• COVID-19
• Other research productsclose
• English close
• NARCIS close
• COVID-19 close

The world is currently embroiled in a pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a respiratory illness caused by the novel betacoronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The severity of COVID-19 disease ranges from asymptomatic to fatal acute respiratory distress syndrome. In few patients, the disease undergoes phenotypic differentiation between 7 and 14 days of acute illness, either resulting in full recovery or symptom escalation. However, the mechanism of such variation is not clear, but the facts suggest that patient's immune status, comorbidities, and the systemic effects of the viral infection (potentially depending on the SARS-CoV-2 strain involved) play a key role. Subsequently, patients with the most severe symptoms tend to have poor outcomes, manifest severe hypoxia, and possess elevated levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines (including IL-1β, IL-6, IFN-γ, and TNF-α) along with elevated levels of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10, marked lymphopenia, and elevated neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios. Based on the available evidence, we propose a mechanism wherein SARS-CoV-2 infection induces direct organ damage while also fueling an IL-6-mediated cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and hypoxia, resulting in escalating systemic inflammation, multi-organ damage, and end-organ failure. Elevated IL-6 and hypoxia together predisposes patients to pulmonary hypertension, and the presence of asymptomatic hypoxia in COVID-19 further compounds this problem. Due to the similar downstream mediators, we discuss the potential synergistic effects and systemic ramifications of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza virus during co-infection, a phenomenon we have termed "COVI-Flu." Additionally, the differences between CRS and cytokine storm are highlighted. Finally, novel management approaches, clinical trials, and therapeutic strategies toward both SARS-CoV-2 and COVI-Flu infection are discussed, highlighting host response optimization and systemic inflammation reduction.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.5334/gh.1128.].

Background: A worldwide vaccination program is the chosen strategy against the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine hesitancy however, forms a threat because vaccine uptake is voluntary in most countries. Care-professionals of people with intellectual disabilities are exposed to greater risks than other healthcare workers due to the vulnerable group they attend to and the assisted-living facilities in which they often work. Little is still known of the reasons for vaccine hesitancy in this specific group in contrast to those of other healthcare workers. Objective: To provide insight in the intentions and attitudes on COVID-vaccination of healthcare workers, including those who care for people with intellectual disabilities, by means of a scoping review. Methods: The databases that were searched for papers are CINAHL, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, Web of Science, Semantic Scolar, Prospero, Outbreak Science, Cochrane and Scopus. The search was broadened to healthcare workers in general because only two papers were found on those caring for people with intellectual disabilities. A total of 26 papers were identified concerning the vaccine intentions of 43,199 healthcare workers worldwide. Data were gathered both quantitively and qualitatively. The papers were analysed for all themes regarding vaccine willingness and vaccine hesitancy. Results: The themes that came to light included: percentages of vaccine willingness, predictors of willingness differentiated by 11 sub-themes (mainly profession, age, gender and past vaccine behaviour), attitudes of willingness and hesitancy differentiated by 19 sub-themes (perceived COVID treat and protecting others for willingness, concerns on vaccine safety and efficacy for hesitancy), sources of vaccination information, contextual factors and changes in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance over time and finally, future strategies for interventions. Conclusions: There was overlap in the percentages of vaccination, predictors of vaccine willingness and the attitudes of vaccine willingness and hesitancy between healthcare workers and those caring for people with intellectual disabilities. Vaccine safety and efficacy are the most prominent concerns with regard to vaccine hesitancy. Therefore, future strategies for interventions should address vaccine safety and efficacy. Furthermore, interventions are recommended to be interactive in order to facilitate exchange. Discussion groups that are able to address specific concerns and personal experiences, show to be effective in addressing vaccine hesitancy. Accurate information can also be made more accessible to target groups by promoting video’s on social media platforms. Hence, further research is necessary to specify more precisely the attitudes of healthcare workers caring for people with intellectual disabilities and in more countries worldwide.

The global coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to escalate at a rapid pace inundating medical facilities and creating substantial challenges globally. The risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in patients with cancer seems to be higher, espe- cially as they are more likely to present with an immuno- compromised condition, either from cancer itself or from the treatments they receive. A major consideration in the delivery of cancer care during the pandemic is to balance the risk of patient exposure and infection with the need to provide effective cancer treatment. Many aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 infection currently remain poorly characterized and even less is known about the course of infection in the context of a patient with cancer. As SARS-CoV-2 is highly contagious, the risk of infection directly affects the cancer patient being treated, other cancer patients in close prox- imity, and health care providers. Infection at any level for patients or providers can cause considerable disruption to even the most effective treatment plans. Lung cancer pa- tients, especially those with reduced lung function and cardiopulmonary comorbidities are more likely to have increased risk and mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 as one of its common manifestations is as an acute respi- ratory illness. The purpose of this manuscript is to present a practical multidisciplinary and international overview to assist in treatment for lung cancer patients during this pandemic, with the caveat that evidence is lacking in many areas. It is expected that firmer recommendations can be developed as more evidence becomes available. (C) 2020 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Purpose of reviewCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic changed the way we had to approach hospital- and intensive care unit (ICU)-related resource management, especially for demanding techniques required for advanced support, including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).Recent findingsAvailability of ICU beds and ECMO machines widely varies around the world. In critical conditions, such a global pandemic, the establishment of contingency capacity tiers might help in defining to which conditions and subjects ECMO can be offered. A frequent reassessment of the resource saturation, possibly integrated within a regional healthcare coordination system, may be of help to triage the patients who most likely will benefit from advanced techniques, especially when capacities are limited.SummaryIndications to ECMO during the pandemic should be fluid and may be adjusted over time. Candidacy of patients should follow the same prepandemic rules, taking into account the acute disease, the burden of any eventual comorbidity and the chances of a good quality of life after recovery; but the current capacity of healthcare system should also be considered, and frequently reassessed, possibly within a wide hub-and-spoke healthcare system.

Background: Our March 2021 edition of this review showed thoracic imaging computed tomography (CT) to be sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia. This new edition is an update of the review. Objectives: Our objectives were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in people with suspected COVID-19; assess the rate of positive imaging in people who had an initial reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negative result and a positive RT-PCR result on follow-up; and evaluate the accuracy of thoracic imaging for screening COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals. The secondary objective was to assess threshold effects of index test positivity on accuracy. Search methods: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 17 February 2021. We did not apply any language restrictions. Selection criteria: We included diagnostic accuracy studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19. Studies had to assess chest CT, chest X-ray, or ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of COVID-19, use a reference standard that included RT-PCR, and report estimates of test accuracy or provide data from which we could compute estimates. We excluded studies that used imaging as part of the reference standard and studies that excluded participants with normal index test results. Data collection and analysis: The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using QUADAS-2. We presented sensitivity and specificity per study on paired forest plots, and summarized pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. Main results: We included 98 studies in this review. Of these, 94 were included for evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in the evaluation of people with suspected COVID-19. Eight studies were included for assessing the rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results and positive RT-PCR results on follow-up, and 10 studies were included for evaluating the accuracy of thoracic imaging for imagining asymptomatic individuals. For all 98 included studies, risk of bias was high or unclear in 52 (53%) studies with respect to participant selection, in 64 (65%) studies with respect to reference standard, in 46 (47%) studies with respect to index test, and in 48 (49%) studies with respect to flow and timing. Concerns about the applicability of the evidence to: participants were high or unclear in eight (8%) studies; index test were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies; and reference standard were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies. Imaging in people with suspected COVID-19. We included 94 studies. Eighty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality, and seven studies evaluated two imaging modalities. All studies used RT-PCR alone or in combination with other criteria (for example, clinical signs and symptoms, positive contacts) as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (69 studies, 28285 participants, 14,342 (51%) cases), sensitivities ranged from 45% to 100%, and specificities from 10% to 99%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 86.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.6 to 89.6), and pooled specificity was 78.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 82.3). Definition for index test positivity was a source of heterogeneity for sensitivity, but not specificity. Reference standard was not a source of heterogeneity. For chest X-ray (17 studies, 8529 participants, 5303 (62%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 44% to 94% and specificity from 24 to 93%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 73.1% (95% CI 64. to -80.5), and pooled specificity was 73.3% (95% CI 61.9 to 82.2). Definition for index test positivity was not found to be a source of heterogeneity. Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. For ultrasound of the lungs (15 studies, 2410 participants, 1158 (48%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 73% to 94% and the specificity ranged from 21% to 98%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 88.9% (95% CI 84.9 to 92.0), and the pooled specificity was 72.2% (95% CI 58.8 to 82.5). Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. Indirect comparisons of modalities evaluated across all 94 studies indicated that chest CT and ultrasound gave higher sensitivity estimates than X-ray (P = 0.0003 and P = 0.001, respectively). Chest CT and ultrasound gave similar sensitivities (P=0.42). All modalities had similar specificities (CT versus X-ray P = 0.36; CT versus ultrasound P = 0.32; X-ray versus ultrasound P = 0.89). Imaging in PCR-negative people who subsequently became positive. For rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results, we included 8 studies (7 CT, 1 ultrasound) with a total of 198 participants suspected of having COVID-19, all of whom had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Most studies (7/8) evaluated CT. Of 177 participants with initially negative RT-PCR who had positive RT-PCR results on follow-up testing, 75.8% (95% CI 45.3 to 92.2) had positive CT findings. Imaging in asymptomatic PCR-positive people. For imaging asymptomatic individuals, we included 10 studies (7 CT, 1 X-ray, 2 ultrasound) with a total of 3548 asymptomatic participants, of whom 364 (10%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (7 studies, 3134 participants, 315 (10%) cases), the pooled sensitivity was 55.7% (95% CI 35.4 to 74.3) and the pooled specificity was 91.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 95.7). Authors' conclusions: Chest CT and ultrasound of the lungs are sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for ruling out COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. The uncertainty resulting from high or unclear risk of bias and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

Mucins play an essential role in protecting the respiratory tract against microbial infections. The heavily O-glycosylated gel-forming mucins MUC5AC and MUC5B eliminate pathogens by mucociliary clearance while transmembrane mucins MUC1, MUC4, and MUC16 restrict microbial invasion at the apical surface of the epithelium. In this study, we determined the impact of host mucins and mucin glycans on SARS-CoV-2 spike-mediated epithelial entry. Human lung epithelial Calu-3 cells have endogenous expression of the SARS-CoV-2 entry receptor ACE2 and express high levels of glycosylated MUC1 on the surface but not MUC4 and MUC16. Removal of the MUC1 extracellular domain (ED) using the O-glycan-specific mucinase StcE greatly enhanced spike binding and viral infection. By contrast, removal of mucin glycans sialic acid and fucose did not impact viral invasion. This study implicates the glycosylated ED of MUC1 as an important component of the host defense that restricts the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection.