Healthcare utilization and maternal and child mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic in 18 low- and middle-income countries: An interrupted time-series analysis with mathematical modeling of administrative data

BackgroundThe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had wide-reaching direct and indirect impacts on population health. In low- and middle-income countries, these impacts can halt progress toward reducing maternal and child mortality. This study estimates changes in health services utilization during the pandemic and the associated consequences for maternal, neonatal, and child mortality.Methods and findingsData on service utilization from January 2018 to June 2021 were extracted from health management information systems of 18 low- and lower-middle-income countries (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Uganda). An interrupted time-series design was used to estimate the percent change in the volumes of outpatient consultations and maternal and child health services delivered during the pandemic compared to projected volumes based on prepandemic trends. The Lives Saved Tool mathematical model was used to project the impact of the service utilization disruptions on child and maternal mortality. In addition, the estimated monthly disruptions were also correlated to the monthly number of COVID-19 deaths officially reported, time since the start of the pandemic, and relative severity of mobility restrictions. Across the 18 countries, we estimate an average decline in OPD volume of 13.1% and average declines of 2.6% to 4.6% for maternal and child services. We projected that decreases in essential health service utilization between March 2020 and June 2021 were associated with 113,962 excess deaths (110,686 children under 5, and 3,276 mothers), representing 3.6% and 1.5% increases in child and maternal mortality, respectively. This excess mortality is associated with the decline in utilization of the essential health services included in the analysis, but the utilization shortfalls vary substantially between countries, health services, and over time. The largest disruptions, associated with 27.5% of the excess deaths, occurred during the second quarter of 2020, regardless of whether countries reported the highest rate of COVID-19-related mortality during the same months. There is a significant relationship between the magnitude of service disruptions and the stringency of mobility restrictions. The study is limited by the extent to which administrative data, which varies in quality across countries, can accurately capture the changes in service coverage in the population.ConclusionsDeclines in healthcare utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic amplified the pandemic’s harmful impacts on health outcomes and threaten to reverse gains in reducing maternal and child mortality. As efforts and resource allocation toward prevention and treatment of COVID-19 continue, essential health services must be maintained, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

Tashrik Ahmed and co-workers study health-care use and maternal and child health outcomes across low- and lower-middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Impact of cancer surgery slowdowns on patient survival during the COVID-19 pandemic: a microsimulation modelling study

Background:With the declaration of the global pandemic, surgical slowdowns were instituted to conserve health care resources for anticipated surges in patients with COVID-19. The long-term implications on survival of these slowdowns for patients with cancer in Canada is unknown.Methods:We constructed a microsimulation model based on real-world population data on cancer care from Ontario, Canada, from 2019 and 2020. Our model estimated wait times for cancer surgery over a 6-month period during the pandemic by simulating a slowdown in operating room capacity (60% operating room resources in month 1, 70% in month 2, 85% in months 3–6), as compared with simulated prepandemic conditions with 100% resources. We used incremental differences in simulated wait times to model survival using per-day hazard ratios for risk of death. Primary outcomes included life-years lost per patient and per cancer population. We conducted scenario analyses to evaluate alternative, hypothetical scenarios of different levels of surgical slowdowns on risk of death.Results:The simulated model population comprised 22 799 patients waiting for cancer surgery before the pandemic and 20 177 patients during the pandemic. Mean wait time to surgery prepandemic was 25 days and during the pandemic was 32 days. Excess wait time led to 0.01–0.07 life-years lost per patient across cancer sites, translating to 843 (95% credible interval 646–950) life-years lost among patients with cancer in Ontario.Interpretation:Pandemic-related slowdowns of cancer surgeries were projected to result in decreased long-term survival for many patients with cancer. Measures to preserve surgical resources and health care capacity for affected patients are critical to mitigate unintended consequences.

Declaration of the global COVID-19 pandemic led to the implementation of several clinical and policy-related measures to mitigate risk to vulnerable populations and conserve health care resources. Literature from early waves of the pandemic characterized patients with cancer as a vulnerable population.^1,2 Moreover, cancer surgery can be highly resource intensive, which could strain the health care system’s ability to respond to the pandemic. Accordingly, in March 2020, the Ontario government recommended reducing the number of cancer surgeries, along with other elective surgeries performed in the province. These measures were aimed at reducing both patient morbidity and use of health care resources, primarily by decreasing routine postoperative admissions to wards and intensive care units, in anticipation of a potential surge of patients with COVID-19.³Although necessary, this initial strategy resulted in a backlog of cancer surgeries, and some patients faced longer wait times to surgical treatment.⁴ Given clear evidence showing that longer surgical wait times can increase cancer-related risk of death, there is concern for the unintended consequences of the surgical slowdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic.^5–8 International data have projected the negative impact on long-term survival associated with potential delays to cancer diagnosis or surgery across various cancer types.^9–11 Recognizing the global differences in level of infection, response to the COVID-19 pandemic and cancer survival rates, country-specific data are required to understand local consequences and better guide future responses to times of resource constraint. As such, the objective of the current study was to evaluate the long-term implications of pandemic–related cancer surgery slowdowns on cancer survival in Ontario, Canada.     

Excess years of life lost to COVID-19 and other causes of death by sex,neighbourhood deprivation,and region in England and Wales during 2020: A registry-based study

BackgroundDeaths in the first year of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in England and Wales were unevenly distributed socioeconomically and geographically. However, the full scale of inequalities may have been underestimated to date, as most measures of excess mortality do not adequately account for varying age profiles of deaths between social groups. We measured years of life lost (YLL) attributable to the pandemic, directly or indirectly, comparing mortality across geographic and socioeconomic groups.Methods and findingsWe used national mortality registers in England and Wales, from 27 December 2014 until 25 December 2020, covering 3,265,937 deaths. YLLs (main outcome) were calculated using 2019 single year sex-specific life tables for England and Wales. Interrupted time-series analyses, with panel time-series models, were used to estimate expected YLL by sex, geographical region, and deprivation quintile between 7 March 2020 and 25 December 2020 by cause: direct deaths (COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases), cardiovascular disease and diabetes, cancer, and other indirect deaths (all other causes). Excess YLL during the pandemic period were calculated by subtracting observed from expected values. Additional analyses focused on excess deaths for region and deprivation strata, by age-group. Between 7 March 2020 and 25 December 2020, there were an estimated 763,550 (95% CI: 696,826 to 830,273) excess YLL in England and Wales, equivalent to a 15% (95% CI: 14 to 16) increase in YLL compared to the equivalent time period in 2019. There was a strong deprivation gradient in all-cause excess YLL, with rates per 100,000 population ranging from 916 (95% CI: 820 to 1,012) for the least deprived quintile to 1,645 (95% CI: 1,472 to 1,819) for the most deprived. The differences in excess YLL between deprivation quintiles were greatest in younger age groups; for all-cause deaths, a mean of 9.1 years per death (95% CI: 8.2 to 10.0) were lost in the least deprived quintile, compared to 10.8 (95% CI: 10.0 to 11.6) in the most deprived; for COVID-19 and other respiratory deaths, a mean of 8.9 years per death (95% CI: 8.7 to 9.1) were lost in the least deprived quintile, compared to 11.2 (95% CI: 11.0 to 11.5) in the most deprived. For all-cause mortality, estimated deaths in the most deprived compared to the most affluent areas were much higher in younger age groups, but similar for those aged 85 or over. There was marked variability in both all-cause and direct excess YLL by region, with the highest rates in the North West. Limitations include the quasi-experimental nature of the research design and the requirement for accurate and timely recording.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed strong socioeconomic and geographical health inequalities in YLL, during the first calendar year of the COVID-19 pandemic. These were in line with long-standing existing inequalities in England and Wales, with the most deprived areas reporting the largest numbers in potential YLL.

In a registry-based study, Evangelos Kontopantelis and colleagues examine the excess years of life lost to COVID-19 and other causes of death by sex, neighbourhood deprivation and region in England & Wales during 2020.     

Cardiac electrophysiology consultative experience at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has greatly altered the practice of cardiac electrophysiology around the world for the foreseeable future. Professional organizations have provided guidance for practitioners, but real-world examples of the consults and responsibilities cardiac electrophysiologists face during a surge of COVID-19 patients is lacking.MethodsIn this observational case series we report on 29 consecutive inpatient electrophysiology consultations at a major academic medical center in New York City, the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, during a 2 week period from March 30-April 12, 2020, when 80% of hospital beds were occupied by COVID-19 patients, and the New York City metropolitan area accounted for 10% of COVID-19 cases worldwide.ResultsReasons for consultation included: Atrial tachyarrhythmia (31%), cardiac implantable electronic device management (28%), bradycardia (14%), QTc prolongation (10%), ventricular arrhythmia (7%), post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement conduction abnormality (3.5%), ventricular pre-excitation (3.5%), and paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (3.5%). Twenty-four patients (86%) were positive for COVID-19 by nasopharyngeal swab. All elective procedures were canceled, and only one urgent device implantation was performed. Thirteen patients (45%) required in-person evaluation and the remainder were managed remotely.ConclusionOur experience shows that the application of a massive alteration in workflow and personnel forced by the pandemic allowed our team to efficiently address the intersection of COVID-19 with a range of electrophysiology issues. This experience will prove useful as guidance for emerging hot spots or areas affected by future waves of the pandemic.     

Changes in ischemic stroke presentations,management and outcomes during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta: a population study

Background:Pandemics may promote hospital avoidance, and added precautions may exacerbate treatment delays for medical emergencies such as stroke. We sought to evaluate ischemic stroke presentations, management and outcomes during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods:We conducted a population-based study, using linked administrative and stroke registry data from Alberta to identify all patients presenting with stroke before the pandemic (Jan. 1, 2016 to Feb. 27, 2020) and in 5 periods over the first pandemic year (Feb. 28, 2020 to Mar. 31, 2021), reflecting changes in case numbers and restrictions. We evaluated changes in hospital admissions, emergency department presentations, thrombolysis, endovascular therapy, workflow times and outcomes.Results:The study included 19 531 patients in the prepandemic period and 4900 patients across the 5 pandemic periods. Presentations for ischemic stroke dropped in the first pandemic wave (weekly adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50 to 0.59). Population-level incidence of thrombolysis (adjusted IRR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.62) and endovascular therapy (adjusted IRR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.84) also decreased during the first wave, but proportions of patients presenting with stroke who received acute therapies did not decline. Rates of patients presenting with stroke did not return to prepandemic levels, even during a lull in COVID-19 cases between the first 2 waves of the pandemic, and fell further in subsequent waves. In-hospital delays in thrombolysis or endovascular therapy occurred in several pandemic periods. The likelihood of in-hospital death increased in Wave 2 (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.48, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.74) and Wave 3 (adjusted OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.00). Out-of-hospital deaths, as a proportion of stroke-related deaths, rose during 4 of 5 pandemic periods.Interpretation:The first year of the COVID-19 pandemic saw persistently reduced rates of patients presenting with ischemic stroke, recurrent treatment delays and higher risk of in-hospital death in later waves. These findings support public health messaging that encourages care-seeking for medical emergencies during pandemic periods, and stroke systems should re-evaluate protocols to mitigate inefficiencies.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, affected countries implemented various public health measures to decrease viral transmission. An unintended consequence of these measures could be hospital avoidance by patients with medical emergencies, as observed during other outbreaks in the 2000s.^1,2 Some public health messaging specifically warned groups at high cardiovascular risk, such as older people or those with heart disease, that they were at elevated risk of severe COVID-19.³ Physical distancing may also result in loss of services and support networks, impairing patients’ ability to seek medical assistance.⁴ Furthermore, pandemics generate new challenges of managing personal protective equipment and cleaning protocols,⁵ and additional information bottlenecks, which could result in workflow delays for emergencies like stroke.⁶Previous studies have reported declines in patients presenting to hospital with stroke or acute coronary syndrome during the pandemic.^7,8 A World Stroke Organization survey of members in several countries indicated a sharp reduction in stroke admissions by 50%–80% in the first weeks of the pandemic.⁹ A cross-sectional study reported a global decline in hospital admissions for stroke.¹⁰ Patients who present to hospital seem to be doing so later than usual, perhaps waiting until their condition becomes more severe.^11–14 However, studies have not been at a population level, consequently suffering from selection bias, and have generally focused only on the first wave of the pandemic. As the associations between the pandemic and the incidence, treatment, workflow and outcomes of stroke are likely to be modified by several events — including changing COVID-19 case counts, public health restrictions and health system strains — it is important to explore population data from pandemic periods beyond the first wave to better understand these phenomena.Verifying and quantifying the pandemic’s effect on stroke presentations and workflow can help tailor public health messaging to continue emphasizing the time-critical nature of emergencies like stroke. Such data may also help optimize pandemic stroke workflow protocols. We sought to explore patterns of hospital admissions, treatment rates, workflow delays and outcomes for ischemic stroke during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta, Canada.     

Increase in the Number of Pediatric New-Onset Diabetes and Diabetic Ketoacidosis Cases During the COVID-19 Pandemic

ObjectiveInfection with SARS-CoV-2 induces a proinflammatory state that causes hyperglycemia and may precipitate diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in patients with known or new-onset diabetes. We examined the trends in new-onset diabetes and DKA prior to and following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis single-center retrospective observational study included pediatric patients (aged 0 to <18 years) hospitalized with new-onset type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes (T2D) before (March 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020) and after (March 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020) the pandemic onset. Demographic, anthropometrics, laboratory and clinical data, and outcomes were obtained.ResultsAmong 615 children admitted with new-onset diabetes during the entire study period, 401 were admitted before the pandemic onset, and 214 were admitted after the pandemic onset. Children admitted with new-onset diabetes in the postpandemic period were significantly more likely to present with DKA (odds ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.52) than in the prepandemic phase. Children with DKA after the pandemic onset had higher lengths of hospitalization and were significantly more likely to experience severe DKA (odds ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-3.52). A higher proportion of children with DKA admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit required oxygen support after the pandemic onset than before the pandemic onset (8.85% vs 1.92%). Most cases of T2D with DKA occurred following the onset of the pandemic (62.5%).ConclusionA significant increase in T2D cases occurred following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic with a greater risk of DKA and severe ketoacidosis. Racial disparity was evident with a higher proportion of Black and American Indian children presenting with ketoacidosis following the pandemic onset.     

COVID-19 and excess mortality in the United States: A county-level analysis

BackgroundCoronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) excess deaths refer to increases in mortality over what would normally have been expected in the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Several prior studies have calculated excess deaths in the United States but were limited to the national or state level, precluding an examination of area-level variation in excess mortality and excess deaths not assigned to COVID-19. In this study, we take advantage of county-level variation in COVID-19 mortality to estimate excess deaths associated with the pandemic and examine how the extent of excess mortality not assigned to COVID-19 varies across subsets of counties defined by sociodemographic and health characteristics.Methods and findingsIn this ecological, cross-sectional study, we made use of provisional National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) data on direct COVID-19 and all-cause mortality occurring in US counties from January 1 to December 31, 2020 and reported before March 12, 2021. We used data with a 10-week time lag between the final day that deaths occurred and the last day that deaths could be reported to improve the completeness of data. Our sample included 2,096 counties with 20 or more COVID-19 deaths. The total number of residents living in these counties was 319.1 million. On average, the counties were 18.7% Hispanic, 12.7% non-Hispanic Black, and 59.6% non-Hispanic White. A total of 15.9% of the population was older than 65 years. We first modeled the relationship between 2020 all-cause mortality and COVID-19 mortality across all counties and then produced fully stratified models to explore differences in this relationship among strata of sociodemographic and health factors. Overall, we found that for every 100 deaths assigned to COVID-19, 120 all-cause deaths occurred (95% CI, 116 to 124), implying that 17% (95% CI, 14% to 19%) of excess deaths were ascribed to causes of death other than COVID-19 itself. Our stratified models revealed that the percentage of excess deaths not assigned to COVID-19 was substantially higher among counties with lower median household incomes and less formal education, counties with poorer health and more diabetes, and counties in the South and West. Counties with more non-Hispanic Black residents, who were already at high risk of COVID-19 death based on direct counts, also reported higher percentages of excess deaths not assigned to COVID-19. Study limitations include the use of provisional data that may be incomplete and the lack of disaggregated data on county-level mortality by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and sociodemographic and health characteristics.ConclusionsIn this study, we found that direct COVID-19 death counts in the US in 2020 substantially underestimated total excess mortality attributable to COVID-19. Racial and socioeconomic inequities in COVID-19 mortality also increased when excess deaths not assigned to COVID-19 were considered. Our results highlight the importance of considering health equity in the policy response to the pandemic.

Andrew Stokes and co-workers report a county-level analysis of excess deaths owing to COVID-19 in the United States.     

Prevalence and determinants of healthcare avoidance during the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based cross-sectional study

BackgroundDuring the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the number of consultations and diagnoses in primary care and referrals to specialist care declined substantially compared to prepandemic levels. Beyond deferral of elective non-COVID-19 care by healthcare providers, it is unclear to what extent healthcare avoidance by community-dwelling individuals contributed to this decline in routine healthcare utilisation. Moreover, it is uncertain which specific symptoms were left unheeded by patients and which determinants predispose to healthcare avoidance in the general population. In this cross-sectional study, we assessed prevalence of healthcare avoidance during the pandemic from a patient perspective, including symptoms that were left unheeded, as well as determinants of healthcare avoidance.Methods and findingsOn April 20, 2020, a paper COVID-19 survey addressing healthcare utilisation, socioeconomic factors, mental and physical health, medication use, and COVID-19–specific symptoms was sent out to 8,732 participants from the population-based Rotterdam Study (response rate 73%). All questionnaires were returned before July 10, 2020. By hand, prevalence of healthcare avoidance was subsequently verified through free text analysis of medical records of general practitioners. Odds ratios (ORs) for avoidance were determined using logistic regression models, adjusted for age, sex, and history of chronic diseases. We found that 1,142 of 5,656 included participants (20.2%) reported having avoided healthcare. Of those, 414 participants (36.3%) reported symptoms that potentially warranted urgent evaluation, including limb weakness (13.6%), palpitations (10.8%), and chest pain (10.2%). Determinants related to avoidance were older age (adjusted OR 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.21]), female sex (1.58 [1.38 to 1.82]), low educational level (primary education versus higher vocational/university 1.21 [1.01 to 1.46), poor self-appreciated health (per level decrease 2.00 [1.80 to 2.22]), unemployment (versus employed 2.29 [1.54 to 3.39]), smoking (1.34 [1.08 to 1.65]), concern about contracting COVID-19 (per level increase 1.28 [1.19 to 1.38]) and symptoms of depression (per point increase 1.13 [1.11 to 1.14]) and anxiety (per point increase 1.16 [1.14 to 1.18]). Study limitations included uncertainty about (perceived) severity of the reported symptoms and potentially limited generalisability given the ethnically homogeneous study population.ConclusionsIn this population-based cross-sectional study, 1 in 5 individuals avoided healthcare during lockdown in the COVID-19 pandemic, often for potentially urgent symptoms. Healthcare avoidance was strongly associated with female sex, fragile self-appreciated health, and high levels of depression and anxiety. These results emphasise the need for targeted public education urging these vulnerable patients to timely seek medical care for their symptoms to mitigate major health consequences.

Marije J. Splinter and colleagues assess the prevalence of healthcare avoidance during the COIVD-19 pandemic and investigate related determinants     

Point of care tobacco treatment sustains during COVID-19, a global pandemic

BackgroundTobacco cessation treatment for cancer patients is essential to providing comprehensive oncologic care. We have implemented a point of care tobacco treatment care model enabled by electronic health record (EHR) modifications in a comprehensive cancer center. Data are needed on the sustainability of both reach of treatment and effectiveness over time, including the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsUsing EHR data from the pre-implementation (P: 5 months) and post-implementation periods (6 month-blocks, T1-T5 for a total of 30 months), we compared two primary outcomes: 1) reach of treatment among those smoking and 2) effectiveness assessed by smoking cessation among those smoking in the subsequent 6 month period. We analyzed the data using generalized estimation equation regression models.ResultsWith the point of care tobacco treatment care model, reach of treatment increased from pre to post T5 (3.2 % vs. 48.4 %, RR 15.50, 95 % CI 10.56–22.74, p < 0.0001). Reach of treatment in all post periods (T1-T5 including the COVID-19 pandemic time) remained significantly higher than the pre period. Effectiveness, defined by smoking cessation among those smoking, increased from pre to post T2 before the pandemic (12.4 % vs. 21.4 %, RR 1.57, 95 % CI 1.31–1.87, p < 0.0001). However, effectiveness, while higher in later post periods (T3, T4), was no longer significantly increased compared with the pre period.ConclusionA point of care EHR-enabled tobacco treatment care model demonstrates sustained reach up to 30 months following implementation, even during the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in healthcare prioritization. Effectiveness was sustained for 12 months, but did not sustain through the subsequent 12 months.     

Incidence of childhood cancer in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background:The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on access to health care resources. Our objective was to estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence of childhood cancer in Canada. We also aimed to compare the proportion of patients who enrolled in clinical trials at diagnosis, presented with metastatic disease or had an early death during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic compared with previous years.Methods:We conducted an observational study that included children younger than 15 years with a new diagnosis of cancer between March 2016 and November 2020 at 1 of 17 Canadian pediatric oncology centres. Our primary outcome was the monthly age-standardized incidence rates (ASIRs) of cancers. We evaluated level and trend changes using interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients who were enrolled in a clinical trial, who had metastatic or advanced disease and who died within 30 days. We compared the baseline and pandemic periods using rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results:Age-standardized incidence rates during COVID-19 quarters were 157.7, 164.6, and 148.0 per million, respectively, whereas quarterly baseline ASIRs ranged between 150.3 and 175.1 per million (incidence RR 0.93 [95% CI 0.78 to 1.12] to incidence RR 1.04 [95% CI 0.87 to 1.24]). We found no statistically significant level or slope changes between the projected and observed ASIRs for all new cancers (parameter estimate [β], level 4.98, 95% CI −15.1 to 25.04, p = 0.25), or when stratified by cancer type or by geographic area. Clinical trial enrolment rate was stable or increased during the pandemic compared with baseline (RR 1.22 [95% CI 0.70 to 2.13] to RR 1.71 [95% CI 1.01 to 2.89]). There was no difference in the proportion of patients with metastatic disease (RR 0.84 [95% CI 0.55 to 1.29] to RR 1.22 [0.84 to 1.79]), or who died within 30 days (RR 0.16 [95% CI 0.01 to 3.04] to RR 1.73 [95% CI 0.38 to 15.2]).Interpretation:We did not observe a statistically significant change in the incidence of childhood cancer, or in the proportion of children enrolling in a clinical trial, presenting with metastatic disease or who died early during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, which suggests that access to health care in pediatric oncology was not reduced substantially in Canada.

Concerns have been raised that the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health care–seeking behaviours and access to health care, affecting the diagnosis and management of other conditions such as cancer. Studies conducted in the Netherlands and United Kingdom using administrative data have shown as much as a 50% reduction in cancer incidence in adults after March 2020.^1,2 Other studies in adult populations thus far have shown a decrease in the number of new cancer diagnoses, and cancer-related medical visits, therapies and surgeries, ^1,3–5 raising concerns about potential excess cancer mortality in the upcoming years.⁶ This may be explained partly by the suspension or reduction of cancer-screening procedures, such as mammography, colonoscopy and cervical cytology by up to 90%,^3,5,7 because these screening initiatives play a critical role in the detection of cancers in adults. A 2020 retrospective single-centre cohort study in Japan that involved 123 patients with colorectal cancer reported that significantly more of these patients presented with complete intestinal obstruction, which suggests that detection delays might have contributed to diagnosis at later stages of the disease.⁸ It is unclear whether these findings apply to childhood cancer because cancer screening is not part of routine pediatric care, and early detection may not be as important in childhood cancer than in its adult counterpart.⁹In children, case series and single-centre retrospective cohort studies, notably from Italy and the United States, suggested a marked reduction in incident cancers, along with high acuity of care at presentation.^10–13 Similar concerns of delayed clinical presentation were raised in other pediatric patient populations, with reports of children presenting at late stages of sepsis or diabetic ketoacidosis, which suggests a delay in seeking care.^14,15It is possible that fear of COVID-19 dissuaded families with children from seeking care for nonspecific symptoms such as pain, headache or fatigue, which are typical triggers leading to a pediatric cancer diagnosis. Understanding the indirect effects of health policies during the COVID-19 pandemic is important to guide policy-making and mitigate barriers to essential health care in future public health crises.Our objective was to measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions on the incidence of childhood cancer in Canada. We also aimed to compare the proportion of patients who enrolled in clinical trials at diagnosis, presented with metastatic disease or died during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic compared with previous years.     

Changes in social contacts in England during the COVID-19 pandemic between March 2020 and March 2021 as measured by the CoMix survey: A repeated cross-sectional study

BackgroundDuring the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the United Kingdom government imposed public health policies in England to reduce social contacts in hopes of curbing virus transmission. We conducted a repeated cross-sectional study to measure contact patterns weekly from March 2020 to March 2021 to estimate the impact of these policies, covering 3 national lockdowns interspersed by periods of less restrictive policies.Methods and findingsThe repeated cross-sectional survey data were collected using online surveys of representative samples of the UK population by age and gender. Survey participants were recruited by the online market research company Ipsos MORI through internet-based banner and social media ads and email campaigns. The participant data used for this analysis are restricted to those who reported living in England. We calculated the mean daily contacts reported using a (clustered) bootstrap and fitted a censored negative binomial model to estimate age-stratified contact matrices and estimate proportional changes to the basic reproduction number under controlled conditions using the change in contacts as a scaling factor. To put the findings in perspective, we discuss contact rates recorded throughout the year in terms of previously recorded rates from the POLYMOD study social contact study.The survey recorded 101,350 observations from 19,914 participants who reported 466,710 contacts over 53 weeks. We observed changes in social contact patterns in England over time and by participants’ age, personal risk factors, and perception of risk. The mean reported contacts for adults 18 to 59 years old ranged between 2.39 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.20 to 2.60) contacts and 4.93 (95% CI 4.65 to 5.19) contacts during the study period. The mean contacts for school-age children (5 to 17 years old) ranged from 3.07 (95% CI 2.89 to 3.27) to 15.11 (95% CI 13.87 to 16.41). This demonstrates a sustained decrease in social contacts compared to a mean of 11.08 (95% CI 10.54 to 11.57) contacts per participant in all age groups combined as measured by the POLYMOD social contact study in 2005 to 2006. Contacts measured during periods of lockdowns were lower than in periods of eased social restrictions. The use of face coverings outside the home has remained high since the government mandated use in some settings in July 2020. The main limitations of this analysis are the potential for selection bias, as participants are recruited through internet-based campaigns, and recall bias, in which participants may under- or overreport the number of contacts they have made.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed that recorded contacts reduced dramatically compared to prepandemic levels (as measured in the POLYMOD study), with changes in reported contacts correlated with government interventions throughout the pandemic. Despite easing of restrictions in the summer of 2020, the mean number of reported contacts only returned to about half of that observed prepandemic at its highest recorded level. The CoMix survey provides a unique repeated cross-sectional data set for a full year in England, from the first day of the first lockdown, for use in statistical analyses and mathematical modelling of COVID-19 and other diseases.

In a repeated cross-sectional study, Amy Gimma and colleagues study social contact patterns in the context of lockdown periods and government interventions in England during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Characteristics and outcomes of hospital admissions for COVID-19 and influenza in the Toronto area

BACKGROUND:Patient characteristics, clinical care, resource use and outcomes associated with admission to hospital for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Canada are not well described.METHODS:We described all adults with COVID-19 or influenza discharged from inpatient medical services and medical–surgical intensive care units (ICUs) between Nov. 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020, at 7 hospitals in Toronto and Mississauga, Ontario. We compared patient outcomes using multivariable regression models, controlling for patient sociodemographic factors and comorbidity level. We validated the accuracy of 7 externally developed risk scores to predict mortality among patients with COVID-19.RESULTS:There were 1027 hospital admissions with COVID-19 (median age 65 yr, 59.1% male) and 783 with influenza (median age 68 yr, 50.8% male). Patients younger than 50 years accounted for 21.2% of all admissions for COVID-19 and 24.0% of ICU admissions. Compared with influenza, patients with COVID-19 had significantly greater in-hospital mortality (unadjusted 19.9% v. 6.1%, adjusted relative risk [RR] 3.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.56–4.68), ICU use (unadjusted 26.4% v. 18.0%, adjusted RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.25–1.80) and hospital length of stay (unadjusted median 8.7 d v. 4.8 d, adjusted rate ratio 1.45, 95% CI 1.25–1.69). Thirty-day readmission was not significantly different (unadjusted 9.3% v. 9.6%, adjusted RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.70–1.39). Three points-based risk scores for predicting in-hospital mortality showed good discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] ranging from 0.72 to 0.81) and calibration.INTERPRETATION:During the first wave of the pandemic, admission to hospital for COVID-19 was associated with significantly greater mortality, ICU use and hospital length of stay than influenza. Simple risk scores can predict in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 with good accuracy.

International studies report that patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have high rates of critical illness and mortality.^1–5 Two small Canadian case series have described care for critically ill patients with COVID-19 and found mortality rates of up to 25%.^6,7 However, outcomes of patients admitted to hospital for COVID-19 in Canada are not well described, particularly outside of intensive care units (ICUs). Case fatality rates for COVID-19 vary dramatically worldwide,⁸ and outcomes of patients admitted to hospital for COVID-19 in Canada may differ from other countries because of differences in populations, public health and health care systems.Seasonal influenza is a useful comparator for COVID-19^9–11 as it is another respiratory virus, familiar to the general public, with high rates of morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to describe patient characteristics, resource use, clinical care and outcomes for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in Ontario, Canada, using influenza as a comparator. We also validated the performance of various prognostic risk scores for in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19.     

Overall and cause-specific hospitalisation and death after COVID-19 hospitalisation in England: A cohort study using linked primary care,secondary care,and death registration data in the OpenSAFELY platform

BackgroundThere is concern about medium to long-term adverse outcomes following acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but little relevant evidence exists. We aimed to investigate whether risks of hospital admission and death, overall and by specific cause, are raised following discharge from a COVID-19 hospitalisation.Methods and findingsWith the approval of NHS-England, we conducted a cohort study, using linked primary care and hospital data in OpenSAFELY to compare risks of hospital admission and death, overall and by specific cause, between people discharged from COVID-19 hospitalisation (February to December 2020) and surviving at least 1 week, and (i) demographically matched controls from the 2019 general population; and (ii) people discharged from influenza hospitalisation in 2017 to 2019. We used Cox regression adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, obesity, smoking status, deprivation, and comorbidities considered potential risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes.We included 24,673 postdischarge COVID-19 patients, 123,362 general population controls, and 16,058 influenza controls, followed for ≤315 days. COVID-19 patients had median age of 66 years, 13,733 (56%) were male, and 19,061 (77%) were of white ethnicity. Overall risk of hospitalisation or death (30,968 events) was higher in the COVID-19 group than general population controls (fully adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.22, 2.14 to 2.30, p < 0.001) but slightly lower than the influenza group (aHR 0.95, 0.91 to 0.98, p = 0.004). All-cause mortality (7,439 events) was highest in the COVID-19 group (aHR 4.82, 4.48 to 5.19 versus general population controls [p < 0.001] and 1.74, 1.61 to 1.88 versus influenza controls [p < 0.001]). Risks for cause-specific outcomes were higher in COVID-19 survivors than in general population controls and largely similar or lower in COVID-19 compared with influenza patients. However, COVID-19 patients were more likely than influenza patients to be readmitted or die due to their initial infection or other lower respiratory tract infection (aHR 1.37, 1.22 to 1.54, p < 0.001) and to experience mental health or cognitive-related admission or death (aHR 1.37, 1.02 to 1.84, p = 0.039); in particular, COVID-19 survivors with preexisting dementia had higher risk of dementia hospitalisation or death (age- and sex-adjusted HR 2.47, 1.37 to 4.44, p = 0.002). Limitations of our study were that reasons for hospitalisation or death may have been misclassified in some cases due to inconsistent use of codes, and we did not have data to distinguish COVID-19 variants.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed that people discharged from a COVID-19 hospital admission had markedly higher risks for rehospitalisation and death than the general population, suggesting a substantial extra burden on healthcare. Most risks were similar to those observed after influenza hospitalisations, but COVID-19 patients had higher risks of all-cause mortality, readmission or death due to the initial infection, and dementia death, highlighting the importance of postdischarge monitoring.

Krishnan Bhaskaran and co-workers study health outcomes after admission with COVID-19 and subsequent discharge.     

Telehealth for Endocrinology: Experience and Effect on Utilization in the Prepandemic Era

ObjectiveTelehealth (TH) use in endocrinology was limited before the COVID-19 pandemic but will remain a major modality of care postpandemic. Reimbursement policies have been limited historically due to concerns of overutilization of visits and testing. Additionally, there is limited literature on endocrinology care delivered via TH for conditions other than diabetes. We assess real-world TH use for endocrinology in a prepandemic environment with the hypothesis that TH would not increase the utilization of total visits or related ancillary testing services compared with conventional (CVL) face-to-face office visits.MethodsA single-institution retrospective cohort study assessing the prepandemic use of TH in endocrinology, consisting of 75 patients seen via TH and 225 patients seen in CVL visits. For most patients, TH was conducted via a clinic-to-clinic model. Outcomes measured were total endocrine visit frequency and frequency of related laboratory and radiology testing per patient, hemoglobin A1C, microalbumin, low-density lipoprotein, thyroid-stimulating hormone, thyroglobulin, and thyroid ultrasounds.ResultsFor all endocrine visits, TH patients had a median of 0.24 (interquartile range, 0.015-0.36) visits per month. CVL patients had a median of 0.20 visits per month (interquartile range, 0.11-0.37). Total visits per month did not vary significantly between groups (P = .051). Hemoglobin A1C outcomes were equivalent and there was no increase in ancillary laboratory testing for the TH group.ConclusionOur observations demonstrate that, in a prepandemic health care setting, TH visits can provide equivalent care for endocrinology patients, without increasing utilization of total visits or ancillary services.     

The impact of COVID-19 on clinical research for Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs): A case study of bubonic plague

BackgroundAmong the many collaterals of the COVID-19 pandemic is the disruption of health services and vital clinical research. COVID-19 has magnified the challenges faced in research and threatens to slow research for urgently needed therapeutics for Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) and diseases affecting the most vulnerable populations. Here we explore the impact of the pandemic on a clinical trial for plague therapeutics and strategies that have been considered to ensure research efforts continue.MethodsTo understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the trial accrual rate, we documented changes in patterns of all-cause consultations that took place before and during the pandemic at health centres in two districts of the Amoron’I Mania region of Madagascar where the trial is underway. We also considered trends in plague reporting and other external factors that may have contributed to slow recruitment.ResultsDuring the pandemic, we found a 27% decrease in consultations at the referral hospital, compared to an 11% increase at peripheral health centres, as well as an overall drop during the months of lockdown. We also found a nation-wide trend towards reduced number of reported plague cases.DiscussionCOVID-19 outbreaks are unlikely to dissipate in the near future. Declining NTD case numbers recorded during the pandemic period should not be viewed in isolation or taken as a marker of things to come. It is vitally important that researchers are prepared for a rebound in cases and, most importantly, that research continues to avoid NTDs becoming even more neglected.     

Variables asociadas con mortalidad en una población de pacientes mayores de 80 años y con algún grado de dependencia funcional,hospitalizados por COVID-19 en un Servicio de Geriatría

ObjectiveThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic conditions high mortality rates in hospitalized elderly. Currently, a few studies include octogenarian patients and none of them analyze the impact of functional status on this health outcome. Our objective is to describe the characteristics of patients older than 80 years hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), to determine the mortality rate and to identify associated factors.Material and methodsProspective observational study carried out on patients over 80 years admitted for COVID-19 in a Geriatrics Service. Sociodemographic, clinical, functional, mental, analytical, radiological, therapeutic and healthcare variables were collected. The factors associated with in-hospital lethality were analyzed by bivariate analysis.Results58 cases with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were included, mean age 88.3 ± 5.4 years, 69% women, 65.5% moderate-severe cognitive impairment and previous Barthel index 40.66 ± 36. The main symptoms were fever (60,3%), dyspnea (53.4%) and deterioration of functional condition (50%). The most frequent comorbidities were cardiovascular disease (75.9%), hypertension (HT) (74.1%) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) (50%). A mortality rate of 41,4% was detected and the associated factors were: severe functional dependence (OR = 3.8 [1.2-12.2]), moderate-severe cognitive impairment (OR = 4.9 [1-25.4]) and CKD (OR = 3.2 [1.1-9.7]).ConclusionHigh mortality rates are observed in older patients hospitalized for COVID-19, with a higher risk of dying in those with severe functional dependence or cognitive impairment. These findings reinforce the value of Geriatric Assessment to develop strategies to adapt diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making and to optimize care for elderly patients in the event of a new epidemic outbreak.     

Incidence and impact of cardiac arrhythmias in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundStudies have shown that cardiac arrhythmias may occur in up to 44% of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been associated with an increased risk of death. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the incidence of cardiac arrhythmias in patients with COVID-19 and their implications on patient prognosis.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search from PubMed, SCOPUS, Europe PMC, Cochrane Central Databases, and Google Scholar + Preprint Servers. The primary endpoint of the study was poor outcomes including mortality, severe COVID-19, and the need for ICU care.ResultsA total of 4 studies including 784 patients were analyzed. The incidence of arrhythmia in patients with COVID-19 was 19% (9–28%; I²: 91.45). Arrhythmia occurred in 48% (38–57%; I²: 48.08) of patients with poor outcome and 6% (1–12%; I²: 85.33%) of patients without poor outcome. Patients with COVID-19 experiencing arrhythmia had an increased risk of poor outcome (RR 7.96 [3.77, 16.81], p < 0.001; I²: 71.1%). The funnel-plot analysis showed an asymmetrical funnel plot with most of the studies on the right side of the effect estimate. The regression-based Egger’s test showed indication of small-study effects (p = 0.001).ConclusionCardiac arrhythmias were significantly associated with an increased risk of poor outcome in COVID-19. Arrhythmias were observed in 19% of patients with COVID-19 and in 48% of patients with COVID-19 and poor outcomes.     

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation amid the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide analysis of the first COVID-19 wave in the Netherlands

IntroductionThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put tremendous pressure on healthcare systems. Most transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) centres have adopted different triage systems and procedural strategies to serve highest-risk patients first and to minimise the burden on hospital logistics and personnel. We therefore assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient selection, type of anaesthesia and outcomes after TAVI.MethodsWe used data from the Netherlands Heart Registration to examine all patients who underwent TAVI between March 2020 and July 2020 (COVID cohort), and between March 2019 and July 2019 (pre-COVID cohort). We compared patient characteristics, procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes.ResultsWe examined 2131 patients who underwent TAVI (1020 patients in COVID cohort, 1111 patients in pre-COVID cohort). EuroSCORE II was comparable between cohorts (COVID 4.5 ± 4.0 vs pre-COVID 4.6 ± 4.2, p = 0.356). The number of TAVI procedures under general anaesthesia was lower in the COVID cohort (35.2% vs 46.5%, p < 0.001). Incidences of stroke (COVID 2.7% vs pre-COVID 1.7%, p = 0.134), major vascular complications (2.3% vs 3.4%, p = 0.170) and permanent pacemaker implantation (10.0% vs 9.4%, p = 0.634) did not differ between cohorts. Thirty-day and 150-day mortality were comparable (2.8% vs 2.2%, p = 0.359 and 5.2% vs 5.2%, p = 0.993, respectively).ConclusionsDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, patient characteristics and outcomes after TAVI were not different than before the pandemic. This highlights the fact that TAVI procedures can be safely performed during the COVID-19 pandemic, without an increased risk of complications or mortality.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-022-01704-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer in Denmark during the COVID-19 pandemic

BackgroundWe examined the number of lung cancers diagnosed, the quality of care and the socio-economic and clinical characteristics among patients with lung cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to previous years.MethodsWe included all patients ≥ 18 years old diagnosed with lung cancer from 01 January 2018 to 31 August 2021 as registered in the Danish Lung Cancer Registry. Using a generalised linear model, we estimated prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the associations between the pandemic and socioeconomic and clinical factors, and indicators of quality.ResultsWe included 18,113 patients with lung cancer (82.0% non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)), which was similar to the preceding years, although a decline in NSCLC cases occurred during the first lockdown period in 2020. No difference in distribution of income or educational level was observed. No difference was observed in the quality of treatment – as measured by curative intent, proportion of patients resected or who died within 90 days of diagnosis.ConclusionUsing nationwide population-based data, our study reassuringly shows no adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the diagnosis, socio-economic characteristics nor quality of treatment of lung cancer, as compared to the preceding years.