COPING WITH DEATH ANXIETY AND AWARENESS: EXPERIENCE WITH COVID-19 PATIENTS IN NEW YORK

Introduction: The global challenge that the Covid-19 pandemic represented for humanity, included local experiences and encounters from which helpful lessons may be drawn. Objectives: The primary objective was to assess and document death anxiety and death awareness among hospitalized intensive care unit (ICU) patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in a community-based teaching hospital. The secondary one was to reflect on mental health clinicians' therapeutic styles and skills when caring for patients in critical care settings. Methods: A series of hospitalized ICU patients diagnosed with COVID-19 at the height of the pandemic in New York City were evaluated in this study. Patients' psychological distress symptoms, death awareness, and death anxiety were measured using the Revised Death Anxiety Scale. Seventeen COVID-19 positive patients with various comorbidities who had been admitted to the ICU at Staten Island University Hospital were compared with seventeen COVID-19 negative patients with various comorbidities who had been seen and evaluated on the same ward over the same time period. The Revised Death Anxiety Scale (25 items) was used on all subjects by the deployed psychiatrists. The clinicians' experiences as recorded through diaries during this time were examined and reflected on. Results: Out of seventeen COVID-19 positive patients who participated in this case series, eleven responded with heigh death anxiety scores as compared to the seventeen COVID-19 negative patients in which only three subjects were observed to have high scores. From the very beginning, the COVID-19 pandemic brought to the forefront massive challenges for both psychiatrists and patients. These challenges immediately affected rapport-building, often leading to an atmosphere of trust, but also exposing patients to additional distress. Prior to furthering and facilitating therapeutic dialogue, psychiatrists had to "anesthetize the therapeutic situation,” decrease the arousal level and be attentive throughout the encounter. This attentiveness had to be individually organized and modulated as patients displayed different personality styles, with variations in their internal world and severity of medical condition. In due course, individual patterns of reactions were observed such as fantasies concerning isolation and separation, contrasting attachment styles, need for punishment and guilt feelings and activation of panic and helplessness. The latter was particularly challenging as both patient and physician could become easily trapped in feeling helpless and confused, with strong interpersonal and relational overlays. Compassionate gestures and sensibility in connectedness conveyed vitality and much needed hope. Discussion and Conclusions: Although death anxiety and death awareness seemed overwhelmingly prevalent among the COVID-19 positive patients in comparison to COVID-19 negative patients, differences have been observed in terms of being age-specific, having multiple comorbidities compounding on COVID-19 positive status (e.g., obesity and COPD). In general, the acute psychological distress of patients improved with medical treatment and when stabilized they were moved out of the ICU. Patients with high scores who had a COVID-19 positive status tended to have increased stay in the ICU. Future studies should assess the long-term consequences of COVID-19 on patients' general mental health and particularly death awareness and death anxiety. Additionally, health systems may use similar studies to understand the labor and costs borne by mental health clinicians as well as other clinicians working in such settings. In terms of medical education and liaison work, such research may inform training of clinicians in internal medicine, critical care, and mental health.

Promising Repurposed Antiviral Molecules to Combat SARS-CoV-2: A Review.

COVID-19, an extremely transmissible and pathogenic viral disease, triggered a global pandemic that claimed lives worldwide. To date, there is no clear and fully effective treatment for COVID-19 disease. Nevertheless, the urgency to discover treatments that can turn the tide has led to the development of a variety of preclinical drugs that are potential candidates for probative results. Although most of these supplementary drugs are constantly being tested in clinical trials against COVID-19, recognized organizations have aimed to outline the prospects in which their use could be considered. A narrative assessment of current articles on COVID-19 disease and its therapeutic regulation was performed. This review outlines the use of various potential treatments against SARS-CoV-2, categorized as fusion inhibitors, protease inhibitors, and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitors, which include antiviral drugs such as Umifenovir, Baricitinib, Camostatmesylate, Nafamostatmesylate, Kaletra, Paxlovide, Darunavir, Atazanavir, Remdesivir, Molnupiravir, Favipiravir, and Ribavirin. To understand the virology of SARS-CoV-2, potential therapeutic approaches for the treatment of COVID-19 disease, synthetic methods of potent drug candidates, and their mechanisms of action have been addressed in this review. It intends to help readers approach the accessible statistics on the helpful treatment strategies for COVID-19 disease and to serve as a valuable resource for future research in this area.

Novel approaches in the treatment of Hansen's disease (Leprosy): a case series of multidrug therapy of monthly rifampin, moxifloxacin, and minocycline (RMM) in the United States.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends multidrug therapy (MDT) for the treatment of paucibacillary and multibacillary forms of leprosy, also known as Hansen's disease (HD). MDT combinations of dapsone, rifampin, and clofazimine have reduced the prevalence of the disease but are not without adverse effects impacting regimen adherence. Hence, an urgent need exists to consider alternative MDT regimens with an improved safety profile that promotes treatment adherence. Herein, we described a case series of 10 patients with HD (nine patients with multibacillary leprosy and one with pure neural leprosy) treated with monthly rifampin, moxifloxacin, and minocycline (RMM). The United States National Hansen's Disease Program (NHDP) diagnosed and treated patients across US institutions. All patients received a regimen of 12-24 months of RMM. We reviewed the clinical outcomes, adherence, rate of completion, and adverse events of patients treated with monthly RMM from January 2019 to August 2022. Nine patients had multibacillary leprosy, with some having type-2 reactions. One patient had pure neural leprosy with a reversal reaction. In this case series, we identified that all patients completed the RMM regimen without treatment interruptions. None of the patients experienced any skin hyperpigmentation or any significant side effects. All patients tolerated the monthly RMM regimen with rapid improvement of skin lesions and without logistic hurdles. Based on previous clinical evidence and the results of this case series, the NHDP and other programs should consider the RMM regimen as first-line therapy.

COVID-19 Symptoms and Duration of Rapid Antigen Test Positivity at a Community Testing and Surveillance Site During Pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron BA.1 Periods.

Importance: Characterizing the clinical symptoms and evolution of community-based SARS-CoV-2 infections may inform health practitioners and public health officials in a rapidly changing landscape of population immunity and viral variants. Objectives: To compare COVID-19 symptoms among people testing positive with a rapid antigen test (RAT) during the Omicron BA.1 variant period (December 1, 2021, to January 30, 2022) with the pre-Delta (January 10 to May 31, 2021) and Delta (June 1 to November 30, 2021) variant periods and to assess the duration of RAT positivity during the Omicron BA.1 surge. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted from January 10, 2021, to January 31, 2022, at a walk-up community COVID-19 testing site in San Francisco, California. Participants included children and adults seeking COVID-19 testing with an RAT, regardless of age, vaccine status, or symptoms. Main Outcomes and Measures: Fisher exact tests or χ2 tests were used to compare COVID-19 symptoms during the Omicron BA.1 period with the pre-Delta and Delta periods for vaccination status and age group. Among people returning for repeated testing during the Omicron period, the proportion with a positive RAT between 4 and 14 days from symptom onset or since first positive test if asymptomatic was estimated. Results: Among 63 277 persons tested (median [IQR] age, 32 [21-44] years, with 12.0% younger than 12 years; 52.0% women; and 68.5% Latinx), a total of 18 301 people (28.9%) reported symptoms, of whom 4565 (24.9%) tested positive for COVID-19. During the Omicron BA.1 period, 3032 of 7283 symptomatic participants (41.6%) tested positive, and the numbers of these reporting cough and sore throat were higher than during pre-Delta and Delta periods (cough: 2044 [67.4%] vs 546 [51.3%] of 1065 participants, P < .001 for pre-Delta, and 281 [60.0%] of 468 participants, P = .002, for Delta; sore throat: 1316 [43.4%] vs 315 [29.6%] of 1065 participants, P < .001 for pre-Delta, and 136 [29.1%] of 468 participants, P < .001, for Delta). Compared with the 1065 patients with positive test results in the pre-Delta period, congestion among the 3032 with positive results during the Omicron BA.1 period was more common (1177 [38.8%] vs 294 [27.6%] participants, P < .001), and loss of taste or smell (160 [5.3%] vs 183 [17.2%] participants, P < .001) and fever (921 [30.4%] vs 369 [34.7%] participants, P = .01) were less common. In addition, during the Omicron BA.1 period, fever was less common among the people with positive test results who had received a vaccine booster compared with those with positive test results who were unvaccinated (97 [22.5%] of 432 vs 42 [36.2%] of 116 participants, P = .003), and fever and myalgia were less common among participants who had received a booster compared with those with positive results who had received only a primary series (fever: 97 [22.5%] of 432 vs 559 [32.8%] of 1705 participants, P < .001; myalgia: 115 [26.6%] of 432 vs 580 [34.0%] of 1705 participants, P = .003). During the Omicron BA.1 period, 5 days after symptom onset, 507 of 1613 people (31.1%) with COVID-19 stated that their symptoms were similar, and 95 people (5.9%) reported worsening symptoms. Among people testing positive, 80.2% of participants who were symptomatic and retested remained positive 5 days after symptom onset. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, COVID-19 upper respiratory tract symptoms were more commonly reported during the Omicron BA.1 period than during the pre-Delta and Delta periods, with differences by vaccination status. Rapid antigen test positivity remained high 5 days after symptom onset, supporting guidelines requiring a negative test to inform the length of the isolation period.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Transmission Dynamics and Immune Responses in a Household of Vaccinated Persons.

While SARS-CoV-2 vaccines prevent severe disease effectively, postvaccination "breakthrough" COVID-19 infections and transmission among vaccinated individuals remain ongoing concerns. We present an in-depth characterization of transmission and immunity among vaccinated individuals in a household, revealing complex dynamics and unappreciated comorbidities, including autoimmunity to type 1 interferon in the presumptive index case.

Incidence and Prevalence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Within a Healthcare Worker Cohort During the First Year of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2_ infections in healthcare workers (HCWs) is critical for healthcare delivery. We aimed to estimate and characterize the prevalence and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a US HCW cohort and to identify risk factors associated with infection. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of HCWs at 3 Bay Area medical centers using serial surveys and SARS-CoV-2 viral and orthogonal serological testing, including measurement of neutralizing antibodies. We estimated baseline prevalence and cumulative incidence of COVID-19. We performed multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to estimate associations of baseline factors with incident infections and evaluated the impact of time-varying exposures on time to COVID-19 using marginal structural models. RESULTS: A total of 2435 HCWs contributed 768 person-years of follow-up time. We identified 21 of 2435 individuals with prevalent infection, resulting in a baseline prevalence of 0.86% (95% confidence interval [CI], .53%-1.32%). We identified 70 of 2414 incident infections (2.9%), yielding a cumulative incidence rate of 9.11 cases per 100 person-years (95% CI, 7.11-11.52). Community contact with a known COVID-19 case was most strongly correlated with increased hazard for infection (hazard ratio, 8.1 [95% CI, 3.8-17.5]). High-risk work-related exposures (ie, breach in protective measures) drove an association between work exposure and infection (hazard ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.3-4.8). More cases were identified in HCWs when community case rates were high. CONCLUSIONS: We observed modest COVID-19 incidence despite consistent exposure at work. Community contact was strongly associated with infections, but contact at work was not unless accompanied by high-risk exposure.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction and BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Tests at a Community Site During an Omicron Surge : A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests are an important public health tool. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate field performance of the BinaxNOW rapid antigen test (Abbott) compared with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for detecting infection with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. DESIGN: Cross-sectional surveillance study. SETTING: Free, walk-up, outdoor, urban community testing and vaccine site led by Unidos en Salud, serving a predominantly Latinx community highly impacted by COVID-19. PARTICIPANTS: Persons seeking COVID-19 testing in January 2022. MEASUREMENTS: Simultaneous BinaxNOW and RT-PCR from nasal, cheek, and throat swabs, including cycle threshold (Ct) measures; a lower Ct value is a surrogate for higher amounts of virus. RESULTS: Among 731 persons tested with nasal swabs, there were 296 (40.5%) positive results on RT-PCR; 98.9% were the Omicron variant. BinaxNOW detected 95.2% (95% CI, 91% to 98%) of persons who tested positive on RT-PCR with a Ct value below 30, 82.1% (CI, 77% to 87%) of those who tested positive on RT-PCR with a Ct value below 35, and 65.2% (CI, 60% to 71%) of all who were positive on RT-PCR. Among 75 persons with simultaneous nasal and cheek swabs, BinaxNOW using a cheek swab failed to detect 91% (20 of 22) of specimens that were positive on BinaxNOW with a nasal swab. Among persons with simultaneous nasal and throat swabs who were positive on RT-PCR with a Ct value below 30, 42 of 49 (85.7%) were detected by nasal BinaxNOW, 23 of 49 (46.9%) by throat BinaxNOW, and 44 of 49 (89.8%) by either. LIMITATION: Participants were a cross-sectional sample from a community-based sentinel surveillance site, precluding study of viral or symptom dynamics. CONCLUSION: BinaxNOW detected persons with high SARS-CoV-2 levels during the Omicron surge, enabling rapid responses to positive test results. Cheek or throat swabs should not replace nasal swabs. As currently recommended, high-risk persons with an initial negative BinaxNOW result should have repeated testing. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: University of California, San Francisco.

Race-ethnicity and COVID-19 Vaccination Beliefs and Intentions: A Cross-Sectional Study among the General Population in the San Francisco Bay Area.

OBJECTIVE: The study was designed to compare intentions to receive COVID-19 vaccination by race-ethnicity, to identify beliefs that may mediate the association between race-ethnicity and intention to receive the vaccine and to identify the demographic factors and beliefs most strongly predictive of intention to receive a vaccine. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey conducted from November 2020 to January 2021, nested within a longitudinal cohort study of the prevalence and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 among a general population-based sample of adults in six San Francisco Bay Area counties (called TrackCOVID). Study Cohort: In total, 3161 participants among the 3935 in the TrackCOVID parent cohort responded. RESULTS: Rates of high vaccine willingness were significantly lower among Black (41%), Latinx (55%), Asian (58%), Multi-racial (59%), and Other race (58%) respondents than among White respondents (72%). Black, Latinx, and Asian respondents were significantly more likely than White respondents to endorse lack of trust of government and health agencies as a reason not to get vaccinated. Participants' motivations and concerns about COVID-19 vaccination only partially explained racial-ethnic differences in vaccination willingness. Concerns about a rushed government vaccine approval process and potential bad reactions to the vaccine were the two most important factors predicting vaccination intention. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine outreach campaigns must ensure that the disproportionate toll of COVID-19 on historically marginalized racial-ethnic communities is not compounded by inequities in vaccination. Efforts must emphasize messages that speak to the motivations and concerns of groups suffering most from health inequities to earn their trust to support informed decision making.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients Hospitalized in Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis and clinical studies suggest coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients in ICU have a high mortality rate of 30-45%, which has evolved as a function of criteria of admission and the management modalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective evaluation for characteristics and outcomes in critical care set up across six months. RESULTS: 514 patients (74.3% males and 25.6% females) were evaluated. 9.72% (n = 50) patients expired, 78% (n = 39) were males. Mean age (years) was 57 (±14, range 64, 95% CI 55-58). 65.7% (n = 338) were of age more than 50 years, of which 71.5% (n = 242) were males. Males at 20% higher risk for death than women. (RR = 1.2, 95% CI 0.66-2.31, p = 0.61 NS). There was 18% less risk of mortality in female vs male with comorbidities (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67-1.12, p = 0.32 NS). Risk for mortality in diabetics was significantly increased by 116% vs nondiabetics. (RR 2.16, p = 0.0055, 95% CI 1.28-3.67). Highly significant risk of mortality in age group >50 years (3.13 times higher) vs age ≤50 years. (RR 3.18, 95% CI 1.71-8.64, p = 0.0003). 50.2% had moderate ARDS at admission. High flow nasal cannula was used in 47.2%. There is 5.79 times more likelihood to be on the ventilator with moderate to severe ARDS vs mild ARDS (RR = 5.79, 95% CI 3.10-11.05, p <0.0001). Risk for death was six times higher for patients on ventilator vs not on ventilator (RR = 6.08, 95% CI 3.49-10.59, p <0.0001). The mean number of days on ventilator for patients who underwent tracheostomy (n = 49) was 14 days as compared to 6.6 days in patients who were extubated (n = 57) (p <0.0001). P/F ratio had negative correlation with number of days of hospitalisation (Pearson r -0.391, 95% CI -0.46- -0.31, p <0.0001). 67% less chances of mortality in patients on steroids (RR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.19-60, p = 0.0012). Mean duration of ICU stay (days) was 8 (± 5, range 29, 95% CI 7.5-8.4). CONCLUSIONS: We observed that a strict adherence to the basic principles of ARDS management resulted in a lower mortality in ICU setting. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Pandit RA, Gagana BN, Vaity C, Mulakavalupil B, Choudhary JS, Jain V, et al. Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients Hospitalized in Intensive Care Unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(9):992-1000.

Community Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Disproportionately Affects the Latinx Population During Shelter-in-Place in San Francisco.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to understand the dynamics and risk factors driving ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission during shelter-in-place mandates. METHODS: We offered SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antibody (Abbott ARCHITECT IgG) testing, regardless of symptoms, to all residents (aged ≥4 years) and workers in a San Francisco census tract (population: 5174) at outdoor, community-mobilized events over 4 days. We estimated SARS-CoV-2 point prevalence (PCR positive) and cumulative incidence (antibody or PCR positive) in the census tract and evaluated risk factors for recent (PCR positive/antibody negative) vs prior infection (antibody positive/PCR negative). SARS-CoV-2 genome recovery and phylogenetics were used to measure viral strain diversity, establish viral lineages present, and estimate number of introductions. RESULTS: We tested 3953 persons (40% Latinx; 41% White; 9% Asian/Pacific Islander; and 2% Black). Overall, 2.1% (83/3871) tested PCR positive: 95% were Latinx and 52% were asymptomatic when tested; 1.7% of census tract residents and 6.0% of workers (non-census tract residents) were PCR positive. Among 2598 tract residents, estimated point prevalence of PCR positives was 2.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2%-3.8%): 3.9% (95% CI, 2.0%-6.4%) among Latinx persons vs 0.2% (95% CI, .0-.4%) among non-Latinx persons. Estimated cumulative incidence among residents was 6.1% (95% CI, 4.0%-8.6%). Prior infections were 67% Latinx, 16% White, and 17% other ethnicities. Among recent infections, 96% were Latinx. Risk factors for recent infection were Latinx ethnicity, inability to shelter in place and maintain income, frontline service work, unemployment, and household income <$50 000/year. Five SARS-CoV-2 phylogenetic lineages were detected. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 infections from diverse lineages continued circulating among low-income, Latinx persons unable to work from home and maintain income during San Francisco's shelter-in-place ordinance.

Assessment of a Hotel-Based COVID-19 Isolation and Quarantine Strategy for Persons Experiencing Homelessness.

Importance: Several jurisdictions in the United States have secured hotels to temporarily house people experiencing homelessness who require isolation or quarantine for confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To our knowledge, little is known about how these programs serve this vulnerable population outside the hospital setting. Objective: To assess the safety of a hotel-based isolation and quarantine (I/Q) care system and its association with inpatient hospital capacity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study of a hotel-based I/Q care system for homeless and unstably housed individuals in San Francisco, California, was conducted from March 19 to May 31, 2020. Individuals unable to safely isolate or quarantine at home with mild to moderate COVID-19, persons under investigation, or close contacts were referred from hospitals, outpatient settings, and public health surveillance to 5 I/Q hotels. Of 1009 I/Q hotel guests, 346 were transferred from a large county public hospital serving patients experiencing homelessness. Exposure: A physician-supervised team of nurses and health workers provided around-the-clock support, including symptom monitoring, wellness checks, meals, harm-reduction services, and medications for opioid use disorder. Main Outcomes and Measures: Characteristics of I/Q hotel guests, program retention, county hospital readmissions, and mean length of stay. Results: Overall, the 1009 I/Q hotel guests had a median age of 44 years (interquartile range, 33-55 years), 756 (75%) were men, 454 (45%) were Latinx, and 501 (50%) were persons experiencing sheltered (n = 295) or unsheltered (n = 206) homelessness. Overall, 463 (46%) received a diagnosis of COVID-19; 303 of 907 (33%) had comorbid medical disorders, 225 of 907 (25%) had comorbid mental health disorders, and 236 of 907 (26%) had comorbid substance use disorders. A total of 776 of 955 guests (81%) completed their I/Q hotel stay; factors most strongly associated with premature discontinuation were unsheltered homelessness (adjusted odds ratio, 4.5; 95% CI, 2.3-8.6; P < .001) and quarantine status (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.6; P = .001). In total, 346 of 549 patients (63%) were transferred from the county hospital; of 113 ineligible referrals, 48 patients (42%) had behavioral health needs exceeding I/Q hotel capabilities. Thirteen of the 346 patients transferred from the county hospital (4%) were readmitted for worsening COVID-19. Overall, direct transfers to I/Q hotels from emergency and outpatient departments were associated with averting many hospital admissions. There was a nonsignificant decrease in the mean hospital length of stay for inpatients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 from 5.5 to 2.7 days from March to May 2020 (P = .11). Conclusions and Relevance: To support persons experiencing homelessness during the COVID-19 pandemic, San Francisco rapidly and safely scaled a hotel-based model of I/Q that was associated with reduced strain on inpatient capacity. Strategies to improve guest retention and address behavioral health needs not met in hotel settings are intervention priorities.