Infection prevention and control practices and related factors among paramedics during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak in Korea.

This study aimed to investigate the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection prevention and control (IPC) practices and related factors among paramedics. We selected 249 paramedics using convenience sampling from three areas in Korea. Data on the demographics, infection-related characteristics, awareness, and practice of IPC were collected using self-reported questionnaires. The mean IPC practice score was 4.47 ± 0.54. The compliance with IPC practices was relatively high among those with a disease history (B = 0.194, p = 0.045) and who were aware of the safety management standard guidelines. Provision of sufficient protective equipment and infection prevention monitoring were associated with higher IPC practice scores. Education for increasing awareness of the recent IPC guidelines and the allocation of personal protective equipment would be helpful in improving the practice.

Association Between Changes in Family Life Due to COVID-19 and Depressive Mood and Stress Perception.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a new infectious disease that has had a significant impact on daily life. This study investigated the effect of changes in family life due to COVID-19 on depressive mood and stress perception. We used data from the "Survey on changes in family life due to COVID-19" in Korea. The final study population comprised 1500 adults with children aged ≤19 years. Of the total respondents, 59.3% responded that depressive mood and stress had increased due to COVID-19. However, among them, 46.6% did not attempt to resolve or could not find a way to resolve their depressive mood and stress. In multiple logistic regression analyses, a decrease in household income and increased household expenditure due to COVID-19 were significantly associated with an increased risk of depressive mood and stress perception. Depressive mood and stress were significantly higher in respondents who answered that they had experienced family conflicts. These results could be used to assess changes in family life and manage mental health when a new infectious disease occurs. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the long-term effects of changes in family life due to COVID-19 on mental health.

Depression and Related Factors in Korean Adults During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outbreak.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the status of depression and its related factors among adult Koreans during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. METHODS: We used data from the 2020 Korea Community Health Survey (KCHS). We assessed depressive feelings and symptoms using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9 ≥10). In addition, we assessed general and COVID-19-related characteristics, including isolation due to and concerns about COVID-19. We analyzed the data using chi-square tests and multiple logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: The rates of depressive feelings and symptoms were 5.9% and 2.9%, respectively. Of the adult respondents, 68.5% were concerned about COVID-19, while 75.9% were concerned about economic harm due to COVID-19. The adjusted odds ratios for depressive symptoms assessed using the PHQ-9 were significantly high among women responders, adults aged 19-44 years, low-income households, those who experienced COVID-19-related symptoms, and those concerned about death due to COVID-19 and economic harm due to COVID-19. Similar results were obtained for depressive feeling. CONCLUSION: Concerns related to COVID-19 infection are related to depression. This suggests that COVID-19 significantly affects mental health. Therefore, during public health crises, such as new communicable diseases, mental health and the incidence of the infectious disease require assessment and monitoring.

Smoking Behavior Changes during COVID-19 among Korean Adults.

OBJECTIVES: In this study, we investigated the changes in smoking behavior during the COVID-19 outbreak in Korea in 2020. We also examined the influence of general characteristics and mental health problems due to COVID-19 on changes in smoking behavior. METHODS: We collected data from August to October 2020 from adults aged 19 years and older from the Korea Community Health Survey (N=229,269). RESULTS: Among current smokers (N=39,534), 11.0% reported an increase in smoking, and 12.8% reported a decrease in smoking. Overall, 33.3% reported perceived stress and 3.7% reported depression. Participants reported COVID-related anxiety about infecting family (83.0%), economic damage (76.3%), blame or harm from others (66.5%), infection (60.6%), and death (31.3%). Lower education level, living alone, and poor subjective health status were associated with increased smoking. Being a woman and being of older age were associated with decreased smoking. Stress, depression, and anxiety about economic damage due to COVID-19 were more likely to result in increased smoking. Anxiety related to death due to COVID-19 was more likely to result in decreased smoking. CONCLUSION: These findings provide insight into the changes in smoking behavior caused by COVID-19.

Antibody and cellular therapies for treatment of covid-19: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021). STUDY SELECTION: Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm. RESULTS: As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative. CONCLUSION: In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement. FUNDING: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321). READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).

Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19. DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: Random effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials-six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

Post-traumatic Stress and Related Factors Among Hospital Nurses during the COVID-19 Outbreak in Korea.

COVID-19 is an ongoing worldwide infectious disease pandemic. The purpose of this study was to investigate post-traumatic stress and related factors among hospital nurses during the COVID-19 outbreak. The subjects of this study were 300 nurses who worked in three general hospitals that operated National Designated Isolation Unit (NDIU) wards during the COVID-19 outbreak. Self-reporting questionnaires were used to collect data on post-traumatic stress, general characteristics, and work-related information. The average post-traumatic stress score was 20.68 ± 19.5 points and 36.7% of participants were at high risk of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The odds ratio (OR) for PTSD was higher for nurses who worked in the NDIU ward (OR = 16.31, 95% CI = 3.79-70.32), who responded that nurse staffing was poor (OR = 3.03, 95% CI = 1.01-9.10), and who responded that they experienced COVID-19 symptoms (OR = 3.83, 95% CI = 1.89-7.75). Total 36.7% of nurses were at risk of PTSD and the factors related to PTSD were the work department, nurse staffing, and experiencing COVID-19 symptoms. These results could be used to manage PTSD and provide psychological support of nurses during infectious disease epidemics, such as COVID-19.

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. RESULTS: 463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Corticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.