Nephrologists' perspectives on the impact of COVID-19 on caring for patients undergoing dialysis in Latin America: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the experiences of nephrologists on caring for patients undergoing in-centre haemodialysis during the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America. DESIGN: Twenty-five semistructured interviews were conducted by Zoom videoconference in English and Spanish languages during 2020 until data saturation. Using thematic analysis, we conducted line-by-line coding to inductively identify themes. SETTING: 25 centres across nine countries in Latin America. PARTICIPANTS: Nephrologists (17 male and 8 female) were purposively sampled to include diverse demographic characteristics and clinical experience. RESULTS: We identified five themes: shock and immediate mobilisation for preparedness (overwhelmed and distressed, expanding responsibilities to manage COVID-19 infection and united for workforce resilience); personal vulnerability (being infected with COVID-19 and fear of transmitting COVID-19 to family); infrastructural susceptibility of dialysis units (lacking resources and facilities for quarantine, struggling to prevent cross-contamination, and depletion of personal protective equipment and cleaning supplies); helplessness and moral distress (being forced to ration life-sustaining equipment and care, being concerned about delayed and shortened dialysis sessions, patient hesitancy to attend to dialysis sessions, being grieved by socioeconomic disparities, deterioration of patients with COVID-19, harms of isolation and inability to provide kidney replacement therapy); and fostering innovative delivery of care (expanding use of telehealth, increasing uptake of PD and shifting focus on preventing syndemics). CONCLUSION: Nephrologists felt personally and professionally vulnerable and reported feeling helpless and morally distressed because they doubted their capacity to provide safe care for patients undergoing dialysis. Better availability and mobilisation of resources and capacities to adapt models of care, including telehealth and home-based dialysis, are urgently needed.

Clinical Efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Hemodialysis Patients.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic is a global public health problem. Patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis are at a higher risk of infection and mortality than the general population. Worldwide, a vaccination campaign has been developed that has been shown to reduce severe infections and deaths in the general population. However, there are currently limited data on the clinical efficacy of vaccinations in the hemodialysis population. Methods: A national multicenter observational cohort was performed in Chile to evaluate the clinical efficacy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in end-stage renal disease patients on chronic hemodialysis from February 2021 to August 2021. In addition, the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and CoronaVac (Sinovac) vaccines were evaluated. The efficacy of vaccination in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalizations, and deaths associated with COVID-19 was determined. Results: A total of 12,301 patients were evaluated; 10,615 (86.3%) received a complete vaccination (2 doses), 490 (4.0%) received incomplete vaccination, and 1196 (9.7%) were not vaccinated. During follow-up, 1362 (11.0%) patients developed COVID-19, and 150 died (case fatality rate: 11.0%). The efficacy of the complete vaccination in preventing infection was 18.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]:11.8-23.8%), and prevention of death was 66.0% (95% CI:60.6-70.7%). When comparing both vaccines, BNT162b2 and CoronaVac were effective in reducing infection and deaths associated with COVID-19. Nevertheless, the BNT162b2 vaccine had higher efficacy in preventing infection (42.6% vs. 15.0%) and deaths (90.4% vs. 64.8%) compared to CoronaVac. Conclusion: The results of our study suggest that vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients on chronic hemodialysis was effective in preventing infection and death associated with COVID-19.

Survival study and factors associated with mortality in Chilean patients on peritoneal dialysis infected with SARS-CoV-2.

The Covid-19 pandemic has been responsible for millions of deaths worldwide. Patients with comorbidities- such as those on peritoneal dialysis (PD)- present higher morbidity and mortality than the general population. We prospectively evaluated all Chilean patients on PD (48 centres) and followed those who had Covid-19 from the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic in Chile (March 2020) to January 2021 (start of vaccination campaign). We described demographic history, comorbidities, factors related to infection, need for hospitalisation and death due to Covid-19. During the study period, 106 adults on PD were infected by SARS-CoV-2, with a mean age of 53.1 (±16.3) and of which 53.9% were female. From that group, 54.8% required hospitalisation and 24.5% (n = 26) died due to Covid-19. Most of the patients (63.4%) were infected at home and 22.8% during hospitalisation for other reasons. There was a significant association for Covid-19 mortality with: being ≥60 years old, diabetes, time on PD ≥5 years, need for hospitalisation and hospital-acquired infection. At 90 days of follow-up, all deaths associated to Covid-19 occurred before 40 days. We conclude that patients on PD without Covid-19 vaccination have a high mortality and need for hospitalisation associated to Covid-19. To avoid this negative outcome, it is necessary to intensify strategies to avoid contagion, especially in those ≥60 years old, with diabetes and/or ≥5 years spent on PD.

Perspectives of patients, family members, health professionals and the public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has seen a global surge in anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and stress. AIMS: This study aimed to describe the perspectives of patients with COVID-19, their family, health professionals, and the general public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health. METHODS: A secondary thematic analysis was conducted using data from the COVID-19 COS project. We extracted data on the perceived causes and impact of COVID-19 on mental health from an international survey and seven online consensus workshops. RESULTS: We identified four themes (with subthemes in parenthesis): anxiety amidst uncertainty (always on high alert, ebb and flow of recovery); anguish of a threatened future (intense frustration of a changed normality, facing loss of livelihood, trauma of ventilation, a troubling prognosis, confronting death); bearing responsibility for transmission (fear of spreading COVID-19 in public; overwhelming guilt of infecting a loved one); and suffering in isolation (severe solitude of quarantine, sick and alone, separation exacerbating grief). CONCLUSION: We found that the unpredictability of COVID-19, the fear of long-term health consequences, burden of guilt, and suffering in isolation profoundly impacted mental health. Clinical and public health interventions are needed to manage the psychological consequences arising from this pandemic.

Core Outcome Measures for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Respiratory Failure, Multiorgan Failure, Shortness of Breath, and Recovery.

OBJECTIVES: Respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, recovery, and mortality have been identified as critically important core outcomes by more than 9300 patients, health professionals, and the public from 111 countries in the global coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set initiative. The aim of this project was to establish the core outcome measures for these domains for trials in coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Three online consensus workshops were convened to establish outcome measures for the four core domains of respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery. SETTING: International. PATIENTS: About 130 participants (patients, public, and health professionals) from 17 countries attended the three workshops. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Respiratory failure, assessed by the need for respiratory support based on the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale, was considered pragmatic, objective, and with broad applicability to various clinical scenarios. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was recommended for multiple organ failure, because it was routinely used in trials and clinical care, well validated, and feasible. The Modified Medical Research Council measure for shortness of breath, with minor adaptations (recall period of 24 hr to capture daily fluctuations and inclusion of activities to ensure relevance and to capture the extreme severity of shortness of breath in people with coronavirus disease 2019), was regarded as fit for purpose for this indication. The recovery measure was developed de novo and defined as the absence of symptoms, resumption of usual daily activities, and return to the previous state of health prior to the illness, using a 5-point Likert scale, and was endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set recommended core outcome measures have content validity and are considered the most feasible and acceptable among existing measures. Implementation of the core outcome measures in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 will ensure consistency and relevance of the evidence to inform decision-making and care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Core Outcomes Set for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The outcomes reported in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 are extremely heterogeneous and of uncertain patient relevance, limiting their applicability for clinical decision-making. The aim of this workshop was to establish a core outcomes set for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Four international online multistakeholder consensus workshops were convened to discuss proposed core outcomes for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019, informed by a survey involving 9,289 respondents from 111 countries. The transcripts were analyzed thematically. The workshop recommendations were used to finalize the core outcomes set. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: Six themes were identified. "Responding to the critical and acute health crisis" reflected the immediate focus on saving lives and preventing life-threatening complications that underpinned the high prioritization of mortality, respiratory failure, and multiple organ failure. "Capturing different settings of care" highlighted the need to minimize the burden on hospitals and to acknowledge outcomes in community settings. "Encompassing the full trajectory and severity of disease" was addressing longer term impacts and the full spectrum of illness (e.g. shortness of breath and recovery). "Distinguishing overlap, correlation and collinearity" meant recognizing that symptoms such as shortness of breath had distinct value and minimizing overlap (e.g. lung function and pneumonia were on the continuum toward respiratory failure). "Recognizing adverse events" refers to the potential harms of new and evolving interventions. "Being cognizant of family and psychosocial wellbeing" reflected the pervasive impacts of coronavirus disease 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery are critically important outcomes to be consistently reported in coronavirus disease 2019 trials.

International Survey to Establish Prioritized Outcomes for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: There are over 4,000 trials conducted in people with coronavirus disease 2019. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 trials. DESIGN: In an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish languages, adults with coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, health professionals, and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analyzed thematically. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public, and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, and researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 9,289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with coronavirus disease 2019 or family members, 4,882 health professionals, and 3,631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean > 7.5, median ≥ 8, and > 70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating, and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals.