A prospective study of remote delirium screening using the modified K-4AT for COVID-19 inpatients.

Background: Delirium is a neuropsychiatric condition strongly associated with poor clinical outcomes such as high mortality and long hospitalization. In the patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), delirium is common and it is considered as one of the risk factors for mortality. For those admitted to negative-pressure isolation units, a reliable, validated and contact-free delirium screening tool is required. Materials and methods: We prospectively recruited eligible patients from multiple medical centers in South Korea. Delirium was evaluated using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and 4'A's Test (4AT). The attentional component of the 4AT was modified such that respondents are required to count days, rather than months, backward in Korean. Blinded medical staff evaluated all patients and determined whether their symptoms met the delirium criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (DSM-5). An independent population of COVID-19 patients was used to validate the 4AT as a remote delirium screening tool. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: Out of 286 general inpatients, 28 (9.8%) inpatients had delirium. In this population, the patients with delirium were significantly older (p = 0.018) than the patients without delirium, and higher proportion of males were included in the delirium group (p < 0.001). The AUC of the 4AT was 0.992 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.983-1.000] and the optimal cutoff was at 3. Of the independent COVID-19 patients, 13 of 108 (12.0%) had delirium. Demographically, the COVID-19 patients who had delirium only differed in employment status (p = 0.047) from the COVID-19 patients who did not have delirium. The AUC for remote screening using the 4AT was 0.996 (0.989-1.000). The optimal cutoff of this population was also at 3. Conclusion: The modified K-4AT had acceptable reliability and validity when used to screen inpatients for delirium. More importantly, the 4AT efficiently screened for delirium during remote evaluations of COVID-19 patients, and the optimal cutoff was 3. The protocol presented herein can be used for remote screening of delirium using the 4AT.

Comparison of clinical characteristics and hospital mortality in critically ill patients without COVID-19 before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multicenter, retrospective, propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: The high transmission and fatality rates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) strain intensive care resources and affect the treatment and prognosis of critically ill patients without COVID-19. Therefore, this study evaluated the differences in characteristics, clinical course, and prognosis of critically ill medical patients without COVID-19 before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients from three university-affiliated tertiary hospitals. Demographic data and data on the severity, clinical course, and prognosis of medical patients without COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) via the emergency room (ER) before (from January 1 to May 31, 2019) and during (from January 1 to May 31, 2021) the COVID-19 pandemic were obtained from electronic medical records. Propensity score matching was performed to compare hospital mortality between patients before and during the pandemic. RESULTS: This study enrolled 1161 patients (619 before and 542 during the pandemic). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3 and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores, assessed upon ER and ICU admission, were significantly higher than those before the pandemic (p < 0.05). The lengths of stay in the ER, ICU, and hospital were also longer (p < 0.05). Finally, the hospital mortality rates were higher during the pandemic than before (215 [39.7%] vs. 176 [28.4%], p < 0.001). However, in the propensity score-matched patients, hospital mortality did not differ between the groups (p = 0.138). The COVID-19 pandemic did not increase the risk of hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.405, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.937-2.107, p = 0.100). SAPS 3, SOFA score, and do-not-resuscitate orders increased the risk of in-hospital mortality in the multivariate logistic regression model. CONCLUSIONS: In propensity score-matched patients with similarly severe conditions, hospital mortality before and during the COVID-19 pandemic did not differ significantly. However, hospital mortality was higher during the COVID-19 pandemic in unmatched patients in more severe conditions. These findings imply collateral damage to non-COVID-19 patients due to shortages in medical resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, strategic management of medical resources is required to avoid these consequences.

Factors associated with the difference between the incidence and case-fatality ratio of coronavirus disease 2019 by country.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been spreading all over the world; however, its incidence and case-fatality ratio differ greatly between countries and between continents. We investigated factors associated with international variation in COVID-19 incidence and case-fatality ratio (CFR) across 107 northern hemisphere countries, using publicly available COVID-19 outcome data as of 14 September 2020. We included country-specific geographic, demographic, socio-economic features, global health security index (GHSI), healthcare capacity, and major health behavior indexes in multivariate models to explain this variation. Multiple linear regression highlighted that incidence was associated with ethnic region (p < 0.05), global health security index 4 (GHSI4) (beta coefficient [ß] 0.50, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.14-0.87), population density (ß 0.35, 95% CI 0.10-0.60), and water safety level (ß 0.51, 95% CI 0.19-0.84). The CFR was associated with ethnic region (p < 0.05), GHSI4 (ß 0.53, 95% CI 0.14-0.92), proportion of population over 65 (ß 0.71, 95% CI 0.19-1.24), international tourism receipt level (ß - 0.23, 95% CI - 0.43 to - 0.03), and the number of physicians (ß - 0.37, 95% CI - 0.69 to - 0.06). Ethnic region was the most influential factor for both COVID-19 incidence (partial [Formula: see text] = 0.545) and CFR (partial [Formula: see text] = 0.372), even after adjusting for various confounding factors.

Nationwide Social Distancing and the Epidemiology of Severe Acute Respiratory Infections.

Nonpharmaceutical interventions (e.g., social distancing) are recommended to prevent the spread of respiratory viruses. However, few epidemiological studies have assessed whether social distancing in actual settings reduces the disease burden of severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) in the general population. Accordingly, we aimed to assess associations between nationwide social distancing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and non-COVID-19 SARIs. We collected data on SARI epidemiologic characteristics recorded from January 2018 through December 2020 from the nationwide sentinel SARI surveillance data maintained by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency. The number of SARIs per 1000 hospitalized patients decreased significantly to 18.61, 18.15, and 6.25 in 2018, 2019, and 2020 (p<0.001), respectively, during the surveillance period of 3 years. The number of intensive care unit admissions associated with SARIs per 1000 hospitalized patients was 0.83, 0.69, and 0.54 in 2018, 2019, and 2020 (p<0.001), respectively, and the number of SARI-associated mortalities per 1000 patients was 0.42, 0.29, and 0.27 in 2018, 2019, and 2020 (p<0.001), respectively. Moreover, SARIs had two peak seasons in 2 years of the surveillance period (2018 and 2019). However, seasonality was not observed since social distancing was initiated. Our sentinel surveillance data demonstrated a remarkable reduction in SARI disease burden and a change in seasonality following the implementation of nationwide social distancing. Accordingly, we suggest that social distancing could be effective in forthcoming seasonal epidemics of non-COVID19 origin, although the impact thereof on other aspects of society needs to be carefully considered.