1. Home
  2. delivery of health care

delivery of health care

Adverse physiological effects of smoking cessation on the gastrointestinal tract: A review

Author/s: 
Mahyoub, Mueataz A., Al-Qurmoti, Sarah, Rai, Ayesha Akram, Abbas, Mustafa, Jebril, Majed

Smoking cessation is known to have numerous health benefits, but it can also induce adverse physiological effects, including those affecting the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). Understanding the adverse physiological effects of smoking cessation on the GIT is critical for healthcare professionals and smokers attempting to quit, as it enables them to anticipate and manage potential challenges during the smoking cessation process. Although the detrimental effects of smoking on the GIT have been well established, there is a gap in the literature regarding the specific physiological reactions that may occur upon smoking cessation. This mini-review summarizes the current literature on the predisposing factors, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and treatment options for adverse physiological effects of smoking cessation on the GIT. We aimed to raise awareness among busy clinical professionals about these adverse effects, empowering them to effectively support individuals striving to quit smoking and maintain their cessation. By consolidating the existing knowledge in this field, this review offers practical implications for smokers, healthcare providers, and policymakers to optimize smoking cessation interventions and support strategies to improve health outcomes.

Keywords 
Smokers smoking tobacco

A Hitchhiker's Guide to Worldwide COVID-19 Vaccinations: A Detailed Review of Monovalent and Bivalent Vaccine Schedules, COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects, and Effectiveness Against Omicron and Delta Variants

Author/s: 
Goyal, L., Zapata, M., Ajmera, K., Churasia, P., Pandit, R., Pandit, T.

For the primary prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there are currently four different vaccines available in the USA. These are Pfizer (messenger RNA [mRNA]), Moderna (mRNA), Novavax (recombinant protein), and Jansen/Johnson & Johnson (adenoviral vector). All individuals should get vaccinated, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has provided comprehensive guidelines on recommended doses, their frequency by age group, and vaccine types, all discussed in detail in this article. Vaccines are a critical and cost-effective tool for preventing the disease. Prior to receiving a vaccine, patients should get adequate counseling regarding any potential adverse effects post vaccination. Appropriate safety precautions must be taken for those more likely to experience adverse consequences. Healthcare professionals should be aware of the symptoms, indicators, and treatment of any adverse event post-vaccination. We have provided a comprehensive review of the different characteristics of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States, including their effectiveness against various variants, adverse effects, and precautions necessary for healthcare professionals and the general population. This article also briefly covers COVID-19 vaccines available worldwide, specifically their mode of action and effectiveness.

Keywords 
Cost-Benefit Analysis COVID-19 vaccination counseling primary prevention

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on Infection Prevention for Healthcare Personnel Caring for Patients with Suspected or Known COVID-19

Author/s: 
Lynch, J. B., Davitkov, P., Anderson, D. J., Bhimraj, A., Cheng, V. C. C., Guzman-Cottrill, J., Dhindsa, J., Duggal, A., Jain, M. K., Lee, G. M., Liang, S. Y., McGeer, A., Varghese, J., Lavergne, V., Murad, M. H., Mustafa, R. A., Sultan, S., Falck-Ytter, Y., Morgan, R. L.

Background: Since its emergence in late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions like coughing and care activities like aerosol-generating procedures likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators.

Objective: Develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known COVID-19.

Methods: IDSA formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

Results: The IDSA guideline panel agreed on eight recommendations, including two updated recommendations and one new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included.

Conclusions: Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for eight specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.

Short-term and Long-term Rates of Postacute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Systematic Review

Author/s: 
Groff, D., Sun, A., Ssentongo, A. E., Ba, D. M., Parsons, N., Poudel, G. R., Lekoubou, A., Oh, J. S., Ericson, J. E., Ssentongo, P., Chinchilli, V. M.

Importance
Short-term and long-term persistent postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) have not been systematically evaluated. The incidence and evolution of PASC are dependent on time from infection, organ systems and tissue affected, vaccination status, variant of the virus, and geographic region.

Objective
To estimate organ system–specific frequency and evolution of PASC.

Evidence Review
PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, the World Health Organization Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease, and CoronaCentral databases were searched from December 2019 through March 2021. A total of 2100 studies were identified from databases and through cited references. Studies providing data on PASC in children and adults were included. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for abstracting data were followed and performed independently by 2 reviewers. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. The main outcome was frequency of PASC diagnosed by (1) laboratory investigation, (2) radiologic pathology, and (3) clinical signs and symptoms. PASC were classified by organ system, ie, neurologic; cardiovascular; respiratory; digestive; dermatologic; and ear, nose, and throat as well as mental health, constitutional symptoms, and functional mobility.

Findings
From a total of 2100 studies identified, 57 studies with 250 351 survivors of COVID-19 met inclusion criteria. The mean (SD) age of survivors was 54.4 (8.9) years, 140 196 (56%) were male, and 197 777 (79%) were hospitalized during acute COVID-19. High-income countries contributed 45 studies (79%). The median (IQR) proportion of COVID-19 survivors experiencing at least 1 PASC was 54.0% (45.0%-69.0%; 13 studies) at 1 month (short-term), 55.0% (34.8%-65.5%; 38 studies) at 2 to 5 months (intermediate-term), and 54.0% (31.0%-67.0%; 9 studies) at 6 or more months (long-term). Most prevalent pulmonary sequelae, neurologic disorders, mental health disorders, functional mobility impairments, and general and constitutional symptoms were chest imaging abnormality (median [IQR], 62.2% [45.8%-76.5%]), difficulty concentrating (median [IQR], 23.8% [20.4%-25.9%]), generalized anxiety disorder (median [IQR], 29.6% [14.0%-44.0%]), general functional impairments (median [IQR], 44.0% [23.4%-62.6%]), and fatigue or muscle weakness (median [IQR], 37.5% [25.4%-54.5%]), respectively. Other frequently reported symptoms included cardiac, dermatologic, digestive, and ear, nose, and throat disorders.

Conclusions and Relevance
In this systematic review, more than half of COVID-19 survivors experienced PASC 6 months after recovery. The most common PASC involved functional mobility impairments, pulmonary abnormalities, and mental health disorders. These long-term PASC effects occur on a scale that could overwhelm existing health care capacity, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

Genome sequencing as a diagnostic test

Author/s: 
Costain, G., Cohn, R. D., Scherer, S. W., Marshall, C. R.

KEY POINTS
Genome sequencing is a comprehensive genetic test that is being integrated into health care systems internationally.

Test indications include suspected genetic disorders in children and adults for whom a targeted genetic testing approach is likely to be low yield or has already failed.

Analytic validity, diagnostic yield and clinical utility are similar or superior to other clinical genetic tests, such as exome sequencing, chromosomal microarray analysis and next-generation sequencing gene panel tests.

Appropriate adoption of genome sequencing as a molecular diagnostic test in Canada would be facilitated by a cohesive national strategy for genomic medicine.

Genetic testing of patient constitutional DNA (i.e., their genome) is increasingly performed in medical practice. 1–3 Sequencing an entire human genome (about 3.2 billion nucleotides) is now possible to complete in days to weeks, and at a similar cost to some advanced imaging tests or to a brief admission to hospital.3,4 Genome sequencing is being integrated into health care systems internationally, most notably in the United Kingdom.5 Starting in 2021, genome sequencing is being performed as a clinical genetic test in Ontario, Canada.

Incidence, co-occurrence, and evolution of long-COVID features: A 6-month retrospective cohort study of 273,618 survivors of COVID-19

Author/s: 
Taquet, M., Dercon, Q., Luciano, S., Geddes, J. R., Husain, M., Harrison, P. J.

Background
Long-COVID refers to a variety of symptoms affecting different organs reported by people following Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. To date, there have been no robust estimates of the incidence and co-occurrence of long-COVID features, their relationship to age, sex, or severity of infection, and the extent to which they are specific to COVID-19. The aim of this study is to address these issues.

Methods and findings
We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on linked electronic health records (EHRs) data from 81 million patients including 273,618 COVID-19 survivors. The incidence and co-occurrence within 6 months and in the 3 to 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis were calculated for 9 core features of long-COVID (breathing difficulties/breathlessness, fatigue/malaise, chest/throat pain, headache, abdominal symptoms, myalgia, other pain, cognitive symptoms, and anxiety/depression). Their co-occurrence network was also analyzed. Comparison with a propensity score–matched cohort of patients diagnosed with influenza during the same time period was achieved using Kaplan–Meier analysis and the Cox proportional hazard model. The incidence of atopic dermatitis was used as a negative control.

Among COVID-19 survivors (mean [SD] age: 46.3 [19.8], 55.6% female), 57.00% had one or more long-COVID feature recorded during the whole 6-month period (i.e., including the acute phase), and 36.55% between 3 and 6 months. The incidence of each feature was: abnormal breathing (18.71% in the 1- to 180-day period; 7.94% in the 90- to180-day period), fatigue/malaise (12.82%; 5.87%), chest/throat pain (12.60%; 5.71%), headache (8.67%; 4.63%), other pain (11.60%; 7.19%), abdominal symptoms (15.58%; 8.29%), myalgia (3.24%; 1.54%), cognitive symptoms (7.88%; 3.95%), and anxiety/depression (22.82%; 15.49%). All 9 features were more frequently reported after COVID-19 than after influenza (with an overall excess incidence of 16.60% and hazard ratios between 1.44 and 2.04, all p < 0.001), co-occurred more commonly, and formed a more interconnected network. Significant differences in incidence and co-occurrence were associated with sex, age, and illness severity. Besides the limitations inherent to EHR data, limitations of this study include that (i) the findings do not generalize to patients who have had COVID-19 but were not diagnosed, nor to patients who do not seek or receive medical attention when experiencing symptoms of long-COVID; (ii) the findings say nothing about the persistence of the clinical features; and (iii) the difference between cohorts might be affected by one cohort seeking or receiving more medical attention for their symptoms.

Conclusions
Long-COVID clinical features occurred and co-occurred frequently and showed some specificity to COVID-19, though they were also observed after influenza. Different long-COVID clinical profiles were observed based on demographics and illness severity.

Author summary
Why was this study done?
Long-COVID has been described in recent studies. But we do not know the risk of developing features of this condition and how it is affected by factors such as age, sex, or severity of infection.
We do not know if the risk of having features of long-COVID is more likely after Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) than after influenza.
We do not know about the extent to which different features of long-COVID co-occur.
What did the researchers do and find?
This research used data from electronic health records of 273,618 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and estimated the risk of having long-COVID features in the 6 months after a diagnosis of COVID-19. It compared the risk of long-COVID features in different groups within the population and also compared the risk to that after influenza.
The research found that over 1 in 3 patients had one or more features of long-COVID recorded between 3 and 6 months after a diagnosis of COVID-19. This was significantly higher than after influenza.
For 2 in 5 of the patients who had long-COVID features in the 3- to 6-month period, they had no record of any such feature in the previous 3 months.
The risk of long-COVID features was higher in patients who had more severe COVID-19 illness, and slightly higher among females and young adults. White and non-white patients were equally affected.
What do these findings mean?
Knowing the risk of long-COVID features helps in planning the relevant healthcare service provision.
The fact that the risk is higher after COVID-19 than after influenza suggests that their origin might, in part, directly involve infection with SARS-CoV-2 and is not just a general consequence of viral infection. This might help in developing effective treatments against long-COVID.
The findings in the subgroups, and the fact that the majority of patients who have features of long-COVID in the 3- to 6-month period already had symptoms in the first 3 months, may help in identifying those at greatest risk.

Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, United States, 2021-22 Influenza Season

Author/s: 
Grohskopf, L. A., Alyanak, E., Ferdinands, J. M., Broder, K. R., Blanton, L. H., Talbot, H. K., Fry, A. M.

This report updates the 2020–21 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2020;69[No. RR-8]). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For each recipient, a licensed and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. During the 2021–22 influenza season, the following types of vaccines are expected to be available: inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4).

The 2021–22 influenza season is expected to coincide with continued circulation of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Influenza vaccination of persons aged ≥6 months to reduce prevalence of illness caused by influenza will reduce symptoms that might be confused with those of COVID-19. Prevention of and reduction in the severity of influenza illness and reduction of outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and intensive care unit admissions through influenza vaccination also could alleviate stress on the U.S. health care system. Guidance for vaccine planning during the pandemic is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pandemic-guidance/index.html. Recommendations for the use of COVID-19 vaccines are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/covid-19.html, and additional clinical guidance is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-v....

Updates described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP that were held on October 28, 2020; February 25, 2021; and June 24, 2021. Primary updates to this report include the following six items. First, all seasonal influenza vaccines available in the United States for the 2021–22 season are expected to be quadrivalent. Second, the composition of 2021–22 U.S. influenza vaccines includes updates to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and influenza A(H3N2) components. U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an influenza A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture–based and recombinant vaccines), an influenza A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020 (H3N2)-like virus, an influenza B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)-like virus, and an influenza B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)-like virus. Third, the approved age indication for the cell culture–based inactivated influenza vaccine, Flucelvax Quadrivalent (ccIIV4), has been expanded from ages ≥4 years to ages ≥2 years. Fourth, discussion of administration of influenza vaccines with other vaccines includes considerations for coadministration of influenza vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines. Providers should also consult current ACIP COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and CDC guidance concerning coadministration of these vaccines with influenza vaccines. Vaccines that are given at the same time should be administered in separate anatomic sites. Fifth, guidance concerning timing of influenza vaccination now states that vaccination soon after vaccine becomes available can be considered for pregnant women in the third trimester. As previously recommended, children who need 2 doses (children aged 6 months through 8 years who have never received influenza vaccine or who have not previously received a lifetime total of ≥2 doses) should receive their first dose as soon as possible after vaccine becomes available to allow the second dose (which must be administered ≥4 weeks later) to be received by the end of October. For nonpregnant adults, vaccination in July and August should be avoided unless there is concern that later vaccination might not be possible. Sixth, contraindications and precautions to the use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 have been modified, specifically with regard to persons with a history of severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to an influenza vaccine. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, LAIV, or RIV of any valency is a precaution to use of ccIIV4. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, ccIIV, or LAIV of any valency is a precaution to use of RIV4. Use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 in such instances should occur in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting under supervision of a provider who can recognize and manage a severe allergic reaction; providers can also consider consulting with an allergist to help identify the vaccine component responsible for the reaction. For ccIIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any ccIIV of any valency or any component of ccIIV4 is a contraindication to future use of ccIIV4. For RIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any RIV of any valency or any component of RIV4 is a contraindication to future use of RIV4.

This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2021–22 influenza season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used according to Food and Drug Administration–licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC’s influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu); vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.

How can healthcare professionals provide guidance and support to parents of adolescents? Results from a primary care-based study

Author/s: 
Jones, L. D., Grout, R. W., Gilbert, A. L., Wilkinson, T. A., Garbuz, T., Downs, S. M., Aalsma, M. C.

Background: This study explored the rewards and difficulties of raising an adolescent and investigated parents' level of interest in receiving guidance from healthcare providers on parenting and adolescent health topics. Additionally, this study investigated whether parents were interested in parenting programs in primary care and explored methods in which parents want to receive guidance.

Methods: Parents of adolescents (ages 12-18) who attended an outpatient pediatric clinic with their adolescent were contacted by telephone and completed a short telephone survey. Parents were asked open-ended questions regarding the rewards and difficulties of parenting and rated how important it was to receive guidance from a healthcare provider on certain parenting and health topics. Additionally, parents reported their level of interest in a parenting program in primary care and rated how they would like to receive guidance.

Results: Our final sample included 104 parents, 87% of whom were interested in a parenting program within primary care. A variety of parenting rewards and difficulties were associated with raising an adolescent. From the list of parenting topics, communication was rated very important to receive guidance on (65%), followed by conflict management (50%). Of health topics, parents were primarily interested in receiving guidance on sex (77%), mental health (75%), and alcohol and drugs (74%). Parents in the study wanted to receive guidance from a pediatrician or through written literature.

Conclusions: The current study finds that parents identify several rewarding and difficult aspects associated with raising an adolescent and are open to receiving guidance on a range of parenting topics in a variety of formats through primary care settings. Incorporating such education into healthcare visits could improve parents' knowledge. Healthcare providers are encouraged to consider how best to provide parenting support during this important developmental time period.

Keywords: Adolescents; Parenting support; Parents; Primary care.

Living Systematic Review on Cannabis and Other Plant-Based Treatments for Chronic Pain - Quarterly Progress Report: May 2021

Author/s: 
M. S., Wagner, J., Ahmed, A. Y., Morasco, B., Kansagara, D., Chou, R.

This is the third quarterly progress report for an ongoing living systematic review on
cannabis and other plant-based treatments for chronic pain. The first progress report was
published in January 2021 and the second in March 2021. The draft systematic review was
available for public comment from May 19 through June 15, 2021, on the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality (AHRQ) Effective Health Care website. The systematic review synthesizes
evidence on the benefits and harms of plant-based compounds (PBCs), such as cannabinoids and
kratom, used to treat chronic pain, addressing concerns about severe adverse effects, abuse,
misuse, dependence, and addiction.
The purpose of this progress report is to describe the cumulative literature identified thus far.
This report will be periodically updated with new studies as they are published and identified,
culminating in an annual systematic review that provides a synthesis of the accumulated
evidence.

COVID-19 Vaccine: Quick Reference Guide for Healthcare Professionals

Author/s: 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

The table below provides basic information on the proper storage, preparation, and administration of the currently authorized COVID-19 vaccine products in the United States. For additional information and detailed clinical guidance go to the manufacturer’s and CDC’s webpages listed.

Subscribe to delivery of health care