Efficacy of implantable haemodynamic monitoring in heart failure across ranges of ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of implantable haemodynamic monitoring (IHM)-guided care. METHODS: PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE were searched for RCTs of IHM in patients with heart failure (HF). Outcomes were examined in total (first and recurrent) event analyses. RESULTS: Five trials comparing IHM-guided care with standard care alone were identified and included 2710 patients across ejection fraction (EF) ranges. Data were available for 628 patients (23.2%) with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (EF ≥50%) and 2023 patients (74.6%) with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (EF <50%). Chronicle, CardioMEMS and HeartPOD IHMs were used. In all patients, regardless of EF, IHM-guided care reduced total HF hospitalisations (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.82) and total worsening HF events (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.84). In patients with HFrEF, IHM-guided care reduced total worsening HF events (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86). The effect of IHM-guided care on total worsening HF events in patients with HFpEF was uncertain (fixed-effect model: HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; random-effects model: HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.14). IHM-guided care did not reduce mortality (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.20). IHM-guided care reduced all-cause mortality and total worsening HF events (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HF across all EFs, IHM-guided care reduced total HF hospitalisations and worsening HF events. This benefit was consistent in patients with HFrEF but not consistent in HFpEF. Further trials with pre-specified analyses of patients with an EF of ≥50% are required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021253905.

Working from home and subsequent work outcomes: Pre-pandemic evidence.

Frequent working from home (WFH) may stay as a new work norm after the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior observational studies on WFH and work outcomes under non-pandemic circumstances are mostly cross-sectional and often studied employees who worked from home in limited capacity. To provide additional insights that might inform post-pandemic work policies, using longitudinal data collected before the COVID-19 pandemic (June 2018 to July 2019), this study aims to examine the associations between WFH and multiple subsequent work-related outcomes, as well as potential modifiers of these associations, in a sample of employees among whom frequent or even full-time WFH was common (N = 1,123, Meanage = 43.37 years). In linear regression models, each subsequent work outcome (standardized score was used) was regressed on frequencies of WFH, adjusting for baseline values of the outcome variables and other covariates. The results suggested that WFH for 5 days/week versus never WFH was associated with subsequently less work distraction (ß = -0.24, 95% CI = -0.38, -0.11), greater perceived productivity/engagement (ß = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.11, 0.36), and greater job satisfaction (ß = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.02, 0.27), and was associated with subsequent work-family conflicts to a lesser extent (ß = -0.13, 95% CI = -0.26, 0.004). There was also evidence suggesting that long work hours, caregiving responsibilities, and a greater sense of meaningful work can all potentially attenuate the benefits of WFH. As we move towards the post-pandemic era, further research will be needed to understand the impacts of WFH and resources for supporting employees who work from home.

Study of efficacy and longevity of immune response to third and fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with cancer: A single arm clinical trial.

Background: Cancer patients show increased morbidity with COVID-19 and need effective immunization strategies. Many healthcare regulatory agencies recommend administering 'booster' doses of COVID-19 vaccines beyond the standard two-dose series, for this group of patients. Therefore, studying the efficacy of these additional vaccine doses against SARS-CoV-2 and variants of concern is of utmost importance in this immunocompromised patient population. Methods: We conducted a prospective single arm clinical trial enrolling patients with cancer that had received two doses of mRNA or one dose of AD26.CoV2.S vaccine and administered a third dose of mRNA vaccine. We further enrolled patients that had no or low responses to three mRNA COVID vaccines and assessed the efficacy of a fourth dose of mRNA vaccine. Efficacy was assessed by changes in anti-spike antibody, T-cell activity, and neutralization activity, which were again assessed at baseline and 4 weeks. Results: We demonstrate that a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine leads to seroconversion in 57% of patients that were seronegative after primary vaccination series. The immune response is durable as assessed by anti-SARS-CoV-2 (anti-S) antibody titers, T-cell activity, and neutralization activity against wild-type (WT) SARS-CoV2 and BA1.1.529 at 6 months of follow-up. A subset of severely immunocompromised hematologic malignancy patients that were unable to mount an adequate immune response (titer <1000 AU/mL) after the third dose and were treated with a fourth dose in a prospective clinical trial which led to adequate immune boost in 67% of patients. Low baseline IgM levels and CD19 counts were associated with inadequate seroconversion. Booster doses induced limited neutralization activity against the Omicron variant. Conclusions: These results indicate that third dose of COVID vaccine induces durable immunity in cancer patients and an additional dose can further stimulate immunity in a subset of patients with inadequate response. Funding: Leukemia Lymphoma Society, National Cancer Institute. Clinical trial number: NCT05016622.

People with cancer have a higher risk of death or severe complications from COVID-19. As a result, vaccinating cancer patients against COVID-19 is critical. But patients with cancer, particularly blood or lymphatic system cancers, are less likely to develop protective immunity after COVID-19 vaccination. Immune suppression caused by cancer or cancer therapies may explain the poor vaccine response. Booster doses of the vaccine may improve the vaccine response in patients with cancer. But limited information is available about how well booster doses protect patients with cancer against COVID-19. Thakkar et al. show that a third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine can induce a protective immune response in half of the patients with cancer with no immunity after the first two doses. In the experiments, Thakkar et al. tracked the immune reaction to COVID-19 booster shots in 106 cancer patients. A third booster dose protected patients for up to four to six months and reduced breakthrough infection rates to low levels. Eighteen patients with blood cancers and severe immune suppression had an inadequate immune response after three doses of the vaccine; a fourth dose boosted the immune response for two-thirds of them, which for some included neutralization of variants such as Omicron. The experiments show that booster doses can increase COVID-19 vaccine protection for patients with cancer, even those who do not respond to the initial vaccine series. Thakkar et al. also show that pre-vaccine levels of two molecules linked to the immune system, (immunoglobin M and the CD19 antigen) predicted the patients' vaccine response, which might help physicians identify which individuals would benefit from booster doses.

Durability of immune responses to mRNA booster vaccination against COVID-19.

BackgroundMaintaining durable immunity following vaccination represents a major challenge, but whether mRNA booster vaccination improves durability is unknown.MethodsWe measured antibody responses in 55 healthy adults, who received a booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 and calculated the half-life of the antibody titers. We also measured memory B and T cell responses in a subset of 28 participants. In 13 volunteers who received a second booster vaccine, we measured serum antibody titers and memory B and T cell responses.ResultsThe booster (third immunization) dose at 6 to 10 months increased the half-life of the serum-neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers to 76 days from 56 to 66 days after the primary 2-dose vaccination. A second booster dose (fourth immunization) a year after the primary vaccination further increased the half-life to 88 days. However, despite this modestly improved durability in nAb responses against the ancestral (WA.1) strain, there was a loss of neutralization capacity against the Omicron subvariants BA.2.75.2, BQ.1.1, and XBB.1.5 (48-, 71-, and 66-fold drop in titers, respectively, relative to the WA.1 strain). Although only 45% to 65% of participants demonstrated a detectable nAb titer against the newer variants after the booster (third dose), the response declined to below the detection limit in almost all individuals by 6 months. In contrast, booster vaccination induced antigen-specific memory B and T cells that persisted for at least 6 months.ConclusionThe durability of serum antibody responses improves only marginally following booster immunizations with the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA vaccines.

Recording adverse events following orthopaedic trauma: Financial implications and validation of an adverse event assessment form in an Irish regional trauma unit.

BACKGROUND: In Ireland, funding of orthopaedic trauma is based on an activity-based funding (ABF) model. Clinically similar cases are split into diagnostic-related groups (DRG), with base funding per DRG provided. Increased complexity of cases (length of stay; complications incurred; occurrence of adverse events) attracts additional remuneration to the base funding. In our institution these adverse events are recorded via retrospective chart-abstraction methods by administrative staff. Incidences which are not included from this review affect both follow up with family physicians and patient care; as well as skewing budgetary decisions that impact fiscal viability of the service. The aim of this study was to compare a prospectively implemented adverse events form with the current national retrospective chart abstraction method. Our outcomes in terms of pay-by-results financial implications. METHODS: An adverse events database adapted from a similar validated model was used to prospectively record complications in 216 patients admitted via the orthopaedic trauma service. Data was contemporaneously collected via a GDPR compliant secure medical messaging platform. Results were compared with the same cohort using an existing data abstraction method. Both data sets were coded in accordance with current standards for case funding. RESULTS: Overall, 49 adverse events were recorded during the study through prospective charting of adverse events, compared with 26 events documented by customary method (p<0.01).Anaemia requiring blood transfusion n = 11 22.4%) was the most common complication, followed by delirium n = 6 (12%), acute kidney injury n = 6 (12%), and pneumonia n = 5 (10.2%). Missed appropriate funding through conventional methods totalled €40,293 . CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrates the ability to improve capture of adverse events through use of a well-designed assessment form. Proper perioperative data handling is a critical aspect of financial subsidies, enabling optimal allocation of funds.

Food insecurity and the role of food assistance programs in supporting diet quality during the COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts.

Background: Economic and supply chain shocks resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 led to substantial increases in the numbers of individuals experiencing food-related hardship in the US, with programs aimed at addressing food insecurity like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and food pantries seeing significant upticks in utilization. While these programs have improved food access overall, the extent to which diet quality changed, and whether they helped mitigate diet quality disruptions, is not well understood. Objective: To evaluate food insecurity, food pantry and/or SNAP participation associations with both diet quality as well as perceived disruptions in diet during the COVID-19 pandemic among Massachusetts adults with lower incomes. Methods: We analyzed complete-case data from 1,256 individuals with complete data from a cross-sectional online survey of adults (ages 18 years and above) living in Massachusetts who responded to "The MA Statewide Food Access Survey" between October 2020 through January 2021. Study recruitment and survey administration were performed by The Greater Boston Food Bank. We excluded respondents who reported participation in assistance programs but were ineligible (n = 168), those who provided straightlined responses to the food frequency questionnaire component of the survey (n = 34), those with incomes above 300% of the federal poverty level (n = 1,427), those who completed the survey in 2021 (n = 8), and those who reported improved food insecurity (n = 55). Current dietary intake was assessed via food frequency questionnaire. Using Bayesian regression models, we examined associations between pandemic food insecurity, perceived disruption in diet, diet quality, and intakes of individual foods among those who completed a survey in 2020. We assessed interactions by pantry and SNAP participation to determine whether participation moderated these relationships. Results: Individuals experiencing food insecurity reported greater disruption in diet during the pandemic and reduced consumption of healthy/unhealthy foods. Pantry participation attenuated significant associations between food insecurity and lower consumption of unhealthy (b = -1.13 [95% CI -1.97 to -0.31]) and healthy foods (b = -1.07 [-1.82 to -0.34]) to null (unhealthy foods: -0.70 [-2.24 to 0.84]; healthy foods: 0.30 [-1.17 to 1.74]), whereas SNAP participation attenuated associations for healthy foods alone (from -1.07 [-1.82 to -0.34] to -0.75 [-1.83 to 0.32]). Results were robust to choice of prior as well as to alternative modeling specifications. Conclusion: Among adults with lower incomes, those experiencing food insecurity consumed less food, regardless of healthfulness, compared to individuals not experiencing food insecurity. Participation in safety-net programs, including SNAP and pantry participation, buffered this phenomenon. Continued support of SNAP and the food bank network and a focus on access to affordable healthy foods may simultaneously alleviate hunger while improving nutrition security.

Evolution of COVID-19 Health Disparities in Arizona.

COVID-19 burdens are disproportionally high in underserved and vulnerable communities in Arizona. As the pandemic progressed, it is unclear if the initial associated health disparities have changed. This study aims to elicit the dynamic landscape of COVID-19 disparities at the community level and identify newly emerging vulnerable subpopulations. Findings from this study can inform interventions to increase health equity among minoritized communities in the Southwest, other regions of the US, and globally. We compiled biweekly COVID-19 case counts of 274 zip code tabulation areas (ZCTAs) in Arizona from October 21, 2020, to November 25, 2021, a time spanning multiple waves of COVID-19 case growth. Within each biweekly period, we tested the associations between the growth rate of COVID-19 cases and the population composition in a ZCTA including race/ethnicity, income, employment, and age using multiple regression analysis. We then compared the associations across time periods to discover temporal patterns of health disparities. The association between the percentage of Latinx population and the COVID-19 growth rate was positive before April 2021 but gradually converted to negative afterwards. The percentage of Black population was not associated with the COVID-19 growth rate at the beginning of the study but became positive after January 2021 which persisted till the end of the study period. Young median age and high unemployment rate emerged as new risk factors around mid-August 2021. Based on these findings, we identified 37 ZCTAs that were highly vulnerable to future fast escalation of COVID-19 cases. As the pandemic progresses, vulnerabilities associated with Latinx ethnicity improved gradually, possibly bolstered by culturally responsive programs in Arizona to support Latinx. Still communities with disadvantaged social determinants of health continued to struggle. Our findings inform the need to adjust current resource allocations to support the design and implementation of new interventions addressing the emerging vulnerabilities at the community level.

Patient preferences and current practice for adults with steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis: POPSTER mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are a mainstay of the treatment of moderately severe relapses of ulcerative colitis, yet almost 50% of patients do not respond fully to these and risk prolonged steroid use and side effects. There is a lack of clarity about the definitions of steroid resistance, the optimum choice of treatment, and patient and health-care professional treatment preferences. OBJECTIVES: The overall aim of this research was to understand how steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis is managed in adult secondary care and how current practice compares with patient and health-care professional preferences. DESIGN: A mixed-methods study, including an online survey, qualitative interviews and discrete choice experiments. SETTING: NHS inflammatory bowel disease services in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with ulcerative colitis and health-care professionals treating inflammatory bowel disease. RESULTS: We carried out a survey of health-care professionals (n = 168), qualitative interviews with health-care professionals (n = 20) and patients (n = 33), discrete choice experiments with health-care professionals (n = 116) and patients (n = 115), and a multistakeholder workshop (n = 9). The interviews with and survey of health-care professionals showed that most health-care professionals define steroid resistance as an incomplete response to 40 mg per day of prednisolone after 2 weeks. The survey also found that anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs (particularly infliximab) are the most frequently offered drugs across most steroid-resistant (and steroid-dependent) patient scenarios, but they are less frequently offered to thiopurine-naive patients. Patient interviews identified several factors influencing their treatment choices, including effectiveness of treatment, recommendations from health-care professionals, route of administration and side effects. Over time, depending on the severity and duration of symptoms and, crucially, as medical treatment options become exhausted, patients are willing to try alternative treatments and, eventually, to undergo surgery. The discrete choice experiments found that the probability of remission and of side effects strongly influences the treatment choices of both patients and health-care professionals. Patients are less likely to choose a treatment that takes longer to improve symptoms. Health-care professionals are willing to make difficult compromises by tolerating greater safety risks in exchange for therapeutic benefits. The treatments ranked most positively by patients were infliximab and tofacitinib (each preferred by 38% of patients), and the predicted probability of uptake by health-care professionals was greatest for infliximab (62%). LIMITATIONS: The survey and the discrete choice experiments with patients and health-care professionals are limited by their relatively small sample sizes. The qualitative studies are subject to selection bias. The timing of the different substudies, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, is a potential limitation. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified factors influencing treatment decisions for steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis and the characteristics to consider when choosing treatments to evaluate in future randomised controlled trials. The findings may be used to improve discussions between patients and health-care professionals when they review treatment options for steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis. FUTURE WORK: This research highlights the need for consensus work to establish an agreed definition of steroid resistance in ulcerative colitis and a greater understanding of the optimal use of tofacitinib and surgery for this patient group. A randomised controlled trial comparing infliximab with tofacitinib is also recommended. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Steroids are one of the main treatments for ulcerative colitis; however, steroids work well for only about 50% of people who take them. There are many other treatments that can be given when steroids do not work, but evidence is limited about how these treatments are best used. To carry out better research about the best treatment options and to improve clinical practice in the future, this study aimed to find out how adults with steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis are managed in hospital and why patients and health-care professionals prefer different treatments. The study combined various methods of research, including an online survey of health-care professionals (n = 168), interviews with health-care professionals (n = 20) and patients (n = 33), a survey of health-care professionals (n = 116) and patients (n = 115) to ask them about treatment preferences, and a multistakeholder workshop (n = 9). The interviews with and survey of health-care professionals found that most health-care professionals define steroid resistance as an incomplete response to 40 mg per day of prednisolone after 2 weeks. The survey also found that the most frequently offered drugs are anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs (particularly infliximab). Patient interviews found that several factors influenced treatment choices, including effectiveness of treament, guidance from health-care professionals, route of administration and side effects. Patients were willing to try alternative treatments and surgery over time. The survey found that a higher level of remission and a lower chance of side effects strongly influenced treatment choices. Patients are less likely to choose a treatment that takes longer to improve symptoms. Health-care professionals are willing to make difficult compromises by tolerating greater safety risks in exchange for therapeutic benefits. Infliximab and tofacitinib were ranked most positively by patients, and the predicted uptake by health-care professionals was greatest for infliximab. The results of this study help improve understanding of why people choose certain treatments, improve decision-making in partnership and inform the design of future research.

Food insecurity and the role of food assistance programs in supporting diet quality during the COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts

Background Economic and supply chain shocks resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 led to substantial increases in the numbers of individuals experiencing food-related hardship in the US, with programs aimed at addressing food insecurity like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and food pantries seeing significant upticks in utilization. While these programs have improved food access overall, the extent to which diet quality changed, and whether they helped mitigate diet quality disruptions, is not well understood. Objective To evaluate food insecurity, food pantry and/or SNAP participation associations with both diet quality as well as perceived disruptions in diet during the COVID-19 pandemic among Massachusetts adults with lower incomes. Methods We analyzed complete-case data from 1,256 individuals with complete data from a cross-sectional online survey of adults (ages 18 years and above) living in Massachusetts who responded to "The MA Statewide Food Access Survey” between October 2020 through January 2021. Study recruitment and survey administration were performed by The Greater Boston Food Bank. We excluded respondents who reported participation in assistance programs but were ineligible (n = 168), those who provided straightlined responses to the food frequency questionnaire component of the survey (n = 34), those with incomes above 300% of the federal poverty level (n = 1,427), those who completed the survey in 2021 (n = 8), and those who reported improved food insecurity (n = 55). Current dietary intake was assessed via food frequency questionnaire. Using Bayesian regression models, we examined associations between pandemic food insecurity, perceived disruption in diet, diet quality, and intakes of individual foods among those who completed a survey in 2020. We assessed interactions by pantry and SNAP participation to determine whether participation moderated these relationships. Results Individuals experiencing food insecurity reported greater disruption in diet during the pandemic and reduced consumption of healthy/unhealthy foods. Pantry participation attenuated significant associations between food insecurity and lower consumption of unhealthy (b = −1.13 [95% CI −1.97 to −0.31]) and healthy foods (b = −1.07 [−1.82 to −0.34]) to null (unhealthy foods: −0.70 [−2.24 to 0.84];healthy foods: 0.30 [−1.17 to 1.74]), whereas SNAP participation attenuated associations for healthy foods alone (from −1.07 [−1.82 to −0.34] to −0.75 [−1.83 to 0.32]). Results were robust to choice of prior as well as to alternative modeling specifications. Conclusion Among adults with lower incomes, those experiencing food insecurity consumed less food, regardless of healthfulness, compared to individuals not experiencing food insecurity. Participation in safety-net programs, including SNAP and pantry participation, buffered this phenomenon. Continued support of SNAP and the food bank network and a focus on access to affordable healthy foods may simultaneously alleviate hunger while improving nutrition security.

Prevalence and Assessment of Factors Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in an Ethnic Minority Oncology Patient Population.

BACKGROUND: Complicating the COVID-19 pandemic are the healthcare disparities experienced by ethnic minorities, especially those with comorbidities including cancer. The introduction of COVID-19 vaccines has been instrumental in blunting the morbidity and mortality from the pandemic; however, vaccine hesitancy, particularly among ethnic minorities, has been a major concern. Thus, we sought to evaluate the knowledge and perspectives of COVID-19 and vaccines among our ethnic minority cancer patient population. METHODS: Following an IRB approved protocol, questionnaires were completed by patients in a predominantly ethnic minority population at a single institution between 1 February and 30 June 2021. Included were any adult cancer patients with either a solid or hematologic malignancy. RESULTS: Among the 84 patients that were offered the questionnaires, 52 patients responded, with a median age of 63.5 years. Overall, 36% were non-Hispanic Blacks and 30% were Hispanics; 65% were receiving active treatment for their cancer. Seventy-nine percent believed COVID-19 to be dangerous or harmful to them, 61% were concerned about the side effects, yet 65% considered COVID-19 vaccines as safe. Among the seven patients that refused the vaccine, (71%, n = 5) cited side effects and/or (57%, n = 4) believed that the vaccine was not needed. Overall, there was a significantly higher chance of being vaccinated if patients were receiving active cancer treatment, believed COVID-19 was harmful, or that the vaccine was safe, and knew COVID-19 was a virus. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study demonstrates that most ethnic minority cancer patients are receptive to vaccines, with a majority being vaccinated. However, we also discovered various reasons why this group of patients may not want be vaccinated, including concerns about side effects and perception that COVID-19 is not harmful. These findings can help us further understand the complex nature of vaccine hesitancy in ethnic minority cancer patients, and aid in developing future vaccine awareness strategies as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve.

A Framework for Inspiring COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence in African American and Latino Communities.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted racial and ethnic minority communities, particularly African American and Latino communities. The impacts of social determinants of health, structural racism, misinformation, and mistrust have contributed to a decreased COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Effective methods of addressing and combatting these barriers are essential. Accurate and targeted messaging delivered by trusted voices from community-based organizations, government health systems and organizations, and healthcare and academic systems is imperative. Outreach and communication should be culturally sensitive, provided in the preferred language of the community, flexible, and tailored for in-person and virtual outlets. This communication must also increase trust, combat misinformation, and inspire COVID-19 vaccine confidence. In this manuscript, we outline a framework for inspiring COVID-19 vaccine confidence in African American and Latino communities. These methods of targeted outreach should be considered and implemented for urgent and nonurgent community public health efforts beyond the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., monkeypox) and as a framework to inspire vaccine confidence in those living in racial and ethnic minority communities globally.

Health Misinformation on Social Media: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Directions

Health misinformation on social media is an emerging public concern as the COVID-19 infodemic tragically evidences. Key challenges that empower health misinformation’s spread include rapidly advancing social technologies and high social media usage penetration. However, research on health misinformation on social media lacks cohesion and has received limited attention from information systems (IS) researchers. Given this issue’s importance and relevance to the IS discipline, we summarize the current state of research on this emerging topic and identify research gaps together with meaningful research questions. Following a two-step literature search, we identify and analyze 101 papers. Drawing on the Shannon-Weaver communication model, we propose an integrative stage-based framework of health misinformation on social media. Based on literature analysis, we identify research opportunities and prescribe directions for future research on health misinformation on social media.

Assessing the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on rapid access chest pain clinics: a retrospective audit in glasgow

70 Table 1Baseline characteristics of patients referred to RACPC based on year of assessment (pre-pandemic vs during pandemic) 70 Table 2Patient outcomes pre- and post-pandemic in January and MarchConclusionIn 2021, patients waited longer for investigations compared to previous years. This is likely due to the large backlog of patients due to clinic closures and reduced services during the pandemic. Also, in 2021 many patients were assessed via telephone (instead of face-to-face) consultations due to national/local restrictions. This may explain the high proportion of patients diagnosed as stable coronary heart disease in 2021 compared to previous years. Only one patient was categorised as ‘acute coronary syndrome’, and this patient underwent CABG within follow-up. No patients suffered an MI or died of cardiac causes. Our audit shows that patients in the medium and high-risk categories were effectively and safely triaged in the RACPC service. Since the pandemic, RACPC staff in Glasgow have noticed increasing numbers of patients with MI while waiting for their RACPC appointment. This was not evident in this audit, which may be due.Conflict of InterestNone

COVID-19 mortality is associated with pre-existing impaired innate immunity in health conditions.

COVID-19 can be life-threatening to individuals with chronic diseases. To prevent severe outcomes, it is critical that we comprehend pre-existing molecular abnormalities found in common health conditions that predispose patients to poor prognoses. In this study, we focused on 14 pre-existing health conditions for which increased hazard ratios of COVID-19 mortality have been documented. We hypothesized that dysregulated gene expression in these pre-existing health conditions were risk factors of COVID-19 related death, and the magnitude of dysregulation (measured by fold change) were correlated with the severity of COVID-19 outcome (measured by hazard ratio). To test this hypothesis, we analyzed transcriptomics data sets archived before the pandemic in which no sample had COVID-19. For a given pre-existing health condition, we identified differentially expressed genes by comparing individuals affected by this health condition with those unaffected. Among genes differentially expressed in multiple health conditions, the fold changes of 70 upregulated genes and 181 downregulated genes were correlated with hazard ratios of COVID-19 mortality. These pre-existing dysregulations were molecular risk factors of severe COVID-19 outcomes. These genes were enriched with endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria function, proinflammatory reaction, interferon production, and programmed cell death that participate in viral replication and innate immune responses to viral infections. Our results suggest that impaired innate immunity in pre-existing health conditions is associated with increased hazard of COVID-19 mortality. The discovered molecular risk factors are potential prognostic biomarkers and targets for therapeutic intervention.

Diminishing returns, increasing risks: Impact of antibiotic duration of therapy on respiratory bacterial isolates in hospitalized patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

In 829 hospital encounters for patients with COVID-19, 73.2% included orders for antibiotics; however, only 1.8% had respiratory cultures during the first 3 hospital days isolating bacteria. Case-control analysis of 30 patients and 96 controls found that each antibiotic day increased the risk of isolating multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) in respiratory cultures by 6.5%.

Associations of online religious participation during COVID-19 lockdown with subsequent health and well-being among UK adults.

BACKGROUND: In-person religious service attendance has been linked to favorable health and well-being outcomes. However, little research has examined whether online religious participation improves these outcomes, especially when in-person attendance is suspended. METHODS: Using longitudinal data of 8951 UK adults, this study prospectively examined the association between frequency of online religious participation during the stringent lockdown in the UK (23 March -13 May 2020) and 21 indicators of psychological well-being, social well-being, pro-social/altruistic behaviors, psychological distress, and health behaviors. All analyses adjusted for baseline socio-demographic characteristics, pre-pandemic in-person religious service attendance, and prior values of the outcome variables whenever data were available. Bonferroni correction was used to correct for multiple testing. RESULTS: Individuals with online religious participation of ≥1/week (v. those with no participation at all) during the lockdown had a lower prevalence of thoughts of self-harm in week 20 (odds ratio 0.24; 95% CI 0.09-0.62). Online religious participation of <1/week (v. no participation) was associated with higher life satisfaction (standardized ß = 0.25; 0.11-0.39) and happiness (standardized ß = 0.25; 0.08-0.42). However, there was little evidence for the associations between online religious participation and all other outcomes (e.g. depressive symptoms and anxiety). CONCLUSIONS: There was evidence that online religious participation during the lockdown was associated with some subsequent health and well-being outcomes. Future studies should examine mechanisms underlying the inconsistent results for online v. in-person religious service attendance and also use data from non-pandemic situations.