Abstract Background: Contact tracing remains a critical part of controlling the spread of COVID-19. Many countries have developed novel software applications (Apps) in an effort to augment traditional contact tracing methods. Aim: To conduct a national survey of the Irish population to examine barriers and levers to the use of a contact tracing App.Methods: Adult participants were invited to respond via an online survey weblink sent via email and messaging Apps and posted on our university website and on popular social media platforms. Results: A total of 8,088 responses were received, with all 26 counties of the Republic of Ireland represented. 54% of respondents said they would definitely download a contact tracing App, while 30% said they would probably download a contact tracing App. 95% of respondents identified at least one reason for them to download the App, with the most common reasons being the potential for the App to help family members and friends and a sense of responsibility to the wider community. 59% identified at least one reason not to download the App, with the most common reasons being fear that technology companies or the government might use the App technology for greater surveillance after the pandemic.Conclusion: Irish citizens surveyed express high levels of willingness to download a public health-backed App to augment contact tracing. Concerns raised regarding privacy and data security will be critical if the App is to achieve the large-scale adoption and ongoing use required for its effective operation.

Background Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent and severe complication of both COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and non-COVID-19-related ARDS. The COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium (CCCC) has generated a global data set on the demographics, management and outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients. The LUNG-SAFE study was an international prospective cohort study of patients with severe respiratory failure, including ARDS, which pre-dated the pandemic. Methods The incidence, demographic profile, management and outcomes of early AKI in patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for COVID-19-related ARDS were described and compared with AKI in a non-COVID-19-related ARDS cohort. Results Of 18,964 patients in the CCCC data set, 1699 patients with COVID-19-related ARDS required invasive ventilation and had relevant outcome data. Of these, 110 (6.5%) had stage 1, 94 (5.5%) had stage 2, 151 (8.9%) had stage 3 AKI, while 1214 (79.1%) had no AKI within 48 h of initiating invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients developing AKI were older and more likely to have hypertension or chronic cardiac disease. There were geo-economic differences in the incidence of AKI, with lower incidence of stage 3 AKI in European high-income countries and a higher incidence in patients from middle-income countries. Both 28-day and 90-day mortality risk was increased for patients with stage 2 (HR 2.00, p < 0.001) and stage 3 AKI (HR 1.95, p < 0.001). Compared to non-COVID-19 ARDS, the incidence of shock was reduced with lower cardiovascular SOFA score across all patient groups, while hospital mortality was worse in all groups [no AKI (30 vs 50%), Stage 1 (38 vs 58%), Stage 2 (56 vs 74%), and Stage 3 (52 vs 72%), p < 0.001]. The time profile of onset of AKI also differed, with 56% of all AKI occurring in the first 48 h in patients with COVID-19 ARDS compared to 89% in the non-COVID-19 ARDS population. Conclusion AKI is a common and serious complication of COVID-19, with a high mortality rate, which differs by geo-economic location. Important differences exist in the profile of AKI in COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 ARDS in terms of their haemodynamic profile, time of onset and clinical outcomes.

Motivated by our conduct of a literature review on social exposures and accelerated aging as measured by a growing number of epigenetic “clocks” (which estimate age via DNA methylation patterns (DNAm)), we report on three different approaches – 1 incorrect and 2 correct – in the epidemiologic literature on treatment of age in these and other studies using other common exposures (i.e., body mass index and alcohol consumption). Among the 50 empirical articles reviewed, the majority (n = 29; 58%) used the incorrect method of analyzing accelerated aging detrended for age as the outcome and did not control for age as a covariate. By contrast, only 42% used the correct methods, which are either to analyze accelerated aging detrended for age as the outcome and control for age as a covariate (n = 16; 32%), or to analyze raw DNAm age as the outcome and control for age as a covariate (n = 5; 10%). In accord with prior demonstrations of bias introduced by the incorrect approach, we provide simulation analyses and additional empirical analyses to illustrate how the incorrect method can lead to bias to the null, and we discuss implications for extant research and recommendations for best practices.

BackgroundActive surveillance [(AS), sometimes called active monitoring (AM)],is a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended management option for men with clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). It aims to target radical treatment only to those who would benefit most. Little consensus exists nationally or internationally about safe and effective protocols for AM/AS or triggers that indicate if or when men should move to radical treatment.ObjectiveThe aims of this project were to review how prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has been used in AM/AS programmes; to develop and test the validity of a new model for predicting future PSA levels; to develop an instrument, based on PSA, that would be acceptable and effective for men and clinicians to use in clinical practice; and to design a robust study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the instrument.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to investigate how PSA is currently used to monitor men in worldwide AM/AS studies. A model for PSA change with age was developed using Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) data and validated using data from two PSA-era cohorts and two pre-PSA-era cohorts. The model was used to derive 95% PSA reference ranges (PSARRs) across ages. These reference ranges were used to predict the onset of metastases or death from PCa in one of the pre-PSA-era cohorts. PSARRs were incorporated into an active monitoring system (AMS) and demonstrated to 18 clinicians and 20 men with PCa from four NHS trusts. Qualitative interviews investigated patients’ and clinicians’ views about current AM/AS protocols and the acceptability of the AMS within current practice.ResultsThe systematic review found that the most commonly used triggers for clinical review of PCa were PSA doubling time (PSADT) < 3 years or PSA velocity (PSAv) > 1 ng/ml/year. The model for PSA change (developed using ProtecT study data) predicted PSA values in AM/AS cohorts within 2 ng/ml of observed PSA in up to 79% of men. Comparing the three PSA markers, there was no clear optimal approach to alerting men to worsening cancer. The PSARR and PSADT markers improved the modelc-statistic for predicting death from PCa by 0.11 (21%) and 0.13 (25%), respectively, compared with using diagnostic information alone [PSA, age, tumour stage (T-stage)]. Interviews revealed variation in clinical practice regarding eligibility and follow-up protocols. Patients and clinicians perceive current AM/AS practice to be framed by uncertainty, ranging from uncertainty about selection of eligible AM/AS candidates to uncertainty about optimum follow-up protocols and thresholds for clinical review/radical treatment. Patients and clinicians generally responded positively to the AMS. The impact of the AMS on clinicians’ decision-making was limited by a lack of data linking AMS values to long-term outcomes and by current clinical practice, which viewed PSA measures as one of several tools guiding clinical decisions in AM/AS. Patients reported that they would look to clinicians, rather than to a tool, to direct decision-making.LimitationsThe quantitative findings were severely hampered by a lack of clinical outcomes or events (such as metastases). The qualitative findings were limited through reliance on participants’ reports of practices and recollections of events rather than observations of actual interactions.ConclusionsPatients and clinicians found that the instrument provided additional, potentially helpful, information but were uncertain about the current usefulness of the risk model we developed for routine management. Comparison of the model with other monitoring strategies will require clinical outcomes from ongoing AM/AS studies.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy has been instrumental in saving lives of patients with end-stage heart failure (HF). Recent generation devices have short-to-mid-term survival rates close to heart transplantation. Unfortunately, up to 1 in 4 patients develop a life-threatening right-sided HF (RHF) early post LVAD implantation, with high morbidity and mortality rate, necessitating prolonged ICU stay, prolonged inotropic support, and implantation of a right-ventricular assist device. Pre-operative optimization of HF therapy could help in prevention, and/or mitigation of RHF. Levosimendan (LEVO) is a non-conventional inotropic agent that works by amplifying calcium sensitivity of troponin C in cardiac myocytes, without increasing the intra-cellular calcium or exacerbating ischemia. LEVO acts as an inodilator, which reduces the cardiac pre-, and after-load. LEVO administration is associated with hemodynamic improvements. Despite decades long of the use of LVAD and more than two decades of the use of LEVO for HF, the literature on LEVO use in LVAD is very limited. In this paper, we sought to conduct a systematic review to synthesize evidence related to the use of LEVO for the mitigation and/or prevention of RHF in patients undergoing LVAD implantation.