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: 18 - 01 - 2023 (628506 entries)
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.
Exceptional score (in top 0.01%).
Substantial score (in top 1%).
Average score (in bottom 99%).
Score not available.
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)
| Title | Venue | Year | Impact | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 501 | Sub-optimal neutralisation of omicron (B.1.1.529) variant by antibodies induced by vaccine alone or SARS-CoV-2 Infection plus vaccine (hybrid immunity) post 6-months BACKGROUND: Rapid spread of the omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant despite extensive vaccination suggests immune escape. The neutralising ability of different vaccines alone or with natural SARS-CoV-2 infection against omicron is not well-known. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we tested the ability of vaccine and natural infection induced antibodies to neutralise omicron variant in a live virus neutralisation assay in four groups of individuals: (i) ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination, (ii) ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination plus prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, (iii) vaccination with inactivated virus vaccine (BBV152), and (iv) BBV152 vaccination plus prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Primary outcome was fold-change in virus neutralisation titre against omicron compared with ancestral virus. FINDINGS: We included 80 subjects. The geometric mean titre (GMT) of the 50% focus reduction neutralisation test (FRNT50) was 380·4 (95% CI: 221·1, 654·7) against the ancestral virus with BBV152 vaccination and 379·3 (95% CI: 185·6, 775·2) with ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccination alone. GMT for vaccination plus infection groups were 806·1 (95% CI: 478·5, 1357·8) and 1526·2 (95% CI: 853·2, 2730·0), respectively. Against omicron variant, only 5 out of 20 in both BBV152 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine only groups, 6 out of 20 in BBV152 plus prior SARS-CoV-2 infection group, and 9 out of 20 in ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 plus prior SARS-CoV-2 infection group exhibited neutralisation titres above the lower limit of quantification (1:20) suggesting better neutralisation with prior infection. A reduction of 26·6 and 25·7 fold in FRNT50 titres against Omicron compared to ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain was observed for individuals without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection vaccinated with BBV152 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, respectively. The corresponding reduction was 57·1 and 58·1 fold, respectively, for vaccinated individuals with prior infection. The 50% neutralisation titre against omicron demonstrated moderate correlation with serum anti-RBD IgG levels [Spearman r: 0·58 (0·41, 0·71)]. INTERPRETATION: Significant reduction in the neutralising ability of both vaccine-induced and vaccine plus infection-induced antibodies was observed for omicron variant which might explain immune escape. FUNDING: Department of Biotechnology, India; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, USA | EBioMedicine | 2022 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 502 | Effects of COVID-19 on College Students' Mental Health in the United States: Interview Survey Study BACKGROUND: Student mental health in higher education has been an increasing concern. The COVID-19 pandemic situation has brought this vulnerable population into renewed focus. OBJECTIVE: Our study aims to conduct a timely assessment of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of college students. METHODS: We conducted interview surveys with 195 students at a large public university in the United States to understand the effects of the pandemic on their mental health and well-being. The data were analyzed through quantitative and qualitative methods. RESULTS: Of the 195 students, 138 (71%) indicated increased stress and anxiety due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Multiple stressors were identified that contributed to the increased levels of stress, anxiety, and depressive thoughts among students. These included fear and worry about their own health and of their loved ones (177/195, 91% reported negative impacts of the pandemic), difficulty in concentrating (173/195, 89%), disruptions to sleeping patterns (168/195, 86%), decreased social interactions due to physical distancing (167/195, 86%), and increased concerns on academic performance (159/195, 82%). To cope with stress and anxiety, participants have sought support from others and helped themselves by adopting either negative or positive coping mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the long-lasting pandemic situation and onerous measures such as lockdown and stay-at-home orders, the COVID-19 pandemic brings negative impacts on higher education. The findings of our study highlight the urgent need to develop interventions and preventive strategies to address the mental health of college students. | J Med Internet Res | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 503 | Hydroxychloroquine plus personal protective equipment vs standard personal protective equipment alone for the prevention of COVID-19 infections among frontline healthcare workers: the HydrOxychloroquine Prophylaxis Evaluation(HOPE) trial: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized con OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of the combination of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and standard personal protective equipment (PPE) compared to the use of standard personal protective equipment alone on the proportion of laboratory confirmed COVID-19 infections among frontline healthcare workers(HCWs) in India TRIAL DESIGN: HOPE is an investigator initiated multi-centre open-label parallel group randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: All HCWs currently working in an environment with direct exposure to patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection are eligible to participate in the trial. The trial aims to be conducted across 20-30 centres (public and private hospitals) in India. HCWs who decline consent, who have a confirmed COVID-19 infection, those who are already on chloroquine/HCQ for any indication, or if pregnant or breast-feeding, or have known QT prolongation or are on medications that when taken with HCQ can prolong the QTc will be excluded. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The interventions to be compared in this trial are standard practice (use of recommended PPE) and HCQ plus standard practice. In the standard practice arm, HCWs will use recommended PPE as per institutional guidelines and based on their roles. They will be discouraged from taking HCQ to prevent contamination and contacted every week for the duration of the study to ascertain if they have taken any HCQ. Any such use will be reported as a protocol violation. In the intervention arm, HCWs will be administered 800mg of HCQ as a loading dose on the day of randomization (as two 400mg doses 12hrs apart) and subsequently continued on 400mg once a week for 12 weeks. This will be in addition to the use of recommended PPE as per institutional guidelines and based on their roles. HCWs will collect the drug once every week from designated research and pharmacy staff at site. A weekly phone reminder will be provided to participants in this arm to ensure compliance. An ECG will be performed between 4-6 weeks in this arm and if the QTc is prolonged (greater than 450milliseconds), the drug will be stopped. Follow-up will however continue. Participants in both arms will receive a weekly phone call for evaluation of the primary outcome, to monitor protocol compliance and development of any adverse events (in the HCQ group). MAIN OUTCOMES: Participants will be followed on a weekly basis. The primary outcome is the proportion of HCWs developing laboratory confirmed COVID-19 infection within 6 months of randomization. We will also evaluate a number of secondary outcomes, including hospitalization related to suspected/confirmed COVID-19 infection, intensive care unit or high-dependency unit admission due to suspected/confirmed COVID-19 infection, all-cause mortality, need for organ support ( non-invasive or invasive ventilation, vasopressors and renal replacement therapy), ICU and hospital length of stay, readmission, days off work and treatment-related adverse events. RANDOMISATION: Randomisation will be conducted through a password-protected, secure website using a central, computer-based randomisation program. Randomisation will be stratified by participating institutions and by the role of HCW – nursing, medical and other. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to either standard practice only or HCQ plus standard practice. Allocation concealment is maintained by central web-based randomisation BLINDING (MASKING): This is an unblinded study: study assigned treatment will be known to the research team and participant. Bias will be mitigated through an objective end point (laboratory confirmed COVID-19 infection). NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total of 6,950 HCWs will be enrolled (3475 to the intervention) and (3475 to the standard practice group) to detect a 25% relative reduction, or 2.5% absolute reduction, in the infection rate from an estimated baseline infection rate of 10%, with 80% statistical power using a two-sided test at 5% level of significance. Available data from China and Italy indicate that the rate of infection among frontline healthcare workers varies between 4% to 12%. We therefore assumed a baseline infection rate of 10% among HCWs. This sample size allows for a potential loss to follow-up rate of 10% and a potential non-compliance rate of 10% in both the treatment and control arms. TRIAL STATUS: HOPE protocol version 3.0 dated June 3(rd) 2020. Recruitment started on 29(th) June 2020 and currently 56 participants have been enrolled. Planned completion of enrolment is January 31(st) 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Registry of India: CTRI/2020/05/025067 (prospectively registered) Date of registration: 6(th) May 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expedited dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2). | Trials | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 504 | Trends in Disease Severity and Healthcare Utilization During the Early Omicron Variant Period Compared with Previous SARS-CoV-2 High Transmission Periods-United States, December 2020-January 2022 N/A | MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep | 2022 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 505 | Prevalence and Predictors of Anxiety and Depression Symptoms during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Compliance with Precautionary Measures: Age and Sex Matter Effective management of the global pandemic caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (also known as COVID-19), resulted in the implementation of severe restrictions in movement and enforcement of social distancing measures. This study aimed to understand and characterize the psychosocial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in the general population and to identify risks and protective factors that predict changes in mental health status. In addition, the study investigated compliance with precautionary measures (PM) to halt the spread of the virus. The online anonymous survey collected information on sociodemographic data, compliance with PM, quality of life (QOL), and mental health via the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). A total of 1642 adult participants (71.6% women, 28.4% men) completed the survey in the European island country, Cyprus. A large percentage (48%) reported significant financial concerns and 66.7% significant changes in their QOL. About 41% reported symptoms associated with mild anxiety; 23.1% reported moderate-severe anxiety symptoms. Concerning depression, 48% reported mild and 9.2% moderate-severe depression symptoms. Women, younger age (18–29), student status, unemployment status, prior psychiatric history, and those reporting greater negative impact on their QOL, were at higher risk for increased anxiety and depression symptoms (p < 0.05). The youngest age group and males also reported lower levels of compliance with PM. Higher compliance with PM predicted lower depression scores (p < 0.001) but higher anxiety for measures related to personal hygiene. The results of this study provide important data on the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak on mental health and QOL and identify a variety of personal and social determinants that serve as risks and protective factors. Furthermore, it has implications for policy makers demonstrating the need for effective mental health programs and guidance for the implementation of PM as a public health strategy. | Int J Environ Res Public Healt | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 506 | Assessment of Maternal and Neonatal SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load, Transplacental Antibody Transfer and Placental Pathology in Pregnancies During the COVID-19 Pandemic IMPORTANCE: Biological data are lacking with respect to risk of vertical transmission and mechanisms of fetoplacental protection in maternal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. OBJECTIVE: To quantify SARS-CoV-2 viral load in maternal and neonatal biofluids, transplacental passage of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody, and incidence of fetoplacental infection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study was conducted among pregnant women presenting for care at 3 tertiary care centers in Boston, Massachusetts. Women with reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results positive for SARS-CoV-2 were recruited from April 2 to June 13, 2020, and follow-up occurred through July 10, 2020. Contemporaneous participants without SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled as a convenience sample from pregnant women with RT-PCR results negative for SARS-CoV-2. EXPOSURES: SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy, defined by nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 viral load in maternal plasma or respiratory fluids and umbilical cord plasma, quantification of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in maternal and cord plasma, and presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the placenta. RESULTS: Among 127 pregnant women enrolled, 64 with RT-PCR results positive for SARS-CoV-2 (mean [SD] age, 31.6 [5.6] years) and 63 with RT-PCR results negative for SARS-CoV-2 (mean [SD] age, 33.9 [5.4] years) provided samples for analysis. Of women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 23 (36%) were asymptomatic, 22 (34%) had mild disease, 7 (11%) had moderate disease, 10 (16%) had severe disease, and 2 (3%) had critical disease. In viral load analyses among 107 women, there was no detectable viremia in maternal or cord blood and no evidence of vertical transmission. Among 77 neonates tested in whom SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were quantified in cord blood, 1 had detectable immunoglobuilin M to nucleocapsid. Among 88 placentas tested, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was not detected in any. In antibody analyses among 37 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, anti–receptor binding domain immunoglobin G was detected in 24 women (65%) and anti-nucleocapsid was detected in 26 women (70%). Mother-to-neonate transfer of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was significantly lower than transfer of anti-influenza hemagglutinin A antibodies (mean [SD] cord-to-maternal ratio: anti–receptor binding domain immunoglobin G, 0.72 [0.57]; anti-nucleocapsid, 0.74 [0.44]; anti-influenza, 1.44 [0.80]; P < .001). Nonoverlapping placental expression of SARS-CoV-2 receptors angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and transmembrane serine protease 2 was noted. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study, there was no evidence of placental infection or definitive vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Transplacental transfer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was inefficient. Lack of viremia and reduced coexpression and colocalization of placental angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and transmembrane serine protease 2 may serve as protective mechanisms against vertical transmission. | JAMA Netw Open | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 507 | Epitope Classification and RBD Binding Properties of Neutralizing Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SAR-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID19) that is responsible for short and long-term disease, as well as death, in susceptible hosts. The receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) protein binds to cell surface angiotensin converting enzyme type-II (ACE2) to initiate viral attachment and ultimately viral pathogenesis. The SARS-CoV-2 S RBD is a major target of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) that block RBD - ACE2 interactions. In this report, NAb-RBD binding epitopes in the protein databank were classified as C1, C1D, C2, C3, or C4, using a RBD binding profile (BP), based on NAb-specific RBD buried surface area and used to predict the binding epitopes of a series of uncharacterized NAbs. Naturally occurring SARS-CoV-2 RBD sequence variation was also quantified to predict NAb binding sensitivities to the RBD-variants. NAb and ACE2 binding studies confirmed the NAb classifications and determined whether the RBD variants enhanced ACE2 binding to promote viral infectivity, and/or disrupted NAb binding to evade the host immune response. Of 9 single RBD mutants evaluated, K417T, E484K, and N501Y disrupted binding of 65% of the NAbs evaluated, consistent with the assignment of the SARS-CoV-2 P.1 Japan/Brazil strain as a variant of concern (VoC). RBD variants E484K and N501Y exhibited ACE2 binding equivalent to a Wuhan-1 reference SARS-CoV-2 RBD. While slightly less disruptive to NAb binding, L452R enhanced ACE2 binding affinity. Thus, the L452R mutant, associated with the SARS-CoV-2 California VoC (B.1.427/B.1.429-California), has evolved to enhance ACE2 binding, while simultaneously disrupting C1 and C2 NAb classes. The analysis also identified a non-overlapping antibody pair (1213H7 and 1215D1) that bound to all SARS-CoV-2 RBD variants evaluated, representing an excellent therapeutic option for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 WT and VoC strains. | Front Immunol | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 508 | A Phase I/II Clinical Trial to evaluate the efficacy of baricitinib to prevent respiratory insufficiency progression in onco-hematological patients affected with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial OBJECTIVES: Baricitinib is supposed to have a double effect on SARS-CoV2 infection. Firstly, it reduces the inflammatory response through the inhibition of the Januse-Kinase signalling transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway. Moreover, it reduces the receptor mediated viral endocytosis by AP2-associated protein kinase 1 (AAK1) inhibition. We propose the use of baricinitib to prevent the progression of the respiratory insufficiency in SARS-CoV2 pneumonia in onco-haematological patients. In this phase Ib/II study, the primary objective in the safety cohort is to describe the incidence of severe adverse events associated with baricitinib administration. The primary objective of the randomized phase (baricitinib cohort versus standard of care cohort) is to evaluate the number of patients who did not require mechanical oxygen support since start of therapy until day +14 or discharge (whichever it comes first). The secondary objectives of the study (only randomized phase of the study) are represented by the comparison between the two arms of the study in terms of mortality and toxicity at day+30. Moreover, a description of the immunological related changes between the two arms of the study will be reported. TRIAL DESIGN: The trial is a phase I/II study with a safety run-in cohort (phase 1) followed by an open label phase II randomized controlled trial with an experimental arm compared to a standard of care arm. PARTICIPANTS: The study will be performed at the Institut Català d’Oncologia, a tertiary level oncological referral center in the Catalonia region (Spain). The eligibility criteria are: patients > 18 years affected by oncological diseases; ECOG performance status < 2 (Karnofsky score > 60%); a laboratory confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by means of real -time PCR; radiological signs of low respiratory tract disease; absence of organ dysfunction (a total bilirubin within normal institutional limits, AST/ALT≤2.5 X institutional upper limit of normal, alkaline phosphatase ≤2.5 X institutional upper limit of normal, coagulation within normal institutional limits, creatinine clearance >30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) for patients with creatinine levels above institutional normal); absence of HIV infection; no active or latent HBV or HCV infection. The exclusion criteria are: patients with oncological diseases who are not candidates to receive any active oncological treatment; hemodynamic instability at time of study enrollment; impossibility to receive oral medication; medical history of recent or active pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis or patients at high-risk of suffering them (surgical intervention, immobilization); multi organ failure, rapid worsening of respiratory function with requirement of fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO(2)) > 50% or high-flow nasal cannula before initiation of study treatment; uncontrolled intercurrent illness (ongoing or severe active infection, symptomatic congestive heart failure, unstable angina pectoris, cardiac arrhythmia, or psychiatric illness/social situations that would limit compliance with study requirements); allergy to one or more of study treatments; pregnant or breastfeeding women; positive pregnancy test in a pre-dose examination. Patients should have the ability to understand, and the willingness to sign, a written informed consent document; the willingness to accept randomization to any assigned treatment arm; and must agree not to enroll in another study of an investigational agent prior to completion of Day +28 of study. An electronic Case Report Form in the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) platform will be used to collect the data of the trial. Removal from the study will apply in case of unacceptable adverse event(s), development of an intercurrent illness, condition or procedural complication, which could interfere with the patient’s continued participation and voluntary patient withdrawal from study treatment (all patients are free to withdraw from participation in this study at any time, for any reasons, specified or unspecified, and without prejudice). INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Treatment will be administered on an inpatient basis. We will compare the experimental treatment with baricitinib plus the institutional standard of care compared with the standard of care alone. During the phase I, we will define the dose-limiting toxicity of baricitinib and the dose to be used in the phase 2 part of the study. The starting baricitinib dose will be an oral tablet 4 mg-once daily which can be reduced to 2 mg depending on the observed toxicity. The minimum duration of therapy will be 5 days and it can be extended to 7 days. The standard of care will include the following therapies. Antibiotics will be individualized based on clinical suspicion, including the management of febrile neutropenia. Prophylaxis of thromboembolic disease will be administered to all participants. Remdesivir administration will be considered only in patients with severe pneumonia (SatO(2) <94%) with less than 7 days of onset of symptoms and with supplemental oxygen requirements but not using high-flow nasal cannula, non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). In the randomized phase, tocilizumab or interferon will not be allowed in the experimental arm. Tocilizumab can be used in patients in the standard of care arm at the discretion of the investigator. If it is prescribed it will be used according to the following criteria: patients who, according to his baseline clinical condition, would be an ICU tributary, interstitial pneumonia with severe respiratory failure, patients who are not on mechanical ventilation or ECMO and who are still progressing with corticoid treatment or if they are not candidates for corticosteroids. Mild ARDS (PAFI <300 mmHg) with radiological or blood gases deterioration that meets at least one of the following criteria: CRP >100mg/L D-Dimer >1,000μg/L LDH >400U/L Ferritin >700ng/ml Interleukin 6 ≥40ng/L. The use of tocilizumab is not recommended if there are AST/ALT values greater than 10 times the upper limit of normal, neutrophils <500 cells/mm3, sepsis due to other pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2, presence of comorbidity that can lead to a poor prognosis, complicated diverticulitis or intestinal perforation, ongoing skin infection. The dose will be that recommended by the Spanish Medicine Agency in patients ≥75Kg: 600mg dose whereas in patients <75kg: 400mg dose. Exceptionally, a second infusion can be assessed 12 hours after the first in those patients who experience a worsening of laboratory parameters after a first favourable response. The use of corticosteroids will be recommended in patients who have had symptoms for more than 7 days and who meet all the following criteria: need for oxygen support, non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation, acute respiratory failure or rapid deterioration of gas exchange, appearance or worsening of bilateral alveolar-interstitial infiltrates at the radiological level. In case of indication, it is recommended: dexamethasone 6mg/d p.o. or iv for 10 days or methylprednisolone 32mg/d orally or 30mg iv for 10 days or prednisone 40mg day p.o. for 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES: Phase 1 part: to describe the toxicity profile of baricitinib in COVID19 oncological patients during the 5-7 day treatment period and until day +14 or discharge (whichever it comes first). Phase 2 part: to describe the number of patients in the experimental arm that will not require mechanical oxygen support compared to the standard of care arm until day +14 or discharge (whichever it comes first). RANDOMISATION: For the phase 2 of the study, the allocation ratio will be 1:1. Randomization process will be carried out electronically through the REDcap platform (https://www.project-redcap.org/) BLINDING (MASKING): This is an open label study. No blinding will be performed. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): The first part of the study (safety run-in cohort) will consist in the enrollment of 6 to 12 patients. In this population, we will test the toxicity of the experimental treatment. An incidence of severe adverse events grade 3-4 (graded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.5.0) inferior than 33% will be considered sufficient to follow with the next part of the study. The second part of the study we will perform an interim analysis of efficacy at first 64 assessed patients and a definitive one will analyze 128 assessed patients. Interim and definitive tests will be performed considering in both cases an alpha error of 0.05. We consider for the control arm this rate is expected to be 0.60 and for the experimental arm of 0.80. Considering this data, a superiority test to prove a difference of 0.20 with an overall alpha error of 0.10 and a beta error of 0.2 will be performed. Considering a 5% of dropout rate, it is expected that a total of 136 patients, 68 for each study arm, will be required to complete study accrual. TRIAL STATUS: Version 5.0. 14(th) October 2020 Recruitment started on the 16(th) of December 2020. Expected end of recruitment is June 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: AEMPs: 20-0356 EudraCT: 2020-001789-12, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search (Not publically available as Phase I trial) Clinical trials: BARCOVID19, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ (In progress) 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/s13063-021-05072-4. | Trials | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 509 | Analysis of adjunctive serological detection to nucleic acid test for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic in China, December 2019. The clinical features and treatment of COVID-19 patients remain largely elusive. However, accurate detection is required for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis. We aimed to evaluate the antibodies-based test and nucleic acid-based test for SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 133 patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 and admitted to Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, from January 23 to March 1, 2020. Demographic data, clinical records, laboratory tests, and outcomes were collected. Data were accessed by SARS-CoV-2 IgM-IgG antibody test and real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) detection for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid in COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: Of 133 COVID-19 patients, there were 44 moderate cases, 52 severe cases, and 37 critical cases with no differences in gender and age among three subgroups. In RT-PCR detection, the positive rate was 65.9%, 71.2%, and 67.6% in moderate, severe, and critical cases, respectively. Whereas the positive rate of IgM/IgG antibody detection in patients was 79.5%/93.2%, 82.7%/100%, and 73.0%/97.3% in moderate, severe, and critical cases, respectively. Moreover, the IgM and IgG antibodies concentrations were also examined with no differences among three subgroups. CONCLUSION: The IgM-IgG antibody test exhibited a useful adjunct to RT-PCR detection, and improved the accuracy in COVID-19 diagnosis regardless of the severity of illness, which provides an effective complement to the false-negative results from a nucleic acid test for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis after onsets. | Int Immunopharmacol | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 510 | Offering onsite COVID-19 vaccination to high-risk obstetrical patients: initial findings OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate effect on pregnant women, with higher rates of viral infection and disease severity.1 The development of highly effective vaccines has significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission and clinical disease.2 However, vaccine uptake has been low in the pregnant population.3 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance suggests that limited vaccine access, not vaccine hesitancy, has driven the lower uptake rates in at-risk populations.4 We describe our experience with vaccination uptake rates among high-risk obstetrical patients before and after onsite BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccination availability in outpatient clinics as part of a pilot program to improve vaccine access among pregnant patients. STUDY DESIGN: This was a quality improvement project at a single academic medical center. Onsite vaccination was available once a week at 2 high-risk obstetrical clinics staffed by obstetrical residents, maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) fellows, and MFM attendings were selected for our vaccine pilot program. Onsite vaccinations were immediately available for use in the clinic starting May 11, 2021. Data were collected over a 4-week period (April 27, 2021, to May 20, 2021), which included 4 clinic days before onsite vaccine availability (April 27, 2021 to May 10, 2021) and 4 days with onsite vaccine availability (May 11, 2021, to May 20, 2021). Patients were considered exposed to onsite vaccination if they had any clinic visits during the latter 2 weeks of the study period. All patients were counseled by providers at each visit using our institution's standardized COVID-19 vaccination discussion tool designed for pregnant and breastfeeding patients.5 Counseling was documented in each patient's chart per the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Before and throughout the study period, pregnancy was listed as a qualifying condition for priority vaccination in Missouri and Illinois. At this time, vaccinations were readily available in the local area surrounding our clinical space. Data on vaccine administration were collected via the Missouri and Illinois state databases over a period of 1 month after the pilot program was closed, allowing for the collection of data on patients who pursued vaccination offsite for scheduling or personal reasons. This project was deemed exempt by the Office for Human Research Protections. RESULTS: We reviewed data from 124 clinic visits, where a total of 93 individual patients were seen in the 4-week period; 6 had previously been vaccinated at external sites and the remaining 87 were eligible (Figure). The majority of our patient population was non-Hispanic Black women with public or no insurance (Table). Of the 32 eligible patients seen and counseled before onsite vaccination availability, 1 (3%) proceeded to receive the vaccination offsite. Of the 55 eligible patients seen and counseled after onsite vaccination availability, 2 (3%) proceeded with onsite vaccination and an additional 4 (7%) proceeded with vaccination offsite. Onsite vaccination availability did not significantly increase the vaccination rates (3% vs 11%; P=.22). Of the 55 eligible patients counseled during onsite vaccination availability, 25 were seen and counseled exclusively during the onsite vaccination pilot period and none of these patients accepted onsite vaccination or pursued vaccination offsite. CONCLUSION: Because only 3% of eligible, high-risk obstetrical patients proceeded with onsite vaccination, our experience suggests that vaccine hesitancy, not availability, is a critical driver of the low vaccination rates in this population. Although a larger sample size may have demonstrated statistical difference, the overall low vaccination uptake rate forced the closure of our pilot program over concerns for wasted vaccination doses. In a population at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, only 14% of our study population was vaccinated, whereas Missouri reported a 41% vaccination rate during this time.6 These findings suggest that increased access alone may not improve vaccination rates in obstetrical patients even after counseling by expert clinicians. These findings are limited by the pre/post nature of the comparison, exposing the sample to bias as vaccination recommendations and population sentiment was rapidly evolving during this time period. However, the consistency of counseling and patient population provided by a single clinical setting limited other sources of bias during the study period. Vaccine hesitancy is multifactorial and complex and urgently requires more evaluation in this high-risk population. Vaccine hesitancy in pregnancy is well documented, but early reports suggest that the COVID-19 vaccination uptake rate is markedly lower than that of other vaccines during pregnancy. Our finding that none of the women who were seen exclusively during the onsite vaccination period accepted vaccination may suggest that repeat clinic visits and the associated establishment of rapport and trust is a vital part of vaccine decision making. Earlier intervention, before patient views on novel therapeutics such as vaccinations can be formulated and fixed, may aid in uptake. Further qualitative work and inclusion of pregnant women in vaccine trials is an initial step. | Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 511 | Generalized anxiety disorder, depressive symptoms and sleep quality during COVID-19 outbreak in China: a web-based cross-sectional survey Abstract China has been severely affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019(COVID-19) since December, 2019. We aimed to assess the mental health burden of Chinese public during the outbreak, and to explore the potential influence factors. Using a web-based cross-sectional survey, we collected data from 7,236 self-selected volunteers assessed with demographic information, COVID-19 related knowledge, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), depressive symptoms, and sleep quality. The overall prevalence of GAD, depressive symptoms, and sleep quality of the public were 35.1%, 20.1%, and 18.2%, respectively. Young people reported a significantly higher prevalence of GAD and depressive symptoms than older people. Compared with other occupational group, healthcare workers were more likely to have poor sleep quality. Multivariate logistic regression showed that age (< 35 years) and time spent focusing on the COVID-19 (≥ 3 hours per day) were associated with GAD, and healthcare workers were at high risk for poor sleep quality. Our study identified a major mental health burden of the public during the COVID-19 outbreak. Young people, people spending too much time thinking about the outbreak, and healthcare workers were at high risk of mental illness. Continuous surveillance of the psychological consequences for outbreaks should become routine as part of preparedness efforts worldwide. | Psychiatry Res | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 512 | Organ-protective effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and its effect on the prognosis of COVID-19 This article reviews the correlation between angiotensin‐converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and severe risk factors for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and the possible mechanisms. ACE2 is a crucial component of the renin‐angiotensin system (RAS). The classical RAS ACE‐Ang II‐AT1R regulatory axis and the ACE2‐Ang 1‐7‐MasR counter‐regulatory axis play an essential role in maintaining homeostasis in humans. ACE2 is widely distributed in the heart, kidneys, lungs, and testes. ACE2 antagonizes the activation of the classical RAS system and protects against organ damage, protecting against hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Similar to SARS‐CoV, SARS‐CoV‐2 also uses the ACE2 receptor to invade human alveolar epithelial cells. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a clinical high‐mortality disease, and ACE2 has a protective effect on this type of acute lung injury. Current research shows that the poor prognosis of patients with COVID‐19 is related to factors such as sex (male), age (>60 years), underlying diseases (hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease), secondary ARDS, and other relevant factors. Because of these protective effects of ACE2 on chronic underlying diseases and ARDS, the development of spike protein‐based vaccine and drugs enhancing ACE2 activity may become one of the most promising approaches for the treatment of COVID‐19 in the future. | J Med Virol | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 513 | Knowledge about, attitude and acceptance towards and predictors of intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine among cancer patients in Eastern China: A cross-sectional survey OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a serious impact on health all over the world. Cancer patient, whose immunity is often compromised, faces a huge challenge. Currently, some COVID-19 vaccines are being developed and applied on general population; however, whether cancer patients should take COVID-19 vaccine remains unknown. Our study aimed to explore the knowledge, attitude, acceptance, and predictors of intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine among cancer patients in Eastern China. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Eastern China from June 17th to September 3rd, 2021. Patients were selected using a convenience sampling method. A self-report questionnaire was developed to assess knowledge about the COVID-19 vaccine, attitude towards the vaccine and acceptance of the vaccine; following a review of similar studies previously published in the scientific literature, multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the predictors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. RESULTS: A total of 2158 cancer patients were enrolled in this study. The rate of vaccine hesitancy was 24.05% (519/2158); further, among the participants of vaccine acceptance, 767 had taken COVID-19 vaccine (35.54%), and 872 were willing to get vaccinated (40.01%). A total of 24 variables including demographic characteristics, clinical status of cancer, impact of COVID-19 pandemic on study participants, patients’ knowledge about the COVID-19 vaccine, and attitude towards the vaccine, had significant differences between the “vaccine hesitancy” population and “vaccine acceptance” population. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that parameters including alcohol consumption (odds ratio [OR] = 1.849; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.375–2.488; P-reference [P-Ref] < 0.001 vs non-drinkers), income impacted by COVID-19 pandemic (OR = 1.930, 2.037 and 2.688 for mild, moderate, and severe impact, respectively; all P-Ref < 0.01 vs no impact), knowledge of how the vaccine was developed (OR = 1.616; 95% CI: 1.126–2.318; P-Ref = 0.009 vs unknown), believing in the safety of the vaccine (OR = 1.502; 95% CI: 1.024–2.203; P-Ref = 0.038 vs denying the safety of vaccine), willingness to pay for the vaccine (OR = 3.042; 95% CI: 2.376–3.894; P-Ref < 0.001 vs unwilling), and willingness to recommend families and friends to get vaccinated (OR = 2.744; 95% CI: 1.759–4.280; P-Ref < 0.001 vs do not recommend) were contributors to vaccine acceptance. While such as being retired (OR = 0.586; 95% CI: 0.438–0.784; P-Ref < 0.001 vs unemployed), undergoing multiple therapies of cancer (OR = 0.408; 95% CI: 0.221–0.753; P-Ref = 0.004 vs no ongoing treatment), and worrying that the vaccine might deteriorate the prognosis of cancer (OR = 0.393; 95% CI: 0.307–0.504; P-Ref < 0.001 vs might not) were contributors to vaccine hesitancy. CONCLUSION: This study provided preliminary estimates of the rates of vaccine acceptance and vaccine hesitancy among cancer patients in Eastern China. The intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine was impacted by factors such as patient occupation, alcohol consumption, and some parts of knowledge about and attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine. It is recommended to develop individualized vaccination plans that meet the healthcare needs of cancer patients. | J Integr Med | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 514 | Psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers in a highly burdened area of north-east Italy AIMS: Healthcare workers exposed to coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) patients could be psychologically distressed. This study aims to assess the magnitude of psychological distress and associated factors among hospital staff during the COVID-19 pandemic in a large tertiary hospital located in north-east Italy. METHODS: All healthcare and administrative staff working in the Verona University Hospital (Veneto, Italy) during the COVID-19 pandemic were asked to complete a web-based survey from 21 April to 6 May 2020. Symptoms of post-traumatic distress, anxiety and depression were assessed, respectively, using the Impact of Event Scale (IES-R), the Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Personal socio-demographic information and job characteristics were also collected, including gender, age, living condition, having pre-existing psychological problems, occupation, length of working experience, hospital unit (ICUs and sub-intensive COVID-19 units vs. non-COVID-19 units). A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with each of the three mental health outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 2195 healthcare workers (36.9% of the overall hospital staff) participated in the study. Of the participants, 35.7% were nurses, 24.3% other healthcare staff, 16.4% residents, 13.9% physicians and 9.7% administrative staff. Nine per cent of healthcare staff worked in ICUs, 8% in sub-intensive COVID-19 units and 7.6% in other front-line services, while the remaining staff worked in hospital units not directly engaged with COVID-19 patients. Overall, 63.2% of participants reported COVID-related traumatic experiences at work and 53.8% (95% CI 51.0%–56.6%) showed symptoms of post-traumatic distress; moreover, 50.1% (95% CI 47.9%–52.3%) showed symptoms of clinically relevant anxiety and 26.6% (95% CI 24.7%–28.5%) symptoms of at least moderate depression. Multivariable logistic regressions showed that women, nurses, healthcare workers directly engaged with COVID-19 patients and those with pre-existing psychological problems were at increased risk of psychopathological consequences of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare staff working in a highly burdened geographical of north-east Italy is relevant and to some extent greater than that reported in China. The study provides solid grounds to elaborate and implement interventions pertaining to psychology and occupational health. | Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci | 2019 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 515 | COVID-19 Vaccine-Related Attitudes and Beliefs in Canada: National Cross-sectional Survey and Cluster Analysis BACKGROUND: There are concerns that vaccine hesitancy may impede COVID-19 vaccine rollout and prevent the achievement of herd immunity. Vaccine hesitancy is a delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite their availability. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify which people are more and less likely to take a COVID-19 vaccine and factors associated with vaccine hesitancy to inform public health messaging. METHODS: A Canadian cross-sectional survey was conducted in Canada in October and November 2020, prior to the regulatory approval of the COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccine hesitancy was measured by respondents answering the question “what would you do if a COVID-19 vaccine were available to you?” Negative binomial regression was used to identify the factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. Cluster analysis was performed to identify distinct clusters based on intention to take a COVID-19 vaccine, beliefs about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines, and adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions. RESULTS: Of 4498 participants, 2876 (63.9%) reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy was significantly associated with (1) younger age (18-39 years), (2) lower education, and (3) non-Liberal political leaning. Participants that reported vaccine hesitancy were less likely to believe that a COVID-19 vaccine would end the pandemic or that the benefits of a COVID-19 vaccine outweighed the risks. Individuals with vaccine hesitancy had higher prevalence of being concerned about vaccine side effects, lower prevalence of being influenced by peers or health care professionals, and lower prevalence of trust in government institutions. CONCLUSIONS: These findings can be used to inform targeted public health messaging to combat vaccine hesitancy as COVID-19 vaccine administration continues. Messaging related to preventing COVID among friends and family, highlighting the benefits, emphasizing safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination, and ensuring that health care workers are knowledgeable and supported in their vaccination counselling may be effective for vaccine-hesitant populations. | JMIR Public Health Surveill | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 516 | First Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus in the United States An outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) that began in Wuhan, China, has spread rapidly, with cases now confirmed in multiple countries. We report the first case of 2019-nCoV infection confirmed in the United States and describe the identification, diagnosis, clinical course, and management of the case, including the patient’s initial mild symptoms at presentation with progression to pneumonia on day 9 of illness. This case highlights the importance of close coordination between clinicians and public health authorities at the local, state, and federal levels, as well as the need for rapid dissemination of clinical information related to the care of patients with this emerging infection. | N Engl J Med | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 517 | The psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on college students in China A COVID-19 epidemic has been spreading in China and other parts of the world since December 2019. The epidemic has brought not only the risk of death from infection but also unbearable psychological pressure. We sampled college students from Changzhi medical college by using cluster sampling. They responded to a questionnaire packet that included the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) and those inquiring the participants’ basic information. We received 7,143 responses. Results indicated that 0.9% of the respondents were experiencing severe anxiety, 2.7% moderate anxiety, and 21.3% mild anxiety. Moreover, living in urban areas (OR = 0.810, 95% CI = 0.709 - 0.925), family income stability (OR = 0.726, 95% CI = 0.645 - 0.817) and living with parents (OR = 0.752, 95% CI = 0.596 - 0.950) were protective factors against anxiety. Moreover, having relatives or acquaintances infected with COVID-19 was a risk factor for increasing the anxiety of college students (OR = 3.007, 95% CI = 2.377 - 3.804). Results of correlation analysis indicated that economic effects, and effects on daily life, as well as delays in academic activities, were positively associated with anxiety symptoms (P < .001). However, social support was negatively correlated with the level of anxiety (P < .001). It is suggested that the mental health of college students should be monitored during epidemics. | Psychiatry Res | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 518 | The significant immune escape of pseudotyped SARS-CoV-2 variant Omicron The emergence of Omicron/BA.1 has brought new challenges to fight against SARS-CoV-2. A large number of mutations in the Spike protein suggest that its susceptibility to immune protection elicited by the existing COVID-19 infection and vaccines may be altered. In this study, we constructed the pseudotyped SARS-CoV-2 variant Omicron. The sensitivity of 28 serum samples from COVID-19 convalescent patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 original strain was tested against pseudotyped Omicron as well as the other variants of concern (VOCs, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta) and variants of interest (VOIs, Lambda, Mu). Our results indicated that the mean neutralization ED50 of these sera against Omicron decreased to 66, which is about 8.4-folds compared to the D614G reference strain (ED50 = 556), whereas the neutralization activity of other VOC and VOI pseudotyped viruses decreased only about 1.2–4.5-folds. The finding from our in vitro assay suggest that Omicron variant may lead to more significant escape from immune protection elicited by previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and perhaps even by existing COVID-19 vaccines. | Emerg Microbes Infect | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 519 | An outpatient telehealth elective for displaced clinical learners during the COVID-19 pandemic BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, medical schools suspended clinical rotations. This displacement of medical students from wards has limited experiential learning. Concurrently, outpatient practices are experiencing reduced volumes of in-person visits and are shifting towards virtual healthcare, a transition that comes with its own logistical challenges. This article describes a workflow that enabled medical students to engage in meaningful clinical education while helping an institution’s outpatient practices implement remote telemedicine visits. METHODS: A 4-week virtual elective was designed to allow clinical learners to participate in virtual telemedicine patient encounters. Students were prepared with EMR training and introduced to a novel workflow that supported healthcare providers in the outpatient setting. Patients were consented to telehealth services before encounters with medical students. All collected clinical information was documented in the EMR, after which students transitioned patients to a virtual Doxy.me video appointment. Surveys were used to evaluate clinical and educational outcomes of students’ participation. Elective evaluations and student reflections were also collected. RESULTS: Survey results showed students felt well-prepared to initiate patient encounters. They expressed comfort while engaging with patients virtually during telemedicine appointments. Students identified clinical educational value, citing opportunities to develop patient management plans consistent with in-person experiences. A significant healthcare burden was also alleviated by student involvement. Over 1000 total scheduled appointments were serviced by students who transitioned more than 80 % of patients into virtual attending provider waiting rooms. CONCLUSIONS: After piloting this elective with fourth-year students, pre-clerkship students were also recruited to act in a role normally associated with clinical learners (e.g., elicit patient histories, conduct a review of systems, etc.). Furthermore, additional telemedicine electives are being designed so medical students can contribute to patient care without risk of exposure to COVID-19. These efforts will allow students to continue with their clinical education during the pandemic. Medical educators can adopt a similar workflow to suit evolving remote learning needs. | BMC Med Educ | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 520 | Mental Health and Behavior of College Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Longitudinal Mobile Smartphone and Ecological Momentary Assessment Study, Part II BACKGROUND: Since late 2019, the lives of people across the globe have been disrupted by COVID-19. Millions of people have become infected with the disease, while billions of people have been continually asked or required by local and national governments to change their behavioral patterns. Previous research on the COVID-19 pandemic suggests that it is associated with large-scale behavioral and mental health changes; however, few studies have been able to track these changes with frequent, near real-time sampling or compare these changes to previous years of data for the same individuals. OBJECTIVE: By combining mobile phone sensing and self-reported mental health data in a cohort of college-aged students enrolled in a longitudinal study, we seek to understand the behavioral and mental health impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, measured by interest across the United States in the search terms coronavirus and COVID fatigue. METHODS: Behaviors such as the number of locations visited, distance traveled, duration of phone use, number of phone unlocks, sleep duration, and sedentary time were measured using the StudentLife mobile smartphone sensing app. Depression and anxiety were assessed using weekly self-reported ecological momentary assessments, including the Patient Health Questionnaire-4. The participants were 217 undergraduate students. Differences in behaviors and self-reported mental health collected during the Spring 2020 term, as compared to previous terms in the same cohort, were modeled using mixed linear models. RESULTS: Linear mixed models demonstrated differences in phone use, sleep, sedentary time and number of locations visited associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In further models, these behaviors were strongly associated with increased interest in COVID fatigue. When mental health metrics (eg, depression and anxiety) were added to the previous measures (week of term, number of locations visited, phone use, sedentary time), both anxiety and depression (P<.001) were significantly associated with interest in COVID fatigue. Notably, these behavioral and mental health changes are consistent with those observed around the initial implementation of COVID-19 lockdowns in the spring of 2020. CONCLUSIONS: In the initial lockdown phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, people spent more time on their phones, were more sedentary, visited fewer locations, and exhibited increased symptoms of anxiety and depression. As the pandemic persisted through the spring, people continued to exhibit very similar changes in both mental health and behaviors. Although these large-scale shifts in mental health and behaviors are unsurprising, understanding them is critical in disrupting the negative consequences to mental health during the ongoing pandemic. | J Med Internet Res | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 521 | Features of 20 133 UK patients in hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol: prospective observational cohort study OBJECTIVE: To characterise the clinical features of patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in the United Kingdom during the growth phase of the first wave of this outbreak who were enrolled in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study, and to explore risk factors associated with mortality in hospital. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study with rapid data gathering and near real time analysis. SETTING: 208 acute care hospitals in England, Wales, and Scotland between 6 February and 19 April 2020. A case report form developed by ISARIC and WHO was used to collect clinical data. A minimal follow-up time of two weeks (to 3 May 2020) allowed most patients to complete their hospital admission. PARTICIPANTS: 20 133 hospital inpatients with covid-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Admission to critical care (high dependency unit or intensive care unit) and mortality in hospital. RESULTS: The median age of patients admitted to hospital with covid-19, or with a diagnosis of covid-19 made in hospital, was 73 years (interquartile range 58-82, range 0-104). More men were admitted than women (men 60%, n=12 068; women 40%, n=8065). The median duration of symptoms before admission was 4 days (interquartile range 1-8). The commonest comorbidities were chronic cardiac disease (31%, 5469/17 702), uncomplicated diabetes (21%, 3650/17 599), non-asthmatic chronic pulmonary disease (18%, 3128/17 634), and chronic kidney disease (16%, 2830/17 506); 23% (4161/18 525) had no reported major comorbidity. Overall, 41% (8199/20 133) of patients were discharged alive, 26% (5165/20 133) died, and 34% (6769/20 133) continued to receive care at the reporting date. 17% (3001/18 183) required admission to high dependency or intensive care units; of these, 28% (826/3001) were discharged alive, 32% (958/3001) died, and 41% (1217/3001) continued to receive care at the reporting date. Of those receiving mechanical ventilation, 17% (276/1658) were discharged alive, 37% (618/1658) died, and 46% (764/1658) remained in hospital. Increasing age, male sex, and comorbidities including chronic cardiac disease, non-asthmatic chronic pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, liver disease and obesity were associated with higher mortality in hospital. CONCLUSIONS: ISARIC WHO CCP-UK is a large prospective cohort study of patients in hospital with covid-19. The study continues to enrol at the time of this report. In study participants, mortality was high, independent risk factors were increasing age, male sex, and chronic comorbidity, including obesity. This study has shown the importance of pandemic preparedness and the need to maintain readiness to launch research studies in response to outbreaks. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN66726260. | BMJ | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 522 | Effectiveness of Interferon Beta 1a, compared to Interferon Beta 1b and the usual therapeutic regimen to treat adults with moderate to severe COVID-19: structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial OBJECTIVES: We will investigate the effectiveness of Interferon Beta 1a, compared to Interferon Beta 1b and the usual therapeutic regimen in COVID-19 in patients that have tested positive and are moderately to severely ill. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a single center, open label, randomized, controlled, parallel group, clinical trial that will be conducted at Loghman Hakim Medical Education Center in conjunction with Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty COVID-19 confirmed cases (using the RT-PCR test) will be enrolled in the trial between April 9(th) to April 14(th) 2020. Patients will be randomly assigned to the intervention groups or the control group with the following eligibility criteria: ≥ 18 years of age AND (oxygen saturation (SPO2) ≤ 93% OR respiratory rate ≥ 24) AND at least one of the following: Contactless infrared forehead thermometer temperature of ≥37.8, cough, sputum production, nasal discharge, myalgia, headache or fatigue on admission, and time of onset of the symptoms should be acute (Days ≤ 14). Although Hydroxychloroquine will be administered in a single dose, patients with heart problems (prolonged QT or PR intervals, second- or third-degree heart block, and arrhythmias including torsade de pointes) will be excluded. Other exclusion criteria include using drugs with potential interaction with Hydroxychloroquine + Lopinavir/Ritonavir, Interferon-β 1a, Interferon-β 1b, pregnant or lactating women, history of alcohol or drug addiction in the past 5 years, blood ALT/AST levels > 5 times the upper limit of normal on laboratory results and refusal to participate. This study will be undertaken at the Loghman Hakim Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences and Health Services. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: COVID-19 confirmed patients will be randomly assigned to one of three groups, with 20 patients in each. The first group (Arm 1) will receive Hydroxychloroquine + Lopinavir / Ritonavir (Kaletra) + Interferon-β 1a (Recigen), the second group (Arm 2) will be administered Hydroxychloroquine + Lopinavir / Ritonavir (Kaletra) + Interferon-β 1b (Ziferon), and the control group (Arm 3) will be treated by Hydroxychloroquine + Lopinavir / Ritonavir (Kaletra). MAIN OUTCOMES: Time to clinical improvement is our primary outcome measure. This is an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale (recommended by the World Health Organization: Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) R&D. Geneva: World Health Organization) or discharge from the hospital, whichever comes first. Secondary outcomes include mortality from the date of randomization until the last day of the study which will be the day all of the patients have had at least one of the following outcomes: 1) Improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale. 2) Discharge from the hospital 3) Death. If any patient dies, we have reached an important secondary outcome. SpO2 Improvement between the last and first day of hospitalization, using pulse-oximetry. Duration of hospitalization from date of randomization until the date of hospital discharge or date of death from any cause, whichever comes first. Incidence of new mechanical ventilation uses from date of randomization until the last day of the study. Please note that we are trying to add further secondary outcomes and this section of the protocol is still evolving. Statistical analysis will be performed by R version 3.6.1 software. We will use Kaplan–Meier to analyze the time to clinical improvement (compared with a log-rank test). Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals will be calculated using the Cox proportional-hazards model in crude and adjusted analysis. RANDOMIZATION: Eligible patients will be randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either Interferon Beta 1a, Interferon Beta 1b or standard care only. Patients will be randomly allocated to three therapeutic arms using permuted, block-randomization to balance the number of patients allocated to each group. The permuted block (three or six patients per block) randomization sequence will be generated, using Package ‘randomizeR’ in R software version 3.6.1. and placed in individual sealed and opaque envelopes by the statistician. The investigator will enroll the patients and only then open envelopes to assign patients to the different treatment groups. This method of allocation concealment will result in minimum selection and confounding biases. BLINDING (MASKING): The present research is open-label (no masking) of patients and health care professionals who are undertaking outcome assessment of the primary outcome - time to clinical improvement. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): Of the 60 patients who underwent randomization, 20 patients were assigned to receive Interferon beta-1a, 20 patients were assigned to receive Interferon beta 1b plus standard care and the rest of patients were assigned to receive the standard care alone. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version 1.2.1. Recruitment is finished, the start date of recruitment was on 9(th) April 2020 and the end date was on 14(th) April 2020. Last point of data collection will be the last day on which all of the 60 participants have had an outcome of clinical improvement or death, completing the study’s follow-up time window. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with National Institutes of Health Clinical trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov; identification number NCT04343768, registered April 8, 2020 and first available online April 13, 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. | Trials | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 523 | FnCas9-based CRISPR diagnostic for rapid and accurate detection of major SARS-CoV-2 variants on a paper strip The COVID-19 pandemic originating in the Wuhan province of China in late 2019 has impacted global health, causing increased mortality among elderly patients and individuals with comorbid conditions. During the passage of the virus through affected populations, it has undergone mutations, some of which have recently been linked with increased viral load and prognostic complexities. Several of these variants are point mutations that are difficult to diagnose using the gold standard quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) method and necessitates widespread sequencing which is expensive, has long turn-around times, and requires high viral load for calling mutations accurately. Here, we repurpose the high specificity of Francisella novicida Cas9 (FnCas9) to identify mismatches in the target for developing a lateral flow assay that can be successfully adapted for the simultaneous detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as for detecting point mutations in the sequence of the virus obtained from patient samples. We report the detection of the S gene mutation N501Y (present across multiple variant lineages of SARS-CoV-2) within an hour using lateral flow paper strip chemistry. The results were corroborated using deep sequencing on multiple wild-type (n = 37) and mutant (n = 22) virus infected patient samples with a sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 97%. The design principle can be rapidly adapted for other mutations (as shown also for E484K and T716I) highlighting the advantages of quick optimization and roll-out of CRISPR diagnostics (CRISPRDx) for disease surveillance even beyond COVID-19. This study was funded by Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, India. | Elife | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 524 | Facing the Omicron variant-how well do vaccines protect against mild and severe COVID-19? Third interim analysis of a living systematic review N/A | Front Immunol | 2022 | LitCov | |
| 525 | Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in 104 people with SARS-CoV-2 infection on the Diamond Princess cruise ship: a retrospective analysis BACKGROUND: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is a global threat. Identification of markers for symptom onset and disease progression is a pressing issue. We described the clinical features of people infected on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship who were diagnosed with asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection or mild or severe COVID-19, on admission to the Self-Defense Forces Central Hospital (Tokyo, Japan) and at the end of observation. METHODS: This retrospective, single-centre study included participants with laboratory-detected SARS-CoV-2 infection who were admitted to the Self-Defense Forces Central Hospital from Feb 11 to Feb 25, 2020. Clinical records, laboratory data, and radiological findings were analysed. Clinical outcomes were followed up until discharge or Feb 26, 2020, whichever came first. We defined asymptomatic infection as SARS-CoV-2 infection with no history of clinical signs and symptoms, severe COVID-19 as clinical symptoms of pneumonia (dyspnoea, tachypnoea, peripheral capillary oxygen saturation <93%, and need for oxygen therapy), and mild COVID-19 as all other symptoms. Clinical features on admission were compared among patients with different disease severity, including asymptomatic infection, at the end of observation. We used univariable analysis to identify factors associated with symptomatic illness among asymptomatic people infected with SARS-CoV-2 and disease progression in patients with COVID-19. FINDINGS: Among the 104 participants included in the final analysis, the median age was 68 years (IQR 47–75) and 54 (52%) were male. On admission, 43 (41%) participants were classified as asymptomatic, 41 (39%) as having mild COVID-10, and 20 (19%) as having severe COVID-19. At the end of observation, 33 (32%) participants were confirmed as being asymptomatic, 43 (41%) as having mild COVID-19, and 28 (27%) as having severe COVID-19. Serum lactate hydrogenase concentrations were significantly higher in the ten participants who were asymptomatic on admission but developed symptomatic COVID-19 compared with the 33 participants who remained asymptomatic throughout the observation period (five [50%] vs four [12%] participants; odds ratio 7·25, 95% CI 1·43–36·70; p=0·020). Compared with patients with mild disease at the end of observation, patients with severe COVID-19 were older (median age 73 years [IQR 55–77] vs 60 years [40–71]; p=0·028) and had more frequent consolidation on chest CT (13 [46%] of 28 vs nine [21%] of 43; p=0·035) and lymphopenia (16 [57%] vs ten [23%]; p=0·0055) on admission. INTERPRETATION: Older age, consolidation on chest CT images, and lymphopenia might be risk factors for disease progression of COVID-19 and contribute to improved clinical management. FUNDING: None. | Lancet Infect Dis | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 526 | Mental health status of the general population, healthcare professionals and university students during 2019 coronavirus disease outbreak in Jordan: A cross-sectional study BACKGROUND: The emergence of COVID‐19 global pandemic coupled with high transmission rate and mortality has created an unprecedented state of emergency worldwide. This global situation may have a negative impact on the psychological well‐being of individuals which in turn impacts individuals' performance. This study aims to explore the prevalence of depression and anxiety among the GP, HCPs, and USs during COVID‐19 outbreak, and to identify key population(s) who might need psychological intervention. METHODS: A cross‐sectional study using an online survey was conducted in Jordan between 22 and 28 March 2020 to explore the mental health status (depression and anxiety) of the general population, healthcare professionals, and university students during the COVID‐19 outbreak. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ‐9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder‐7 (GAD‐7) were used to assess depression and anxiety among the study participants. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of depression and anxiety. RESULTS: The prevalence of depression and anxiety among the entire study participants was 23.8% and 13.1%, respectively. Anxiety was most prevalent across university students 21.5%, followed by healthcare professionals 11.3%, and general population 8.8%. Females among healthcare professionals and university students, divorced healthcare professionals, pulmonologists, and university students with history of chronic disease were at higher risk of developing depression. Females, divorced participants among the general population, and university students with history of chronic disease and those with high income (≥1,500 JD) were at higher risk of developing anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: During outbreaks, individuals are put under extreme stressful condition resulting in higher risk of developing anxiety and depression particularly for students and healthcare professionals. Policymakers and mental healthcare providers are advised to provide further mental support to these vulnerable groups during this pandemic. | Brain Behav | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 527 | COVID-19 and Individual Genetic Susceptibility/Receptivity: Role of ACE1/ACE2 Genes, Immunity, Inflammation and Coagulation. Might the Double X-chromosome in Females Be Protective against SARS-CoV-2 Compared to the Single X-Chromosome in Males? In December 2019, a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) from a new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was recognized in the city of Wuhan, China. Rapidly, it became an epidemic in China and has now spread throughout the world reaching pandemic proportions. High mortality rates characterize SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19), which mainly affects the elderly, causing unrestrained cytokines-storm and subsequent pulmonary shutdown, also suspected micro thromboembolism events. At the present time, no specific and dedicated treatments, nor approved vaccines, are available, though very promising data come from the use of anti-inflammatory, anti-malaria, and anti-coagulant drugs. In addition, it seems that males are more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 than females, with males 65% more likely to die from the infection than females. Data from the World Health Organization (WHO) and Chinese scientists show that of all cases about 1.7% of women who contract the virus will die compared with 2.8% of men, and data from Hong Kong hospitals state that 32% of male and 15% of female COVID-19 patients required intensive care or died. On the other hand, the long-term fallout of coronavirus may be worse for women than for men due to social and psychosocial reasons. Regardless of sex- or gender-biased data obtained from WHO and those gathered from sometimes controversial scientific journals, some central points should be considered. Firstly, SARS-CoV-2 has a strong interaction with the human ACE2 receptor, which plays an essential role in cell entry together with transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2); it is interesting to note that the ACE2 gene lays on the X-chromosome, thus allowing females to be potentially heterozygous and differently assorted compared to men who are definitely hemizygous. Secondly, the higher ACE2 expression rate in females, though controversial, might ascribe them the worst prognosis, in contrast with worldwide epidemiological data. Finally, several genes involved in inflammation are located on the X-chromosome, which also contains high number of immune-related genes responsible for innate and adaptive immune responses to infection. Other genes, out from the RAS-pathway, might directly or indirectly impact on the ACE1/ACE2 balance by influencing its main actors (e.g., ABO locus, SRY, SOX3, ADAM17). Unexpectedly, the higher levels of ACE2 or ACE1/ACE2 rebalancing might improve the outcome of COVID-19 in both sexes by reducing inflammation, thrombosis, and death. Moreover, X-heterozygous females might also activate a mosaic advantage and show more pronounced sex-related differences resulting in a sex dimorphism, further favoring them in counteracting the progression of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. | Int J Mol Sci | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 528 | Association Between Public Knowledge About COVID-19, Trust in Information Sources and Adherence to Social Distancing: Cross-Sectional Survey BACKGROUND: The success of behavioral interventions and policies designed to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic depends on how well individuals are informed about both the consequences of infection and the steps that should be taken to reduce the impact of the disease. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate associations between public knowledge about COVID-19, adherence to social distancing, and public trust in government information sources (eg, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), private sources (eg, FOX and CNN), and social networks (eg, Facebook and Twitter) to inform future policies related to critical information distribution. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey (N=1243) between April 10 and 14, 2020. Data collection was stratified by US region and other demographics to ensure representativeness of the sample. RESULTS: Government information sources were the most trusted among the public. However, we observed trends in the data that suggested variations in trust by age and gender. White and older populations generally expressed higher trust in government sources, while non-White and younger populations expressed higher trust in private sources (eg, CNN) and social networks (eg, Twitter). Trust in government sources was positively associated with accurate knowledge about COVID-19 and adherence to social distancing. However, trust in private sources (eg, FOX and CNN) was negatively associated with knowledge about COVID-19. Similarly, trust in social networks (eg, Facebook and Twitter) was negatively associated with both knowledge and adherence to social distancing. CONCLUSIONS: During pandemics such as the COVID-19 outbreak, policy makers should carefully consider the quality of information disseminated through private sources and social networks. Furthermore, when disseminating urgent health information, a variety of information sources should be used to ensure that diverse populations have timely access to critical knowledge. | JMIR Public Health Surveill | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 529 | The Psychological Experience of Obstetric Patients and Healthcare Workers after Implementation of Universal SARS-CoV-2 Testing Objective This study was aimed to describe the hospitalization and early postpartum psychological experience for asymptomatic obstetric patients tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) as part of a universal testing program and report the impact of this program on labor and delivery health care workers' job satisfaction and workplace anxiety. Study Design This is a cohort study of asymptomatic pregnant women who underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing between April 13, 2020 and April 26, 2020. Semistructured interviews were conducted via telephone at 1 and 2 weeks posthospitalization to assess maternal mental health. Depression screening was conducted using the patient health questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2). An online survey of labor and delivery health care workers assessed job satisfaction and job-related anxiety before and during the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, as well as employees' subjective experience with universal testing. Patient and employee responses were analyzed for recurring themes. Results A total of 318 asymptomatic women underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing during this 2-week period. Six of the eight women (75%) who tested positive reported negative in-hospital experiences secondary to perceived lack of provider and partner support and neonatal separation after birth. Among the 310 women who tested negative, 34.4% of multiparous women reported increased postpartum anxiety compared with their prior deliveries due to concerns about infectious exposure in the hospital and lack of social support. Only 27.6% of women, tested negative, found their test result to be reassuring. Job satisfaction and job-related anxiety among health care workers were negatively affected. Universal testing was viewed favorably by the majority of health care workers despite concerns about delays or alterations in patient care and maternal and neonatal separation. Conclusion Universal testing for SARS-CoV-2 in obstetric units has mixed effects on maternal mental health but is viewed favorably by labor and delivery employees. Ongoing evaluation of new testing protocols is paramount to balance staff and patient safety with quality and equality of care. Key Points: Women with SARS-CoV-2 had a negative hospital experience. A negative SARS-CoV-2 test was not reassuring for patients. COVID-19 negatively impacts healthcare workers’ well-being. | Am J Perinatol | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 530 | Discovery and Evaluation of Entry Inhibitors for SARS-CoV-2 and Its Emerging Variants The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is responsible for the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Despite unprecedented research and developmental efforts, SARS-CoV-2-specific antivirals are still unavailable for the treatment of COVID-19. In most instances, SARS-CoV-2 infection initiates with the binding of Spike glycoprotein to the host cell ACE2 receptor. Utilizing the crystal structure of the ACE2/Spike receptor-binding domain (S-RBD) complex (PDB file 6M0J) in a computer-aided drug design approach, we identified and validated five potential inhibitors of S-RBD and ACE-2 interaction. Two of the five compounds, MU-UNMC-1 and MU-UNMC-2, blocked the entry of pseudovirus particles expressing SARS-CoV-2 Spike glycoprotein. In live SARS-CoV-2 infection assays, both compounds showed antiviral activity with IC(50) values in the micromolar range (MU-UNMC-1: IC(50) = 0.67 μM and MU-UNMC-2: IC(50) = 1.72 μM) in human bronchial epithelial cells. Furthermore, MU-UNMC-1 and MU-UNMC-2 effectively blocked the replication of rapidly transmitting variants of concern: South African variant B.1.351 (IC(50) = 9.27 and 3.00 μM) and Scotland variant B.1.222 (IC(50) = 2.64 and 1.39 μM), respectively. Following these assays, we conducted “induced-fit (flexible) docking” to understand the binding mode of MU-UNMC-1/MU-UNMC-2 at the S-RBD/ACE2 interface. Our data showed that mutation N501Y (present in B.1.351 variant) alters the binding mode of MU-UNMC-2 such that it is partially exposed to the solvent and has reduced polar contacts. Finally, MU-UNMC-2 displayed high synergy with remdesivir, the only approved drug for treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients. IMPORTANCE The ongoing coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is caused by a novel coronavirus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). More than 207 million people have been infected globally, and 4.3 million have died due to this viral outbreak. While a few vaccines have been deployed, a SARS-CoV-2-specific antiviral for the treatment of COVID-19 is yet to be approved. As the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein with ACE2 is critical for cellular entry, using a combination of a computer-aided drug design (CADD) approach and cell-based in vitro assays, we report the identification of five potential SARS-CoV-2 entry inhibitors. Out of the five, two compounds (MU-UNMC-1 and MU-UNMC-2) have antiviral activity against ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and emerging variants from South Africa and Scotland. Furthermore, MU-UNMC-2 acts synergistically with remdesivir (RDV), suggesting that RDV and MU-UNMC-2 can be developed as a combination therapy to treat COVID-19 patients. | J Virol | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 531 | Repurposing 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. | Encephale | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 532 | Factors associated with hospital admission and critical illness among 5279 people with COVID-19 in New York City: prospective cohort study OBJECTIVE: To describe outcomes of people admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in the United States, and the clinical and laboratory characteristics associated with severity of illness. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Single academic medical center in New York City and Long Island. PARTICIPANTS: 5279 patients with laboratory confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) infection between 1 March 2020 and 8 April 2020. The final date of follow up was 5 May 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were admission to hospital, critical illness (intensive care, mechanical ventilation, discharge to hospice care, or death), and discharge to hospice care or death. Predictors included patient characteristics, medical history, vital signs, and laboratory results. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify risk factors for adverse outcomes, and competing risk survival analysis for mortality. RESULTS: Of 11 544 people tested for SARS-Cov-2, 5566 (48.2%) were positive. After exclusions, 5279 were included. 2741 of these 5279 (51.9%) were admitted to hospital, of whom 1904 (69.5%) were discharged alive without hospice care and 665 (24.3%) were discharged to hospice care or died. Of 647 (23.6%) patients requiring mechanical ventilation, 391 (60.4%) died and 170 (26.2%) were extubated or discharged. The strongest risk for hospital admission was associated with age, with an odds ratio of >2 for all age groups older than 44 years and 37.9 (95% confidence interval 26.1 to 56.0) for ages 75 years and older. Other risks were heart failure (4.4, 2.6 to 8.0), male sex (2.8, 2.4 to 3.2), chronic kidney disease (2.6, 1.9 to 3.6), and any increase in body mass index (BMI) (eg, for BMI >40: 2.5, 1.8 to 3.4). The strongest risks for critical illness besides age were associated with heart failure (1.9, 1.4 to 2.5), BMI >40 (1.5, 1.0 to 2.2), and male sex (1.5, 1.3 to 1.8). Admission oxygen saturation of <88% (3.7, 2.8 to 4.8), troponin level >1 (4.8, 2.1 to 10.9), C reactive protein level >200 (5.1, 2.8 to 9.2), and D-dimer level >2500 (3.9, 2.6 to 6.0) were, however, more strongly associated with critical illness than age or comorbidities. Risk of critical illness decreased significantly over the study period. Similar associations were found for mortality alone. CONCLUSIONS: Age and comorbidities were found to be strong predictors of hospital admission and to a lesser extent of critical illness and mortality in people with covid-19; however, impairment of oxygen on admission and markers of inflammation were most strongly associated with critical illness and mortality. Outcomes seem to be improving over time, potentially suggesting improvements in care. | BMJ | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 533 | Antibody Response After Two Doses of Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Healthcare Workers with and without Previous COVID-19 Infection: A Prospective Observational Study N/A | Mikrobiyol Bul | 2022 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 534 | Modeling and tracking Covid-19 cases using Big Data analytics on HPCC system platform This project is funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) through their NSF RAPID program under the title “Modeling Corona Spread Using Big Data Analytics.” The project is a joint effort between the Department of Computer & Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at FAU and a research group from LexisNexis Risk Solutions. The novel coronavirus Covid-19 originated in China in early December 2019 and has rapidly spread to many countries around the globe, with the number of confirmed cases increasing every day. Covid-19 is officially a pandemic. It is a novel infection with serious clinical manifestations, including death, and it has reached at least 124 countries and territories. Although the ultimate course and impact of Covid-19 are uncertain, it is not merely possible but likely that the disease will produce enough severe illness to overwhelm the worldwide health care infrastructure. Emerging viral pandemics can place extraordinary and sustained demands on public health and health systems and on providers of essential community services. Modeling the Covid-19 pandemic spread is challenging. But there are data that can be used to project resource demands. Estimates of the reproductive number (R) of SARS-CoV-2 show that at the beginning of the epidemic, each infected person spreads the virus to at least two others, on average (Emanuel et al. in N Engl J Med. 2020, Livingston and Bucher in JAMA 323(14):1335, 2020). A conservatively low estimate is that 5 % of the population could become infected within 3 months. Preliminary data from China and Italy regarding the distribution of case severity and fatality vary widely (Wu and McGoogan in JAMA 323(13):1239–42, 2020). A recent large-scale analysis from China suggests that 80 % of those infected either are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms; a finding that implies that demand for advanced medical services might apply to only 20 % of the total infected. Of patients infected with Covid-19, about 15 % have severe illness and 5 % have critical illness (Emanuel et al. in N Engl J Med. 2020). Overall, mortality ranges from 0.25 % to as high as 3.0 % (Emanuel et al. in N Engl J Med. 2020, Wilson et al. in Emerg Infect Dis 26(6):1339, 2020). Case fatality rates are much higher for vulnerable populations, such as persons over the age of 80 years (> 14 %) and those with coexisting conditions (10 % for those with cardiovascular disease and 7 % for those with diabetes) (Emanuel et al. in N Engl J Med. 2020). Overall, Covid-19 is substantially deadlier than seasonal influenza, which has a mortality of roughly 0.1 %. Public health efforts depend heavily on predicting how diseases such as those caused by Covid-19 spread across the globe. During the early days of a new outbreak, when reliable data are still scarce, researchers turn to mathematical models that can predict where people who could be infected are going and how likely they are to bring the disease with them. These computational methods use known statistical equations that calculate the probability of individuals transmitting the illness. Modern computational power allows these models to quickly incorporate multiple inputs, such as a given disease’s ability to pass from person to person and the movement patterns of potentially infected people traveling by air and land. This process sometimes involves making assumptions about unknown factors, such as an individual’s exact travel pattern. By plugging in different possible versions of each input, however, researchers can update the models as new information becomes available and compare their results to observed patterns for the illness. In this paper we describe the development a model of Corona spread by using innovative big data analytics techniques and tools. We leveraged our experience from research in modeling Ebola spread (Shaw et al. Modeling Ebola Spread and Using HPCC/KEL System. In: Big Data Technologies and Applications 2016 (pp. 347-385). Springer, Cham) to successfully model Corona spread, we will obtain new results, and help in reducing the number of Corona patients. We closely collaborated with LexisNexis, which is a leading US data analytics company and a member of our NSF I/UCRC for Advanced Knowledge Enablement. The lack of a comprehensive view and informative analysis of the status of the pandemic can also cause panic and instability within society. Our work proposes the HPCC Systems Covid-19 tracker, which provides a multi-level view of the pandemic with the informative virus spreading indicators in a timely manner. The system embeds a classical epidemiological model known as SIR and spreading indicators based on causal model. The data solution of the tracker is built on top of the Big Data processing platform HPCC Systems, from ingesting and tracking of various data sources to fast delivery of the data to the public. The HPCC Systems Covid-19 tracker presents the Covid-19 data on a daily, weekly, and cumulative basis up to global-level and down to the county-level. It also provides statistical analysis for each level such as new cases per 100,000 population. The primary analysis such as Contagion Risk and Infection State is based on causal model with a seven-day sliding window. Our work has been released as a publicly available website to the world and attracted a great volume of traffic. The project is open-sourced and available on GitHub. The system was developed on the LexisNexis HPCC Systems, which is briefly described in the paper. | J Big Data | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 535 | Epidemiology of Myocarditis and Pericarditis Following mRNA Vaccination by Vaccine Product, Schedule and Interdose Interval Among Adolescents and Adults in Ontario, Canada N/A | JAMA Netw Open | 2022 | LitCov | |
| 536 | Virological and serological kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant vaccine breakthrough infections: a multicenter cohort study OBJECTIVES: Highly effective vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been developed but variants of concerns are worrisome, especially B.1.617.2 (Delta) which has rapidly spread across the world. We aim to study if vaccination alters virological and serological kinetics in breakthrough infections. METHODS: We conducted a multi-centre retrospective cohort study of patients in Singapore who had received a licensed mRNA vaccine and been admitted to hospital with B.1.617.2 SARS-CoV-2 infection. We compared clinical features, virological and serological kinetics (anti-nucleocapsid, anti-spike and surrogate virus neutralization titres) between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. RESULTS: Out of 218 individuals with B.1.617.2 infection, 84 received a mRNA vaccine of which 71 were fully vaccinated, 130 were unvaccinated and 4 received a non-mRNA. Despite significantly older age in the vaccine-breakthrough group, only 2.8% (2/71) developed severe COVID-19 requiring oxygen supplementation compared to 53.1% (69/130) in the unvaccinated group (p<0.001). Odds of severe COVID-19 following vaccination were significantly lower (adjusted odds ratio 0.07 95%CI: 0.015-0.335, p=0.001). PCR cycle threshold values were similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups at diagnosis, but viral loads decreased faster in vaccinated individuals. Early, robust boosting of anti-spike protein antibodies was observed in vaccinated patients, however, these titers were significantly lower against B.1.617.2 as compared with wildtype vaccine strain. CONCLUSION: The mRNA vaccines are highly effective at preventing symptomatic and severe COVID-19 associated with B.1.617.2 infection. Vaccination is associated with faster decline in viral RNA load and a robust serological response. Vaccination remains a key strategy for control of COVID-19 pandemic. | Clin Microbiol Infect | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 537 | Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Response 4 Weeks After Homologous vs Heterologous Third Vaccine Dose in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Randomized Clinical Trial IMPORTANCE: Fewer than 50% of kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) develop antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein after 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine. Preliminary data suggest that a heterologous vaccination, combining mRNA and viral vector vaccines, may increase immunogenicity. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a third dose of an mRNA vs a vector vaccine in KTRs who did not have antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein after 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a single center, single-blinded, 1:1 randomized clinical trial of a third dose of vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, conducted from June 15 to August 16, 2021, in 201 KTRs who had not developed SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies after 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine. Data analyses were performed from August 17 to August 31, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: mRNA (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) or vector (Ad26COVS1) as a third dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary study end point was seroconversion after 4 weeks (29-42 days) following the third vaccine dose. Secondary end points included neutralizing antibodies and T-cell response assessed by interferon-γ release assays (IGRA). In addition, the association of patient characteristics and vaccine response was assessed using logistic regression, and the reactogenicity of the vaccines was compared. RESULTS: Among the study population of 197 kidney transplant recipients (mean [SD] age, 61.2 [12.4] years; 82 [42%] women), 39% developed SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after the third vaccine. There was no statistically significant difference between groups, with an antibody response rate of 35% and 42% for the mRNA and vector vaccines, respectively. Only 22% of seroconverted patients had neutralizing antibodies. Similarly, T-cell response assessed by IGRA was low with only 17 patients showing a positive response after the third vaccination. Receiving nontriple immunosuppression (odds ratio [OR], 3.59; 95% CI, 1.33-10.75), longer time after kidney transplant (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.15-1.83, per doubling of years), and torque teno virus plasma levels (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96, per doubling of levels) were associated with vaccine response. The third dose of an mRNA vaccine was associated with a higher frequency of local pain at the injection site compared with the vector vaccine, while systemic symptoms were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This randomized clinical trial found that 39% of KTRs without an immune response against SARS-CoV-2 after 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine developed antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein 4 weeks after a third dose of an mRNA or a vector vaccine. The heterologous vaccination strategy with a vector-based vaccine was well tolerated and safe but not significantly better than the homologous mRNA-based strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Identifier: 2021-002927-39 | JAMA Intern Med | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 538 | COVID-19 Vaccine-Related Discussion on Twitter: Topic Modeling and Sentiment Analysis BACKGROUND: Vaccination is a cornerstone of the prevention of communicable infectious diseases; however, vaccines have traditionally met with public fear and hesitancy, and COVID-19 vaccines are no exception. Social media use has been demonstrated to play a role in the low acceptance of vaccines. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to identify the topics and sentiments in the public COVID-19 vaccine–related discussion on social media and discern the salient changes in topics and sentiments over time to better understand the public perceptions, concerns, and emotions that may influence the achievement of herd immunity goals. METHODS: Tweets were downloaded from a large-scale COVID-19 Twitter chatter data set from March 11, 2020, the day the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, to January 31, 2021. We used R software to clean the tweets and retain tweets that contained the keywords vaccination, vaccinations, vaccine, vaccines, immunization, vaccinate, and vaccinated. The final data set included in the analysis consisted of 1,499,421 unique tweets from 583,499 different users. We used R to perform latent Dirichlet allocation for topic modeling as well as sentiment and emotion analysis using the National Research Council of Canada Emotion Lexicon. RESULTS: Topic modeling of tweets related to COVID-19 vaccines yielded 16 topics, which were grouped into 5 overarching themes. Opinions about vaccination (227,840/1,499,421 tweets, 15.2%) was the most tweeted topic and remained a highly discussed topic during the majority of the period of our examination. Vaccine progress around the world became the most discussed topic around August 11, 2020, when Russia approved the world’s first COVID-19 vaccine. With the advancement of vaccine administration, the topic of instruction on getting vaccines gradually became more salient and became the most discussed topic after the first week of January 2021. Weekly mean sentiment scores showed that despite fluctuations, the sentiment was increasingly positive in general. Emotion analysis further showed that trust was the most predominant emotion, followed by anticipation, fear, sadness, etc. The trust emotion reached its peak on November 9, 2020, when Pfizer announced that its vaccine is 90% effective. CONCLUSIONS: Public COVID-19 vaccine–related discussion on Twitter was largely driven by major events about COVID-19 vaccines and mirrored the active news topics in mainstream media. The discussion also demonstrated a global perspective. The increasingly positive sentiment around COVID-19 vaccines and the dominant emotion of trust shown in the social media discussion may imply higher acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines compared with previous vaccines. | J Med Internet Res | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 539 | Reconvalescent plasma/camostat mesylate in early SARS-CoV-2 Q-PCR positive high-risk individuals (RES-Q-HR): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial OBJECTIVES: Currently, there are no approved treatments for early disease stages of COVID-19 and few strategies to prevent disease progression after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) or camostat mesylate administered within 72 h of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adult individuals with pre-existing risk factors at higher risk of getting seriously ill with COVID-19. Camostat mesylate acts as an inhibitor of the host cell serine protease TMPRSS2 and prevents the virus from entering the cell. CP represents another antiviral strategy in terms of passive immunization. The working hypothesis to be tested in the RES-Q-HR study is that the early use of CP or camostat mesylate reduces the likelihood of disease progression to (modified) WHO stages 4b-8 in SARS-CoV-2-positive adult patients at high risk of moderate or severe COVID-19 progression. TRIAL DESIGN: This study is a 4-arm (parallel group), multicenter, randomized (2:2:1:1 ratio), partly double-blind, controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) or camostat mesylate with control or placebo in adult patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and high risk for progression to moderate/severe COVID-19. Superiority of the intervention arms will be tested. PARTICIPANTS: The trial is conducted at 10–15 tertiary care centers in Germany. Individuals aged 18 years or above with ability to provide written informed consent with SARS-CoV-2 infection, confirmed by PCR within 3 days or less before enrolment and the presence of at least one SARS-CoV-2 symptom (such as fever, cough, shortness of breath, sore throat, headache, fatigue, smell/and or taste disorder, diarrhea, abdominal symptoms, exanthema) and symptom duration of not more than 3 days. Further inclusion criteria comprise: Age > 75 years. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and/or pulmonary fibrosis. BMI > 40 kg/m(2.) Age > 65 years with at least one other risk factor (BMI > 35 kg/m(2), coronary artery disease (CAD), chronic kidney disease (CKD) with GFR < 60 ml/min but ≥ 30 ml/min, diabetes mellitus, active tumor disease). BMI > 35 kg/m(2) with at least one other risk factor (CAD, CKD with GFR < 60 ml/min but ≥ 30 ml/min, diabetes mellitus, active tumor disease). 1. Age < 18 years. 2. Unable to give informed consent. 3. Pregnant women or breastfeeding mothers. 4. Previous transfusion reaction or other contraindication to a plasma transfusion. 5. Known hypersensitivity to camostat mesylate and/or severe pancreatitis. 6. Volume stress due to CP administration would be intolerable. 7. Known IgA deficiency. 8. Life expectancy < 6 months. 9. Duration SARS-CoV-2 typical symptoms > 3 days. 10. SARS-CoV-2 PCR detection older than 3 days. 11. SARS-CoV-2 associated clinical condition ≥ WHO stage 3 (patients hospitalized for other reasons than COVID-19 may be included if they fulfill all inclusion and none of the exclusion criteria). 12. Previously or currently hospitalized due to SARS-CoV-2. 13. Previous antiviral therapy for SARS-CoV-2. 14. ALT or AST > 5 x ULN at screening. 15. Liver cirrhosis > Child A (patients with Child B/C cirrhosis are excluded from the trial). 16. Chronic kidney disease with GFR < 30 ml/min. 17. Concurrent or planned anticancer treatment during trial period. 18. Accommodation in an institution due to legal orders (§40(4) AMG). 19. Any psycho-social condition hampering compliance with the study protocol. 20. Evidence of current drug or alcohol abuse. 21. Use of other investigational treatment within 5 half-lives of enrolment is prohibited. 22. Previous use of convalescent plasma for COVID-19. 23. Concomitant proven influenza A infection. 24. Patients with organ or bone marrow transplant in the three months prior to screening visit. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: 1. Convalescent plasma (CP), 2 units at screening/baseline visit (day 0) or day 1; CP is defined by the presence of neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with titers ≥ 1:160; individuals with body weight ≥ 150 kg will receive a third unit of plasma on day 3. 2. Camostat mesylate (200 mg per capsule, one capsule taken each in the morning, afternoon and evening on days 1–7). 3. Standard of care (SOC, control for CP). 4. Placebo (identical in appearance to camostat mesylate capsules, one capsule taken each morning, afternoon and evening on days 1–7; for camostat mesylate control group). Participants will be monitored after screening/baseline on day 3, day 5, day 8, and day 14. On day 28 and day 56, telephone visits and on day 90, another outpatient visit are scheduled. Adverse events and serious adverse events will be monitored and reported until the end of the study. An independent data safety monitoring committee will review trial progression and safety. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint of the study is the cumulative number of individuals who progress to or beyond category 4b on the modified WHO COVID-19 ordinal scale (defined as hospitalization with COVID-19 pneumonia and additional oxygen demand via nasal cannula or mask) within 28 days after randomization. RANDOMIZATION: Participants will be randomized using the Alea-Tool (aleaclinical.com) in a 2:2:1:1 ratio to the treatment arms (1) CP, (2) camostat mesylate, (3) standard of care (SoC), and (4) placebo matching camostat mesylate. Randomization will be stratified by study center. BLINDING (MASKING): The camostat mesylate treatment arm and the respective placebo will be blinded for participants, caregivers, and those assessing outcomes. The treatment arms convalescent plasma and standard of care will not be blinded and thus are open-labeled, unblinded. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): Overall, n = 994 participants will be randomized to the following groups: n = 331 to convalescent plasma (CP), n = 331 to camostat mesylate, n = 166 to standard of care (SoC), and n = 166 to placebo matching camostat mesylate. TRIAL STATUS: The RES-Q-HR protocol (V04F) was approved on the 18 December 2020 by the local ethics committee and by the regulatory institutions PEI/BfARM on the 2 December 2020. The trial was opened for recruitment on 26 December 2020; the first patient was enrolled on 7 January 2021 and randomized on 8 January 2021. Recruitment shall be completed by June 2021. The current protocol version RES-Q HR V05F is from 4 January 2021, which was approved on the 18 January 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number 2020-004695-18. Registered on September 29, 2020. ClinicalTrial.gov NCT04681430. Registered on December 23, 2020, prior to the start of the enrollment (which was opened on December 26, 2020). FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol (V05F) 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. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05181-0. | Trials | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 540 | Correlation of Chest CT and RT-PCR Testing for COVID-19 in China: A Report of 1014 Cases BACKGROUND: Chest CT is used for diagnosis of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), as an important complement to the reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests. PURPOSE: To investigate the diagnostic value and consistency of chest CT as compared with comparison to RT-PCR assay in COVID-19. METHODS: From January 6 to February 6, 2020, 1014 patients in Wuhan, China who underwent both chest CT and RT-PCR tests were included. With RT-PCR as reference standard, the performance of chest CT in diagnosing COVID-19 was assessed. Besides, for patients with multiple RT-PCR assays, the dynamic conversion of RT-PCR results (negative to positive, positive to negative, respectively) was analyzed as compared with serial chest CT scans for those with time-interval of 4 days or more. RESULTS: Of 1014 patients, 59% (601/1014) had positive RT-PCR results, and 88% (888/1014) had positive chest CT scans. The sensitivity of chest CT in suggesting COVID-19 was 97% (95%CI, 95-98%, 580/601 patients) based on positive RT-PCR results. In patients with negative RT-PCR results, 75% (308/413) had positive chest CT findings; of 308, 48% were considered as highly likely cases, with 33% as probable cases. By analysis of serial RT-PCR assays and CT scans, the mean interval time between the initial negative to positive RT-PCR results was 5.1 ± 1.5 days; the initial positive to subsequent negative RT-PCR result was 6.9 ± 2.3 days). 60% to 93% of cases had initial positive CT consistent with COVID-19 prior (or parallel) to the initial positive RT-PCR results. 42% (24/57) cases showed improvement in follow-up chest CT scans before the RT-PCR results turning negative. CONCLUSION: Chest CT has a high sensitivity for diagnosis of COVID-19. Chest CT may be considered as a primary tool for the current COVID-19 detection in epidemic areas. A translation of this abstract in Farsi is available in the supplement. - ترجمه چکیده این مقاله به فارسی، در ضمیمه موجود است. | Radiology | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 541 | Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Australian educational settings: a prospective cohort study BACKGROUND: School closures have occurred globally during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, empiric data on transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among children and in educational settings are scarce. In Australia, most schools have remained open during the first epidemic wave, albeit with reduced student physical attendance at the epidemic peak. We examined SARS-CoV-2 transmission among children and staff in schools and early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings in the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW). METHODS: Laboratory-confirmed paediatric (aged ≤18 years) and adult COVID-19 cases who attended a school or ECEC setting while considered infectious (defined as 24 h before symptom onset based on national guidelines during the study period) in NSW from Jan 25 to April 10, 2020, were investigated for onward transmission. All identified school and ECEC settings close contacts were required to home quarantine for 14 days, and were monitored and offered SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing if symptomatic. Enhanced investigations in selected educational settings included nucleic acid testing and SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic contacts. Secondary attack rates were calculated and compared with state-wide COVID-19 rates. FINDINGS: 15 schools and ten ECEC settings had children (n=12) or adults (n=15) attend while infectious, with 1448 contacts monitored. Of these, 633 (43·7%) of 1448 had nucleic acid testing, or antibody testing, or both, with 18 secondary cases identified (attack rate 1·2%). Five secondary cases (three children; two adults) were identified (attack rate 0·5%; 5/914) in three schools. No secondary transmission occurred in nine of ten ECEC settings among 497 contacts. However, one outbreak in an ECEC setting involved transmission to six adults and seven children (attack rate 35·1%; 13/37). Across all settings, five (28·0%) of 18 secondary infections were asymptomatic (three infants [all aged 1 year], one adolescent [age 15 years], and one adult). INTERPRETATION: SARS-CoV-2 transmission rates were low in NSW educational settings during the first COVID-19 epidemic wave, consistent with mild infrequent disease in the 1·8 million child population. With effective case-contact testing and epidemic management strategies and associated small numbers of attendances while infected, children and teachers did not contribute significantly to COVID-19 transmission via attendance in educational settings. These findings could be used to inform modelling and public health policy regarding school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. FUNDING: NSW Government Department of Health. | Lancet Child Adolesc Health | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 542 | Dynamic Panel Data Modeling and Surveillance of COVID-19 in Metropolitan Areas in the United States: Longitudinal Trend Analysis BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound and differential impacts on metropolitan areas across the United States and around the world. Within the United States, metropolitan areas that were hit earliest with the pandemic and reacted with scientifically based health policy were able to contain the virus by late spring. For other areas that kept businesses open, the first wave in the United States hit in mid-summer. As the weather turns colder, universities resume classes, and people tire of lockdowns, a second wave is ascending in both metropolitan and rural areas. It becomes more obvious that additional SARS-CoV-2 surveillance is needed at the local level to track recent shifts in the pandemic, rates of increase, and persistence. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to provide advanced surveillance metrics for COVID-19 transmission that account for speed, acceleration, jerk and persistence, and weekly shifts, to better understand and manage risk in metropolitan areas. Existing surveillance measures coupled with our dynamic metrics of transmission will inform health policy to control the COVID-19 pandemic until, and after, an effective vaccine is developed. Here, we provide values for novel indicators to measure COVID-19 transmission at the metropolitan area level. METHODS: Using a longitudinal trend analysis study design, we extracted 260 days of COVID-19 data from public health registries. We used an empirical difference equation to measure the daily number of cases in the 25 largest US metropolitan areas as a function of the prior number of cases and weekly shift variables based on a dynamic panel data model that was estimated using the generalized method of moments approach by implementing the Arellano-Bond estimator in R. RESULTS: Minneapolis and Chicago have the greatest average number of daily new positive results per standardized 100,000 population (which we refer to as speed). Extreme behavior in Minneapolis showed an increase in speed from 17 to 30 (67%) in 1 week. The jerk and acceleration calculated for these areas also showed extreme behavior. The dynamic panel data model shows that Minneapolis, Chicago, and Detroit have the largest persistence effects, meaning that new cases pertaining to a specific week are statistically attributable to new cases from the prior week. CONCLUSIONS: Three of the metropolitan areas with historically early and harsh winters have the highest persistence effects out of the top 25 most populous metropolitan areas in the United States at the beginning of their cold weather season. With these persistence effects, and with indoor activities becoming more popular as the weather gets colder, stringent COVID-19 regulations will be more important than ever to flatten the second wave of the pandemic. As colder weather grips more of the nation, southern metropolitan areas may also see large spikes in the number of cases. | J Med Internet Res | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 543 | Evaluation of performance of two SARS-CoV-2 Rapid IgM-IgG combined antibody tests on capillary whole blood samples from the fingertip BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome CoronaVirus 2) is responsible for the infectious respiratory disease called COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease 2019). In response to the growing COVID-19 pandemic, point-of-care (POC) tests have been developed to detect specific antibodies, IgG and IgM, to SARS-CoV-2 virus in human whole blood. We conducted a prospective observational study to evaluate the performance of two POC tests, COVID-PRESTO(®) and COVID-DUO(®), compared to the gold standard, RT-PCR (real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction). METHODS: RT-PCR testing of SARS-Cov-2 was performed from nasopharyngeal swab specimens collected in adult patients visiting the infectious disease department at the hospital (Orléans, France). Capillary whole blood (CWB) samples from the fingertip taken at different time points after onset of the disease were tested with POC tests. The specificity and sensitivity of the rapid test kits compared to test of reference (RT-PCR) were calculated. RESULTS: Among 381 patients with symptoms of COVID-19 who went to the hospital for a diagnostic, 143 patients were RT-PCR negative. Results of test with POC tests were all negative for these patients, indicating a specificity of 100% for both POC tests. In the RT-PCR positive subgroup (n = 238), 133 patients were tested with COVID-PRESTO(®) and 129 patients were tested with COVID-DUO(®) (24 patients tested with both). The further the onset of symptoms was from the date of collection, the greater the sensitivity. The sensitivity of COVID-PRESTO(®) test ranged from 10.00% for patients having experienced their 1(st) symptoms from 0 to 5 days ago to 100% in patients where symptoms had occurred more than 15 days before the date of tests. For COVID-DUO(®) test, the sensitivity ranged from 35.71% [0–5 days] to 100% (> 15 days). CONCLUSION: COVID-PRESTO(®) and DUO(®) POC tests turned out to be very specific (none false positive) and to be sensitive enough after 15 days from onset of symptom. These easy to use IgG/IgM combined test kits are the first ones allowing a screening with CWB sample, by typing from a finger prick. These rapid tests are particularly interesting for screening in low resource settings. | PLoS One | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 544 | Waning 2-Dose and 3-Dose Effectiveness of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19 Associated Emergency Department and Urgent Care Encounters and Hospitalizations Among Adults During Periods of Delta and Omicron Variant Predominance-VISION Network, 10 States, August 2021-January 2022 CDC recommends that all persons aged ≥12 years receive a booster dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine ≥5 months after completion of a primary mRNA vaccination series and that immunocompromised persons receive a third primary dose.* Waning of vaccine protection after 2 doses of mRNA vaccine has been observed during the period of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance (1-5), but little is known about durability of protection after 3 doses during periods of Delta or SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant predominance. A test-negative case-control study design using data from eight VISION Network sites§ examined vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits and hospitalizations among U.S. adults aged ≥18 years at various time points after receipt of a second or third vaccine dose during two periods: Delta variant predominance and Omicron variant predominance (i.e., periods when each variant accounted for ≥50% of sequenced isolates).¶ Persons categorized as having received 3 doses included those who received a third dose in a primary series or a booster dose after a 2 dose primary series (including the reduced-dosage Moderna booster). The VISION Network analyzed 241,204 ED/UC encounters** and 93,408 hospitalizations across 10 states during August 26, 2021-January 22, 2022. VE after receipt of both 2 and 3 doses was lower during the Omicron-predominant than during the Delta-predominant period at all time points evaluated. During both periods, VE after receipt of a third dose was higher than that after a second dose; however, VE waned with increasing time since vaccination. During the Omicron period, VE against ED/UC visits was 87% during the first 2 months after a third dose and decreased to 66% among those vaccinated 4-5 months earlier; VE against hospitalizations was 91% during the first 2 months following a third dose and decreased to 78% ≥4 months after a third dose. For both Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods, VE was generally higher for protection against hospitalizations than against ED/UC visits. All eligible persons should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations to best protect against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and ED/UC visits. | MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep | 2022 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 545 | The trinity of COVID-19: immunity, inflammation and intervention Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Alongside investigations into the virology of SARS-CoV-2, understanding the fundamental physiological and immunological processes underlying the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 is vital for the identification and rational design of effective therapies. Here, we provide an overview of the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We describe the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with the immune system and the subsequent contribution of dysfunctional immune responses to disease progression. From nascent reports describing SARS-CoV-2, we make inferences on the basis of the parallel pathophysiological and immunological features of the other human coronaviruses targeting the lower respiratory tract — severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Finally, we highlight the implications of these approaches for potential therapeutic interventions that target viral infection and/or immunoregulation. | Nat Rev Immunol | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 546 | COVID-19 Associated Hospitalizations Among Adults During SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron Variant Predominance, by Race/Ethnicity and Vaccination Status-COVID-NET, 14 States, July 2021-January 2022 Beginning the week of December 19-25, 2021, the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) became the predominant circulating variant in the United States (i.e., accounted for >50% of sequenced isolates).* Information on the impact that booster or additional doses of COVID-19 vaccines have on preventing hospitalizations during Omicron predominance is limited. Data from the COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) were analyzed to compare COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates among adults aged ≥18 years during B.1.617.2 (Delta; July 1-December 18, 2021) and Omicron (December 19, 2021-January 31, 2022) variant predominance, overall and by race/ethnicity and vaccination status. During the Omicron-predominant period, weekly COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates (hospitalizations per 100,000 adults) peaked at 38.4, compared with 15.5 during Delta predominance. Hospitalizations rates increased among all adults irrespective of vaccination status (unvaccinated, primary series only, or primary series plus a booster or additional dose). Hospitalization rates during peak Omicron circulation (January 2022) among unvaccinated adults remained 12 times the rates among vaccinated adults who received booster or additional doses and four times the rates among adults who received a primary series, but no booster or additional dose. The rate among adults who received a primary series, but no booster or additional dose, was three times the rate among adults who received a booster or additional dose. During the Omicron-predominant period, peak hospitalization rates among non-Hispanic Black (Black) adults were nearly four times the rate of non-Hispanic White (White) adults and was the highest rate observed among any racial and ethnic group during the pandemic. Compared with the Delta-predominant period, the proportion of unvaccinated hospitalized Black adults increased during the Omicron-predominant period. All adults should stay up to date (1) with COVID-19 vaccination to reduce their risk for COVID-19-associated hospitalization. Implementing strategies that result in the equitable receipt of COVID-19 vaccinations, through building vaccine confidence, raising awareness of the benefits of vaccination, and removing barriers to vaccination access among persons with disproportionately higher hospitalizations rates from COVID-19, including Black adults, is an urgent public health priority. | MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep | 2022 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 547 | Prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on public mental health. Therefore, monitoring and oversight of the population mental health during crises such as a panedmic is an immediate priority. The aim of this study is to analyze the existing research works and findings in relation to the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, articles that have focused on stress and anxiety prevalence among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic were searched in the Science Direct, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science (ISI) and Google Scholar databases, without a lower time limit and until May 2020. In order to perform a meta-analysis of the collected studies, the random effects model was used, and the heterogeneity of studies was investigated using the I(2) index. Moreover. data analysis was conducted using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software. RESULTS: The prevalence of stress in 5 studies with a total sample size of 9074 is obtained as 29.6% (95% confidence limit: 24.3–35.4), the prevalence of anxiety in 17 studies with a sample size of 63,439 as 31.9% (95% confidence interval: 27.5–36.7), and the prevalence of depression in 14 studies with a sample size of 44,531 people as 33.7% (95% confidence interval: 27.5–40.6). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 not only causes physical health concerns but also results in a number of psychological disorders. The spread of the new coronavirus can impact the mental health of people in different communities. Thus, it is essential to preserve the mental health of individuals and to develop psychological interventions that can improve the mental health of vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. | Global Health | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 548 | A Trial of Lopinavir-Ritonavir in Adults Hospitalized with Severe Covid-19 BACKGROUND: No therapeutics have yet been proven effective for the treatment of severe illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial involving hospitalized adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which causes the respiratory illness Covid-19, and an oxygen saturation (Sao(2)) of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen (Pao(2)) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio(2)) of less than 300 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lopinavir–ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) twice a day for 14 days, in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. The primary end point was the time to clinical improvement, defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever came first. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent randomization; 99 were assigned to the lopinavir–ritonavir group, and 100 to the standard-care group. Treatment with lopinavir–ritonavir was not associated with a difference from standard care in the time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio for clinical improvement, 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.72). Mortality at 28 days was similar in the lopinavir–ritonavir group and the standard-care group (19.2% vs. 25.0%; difference, −5.8 percentage points; 95% CI, −17.3 to 5.7). The percentages of patients with detectable viral RNA at various time points were similar. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, lopinavir–ritonavir led to a median time to clinical improvement that was shorter by 1 day than that observed with standard care (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.91). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the lopinavir–ritonavir group, but serious adverse events were more common in the standard-care group. Lopinavir–ritonavir treatment was stopped early in 13 patients (13.8%) because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19, no benefit was observed with lopinavir–ritonavir treatment beyond standard care. Future trials in patients with severe illness may help to confirm or exclude the possibility of a treatment benefit. (Funded by Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development and others; Chinese Clinical Trial Register number, ChiCTR2000029308.) | N Engl J Med | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 549 | The sudden transition to synchronized online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia: a qualitative study exploring medical students' perspectives BACKGROUND: The closure of educational activities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an unplanned shift from traditional learning to a setup that exclusively involves digital teaching and learning. Within this context, the present study aimed to explore undergraduate medical students’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of synchronized online learning at Unaizah College of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Qassim University, Saudi Arabia. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using virtual focus group discussions synchronously with the help of a discussion guide consisting of seven open-ended questions. Overall, 60 medical students were recruited using a maximum variation sampling technique; these students then participated in eight focus group discussions. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed for thematic contents using the standard (Mayring, Kiger. M. E. and Braun.V) content analysis framework. RESULTS: A thematic content analysis yielded four core themes: (1) educational impact, (2) time management, (3) challenges encountered, and (4) preferences for the future. The online modality was well-received, and all participants agreed that online sessions were time saving and that their performance was improved due to enhanced utility of time; however, they indicated that they encountered some challenges, including methodological, content perception, technical, and behavioral challenges during sessions and online exams. Most of the preclinical students preferred online learning for the upcoming academic years. CONCLUSION: Synchronized online classes were well-accepted by the medical students. This represents significant and promising potential for the future of medical education. The principles of the online learning model and learning outcomes should be rigorously and regularly evaluated to monitor its effectiveness. | BMC Med Educ | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 550 | Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19 BACKGROUND: Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent used to treat parasitic infestations, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) replication in the early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on efficacy and safety of ivermectin for prevention of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and COVID‐19 treatment is conflicting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin compared to no treatment, standard of care, placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID‐19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 (postexposure prophylaxis). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), medRxiv, and Research Square, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 26 May 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to no treatment, standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID‐19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity, treated in inpatient or outpatient settings, and for prevention of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Co‐interventions had to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing ivermectin to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. The primary analysis excluded studies with high risk of bias. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes 1. to treat inpatients with moderate‐to‐severe COVID‐19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, adverse events, quality of life, duration of hospitalization, and viral clearance; 2. to treat outpatients with mild COVID‐19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, admission to hospital, adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance; (3) to prevent SARS‐CoV‐2 infection: SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, development of COVID‐19 symptoms, adverse events, mortality, admission to hospital, and quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We found 14 studies with 1678 participants investigating ivermectin compared to no treatment, placebo, or standard of care. No study compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. There were nine studies treating participants with moderate COVID‐19 in inpatient settings and four treating mild COVID‐19 cases in outpatient settings. One study investigated ivermectin for prevention of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Eight studies had an open‐label design, six were double‐blind and placebo‐controlled. Of the 41 study results contributed by included studies, about one third were at overall high risk of bias. Ivermectin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies. We identified 31 ongoing and 18 studies awaiting classification until publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for inpatient COVID‐19 treatment We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 2 studies, 185 participants; very low‐certainty evidence) and clinical worsening up to day 28 assessed as need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.59; 2 studies, 185 participants; very low‐certainty evidence) or need for supplemental oxygen (0 participants required supplemental oxygen; 1 study, 45 participants; very low‐certainty evidence), adverse events within 28 days (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.97; 1 study, 152 participants; very low‐certainty evidence), and viral clearance at day seven (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.51 to 6.48; 2 studies, 159 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care on clinical improvement up to 28 days (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 study; 73 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and duration of hospitalization (mean difference (MD) −0.10 days, 95% CI −2.43 to 2.23; 1 study; 45 participants; low‐certainty evidence). No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for outpatient COVID‐19 treatment We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality up to 28 days (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.05; 2 studies, 422 participants; very low‐certainty evidence) and clinical worsening up to 14 days assessed as need for IMV (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.47; 1 study, 398 participants; very low‐certainty evidence) or non‐IMV or high flow oxygen requirement (0 participants required non‐IMV or high flow; 1 study, 398 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo reduces or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 67.06; 1 study, 24 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care on the number of participants with symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21; 1 study, 398 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and adverse events within 28 days (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05; 2 studies, 422 participants; low‐certainty evidence). None of the studies reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for primary analysis. No study reported hospital admission or quality of life up to 14 days. Ivermectin compared to no treatment for prevention of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection We found one study. Mortality up to 28 days was the only outcome eligible for primary analysis. We are uncertain whether ivermectin reduces or increases mortality compared to no treatment (0 participants died; 1 study, 304 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). The study reported results for development of COVID‐19 symptoms and adverse events up to 14 days that were included in a secondary analysis due to high risk of bias. No study reported SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, hospital admission, and quality of life up to 14 days. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current very low‐ to low‐certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID‐19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 outside of well‐designed randomized trials. | Cochrane Database Syst Rev | 2021 | 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 2023-01-10)
(3) Currently tweets of June 23rd to June 29th 2022 have been considered.