Nephrologists' perspectives on the impact of COVID-19 on caring for patients undergoing dialysis in Latin America: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the experiences of nephrologists on caring for patients undergoing in-centre haemodialysis during the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America. DESIGN: Twenty-five semistructured interviews were conducted by Zoom videoconference in English and Spanish languages during 2020 until data saturation. Using thematic analysis, we conducted line-by-line coding to inductively identify themes. SETTING: 25 centres across nine countries in Latin America. PARTICIPANTS: Nephrologists (17 male and 8 female) were purposively sampled to include diverse demographic characteristics and clinical experience. RESULTS: We identified five themes: shock and immediate mobilisation for preparedness (overwhelmed and distressed, expanding responsibilities to manage COVID-19 infection and united for workforce resilience); personal vulnerability (being infected with COVID-19 and fear of transmitting COVID-19 to family); infrastructural susceptibility of dialysis units (lacking resources and facilities for quarantine, struggling to prevent cross-contamination, and depletion of personal protective equipment and cleaning supplies); helplessness and moral distress (being forced to ration life-sustaining equipment and care, being concerned about delayed and shortened dialysis sessions, patient hesitancy to attend to dialysis sessions, being grieved by socioeconomic disparities, deterioration of patients with COVID-19, harms of isolation and inability to provide kidney replacement therapy); and fostering innovative delivery of care (expanding use of telehealth, increasing uptake of PD and shifting focus on preventing syndemics). CONCLUSION: Nephrologists felt personally and professionally vulnerable and reported feeling helpless and morally distressed because they doubted their capacity to provide safe care for patients undergoing dialysis. Better availability and mobilisation of resources and capacities to adapt models of care, including telehealth and home-based dialysis, are urgently needed.

Predictors of cognitive dysfunction one-year post COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: (a) To characterize the frequency of objective cognitive deficits and self-perceived cognitive difficulties and (b) to explore demographic and clinical predictors of cognitive dysfunction and cognitive complaints. METHOD: One hundred and ten adults diagnosed with COVID-19 between March and November 2020, aged ≤ 74 years underwent a brief neuropsychological evaluation 12 months after infection, which included: Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised, California Verbal Learning Test, and Symbol Digit Modalities Test. T scores < 38 were considered abnormal performance; cognitive dysfunction was defined as ≥ 2 abnormal tests. Participants also completed Broadbent's Cognitive Failure Questionnaires (CFQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, and Short-Form Health Survey. CFQ ≥ 43 was considered indicative of cognitive complaints. RESULTS: Twenty participants (18.2%) had cognitive dysfunction and 36 (33.3%) had cognitive complaints. Cognitive dysfunction was related to lower education, preinfection history of headache/migraine, and acute COVID-19 symptoms of headache and sleep disturbance. Cognitive complaints were more likely to occur in women, those with fewer years of education, and acute COVID-19 symptoms of headache and sleep disturbance. Cognitive complaints were also significantly related to symptoms of anxiety, depression, and fatigue. Sex and psychopathology were not significant predictors of cognitive dysfunction. Modest associations were found between CFQ total score and cognitive test performance. DISCUSSION: A subset of individuals develops cognitive difficulties in the context of post-COVID syndrome. Results may support the protective effect of education, a known proxy of cognitive reserve. COVID-19 infection symptoms of headache and sleep disturbance appear to be risk factors for long-term cognitive difficulties. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

NAVKIDS2 trial: a multi-centre, waitlisted randomised controlled trial of a patient navigator intervention in children with chronic kidney disease - statistical analysis plan and update to the protocol.

BACKGROUND: This update summarises key changes made to the protocol since the publication of the original protocol for the NAVKIDS2 trial of patient navigators for children with chronic kidney disease (CKD) experiencing social disadvantage and provides the statistical analysis plan (SAP) which has not previously been published. METHODS/DESIGN: The original protocol was published in BMC Nephrology ( https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-019-1325-y ) prior to the commencement of trial recruitment. During the course of the trial, some key methodological changes needed to be made including changes to eligibility criteria (addition of patients with CKD stages 1-2, broadening of financial status eligibility criterion, addition of patients living in rural/remote areas, modification of age eligibility to 0-16 years, addition of limits related to the language spoken by family, guidance regarding families with multiple eligible children), changes to sites, reduction of sample size, addition of virtual options for consent and study procedures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, removal of staggered recruitment across sites, addition of outcomes, and changes to the timing and number of assessments. This update summarises the changes made and their rationale and provides the detailed plan for statistical analysis of the trial. These changes have been finalised prior to the completion of study follow-up and the commencement of data analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12618001152213 . Prospectively registered on 12 July 2018.

Remdesivir for the treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving supplemental oxygen: a targeted literature review and meta-analysis.

This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the efficacy of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen. Randomized controlled trials of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, where patients were receiving supplemental oxygen at baseline and at least one arm received treatment with remdesivir, were identified. Outcomes included mortality, recovery, and no longer requiring supplemental oxygen. NMAs were performed for low-flow oxygen (LFO2); high-flow oxygen (HFO2), including NIV (non-invasive ventilation); or oxygen at any flow (AnyO2) at early (day 14/15) and late (day 28/29) time points. Six studies were included (N = 5245 patients) in the NMA. Remdesivir lowered early and late mortality among AnyO2 patients (risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.34-0.79; RR 0.81, 95%CrI 0.69-0.95) and LFO2 patients (RR 0.21, 95%CrI 0.09-0.46; RR 0.24, 95%CrI 0.11-0.48); no improvement was observed among HFO2 patients. Improved early and late recovery was observed among LFO2 patients (RR 1.22, 95%CrI 1.09-1.38; RR 1.17, 95%CrI 1.09-1.28). Remdesivir also lowered the requirement for oxygen support among all patient subgroups. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen at baseline, use of remdesivir compared to best supportive care is likely to improve the risk of mortality, recovery and need for oxygen support in AnyO2 and LFO2 patients.

Perspectives of patients, family members, health professionals and the public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has seen a global surge in anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and stress. AIMS: This study aimed to describe the perspectives of patients with COVID-19, their family, health professionals, and the general public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health. METHODS: A secondary thematic analysis was conducted using data from the COVID-19 COS project. We extracted data on the perceived causes and impact of COVID-19 on mental health from an international survey and seven online consensus workshops. RESULTS: We identified four themes (with subthemes in parenthesis): anxiety amidst uncertainty (always on high alert, ebb and flow of recovery); anguish of a threatened future (intense frustration of a changed normality, facing loss of livelihood, trauma of ventilation, a troubling prognosis, confronting death); bearing responsibility for transmission (fear of spreading COVID-19 in public; overwhelming guilt of infecting a loved one); and suffering in isolation (severe solitude of quarantine, sick and alone, separation exacerbating grief). CONCLUSION: We found that the unpredictability of COVID-19, the fear of long-term health consequences, burden of guilt, and suffering in isolation profoundly impacted mental health. Clinical and public health interventions are needed to manage the psychological consequences arising from this pandemic.

Renal disease in Aboriginal children and young adults (ARDAC): evolution to a data linkage study

Focus of Presentation The ' Antecedents of Renal Disease in Aboriginal Children and Young Adults' (ARDAC) Study was the first large population-based longitudinal cohort study seeking to identify the early emergence and trajectory of kidney disease among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children. Since 2002, 3758 young people (2155 Aboriginal and 1603 non-Aboriginal) from across New South Wales, Australia, were enrolled, with clinical data collected every two years. However, the confluence of a maturing cohort, local issues (bushfires), and the COVID19 pandemic made follow-up screenings a challenge. As such, in 2021, ARDAC evolved into a data linkage to evaluate the cohort's healthcare utilization and kidney health trajectory. Findings The ARDAC dataset contains 340 variables, which have been linked to a further 878 variables from state and federal government agency administrative datasets. Data incorporated in the linkage includes perinatal, pharmaceutical, hospital admissions, literacy, kidney health, kidney transplant, and death data. Preliminary findings from this unique and important linkage will be the focus of this presentation. Conclusions/Implications The breadth and scope of this data linkage makes it the largest on the kidney health of First Nations Peoples internationally. Analysis will provide a detailed understanding of the healthcare usage of this population and identify critical gender-specific timepoints and risk factors to inform the development of co-designed, community-driven strategies for future action. Key messages With governance provided by a strong Investigator-Advisory Group nexus, with extensive representation from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers, patients, and community leaders, ARDAC is an exemplar of Aboriginal community-led research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of International Journal of Epidemiology is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Incidence and Outcomes of COVID-19 in People With CKD: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disproportionately affects people with chronic diseases such as chronic kidney disease (CKD). We assessed the incidence and outcomes of COVID-19 in people with CKD. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed through February 2021. SETTING & STUDY POPULATIONS: People with CKD with or without COVID-19. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: Cohort and case-control studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Incidences of COVID-19, death, respiratory failure, dyspnea, recovery, intensive care admission, hospital admission, need for supplemental oxygen, hospital discharge, sepsis, short-term dialysis, acute kidney injury, and fatigue. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Random-effects meta-analysis and evidence certainty adjudicated using an adapted version of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RESULTS: 348 studies (382,407 participants with COVID-19 and CKD; 1,139,979 total participants with CKD) were included. Based on low-certainty evidence, the incidence of COVID-19 was higher in people with CKD treated with dialysis (105 per 10,000 person-weeks; 95% CI, 91-120; 95% prediction interval [PrI], 25-235; 59 studies; 468,233 participants) than in those with CKD not requiring kidney replacement therapy (16 per 10,000 person-weeks; 95% CI, 4-33; 95% PrI, 0-92; 5 studies; 70,683 participants) or in kidney or pancreas/kidney transplant recipients (23 per 10,000 person-weeks; 95% CI, 18-30; 95% PrI, 2-67; 29 studies; 120,281 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, the incidence of death in people with CKD and COVID-19 was 32 per 1,000 person-weeks (95% CI, 30-35; 95% PrI, 4-81; 229 studies; 70,922 participants), which may be higher than in people with CKD without COVID-19 (incidence rate ratio, 10.26; 95% CI, 6.78-15.53; 95% PrI, 2.62-40.15; 4 studies; 18,347 participants). LIMITATIONS: Analyses were generally based on low-certainty evidence. Few studies reported outcomes in people with CKD without COVID-19 to calculate the excess risk attributable to COVID-19, and potential confounders were not adjusted for in most studies. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of COVID-19 may be higher in people receiving maintenance dialysis than in those with CKD not requiring kidney replacement therapy or those who are kidney or pancreas/kidney transplant recipients. People with CKD and COVID-19 may have a higher incidence of death than people with CKD without COVID-19.

Core Outcome Measures for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Respiratory Failure, Multiorgan Failure, Shortness of Breath, and Recovery.

OBJECTIVES: Respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, recovery, and mortality have been identified as critically important core outcomes by more than 9300 patients, health professionals, and the public from 111 countries in the global coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set initiative. The aim of this project was to establish the core outcome measures for these domains for trials in coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Three online consensus workshops were convened to establish outcome measures for the four core domains of respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery. SETTING: International. PATIENTS: About 130 participants (patients, public, and health professionals) from 17 countries attended the three workshops. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Respiratory failure, assessed by the need for respiratory support based on the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale, was considered pragmatic, objective, and with broad applicability to various clinical scenarios. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was recommended for multiple organ failure, because it was routinely used in trials and clinical care, well validated, and feasible. The Modified Medical Research Council measure for shortness of breath, with minor adaptations (recall period of 24 hr to capture daily fluctuations and inclusion of activities to ensure relevance and to capture the extreme severity of shortness of breath in people with coronavirus disease 2019), was regarded as fit for purpose for this indication. The recovery measure was developed de novo and defined as the absence of symptoms, resumption of usual daily activities, and return to the previous state of health prior to the illness, using a 5-point Likert scale, and was endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set recommended core outcome measures have content validity and are considered the most feasible and acceptable among existing measures. Implementation of the core outcome measures in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 will ensure consistency and relevance of the evidence to inform decision-making and care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Core Outcomes Set for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The outcomes reported in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 are extremely heterogeneous and of uncertain patient relevance, limiting their applicability for clinical decision-making. The aim of this workshop was to establish a core outcomes set for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Four international online multistakeholder consensus workshops were convened to discuss proposed core outcomes for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019, informed by a survey involving 9,289 respondents from 111 countries. The transcripts were analyzed thematically. The workshop recommendations were used to finalize the core outcomes set. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: Six themes were identified. "Responding to the critical and acute health crisis" reflected the immediate focus on saving lives and preventing life-threatening complications that underpinned the high prioritization of mortality, respiratory failure, and multiple organ failure. "Capturing different settings of care" highlighted the need to minimize the burden on hospitals and to acknowledge outcomes in community settings. "Encompassing the full trajectory and severity of disease" was addressing longer term impacts and the full spectrum of illness (e.g. shortness of breath and recovery). "Distinguishing overlap, correlation and collinearity" meant recognizing that symptoms such as shortness of breath had distinct value and minimizing overlap (e.g. lung function and pneumonia were on the continuum toward respiratory failure). "Recognizing adverse events" refers to the potential harms of new and evolving interventions. "Being cognizant of family and psychosocial wellbeing" reflected the pervasive impacts of coronavirus disease 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery are critically important outcomes to be consistently reported in coronavirus disease 2019 trials.

International Survey to Establish Prioritized Outcomes for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: There are over 4,000 trials conducted in people with coronavirus disease 2019. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 trials. DESIGN: In an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish languages, adults with coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, health professionals, and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analyzed thematically. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public, and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, and researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 9,289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with coronavirus disease 2019 or family members, 4,882 health professionals, and 3,631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean > 7.5, median ≥ 8, and > 70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating, and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals.