METHOD: Participants aged above 60 years from three ageing cohorts in Malaysia were interviewed virtually. The Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illness and Loss of Weight scale, blind Montreal Cognitive Assessment, 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale, anxiety subscale of Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale and four-item Perceived Stress Scale measured frailty, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), depression, anxiety and stress, respectively.
RESULTS: Cognitive frailty data were available for 870 participants, age (mean ± SD) = 73.44 ± 6.32 years and 55.6% were women. Fifty-seven (6.6%) were robust, 24 (2.8%) had MCI, 451 (51.8%) were pre-frail, 164 (18.9%) were pre-frail+MCI, 119 (13.7%) were frail and 55 (6.3%) were frail+MCI. There were significant differences in depression and anxiety scores between the controlled MCO and recovery MCO. Using multinomial logistic regression, pre-frail (mean difference (95% confidence interval, CI) = 1.16 (0.932, 1.337), frail (1.49 (1.235, 1.803) and frail+MCI (1.49 (1.225, 1.822)) groups had significantly higher depression scores, frail (1.19 (1.030, 1.373)) and frail+MCI (1.24 (1.065, 1.439)) had significantly higher anxiety scores and pre-frail (1.50 (1.285, 1.761)), frail (1.74 (1.469, 2.062)) and frail+MCI (1.81 (1.508, 2.165)) had significantly higher stress scores upon adjustments for the potential confounders. The MCO was a potential confounder in the relationship between depression and prefrail+MCI (1.08 (0.898, 1.340)).
CONCLUSION: Frail individuals with or without MCI had significantly higher depression, anxiety and stress than those who were robust. Increased depression and stress were also observed in the pre-frail group. Interventions to address psychological issues in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic could target prefrail and frail individuals and need further evaluation.
AREAS COVERED: The present article will review the diseases associated with IPI and discuss the current IPI control strategies such as the water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions, community-led total sanitation (CLTS) approach, and regular anthelminthic treatments. For the first time, this review will also evaluate all currently practised diagnostic techniques for the detection of intestinal parasites and provide insights on future IPI control strategies.
EXPERT OPINION: Advanced and improved diagnostic methods such as qPCR coupled with a high-resolution melting curve, aptamers, biosensors, and detection of extracellular vesicles can be used for detection of IPI. Vaccination against intestinal parasites can be made available to increase antibodies to interfere with the blood-feeding process by the parasites, which subsequently reduces the reproductive rates of the parasites. These methods collectively can serve as future management strategies for intestinal parasitic infections.
METHODS: A online cross-sectional survey was conducted with the people living in Wuhan between March 12th and 23rd, 2020.
RESULTS: Of a total of 2411 complete responses, the mean and standard deviation for the total physical prevention barriers score was 19.73 (standard deviation ± 5.3; range 12-45) out of a possible score of 48. Using a cut-off score of 44 for the State-Trait Inventory score, 79.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78.2-81.5) of the participants reported moderate to severe anxiety during the early phase of the outbreak, and 51.3% (95% CI 49.2-53.3) reported moderate to severe anxiety after the peak of coronavirus disease 2019 was over (during the study period). Comparing anxiety levels in the early phase of the outbreak and after the peak of the outbreak, 58.5% (95% CI 56.5-60.5) recorded a decreased anxiety. Females reported a higher likelihood of having decreased levels of anxiety than males (odds ratio = 1.78, 95% CI 1.48-2.14). Low negative attitudes score were associated with a higher decrease in anxiety (odds ratio = 1.59, 95% CI 1.33-1.89).
CONCLUSIONS: The attitudinal barriers to prevention of transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 are more prominent than physical prevention barriers after the peak of coronavirus disease 2019. High anxiety levels even after the peak warrant serious attention.
METHODOLOGY: A total of 571 healthcare workers at COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 wards as well as the emergency department and laboratory staff at COVID-19 testing labs were recruited. The presence of novel human coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and IgM/IgG antibodies were confirmed in all healthcare workers. The healthcare workers responded to an online Google Forms questionnaire that evaluates demographic information and comorbidities, exposure and adherence to infection prevention and control measures against COVID-19. Descriptive analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 24.0.
RESULTS: Three healthcare workers (0.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, while the remaining 568 (99.5%) were negative. All were negative for IgM and IgG antibodies during recruitment (day 1) and follow-up (day 15). More than 90% of the healthcare workers followed infection prevention and control practices recommendations regardless of whether they have been exposed to occupational risk for COVID-19.
CONCLUSIONS: The healthcare workers' high level of adherence to infection prevention practices at this hospital helped reduce and minimize their occupational exposure to COVID-19.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A validated database was used to generate data related to countries with declared lockdown. Simple regression analysis was conducted to assess the rate of change in infection and death rates. Subsequently, a k-means and hierarchical cluster analysis was done to identify the countries that performed similarly. Sweden and South Korea were included as counties without lockdown in a second-phase cluster analysis.
RESULTS: There was a significant 61% and 43% reduction in infection rates 1-week post lockdown in the overall and India cohorts, respectively, supporting its effectiveness. Countries with higher baseline infections and deaths (Spain, Germany, Italy, UK, and France-cluster 1) fared poorly compared to those who declared lockdown early on (Belgium, Austria, New Zealand, India, Hungary, Poland and Malaysia-cluster 2). Sweden and South Korea, countries without lock-down, fared as good as the countries in cluster 2.
CONCLUSION: Lockdown has proven to be an effective strategy is slowing down the SARS-CoV-2 disease progression (infection rate and death) exponentially. The success story of non-lock-down countries (Sweden and South Korea) need to be explored in detail, to identify the variables responsible for the positive results.