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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 51 | The psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the general population of Saudi Arabia BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an emerging infection causing a widely spread pandemic of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The current COVID-2019 pandemic is prompting fear of falling sick, dying, helplessness and stigma, urgent and timely understanding of mental health status is needed to help the community. Our investigation designed to survey the general population in Saudi Arabia to assess the degree of psychological impact during the pandemic. METHODS: During the early stage of the outbreak, we conducted an online-based survey using a snowballing sample technique. The surveys collected data about several aspects of participant sociodemographic, knowledge, concerns, psychological impact, and mental health status. We assessed the psychological impact and mental health status using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21). RESULTS: Our survey recruited 1160 respondents of the general public of Saudi Arabia. Of them, 23.6% reported moderate or severe psychological impact of the outbreak, 28.3%,24%, and 22.3% reported moderate to severe depressive, anxiety, and stress symptoms, respectively. Females reported IES-R (B: 5.46, 95% CI: 3.61 to 7.31) and DASS subscales B coefficient ranged from 1.65 to 2.63, along with high-school students, working in the medical field, and poor self-reported health status was significantly associated with a high level of IES-R and DASS scales (p < .05). Experiencing breathing difficulty and dizziness showed a stronger association with higher IES-R and DASS subscales than other somatic symptoms (e.g., headache and fever);(p < .001). Respondents who practiced specific preventative measures (e.g., hand washing, social distancing) demonstrated a protective effect against stress, anxiety, and depression symptoms. Social distancing appeared to be protective on stress and anxiety subscales (B: -1.49, 95% CI: −2.79 to −0.19),(B: -1.53, 95% CI: −2.50 to −0.57),respectively; and hand hygiene on depression subscale (B: -2.43, 95% CI: −4.44 to −0.42). CONCLUSION: Throughout the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in Saudi Arabia, the results showed that nearly one-fourth of the sampled general population experienced moderate to severe psychological impact. Following specific precautionary measures appeared to have a protective effect on the individual's mental health. Our findings can be used to construct psychological interventions directed toward vulnerable populations and to implement public mental health strategies in the early stages of the outbreak. | Compr Psychiatry | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 52 | Prevalence and Risk Factors Associated With Self-reported Psychological Distress Among Children and Adolescents During the COVID-19 Pandemic in China IMPORTANCE: Schools have been suspended nationwide in 188 countries, and classes have shifted to home-based distance learning models to control the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Additional information is needed to determine mental health status among school-aged children and adolescents during this public health crisis and the risk factors associated with psychological distress during the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To assess self-reported psychological distress among school-aged children and adolescents associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study using data from a survey on the mental health of school-aged children and adolescents in Guangdong province, China, conducted by using a stratified cluster random sampling method between March 8 to 30, 2020. To estimate outcomes associated with location of districts, only data from students with internet protocol addresses and current addresses in Guangdong were included. Data were analyzed from April 5 to July 20, 2020. EXPOSURE: Home-based distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The main outcome was self-reported psychological distress, measured using the total score on the 12-item General Health Questionnaire of 3 or greater. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze risk factors associated with mental health status. Odds ratios (ORs) were used to analyze the associations of factors with psychological distress. RESULTS: Among 1 310 600 students who completed the survey, 1 199 320 students (mean [SD] age, 12.04 [3.01] years; 619 144 [51.6%] boys) were included in the final analysis. A total of 126 355 students (10.5%) self-reported psychological distress. Compared with students in primary school, high school students had increased risk of psychological distress (OR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.15-1.23]). Compared with students who wore a face mask frequently, students who never wore a face mask had increased risk of psychological distress (OR, 2.59 [95% CI, 2.41-2.79]). Additionally, students who spent less than 0.5 hours exercising had increased odds of self-reported psychological distress compared with students who spent more than 1 hour exercising (OR, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.61-1.67]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These findings suggest that the prevalence of self-reported psychological distress among students during the COVID-19 pandemic was relatively high. Frequency of wearing a face mask and time spent exercising were factors associated with mental health. Therefore, it may be necessary for governments, schools, and families to pay attention to the mental health of school-aged children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic and take corresponding countermeasures to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on students’ mental health. | JAMA Netw Open | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 53 | Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19 BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death. METHODS: In this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the preliminary results of this comparison. RESULTS: A total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.55). CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936; ISRCTN number, 50189673.) | N Engl J Med | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 54 | Immediate Psychological Responses and Associated Factors during the Initial Stage of the 2019 COVID-19 Epidemic among the General Population in China Background: The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic is a public health emergency of international concern and poses a challenge to psychological resilience. Research data are needed to develop evidence-driven strategies to reduce adverse psychological impacts and psychiatric symptoms during the epidemic. The aim of this study was to survey the general public in China to better understand their levels of psychological impact, anxiety, depression, and stress during the initial stage of the COVID-19 outbreak. The data will be used for future reference. Methods: From 31 January to 2 February 2020, we conducted an online survey using snowball sampling techniques. The online survey collected information on demographic data, physical symptoms in the past 14 days, contact history with COVID-19, knowledge and concerns about COVID-19, precautionary measures against COVID-19, and additional information required with respect to COVID-19. Psychological impact was assessed by the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and mental health status was assessed by the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21). Results: This study included 1210 respondents from 194 cities in China. In total, 53.8% of respondents rated the psychological impact of the outbreak as moderate or severe; 16.5% reported moderate to severe depressive symptoms; 28.8% reported moderate to severe anxiety symptoms; and 8.1% reported moderate to severe stress levels. Most respondents spent 20–24 h per day at home (84.7%); were worried about their family members contracting COVID-19 (75.2%); and were satisfied with the amount of health information available (75.1%). Female gender, student status, specific physical symptoms (e.g., myalgia, dizziness, coryza), and poor self-rated health status were significantly associated with a greater psychological impact of the outbreak and higher levels of stress, anxiety, and depression (p < 0.05). Specific up-to-date and accurate health information (e.g., treatment, local outbreak situation) and particular precautionary measures (e.g., hand hygiene, wearing a mask) were associated with a lower psychological impact of the outbreak and lower levels of stress, anxiety, and depression (p < 0.05). Conclusions: During the initial phase of the COVID-19 outbreak in China, more than half of the respondents rated the psychological impact as moderate-to-severe, and about one-third reported moderate-to-severe anxiety. Our findings identify factors associated with a lower level of psychological impact and better mental health status that can be used to formulate psychological interventions to improve the mental health of vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 epidemic. | Int J Environ Res Public Healt | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 55 | V367F Mutation in SARS-CoV-2 Spike RBD Emerging during the Early Transmission Phase Enhances Viral Infectivity through Increased Human ACE2 Receptor Binding Affinity The current pandemic of COVID-19 is caused by a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) is the critical determinant of viral tropism and infectivity. To investigate whether naturally occurring RBD mutations during the early transmission phase have altered the receptor binding affinity and infectivity, we first analyzed in silico the binding dynamics between SARS-CoV-2 RBD mutants and the human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor. Among 32,123 genomes of SARS-CoV-2 isolates (December 2019 through March 2020), 302 nonsynonymous RBD mutants were identified and clustered into 96 mutant types. The six dominant mutations were analyzed applying molecular dynamics simulations (MDS). The mutant type V367F continuously circulating worldwide displayed higher binding affinity to human ACE2 due to the enhanced structural stabilization of the RBD beta-sheet scaffold. The MDS also indicated that it would be difficult for bat SARS-like CoV to infect humans. However, the pangolin CoV is potentially infectious to humans. The increased infectivity of V367 mutants was further validated by performing receptor-ligand binding enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), surface plasmon resonance, and pseudotyped virus assays. Phylogenetic analysis of the genomes of V367F mutants showed that during the early transmission phase, most V367F mutants clustered more closely with the SARS-CoV-2 prototype strain than the dual-mutation variants (V367F+D614G), which may derivate from recombination. The analysis of critical RBD mutations provides further insights into the evolutionary trajectory of early SARS-CoV-2 variants of zoonotic origin under negative selection pressure and supports the continuing surveillance of spike mutations to aid in the development of new COVID-19 drugs and vaccines. IMPORTANCE A novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused the pandemic of COVID-19. The origin of SARS-CoV-2 was associated with zoonotic infections. The spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) is identified as the critical determinant of viral tropism and infectivity. Thus, whether mutations in the RBD of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 isolates have altered the receptor binding affinity and made them more infectious has been the research hot spot. Given that SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus, the significance of our research is in identifying and validating the RBD mutant types emerging during the early transmission phase and increasing human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor binding affinity and infectivity. Our study provides insights into the evolutionary trajectory of early SARS-CoV-2 variants of zoonotic origin. The continuing surveillance of RBD mutations with increased human ACE2 affinity in human or other animals is critical to the development of new COVID-19 drugs and vaccines against these variants during the sustained COVID-19 pandemic. | J Virol | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 56 | Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study BACKGROUND: An ongoing outbreak of pneumonia associated with the severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) started in December, 2019, in Wuhan, China. Information about critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is scarce. We aimed to describe the clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. METHODS: In this single-centered, retrospective, observational study, we enrolled 52 critically ill adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Wuhan Jin Yin-tan hospital (Wuhan, China) between late December, 2019, and Jan 26, 2020. Demographic data, symptoms, laboratory values, comorbidities, treatments, and clinical outcomes were all collected. Data were compared between survivors and non-survivors. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, as of Feb 9, 2020. Secondary outcomes included incidence of SARS-CoV-2-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and the proportion of patients requiring mechanical ventilation. FINDINGS: Of 710 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, 52 critically ill adult patients were included. The mean age of the 52 patients was 59·7 (SD 13·3) years, 35 (67%) were men, 21 (40%) had chronic illness, 51 (98%) had fever. 32 (61·5%) patients had died at 28 days, and the median duration from admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) to death was 7 (IQR 3–11) days for non-survivors. Compared with survivors, non-survivors were older (64·6 years [11·2] vs 51·9 years [12·9]), more likely to develop ARDS (26 [81%] patients vs 9 [45%] patients), and more likely to receive mechanical ventilation (30 [94%] patients vs 7 [35%] patients), either invasively or non-invasively. Most patients had organ function damage, including 35 (67%) with ARDS, 15 (29%) with acute kidney injury, 12 (23%) with cardiac injury, 15 (29%) with liver dysfunction, and one (2%) with pneumothorax. 37 (71%) patients required mechanical ventilation. Hospital-acquired infection occurred in seven (13·5%) patients. INTERPRETATION: The mortality of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is considerable. The survival time of the non-survivors is likely to be within 1–2 weeks after ICU admission. Older patients (>65 years) with comorbidities and ARDS are at increased risk of death. The severity of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia poses great strain on critical care resources in hospitals, especially if they are not adequately staffed or resourced. FUNDING: None. | Lancet Respir Med | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 57 | Mental health problems and correlates among 746 217 college students during the COVID-19 outbreak in China AIMS: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a major public health concern all over the world. Little is known about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population. This study aimed to assess the mental health problems and associated factors among a large sample of college students during the COVID-19 outbreak in China. METHODS: This cross-sectional and nation-wide survey of college students was conducted in China from 3 to 10 February 2020. A self-administered questionnaire was used to assess psychosocial factors, COVID-19 epidemic related factors and mental health problems. Acute stress, depressive and anxiety symptoms were measured by the Chinese versions of the impact of event scale-6, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, respectively. Univariate and hierarchical logistic regression analyses were performed to examine factors associated with mental health problems. RESULTS: Among 821 218 students who participated in the survey, 746 217 (90.9%) were included for the analysis. In total, 414 604 (55.6%) of the students were female. About 45% of the participants had mental health problems. The prevalence rates of probable acute stress, depressive and anxiety symptoms were 34.9%, 21.1% and 11.0%, respectively. COVID-19 epidemic factors that were associated with increased risk of mental health problems were having relatives or friends being infected (adjusted odds ratio = 1.72–2.33). Students with exposure to media coverage of the COVID-19 ≥3 h/day were 2.13 times more likely than students with media exposure <1 h/day to have acute stress symptoms. Individuals with low perceived social support were 4.84–5.98 times more likely than individuals with high perceived social support to have anxiety and depressive symptoms. In addition, senior year and prior mental health problems were also significantly associated with anxiety or/and depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale survey of college students in China, acute stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms are prevalent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Multiple epidemic and psychosocial factors, such as family members being infected, massive media exposure, low social support, senior year and prior mental health problems were associated with increased risk of mental health problems. Psychosocial support and mental health services should be provided to those students at risk. | Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 58 | Testing the efficacy and safety of BIO101, for the prevention of respiratory deterioration, in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (COVA study): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial OBJECTIVES: As of December, 1(st), 2020, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2, resulted in more than 1 472 917 deaths worldwide and death toll is still increasing exponentially. Many COVID-19 infected people are asymptomatic or experience moderate symptoms and recover without medical intervention. However, older people and those with comorbid hypertension, diabetes, obesity, or heart disease are at higher risk of mortality. Because current therapeutic options for COVID-19 patients are limited specifically for this elderly population at risk, Biophytis is developing BIO101 (20-hydroxyecdysone, a Mas receptor activator) as a new treatment option for managing patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection at the severe stage. The angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) serves as a receptor for SARS-CoV-2. Interaction between ACE2 and SARS-CoV2 spike protein seems to alter the function of ACE2, a key player in the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). The clinical picture of COVID-19 includes acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), cardiomyopathy, multiorgan dysfunction and shock, all of which might result from an imbalance of the RAS. We propose that RAS balance could be restored in COVID-19 patients through MasR activation downstream of ACE2 activity, with 20-hydroxyecdysone (BIO101) a non-peptidic Mas receptor (MasR) activator. Indeed, MasR activation by 20-hydroxyecdysone harbours anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic, and anti-fibrotic properties. BIO101, a 97% pharmaceutical grade 20-hydroxyecdysone could then offer a new therapeutic option by improving the respiratory function and ultimately promoting survival in COVID-19 patients that develop severe forms of this devastating disease. Therefore, the objective of this COVA study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BIO101, whose active principle is 20-hydroxyecdysone, in COVID-19 patients with severe pneumonia. TRIAL DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centre, group sequential and adaptive which will be conducted in 2 parts. Part 1: Ascertain the safety and tolerability of BIO101 and obtain preliminary indication of the activity of BIO101, in preventing respiratory deterioration in the target population Part 2: Re-assessment of the sample size needed for the confirmatory part 2 and confirmation of the effect of BIO101 observed in part 1 in the target population. The study is designed as group sequential to allow an efficient run-through, from obtaining an early indication of activity to a final confirmation. And adaptive – to allow accumulation of early data and adapt sample size in part 2 in order to inform the final design of the confirmatory part of the trial. PARTICIPANTS: : 1. Age: 45 and above. 2. A confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, within the last 14 days, prior to randomization, as determined by PCR or other approved commercial or public health assay, in a specimen as specified by the test used. 3. Hospitalized, in observation or planned to be hospitalized due to COVID-19 infection symptoms with anticipated hospitalization duration ≥3 days. 4. a. Clinical findings on a physical examination. b. Respiratory symptoms developed within the past 7 days. 5. a. Tachypnea: ≥25 breaths per minute. b. Arterial oxygen saturation ≤92%. c. A special note should be made if there is suspicion of COVID-19-related myocarditis or pericarditis, as the presence of these is a stratification criterion. 6. a. ALT and AST ≤ 5x upper limit of normal (ULN). b. Gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) ≤ 5x ULN. c. Total bilirubin ≤ 5×ULN. 7. Willing to participate and able to sign an informed consent form (ICF). Or, when relevant, a legally authorized representative (LAR) might sign the ICF on behalf of the study participant. 8. : a. Have a negative urine pregnancy test at screening. b. Be willing to use a contraceptive method as outlined in inclusion criterion 9 from screening to 30 days after last dose. 9. Male participants who are sexually active with a female partner must agree to the use of an effective method of birth control throughout the study and until 3 months after the last administration of the investigational product. (Note: medically acceptable methods of contraception that may be used by the participant and/or partner include combined oral contraceptive, contraceptive vaginal ring, contraceptive injection, intrauterine device, etonogestrel implant, each supplemented with a condom, as well as sterilization and vasectomy). 10. Female participants who are lactating must agree not to breastfeed during the study and up to 14 days after the intervention. 11. Male participants must agree not to donate sperm for the purpose of reproduction throughout the study and until 3 months after the last administration of the investigational product. 12. For France only: Being affiliated with a European Social Security. : 1. Not needing or not willing to remain in a healthcare facility during the study. 2. Moribund condition (death likely in days) or not expected to survive for >7 days – due to other and non-COVID-19 related conditions. 3. Participant on invasive mechanical ventilation via an endotracheal tube, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or high-flow Oxygen (delivery of oxygen at a flow of ≥16 L/min.). 4. Participant is not able to take medications by mouth (as capsules or as a powder, mixed in water). 5. Disallowed concomitant medication: Consumption of any herbal products containing 20-hydroxyecdysone and derived from Leuzea carthamoides; Cyanotis vaga or Cyanotis arachnoidea is not allowed (e.g. performance enhancing agents). 6. Any known hypersensitivity to any of the ingredients, or excipients of the study medication, BIO101. 7. Renal disease requiring dialysis, or known renal insufficiency (eGFR≤30 mL/min/1.73 m2, based on Cockcroft & Gault formula). 8. a. Non-affiliation to compulsory French social security scheme (beneficiary or right-holder). b. Being under tutelage or legal guardianship. Participants will be recruited from approximately 30 clinical centres in Belgium, France, the UK, USA and Brazil. Maximum patients’ participation in the study will last 28 days. Follow-up of participants discharged from hospital will be performed through post-intervention phone calls at 14 (± 2) and 60 (± 4) days. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Two treatment arms will be tested in this study: interventional arm 350 mg b.i.d. of BIO101 (AP 20-hydroxyecdysone) and placebo comparator arm 350 mg b.i.d of placebo. Administration of daily dose is the same throughout the whole treatment period. Participants will receive the study medication while hospitalized for up to 28 days or until a clinical endpoint is reached (i.e., ‘negative’ or ‘positive’ event). Participants who are officially discharged from hospital care will no longer receive study medication. MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary study endpoint: The proportion of participants with ‘negative’ events up to 28 days. Requiring mechanical ventilation (including cases that will not be intubated due to resource restrictions and triage). Requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Requiring high-flow oxygen defined as delivery of oxygen at a flow of ≥16 L/min. Only if the primary endpoint is significant at the primary final analysis the following Proportion of participants with events of respiratory failure at Day 28. Proportion of participants with ‘positive’ events at Day 28. Proportion of participants with events of all-cause mortality at Day 28. A ‘positive’ event is defined as the official discharge from hospital care by the department due to improvement in participant condition. Secondary and exploratory endpoints: In addition, a variety of functional measures and biomarkers (including the SpO2 / FiO2 ratio, viral load and markers related to inflammation, muscles, tissue and the RAS / MAS pathways) will also be collected. RANDOMIZATION: In part 1, randomization will be stratified by RAS pathway modulator use (yes/no) and co-morbidities (none vs. 1 and above). In Part 2, randomization will be stratified by centre, gender, RAS pathway modulator use (yes/no), co-morbidities (none vs. 1 and above), receiving Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/Bi-level Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP/BiPAP) at study entry (Yes/No) and suspicion of COVID-19 related myocarditis or pericarditis (present or not). BLINDING (MASKING): Participants, caregivers, and the study team assessing the outcomes are blinded to group assignment. All therapeutic units (TU), BIO101 b.i.d. or placebo b.i.d., cannot be distinguished in compliance with the double-blind process. An independent data-monitoring committee (DMC) will conduct 2 interim analyses. A first one based on the data from part 1 and a second from the data from parts 1 and 2. The first will inform about BIO101 safety, to allow the start of recruitment into part 2 followed by an analysis of the efficacy data, to obtain an indication of activity. The second interim analysis will inform about the sample size that will be required for part 2, in order to achieve adequate statistical power. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) : Part 1: 50 (to obtain the proof of concept in COVID-19 patients). Part 2: 310, potentially increased by 50% (up to 465, based on interim analysis 2) (to confirm the effects of BIO101 observed in part 1). TRIAL STATUS: The current protocol Version is V 10.0, dated on 24.09.2020. The recruitment that started on September 1(st) 2020 is ongoing and is anticipated to finish for the whole study by March2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered before trial start in trial registries: EudraCT, No. 2020-001498-63, registered May 18, 2020; and Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT04472728, registered July 15, 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-020-04998-5. | Trials | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 59 | A mosaic-type trimeric RBD-based COVID-19 vaccine candidate induces potent neutralization against Omicron and other SARS-CoV-2 variants N/A | Elife | 2022 | LitCov | |
| 60 | Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Nursing Home Residents Before and During Widespread Circulation of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant-National Healthcare Safety Network, March 1-August 1, 2021 Nursing home and long-term care facility residents live in congregate settings and are often elderly and frail, putting them at high risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and severe COVID-19-associated outcomes; therefore, this population was prioritized for early vaccination in the United States (1). Following rapid distribution and administration of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) under an Emergency Use Authorization by the Food and Drug Administration (2), observational studies among nursing home residents demonstrated vaccine effectiveness (VE) ranging from 53% to 92% against SARS-CoV-2 infection (3-6). However, concerns about the potential for waning vaccine-induced immunity and the recent emergence of the highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant† highlight the need to continue to monitor VE (7). Weekly data reported by the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare (CMS)-certified skilled nursing facilities or nursing homes to CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN)§ were analyzed to evaluate effectiveness of full vaccination (2 doses received ≥14 days earlier) with any of the two currently authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines during the period soon after vaccine introduction and before the Delta variant was circulating (pre-Delta [March 1-May 9, 2021]), and when the Delta variant predominated¶ (Delta [June 21-August 1, 2021]). Using 17,407 weekly reports from 3,862 facilities from the pre-Delta period, adjusted effectiveness against infection for any mRNA vaccine was 74.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 70.0%-78.8%). Analysis using 33,160 weekly reports from 11,581 facilities during an intermediate period (May 10-June 20) found that the adjusted effectiveness was 67.5% (95% CI = 60.1%-73.5%). Analysis using 85,593 weekly reports from 14,917 facilities during the Delta period found that the adjusted effectiveness was 53.1% (95% CI = 49.1%-56.7%). Effectiveness estimates were similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. These findings indicate that mRNA vaccines provide protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection among nursing home residents; however, VE was lower after the Delta variant became the predominant circulating strain in the United States. This analysis assessed VE against any infection, without being able to distinguish between asymptomatic and symptomatic presentations. Additional evaluations are needed to understand protection against severe disease in nursing home residents over time. Because nursing home residents might remain at some risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection despite vaccination, multiple COVID-19 prevention strategies, including infection control, testing, and vaccination of nursing home staff members, residents, and visitors, are critical. An additional dose of COVID-19 vaccine might be considered for nursing home and long-term care facility residents to optimize a protective immune response. | MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 61 | Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia BACKGROUND: The initial cases of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)–infected pneumonia (NCIP) occurred in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, in December 2019 and January 2020. We analyzed data on the first 425 confirmed cases in Wuhan to determine the epidemiologic characteristics of NCIP. METHODS: We collected information on demographic characteristics, exposure history, and illness timelines of laboratory-confirmed cases of NCIP that had been reported by January 22, 2020. We described characteristics of the cases and estimated the key epidemiologic time-delay distributions. In the early period of exponential growth, we estimated the epidemic doubling time and the basic reproductive number. RESULTS: Among the first 425 patients with confirmed NCIP, the median age was 59 years and 56% were male. The majority of cases (55%) with onset before January 1, 2020, were linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, as compared with 8.6% of the subsequent cases. The mean incubation period was 5.2 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1 to 7.0), with the 95th percentile of the distribution at 12.5 days. In its early stages, the epidemic doubled in size every 7.4 days. With a mean serial interval of 7.5 days (95% CI, 5.3 to 19), the basic reproductive number was estimated to be 2.2 (95% CI, 1.4 to 3.9). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this information, there is evidence that human-to-human transmission has occurred among close contacts since the middle of December 2019. Considerable efforts to reduce transmission will be required to control outbreaks if similar dynamics apply elsewhere. Measures to prevent or reduce transmission should be implemented in populations at risk. (Funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China and others.) | N Engl J Med | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 62 | Risk of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolism after covid-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 positive testing: self-controlled case series study OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between covid-19 vaccines and risk of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolic events in England among adults. DESIGN: Self-controlled case series study using national data on covid-19 vaccination and hospital admissions. SETTING: Patient level data were obtained for approximately 30 million people vaccinated in England between 1 December 2020 and 24 April 2021. Electronic health records were linked with death data from the Office for National Statistics, SARS-CoV-2 positive test data, and hospital admission data from the United Kingdom’s health service (NHS). PARTICIPANTS: 29 121 633 people were vaccinated with first doses (19 608 008 with Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and 9 513 625 with Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2 mRNA)) and 1 758 095 people had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. People aged ≥16 years who had first doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines and any outcome of interest were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were hospital admission or death associated with thrombocytopenia, venous thromboembolism, and arterial thromboembolism within 28 days of three exposures: first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine; first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine; and a SARS-CoV-2 positive test. Secondary outcomes were subsets of the primary outcomes: cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and other rare arterial thrombotic events. RESULTS: The study found increased risk of thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (incidence rate ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.47 at 8-14 days) and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (5.27, 4.34 to 6.40 at 8-14 days); increased risk of venous thromboembolism after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (1.10, 1.02 to 1.18 at 8-14 days) and after SARS-CoV-2 infection (13.86, 12.76 to 15.05 at 8-14 days); and increased risk of arterial thromboembolism after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination (1.06, 1.01 to 1.10 at 15-21 days) and after SARS-CoV-2 infection (2.02, 1.82 to 2.24 at 15-21 days). Secondary analyses found increased risk of CVST after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (4.01, 2.08 to 7.71 at 8-14 days), after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination (3.58, 1.39 to 9.27 at 15-21 days), and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test; increased risk of ischaemic stroke after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination (1.12, 1.04 to 1.20 at 15-21 days) and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test; and increased risk of other rare arterial thrombotic events after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (1.21, 1.02 to 1.43 at 8-14 days) and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. CONCLUSION: Increased risks of haematological and vascular events that led to hospital admission or death were observed for short time intervals after first doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines. The risks of most of these events were substantially higher and more prolonged after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination in the same population. | BMJ | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 63 | Evaluation of Humoral Immune Response after SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Using Two Binding Antibody Assays and a Neutralizing Antibody Assay Multiple vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been developed and administered to mitigate the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We assessed the humoral response of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 using Siemens SARS-CoV-2 IgG (sCOVG; cutoff of ≥1.0 U/ml), Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant (CoV-2 IgG II; cutoff of ≥50.0 AU/ml), and GenScript cPASS SARS-CoV-2 neutralization antibody detection kits (cPASS; cutoff of ≥30% inhibition). We collected 710 serum samples (174 samples after BNT162b2 and 536 samples after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19). Venous blood was obtained 3 weeks after first and second vaccinations. In both vaccines, sCOVG, CoV-2 IgG II, and cPASS showed a high seropositive rate (>95.7%) except for cPASS after the first vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (68.8%). Using sCOVG and CoV-2 IgG II, the ratios of antibody value (second/first) increased 10.6- and 11.4-fold in BNT162b2 (first 14.1, second 134.8 U/ml; first 1,416.2, second 14,326.4 AU/ml) and 2.3- and 2.0-fold in ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (first 4.0, second 9.1 U/ml; first 431.0, second 9,744.0 AU/ml). cPASS-positive results indicated a very high concordance rate with sCOVG and CoV-2 IgG II (>98%), whereas cPASS-negative results showed a relatively low concordance rate (range of 22.2% to 66.7%). To predict cPASS positivity, we suggested additional cutoffs for sCOVG and CoV-2 IgG II at 2.42 U/ml and 284 AU/ml, respectively. In conclusion, BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 evoked robust humoral responses. sCOVG and CoV-2 IgG II showed a very strong correlation with cPASS. sCOVG and CoV-2 IgG II may predict the presence of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. IMPORTANCE The Siemens severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) IgG (sCOVG; Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc., NY, USA) and Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant (CoV-2 IgG II; Abbott Laboratories, Sligo, Ireland), which are automated, quantitative SARS-CoV-2-binding antibody assays, have been recently launched. This study aimed to evaluate the humoral immune response of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines using sCOVG and CoV-2 IgG II and compare the quantitative values with the results of the GenScript surrogate virus neutralization test (cPASS; GenScript, USA Inc., NJ, USA). Our findings demonstrated that both BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 elicited a robust humoral response after the first vaccination and further increased after the second vaccination. sCOVG and CoV-2 IgG II showed a strong correlation, and the concordance rates among sCOVG, CoV-2 IgG II, and cPASS were very high in the cPASS-positive results. The additional cutoff sCOVG and CoV-2 IgG II could predict the results of cPASS. | Microbiol Spectr | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 64 | Heterologous vs homologous COVID-19 booster vaccination in previous recipients of two doses of CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccine in Brazil (RHH-001): a phase 4, non-inferiority, single blind, randomised study INTRODUCTION: The inactivated whole-virion SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac, Sinovac) has been widely used in a two-dose schedule. We assessed whether a third dose of the homologous or a different vaccine could boost immune responses. METHODS: RHH-001 is a phase 4, participant masked, two centre, safety and immunogenicity study of Brazilian adults (18 years and older) in São Paulo or Salvador who had received two doses of CoronaVac 6 months previously. The third heterologous dose was of either a recombinant adenoviral vectored vaccine (Ad26.COV2-S, Janssen), an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer–BioNTech), or a recombinant adenoviral-vectored ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222, AstraZeneca), compared with a third homologous dose of CoronaVac. Participants were randomly assigned (5:6:5:5) by a RedCAP computer randomisation system stratified by site, age group (18–60 years or 61 years and over), and day of randomisation, with a block size of 42. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of anti-spike IgG antibodies 28 days after the booster dose in the heterologous boost groups compared with homologous regimen, using a non-inferiority margin for the geometric mean ratio (heterologous vs homologous) of 0·67. Secondary outcomes included neutralising antibody titres at day 28, local and systemic reactogenicity profiles, adverse events, and serious adverse events. This study was registered with Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos, number RBR–9nn3scw. FINDINGS: Between Aug 16, and Sept 1, 2021, 1240 participants were randomly assigned to one of the four groups, of whom 1239 were vaccinated and 1205 were eligible for inclusion in the primary analysis. Antibody concentrations were low before administration of a booster dose with detectable neutralising antibodies of 20·4% (95% CI 12·8–30·1) in adults aged 18–60 years and 8·9% (4·2–16·2) in adults 61 years or older. From baseline to day 28 after the booster vaccine, all groups had a substantial rise in IgG antibody concentrations: the geometric fold-rise was 77 (95% CI 67–88) for Ad26.COV2-S, 152 (134–173) for BNT162b2, 90 (77–104) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and 12 (11–14) for CoronaVac. All heterologous regimens had anti-spike IgG responses at day 28 that were superior to homologous booster responses: geometric mean ratios (heterologous vs homologous) were 6·7 (95% CI 5·8–7·7) for Ad26.COV2-S, 13·4 (11·6–15·3) for BNT162b2, and 7·0 (6·1–8·1) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. All heterologous boost regimens induced high concentrations of pseudovirus neutralising antibodies. At day 28, all groups except for the homologous boost in the older adults reached 100% seropositivity: geometric mean ratios (heterologous vs homologous) were 8·7 (95% CI 5·9–12·9) for Ad26.COV2-S vaccine, 21·5 (14·5–31·9) for BNT162b2, and 10·6 (7·2–15·6) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Live virus neutralising antibodies were also boosted against delta (B.1.617.2) and omicron variants (B.1.1.529). There were five serious adverse events. Three of which were considered possibly related to the vaccine received: one in the BNT162b2 group and two in the Ad26.COV2-S group. All participants recovered and were discharged home. INTERPRETATION: Antibody concentrations were low at 6 months after previous immunisation with two doses of CoronaVac. However, all four vaccines administered as a third dose induced a significant increase in binding and neutralising antibodies, which could improve protection against infection. Heterologous boosting resulted in more robust immune responses than homologous boosting and might enhance protection. FUNDING: Ministry of Health, Brazil. | Lancet | 2022 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 65 | BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine and correlates of humoral immune responses and dynamics: a prospective, single center, longitudinal cohort study in health-care workers BACKGROUND: Concurrent with the Pfizer–BioNTech BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine roll-out in Israel initiated on Dec 19, 2020, we assessed the early antibody responses and antibody kinetics after each vaccine dose in health-care workers of different ages and sexes, and with different comorbidities. METHODS: We did a prospective, single-centre, longitudinal cohort study at the Sheba Medical Centre (Tel-Hashomer, Israel). Eligible participants were health-care workers at the centre who had a negative anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay before receiving the first dose of the intramuscular vaccine, and at least one serological antibody test after the first dose of the vaccine. Health-care workers with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test before vaccination, a positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG serology test before vaccination, or infection with COVID-19 after vaccination were excluded from the study. Participants were followed up weekly for 5 weeks after the first vaccine dose; a second dose was given at week 3. Serum samples were obtained at baseline and at each weekly follow-up, and antibodies were tested at 1–2 weeks after the first vaccine dose, at week 3 with the administration of the second vaccine dose, and at weeks 4–5 (ie, 1–2 weeks after the second vaccine dose). Participants with comorbidities were approached to participate in an enriched comorbidities subgroup, and at least two neutralising assays were done during the 5 weeks of follow-up in those individuals. IgG assays were done for the entire study population, whereas IgM, IgA, and neutralising antibody assays were done only in the enriched comorbidities subgroup. Concentrations of IgG greater than 0·62 sample-to-cutoff (s/co) ratio and of IgA greater than 1·1 s/co, and titres of neutralising antibodies greater than 10 were considered positive. Scatter plot and correlation analyses, logistic and linear regression analyses, and linear mixed models were used to investigate the longitudinal antibody responses. FINDINGS: Between Dec 19, 2020, and Jan 30, 2021, we obtained 4026 serum samples from 2607 eligible, vaccinated participants. 342 individuals were included in the enriched comorbidities subgroup. The first vaccine dose elicited positive IgG and neutralising antibody responses at week 3 in 707 (88·0%) of 803 individuals, and 264 (71·0%) of 372 individuals, respectively, which were rapidly increased at week 4 (ie, 1 week after the second vaccine dose) in 1011 (98·4%) of 1027 and 357 (96·5%) of 370 individuals, respectively. Over 4 weeks of follow-up after vaccination, a high correlation (r=0·92) was detected between IgG against the receptor-binding domain and neutralising antibody titres. First-dose induced IgG response was significantly lower in individuals aged 66 years and older (ratio of means 0·25, 95% CI 0·19–0·31) and immunosuppressed individuals (0·21, 0·14–0·31) compared with individuals aged 18·00–45·99 years and individuals with no immunosuppression, respectively. This disparity was partly abrogated following the second dose. Overall, endpoint regression analysis showed that lower antibody concentrations were consistently associated with male sex (ratio of means 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·89), older age (ie, ≥66 years; 0·64, 0·58–0·71), immunosuppression (0·44, 0·33–0·58), and other specific comorbidities: diabetes (0·88, 0·79–0·98), hypertension (0·90, 0·82–0·98), heart disease (0·86, 0·75–1·00), and autoimmune diseases (0·82, 0·73–0·92). INTERPRETATION: BNT162b2 vaccine induces a robust and rapid antibody response. The significant correlation between receptor-binding domain IgG antibodies and neutralisation titres suggests that IgG antibodies might serve as a correlate of neutralisation. The second vaccine dose is particularly important for older and immunosuppressed individuals, highlighting the need for timely second vaccinations and potentially a revaluation of the long gap between doses in some countries. Antibody responses were reduced in susceptible populations and therefore they might be more prone to breakthrough infections. FUNDING: Sheba Medical Center, Israel Ministry of Health. | Lancet Respir Med | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 66 | Comprehensive characterization of the antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein finds additional vaccine induced epitopes beyond those for mild infection BACKGROUND: Control of the COVID-19 pandemic will rely on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-elicited antibodies to protect against emerging and future variants; an understanding of the unique features of the humoral responses to infection and vaccination, including different vaccine platforms, is needed to achieve this goal. METHODS: The epitopes and pathways of escape for Spike-specific antibodies in individuals with diverse infection and vaccination history were profiled using Phage-DMS. Principal component analysis was performed to identify regions of antibody binding along the Spike protein that differentiate the samples from one another. Within these epitope regions, we determined potential sites of escape by comparing antibody binding of peptides containing wild-type residues versus peptides containing a mutant residue. RESULTS: Individuals with mild infection had antibodies that bound to epitopes in the S2 subunit within the fusion peptide and heptad-repeat regions, whereas vaccinated individuals had antibodies that additionally bound to epitopes in the N- and C-terminal domains of the S1 subunit, a pattern that was also observed in individuals with severe disease due to infection. Epitope binding appeared to change over time after vaccination, but other covariates such as mRNA vaccine dose, mRNA vaccine type, and age did not affect antibody binding to these epitopes. Vaccination induced a relatively uniform escape profile across individuals for some epitopes, whereas there was much more variation in escape pathways in mildly infected individuals. In the case of antibodies targeting the fusion peptide region, which was a common response to both infection and vaccination, the escape profile after infection was not altered by subsequent vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: The finding that SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination resulted in binding to additional epitopes beyond what was seen after infection suggests that protection could vary depending on the route of exposure to Spike antigen. The relatively conserved escape pathways to vaccine-induced antibodies relative to infection-induced antibodies suggests that if escape variants emerge they may be readily selected for across vaccinated individuals. Given that the majority of people will be first exposed to Spike via vaccination and not infection, this work has implications for predicting the selection of immune escape variants at a population level. FUNDING: This work was supported by NIH grants AI138709 (PI JMO) and AI146028 (PI FAM). JMO received support as the Endowed Chair for Graduate Education (FHCRC). The research of FAM was supported in part by a Faculty Scholar grant from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Simons Foundation. Scientific Computing Infrastructure at Fred Hutch was funded by ORIP grant S10OD028685. | Elife | 2022 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 67 | Factors Associated With Mental Health Outcomes Among Healthcare Workers Exposed to COVID-19 IMPORTANCE: Health care workers exposed to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) could be psychologically stressed. OBJECTIVE: To assess the magnitude of mental health outcomes and associated factors among health care workers treating patients exposed to COVID-19 in China. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional, survey-based, region-stratified study collected demographic data and mental health measurements from 1257 health care workers in 34 hospitals from January 29, 2020, to February 3, 2020, in China. Health care workers in hospitals equipped with fever clinics or wards for patients with COVID-19 were eligible. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The degree of symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and distress was assessed by the Chinese versions of the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale, the 7-item Insomnia Severity Index, and the 22-item Impact of Event Scale–Revised, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with mental health outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1257 of 1830 contacted individuals completed the survey, with a participation rate of 68.7%. A total of 813 (64.7%) were aged 26 to 40 years, and 964 (76.7%) were women. Of all participants, 764 (60.8%) were nurses, and 493 (39.2%) were physicians; 760 (60.5%) worked in hospitals in Wuhan, and 522 (41.5%) were frontline health care workers. A considerable proportion of participants reported symptoms of depression (634 [50.4%]), anxiety (560 [44.6%]), insomnia (427 [34.0%]), and distress (899 [71.5%]). Nurses, women, frontline health care workers, and those working in Wuhan, China, reported more severe degrees of all measurements of mental health symptoms than other health care workers (eg, median [IQR] Patient Health Questionnaire scores among physicians vs nurses: 4.0 [1.0-7.0] vs 5.0 [2.0-8.0]; P = .007; median [interquartile range {IQR}] Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale scores among men vs women: 2.0 [0-6.0] vs 4.0 [1.0-7.0]; P < .001; median [IQR] Insomnia Severity Index scores among frontline vs second-line workers: 6.0 [2.0-11.0] vs 4.0 [1.0-8.0]; P < .001; median [IQR] Impact of Event Scale–Revised scores among those in Wuhan vs those in Hubei outside Wuhan and those outside Hubei: 21.0 [8.5-34.5] vs 18.0 [6.0-28.0] in Hubei outside Wuhan and 15.0 [4.0-26.0] outside Hubei; P < .001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed participants from outside Hubei province were associated with lower risk of experiencing symptoms of distress compared with those in Wuhan (odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.88; P = .008). Frontline health care workers engaged in direct diagnosis, treatment, and care of patients with COVID-19 were associated with a higher risk of symptoms of depression (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.11-2.09; P = .01), anxiety (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.22-2.02; P < .001), insomnia (OR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.92-4.60; P < .001), and distress (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.25-2.04; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this survey of heath care workers in hospitals equipped with fever clinics or wards for patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan and other regions in China, participants reported experiencing psychological burden, especially nurses, women, those in Wuhan, and frontline health care workers directly engaged in the diagnosis, treatment, and care for patients with COVID-19. | JAMA Netw Open | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 68 | Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2 BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) virus and resulting COVID‐19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify current infection, rule out infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS‐CoV‐2 aim to identify previous SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, and may help to confirm the presence of current infection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, or has previously had SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, and the accuracy of antibody tests for use in seroprevalence surveys. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID‐19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 27 April 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antibody tests (including enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays) in people suspected of current or previous SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We also included studies of people either known to have, or not to have SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT‐PCR) and clinical diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed possible bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS‐2 tool. We extracted 2x2 contingency table data and present sensitivity and specificity for each antibody (or combination of antibodies) using paired forest plots. We pooled data using random‐effects logistic regression where appropriate, stratifying by time since post‐symptom onset. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We have presented uncertainty in estimates of sensitivity and specificity using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 57 publications reporting on a total of 54 study cohorts with 15,976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Studies were conducted in Asia (n = 38), Europe (n = 15), and the USA and China (n = 1). We identified data from 25 commercial tests and numerous in‐house assays, a small fraction of the 279 antibody assays listed by the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics. More than half (n = 28) of the studies included were only available as preprints. We had concerns about risk of bias and applicability. Common issues were use of multi‐group designs (n = 29), inclusion of only COVID‐19 cases (n = 19), lack of blinding of the index test (n = 49) and reference standard (n = 29), differential verification (n = 22), and the lack of clarity about participant numbers, characteristics and study exclusions (n = 47). Most studies (n = 44) only included people hospitalised due to suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 infection. There were no studies exclusively in asymptomatic participants. Two‐thirds of the studies (n = 33) defined COVID‐19 cases based on RT‐PCR results alone, ignoring the potential for false‐negative RT‐PCR results. We observed evidence of selective publication of study findings through omission of the identity of tests (n = 5). We observed substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies, or combinations thereof, for results aggregated across different time periods post‐symptom onset (range 0% to 100% for all target antibodies). We thus based the main results of the review on the 38 studies that stratified results by time since symptom onset. The numbers of individuals contributing data within each study each week are small and are usually not based on tracking the same groups of patients over time. Pooled results for IgG, IgM, IgA, total antibodies and IgG/IgM all showed low sensitivity during the first week since onset of symptoms (all less than 30.1%), rising in the second week and reaching their highest values in the third week. The combination of IgG/IgM had a sensitivity of 30.1% (95% CI 21.4 to 40.7) for 1 to 7 days, 72.2% (95% CI 63.5 to 79.5) for 8 to 14 days, 91.4% (95% CI 87.0 to 94.4) for 15 to 21 days. Estimates of accuracy beyond three weeks are based on smaller sample sizes and fewer studies. For 21 to 35 days, pooled sensitivities for IgG/IgM were 96.0% (95% CI 90.6 to 98.3). There are insufficient studies to estimate sensitivity of tests beyond 35 days post‐symptom onset. Summary specificities (provided in 35 studies) exceeded 98% for all target antibodies with confidence intervals no more than 2 percentage points wide. False‐positive results were more common where COVID‐19 had been suspected and ruled out, but numbers were small and the difference was within the range expected by chance. Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a value considered possible in healthcare workers who have suffered respiratory symptoms, we would anticipate that 43 (28 to 65) would be missed and 7 (3 to 14) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG/IgM testing at days 15 to 21 post‐symptom onset. At a prevalence of 20%, a likely value in surveys in high‐risk settings, 17 (11 to 26) would be missed per 1000 people tested and 10 (5 to 22) would be falsely positive. At a lower prevalence of 5%, a likely value in national surveys, 4 (3 to 7) would be missed per 1000 tested, and 12 (6 to 27) would be falsely positive. Analyses showed small differences in sensitivity between assay type, but methodological concerns and sparse data prevent comparisons between test brands. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID‐19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT‐PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS‐CoV‐2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post‐symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID‐19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID‐19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID‐19‐positive cases who are RT‐PCR‐negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT‐PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast‐moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review. | Cochrane Database Syst Rev | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 69 | Pathogenesis-directed therapy of 2019 novel coronavirus disease N/A | J Med Virol | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 70 | Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities and Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the New York City Area N/A | JAMA | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 71 | Risk Factors Associated With Mortality Among Patients With COVID-19 in Intensive Care Units in Lombardy, Italy N/A | JAMA Intern Med | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 72 | Human serum from SARS-CoV-2-vaccinated and COVID-19 patients shows reduced binding to the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is caused by the betacoronavirus SARS-CoV-2. In November 2021, the Omicron variant was discovered and immediately classified as a variant of concern (VOC), since it shows substantially more mutations in the spike protein than any previous variant, especially in the receptor-binding domain (RBD). We analyzed the binding of the Omicron RBD to the human angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 receptor (ACE2) and the ability of human sera from COVID-19 patients or vaccinees in comparison to Wuhan, Beta, or Delta RBD variants. METHODS: All RBDs were produced in insect cells. RBD binding to ACE2 was analyzed by ELISA and microscale thermophoresis (MST). Similarly, sera from 27 COVID-19 patients, 81 vaccinated individuals, and 34 booster recipients were titrated by ELISA on RBDs from the original Wuhan strain, Beta, Delta, and Omicron VOCs. In addition, the neutralization efficacy of authentic SARS-CoV-2 wild type (D614G), Delta, and Omicron by sera from 2× or 3× BNT162b2-vaccinated persons was analyzed. RESULTS: Surprisingly, the Omicron RBD showed a somewhat weaker binding to ACE2 compared to Beta and Delta, arguing that improved ACE2 binding is not a likely driver of Omicron evolution. Serum antibody titers were significantly lower against Omicron RBD compared to the original Wuhan strain. A 2.6× reduction in Omicron RBD binding was observed for serum of 2× BNT162b2-vaccinated persons. Neutralization of Omicron SARS-CoV-2 was completely diminished in our setup. CONCLUSION: These results indicate an immune escape focused on neutralizing antibodies. Nevertheless, a boost vaccination increased the level of anti-RBD antibodies against Omicron, and neutralization of authentic Omicron SARS-CoV-2 was at least partially restored. This study adds evidence that current vaccination protocols may be less efficient against the Omicron variant. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-022-02312-5. | BMC Med | 2022 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 73 | Universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection: a rapid review N/A | Cochrane Database Syst Rev | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 74 | Safety and immunogenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 ARCoV mRNA vaccine in Chinese adults: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 trial BACKGROUND: Safe and effective vaccines are urgently needed to end the COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. We aimed to assess the preliminary safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of an mRNA vaccine ARCoV, which encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD). METHODS: This single centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation, phase 1 trial of ARCoV was conducted at Shulan (Hangzhou) hospital in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, China. Healthy adults aged 18–59 years negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled and randomly assigned using block randomisation to receive an intramuscular injection of vaccine or placebo. Vaccine doses were 5 μg, 10 μg, 15 μg, 20 μg, and 25 μg. The first six participants in each block were sentinels and along with the remaining 18 participants, were randomly assigned to groups (5:1). In block 1 sentinels were given the lowest vaccine dose and after a 4-day observation with confirmed safety analyses, the remaining 18 participants in the same dose group proceeded and sentinels in block 2 were given their first administration on a two-dose schedule, 28 days apart. All participants, investigators, and staff doing laboratory analyses were masked to treatment allocation. Humoral responses were assessed by measuring anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG using a standardised ELISA and neutralising antibodies using pseudovirus-based and live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assays. SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific T-cell responses, including IFN-γ and IL-2 production, were assessed using an enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISpot) assay. The primary outcome for safety was incidence of adverse events or adverse reactions within 60 min, and at days 7, 14, and 28 after each vaccine dose. The secondary safety outcome was abnormal changes detected by laboratory tests at days 1, 4, 7, and 28 after each vaccine dose. For immunogenicity, the secondary outcome was humoral immune responses: titres of neutralising antibodies to live SARS-CoV-2, neutralising antibodies to pseudovirus, and RBD-specific IgG at baseline and 28 days after first vaccination and at days 7, 15, and 28 after second vaccination. The exploratory outcome was SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses at 7 days after the first vaccination and at days 7 and 15 after the second vaccination. This trial is registered with www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2000039212). FINDINGS: Between Oct 30 and Dec 2, 2020, 230 individuals were screened and 120 eligible participants were randomly assigned to receive five-dose levels of ARCoV or a placebo (20 per group). All participants received the first vaccination and 118 received the second dose. No serious adverse events were reported within 56 days after vaccination and the majority of adverse events were mild or moderate. Fever was the most common systemic adverse reaction (one [5%] of 20 in the 5 μg group, 13 [65%] of 20 in the 10 μg group, 17 [85%] of 20 in the 15 μg group, 19 [95%] of 20 in the 20 μg group, 16 [100%] of 16 in the 25 μg group; p<0·0001). The incidence of grade 3 systemic adverse events were none (0%) of 20 in the 5 μg group, three (15%) of 20 in the 10 μg group, six (30%) of 20 in the 15 μg group, seven (35%) of 20 in the 20 μg group, five (31%) of 16 in the 25 μg group, and none (0%) of 20 in the placebo group (p=0·0013). As expected, the majority of fever resolved in the first 2 days after vaccination for all groups. The incidence of solicited systemic adverse events was similar after administration of ARCoV as a first or second vaccination. Humoral immune responses including anti-RBD IgG and neutralising antibodies increased significantly 7 days after the second dose and peaked between 14 and 28 days thereafter. Specific T-cell response peaked between 7 and 14 days after full vaccination. 15 μg induced the highest titre of neutralising antibodies, which was about twofold more than the antibody titre of convalescent patients with COVID-19. INTERPRETATION: ARCoV was safe and well tolerated at all five doses. The acceptable safety profile, together with the induction of strong humoral and cellular immune responses, support further clinical testing of ARCoV at a large scale. FUNDING: National Key Research and Development Project of China, Academy of Medical Sciences China, National Natural Science Foundation China, and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences. | Lancet Microbe | 2022 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 75 | Humoral immune response after different SARS-CoV-2 vaccination regimens BACKGROUND: The humoral immune response after primary immunisation with a SARS-CoV-2 vector vaccine (AstraZeneca AZD1222, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, Vaxzevria) followed by an mRNA vaccine boost (Pfizer/BioNTech, BNT162b2; Moderna, m-1273) was examined and compared with the antibody response after homologous vaccination schemes (AZD1222/AZD1222 or BNT162b2/BNT162b2). METHODS: Sera from 59 vaccinees were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) and virus-neutralising antibodies (VNA) with three IgG assays based on (parts of) the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S)-protein as antigen, an IgG immunoblot (additionally contains the SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein (NP) as an antigen), a surrogate neutralisation test (sVNT), and a Vero-cell-based virus-neutralisation test (cVNT) with the B.1.1.7 variant of concern (VOC; alpha) as antigen. Investigation was done before and after heterologous (n = 30 and 42) or homologous booster vaccination (AZD1222/AZD1222, n = 8/9; BNT162b2/BNT162b2, n = 8/8). After the second immunisation, a subgroup of 26 age- and gender-matched sera (AZD1222/mRNA, n = 9; AZD1222/AZD1222, n = 9; BNT162b2/BNT162b2, n = 8) was also tested for VNA against VOC B.1.617.2 (delta) in the cVNT. The strength of IgG binding to separate SARS-CoV-2 antigens was measured by avidity. RESULTS: After the first vaccination, the prevalence of IgG directed against the (trimeric) SARS-CoV-2 S-protein and its receptor binding domain (RBD) varied from 55–95% (AZD1222) to 100% (BNT162b2), depending on the vaccine regimen and the SARS-CoV-2 antigen used. The booster vaccination resulted in 100% seroconversion and the occurrence of highly avid IgG, which is directed against the S-protein subunit 1 and the RBD, as well as VNA against VOC B.1.1.7, while anti-NP IgGs were not detected. The results of the three anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG tests showed an excellent correlation to the VNA titres against this VOC. The agreement of cVNT and sVNT results was good. However, the sVNT seems to overestimate non- and weak B.1.1.7-neutralising titres. The anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG concentrations and the B.1.1.7-neutralising titres were significantly higher after heterologous vaccination compared to the homologous AZD1222 scheme. If VOC B.1.617.2 was used as antigen, significantly lower VNA titres were measured in the cVNT, and three (33.3%) vector vaccine recipients had a VNA titre < 1:10. CONCLUSIONS: Heterologous SARS-CoV-2 vaccination leads to a strong antibody response with anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG concentrations and VNA titres at a level comparable to that of a homologous BNT162b2 vaccination scheme. Irrespective of the chosen immunisation regime, highly avid IgG antibodies can be detected just 2 weeks after the second vaccine dose indicating the development of a robust humoral immunity. The reduction in the VNA titre against VOC B.1.617.2 observed in the subgroup of 26 individuals is remarkable and confirms the immune escape of the delta variant. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-021-02231-x. | BMC Med | 2022 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 76 | A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China Emerging infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Zika virus disease, present a major threat to public health(1–3). Despite intense research efforts, how, when and where new diseases appear are still a source of considerable uncertainty. A severe respiratory disease was recently reported in Wuhan, Hubei province, China. As of 25 January 2020, at least 1,975 cases had been reported since the first patient was hospitalized on 12 December 2019. Epidemiological investigations have suggested that the outbreak was associated with a seafood market in Wuhan. Here we study a single patient who was a worker at the market and who was admitted to the Central Hospital of Wuhan on 26 December 2019 while experiencing a severe respiratory syndrome that included fever, dizziness and a cough. Metagenomic RNA sequencing(4) of a sample of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from the patient identified a new RNA virus strain from the family Coronaviridae, which is designated here ‘WH-Human 1’ coronavirus (and has also been referred to as ‘2019-nCoV’). Phylogenetic analysis of the complete viral genome (29,903 nucleotides) revealed that the virus was most closely related (89.1% nucleotide similarity) to a group of SARS-like coronaviruses (genus Betacoronavirus, subgenus Sarbecovirus) that had previously been found in bats in China(5). This outbreak highlights the ongoing ability of viral spill-over from animals to cause severe disease in humans. | Nature | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 77 | Effect of mRNA Vaccine Boosters against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Infection in Qatar BACKGROUND: Waning of vaccine protection against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and the emergence of the omicron (or B.1.1.529) variant of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have led to expedited efforts to scale up booster vaccination. Protection conferred by booster doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines in Qatar, as compared with protection conferred by the two-dose primary series, is unclear. METHODS: We conducted two matched retrospective cohort studies to assess the effectiveness of booster vaccination, as compared with that of a two-dose primary series alone, against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and Covid-19–related hospitalization and death during a large wave of omicron infections from December 19, 2021, through January 26, 2022. The association of booster status with infection was estimated with the use of Cox proportional-hazards regression models. RESULTS: In a population of 2,239,193 persons who had received at least two doses of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccine, those who had also received a booster were matched with persons who had not received a booster. Among the BNT162b2-vaccinated persons, the cumulative incidence of symptomatic omicron infection was 2.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3 to 2.5) in the booster cohort and 4.5% (95% CI, 4.3 to 4.6) in the nonbooster cohort after 35 days of follow-up. Booster effectiveness against symptomatic omicron infection, as compared with that of the primary series, was 49.4% (95% CI, 47.1 to 51.6). Booster effectiveness against Covid-19–related hospitalization and death due to omicron infection, as compared with the primary series, was 76.5% (95% CI, 55.9 to 87.5). BNT162b2 booster effectiveness against symptomatic infection with the delta (or B.1.617.2) variant, as compared with the primary series, was 86.1% (95% CI, 67.3 to 94.1). Among the mRNA-1273–vaccinated persons, the cumulative incidence of symptomatic omicron infection was 1.0% (95% CI, 0.9 to 1.2) in the booster cohort and 1.9% (95% CI, 1.8 to 2.1) in the nonbooster cohort after 35 days; booster effectiveness against symptomatic omicron infection, as compared with the primary series, was 47.3% (95% CI, 40.7 to 53.3). Few severe Covid-19 cases were noted in the mRNA-1273–vaccinated cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The messenger RNA (mRNA) boosters were highly effective against symptomatic delta infection, but they were less effective against symptomatic omicron infection. However, with both variants, mRNA boosters led to strong protection against Covid-19–related hospitalization and death. (Funded by Weill Cornell Medicine–Qatar and others.) | N Engl J Med | 2022 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 78 | Mental Health Burden in Different Professions During the Final Stage of the COVID-19 Lockdown in China: Cross-sectional Survey Study BACKGROUND: COVID-19 resulted in considerable mental health burden in the Chinese general population and among health care workers at the beginning and peak of the pandemic. However, little is known about potentially vulnerable groups during the final stage of the lockdown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this survey study was to assess the mental health burden of different professions in China in order to find vulnerable groups, possible influencing factors, and successful ways of coping during the last 4 weeks of the lockdown in Hubei Province. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey asked participants about current residence, daily working hours, exposure to COVID-19 at work, and media preferences. We used a shortened version of the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) to assess mental health. Further assessments included perceived stress (Simplified Chinese version of the 14-item Perceived Stress Scale), coping strategies for all participants, and specific stressors for health care workers. We followed the reporting guidelines of the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement for observational studies. RESULTS: The sample (N=687) consisted of 158 doctors, 221 nurses, 24 other medical staff, 43 students, 60 teachers/government staff, 135 economy staff, 26 workers/farmers, and 20 professions designated under the “other” category. We found increased depression (n=123, 17.9%), anxiety (n=208, 30.3%), and stress (n=94, 13.7%) in our sample. Professions that were vulnerable to depression were other medical staff and students. Doctors, nurses, and students were vulnerable to anxiety; and other medical staff, students, and economy staff were vulnerable to stress. Coping strategies were reduced to three factors: active, mental, and emotional. Being female and emotional coping were independently associated with depression, anxiety, or stress. Applying active coping strategies showed lower odds for anxiety while mental coping strategies showed lower odds for depression, anxiety, and stress. Age, being inside a lockdown area, exposure to COVID-19 at work, and having a high workload (8-12 hours per day) were not associated with depression, anxiety, or stress. WeChat was the preferred way of staying informed across all groups. CONCLUSIONS: By the end of the lockdown, a considerable part of the Chinese population showed increased levels of depression and anxiety. Students and other medical staff were the most affected, while economy staff were highly stressed. Doctors and nurses need support regarding potential anxiety disorders. Future work should focus on longitudinal results of the pandemic and develop targeted preventive measures. | J Med Internet Res | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 79 | Recognition of Variants of Concern by Antibodies and T Cells Induced by a SARS-CoV-2 Inactivated Vaccine BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus responsible of the current pandemic ongoing all around the world. Since its discovery in 2019, several circulating variants have emerged and some of them are associated with increased infections and death rate. Despite the genetic differences among these variants, vaccines approved for human use have shown a good immunogenic and protective response against them. In Chile, over 70% of the vaccinated population is immunized with CoronaVac, an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The immune response elicited by this vaccine has been described against the first SARS-CoV-2 strain isolated from Wuhan, China and the D614G strain (lineage B). To date, four SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern described have circulated worldwide. Here, we describe the neutralizing capacities of antibodies secreted by volunteers in the Chilean population immunized with CoronaVac against variants of concern Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351) Gamma (P.1) and Delta (B.617.2). METHODS: Volunteers enrolled in a phase 3 clinical trial were vaccinated with two doses of CoronaVac in 0-14 or 0-28 immunization schedules. Sera samples were used to evaluate the capacity of antibodies induced by the vaccine to block the binding between Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) from variants of concern and the human ACE2 receptor by an in-house ELISA. Further, conventional microneutralization assays were used to test neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Moreover, interferon-γ-secreting T cells against Spike from variants of concern were evaluated in PBMCs from vaccinated subjects using ELISPOT. RESULTS: CoronaVac promotes the secretion of antibodies able to block the RBD of all the SARS-CoV-2 variants studied. Seropositivity rates of neutralizing antibodies in the population evaluated were over 97% for the lineage B strain, over 80% for Alpha and Gamma variants, over 75% for Delta variant and over 60% for the Beta variant. Geometric means titers of blocking antibodies were reduced when tested against SARS-CoV-2 variants as compared to ancestral strain. We also observed that antibodies from vaccinated subjects were able to neutralize the infection of variants D614G, Alpha, Gamma and Delta in a conventional microneutralization assay. Importantly, after SARS-CoV-2 infection, we observed that the blocking capacity of antibodies from vaccinated volunteers increased up to ten times for all the variants tested. We compared the number of interferon-γ-secreting T cells specific for SARS-CoV-2 Spike WT and variants of concern from vaccinated subjects and we did not detect significant differences. CONCLUSION: Immunization with CoronaVac in either immunization schedule promotes the secretion of antibodies able to block SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and partially neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 infection. In addition, it stimulates cellular responses against all variants of concern. | Front Immunol | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 80 | Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding Summary Background In late December, 2019, patients presenting with viral pneumonia due to an unidentified microbial agent were reported in Wuhan, China. A novel coronavirus was subsequently identified as the causative pathogen, provisionally named 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). As of Jan 26, 2020, more than 2000 cases of 2019-nCoV infection have been confirmed, most of which involved people living in or visiting Wuhan, and human-to-human transmission has been confirmed. Methods We did next-generation sequencing of samples from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and cultured isolates from nine inpatients, eight of whom had visited the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan. Complete and partial 2019-nCoV genome sequences were obtained from these individuals. Viral contigs were connected using Sanger sequencing to obtain the full-length genomes, with the terminal regions determined by rapid amplification of cDNA ends. Phylogenetic analysis of these 2019-nCoV genomes and those of other coronaviruses was used to determine the evolutionary history of the virus and help infer its likely origin. Homology modelling was done to explore the likely receptor-binding properties of the virus. Findings The ten genome sequences of 2019-nCoV obtained from the nine patients were extremely similar, exhibiting more than 99·98% sequence identity. Notably, 2019-nCoV was closely related (with 88% identity) to two bat-derived severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-like coronaviruses, bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21, collected in 2018 in Zhoushan, eastern China, but were more distant from SARS-CoV (about 79%) and MERS-CoV (about 50%). Phylogenetic analysis revealed that 2019-nCoV fell within the subgenus Sarbecovirus of the genus Betacoronavirus, with a relatively long branch length to its closest relatives bat-SL-CoVZC45 and bat-SL-CoVZXC21, and was genetically distinct from SARS-CoV. Notably, homology modelling revealed that 2019-nCoV had a similar receptor-binding domain structure to that of SARS-CoV, despite amino acid variation at some key residues. Interpretation 2019-nCoV is sufficiently divergent from SARS-CoV to be considered a new human-infecting betacoronavirus. Although our phylogenetic analysis suggests that bats might be the original host of this virus, an animal sold at the seafood market in Wuhan might represent an intermediate host facilitating the emergence of the virus in humans. Importantly, structural analysis suggests that 2019-nCoV might be able to bind to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor in humans. The future evolution, adaptation, and spread of this virus warrant urgent investigation. Funding National Key Research and Development Program of China, National Major Project for Control and Prevention of Infectious Disease in China, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shandong First Medical University. | Lancet | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 81 | Pharmacy Emergency Preparedness and Response (PEPR): a proposed framework for expanding pharmacy professionals' roles and contributions to emergency preparedness and response during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond BACKGROUND: Pharmacists have long been involved in public health and emergency preparedness and response (EP&R), including through preventive measures such as screening, vaccinations, testing and pharmaceutical countermeasures, as well as ensuring medication safety and access during natural disasters and pandemics. Pharmacy professionals are considered essential partners in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Community and hospital pharmacies are expanding services and hours to provide essential services, putting pharmacists and their co-workers at the frontlines for patient care and safety to improve public health. In addition, pharmacy professionals are increasingly integrating into global, national, state and local EP&R efforts, including into interprofessional teams, such as Medical Reserve Corps (MRCs). However, lacunae exist for further integration of pharmacists into public health and safety initiatives. There are increasing opportunities and recommendations that should be expanded upon to provide improved patient care and population health intervention, and to ensure healthcare worker and public health safety. OBJECTIVE: Develop a Pharmacy Emergency Preparedness and Response (PEPR) Framework and recommendations for pharmacy professional pathways towards full integration within public health EP&R efforts (such as the COVID-19 pandemic), and enhanced recognition of pharmacists’ skills, roles and contributions as integral members of the interprofessional healthcare team. METHODS: This paper draws on the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) 2003 Statement on the Role of Health-System Pharmacists in Emergency Preparedness and lessons learned from previous and current public health emergencies, such as the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and the current COVID-19 pandemic, to provide expanded guidance for pharmacists and pharmacy professionals across all practice settings in EP&R. The PEPR framework also incorporates information and recommendations from The Pharmacy Organizations’ Joint Policy Recommendations to Combat the COVID-19 Pandemic (March 2020), CDC-NIOSH, Health Departments and Emergency Preparedness guidance and resources, Boards of Pharmacy, and other pharmacy professional organizations and educational institutions. RESULTS: Based on the methods and resources utilized in developing this PEPR framework, five key focus areas were identified as follow: 1).. Emergency preparedness and response; 2).. Operations management; 3).. Patient care and population health interventions; 4).. Public health pharmacy education and continuing professional education; 5).. Evaluation, research and dissemination for impact and outcomes. CONCLUSION: and Recommendations: Pharmacists and pharmacy professionals have been at the frontlines in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, challenges remain, such as limited availability of personal protection equipment, high risk of infectious exposures inherent in healthcare professions, and legislative hurdles resulting in lack of provider status and related reimbursements. Recommendations to enhance pharmacy's scope as public health professionals involved in EP&R include targeted training and education on key framework areas and policymaking. Pharmacy professionals should further integrate with interdisciplinary public health teams. Additional research and dissemination on impacts and outcomes of EP&R can enhance recognition of pharmacy professionals' contribution and value during public health emergencies. The PEPR Framework can be utilized to develop, implement, evaluate, and disseminate results in order to strengthen existing efforts and to establish new initiatives in EP&R. | Res Social Adm Pharm | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 82 | Immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccine and early clinical outcomes in patients with hematological malignancies in Lithuania: a national prospective cohort study BACKGROUND: Haematological malignancies and their treatments are likely to affect SARS-CoV-2 vaccine efficacy. We aimed to evaluate serological response to BNT162b2 vaccine in patients with haematological malignancies by type of treatment. METHODS: Our national prospective cohort study was done in Lithuania and assessed serological response to one and two BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine doses in healthy health-care workers and in patients with haematological malignancies. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had received both vaccine doses, and had available biobanked blood samples from before vaccination and after the second dose. Biobanked samples and health data were obtained from Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos Biobank. Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG Quant II chemiluminescent microparticle assay was used to quantify serum anti-SARS-CoV-2-S1 IgG antibody (anti-S1 IgG antibody) concentrations 0–10 days before the first BNT162b2 vaccine, on the day of second immunisation (around day 21), and 7 to 21 days after the second immunisation. Adverse events were assessed by a standardised questionnaire. Breakthrough infections were characterised clinically and by SARS-CoV-2 genotyping whenever possible. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04871165. FINDINGS: Between Jan 8 and April 21, 2021, 885 participants with haematological malignancies were included in the study. 857 patients were anti-S1 IgG seronegative at timepoint 0 and constituted the main analysis cohort. The age-matched comparison was made between 315 patients with haematological malignancies who were aged 18–60 years and 67 healthy health-care workers in the same age group. Patients aged 18–60 years with haematological malignancies had lower median anti-S1 IgG antibody responses after two BNT162b2 vaccine doses than did health-care workers of the same age group (median 6961 AU/mL [IQR 1292–20 672] vs 21 395 AU/mL [14 831–33 553]; p<0·0001). Compared with untreated patients with haematological malignancies (n=53; median 5761 AU/mL [629–16 141]), patients actively treated with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKIs; n=44; 0 AU/mL [0–7]; p<0·0001), ruxolitinib (n=16; 10 AU/mL [0–45]; p<0·0001), venetoclax (n=10; 4 AU/mL [0–1218]; p=0·0005), or anti-CD20 antibody therapy (n=87; 17 AU/mL [1–2319]; p<0·0001) showed particularly poor anti-S1 IgG antibody responses following two BNT162b2 doses. Patients being treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (n=41; 10 537 AU/mL [IQR 2335–19 388]) or patients who received autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT; n=192; 6203 AU/mL [1451–16 834]) or allogeneic HSCT (n=122; 6304 AU/mL [1120–16 913]) were among the subgroups with the highest numerical responses. Nine SARS-CoV-2 infections and three COVID-19 deaths were observed among fully vaccinated patients with haematological malignancies. INTERPRETATION: Patients with haematological malignancies mount blunted and heterogeneous antibody responses to the full course of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination. Patients who are actively treated with BTKIs, ruxolitinib, venetoclax, or anti-CD20 antibody therapies seem to be the most negatively affected and might be left unprotected from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Breakthrough severe SARS-CoV-2 infections in fully vaccinated patients with haematological malignancies emphasise the importance of ongoing strict adherence to non-pharmacological interventions and household vaccination while SARS-CoV-2 is circulating in the community. FUNDING: Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos. TRANSLATION: For the Lithuanian translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section. | Lancet Haematol | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 83 | International travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review N/A | Cochrane Database Syst Rev | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 84 | Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for post-exposure prophylaxis to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection among adults exposed to coronavirus disease: a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial OBJECTIVES: Primary Objective • To test the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) (400 mg orally daily for 3 days then 200 mg orally daily for an additional 11 days, to complete 14 days) to prevent incident SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to ascorbic acid among contacts of persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection Secondary objectives • To determine the safety and tolerability of HCQ as SARS-CoV-2 Post-exposure Prophylaxis (PEP) in adults • To test the efficacy of HCQ (400 mg orally daily for 3 days then 200 mg orally daily for an additional 11 days, to complete 14 days) to prevent incident SARS-CoV-2 infection 2 weeks after completing therapy, compared to ascorbic acid among contacts of persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection • To test the efficacy of HCQ to shorten the duration of SARS-CoV-2 shedding among those with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the HCQ PEP group • To test the efficacy of HCQ to prevent incident COVID-19 TRIAL DESIGN: This is a randomized, multi-center, placebo-equivalent (ascorbic acid) controlled, blinded study of HCQ PEP for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults exposed to the virus. PARTICIPANTS: This study will enroll up to 2000 asymptomatic adults 18 to 80 years of age (inclusive) at baseline who are close contacts of persons with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 or clinically suspected COVID-19 and a pending SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. This multisite trial will be conducted at seven sites in Seattle (UW), Los Angeles (UCLA), New Orleans (Tulane), Baltimore (UMB), New York City (NYU), Syracuse (SUNY-Upstate), and Boston (BMC). Inclusion criteria 1. Men or women 18 to 80 years of age inclusive, at the time of signing the informed consent. 2. Willing and able to provide informed consent. 3. Had a close contact of a person (index) with known PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or index who is currently being assessed for COVID-19. a. Household contact (i.e., residing with the index case in the 14 days prior to index diagnosis or prolonged exposure within a residence/vehicle/enclosed space without maintaining social distance). b. Medical staff, first responders, or other care persons who cared for the index case without personal protection (mask and gloves): 4. Less than 4 days since last exposure (close contact with a person with SARS-CoV-2 infection) to the index case; 5. Access to device and internet for Telehealth visits; 6. Not planning to take HCQ in addition to the study medication. Exclusion criteria 1. Known hypersensitivity to HCQ or other 4-aminoquinoline compounds. 2. Currently hospitalized. 3. Symptomatic with subjective fever, cough, or shortness of breath. 4. Current medications exclude concomitant use of HCQ. 5. Concomitant use of other anti-malarial treatment or chemoprophylaxis, including chloroquine, mefloquine, artemether, or lumefantrine. 6. History of retinopathy of any etiology. 7. Psoriasis. 8. Porphyria. 9. Known bone marrow disorders with significant neutropenia (polymorphonuclear leukocytes <1500) or thrombocytopenia (<100 K). 10. Concomitant use of digoxin, cyclosporin, cimetidine, amiodarone, or tamoxifen. 11. Known moderate or severe liver disease. 12. Known long QT syndrome. 13. Severe renal impairment. 14. Use of any investigational or non-registered drug or vaccine within 30 days preceding the first dose of the study drugs or planned use during the study period. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Households will be randomized 1:1 (at the level of household), with close contact participants receiving one of the following therapies: •HCQ 400 mg orally daily for 3 days then 200 mg orally daily for an additional 11 days •Placebo-like control (ascorbic acid) 500 mg orally daily for 3 days then 250 mg orally daily for 11 days MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome of the study is the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection through day 14 among participants who are SARS-CoV-2 negative at baseline by randomization group. RANDOMISATION: Participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to HCQ or ascorbic acid at the level of the household (all eligible participants in 1 household will receive the same intervention). The randomization code and resulting allocation list will be generated and maintained by the Study Statistician. The list will be blocked and stratified by site and contact type (household versus healthcare worker). BLINDING (MASKING): This is a blinded study. HCQ and ascorbic acid will appear similar, and taste will be partially masked as HCQ can be bitter and ascorbic acid will be sour. The participants will be blinded to their randomization group once assigned. Study team members, apart from the Study Pharmacist and the unblinded statistical staff, will be blinded. Laboratory staff are blinded to the group allocation. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): The sample size for the study is N=2 000 participants randomized 1:1 to either HCZ (n=1 000) and ascorbic acid (n=1 000). TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version: 1.2 05 April 2020 Recruitment is ongoing, started March 31 and anticipated end date is September 30, 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, Protocol Registry Number: NCT04328961 Date of registration: April 1, 2020, retrospectively registered FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest 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 | |
| 85 | Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes Among Adults Hospitalized with Laboratory-Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infection During Periods of B.1.617.2 (Delta) and B.1.1.529 (Omicron) Variant Predominance-One Hospital, California, July 15-September 23, 2021 and December 21, 2021-January 27, 2022 In mid-December 2021, the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, surpassed the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant as the predominant strain in California. Initial reports suggest that the Omicron variant is more transmissible and resistant to vaccine neutralization but causes less severe illness compared with previous variants (1-3). To describe characteristics of patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection during periods of Delta and Omicron predominance, clinical characteristics and outcomes were retrospectively ed from the electronic health records (EHRs) of adults aged >=18 years with positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) SARS-CoV-2 test results admitted to one academic hospital in Los Angeles, California, during July 15-September 23, 2021 (Delta predominant period, 339 patients) and December 21, 2021-January 27, 2022 (Omicron predominant period, 737 patients). Compared with patients during the period of Delta predominance, a higher proportion of adults admitted during Omicron predominance had received the final dose in a primary COVID-19 vaccination series (were fully vaccinated) (39.6% versus 25.1%), and fewer received COVID-19-directed therapies. Although fewer required intensive care unit (ICU) admission and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and fewer died while hospitalized during Omicron predominance, there were no significant differences in ICU admission or IMV when stratified by vaccination status. Fewer fully vaccinated Omicron-period patients died while hospitalized (3.4%), compared with Delta-period patients (10.6%). Among Omicron-period patients, vaccination was associated with lower likelihood of ICU admission, and among adults aged >=65 years, lower likelihood of death while hospitalized. Likelihood of ICU admission and death were lowest among adults who had received a booster dose. Among the first 131 Omicron-period hospitalizations, 19.8% of patients were clinically assessed as admitted for non-COVID-19 conditions. Compared with adults considered likely to have been admitted because of COVID-19, these patients were younger (median age = 38 versus 67 years) and more likely to have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (84.6% versus 61.0%). Although 20% of SARS-CoV-2-associated hospitalizations during the period of Omicron predominance might be driven by non-COVID-19 conditions, large numbers of hospitalizations place a strain on health systems. Vaccination, including a booster dose for those who are fully vaccinated, remains critical to minimizing risk for severe health outcomes among adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection. | MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep | 2022 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 86 | Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) and the resulting COVID‐19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify or rule out current infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Point‐of‐care antigen and molecular tests to detect current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection have the potential to allow earlier detection and isolation of confirmed cases compared to laboratory‐based diagnostic methods, with the aim of reducing household and community transmission. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. SEARCH METHODS: On 25 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID‐19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of people with suspected current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, known to have, or not to have SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point‐of‐care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results available within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) tests and established clinical diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies and resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. One review author independently extracted study characteristics, which were checked by a second review author. Two review authors independently extracted 2x2 contingency table data and assessed risk of bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS‐2 tool. We present sensitivity and specificity, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for each test using paired forest plots. We pooled data using the bivariate hierarchical model separately for antigen and molecular‐based tests, with simplifications when few studies were available. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 publications reporting on a total of 18 study cohorts with 3198 unique samples, of which 1775 had confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Ten studies took place in North America, two in South America, four in Europe, one in China and one was conducted internationally. We identified data for eight commercial tests (four antigen and four molecular) and one in‐house antigen test. Five of the studies included were only available as preprints. We did not find any studies at low risk of bias for all quality domains and had concerns about applicability of results across all studies. We judged patient selection to be at high risk of bias in 50% of the studies because of deliberate over‐sampling of samples with confirmed COVID‐19 infection and unclear in seven out of 18 studies because of poor reporting. Sixteen (89%) studies used only a single, negative RT‐PCR to confirm the absence of COVID‐19 infection, risking missing infection. There was a lack of information on blinding of index test (n = 11), and around participant exclusions from analyses (n = 10). We did not observe differences in methodological quality between antigen and molecular test evaluations. Antigen tests Sensitivity varied considerably across studies (from 0% to 94%): the average sensitivity was 56.2% (95% CI 29.5 to 79.8%) and average specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 98.1% to 99.9%; based on 8 evaluations in 5 studies on 943 samples). Data for individual antigen tests were limited with no more than two studies for any test. Rapid molecular assays Sensitivity showed less variation compared to antigen tests (from 68% to 100%), average sensitivity was 95.2% (95% CI 86.7% to 98.3%) and specificity 98.9% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.5%) based on 13 evaluations in 11 studies of on 2255 samples. Predicted values based on a hypothetical cohort of 1000 people with suspected COVID‐19 infection (with a prevalence of 10%) result in 105 positive test results including 10 false positives (positive predictive value 90%), and 895 negative results including 5 false negatives (negative predictive value 99%). Individual tests We calculated pooled results of individual tests for ID NOW (Abbott Laboratories) (5 evaluations) and Xpert Xpress (Cepheid Inc) (6 evaluations). Summary sensitivity for the Xpert Xpress assay (99.4%, 95% CI 98.0% to 99.8%) was 22.6 (95% CI 18.8 to 26.3) percentage points higher than that of ID NOW (76.8%, (95% CI 72.9% to 80.3%), whilst the specificity of Xpert Xpress (96.8%, 95% CI 90.6% to 99.0%) was marginally lower than ID NOW (99.6%, 95% CI 98.4% to 99.9%; a difference of −2.8% (95% CI −6.4 to 0.8)) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies early‐stage evaluations of point‐of‐care tests for detecting SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, largely based on remnant laboratory samples. The findings currently have limited applicability, as we are uncertain whether tests will perform in the same way in clinical practice, and according to symptoms of COVID‐19, duration of symptoms, or in asymptomatic people. Rapid tests have the potential to be used to inform triage of RT‐PCR use, allowing earlier detection of those testing positive, but the evidence currently is not strong enough to determine how useful they are in clinical practice. Prospective and comparative evaluations of rapid tests for COVID‐19 infection in clinically relevant settings are urgently needed. Studies should recruit consecutive series of eligible participants, including both those presenting for testing due to symptoms and asymptomatic people who may have come into contact with confirmed cases. Studies should clearly describe symptomatic status and document time from symptom onset or time since exposure. Point‐of‐care tests must be conducted on samples according to manufacturer instructions for use and be conducted at the point of care. Any future research study report should conform to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guideline. | Cochrane Database Syst Rev | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 87 | Association Between 3 Doses of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine and Symptomatic Infection Caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron and Delta Variants N/A | JAMA | 2022 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 88 | The Biological Functions and Clinical Significance of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Corcern N/A | Front Med (Lausanne) | 2022 | LitCov | |
| 89 | An interactive web-based dashboard to track COVID-19 in real time | Lancet Infect Dis | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 90 | Safety and efficacy assessment of allogeneic human dental pulp stem cells to treat patients with severe COVID-19: structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (Phase I / II) OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and therapeutic effects of allogeneic human dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) in treating severe pneumonia caused by COVID-19. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a single centre, two arm ratio 1:1, triple blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group, clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: 1. Adults aged 18-65 years; 2. Voluntarily participate in this clinical trial and sign the “informed consent form” or have consent from a legal representative. 3. Diagnosed with severe pneumonia of COVID-19: nucleic acid test SARS-CoV-2 positive; respiratory distress (respiratory rate > 30 times / min); hypoxia (resting oxygen saturation < 93% or arterial partial pressure of oxygen / oxygen concentration < 300 mmHg). 4. COVID-19 featured lung lesions in chest X-ray image. 1. Patients have received other experimental treatment for COVID-19 within the last 30 days; 2. Patients have severe liver condition (e.g., Child Pugh score >=C or AST> 5 times of the upper limit); 3. Patients with severe renal insufficiency (estimated glomerular filtration rate <=30mL / min/1.73 m(2)) or patients receiving continuous renal replacement therapy, hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis; 4. Patients who are co-infected with HIV, hepatitis B, tuberculosis, influenza virus, adenovirus or other respiratory infection viruses; 5. Female patients who have no sexual protection in the last 30 days prior to the screening assessment; 6. Pregnant or lactating women or women using estrogen contraception; 7. Patients who are planning to become pregnant during the study period or within 6 months after the end of the study period; 8. Other conditions that the researchers consider not suitable for participating in this clinical trial. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: There will be two study groups: experimental and control. Both will receive all necessary routine treatment for COVID-19. The experimental group will receive an intravenous injection of dental pulp stem cells suspension (3.0x10(7) human DPSCs in 30ml saline solution) on day 1, 4 and 7; The control group will receive an equal amount of saline (placebo) on the same days. Clinical and laboratory observations will be performed for analysis during a period of 28 days for each case since the commencement of the study. MAIN OUTCOMES: 1. Primary outcome The primary outcome is Time To Clinical Improvement (TTCI). By definition, TTCI is the time (days) it takes to downgrade two levels from the following six ordered grades [(grade 1) discharge to (grade 6) death] in the clinical state of admission to the start of study treatments (hDPSCs or placebo). Six grades of ordered variables: 2. Secondary outcomes 2.1 vital signs: heart rate, blood pressure (systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure). During the screening period, hospitalization every day (additional time points of D1, D4, D7 30min before injection, 2h ± 30min, 24h ± 30min after the injection) and follow-up period D90 ± 3 days. 2.2 Laboratory examinations: during the screening period, 30 minutes before D1, D4, D7 infusion, 2h ± 30min, 24h ± 30min after the end of infusion, D10, D14, D28 during hospitalization or discharge day and follow-up period D90 ± 3 days. 2.3 Blood routine: white blood cells, neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, eosinophils, basophils, neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, eosinophils Acidic granulocyte count, basophil count, red blood cell, hemoglobin, hematocrit, average volume of red blood cells, average red blood cell Hb content, average red blood cell Hb concentration, RDW standard deviation, RDW coefficient of variation, platelet count, platelet specific platelet average Volume, platelet distribution width,% of large platelets; 2.4 Liver and kidney function tests: alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, γ-glutamyl transferase, prealbumin, total protein, albumin, globulin, white / globule ratio , Total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, cholinesterase, urea, creatinine, total carbon dioxide, uric acid glucose, potassium, sodium, chlorine, calcium, corrected calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, calcium and phosphorus product, anion gap, penetration Pressure, total cholesterol, triacylglycerol, high density lipoprotein cholesterol, Low density lipoprotein cholesterol, lipoprotein a, creatine kinase, lactate dehydrogenase, estimated glomerular filtration rate. 2.5 Inflammation indicators: hypersensitive C-reactive protein, serum amyloid (SAA); 2.6 Infectious disease testing: Hepatitis B (HBsAg, HBsAb, HBeAg, HBeAb, HBcAb), Hepatitis C (Anti-HCV), AIDS (HIVcombin), syphilis (Anti-TP), cytomegalovirus CMV-IgM, cytomegalovirus CMV-IgG; only during the screening period and follow-up period D90 ± 3. 2.7 Immunological testing: Collect peripheral blood to detect the phenotype of T lymphocyte, B lymphocyte, natural killer cell, Macrophage and neutrophil by using flow cytometry. Collect peripheral blood to detect the gene profile of mononuclear cells by using single-cell analyses. Collect peripheral blood serum to detect various immunoglobulin changes: IgA, IgG, IgM, total IgE; Collect peripheral blood serum to explore the changes of cytokines, Th1 cytokines (IL-1 β, IL-2, TNF-a, ITN-γ), Th2 cytokines (IL-4, IL-6, IL -10). 2.8 Pregnancy test: blood β-HCG, female subjects before menopause are examined during the screening period and follow-up period D90 ± 3. 2.9 Urine routine: color, clarity, urine sugar, bilirubin, ketone bodies, specific gravity, pH, urobilinogen, nitrite, protein, occult blood, leukocyte enzymes, red blood cells, white blood cells, epithelial cells, non-squamous epithelial cells , Transparent cast, pathological cast, crystal, fungus; 2.10 Stool Routine: color, traits, white blood cells, red blood cells, fat globules, eggs of parasites, fungi, occult blood (chemical method), occult blood (immune method), transferrin (2h ± 30min after the injection and not detected after discharge). RANDOMIZATION: Block randomization method will be applied by computer to allocate the participants into experimental and control groups. The random ratio is 1:1. BLINDING (MASKING): Participants, outcomes assessors and investigators (including personnel in laboratory and imaging department who issue the sample report or image observations) will be blinded. Injections of cell suspension and saline will be coded in accordance with the patient’s randomisation group. The blind strategy is kept by an investigator who does not deliver the medical care or assess primary outcome results. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): Twenty participants will be randomized to the experimental and control groups (10 per group). TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version number, hDPSC-CoVID-2019-02-2020 Version 2.0, March 13, 2020. Patients screening commenced on 16(th) April and an estimated date of the recruitment of the final participants will be around end of July. . TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration: World Health Organization Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000031319; March 27,2020. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04336254; April 7, 2020 Other Study ID Numbers: hDPSC-CoVID-2019-02-2020 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 | |
| 91 | Impact of self-imposed prevention measures and short-term government-imposed social distancing on mitigating and delaying a COVID-19 epidemic: A modelling study BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread to nearly every country in the world since it first emerged in China in December 2019. Many countries have implemented social distancing as a measure to “flatten the curve” of the ongoing epidemics. Evaluation of the impact of government-imposed social distancing and of other measures to control further spread of COVID-19 is urgent, especially because of the large societal and economic impact of the former. The aim of this study was to compare the individual and combined effectiveness of self-imposed prevention measures and of short-term government-imposed social distancing in mitigating, delaying, or preventing a COVID-19 epidemic. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We developed a deterministic compartmental transmission model of SARS-CoV-2 in a population stratified by disease status (susceptible, exposed, infectious with mild or severe disease, diagnosed, and recovered) and disease awareness status (aware and unaware) due to the spread of COVID-19. Self-imposed measures were assumed to be taken by disease-aware individuals and included handwashing, mask-wearing, and social distancing. Government-imposed social distancing reduced the contact rate of individuals irrespective of their disease or awareness status. The model was parameterized using current best estimates of key epidemiological parameters from COVID-19 clinical studies. The model outcomes included the peak number of diagnoses, attack rate, and time until the peak number of diagnoses. For fast awareness spread in the population, self-imposed measures can significantly reduce the attack rate and diminish and postpone the peak number of diagnoses. We estimate that a large epidemic can be prevented if the efficacy of these measures exceeds 50%. For slow awareness spread, self-imposed measures reduce the peak number of diagnoses and attack rate but do not affect the timing of the peak. Early implementation of short-term government-imposed social distancing alone is estimated to delay (by at most 7 months for a 3-month intervention) but not to reduce the peak. The delay can be even longer and the height of the peak can be additionally reduced if this intervention is combined with self-imposed measures that are continued after government-imposed social distancing has been lifted. Our analyses are limited in that they do not account for stochasticity, demographics, heterogeneities in contact patterns or mixing, spatial effects, imperfect isolation of individuals with severe disease, and reinfection with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that information dissemination about COVID-19, which causes individual adoption of handwashing, mask-wearing, and social distancing, can be an effective strategy to mitigate and delay the epidemic. Early initiated short-term government-imposed social distancing can buy time for healthcare systems to prepare for an increasing COVID-19 burden. We stress the importance of disease awareness in controlling the ongoing epidemic and recommend that, in addition to policies on social distancing, governments and public health institutions mobilize people to adopt self-imposed measures with proven efficacy in order to successfully tackle COVID-19. | PLoS Med | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 92 | Technical guidelines for seasonal influenza vaccination in China (2021-2022) N/A | Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 93 | Safety and immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine administered in a prime-boost regimen in young and old adults (COV002): a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial BACKGROUND: Older adults (aged ≥70 years) are at increased risk of severe disease and death if they develop COVID-19 and are therefore a priority for immunisation should an efficacious vaccine be developed. Immunogenicity of vaccines is often worse in older adults as a result of immunosenescence. We have reported the immunogenicity of a novel chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, in young adults, and now describe the safety and immunogenicity of this vaccine in a wider range of participants, including adults aged 70 years and older. METHODS: In this report of the phase 2 component of a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial (COV002), healthy adults aged 18 years and older were enrolled at two UK clinical research facilities, in an age-escalation manner, into 18–55 years, 56–69 years, and 70 years and older immunogenicity subgroups. Participants were eligible if they did not have severe or uncontrolled medical comorbidities or a high frailty score (if aged ≥65 years). First, participants were recruited to a low-dose cohort, and within each age group, participants were randomly assigned to receive either intramuscular ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (2·2 × 10(10) virus particles) or a control vaccine, MenACWY, using block randomisation and stratified by age and dose group and study site, using the following ratios: in the 18–55 years group, 1:1 to either two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY; in the 56–69 years group, 3:1:3:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY; and in the 70 years and older, 5:1:5:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY. Prime-booster regimens were given 28 days apart. Participants were then recruited to the standard-dose cohort (3·5–6·5 × 10(10) virus particles of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and the same randomisation procedures were followed, except the 18–55 years group was assigned in a 5:1 ratio to two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY. Participants and investigators, but not staff administering the vaccine, were masked to vaccine allocation. The specific objectives of this report were to assess the safety and humoral and cellular immunogenicity of a single-dose and two-dose schedule in adults older than 55 years. Humoral responses at baseline and after each vaccination until 1 year after the booster were assessed using an in-house standardised ELISA, a multiplex immunoassay, and a live severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) microneutralisation assay (MNA(80)). Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo IFN-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The coprimary outcomes of the trial were efficacy, as measured by the number of cases of symptomatic, virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137. FINDINGS: Between May 30 and Aug 8, 2020, 560 participants were enrolled: 160 aged 18–55 years (100 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 60 assigned to MenACWY), 160 aged 56–69 years (120 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY), and 240 aged 70 years and older (200 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY). Seven participants did not receive the boost dose of their assigned two-dose regimen, one participant received the incorrect vaccine, and three were excluded from immunogenicity analyses due to incorrectly labelled samples. 280 (50%) of 552 analysable participants were female. Local and systemic reactions were more common in participants given ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than in those given the control vaccine, and similar in nature to those previously reported (injection-site pain, feeling feverish, muscle ache, headache), but were less common in older adults (aged ≥56 years) than younger adults. In those receiving two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, after the prime vaccination local reactions were reported in 43 (88%) of 49 participants in the 18–55 years group, 22 (73%) of 30 in the 56–69 years group, and 30 (61%) of 49 in the 70 years and older group, and systemic reactions in 42 (86%) participants in the 18–55 years group, 23 (77%) in the 56–69 years group, and 32 (65%) in the 70 years and older group. As of Oct 26, 2020, 13 serious adverse events occurred during the study period, none of which were considered to be related to either study vaccine. In participants who received two doses of vaccine, median anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 IgG responses 28 days after the boost dose were similar across the three age cohorts (standard-dose groups: 18–55 years, 20 713 arbitrary units [AU]/mL [IQR 13 898–33 550], n=39; 56–69 years, 16 170 AU/mL [10 233–40 353], n=26; and ≥70 years 17 561 AU/mL [9705–37 796], n=47; p=0·68). Neutralising antibody titres after a boost dose were similar across all age groups (median MNA(80) at day 42 in the standard-dose groups: 18–55 years, 193 [IQR 113–238], n=39; 56–69 years, 144 [119–347], n=20; and ≥70 years, 161 [73–323], n=47; p=0·40). By 14 days after the boost dose, 208 (>99%) of 209 boosted participants had neutralising antibody responses. T-cell responses peaked at day 14 after a single standard dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (18–55 years: median 1187 spot-forming cells [SFCs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [IQR 841–2428], n=24; 56–69 years: 797 SFCs [383–1817], n=29; and ≥70 years: 977 SFCs [458–1914], n=48). INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca. | Lancet | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 94 | Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation The outbreak of a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) represents a pandemic threat that has been declared a public health emergency of international concern. The CoV spike (S) glycoprotein is a key target for vaccines, therapeutic antibodies, and diagnostics. To facilitate medical countermeasure development, we determined a 3.5-angstrom-resolution cryo–electron microscopy structure of the 2019-nCoV S trimer in the prefusion conformation. The predominant state of the trimer has one of the three receptor-binding domains (RBDs) rotated up in a receptor-accessible conformation. We also provide biophysical and structural evidence that the 2019-nCoV S protein binds angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) with higher affinity than does severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV S. Additionally, we tested several published SARS-CoV RBD-specific monoclonal antibodies and found that they do not have appreciable binding to 2019-nCoV S, suggesting that antibody cross-reactivity may be limited between the two RBDs. The structure of 2019-nCoV S should enable the rapid development and evaluation of medical countermeasures to address the ongoing public health crisis. | Science | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 95 | COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a representative working-age population in France: a survey experiment based on vaccine characteristics BACKGROUND: Opinion polls on vaccination intentions suggest that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is increasing worldwide; however, the usefulness of opinion polls to prepare mass vaccination campaigns for specific new vaccines and to estimate acceptance in a country's population is limited. We therefore aimed to assess the effects of vaccine characteristics, information on herd immunity, and general practitioner (GP) recommendation on vaccine hesitancy in a representative working-age population in France. METHODS: In this survey experiment, adults aged 18–64 years residing in France, with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, were randomly selected from an online survey research panel in July, 2020, stratified by gender, age, education, household size, and region and area of residence to be representative of the French population. Participants completed an online questionnaire on their background and vaccination behaviour-related variables (including past vaccine compliance, risk factors for severe COVID-19, and COVID-19 perceptions and experience), and were then randomly assigned according to a full factorial design to one of three groups to receive differing information on herd immunity (>50% of adults aged 18–64 years must be immunised [either by vaccination or infection]; >50% of adults must be immunised [either by vaccination or infection]; or no information on herd immunity) and to one of two groups regarding GP recommendation of vaccination (GP recommends vaccination or expresses no opinion). Participants then completed a series of eight discrete choice tasks designed to assess vaccine acceptance or refusal based on hypothetical vaccine characteristics (efficacy [50%, 80%, 90%, or 100%], risk of serious side-effects [1 in 10 000 or 1 in 100 000], location of manufacture [EU, USA, or China], and place of administration [GP practice, local pharmacy, or mass vaccination centre]). Responses were analysed with a two-part model to disentangle outright vaccine refusal (irrespective of vaccine characteristics, defined as opting for no vaccination in all eight tasks) from vaccine hesitancy (acceptance depending on vaccine characteristics). FINDINGS: Survey responses were collected from 1942 working-age adults, of whom 560 (28·8%) opted for no vaccination in all eight tasks (outright vaccine refusal) and 1382 (71·2%) did not. In our model, outright vaccine refusal and vaccine hesitancy were both significantly associated with female gender, age (with an inverted U-shaped relationship), lower educational level, poor compliance with recommended vaccinations in the past, and no report of specified chronic conditions (ie, no hypertension [for vaccine hesitancy] or no chronic conditions other than hypertension [for outright vaccine refusal]). Outright vaccine refusal was also associated with a lower perceived severity of COVID-19, whereas vaccine hesitancy was lower when herd immunity benefits were communicated and in working versus non-working individuals, and those with experience of COVID-19 (had symptoms or knew someone with COVID-19). For a mass vaccination campaign involving mass vaccination centres and communication of herd immunity benefits, our model predicted outright vaccine refusal in 29·4% (95% CI 28·6–30·2) of the French working-age population. Predicted hesitancy was highest for vaccines manufactured in China with 50% efficacy and a 1 in 10 000 risk of serious side-effects (vaccine acceptance 27·4% [26·8–28·0]), and lowest for a vaccine manufactured in the EU with 90% efficacy and a 1 in 100 000 risk of serious side-effects (vaccine acceptance 61·3% [60·5–62·1]). INTERPRETATION: COVID-19 vaccine acceptance depends on the characteristics of new vaccines and the national vaccination strategy, among various other factors, in the working-age population in France. FUNDING: French Public Health Agency (Santé Publique France). | Lancet Public Health | 2021 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 96 | Barriers and facilitators to healthcare workers' adherence with infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines for respiratory infectious diseases: a rapid qualitative evidence synthesis N/A | Cochrane Database Syst Rev | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 97 | A SARS-CoV-2 Surveillance System in Sub-Saharan Africa: Modeling Study for Persistence and Transmission to Inform Policy BACKGROUND: Since the novel coronavirus emerged in late 2019, the scientific and public health community around the world have sought to better understand, surveil, treat, and prevent the disease, COVID-19. In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), many countries responded aggressively and decisively with lockdown measures and border closures. Such actions may have helped prevent large outbreaks throughout much of the region, though there is substantial variation in caseloads and mortality between nations. Additionally, the health system infrastructure remains a concern throughout much of SSA, and the lockdown measures threaten to increase poverty and food insecurity for the subcontinent’s poorest residents. The lack of sufficient testing, asymptomatic infections, and poor reporting practices in many countries limit our understanding of the virus’s impact, creating a need for better and more accurate surveillance metrics that account for underreporting and data contamination. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to improve infectious disease surveillance by complementing standardized metrics with new and decomposable surveillance metrics of COVID-19 that overcome data limitations and contamination inherent in public health surveillance systems. In addition to prevalence of observed daily and cumulative testing, testing positivity rates, morbidity, and mortality, we derived COVID-19 transmission in terms of speed, acceleration or deceleration, change in acceleration or deceleration (jerk), and 7-day transmission rate persistence, which explains where and how rapidly COVID-19 is transmitting and quantifies shifts in the rate of acceleration or deceleration to inform policies to mitigate and prevent COVID-19 and food insecurity in SSA. METHODS: We extracted 60 days of COVID-19 data from public health registries and employed an empirical difference equation to measure daily case numbers in 47 sub-Saharan countries as a function of the prior number of cases, the level of testing, and weekly shift variables based on a dynamic panel model that was estimated using the generalized method of moments approach by implementing the Arellano-Bond estimator in R. RESULTS: Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and South Africa have the most observed cases of COVID-19, and the Seychelles, Eritrea, Mauritius, Comoros, and Burundi have the fewest. In contrast, the speed, acceleration, jerk, and 7-day persistence indicate rates of COVID-19 transmissions differ from observed cases. In September 2020, Cape Verde, Namibia, Eswatini, and South Africa had the highest speed of COVID-19 transmissions at 13.1, 7.1, 3.6, and 3 infections per 100,0000, respectively; Zimbabwe had an acceleration rate of transmission, while Zambia had the largest rate of deceleration this week compared to last week, referred to as a jerk. Finally, the 7-day persistence rate indicates the number of cases on September 15, 2020, which are a function of new infections from September 8, 2020, decreased in South Africa from 216.7 to 173.2 and Ethiopia from 136.7 to 106.3 per 100,000. The statistical approach was validated based on the regression results; they determined recent changes in the pattern of infection, and during the weeks of September 1-8 and September 9-15, there were substantial country differences in the evolution of the SSA pandemic. This change represents a decrease in the transmission model R value for that week and is consistent with a de-escalation in the pandemic for the sub-Saharan African continent in general. CONCLUSIONS: Standard surveillance metrics such as daily observed new COVID-19 cases or deaths are necessary but insufficient to mitigate and prevent COVID-19 transmission. Public health leaders also need to know where COVID-19 transmission rates are accelerating or decelerating, whether those rates increase or decrease over short time frames because the pandemic can quickly escalate, and how many cases today are a function of new infections 7 days ago. Even though SSA is home to some of the poorest countries in the world, development and population size are not necessarily predictive of COVID-19 transmission, meaning higher income countries like the United States can learn from African countries on how best to implement mitigation and prevention efforts. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/21955 | J Med Internet Res | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 98 | Rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection assay in comparison with real-time RT-PCR assay for laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 in Thailand BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to spread across the world. Hence, there is an urgent need for rapid, simple, and accurate tests to diagnose severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Performance characteristics of the rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test should be evaluated and compared with the gold standard real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for diagnosis of COVID-19 cases. METHODS: The rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test, Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag kit (SD Biosensor®, Republic of Korea), was compared with the real-time RT-PCR test, Allplex™ 2019-nCoV Assay (Seegene®, Korea) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory specimens. Four hundred fifty-four respiratory samples (mainly nasopharyngeal and throat swabs) were obtained from COVID-19 suspected cases and contact individuals, including pre-operative patients at Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand during March–May 2020. RESULTS: Of 454 respiratory samples, 60 (13.2%) were positive, and 394 (86.8%) were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by real-time RT-PCR assay. The duration from onset to laboratory test in COVID-19 suspected cases and contact individuals ranged from 0 to 14 days with a median of 3 days. The rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test’s sensitivity and specificity were 98.33% (95% CI, 91.06–99.96%) and 98.73% (95% CI, 97.06–99.59%), respectively. One false negative test result was from a sample with a high real-time RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct), while five false positive test results were from specimens of pre-operative patients. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid assay for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection showed comparable sensitivity and specificity with the real-time RT-PCR assay. Thus, there is a potential use of this rapid and simple SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test as a screening assay. | Virol J | 2020 | LitCov and CORD-19 | |
| 99 | Building a sustainable rural physician workforce N/A | Med J Aust | 2021 | CORD-19 | |
| 100 | Perceptions of medical students towards online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national cross-sectional survey of 2721 UK medical students OBJECTIVES: To investigate perceptions of medical students on the role of online teaching in facilitating medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, online national survey. SETTING: Responses collected online from 4(th) May 2020 to 11(th) May 2020 across 40 UK medical schools. PARTICIPANTS: Medical students across all years from UK-registered medical schools. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The uses, experiences, perceived benefits and barriers of online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: 2721 medical students across 39 medical schools responded. Medical schools adapted to the pandemic in different ways. The changes included the development of new distance-learning platforms on which content was released, remote delivery of lectures using platforms and the use of question banks and other online active recall resources. A significant difference was found between time spent on online platforms before and during COVID-19, with 7.35% students before versus 23.56% students during the pandemic spending >15 hours per week (p<0.05). The greatest perceived benefits of online teaching platforms included their flexibility. Whereas the commonly perceived barriers to using online teaching platforms included family distraction (26.76%) and poor internet connection (21.53%). CONCLUSIONS: Online teaching has enabled the continuation of medical education during these unprecedented times. Moving forward from this pandemic, in order to maximise the benefits of both face-to-face and online teaching and to improve the efficacy of medical education in the future, we suggest medical schools resort to teaching formats such as team-based/problem-based learning. This uses online teaching platforms allowing students to digest information in their own time but also allows students to then constructively discuss this material with peers. It has also been shown to be effective in terms of achieving learning outcomes. Beyond COVID-19, we anticipate further incorporation of online teaching methods within traditional medical education. This may accompany the observed shift in medical practice towards virtual consultations. | BMJ Open | 2020 | 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.