Acute febrile illness among outpatients seeking health care in Bangladeshi hospitals prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Understanding the distribution of pathogens causing acute febrile illness (AFI) is important for clinical management of patients in resource-poor settings. We evaluated the proportion of AFI caused by specific pathogens among outpatients in Bangladesh. During May 2019-March 2020, physicians screened patients aged ≥2 years in outpatient departments of four tertiary level public hospitals. We randomly enrolled patients having measured fever (≥100.4°F) during assessment with onset within the past 14 days. Blood and urine samples were tested at icddr,b through rapid diagnostic tests, bacterial culture, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Acute and convalescent samples were sent to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USA) for Rickettsia and Orientia (R/O) and Leptospira tests. Among 690 patients, 69 (10%) had enteric fever (Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi orSalmonella enterica serotype Paratyphi), 51 (7.4%) Escherichia coli, and 28 (4.1%) dengue detected. Of the 441 patients tested for R/O, 39 (8.8%) had rickettsioses. We found 7 (2%) Leptospira cases among the 403 AFI patients tested. Nine patients (1%) were hospitalized, and none died. The highest proportion of enteric fever (15%, 36/231) and rickettsioses (14%, 25/182) was in Rajshahi. Dhaka had the most dengue cases (68%, 19/28). R/O affected older children and young adults (IQR 8-23 years) and was detected more frequently in the 21-25 years age-group (17%, 12/70). R/O was more likely to be found in patients in Rajshahi region than in Sylhet (aOR 2.49, 95% CI 0.85-7.32) between July and December (aOR 2.01, 1.01-5.23), and who had a history of recent animal entry inside their house than not (aOR 2.0, 0.93-4.3). Gram-negative Enterobacteriaceae were the most common bacterial infections, and dengue was the most common viral infection among AFI patients in Bangladeshi hospitals, though there was geographic variability. These results can help guide empiric outpatient AFI management.

Blood group O is associated with post-COVID-19 syndrome in outpatients with a low comorbidity index.

BACKGROUND: ABO blood group system modulates the inflammatory response and has been implicated in COVID-19. Group O protects against SARS-CoV-2 infection, but there are no data regarding post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS). Our aim was to assess this possible association. METHODS: Case-control study in a community setting, with subjects who had experienced mild COVID-19. Cases were PCS+, controls were PCS-, and the exposure variable, group O. We collected age, sex, BMI, smoking, comorbidities, inflammatory markers, anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies, blood type and clinical data. Five composite inflammatory indices were developed. Multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: We analysed 121 subjects (56.2% women), mean age 45.7 ± 16 years. Blood group frequencies were 41.5%, 7.9%, 5.9%, and 44.5% for A, B, AB and O, respectively. Thirty-six patients were PCS+, without significant differences between cases and controls. Compared to non-O, a higher prevalence of PCS (p = .036), and number of symptoms of PCS (p = .017) were noted in group O. Concerning biomarkers, PCS + and PCS- showed no differences in A, B, and AB groups. In contrast, group O PCS + patients had significantly lower albumin-to-globulin ratio and higher lymphocyte count, fibrinogen, CRP levels, and higher percentages of 3 composite indices, than PCS- subjects. Group O showed a 6-fold increased risk of PCS, compared to non-O (adjusted OR = 6.25 [95%CI, 1.6-23]; p = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Group O has shown a consistent relationship with PCS, characterised by a more intense inflammatory burden than the other blood groups. Blood group O could be part of the immunological link between acute COVID-19 and PCS.

Barriers to participation and lifestyle change among lower versus higher income participants in the National Diabetes Prevention Program: lifestyle coach perspectives.

Individuals from socioeconomically disadvantaged groups have lesser participation and success in the National Diabetes Prevention Program (NDPP). Barriers to NDPP participation and lifestyle change were examined from the perspective of Lifestyle Coaches serving lower versus higher income participants. Lifestyle Coaches (n = 211) who serve lower income (n = 82) or higher income (n = 129) participants reported on observed barriers to NDPP participation and lifestyle change and ranked the three most significant barriers to (a) NDPP participation and (b) lifestyle change. Group differences in number/type of barriers were examined using t-tests and chi-square analyses, and ranking differences were examined using multilevel cumulative logit models. Lifestyle Coaches of lower income (versus higher income) participants reported two additional barriers on average. Ranked barriers to participation were similar between groups, and notably included physical/emotional barriers. However, for lifestyle change, those serving lower income groups were more likely to rank lack of access to healthy grocery stores, but less likely to rank low motivation and lack of family support. Lifestyle Coaches of lower income participants were less likely to rank long wait period prior to enrollment as the most significant barrier to participation, and to rank lack of time off from work as the most significant barrier to lifestyle change. Despite more barriers observed among lower versus higher income participants, overlap in the most significant barriers highlights the potential utility of widely addressing common barriers among NDPP participants. In particular, physical and emotional barriers have been overlooked, yet deserve greater attention in future research and practice.

The National Diabetes Prevention Program (NDPP) has less successfully reached and changed the lifestyles of lower income (versus higher income) adults in the USA who are at high risk for type 2 diabetes. In a nationwide online survey, we asked Lifestyle Coaches who deliver the NDPP to identify up to 37 potential barriers to participation and success that they had observed among their participants. We then compared the number, type, and rankings of the most significant barriers to participation and success in the NDPP from the perspective of Lifestyle Coaches estimating the majority of their participants had lower versus higher incomes. Lifestyle Coaches delivering the NDPP to lower income participants reported an average of two additional barriers to participation and success than those delivering the program to higher income participants. The barriers ranked among the most significant to NDPP participation and lifestyle change were generally similar among Lifestyle Coaches working with lower versus higher income participants. Top-ranked barriers included physical/emotional symptoms (e.g., anxiety, depression) as well as barriers previously reported in studies focused on NDPP participants. It is critical that barriers be carefully evaluated and addressed to improve the nationwide impact of the NDPP.

Post-COVID-19 syndrome, low-grade inflammation and inflammatory markers: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: Post-COVID syndrome (PCS) is a poorly known entity. An underlying chronic, low-grade inflammation (LGI) has been theorized as a pathophysiological mechanism. Available data on biomarkers in PCS show conflicting results. Our aim was to know whether subjects with PCS present higher levels of inflammatory markers, after a mild COVID-19. METHODS: Analytical cross-sectional study. Cases of mild COVID-19 in a community setting were included. We collected epidemiological data (age, sex, BMI, smoking, comorbidities), variables of the acute COVID-19 (duration, symptoms), and data at 3 months after the acute phase (symptoms and laboratory test). Serum C-reactive protein (CRP), neutrophil and lymphocyte counts, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, fibrinogen, and D-dimer levels were analysed. LGI was defined as CRP >0.3 and <1.0 mg/dL. A subject was classified as PCS + if presented signs and symptoms >12 weeks after an infection consistent with COVID-19. Five composite indices (C1-C5) were developed, combining the upper ranges of biomarkers distributions. Multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: We analysed 121 mild COVID-19 cases (mean age = 45.7 years, 56.2% women). Among the acute symptoms, women presented a higher frequency of fatigue (54.4% vs 30.2%; p = .008). PCS affected 35.8% of women and 20.8% of men (p = .07), and the most reported symptoms were fatigue (42.8%), anosmia (40%), ageusia (22.8%), dyspnea (17.1%) and myalgia (11.4%). Neutrophil count, NLR, CRP and fibrinogen showed the best correlations with PCS and were selected to develop the indices. In women PCS+, C1, C3 and C4 indices were more frequently met, while in men PCS+, C2, C5 and CRP were in the range of LGI. Anosmia, ageusia and fatigue were related to higher neutrophil counts, with sex differences. Fibrinogen levels were higher in persistent myalgia (510 ± 82 mg/dL vs 394 ± 87; p = .013). In multivariable analysis, a woman with a neutrophil count above the median, or with fibrinogen level or NLR in the highest tertile, had a 4-5-fold increased risk of prevalent PCS. A man with CRP in the range of LGI, or fibrinogen level or a neutrophil count in the highest tertile, had a 10-17-fold increased risk of prevalent PCS. CONCLUSIONS: The data obtained in the present cross-sectional study seems to demonstrate a consistent association between PCS and upper ranges of the neutrophil count, NLR, fibrinogen, and CRP in the LGI range. Furthermore, composite indices appear useful in detecting relationships between slight elevations of biomarkers and PCS, and our study identifies relevant sex differences in symptoms and markers regarding the PCS.

Headache during SARS-CoV-2 infection as an early symptom associated with a more benign course of disease: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Headache is an important manifestation during SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this study, the aim was to identify factors associated with headache in COVID-19 and headache characteristics. METHODS: This case-control study includes COVID-19 hospitalized patients with pneumonia during March 2020. Controls comprise COVID-19 patients without headache and the cases are COVID-19 patients with headache. Demographic, clinical and laboratory data were obtained from the medical records. Headache characteristics were evaluated by semi-structured telephonic interview after discharge. RESULTS: Of a total of 379 COVID-19 patients, 48 (13%) developed headache. Amongst these, 30 (62%) were men and the median age was 57.9 (47-73) years. Headache was associated with younger age, fewer comorbidities and reduced mortality, as well as with low levels of C-reactive protein, mild acute respiratory distress syndrome and oropharyngeal symptoms. A logistic multiple regression model revealed that headache was directly associated with D-dimer and creatinine levels, the use of high flow nasal cannula and arthromyalgia, whilst urea levels, beta-lactamic treatment and hypertension were negatively associated with headache. COVID-19-associated headache characteristics were available for 23/48 (48%) patients. Headache was the onset symptom in 8/20 (40%) patients, of mild or moderate intensity in 17/20 (85%) patients, with oppressive characteristics in 17/18 (94%) and of holocranial 8/19 (42%) or temporal 7/19 (37%) localization. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that headache is associated with a more benign SARS-CoV-2 infection. COVID-19-associated headache appears as an early symptom and as a novel headache with characteristics of headache attributed to systemic viral infection. Further research addressing the underlying mechanisms to confirm these findings is warranted.

COVID-19 Misinformation in Portuguese-Speaking Countries: Agreement with Content and Associated Factors

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, a complex phenomenon called the “infodemic”has emerged, compromising coping with the pandemic. This study aims to estimate the prevalence of agreement with misinformation about COVID-19 and to identify associated factors. A web survey was carried out in Portuguese-speaking countries in two stages: 1. the identification of misinformation circulating in the included countries;2. a multicentric online survey with residents of the included countries. The outcome of the study was agreement or disagreement with misinformation about COVID-19. Multivariate analyzes were conducted using the Poisson regression model with robust variance, a logarithmic link function, and 95% confidence intervals. The prevalence of agreement with misinformation about COVID-19 was 63.9%. The following factors increased the prevalence of this outcome: having a religious affiliation (aPR: 1.454, 95% CI: 1.393–1.517), having restrictions on leisure (aPR: 1.230, 95% CI: 1.127–1.342), practicing social isolation (aPR: 1.073, 95% CI: 1.030–1.118), not avoiding agglomeration (aPR: 1.060, 95% CI: 1.005–1.117), not seeking/receiving news from scientific sources (aPR: 1.153, 95% CI: 1.068–1.245), seeking/receiving news from three or more non-scientific sources (aPR: 1.114, 95% CI: 1.049–1.182), and giving credibility to news carried by people from social networks (aPR: 1.175, 95% CI: 1.104–1.251). There was a high prevalence of agreement with misinformation about COVID-19. The quality, similarity, uniformity, and acceptance of the contents indicate a concentration of themes that reflect “homemade”, simple, and easy methods to avoid infection by SARS-CoV-2, compromising decision-making and ability to cope with the disease.

Acutely altered mental status as the main clinical presentation of multiple strokes in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cerebral infarction in COVID-19 patients might be associated with a hypercoagulable state related to a systemic inflammatory response. Its diagnosis might be challenging. We present two critically ill patients with COVID-19 who presented acutely altered mental status as the main manifestation of multiple strokes. METHODS: Clinical presentation and diagnostic work-up of the patients. RESULTS: Two patients in their sixties were hospitalized with a bilateral pneumonia COVID-19. They developed respiratory failure and were admitted to ICU for mechanical ventilation and intense medical treatment. They were started on low-molecular-weight heparin since admission. Their laboratory results showed lymphopenia and increased levels of C-reactive protein and D-dimer. Case 1 developed hypofibrinogenemia and presented several cutaneous lesions with biopsy features of thrombotic vasculopathy. Case 2 was performed a CT pulmonary angiogram at ICU showing a bilateral pulmonary embolism. When waking up, both patients were conscious but with a remarkable global altered mental status without focal neurological deficits. A brain MRI revealed multiple acute bilateral ischemic lesions with areas of hemorrhagic transformation in both patients (case 1: affecting the left frontal and temporal lobes and both occipital lobes; case 2: affecting both frontal and left occipital lobes). Cardioembolic source and acquired antiphospholipid syndrome were ruled out. COVID-19-associated coagulopathy was suspected as the possible main etiology of the strokes. CONCLUSION: Acutely altered mental status might be the main manifestation of multiple brain infarctions in critically ill COVID-19 patients. It should be specially considered in those with suspected COVID-19-associated coagulopathy. Full-dose anticoagulation and clinical-radiological monitoring might reduce their neurological consequences.