BIP! Finder for COVID-19

This version of BIP! Finder aims to ease the exploration of COVID-19-related literature by enabling ranking articles based on various impact metrics.

Last Update: 03 - 08 - 2022 (582857 entries)

Provided impact measures:
Popularity: Citation-based measure reflecting the current impact.
Influence: Citation-based measure reflecting the total impact.
Reader Attention: The current number of Mendeley readers.
Social Media Attention: The number of recent tweets related to this article.
*More details on these impact measures can be found here.
Score interpretations:
Exceptional score (in top 0.01%).
Substantial score (in top 1%).
Average score (in bottom 99%).
Score not available.
Main data sources:
CORD-19 dataset(1) (list of papers)
LitCovid hub(2) (list of papers)
PMC & PubMed (citations)
Mendeley (number of readers)
COVID-19-TweetIDs(3) (tweets)

Use:  Impact  Relevance & Impact
TitleVenueYearImpactSource
51Inappropriate risk perception for SARS-CoV-2 infection among Italian HCWs in the eve of COVID-19 pandemic  

Sir, Italy has been recently involved in the outbreak of severe interstitial pneumonia associated with the previously unknown Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (1,2). Even before the notification of the first autochthonous cases, the SARS-CoV-2 associated syndrome (COVID-19) had raised an intense attention in the public opinion (3), with a counterproductive over-abundance of mixed quality information. As even Italian healthcare workers (HCWs) were not spared by subsequent misunderstandings and knowledge gaps during the previous influenza pandemic of 2009 (4), we performed a web-based survey (Google® Modules), specifically aimed to characterize knowledge status and risk perceptions in a sample from participating to 6 Facebook discussion groups (181,684 total unique members at the time of the study). The questionnaire was made available between February 1st and 7th, 2020, i.e. around 2 weeks before the first COVID-19 was officially diagnosed in Italian residents. Overall, the sampled population included 2106 respondents (Table 1), and 39.3% were HCWs. Even though HCWs were more likely to exhibit a better understanding of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 related issues (aOR 2.195, 95%CI 1.809 to 2.664), they were not exempt for misunderstandings, particularly on actual incidence and lethality of COVID-19. Interestingly, most of respondents were aware of the main clinical features of COVID-19, with HCWs more frequently acknowledging that the COVID-19 may run pauci- or even asymptomatic (86.3% vs. 79.1%), resembling an Influenza-Like Illness (i.e. fever, cough, headache, etc.), with a potential latency up to 14 days (85·9% vs· 80·3%), eventually spreading by droplets (98.5% vs. 92.7%) rather through running water (92.3% vs· 79.8%), or blood/body fluids (88.0% vs. 70.4%). Retrospectively, the assessment of preventive measures and risk perception appears somewhat worrisome. For instance, while HCWs were more likely to acknowledge as an appropriate preventive measure wearing a filtering mask (i.e. N95/FFP2/3 mask; aOR 2.296, 95%CI 1.507 to 3.946), around ¼ of HCWs failed to recognize the importance of such personal protective equipment, while 7.4% felt as appropriate the wearing of a surgical mask. Moreover, not only COVID-19 was appropriately acknowledged as a severe disease by only 62.0% of respondents, with no differences between HCWs and non-HCWs, but an even smaller share (i.e. 8.0%) reported any concern for being infected by SARS-CoV-2 in Italy. In fact, at the time of the survey SARS-CoV-2 was more properly associated with international travelers (26.7%). Our results are therefore of certain interests for several reasons. First at all, early epidemiological reports on the Italian cases of COVID-19 hint towards some failures in the initial management of incident cases (5-6). In fact, in our survey a large share of respondents substantially overlooked the risk to interact with SARS-CoV-2 positive subjects, that was otherwise perceived as a not-so-severe disease (i.e. nothing more than a seasonal flu, as often described in some social media) (7). Moreover, around a 1/3 of HCWs participating to the study presumptively did not use proper personal protective equipment for the airways interacting with possible COVID-19 cases, either underestimating the infection risk or being unable to recognize early symptoms. Actually, the base of evidence shared by participants at the time of the study substantially ignored that COVID-19 may be characterized by dermatologic and gastro-intestinal symptoms (8-9). As most of infections may be actually pauci- or asymptomatic, such early exposure in the healthcare settings may have contributed to the quick spreading of SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Northern Italy. Therefore, despite the intrinsic limits of a convenience sampling, web-based survey (10), our study stresses the importance to improve the overall quality of information on COVID-19 conveyed not only in HCWs, but also in the general population. Moreover, our data may contribute to clarify the early stages of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Italy.

Acta Biomed2020       LitCov and CORD-19
52Mental health problems and correlates among 746 217 college students during the COVID-19 outbreak in China  

AIMS: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a major public health concern all over the world. Little is known about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population. This study aimed to assess the mental health problems and associated factors among a large sample of college students during the COVID-19 outbreak in China. METHODS: This cross-sectional and nation-wide survey of college students was conducted in China from 3 to 10 February 2020. A self-administered questionnaire was used to assess psychosocial factors, COVID-19 epidemic related factors and mental health problems. Acute stress, depressive and anxiety symptoms were measured by the Chinese versions of the impact of event scale-6, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, respectively. Univariate and hierarchical logistic regression analyses were performed to examine factors associated with mental health problems. RESULTS: Among 821 218 students who participated in the survey, 746 217 (90.9%) were included for the analysis. In total, 414 604 (55.6%) of the students were female. About 45% of the participants had mental health problems. The prevalence rates of probable acute stress, depressive and anxiety symptoms were 34.9%, 21.1% and 11.0%, respectively. COVID-19 epidemic factors that were associated with increased risk of mental health problems were having relatives or friends being infected (adjusted odds ratio = 1.72–2.33). Students with exposure to media coverage of the COVID-19 ≥3 h/day were 2.13 times more likely than students with media exposure <1 h/day to have acute stress symptoms. Individuals with low perceived social support were 4.84–5.98 times more likely than individuals with high perceived social support to have anxiety and depressive symptoms. In addition, senior year and prior mental health problems were also significantly associated with anxiety or/and depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale survey of college students in China, acute stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms are prevalent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Multiple epidemic and psychosocial factors, such as family members being infected, massive media exposure, low social support, senior year and prior mental health problems were associated with increased risk of mental health problems. Psychosocial support and mental health services should be provided to those students at risk.

Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci2020       LitCov and CORD-19
53SARS-CoV-2 and coronavirus disease-2019: The epidemic and the challenges  

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2; previously provisionally named 2019 novel coronavirus or 2019-nCoV) disease (COVID-19) in China at the end of 2019 has caused a large global outbreak and is a major public health issue. As of 11 February 2020, data from the World Health Organization (WHO) have shown that more than 43 000 confirmed cases have been identified in 28 countries/regions, with >99% of cases being detected in China. On 30 January 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 as the sixth public health emergency of international concern. SARS-CoV-2 is closely related to two bat-derived severe acute respiratory syndrome-like coronaviruses, bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21. It is spread by human-to-human transmission via droplets or direct contact, and infection has been estimated to have mean incubation period of 6.4 days and a basic reproduction number of 2.24–3.58. Among patients with pneumonia caused by SARS-CoV-2 (novel coronavirus pneumonia or Wuhan pneumonia), fever was the most common symptom, followed by cough. Bilateral lung involvement with ground-glass opacity was the most common finding from computed tomography images of the chest. The one case of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in the USA is responding well to remdesivir, which is now undergoing a clinical trial in China. Currently, controlling infection to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is the primary intervention being used. However, public health authorities should keep monitoring the situation closely, as the more we can learn about this novel virus and its associated outbreak, the better we can respond.

Int J Antimicrob Agents2020       LitCov and CORD-19
54Factors Associated With Mental Health Outcomes Among Healthcare Workers Exposed to COVID-19  

IMPORTANCE: Health care workers exposed to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) could be psychologically stressed. OBJECTIVE: To assess the magnitude of mental health outcomes and associated factors among health care workers treating patients exposed to COVID-19 in China. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional, survey-based, region-stratified study collected demographic data and mental health measurements from 1257 health care workers in 34 hospitals from January 29, 2020, to February 3, 2020, in China. Health care workers in hospitals equipped with fever clinics or wards for patients with COVID-19 were eligible. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The degree of symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and distress was assessed by the Chinese versions of the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale, the 7-item Insomnia Severity Index, and the 22-item Impact of Event Scale–Revised, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with mental health outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1257 of 1830 contacted individuals completed the survey, with a participation rate of 68.7%. A total of 813 (64.7%) were aged 26 to 40 years, and 964 (76.7%) were women. Of all participants, 764 (60.8%) were nurses, and 493 (39.2%) were physicians; 760 (60.5%) worked in hospitals in Wuhan, and 522 (41.5%) were frontline health care workers. A considerable proportion of participants reported symptoms of depression (634 [50.4%]), anxiety (560 [44.6%]), insomnia (427 [34.0%]), and distress (899 [71.5%]). Nurses, women, frontline health care workers, and those working in Wuhan, China, reported more severe degrees of all measurements of mental health symptoms than other health care workers (eg, median [IQR] Patient Health Questionnaire scores among physicians vs nurses: 4.0 [1.0-7.0] vs 5.0 [2.0-8.0]; P = .007; median [interquartile range {IQR}] Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale scores among men vs women: 2.0 [0-6.0] vs 4.0 [1.0-7.0]; P < .001; median [IQR] Insomnia Severity Index scores among frontline vs second-line workers: 6.0 [2.0-11.0] vs 4.0 [1.0-8.0]; P < .001; median [IQR] Impact of Event Scale–Revised scores among those in Wuhan vs those in Hubei outside Wuhan and those outside Hubei: 21.0 [8.5-34.5] vs 18.0 [6.0-28.0] in Hubei outside Wuhan and 15.0 [4.0-26.0] outside Hubei; P < .001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed participants from outside Hubei province were associated with lower risk of experiencing symptoms of distress compared with those in Wuhan (odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.88; P = .008). Frontline health care workers engaged in direct diagnosis, treatment, and care of patients with COVID-19 were associated with a higher risk of symptoms of depression (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.11-2.09; P = .01), anxiety (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.22-2.02; P < .001), insomnia (OR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.92-4.60; P < .001), and distress (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.25-2.04; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this survey of heath care workers in hospitals equipped with fever clinics or wards for patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan and other regions in China, participants reported experiencing psychological burden, especially nurses, women, those in Wuhan, and frontline health care workers directly engaged in the diagnosis, treatment, and care for patients with COVID-19.

JAMA Netw Open2020       LitCov and CORD-19
55Virtualized clinical studies to assess the natural history and impact of gut microbiome modulation in non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 a randomized, open-label, prospective study with a parallel group study evaluating the physiologic effects of KB109 on gut microbiota structu  

OBJECTIVES: These 2 parallel studies (K031 and K032) aim to evaluate the safety of KB109 in addition to supportive self-care (SSC) compared with SSC alone in outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). KB109 is a novel synthetic glycan that was formulated to modulate the gut microbiome composition and metabolic output in order to increase beneficial short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) production in the gut. The K031 study is designed to evaluate the safety of KB109 and characterize its impact on the natural progression of COVID-19 in patients with mild to moderate disease. The K032 study is evaluating the effect of KB109 on the gut microbiota structure and function in this same patient population. Additionally, both studies are evaluating measures of health care utilization, quality of life (QOL), laboratory indices, biomarkers of inflammation, and serological measures of immunity in patients who received SSC alone or with KB109. Noteworthy aspects of these outpatient studies include study design measures aimed at limiting in-person interactions to minimize the risk of infection spread, such as use of online diaries, telemedicine, and at-home sample collection. STUDY DESIGN: K031 and K032 are randomized, controlled, open-label, clinical food studies. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion Criteria: • Adults ≥18 years of age • Patients willing and able to give informed consent • Screening/randomization telemedicine visit within 2 days of testing positive test for COVID-19 ○ In K031 study, symptomatic patients at COVID-19 testing must report new or worsening symptoms at baseline that have not been present for more than 5 days ▪ Cardinal COVID-19 symptoms include fever, chills/repeated shaking with chills, cough, shortness of breath, headache, muscle pain, anosmia/ageusia, and sore throat. The 5 additional symptoms include gastrointestinal (GI) disturbance/symptoms (other than diarrhea), diarrhea, fatigue, nasal congestion, and chest tightness ○ In K031, at COVID-19 testing, pre-symptomatic patients must report new cardinal COVID-19 symptoms within 7 days of a positive test and they must be screened and randomized within 5 days of developing symptoms • Mild to moderate COVID-19 and self-reported outpatient management ○ In K032, mild to moderate COVID-19 was defined as having the following symptoms for no more than 72 hours before COVID-19 testing: a self- reported fever or cough (new or exacerbated) or presence of at least 2 of the following: anosmia, sore throat, or nasal congestion • Ability to adhere to the study visit schedule and other protocol requirements • Consistent internet or cell phone access with a data plan and access to a smartphone, tablet, or computer • The K031 and K032 studies are currently being conducted at 17 clinical institutions throughout the United States. Exclusion Criteria: • In the primary investigator’s (PI) judgement, patients likely to require hospitalization for COVID-19 • Patients who are hospitalized for in-patient treatment or currently being evaluated for potential hospitalization at the time of informed consent for conditions other than COVID-19 • History of chronic lung disease with chronic hypoxia • History of documented cirrhosis or end-stage liver disease • Ongoing requirement for oxygen therapy • Shortness of breath in resting position • Diagnosis of sleep apnea requiring bilevel positive airway pressure (BIPAP)/continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) • Female patients who are pregnant, trying to become pregnant, or lactating • Concurrent use of immunomodulatory agent within 12 months; systemic antibiotics, antifungals, or antivirals for treatment of active infection within 28 days; systemic immunosuppressive therapy within 3 months; or drugs or other compounds that modulate GI motility (eg, stool softeners, laxatives, or fiber supplements) taken currently, or within 7 days. Antacid (histamine 2 blockers and proton pump inhibitors) and antidiarrheal agents are not prohibited • History of GI surgery (6 months prior to randomization), including but not limited to bariatric surgery and bowel resection, or history of, or active GI disease(s) that may affect assessment of tolerability, including but not limited to inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, autoimmune disease, or GI malignancy • Participation in an interventional clinical trial or use of any investigational agent within 30 days before randomization • Clinically significant or uncontrolled concomitant medical condition that would put the patient at risk or jeopardize the objectives of the study in the opinion of the PI • In the opinion of the PI, patient unlikely for any reason to be able to comply with study procedures • Contraindications, sensitivities, or known allergy to the use of the study product or its components INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Patients will be randomized (1,1) to receive either SSC and KB109 or SSC alone. During SSC, patients should follow the steps as instructed by their healthcare provider to care for themselves and protect other people in the home and community from potentially contracting COVID-19. Management of COVID-19-related symptoms with over-the-counter cough, cold, and anti-pyretic medications by patients is permitted in accordance with the medications’ respective drug facts label or as instructed by the patient’s healthcare provider. Following randomization, patients assigned to receive KB109 and SSC will receive a Kaleido Biosciences, Inc at-home study kit including a thermometer, pulse oximeter, and KB109. During the Intake Period (days 1–14), KB109 will be reconstituted in water by the patient and consumed by the patient twice daily (at least 8 hours apart), following an up-titration dosing schedule: Days 1 to 2: 9 g twice daily for a total daily dose of 18 g Days 3 to 4: 18 g twice daily for a total daily dose of 36 g Days 5 to 14: 36 g twice daily for a total daily dose of 72 g During the intake period, patients will record their daily COVID-19–related symptoms, selected COVID-19 signs (as self-measured using the provided thermometer and pulse oximeter), responses to questions related to QOL measures, health care use measures, and concomitant medications taken in the previous 24 hours. Wellness visits by telephone will be conducted between days 1 and 14 to follow up on patient’s health status and to ascertain compliance with KB109 and completion of questions. On day 14, all patients will undergo a telemedicine visit where the following will be conducted: abbreviated physical examination, assessment of safety and other protocol-specified measures of health, and an evaluation of whether follow-up treatment is recommended owing to a progression of COVID-19 symptoms. If feasible, blood samples for clinical chemistries, biomarkers and serological measure of immunity, and nasal/oropharyngeal swabs for quantitative viral load assessments will be collected. Beginning on day 15, patients in both groups will enter the follow-up period (days 15–35) where COVID-19 signs, symptoms, and health care use indices will be collected. Wellness visits by telephone will be conducted on days 21, 28, and 35 to follow-up on the patient’s health status. On day 35, all patients will undergo a telemedicine visit where the same information as the day 14 telemedicine visit will be collected, including any blood samples. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome for the K031 and K032 studies is to evaluate the safety of KB109 in addition to SSC compared with SSC alone in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 by assessing the number of patients experiencing KB109-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) during the study. K031 will also evaluate duration of symptoms among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. This will be as an assessment made during the intake and/or follow-up periods of the following: • Time to resolution of the 13 overall and the 8 cardinal COVID-19–related symptoms from day 1 until the day at which the composite score of the 13 overall and 8 cardinal COVID-19–related symptoms becomes 0 or 1 and remains at 0 or 1 for the rest of the intake period and for the follow-up period • Proportion of patients with a reduction from baseline in each of the 13 overall COVID-19–related symptoms • Proportion of patients in whom symptoms (present at baseline) become absent for each of the 13 overall COVID-19–related symptoms • Change from baseline in the overall composite score of the 13 overall COVID-19–related symptoms and the 8 cardinal COVID-19–related symptoms • Time to resolution of fever (defined as from day 1 until the day at which a patient’s daily maximum temperature achieves and remains below 100.4°F without antipyretic medication) • Proportion of patients with oxygen saturation <95% and <98% on days 14 and 35 • Measures collected from the health care provider wellness visits • Proportion of patients experiencing hospital admissions (all cause and COVID-19–related) • Health care use K032 will evaluate the effect of KB109 in addition to SSC compared with SSC alone on the gut microbiota structure and function in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Before days 1, 14, and 35, microbiota structure (eg, magnitude of change in gut microbiome structure, composition of gut microbiome) will be analysed by methods such as nucleic acid sequencing and gut microbiome function will be analysed via levels of stool inflammatory biomarkers (eg, lipocalin) and gut microbiome metabolites (eg, SCFA). The health of outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 will be evaluated during the intake and follow- up periods by: measures of QOL; measures collected from the healthcare provider wellness visits; the proportion of patients experiencing hospital admissions; health care use, the proportions of patients with oxygen saturation <95% and <98%, and the proportion of patients with temperature below 100.4 °F without an anti-pyretic medication. Potential exploratory outcome measures may include: changes from baseline (day 1) in laboratory measures, specific biomarkers of infection, serology, inflammation (eg, D-dimer, lipocalin, cytokines, IgM/IgG sero-conversion, and neutralization assays), and viral load in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 in the presence and absence of KB109. RANDOMISATION: All patients deemed eligible for the studies will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to KB109 in addition to SSC or SSC alone group using an interactive response technology system. Randomization will be stratified by study site/center, age groups (≥18–<45 years, ≥45–<65 years, ≥65 years), and comorbidity status (yes, no). BLINDING (MASKING): These studies are open-label; therefore, no blinding is necessary. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): K031 will enroll approximately 350 to 400 (175–200 patients per group) whereas K032 will enroll approximately 50 patients (25 per group). STUDY STATUS: K031 protocol version 4, December 9, 2020; recruitment started in August, 2020, and the study is estimated to be completed in March 2021. This study is active and enrollment was completed in January, 2021. K032 protocol version 2, June 30, 2020; recruitment is estimated to start in July, 2020. This study is recruiting and the study is estimated to be completed in March 2021. STUDY REGISTRATION: K031 is registered with the US National Library of Medicine, Identifier NCT04414124 as of June 4, 2020. K032 is registered with the US National Library of Medicine, Identifier NCT04486482 as of July 24, 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocols are attached as additional files (Additional files 1 and 2), accessible from the ClinicalTrials.gov website. In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocols. The study protocols have been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional files 3 and 4). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05157-0.

Trials2021       LitCov and CORD-19
56Repurposing of chlorpromazine in COVID-19 treatment: the reCoVery study  

Abstract OBJECTIVES: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic comprises a total of more than 2 350 000 cases and 160 000 deaths. The interest in anti-coronavirus drug development has been limited so far and effective methods to prevent or treat coronavirus infections in humans are still lacking. Urgent action is needed to fight this fatal coronavirus infection by reducing the number of infected people along with the infection contagiousness and severity. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak several weeks ago, we observe in GHU PARIS Psychiatrie & Neurosciences (Sainte-Anne hospital, Paris, France) a lower prevalence of symptomatic and severe forms of COVID-19 infections in psychiatric patients (∼4 %) compared to health care professionals (∼14 %). Similar observations have been noted in other psychiatric units in France and abroad. Our hypothesis is that psychiatric patients could be protected from the severe form of COVID-19 by their psychotropic treatments. Chlorpromazine (CPZ) is a phenothiazine derivative widely used in clinical routine in the treatment of acute and chronic psychoses. This first antipsychotic medication has been discovered in 1952 by Jean Delay and Pierre Deniker at Sainte-Anne hospital. In addition to its antipsychotic effects, several in vitro studies have also demonstrated a CPZ antiviral activity via the inhibition of clathrin-mediated endocytosis. Recently, independent studies revealed that CPZ is an anti-MERS-CoV and an anti-SARS-CoV-1 drug. In comparison to other antiviral drugs, the main advantages of CPZ lie in its biodistribution: (i) preclinical and clinical studies have reported a high CPZ concentration in the lungs (20--200 times higher than in plasma), which is critical because of the respiratory tropism of SARS-CoV-2; (ii) CPZ is highly concentrated in saliva (20-60 times higher than in plasma) and could therefore reduce the contagiousness of COVID-19; (iii) CPZ can cross the blood-brain barrier and could therefore prevent the neurological forms of COVID-19. METHODS: In this context, we will test the hypothesis that CPZ could decrease the unfavorable evolution of COVID-19 infection in oxygen-requiring patients without the need for intensive care, but also reduce the contagiousness of SARS-CoV-2. At this end, we designed a pilot, phase III, multicenter, single blind, randomized controlled therapeutic trial. Efficacy of CPZ will be assessed according to clinical, biological and radiological criteria. The main objective is to demonstrate a shorter Time To Response (TTR) to treatment in the CPZ + standard-of-care (CPZ + SOC) group, compared to the SOC group. Response to treatment is defined by a reduction of at least one level of severity on the WHO-Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement (WHO-OSCI). The secondary objectives are to demonstrate in the CPZ + SOC group, compared to the SOC group: A) superior clinical improvement; B) a greater decrease in the biological markers of viral attack by SARS-CoV-2 (PCR, viral load); C) a greater decrease in inflammatory markers (e.g. CRP and lymphopenia); D) a greater decrease in parenchymal involvement (chest CT) on the seventh day post-randomization; E) to define the optimal dosage of CPZ and its tolerance; F) to evaluate the biological parameters of response to treatment, in particular the involvement of inflammatory cytokines. Patient recruitment along with the main and secondary objectives are in line with WHO 2020 COVID-19 guidelines. CONCLUSION: This repositioning of CPZ as anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity offers an alternative and rapid strategy to alleviate the virus propagation and the infection severity and lethality. This CPZ repositioning strategy also avoids numerous developmental and experimental steps, can save precious time to rapidly establish an anti-COVID-19 therapy with well-known, limited and easy to manage side effects. Indeed, CPZ is an FDA-approved drug with an excellent tolerance profile, prescribed for around 70 years, in psychiatry but also in clinical routine in nausea and vomiting of pregnancy, in advanced cancer and also to treat headaches in various neurological conditions. The broad spectrum of CPZ treatment - including antipsychotic, anxiolytic, antiemetic, antiviral, immunomodulatory effects along with inhibition of clathrin-mediated endocytosis and modulation of blood-brain barrier - is in line with the historical French commercial name for CPZ, i.e. LARGACTIL, chosen as a reference to its 'LARGe ACTion' properties. The discovery of those CPZ properties, as for many other molecules in psychiatry, is both the result of serendipity and careful clinical observations. Using this approach, the field of mental illness could provide innovative therapeutic approaches to fight SARS-CoV-2.

Encephale2020       LitCov and CORD-19
57Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19  

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death. METHODS: In this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the preliminary results of this comparison. RESULTS: A total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.55). CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936; ISRCTN number, 50189673.)

N Engl J Med2020       LitCov and CORD-19
58Use of Rapid Online Surveys to Assess People's Perceptions During Infectious Disease Outbreaks: A Cross-sectional Survey on COVID-19  

BACKGROUND: Given the extensive time needed to conduct a nationally representative household survey and the commonly low response rate of phone surveys, rapid online surveys may be a promising method to assess and track knowledge and perceptions among the general public during fast-moving infectious disease outbreaks. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to apply rapid online surveying to determine knowledge and perceptions of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among the general public in the United States and the United Kingdom. METHODS: An online questionnaire was administered to 3000 adults residing in the United States and 3000 adults residing in the United Kingdom who had registered with Prolific Academic to participate in online research. Prolific Academic established strata by age (18-27, 28-37, 38-47, 48-57, or ≥58 years), sex (male or female), and ethnicity (white, black or African American, Asian or Asian Indian, mixed, or “other”), as well as all permutations of these strata. The number of participants who could enroll in each of these strata was calculated to reflect the distribution in the US and UK general population. Enrollment into the survey within each stratum was on a first-come, first-served basis. Participants completed the questionnaire between February 23 and March 2, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 2986 and 2988 adults residing in the United States and the United Kingdom, respectively, completed the questionnaire. Of those, 64.4% (1924/2986) of US participants and 51.5% (1540/2988) of UK participants had a tertiary education degree, 67.5% (2015/2986) of US participants had a total household income between US $20,000 and US $99,999, and 74.4% (2223/2988) of UK participants had a total household income between £15,000 and £74,999. US and UK participants’ median estimate for the probability of a fatal disease course among those infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was 5.0% (IQR 2.0%-15.0%) and 3.0% (IQR 2.0%-10.0%), respectively. Participants generally had good knowledge of the main mode of disease transmission and common symptoms of COVID-19. However, a substantial proportion of participants had misconceptions about how to prevent an infection and the recommended care-seeking behavior. For instance, 37.8% (95% CI 36.1%-39.6%) of US participants and 29.7% (95% CI 28.1%-31.4%) of UK participants thought that wearing a common surgical mask was “highly effective” in protecting them from acquiring COVID-19, and 25.6% (95% CI 24.1%-27.2%) of US participants and 29.6% (95% CI 28.0%-31.3%) of UK participants thought it was prudent to refrain from eating at Chinese restaurants. Around half (53.8%, 95% CI 52.1%-55.6%) of US participants and 39.1% (95% CI 37.4%-40.9%) of UK participants thought that children were at an especially high risk of death when infected with SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: The distribution of participants by total household income and education followed approximately that of the US and UK general population. The findings from this online survey could guide information campaigns by public health authorities, clinicians, and the media. More broadly, rapid online surveys could be an important tool in tracking the public’s knowledge and misperceptions during rapidly moving infectious disease outbreaks.

J Med Internet Res2020       LitCov and CORD-19
59Ensuring mental Healthcare during the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in France: A narrative review  

Résumé Objectif: L’absence de préparation du système de soins psychiatriques à l’épidémie de virus SARS-CoV-2 fait redouter fait redouter un scénario pessimiste pour la santé physique et mentale des patients suivis en psychiatrie. L’objectif de cet article est de proposer des éléments de guidance pour réorganiser les soins psychiatriques dans le contexte de pandémie COVID-19. Méthode: Les auteurs ont réalisé une synthèse de la littérature internationale combinée au partage des expériences locales françaises. Résultats: Les patients souffrant de troubles psychiques semblent particulièrement vulnérables à ce virus et à la pandémie : vulnérabilités liées aux comorbidités médicales, à l’âge, aux troubles cognitifs qui peuvent entraver le respect des consignes de confinement, et aux complications psychosociales. Plusieurs initiatives ont été prises pour assurer la continuité des soins et contenir l’épidémie : création en psychiatrie d’unité COVID+ co-supervisée par des médecins généralistes ou internistes, restriction des consultations aux cas sévères et redéploiement des soins en téléconsultation, accompagnement de type case-management pour les sorties précoces ou l’impossibilité d’hospitaliser, accompagnements spécifiques pour les complications psychiques du confinement. Les populations suivies en pédopsychiatrie, en psychiatrie du sujet âgé, en addictologie ou détenues en prison doivent bénéficier d’une attention particulière. Plusieurs questions restent en suspend : la question de l’interaction négative ou positive des traitements sur l’infection SARS-CoV-2, l’épidémiologie de l’infection chez les personnes souffrant de troubles psychiques, leur adaptation à un confinement long. Discussion: Une prise de conscience par les décideurs politiques de la grande vulnérabilité de ces populations et des institutions psychiatriques dans cette situation de catastrophe sanitaire est urgente. Abstract Objective: The lack of ressources and coordination to face the epidemic of coronavirus raises concerns for the health of patients with mental disorders in a country where we keep in memory the dramatic experience of famine in psychiatric hospitals during the Second World War. This article aims at proposing guidance to ensure mental health care during the SARS-CoV epidemy in France. Methods: authors performed a narrative review identifying relevant results in the scientific and medical literature and local initiatives in France. Results: We identified four types of major vulnerabilities in patients suffering from mental disorders during this pandemic: 1) medical comorbidities that are more frequently found in patients suffering from mental disorders (cardiovascular and pulmonary pathologies, diabetes, obesity, etc.) which represent risk factors for severe infections with covid-19; 2) age (the elderly constituting the population most vulnerable to coronavirus); 3) cognitive and behavioral troubles which can hamper compliance with confinement and hygiene measures and finally and 4) psychosocial vulnerability due to stigmatization and/or socio-economic difficulties. Furthermore, the mental health healthcare system is more vulnerable than other healthcare systems. Current government plans are poorly adapted to psychiatric establishments in a context of major shortage of organizational, material and human resources. In addition, a certain number of structural aspects make the psychiatric institution particularly vulnerable: many beds are closed, wards have a high density of patients, mental health community facilities are closed, medical teams are understaffed and poorly trained to face infectious diseases. We could also face major issues in referring patients with acute mental disorders to intensive care units. To maintain continuity of psychiatric care in this pandemic situation, several directions can be considered, in particular with the creation of COVID + units. These units are under the dual supervision of a psychiatrist and of an internist / infectious disease specialist; all new entrants should be placed in quarantine for 14 days; the nurse staff should benefit from specific training, from daily medical check-ups and from close psychological support. Family visits would be prohibited and replaced by videoconference. At the end of hospitalization, in particular for the population of patients in compulsory ambulatory care situations, specific case-management should be organized with the possibility of home visits, in order to support them when they get back home and to help them to cope with the experience of confinement, which is at risk to induce recurrences of mental disorders. The total or partial closure of mental health community facilities is particularly disturbing for patients but a regular follow-up is possible with telemedicine and should include the monitoring of the suicide risk and psychoeducation strategies; developing support platforms could also be very helpful in this context. Private psychiatrists have also a crucial role of information with their patients on confinement and barrier measures, but also on measures to prevent the psychological risks inherent to confinement: maintenance of sleep regularity, physical exercise, social interactions, stress management and coping strategies, prevention of addictions, etc. They should also be trained to prevent, detect and treat early warning symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, because their prevalence was high in the regions of China most affected by the pandemic. Discussion: French mental healthcare is now in a great and urgent need for reorganization and must also prepare in the coming days and weeks to face an epidemic of emotional disorders due to the containment of the general population.

Encephale2020       LitCov and CORD-19
60Identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Canada  

N/A

N Engl J Med2003       CORD-19
61Evaluating the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in severely ill adults with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial  

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in hospitalized adults with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a prospective, single-center, phase 2, randomized, controlled trial that is blinded to participants and clinical outcome assessor. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants include adults (≥ 18 years) with evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR test of nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab within 14 days of randomization, evidence of infiltrates on chest radiography, peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤ 94% on room air, and/or need for supplemental oxygen, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation, who are willing and able to provide written informed consent prior to performing study procedures or who have a legally authorized representative available to do so. Exclusion criteria include participation in another clinical trial of anti-viral agent(s)* for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), receipt of any anti-viral agent(s)* with possible activity against SARS-CoV-2 <24 hours prior to plasma infusion, mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]) for ≥ 5 days, severe multi-organ failure, history of allergic reactions to transfused blood products per NHSN/CDC criteria, known IgA deficiency, and pregnancy. Included participants will be hospitalized at the time of randomization and plasma infusion. *Use of remdesivir as treatment for COVID-19 is permitted. The study will be undertaken at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, USA. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The investigational treatment is anti-SARS-CoV-2 human convalescent plasma. To procure the investigational treatment, volunteers who recovered from COVID-19 will undergo testing to confirm the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody to the spike trimer at a 1:400 dilution. Donors will also be screened for transfusion-transmitted infections (e.g. HIV, HBV, HCV, WNV, HTLV-I/II, T. cruzi, ZIKV). If donors have experienced COVID-19 symptoms within 28 days, they will be screened with a nasopharyngeal swab to confirm they are SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative. Plasma will be collected using standard apheresis technology by the New York Blood Center. Study participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive one unit (200 – 250 mL) of anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma versus one unit (200 – 250 mL) of the earliest available control plasma. The control plasma cannot be tested for presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody prior to the transfusion, but will be tested for anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibody after the transfusion to allow for a retrospective per-protocol analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint is time to clinical improvement. This is defined as time from randomization to either discharge from the hospital or improvement by one point on the following seven-point ordinal scale, whichever occurs first. 1. Not hospitalized with resumption of normal activities 2. Not hospitalized, but unable to resume normal activities 3. Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen 4. Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen 5. Hospitalized, requiring high-flow oxygen therapy or non-invasive mechanical ventilation 6. Hospitalized, requiring ECMO, invasive mechanical ventilation, or both 7. Death This scale, designed to assess clinical status over time, was based on that recommended by the World Health Organization for use in determining efficacy end-points in clinical trials in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A recent clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of lopinavir- ritonavir for patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 used a similar ordinal scale, as have recent clinical trials of novel therapeutics for severe influenza, including a post-hoc analysis of a trial evaluating immune plasma. The primary safety endpoints are cumulative incidence of grade 3 and 4 adverse events and cumulative incidence of serious adverse events during the study period. RANDOMIZATION: Study participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma versus control plasma using a web-based randomization platform. Treatment assignments will be generated using randomly permuted blocks of different sizes to minimize imbalance while also minimizing predictability. BLINDING (MASKING): The study participants and the clinicians who will evaluate post-treatment outcomes will be blinded to group assignment. The blood bank and the clinical research team will not be blinded to group assignment. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): We plan to enroll 129 participants, with 86 in the anti-SARS-CoV-2 arm, and 43 in the control arm. Among the participants, we expect ~70% or n = 72 will achieve clinical improvement. This will yield an 80% power for a one-sided Wald test at 0.15 level of significance under the proportional hazards model with a hazard ratio of 1.5. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol AAAS9924, Version 17APR2020, 4/17/2020 Start of recruitment: April 20, 2020 Recruitment is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04359810 Date of trial registration: April 24, 2020 Retrospectively registered FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Trials2020       LitCov and CORD-19
62Pharmacy Emergency Preparedness and Response (PEPR): a proposed framework for expanding pharmacy professionals' roles and contributions to emergency preparedness and response during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond  

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists have long been involved in public health and emergency preparedness and response (EP&R), including through preventive measures such as screening, vaccinations, testing and pharmaceutical countermeasures, as well as ensuring medication safety and access during natural disasters and pandemics. Pharmacy professionals are considered essential partners in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Community and hospital pharmacies are expanding services and hours to provide essential services, putting pharmacists and their co-workers at the frontlines for patient care and safety to improve public health. In addition, pharmacy professionals are increasingly integrating into global, national, state and local EP&R efforts, including into interprofessional teams, such as Medical Reserve Corps (MRCs). However, lacunae exist for further integration of pharmacists into public health and safety initiatives. There are increasing opportunities and recommendations that should be expanded upon to provide improved patient care and population health intervention, and to ensure healthcare worker and public health safety. OBJECTIVE: Develop a Pharmacy Emergency Preparedness and Response (PEPR) Framework and recommendations for pharmacy professional pathways towards full integration within public health EP&R efforts (such as the COVID-19 pandemic), and enhanced recognition of pharmacists’ skills, roles and contributions as integral members of the interprofessional healthcare team. METHODS: This paper draws on the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) 2003 Statement on the Role of Health-System Pharmacists in Emergency Preparedness and lessons learned from previous and current public health emergencies, such as the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and the current COVID-19 pandemic, to provide expanded guidance for pharmacists and pharmacy professionals across all practice settings in EP&R. The PEPR framework also incorporates information and recommendations from The Pharmacy Organizations’ Joint Policy Recommendations to Combat the COVID-19 Pandemic (March 2020), CDC-NIOSH, Health Departments and Emergency Preparedness guidance and resources, Boards of Pharmacy, and other pharmacy professional organizations and educational institutions. RESULTS: Based on the methods and resources utilized in developing this PEPR framework, five key focus areas were identified as follow: 1).. Emergency preparedness and response; 2).. Operations management; 3).. Patient care and population health interventions; 4).. Public health pharmacy education and continuing professional education; 5).. Evaluation, research and dissemination for impact and outcomes. CONCLUSION: and Recommendations: Pharmacists and pharmacy professionals have been at the frontlines in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, challenges remain, such as limited availability of personal protection equipment, high risk of infectious exposures inherent in healthcare professions, and legislative hurdles resulting in lack of provider status and related reimbursements. Recommendations to enhance pharmacy's scope as public health professionals involved in EP&R include targeted training and education on key framework areas and policymaking. Pharmacy professionals should further integrate with interdisciplinary public health teams. Additional research and dissemination on impacts and outcomes of EP&R can enhance recognition of pharmacy professionals' contribution and value during public health emergencies. The PEPR Framework can be utilized to develop, implement, evaluate, and disseminate results in order to strengthen existing efforts and to establish new initiatives in EP&R.

Res Social Adm Pharm2020       LitCov and CORD-19
63Why COVID-19 Transmission Is More Efficient and Aggressive Than Viral Transmission in Previous Coronavirus Epidemics?  

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is causing a pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The worldwide transmission of COVID-19 from human to human is spreading like wildfire, affecting almost every country in the world. In the past 100 years, the globe did not face a microbial pandemic similar in scale to COVID-19. Taken together, both previous outbreaks of other members of the coronavirus family (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) and middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV)) did not produce even 1% of the global harm already inflicted by COVID-19. There are also four other CoVs capable of infecting humans (HCoVs), which circulate continuously in the human population, but their phenotypes are generally mild, and these HCoVs received relatively little attention. These dramatic differences between infection with HCoVs, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2 raise many questions, such as: Why is COVID-19 transmitted so quickly? Is it due to some specific features of the viral structure? Are there some specific human (host) factors? Are there some environmental factors? The aim of this review is to collect and concisely summarize the possible and logical answers to these questions.

Biomolecules2020       LitCov and CORD-19
64Risk Factors Associated With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Death in Patients With COVID-19 Pneumonia in Wuhan, China  

N/A

JAMA Intern Med2020       LitCov and CORD-19
65COVID-19: a conundrum to decipher  

N/A

Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci2020       LitCov and CORD-19
66Clinical features and short-term outcomes of 144 patients with SARS in the greater Toronto area  

N/A

JAMA2003       CORD-19
67The psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the general population of Saudi Arabia  

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an emerging infection causing a widely spread pandemic of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The current COVID-2019 pandemic is prompting fear of falling sick, dying, helplessness and stigma, urgent and timely understanding of mental health status is needed to help the community. Our investigation designed to survey the general population in Saudi Arabia to assess the degree of psychological impact during the pandemic. METHODS: During the early stage of the outbreak, we conducted an online-based survey using a snowballing sample technique. The surveys collected data about several aspects of participant sociodemographic, knowledge, concerns, psychological impact, and mental health status. We assessed the psychological impact and mental health status using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21). RESULTS: Our survey recruited 1160 respondents of the general public of Saudi Arabia. Of them, 23.6% reported moderate or severe psychological impact of the outbreak, 28.3%,24%, and 22.3% reported moderate to severe depressive, anxiety, and stress symptoms, respectively. Females reported IES-R (B: 5.46, 95% CI: 3.61 to 7.31) and DASS subscales B coefficient ranged from 1.65 to 2.63, along with high-school students, working in the medical field, and poor self-reported health status was significantly associated with a high level of IES-R and DASS scales (p < .05). Experiencing breathing difficulty and dizziness showed a stronger association with higher IES-R and DASS subscales than other somatic symptoms (e.g., headache and fever);(p < .001). Respondents who practiced specific preventative measures (e.g., hand washing, social distancing) demonstrated a protective effect against stress, anxiety, and depression symptoms. Social distancing appeared to be protective on stress and anxiety subscales (B: -1.49, 95% CI: −2.79 to −0.19),(B: -1.53, 95% CI: −2.50 to −0.57),respectively; and hand hygiene on depression subscale (B: -2.43, 95% CI: −4.44 to −0.42). CONCLUSION: Throughout the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in Saudi Arabia, the results showed that nearly one-fourth of the sampled general population experienced moderate to severe psychological impact. Following specific precautionary measures appeared to have a protective effect on the individual's mental health. Our findings can be used to construct psychological interventions directed toward vulnerable populations and to implement public mental health strategies in the early stages of the outbreak.

Compr Psychiatry2020       LitCov and CORD-19
68Pathological findings of COVID-19 associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome  

Lancet Respir Med2020       LitCov and CORD-19
69Antiviral Activity of Type I, II and III Interferons Counterbalances ACE2 Inducibility and Restricts SARS-CoV-2  

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is a recently emerged respiratory coronavirus that has infected >23 million people worldwide with >800,000 deaths. Few COVID-19 therapeutics are available, and the basis for severe infections is poorly understood. Here, we investigated properties of type I (β), II (γ), and III (λ1) interferons (IFNs), potent immune cytokines that are normally produced during infection and that upregulate IFN-stimulated gene (ISG) effectors to limit virus replication. IFNs are already in clinical trials to treat COVID-19. However, recent studies highlight the potential for IFNs to enhance expression of host angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), suggesting that IFN therapy or natural coinfections could exacerbate COVID-19 by upregulating this critical virus entry receptor. Using a cell line model, we found that beta interferon (IFN-β) strongly upregulated expression of canonical antiviral ISGs, as well as ACE2 at the mRNA and cell surface protein levels. Strikingly, IFN-λ1 upregulated antiviral ISGs, but ACE2 mRNA was only marginally elevated and did not lead to detectably increased ACE2 protein at the cell surface. IFN-γ induced the weakest ISG response but clearly enhanced surface expression of ACE2. Importantly, all IFN types inhibited SARS-CoV-2 replication in a dose-dependent manner, and IFN-β and IFN-λ1 exhibited potent antiviral activity in primary human bronchial epithelial cells. Our data imply that type-specific mechanisms or kinetics shape IFN-enhanced ACE2 transcript and cell surface levels but that the antiviral action of IFNs against SARS-CoV-2 counterbalances any proviral effects of ACE2 induction. These insights should aid in evaluating the benefits of specific IFNs, particularly IFN-λ, as repurposed therapeutics.

mBio2020       LitCov and CORD-19
70Towards the development of a vibrant, super-aged society: The future of medicine and society in Japan  

N/A

Geriatr Gerontol Int2021       CORD-19
71Temporal profiles of viral load in posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples and serum antibody responses during infection by SARS-CoV-2: an observational cohort study  

Summary Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes severe community and nosocomial outbreaks. Comprehensive data for serial respiratory viral load and serum antibody responses from patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are not yet available. Nasopharyngeal and throat swabs are usually obtained for serial viral load monitoring of respiratory infections but gathering these specimens can cause discomfort for patients and put health-care workers at risk. We aimed to ascertain the serial respiratory viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in posterior oropharyngeal (deep throat) saliva samples from patients with COVID-19, and serum antibody responses. Methods We did a cohort study at two hospitals in Hong Kong. We included patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. We obtained samples of blood, urine, posterior oropharyngeal saliva, and rectal swabs. Serial viral load was ascertained by reverse transcriptase quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). Antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 internal nucleoprotein (NP) and surface spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) were measured using EIA. Whole-genome sequencing was done to identify possible mutations arising during infection. Findings Between Jan 22, 2020, and Feb 12, 2020, 30 patients were screened for inclusion, of whom 23 were included (median age 62 years [range 37–75]). The median viral load in posterior oropharyngeal saliva or other respiratory specimens at presentation was 5·2 log10 copies per mL (IQR 4·1–7·0). Salivary viral load was highest during the first week after symptom onset and subsequently declined with time (slope −0·15, 95% CI −0·19 to −0·11; R 2=0·71). In one patient, viral RNA was detected 25 days after symptom onset. Older age was correlated with higher viral load (Spearman's ρ=0·48, 95% CI 0·074–0·75; p=0·020). For 16 patients with serum samples available 14 days or longer after symptom onset, rates of seropositivity were 94% for anti-NP IgG (n=15), 88% for anti-NP IgM (n=14), 100% for anti-RBD IgG (n=16), and 94% for anti-RBD IgM (n=15). Anti-SARS-CoV-2-NP or anti-SARS-CoV-2-RBD IgG levels correlated with virus neutralisation titre (R 2>0·9). No genome mutations were detected on serial samples. Interpretation Posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples are a non-invasive specimen more acceptable to patients and health-care workers. Unlike severe acute respiratory syndrome, patients with COVID-19 had the highest viral load near presentation, which could account for the fast-spreading nature of this epidemic. This finding emphasises the importance of stringent infection control and early use of potent antiviral agents, alone or in combination, for high-risk individuals. Serological assay can complement RT-qPCR for diagnosis. Funding Richard and Carol Yu, May Tam Mak Mei Yin, The Shaw Foundation Hong Kong, Michael Tong, Marina Lee, Government Consultancy Service, and Sanming Project of Medicine.

Lancet Infect Dis2020       LitCov and CORD-19
72Testing the efficacy and safety of BIO101, for the prevention of respiratory deterioration, in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (COVA study): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial  

OBJECTIVES: As of December, 1(st), 2020, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2, resulted in more than 1 472 917 deaths worldwide and death toll is still increasing exponentially. Many COVID-19 infected people are asymptomatic or experience moderate symptoms and recover without medical intervention. However, older people and those with comorbid hypertension, diabetes, obesity, or heart disease are at higher risk of mortality. Because current therapeutic options for COVID-19 patients are limited specifically for this elderly population at risk, Biophytis is developing BIO101 (20-hydroxyecdysone, a Mas receptor activator) as a new treatment option for managing patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection at the severe stage. The angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) serves as a receptor for SARS-CoV-2. Interaction between ACE2 and SARS-CoV2 spike protein seems to alter the function of ACE2, a key player in the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). The clinical picture of COVID-19 includes acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), cardiomyopathy, multiorgan dysfunction and shock, all of which might result from an imbalance of the RAS. We propose that RAS balance could be restored in COVID-19 patients through MasR activation downstream of ACE2 activity, with 20-hydroxyecdysone (BIO101) a non-peptidic Mas receptor (MasR) activator. Indeed, MasR activation by 20-hydroxyecdysone harbours anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic, and anti-fibrotic properties. BIO101, a 97% pharmaceutical grade 20-hydroxyecdysone could then offer a new therapeutic option by improving the respiratory function and ultimately promoting survival in COVID-19 patients that develop severe forms of this devastating disease. Therefore, the objective of this COVA study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BIO101, whose active principle is 20-hydroxyecdysone, in COVID-19 patients with severe pneumonia. TRIAL DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centre, group sequential and adaptive which will be conducted in 2 parts. Part 1: Ascertain the safety and tolerability of BIO101 and obtain preliminary indication of the activity of BIO101, in preventing respiratory deterioration in the target population Part 2: Re-assessment of the sample size needed for the confirmatory part 2 and confirmation of the effect of BIO101 observed in part 1 in the target population. The study is designed as group sequential to allow an efficient run-through, from obtaining an early indication of activity to a final confirmation. And adaptive – to allow accumulation of early data and adapt sample size in part 2 in order to inform the final design of the confirmatory part of the trial. PARTICIPANTS: : 1. Age: 45 and above. 2. A confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, within the last 14 days, prior to randomization, as determined by PCR or other approved commercial or public health assay, in a specimen as specified by the test used. 3. Hospitalized, in observation or planned to be hospitalized due to COVID-19 infection symptoms with anticipated hospitalization duration ≥3 days. 4. a. Clinical findings on a physical examination. b. Respiratory symptoms developed within the past 7 days. 5. a. Tachypnea: ≥25 breaths per minute. b. Arterial oxygen saturation ≤92%. c. A special note should be made if there is suspicion of COVID-19-related myocarditis or pericarditis, as the presence of these is a stratification criterion. 6. a. ALT and AST ≤ 5x upper limit of normal (ULN). b. Gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) ≤ 5x ULN. c. Total bilirubin ≤ 5×ULN. 7. Willing to participate and able to sign an informed consent form (ICF). Or, when relevant, a legally authorized representative (LAR) might sign the ICF on behalf of the study participant. 8. : a. Have a negative urine pregnancy test at screening. b. Be willing to use a contraceptive method as outlined in inclusion criterion 9 from screening to 30 days after last dose. 9. Male participants who are sexually active with a female partner must agree to the use of an effective method of birth control throughout the study and until 3 months after the last administration of the investigational product. (Note: medically acceptable methods of contraception that may be used by the participant and/or partner include combined oral contraceptive, contraceptive vaginal ring, contraceptive injection, intrauterine device, etonogestrel implant, each supplemented with a condom, as well as sterilization and vasectomy). 10. Female participants who are lactating must agree not to breastfeed during the study and up to 14 days after the intervention. 11. Male participants must agree not to donate sperm for the purpose of reproduction throughout the study and until 3 months after the last administration of the investigational product. 12. For France only: Being affiliated with a European Social Security. : 1. Not needing or not willing to remain in a healthcare facility during the study. 2. Moribund condition (death likely in days) or not expected to survive for >7 days – due to other and non-COVID-19 related conditions. 3. Participant on invasive mechanical ventilation via an endotracheal tube, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or high-flow Oxygen (delivery of oxygen at a flow of ≥16 L/min.). 4. Participant is not able to take medications by mouth (as capsules or as a powder, mixed in water). 5. Disallowed concomitant medication: Consumption of any herbal products containing 20-hydroxyecdysone and derived from Leuzea carthamoides; Cyanotis vaga or Cyanotis arachnoidea is not allowed (e.g. performance enhancing agents). 6. Any known hypersensitivity to any of the ingredients, or excipients of the study medication, BIO101. 7. Renal disease requiring dialysis, or known renal insufficiency (eGFR≤30 mL/min/1.73 m2, based on Cockcroft & Gault formula). 8. a. Non-affiliation to compulsory French social security scheme (beneficiary or right-holder). b. Being under tutelage or legal guardianship. Participants will be recruited from approximately 30 clinical centres in Belgium, France, the UK, USA and Brazil. Maximum patients’ participation in the study will last 28 days. Follow-up of participants discharged from hospital will be performed through post-intervention phone calls at 14 (± 2) and 60 (± 4) days. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Two treatment arms will be tested in this study: interventional arm 350 mg b.i.d. of BIO101 (AP 20-hydroxyecdysone) and placebo comparator arm 350 mg b.i.d of placebo. Administration of daily dose is the same throughout the whole treatment period. Participants will receive the study medication while hospitalized for up to 28 days or until a clinical endpoint is reached (i.e., ‘negative’ or ‘positive’ event). Participants who are officially discharged from hospital care will no longer receive study medication. MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary study endpoint: The proportion of participants with ‘negative’ events up to 28 days. Requiring mechanical ventilation (including cases that will not be intubated due to resource restrictions and triage). Requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Requiring high-flow oxygen defined as delivery of oxygen at a flow of ≥16 L/min. Only if the primary endpoint is significant at the primary final analysis the following Proportion of participants with events of respiratory failure at Day 28. Proportion of participants with ‘positive’ events at Day 28. Proportion of participants with events of all-cause mortality at Day 28. A ‘positive’ event is defined as the official discharge from hospital care by the department due to improvement in participant condition. Secondary and exploratory endpoints: In addition, a variety of functional measures and biomarkers (including the SpO2 / FiO2 ratio, viral load and markers related to inflammation, muscles, tissue and the RAS / MAS pathways) will also be collected. RANDOMIZATION: In part 1, randomization will be stratified by RAS pathway modulator use (yes/no) and co-morbidities (none vs. 1 and above). In Part 2, randomization will be stratified by centre, gender, RAS pathway modulator use (yes/no), co-morbidities (none vs. 1 and above), receiving Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/Bi-level Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP/BiPAP) at study entry (Yes/No) and suspicion of COVID-19 related myocarditis or pericarditis (present or not). BLINDING (MASKING): Participants, caregivers, and the study team assessing the outcomes are blinded to group assignment. All therapeutic units (TU), BIO101 b.i.d. or placebo b.i.d., cannot be distinguished in compliance with the double-blind process. An independent data-monitoring committee (DMC) will conduct 2 interim analyses. A first one based on the data from part 1 and a second from the data from parts 1 and 2. The first will inform about BIO101 safety, to allow the start of recruitment into part 2 followed by an analysis of the efficacy data, to obtain an indication of activity. The second interim analysis will inform about the sample size that will be required for part 2, in order to achieve adequate statistical power. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) : Part 1: 50 (to obtain the proof of concept in COVID-19 patients). Part 2: 310, potentially increased by 50% (up to 465, based on interim analysis 2) (to confirm the effects of BIO101 observed in part 1). TRIAL STATUS: The current protocol Version is V 10.0, dated on 24.09.2020. The recruitment that started on September 1(st) 2020 is ongoing and is anticipated to finish for the whole study by March2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered before trial start in trial registries: EudraCT, No. 2020-001498-63, registered May 18, 2020; and Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT04472728, registered July 15, 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-020-04998-5.

Trials2021       LitCov and CORD-19
73Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical education: Medical students' knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding electronic learning  

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused an unprecedented disruption in medical education and healthcare systems worldwide. The disease can cause life-threatening conditions and it presents challenges for medical education, as instructors must deliver lectures safely, while ensuring the integrity and continuity of the medical education process. It is therefore important to assess the usability of online learning methods, and to determine their feasibility and adequacy for medical students. We aimed to provide an overview of the situation experienced by medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to determine the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of medical students regarding electronic medical education. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with medical students from more than 13 medical schools in Libya. A paper-based and online survey was conducted using email and social media. The survey requested demographic and socioeconomic information, as well as information related to medical online learning and electronic devices; medical education status during the COVID-19 pandemic; mental health assessments; and e-learning knowledge, attitudes, and practices. A total of 3,348 valid questionnaires were retrieved. Most respondents (64.7%) disagreed that e-learning could be implemented easily in Libya. While 54.1% of the respondents agreed that interactive discussion is achievable by means of e-learning. However, only 21.1% agreed that e-learning could be used for clinical aspects, as compared with 54.8% who disagreed with this statement and 24% who were neutral. Only 27.7% of the respondents had participated in online medical educational programs during the COVID-19 pandemic, while 65% reported using the internet for participating in study groups and discussions. There is no vaccine for COVID-19 yet. As such, the pandemic will undeniably continue to disrupt medical education and training. As we face the prospect of a second wave of virus transmission, we must take certain measures and make changes to minimize the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak on medical education and on the progression of training. The time for change is now, and there should be support and enthusiasm for providing valid solutions to reduce this disruption, such as online training and virtual clinical experience. These measures could then be followed by hands-on experience that is provided in a safe environment.

PLoS One2020       LitCov and CORD-19
74An interactive web-based dashboard to track COVID-19 in real time  

Lancet Infect Dis2020       LitCov and CORD-19
75Perceptions of medical students towards online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national cross-sectional survey of 2721 UK medical students  

OBJECTIVES: To investigate perceptions of medical students on the role of online teaching in facilitating medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, online national survey. SETTING: Responses collected online from 4(th) May 2020 to 11(th) May 2020 across 40 UK medical schools. PARTICIPANTS: Medical students across all years from UK-registered medical schools. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The uses, experiences, perceived benefits and barriers of online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: 2721 medical students across 39 medical schools responded. Medical schools adapted to the pandemic in different ways. The changes included the development of new distance-learning platforms on which content was released, remote delivery of lectures using platforms and the use of question banks and other online active recall resources. A significant difference was found between time spent on online platforms before and during COVID-19, with 7.35% students before versus 23.56% students during the pandemic spending >15 hours per week (p<0.05). The greatest perceived benefits of online teaching platforms included their flexibility. Whereas the commonly perceived barriers to using online teaching platforms included family distraction (26.76%) and poor internet connection (21.53%). CONCLUSIONS: Online teaching has enabled the continuation of medical education during these unprecedented times. Moving forward from this pandemic, in order to maximise the benefits of both face-to-face and online teaching and to improve the efficacy of medical education in the future, we suggest medical schools resort to teaching formats such as team-based/problem-based learning. This uses online teaching platforms allowing students to digest information in their own time but also allows students to then constructively discuss this material with peers. It has also been shown to be effective in terms of achieving learning outcomes. Beyond COVID-19, we anticipate further incorporation of online teaching methods within traditional medical education. This may accompany the observed shift in medical practice towards virtual consultations.

BMJ Open2020       LitCov and CORD-19
76Cohort of Four Thousand Four Hundred Four Persons Under Investigation for COVID-19 in a New York Hospital and Predictors of ICU Care and Ventilation  

ABSTRACT Study objective Most COVID-19 reports have focused on SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. However, at the time of initial presentation, most patients’ viral status is unknown. Determination of factors that predict initial and subsequent need for intensive care (ICU) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are critical for resource planning and allocation. We describe our experience with 4,404 persons under investigation (PUI) and explore predictors of ICU care and IMV at a NY COVID-19 epicenter. Methods We conducted a retrospective COHORT of all persons under investigation (PUI) presenting to a large academic medical center emergency department (ED) in NYS with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19. The association between patient predictor variables and SARS-CoV-2 status, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and mortality were explored with univariate and multivariate analyses. Results Between March 12-April 14, 2020 we saw 4,404 PUI patients of whom 68% were discharged home, 29% were admitted to a regular floor and 3% to an ICU. 1,651 of 3,369 patients tested were SARS-CoV-2 positive to date. Of regular floor admits, 13% were subsequently upgraded to the ICU after a median (IQR) of 62 (28-106) hrs. 50 patients required IMV in the ED, 4 required prehospital IMV, and another 167 subsequently required IMV in a median (IQR) of 60 (26-99) hours after admission. Testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and lower oxygen saturations were associated with need for ICU, IMV and death. High respiratory rates were associated with the need for ICU care. Conclusions PUI for COVID-19 contribute significantly to the healthcare burden beyond those ruling in for SARS-CoV-2. For every 100 admitted PUI, 9 will require ICU and/or IMV upon arrival and another 12 within 2-3 days of hospital admission, especially PUIs with lower oxygen saturations and positive SARS-CoV-2 swabs. This information should help hospitals stay ahead of the pandemic curve.

Ann Emerg Med2020       LitCov and CORD-19
77Transmission dynamics and control of severe acute respiratory syndrome  

N/A

Science2003       CORD-19
78A prospective, randomized, single-blinded, crossover trial to investigate the effect of a wearable device in addition to a daily symptom diary for the Remote Early Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections (COVID-RED): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial  

OBJECTIVES: It is currently thought that most—but not all—individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop symptoms, but the infectious period starts on average 2 days before the first overt symptoms appear. It is estimated that pre- and asymptomatic individuals are responsible for more than half of all transmissions. By detecting infected individuals before they have overt symptoms, wearable devices could potentially and significantly reduce the proportion of transmissions by pre-symptomatic individuals. Using laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections (detected via serology tests [to determine if there are antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 in the blood] or SARS-CoV-2 infection tests such as polymerase chain reaction [PCR] or antigen tests) as the gold standard, we will determine the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for the following two algorithms to detect first time SARS-CoV-2 infection including early or asymptomatic infection: • The algorithm using Ava bracelet data when coupled with self-reported Daily Symptom Diary data (Wearable + Symptom Data Algo; experimental condition) • The algorithm using self-reported Daily Symptom Diary data alone (Symptom Only Algo; control condition) In addition, we will determine which of the two algorithms has superior performance characteristics for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection including early or asymptomatic infection as confirmed by SARS-CoV-2 virus testing. TRIAL DESIGN: The trial is a randomized, single-blinded, two-period, two-sequence crossover trial. The study will start with an initial learning phase (maximum of 3 months), followed by period 1 (3 months) and period 2 (3 months). Subjects entering the study at the end of the recruitment period may directly start with period 1 and will not be part of the learning phase. Each subject will undergo the experimental condition (the Wearable + Symptom Data Algo) in either period 1 or period 2 and the control condition (Symptom Only Algo) in the other period. The order will be randomly assigned, resulting in subjects being allocated 1:1 to either sequence 1 (experimental condition first) or sequence 2 (control condition first). Based on demographics, medical history and/or profession, each subject will be stratified at baseline into a high-risk and normal-risk group within each sequence. PARTICIPANTS: The trial will be conducted in the Netherlands. A target of 20,000 subjects will be enrolled. Based on demographics, medical history and/or profession, each subject will be stratified at baseline into a high-risk and normal-risk group within each sequence. This results in approximately 6500 normal-risk individuals and 3500 high-risk individuals per sequence. Subjects will be recruited from previously studied cohorts as well as via public campaigns and social media. All data for this study will be collected remotely through the Ava COVID-RED app, the Ava bracelet, surveys in the COVID-RED web portal and self-sampling serology and PCR kits. More information on the study can be found in www.covid-red.eu. During recruitment, subjects will be invited to visit the COVID-RED web portal. After successfully completing the enrolment questionnaire, meeting eligibility criteria and indicating interest in joining the study, subjects will receive the subject information sheet and informed consent form. Subjects can enrol in COVID-RED if they comply with the following inclusion and exclusion criteria: Inclusion criteria: • Resident of the Netherlands • At least 18 years old • Informed consent provided (electronic) • Willing to adhere to the study procedures described in the protocol • Must have a smartphone that runs at least Android 8.0 or iOS 13.0 operating systems and is active for the duration of the study (in the case of a change of mobile number, the study team should be notified) • Be able to read, understand and write Dutch Exclusion criteria: • Previous positive SARS-CoV-2 test result (confirmed either through PCR/antigen or antibody tests; self-reported) • Current suspected (e.g. waiting for test result) COVID-19 infection or symptoms of a COVID-19 infection (self-reported) • Participating in any other COVID-19 clinical drug, vaccine or medical device trial (self-reported) • Electronic implanted device (such as a pacemaker; self-reported) • Pregnant at the time of informed consent (self-reported) • Suffering from cholinergic urticaria (per the Ava bracelet’s user manual; self-reported) • Staff involved in the management or conduct of this study INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: All subjects will be instructed to complete the Daily Symptom Diary in the Ava COVID-RED app daily, wear their Ava bracelet each night and synchronize it with the app each day for the entire period of study participation. Provided with wearable sensor and/or self-reported symptom data within the last 24 h, the Ava COVID-RED app’s underlying algorithms will provide subjects with a real-time indicator of their overall health and well-being. Subjects will see one of three messages, notifying them that no seeming deviations in symptoms and/or physiological parameters have been detected; some changes in symptoms and/or physiological parameters have been detected and they should self-isolate; or alerting them that deviations in their symptoms and/or physiological parameters could be suggestive of a potential COVID-19 infection and to seek additional testing. We will assess the intraperson performance of the algorithms in the experimental condition (Wearable + Symptom Data Algo) and control conditions (Symptom Only Algo). Note that both algorithms will also instruct to seek testing when any SARS-CoV-2 symptoms are reported in line with those defined by the Dutch national institute for public health and the environment ‘Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu’ (RIVM) guidelines. MAIN OUTCOMES: The trial will evaluate the use and performance of the Ava COVID-RED app and Ava bracelet, which uses sensors to measure breathing rate, pulse rate, skin temperature and heart rate variability for the purpose of early and asymptomatic detection and monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 in general and high-risk populations. Using laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections (detected via serology tests, PCR tests and/or antigen tests) as the gold standard, we will determine the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for each of the following two algorithms to detect first-time SARS-CoV-2 infection including early or asymptomatic infection: the algorithm using Ava bracelet data when coupled with the self-reported Daily Symptom Diary data and the algorithm using self-reported Daily Symptom Diary data alone. In addition, we will determine which of the two algorithms has superior performance characteristics for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection including early or asymptomatic infection as confirmed by SARS-CoV-2 virus testing. The protocol contains an additional twenty secondary and exploratory objectives which address, among others, infection incidence rates, health resource utilization, symptoms reported by SARS-CoV-2-infected participants and the rate of breakthrough and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections among individuals vaccinated against COVID-19. PCR or antigen testing will occur when the subject receives a notification from the algorithm to seek additional testing. Subjects will be advised to get tested via the national testing programme and report the testing result in the Ava COVID-RED app and a survey. If they cannot obtain a test via the national testing programme, they will receive a nasal swab self-sampling kit at home, and the sample will be tested by PCR in a trial-affiliated laboratory. In addition, all subjects will be asked to take a capillary blood sample at home at baseline (between month 0 and 3.5 months after the start of subject recruitment), at the end of the learning phase (month 3; note that this sampling moment is skipped if a subject entered the study at the end of the recruitment period), period 1 (month 6) and period 2 (month 9). These samples will be used for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody testing in a trial-affiliated laboratory, differentiating between antibodies resulting from a natural infection and antibodies resulting from COVID-19 vaccination (as vaccination will gradually be rolled out during the trial period). Baseline samples will only be analysed if the sample collected at the end of the learning phase is positive, or if the subject entered the study at the end of the recruitment period, and samples collected at the end of period 1 will only be analysed if the sample collected at the end of period 2 is positive. When subjects obtain a positive PCR/antigen or serology test result during the study, they will continue to be in the study but will be moved into a so-called COVID-positive mode in the Ava COVID-RED app. This means that they will no longer receive recommendations from the algorithms but can still contribute and track symptom and bracelet data. The primary analysis of the main objective will be executed using the data collected in period 2 (months 6 through 9). Within this period, serology tests (before and after period 2) and PCR/antigen tests (taken based on recommendations by the algorithms) will be used to determine if a subject was infected with SARS-CoV-2 or not. Within this same time period, it will be determined if the algorithms gave any recommendations for testing. The agreement between these quantities will be used to evaluate the performance of the algorithms and how these compare between the study conditions. RANDOMIZATION: All eligible subjects will be randomized using a stratified block randomization approach with an allocation ratio of 1:1 to one of two sequences (experimental condition followed by control condition or control condition followed by experimental condition). Based on demographics, medical history and/or profession, each subject will be stratified at baseline into a high-risk and normal-risk group within each sequence, resulting in approximately equal numbers of high-risk and normal-risk individuals between the sequences. BLINDING (MASKING): In this study, subjects will be blinded to the study condition and randomization sequence. Relevant study staff and the device manufacturer will be aware of the assigned sequence. The subject will wear the Ava bracelet and complete the Daily Symptom Diary in the Ava COVID-RED app for the full duration of the study, and they will not know if the feedback they receive about their potential infection status will only be based on the data they entered in the Daily Symptom Diary within the Ava COVID-RED app or based on both the data from the Daily Symptom Diary and the Ava bracelet. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total of 20,000 subjects will be recruited and randomized 1:1 to either sequence 1 (experimental condition followed by control condition) or sequence 2 (control condition followed by experimental condition), taking into account their risk level. This results in approximately 6500 normal-risk and 3500 high-risk individuals per sequence. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version: 3.0, dated May 3, 2021. Start of recruitment: February 19, 2021. End of recruitment: June 3, 2021. End of follow-up (estimated): November 2021 TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands Trial Register on the 18(th) of February, 2021 with number NL9320 (https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/9320) FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05643-5.

Trials2021       LitCov and CORD-19
79Mental Health Burden in Different Professions During the Final Stage of the COVID-19 Lockdown in China: Cross-sectional Survey Study  

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 resulted in considerable mental health burden in the Chinese general population and among health care workers at the beginning and peak of the pandemic. However, little is known about potentially vulnerable groups during the final stage of the lockdown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this survey study was to assess the mental health burden of different professions in China in order to find vulnerable groups, possible influencing factors, and successful ways of coping during the last 4 weeks of the lockdown in Hubei Province. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey asked participants about current residence, daily working hours, exposure to COVID-19 at work, and media preferences. We used a shortened version of the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) to assess mental health. Further assessments included perceived stress (Simplified Chinese version of the 14-item Perceived Stress Scale), coping strategies for all participants, and specific stressors for health care workers. We followed the reporting guidelines of the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement for observational studies. RESULTS: The sample (N=687) consisted of 158 doctors, 221 nurses, 24 other medical staff, 43 students, 60 teachers/government staff, 135 economy staff, 26 workers/farmers, and 20 professions designated under the “other” category. We found increased depression (n=123, 17.9%), anxiety (n=208, 30.3%), and stress (n=94, 13.7%) in our sample. Professions that were vulnerable to depression were other medical staff and students. Doctors, nurses, and students were vulnerable to anxiety; and other medical staff, students, and economy staff were vulnerable to stress. Coping strategies were reduced to three factors: active, mental, and emotional. Being female and emotional coping were independently associated with depression, anxiety, or stress. Applying active coping strategies showed lower odds for anxiety while mental coping strategies showed lower odds for depression, anxiety, and stress. Age, being inside a lockdown area, exposure to COVID-19 at work, and having a high workload (8-12 hours per day) were not associated with depression, anxiety, or stress. WeChat was the preferred way of staying informed across all groups. CONCLUSIONS: By the end of the lockdown, a considerable part of the Chinese population showed increased levels of depression and anxiety. Students and other medical staff were the most affected, while economy staff were highly stressed. Doctors and nurses need support regarding potential anxiety disorders. Future work should focus on longitudinal results of the pandemic and develop targeted preventive measures.

J Med Internet Res2020       LitCov and CORD-19
80Antigenic relationships among the coronaviruses of man and between human and animal coronaviruses  

N/A

J Immunol1969       CORD-19
81Bats are natural reservoirs of SARS-like coronaviruses  

N/A

Science2005       CORD-19
82A newly discovered human pneumovirus isolated from young children with respiratory tract disease  

From 28 young children in the Netherlands, we isolated a paramyxovirus that was identified as a tentative new member of the Metapneumovirus genus based on virological data, sequence homology and gene constellation. Previously, avian pneumovirus was the sole member of this recently assigned genus, hence the provisional name for the newly discovered virus: human metapneumovirus. The clinical symptoms of the children from whom the virus was isolated were similar to those caused by human respiratory syncytial virus infection, ranging from upper respiratory tract disease to severe bronchiolitis and pneumonia. Serological studies showed that by the age of five years, virtually all children in the Netherlands have been exposed to human metapneumovirus and that the virus has been circulating in humans for at least 50 years.

Nat Med2001       CORD-19
83Video calls for reducing social isolation and loneliness in older people: a rapid review  

N/A

Cochrane Database Syst Rev2020       LitCov and CORD-19
84Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19  

N/A

Cochrane Database Syst Rev2020       LitCov and CORD-19
85Return-to-work, disabilities and occupational health in the age of COVID-19  

We have read with great interest the two editorials by Burdorf et al: The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective (1) and The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health (2). The authors highlight the importance of the societal consequences of the outbreak and changes in the world of work to manage occupational health. The key points identified - such as individual socio-economic factors, psychological effects and occupations with highest risk of contamination - modify return-to-work approaches. It is estimated that around 800 million people of working age worldwide were living with disabilities before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In early January 2021, the cumulative COVID-19 hospitalisation rate reached 207.4/100 000 (18-49-year-olds) and 505.7/100 000 (50-64-year-olds), respectively, in the United States (3). In France, the hospitalisation rate was 411.5/100 000 across all ages (4). A recent cohort study of working-age men who were hospitalised for COVID-19 highlighted the long-term health consequences of such a disease (5). The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic creates new challenges for occupational health, shifting attention away from return-to-work after health problems to resuming work during an outbreak, dealing with lockdown, and taking special account of workers with vulnerabilities (6, 7). We recommend considering three different aspects of occupational medicine during a pandemic. Firstly, for most workers at high-risk of severe COVID-19, the issues of work disability and resuming work had never occurred before the epidemic. Recommendations such as physical and social distancing and wearing a facemask are highly advisable to protect against infection but may not be enough to enable some individuals to resume work. Therefore, decision-making requires individual comprehensive assessments of the underlying medical condition, the SARS-CoV-2 contamination risk associated with either regular work or teleworking, and vaccination opportunities. The second situation concerns workers who have suffered from COVID-19. Preliminary studies suggest that long recovery duration is related to high severity (7), but this is still a matter of debate for patients suffering from long COVID-19 (5, 8, 9), a condition for which the long-term effects remain unknown. Any long-running recovery must be considered to be a potential sign of long COVID-19. These long-lasting syndromes occur among patients with severe symptoms but have also been reported independently of acute phase severity, hospitalisation and receiving medical oxygen (8, 9). Researchers worldwide are currently investigating such syndromes. Strategies promoting return to work for these workers will need to be implemented and could be similar to programmes developed for other chronic conditions. Moreover, numerous more serious sequelae following critical illness suggest the need for enhanced support by rehabilitation and occupational health specialists. Finally, the consequences of the epidemic must be evaluated over time for people who suffered from functional limitations before COVID-19 as their physical and mental condition may be modified by the epidemic and, specifically, the consequences of lockdown (10). In all of these situations, medical, social, financial and working contexts are key elements. In addition to a medical assessment, the use of scales such as the Work Ability Index (WAI) (11) or the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) (12) can help perform long-term follow-up and provide information about work capacity and workload. It also gives a back to basics perspective, urging politicians to move towards a `decent-work-for-all` policy, as advocated by the United Nation`s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8, which the WHO has endorsed (13). References 1. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective. Scand J Work Environ Health - online first. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3956 2. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2020;46(3):229-230. https://doi:org/10.5271/sjweh.3893. 3. COVID-19 Hospitalizations [Internet]. Available from: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html 4. COVID-19 in France, vaccine and allergy management in occupational setting. Descatha A et al. Arch Mal Prof Environ 2021. Accepted for publication. 5. Huang C, Huang L, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Gu X, et al. 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study. Lancet 2021;397(10270):220-32 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32656-8 6. Shaw WS, Main CJ, Findley PA, Collie A, Kristman VL, Gross DP. Opening the Workplace After COVID-19: What Lessons Can be Learned from Return-to-Work Research? J Occup Rehabil. 2020;30(3):299-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09908-9 7. Taylor T, Das R, Mueller K, Pransky G, Christian J, Orford R, et al. Safely Returning America to Work: Part I: General Guidance for Employers. J Occup Environ Med. 2020;62(9):771-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001984 8. Carfì A, Bernabei R, Landi F, Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group. Persistent Symptoms in Patients After Acute COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(6):603-5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12603 9. Tenforde MW, Kim SS, Lindsell CJ, Billig Rose E, Shapiro NI, Files DC, et al. Symptom Duration and Risk Factors for Delayed Return to Usual Health Among Outpatients with COVID-19 in a Multistate Health Care Systems Network - United States, March-June 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly. 2020;69(30):993-8. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6930e1 10. Chudasama YV, Gillies CL, Zaccardi F, Coles B, Davies MJ, Seidu S, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on routine care for chronic diseases: A global survey of views from healthcare professionals. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020;14(5):965-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2020.06.042 11. Tuomi K. Eleven-year follow-up of aging workers. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997;23(1):1-71. 12. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. PharmacoEconomics. 1993;4(5):353-65. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006 13. Organization WH. Health in the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Sixty-Ninth World Health Assembly. Document A. 2016, p69.

Scand J Work Environ Health2021       LitCov and CORD-19
86Ensuring mental Healthcare during the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in France: A narrative review  

Abstract Objective: The lack of resources and coordination to face the coronavirus epidemic raises concerns for the health of patients with mental disorders in a country where we still have memories of the dramatic experience of famine in psychiatric hospitals during the Second World War. This article aims to propose guidance to ensure mental health care during the SARS-CoV epidemic in France. Methods: The authors performed a narrative review identifying relevant results in the scientific and medical literature and in local initiatives in France. Results: We identified four types of major vulnerabilities among patients with mental disorders during this pandemic: 1) medical comorbidities that are more frequently found among patients with mental disorders (cardiovascular and pulmonary pathologies, diabetes, obesity, etc.) which are risk factors for severe covid-19 infection; 2) age (the elderly form the population most vulnerable to the coronavirus); 3) cognitive and behavioural disorders, which can hamper compliance with confinement and hygiene measures and finally and 4) psychosocial vulnerability as a result of stigmatization and/or socio-economic difficulties. Furthermore, the mental health healthcare system is more vulnerable than other healthcare systems. Current government plans are poorly suited to psychiatric establishments in a context of major shortages of organizational, material and human resources. In addition, a certain number of structural aspects make the psychiatric institution particularly vulnerable: many beds have been closed, wards have high densities of patients, mental health community facilities are closed, and medical teams are understaffed and poorly trained to face infectious diseases. There are also major issues when referring patients with acute mental disorders to intensive care units. To maintain the continuity of psychiatric care in this pandemic situation, several directions can be considered, in particular with the creation of COVID+ units. These units are under the dual supervision of a psychiatrist and an internist / infectious disease specialist; all new entrants are placed in quarantine for 14 days; the nursing staff receives specific training, daily medical check-ups and close psychological support. Family visits are prohibited and replaced by videoconference. At the end of hospitalization, in particular for the population of patients in compulsory ambulatory care situations, specific case-management are organized with the possibility of home visits, in order to support patients when they get back home and to help them cope with the experience of confinement, which is liable to induce recurrences of mental disorders. The total or partial closure of community mental health facilities is particularly disturbing for patients, but a regular follow-up is possible with telemedicine and should include the monitoring of suicide risk and psycho-education strategies; developing support platforms could also be very helpful in this context. Private practice psychiatrists also have a crucial role of information towards their patients on confinement and barrier measures, and also on measures to prevent the psychological risks inherent in confinement: maintenance of regular sleep r, physical exercise, social interactions, stress management and coping strategies, prevention of addictions, etc. They should also be trained to prevent, detect and treat early warning symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, because their prevalence was high in the regions of China most affected by the pandemic. Discussion: French mental healthcare is now facing a great and urgent need for reorganization and must also prepare in the coming days and weeks to face an epidemic of emotional disorders due to the confinement of the general population.

Encephale2020       LitCov and CORD-19
87Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of four different strategies for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance in the general population (CoV-Surv Study): a structured summary of a study protocol for a cluster-randomised, two-factorial controlled trial  

OBJECTIVES: In this cluster-randomised controlled study (CoV-Surv Study), four different “active” SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies for general population surveillance are evaluated for their effectiveness in determining and predicting the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in a given population. In addition, the costs and cost-effectiveness of the four surveillance strategies will be assessed. Further, this trial is supplemented by a qualitative component to determine the acceptability of each strategy. Findings will inform the choice of the most effective, acceptable and affordable strategy for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance, with the most effective and cost-effective strategy becoming part of the local public health department’s current routine health surveillance activities. Investigating its everyday performance will allow us to examine the strategy’s applicability to real time prevalence prediction and the usefulness of the resulting information for local policy makers to implement countermeasures that effectively prevent future nationwide lockdowns. The authors would like to emphasize the importance and relevance of this study and its expected findings in the context of population-based disease surveillance, especially in respect to the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In Germany, but also in many other countries, COVID-19 surveillance has so far largely relied on passive surveillance strategies that identify individuals with clinical symptoms, monitor those cases who then tested positive for the virus, followed by tracing of individuals in close contact to those positive cases. To achieve higher effectiveness in population surveillance and to reliably predict the course of an outbreak, screening and monitoring of infected individuals without major symptoms (about 40% of the population) will be necessary. While current testing capacities are also used to identify such asymptomatic cases, this rather passive approach is not suitable in generating reliable population-based estimates of the prevalence of asymptomatic carriers to allow any dependable predictions on the course of the pandemic. To better control and manage the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, current strategies therefore need to be complemented by an active surveillance of the wider population, i.e. routinely conducted testing and monitoring activities to identify and isolate infected individuals regardless of their clinical symptoms. Such active surveillance strategies will enable more effective prevention of the spread of the virus as they can generate more precise population-based parameters during a pandemic. This essential information will be required in order to determine the best strategic and targeted short-term countermeasures to limit infection spread locally. TRIAL DESIGN: This trial implements a cluster-randomised, two-factorial controlled, prospective, interventional, single-blinded design with four study arms, each representing a different SARS-CoV-2 testing and surveillance strategy. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible are individuals age 7 years or older living in Germany’s Rhein-Neckar Region who consent to provide a saliva sample (all four arms) after completion of a brief questionnaire (two arms only). For the qualitative component, different samples of study participants and non-participants (i.e. eligible for study, but refuse to participate) will be identified for additional interviews. For these interviews, only individuals age 18 years or older are eligible. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Of the four surveillance strategies to be assessed and compared, Strategy A1 is considered the gold standard for prevalence estimation and used to determine bias in other arms. To determine the cost-effectiveness, each strategy is compared to status quo, defined as the currently practiced passive surveillance approach. Strategy A1: Individuals (one per household) receive information and study material by mail with instructions on how to produce a saliva sample and how to return the sample by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the sample is tested for SARS-CoV-2 using Reverse Transcription Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification (RT-LAMP). Strategy A2: Individuals (one per household) receive information and study material by mail with instructions on how to produce their own as well as saliva samples from each household member and how to return these samples by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the samples are tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-LAMP. Strategy B1: Individuals (one per household) receive information by mail on how to complete a brief pre-screening questionnaire which asks about COVID-19 related clinical symptoms and risk exposures. Only individuals whose pre-screening score crosses a defined threshold, will then receive additional study material by mail with instructions on how to produce a saliva sample and how to return the sample by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the saliva sample is tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-LAMP. Strategy B2: Individuals (one per household) receive information by mail on how to complete a brief pre-screening questionnaire which asks about COVID-19 related clinical symptoms. Only individuals whose pre-screening score crosses a defined threshold, will then receive additional study material by mail with instructions how to produce their own as well as saliva samples from each household member and how to return these samples by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the samples are tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-LAMP. In each strategy, RT-LAMP positive samples are additionally analyzed with qPCR in order to minimize the number of false positives. MAIN OUTCOMES: The identification of the one best strategy will be determined by a set of parameters. Primary outcomes include costs per correctly screened person, costs per positive case, positive detection rate, and precision of positive detection rate. Secondary outcomes include participation rate, costs per asymptomatic case, prevalence estimates, number of asymptomatic cases per study arm, ratio of symptomatic to asymptomatic cases per study arm, participant satisfaction. Additional study components (not part of the trial) include cost effectiveness of each of the four surveillance strategies compared to passive monitoring (i.e. status quo), development of a prognostic model to predict hospital utilization caused by SARS-CoV-2, time from test shipment to test application and time from test shipment to test result, and perception and preferences of the persons to be tested with regard to test strategies. RANDOMISATION: Samples are drawn in three batches of three continuous weeks. Randomisation follows a two-stage process. First, a total of 220 sampling points have been allocated to the three different batches. To obtain an integer solution, the Cox-algorithm for controlled rounding has been used. Afterwards, sample points have been drawn separately per batch, following a probability proportional to size (PPS) random sample. Second, for each cluster the same number of residential addresses is randomly sampled from the municipal registries (self-weighted sample of individuals). The 28,125 addresses drawn per municipality are then randomly allocated to the four study arms A1, A2, B1, and B2 in the ratio 5 to 2.5 to 14 to 7 based on the expected response rates in each arm and the sensitivity and specificity of the pre-screening tool as applied in strategy B1 and B2. Based on the assumptions, this allocation should yield 2500 saliva samples in each strategy. Although a municipality can be sampled by multiple batches and the overall number of addresses per municipality might vary, the number of addresses contacted in each arm is kept constant. BLINDING (MASKING): The design is single-blinded, meaning the staff conducting the SARS-CoV-2 tests are unaware of the study arm assignment of each single participant and test sample. SAMPLE SIZES: Total sample size for the trial is 10,000 saliva samples equally allocated to the four study arms (i.e. 2,500 participants per arm). For the qualitative component, up to 60 in-depth interviews will be conducted with about 30 study participants (up to 15 in each arm A and B) and 30 participation refusers (up to 15 in each arm A and B) purposefully selected from the quantitative study sample to represent a variety of gender and ages to explore experiences with admission or rejection of study participation. Up to 25 asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 positive study participants will be purposefully selected to explore the way in which asymptomatic men and women diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 give meaning to their diagnosis and to the dialectic between feeling concurrently healthy and yet also being at risk for transmitting COVID-19. In addition, 100 randomly selected study participants will be included to explore participants’ perspective on testing processes and implementation. TRIAL STATUS: Final protocol version is “Surveillance_Studienprotokoll_03Nov2020_v1_2” from November 3, 2020. Recruitment started November 18, 2020 and is expected to end by or before December 31, 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is currently being registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien), DRKS00023271 (https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial. HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00023271). Retrospectively registered 30 November 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Trials2021       LitCov and CORD-19
88COVID-19 pandemic and pregnancy  

The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is spreading globally at an accelerated rate, with a basic reproduction number (R0) of 2–2.5, indicating that 2–3 persons will be infected from an index patient. A serious public health emergency, it is particularly deadly in vulnerable populations and communities in which healthcare providers are insufficiently prepared to manage the infection. As of March 16, 2020, there are more than 180,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 worldwide, with more than 7000 related deaths. The SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated from asymptomatic individuals, and affected patients continue to be infectious 2 weeks after cessation of symptoms. The substantial morbidity and socioeconomic impact have necessitated drastic measures across all continents, including nationwide lockdowns and border closures. Pregnant women and their fetuses represent a high-risk population during infectious disease outbreaks. To date, the outcomes of 55 pregnant women infected with COVID-19 and 46 neonates have been reported in the literature, with no definite evidence of vertical transmission. Physiological and mechanical changes in pregnancy increase susceptibility to infections in general, particularly when the cardiorespiratory system is affected, and encourage rapid progression to respiratory failure in the gravida. Furthermore, the pregnancy bias toward T-helper 2 (Th2) system dominance, which protects the fetus, leaves the mother vulnerable to viral infections, which are more effectively contained by the Th1 system. These unique challenges mandate an integrated approach to pregnancies affected by SARS-CoV-2. Here we present a review of COVID-19 in pregnancy, bringing together the various factors integral to the understanding of pathophysiology and susceptibility, diagnostic challenges with real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays, therapeutic controversies, intrauterine transmission, and maternal−fetal complications. We discuss the latest options in antiviral therapy and vaccine development, including the novel use of chloroquine in the management of COVID-19. Fetal surveillance, in view of the predisposition to growth restriction and special considerations during labor and delivery, is addressed. In addition, we focus on keeping frontline obstetric care providers safe while continuing to provide essential services. Our clinical service model is built around the principles of workplace segregation, responsible social distancing, containment of cross-infection to healthcare providers, judicious use of personal protective equipment, and telemedicine. Our aim is to share a framework that can be adopted by tertiary maternity units managing pregnant women in the flux of a pandemic while maintaining the safety of the patient and healthcare provider at its core.

Am J Obstet Gynecol2020       LitCov and CORD-19
89New York Inner City Hospital COVID-19 Experience and Current Data: Retrospective Analysis at the Epicenter of the American Coronavirus Outbreak  

BACKGROUND: In the midst of the coronavirus disease pandemic, emerging clinical data across the world has equipped frontline health care workers, policy makers, and researchers to better understand and combat the illness. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to report the correlation of clinical and laboratory parameters with patients requiring mechanical ventilation and the mortality in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: We did a review of patients with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed infection admitted and managed by our institution during the last month. Patients were grouped into intubated and nonintubated, and subgrouped to alive and deceased. A comprehensive analysis using the following parameters were performed: age, sex, ethnicity, BMI, comorbidities, inflammatory markers, laboratory values, cardiac and renal function, electrocardiogram (EKG), chest x-ray findings, temperature, treatment groups, and hospital-acquired patients with SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: A total of 184 patients were included in our study with ages ranging from 28-97 years (mean 64.72 years) and including 73 females (39.67%) and 111 males (60.33%) with a mean BMI of 29.10. We had 114 African Americans (61.96%), 58 Hispanics (31.52%), 11 Asians (5.98%), and 1 Caucasian (0.54%), with a mean of 1.70 comorbidities. Overall, the mortality rate was 17.39% (n=32), 16.30% (n=30) of our patients required mechanical ventilation, and 11.41% (n=21) had hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection. Pertinent and statistically significant results were found in the intubated versus nonintubated patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 for the following parameters: age (P=.01), BMI (P=.07), African American ethnicity (P<.001), Hispanic ethnicity (P=.02), diabetes mellitus (P=.001), creatinine (P=.29), blood urea nitrogen (BUN; P=.001), procalcitonin (P=.03), C-reactive protein (CRP; P=.007), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; P=.001), glucose (P=.01), temperature (P=.004), bilateral pulmonary infiltrates in chest x-rays (P<.001), and bilateral patchy opacity (P=.02). The results between the living and deceased subgroups of patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (linking to or against mortality) were BMI (P=.04), length of stay (P<.001), hypertension (P=.02), multiple comorbidity (P=.045), BUN (P=.04), and EKG findings with arrhythmias or blocks (P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: We arrived at the following conclusions based on a comprehensive review of our study group, data collection, and statistical analysis. Parameters that were strongly correlated with the need for mechanical ventilation were younger age group, overweight, Hispanic ethnicity, higher core body temperature, EKG findings with sinus tachycardia, and bilateral diffuse pulmonary infiltrates on the chest x-rays. Those intubated exhibited increased disease severity with significantly elevated levels of serum procalcitonin, CRP, LDH, mean glucose, creatinine, and BUN. Mortality was strongly correlated with BMI, African American ethnicity, hypertension, presence of multiple comorbidities (with a mean of 2.32), worsening renal function with acute kidney injury or acute chronic kidney injury, and EKG findings of arrhythmias and heart blocks.

J Med Internet Res2020       LitCov and CORD-19
90Glycyrrhizin, an active component of liquorice roots and replication of SARS-associated coronavirus  

The outbreak of SARS warrants the search for antiviral compounds to treat the disease. At present, no specific treatment has been identified for SARS-associated coronavirus infection. We assessed the antiviral potential of ribavirin, 6-azauridine, pyrazofurin, mycophenolic acid, and glycyrrhizin against two clinical isolates of coronavirus (FFM-1 and FFM-2) from patients with SARS admitted to the clinical centre of Frankfurt University, Germany. Of all the compounds, glycyrrhizin was the most active in inhibiting replication of the SARS-associated virus. Our findings suggest that glycyrrhizin should be assessed for treatment of SARS.

Lancet2003       CORD-19
91Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation  

The outbreak of a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) represents a pandemic threat that has been declared a public health emergency of international concern. The CoV spike (S) glycoprotein is a key target for vaccines, therapeutic antibodies, and diagnostics. To facilitate medical countermeasure development, we determined a 3.5-angstrom-resolution cryo–electron microscopy structure of the 2019-nCoV S trimer in the prefusion conformation. The predominant state of the trimer has one of the three receptor-binding domains (RBDs) rotated up in a receptor-accessible conformation. We also provide biophysical and structural evidence that the 2019-nCoV S protein binds angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) with higher affinity than does severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV S. Additionally, we tested several published SARS-CoV RBD-specific monoclonal antibodies and found that they do not have appreciable binding to 2019-nCoV S, suggesting that antibody cross-reactivity may be limited between the two RBDs. The structure of 2019-nCoV S should enable the rapid development and evaluation of medical countermeasures to address the ongoing public health crisis.

Science2020       LitCov and CORD-19
92Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a rapid review  

N/A

Cochrane Database Syst Rev2020       LitCov and CORD-19
93Neurologic Manifestations of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 in Wuhan, China  

N/A

JAMA Neurol2020       LitCov and CORD-19
94Molecular mechanisms and epidemiology of COVID-19 from an allergist's perspective  

The global pandemic caused by the newly described severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused worldwide suffering and death of unimaginable magnitude from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The virus is transmitted through aerosol droplets, and causes severe acute respiratory syndrome. SARS-CoV-2 uses the receptor-binding domain of its spike protein S1 to attach to the host angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor in lung and airway cells. Binding requires the help of another host protein, transmembrane protease serine S1 member 2. Several factors likely contribute to the efficient transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 has a 10- to 20-fold higher receptor-binding capacity compared with previous pandemic coronaviruses. In addition, because asymptomatic persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 have high viral loads in their nasal secretions, they can silently and efficiently spread the disease. PCR-based tests have emerged as the criterion standard for the diagnosis of infection. Caution must be exercised in interpreting antibody-based tests because they have not yet been validated, and may give a false sense of security of being “immune” to SARS-CoV-2. We discuss how the development of some symptoms in allergic rhinitis can serve as clues for new-onset COVID-19. There are mixed reports that asthma is a risk factor for severe COVID-19, possibly due to differences in asthma endotypes. The rapid spread of COVID-19 has focused the efforts of scientists on repurposing existing Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs that inhibit viral entry, endocytosis, genome assembly, translation, and replication. Numerous clinical trials have been launched to identify effective treatments for COVID-19. Initial data from a placebo-controlled study suggest faster time to recovery in patients on remdesivir; it is now being evaluated in additional controlled studies. As discussed in this review, till effective vaccines and treatments emerge, it is important to understand the scientific rationale of pandemic-mitigation strategies such as wearing facemasks and social distancing, and implement them.

J Allergy Clin Immunol2020       LitCov and CORD-19
95Mitigating the Psychological Impact of COVID-19 on Healthcare Workers: A Digital Learning Package  

The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) will undoubtedly have psychological impacts for healthcare workers, which could be sustained; frontline workers will be particularly at risk. Actions are needed to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19 on mental health by protecting and promoting the psychological wellbeing of healthcare workers during and after the outbreak. We developed and evaluated a digital learning package using Agile methodology within the first three weeks of UK outbreak. This e-package includes evidence-based guidance, support and signposting relating to psychological wellbeing for all UK healthcare employees. A three-step rapid development process included public involvement activities (PPIs) (STEP 1), content and technical development with iterative peer review (STEP 2), and delivery and evaluation (STEP 3). The package outlines the actions that team leaders can take to provide psychologically safe spaces for staff, together with guidance on communication and reducing social stigma, peer and family support, signposting others through psychological first aid (PFA), self-care strategies (e.g., rest, work breaks, sleep, shift work, fatigue, healthy lifestyle behaviours), and managing emotions (e.g., moral injury, coping, guilt, grief, fear, anxiety, depression, preventing burnout and psychological trauma). The e-package includes advice from experts in mental wellbeing as well as those with direct pandemic experiences from the frontline, as well as signposting to public mental health guidance. Rapid delivery in STEP 3 was achieved via direct emails through professional networks and social media. Evaluation included assessment of fidelity and implementation qualities. Essential content was identified through PPIs (n = 97) and peer review (n = 10) in STEPS 1 and 2. The most important messages to convey were deemed to be normalisation of psychological responses during a crisis, and encouragement of self-care and help-seeking behaviour. Within 7 days of completion, the package had been accessed 17,633 times, and healthcare providers had confirmed immediate adoption within their health and wellbeing provisions. Evaluation (STEP 3, n = 55) indicated high user satisfaction with content, usability and utility. Assessment of implementation qualities indicated that the package was perceived to be usable, practical, low cost and low burden. Our digital support package on ‘psychological wellbeing for healthcare workers’ is free to use, has been positively evaluated and was highly accessed within one week of release. It is available here: Supplementary Materials. This package was deemed to be appropriate, meaningful and useful for the needs of UK healthcare workers. We recommend provision of this e-package to healthcare workers alongside wider strategies to support their psychological wellbeing during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Int J Environ Res Public Healt2020       LitCov and CORD-19
96Clinical characteristics of 140 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, China  

N/A

Allergy2020       LitCov and CORD-19
97Clinical characteristics of 116 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study  

BACKGROUND: A cluster of acute respiratory illness, now known as Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), has become a global pandemic. Aged population with cardiovascular diseases are more likely be to infected with SARS-CoV-2 and result in more severe outcomes and elevated case-fatality rate. Meanwhile, cardiovascular diseases have a high prevalence in the middle-aged and elderly population. However, despite of several researches in COVID-19, cardiovascular implications related to it still remains largely unclear. Therefore, a specific analysis in regard to cardiovascular implications of COVID-19 patients is in great need. METHODS: In this single-centered, retrospective, observational study, 116 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled, who admitted to the General Hospital of Central Theater Command (Wuhan, China) from January 20 to March 8, 2020. The demographic data, underlying comorbidities, clinical symptoms and signs, laboratory findings, chest computed tomography, treatment measures, and outcome data were collected from electronic medical records. Data were compared between non-severe and severe cases. RESULTS: Of 116 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the median age was 58.5 years (IQR, 47.0–69.0), and 36 (31.0%) were female. Hypertension (45 [38.8%]), diabetes (19 [16.4%]), and coronary heart disease (17 [14.7%]) were the most common coexisting conditions. Common symptoms included fever [99 (85.3%)], dry cough (61 [52.6%]), fatigue (60 [51.7%]), dyspnea (52 [44.8%]), anorexia (50 [43.1%]), and chest discomfort (50 [43.1%]). Local and/or bilateral patchy shadowing were the typical radiological findings on chest computed tomography. Lymphopenia (lymphocyte count, 1.0 × 10(9)/L [IQR, 0.7–1.3]) was observed in 66 patients (56.9%), and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (245.5 U/L [IQR, 194.3–319.8]) in 69 patients (59.5%). Hypokalemia occurred in 24 (20.7%) patients. Compared with non-severe cases, severe cases were older (64.0 years [IQR, 53.0–76.0] vs 56.0 years [IQR, 37.0–64.0]), more likely to have comorbidities (35 [63.6%] vs 24 [39.3%]), and more likely to develop acute cardiac injury (19 [34.5%] vs 4 [6.6%]), acute heart failure (18 [32.7%] vs 3 [4.9%]), and ARDS (20 [36.4%] vs 0 [0%]). During hospitalization, the prevalence of new onset hypertension was significantly higher in severe patients (55.2% vs 19.0%) than in non-severe ones. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-centered, retrospective, observational study, we found that the infection of SARS-CoV-2 was more likely to occur in middle and aged population with cardiovascular comorbidities. Cardiovascular complications, including new onset hypertension and heart injury were common in severe patients with COVID-19. More detailed researches in cardiovascular involvement in COVID-19 are urgently needed to further understand the disease.

BMC Infect Dis2020       LitCov and CORD-19
98Isolation from Man of "Avian Infectious Bronchitis Virus-like" Viruses (Coronaviruses) similar to 229E Virus, with Some Epidemiological Observations  

J Infect Dis1969       CORD-19
99Mental Healthcare in French correctional facilities during the Covid-19 pandemic  

Résumé Objectif. En France, les mesures de confinement ont été accompagnées de dispositions spécifiques pour les prisons: suspension des activités, parloirs et interventions extérieures. Plus de dix mille personnes détenues ont en outre été libérées pour diminuer le taux d’occupation des établissements et limiter la propagation du virus. L’objectif de cet article est de décrire la réorganisation des soins psychiatriques en milieu pénitentiaire en contexte de pandémie de Covid-19 et d’interroger les conséquences du confinement et des libérations anticipées sur la santé mentale des personnes détenues. Méthode. Ce travail s’appuie sur une enquête menée en avril 2020 auprès des soignants de 42 unités sanitaires en milieu pénitentiaire et des 9 unités hospitalières spécialement aménagées en France. Une synthèse de la littérature internationale sur la question des soins psychiatriques en milieu pénitentiaire durant l’épidémie de Covid-19 a également été réalisée. Résultats. L’épidémie de Covid-19 semble avoir été plutôt contenue dans les prisons françaises au cours de la période de confinement mais le poids des mesures mises en place sur la population carcérale est important. Les 3 niveaux de soins psychiatriques en milieu pénitentiaire ont instauré des mesures spécifiques pour assurer la continuité des soins, accompagner les personnes incarcérées et contenir l’épidémie. Parmi les plus importantes, on note la restriction des consultations, la création de « secteurs Covid », la déprogrammation des hospitalisations non urgentes, le renforcement des mesures d’hygiène et le remaniement des effectifs. Actuellement, les soignants sont principalement confrontés à des sevrages forcés, des symptomatologies anxieuses et des décompensations de troubles psychiatriques chroniques. Certaines libérations anticipées sont aussi très préoccupantes, pouvant entraîner des ruptures de soins, par manque de préparation des relais de prise en charge. Discussion. Les remaniements en lien avec le confinement donnent une visibilité accrue au fossé qui sépare la psychiatrie en milieu libre de la psychiatrie en milieu pénitentiaire. Il nous apparaît important de rappeler la vulnérabilité des personnes incarcérées qui doivent impérativement être considérées dans les politiques de santé publique. Abstract Objective. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the 11 million people currently incarcerated worldwide is the subject of many concerns. Prisons and jails are filled with people suffering from many preexisting medical conditions increasing the risk of complications. Detainees’ access to medical services is already limited and overcrowding poses a threat of massive contagion. Beyond the health impact of the crisis, the tightening of prison conditions worries. On March 16, 2020, in France, the lockdown measures have been accompanied by specific provisions for prisons: all facilities have suspended visitations, group activities and external interventions. Over 10 000 prisoners have been released to reduce the prison population and the risk of virus propagation. These adjustments had major consequences on the healthcare system in French prisons. The objectives of this article are to describe the reorganization of the three levels of psychiatric care for inmates in France in the context of Covid-19 pandemic and to have a look at the impact of lockdown measures and early releases on mental health of prisoners. Methods. This work is based on a survey conducted in April 2020 in France among psychiatric healthcare providers working in 42 ambulatory units for inmates and in the 9 full-time inpatient psychiatric wards exclusively for inmates called “UHSAs” (which stands for “unités hospitalières spécialement aménagées”, and can be translated as “specially equipped hospital units”). A review of the international literature on mental healthcare system for inmates during the Covid-19 epidemic has also been performed. Results. The Covid-19 epidemic has been rather contained during the period of confinement in French prisons but the impact of confinement measures on the prison population is significant. The three levels of psychiatric care for inmates have implemented specific measures to ensure continuity of care, to support detainees during Coronavirus lockdown and to prevent an infection’s spread. Among the most important are: limitation of medical consultations to serious and urgent cases, creation of “Covid units”, cancellation of voluntary psychiatric hospitalizations, reinforcement of preventive hygiene measures and reshuffling of medical staff. Prolonged confinement has consequences on mental health of detainees. Currently, mental health workers are facing multiple clinical situations such as forced drug and substance withdrawal (linked to difficulties in supplying psychoactive substances), symptoms of anxiety (due to concerns for their own and their relatives’ wellbeing) and decompensation among patients with severe psychiatric conditions. Early releases from prison may also raise some issues. People recently released from prison are identified as at high risk of death by suicide and drug overdose. The lack of time to provide the necessary link between health services within prisons and health structures outside, could have serious consequences, emphasizing the well-known “revolving prison doors” effect. Discussion. The current lockdown measures applied in French jails and prisons point out the disparities between psychiatric care for inmates and psychiatric care for general population. Giving the high vulnerability of prison population, public health authorities should pay more attention to health care in prisons.

Encephale2020       LitCov and CORD-19
100The impact of the coronavirus pandemic on elective pediatric otolaryngology outpatient services-An analysis of virtual outpatient clinics in a tertiary referral center using the modified pediatric otolaryngology telemedicine satisfaction survey (POTSS)  

INTRODUCTION: Virtual outpatient clinics (VOPC) have been integrated into both paediatric and based adult outpatient services due to a multitude of factors, including increased demand for services, technological advances and rising morbidity secondary to ageing populations. The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has accentuated pressures on the National Health Service (NHS) infrastructure, particularly elective services, whilst radically altering patterns of practice. AIM: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on paediatric otolaryngology outpatient services whilst collating patient feedback to elicit long-term sustainability post COVID-19. METHOD: A retrospective analysis of VOPCs was undertaken at a tertiary paediatric referral centre over a 3-month capture period during the COVID-19 pandemic. Demographic, generic clinic (presenting complaint, new vs. follow-up, consultation type), as well as outcome data (medical or surgical intervention, discharge vs. ongoing review, onward referral, investigations, and conversion to face-to-face) was collated. Additionally a modified 15-point patient satisfaction survey was created. The Paediatric Otolaryngology Telemedicine Satisfaction survey (POTSS), was an adaptation of 4 validated patient satisfaction tools including the General Medical Council (GMC) patient questionnaire, the telehealth satisfaction scale (TESS), the telehealth usability questionnaire (TUQ), and the telemedicine satisfaction and usefulness questionnaire (TSUQ). RESULTS: Of 514 patients reviewed virtually over a 3-month period, 225 (45%) were randomly selected to participate, of which 200 met our inclusion criteria. The most common mode of consultation was telephony (92.5%, n=185). Non-attendance rates were reduced when compared to face-to-face clinics during an equivalent period prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. A significant proportion of patients (29% compared to 26% pre-VOPC) were discharged to primary care. Nine percent were listed for surgery compared to 19% pre-VOPC. A subsequent face-to-face appointment was required in 10% of participants. Overall, the satisfaction when assessing the doctor-patient relationship, privacy & trust, as well as consultation domains was high, with the overwhelming majority of parents’ content with the future integration and participation in VOPCs. CONCLUSION: An evolving worldwide pandemic has accelerated the need for healthcare services to reform in order to maintain a steady flow of patients within an elective outpatient setting without compromising patient care. Solutions must be sustainable long-term to account for future disruptions, whilst accounting for evolving patient demographics. Our novel survey has demonstrated the vast potential that the integration of VOPCs can offer paediatric otolaryngology services within a carefully selected cohort of patients.

Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol2020       LitCov and CORD-19

(1) COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19). 2020. Version 2022-06-02. Retrieved from https://ai2-semanticscholar-cord-19.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/historical_releases.html. Accessed 2022-06-05. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3715506
(2) Chen Q, Allot A, & Lu Z. (2020) Keep up with the latest coronavirus research, Nature 579:193 and Chen Q, Allot A, Lu Z. LitCovid: an open database of COVID-19 literature. Nucleic Acids Research. 2020. (version 2022-07-25)
(3) Currently tweets of June 23rd to June 29th 2022 have been considered.

This service is provided "as is", without any warranties of any kind.