Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 393
Filter
1.
Hypertension ; 76(5): 1350-1367, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2153223

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is associated with significant morbidity and mortality throughout the world, predominantly due to lung and cardiovascular injury. The virus responsible for COVID-19-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-gains entry into host cells via ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2). ACE2 is a primary enzyme within the key counter-regulatory pathway of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), which acts to oppose the actions of Ang (angiotensin) II by generating Ang-(1-7) to reduce inflammation and fibrosis and mitigate end organ damage. As COVID-19 spans multiple organ systems linked to the cardiovascular system, it is imperative to understand clearly how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 may affect the multifaceted RAS. In addition, recognition of the role of ACE2 and the RAS in COVID-19 has renewed interest in its role in the pathophysiology of cardiovascular disease in general. We provide researchers with a framework of best practices in basic and clinical research to interrogate the RAS using appropriate methodology, especially those who are relatively new to the field. This is crucial, as there are many limitations inherent in investigating the RAS in experimental models and in humans. We discuss sound methodological approaches to quantifying enzyme content and activity (ACE, ACE2), peptides (Ang II, Ang-[1-7]), and receptors (types 1 and 2 Ang II receptors, Mas receptor). Our goal is to ensure appropriate research methodology for investigations of the RAS in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and COVID-19 to ensure optimal rigor and reproducibility and appropriate interpretation of results from these investigations.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Hypertension/epidemiology , Peptidyl-Dipeptidase A/metabolism , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Renin-Angiotensin System/physiology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/metabolism , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 , Blood Pressure Determination/methods , COVID-19 , China/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Hypertension/physiopathology , Incidence , Male , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Prognosis , Research Design , Risk Assessment , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology
2.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(20)2022 Oct 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2068512

ABSTRACT

Epidemics represent a threat to human life and economy. Meanwhile, medical and non-medical approaches to fight against them may result in additional economic shocks. In this paper, we examine the economic impact of the 2003 SARS outbreak in China and associated government policies. Although the epidemic caused a substantial economic loss in the short term, the interventions for medical purposes positively impacted the economy of the severely affected regions through the increase in investments such as other fiscal stimuli. There is strong and robust evidence suggesting that the SARS epidemic and its associated countermeasure policies boosted local output by around 4% and industrial production by around 5%. The positive growth was mainly derived from the increase in investment and government activity, especially government expenditure. Besides that, lagged impacts were particularly pronounced to the economic system and lasted for longer even than the epidemic period in a biological sense. We attribute this to the relatively aggressive stance of policymakers in the face of the epidemic situation.


Subject(s)
Epidemics , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , Humans , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , China/epidemiology , Government , Economic Development
4.
Perspect Biol Med ; 65(1): 25-40, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1750109

ABSTRACT

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) was the first pandemic of the 21st century, and Canada was the only Western nation to experience an outbreak. The effects of the outbreak on Canadian society provide a window to understanding responses to future pandemics. Over the short run, SARS had a major effect on the Canadian economy: adverse effects were experienced by health-care workers, who were at greatest risk of contracting the disease; by workers in the hospitality industry, who lost income as tourism and travel ground to a halt; and by the Chinese-Canadian community, who experienced discrimination because of the Chinese origins of SARS. However, over the long term there were few consequences of the outbreak in Canada, whether in the social, economic, or political domains. The principal effects were improvements in the Canadian public health system, many of which were rolled back after a decade without a major epidemic.


Subject(s)
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , Canada/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Public Health , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology
7.
PLoS One ; 16(11): e0258893, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1700707

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Explore how previous work during the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak affects the psychological response of clinical and non-clinical healthcare workers (HCWs) to the current COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional, multi-centered hospital online survey of HCWs in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada. Mental health outcomes of HCWs who worked during the COVID-19 pandemic and the SARS outbreak were assessed using Impact of Events-Revised scale (IES-R), Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). RESULTS: Among 3852 participants, moderate/severe scores for symptoms of post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (50.2%), anxiety (24.6%), and depression (31.5%) were observed among HCWs. Work during the 2003 SARS outbreak was reported by 1116 respondents (29.1%), who had lower scores for symptoms of PTSD (P = .002), anxiety (P < .001), and depression (P < .001) compared to those who had not worked during the SARS outbreak. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed non-clinical HCWs during this pandemic were at higher risk of anxiety (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.19-2.15, P = .01) and depressive symptoms (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.34-3.07, P < .001). HCWs using sedatives (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.61-4.03, P < .001), those who cared for only 2-5 patients with COVID-19 (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.06-2.38, P = .01), and those who had been in isolation for COVID-19 (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.96-1.93, P = .05), were at higher risk of moderate/severe symptoms of PTSD. In addition, deterioration in sleep was associated with symptoms of PTSD (OR, 4.68, 95% CI, 3.74-6.30, P < .001), anxiety (OR, 3.09, 95% CI, 2.11-4.53, P < .001), and depression (OR 5.07, 95% CI, 3.48-7.39, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Psychological distress was observed in both clinical and non-clinical HCWs, with no impact from previous SARS work experience. As the pandemic continues, increasing psychological and team support may decrease the mental health impacts.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/psychology , Adaptation, Psychological/physiology , Adolescent , Adult , Allied Health Personnel , Anxiety/psychology , Anxiety/virology , Anxiety Disorders/psychology , Anxiety Disorders/virology , COVID-19/virology , Canada , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/psychology , Depression/virology , Disease Outbreaks , Female , Humans , Male , Mental Health , Middle Aged , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Patient Health Questionnaire , Psychological Distress , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/virology , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/psychology , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/virology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
10.
PLoS One ; 16(12): e0260947, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1556896

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: On 9th January 2020, China CDC reported a novel coronavirus (later named SARS-CoV-2) as the causative agent of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Identifying the first appearance of virus is of epidemiological importance to tracking and mapping the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in a country. We therefore conducted a retrospective observational study to detect SARS-CoV-2 in oropharyngeal samples collected from hospitalized patients with a Severe Acute Respiratory Infection (SARI) enrolled in the DRIVE (Development of Robust and Innovative Vaccine Effectiveness) study in five Italian hospitals (CIRI-IT BIVE hospitals network) (1st November 2019 - 29th February 2020). OBJECTIVES: To acquire new information on the real trend in SARS-CoV-2 infection during pandemic phase I and to determine the possible early appearance of the virus in Italy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Samples were tested for influenza [RT-PCR assay (A/H1N1, A/H3N2, B/Yam, B/Vic)] in accordance with the DRIVE study protocol. Subsequently, swabs underwent molecular testing for SARS-COV-2. [one-step real-time multiplex retro-transcription (RT) PCR]. RESULTS: In the 1683 samples collected, no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 was found. Moreover, 28.3% (477/1683) of swabs were positive for influenza viruses, the majority being type A (358 vs 119 type B). A/H3N2 was predominant among influenza A viruses (55%); among influenza B viruses, B/Victoria was prevalent. The highest influenza incidence rate was reported in patients aged 0-17 years (40.3%) followed by those aged 18-64 years (24.4%) and ≥65 years (14.8%). CONCLUSIONS: In Italy, some studies have shown the early circulation of SARS-CoV-2 in northern regions, those most severely affected during phase I of the pandemic. In central and southern regions, by contrast no early circulation of the virus was registered. These results are in line with ours. These findings highlight the need to continue to carry out retrospective studies, in order to understand the epidemiology of the novel coronavirus, to better identify the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in comparison with other acute respiratory illnesses (ARI), and to evaluate the real burden of COVID-19 on the healthcare system.


Subject(s)
Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , Female , Hospitals , Humans , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/genetics , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/isolation & purification , Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype/genetics , Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype/isolation & purification , Influenza B virus/genetics , Influenza B virus/isolation & purification , Influenza, Human/pathology , Influenza, Human/virology , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , RNA, Viral/genetics , RNA, Viral/metabolism , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/pathology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/virology , Young Adult
11.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 10: CD013717, 2020 10 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1557155

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In late 2019, first cases of coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, were reported in Wuhan, China. Subsequently COVID-19 spread rapidly around the world. To contain the ensuing pandemic, numerous countries have implemented control measures related to international travel, including border closures, partial travel restrictions, entry or exit screening, and quarantine of travellers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of travel-related control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic on infectious disease and screening-related outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19-specific databases, including the WHO Global Database on COVID-19 Research, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the CDC COVID-19 Research Database on 26 June 2020. We also conducted backward-citation searches with existing reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of travel-related control measures affecting human travel across national borders during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also included studies concerned with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) as indirect evidence. Primary outcomes were cases avoided, cases detected and a shift in epidemic development due to the measures. Secondary outcomes were other infectious disease transmission outcomes, healthcare utilisation, resource requirements and adverse effects if identified in studies assessing at least one primary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author screened titles and abstracts; all excluded abstracts were screened in duplicate. Two review authors independently screened full texts. One review author extracted data, assessed risk of bias and appraised study quality. At least one additional review author checked for correctness of all data reported in the 'Risk of bias' assessment, quality appraisal and data synthesis. For assessing the risk of bias and quality of included studies, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool for observational studies concerned with screening, ROBINS-I for observational ecological studies and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. One review author assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE, and the review author team discussed ratings. MAIN RESULTS: We included 40 records reporting on 36 unique studies. We found 17 modelling studies, 7 observational screening studies and one observational ecological study on COVID-19, four modelling and six observational studies on SARS, and one modelling study on SARS and MERS, covering a variety of settings and epidemic stages. Most studies compared travel-related control measures against a counterfactual scenario in which the intervention measure was not implemented. However, some modelling studies described additional comparator scenarios, such as different levels of travel restrictions, or a combination of measures. There were concerns with the quality of many modelling studies and the risk of bias of observational studies. Many modelling studies used potentially inappropriate assumptions about the structure and input parameters of models, and failed to adequately assess uncertainty. Concerns with observational screening studies commonly related to the reference test and the flow of the screening process. Studies on COVID-19 Travel restrictions reducing cross-border travel Eleven studies employed models to simulate a reduction in travel volume; one observational ecological study assessed travel restrictions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Very low-certainty evidence from modelling studies suggests that when implemented at the beginning of the outbreak, cross-border travel restrictions may lead to a reduction in the number of new cases of between 26% to 90% (4 studies), the number of deaths (1 study), the time to outbreak of between 2 and 26 days (2 studies), the risk of outbreak of between 1% to 37% (2 studies), and the effective reproduction number (1 modelling and 1 observational ecological study). Low-certainty evidence from modelling studies suggests a reduction in the number of imported or exported cases of between 70% to 81% (5 studies), and in the growth acceleration of epidemic progression (1 study). Screening at borders with or without quarantine Evidence from three modelling studies of entry and exit symptom screening without quarantine suggests delays in the time to outbreak of between 1 to 183 days (very low-certainty evidence) and a detection rate of infected travellers of between 10% to 53% (low-certainty evidence). Six observational studies of entry and exit screening were conducted in specific settings such as evacuation flights and cruise ship outbreaks. Screening approaches varied but followed a similar structure, involving symptom screening of all individuals at departure or upon arrival, followed by quarantine, and different procedures for observation and PCR testing over a period of at least 14 days. The proportion of cases detected ranged from 0% to 91% (depending on the screening approach), and the positive predictive value ranged from 0% to 100% (very low-certainty evidence). The outcomes, however, should be interpreted in relation to both the screening approach used and the prevalence of infection among the travellers screened; for example, symptom-based screening alone generally performed worse than a combination of symptom-based and PCR screening with subsequent observation during quarantine. Quarantine of travellers Evidence from one modelling study simulating a 14-day quarantine suggests a reduction in the number of cases seeded by imported cases; larger reductions were seen with increasing levels of quarantine compliance ranging from 277 to 19 cases with rates of compliance modelled between 70% to 100% (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With much of the evidence deriving from modelling studies, notably for travel restrictions reducing cross-border travel and quarantine of travellers, there is a lack of 'real-life' evidence for many of these measures. The certainty of the evidence for most travel-related control measures is very low and the true effects may be substantially different from those reported here. Nevertheless, some travel-related control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic may have a positive impact on infectious disease outcomes. Broadly, travel restrictions may limit the spread of disease across national borders. Entry and exit symptom screening measures on their own are not likely to be effective in detecting a meaningful proportion of cases to prevent seeding new cases within the protected region; combined with subsequent quarantine, observation and PCR testing, the effectiveness is likely to improve. There was insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of travel-related quarantine on its own. Some of the included studies suggest that effects are likely to depend on factors such as the stage of the epidemic, the interconnectedness of countries, local measures undertaken to contain community transmission, and the extent of implementation and adherence.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Travel-Related Illness , COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Diseases, Imported/epidemiology , Communicable Diseases, Imported/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Humans , Models, Theoretical , Observational Studies as Topic , Quarantine , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/prevention & control
12.
BMJ Open ; 11(11): e051895, 2021 11 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1546523

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To measure the psychological well-being of healthcare workers (HCWs) during this COVID-19 pandemic and examine the experiences of the subgroup of participants who were also HCWs during the 2003 SARS epidemic. DESIGN: Anonymous online survey adapted from a similar study conducted during the SARS epidemic, disseminated from July 2020 to August 2020. SETTING: Nine healthcare institutions across Singapore ranging from primary care, community care, tertiary care and specialised referral centres. PARTICIPANTS: Employees working in the participating healthcare institutions. RESULTS: Of 3828 survey returns, 3616 had at least one completed item on the questionnaire. Majority were female (74.7%), nurses (51.7%), foreign-born (53.2%) and not working in the tertiary care setting (52.1%). The median score on the Impact of Events Scale (IES) was 15 (IQR 23) and 28.2% of the sample scored in the moderate/severe range. 22.7% of the participants were also HCWs during SARS and more than half of them felt safer and better equipped in the current pandemic. 25.2% of SARS HCWs and 25.9% of non-SARS HCWs had moderate/severe IES scores (p=0.904). After adjusting for age, marital status, parity and length of work experience, racial minority groups and living apart from family were independent predictors of high IES regardless of prior SARS epidemic experience. Daily exposure to confirmed or suspect COVID-19 cases increased the odds of high IES for non-SARS HCWs only. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Overall, while 28% of HCWs in our study suffered from significant trauma-related psychological symptoms regardless of prior experience with the SARS epidemic, those with prior experience reported feeling safer and better equipped, finding the workload easier to manage, as well as having more confidence in their healthcare leaders. We recommend for more trauma-informed support strategies for our HCWs especially those from racial minority groups, who are foreign-born and isolated from their families.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , Delivery of Health Care , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Workforce
13.
Int J Med Sci ; 18(3): 763-767, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1524479

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and is an emerging disease. There has been a rapid increase in cases and deaths since it was identified in Wuhan, China, in early December 2019, with over 4,000,000 cases of COVID-19 including at least 250,000 deaths worldwide as of May 2020. However, limited data about the clinical characteristics of pregnant women with COVID-19 have been reported. Given the maternal physiologic and immune function changes during pregnancy, pregnant women may be at a higher risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 and developing more complicated clinical events. Information on severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) may provide insights into the effects of COVID-19's during pregnancy. Even though SARS and MERS have been associated with miscarriage, intrauterine death, fetal growth restriction and high case fatality rates, the clinical course of COVID-19 pneumonia in pregnant women has been reported to be similar to that in non-pregnant women. In addition, pregnant women do not appear to be at a higher risk of catching COVID-19 or suffering from more severe disease than other adults of similar age. Moreover, there is currently no evidence that the virus can be transmitted to the fetus during pregnancy or during childbirth. Babies and young children are also known to only experience mild forms of COVID-19. The aims of this systematic review were to summarize the possible symptoms, treatments, and pregnancy outcomes of women infected with COVID-19 during pregnancy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Pregnancy Outcome , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/transmission , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Maternal Exposure , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus/immunology , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/immunology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/therapy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/virology , SARS Virus/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/immunology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/virology , Severity of Illness Index
14.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 7(7): e27621, 2021 07 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1505428

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The national severe acute respiratory illness (SARI) surveillance system in Yemen was established in 2010 to monitor SARI occurrence in humans and provide a foundation for detecting SARI outbreaks. OBJECTIVE: To ensure that the objectives of national surveillance are being met, this study aimed to examine the level of usefulness and the performance of the SARI surveillance system in Yemen. METHODS: The updated Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines were used for the purposes of our evaluation. Related documents and reports were reviewed. Data were collected from 4 central-level managers and stakeholders and from 10 focal points at 4 sentinel sites by using a semistructured questionnaire. For each attribute, percent scores were calculated and ranked as follows: very poor (≤20%), poor (20%-40%), average (40%-60%), good (60%-80%), and excellent (>80%). RESULTS: As rated by the evaluators, the SARI surveillance system achieved its objectives. The system's flexibility (percent score: 86%) and acceptability (percent score: 82%) were rated as "excellent," and simplicity (percent score: 74%) and stability (percent score: 75%) were rated as "good." The percent score for timeliness was 23% in 2018, which indicated poor timeliness. The overall data quality percent score of the SARI system was 98.5%. Despite its many strengths, the SARI system has some weaknesses. For example, it depends on irregular external financial support. CONCLUSIONS: The SARI surveillance system was useful in estimating morbidity and mortality, monitoring the trends of the disease, and promoting research for informing prevention and control measures. The overall performance of the SARI surveillance system was good. We recommend expanding the system by promoting private health facilities' (eg, private hospitals and private health centers) engagement in SARI surveillance, establishing an electronic database at central and peripheral sites, and providing the National Central Public Health Laboratory with the reagents needed for disease confirmation.


Subject(s)
Sentinel Surveillance , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , United States , Yemen/epidemiology
15.
Viruses ; 13(11)2021 10 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1488763

ABSTRACT

In the last two decades, several coronavirus (CoV) interspecies jumping events have occurred between bats and other animals/humans, leading to major epidemics/pandemics and high fatalities. The SARS epidemic in 2002/2003 had a ~10% fatality. The discovery of SARS-related CoVs in horseshoe bats and civets and genomic studies have confirmed bat-to-civet-to-human transmission. The MERS epidemic that emerged in 2012 had a ~35% mortality, with dromedaries as the reservoir. Although CoVs with the same genome organization (e.g., Tylonycteris BatCoV HKU4 and Pipistrellus BatCoV HKU5) were also detected in bats, there is still a phylogenetic gap between these bat CoVs and MERS-CoV. In 2016, 10 years after the discovery of Rhinolophus BatCoV HKU2 in Chinese horseshoe bats, fatal swine disease outbreaks caused by this virus were reported in southern China. In late 2019, an outbreak of pneumonia emerged in Wuhan, China, and rapidly spread globally, leading to >4,000,000 fatalities so far. Although the genome of SARS-CoV-2 is highly similar to that of SARS-CoV, patient zero and the original source of the pandemic are still unknown. To protect humans from future public health threats, measures should be taken to monitor and reduce the chance of interspecies jumping events, either occurring naturally or through recombineering experiments.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/virology , Chiroptera/virology , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Coronavirus/physiology , Host Adaptation , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/virology , Alphacoronavirus/genetics , Alphacoronavirus/physiology , Animals , COVID-19/transmission , Coronavirus/genetics , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Coronavirus Infections/veterinary , Host Specificity , Humans , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus/genetics , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus/physiology , SARS Virus/genetics , SARS Virus/physiology , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/transmission , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/veterinary
17.
Front Public Health ; 9: 717941, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1477889

ABSTRACT

Coronaviruses cause respiratory and digestive diseases in vertebrates. The recent pandemic, caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus 2, is taking a heavy toll on society and planetary health, and illustrates the threat emerging coronaviruses can pose to the well-being of humans and other animals. Coronaviruses are constantly evolving, crossing host species barriers, and expanding their host range. In the last few decades, several novel coronaviruses have emerged in humans and domestic animals. Novel coronaviruses have also been discovered in captive wildlife or wild populations, raising conservation concerns. The evolution and emergence of novel viruses is enabled by frequent cross-species transmission. It is thus crucial to determine emerging coronaviruses' potential for infecting different host species, and to identify the circumstances under which cross-species transmission occurs in order to mitigate the rate of disease emergence. Here, I review (broadly across several mammalian host species) up-to-date knowledge of host range and circumstances concerning reported cross-species transmission events of emerging coronaviruses in humans and common domestic mammals. All of these coronaviruses had similar host ranges, were closely related (indicative of rapid diversification and spread), and their emergence was likely associated with high-host-density environments facilitating multi-species interactions (e.g., shelters, farms, and markets) and the health or well-being of animals as end- and/or intermediate spillover hosts. Further research is needed to identify mechanisms of the cross-species transmission events that have ultimately led to a surge of emerging coronaviruses in multiple species in a relatively short period of time in a world undergoing rapid environmental change.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , Animals , Humans , Mammals , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology
18.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 70(2): 352-362, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1462838

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Previous studies have found that severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) was associated with the physical and psychological stress of those infected. However, research is sparse regarding the long-term health consequence of community SARS exposure for older adults. METHODS: Using data from the 2011 and 2015 China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS), we estimated multilevel regression models of allostatic load (AL) in the years after the SARS epidemic among 7735 respondents. Interaction terms between SARS epidemic exposure and social participation or community environment were included to examine potential effects. RESULTS: We found that community SARS exposure was associated with greater AL for those who had no social participation. Among those who were in worse community environment, community SARS exposure was strongly related to elevated load in the cardiovascular system. However, for those had social participation and lived in better community environment, community SARS exposure manifested no association with AL years later. Active social participation and better community environment could offset the negative association between SARS exposure and AL. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, these findings helped determine the positive direction of future social efforts and policy decisions to guide the global recovery from the devastating COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Allostasis/physiology , COVID-19 , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Social Participation , Aged , China/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , SARS Virus/isolation & purification , Social Environment , Stress, Psychological/psychology
20.
Nurs Ethics ; 27(4): 924-934, 2020 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1453014

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Fifteen years have passed since the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Hong Kong. At that time, there were reports of heroic acts among professionals who cared for these patients, whose bravery and professionalism were highly praised. However, there are concerns about changes in new generation of nursing professionals. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the attitude of nursing students, should they be faced with severe acute respiratory syndrome patients during their future work. RESEARCH DESIGN: A questionnaire survey was carried out to examine the attitude among final-year nursing students to three ethical areas, namely, duty of care, resource allocation, and collateral damage. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: This study was carried out in accordance with the requirements and recommendations of the Central Research and Ethics Committee, School of Health Sciences at Caritas Institute of Higher Education. FINDINGS: Complete responses from 102 subjects were analyzed. The overwhelming majority (96.1%) did not agree to participate in the intubation of severe acute respiratory syndrome patients if protective measures, that is, N95 mask and gown, were not available. If there were insufficient N95 masks for all the medical, nursing, and allied health workers in the hospital (resource allocation), 37.3% felt that the distribution of N95 masks should be by casting lot, while the rest disagreed. When asked about collateral damage, more than three-quarters (77.5%) said that severe acute respiratory syndrome patients should be admitted to intensive care unit. There was sex difference in nursing students' attitude toward severe acute respiratory syndrome care during pregnancy and influence of age in understanding intensive care unit care for these patients. Interestingly, 94.1% felt that there should be a separate intensive care unit for severe acute respiratory syndrome patients. CONCLUSION: As infection control practice and isolation facilities improved over the years, relevant knowledge and nursing ethical issues related to infectious diseases should become part of nursing education and training programs, especially in preparation for outbreaks of infectious diseases or distress.


Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , Disease Outbreaks , Ethics, Nursing , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Students, Nursing/psychology , Adult , Female , Health Care Rationing , Hong Kong , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Patient Admission , Standard of Care , Surveys and Questionnaires
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL