costs. RESULTS: After successful propensity score matching, patients treated with (1) hydroxychloroquine, (2) lopinavir/ritonavir or (3) their combination had on average 3.75 additional hospitalisation days (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37–6.12, p = 0.002), 1.23 additional hospitalisation days (95% CI −1.24 – 3.51, p = 0.319), and 4.19 additional hospitalisation days (95% CI 1.52–5.31, p <0.001), respectively, compared with patients treated with the standard of care. Neither experimental therapy was significantly associated with mortality. These additional hospital days amounted to 1010.77 additional days for hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine combined with lopinavir/ritonavir, resulting in an additional cost of US$ 2,492,214 (95%CI US$ 916,839–3,450,619). CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing experimental therapies for COVID-19 was not associated with a reduced LOS and might have increased the pressure put on healthcare systems.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19/epidemiology , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/mortality , Child , Child, Preschool , Comorbidity , Drug Combinations , Drug Therapy, Combination , Health Expenditures , Hospital Mortality/trends , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/administration & dosage , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Infant , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Lopinavir/administration & dosage , Lopinavir/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , Ritonavir/administration & dosage , Ritonavir/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Sex Factors , Socioeconomic Factors , Therapies, Investigational/methods , Young Adult
4.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(21)2022 Oct 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2099497

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Birth-related post-traumatic stress disorder occurs in 4.7% of mothers. No previous study focusing precisely on the stress factors related to the COVID-19 pandemic regarding this important public mental health issue has been conducted. However, the stress load brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic could have influenced this risk. METHODS: We aimed to estimate the prevalence of traumatic childbirth and birth-related PTSD and to analyze the risk and protective factors involved, including the risk factors related to the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted a prospective cohort study of women who delivered at the University Hospitals of Geneva between 25 January 2021 and 10 March 2022 with an assessment within 3 days of delivery and a clinical interview at one month post-partum. RESULTS: Among the 254 participants included, 35 (21.1%, 95% CI: 15.1-28.1%) experienced a traumatic childbirth and 15 (9.1%, 95% CI: 5.2-14.6%) developed a birth-related PTSD at one month post-partum according to DSM-5. Known risk factors of birth-related PTSD such as antenatal depression, previous traumatic events, neonatal complications, peritraumatic distress and peritraumatic dissociation were confirmed. Among the factors related to COVID-19, only limited access to prenatal care increased the risk of birth-related PTSD. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the challenges of early mental health screening during the maternity stay when seeking to provide an early intervention and reduce the risk of developing birth-related PTSD. We found a modest influence of stress factors directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic on this risk.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic , Infant, Newborn , Female , Pregnancy , Humans , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Parturition/psychology
5.
BMJ Open Respir Res ; 9(1)2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2001863

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic led to a steep increase in hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions for acute respiratory failure worldwide. Early identification of patients at risk of clinical deterioration is crucial in terms of appropriate care delivery and resource allocation. We aimed to evaluate and compare the prognostic performance of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Confusion, Uraemia, Respiratory Rate, Blood Pressure and Age ≥65 (CURB-65), Respiratory Rate and Oxygenation (ROX) index and Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (4C) score to predict death and ICU admission among patients admitted to the hospital for acute COVID-19 infection. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Consecutive adult patients admitted to the Geneva University Hospitals during two successive COVID-19 flares in spring and autumn 2020 were included. Discriminative performance of these prediction rules, obtained during the first 24 hours of hospital admission, were computed to predict death or ICU admission. We further exluded patients with therapeutic limitations and reported areas under the curve (AUCs) for 30-day mortality and ICU admission in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: A total of 2122 patients were included. 216 patients (10.2%) required ICU admission and 303 (14.3%) died within 30 days post admission. 4C score had the best discriminatory performance to predict 30-day mortality (AUC 0.82, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.85), compared with SOFA (AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.78), qSOFA (AUC 0.59, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.62), CURB-65 (AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.78) and ROX index (AUC 0.68, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.72). ROX index had the greatest discriminatory performance (AUC 0.79, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.83) to predict ICU admission compared with 4C score (AUC 0.62, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.66), CURB-65 (AUC 0.60, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.64), SOFA (AUC 0.74, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.77) and qSOFA (AUC 0.59, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.62). CONCLUSION: Scores including age and/or comorbidities (4C and CURB-65) have the best discriminatory performance to predict mortality among inpatients with COVID-19, while scores including quantitative assessment of hypoxaemia (SOFA and ROX index) perform best to predict ICU admission. Exclusion of patients with therapeutic limitations improved the discriminatory performance of prognostic scores relying on age and/or comorbidities to predict ICU admission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Humans , Inpatients , Prognosis , ROC Curve , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
6.
iScience ; 25(1): 103699, 2022 Jan 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1587459

ABSTRACT

Little is known on the long-lasting humoral response and the T cell activation induced by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in patients with cancer. The study assessed the efficacy of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines through measuring the seroconversion rate at pre-specified time points and the effect on the T cell immunity in patients with cancers. The study included 131 adult patients with solid or hematological cancer, who received SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. 96.2% of them exhibited adequate antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines 2 months after the booster dose. SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines could induce T cell activation; however, this is more likely in patients who have a positive seroconversion (94%) compared with the patients who did not (50%). Further research into the clinical relevance of low antibodies titers and lack of T cell activity is required to set up an effective vaccination strategy within this group of patients.

7.
BMJ ; 375: n2288, 2021 10 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455692

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To describe prominent authorship positions held by women and the overall percentage of women co-authoring manuscripts submitted during the covid-19 pandemic compared with the previous two years. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: Nine specialist and two large general medical journals. POPULATION: Authors of research manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2018 and 31 May 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: first author's gender. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: last and corresponding authors' gender; number (percentage) of women on authorship byline in "pre-pandemic" period (1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019) and in "covid-19" and "non-covid-19" manuscripts during pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 63 259 manuscripts were included. The number of female first, last, and corresponding authors respectively were 1313 (37.1%), 996 (27.9%), and 1119 (31.1%) for covid-19 manuscripts (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 230 (29.4%), 165 (21.1%), and 185 (22.9%)), compared with 8583 (44.9%), 6118 (31.2%), and 7273 (37.3%) for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts and 12 724 (46.0%), 8923 (31.4%), and 10 981 (38.9%) for pre-pandemic manuscripts. The adjusted odds ratio of having a female first author in covid-19 manuscripts was <1.00 in all groups (P<0.001) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest in Jan-May 2020: 0.55, 98.75% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.70). The adjusted odds ratio of having a woman as last or corresponding author was significantly lower for covid-19 manuscripts in all time periods (except for the two most recent periods for last author) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 0.74 (0.57 to 0.97) for last and 0.61 (0.49 to 0.77) for corresponding author). The odds ratios for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts were not significantly different compared with pre-pandemic manuscripts. The median percentage of female authors on the byline was lower for covid-19 manuscripts (28.6% in Jan-May 2020) compared with pre-pandemic (36.4%) and non-covid-19 pandemic manuscripts (33.3% in Jan-May 2020). Gender disparities in all prominent authorship positions and the proportion of women authors on the byline narrowed in the most recent period (Feb-May 2021) compared with the early pandemic period (Jan-May 2020) and were very similar to values observed for pre-pandemic manuscripts. CONCLUSIONS: Women have been underrepresented as co-authors and in prominent authorship positions in covid-19 research, and this gender disparity needs to be corrected by those involved in academic promotion and awarding of research grants. Women attained some prominent authorship positions equally or more frequently than before the pandemic on non-covid-19 related manuscripts submitted at some time points during the pandemic.


Subject(s)
Authorship , Bibliometrics , Biomedical Research , COVID-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Manuscripts, Medical as Topic , Medical Writing , Periodicals as Topic , Sex Factors , Time Factors
8.
PLoS One ; 16(6): e0253321, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1282300

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 offer new opportunities for testing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are the reference sample type, but oropharyngeal swabs (OPS) may be a more acceptable sample type in some patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study in a single screening center to assess the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott) on OPS compared with reverse-transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) using NPS during the second pandemic wave in Switzerland. RESULTS: 402 outpatients were enrolled in a COVID-19 screening center, of whom 168 (41.8%) had a positive RT-qPCR test. The oropharyngeal Ag-RDT clinical sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal RT-qPCR was 81% (95%CI: 74.2-86.6). Two false positives were noted out of the 234 RT-qPCR negative individuals, which resulted in a clinical specificity of 99.1% (95%CI: 96.9-99.9) for the Ag-RDT. For cycle threshold values ≤ 26.7 (≥ 1E6 SARS-CoV-2 genomes copies/mL, a presumed cut-off for infectious virus), 96.3% sensitivity (95%CI: 90.7-99.0%) was obtained with the Ag-RDT using OPS. INTERPRETATION: Based on our findings, the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™ Covid-19 RDT with OPS samples, if taken by a trained person and high requirements regarding quality of the specimen, meet the criteria required by the WHO for Ag-RDTs (sensitivity ≥80% and specificity ≥97%) in a high incidence setting in symptomatic individuals.


Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/immunology , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 , Nasopharynx , SARS-CoV-2 , Antigens, Viral/genetics , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/genetics , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Humans , Nasopharynx/immunology , Nasopharynx/virology , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Switzerland/epidemiology
9.
BMJ Open ; 11(6): e044242, 2021 06 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1276956

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a rule-out prediction model for the risk of hospitalisation among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the ambulatory setting to derive a simple score to determine outpatient follow-up. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Swiss university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 1459 individuals with a positive result for SARS-CoV-2 infection between 2 March and 23 April 2020. METHODS: We applied the rule of 10 events per variable to construct our multivariable model and included a maximum of eight covariates. We assessed the model performance in terms of discrimination and calibration and performed internal validation to estimate the statistical optimism of the final model. The final prediction model included age, fever, dyspnoea, hypertension and chronic respiratory disease. To develop the OUTCoV score, we assigned points for each predictor that were proportional to the coefficients of the regression equation. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios were estimated, including positive and negative predictive values in different thresholds. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was COVID-19-related hospitalisation. RESULTS: The OUTCoV score ranged from 0 to 7.5 points. The two threshold parameters with optimal rule-out and rule-in characteristics for the risk of hospitalisation were 3 and 5.5, respectively. Outpatients with a score <3 (997/1459; 68.3%) had no follow-up as at low risk of hospitalisation (1.8%; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.8). For a score ≥5.5 (20/1459; 1.4%), the hospitalisation risk was higher (30%; 95% CI 11.9 to 54.3). CONCLUSIONS: The OUTCoV score allows to rule out two-thirds of outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection presenting a low hospitalisation risk and to identify those at high risk that require careful follow-up to assess the need for hospitalisation. The model provides a simple decision-making tool for an effective allocation of resources to maintain quality care for outpatient populations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Fever , Hospitalization , Humans , Prospective Studies
10.
Diagnostics (Basel) ; 11(5)2021 Apr 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1217057

ABSTRACT

Extended community testing constitutes one of the main strategic pillars in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. Reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) targeting the SARS-CoV-2 genome on nasopharyngeal swab samples is currently the reference test. While displaying excellent analytical sensitivity and specificity, this test is costly, often requires a substantial turnaround time, and, more importantly, is subject to reagent and other material shortages. To complement this technology, rapid antigen tests have been developed and made available worldwide, allowing cheap, quick, and decentralized SARS-CoV-2 testing. The main drawback of these tests is the reduced sensitivity when RT-PCR is the gold standard. In this study, we evaluate Visby an innovative, portable, easy-to-use RT-PCR point-of-care (POC) diagnostic device. Our retrospective analysis shows that overall, compared to the Cobas 6800 RT-qPCR assay (Roche), this RT-PCR POC technology detects SARS-CoV-2 RNA with 95% sensitivity (95%CI = 86.3-99%) and 100% specificity (95% CI = 80.5-100%). For samples with cycle-threshold values below 31, we observed 100% sensitivity (95% CI = 66.4-100%). While showing an analytical sensitivity slightly below that of a standard RT-qPCR system, the evaluated Visby RT-PCR POC device may prove to be an interesting diagnostic alternative in the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially combining the practical advantages of rapid antigen tests and the robust analytical performances of nucleic acid detection systems.

11.
PLoS One ; 16(3): e0248921, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1173655

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Determine the diagnostic accuracy of two antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 at the point of care and define individuals' characteristics providing best performance. METHODS: We performed a prospective, single-center, point of care validation of two Ag-RDT in comparison to RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs. RESULTS: Between October 9th and 23rd, 2020, 1064 participants were enrolled. The PanbioTM Covid-19 Ag Rapid Test device (Abbott) was validated in 535 participants, with 106 positive Ag-RDT results out of 124 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 85.5% (95% CI: 78.0-91.2). Specificity was 100.0% (95% CI: 99.1-100) in 411 RT-PCR negative individuals. The Standard Q Ag-RDT (SD Biosensor, Roche) was validated in 529 participants, with 170 positive Ag-RDT results out of 191 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 89.0% (95%CI: 83.7-93.1). One false positive result was obtained in 338 RT-PCR negative individuals, yielding a specificity of 99.7% (95%CI: 98.4-100). For individuals presenting with fever 1-5 days post symptom onset, combined Ag-RDT sensitivity was above 95%. Lower sensitivity of 88.2% was seen on the same day of symptom development (day 0). CONCLUSIONS: We provide an independent validation of two widely available commercial Ag-RDTs, both meeting WHO criteria of ≥80% sensitivity and ≥97% specificity. Although less sensitive than RT-PCR, these assays could be beneficial due to their rapid results, ease of use, and independence from existing laboratory structures. Testing criteria focusing on patients with typical symptoms in their early symptomatic period onset could further increase diagnostic value.


Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/analysis , COVID-19 Testing , Point-of-Care Systems , Residence Characteristics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Time Factors , Viral Load
13.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 20(1): 265, 2020 Oct 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-901843

ABSTRACT

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

14.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 20(1): 248, 2020 10 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-818068

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Classic epidemic curves - counts of daily events or cumulative events over time -emphasise temporal changes in the growth or size of epidemic outbreaks. Like any graph, these curves have limitations: they are impractical for comparisons of large and small outbreaks or of asynchronous outbreaks, and they do not display the relative growth rate of the epidemic. Our aim was to propose two additional graphical displays for the monitoring of epidemic outbreaks that overcome these limitations. METHODS: The first graph shows the growth of the epidemic as a function of its size; specifically, the logarithm of new cases on a given day, N(t), is plotted against the logarithm of cumulative cases C(t). Logarithm transformations facilitate comparisons of outbreaks of different sizes, and the lack of a time scale overcomes the need to establish a starting time for each outbreak. Notably, on this graph, exponential growth corresponds to a straight line with a slope equal to one. The second graph represents the logarithm of the relative rate of growth of the epidemic over time; specifically, log10(N(t)/C(t-1)) is plotted against time (t) since the 25th event. We applied these methods to daily death counts attributed to COVID-19 in selected countries, reported up to June 5, 2020. RESULTS: In most countries, the log(N) over log(C) plots showed initially a near-linear increase in COVID-19 deaths, followed by a sharp downturn. They enabled comparisons of small and large outbreaks (e.g., Switzerland vs UK), and identified outbreaks that were still growing at near-exponential rates (e.g., Brazil or India). The plots of log10(N(t)/C(t-1)) over time showed a near-linear decrease (on a log scale) of the relative growth rate of most COVID-19 epidemics, and identified countries in which this decrease failed to set in in the early weeks (e.g., USA) or abated late in the outbreak (e.g., Portugal or Russia). CONCLUSIONS: The plot of log(N) over log(C) displays simultaneously the growth and size of an epidemic, and allows easy identification of exponential growth. The plot of the logarithm of the relative growth rate over time highlights an essential parameter of epidemic outbreaks.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Models, Theoretical , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Data Interpretation, Statistical , Epidemiologic Methods , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Crit Care Explor ; 2(8): e0173, 2020 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-703523

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: In many countries, large numbers of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 are admitted to the ICUs within a short period of time, overwhelming usual care capacities. Preparedness and reorganization ahead of the wave to increase ICU surge capacity may be associated with favorable outcome. The purpose of this study was to report our experience in terms of ICU organization and anticipation, as well as reporting patient characteristics, treatment, and outcomes. DESIGN: A prospective observational study. SETTING: The division of intensive care at the Geneva University Hospitals (Geneva, Switzerland). PATIENTS: All consecutive adult patients with acute respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 admitted in the ICU between March 9, 2020, and May 19, 2020, were enrolled. Patients' demographic data, comorbidities, laboratory values, treatments, and clinical outcomes were collected. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The ICU was reorganized into cells of six to eight patients under the care of three physicians and five nurses. Its capacity increased from 30 to 110 beds, fully equipped and staffed, transforming the surgical intermediate care unit, the postoperative care facility, and operating theaters into ICUs. Surge capacity has always exceeded the number of patients hospitalized. Among 129 critically ill patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, 96% required invasive mechanical ventilation. A total of 105 patients (81%) were discharged alive and 24 died, corresponding to a mortality of 19%. Patients who died were significantly older, with higher severity scores at admission, had higher levels of d-dimers, plasma creatinine, high-sensitive troponin T, C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin, and required more frequent prone sessions. CONCLUSIONS: A rapid increase in ICU bed capacity, including adequate equipment and staffing, allowed for a large number of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients to be taken care of within a short period of time. Anticipation and preparedness ahead of the wave may account for the low mortality observed in our center. These results highlight the importance of resources management strategy in the context of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

16.
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ; 8(8): e20025, 2020 08 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-694813

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic forced health jurisdictions worldwide to significantly restructure and reorganize their medical activities. In response to the rapidly evolving body of evidence, a solid communication strategy is needed to increase the reach of and adherence to locally drafted and validated guidance to aide medical staff with COVID-19-related clinical decisions. OBJECTIVE: We present a usage analysis of a dedicated mobile health (mHealth) platform as part of an institutional knowledge dissemination strategy of COVID-19-related guidance to all health care workers (HCWs) in a large academic hospital. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of experts drafted local guidance related to COVID-19. In total, 60 documents and 17 external links were made available through the platform. Documents were disseminated using a recently deployed mHealth platform for HCWs. Targeted dissemination of COVID-19-related content began on March 22, 2020. Using a third-party statistics tool, data concerning user activity and content use was anonymously collected. A quantitative analysis of user activity was performed over a 4-month period, separated into 3 periods: 2 months before (Period A), 2 weeks after (Period B), and 6 weeks following (Period C) targeted dissemination. Regional epidemiological data (daily new COVID-19 cases and total COVID-19-related hospitalizations) was extracted from an official registry. RESULTS: During the study period, the platform was downloaded by 1233 new users. Consequently, the total number of users increased from 1766 users before Period A to a total of 2999 users at the end of Period C. We observed 27,046 document views, of which 12,728 (47.1%) were COVID-19-related. The highest increase in activity occurred in Period B, rapidly following targeted dissemination, with 7740 COVID-19-related content views, representing 71.2% of total content views within the abovementioned period and 550 daily views of COVID-19-related documents. Total documents consulted per day increased from 117 (IQR 74-160) to 657 (IQR 481-1051), P<.001. This increase in activity followed the epidemiological curbing of newly diagnosed COVID-19 cases, which peaked during Period B. Total active devices doubled from 684 to 1400, daily user activity increased fourfold, and the number of active devices rose from 53 (IQR 40-70) to 210 (IQR 167-297), P<.001. In addition, the number of sessions per day rose from 166 (IQR 110-246) to 704 (IQR 517-1028), P<.001. A persistent but reduced increase in total documents consulted per day (172 [IQR 131-251] versus 117 [IQR 74-160], P<.001) and active devices (71 [IQR 64-89] versus 53 [IQR 40-70]) was observed in Period C compared to Period A, while only 29.8% of the content accessed was COVID-19-related. After targeted dissemination, an immediate increase in activity was observed after push notifications were sent to users. CONCLUSIONS: The use of an mHealth solution to disseminate time-sensitive medical knowledge seemed to be an effective solution to increase the reach of validated content to a targeted audience.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Information Dissemination/methods , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Telemedicine , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL