Endotoxemia in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Mechanism(s) mediating critical illness in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain unclear. Previous reports demonstrate the existence of endotoxemia in viral infections without superimposed gram-negative bacteremia, but the rate and severity of endotoxemia in critically ill patients with COVID-19 requires further exploration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single-center cross-sectional study of 92 intensive care unit patients diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia. Endotoxin activity (EA) was measured in patients that met the following criteria: (1) age ≥18 years and (2) multi-organ dysfunction score >9 from March 24, 2020, to June 20, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 32 patients met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for measurement of EA. The median age of the study cohort was 60 years with a majority male (21/32, 65%) with hypertension (50%). A significant proportion of the patients exhibited either elevated EA in the intermediate range (0.40-0.59 EA units) (10/32, 31%) or high range (≥0.60 EA units) (14/32, 44%) or were nonresponders (NRs, low neutrophil response) to EA (6/32, 19%), with the presence of gram-negative bacteremia only in 2/32 (6%) patients. Low EA was reported in 2/32 patients. NRs (5/6, 83%) and patients with high EA (7/14, 50%) exhibited higher acute kidney injury (AKI) as compared to patients with low/intermediate EA level (1/12, 8.3%). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Elevated EA was observed in a large majority of critically ill patients with COVID-19 and multi-organ dysfunction despite a low incidence of concurrent gram-negative bacteremia. While we observed that elevated EA and nonresponsiveness to EA were associated with AKI in critically ill patients with COVID-19, these findings require further validation in larger longitudinal cohorts.

Language in a Time of COVID-19: Literacy Bias Ethnic Minorities Face During COVID-19 from Online Information in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the readability and presence of translated online information readily available to the British public during COVID-19. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was performed. The terms "Coronavirus", "COVID-19", "Lockdown", "Social Distancing", "Handwashing", "Furlough Scheme" and "Sick pay" were inputted into the popular search engine, Google. Websites were categorised by their source (i.e. Government, Non-Governmental Organisation, NHS and Commercial) and theme (i.e. general COVID-19 information, population practise and employment rulings). Reliable calculators for assessing readability (Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Gunning Fog Index, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Coleman-Liau Index and Automated Readability Index) were used. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The median scores with the interquartile range from each calculator of the pooled data were observed. The presence of accompanying translated material and graphic information was also counted and presented as counts and percentages. The number of readable websites (i.e. a score ≤ 8) for each source and theme category were also recorded. SETTING: UK Internet servers. RESULTS: The median scores of the pooled data (n = 148) had shown that the majority of websites were unreadable to the average British reader according to each calculator used (SMOG 1.3%; GF 6.8%; FK 35.8%; CL 2.6%; ARI 40%). Only 3.4% and 6.8% of the pooled websites had readily available translated material and accompanying graphic material, respectively. CONCLUSION: Readability of COVID-19 information is below national standards and that there is a lack of accompanying translated and graphics-based material online. This may lead to an amplified level of misunderstanding in BAME populations about the COVID-19 pandemic and the rulings put in place.