Tracking smell loss to identify healthcare workers with SARS-CoV-2 infection

Introduction Healthcare workers (HCW) treating COVID-19 patients are at high risk for infection and may also spread infection through their contact with vulnerable patients. Smell loss has been associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, but it is unknown whether monitoring for smell loss can be used to identify asymptomatic infection among high risk individuals. In this study we sought to determine if tracking smell sensitivity and loss using an at-home assessment could identify SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCW. Methods and findings We performed a prospective cohort study tracking 473 HCW across three months to determine if smell loss could predict SARS-CoV-2 infection in this high-risk group. HCW subjects completed a longitudinal, behavioral at-home assessment of olfaction with household items, as well as detailed symptom surveys that included a parosmia screening questionnaire, and real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction testing to identify SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our main measures were the prevalence of smell loss in SARS-CoV-2-positive HCW versus SARS-CoV- 2-negative HCW, and timing of smell loss relative to SARS-CoV-2 test positivity. SARS-CoV-2 was identified in 17 (3.6%) of 473 HCW. HCW with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to report smell loss than SARS-CoV-2-negative HCW on both the at-home assessment and the screening questionnaire (9/17, 53% vs 105/456, 23%, P < .01). 6/9 (67%) of SARS-CoV-2-positive HCW reporting smell loss reported smell loss prior to having a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and smell loss was reported a median of two days before testing positive. Neurological symptoms were reported more frequently among SARS-CoV-2-positive HCW who reported smell loss compared to those without smell loss (9/9, 100% vs 3/8, 38%, P < .01). Conclusions In this prospective study of HCW, self-reported changes in smell using two different measures were predictive of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Smell loss frequently preceded a positive test and was associated with neurological symptoms

Analysis of the restoration of cardiology diagnostics scope in the Russian Federation during the COVID-19 pandemic: results of the Russian segment of the INCAPS COVID 2 study under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency

Aim. To assess the changes in cardiology diagnostics scope in the Russian Federation during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.Material and methods. In an online survey organized by the Division of Human Health of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), including questions about changes in the workflow of diagnostic laboratories and the scope of cardiac diagnostics from March 2019 (pre-pandemic) to April 2020 (first wave of the pandemic) and April 2021 (recovery stage), 15 Russian medical centers from 5 cities took part.Results. The decrease in the diagnostics scope by April 2020 by 59,3% compared to March 2019, by April 2021, stopped and was replaced by growth (+7,1%, the recovery rate, 112,1%). The greatest increase was in routine examinations, such as echocardiography (+11,6%), stress echocardiography (+18,7%), stress single photon emission computed tomography (+9,7%), and to a lesser extent resting computed tomography angiography (+7,0%) and magnetic resonance imaging (+6,6%). The performance of stress electrocardiography, stress magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography for the diagnosis of endocarditis in April 2021 compared to March 2019 decreased by 10,3%, 63,2% and 62,5%, respectively.Conclusion. Due to the resumption of patient admissions for cardiac examinations during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, with the anti-epidemic measures taken and certain changes in the workflow, there has been a recovery in the diagnostics scope in most of the included centers

Worldwide disparities in recovery of cardiac testing 1 year Into COVID-19

BACKGROUND: The extent to which health care systems have adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic to provide necessary cardiac diagnostic services is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the pandemic on cardiac testing practices, volumes and types of diagnostic services, and perceived psychological stress to health care providers worldwide. METHODS: The International Atomic Energy Agency conducted a worldwide survey assessing alterations from baseline in cardiovascular diagnostic care at the pandemic's onset and 1 year later. Multivariable regression was used to determine factors associated with procedure volume recovery. RESULTS: Surveys were submitted from 669 centers in 107 countries. Worldwide reduction in cardiac procedure volumes of 64% from March 2019 to April 2020 recovered by April 2021 in high- and upper middle-income countries (recovery rates of 108% and 99%) but remained depressed in lower middle- and low-income countries (46% and 30% recovery). Although stress testing was used 12% less frequently in 2021 than in 2019, coronary computed tomographic angiography was used 14% more, a trend also seen for other advanced cardiac imaging modalities (positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance; 22%-25% increases). Pandemic-related psychological stress was estimated to have affected nearly 40% of staff, impacting patient care at 78% of sites. In multivariable regression, only lower-income status and physicians' psychological stress were significant in predicting recovery of cardiac testing. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac diagnostic testing has yet to recover to prepandemic levels in lower-income countries. Worldwide, the decrease in standard stress testing is offset by greater use of advanced cardiac imaging modalities. Pandemic-related psychological stress among providers is widespread and associated with poor recovery of cardiac&nbsp;testing

Sex differences in immune responses that underlie COVID-19 disease outcomes

There is increasing evidence that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) produces more severe symptoms and higher mortality among men than among women1,2,3,4,5. However, whether immune responses against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) differ between sexes, and whether such differences correlate with the sex difference in the disease course of COVID-19, is currently unknown. Here we examined sex differences in viral loads, SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody titres, plasma cytokines and blood-cell phenotyping in patients with moderate COVID-19 who had not received immunomodulatory medications. Male patients had higher plasma levels of innate immune cytokines such as IL-8 and IL-18 along with more robust induction of non-classical monocytes. By contrast, female patients had more robust T cell activation than male patients during SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, we found that a poor T cell response negatively correlated with patients’ age and was associated with worse disease outcome in male patients, but not in female patients. By contrast, higher levels of innate immune cytokines were associated with worse disease progression in female patients, but not in male patients. These findings provide a possible explanation for the observed sex biases in COVID-19, and provide an important basis for the development of a sex-based approach to the treatment and care of male and female patients with COVID-19

Computational models in cardiology

The treatment of individual patients in cardiology practice increasingly relies on advanced imaging, genetic screening and devices. As the amount of imaging and other diagnostic data increases, paralleled by the greater capacity to personalize treatment, the difficulty of using the full array of measurements of a patient to determine an optimal treatment seems also to be paradoxically increasing. Computational models are progressively addressing this issue by providing a common framework for integrating multiple data sets from individual patients. These models, which are based on physiology and physics rather than on population statistics, enable computational simulations to reveal diagnostic information that would have otherwise remained concealed and to predict treatment outcomes for individual patients. The inherent need for patient-specific models in cardiology is clear and is driving the rapid development of tools and techniques for creating personalized methods to guide pharmaceutical therapy, deployment of devices and surgical interventions