Palliative care for cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A narrative synthesis from 36 studies of 16 countries.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 epidemic, palliative care has become even more indispensable for cancer patients. AIM: To identify the changes in palliative care for cancer patients and improvements in palliative care quality during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: A systematic review and narrative synthesis was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. An evaluation tool using mixed methods was used to assess the quality of the study. The main relevant themes identified were used to group qualitative and quantitative findings. RESULTS: A total of 36 studies were identified, primarily from different countries, with a total of 14,427 patients, 238 caregivers and 354 health care providers. Cancer palliative care has been experiencing several difficulties following the COVID-19 pandemic, including increased mortality and infection rates as well as delays in patient treatment that have resulted in poorer prognoses. Treatment providers are seeking solutions such as electronic management of patients and integration of resources to care for the mental health of patients and staff. Telemedicine plays an important role in many ways but cannot completely replace traditional treatment. Clinicians strive to meet patients' palliative care needs during special times and improve their quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative care faces unique challenges during the COVID-19 epidemic. With adequate support to alleviate care-related challenges, patients in the home versus hospital setting will be able to receive better palliative care. In addition, this review highlights the importance of multiparty collaboration to achieve personal and societal benefits of palliative care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution.

Clinical outcomes of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron and Delta variant: systematic review and meta-analysis of 33 studies covering 6 037 144 coronavirus disease 2019-positive patients.

BACKGROUND: Although the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant is considered to induce less severe disease, there have been no consistent results on the extent of the decrease in severity. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical outcomes of COVID-19-positive patients with Omicron and Delta variant infection. DATA SOURCES: Searches were implemented up to 8 November 2022 in PubMed, Web of Science, BioRvix, and MedRvix. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies were cohort studies reporting the clinical outcomes of COVID-19-positive patients with Omicron and Delta variant infection, including hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and death. PARTICIPANTS: COVID-19-positive patients with Omicron and Delta variant infection. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Risk of bias was assessed employing the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effect models were employed to pool the ORs and 95% CIs to compare the risk of clinical outcome. I2 was employed to evaluate the heterogeneity between studies. RESULTS: A total of 33 studies with 6 037 144 COVID-19-positive patients were included in this meta-analysis. In the general population of COVID-19-positive patients, compared with Delta, Omicron variant infection resulted in a decreased risk of hospitalization (10.24% vs. 4.14%, OR = 2.91, 95% CI = 2.35-3.60), ICU admission (3.67% vs. 0.48%, OR = 3.64, 95% CI = 2.63-5.04), receiving IMV (3.93% vs. 0.34%, OR = 3.11, 95% CI = 1.76-5.50), and death (2.40% vs. 0.46%, OR = 2.97, 95% CI = 2.17-4.08). In the hospitalized patients with COVID-19, compared with Delta, Omicron variant infection resulted in a decreased risk of ICU admission (20.70% vs. 12.90%, OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.32-2.02), receiving IMV (10.90% vs. 5.80%, OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.28-2.14), and death (10.72% vs. 7.10%, OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.22-1.71). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Delta, the severity of Omicron variant infection decreased.

COVID-19 pandemic increases the occurrence of nursing burnout syndrome: an interrupted time-series analysis of preliminary data from 38 countries.

AIM: To evaluate the trends in nursing burnout rates before and during the coronavirus 2019 restrictions. METHOD: Meta-analysis was used to extract the data on global nursing burnout from 1 Jan. 2010-15 Dec. 2022. An interrupted time-series analysis using segmented ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models was used to explore if the nursing burnout were affected by the epidemic. Newey-West standard error was used to adjust for autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity. RESULTS: Before the epidemic (April 2020), the nursing burnout rate rose with 0.0007497 (95% CI: 0.0000316, 0.0014677, t = 2.07, P = 0.041) per month. The trend of nursing burnout rate has increased by 0.0231042 (95 CI%:0.0086818, 0.0375266, t = 3.18, P = 0.002). The increasing trend of nursing burnout rate after the COVID-19 restrictions is 0.0007497 + 0.0231042 = 0.0238539 per month. CONCLUSION: The study indicated that the Covid-19 restrictions had an impact on nursing burnout, increasing the occurrence of nursing burnout syndrome.

Cardio-Cerebrovascular Disease is Associated With Severity and Mortality of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

At present, COVID-19 is raging all over the world. Many comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus (OR = 2.67, 95% CI = 1.91-3.74) and hypertension (OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.76-3.00), have been shown to worsen the patient's condition. However, whether cardio-cerebrovascular disease will affect COVID-19 remains unclear. In this meta-analysis, we collected studies from PubMed, Wed of Science and CNKI (Chinese) to July 25, which reported COVID-19 patients with and without cardio-cerebrovascular disease as well as their severity and mortality. The random-effect model meta-analysis was used to analyze them and get overall odds ratios (OR) with 95% CIs. Funnel plots and the Begg's and Egger's test were used to assess publication bias. Thirty-one studies with 23,632 patients were finally included in the meta-analysis. The results showed an OR of 3.004 (95% CI = 2.097-4.303) for COVID-19 severity and an OR of 5.587 (95% CI = 2.810-11.112) for COVID-19 mortality. Compared with cardiovascular disease, the subgroup analysis indicated that cerebrovascular disease was more likely to increase the severity (OR = 3.400, 95% CI = 1.569-7.368) and mortality (OR = 23.477, 95% CI = 3.050-180.735) of COVID-19. Therefore, it can be inferred that cardio-cerebrovascular disease is associated with an increase in the risk of severe illness and death among COVID-19 patients. This meta-analysis showed that cardio-cerebrovascular disease has a significant relation with severe and death outcomes of COVID-19. Nurses should pay special attention to COVID-19 patients with the cardio-cerebrovascular disease.

Association between ABO blood groups and COVID-19 infection, severity and demise: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The COVID-19 spreads rapidly around the world which has brought a global health crisis. The pathogen of COVID-19 is SARS-COV-2, and previous studies have proposed the relationship between ABO blood group and coronavirus. Here, we aim to delve into the association between ABO blood group and COVID-19 infection, severity and demise. METHODS: The relevant studies were retrieved from five databases: PubMed, MedRxiv, BioRxiv,Web of Science and CNKI. Members of cases(symptomatic cases, severe cases, died cases) and controls(asymptomatic controls, non-severe controls, alive controls) were extracted from collected studies. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and interpreted from extracted data. Publication bias and sensitivity analysis were also applied to confirm our discovery. RESULTS: Overall 31,100 samples were included in the analysis. Compared to other ABO blood type, an increased odds of infecting COVID-19 among individuals with A blood group (OR: 1.249, 95%CI: 1.114-1.440, P < 0.001) and a decreased odds of infecting COVID-19 among individuals with blood group O (OR: 0.699, 95%CI: 0.635-0.770, P < 0.001) were found. Besides, individuals with blood group AB seems to link a higher risk to COVID-19 severity (OR: 2.424, 95%CI: 0.934-6.294) and demise (OR: 1.348, 95%CI: 0.507-3.583). Meantime, individuals with O blood group might had lower risk to COVID-19 severity (OR: 0.748, 95%CI: 0.556-1.007), and individuals with B blood group were likely to relate a lower risk to COVID-19 demise. CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis suggest that blood type A might be more susceptible to infect COVID-19 while blood type O might be less susceptible to infect COVID-19; there were no correlation between ABO blood group and severity or demise of COVID-19. However, more investigation and research are warranted to clarify the relationship between COVID-19 and ABO blood type.