Background: COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to significantly affect the mental health of healthcare workers (HCWs), who stand in the frontline of this crisis. It is, therefore, an immediate priority to monitor rates of mood, sleep and other mental health issues in order to understand mediating factors and inform tailored interventions. The aim of this review is to synthesize and analyze existing evidence on the prevalence of depression, anxiety and insomnia among HCWs during the Covid-19 outbreak. Methods: A systematic search of literature databases was conducted up to April 17th, 2020. Two reviewers independently assessed full-text articles according to predefined criteria. Risk of bias for each individual study was assessed and data pooled using random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the prevalence of specific mental health problems. The review protocol is registered in PROSPERO and is available online. Findings: Thirteen studies were included in the analysis with a combined total of 33,062 participants. Anxiety was assessed in 12 studies, with a pooled prevalence of 23•2% and depression in 10 studies, with a prevalence rate of 22•8%. A subgroup analysis revealed gender and occupational differences with female HCPs and nurses exhibiting higher rates of affective symptoms compared to male and medical staff respectively. Finally, insomnia prevalence was estimated at 38•9% across 5 studies. Interpretation: Early evidence suggests that a considerable proportion of HCWs experience mood and sleep disturbances during this outbreak, stressing the need to establish ways to mitigate mental health risks and adjust interventions under pandemic conditions.

No abstract

PURPOSE Whether cancer is associated with worse prognosis among patients with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to quantify the effect (if any) of the presence as opposed to absence of cancer on important clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19 by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS We systematically searched PubMed, medRxiv, COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19), and references of relevant articles up to April 27, 2020, to identify observational studies comparing patients with versus without cancer infected with COVID-19 and to report on mortality and/or need for admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs with a random-effects model. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020181531). RESULTS A total of 32 studies involving 46,499 patients (1,776 patients with cancer) with COVID-19 from Asia, Europe, and the United States were included. All-cause mortality was higher in patients with versus those without cancer (2,034 deaths; RR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.33 to 2.07; P < .0001; 8 studies with 37,807 patients). The need for ICU admission was also more likely in patients with versus without cancer (3,220 events; RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.87; P < .0001; 26 studies with 15,375 patients). However, in a prespecified subgroup analysis of patients > 65 years of age, all-cause mortality was comparable between those with versus without cancer (915 deaths; RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.41; P = .71; 8 studies with 5,438 patients). CONCLUSION The synthesized evidence suggests that cancer is associated with worse clinical outcomes among patients with COVID-19. However, elderly patients with cancer may not be at increased risk of death when infected with COVID-19. These findings may inform discussions of clinicians with patients about prognosis and may guide health policies.

Background Although several international guidelines recommend early over late intubation of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), this issue is still controversial. We aimed to investigate the effect (if any) of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods PubMed and Scopus were systematically searched, while references and preprint servers were explored, for relevant articles up to December 26, 2020, to identify studies which reported on mortality and/or morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing early versus late intubation. “Early” was defined as intubation within 24 h from intensive care unit (ICU) admission, while “late” as intubation at any time after 24 h of ICU admission. All-cause mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) were the primary outcomes of the meta-analysis. Pooled risk ratio (RR), pooled mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020222147). Results A total of 12 studies, involving 8944 critically ill patients with COVID-19, were included. There was no statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality between patients undergoing early versus late intubation (3981 deaths; 45.4% versus 39.1%; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99–1.15, p = 0.08). This was also the case for duration of MV (1892 patients; MD − 0.58 days, 95% CI − 3.06 to 1.89 days, p = 0.65). In a sensitivity analysis using an alternate definition of early/late intubation, intubation without versus with a prior trial of high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive mechanical ventilation was still not associated with a statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality (1128 deaths; 48.9% versus 42.5%; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99–1.25, p = 0.08). Conclusions The synthesized evidence suggests that timing of intubation may have no effect on mortality and morbidity of critically ill patients with COVID-19. These results might justify a wait-and-see approach, which may lead to fewer intubations. Relevant guidelines may therefore need to be updated.