Skip header and navigation

14 records – page 1 of 1.

Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC220304 RR
Question Submitted
March 29, 2022
Date Completed
March 31, 2022
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC220304 RR
Question Submitted
March 29, 2022
Date Completed
March 31, 2022
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Data from Israel of adults 60 years and older who received a 4th dose of mRNA vaccine found that the rate of confirmed infection decreased ~2 fold following the 4th dose, and the rate of severe illness decreased by ~4-fold in those who received a 4th dose versus those with 3 doses, both results were found to be statistically significant
NACI recommends a 4th dose at least 6 months following a 3rd dose for severely immunocompromised individuals who are not only at higher risk of severe outcomes, but also at higher risk of decreased protection over time following vaccination – this recommendation has been echoed by Public Health Ontario, the Northwest Territories Health and Social Services
The FDA has also authorized the use of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine as a 4th dose for adults over 50 years and those over 12 years with compromised immune systems
A small study of Israeli healthcare workers compared the incidence of COVID-19 in those who had received a 4th dose of vaccine to those who had received only three doses. It found that protection from Omicron infection was only slightly higher in the four-dose vaccine group compared to the three-dose control group (31% for Pfizer as a 4th dose, 11% for Moderna as a 4th dose), and that neither result was statistically significant. Breakthrough infections were mild, yet with high viral loads
Small-scale studies of solid-organ transplant and hemodialysis patients found that while a 4th dose increased antibody titers in most participants, those with severe immune deficiencies such as those taking anti-rejection medication were still unable to mount an immune response to vaccination – in addition, these studies have not assessed the presence or strength of functional immunity in these populations
Category
Healthcare Services
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Clinical Presentation
Immunity
Infection Prevention and Control
Vaccines
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Reeder, B; Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What is the efficacy of a 4th booster dose for COVID-19? 2022 Mar 31, Document no.: EOC220304 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2022. 10 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Similar Reviews
INF031801v020 ESR
INF031801v019 RR
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EPM210601v2 RR
Question Submitted
June 22, 2021
Date Completed
March 31, 2022
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Epidemiology & Modelling
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EPM210601v2 RR
Question Submitted
June 22, 2021
Date Completed
March 31, 2022
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Epidemiology & Modelling
Updated Key Findings
March 31, 2022
Since the previous rapid review, a large amount of new research and reviews are available to draw upon. Many studies have addressed aspects previously identified as limitations such as the use of validated questionnaires, documenting pre-COVID health status, and control cohorts. Many studies now include only participants with RT-PCR verified infections and also focus on a range of disease severities from severe (hospitalized) to mild (managed in the community); PCR-validated infections ensure a higher quality of comparison between test-positive and control groups. Studies involving control groups contributed illuminating findings about prevalence and incidence of long COVID, which is lower than previous thought when compared to control groups. Comorbidities/factors that potentially indicate increased risk of developing long COVID-19 have been identified and widely agreed-upon, such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, obesity, and gender (female).
A case definition for long COVID has yet to be adopted but is commonly defined as COVID-related symptoms that persist or emerge beyond 4 weeks of infection with two subsequent phases: “ongoing symptomatic COVID-19 (OSC; signs and symptoms from 4 to 12 weeks from initial infection) and 2) post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS; signs and symptoms beyond 12 weeks) with respect to symptomatology, abnormal functioning, psychological burden, and quality of life”. Long COVID includes both OSC and PCS.
It is estimated that 32% of non-hospitalized and 51% of hospitalized people experience Long COVID symptoms within 12 weeks of infection; however, higher estimates up to 92% have been reported in studies with a greater proportion in persons who were previously hospitalized. More than 200 symptoms affecting 10 organ systems have been identified in various reports or systematic reviews. Many patients (49%), experience at least one COVID-related symptom 12 months after infection (compared to 68% at 6 months).
For many persons, symptoms improve over time while others experience persistent and/or new symptoms. At 3 months post-infection the most frequently reported symptoms are fatigue (up to 98%), dyspnoea (up to 88%), headache (up to 91%) and taste/smell disorders (up to 58%).
Mechanism(s) leading to long COVID remain unclear, but these comorbidities/factors have been found to indicate potentially increased risk of developing long COVID: o Age (60+) o Greater number of symptoms during the acute phase of illness (typically 5+) o Manifestation of specific symptoms o Diabetes o Cardiovascular disease o Obesity or high BMI o Gender (female)
There is limited evidence to support the contention that vaccination lowers incidence of long COVID.
Key Findings
July 9, 2021
The frequency of Long COVID symptoms varies widely across studies based on populations studied, duration of follow up and methods of assessment of symptoms.
It is estimated that 1 in 50 persons experience Long COVID symptoms after 12 weeks; however, higher estimates up to 80% have been reported in studies with a greater proportion of persons who were previously hospitalized. A recent study of a mixed cohort of 96 persons found that only 22.9% had no symptoms at 12 months post diagnosis.
A wide range of symptoms affecting multiple organ systems has been reported. For many persons symptoms improve over time while others experience persistent and/or new symptoms. Among studies with the longest duration of follow up, the most frequently reported symptoms included fatigue (up to 65%), dyspnea (up to 50%), headache (up to 45%), anosmia/ageusia (up to 25%), cognitive memory/concentration (up to 39.6%) and sleep disorders (up to 26%).
Few studies estimated the duration of symptoms with estimates ranging from 2.2% for 6 months and 27% for 7-9 months.
The mechanism(s) leading to Long COVID remain unclear but those experiencing post acute sequelae tend to be older, have a greater number of symptoms during the acute phase of illness or manifest specific symptoms and live with multiple comorbid conditions such as obesity.
The lack of consensus on a definition of Long COVID contributes to marked variations in robust prevalence estimates.
Notes
A significant amount of evidence was produced since the previous review. This updated review was rewritten with extensive changes which have not been identified in red.
Category
Clinical Presentation
Epidemiology
Subject
Long Covid
Symptoms
Clinical Presentation
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Community
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
Hammond, B; Badea, A; Groot, G; Reeder, B; Howell-Spooner, B; Mueller, M. What is the incidence and duration of long COVID cases? 2022 Mar 31, Document no.: EPM210601v2 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2022. 18 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC220201 RR
Question Submitted
February 7, 2022
Date Completed
February 18, 2022
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC220201 RR
Question Submitted
February 7, 2022
Date Completed
February 18, 2022
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
6-month to 1 year survival rates of critical COVID-19 patients are similar to those of non-COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU
COVID-19 patients who have survived intensive care (ICU) admission are at risk of developing both post intensive care syndrome (PICS) and Long COVID. PICS includes impairments in physical, cognitive and psychological dimensions
Long-term survival follow up of COVID patients indicates that they experience similar levels of impairments in physical, cognitive and psychological dimensions as historical non-COVID reference populations.
The most common long-term impairments reported by COVID patients are persistent dyspnea/breathlessness, general weakness/fatigue and ongoing psychological symptoms such as anxiety, depression and PTSD
Category
Healthcare Services
Subject
Clinical Presentation
Critical Care
Mental Health
Outcome Assessment
Long Covid
Population
All
Clinical Setting
ICU
NICU
Priority Level
Level 4 Three weeks (21 days)
Cite As
Badea, A; Reeder, B; Groot, G; Miller, L; Mueller, M. What are the one year outcomes for ICU COVID patients? 2022 Feb 18, Document no.: EOC220201 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2022. 11 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
INF031801v019 RR
Question Submitted
March 18, 2021
Date Completed
December 26, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
Infectious Disease
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
INF031801v019 RR
Question Submitted
March 18, 2021
Date Completed
December 26, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
Infectious Disease
Updated Key Findings
December 14, 2021
Ontario Immunization Advisory Committee recommended that if an 11 and 12-year-old child is inadvertently given a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that is not authorized for their age, the dose should be considered valid and the series complete.
National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) recommends that a booster dose of an authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccine should be offered to vulnerable population and > 50 years old, =6 months after completion of a primary COVID-19 vaccine series.
Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (ATAGI) recommends COVID-19 booster vaccination with either Pfizer (Comirnaty) or Moderna (Spikevax), which are considered equally acceptable, for anyone aged 18 and older who completed their primary course of COVID-19 vaccination 5 or more months ago.
On December 8th, 2021 in a press release by Pfizer-BioNTech said that preliminary laboratory studies demonstrate that three doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine neutralize the Omicron variant while two doses show significantly reduced neutralization titers. Data indicate that a third dose of BNT162b2 increases the neutralizing antibody titers by 25-fold compared to two doses.
Key Findings
December 3, 2021
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has granted provisional approval to Moderna for the use of its vaccine in children (two 10µg doses) and as booster shot for adults (one 30µg dose) in preparation for the recent emergence of the Omicron variant. This is in addition to Pfizer, which was also recently approved.
The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) recommends that a complete series with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (10 mcg) may be offered to children 5-11 years of age who do not have contraindications to the vaccine, with a dosing interval of at least 8 weeks between the first and second dose.
NNACI also recommends that children aged 5-11 years with a history of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection should be considered no longer infectious and symptoms of an acute illness should be completely resolved prior to vaccination.
Health Canada has authorized Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine (also known as Spikevax) to be used as a booster shot, using a half-dose of the vaccine.
Category
Epidemiology
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Vaccines
Immunity
Infection Prevention and Control
Clinical Presentation
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
ICU
Medicine Unit
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Jagwani, M; Lee, S; Shumilak, G; Reeder, B; Groot, G; Hernandez, L; Howell-Spooner, B; Miller, L. How effective are COVID-19 vaccines? 2021 Dec 26. Document no.: INF031801v019 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 93 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Review History
INF031801v17 RR: November 23, 2021
INF031801v16 RR: November 12, 2021
INF031801v15 RR: October 28, 2021
INF031801v014 RR: October 16, 2021
INF031801v013 RR: September 24, 2021
INF031801v012 RR: September 10, 2021
INF031801v010 RR: August 25, 2021
INF031801v9 RR: August 23, 2021
INF031801v8 RR: August 9, 2021
INF031801v7 RR: July 20, 2021
INF031801v6 RR: July 2, 2021
INF031801v5 RR: June 22, 2021
INF031801v4 RR: June 3, 2021
INF031801v3 RR: May 24, 2021
INF031801v2 RR: May 14, 2021
INF031801 RR: March 31, 2021
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC021901v2 RR
Question Submitted
February 19, 2021
Date Completed
October 29, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC021901v2 RR
Question Submitted
February 19, 2021
Date Completed
October 29, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Updated Key Findings
October 29, 2021
In October, WHO released a consensus definition of post COVID-19 condition that includes 12 domains. This development should lead to better standardization of reporting and contribute to more precise prevalence estimates and better understanding of associated risk factors.
The effects of Variants of Concern (VoC) and COVID vaccination on progression of Long COVID symptoms remains unclear.
Risk factors for developing Long COVID symptoms were similar but limited evidence suggests that pre-pandemic psychological distress and poor general health were associated with developing persistent symptoms. Evidence is too limited to determine whether vaccination reduces the risk of developing Long COVID among persons with breakthrough infections.
Given the protean manifestations of Long COVID symptoms, the underlying causes are likely multifactorial; however, strong evidence to substantiate the theories of causation remains limited.
Research related to longer-term consequences of SARS CoV-2 infections in pediatric populations is growing but remains limited.
Key Findings
March 15, 2021
There is a lack of consensus around the clinical definition of Long COVID which in turn causes challenges with understanding the incidence and prevalence as well as the potential impact for the health care system
Information about the natural history of Long COVID is incomplete but limited evidence suggests that the immune response trajectories differ for those with few or no symptoms compared to those with severe disease. Individuals with severe disease are more likely to exhibit immunological marker abnormalities but anyone can experience functional limitations.
The mechanisms underlying the development of persistent symptoms in Long COVID remain an enigma. Despite multiple theories, there is little empirical evidence for specific immunological and or biochemical abnormalities in samples of individuals with symptoms consistent with Long COVID.
Risk factors for Long COVID include female gender, older age, higher body mass index, pre-existing asthma and the number of symptoms.
Few studies explored the short-term impact of Long COVID on health care utilization patterns and found a higher impact for those with severe disease compared with mild disease.
Category
Healthcare Services
Clinical Presentation
Subject
Long Covid
Clinical Presentation
Health Planning
Symptoms
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Long Term Care
Primary care
Priority Level
Level 5 Four weeks+ (28 days+)
Cite As
Williams-Roberts, H; Groot, G; Mueller, M; Dalidowicz, M. Long COVID: What does it mean for the healthcare system and programs? 2021 Oct 29. Document no.: EOC021901v2 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 14 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EPM210602 RR
Question Submitted
June 22, 2021
Date Completed
July 12, 2021
Status
4. Update in progress
Research Team
Epidemiology & Modelling
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EPM210602 RR
Question Submitted
June 22, 2021
Date Completed
July 12, 2021
Status
4. Update in progress
Research Team
Epidemiology & Modelling
Key Findings
Long COVID-19 is likely to increase healthcare demands across the health system, including emergency departments, hospital admissions, primary care visits, specialists appointments, and home care and rehabilitation services.
The clinical care burden of long COVID-19 is the greatest in the first 3 months after testing and is likely to place the greatest demand on primary care services.
Patients with severe COVID-19 illness are more likely to place longer-term demands (4-6 months) on specialist care due to respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, metabolic, psychiatric and unspecified conditions.
Category
Clinical Presentation
Epidemiology
Subject
Long Covid
Health Planning
Clinical Presentation
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Community
Emergency
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
McLean, M; Williams-Roberts, H; Reeder, B; Howell-Spooner, B; Ellsworth, C. What are long COVID's demands on the healthcare system, and its severity of the illness? 2021 Jul 12, Document no.: EPM210602 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 23 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC062201v2 RR
Question Submitted
June 22, 2020
Date Completed
January 22, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC062201v2 RR
Question Submitted
June 22, 2020
Date Completed
January 22, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Updated Key Findings
Generally speaking, data indicate that adult cancer patients and those who have recently received or are receiving anti-cancer therapy are at a higher risk of severe outcomes and death resulting from COVID-19 compared to those without cancer. However, more data are beginning to elucidate the nuances of these risks depending on patient specific factors.
Limited data indicate that pediatric cancer patients are not at a high level of risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19.
Limited evidence indicates some differences in the course and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection depending on the type of immunosuppressive therapy a patient receives.
Key Findings
Generally speaking, data indicate that adult cancer patients and those who have recently received or are receiving anti-cancer therapy are at a higher risk of severe outcomes and death resulting from COVID-19 compared to those without cancer.
Pediatric cancer populations may not be at the same level of risk as adult populations.
There is not enough evidence at this time to determine if there are differences in the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients receiving chemotherapy vs. those who are not aside from outcomes and severity.
Category
Clinical Presentation
Subject
Chemotherapy
Cancer
Comorbidities
Natural History
Population
All
Priority Level
Level 3 completed within 2-3 days
Cite As
Vanstone, J; Groot, G; Miller, L; Mueller, M. What are the differences in the clinical course of COVID-19 between patients undergoing chemotherapy and otherwise healthy individuals? 2021 Jan 22; Document no.: EOC062201v2 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 5 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Review History
EOC062201 RR: June 29, 2020
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PPE120901 RR
Question Submitted
December 9, 2020
Date Completed
December 18, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Personal Protective Equipment
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PPE120901 RR
Question Submitted
December 9, 2020
Date Completed
December 18, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Personal Protective Equipment
Key Findings
Moderate evidence supporting the concept that airway management and certain surgical procedures create aerosols
No definitive evidence for the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during AGMP
Indirect evidence from SARS-CoV-1 indicates that HCW present during AGMP are at higher risk of infection, but evidence quality is very low and very difficult to generalize
The absence of definitive evidence does not equate to the absence of risk and most policy recommendations err on the side of safety for Health Care Workers
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Aerosols
Risk
Transmission
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Long Term Care
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Fox, L; Mueller, M. What is the risk of COVID-19 transmission during AGMP procedures? 2020 Dec 18; Document no.: PPE120901 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 30 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC081401v2 RR
Question Submitted
August 14, 2020
Date Completed
December 1, 2020
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC081401v2 RR
Question Submitted
August 14, 2020
Date Completed
December 1, 2020
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
In the absence of SARS-CoV-2 specific evidence, recommendations for fallow time following AGPs in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic range widely depending on country and specialty association.
The majority of recommendations are based upon dental practices and several on thoracic surgical practice.
The most common recommendations follow the CDC’s guidelines for airborne contamination removal based on air changes per hour ventilation properties of rooms.
Assuming that most treatment rooms have a minimum of 10-12 ACH, most associations recommend a 20-minute fallow periods, or 60 minutes if ACH is unknown or below recommendations for treatment rooms.
Category
Administration
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Aerosols
Facilities
Decision Making
Priority Level
Level 4 completed within 1 week
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot G; Dalidowicz, M; Young, C; Miller, L. What are the recommendations around settling times following aerosol generating procedures on suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients? 2020 Dec 1; Document no.: EOC081401v2 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 24 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Review History
EOC081401 RR: August 24, 2020
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC090202 RR
Question Submitted
September 2, 2020
Date Completed
September 8, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC090202 RR
Question Submitted
September 2, 2020
Date Completed
September 8, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· The Intubation box was originally invented by Dr. Lai Hsien-yung, an anesthesiologist in Taiwan. · The main function of the intubation box is intended to prevent exposure of care providers to COVID-19 from aerosol droplets during intubation. · The intubation box concept emerged during the pandemic to address the challenge of adequate supply of PPEs in resource limited settings in particular but presents limitations and poses significant safety risk to the patient. · limitations include increased incubation time, discomfort from restricted hand movements for the intubation procedure, reduced first-pass intubation rates, limitation for certain body habitus and possible injury to patient · With regards to aerosol exposure, intubation boxes have been reported to increase rather than decrease airborne particle exposure.
Category
Administration
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Intubation
Risk
Personal Protective Equipment
Aerosols
Transmission
Population
All
Priority Level
Level 3 completed within 2-3 days
Cite As
Asamoah, G; Groot, G; Badea, A; Ellsworth, C; Fox, L. What are the safety risks or disinfection concerns with the use of intubation boxes? 2020 Sep 8; Document no.: EOC090202 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 13 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Similar Reviews
EOC033001 RR
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
LTC060202 RR
Question Submitted
June 2, 2020
Date Completed
June 19, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Long Term Care
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
LTC060202 RR
Question Submitted
June 2, 2020
Date Completed
June 19, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Long Term Care
Key Findings
The majority of studies show elderly persons (>65 years) have significantly longer COVID-19 incubation periods compared to younger adults with a mean difference of +3.9 days (Lieu J et al. 2020; Kong TK et al. 2020; Jiang et al. 2020; Guo et al. 2020). One study showed no difference between those >60 years and younger patients (Lian et al. 2020).
Median incubation period across all studies (all ages) was 5 days (5.4 days mean). Jiang et al. (2020) report a mean incubation period of 7 days for younger adults and 10.9 days for those over age 65.
Upper limit of incubation period is 12-14 days with one study reporting 27 days (Nanda et al. 2020).
Median duration from symptom onset to death is 11.5 days in persons >70 years vs. 14 days in younger adults (Geriatric Emergency department collaborative March 2020).
Older age and more severe infections are associated with higher viral loads; however, viral shedding is not associated with infectivity. (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, 2020).
Doubling time of COVID-19 among residents from a single long-term care home was estimated to be 3.4 days compared to 5.5 days in the general population in the surrounding county (Arons et al. 2020).
Infected patients over the age of 65 years remain contagious for a significantly longer period (22 days vs. 19 days, p=0.015; Ziao et al. 2020).
Viral shedding may be longer for immune compromised patients (BC CDC 2020).
Symptom duration varies by nature of the symptom with a median time from diagnosis to discharge from hospital ranging from 13 days (range = 7-17; Ki et al. 2020) to 18.5 days (range = 11-27; Kim et al. 2020).
There is limited information on basic reproduction number in older adult populations. These values vary by region and over time. R0 values for whole populations (all ages) have been reported as low as 0.48 (Ki et al. 2020) to 2.5 (Lewnard et al. 2020)
Please see related reports by the Laboratory Working Group available in the SHA COVID-19 repository (not specific to elderly). o LAB041601 RR Antibody development, viral shedding and infectiousness. o LAB040701-01 RR Proportion of disease transmission due to asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic and symptomatic cases.
Category
Epidemiology
Healthcare Services
Subject
Clinical Presentation
Transmission
Infection Prevention and Control
Elderly
Priority Level
Level 5 completed within 2 weeks
Cite As
Tupper, S; Ward, H; Dalidowicz, M; Ellsworth, C. What is the incubation period, rate of spread, and duration of infectivity of COVID-19 in older adults? 2020 Jun 19; Document no.: LTC060202 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 28 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC051201 RR
Question Submitted
May 12, 2020
Date Completed
May 15, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC051201 RR
Question Submitted
May 12, 2020
Date Completed
May 15, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· Small simulation studies have demonstrated potential contamination of neck and back area · Many associations recommend neck coverage, or if unavailable to ensure sanitation/washing of exposed skin after doffing PPE · Several warnings that increasing amount of PPE increases chances of contamination and may decrease level of compliance
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Clinical Management
Subject
Personal Protective Equipment
Aerosols
Priority Level
Level 3 completed within 2-3 days
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Dalidowicz, M; Miller, L. Do neck or back coverings provide additional protection to gown and N95 mask when conducting an aerosol generating procedure? 2020 May 15; Document no.: EOC051201 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 9 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC040101 RR
Question Submitted
April 1, 2020
Date Completed
April 1, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC040101 RR
Question Submitted
April 1, 2020
Date Completed
April 1, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· There are some recommendations and precautions from WHO, CDC, Canada and the UK that there is transmission of the COVID virus from the administration of nebulizer medication. · Some case studies of SARS found few instances that patients may likely be infected after aerosol generating procedures including nebulized medications, and although there are few evidences that demonstrates low risk of viral transmission from nebulizers, possibility of transmission remains
Category
Epidemiology
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Aerosols
Risk
Transmission
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Priority Level
Level 2 completed within 8 hours
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Fenton, M; Dalidowicz, M; Young, C. What is the degree of COVID-19 transmission through the administration of nebulizer medication either in clinical practice or in animal experiments? 2020 Apr 1; Document no.: EOC040101 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 10 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC033001 RR
Question Submitted
March 30, 2020
Date Completed
March 30, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC033001 RR
Question Submitted
March 30, 2020
Date Completed
March 30, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· Some countries like Taiwan and Malaysia have created their own intubation hood design as others offered to produce or modify the original design to fit their country’s equipment. · Several countries have also created innovation in airway management such as 3D printed respirator valves for hospitals and 3D printed ventilators. · An Emergency physician in Northern Italy shared that due to influx of patients in the hospitals, “intubation and invasive mechanical ventilators in the ED are reserved for patients not responsive to NIV” although in principle can give a more favorable chance for patients if given before their condition deteriorates.
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Intubation
Aerosols
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Cardiac unit
Priority Level
Level 2 completed within 8 hours
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Dalidowicz, M. Where and how are they producing and using intubation hoods? 2020 Mar 30; Document no.: EOC033001 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 7 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Similar Reviews
EOC090202 RR
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail

14 records – page 1 of 1.