Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a global health concern, that can leave lasting physical, cognitive, and/or behavioral changes for many who sustain this type of injury. Because of the heterogeneity of this population, development of appropriate intervention tools can be difficult. Social determinants of health (SDoH) are factors that may impact TBI incidence, recovery, and outcome. The purpose of this study is to describe and analyze the existing literature regarding the prevailing SDoH and health disparities (HDs) associated with TBI in adults. A scoping review, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework was used to explore three electronic databases—PubMed, Medline, and CINAHL. Searches identified peer-reviewed empirical literature addressing aspects of SDoH and HDs related to TBI. A total of 123 records were identified and reduced to 27 studies based on inclusion criteria. Results revealed race/ethnicity was the most commonly reported SDoH impacting TBI, followed by an individual’s insurance status. Health disparities were noted to occur across the continuum of TBI, including TBI risk, acute hospitalization, rehabilitation, and recovery. The most frequently reported HD was that Whites are more likely to be discharged to inpatient rehabilitation compared to racial/ethnic minorities. Health disparities associated with TBI are most commonly associated with the race/ethnicity SDoH, though insurance status and socioeconomic status commonly influence health inequities as well. The additional need for evidence related to the impact of other, lesser researched, SDoH is discussed, as well as clinical implications that can be used to target intervention for at-risk groups using an individual’s known SDoH.
COVID-19 is an infectious disease that caused a global pandemic affecting people worldwide. As disease detection and vaccine rollout continue to progress, there is still a need for efficient diagnostic tools to satisfy continued testing needs. This preliminary study evaluated a novel SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test called DirectDetect SARS-CoV-2 Direct Real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) based on a limited sample size of 24 respiratory samples from 14 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. The test is advantageous compared to others on the market since it does not require viral transport medium or viral RNA extraction prior to nucleic acid amplification and detection. This capability transforms the hours-long sample preparation time into a minutes-long procedure while also eliminating the need for many costly reagents which may be difficult to obtain during the surge in nucleic acid-based testing during the pandemic. The results show a positive agreement of 94.7, 100, and 94.7% between dry sample swabs, treated samples, and untreated samples tested using the DirectDetect SARS-CoV-2 Direct Real-time RT-PCR compared to tests used in a clinical laboratory, respectively. The findings indicate that DirectDetect can be used for multiple different sample types while reducing the number of reagents and time needed for diagnosis. Although this study shows promising results using the DirectDetect results, further validation of this test using a larger sample set is required to assess the true performance of this test.
Background Two years into the pandemic, clinicians do not have access to a standardized measurement of SARS-CoV-2 viral load (VL) that allows for VL comparison across clinical specimens and different assays. Reliable VL measurement in diverse respiratory specimens, over time, and in response to treatments such as remdesivir (RDV), could better inform treatment and prevention. Methods To investigate the use of a standardized VL assay in respiratory specimens, we enrolled patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Providence, RI, with/without RDV exposure; collected serial samples from 4 compartments (nasopharyngeal-NP, nasal-NA, oropharyngeal-OP, saliva-SA) in 3 visits during the 1st week of hospitalization; and characterized SARS-CoV-2 VL using a ChromaCode HDPCR™ quantitative research use only assay, calibrated to the first World Health Organization (WHO) International Standard (IS). Linear mixed effects models and associated regression coefficients were used to analyze inter-compartmental VL differences at enrollment, over time, and with/without RDV. Results Of 35 participants (60% male; 70% White, 14% Hispanic/Latino, 49% RDV exposure), all had visit 1 samples (median hospital day 1, IQR 0-2; pre-RDV for those exposed); 80% visit 2 samples (median hospital day 2, IQR 1-8); and 37% visit 3 samples (median hospital day 4, IQR 3-7). Overall, 38 NP, 67 NA, 57 OP, and 67 SA samples were collected. Mean log VLs (Log10IU/mL) differed by compartment at visit 1 (NP 6.3, NA 4.9, OP 4.1, SA 5.6, p=0.0001) and significantly decreased over time in all compartments (p< 0.04 for all comparisons). Log VL change over time was not significantly different between compartments or between people treated/not treated with RDV. Conclusion We successfully measured respiratory intercompartmental SARS-CoV-2 VL differences among hospitalized patients using a standardized assay calibrated to the WHO IS. Dissemination of standardized VL measurement methods will allow accurate VL comparisons across assay types quantified in IU/mL and improve assessment of the impact of COVID-19 treatments. Inter-compartmental VL differences at baseline may indicate sampling variability or different viral burden. RDV did not appear to accelerate viral decay. Disclosures Curt Beckwith, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc: Grant/Research Support Jon Steingrimsson, PhD, Gilead: Grant/Research Support Angela Caliendo, MD, PhD, ChromaCode: Advisor/Consultant|Danaher/Cepheid: Advisor/Consultant|First Light: Advisor/Consultant|Hologic: Grant/Research Support|ID Connect: Advisor/Consultant|Quidel: Advisor/Consultant|Visby: Advisor/Consultant Rami Kantor, MD, Gilead Sciences: Grant/Research Support.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.