Prevalence of comorbidities in deceased patients with COVID-19: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In December 2019, a new disease, coronavirus disease (COVID-19), emerged, which put several countries on a state of alert. Because it is a novel virus, several aspects and factors that contribute to the evolution of pathogenesis are still unknown and need to be better understood. Therefore, a systematic review is necessary to investigate the association between COVID-19 infection and chronic nontransmissible disease in patients who have died of COVID-19. METHODS: This was a systematic review of the literature for observational studies published between December 2019 and September 2020. The protocol for this systematic review was registered in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) under the number CRD42020176249. RESULTS: In the 31 studies analyzed, a total of 421,872 (100%) patients were infected with COVID-19, and, of these, 45,399 (10.8%) died. The 3 most prevalent comorbidities were hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and respiratory diseases, respectively. The cure/recovery rate was 89.2% (376,473). CONCLUSION: This review revealed a high percentage of comorbidities in the patients with COVID-19, especially those who died.

Prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress among teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Identifying the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress among teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Systematic review of original studies published in any language. Protocol published in PROSPERO under number CRD42021240543. The search was carried out in the Web of Science, PsycINFO, Pubmed, Embase, LILACS, and SciELO databases, using the descriptors: anxiety, depression, stress, teacher, faculty, COVID-19, and their synonyms. Narrative synthesis was carried out in line with the synthesis without meta-analysis in systematic reviews. RESULTS: Of the 1372 records identified, 6 studies, all cross-sectional, were included in the review. The studies were carried out in China, Brazil, the United States of America, India, and Spain. Five studies included more women than men. The participants were aged from 24 to 60 years. Three studies included only school teachers, 2 included schools and universities teachers, and 1 only university teachers. Of the 5 studies, all dealt with remote activities and only 1 included teachers who returned to face-to-face classes 1 to 2 weeks ago. The prevalence of anxiety ranged from 10% to 49.4%, and depression from 15.9% to 28.9%, being considerably higher in studies with teachers who worked in schools. The prevalence of stress ranged from 12.6% to 50.6%. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress was high among teachers during the pandemic, with great variation between studies. Anxiety and stress were more prevalent in the Spanish study. The results show the need for measures for the care of teachers' mental health, especially when returning to face-to-face classes.

[Prevalence of anxiety among health professionals in times of COVID-19: a systematic review with meta-analysis]. / Prevalência de ansiedade em profissionais da saúde em tempos de COVID-19: revisão sistemática com metanálise.

This study sets out to identify the prevalence of anxiety among health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. It involves a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published in any language in 2020. A search was conducted in the Embase, LILACS and PubMed databases using the keywords anxiety, COVID-19, health workers, and synonyms. The estimated overall prevalence of anxiety with a 95% confidence interval was calculated using the random effects model. Of the 861 records identified, 36 articles were included in the systematic review and 35 in the meta-analysis. The overall prevalence of anxiety was 35% (95%CI: 29-40). A higher risk of anxiety was identified among women compared to men (Odds Ratio: 1.64 [95%CI: 1.47-1.84]), and in nurses, in comparison with physicians (Odds Ratio: 1.19 [95%CI: 1.07-1.33]). Being on the front line of COVID-19, being infected with coronavirus and having chronic diseases were also factors associated with a higher risk of anxiety. A high prevalence of anxiety among health professionals was observed, with higher risk among women and nurses. There is a pressing need for measures aimed at prevention of anxiety and providing early and appropriate treatment for those suffering from moderate and severe anxiety.

O objetivo deste estudo é identificar a prevalência de ansiedade em profissionais de saúde durante a pandemia da COVID-19. Trata-se de revisão sistemática de estudos publicados em qualquer idioma em 2020. Foi realizada busca nas bases de dados Embase, LILACS e PubMed utilizando os descritores anxiety, COVID-19, health workers, e sinônimos. A estimativa da prevalência geral de ansiedade com intervalo de confiança de 95% foi calculada utilizando o modelo de efeitos aleatórios. Dos 861 registros identificados, 36 artigos foram incluídos na revisão sistemática e 35 na metanálise. A prevalência geral de ansiedade foi de 35% (IC95%: 29-40). Foi identificado maior risco de ansiedade nas mulheres em relação aos homens (Odds Ratio: 1.64 [IC95%: 1,47-1,84]), e nos enfermeiros, na comparação com médicos (Odds Ratio: 1.19 [IC95%: 1,07-1,33]). Atuar na linha de frente no combate a COVID-19, estar infectado com coronavírus e apresentar doenças crônicas também foram fatores associados com maior risco de ansiedade. Observa-se alta prevalência de ansiedade entre profissionais de saúde, com maior risco entre mulheres e enfermeiros. Há necessidade de medidas que visem sua prevenção, bem como o fornecimento de tratamento precoce e adequado aos com ansiedade moderada e grave.

Nutritional Risk Screening Tools for Older Adults with COVID-19: A Systematic Review.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with high risk of malnutrition, primarily in older people; assessing nutritional risk using appropriate screening tools is critical. This systematic review identified applicable tools and assessed their measurement properties. Literature was searched in the MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases. Four studies conducted in China met the eligibility criteria. Sample sizes ranged from six to 182, and participants' ages from 65 to 87 years. Seven nutritional screening and assessment tools were used: the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), the MNA-short form (MNA-sf), the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), the Nutritional Risk Index (NRI), the Geriatric NRI (GNRI), and modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically ill (mNUTRIC) score. Nutritional risk was identified in 27.5% to 100% of participants. The NRS-2002, MNA, MNA-sf, NRI, and MUST demonstrated high sensitivity; the MUST had better specificity. The MNA and MUST demonstrated better criterion validity. The MNA-sf demonstrated better predictive validity for poor appetite and weight loss; the NRS-2002 demonstrated better predictive validity for prolonged hospitalization. mNUTRIC score demonstrated good predictive validity for hospital mortality. Most instruments demonstrate high sensitivity for identifying nutritional risk, but none are acknowledged as the best for nutritional screening in older adults with COVID-19.

Nutritional Risk Screening Tools for Older Adults with COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with high risk of malnutrition, primarily in older people;assessing nutritional risk using appropriate screening tools is critical. This systematic review identified applicable tools and assessed their measurement properties. Literature was searched in the MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases. Four studies conducted in China met the eligibility criteria. Sample sizes ranged from six to 182, and participants"ages from 65 to 87 years. Seven nutritional screening and assessment tools were used: the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), the MNA-short form (MNA-sf), the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), the Nutritional Risk Index (NRI), the Geriatric NRI (GNRI), and modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically ill (mNUTRIC) score. Nutritional risk was identified in 27.5% to 100% of participants. The NRS-2002, MNA, MNA-sf, NRI, and MUST demonstrated high sensitivity;the MUST had better specificity. The MNA and MUST demonstrated better criterion validity. The MNA-sf demonstrated better predictive validity for poor appetite and weight loss;the NRS-2002 demonstrated better predictive validity for prolonged hospitalization. mNUTRIC score demonstrated good predictive validity for hospital mortality. Most instruments demonstrate high sensitivity for identifying nutritional risk, but none are acknowledged as the best for nutritional screening in older adults with COVID-19.