Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 72
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 17(2): e0263736, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1674020

ABSTRACT

Sudden emergence and rapid spread of COVID-19 created an inevitable need for expansion of the COVID-19 laboratory testing network across the world. The strategy to test-track-treat was advocated for quick detection and containment of the disease. Being the second most populous country in the world, India was challenged to make COVID-19 testing available and accessible in all parts of the country. The molecular laboratory testing network was augmented expeditiously, and number of laboratories was increased from one in January 2020 to 2951 till mid-September, 2021. This rapid expansion warranted the need to have inbuilt systems of quality control/ quality assurance. In addition to the ongoing inter-laboratory quality control (ILQC), India implemented an External Quality Assurance Program (EQAP) with assistance from World Health Organization (WHO) and Royal College of Pathologists, Australasia. Out of the 953 open system rRTPCR laboratories in both public and private sector who participated in the first round of EQAP, 891(93.4%) laboratories obtained a passing score of > = 80%. The satisfactory performance of Indian COVID-19 testing laboratories has boosted the confidence of the public and policy makers in the quality of testing. ILQC and EQAP need to continue to ensure adherence of the testing laboratories to the desired quality standards.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/standards , COVID-19/diagnosis , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , Laboratories/standards , Mass Screening/standards , Quality Assurance, Health Care/standards , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/standards , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/genetics , COVID-19/virology , Humans , India/epidemiology , Quality Control , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Specimen Handling/methods
4.
Work ; 66(4): 717-729, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1435948

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a highly contagious acute respiratory syndrome and has been declared a pandemic in more than 209 countries worldwide. At the time of writing, no preventive vaccine has been developed and tested in the community. This study was conducted to review studies aimed at preventing the spread of the coronavirus worldwide. METHODS: This study was a review of the evidence-based literature and was conducted by searching databases, including Google Scholar, PubMed, and ScienceDirect, until April 2020. The search was performed based on keywords including "coronavirus", "COVID-19", and "prevention". The list of references in the final studies has also been re-reviewed to find articles that might not have been obtained through the search. The guidelines published by trustworthy organizations such as the World Health Organization and Center for Disease Control have been used in this study. CONCLUSION: So far, no vaccine or definitive treatment for COVID-19 has been invented, and the disease has become a pandemic. Therefore, observation of hand hygiene, disinfection of high-touch surfaces, observation of social distance, and lack of presence in public places are recommended as preventive measures. Moreover, to control the situation and to reduce the incidence of the virus, some of the measures taken by the decision-making bodies and the guidelines of the deterrent institutions to strengthen telecommuting of employees and reduce the presence of people in the community and prevent unnecessary activities, are very important.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Infection Control/standards , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Workplace/organization & administration , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Decision Making, Organizational , Disinfection/organization & administration , Disinfection/standards , Guidelines as Topic , Hand Hygiene/organization & administration , Hand Hygiene/standards , Humans , Incidence , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/organization & administration , Mass Screening/organization & administration , Mass Screening/standards , Physical Distancing , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2 , Telecommunications/organization & administration , Telecommunications/standards , Workplace/standards
5.
Ann Biol Clin (Paris) ; 79(4): 325-330, 2021 Aug 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1412311

ABSTRACT

Health care workers (HCWs) are at major risk to be infected by SARS-CoV-2 and transmit the virus to the patients. Furthermore, travels are a major factor in the diffusion of the virus. We report our experience regarding the screening of asymptomatic HCWs returning from holidays, following the issue of a national guideline on 08/20/2020. The organization of the occupational health department and the clinical laboratory was adapted in order to start the screening on August, 24, 2020. All HCWs tested for SARS-CoV-2 the week before and 4 weeks after the implementation of the screening were included. The mean number of tests was analyzed per working day and working week. Overall, 502 (31.4%) HCWs were tested for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. The mean number of HCWs tested per working day was 27.1. HCWs accounted for 36.9% (n = 167) and 11.2% (n = 84) of the tests performed in the 1st and the 4th week following the implementation of the guidelines. The number of tests performed each week in HCWs increased by at least 20-fold after the implementation of the guidelines. No asymptomatic HCW was tested positive. Screening of asymptomatic HCWs was poorly effective in the context of low circulation of the virus. We suggest giving priority to infection prevention and control measures and screening of symptomatic subjects and asymptomatic contacts.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Health Personnel , Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19 Testing/standards , Cross Infection/prevention & control , France/epidemiology , Guideline Adherence/organization & administration , Guideline Adherence/standards , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Hospitals, General , Humans , Implementation Science , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/organization & administration , Infection Control/standards , Mass Screening/methods , Mass Screening/organization & administration , Mass Screening/standards , Occupational Health Services/organization & administration , Occupational Health Services/standards , Occupational Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Return to Work/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
6.
Rev Colomb Psiquiatr (Engl Ed) ; 50(3): 225-231, 2021.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1401810

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The crisis situation generated by COVID-19 and the measures adopted have generated social changes in the normal dynamics of the general population and especially for health workers, who find themselves caring for patients with suspected or confirmed infection. Recent studies have detected in them depression and anxiety symptoms and burnout syndrome, with personal and social conditions impacting their response capacity during the health emergency. Our aim was to generate recommendations for the promotion and protection of the mental health of health workers and teams in the first line of care in the health emergency due to COVID-19. METHODS: A rapid literature search was carried out in PubMed and Google Scholar, and an iterative expert consensus and through electronic consultation, with 13 participants from the areas of psychology, psychiatry and medicine; the grading of its strength and directionality was carried out according to the international standards of the Joanna Briggs Institute. RESULTS: Thirty-one recommendations were generated on self-care of health workers, community care among health teams, screening for alarm signs in mental health and for health institutions. CONCLUSIONS: The promotion and protection activities in mental health to face the health emergency generated by COVID-19 worldwide can include coordinated actions between workers, health teams and health institutions as part of a comprehensive, community care, co-responsible and sustained over time.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Mental Disorders/therapy , Occupational Diseases/diagnosis , Occupational Diseases/therapy , Occupational Health Services/methods , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Mass Screening/standards , Mental Disorders/etiology , Mental Disorders/psychology , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Occupational Diseases/psychology , Occupational Health Services/standards , Preventive Health Services/methods , Preventive Health Services/standards , Self Care/methods , Self Care/standards
8.
Elife ; 92020 02 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1344521

ABSTRACT

Traveller screening is being used to limit further spread of COVID-19 following its recent emergence, and symptom screening has become a ubiquitous tool in the global response. Previously, we developed a mathematical model to understand factors governing the effectiveness of traveller screening to prevent spread of emerging pathogens (Gostic et al., 2015). Here, we estimate the impact of different screening programs given current knowledge of key COVID-19 life history and epidemiological parameters. Even under best-case assumptions, we estimate that screening will miss more than half of infected people. Breaking down the factors leading to screening successes and failures, we find that most cases missed by screening are fundamentally undetectable, because they have not yet developed symptoms and are unaware they were exposed. Our work underscores the need for measures to limit transmission by individuals who become ill after being missed by a screening program. These findings can support evidence-based policy to combat the spread of COVID-19, and prospective planning to mitigate future emerging pathogens.


Subject(s)
Asymptomatic Infections , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Mass Screening , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Travel , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Infection Control , Mass Screening/methods , Mass Screening/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Epidemiol Infect ; 149: e179, 2021 08 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1338507

ABSTRACT

Pooling of samples in detecting the presence of virus is an effective and efficient strategy in screening carriers in a large population with low infection rate, leading to reduction in cost and time. There are a number of pooling test methods, some being simple and others being complicated. In such pooling tests, the most important parameter to decide is the pool or group size, which can be optimised mathematically. Two pooling methods are relatively simple. The minimum numbers required in these two tests for a population with known infection rate are discussed and compared. Results are useful for identifying asymptomatic carriers in a short time and in implementing health codes systems.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Mass Screening/standards , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Mass Screening/methods
10.
PLoS One ; 16(6): e0253327, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1269922

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service (NHS) abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening programme (NAAASP) in England screens 65-year-old men. The programme monitors those with an aneurysm, and early intervention for large aneurysms reduces ruptures and AAA-related mortality. AAA screening services have been disrupted following COVID-19 but it is not known how this may impact AAA-related mortality, or where efforts should be focussed as services resume. METHODS: We repurposed a previously validated discrete event simulation model to investigate the impact of COVID-19-related service disruption on key outcomes. This model was used to explore the impact of delayed invitation and reduced attendance in men invited to screening. Additionally, we investigated the impact of temporarily suspending scans, increasing the threshold for elective surgery to 7cm and increasing drop-out in the AAA cohort under surveillance, using data from NAAASP to inform the population. FINDINGS: Delaying invitation to primary screening up to two years had little impact on key outcomes whereas a 10% reduction in attendance could lead to a 2% lifetime increase in AAA-related deaths. In surveillance patients, a 1-year suspension of surveillance or increase in the elective threshold resulted in a 0.4% increase in excess AAA-related deaths (8% in those 5-5.4cm at the start). Longer suspensions or a doubling of drop-out from surveillance would have a pronounced impact on outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Efforts should be directed towards encouraging men to attend AAA screening service appointments post-COVID-19. Those with AAAs on surveillance should be prioritised as the screening programme resumes, as changes to these services beyond one year are likely to have a larger impact on surgical burden and AAA-related mortality.


Subject(s)
Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal/diagnosis , Aortic Rupture/prevention & control , COVID-19/prevention & control , Mass Screening/statistics & numerical data , Models, Statistical , Age Factors , Aged , Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal/complications , Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal/mortality , Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal/surgery , Aortic Rupture/etiology , Aortic Rupture/mortality , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Computer Simulation , Cost of Illness , Elective Surgical Procedures/standards , Elective Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , England/epidemiology , Health Policy , Humans , Male , Mass Screening/organization & administration , Mass Screening/standards , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Risk Assessment/statistics & numerical data , Risk Factors , Severity of Illness Index , State Medicine/standards , State Medicine/statistics & numerical data , Time-to-Treatment , Ultrasonography/standards , Ultrasonography/statistics & numerical data
11.
J Prev Med Hyg ; 62(1): E7-E9, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1264706

ABSTRACT

"Black Swan" is an unexpected and catastrophic event characterized by three conditions: the anomalous and exceptional value, the extreme impact, and predictability a posteriori. On many sides - by politicians, commentators, scientists - there have been attempts to give the COVID-19 pandemic event the meaning of Black Swan. In reality, one should wonder if the Black Swan was not, instead (or even), the way the epidemic was handled. In Italy, an unreasonable use of a two-step protocol - IgM/IgG anti-COVID followed by RT-PCR in the serologically positive only has caused considerable uncertainty, particularly relevant in measures for maintenance or readmission to work of health personnel. This protocol could be affected by serious uncertainties arising from the analytical limitations of the tests used. To quantify this defect, we evaluated the analytical specifications of serological tests under different prevalence conditions. In conclusion, although laboratory diagnostics represent a useful tool, it can only be used for epidemiological purposes and not to provide healthy pass.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Humans , Italy , Mass Screening/methods , Mass Screening/standards , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
12.
Gastroenterology ; 161(3): 1011-1029.e11, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1240783

ABSTRACT

This guideline provides updated recommendations on the role of preprocedure testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) in individuals undergoing endoscopy in the post-vaccination period and replaces the prior guideline from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) (released July 29, 2020). Since the start of the pandemic, our increased understanding of transmission has facilitated the implementation of practices to promote patient and health care worker (HCW) safety. Simultaneously, there has been increasing recognition of the potential harm associated with delays in patient care, as well as inefficiency of endoscopy units. With widespread vaccination of HCWs and the general population, a re-evaluation of AGA's prior recommendations was warranted. In order to update the role of preprocedure testing for SARS-CoV2, the AGA guideline panel reviewed the evidence on prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV2 infections in individuals undergoing endoscopy; patient and HCW risk of infections that may be acquired immediately before, during, or after endoscopy; effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine in reducing risk of infections and transmission; patient and HCW anxiety; patient delays in care and potential impact on cancer burden; and endoscopy volumes. The panel considered the certainty of the evidence, weighed the benefits and harms of routine preprocedure testing, and considered burden, equity, and cost using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Based on very low certainty evidence, the panel made a conditional recommendation against routine preprocedure testing for SARS-CoV2 in patients scheduled to undergo endoscopy. The panel placed a high value on minimizing additional delays in patient care, acknowledging the reduced endoscopy volumes, downstream impact on delayed cancer diagnoses, and burden of testing on patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Endoscopy , Mass Screening/standards , Pandemics , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Endoscopy/standards , Gastroenterology/standards , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
14.
J Occup Environ Med ; 63(4): e184-e186, 2021 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1153280

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an empirical olfactory test to identify COVID-19 cases during a workplace entrance screening. METHOD: An active screening for olfactory dysfunction using water and vinegar was conducted in April to June 2020 among 4120 meat packing workers in Latin America. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of the active olfactory screening examination were 41.2% and 85.3%, respectively, using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests as a gold standard. 10.6% of employees who tested positive for COVID-19 had an olfactory dysfunction as their only symptom. These individuals would not have been identified with standard workplace screening measures including temperature screening. CONCLUSION: Active screening for olfactory dysfunction may serve as a valuable tool to both identify potential COVID-19 infections and exclude those who do not have infection and should be a part of parallel algorithm combined with standard workplace entrance screening procedures.


Subject(s)
Anosmia/diagnosis , COVID-19/diagnosis , Mass Screening/methods , Workplace , Acetic Acid , Anosmia/physiopathology , COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Humans , Mass Screening/standards , Meat-Packing Industry , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Sensitivity and Specificity , Water
15.
J Glob Health ; 10(2): 020507, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1154782

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In a surgical setting, COVID-19 patients may trigger in-hospital outbreaks and have worse postoperative outcomes. Despite these risks, there have been no consistent statements on surgical guidelines regarding the perioperative screening or management of COVID-19 patients, and we do not have objective global data that describe the current conditions surrounding this issue. This study aimed to clarify the current global surgical practice including COVID-19 screening, preventive measures and in-hospital infection under the COVID-19 pandemic, and to clarify the international gaps on infection control policies among countries worldwide. METHODS: During April 2-8, 2020, a cross-sectional online survey on surgical practice was distributed to surgeons worldwide through international surgical societies, social media and personal contacts. Main outcome and measures included preventive measures and screening policies of COVID-19 in surgical practice and centers' experiences of in-hospital COVID-19 infection. Data were analyzed by country's cumulative deaths number by April 8, 2020 (high risk, >5000; intermediate risk, 100-5000; low risk, <100). RESULTS: A total of 936 centers in 71 countries responded to the survey (high risk, 330 centers; intermediate risk, 242 centers; low risk, 364 centers). In the majority (71.9%) of the centers, local guidelines recommended preoperative testing based on symptoms or suspicious radiologic findings. Universal testing for every surgical patient was recommended in only 18.4% of the centers. In-hospital COVID-19 infection was reported from 31.5% of the centers, with higher rates in higher risk countries (high risk, 53.6%; intermediate risk, 26.4%; low risk, 14.8%; P < 0.001). Of the 295 centers that experienced in-hospital COVID-19 infection, 122 (41.4%) failed to trace it and 58 (19.7%) reported the infection originating from asymptomatic patients/staff members. Higher risk countries adopted more preventive measures including universal testing, routine testing of hospital staff and use of dedicated personal protective equipment in operation theatres, but there were remarkable discrepancies across the countries. CONCLUSIONS: This large international survey captured the global surgical practice under the COVID-19 pandemic and highlighted the insufficient preoperative screening of COVID-19 in the current surgical practice. More intensive screening programs will be necessary particularly in severely affected countries/institutions. STUDY REGISTRATION: Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04344197.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Infection Control/statistics & numerical data , Mass Screening/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Surgical Procedures, Operative/standards , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Cross Infection/virology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Hospitals/standards , Hospitals/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Infection Control/standards , Mass Screening/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Policy , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , Surgical Procedures, Operative/adverse effects , Surveys and Questionnaires
18.
Swiss Med Wkly ; 151: w20471, 2021 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1081785

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a screening tool designed to identify detained people at increased risk for COVID-19 mortality, the COVID-19 Inmate Risk Appraisal (CIRA). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with a representative sample (development) and a case-control sample (validation). SETTING: The two largest Swiss prisons. PARTICIPANTS: (1) Development sample: all male persons detained in Pöschwies, Zurich (n = 365); (2) Validation sample: case-control sample of male persons detained in Champ-Dollon, Geneva (n = 192, matching 1:3 for participants at risk for severe course of COVID-19 and participants without risk factors). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The CIRA combined seven risk factors identified by the World Health Organization and the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health as predictive of severe COVID-19 to derive an absolute risk increase in mortality rate: Age ≥60 years, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, chronic respiratory disease, immunodeficiency and cancer. RESULTS: Based on the development sample, we proposed a three-level classification: average (<3.7), elevated (3.7-5.7) and high (>5.7) risk. In the validation sample, the CIRA identified all individuals identified as vulnerable by national recommendations (having at least one risk factor). The category “elevated risk” maximised sensitivity (1) and specificity (0.97). The CIRA had even higher capacity in discriminating individuals vulnerable according to clinical evaluation (a four-level risk categorisation based on a consensus of medical staff). The category “elevated risk” maximised sensitivity and specificity (both 1). When considering the individuals classified as extremely high risk by medical staff, the category “high risk” had a high discriminatory capacity (sensitivity =0.89, specificity =0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The CIRA scores have a high discriminative ability and will be important in custodial settings to support decisions and prioritise actions using a standardised valid assessment method. However, as knowledge on risk factors for COVID-19 mortality is still limited, the CIRA may be considered preliminary. Underlying data will be updated regularly on the website (http://www.prison-research.com), where the CIRA algorithm is freely available.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/etiology , Decision Support Techniques , Mass Screening/standards , Prisoners/statistics & numerical data , Risk Assessment/standards , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/prevention & control , Case-Control Studies , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Mass Screening/methods , Middle Aged , Prisons , Reproducibility of Results , Risk Assessment/methods , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Switzerland
19.
J Emerg Med ; 59(6): 952-956, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1065314

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: As many businesses reopen after government-induced restrictions, many public agencies and private companies, such as banks, golf courses, and stores, are using temperature screening to assess for possible coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection both for patrons and for employees. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the frequency of a fever ≥100.4°F and other symptoms associated with COVID-19 among patients in the emergency department (ED) who were tested in the ED for the illness. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of data from patients who were tested for acute COVID-19 infection from March 10, 2020 through June 30, 2020 at two EDs within the same health care system. Data collected included temperature, the presence or recent history of COVID-19-related symptoms, and COVID-19 test results. Descriptive statistics are reported for presenting fever and other COVID-19-related symptoms alone and in combination with presenting fever. RESULTS: A total of 6894 patients were tested for COVID-19. Among these, 330 (4.8%) tested positive for active infection. Of these patients, 64 (19.4%) presented with a fever ≥100.4°F (≥38.0°C). Increasing the number of COVID-19-related symptoms in combination with a presenting fever ≥100.4°F increased the number of people who could be identified as having a COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS: About a quarter of patients who were tested positive for COVID-19 in our ED did not have a fever at presentation ≥100.4°F. Using only temperature to screen for COVID-19 in the community setting will likely miss the majority of patients with active disease.


Subject(s)
Body Temperature/physiology , COVID-19/physiopathology , Thermometers/trends , COVID-19/diagnosis , Fever/diagnosis , Fever/physiopathology , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Mass Screening/standards , Mass Screening/statistics & numerical data , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies
20.
Diabetes Metab Syndr ; 15(1): 391-395, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1062313

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Gestational diabetes (GDM) is one of the most common medical complications of pregnancy and associated with significant perinatal and long-term morbidity. Temporary changes to the diagnostic testing for GDM have been recommended for the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to identify what proportion of women with GDM would be missed by the COVID-19 GDM screening criteria. Secondly an analysis of the relationship between HbA1c, fasting blood glucose (FBG) and pregnancy outcomes will be completed. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of all GDM patients at an Australian secondary hospital between January 2019 and February 2020. The proportion of women with GDM who would have been missed using the COVID-19 guidelines was assessed. Patients were divided into groups according to how their GDM was managed during the pregnancy: Diet, Metformin (MF), Insulin and MF + Insulin groups. Differences between the groups were compared using one-way ANOVA and post-hoc analysis was completed using the Bonferroni test. Logistic regression was employed to further compare the differences between the groups. RESULTS: The study group comprised 237 patients. Sixty patients (25.3%) would not have had GDM detected in their pregnancy using the COVID-19 guidelines. FBG was the most significant predictor for intervention with medication for GDM (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: HbA1c and FBG are poor screening tests for GDM. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the OGTT should be given clinical priority in high risk patients. Elevated FBG is a significant predictor for needing medical management and could be used in the future to better enable individualised treatment.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Diabetes, Gestational/diagnosis , Mass Screening/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Adult , Australia/epidemiology , Blood Glucose/metabolism , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Diabetes, Gestational/blood , Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Pregnancy , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL