mRNA COVID vaccine and myocarditis in adolescents

Hong Kong Med J 2021 Oct;27(5):326–7  |  Epub 16 Aug 2021
© Hong Kong Academy of Medicine. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
 
EDITORIAL
mRNA COVID vaccine and myocarditis in adolescents
Mike YW Kwan, MSc (Applied Epidemiology) (CUHK), FHKAM (Paediatrics)1 #; Gilbert T Chua, MB, BS, FHKAM (Paediatrics)2 #; CB Chow, MD, FHKAM (Paediatrics)1,2 #; Sabrina SL Tsao, MB, BS(UK), FACC2; Kelvin KW To, MD, FRCPath3; KY Yuen, MD, FRCPath3; YL Lau, MD (Hon), FRCPCH2; Patrick Ip, MPH, FHKAM (Paediatrics)2
1 Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Princess Margaret Hospital, Hong Kong
2 Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
3 Department of Microbiology, Carol Yu Centre for Infection, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
# These authors contributed equally to the work.
 
Corresponding authors: Prof KY Yuen (kyyuen@hku.hk), Prof YL Lau (lauylung@hku.hk), Dr Patrick Ip (patricip@hku.hk)
 
 Full paper in PDF
 
 
In Hong Kong, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programme started on 26 February 2021. CoronaVac (an inactivated virus vaccine developed by Sinovac) and Comirnaty (BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine co-developed by BioNTech and Pfizer, and manufactured and distributed in China by Fosun Pharma) are the available formulations for public use. Comirnaty is safe and provides good antibody response, including for patients aged 12 to 15 years with clinical efficacy in protecting against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection of 100%.1 On 14 June 2021, the Food and Health Bureau, Hong Kong SAR Government lowered the age limit for receiving the Comirnaty vaccine to ≥12 years.2
 
Since April 2021, there have been reports that myocarditis and pericarditis occur more frequently in adolescents and young adults after mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations internationally.3 4 5 In Hong Kong, Comirnaty is the only mRNA technology platform COVID-19 vaccine available, but others are available elsewhere (eg, from Moderna).
 
Myocarditis and pericarditis have many virological and immunological causes, and are known to occur after vaccination; for example, the incidence of myocarditis after smallpox vaccination is around 12 to 16.1 per million vaccinated individuals.6 Myocarditis can also occur after SARS-CoV-2 infection alone or as a consequence of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children after COVID-19 or paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2.3 7 8
 
Reported cases of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination are mostly male adolescents and young adults aged between 12 and 24 years who received the second dose of the mRNA vaccine.9 10 11 12 13 14 These heart complications are exceedingly rare, but are increasingly reported as hundreds of million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been administered worldwide.4 5 9 10 The typical symptoms of myocarditis and pericarditis are chest pain, shortness of breath, and palpitations occurring within 1 week (usually 2-4 days) after vaccination. The condition is mild in most of the affected individuals, with only minimal treatment required and full recovery within a few days.
 
Although myocarditis and pericarditis have many virological and immunological causes, a causal link was suspected due to the immunological reaction to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Individuals are recommended to rest and refrain from heavy strenuous activities for 1 week after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, which will be helpful during the rare occurrence of myocarditis or pericarditis. Individuals experiencing chest pain, shortness of breath, or palpitations after receiving the mRNA vaccine are advised to seek immediate medical attention.
 
Myocarditis and pericarditis are diagnosed according to the Brighton Collaboration case definitions,11 which include clinical symptoms (cardiac or non-specific symptoms), elevated myocardial biomarkers (troponin T, troponin I, or CK myocardial band), electrocardiographic, echocardiogram or cardiac magnetic resonance abnormalities and with other alternative aetiologies for symptoms excluded.12 Supportive therapy is the mainstay of treatment with cardiac treatment and intervention if needed. Individuals with myocarditis/pericarditis are advised to rest until symptoms resolved.12
 
Based on the latest scientific data, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination to the individual, family members, and society outweigh the reported known and potential risks of vaccination (including the possibility of myocarditis and pericarditis) in the current pandemic.13 Owing to the recent emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants with increased transmissibility, higher rates of vaccination will be required to achieve sufficient herd immunity to prevent further community spread and allow society to return to normal.
 
On 30 June 2021, a joint consensus statement was issued by the Hong Kong Paediatric Society, The Hong Kong Society for Paediatric Immunology Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Hong Kong College of Paediatric Nursing, and the Hong Kong Paediatric Nurses Association.14 The consensus statement appeals to children and adolescents (aged ≥12 years), parents, adult household members, and child-carers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine for self-protection, and for the physical health and long-term psychosocial development of all children in Hong Kong.
 
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Health Bureau of Hong Kong SAR Government endorse the use of Comirnaty vaccine in adolescents mainly because the benefits of vaccination exceed the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.15 Although there is no alternative vaccine for this age-group currently available, data are being gathered on CoronaVac, which utilises the inactivated virus platform. If this proves safe and effective for children and adolescents, and is approved for use, CoronaVac may be an alternative for this age-group in Hong Kong.
 
Author contributions
All authors contributed to the concept or design of the study, acquisition of the data, analysis or interpretation of the data, drafting of the manuscript, and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors had full access to the data, contributed to the study, approved the final version for publication, and take responsibility for its accuracy and integrity.
 
Conflicts of interest
All authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 
References
1. Frenck RW, Jr, Klein NP, Kitchin N, et al. Safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of the BNT162b2 Covid-19 vaccine in adolescents. N Engl J Med 2021;385:239-50. Crossref
2. Persons aged 12 to 15 can make reservations to receive BioNTech vaccine from tomorrow. Press release. Hong Kong SAR Government. 10 Jun 2021. Available from: https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202106/10/P2021061000556.htm. Accessed 22 Jul 2021.
3. Siripanthong B, Nazarian S, Muser D, et al. Recognizing COVID-19–related myocarditis: The possible pathophysiology and proposed guideline for diagnosis and management. Heart Rhythm 2020;17:1463-71. Crossref
4. Marshall M, Ferguson ID, Lewis P, et al. Symptomatic acute myocarditis in seven adolescents following Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination. Pediatrics 2021 Jun 4. Epub ahead of print.
5. Starekova J, Bluemke DA, Bradham WS, et al. Evaluation for myocarditis in competitive student athletes recovering from coronavirus disease 2019 with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA Cardiol 2021;6:945-50. Crossref
6. Keinath K, Church T, Kurth B, Hulten E. Myocarditis secondary to smallpox vaccination. BMJ Case Rep 2018;2018:bcr2017223523. Crossref
7. Feldstein LR, Tenforde MW, Friedman KG, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of US children and adolescents with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) compared with severe acute COVID-19. JAMA 2021;325:1074-87. Crossref
8. Whittaker E, Bamford A, Kenny J, et al. Clinical characteristics of 58 children with a pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2. JAMA 2020;324:259-69. Crossref
9. Gargano JW, Wallace M, Hadler SC, et al. Use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine after reports of myocarditis among vaccine recipients: update from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices—United States, June 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:977-82. Crossref
10. Abu Mouch S, Roguin A, Hellou E, et al. Myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Vaccine 2021;39:3790-3. Crossref
11. Myocarditis/pericarditis case definition. 16 July 2021. Available from: https://brightoncollaboration.us/myocarditis-case-definition-update/. Accessed 22 Jul 2021.
12. Maron BJ, Udelson JE, Bonow RO, et al. Eligibility and disqualification recommendations for competitive athletes with cardiovascular abnormalities: Task Force 3: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy and other cardiomyopathies, and myocarditis: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology. Circulation 2015;132:e273-80. Crossref
13. Wallace M, Oliver S. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in adolescents and young adults: benefit-risk discussion. ACIP Meeting. 23 June 2021. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-06/05-COVID-Wallace-508.pdf. Accessed 23 Jul 2021.
14. Joint Statement of The Hong Kong Paediatric Society, The Hong Kong Society for Paediatric Immunology Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Hong Kong College of Paediatric Nursing and Hong Kong Paediatric Nurses Association on occurrence of myocarditis and pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (30 June 2021). Available from: http://www.medicine.org.hk/hkps/statements.php. Accessed 21 Jul 2021.
15. Authorisation of COVID-19 vaccines under the Prevention and Control of Disease (Use of Vaccines) Regulation (Cap.599K). Available from: https://www.fhb.gov.hk/en/our_work/health/rr3.html. Accessed 7 Jul 2021.

Well-being of Academy Fellows and specialty trainees: what is the problem?

Hong Kong Med J 2021 Oct;27(5):324–5  |  Epub 5 Oct 2021
© Hong Kong Academy of Medicine. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
 
EDITORIAL
Well-being of Academy Fellows and specialty trainees: what is the problem?
WC Leung, MD, FHKAM (Obstetrics and Gynaecology)1; Rosalie Lo, PsyD, FHKPS2; Jeremy YC Teoh, FRCSEd (Urol), FHKAM (Surgery)3; Aaron Cheng, MSc, FRSPH4; Martin CS Wong, MD, MPH5; Gilberto KK Leung, MB, BS (Lon), FHKAM (Surgery)6; for the Task Force on Well-being of the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine
1 Honorary Secretary, Hong Kong Academy of Medicine
2 Honorary Advisor, Task Force on Well-being, Hong Kong Academy of Medicine
3 Chair, Young Fellows Chapter, Hong Kong Academy of Medicine
4 Chief Executive Officer, Hong Kong Academy of Medicine
5 Editor, Hong Kong Academy of Medicine
6 President, Hong Kong Academy of Medicine
 
Corresponding author: Dr WC Leung (leungwc@ha.org.hk)
 
 Full paper in PDF
 
 
In this issue of Hong Kong Medical Journal, Kwan et al1 report the results of a survey of young doctors in Hong Kong (residents in training and specialists within 10 years of registration), showing high rates of burnout using the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (73% reported personal burnout; 71% reported work-related burnout; and 55% reported client-related burnout) and depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (21%). Although the worldwide prevalence of burnout among medical professionals is increasing,2 the local situation in Hong Kong1 3 4 is alarming and the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine is committed to tackling this problem. A Well-being Charter has been promulgated in confirmation of the commitment of the Academy and its 15 constituent Colleges.
 
Hong Kong Academy of Medicine Well-being Charter
The Academy is mandated and empowered to promote and advance healthcare for Hong Kong citizens and foster a spirit of cooperation among medical and dental practitioners.
 
Quality patient care and doctors’ well-being go hand in hand, and the Academy is committed to assuming a leading role in cultivating and promoting the well-being of Fellows and trainees of its constituent Colleges as a shared responsibility among individual doctors, respective employing institutions, and policy makers.
 
The Academy shall:
  • acknowledge the importance of well-being of medical and dental practitioners in contributing towards high quality and effective patient care;
  • prioritise Fellows’ and trainees’ well-being as a prerequisite for fulfilling their professional duties towards patients and the community;
  • promote the well-being of its Fellows and trainees as a necessary condition for their flourishing and whole-person development;
  • foster a caring and supportive culture within the healthcare professions;
  • strengthen professionalism across disciplines and foster interprofessional collaboration from the institutional perspective;
  • encourage and facilitate healthcare practitioners to attend to their physical, mental, and social health and to respond to burnout, stress, or emotional challenges promptly and proactively;
  • engage a network and establish mechanisms to provide up-to-date knowledge, self-care tools, peer support and professional assistance for medical and dental practitioners;
  • organise mental health training and embed awareness of well-being in training and continuous professional development for medical and dental practitioners;
  • promulgate good practices among institutions to build supportive systems at the organisational level through the establishment of effective communication channels, deployment of appropriate resources, and quality improvement strategies; and
  • advocate policy changes and propose initiatives to the Government and other policy makers on professional well-being issues and the alignment of values and practices for the betterment and well-being of the profession.
  •  
    The Academy has set up a Task Force on Well-being, involving an Honorary Advisor (R Lo), the Academy Officers and secretariat staff, as well as representatives from the Social Subcommittee, the Young Fellows Chapter and the 15 Colleges. In line with the Charter, the Task Force on Well-being is following an incremental ASAP (Awareness; Self-care; Ask for help; Promotion of well-being) approach to promote well-being and to manage stress and burnout.
     
    Awareness
  • Helping you understand and recognise the causes, signs, and symptoms of burnout, stress, and other mental well-being issues
  •  
    Self-care
  • Providing practical advice for enhancing well-being and managing stress
  •  
    Ask for help
  • Facilitating a peer support network for you
  • Providing information on getting professional help
  •  
    Promotion of well-being
  • Cultivating a culture of care and support among Fellows
  • Making recommendations for well-being improvement at the organisational level
  • Organising or promoting well-being programmes and activities
  •  
    Further details will be available on a dedicated page on the Academy website (https://well-being.hkam.org.hk/") to facilitate this ASAP approach.
     
    Author contributions
    All authors contributed to the concept or design; acquisition of data; analysis or interpretation of data; drafting of the article; and critical revision for important intellectual content. All authors had full access to the data, contributed to the study, approved the final version for publication, and take responsibility for its accuracy and integrity.
     
    Conflicts of interest
    All authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.
     
    References
    1. Kwan KY, Chan LW, Cheng PW, Leung GK, Lau CS; for the Young Fellows Chapter of the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine. Burnout and well-being in young doctors in Hong Kong: a territory-wide cross-sectional survey. Hong Kong Med J 2021;27:Epub 5 Oct 2021. Crossref
    2. The Lancet. Physician burnout: a global crisis. Lancet 2019;394:93. Crossref
    3. Siu CF, Yuen SK, Cheung A. Burnout among public doctors in Hong Kong: cross-sectional survey. Hong Kong Med J 2012;18:186-92.
    4. Ng AP, Chin WY, Wan EY, Chen J, Lau CS. Prevalence and severity of burnout in Hong Kong doctors up to 20 years post-graduation: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2020;10:e040178. Crossref

    Scientific research on COVID-19 conducted in Hong Kong in 2020

    Hong Kong Med J 2021 Aug;27(4):244–6  |  Epub 16 Aug 2021
    © Hong Kong Academy of Medicine. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
     
    EDITORIAL
    Scientific research on COVID-19 conducted in Hong Kong in 2020
    Harry HX Wang, PhD1,2; Ling Chen, MD3; Hanyue Ding, MPH2; Junjie Huang, MD2; Martin CS Wong, MD, MPH2,4
    1 School of Public Health, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
    2 JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
    3 Department of General Practice, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
    4 Editor-in-Chief, Hong Kong Medical Journal
     
    Corresponding author: Prof Martin CS Wong (wong_martin@cuhk.edu.hk)
     
     Full paper in PDF
     
     
    Much research has been conducted into the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic internationally and regionally.1 2 3 4 Before the pandemic became widespread, researchers in Hong Kong have alerted health authorities to initiate emergency measures.5 6 The accumulated scientific evidence on COVID-19, including clinical characteristics, transmission, risk factors, diagnostic testing and screening, immune responses, treatment and pharmaceutical prophylaxis, and vaccines has greatly helped inform the infection prevention, early recognition, rapid identification, and disease control of COVID-19. Research attention paid to the routine clinical management of chronic conditions are of equal importance in the wider context of the pandemic, given the dynamic links between COVID-19 and underlying health conditions.7
     
    In this issue of the Hong Kong Medical Journal, Yee et al8 reviewed institutional data from all urology centres in the government-run healthcare sector in Hong Kong during the COVID-19 pandemic, to assess the changes in urology practice and resident training. Compared with a control period, the authors report drastic reductions of 28.5% to 49.6% in the numbers of operating sessions, clinic attendances, cystoscopy sessions, prostate biopsies, and shockwave lithotripsy sessions across all the centres reviewed. The number of surgeries performed by residents was also reduced dramatically during the pandemic. Key aspects of urology practice have undergone substantial changes, which resulted as a response to challenges including shortages in frontline healthcare resources such as personal protective equipment, or rigid management of patient flow in hospitals. Similar challenges were identified in primary care during the early phase of the COVID-19 outbreak, as shown in a cross-sectional study conducted among family doctors affiliated with the Hong Kong College of Family Physicians.9 In other specialist services such as obstetrics and gynaecology practices, restrictive measures intended to limit the spread of COVID-19 resulted in an increased psychological burden on pregnant women who experienced cancellation of prenatal exercises, antenatal talks, hospital tours, and postnatal classes.10 Local researchers also advocated the importance of identifying and prioritising ‘time-sensitive’ patients for assisted reproductive technology.11 From a clinical perspective, the gap in clinical preparedness for COVID-19 necessitates further frontline research to develop risk triage protocols with optimal diagnostic performance and a widely accepted ‘gold-standard’ cut-off level to inform guideline recommendations and support clinical management decisions.12
     
    Research conducted to explore the epidemiological and clinical manifestations of COVID-19 has substantially contributed to reducing community spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in Hong Kong. A local investigation using data retrieved from the Clinical Management System of the Hospital Authority demonstrated the successful role of the first public COVID-19 temporary test centre in identifying infected individuals in a large-scale high-turnover setting.13 The volume and complexity of information documented in electronic health records, including clinical symptoms, imaging investigations, contact history, nucleic acid testing and vaccination records, has been growing exponentially to underpin digital solutions that support efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19. Big data analytics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning techniques have gained increasing prominence in generating reliable evidence that can help measure personalised clinical risk of severe illness and may potentially contribute to regional and global forecasts.14 Such progress will inevitably be accelerated by increasing uptake of electronic health records and mobile apps in mass data collection to support scientific research and public health measures. Nevertheless, due consideration in protecting personally identifiable information and ensuring data privacy in the context of COVID-19 is becoming a controversial but crucial concern over individual-level data exchange and sharing that deserves concomitant research.
     
    Coping with COVID-19 requires simultaneous inputs from and participation of different medical disciplines. A local study conducted by radiologists assessed the use of computed tomography (CT) scanning of the thorax as a non-invasive imaging modality in exploring viral pneumonia patterns that were commonly encountered in affected patients.15 This provides an opportunity to gain temporal insights into the extent of lung involvement on CT images and determine the accuracy of CT severity scoring in clinical triage and the prediction of post-COVID outcomes. It is highly sensitive, accessible, portable, and easy to operate,16 playing an important role in identification of COVID-19.17 A group of specialists in ophthalmology, anaesthesiology, otorhinolaryngology, pathology and surgery, together with other relevant stakeholders, have formulated a risk stratification protocol with structured workflow for emergency surgeries.18 It bears a wider applicability to frontline healthcare staff with regard to timely assessment and decision making in the arrangement of emergency operations across different disciplines. There have also been suggestions to use chemoprophylaxis in adjunct with health behaviours and social distancing measures,19 which could achieve a synergistic effect.20 Meanwhile, social distancing remains an important strategy along with concurrent measures of infection control, even for individuals who have completed the vaccination course.21 A deeper understanding of such dynamic interaction warrants extensive research that bridges biostatistics and mathematical modelling. In managing COVID-19, there will continue to be a reliance on multidisciplinary clinical work to optimise patient care, following guidelines and recommendations that are both internationally recognised and locally adaptable, given the availability of resources and the changing severity of the pandemic. High-quality evidence generated from appropriately designed, well-planned, and ethically approved studies are continuously needed.
     
    Behavioural research conducted to understand people’s behaviours and their linkage to knowledge, beliefs, and concerns is a key step to shape the messages on prevention measures delivered to target population and thus enhance risk communications and community engagement against the spread of COVID-19.22 An example was illustrated in an observational study published recently in the Hong Kong Medical Journal, which assessed the public views on face mask performance, reuse of surgical mask, and health information source among pedestrians in well-populated locations in Hong Kong.23 The authors brought behavioural insights into the issues of a high mask reuse rate during the initial spread of COVID-19 and the popularity of social media over government websites for information seeking. Research drawing on valuable perspectives from social science disciplines that twin with the biomedical understanding of the COVID-19 carries a great potential to inform the planning of effective behavioural interventions, as the containment of complex epidemics is as much behavioural as medical. A further step towards empirical evidence on behaviour changes and cultural factors can therefore support the pandemic response through promoting risk and science communication with the public to achieve optimal compliance to infection prevention and control measures.
     
    The above examples, and others published in the Hong Kong Medical Journal (https://www. hkmj.org/COVID-19), are a small part of the huge volume of research activities led by local researchers in Hong Kong in response to the global pandemic of COVID-19. Despite the rapid progress made, many unknown but unique characteristics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 are yet to be uncovered. Uncertainties remain on issues such as the natural history of COVID-19, the impact of viral changes over time, the long-term effectiveness and safety of vaccines, and the cost-effectiveness of different public health and social epidemic control measures. Ongoing medical and translational research is required that thinks globally and acts locally, to investigate the epidemiological, clinical, therapeutic, and service aspects of COVID-19 management, incorporating the latest advances in virology, immunology, molecular microbiology, and other disciplines of laboratory-based basic science.
     
    Author contributions
    All authors contributed to the concept or design; acquisition of data; analysis or interpretation of data; drafting of the article; and critical revision for important intellectual content. All authors had full access to the data, contributed to the study, approved the final version for publication, and take responsibility for its accuracy and integrity.
     
    Conflicts of interest
    The authors have declared no conflict of interest.
     
    References
    1. Park JJ, Mogg R, Smith GE, et al. How COVID-19 has fundamentally changed clinical research in global health. Lancet Glob Health 2021;9:e711-20. Crossref
    2. Wong MC, Ng RW, Chong KC, et al. Stringent containment measures without complete city lockdown to achieve low incidence and mortality across two waves of COVID-19 in Hong Kong. BMJ Glob Health 2020;5:e003573. Crossref
    3. Huang J, Teoh JY, Wong SH, Wong MC. The potential impact of previous exposure to SARS or MERS on control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur J Epidemiol 2020;35:1099-103. Crossref
    4. Wong SY, Tan DH, Zhang Y, et al. A tale of 3 Asian cities: how is primary care responding to COVID-19 in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Beijing. Ann Fam Med 2021;19:48-54. Crossref
    5. Hon KL, Leung KK. Severe acute respiratory symptoms and suspected SARS again 2020. Hong Kong Med J 2020;26:78-9. Crossref
    6. To KK, Yuen KY. Responding to COVID-19 in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J 2020;26:164-6. Crossref
    7. Clark A, Jit M, Warren-Gash C, et al. Global, regional, and national estimates of the population at increased risk of severe COVID-19 due to underlying health conditions in 2020: a modelling study. Lancet Glob Health 2020;8:e1003-17. Crossref
    8. Yee CH, Wong HF, Tam MH, et al. Effect of SARS and COVID-19 outbreaks on urology practice and training. Hong Kong Med J 2021 Feb 26. Epub ahead of print. Crossref
    9. Yu EY, Leung WL, Wong SY, Liu KS, Wan EY; HKCFP Executive and Research Committee. How are family doctors serving the Hong Kong community during the COVID-19 outbreak? A survey of HKCFP members. Hong Kong Med J 2020;26:176-83. Crossref
    10. Hui PW, Ma G, Seto MT, Cheung KW. Effect of COVID-19 on delivery plans and postnatal depression scores of pregnant women. Hong Kong Med J 2021;27:113-7. Crossref
    11. Lee WY, Mok A, Chung JP. Potential effects of COVID-19 on reproductive systems and fertility; assisted reproductive technology guidelines and considerations: a review. Hong Kong Med J 2021;27:118-26. Crossref
    12. Knight SR, Ho A, Pius R, et al. Risk stratification of patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol: development and validation of the 4C Mortality Score. BMJ 2020;370:m3339. Crossref
    13. Leung WL, Yu EL, Wong SC, et al. Findings from the first public COVID-19 temporary test centre in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J 2021;27:99-105. Crossref
    14. Abd-Alrazaq A, Alajlani M, Alhuwail D, et al. Artificial intelligence in the fight against COVID-19: scoping review. J Med Internet Res 2020;22:e20756. Crossref
    15. Li SK, Ng FH, Ma KF, Luk WH, Lee YC, Yung KS. Patterns of COVID-19 on computed tomography imaging. Hong Kong Med J 2020;26:289-93. Crossref
    16. Chan JC, Kwok KY, Ma JK, Wong YC. Radiology and COVID-19. Hong Kong Med J 2020;26:286-8. Crossref
    17. Wong SY, Kwok KO. Role of computed tomography imaging in identifying COVID-19 cases. Hong Kong Med J 2020;26:167-8. Crossref
    18. Wong DH, Tang EW, Njo A, et al. Risk stratification protocol to reduce consumption of personal protective equipment for emergency surgeries during COVID-19 pandemic. Hong Kong Med J 2020;26:252-4. Crossref
    19. Law SK, Leung AW, Xu C. Are face masks useful for limiting the spread of COVID-19? Hong Kong Med J 2020;26:267-8. Crossref
    20. Hui KK. Povidone-iodine and carrageenan are candidates for SARS-CoV-2 infection control. Hong Kong Med J 2020;26:464. Crossref
    21. Zee JS, Lai KT, Ho MK, et al. Serological response to mRNA and inactivated COVID-19 vaccine in healthcare workers in Hong Kong: preliminary results. Hong Kong Med J 2021 Jun 24. Epub ahead of print. Crossref
    22. Jalloh MF, Nur AA, Nur SA, et al. Behaviour adoption approaches during public health emergencies: implications for the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. BMJ Glob Health 2021;6:e004450. Crossref
    23. Tam VC, Tam SY, Khaw ML, Law HK, Chan CP, Lee SW. Behavioural insights and attitudes on community masking during the initial spread of COVID-19 in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J 2021;27:106-12. Crossref

    Medical manslaughter: the role of hindsight

    Hong Kong Med J 2021 Aug;27(4):240–1  |  Epub 20 Jul 2021
    © Hong Kong Academy of Medicine. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
     
    EDITORIAL
    Medical manslaughter: the role of hindsight
    Gilberto KK Leung, FHKAM (Surgery), LLM
    Department of Surgery, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
     
    Corresponding author: Prof Gilberto KK Leung (gilberto@hku.hk)
     
     Full paper in PDF
     
     
    A 46-year-old woman died after receiving a bacteria-contaminated blood product at a beauty clinic in Hong Kong in 2012. The clinic owner, the technician concerned, and the doctor who administered the transfusion were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter in the now-infamous “DR case”. 1 2 Whilst few, if any, would condone the conduct of the individuals responsible, the principles underpinning the criminal conviction of the third defendant warrant our attention.
     
    Gross negligence manslaughter is a form of involuntary manslaughter where the degree of negligence is so “reprehensible”, so “truly exceptionally bad” that it amounts to a crime. A key element of the offence is that it must have been reasonably foreseeable that the breach of duty of care in question carried a “serious and obvious risk of death” and had indeed caused death. The applicable legal test is an objective one. 2
     
    As its name implies, the objective test does not look into the accused’s own state of mind but asks whether a reasonably competent doctor in the accused’s position would have foreseen a “serious and obvious risk of death”. An affirmative answer would point to liability subject to the other requirements being met.
     
    The way the objective test operates depends on the kind of information the hypothetical “reasonable doctor” possesses. Should the hypothetical doctor in the context of fatal medical treatment consider only information known to the accused at the time of giving the treatment, ie, looking at the situation prospectively? Or should the hypothetical doctor benefit from hindsight and also take into consideration information that eventually transpired, ie, a retrospective exercise? A fine point of technicality, perhaps, but a pivotal one at that.
     
    In the English case of Rose, an optometrist failed to examine a young boy’s fundi adequately and missed his papilloedema.3 He later died of hydrocephalus, and the optometrist was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. Her conviction was quashed on appeal on the ground that although she should have examined the child properly and discovered papilloedema, since she did not, she could not have reasonably foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death, and neither would a hypothetical optometrist in the same state of “ignorance”. And this, the Court of Appeal found, would not suffice for the conviction.
     
    A similar argument also overturned the conviction of a restaurant chef from Lancashire, United Kingdom, who served a fatal takeaway meal containing peanuts to a customer who had declared peanuts allergy.4 Although the chef should have known about the allergy, he did not know because of a communication breakdown within the restaurant, and the conviction could not stand.
     
    A curious effect of the above line of reasoning is that the less one does and the less one knows, the less culpable one seems to become in the eyes of the criminal law. One may also argue that a reasonably competent optometrist/chef would not have made those mistakes in the first place. But the court in Rose was not saying the optometrist was not wrong; she was just not criminally wrong, and the appropriate sanctions should come from professional regulatory bodies instead. Indeed, the optometrist was found unfit to practise by the General Optical Council and suspended for 9 months.
     
    The objective test is thus a prospective one according to these recent cases which, when applied in a blood transfusion case, would not take into account things that would have been known to the doctor but for the failure to check for contamination, nor the fact that the patient later died of septicaemia. Instead, it would ask whether a hypothetical reasonable doctor, not knowing or suspecting that the blood product was contaminated, would have reasonably foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death at the moment of giving it. If answered in the negative, there can be no manslaughter conviction.
     
    How the objective test was applied in the “DR case” cannot be gleaned from the published judgement, and this author is not second-guessing the wisdom of the court as the case has its unique facts and considerations. What can be said is that the objective test, if applied in a retrospective manner, would have engaged a degree of hindsight few of us would enjoy when being the one in the dock, and that the very reason why the original conviction in Rose was found unsafe was that the trial judge had erred in directing the jury to apply the objective test retrospectively.
     
    Some would no doubt, and quite rightly, say that basic human conscience and professional duties require doctors to always check for safety and a failure to do so ought to invite at least some kind of punishment had the failure resulted in patient death. Two issues follow. First, how much checking is enough? That a system is in place to check for contamination? A technician had signed off the treatment? The technician’s credentials? That he actually did his job? Second, should a failure to do all or indeed any one of the above be treated as a potential crime? How often do we check that everything we are given to give is bacteria-free? Should there be a distinction between oversight and conscious violation of established safety rules? Is failing to check manslaughter?
     
    Rose is of course not binding in Hong Kong, and being a Court of Appeal decision it has not changed the law although it does offer a nuanced application of the objective test. What we, as healthcare professionals, need to stay mindful and critical of, though, is how the offence of and the legal test for gross negligence manslaughter are to be invoked, articulated, and applied in this locality. Criminal liability is founded on the concepts of reasonable foreseeability and moral blameworthiness, and whilst hindsight is invaluable for learning, it is a lousy tool for determining whether and when a human error in medicine should be met with the consequence of years behind bars. It may not be up to us to decide what the law is or how it works, but we can surely decide that the debate be continued, here and elsewhere.5
     
    Author contributions
    The author is solely responsible for drafting of the manuscript, approved the final version for publication, and takes responsibility for its accuracy and integrity.
     
    Conflicts of interest
    The author has disclosed no conflicts of interest.
     
    References
    1. HKSAR v Chow Heung Wing Stephen & Ors [2018] HKCFI 60
    2. HKSAR v Mak Wan Ling [2020] HKCFI 3069
    3. Mullock A. Gross negligence (medical) manslaughter and the puzzling implications of negligent ignorance: Rose v R [2017] EWCA Crim 1168. Med Law Rev 2018;26:346-56. Crossref
    4. R v Kuddus [2019] EWCA Crim 837
    5. Leung GK. Medical manslaughter in Hong Kong—how, why, and why not. Hong Kong Med J 2018;24:384-90. Crossref

    Journal of Korean Medical Science (JKMS): influential flagship medical journal in the Republic of Korea

    © Hong Kong Academy of Medicine. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
     
    EDITORIAL
    Journal of Korean Medical Science (JKMS): influential flagship medical journal in the Republic of Korea
    Jin-Hong Yoo, MD, PhD1,2,3; Jong-Min Kim, MD, PhD1,4; Kyung Pyo Hong, MD, PhD1,5; Jongmin Lee, MD, PhD6,7; Sung-Tae Hong, MD, PhD8,9
    1 Deputy Editor, Journal of Korean Medical Science, Korea
    2 Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
    3 Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Bucheon St Mary’s Hospital, Bucheon, Korea
    4 Department of Neurology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea
    5 Department of Medicine, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
    6 Director of International Affairs, the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences, Korea
    7 Department of Radiology, Kyungpook National University Hospital, Daegu, Korea
    8 Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Korean Medical Science, Korea
    9 Department of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
     
    Corresponding author: Dr Sung-Tae Hong (hst@snu.ac.kr)
     
     Full paper in PDF
     
    The Journal of Korean Medical Science (JKMS; https://jkms.org/") is an international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal of medicine published weekly in English. The journal is published by the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences and the Korean Medical Association. The JKMS aims to publish evidence-based scientifically written articles from various disciplines of the medical sciences. The journal welcomes articles of general interest to medical researchers, especially those that contain original information. Articles on the clinical evaluation of drugs and other therapies, epidemiologic studies of the general population, studies on pathogenic organisms and toxic materials, and the toxicities and adverse effects of therapeutics are welcome. The JKMS was founded in 1986 and was indexed in MEDLINE in 1989. In 1999, the journal launched a website and was included in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). Through steady efforts thereafter, JKMS was finally included in Science Citation Index in 2005. In 2007, JKMS established its own online submission system, and in 2017, began to use a submission system provided by Editorial Manager (Aries Systems Corporation, North Andover [MA], United States). Since 2010, JKMS has been published all articles as Open Access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license. The JKMS is indexed/tracked/covered by MEDLINE, PubMed, PubMed Central, Web of Science (SCIE), BIOSIS Previews, Scopus, Embase, Chemical Abstracts Service, KoreaMed, Synapse, KoMCI, KCI, and Google Scholar. In 2016, JKMS became a member journal of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (http://icmje.org/). The 2020 Journal Impact Factor of JKMS is 2.153 and total citation counts 9573 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021) while the CiteScore 2020 is 4.0 (Scopus, 2021).
     
    Since boldly launching weekly publication in 2018, JKMS is currently published every Monday, 50 issues a year.1 The page layout of the articles was edited to a single-column format to provide the online audience with better readability and visuality. Article categories include Original Article, Review Article, Special Article, Case Report, Brief Communication, Editorial, Opinion, Correspondence, and Images in this Issue. Thanks to weekly publication, JKMS significantly reduced the interval between the submission of manuscripts and publication. This advantage is particularly evident in the rapid publication of articles in the field of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For example, the first case report of COVID-19 in Korea was submitted on 31 January 2020, accepted on 2 February, and published online on 3 February.2 As of 9 August 2021, 177 articles relating to COVID-19 have been published in JKMS (https://jkms.org/index.php?main=COVID-19) and five of them have received >100 citations.3 4 5 6 In 2020, JKMS received 1614 submissions, and the acceptance rate was 26.1%. In 2020, a huge rush of COVID-19 papers was received and a special section was prepared.
     
    The peer review of manuscripts is the most important step in journal publishing. We always thank dedicated reviewers for providing feedback to authors so that the manuscripts can be published in their best form.7 The JKMS evaluates reviewers by combining the number of complete reviews and the scores of their review comments, and awards the highest rated reviewers the Best Reviewer Award at the general assembly of the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences every year (https://jkms.org/index.php?main=reviewer).
     
    The Yoon Kwang-Yull Medical Prize was jointly established by the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences and the Gasong Foundation in 2008. The prize was established to promote the noble spirit of late founder Yoon Kwang-Yull’s devotion to social service and academic research support. The prize is given to the author who has published excellent papers in JKMS in the past decade and contributed the most to spreading the outstanding medical research from Korea to the world. In 2021, Dr Sang-joon Park (Myongji Hospital, Goyang, Korea) received the 12th prize (https://jkms.org/index.php?main=prize).
     
    The JKMS is an influential flagship journal of Korea. It adheres to global standards of editing and publishing for the purpose of leading research in medicine, proposing and discussing controversial issues, and archiving evidence-based science. It introduces new editing strategy and achieves publishing updates and publication ethics in Korea. Furthermore, it provides a publication platform for international researchers with trustworthy rapid publishing following global standards.
     
    The staff of JKMS include an Editor-in-Chief (Dr Sung-Tae Hong), three deputy editors (Dr Kyung Pyo Hong, Dr Jin-Hong Yoo, Dr Jong-Min Kim), a managing editor (Dr Jong-Min Kim), four section editors (Dr Armen Yuri Gasparyan, Dr Kyung Pyo Hong, Dr Jin-Hong Yoo, Dr Jong-Min Kim), one language editor (Ms Allison B Alley), one statistics editor (Dr Moo-Song Lee), one image editor (Dr Jeehyoung Kim), one social media editor (Dr Olena Zimba), 13 executive board members, and 77 members of 37 subspecialties as the editorial board (ttps://jkms.org/index.php?main=exboard). Two assistant editors (Ms Ye-jin Lee, Ms So-yeon Jung) work in the editorial office. Manuscript editing, online publishing, and website management services are provided by XMLink Publishing Co. (https://xmlink.kr/; Seoul, Korea).
     
    The JKMS will continue to fulfil its mission as an authentic scholarly journal providing global readers with academically validated theories. In this context, we are sincerely pleased to have the opportunity to introduce the Hong Kong Medical Journal (HKMJ) under agreement between the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences and the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine.8 The JKMS and HKMJ will collaborate for mutual benefit and synergistic contribution in medical science.
     
    References
    1. Hong ST. Fostering strategic changes in publishing: Journal of Korean Medical Science in 2018. J Korean Med Sci 2018;33:e8. Crossref
    2. Kim JY, Choe PG, Oh Y, et al. The first case of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia imported into Korea from Wuhan, China: implication for infection prevention and control measures. J Korean Med Sci 2020;35:e61. Crossref
    3. Korean Society of Infectious Diseases, Korean Society of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Korean Society of Epidemiology, Korean Society for Antimicrobial Therapy, Korean Society for Healthcare-associated Infection Control and Prevention, Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Report on the epidemiological features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in the Republic of Korea from January 19 to March 2, 2020. J Korean Med Sci 2020;35:e112. Crossref
    4. Kim ES, Chin BS, Kang CK, et al. Clinical course and outcomes of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection: a preliminary report of the first 28 patients from the Korean cohort study on COVID-19. J Korean Med Sci 2020;35:e142. Crossref
    5. Ahn JY, Sohn Y, Lee SH, et al. Use of convalescent plasma therapy in two COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in Korea. J Korean Med Sci 2020;35:e149. Crossref
    6. Lee Y, Min P, Lee S, Kim SW. Prevalence and duration of acute loss of smell or taste in COVID-19 patients. J Korean Med Sci 2020;35:e174. Crossref
    7. Hong ST. Appreciation to reviewers for the Journal of Korean Medical Science in 2020. J Korean Med Sci 2021;36:e60. Crossref
    8. Li KK, Ma ES, Lui RN, Huang J, Xue H, Wong MC. Hong Kong Medical Journal—the Premier General Medical Journal in Hong Kong. J Korean Med Sci 2021;36:e226. Crossref

    mRNA COVID vaccine and myocarditis in adolescents

    Hong Kong Med J 2021;27:Epub 16 Aug 2021
    © Hong Kong Academy of Medicine. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
     
    EDITORIAL
    mRNA COVID vaccine and myocarditis in adolescents
    Mike YW Kwan, MSc(Applied Epidemiology) (CUHK), FHKAM (Paediatrics)1 #; Gilbert T Chua, MB, BS, FHKAM (Paediatrics)2 #; CB Chow, MD, FHKAM (Paediatrics)1,2 #; Sabrina SL Tsao, MB, BS(UK), FACC2; Kelvin KW To, MD, FRCPath3; KY Yuen, MD, FRCPath3; YL Lau, MD (Hon), FRCPCH2; Patrick Ip, MPH, FHKAM (Paediatrics)2
    1 Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Princess Margaret Hospital, Hong Kong
    2 Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
    3 Department of Microbiology, Carol Yu Centre for Infection, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
    # These authors contributed equally to the work.
     
    Corresponding authors: Dr KY Yuen (kyyuen@hku.hk), Dr YL Lau (lauylung@hku.hk), Dr Patrick Ip (patricip@hku.hk)
     
     Full paper in PDF
     
     
    In Hong Kong, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programme started on 26 February 2021. CoronaVac (an inactivated virus vaccine developed by Sinovac) and Comirnaty (BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine co-developed by BioNTech and Pfizer, and manufactured and distributed in China by Fosun Pharma) are the available formulations for public use. Comirnaty is safe and provides good antibody response, including for patients aged 12 to 15 years, with clinical efficacy in protecting against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection of 100%.1 On 14 June 2021, the Food and Health Bureau, Hong Kong SAR Government lowered the age limit for receiving the Comirnaty vaccine to ≥12 years.2
     
    Since April 2021, there have been reports that myocarditis and pericarditis occur more frequently in adolescents and young adults after mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations internationally.3 4 5 In Hong Kong, Comirnaty is the only mRNA technology platform COVID-19 vaccine available, but others are available elsewhere (eg, from Moderna).
     
    Myocarditis and pericarditis have many virological and immunological causes, and are known to occur after vaccination; for example, the incidence of myocarditis after smallpox vaccination is around 12 to 16.1 per million vaccinated individuals.6 Myocarditis can also occur after SARS-CoV-2 infection alone or as a consequence of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children after COVID-19 or paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2.3 7 8
     
    Reported cases of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination are mostly male adolescents and young adults aged between 12 and 24 years who received the second dose of the mRNA vaccine.9 10 11 12 13 14 These heart complications are exceedingly rare, but are increasingly reported as hundreds of million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been administered worldwide.4 5 9 10 The typical symptoms of myocarditis and pericarditis are chest pain, shortness of breath, and palpitations occurring within 1 week (usually 2-4 days) after vaccination. The condition is mild in most of the affected individuals, with only minimal treatment required and full recovery within a few days.
     
    Although myocarditis and pericarditis have many virological and immunological causes, a causal link was suspected due to the immunological reaction to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Individuals are recommended to rest and refrain from heavy strenuous activities for 1 week after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, which will be helpful during the rare occurrence of myocarditis or pericarditis. Individuals experiencing chest pain, shortness of breath, or palpitations after receiving the mRNA vaccine are advised to seek immediate medical attention.
     
    Myocarditis and pericarditis are diagnosed according to the Brighton Collaboration case definitions,11 which include clinical symptoms (cardiac or non-specific symptoms), elevated myocardial biomarkers (troponin T, troponin I, or CK myocardial band), electrocardiographic, echocardiogram or cardiac magnetic resonance abnormalities and with other alternative aetiologies for symptoms excluded.12 Supportive therapy is the mainstay of treatment with cardiac treatment and intervention if needed. Individuals with myocarditis/pericarditis are advised to rest until symptoms resolved.12
     
    Based on the latest scientific data, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination to the individual, family members, and society outweigh the reported known and potential risks of vaccination (including the possibility of myocarditis and pericarditis) in the current pandemic.13 Owing to the recent emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants with increased transmissibility, higher rates of vaccination will be required to achieve sufficient herd immunity to prevent further community spread and allow society to return to normal.
     
    On 30 June 2021, a joint consensus statement was issued by the Hong Kong Paediatric Society, The Hong Kong Society for Paediatric Immunology Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Hong Kong College of Paediatric Nursing, and the Hong Kong Paediatric Nurses Association.14 The consensus statement appeals to children and adolescents (aged ≥12 years), parents, adult household members, and child-carers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine for self-protection, and for the physical health and long-term psychosocial development of all children in Hong Kong.
     
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Health Bureau of Hong Kong SAR Government endorse the use of Comirnaty vaccine in adolescents mainly because the benefits of vaccination exceed the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.15 Although there is no alternative vaccine for this age-group currently available, data are being gathered on CoronaVac, which utilises the inactivated virus platform. If this proves safe and effective for children and adolescents, and is approved for use, CoronaVac may be an alternative for this age-group in Hong Kong.
     
    Author contributions
    All authors contributed to the concept or design of the study, acquisition of the data, analysis or interpretation of the data, drafting of the manuscript, and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors had full access to the data, contributed to the study, approved the final version for publication, and take responsibility for its accuracy and integrity.
     
    Conflicts of interest
    All authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.
     
    References
    1. Frenck RW, Jr, Klein NP, Kitchin N, et al. Safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of the BNT162b2 Covid-19 vaccine in adolescents. N Engl J Med 2021;385:239-50. Crossref
    2. Persons aged 12 to 15 can make reservations to receive BioNTech vaccine from tomorrow. Press release. Hong Kong SAR Government. 10 Jun 2021. Available from: https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202106/10/P2021061000556.htm. Accessed 22 Jul 2021.
    3. Siripanthong B, Nazarian S, Muser D, et al. Recognizing COVID-19–related myocarditis: The possible pathophysiology and proposed guideline for diagnosis and management. Heart Rhythm 2020;17:1463-71. Crossref
    4. Marshall M, Ferguson ID, Lewis P, et al. Symptomatic acute myocarditis in seven adolescents following Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination. Pediatrics 2021 Jun 4. Epub ahead of print.
    5. Starekova J, Bluemke DA, Bradham WS, et al. Evaluation for myocarditis in competitive student athletes recovering from coronavirus disease 2019 with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA Cardiol 2021;6:945-50. Crossref
    6. Keinath K, Church T, Kurth B, Hulten E. Myocarditis secondary to smallpox vaccination. BMJ Case Rep 2018;2018:bcr2017223523. Crossref
    7. Feldstein LR, Tenforde MW, Friedman KG, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of US children and adolescents with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) compared with severe acute COVID-19. JAMA 2021;325:1074-87. Crossref
    8. Whittaker E, Bamford A, Kenny J, et al. Clinical characteristics of 58 children with a pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2. JAMA 2020;324:259-69. Crossref
    9. Gargano JW, Wallace M, Hadler SC, et al. Use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine after reports of myocarditis among vaccine recipients: update from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices—United States, June 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:977-82. Crossref
    10. Abu Mouch S, Roguin A, Hellou E, et al. Myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Vaccine 2021;39:3790-3. Crossref
    11. Myocarditis/pericarditis case definition. 16 July 2021. Available from: https://brightoncollaboration.us/myocarditis-case-definition-update/. Accessed 22 Jul 2021.
    12. Maron BJ, Udelson JE, Bonow RO, et al. Eligibility and disqualification recommendations for competitive athletes with cardiovascular abnormalities: Task Force 3: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy and other cardiomyopathies, and myocarditis: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology. Circulation 2015;132:e273-80. Crossref
    13. Wallace M, Oliver S. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in adolescents and young adults: benefit-risk discussion. ACIP Meeting. 23 June 2021. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-06/05-COVID-Wallace-508.pdf. Accessed 23 Jul 2021.
    14. Joint Statement of The Hong Kong Paediatric Society, The Hong Kong Society for Paediatric Immunology Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Hong Kong College of Paediatric Nursing and Hong Kong Paediatric Nurses Association on occurrence of myocarditis and pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (30 June 2021). Available from: http://www.medicine.org.hk/hkps/statements.php. Accessed 21 Jul 2021.
    15. Authorisation of COVID-19 vaccines under the Prevention and Control of Disease (Use of Vaccines) Regulation (Cap.599K). Available from: https://www.fhb.gov.hk/en/our_work/health/rr3.html. Accessed 7 Jul 2021.

    Non-locally trained doctors: the bottom line

    Hong Kong Med J 2021 Jun;27(3):172–4  |  Epub 17 May 2021
    © Hong Kong Academy of Medicine. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
     
    EDITORIAL
    Non-locally trained doctors: the bottom line
    Gilberto KK Leung, MB, BS, PhD
    Department of Surgery, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
     
    Corresponding author: Prof Gilberto KK Leung (gilberto@hku.hk)
     
     Full paper in PDF
     
     
    Doctor’s cross-border mobility is on the rise.1 To ensure standards, regulatory agencies adopt various criteria for granting licence to practice to non-locally trained doctors, based on, for example, the provenance of an applicant’s medical degree; the passing of a domestic licensing examination is a common but not invariable requirement.2 3
     
    That a medical school’s standing may serve as a reliable proxy of its graduates’ competency and readiness for cross-border practice is a notionally simple but methodologically complex idea. Medical degree programmes, for one, are diverse in their philosophies, designs, and deliverables, whilst “excellence” may stem from teaching and/or research in various forms. Even graduates of the same school may exhibit different levels of workplace performance, depending on the individual’s aptitude, and the cultural, socio-economic and service provision environment. Recent growth in medical school number compounds the situation—as of February 2021, the World Directory of Medical Schools listed 3416 medical schools worldwide, doubling the estimated figure from two decades prior.4 5 Standards vary.6 7
     
    A fair, evidence-based, and publicly accountable approach is crucial if the importation without examination of non-locally trained doctors is to achieve its intended goals by gaining political leverage and societal acceptance. Two tools are available: world university rankings and international recognition of accreditation agency.
     
    World university ranking
    Quacquarelli Symonds (QS),8 and Times Higher Education (THE)9 produce the most influential rankings of medical schools globally. Both rely on objective, quantitative data (eg, bibliometrics) as well as peer review by academics. The QS assessment is based on six performance indicators; THE uses 13.
     
    The two systems have been criticised for methodological flaws, propensities for bias, and questionable utility.10 11 In the present context, teaching—arguably the main function of medical school—is accorded not more than 30% weighting by either system. Neither of them assesses curriculum design or pedagogy directly but instead rely on reputational survey. Learner’s outcome—the most relevant parameter for non-locally trained doctors—is not explicitly addressed by THE, and is somewhat subsumed under “employer reputation” by QS. Research performance predominates; even metrics such as faculty-to-student ratio can be more related to research than teaching capacity.
     
    This is not to say that research performance and internationalisation would have no bearing on the training of future doctors at medical school: the availability of world-class experts as teachers and mentors, a strong reputation that attracts referrals and patients as training materials, and the greater opportunities for intellectual and experiential exchange can vastly enrich students’ learning experiences at top institutions. On the contrary, an institution where staff’s career progression hinges solely on bibliometrics is unlikely to incentivise good teaching. Much would depend on the organisational culture—an element perhaps too nebulous to be captured accurately, if at all, by any assessment methods.
     
    Despite differences in methodology, QS and THE are usually, broadly in agreement. Based on this author’s brief analysis of their latest findings (published in 2020 for 2021), each lists 101 schools in the top 100 (there is sharing of the 100th position in both). Of the combined 202 entries, 76 schools appear under both QS and THE; 25 appear under QS only and 25 under THE only, yielding a total of 126 schools making the top 100 according to at least one of the rankings. Incongruence occurs mainly within the 51 to 100 range, where 88% of the “QS-only” or “THE-only” top 100 schools are found, and where divergence between the two systems in terms of an individual school’s ranking is more pronounced. The degree of correlation is high at the top, with nine schools ranked top-10 by both QS and THE. Note that the rankings do change, sometimes considerably, from year to year.
     
    The United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada feature a high number of top 100 schools (Table). And it is probably not by coincidence that graduates from these countries (plus New Zealand and Ireland) may obtain provisional registration, examination-free, through the Competent Authority Pathway of the Australian Medical Board, and gain full registration after 12 months of supervised practice.2
     
    The Singapore Medical Council offers a similar examination-free pathway to graduates from 103 foreign schools.3 Ninety-one of these were ranked top-100 by either QS or THE, and include 68 of the 76 schools found on both top 100 lists (Table). The present number of 103 is a reduction from previous, having regards to national and international rankings of universities as well as performance of conditionally registered doctors; most of the schools that have been dropped fall outside the top 100 lists.12
     
    World Federation for Medical Education Recognition Programme
    Accreditation of a medical school by the relevant domestic authority alone does not guarantee quality; it is necessary that the accreditation system itself operates in a robust, transparent, and norm-referenced way. To this end, the World Federation for Medical Education (WFME)—a not-for-profit non-governmental global organisation—conducts a Recognition Programme to evaluate the legal standing, accreditation process, post-accreditation monitoring, and decision-making processes of an accreditation agency. The WFME Recognition Status of an agency “confers the understanding that the quality of medical education in its accredited schools is at an appropriate and rigorous standard”. The WFME does not accredit medical schools.13
     
    Presently, there are 23 agencies with Recognition Status; 15 are applying. The programme is afforded significance as suggested by the latest policy of the United States Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates requiring all individuals applying for Certification to come from a medical school accredited by a WFME-recognised agency.14 Application for WFME recognition is voluntary, however, and the lack of Recognition Status says little about an agency. Indeed, nine of the 24 states or regions on the QS/THE top 100 lists (notably the United Kingdom) do not have a WFME-recognised agency, and not all schools accredited by a WFME-recognised agency are ranked highly (Table).
     

    Table. Top 100 medical schools by state or region
     
    In sum, state policies on examination-free entry of non-locally trained doctors, where deemed appropriate, may take a country-specific or a rankings-based approach. World university rankings are accessible and intelligible tools for gauging the quality of a medical school and its graduates’ competency but do not by themselves alone offer a fool-proof guide to a doctor’s readiness for cross-border practice; factors such as language proficiency, work experience, and higher qualifications are pertinent. The QS and THE produce fairly consistent results particularly at the top end of the spectrum although the inherent year-to-year instability would require some mitigation. The WFME Recognition Programme, concerned with national accreditation standards at large, brings nothing extra to the table. The matter, should it ever come into play anywhere, has to be part art and part science topped off with a healthy dose of courage and common sense—the bottom line being that decisions ought to be made by a professional, and not an executive, body with legally conferred power and independent status based on professional, and none other, considerations.
     
    Author contributions
    The author is solely responsible for the writing of this paper.
     
    Conflicts of interest
    The author has disclosed no conflicts of interest.
     
    References
    1. World Health Organization. Health Workforce. International platform on health worker mobility. Available from: https://www.who.int/hrh/migration/int-platform-hw-mobility/en/. Accessed 14 Feb 2021.
    2. Medical Board of Australia. International medical graduates. Available from: https://www.medicalboard.gov. au/Registration/International-Medical-Graduates.aspx. Accessed 14 Feb 2021.
    3. Singapore Medical Council. International medical graduates. Available from: https://www.healthprofessionals.gov.sg/smc/becoming-a-registereddoctor/register-of-medical-practitioners/international-medical-graduates. Accessed 10 Feb 2021.
    4. World Directory of Medical Schools. Available from: https://www.wdoms.org. Accessed 13 Feb 2021.
    5. Eckhert NL. The global pipeline: too narrow, too wide or just right? Med Educ 2002;36:606-13. Crossref
    6. van Zanten M, Norcini JJ, Boulet JR, Simon F. Overview of accreditation of undergraduate medical education programmes worldwide. Med Educ 2008:42:930-7. Crossref
    7. Duvivier RJ, Boulet JR, Opalek A, van Zanten M, Norcini J. Overview of the world’s medical schools: an update. Med Educ 2014:48:860-9. Crossref
    8. QS World University Rankings—methodology. Available from: https://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings/methodology. Accessed 14 Feb 2021.
    9. Times Higher Education. The World University Rankings 2021: methodology. Available from: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/world-university-rankings-2021-methodology. Accessed 14 Feb 2021.
    10. Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Kavvoura1 FK, et al. International ranking systems for universities and institutions: a critical appraisal. BMC Med 2007;5:30. Crossref
    11. Soh K. What the overall doesn’t tell about world university rankings: examples from ARWU, QSWUR, and THEWUR in 2013. J Higher Educ Policy Manage 2015;37:295-307. Crossref
    12. UniGlobal Education. 57 universities to be removed from the list of Singapore Medical Council (SMC) approved overseas medical schools. Available from: https://uniglobal.sg/2019/04/18/57-universities-to-be-removed-from-the-list-of-singapore-medical-council-smc-approved-overseas-medical-schools/. Accessed 17 Feb 2021.
    13. World Federation for Medical Education. WFME recognition programme. Available from: https://wfme.org/accreditation/recognition-programme/. Accessed 16 Feb 2021.
    14. Shiffer CD, Boulet JR, Cover LL, Pinsky WW. Advancing the quality of medical education worldwide: ECFMG’s 2023 medical school accreditation requirement. J Med Regul 2019;105:8-16. Crossref

    Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the physical and mental health of children

    Hong Kong Med J 2021 Jun;27(3):175–6  |  Epub 7 Jun 2021
    © Hong Kong Academy of Medicine. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
     
    EDITORIAL
    Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the physical and mental health of children
    Winnie WY Tse, FHKAM (Paediatrics)1; Mike YW Kwan, FHKAM (Paediatrics)2
    1 President, Hong Kong College of Paediatricians, Hong Kong
    2 Consultant, Paediatric Infectious Diseases Unit, Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Hospital Authority Infectious Diseases Centre, Princess Margaret Hospital, Hong Kong
     
    Corresponding author: Dr Winnie WY Tse (president@paediatrician.org.hk)
     
     Full paper in PDF
     
     
    The total number of new cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is decreasing in Hong Kong, but two recent paediatric cases have attracted immense public attention—a 4-month-old baby who contracted the viral infection from his family and a 4-year-old boy who was likely infected in the community several months before, possibly concurrently with roseola infantum, and tested positive despite the long interval between infection and testing.
     
    Since the outbreak of COVID-19 in Hong Kong in January 2020, there has been a great deal of research by local paediatricians on the clinical manifestations1 2 3 and scientific findings4 5 of the paediatric cases, including comparative studies with paediatric cases in South Korea,6 Wuhan,6 7 8 and other regions of mainland China,6 7 8 and with those of children infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome in 2003.9 Collaborations with local and overseas researchers have also contributed to a deeper understanding of COVID-19.10 11 12 13
     
    The overt effects of COVID-19 on children are known: severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection generally causes mild illness in children and adolescents, with 99.2% of paediatric patients with COVID-19 experiencing mild symptoms8 and 26% to 38% asymptomatic.3 8 However, serious complications have occurred in children in Hong Kong, such as PIMS-TS (paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2), post-COVID-19 autoimmune haemolytic anaemia, and COVID toes.8 These patients required lengthy hospital management including intensive care and prolonged follow-up after recovery.
     
    In order to protect vulnerable individuals in Hong Kong, such as children and older and/or chronically ill adults, social distancing measures to mitigate the spread of infection have been enforced. Intermittently, schools have been closed and were fully open for <3 months in the entire year of 2020, and school closures have continued into 2021. Schools are fundamental to child and adolescent development and wellbeing, providing academic instruction, social and emotional skills, safety, reliable nutrition, physical/speech and mental health therapy, and opportunities for physical activity, among other benefits. Schools also play a critical role in addressing racial and social inequity.14 In the past 15 months of school suspensions, online teaching has played a central role in ensuring academic provisions but other aspects of development and wellbeing have been compromised.
     
    In addition to providing a learning environment, schools serve to satisfy students’ non-academic needs and school closures have serious consequences on the physical and mental wellbeing of students.15 Internationally, studies have found that obesity16 and myopia17 among school-age children have increased because of longer screen times, lack of physical activities, and the small living and learning spaces at home. These indirect consequences can affect all children, but some are disproportionately more likely to be affected, such as those with special educational needs or those who are financially deprived. Tso et al18 conducted a large-scale cross-sectional population online survey of 29 202 Hong Kong families with children aged 2 to 12 years. The authors found that, amid the COVID-19 outbreak and the resulting related school closures and disease containment measures in Hong Kong, the risk of child psychosocial problems was higher in children with special educational needs, and/or acute or chronic disease, mothers with mental illness, single-parent families, and low-income families. Delayed bedtime, inadequate sleep, inadequate exercise, and extended use of electronic devices were associated with significantly higher levels of stress among parents and more psychosocial problems among pre-school children. These indirect impacts of COVID-19 could potentially create a social crisis because school closures are likely to widen the learning gap between children from lower-income and those from higher-income families.19
     
    In Hong Kong, Chua et al3 found that household transmission was the main source of infection for children and youths, and the risk of being infected at school was small. On 10 May 2021, the Hong Kong College of Paediatricians, The Hong Kong Paediatric Society, and the Hong Kong Society for Paediatric Immunology, Allergy and Infectious Diseases jointly issued an appeal to adult household members and carers (aged ≥16 years) to receive the COVID-19 vaccine for the benefit of the younger generation.20
     
    However, this is only the first step in the appeal from paediatricians. The ultimate goal is to boost the overall immunisation rate in the community and to restore societal normalcy. On 24 May 2021, whole-school half-day face-to-face classes resumed for all school grades in Hong Kong. However, students were still not permitted to interact with peers at lunch, enjoy many of the non-core subjects that have to be missed due to shortened class time, nor socialise outside of “class bubbles”.
     
    The United States, Canada, Singapore, and Israel have approved COVID-19 vaccination for those aged 12 to 15 years. This is a welcome development in the efforts to protect the population from COVID-19, and we look forward to newer scientific evidence for vaccine safety and efficacy in even younger children.
     
    The take-home message remains: community-wide immunisation is safe and effective—and much more desirable than closures of educational and leisure facilities—for protecting the physical health and long-term psychosocial and emotional development of children, and for reducing social inequity.
     
    Author contributions
    All authors contributed to the editorial, approved the final version for publication, and take responsibility for its accuracy and integrity.
     
    Conflicts of interest
    All authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.
     
    References
    1. Mak PQ, Chung KS, Wong JS, Shek CC, Kwan MY. Anosmia and ageusia: not an uncommon presentation of COVID-19 infection in children and adolescents. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2020;39:e199-200. Crossref
    2. Duque JS, Mak PQ, Wong JS, et al. Discharging coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with faecal viral shedding and prolonged hospitalisation. J Hosp Adm 2020;9:26-30. Crossref
    3. Chua GT, Wong JS, Lam I, et al. Clinical characteristics and transmission of COVID-19 in children and youths during 3 waves of outbreaks in Hong Kong. JAMA Netw Open 2021;4:e218824. Crossref
    4. To KK, Chua GT, Kwok KL, et al. False-positive SARSCoV- 2 serology in 3 children with Kawasaki disease. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2020;98:115141. Crossref
    5. Chua GT, Wong JS, To KK, et al. Saliva viral load better correlates with clinical and immunological profiles in children with coronavirus disease 2019. Emerg Microbes Infect 2021;10:235-41. Crossref
    6. Chua GT, Xiong X, Choi EH, et al. COVID-19 in children across three Asian cosmopolitan regions. Emerg Microbes Infect 2020;9:2588-96. Crossref
    7. Xiong XL, Wong KK, Chi SQ, et al. Comparative study of the clinical characteristics and epidemiological trend of 244 COVID-19 infected children with or without GI symptoms. Gut 2021;70:436-8. Crossref
    8. Xiong XL, Chua GT, Chi SQ, et al. Haematological and immunological data of Chinese children infected with coronavirus disease 2019. Data Brief 2020;31:105953. Crossref
    9. Xiong X, Chua GT, Chi S, et al. A comparison between Chinese children infected with coronavirus disease-2019 and with severe acute respiratory syndrome 2003. J Pediatr 2020;224:30-6. Crossref
    10. Cowling BJ, Ali ST, Ng TW, et al. Impact assessment of non-pharmaceutical interventions against coronavirus disease 2019 and influenza in Hong Kong: an observational study. Lancet Public Health 2020;5:e279-88. Crossref
    11. Zhang Q, Bastard P, Liu Z, et al. Inborn errors of type I IFN immunity in patients with life-threatening COVID-19. Science 2020;370:eabd4570.
    12. Bastard P, Rosen LB, Zhang Q, et al. Autoantibodies against type I IFNs in patients with life-threatening COVID-19. Science 2020;370:eabd4585.
    13. Sancho-Shimizu V, Brodin P, Cobat A, et al. SARS-CoV-2-related MIS-C: A key to the viral and genetic causes of Kawasaki disease? J Exp Med 2021;218:e20210446.
    14. American Academy of Pediatrics. COVID-19 guidance for safe schools. Available from: https://services.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/clinical-guidance/covid-19-planning-considerations-return-to-in-person-education-in-schools/. Accessed 28 May 2021.
    15. Hoffman JA, Miller EA. Addressing the consequences of school closure due to COVID-19 on children’s physical and mental well-being. World Med Health Policy 2020;12:300-10. Crossref
    16. Jenssen BP, Kelly MK, Powell M, Bouchelle Z, Mayne SL, Fiks AG. COVID-19 and changes in child obesity. Pediatrics 2021;147:e2021050123. Crossref
    17. Wang J, Li Y, Musch DC, et al. Progression of myopia in school-aged children after COVID-19 home confinement. JAMA Ophthalmol 2021;139:293-300. Crossref
    18. Tso WW, Wong RS, Tung KT, et al. Vulnerability and resilience in children during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2020 Nov 17. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-020-01680-8. Accessed 28 May 2021. Crossref
    19. van Lancker W, Parolin Z. COVID-19, school closures, and child poverty: a social crisis in the making. Lancet Public Health 2020;5:e243-4. Crossref
    20. Hong Kong College of Paediatricians. Appealing to adults to receive COVID-19 vaccination for the psychosocial and physical health of our children (updated 10th May 2021). Hong Kong College of Paediatricians. Available from: https://www.paediatrician.org.hk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=427&catid=2&Itemid=26. Accessed 28 May 2021.

    Looking beyond COVID-19 as a pandemic

    Hong Kong Med J 2021 Apr;27(2):88–9  |  Epub 12 Apr 2021
    © Hong Kong Academy of Medicine. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
     
    EDITORIAL
    Looking beyond COVID-19 as a pandemic
    YL Lau, MD (Hon)
    Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong
     
    Corresponding author: Prof YL Lau (lauylung@hku.hk)
     
     Full paper in PDF
     
    By early April 2021, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had resulted in over 132 million cases with an overall case fatality rate of 2.2% globally.1 The infection fatality rate is lower, perhaps as low as 0.2%.2 However, although the infection fatality rate is near zero for those aged <40 years, it increases rapidly for people aged >60 years to reach over 25% at the extreme end of old age.3 A population-based seroprevalence study in Wuhan, China, suggested that >80% of antibody-positive individuals were asymptomatic.4 In Hong Kong, >25% of reported COVID-19 cases have been asymptomatic; among children and young adults the proportion is even higher at >40% (personal communication, Centre for Health Protection).
     
    Considering the low infection fatality rates, some countries opted initially for acquiring herd immunity through natural infection; however that has led to high numbers of cases and deaths, potentially resulting in healthcare system collapse.5 At present, universal whole-population vaccination is considered the only viable option to move the world out of the current pandemic, with non-pharmaceutical interventions being deployed as a stop-gap measure to contain the scale of the pandemic until effective herd immunity is achieved through vaccination.6 The socio-economic cost of some non-pharmaceutical interventions is extremely high, resulting in damage to the economy, increasing unemployment rates, and other collateral morbidities, such as depression and delayed diagnosis of severe diseases leading to poorer prognosis. Many other indirect impacts on health, especially in children and older adults, are still to be delineated. Therefore, the speed to achieve herd immunity regionally and globally will become a critical factor to minimise the direct and indirect harms caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
     
    Because of this, enormous collaborative efforts have gone into developing COVID-19 vaccines at unprecedented speeds.7 The usual regulatory pathways have been compressed to allow emergency use of such vaccines despite the availability of only preliminary data from the first 3 to 4 months of phase 3 studies. This has been justified using the argument that the benefits of using these novel vaccines far outweigh the potential harms.
     
    There has been unprecedented international collaboration among scientists, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies to produce candidate vaccines, including mRNA, adenoviral vector, and inactivated whole virus vaccines, and to trial those candidates, with some successfully approved by different national regulatory authorities for emergency use. In contrast, subsequent steps to implement universal vaccination has exposed frailties in human societies even in a pandemic, such as rivalry among vaccine producers, distribution logistics of vaccines among nations, and vaccine inequity between the rich and poor nations. These issues have been compounded by mistrust between citizens and governments, fuelling vaccine hesitancy. In reality, the pandemic will not end if only a handful of rich and capable nations achieve herd immunity. So what are the future scenarios for this divided world and humanity? Let us look at ourselves first.
     
    In Hong Kong, with a densely packed population that is highly connected, both physically and electronically, adequate vaccine supply for the whole population has been secured. Therefore, we should be in an enviable position among the first few regions to reach herd immunity. Instead, we remain far from this goal because of vaccine hesitancy, internal conflict, and mistrust. There is no easy solution except to insist on basic principles such as voluntary vaccination, freedom to choose a preferred vaccine, transparency, and effective communication of all matters related to vaccines and the vaccination programme, including adverse events following immunisation, in order to dispel misinformation. Moreover, our own healthcare professionals who hold the primary responsibility to care for the health of our citizens should be empowered to educate the public regarding the reality and purpose of the vaccination rollout. These healthcare professionals should have the confidence to explain and counsel citizens to exercise a rational choice. Everyone should understand the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy; in this context, an adverse event following vaccination is not necessarily caused by the vaccination. Nevertheless, a vigorous pharmacovigilance risk assessment system has to be in place to detect signal of adverse events that could be causally linked with these novel vaccines, such as the rare complication of embolic and thrombotic events in young population with the AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S recombinant COVID-19 vaccine.8
     
    To be tolerant of choosing which vaccine to use will lead to balance and healing of our divided society. Diversity of choice among different types of vaccines is preferred to having only one type available, because there are many unknowns, including the long-term performance of each vaccine. The long-term vaccination strategy is far from being fixed, as new knowledge is being accrued daily. Maintaining diversity will allow room to adapt to this uncertainty.
     
    Lastly, it is now becoming clear that COVID-19 will likely stay with us as an endemic disease and cannot be eradicated globally or eliminated regionally at national levels, because of suboptimal vaccine uptake, emergence of spike variants that escape immunity, and the limited duration of sterilising humoral immunity after either natural infection or vaccination.9 10 11 12 In contrast, memory T cell immunity could be long-lasting and reduce disease severity when reinfection occurs.12 Therefore the goal of the vaccination programme is not to interrupt all infections, which would be unrealistic, but rather to prevent severe COVID-19. With the attainment of herd immunity through vaccination, primary COVID-19 will then likely occur during the first 5 years of life, with mild symptoms; partially transmissible reinfection may occur throughout life to boost immune memory, as in the other four common human coronaviruses.3 This will render COVID-19 as a common cold rather than a severe disease. This is the preferred and most likely future scenario, rather than global eradication, which is unrealistic and would demand repeated annual vaccinations.
     
    Author contributions
    The author contributed to the editorial, approved the final version for publication, and takes responsibility for its accuracy and integrity.
     
    Disclosures
    YL Lau is a member of the Advisory Panel on COVID-19 Vaccines; and the chairman of the Scientific Committee on Vaccine Preventable Diseases for the Hong Kong SAR Government.
     
    References
    1. Our World in Data. Available from: https://ourworldindata.org. Accessed 8 Apr 2021.
    2. Randolph HE, Barreiro LB. Herd immunity: understanding COVID-19. Immunity 2020;52:737-41. Crossref
    3. Lavine JS, Bjornstad ON, Antia R. Immunological characteristics govern the transition of COVID-19 to endemicity. Science 2021;371:741-5. Crossref
    4. He Z, Ren L, Yang J, et al. Seroprevalence and humoral immune durability of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Wuhan, China: a longitudinal, population-level, cross-sectional study. Lancet 2021;397:1075-84. Crossref
    5. Sridhar D, Gurdasani D. Herd immunity by infection is not an option. Science 2021;371:230-1. Crossref
    6. Baker MG, Wilson N, Blakely T. Elimination could be the optimal response strategy for covid-19 and other emerging pandemic diseases. BMJ 2020;371:m4907. Crossref
    7. Jeyanathan M, Afkhami S, Smaill F, Miller MS, Lichty BD, Xing Z. Immunological considerations for COVID-19 vaccine strategies. Nat Rev Immunol 2020;20:615-32. Crossref
    8. European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee. Signal assessment report on embolic and thrombotic events (SMQ) with COVID-19 Vaccine (ChAdOx1-S [recombinant])—COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca (other viral vaccines). EPITT no: 19683. 24 March 2021. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/prac-recommendation/signal-assessment-report-embolic-thrombotic-events-smq-covid-19-vaccine-chadox1-s-recombinant-covid_en.pdf. Accessed 8 Apr 2021.
    9. Seow J, Graham C, Merrick B, et al. Longitudinal observation and decline of neutralizing antibody responses in the three months following SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans. Nat Microbiol 2020;5:1598-607. Crossref
    10. Chia WN, Zhu F, Ong SW, et al. Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibody responses and duration of immunity: a longitudinal study. Lancet Microbe 2021 Mar 23. Epub ahead of print. Crossref
    11. Dan JM, Mateus J, Kato Y, et al. Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for up to 8 months after infection. Science 2021;371:eabf4063. Crossref
    12. Bonifacius A, Tischer-Zimmermann S, Dragon AC, et al. COVID-19 immune signatures reveal stable antiviral T cell function despite declining humoral responses. Immunity 2021;54:340-54.e6. Crossref

    Living well with kidney disease by patient and care partner empowerment: kidney health for everyone everywhere

    © Hong Kong Academy of Medicine. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
     
    EDITORIAL
    Living well with kidney disease by patient and care partner empowerment: kidney health for everyone everywhere
    Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh, MD, PhD1 #; Philip KT Li, MD2 #; Ekamol Tantisattamo, MD, MPH3; Latha Kumaraswami, BA4 #; Vassilios Liakopoulos, MD, PhD5 #; SF Lui, MD6 #; Ifeoma Ulasi, MD7 #; Sharon Andreoli, MD8 #; Alessandro Balducci, MD9 #; Sophie Dupuis, MA10 #; Tess Harris, MA11; Anne Hradsky, MA10; Richard Knight, MBA12; Sajay Kumar, BCom4; Maggie Ng13; Alice Poidevin, MA10; Gamal Saadi, MD14 #; Allison Tong, PhD15
    1 The International Federation of Kidney Foundation–World Kidney Alliance (IFKF-WKA), Division of Nephrology and Hypertension and Kidney Transplantation, University of California Irvine, Orange, California, United States
    2 Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Carol & Richard Yu PD Research Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
    3 Division of Nephrology, Hypertension and Kidney Transplantation, Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Orange, California, United States
    4 Tanker Foundation, Chennai, India
    5 Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, 1st Department of Internal Medicine, AHEPA Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
    6 Hong Kong Kidney Foundation and the International Federation of Kidney Foundations–World Kidney Alliance, The Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
    7 Renal Unit, Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Nigeria, Ituku-Ozalla, Enugu, Nigeria
    8 James Whitcomb Riley Hospital for Children, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
    9 Italian Kidney Foundation, Rome, Italy
    10 World Kidney Day Office, Brussels, Belgium
    11 Polycystic Kidney Disease Charity, London, United Kingdom
    12 American Association of Kidney Patients, Tampa, Florida, United States
    13 Hong Kong Kidney Foundation, Hong Kong
    14 Nephrology Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
    15 Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    # Members of the World Kidney Day Steering Committee
     
    Corresponding author:Dr Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh; Dr Philip KT Li (kkz@uci.edu; philipli@cuhk.edu.hk)
     
     Full paper in PDF
     
    Living with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with hardships for patients and their care partners. Empowering patients and their care partners, including family members or friends involved in their care, may help minimise the burden and consequences of CKD-related symptoms to enable life participation. There is a need to broaden the focus on living well with kidney disease and re-engagement in life, including an emphasis on patients being in control. The World Kidney Day (WKD) Joint Steering Committee has declared 2021 the year of ‘Living Well with Kidney Disease’ in an effort to increase education and awareness on the important goal of patient empowerment and life participation. This calls for the development and implementation of validated patient-reported outcome measures to assess and address areas of life participation in routine care. It could be supported by regulatory agencies as a metric for quality care or to support labelling claims for medicines and devices. Funding agencies could establish targeted calls for research that address the priorities of patients. Patients with kidney disease and their care partners should feel supported to live well through concerted efforts by kidney care communities including during pandemics. In the overall wellness programme for kidney disease patients, the need for prevention should be reiterated. Early detection with a prolonged course of wellness despite kidney disease, after effective secondary and tertiary prevention programmes, should be promoted. World Kidney Day 2021 continues to call for increased awareness of the importance of preventive measures throughout populations, professionals, and policy makers, applicable to both developed and developing countries.
     
    Patient priorities for living well: a focus on life participation
    Chronic kidney disease, its associated symptoms, and its treatment, including medications, dietary and fluid restrictions, and kidney replacement therapy can disrupt and constrain daily living, and impair the overall quality of life of patients and their family members. Consequently, this can also impact treatment satisfaction and clinical outcomes.1 Despite this, the past several decades have seen limited improvement in the quality of life of people with CKD.1 To advance research, practice, and policy, there is increasing recognition of the need to identify and address patient priorities, values, and goals.1
     
    Several regional and global kidney health projects have addressed these important questions including the Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology with more than 9000 patients, family members, and healthcare professionals from over 70 countries.2 3 Across all treatment stages, including CKD, dialysis and transplantation, Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology participating children and adults with CKD consistently gave higher priority to symptoms and life impacts than healthcare professionals.2 3 In comparison, healthcare professionals gave higher priority to mortality and hospitalisation than patients and family members. The patient-prioritised outcomes are shown in the Figure. Irrespective of the type of kidney disease or treatment stage, patients wanted to be able to live well, maintain their role and social functioning, protect some semblance of normality, and have a sense of control over their health and well-being.
     

    Figure. Conceptual framework of ‘Living Well with Kidney Disease’ based on patient centeredness and empowering patient with focus on effective symptom management and life participation
     
    Life participation, defined as the ability to do meaningful activities of life including, but not limited to, work, study, family responsibilities, travel, sport, social, and recreational activities, was established a critically important outcome across all treatment stages of CKD.1 2 The quotations from patients with kidney disease provided in the Box demonstrates how life participation reflects the ability to live well with CKD.4 According to the World Health Organization (WHO), participation refers to “involvement in a life situation.”5 This concept is more specific than the broader construct of quality of life. Life participation places the life priorities and values of those affected by CKD and their family at the centre of decision making. The World Kidney Day Steering Committee calls for the inclusion of life participation, a key focus in the care of patients with CKD, to achieve the ultimate goal of living well with kidney disease. This calls for the development and implementation of validated patient-reported outcome measures, that could be used to assess and address areas of life participation in routine care. Monitoring of life participation could be supported by regulatory agencies as a metric for quality care or to support labelling claims for medicines and devices. Funding agencies could establish targeted calls for research that address the priorities of patients, including life participation.
     

    Box. Quotations from patients with chronic kidney disease related to priorities for living well
     
    Patient empowerment, partnership, and a paradigm shift towards a strengths-based approach to care
    Patients with CKD and their family members including care partners should be empowered to achieve the health outcomes and life goals that are meaningful and important to them. The WHO defines patient empowerment as “a process through which people gain greater control over decisions or actions affecting their health,”6 which requires patients to understand their role, to have knowledge to be able to engage with clinicians in shared decision making, skills, and support for self-management. For patients receiving dialysis, understanding the rationale for a lifestyle change, having access to practical assistance and family support promoted patient empowerment, while feeling limited in life participation undermined their sense of empowerment.7
     
    The World Kidney Day Steering Committee advocates for strengthened partnership with patients in the development, implementation, and evaluation of interventions for practice and policy settings, that enable patients to live well with kidney diseases. This needs to be supported by consistent, accessible, and meaningful communication. Meaningful involvement of patients and family members across the entire research process, from priority setting and planning the study through to dissemination and implementation, is now widely advocated.8 There have also been efforts, such as the Kidney Health Initiative, to involve patients in the development of drugs and devices to foster innovation.9
     
    We urge for greater emphasis on a strengths-based approach as outlined in the Table, which encompasses strategies to support patient resilience, harness social connections, build patient awareness and knowledge, facilitate access to support, and establish confidence and control in self-management. The strengths-based approach is in contrast to the medical model where chronic disease is traditionally focussed on pathology, problems, and failures.10 Instead, the strengths-based approach acknowledges that each individual has strengths and abilities to overcome the problems and challenges faced, and requires collaboration and cultivation of the patient’s hopes, aspirations, interests, and values. Efforts are needed to ensure that structural biases, discrimination, and disparities in the healthcare system also need to be identified, so all patients are given the opportunity to have a voice.
     

    Table. Suggested strategies for ‘living well with chronic kidney disease’ using a strengths-based approach
     
    The role of care partner
    A care partner is often an informal caregiver who is also a family member of the patient with CKD.11 They may take on a wide range of responsibilities including coordinating care (including transportation to appointments), administration of treatment including medications, home dialysis assistance, and supporting dietary management. Caregivers of patients with CKD have reported depression, fatigue, isolation, and also burnout. The role of the care partner has increasingly become more important in CKD care given the heightened complexity in communicative and therapeutic options including the expansion of telemedicine under the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and given the goal to achieve higher life expectancy with CKD.12 The experience of caring for a partially incapacitated family member with progressive CKD can represent a substantial burden on the care partner and may impact family dynamics. Not infrequently, the career goals and other occupational and leisure aspects of the life of the care partner are affected because of CKD care partnership, leading to care partner overload and burnout. Hence, the above-mentioned principles of life participation need to equally apply to care partners as well as all family members and friends involved in CKD care.
     
    Living with kidney disease in low-income regions
    In low and lower-middle-income countries including in sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, patient’s ability to self-manage or cope with the chronic disease vary but may often be influenced by internal factors including spirituality, belief system, and religiosity, and external factors including appropriate knowledge of the disease, poverty, family support system, and one’s grit and social relations network. The support system comprising healthcare providers and caregivers plays a crucial role as most patients rely on them in making decisions, and for the necessary adjustments in their health behaviour.13 In low-income regions, where there are often a relatively low number of physicians and even lower number of kidney care providers per population especially in rural areas, a stepwise approach can involve local and national stakeholders including both non-governmental organisations and government agencies by (1) extending kidney patient education in rural areas; (2) adapting telehealth technologies if feasible to educate patients and train local community kidney care providers, and (3) implementing effective retention strategies for rural kidney health providers including adapting career plans and competitive incentives.
     
    Many patients in low-resource settings present in very late stage needing to commence emergency dialysis.14 The very few fortunate ones to receive kidney transplantation may acquire an indescribable chance to normal life again, notwithstanding the high costs of immunosuppressive medications in some countries. For some patients and care partners in low-income regions, spirituality and religiosity may engender hope, when ill they are energised by the anticipation of restored health and spiritual wellbeing. For many patients, informing them of a diagnosis of kidney disease is a harrowing experience both for the patient (and caregivers) and the healthcare professional. Most patients present to kidney physicians (usually known as “renal physicians” in many of these countries) with trepidations and apprehension. It is rewarding therefore to see the patient’s anxiety dissipate after reassuring him or her of a diagnosis of simple kidney cysts, urinary tract infection, simple kidney stones, solitary kidneys, etc, that would not require extreme measures like kidney replacement therapy. Patients diagnosed with glomerulonephritis who have an appropriate characterisation of their disease from kidney biopsies and histology; who receive appropriate therapies and achieve remission are relieved and are very grateful. Patients are glad to discontinue dialysis following resolution of acute kidney injury or acute-on-chronic kidney disease.
     
    Many patients with CKD who have residual kidney function appreciate being maintained in a relatively healthy state with conservative measures, without dialysis. They experience renewed energy when their anaemia is promptly corrected using erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. They are happy when their peripheral oedema resolves with treatment. For those on maintenance haemodialysis who had woeful stories from emergency femoral cannulations, they appreciate the construction of good temporary or permanent vascular accesses. Many patients in low-resource settings present in very late stage needing to commence emergency dialysis. Patients remain grateful for waking from a uraemic coma or recovering from recurrent seizures when they commence dialysis.
     
    World kidney day 2021 advocacy
    World Kidney Day 2021 theme on ‘Living Well with Kidney Disease’ is deliberately chosen to have the goals to redirect more focus on plans and actions towards achieving patient-centred wellness. “Kidney Health for Everyone, Everywhere” with emphasis on patient-centred wellness should be a policy imperative that can be successfully achieved if policy makers, nephrologists, healthcare professionals, patients, and care partners place this within the context of comprehensive care. The requirement of patient engagement is needed. The WHO in 2016 put out an important document on patient empowerment15:
     
    “Patient engagement is increasingly recognised as an integral part of healthcare and a critical component of safe people-centred services. Engaged patients are better able to make informed decisions about their care options. In addition, resources may be better used if they are aligned with patients’ priorities and this is critical for the sustainability of health systems worldwide. Patient engagement may also promote mutual accountability and understanding between patients and healthcare providers. Informed patients are more likely to feel confident to report both positive and negative experiences and have increased concordance with mutually agreed care management plans. This not only improves health outcomes but also advances learning and improvement while reducing adverse events.”
     
    In the International Society of Nephrology Community Film Event at World Congress of Nephrology 2020, it is good to see a quote in the film from patients:
     
    “Tell me. I will forget; Show me. I will remember; Involve me. I will understand.”
     
    The International Society of Nephrology Global Kidney Policy Forum 2019 included a patient speaker Nicki Scholes-Robertson from New Zealand:
     
    “Culturally appropriate and sensitive patient information and care are being undertaken in New Zealand to fight inequities in kidney health, especially in Maori and other disadvantaged communities.”
     
    World Kidney Day 2021 would like to promote to the policy makers on increasing focus and resources on both drug and non-drug programmes in improving patient wellness. Examples include funding for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and antipruritic agents for managing anaemia and itchiness, respectively, just name but a few.16 17 Home dialysis therapies have been consistently found to improve patient autonomy and flexibility, quality of life in a cost-effective manner, enhancing life participation. Promoting home dialysis therapies should tie in with appropriate ‘assisted dialysis’ programmes to reduce patient and care partner fatigue and burnout. Also, examples like self-management programmes, cognitive behavioural therapy, and group therapies for managing depression, anxiety, and insomnia should be promoted before resorting to medications.18 The principle of equity recognises that different people with different levels of disadvantage require different approaches and resources to achieve equitable health outcomes. The kidney community should push for adapted care guidelines for vulnerable and disadvantaged populations. The involvement of primary care and general physicians especially in low and lower-middle-income countries would be useful in improving the affordability and access to services through the public sector in helping the symptom management of patients with CKD and improve their wellness. In the overall wellness programme for kidney disease patients, the need for prevention should be reiterated. Early detection with a prolonged course of wellness despite kidney disease, after an effective secondary prevention programme, should be promoted.19 Prevention of CKD progression can be attempted by lifestyle and diet modifications such as a plant-dominant low-protein diet and by means of effective pharmacotherapy including administration of sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors.20 World Kidney Day 2021 continues to call for increased awareness of the importance of preventive measures throughout populations, professionals, and policy makers, applicable to both developed and developing countries.19
     
    Conclusions
    Effective strategies to empower patients and their care partners strive to pursue the overarching goal of minimising the burden of CKD-related symptoms in order to enhance patient satisfaction, health-related quality of life, and life participation. World Kidney Day 2021 theme on ‘Living Well with Kidney Disease’ is deliberately chosen to have the goals to redirect more focus on plans and actions towards achieving patient-centred wellness. Notwithstanding the COVID-19 pandemic that had overshadowed many activities in 2020 and beyond, the World Kidney Day Steering Committee has declared 2021 the year of ‘Living well with Kidney Disease’ in an effort to increase education and awareness on the important goal of effective symptom management and patient empowerment. Whereas the World Kidney Day continues to emphasise the importance of effective measures to prevent kidney disease and its progression,18 patients with pre-existing kidney disease and their care partners should feel supported to live well through concerted efforts by kidney care communities and other stakeholders throughout the world even during a world-shattering pandemic as COVID-19 that may drain many resources.21 Living well with kidney disease is an uncompromisable goal of all kidney foundations, patient groups, and professional societies alike, to which the International Society of Nephrology and the International Federation of Kidney Foundation World Kidney Alliance are committed at all times.
     
    Author contributions
    K Kalantar-Zadeh reports honoraria from Abbott, AbbVie, ACI Clinical, Akebia, Alexion, Amgen, Ardelyx, Astra-Zeneca, Aveo, BBraun, Cara Therapeutics, Chugai, Cytokinetics, Daiichi, DaVita, Fresenius, Genentech, Haymarket Media, Hospira, Kabi, Keryx, Kissei, Novartis, Pfizer, Regulus, Relypsa, Resverlogix, Dr Schaer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Shire, Vifor, UpToDate, and ZS-Pharma. PKT Li reports personal fees from Fibrogen and Astra-Zeneca. G Saadi reports personal fees from Multicare, Novartis, Sandoz, and Astra-Zeneca. V Liakopoulos reports non-financial support from Genesis Pharma. All other authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.
     
    Funding/support
    This editorial received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
     
    Declaration
    This article was published in Kidney International, volume 99, pages 278-284, Copyright World Kidney Day Steering Committee (2021), and reprinted concurrently in several journals. The articles cover identical concepts and wording, but vary in minor stylistic and spelling changes, detail, and length of manuscript in keeping with each journal’s style. Any of these versions may be used in citing this article.
     
    References
    1. Tong A, Manns B, Wang AY, et al. Implementing core outcomes in kidney disease: report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) implementation workshop. Kidney Int 2018;94:1053-68. Crossref
    2. Carter SA, Gutman T, Logeman C, et al. Identifying outcomes important to patients with glomerular disease and their caregivers. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2020;15:673-84. Crossref
    3. Hanson CS, Craig JC, Logeman C, et al. Establishing core outcome domains in pediatric kidney disease: report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Children and Adolescents (SONG-KIDS) consensus workshops. Kidney Int 2020;98:553-65. Crossref
    4. González AM, Gutman T, Lopez-Vargas P, et al. Patient and caregiver priorities for outcomes in CKD: a multinational nominal group technique study. Am J Kid Dis 2020;76:679-89. Crossref
    5. World Health Organization, The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health. 2002. Available from: https://www.who.int/classifications/icf/icfbeginnersguide.pdf. Accessed 11 Apr 2021.
    6. World Health Organization. Health Promotion Glossary. 1998. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-HPR-HEP-98.1. Accessed 11 Apr 2021.
    7. Baumgart A, Manera KE, Johnson DW, et al. Meaning of empowerment in peritoneal dialysis: focus groups with patients and caregivers. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2020;35:1949-58. Crossref
    8. PCORI. The Value of Engagement. Available from: https:// www.pcori.org/about-us/our-programs/engagement/public-and-patient-engagement/value-engagement. 2018. Accessed 1 Sep 2020.
    9. Bonventre JV, Hurst FP, West M, Wu I, Roy-Chaudhury P, Sheldon M. A technology roadmap for innovative approaches to kidney replacement therapies: a catalyst for change. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2019;14:1539-47. Crossref
    10. Ibrahim N, Michail M, Callaghan P. The strengths based approach as a service delivery model for severe mental illness: a meta-analysis of clinical trials. BMC Psychiatry 2014;14:243. Crossref
    11. Parham R, Jacyna N, Hothi D, Marks SD, Holttum S, Camic P. Development of a measure of caregiver burden in paediatric chronic kidney disease: The Paediatric Renal Caregiver Burden Scale. J Health Psychol 2014;21:93-205. Crossref
    12. Subramanian L, Kirk R, Cuttitta T, et al. Remote management for peritoneal dialysis: a qualitative study of patient, care partner, and clinician perceptions and priorities in the United States and the United Kingdom. Kidney Med 2019;1:354-65. Crossref
    13. Angwenyi V, Aantjes C, Kajumi M, De Man J, Criel B, Bunders-Aelen J. Patients experiences of self-management and strategies for dealing with chronic conditions in rural Malawi. PLoS One 2018;13:e0199977. Crossref
    14. Ulasi II, Ijoma CK. The enormity of chronic kidney disease in Nigeria: the situation in a teaching hospital in South-East Nigeria. J Trop Med 2010;2010:501957. Crossref
    15. World Health Organization. Patient engagement. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/252269. Accessed 11 Apr 2021.
    16. Spinowitz B, Pecoits-Filho R, Winkelmayer WC, et al. Economic and quality of life burden of anemia on patients with CKD on dialysis: a systematic review. J Med Econ 2019;22:593-604. Crossref
    17. Sukul N, Speyer E, Tu C, et al. Pruritus and patient reported outcomes in non-dialysis CKD. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2019;14:673-81. Crossref
    18. Gregg LP, Hedayati SS. Pharmacologic and psychological interventions for depression treatment in patients with kidney disease. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2020;29:457-64. Crossref
    19. Li PK, Garcia-Garcia G, Lui SF, et al. Kidney health for everyone everywhere—from prevention to detection and equitable access to care. Kidney Int 2020;97:226-32. Crossref
    20. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Li PK. Strategies to prevent kidney disease and its progression. Nat Rev Nephrol 2020;16:129-30. Crossref
    21. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Wightman A, Liao S. Ensuring choice for people with kidney failure—dialysis, supportive care, and hope. N Engl J Med 2020;383:99-101. Crossref

    Pages