Radiographic findings of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study was undertaken to identify and compare findings of chest radiography and computed tomography among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This retrospective study was undertaken at a tertiary care center. Eligible subjects included consecutive patients age 18 and over with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection between March and July 2020. The primary outcome measures were results of chest radiography and computed tomography among patients with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Among 724 subjects, most were admitted to a medical floor (46.4%; N = 324) or admitted to an ICU (10.9%; N = 76). A substantial number of subjects were intubated during the emergency department visit or inpatient hospitalization (15.3%; N = 109). The majority of patients received a chest radiograph (80%; N = 579). The most common findings were normal, bilateral infiltrates, ground-glass opacities, or unilateral infiltrate. Among 128 patients who had both chest radiography and computed tomography, there was considerable disagreement between the 2 studies (52.3%; N = 67; 95% confidence interval: 43.7% to 61.0%).). The presence of bilateral infiltrates (infiltrates or ground-glass opacities) was associated with clinical factors including older age, ambulance arrivals, more urgent triage levels, higher heart rate, and lower oxygen saturation. Bilateral infiltrates were associated with poorer outcomes, including higher rate of intubation, greater number of inpatient days, and higher rate of death. CONCLUSIONS: Common radiographic findings of SARS-CoV-2 infection include infiltrates or ground-glass opacities. There was considerable disagreement between chest radiography and computed tomography. Computed tomography was more accurate in defining the extent of involved lung parenchyma. The presence of bilateral infiltrates was associated with morbidity and mortality.

Perceptions of the SARS-CoV2 pandemic: a small comparative survey analysis between language preference populations in a United States community health center.

In 2019, a new variant of coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) created a global pandemic that has highlighted and exacerbated health disparities. Educating the general public about COVID-19 is one of the primary mitigation strategies amongst health professionals. English is not the preferred language for an estimated 22% of the United States population making effective mass communication efforts difficult to achieve. This study seeks to understand and compare several topics surrounding COVID-19 health communication and healthcare disparities between individuals with English language preference (ELP) and non-English language preference (NELP) within the United States. A survey available in seven languages asking about knowledge and opinions on COVID-19, vaccines, preferred sources of health information, and other questions, was administered February-April 2021 to patients at an urban federally qualified health center that also serves global refugees and immigrants. Descriptive statistics and comparative analysis were performed to identify differences between ELP and NELP individuals. Analysis of 144 surveys, 33 of which were NELP, showed 90.97% of all patients agreed that COVID-19 was a serious disease and 66.67% would receive the COVID-19 vaccine. There were numerous differences between ELP and NELP individuals, including trust in government, symptom identification, preferred source of health information, and feelings that cultural needs had been met. This study has identified several significant differences in patient perceptions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic when comparing NELP to ELP and highlighted areas where improvement can occur. Applying this information, easily utilized targeted resources can be created to quickly intervene and address health disparities among patients seeking care at an urban community health center.

Oral and Topical Vitamin D, Sunshine, and UVB Phototherapy Safely Control Psoriasis in Patients with Normal Pretreatment Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Concentrations: A Literature Review and Discussion of Health Implications.

Vitamin D, sunshine and UVB phototherapy were first reported in the early 1900s to control psoriasis, cure rickets and cure tuberculosis (TB). Vitamin D also controlled asthma and rheumatoid arthritis with intakes ranging from 60,000 to 600,000 International Units (IU)/day. In the 1980s, interest in treating psoriasis with vitamin D rekindled. Since 1985 four different oral forms of vitamin D (D2, D3, 1-hydroxyvitaminD3 (1(OH)D3) and 1,25-dihydroxyvitaminD3 (calcitriol)) and several topical formulations have been reported safe and effective treatments for psoriasis-as has UVB phototherapy and sunshine. In this review we show that many pre-treatment serum 25(OH)D concentrations fall within the current range of normal, while many post-treatment concentrations fall outside the upper limit of this normal (100 ng/mL). Yet, psoriasis patients showed significant clinical improvement without complications using these treatments. Current estimates of vitamin D sufficiency appear to underestimate serum 25(OH)D concentrations required for optimal health in psoriasis patients, while concentrations associated with adverse events appear to be much higher than current estimates of safe serum 25(OH)D concentrations. Based on these observations, the therapeutic index for vitamin D needs to be reexamined in the treatment of psoriasis and other diseases strongly linked to vitamin D deficiency, including COVID-19 infections, which may also improve safely with sufficient vitamin D intake or UVB exposure.