Projected impact of COVID-19 mitigation strategies on hospital services in the Mexico City Metropolitan Area

COVID-19 Mitigation Activities in Inpatient Psychiatry Were Associated With Patient-Reported Institutional Betrayal, Changes in Trust, and Fear of Getting Sick

Institutional betrayal occurs when the institutions that people depend on fail to protect them from harm, which was exemplified by a failure to manage COVID-19 risks. Inpatient psychiatry provides a rich context for which to understand the effects of institutional betrayal, and this is amplified in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a retrospective cohort design, we administered an online survey to former patients (n = 172) of inpatient psychiatry hospitalized at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020 to February 2021) to understand the relationship between facilities' use of COVID-19 mitigation activities (ie, offering or requiring face masks, keeping patients and staff 6 feet apart, access to hand sanitizer, use of telemedicine for clinical consults, and routine cleanliness of the unit) and former patients' reports of institutional betrayal, changes in their trust in mental healthcare providers, fear of getting sick, and having contracted or witnessed someone else contract COVID-19. The quantity of COVID-19 mitigation activities was monotonically negatively associated with the probability of reporting any betrayal, the probability of reduced trust in mental healthcare providers, and the probability of being afraid of getting sick always or most of the time while hospitalized. COVID-19 mitigation activities either directly affected these psychological outcomes, or facilities that engaged in robust mitigation had greater cultures of safety and care quality. Additional qualitative work is needed to understand these mechanisms.

The Effects of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions on COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, and Mortality: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

To assess the effects of various non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) on cases, hospitalizations, and mortality during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

To empirically investigate the impacts of different NPIs on COVID-19-related health outcomes, a systematic literature review was conducted. We studied the effects of 10 NPIs on cases, hospitalizations, and mortality across three periodic lags (2, 3, and 4 weeks-or-more following implementation). Articles measuring the impact of NPIs were sourced from three databases by May 10, 2022, and risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

Results

Across the 44 papers, we found that mask wearing corresponded to decreased per capita cases across all lags (up to -2.71 per 100,000). All NPIs studied except business and bar/restaurant closures corresponded to reduced case growth rates in the two weeks following implementation, while policy stringency and travelling restrictions were most effective after four. While we did not find evidence of reduced deaths in our per capita estimates, policy stringency, masks, SIPOs, limited gatherings, school and business closures were associated with decreased mortality growth rates. Moreover, the two NPIs studied in hospitalizations (SIPOs and mask wearing) showed negative estimates.

Conclusions

When assessing the impact of NPIs, considering the duration of effectiveness following implementation has paramount significance. While some NPIs may reduce the COVID-19 impact, others can disrupt the mitigative progression of containing the virus. Policymakers should be aware of both the scale of their effectiveness and duration of impact when adopting these measures for future COVID-19 waves.

Awake prone positioning and oxygen therapy in patients with COVID-19: the APRONOX study

BACKGROUND

The awake prone positioning strategy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome is a safe, simple and cost-effective technique used to improve hypoxaemia. We aimed to evaluate intubation and mortality risk in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who underwent awake prone positioning during hospitalisation.

METHODS

In this retrospective, multicentre observational study conducted between 1 May 2020 and 12 June 2020 in 27 hospitals in Mexico and Ecuador, nonintubated patients with COVID-19 managed with awake prone or awake supine positioning were included to evaluate intubation and mortality risk through logistic regression models; multivariable and centre adjustment, propensity score analyses, and E-values were calculated to limit confounding.

RESULTS

827 nonintubated patients with COVID-19 in the awake prone (n=505) and awake supine (n=322) groups were included for analysis. Fewer patients in the awake prone group required endotracheal intubation (23.6% versus 40.4%) or died (19.8% versus 37.3%). Awake prone positioning was a protective factor for intubation even after multivariable adjustment (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24-0.52; p<0.0001, E=2.12), which prevailed after propensity score analysis (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.62; p<0.0001, E=1.86) and mortality (adjusted OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26-0.55; p<0.0001, E=2.03). The main variables associated with intubation among awake prone patients were increasing age, lower baseline peripheral arterial oxygen saturation/inspiratory oxygen fraction ratio (P aO2 /F IO2 ) and management with a nonrebreather mask.

CONCLUSIONS

Awake prone positioning in hospitalised nonintubated patients with COVID-19 is associated with a lower risk of intubation and mortality.

Public Health Regulations and Policies Dealing with Preparedness and Emergency Management: The Experience of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy

Worldwide, the management of health emergencies requires a high degree of preparedness and resilience on the part of governments and health systems. Indeed, disasters are becoming increasingly common, with significant health, social, and economic impacts. Living in a globalized world also means that emergencies that occur in one country often have an international, in some cases global, spread: the COVID-19 pandemic is a cogent example. The key elements in emergency management are central governance, coordination, investment of resources before the emergency occurs, and preparedness to deal with it at all levels. However, several factors might condition the response to the emergency, highlighting, as for Italy, strengths and weaknesses. In this context, policies and regulation of actions to be implemented at international and national level must be up-to-date, clear, transparent and, above all, feasible and implementable. Likewise, the allocation of resources to develop adequate preparedness plans is critical. Due to COVID-19 pandemic, the European Commission proposed the temporary recovery instrument NextGenerationEU, as well as a targeted reinforcement of the European Union’s long-term budget for the period 2021–2027. The pandemic highlighted that it is necessary to interrupt the continuous defunding of the health sector, allocating funds especially in prevention, training and information activities: indeed, a greater and more aware public attention on health risks and on the impacts of emergencies can help to promote virtuous changes, sharing contents and information that act as a guide for the population.

Prone positioning for non-intubated hypoxemic patients with COVID-19: cheap, easy, and makes sense, but does it work?

Since the 1970s, prone positioning has been proposed as an inexpensive and physiologically justified management strategy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The physiological rationale for prone positioning in ARDS has been well described [1,2]. Placing a person in the prone position reduces lung compression, which facilitates better ventilation/perfusion matching and leads to improved oxygenation. However, determining whether patients receive clinically meaningful benefit from prone positioning in the form of reduced mortality or time supported on mechanical ventilation has been challenging. Early trials that used prone positioning as a “rescue” therapy or applied relatively small “doses” of prone positioning (i.e. limited duration of time in prone position) did not demonstrate improvements in mortality or ventilator-free days (VFDs) [3–5].

This editorial evaluates a large observational study that identified strong associations between awake prone positioning and decreased mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19https://bit.ly/3m3NeAx

Emergency medical admissions and COVID-19: impact on 30-day mortality and hospital length of stay

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has put considerable strain on healthcare systems.

AIM

To investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on 30-day in-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS) and resource utilization in acute medical care.

METHODS

We compared emergency medical admissions to a single secondary care centre during 2020 to the preceding 18 years (2002-2019). We investigated 30-day in-hospital mortality with a multiple variable logistic regression model. Utilization of procedures/services was related to LOS with zero truncated Poisson regression.

RESULTS

There were 132,715 admissions in 67,185 patients over the 19-year study. There was a linear reduction in 30-day in-hospital mortality over time; over the most recent 5 years (2016-2020), there was a relative risk reduction of 36%, from 7.9 to 4.3% with a number needed to treat of 27.7. Emergency medical admissions increased 18.8% to 10,452 in 2020 with COVID-19 admissions representing 3.5%. 18.6% of COVID-19 cases required ICU admission with a median stay of 10.1 days (IQR 3.8, 16.0). COVID-19 was a significant univariate predictor of 30-day in-hospital mortality, 18.5% (95%CI: 13.9, 23.1) vs. 3.0% (95%CI: 2.7, 3.4)-OR 7.3 (95%CI: 5.3, 10.1). ICU admission was the dominant outcome predictor-OR 12.4 (95%CI: 7.7, 20.1). COVID-19 mortality in the last third of 2020 improved-OR 0.64 (95%CI: 0.47, 0.86). Hospital LOS and resource utilization were increased.

CONCLUSION

A diagnosis of COVID-19 was associated with significantly increased mortality and LOS but represented only 3.5% of admissions and did not attenuate the established temporal decline in overall in-hospital mortality.

Hydrogen Peroxide as an Adjuvant Therapy for COVID-19: A Case Series of Patients and Caregivers in the Mexico City Metropolitan Area

Knowledge of the antiseptic effects of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) dates back to the late 19th century, and its mechanisms of action has been amply described. Globally, many physicians have reported using H2O2 successfully, in different modalities, against COVID-19. Given its anti-infective and oxygenating properties, hydrogen peroxide may offer prophylactic and therapeutic applications for responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. We report a consecutive case series of twenty-three COVID-19 patients (of 36 initially enrolled) who had been diagnosed by their primary care physician (mean age: 39, range: 8 months-70 years; 74% male) and twenty-eight caregivers in the Mexico City Metropolitan Area who received a complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) telemedicine treatment with H2O2 taken by mouth (PO, at a concentration of 0.06%), oral rinse (mouthwash, 1.5%), and/or nebulization (0.2%). We describe the treatment program and report the response of the COVID-19 patients and their caregivers. The patients mainly recovered well, reporting feeling "completely better" at 9.5 days on average. Two (9%) were hospitalized prior to joining the study, and one did not fully recover. Patients frequently reported nausea and sometimes dizziness or vomiting related to the oral treatment. None of the twenty-eight caregivers in close contact with the patients reported contracting COVID-19. Given its low cost and medical potential and considering its relative safety if used properly, we suggest that randomized controlled trials should be conducted. These should include both SARS-CoV-2-positive and SARS-CoV-2-negative participants, with single or combined modes of administration of H2O2, to study the benefits of this simple molecule and offer safe guidance regarding its use by health professionals.

COVID-19: Current knowledge in clinical features, immunological responses, and vaccine development

The COVID-19 pandemic has unfolded to be the most challenging global health crisis in a century. In 11 months since its first emergence, according to WHO, the causative infectious agent SARS-CoV-2 has infected more than 100 million people and claimed more than 2.15 million lives worldwide. Moreover, the world has raced to understand the virus and natural immunity and to develop vaccines. Thus, within a short 11 months a number of highly promising COVID-19 vaccines were developed at an unprecedented speed and are now being deployed via emergency use authorization for immunization. Although a considerable number of review contributions are being published, all of them attempt to capture only a specific aspect of COVID-19 or its therapeutic approaches based on ever-expanding information. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview to conceptually thread together the latest information on global epidemiology and mitigation strategies, clinical features, viral pathogenesis and immune responses, and the current state of vaccine development.