Parenchymal lung abnormalities following hospitalisation for COVID-19 and viral pneumonitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Persisting respiratory symptoms in COVID-19 survivors may be related to development of pulmonary fibrosis. We assessed the proportion of chest CT scans and pulmonary function tests consistent with parenchymal lung disease in the follow-up of people hospitalised with COVID-19 and viral pneumonitis. METHODS: Systematic review and random effects meta-analysis of proportions using studies of adults hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV or influenza pneumonia and followed up within 12 months. Searches performed in MEDLINE and Embase. Primary outcomes were proportion of radiological sequelae on CT scans; restrictive impairment; impaired gas transfer. Heterogeneity was explored in meta-regression. RESULTS: Ninety-five studies (98.9% observational) were included in qualitative synthesis, 70 were suitable for meta-analysis including 60 SARS-CoV-2 studies with a median follow-up of 3 months. In SARS-CoV-2, the overall estimated proportion of inflammatory sequelae was 50% during follow-up (0.50; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.58; I2=95%), fibrotic sequelae were estimated in 29% (0.29; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.37; I2=94.1%). Follow-up time was significantly associated with estimates of inflammatory sequelae (-0.036; 95% CI -0.068 to -0.004; p=0.029), associations with fibrotic sequelae did not reach significance (-0.021; 95% CI -0.051 to 0.009; p=0.176). Impaired gas transfer was estimated at 38% of lung function tests (0.38 95% CI 0.32 to 0.44; I2=92.1%), which was greater than restrictive impairment (0.17; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.23; I2=92.5%), neither were associated with follow-up time (p=0.207; p=0.864). DISCUSSION: Sequelae consistent with parenchymal lung disease were observed following COVID-19 and other viral pneumonitis. Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to high heterogeneity, differences in study casemix and initial severity. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020183139.

Future Catastrophic Event Preparation: Recommendations From Clinical Nurses Aligning With the Future of Nursing 2020-2030 Report.

Nurses play an important role in pandemic and disaster response, often at a personal cost to their overall well-being. Interviews with 19 frontline COVID-19 nurses helped illuminate priority focus areas involving nurses in the planning process, providing clear communication and offering mental health services. These recommendations align with and reinforce conclusions and recommendations from The Future of Nursing 2020-2030 Report.

The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols.

BACKGROUND: With the exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SR), there is a high potential for overlapping and redundant duplication of work. Prospective protocol registration gives the opportunity to assess the added value of a new study or review, thereby potentially reducing research waste and simultaneously increasing transparency and research quality. The PROSPERO database for SR protocol registration was launched 10 years ago. This study aims to assess the proportion SRs of intervention studies with a protocol registration (or publication) and explore associations of SR characteristics with protocol registration status. METHODS: PubMed was searched for SRs of human intervention studies published in January 2020 and January 2021. After random-stratified sampling and eligibility screening, data extraction on publication and journal characteristics, and protocol registration status, was performed. Both descriptive and multivariable comparative statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 357 SRs (2020: n = 163; 2021: n = 194) were included from a random sample of 1267 publications. Of the published SRs, 38% had a protocol. SRs that reported using PRISMA as a reporting guideline had higher odds of having a protocol than publications that did not report PRISMA (OR 2.71; 95% CI: 1.21 to 6.09). SRs with a higher journal impact factor had higher odds of having a protocol (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25). Publications from Asia had a lower odds of having a protocol (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80, reference category = Europe). Of the 33 SRs published in journals that endorse PROSPERO, 45% did not have a protocol. Most SR protocols were registered in PROSPERO (n = 129; 96%). CONCLUSIONS: We found that 38% of recently published SRs of interventions reported a registered or published protocol. Protocol registration was significantly associated with a higher impact factor of the journal publishing the SR and a more frequent self-reported use of the PRISMA guidelines. In some parts of the world, SR protocols are more often registered or published than others. To guide strategies to increase the uptake of SR protocol registration, further research is needed to gain understanding of the benefits and informativeness of SRs protocols among different stakeholders. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: osf.io/9kj7r/.

Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. DESIGN: Development of the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement. PARTICIPANTS: Core team (seven individuals) led day-to-day operations, and an expert advisory group (three individuals) provided methodological advice. A panel of 100 experts (authors, editors, readers including members of the public or patients) was invited to participate in a modified Delphi exercise. 11 expert panellists (chosen on the basis of expertise, and representing relevant stakeholder groups) were invited to take part in a virtual face-to-face meeting to reach agreement (≥70%) on final checklist items. 21 authors of recently published overviews were invited to pilot test the checklist. SETTING: International consensus. INTERVENTION: Four stage process established by the EQUATOR Network for developing reporting guidelines in health research: project launch (establish a core team and expert advisory group, register intent), evidence reviews (systematic review of published overviews to describe reporting quality, scoping review of methodological guidance and author reported challenges related to undertaking overviews of reviews), modified Delphi exercise (two online Delphi surveys to reach agreement (≥70%) on relevant reporting items followed by a virtual face-to-face meeting), and development of the reporting guideline. RESULTS: From the evidence reviews, we drafted an initial list of 47 potentially relevant reporting items. An international group of 52 experts participated in the first Delphi survey (52% participation rate); agreement was reached for inclusion of 43 (91%) items. 44 experts (85% retention rate) completed the second Delphi survey, which included the four items lacking agreement from the first survey and five new items based on respondent comments. During the second round, agreement was not reached for the inclusion or exclusion of the nine remaining items. 19 individuals (6 core team and 3 expert advisory group members, and 10 expert panellists) attended the virtual face-to-face meeting. Among the nine items discussed, high agreement was reached for the inclusion of three and exclusion of six. Six authors participated in pilot testing, resulting in minor wording changes. The final checklist includes 27 main items (with 19 sub-items) across all stages of an overview of reviews. CONCLUSIONS: PRIOR fills an important gap in reporting guidance for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. The checklist, along with rationale and example for each item, provides guidance for authors that will facilitate complete and transparent reporting. This will allow readers to assess the methods used in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions and understand the trustworthiness and applicability of their findings.

The lived experience of frontline nurses: COVID-19 in rural America.

AIM: This multisite study describes the lived experience of registered nurses (RNs) caring for coronavirus (COVID-19) patients during the pandemic in rural America. DESIGN: A qualitative phenomenological design was used. METHODS: From January to June 2021, using the purposeful sampling method, 19 frontline nurses were interviewed regarding their experience caring for seriously ill COVID-19 patients in three Upper Midwest tertiary care hospitals. Three doctoral prepared nurses transcribed and analyzed verbatim interviews with data interpreted separately and conjointly. Approved qualitative methods specific to transcendental phenomenology were used. RESULTS: This phenomenological study identified four themes describing the lived experience: (1) feeling of being overwhelmed, (2) feeling of role frustration related to chaos in the care environment, (3) feeling of abandonment by leaders, families, and communities, and (4) progressing from perseverance to resilience. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Significant implications include ensuring frontline RNs are in communication with leaders, and are involved in tactical planning. Leaders can provide a stabilizing presence, build resilience, confidence, and security. Recommendations for additional research are provided. CONCLUSION: Nurses in intensive care and COVID-19 designated medical units had experiences similar to high population United States and international cities. Their shared experience included high volumes of critically ill patients in hospitals frenzied by rapid change, uncertainty, and capacity strain. Differences in the experience of rural nurses included close social connection to patients, families, and community members. This rural connectedness had both positive and negative effects.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of anakinra, sarilumab, siltuximab and tocilizumab for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: There is accumulating evidence for an overly activated immune response in severe COVID-19, with several studies exploring the therapeutic role of immunomodulation. Through systematic review and meta-analysis, we assess the effectiveness of specific interleukin inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched on 7 January 2021 to identify studies of immunomodulatory agents (anakinra, sarilumab, siltuximab and tocilizumab) for the treatment of COVID-19. The primary outcomes were severity on an Ordinal Scale measured at day 15 from intervention and days to hospital discharge. Key secondary endpoints included overall mortality. RESULTS: 71 studies totalling 22 058 patients were included, 6 were randomised trials. Most studies explored outcomes in patients who received tocilizumab (60/71). In prospective studies, tocilizumab was associated with improved unadjusted survival (risk ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96, I2=0.0%), but conclusive benefit was not demonstrated for other outcomes. In retrospective studies, tocilizumab was associated with less severe outcomes on an Ordinal Scale (generalised OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.64, I2=98%) and adjusted mortality risk (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.66, I2=76.6%). The mean difference in duration of hospitalisation was 0.36 days (95% CI -0.07 to 0.80, I2=93.8%). There was substantial heterogeneity in retrospective studies, and estimates should be interpreted cautiously. Other immunomodulatory agents showed similar effects to tocilizumab, but insufficient data precluded meta-analysis by agent. CONCLUSION: Tocilizumab was associated with a lower relative risk of mortality in prospective studies, but effects were inconclusive for other outcomes. Current evidence for the efficacy of anakinra, siltuximab or sarilumab in COVID-19 is insufficient, with further studies urgently needed for conclusive findings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020176375.

Comparing the Spanish flu and COVID-19 pandemics: Lessons to carry forward.

Just as people living in the early 1900s experienced the horrors of World War I followed by the Spanish influenza epidemic, those of us surviving the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic will have our lives forever changed. Both pandemics defied the capabilities of prevailing healthcare and public health. Since there was no known cure in either pandemic, much depended on nurses to fight the battle against the viruses. History has shown pandemics are occurring more frequently and are unpredictable in timing and severity. Therefore, we need to place focus on the valuable lessons from the century's two pandemics to prepare for future global disease outbreaks. Lessons that will benefit nursing are the importance of continual preparation and planning, care coordination across communities and healthcare systems, and ensuring nurses have the necessary resources and training to perform their roles in an effective and safe manner.

Designing clinical trials for future space missions as a pathway to changing how clinical trials are conducted on Earth.

OBJECTIVE: The project aims to build a framework for conducting clinical trials for long-term interplanetary missions to contribute to innovation in clinical trials on Earth, especially around patient involvement and ownership. METHODS: We conducted two workshops in which participants were immersed in the speculative scenario of an interplanetary mission in which health problems emerged that required medical trials to resolve. The workshops used virtual reality and live simulation to mimic a zero-gravity environment and visual perception shifts and were followed by group discussion. RESULTS: Some key aspects for the framework that emerged from the workshops included: (a) approaches to be inclusive in the management of the trial, (b) approaches to be inclusive in designing the research project (patient preference trials, n-of-1 trials, designing clinical trials to be part of a future prospective meta-analysis, etc), (c) balancing the research needs and the community needs (eg, allocation of the participants based on both research and community need), (d) ethics and partnerships (ethics and consent issues and how they relate to partnerships and relationships). CONCLUSION: In identifying some key areas that need to be incorporated in future planning of clinical trials for interplanetary missions, we also identified areas that are relevant to engaging patients in clinical trials on Earth. We will suggest using the same methodology to facilitate more in-depth discussions on specific aspects of clinical trials in aerospace medicine. The methodology can be more widely used in other areas to open new inclusive conversations around innovating research methodology.