COVID-19 control in the United States: the case for masking.

As of May 2021, the United States remains the world leader with 33 million of 165 million cases worldwide (20%) and 590,000 of 3.4 million deaths worldwide (17%) from COVID-19. Achieving herd immunity by disease spread and vaccination may result in 2 million to 4 million total US deaths. The future perfect of the vaccine should not be the enemy of the present good, which is masking. Masking, especially when combined with social distancing, crowd avoidance, frequent hand and face washing, increased testing capabilities, and contact tracing, is likely to prevent at least as many premature deaths as the widespread utilization of an effective and safe vaccine. Worldwide, masking is the oldest and simplest engineered control to prevent transmission of respiratory pathogens. Masking has been a cornerstone of infection control in hospitals, operating rooms, and clinics for more than a century. Unfortunately, since the epidemic began in the United States, masking has become politicized. All countries, but especially the United States, must adopt masking as an urgent necessity and a component of coordinated public health strategies to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Any economic advantages of pandemic politics are short-lived and shortsighted in comparison with public health strategies of proven benefit that can prevent needless and mostly avoidable premature deaths from COVID-19. During the worst epidemic in more than 100 years, most Americans (75%) trust their health care providers. As competent and compassionate health care professionals, we recommend that effective strategies, especially masking, and not pandemic politics, should inform all rational clinical and public health decision-making.

Perceptions, Coping Strategies, and Mental Health of Residents during COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Since the inception of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the United States has been the leader in cases and deaths. Healthcare workers treating these severely ill patients are at risk of many deleterious consequences. Residents, in particular, may be affected by physical as well as psychological consequences. Because data are sparse on perceptions, coping strategies, and the mental health of residents during COVID-19, we explored these issues in survey data from a community-based academic program in the southeastern United States. METHODS: In May 2020, when US deaths from COVID-19 reached 100,000, we administered multiple-choice online anonymous surveys to assess resident perceptions, coping strategies, and self-reported levels of depression, anxiety, and stress. We used the COPE inventory to assess coping strategies and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 59 (41.3%) of 143 eligible residents completed the survey, 52 (88.1%) of whom believed that they were likely or very likely to become infected with COVID-19. If infected, 17 (28.8%) believed that their illness would be serious or very serious. The top three strategies to cope with COVID-19 included acceptance, self-distraction, and use of emotional support. With respect to depression, anxiety, and stress, all of the mean scores were in the normal range. CONCLUSIONS: During COVID-19, residents in a southern community-based program with an academic affiliation reported effective coping strategies, predominantly acceptance, self-distraction, and use of emotional support. They reported concerns about becoming infected and, if they did, that their illness would likely be serious. Finally, they have not experienced depression, anxiety, or reported stress. The findings may be restricted in generalizability to a southern community-based program with an academic affiliation.

Cross-Sectional Survey of Smoking Patterns During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Tobacco Cessation and Lung Cancer Screening Program.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) produces a wide array of deleterious consequences, some of which are unintended. Data are sparse on whether, and if so, how, current cigarette smoking habits are affected by COVID-19. We describe changes to smoking habits and their correlates during the COVID-19 pandemic among participants in a tobacco cessation and lung cancer screening program. Methods: Between June and October 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of 150 participants in a lung cancer screening and tobacco cessation program. The survey consisted of 3 parts: (1) changes in tobacco use, (2) impact and coping strategies toward COVID-19, and (3) COVID-19 exposure and use of protective measures. Demographic variables included age, sex, race/ethnicity, and marital status. Results: All 150 participants who were contacted agreed to participate in this cross-sectional survey. The statistically significant correlates of increased tobacco use were high uncertainty about the future (P<0.001), loneliness because of social distancing or self-isolating (P<0.001), anger or frustration with how the pandemic has disrupted daily life (P<0.001), boredom resulting from inability to work or engage in regular daily activities/routines (P<0.001), desire to cope using alcohol or drugs (P=0.002), sadness or feelings of hopelessness (P=0.003), and worry or fear about challenges to securing basic needs such as groceries or medication (P<0.001). In contrast, those who smoked less were more likely to practice social distancing (P=0.002) and use protective measures (P=0.005). Conclusion: Among those who decreased or stopped smoking, correlates included greater use of protective measures for COVID-19, including social distancing and testing. These data may aid healthcare providers to identify and provide counsel to cigarette smokers at greater risks for increasing tobacco consumption during stresses such as COVID-19.

Ivermectin in COVID-19: The Case for a Moratorium on Prescriptions.

In treatment or prevention of COVID-19, ivermectin is not approved by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Nonetheless, in the US, prescriptions of ivermectin by healthcare providers have increased > tenfold from 3589 per week pre-COVID-19 to 39,102. Ivermectin is FDA approved for animals to treat parasites and for humans to treat intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis orally, and ectoparasites and skin conditions topically. It is not a benign drug, with reported side effects including cutaneous, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular symptoms. The evidence to support ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19 includes some basic research and inconsistent clinical observations that contribute to the formulation of a hypothesis of efficacy in COVID-19. At present, data from peer-reviewed published randomized trials of sufficient size, dose, and duration to reliably test the hypothesis of the most plausible small to moderate benefits on clinically relevant endpoints are sparse. In addition to the US FDA, the US National Institutes of Health, World Health Organization, and European Medicines Agency have all advised against ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of randomized trials. For ivermectin in treatment or prevention of COVID-19, healthcare providers should reassure all patients that if sufficient evidence were to emerge, then this drug could be considered a therapeutic innovation and regulatory authorities would approve the drug. In the meanwhile, we strongly recommend a moratorium on the prescription of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 except in randomized trials to provide the most reliable test of the hypothesis.

Dose of aspirin to prevent preterm preeclampsia in women with moderate or high-risk factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of aspirin dose on the incidence of all gestational age preeclampsia and preterm preeclampsia. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (Cochrane, PubMed, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Web of Science) were searched for articles published between January 1985 and March 2019 with no language restrictions. METHODS: We followed the PRIMSA guidelines and utilized Covidence software. Articles were screened by 2 independent reviewers, with discrepancies settled by an independent 3rd party. Study selection criteria were randomized trials comparing aspirin for prevention of all gestational age and preterm preeclampsia to placebo or no antiplatelet treatment in women aged 15-55 years with moderate or high-risk factors according to the list of risk factors from American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines. The quality of trials was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The data were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis comparing aspirin at doses of <81, 81, 100, and 150 mg. Pre-specified outcomes were all gestational age and preterm preeclampsia. RESULTS: Of 1,609 articles screened, 23 randomized trials, which included 32,370 women, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In preterm preeclampsia, women assigned at random to 150 mg experienced a significant 62% reduction in risk of preterm preeclampsia (RR = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.20-0.72; P = 0.011). Aspirin doses <150 mg produced no significant reductions. The number needed to treat with 150 mg of aspirin was 39 (95% CI: 23-100). There was a maximum 30% reduction in risk of all gestational age preeclampsia at all aspirin doses. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, based on indirect comparisons, aspirin at a dose greater than the current, recommended 81 mg was associated with the highest reduction in preterm preeclampsia. Our meta-analysis is limited due to the deficiency of homogeneous high evidence data available in the literature to date; however, it may be prudent for clinicians to consider that the optimal aspirin dose may be higher than the current guidelines advise. Future research to compare the efficacy aspirin doses greater than 81 mg is recommended. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42019127951 (University of York, UK; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/).

Genomic surveillance to combat COVID-19: challenges and opportunities.

Although the development and increasingly widespread availability of effective and safe vaccines provides the greatest hope for the future recovery from the increasingly devastating COVID-19 pandemic, there are other preventive efforts that offer an immediate route to decreasing morbidity and mortality. Genomic surveillance is emerging as a vital necessity to achieve effective mitigation and containment. Since SARS-CoV-2 variants have already been detected, it is crucial to obtain reliable evidence about whether they are more contagious, virulent, or more resistant to the available COVID-19 vaccines well before they spread throughout the world. Genomic surveillance leverages applications of next-generation sequencing, creates the availability of whole genome data, and advances phylogenetic methods. These methods offer novel means to detect variants that are phenotypically or antigenically different. Genomic surveillance will facilitate greater early anticipation as well as initiation of effective strategies to mitigate and contain outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 variants and other novel viruses.

Remdesivir for coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19): More promising but still unproven.

From December 2019 to May 22, 2020 the emerging and ever-increasing pandemic of coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) had no effective and safe treatment. Not surprisingly, remdesivir attracted worldwide attention. In a trial published online ahead of print, of 1063 patients, 541 were assigned at random to remdesivir and 522 to placebo. The primary prespecified endpoint was mean recovery time and patients assigned to remdesivir had a mean recovery time of 11 days versus 15 days for those assigned a random to placebo. (p < 0.001). With respect to mortality, the prespecfied secondary endpoint, 34/538 patients in remdesivir and 54/521 in placebo died after 28 days, yielding a possible 31% reduction that approached but did not achieve statistical significance (p = 0.059). The only other published trial of remdesivir randomized 237 patients in China. In that trial, 178 patients were assigned at random to remdesivir compared to 79 assigned to placebo. Those assigned at random to remdesivir experienced a possible but nonsignificant 23% faster time to clinical improvement of 21 days compared with 23 for those assigned to placebo [hazard ratio 1.23 [95% CI, 0·87-1.75)]. With respect to mortality there was no suggestion of any benefit. In fact, the mortality rate in those receiving remdesivir was 15% (22/150) compared with 13% (10/77) for those assigned to placebo. Ongoing randomized trials should be designed, conducted and analyzed to provide the necessary reliable data on mortality to resolve the remaining clinical uncertainties.