Awareness and preparedness of healthcare workers against the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey across 57 countries.

BACKGROUND: Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, there have been concerns related to the preparedness of healthcare workers (HCWs). This study aimed to describe the level of awareness and preparedness of hospital HCWs at the time of the first wave. METHODS: This multinational, multicenter, cross-sectional survey was conducted among hospital HCWs from February to May 2020. We used a hierarchical logistic regression multivariate analysis to adjust the influence of variables based on awareness and preparedness. We then used association rule mining to identify relationships between HCW confidence in handling suspected COVID-19 patients and prior COVID-19 case-management training. RESULTS: We surveyed 24,653 HCWs from 371 hospitals across 57 countries and received 17,302 responses from 70.2% HCWs overall. The median COVID-19 preparedness score was 11.0 (interquartile range [IQR] = 6.0-14.0) and the median awareness score was 29.6 (IQR = 26.6-32.6). HCWs at COVID-19 designated facilities with previous outbreak experience, or HCWs who were trained for dealing with the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, had significantly higher levels of preparedness and awareness (p<0.001). Association rule mining suggests that nurses and doctors who had a 'great-extent-of-confidence' in handling suspected COVID-19 patients had participated in COVID-19 training courses. Male participants (mean difference = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.22, 0.46; p<0.001) and nurses (mean difference = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.53, 0.81; p<0.001) had higher preparedness scores compared to women participants and doctors. INTERPRETATION: There was an unsurprising high level of awareness and preparedness among HCWs who participated in COVID-19 training courses. However, disparity existed along the lines of gender and type of HCW. It is unknown whether the difference in COVID-19 preparedness that we detected early in the pandemic may have translated into disproportionate SARS-CoV-2 burden of disease by gender or HCW type.

Cytokine profile in Egyptian children and adolescents with COVID-19 pneumonia: A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: To date, the cytokine profile in children and adolescent with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has not been reported. OBJECTIVES: We investigated serum levels of a panel of key cytokines in children and adolescent with COVID-19 pneumonia with a primary focus on "cytokine storm" cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-1ß, IL-6, IL-17, IL-2, IL-4, IL-10, interferon (IFN-γ), tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, and two chemokines interferon-inducible protein-10 (IP-10) and IL-8. We also studied whether these cytokines could be potential markers for illness severity in COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: Ninety-two symptomatic patients aged less than 18 years with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia and 100 well-matched healthy controls were included in this multi-center study. For all patients, the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in respiratory fluid specimens was detected by real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. We measured serum concentrations of studied cytokines by using flow cytometry. RESULTS: Patients with COVID-19 had significantly higher median IL-1ß, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-17, TNF-α, and IP-10 serum levels than did control children (all p < 0.01). Patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia had significantly higher median IL-1ß, IL-6, and IP-10 serum levels as compared with those with moderate COVID-19 pneumonia; all p < 0.01. ROC analysis revealed that three of the studied markers (IL-6, IL-1ß, and IP-10) could predict severe COVID-19 pneumonia cases with the largest AUC for IL-6 of 0.893 (95% confidence interval: 0.84-0.98; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that pediatric patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have markedly elevated serum IL-1ß, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-17, TNF-α, and IP-10 levels at the initial phase of the illness indicating a cytokine storm following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Moreover, serum IL-6, IL-1ß, and IP-10 concentrations were independent predictors for severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Efficacy of face masks against respiratory infectious diseases: a systematic review and network analysis of randomized-controlled trials.

During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, face masks are among the most common and practical control measures used globally in reducing the risk of infection and disease transmission. Although several studies have investigated the efficacy of various face masks and respirators in preventing infection, the results have been inconsistent. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of the randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the actual efficacy of face masks in preventing respiratory infections. We searched nine electronic databases up to July 2020 to find potential articles. We accepted trials reporting the protective efficacy of face masks against respiratory infections, of which the primary endpoint was the presence of respiratory infections. We used the ROB-2 Cochrane tool to grade the trial quality. We initially registered the protocol for this study in PROSPERO (CRD42020178516). Sixteen RCTs involving 17 048 individuals were included for NMA. Overall, evidence was weak, lacking statistical power due to the small number of participants, and there was substantial inconsistency in our findings. In comparison to those without face masks, participants with fit-tested N95 respirators were likely to have lesser infection risk (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38-1.19,P-score 0.80), followed by those with non-fit-tested N95 and non-fit-tested FFP2 respirators that shared the similar risk, (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.12-4.36,P-score 0.63) and (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.38-1.71,P-score 0.63), respectively. Next, participants who donned face masks with and without hand hygiene practices showed modest risk improvement alike (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67-1.17,P-score 0.55) and (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70-1.22,P-score 0.51). Otherwise, participants donning double-layered cloth masks were prone to infection (RR 4.80, 95% CI 1.42-16.27,P-score 0.01). Eleven out of 16 RCTs that underwent a pairwise meta-analysis revealed a substantially lower infection risk in those donning medical face masks (MFMs) than those without face masks (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.71-0.96). Given the body of evidence through a systematic review and meta-analyses, our findings supported the protective benefits of MFMs in reducing respiratory transmissions, and the universal mask-wearing should be applied-especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. More clinical data is required to conclude the efficiency of cloth masks; in the short term, users should not use cloth face masks in the outbreak hot spots and places where social distancing is impossible.

Haematological abnormalities and risk of COVID-19 infection in adult patients attending primary healthcare settings.

Centres for Disease Control and prevention (CDC) reports that there are limited data and information about the impact of underlying medical conditions and the risk of infection. To date, there are no studies that report on the risk of infection among patients with haematological diseases or abnormalities. This cross-sectional study reports on the baseline complete blood count in patients attending publicly funded primary care settings with a diagnosis of suspected COVID-19 infections in the state of Qatar. The study will report on the descriptive characteristics of the population, including gender, age and prior abnormalities to their blood test results. We will compare the results of those with positive and negative PCR test results, where appropriate. Nine hundred sixty-two adult patients attended publicly funded primary health care settings in the state of Qatar between February the 10th and April the 30th 2020 with a diagnosis of suspected COVID-19 infections had prior recorded blood investigations in the last six months and were included in this study. The population was young, mean of age is 38.8±11.6. (Median: 36 [Min: 19 - Max: 85]). Complete blood count of the sample had minimal missing data points. Females were more presented in our samples, Female (n=560, 58.21%) and Male (n=402, 41.79%). Most of our sample had a documented PCR test result, negative (n=831, 86.38%); positive (n=123, 12.79%) and missing (n=8, 0.83%). Low haemoglobin values (n=265, 27.5%) and low red blood cell count (n =170, 17.7%) were the most prevalent complete blood count abnormality in the population. Leukopenia was less common (n=50, 8.2%). Most of the population had normal platelet count (n=895, 93%). Gender was the most influential factor in our sample to increase the odds of having a positive PCR test results; males were more likely to be affected (P<0.001, Chi-square test) (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.73-3.77). Categories for haematological abnormalities were not associated with increased risk of having a positive PCT test result. In a population attending primary healthcare settings with early presentation of symptoms of COVID-19 infection, the risk of infection among our cohort was not affected by the prior haematological values of those patients. Gender was the most influential parameter in the risk of infection in our population. Analysis of the results using gender-specific categories for different haematological parameters suggested that patients with abnormal haematological values were not at increased risk of having a positive COVID-19 infection.