To describe the burden and sources of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare personnel (HCP), such as occupational role, work setting, vaccination status, and patient contact between March 2020 through May 2022.

Active prospective surveillance.

Large tertiary-care teaching institution with inpatient and ambulatory care services.

We identified 4,430 cases among HCPs between March 1, 2020, through May 31, 2022. The median age of this cohort was 37 years (range, 18–89); 2,840 (64.1%) were female; and 2,907 (65.6%) were white. Most of the infected HCP were in the general medicine department, followed by ancillary departments and support staff. Less than 10% of HCP SARS-CoV-2–positive cases worked on a COVID-19 unit. Of the reported SARS-CoV-2 exposures, 2,571 (58.0%) were from an unknown source, 1,185 (26.8%) were from a household source, 458 (10.3%) were from a community source, and 211 (4.8%) were healthcare exposures. A higher proportion of cases with reported healthcare exposures was vaccinated with only 1 or 2 doses, whereas a higher proportion of cases with reported household exposure was vaccinated and boosted, and a higher proportion of community cases with reported and unknown exposures were unvaccinated (P < .0001). HCP exposure to SARS-CoV-2 correlated with community-level transmission regardless of type of reported exposure.

The healthcare setting was not an important source of perceived COVID-19 exposure among our HCPs. Most HCPs were not able to definitively identify the source of their COVID-19, followed by suspected household and community exposures. HCP with community or unknown exposure were more likely to be unvaccinated.

Screening for asymptomatic health conditions is perceived as mostly beneficial, with possible harms receiving little attention.

To quantify proximal and longer-term consequences for individuals receiving a diagnostic label following screening for an asymptomatic, non-cancer health condition.

Five electronic databases were searched (inception to November 2022) for studies that recruited asymptomatic screened individuals who received or did not receive a diagnostic label. Eligible studies reported psychological, psychosocial and/or behavioural outcomes before and after screening results. Independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, extracted data from included studies, and assessed risk of bias (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions). Results were meta-analysed or descriptively reported.

Sixteen studies were included. Twelve studies addressed psychological outcomes, four studies examined behavioural outcomes and none reported psychosocial outcomes. Risk of bias was judged as low (n = 8), moderate (n = 5) or serious (n = 3). Immediately after receiving results, anxiety was significantly higher for individuals receiving versus not receiving a diagnostic label (mean difference −7.28, 95% CI −12.85 to −1.71). On average, anxiety increased from the non-clinical to clinical range, but returned to the non-clinical range in the longer term. No significant immediate or longer-term differences were found for depression or general mental health. Absenteeism did not significantly differ from the year before to the year after screening.

The impacts of screening asymptomatic, non-cancer health conditions are not universally positive. Limited research exists regarding longer-term impacts. Well-designed, high-quality studies further investigating these impacts are required to assist development of protocols that minimise psychological distress following diagnosis.

The objective of this study is to determine the physical evaluations and assessment tools used by a group of Canadian healthcare professionals treating adults with spasticity.

A cross-sectional web-based 19-question survey was developed to determine the types of physical evaluations, tone-related impairment measurements, and assessment tools used in the management of adults with spasticity. The survey was distributed to healthcare professionals from the Canadian Advances in Neuro-Orthopedics for Spasticity Congress database.

Eighty study participants (61 physiatrists and 19 other healthcare professionals) completed the survey and were included. Nearly half (46.3%, 37/80) of the participants reported having an inter- or trans-disciplinary team managing individuals with spasticity. Visual observation of movement, available range of motion determination, tone during velocity-dependent passive range of motion looking for a spastic catch, spasticity, and clonus, and evaluation of gait were the most frequently used physical evaluations. The most frequently used spasticity tools were the Modified Ashworth Scale, goniometer, and Goal Attainment Scale. Results were similar in brain- and spinal cord-predominant etiologies. To evaluate goals, qualitative description was used most (37.5%).

Our findings provide a better understanding of the spasticity management landscape in Canada with respect to staffing, physical evaluations, and outcome measurements used in clinical practice. For all etiologies of spasticity, visual observation of patient movement, Modified Ashworth Scale, and qualitative goal outcomes descriptions were most commonly used to guide treatment and optimize outcomes. Understanding the current practice of spasticity assessment will help provide guidance for clinical evaluation and management of spasticity.

To document changes in evaluation protocols for acute invasive fungal sinusitis during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and to analyse concordance between clinical and histopathological diagnoses based on new practice guidelines.

Protocols for the evaluation of patients with suspected acute invasive fungal sinusitis both prior and during the coronavirus disease 2019 period are described. A retrospective analysis of patients presenting with suspected acute invasive fungal sinusitis from 1 May to 30 June 2021 was conducted, with assessment of the concordance between clinical and final diagnoses.

Among 171 patients with high clinical suspicion, 160 (93.6 per cent) had a final histopathological diagnosis of invasive fungal sinusitis, concordant with the clinical diagnosis, with sensitivity of 100 per cent, positive predictive value of 93.6 per cent and negative predictive value of 100 per cent.

The study highlights a valuable screening tool with good accuracy, involving emphasis on ‘red flag’ signs in high-risk populations. This could be valuable in situations demanding the avoidance of aerosol-generating procedures and in resource-limited settings facilitating early referral to higher level care centres.

To examine the costs and cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine compared to placebo over 12-week follow-up.

Economic evaluation in a double-blind randomized controlled trial of mirtazapine vs. placebo.

Community settings and care homes in 26 UK centers.

People with probable or possible Alzheimer’s disease and agitation.

Primary outcome included incremental cost of participants’ health and social care per 6-point difference in CMAI score at 12 weeks. Secondary cost-utility analyses examined participants’ and unpaid carers’ gain in quality-adjusted life years (derived from EQ-5D-5L, DEMQOL-Proxy-U, and DEMQOL-U) from the health and social care and societal perspectives.

One hundred and two participants were allocated to each group; 81 mirtazapine and 90 placebo participants completed a 12-week assessment (87 and 95, respectively, completed a 6-week assessment). Mirtazapine and placebo groups did not differ on mean CMAI scores or health and social care costs over the study period, before or after adjustment for center and living arrangement (independent living/care home). On the primary outcome, neither mirtazapine nor placebo could be considered a cost-effective strategy with a high level of confidence. Groups did not differ in terms of participant self- or proxy-rated or carer self-rated quality of life scores, health and social care or societal costs, before or after adjustment.

On cost-effectiveness grounds, the use of mirtazapine cannot be recommended for agitated behaviors in people living with dementia. Effective and cost-effective medications for agitation in dementia remain to be identified in cases where non-pharmacological strategies for managing agitation have been unsuccessful.

The Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) is a global organisation committed to the care of children and adults with CHD and arrhythmias.

To evaluate the global needs and potential inequities as it relates to cardiac implantable electronic devices.

ARROW (Assessment of Rhythm Resources arOund the World) is an online survey about cardiac implantable electronic devices, sent electronically to physicians within the field of Cardiology, Pediatric Cardiology, Electrophysiology and Pediatric Electrophysiology.

ARROW received 42 responders from 28 countries, 50% from low-/middle-income regions. The main differences between low-/middle- and high-income regions include availability of expertise on paediatric electrophysiology (50% versus 93%, p < 00.5) and possibility to perform invasive procedures (35% versus 93%, p < 0.005). Implant of devices in low-income areas relies significantly on patient’s resources (71%). The follow-up of the devices is on the hands of paediatric cardiologist/electrophysiologist in higher resources centres (93% versus 50%, p < 0.05).

The ARROW survey represents an initial assessment of the geographical characteristics in the field of Pediatric Electrophysiology. The next step is to make this “state of the art” more extensive to other aspects of the expertise. The relevance of collecting this data before the World Congress of Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery (WCPCCS) in 2023 in Washington DC was emphasised in order to share the resulting information with the international community and set a plan of action to assist the development of arrhythmia services for children within developing regions of the world.

Response to lithium in patients with bipolar disorder is associated with clinical and transdiagnostic genetic factors. The predictive combination of these variables might help clinicians better predict which patients will respond to lithium treatment.

To use a combination of transdiagnostic genetic and clinical factors to predict lithium response in patients with bipolar disorder.

This study utilised genetic and clinical data (n = 1034) collected as part of the International Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLi+Gen) project. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) were computed for schizophrenia and major depressive disorder, and then combined with clinical variables using a cross-validated machine-learning regression approach. Unimodal, multimodal and genetically stratified models were trained and validated using ridge, elastic net and random forest regression on 692 patients with bipolar disorder from ten study sites using leave-site-out cross-validation. All models were then tested on an independent test set of 342 patients. The best performing models were then tested in a classification framework.

The best performing linear model explained 5.1% (P = 0.0001) of variance in lithium response and was composed of clinical variables, PRS variables and interaction terms between them. The best performing non-linear model used only clinical variables and explained 8.1% (P = 0.0001) of variance in lithium response. A priori genomic stratification improved non-linear model performance to 13.7% (P = 0.0001) and improved the binary classification of lithium response. This model stratified patients based on their meta-polygenic loadings for major depressive disorder and schizophrenia and was then trained using clinical data.

Using PRS to first stratify patients genetically and then train machine-learning models with clinical predictors led to large improvements in lithium response prediction. When used with other PRS and biological markers in the future this approach may help inform which patients are most likely to respond to lithium treatment.