COVID-19 in South Korea.

A novel coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome-CoV-2) that initially originated from Wuhan, China, in December 2019 has already caused a pandemic. While this novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) frequently induces mild diseases, it has also generated severe diseases among certain populations, including older-aged individuals with underlying diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes. As of 31 March 2020, a total of 9786 confirmed cases with COVID-19 have been reported in South Korea. South Korea has the highest diagnostic rate for COVID-19, which has been the major contributor in overcoming this outbreak. We are trying to reduce the reproduction number of COVID-19 to less than one and eventually succeed in controlling this outbreak using methods such as contact tracing, quarantine, testing, isolation, social distancing and school closure. This report aimed to describe the current situation of COVID-19 in South Korea and our response to this outbreak.

Decision-makers' experiences with rapid evidence summaries to support real-time evidence informed decision-making in crises: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: There is a clear need for research evidence to drive policymaking and emergency responses so that lives are saved and resources are not wasted. The need for evidence support for health and humanitarian crisis is even more pertinent because of the time and practical constraints that decision-makers in these settings face. To improve the use of research evidence in policy and practice, it is important to provide evidence resources tailored to the target audience. This study aims to gain real-world insights from decision-makers about how they use evidence summaries to inform real-time decision-making in crisis-settings, and to use our findings to improve the format of evidence summaries. METHODS: This study used an explanatory sequential mixed method study design. First, we used a survey to identify the views and experiences of those who were directly involved in crisis response in different contexts, and who may or may not have used evidence summaries. Second, we used the insights generated from the survey to help inform qualitative interviews with decision-makers in crisis-settings to derive an in-depth understanding of how they use evidence summaries and their desired format for evidence summaries. RESULTS: We interviewed 26 decision-makers working in health and humanitarian emergencies. The study identified challenges decision-makers face when trying to find and use research evidence in crises, including insufficient time and increased burden of responsibilities during crises, limited access to reliable internet connection, large volume of data not translated into user friendly summaries, and little information available on preparedness and response measures. Decision-makers preferred the following components in evidence summaries: title, target audience, presentation of key findings in an actionable checklist or infographic format, implementation considerations, assessment of the quality of evidence presented, citation and hyperlink to the full review, funding sources, language of full review, and other sources of information on the topic. Our study developed an evidence summary template with accompanying training material to inform real-time decision-making in crisis-settings. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provided a deeper understanding of the preferences of decision-makers working in health and humanitarian emergencies about the format of evidence summaries to enable real-time evidence informed decision-making.

Characterizing modifications to a comparative effectiveness research study: the OPTIMIZE trial-using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Interventions (FRAME).

BACKGROUND: The OPTIMIZE trial is a multi-site, comparative effectiveness research (CER) study that uses a Sequential Multiple Assessment Randomized Trial (SMART) designed to examine the effectiveness of complex health interventions (cognitive behavioral therapy, physical therapy, and mindfulness) for adults with chronic low back pain. Modifications are anticipated when implementing complex interventions in CER. Disruptions due to COVID have created unanticipated challenges also requiring modifications. Recent methodologic standards for CER studies emphasize that fully characterizing modifications made is necessary to interpret and implement trial results. The purpose of this paper is to outline the modifications made to the OPTIMIZE trial using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-Based Interventions (FRAME) to characterize modifications to the OPTIMIZE trial in response to the COVID pandemic and other challenges encountered. METHODS: The FRAME outlines a strategy to identify and report modifications to evidence-based interventions or implementation strategies, whether planned or unplanned. We use the FRAME to characterize the process used to modify the aspects of the OPTIMIZE trial. Modifications were made to improve lower-than-anticipated rates of treatment initiation and COVID-related restrictions. Contextual modifications were made to permit telehealth delivery of treatments originally designed for in-person delivery. Training modifications were made with study personnel to provide more detailed information to potential participants, use motivational interviewing communication techniques to clarify potential participants' motivation and possible barriers to initiating treatment, and provide greater assistance with scheduling of assigned treatments. RESULTS: Modifications were developed with input from the trial's patient and stakeholder advisory panels. The goals of the modifications were to improve trial feasibility without compromising the interventions' core functions. Modifications were approved by the study funder and the trial steering committee. CONCLUSIONS: Full and transparent reporting of modifications to clinical trials, whether planned or unplanned, is critical for interpreting the trial's eventual results and considering future implementation efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03859713. Registered on March 1, 2019.

Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology Part 14: Falsehood and Bias.

OBJECTIVE: Falsehood and bias can have tangible effects, whether related to the "hoax" of Corona virus disease/COVID-19 or the impact of personal protective equipment in city-wide news. The spread of false information requires the diversion of time and resources into rebolstering the truth. Our objective is thus to elucidate types of bias that may influence our daily work, along with ways to mitigate them. DATA SOURCES: Publications are included which delineate specific aspects of bias or address how to preempt, mitigate, or correct bias, whether conscious or unconscious. REVIEW METHODS: We discuss: (1) the background and rationale for proactively considering potential sources of bias, (2) relevant definitions and concepts, (3) potential means to limit effects of inaccurate data sources, and (4) evolving frontiers in the management of bias. In doing so, we review epidemiological concepts and susceptibility to bias within study designs, including database studies, observational studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. We additionally discuss concepts such as the difference between disinformation and misinformation, differential or nondifferential misclassification, bias toward a null result, and unconscious bias, among others. CONCLUSION: We have the means to mitigate sources of potential bias in database studies, observational studies, RCTs, and systematic reviews, beginning with education and awareness. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: False information may spread faster than true information, so it is beneficial to understand potential sources of falsehood we face, in order to safeguard our daily impressions and decisions. Awareness of potential sources of falsehood and bias forms the foundation for accuracy in our everyday work.

Psychological Distress and COVID-19: Evidence-Based Interventions for Frontline Health Care Workers-A Literature Review.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a serious impact on the psychological well-being of frontline health care workers. A variety of interventions have been offered to health care workers in their workplace that has them questioning which intervention would be most beneficial. The purpose of this review is to determine what evidence-based interventions would have an impact on alleviating COVID-19-related psychological distress. METHODS: A search was conducted from multiple databases, including Pubmed, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs, and Cochrane, using the PRISMA framework. The search included COVID-19 as well as previous pandemics. Critical appraisal and synthesis of the 16 relevant sources of evidence were completed. RESULTS: Based on the current evidence, one cannot conclude that any specific intervention is effective for pandemic-relate distress. CONCLUSION: The development, implementation, and scientific evaluation of evidence-based interventions to address the immediate, as well as the long-term, psychological effects of COVID-19 on the mental well-being of health care workers, are needed.

The next generation of evidence-based medicine.

Recently, advances in wearable technologies, data science and machine learning have begun to transform evidence-based medicine, offering a tantalizing glimpse into a future of next-generation 'deep' medicine. Despite stunning advances in basic science and technology, clinical translations in major areas of medicine are lagging. While the COVID-19 pandemic exposed inherent systemic limitations of the clinical trial landscape, it also spurred some positive changes, including new trial designs and a shift toward a more patient-centric and intuitive evidence-generation system. In this Perspective, I share my heuristic vision of the future of clinical trials and evidence-based medicine.

Evidence and Recommendations on the Use of Telemedicine for the Management of Arterial Hypertension: An International Expert Position Paper.

Telemedicine allows the remote exchange of medical data between patients and healthcare professionals. It is used to increase patients' access to care and provide effective healthcare services at a distance. During the recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, telemedicine has thrived and emerged worldwide as an indispensable resource to improve the management of isolated patients due to lockdown or shielding, including those with hypertension. The best proposed healthcare model for telemedicine in hypertension management should include remote monitoring and transmission of vital signs (notably blood pressure) and medication adherence plus education on lifestyle and risk factors, with video consultation as an option. The use of mixed automated feedback services with supervision of a multidisciplinary clinical team (physician, nurse, or pharmacist) is the ideal approach. The indications include screening for suspected hypertension, management of older adults, medically underserved people, high-risk hypertensive patients, patients with multiple diseases, and those isolated due to pandemics or national emergencies.

How missing evidence-based medicine indicators can inform COVID-19 vaccine distribution policies: a scoping review and calculation of indicators from data in randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: Reports of efficacy, effectiveness and harms of COVID-19 vaccines have not used key indicators from evidence-based medicine (EBM) that can inform policies about vaccine distribution. This study aims to clarify EBM indicators that consider baseline risks when assessing vaccines' benefits versus harms: absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number needed to be vaccinated (NNV), versus absolute risk of the intervention (ARI) and number needed to harm (NNH). METHODS: We used a multimethod approach, including a scoping review of the literature; calculation of risk reductions and harms from data concerning five major vaccines; analysis of risk reductions in population subgroups with varying baseline risks; and comparisons with prior vaccines. FINDINGS: The scoping review showed few reports regarding ARR, NNV, ARI and NNH; comparisons of benefits versus harms using these EBM methods; or analyses of varying baseline risks. Calculated ARRs for symptomatic infection and hospitalisation were approximately 1% and 0.1%, respectively, as compared with relative risk reduction of 50%-95% and 58%-100%. NNV to prevent one symptomatic infection and one hospitalisation was in the range of 80-500 and 500-4000. Based on available data, ARI and NNH as measures of harm were difficult to calculate, and the balance between benefits and harms using EBM measures remained uncertain. The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines as measured by ARR and NNV was substantially higher in population subgroups with high versus low baseline risks. CONCLUSIONS: Priorities for vaccine distribution should target subpopulations with higher baseline risks. Similar analyses using ARR/NNV and ARI/NNH would strengthen evaluations of vaccines' benefits versus harms. An EBM perspective on vaccine distribution that emphasises baseline risks becomes especially important as the world's population continues to face major barriers to vaccine access-sometimes termed 'vaccine apartheid'.

Frailty and emergency surgery: identification and evidence-based care for vulnerable older adults.

Frailty is a multidimensional state related to accumulation of age- and disease-related deficits across multiple domains. Older people represent the fastest growing segment of the peri-operative population, and 25-50% of older surgical patients live with frailty. When frailty is present before surgery, adjusted rates of morbidity and mortality increase at least two-fold; the odds of delirium and loss of independence are increased more than four- and five-fold, respectively. Care of the older person with frailty presenting for emergency surgery requires individualised and evidence-based care given the high-risk and complex nature of their presentations. Before surgery, frailty should be assessed using a multidimensional frailty instrument (most likely the Clinical Frailty Scale), and all members of the peri-operative team should be aware of each patient's frailty status. When frailty is present, pre-operative care should focus on documenting and communicating individualised risk, considering advanced care directives and engaging shared decision-making when feasible. Shared multidisciplinary care should be initiated. Peri-operatively, analgesia that avoids polypharmacy should be provided, along with delirium prevention strategies and consideration of postoperative care in a monitored environment. After the acute surgical episode, transition out of hospital requires that adequate support be in place, along with clear discharge instructions, and review of new and existing prescription medications. Advanced care directives should be reviewed or initiated in case of readmission. Overall, substantial knowledge gaps about the optimal peri-operative care of older people with frailty must be addressed through robust, patient-oriented research.

Agitation in schizophrenia: origins and evidence-based treatment.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Agitation associated with schizophrenia remains an important clinical concern and if not managed effectively, can escalate into aggressive behavior. This is a review of the recent biomedical literature on agitation in individuals with schizophrenia. RECENT FINDINGS: Themes in the recent literature include consideration of comorbidities such as cigarette smoking and cannabis use. Surveys reveal that pharmacological approaches to manage agitation have changed little, with haloperidol remaining in common use and intramuscular administration of antipsychotics and/or benzodiazepines being frequently administered to more severely agitated/aggressive individuals. Of note, ketamine has been recently adopted for use in severe agitation in medical emergency departments, but the risk of this medication for people with schizophrenia is unclear. At present, inhaled loxapine remains the only rapidly acting noninjectable FDA-approved treatment for agitation associated with schizophrenia. In development is an intranasal formulation for olanzapine (a well characterized atypical antipsychotic already approved to treat agitation) and a sublingual film for dexmedetomidine (an α2-adrenergic agonist used as an anesthetic and now being repurposed). SUMMARY: Comorbidities can contribute to agitation and can make an accurate differential diagnosis challenging. The ongoing development of rapidly acting novel formulations of antiagitation medications, if successful, may facilitate clinical treatment by providing additional options.