Associations of Physical Inactivity and COVID-19 Outcomes Among Subgroups.

INTRODUCTION: Physical activity before COVID-19 infection is associated with less severe outcomes. The study determined whether a dose‒response association was observed and whether the associations were consistent across demographic subgroups and chronic conditions. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of Kaiser Permanente Southern California adult patients who had a positive COVID-19 diagnosis between January 1, 2020 and May 31, 2021 was created. The exposure was the median of at least 3 physical activity self-reports before diagnosis. Patients were categorized as follows: always inactive, all assessments at 10 minutes/week or less; mostly inactive, median of 0-60 minutes per week; some activity, median of 60-150 minutes per week; consistently active, median>150 minutes per week; and always active, all assessments>150 minutes per week. Outcomes were hospitalization, deterioration event, or death 90 days after a COVID-19 diagnosis. Data were analyzed in 2022. RESULTS: Of 194,191 adults with COVID-19 infection, 6.3% were hospitalized, 3.1% experienced a deterioration event, and 2.8% died within 90 days. Dose‒response effects were strong; for example, patients in the some activity category had higher odds of hospitalization (OR=1.43; 95% CI=1.26, 1.63), deterioration (OR=1.83; 95% CI=1.49, 2.25), and death (OR=1.92; 95% CI=1.48, 2.49) than those in the always active category. Results were generally consistent across sex, race and ethnicity, age, and BMI categories and for patients with cardiovascular disease or hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: There were protective associations of physical activity for adverse COVID-19 outcomes across demographic and clinical characteristics. Public health leaders should add physical activity to pandemic control strategies.

Pediatric Suspected Suicides and Nonfatal Suicide Attempts Reported to United States Poison Control Centers Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: This study investigated the characteristics and compared the trends of pediatric suspected suicide and nonfatal suicide attempts reported to United States (US) poison control centers (PCCs) before and during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An interrupted time series analysis using an ARIMA model was conducted to evaluate the trends of suspected suicides and nonfatal suicide attempts among children 6-19 years old reported to the National Poison Data System during March 2020 through February 2021 (pandemic period) compared with March 2017 through February 2020 (pre-pandemic period). RESULTS: The annual number of cases of suspected suicides and nonfatal suicide attempts increased by 4.5% (6095/136,194) among children 6-19 years old during March 2020 through February 2021 compared with the average annual number during the previous three pre-pandemic years. There were 11,876 fewer cases than expected from March 2020 to February 2021, attributable to a decrease in cases during the initial three pandemic months. The average monthly and average daily number of suspected suicides and nonfatal suicide attempts among children 6-12 years old and 13-19 years old was higher during school months than non-school months and weekdays than weekends during both the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. CONCLUSIONS: There was a greater than expected decrease in the number of suspected suicides and nonfatal suicide attempts among children 6-19 years old reported to US PCCs during the early pandemic months, followed by an increase in cases. Recognizing these patterns can help guide an appropriate public health response to similar future crises.

Perspectives of (/memorandum for) systems thinking on COVID-19 pandemic and pathology.

Is data-driven analysis sufficient for understanding the COVID-19 pandemic and for justifying public health regulations? In this paper, we argue that such analysis is insufficient. Rather what is needed is the identification and implementation of over-arching hypothesis-related and/or theory-based rationales to conduct effective SARS-CoV2/COVID-19 (Corona) research. To that end, we analyse and compare several published recommendations for conceptual and methodological frameworks in medical research (e.g., public health, preventive medicine and health promotion) to current research approaches in medical Corona research. Although there were several efforts published in the literature to develop integrative conceptual frameworks before the COVID-19 pandemic, such as social ecology for public health issues and systems thinking in health care, only a few attempts to utilize these concepts can be found in medical Corona research. For this reason, we propose nested and integrative systemic modelling approaches to understand Corona pandemic and Corona pathology. We conclude that institutional efforts for knowledge integration and systemic thinking, but also for integrated science, are urgently needed to avoid or mitigate future pandemics and to resolve infection pathology.

Pediatric poison exposures reported to United States poison centers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with pediatric poison exposures with a focus on unintentional exposures associated with exploratory behavior among children <6 years old. METHODS: An interrupted time series analysis was conducted to evaluate the association of the pandemic with poison exposures among youth <20 years old. Exposures reported to US poison centers (PCs) from 1 March 2017 through 28 February 2020 (pre-pandemic) compared with 1 March 2020 through 28 February 2021 (pandemic) were analyzed. RESULTS: From March 2017 through February 2021, there were 5,244,684 exposures reported to US PCs involving youth <20 years old. There was a 6.0% decrease in poison exposures among youth <20 years old reported to US PCs from pre-pandemic (annual average) to pandemic periods, and there were 93,336 (95% CI: 92,738-93,937) fewer exposures than expected among these individuals during March 2020 through February 2021. Unintentional poison exposures associated with exploratory behavior among children <6 years old accounted for 91.4% of exposures in this age group, and although there were 17,207 (95% CI: 16,951-17,466) fewer of these exposures than expected during the pandemic period, these exposures initially increased during the first two months of the pandemic before decreasing. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with changes in poison exposure patterns among youth <20 years old, resulting in a decrease in the number of exposures reported to US PCs during the first pandemic year. Exposure patterns changed with progression from the initial months of the pandemic to later months and varied by age group and reason for exposure. Unintentional poison exposures associated with exploratory behavior among children <6 years demonstrated an increase during the initial first two months of the pandemic before decreasing. Understanding these patterns will help guide an appropriate response to similar future public health events.

Toward a big picture of COVID-19.

The paper aims to illustrate and explain the problems and opportunities for improvement in Covid management that become evident when taking a systems perspective. Critical time delays occurred in the regulation of the pandemic that the management cycle of political cybernetics makes explicit. In general, the executive management of the pandemic in global, regional, and national organizations was unprepared in detecting and responding to the onset of the waves and making appropriate decisions towards differential instead of general lockdowns based on available data. This was further complicated by the mutants of SARS-CoV2 that perpetuated the high dynamics of the pandemic. In addition, the diversity of medical specialisms, without appropriate big picture thinking, led to an imbalanced response that failed to appreciate the role of virology and epidemiology compared to clinical and public health-related issues. In consequence, laboratory experts suggested everyday regulations for the citizens without taking into account wider considerations for empirical research. There was an insufficient effort made for proposed treatment studies using existing agents based on the established understanding of essential physiology and the role of local and systemic chronic inflammation. In contrast, driven by media popularization, drugs that later proved beneficial were put in doubt and other drugs that lacked benefit and potentially caused harm were driven to clinical trials and utilization. Person-centered systems view backed by scientific knowledge and established data would have set better priorities. Finally, we need to take a step back and consider the Corona crisis pandemic in the context of the unidimensional utility-driven handling of natural ecosystems by the culture of industrialized countries. This ever-accelerating destruction of life spaces for species drives adaptations are the basis of zoonoses. There is strong evidence that future pandemics should be faced with a more systemic socio-ecological conceptual framework that also reflects the fatal impact of human civilization on natural ecosystems, no matter if SARS CoV2 is a zoonosis or a laboratory accident. It is critical for the future of our species that we collectively learn from this experience, address limitations in our perspectives, enhance our system-based science and bolster global, regional, and national crisis management. The impact of climate change and biodiversity loss has crossed the horizon and is now clearly in full sight.

Lessons from the implementation of the Health Care Homes program.

Australia's primary health care system works well for most Australians, but 20% of people live with multimorbidity, often receiving fragmented care in a complex system. Australia's 10-year plan for primary health care recognises that person-centred care is essential to securing universal health coverage, improving health outcomes and achieving an integrated sustainable health system. The Health Care Homes trial tested a new model of person-centred care for people with chronic and complex health conditions. This model demonstrated that change can be achieved with dedicated transformational support and highlighted the importance of enablers and reform streams that are now established in the 10-year plan.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on in-hospital cardiac arrests in the UK.

AIMS: To compare in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) rates and patient outcomes during the first COVID-19 wave in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2020 with the same period in previous years. METHODS: A retrospective, multicentre cohort study of 154 UK hospitals that participate in the National Cardiac Arrest Audit and have intensive care units participating in the Case Mix Programme national audit of intensive care. Hospital burden of COVID-19 was defined by the number of patients with confirmed SARS-CoV2 infection admitted to critical care per 10,000 hospital admissions. RESULTS: 16,474 patients with IHCA where a resuscitation team attended were included. Patients admitted to hospital during 2020 were younger, more often male, and of non-white ethnicity compared with 2016-2019. A decreasing trend in IHCA rates between 2016 and 2019 was reversed in 2020. Hospitals with higher burden of COVID-19 had the greatest difference in IHCA rates (21.8 per 10,000 admissions in April 2020 vs 14.9 per 10,000 in April 2019). The proportions of patients achieving ROSC ≥ 20 min and surviving to hospital discharge were lower in 2020 compared with 2016-19 (46.2% vs 51.2%; and 21.9% vs 22.9%, respectively). Among patients with IHCA, higher hospital burden of COVID-19 was associated with reduced survival to hospital discharge (OR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.93 to 0.98; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with 2016-2019, the first COVID-19 wave in 2020 was associated with a higher rate of IHCA and decreased survival among patients attended by resuscitation teams. These changes were greatest in hospitals with the highest COVID-19 burden.

Systems analysis shows that thermodynamic physiological and pharmacological fundamentals drive COVID-19 and response to treatment.

Why a systems analysis view of this pandemic? The current pandemic has inflicted almost unimaginable grief, sorrow, loss, and terror at a global scale. One of the great ironies with the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly early on, is counter intuitive. The speed at which specialized basic and clinical sciences described the details of the damage to humans in COVID-19 disease has been impressive. Equally, the development of vaccines in an amazingly short time interval has been extraordinary. However, what has been less well understood has been the fundamental elements that underpin the progression of COVID-19 in an individual and in populations. We have used systems analysis approaches with human physiology and pharmacology to explore the fundamental underpinnings of COVID-19 disease. Pharmacology powerfully captures the thermodynamic characteristics of molecular binding with an exogenous entity such as a virus and its consequences on the living processes well described by human physiology. Thus, we have documented the passage of SARS-CoV-2 from infection of a single cell to species jump, to tropism, variant emergence and widespread population infection. During the course of this review, the recurrent observation was the efficiency and simplicity of one critical function of this virus. The lethality of SARS-CoV-2 is due primarily to its ability to possess and use a variable surface for binding to a specific human target with high affinity. This binding liberates Gibbs free energy (GFE) such that it satisfies the criteria for thermodynamic spontaneity. Its binding is the prelude to human host cellular entry and replication by the appropriation of host cell constituent molecules that have been produced with a prior energy investment by the host cell. It is also a binding that permits viral tropism to lead to high levels of distribution across populations with newly formed virions. This thermodynamic spontaneity is repeated endlessly as infection of a single host cell spreads to bystander cells, to tissues, to humans in close proximity and then to global populations. The principal antagonism of this process comes from SARS-CoV-2 itself, with its relentless changing of its viral surface configuration, associated with the inevitable emergence of variants better configured to resist immune sequestration and importantly with a greater affinity for the host target and higher infectivity. The great value of this physiological and pharmacological perspective is that it reveals the fundamental thermodynamic underpinnings of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The interacting physiology of COVID-19 and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system: Key agents for treatment.

SARS-CoV-2 interacting with its receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), turns the host response to viral infection into a dysregulated uncontrolled inflammatory response. This is because ACE2 limits the production of the peptide angiotensin II (Ang II) and SARS-CoV-2, through the destruction of ACE2, allows the uncontrolled production of Ang II. Recovery from trauma requires activation of both a tissue response to injury and activation of a whole-body response to maintain tissue perfusion. Tissue and circulating renin-angiotensin systems (RASs) play an essential role in the host response to infection and injury because of the actions of Ang II, mediated via its AT1 receptor. Both tissue and circulating arms of the renin angiotensin aldosterone system's (RAAS) response to injury need to be regulated. The effects of Ang II and the steroid hormone, aldosterone, on fluid and electrolyte homeostasis and on the circulation are controlled by elaborate feedback networks that respond to alterations in the composition and volume of fluids within the circulatory system. The role of Ang II in the tissue response to injury is however, controlled mainly by its metabolism and conversion to Ang-(1-7) by the enzyme ACE2. Ang-(1-7) has effects that are contrary to Ang II-AT1 R mediated effects. Thus, destruction of ACE2 by SARS-CoV-2 results in loss of control of the pro-inflammatory actions of Ang II and tissue destruction. Therefore, it is the response of the host to SARS-CoV-2 that is responsible for the pathogenesis of COVID-19.

Physical inactivity is associated with a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes: a study in 48 440 adult patients.

OBJECTIVES: To compare hospitalisation rates, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and mortality for patients with COVID-19 who were consistently inactive, doing some activity or consistently meeting physical activity guidelines. METHODS: We identified 48 440 adult patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis from 1 January 2020 to 21 October 2020, with at least three exercise vital sign measurements from 19 March 2018 to 18 March 2020. We linked each patient's self-reported physical activity category (consistently inactive=0-10 min/week, some activity=11-149 min/week, consistently meeting guidelines=150+ min/week) to the risk of hospitalisation, ICU admission and death after COVID-19 diagnosis. We conducted multivariable logistic regression controlling for demographics and known risk factors to assess whether inactivity was associated with COVID-19 outcomes. RESULTS: Patients with COVID-19 who were consistently inactive had a greater risk of hospitalisation (OR 2.26; 95% CI 1.81 to 2.83), admission to the ICU (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.18 to 2.55) and death (OR 2.49; 95% CI 1.33 to 4.67) due to COVID-19 than patients who were consistently meeting physical activity guidelines. Patients who were consistently inactive also had a greater risk of hospitalisation (OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32), admission to the ICU (OR 1.10; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29) and death (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.60) due to COVID-19 than patients who were doing some physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: Consistently meeting physical activity guidelines was strongly associated with a reduced risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes among infected adults. We recommend efforts to promote physical activity be prioritised by public health agencies and incorporated into routine medical care.

Physical Activity among Adults Residing in 11 Countries during the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown.

During the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, physical activity (PA) behaviors were altered worldwide due to public health measures such as "lockdown." This study described PA among adults residing in 11 countries during COVID-19 lockdown and examined factors associated with PA engagement. We conducted a cross-sectional anonymous survey among adults (≥18 years old) in 11 countries (Brazil, Bulgaria, China, India, Ireland, Malaysia, North Macedonia, Singapore, Spain, Turkey, United States). Of 11,775 participants, 63.7% were female and 52.8% were 18-34 years old. More than 40% of participants were insufficiently active (43.9%) and reported a decrease in their PA during lockdown (44.8%). Statistically significant differences were observed in (1) proportions of participants being insufficiently active, (2) level of PA, and (3) decrease in PA across the 11 countries. More stringent governmental policy responses were associated with greater likelihood of being insufficiently active during lockdown (adjusted odds ratio = 1.22, 95% confidence interval = 1.03, 1.45). Higher depression or anxiety scores were associated with greater likelihood of decreased level of PA during lockdown.We found substantial reductions in PA levels during COVID-19 lockdown across countries. Country-specific PA promotion interventions are needed during this and similar global emergencies.

Mental Health among Adults during the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown: A Cross-Sectional Multi-Country Comparison.

Despite the global impact of COVID-19, studies comparing the effects of COVID-19 on population mental health across countries are sparse. This study aimed to compare anxiety and depression symptoms during the COVID-19 lockdown among adults from 11 countries and to examine their associations with country-level COVID-19 factors and personal COVID-19 exposure. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among adults (≥18 years) in 11 countries (Brazil, Bulgaria, China, India, Ireland, North Macedonia, Malaysia, Singapore, Spain, Turkey, United States). Mental health (anxiety, depression, resilient coping, hope) and other study data were collected between June-August 2020. Of the 13,263 participants, 62.8% were female and 51.7% were 18-34 years old. Participants living in Brazil had the highest anxiety and depression symptoms while participants living in Singapore had the lowest. Greater personal COVID-19 exposure was associated with increased anxiety and depression symptoms, but country-level COVID-19 factors were not. Higher levels of hope were associated with reduced anxiety and depression; higher levels of resilient coping were associated with reduced anxiety but not depression. Substantial variations exist in anxiety and depression symptoms across countries during the COVID-19 lockdown, with personal COVID-19 exposure being a significant risk factor. Strategies that mitigate COVID-19 exposure and enhance hope and resilience may reduce anxiety and depression during global emergencies.

Midwives' views towards women using mHealth and eHealth to self-monitor their pregnancy: A systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: There are many mobile telephone apps to help women self-monitor aspects of pregnancy and maternal health. This literature review aims to understand midwives' perspectives on women self-monitoring their pregnancy using eHealth and mHealth, and establish gaps in research. METHODS: MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycINFO were systematically searched on midwifery, eHealth/mHealth and perspectives. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies published in English were considered for inclusion in the review, without geographical limitations. Relevant articles were critically appraised and narrative synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: Twelve relevant papers covering midwives' perspectives of the use of eHealth and mHealth by pregnant women were obtained for inclusion in this review. Seven of these publications focused on midwives' views of eHealth, and five on their perspectives of mHealth interventions. The studies included demonstrate that midwives generally hold ambivalent views towards the use of eHealth and mHealth technologies in antenatal care. Often, midwives acknowledged the potential benefits of such technologies, such as their ability to modernise antenatal care and to help women make more informed decisions about their pregnancy. However, midwives were quick to point out the risks and limitations of these, such as the accuracy of conveyed information, and negative impacts on the patient-professional relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Post-COVID-19, where technology is continuously developing, there is a compelling need for studies that investigate the role of eHealth and mHealth in self-monitoring pregnancy, and the consequences this has for pregnant women, health professionals and organisations, as well as midwifery curricula.

Impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the patterns of vital signs recording and staff compliance with expected monitoring schedules on general wards.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) placed increased burdens on National Health Service hospitals and necessitated significant adjustments to their structures and processes. This research investigated if and how these changes affected the patterns of vital sign recording and staff compliance with expected monitoring schedules on general wards. METHODS: We compared the pattern of vital signs and early warning score (EWS) data collected from admissions to a single hospital during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic with those in three control periods from 2018, 2019 and 2020. Main outcome measures were weekly and monthly hospital admissions; daily and hourly patterns of recorded vital signs and EWS values; time to next observation and; proportions of 'on time', 'late' and 'missed' vital signs observations sets. RESULTS: There were large falls in admissions at the beginning of the COVID-19 era. Admissions were older, more unwell on admission and throughout their stay, more often required supplementary oxygen, spent longer in hospital and had a higher in-hospital mortality compared to one or more of the control periods. More daily observation sets were performed during the COVID-19 era than in the control periods. However, there was no clear evidence that COVID-19 affected the pattern of vital signs collection across the 24-h period or the week. CONCLUSIONS: The increased burdens of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the alterations in healthcare structures and processes necessary to respond to it, did not adversely affect the hospitals' ability to monitor patients under its care and to comply with expected monitoring schedules.

The performance of the National Early Warning Score and National Early Warning Score 2 in hospitalised patients infected by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

INTRODUCTION: Since the introduction of the UK's National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and its modification, NEWS2, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has caused a worldwide pandemic. NEWS and NEWS2 have good predictive abilities in patients with other infections and sepsis, however there is little evidence of their performance in COVID-19. METHODS: Using receiver-operating characteristics analyses, we used the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve to evaluate the performance of NEWS or NEWS2 to discriminate the combined outcome of either death or intensive care unit (ICU) admission within 24 h of a vital sign set in five cohorts (COVID-19 POSITIVE, n = 405; COVID-19 NOT DETECTED, n = 1716; COVID-19 NOT TESTED, n = 2686; CONTROL 2018, n = 6273; CONTROL 2019, n = 6523). RESULTS: The AUROC values for NEWS or NEWS2 for the combined outcome were: COVID-19 POSITIVE, 0.882 (0.868-0.895); COVID-19 NOT DETECTED, 0.875 (0.861-0.89); COVID-19 NOT TESTED, 0.876 (0.85-0.902); CONTROL 2018, 0.894 (0.884-0.904); CONTROL 2019, 0.842 (0.829-0.855). CONCLUSIONS: The finding that NEWS or NEWS2 performance was good and similar in all five cohorts (range = 0.842-0.894) suggests that amendments to NEWS or NEWS2, such as the addition of new covariates or the need to change the weighting of existing parameters, are unnecessary when evaluating patients with COVID-19. Our results support the national and international recommendations for the use of NEWS or NEWS2 for the assessment of acute-illness severity in patients with COVID-19.

The Lung, the Heart, the Novel Coronavirus, and the Renin-Angiotensin System; The Need for Clinical Trials.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is the receptor for COVID-19 (SARs-CoV-2). ACE2 protects the lung and heart from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and acute myocarditis and arrhythmias, because it breaks down Angiotensin II, which has inflammatory effects in the lung and heart as well as in the kidney. When SARS-CoV-2 binds to ACE2, it suppresses it, so this protective action of ACE2 is lost. Death from COVID-19 is due to ARDS and also heart failure and acute cardiac injury. Drugs that prevent the inflammatory actions of Angiotensin II (i.e., Angiotensin receptor blockers, ARBs) prevent acute lung injury caused by SARS-CoV. Clinical trials are underway to test the risks and benefits of ARBs and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization. Other potential treatments are also discussed.