Digital undergraduate medical education and patient and carer involvement: a rapid systematic review of current practice.

BACKGROUND: Involving patients and carers in medical students' learning aims to centralise the perspective of healthcare users and supports our future medical workforce in the development of key skills. Medical schools are increasingly using digital technology for teaching and it is timely to understand how to maintain patient and carer involvement in this context. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and medRxiv were searched in October 2020 and reference lists of key articles were hand searched. Eligible studies reported authentic patient or carer involvement in undergraduate medical education where technology was also used. Study quality was assessed by the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Levels of patient or carer involvement were assessed using Towle et al.'s (2010) taxonomy, from Level 1 (lowest level) to Level 6 (highest level). RESULTS: Twenty studies were included in this systematic review. In 70% of studies, patients and carers featured in video or web-based case scenarios with no interaction between healthcare users and students. The remaining 30% of studies reported real-time interactions between students and patients via remote clinical encounters. Digital teaching sessions involving patients or carers were perceived to be valuable by students and educators, and increased student engagement, patient-centred attitudes, clinical knowledge, and communication skills. No studies reported the perspective of patients or carers. DISCUSSION: Digital technology has not yet driven higher levels of patient and carer involvement in medical training. "Live" interactions between students and patients are becoming more common but challenges need addressing to ensure positive experiences for all involved. Future teaching should enhance the role of patients and carers in medical education and support them to overcome any potential barriers to doing so remotely.

Tailoring cultural offers to meet the needs of older people during uncertain times: a rapid realist review.

BACKGROUND: Non-medical issues (e.g. loneliness, financial concerns, housing problems) can shape how people feel physically and psychologically. This has been emphasised during the Covid-19 pandemic, especially for older people. Social prescribing is proposed as a means of addressing non-medical issues, which can include drawing on support offered by the cultural sector. METHOD: A rapid realist review was conducted to explore how the cultural sector (in particular public/curated gardens, libraries and museums), as part of social prescribing, can support the holistic well-being of older people under conditions imposed by the pandemic. An initial programme theory was developed from our existing knowledge and discussions with cultural sector staff. It informed searches on databases and within the grey literature for relevant documents, which were screened against the review's inclusion criteria. Data were extracted from these documents to develop context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs). We used the CMOCs to refine our initial programme theory. RESULTS: Data were extracted from 42 documents. CMOCs developed from these documents highlighted the importance of tailoring-shaping support available through the cultural sector to the needs and expectations of older people-through messaging, matching, monitoring and partnerships. Tailoring can help to secure benefits that older people may derive from engaging with a cultural offer-being distracted (absorbed in an activity) or psychologically held, making connections or transforming through self-growth. We explored the idea of tailoring in more detail by considering it in relation to Social Exchange Theory. CONCLUSIONS: Tailoring cultural offers to the variety of conditions and circumstances encountered in later life, and to changes in social circumstances (e.g. a global pandemic), is central to social prescribing for older people involving the cultural sector. Adaptations should be directed towards achieving key benefits for older people who have reported feeling lonely, anxious and unwell during the pandemic and recovery from it.

Ethical and sociocultural challenges in managing dead bodies during epidemics and natural disasters.

BACKGROUND: Catastrophic natural disasters and epidemics claim thousands of lives and have severe and lasting consequences, accompanied by human suffering. The Ebola epidemic of 2014-2016 and the current COVID-19 pandemic have revealed some of the practical and ethical complexities relating to the management of dead bodies. While frontline staff are tasked with saving lives, managing the bodies of those who die remains an under-resourced and overlooked issue, with numerous ethical and practical problems globally. METHODS: This scoping review of literature examines the management of dead bodies during epidemics and natural disasters. 82 articles were reviewed, of which only a small number were empirical studies focusing on ethical or sociocultural issues that emerge in the management of dead bodies. RESULTS: We have identified a wide range of ethical and sociocultural challenges, such as ensuring dignity for the deceased while protecting the living, honouring the cultural and religious rituals surrounding death, alleviating the suffering that accompanies grieving for the survivors and mitigating inequalities of resource allocation. It was revealed that several ethical and sociocultural issues arise at all stages of body management: notification, retrieving, identification, storage and burial of dead bodies. CONCLUSION: While practical issues with managing dead bodies have been discussed in the global health literature and the ethical and sociocultural facets of handling the dead have been recognised, they are nonetheless not given adequate attention. Further research is needed to ensure care for the dead in epidemics and that natural disasters are informed by ethical best practice.

Performance of guidelines for the screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review of the guidelines and diagnostic studies evaluating the recommended testing strategies.

AIM: The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated less resource-intensive testing guidelines to identify gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). We performed a scoping review of the international evidence reporting the ability of diagnostic tests recommended during the pandemic to accurately identify patients with GDM, compared to pre-pandemic reference standards, and associated test and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the literature was carried out in Embase, LitCovid, Cochrane Covid-19 study register, and medRxiv on 14th June 2021. RESULTS: 145 unique citations were returned; after screening according to pre-specified inclusion criteria by title and abstract and then full text, 13 studies involving 40,836 pregnant people and an additional 52,884 instances of OGTT were included. Thresholds defined in the Australian pandemic guideline appear adequate to identify most GDM cases; false negative cases appeared at lower risk of hyperglycaemia-in-pregnancy(HIP)-related events. For UK and Canadian guidelines, a larger proportion would be misdiagnosed as non-GDM; these false negative cases had broadly equivalent HIP-related event rates as true positives. CONCLUSIONS: The OGTT remains the most effective test to identify abnormal glucose processing in pregnancy, supporting the prompt return to standard guidelines post-pandemic. Cohort studies investigating the impact of the change in guidelines on GDM pregnancies and associated outcomes are needed.

Leptospirosis in pregnancy: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Leptospirosis is a leading zoonotic disease worldwide with more than 1 million cases in the general population per year. With leptospirosis being an emerging infectious disease and as the world's environment changes with more floods and environmental disasters, the burden of leptospirosis is expected to increase. The objectives of the systematic review were to explore how leptospirosis affects pregnancy, its burden in this population, its effects on maternal and fetal outcomes and the evidence base surrounding treatment options. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of published and unpublished literature using automated and manual methods to screen nine electronic databases since inception, with no language restriction. Two reviewers independently screened articles, completed the data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. Due to significant heterogeneity and paucity of data, we were unable to carry out a meta-analysis, but we conducted a pooled analysis of individual patient data from the case reports and case series to examine the patient and disease characteristics, diagnostic methods, differential diagnoses, antibiotic treatments, and outcomes of leptospirosis in pregnancy. The protocol for this review was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO: CRD42020151501. RESULTS: We identified 419 records, of which we included eight observational studies, 21 case reports, three case series and identified four relevant ongoing studies. Overall the studies were with moderate bias and of 'fair' quality. We estimated the incidence of leptospirosis in pregnancy to be 1.3 per 10,000 in women presenting with fever or with jaundice, but this is likely to be higher in endemic areas. Adverse fetal outcomes were found to be more common in pregnant patients who presented in the second trimester compared with patients who presented in the third trimester. There is overlap between how leptospirosis presents in pregnancy and in the general population. There is also overlap between the signs, symptoms and biochemical disturbances associated with leptospirosis in pregnancy and the presentation of pregnancy associated conditions, such as Pre-Eclampsia (PET), Acute Fatty Liver of Pregnancy (AFLP) and HELLP Syndrome (Haemolysis Elevated Liver enzymes Low Platelets). In 94% of identified cases with available data, there was an indicator in the patient history regarding exposure that could have helped include leptospirosis in the clinician's differential diagnosis. We also identified a range of suitable antibiotic therapies for treating leptospirosis in pregnancy, most commonly used were penicillins. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review of leptospirosis in pregnancy and it clearly shows the need to improve early diagnosis and treatment by asking early, treating early, and reporting well. Ask early-broaden differential diagnoses and ask early for potential leptospirosis exposures and risk factors. Treat early-increase index of suspicion in pregnant patients with fever in endemic areas and combine with rapid field diagnosis and early treatment. Report well-need for more good quality epidemiological studies on leptospirosis in pregnancy and better quality reporting of cases in literature.

Risk of adverse coronavirus disease 2019 outcomes for people living with HIV.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether people living with HIV (PLWH) are at increased risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality or adverse outcomes, and whether antiretroviral therapy (ART) influences this risk. DESIGN: Rapid review with meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. METHODS: We searched databases including Embase, Medline, medRxiv and Google Scholar up to 26 August 2020 for studies describing COVID-19 outcomes in PLWH and conducted a meta-analysis of higher quality studies. RESULTS: We identified 1908 studies and included 19 in the review. In a meta-analysis of five studies, PLWH had a higher risk of COVID-19 mortality [hazard ratio 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.62-2.34] compared with people without HIV. Risk of death remained elevated for PLWH in a subgroup analysis of hospitalized cohorts (hazard ratio 1.60, 95% CI: 1.12-2.27) and studies of PLWH across all settings (hazard ratio 2.08, 95% CI: 1.69-2.56). Eight other studies assessed the association between HIV and COVID-19 outcomes, but provided inconclusive, lower quality evidence due to potential confounding and selection bias. There were insufficient data on the effect of CD4+ T-cell count and HIV viral load on COVID-19 outcomes. Eleven studies reported COVID-19 outcomes by ART-regimen. In the two largest studies, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-based regimens were associated with a lower risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes, although these analyses are susceptible to confounding by co-morbidities. CONCLUSION: Emerging evidence suggests a moderately increased risk of COVID-19 mortality among PLWH. Further investigation into the relationship between COVID-19 outcomes and CD4+ T-cell count, HIV viral load, ART and the use of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is warranted.

The protease inhibitor lopinavir, boosted with ritonavir, as treatment for COVID-19: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: The HIV protease inhibitor lopinavir, boosted with ritonavir, has been used off-label to treat COVID-19. We aimed to synthesize the clinical evidence for lopinavir/ritonavir as a treatment for COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a rapid review by searching databases including PubMed, GoogleScholar, medRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, for COVID-19 studies comparing outcomes between patients who did and did not receive lopinavir/ritonavir. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria. RESULTS: We identified five completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 retrospective cohort studies. Two large RCTs of 5,040 and 2,771 hospitalized adults with COVID-19 found no evidence that lopinavir/ritonavir influenced the primary outcome of mortality, or secondary outcomes including progression to mechanical ventilation or time to discharge. Results remained similar in all sub-group analyses including by age, gender, baseline ventilation and time since symptom onset. The three smaller RCTs (n=86-199) also found no evidence of a benefit in the primary outcomes of time to clinical improvement or time to viral clearance. The 14 observational studies included between 50 and 415 participants, and were limited by a lack of adjustment for potential confounding variables. The majority of these studies found no evidence that lopinavir/ritonavir was associated with improved mortality or other clinical outcomes, although results regarding viral clearance were mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Good evidence from large clinical trials does not support using lopinavir/ritonavir to treat COVID-19 amongst hospitalized patients.

At what times during infection is SARS-CoV-2 detectable and no longer detectable using RT-PCR-based tests? A systematic review of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: Tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) are pivotal to detecting current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and duration of detectable virus indicating potential for infectivity. METHODS: We conducted an individual participant data (IPD) systematic review of longitudinal studies of RT-PCR test results in symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. We searched PubMed, LitCOVID, medRxiv, and COVID-19 Living Evidence databases. We assessed risk of bias using a QUADAS-2 adaptation. Outcomes were the percentage of positive test results by time and the duration of detectable virus, by anatomical sampling sites. RESULTS: Of 5078 studies screened, we included 32 studies with 1023 SARS-CoV-2 infected participants and 1619 test results, from - 6 to 66 days post-symptom onset and hospitalisation. The highest percentage virus detection was from nasopharyngeal sampling between 0 and 4 days post-symptom onset at 89% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83 to 93) dropping to 54% (95% CI 47 to 61) after 10 to 14 days. On average, duration of detectable virus was longer with lower respiratory tract (LRT) sampling than upper respiratory tract (URT). Duration of faecal and respiratory tract virus detection varied greatly within individual participants. In some participants, virus was still detectable at 46 days post-symptom onset. CONCLUSIONS: RT-PCR misses detection of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection; early sampling minimises false negative diagnoses. Beyond 10 days post-symptom onset, lower RT or faecal testing may be preferred sampling sites. The included studies are open to substantial risk of bias, so the positivity rates are probably overestimated.

Classification of aerosol-generating procedures: a rapid systematic review.

In the context of covid-19, aerosol generating procedures have been highlighted as requiring a higher grade of personal protective equipment. We investigated how official guidance documents and academic publications have classified procedures in terms of whether or not they are aerosol-generating. We performed a rapid systematic review using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses standards. Guidelines, policy documents and academic papers published in english or french offering guidance on aerosol-generating procedures were eligible. We systematically searched two medical databases (medline, cochrane central) and one public search engine (google) in march and april 2020. Data on how each procedure was classified by each source were extracted. We determined the level of agreement across different guidelines for each procedure group, in terms of its classification as aerosol generating, possibly aerosol-generating, or nonaerosol-generating. 128 documents met our inclusion criteria; they contained 1248 mentions of procedures that we categorised into 39 procedure groups. Procedures classified as aerosol-generating or possibly aerosol-generating by ≥90% of documents included autopsy, surgery/postmortem procedures with high-speed devices, intubation and extubation procedures, bronchoscopy, sputum induction, manual ventilation, airway suctioning, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, tracheostomy and tracheostomy procedures, non-invasive ventilation, high-flow oxygen therapy, breaking closed ventilation systems, nebulised or aerosol therapy, and high frequency oscillatory ventilation. Disagreements existed between sources on some procedure groups, including oral and dental procedures, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, thoracic surgery and procedures, and nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabbing. There is sufficient evidence of agreement across different international guidelines to classify certain procedure groups as aerosol generating. However, some clinically relevant procedures received surprisingly little mention in our source documents. To reduce dissent on the remainder, we recommend that (a) clinicians define procedures more clearly and specifically, breaking them down into their constituent components where possible; (b) researchers undertake further studies of aerosolisation during these procedures; and (c) guideline-making and policy-making bodies address a wider range of procedures.