\ BIP! Finder for COVID-19 - Impact-based ranking

BIP! Finder for COVID-19

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

Last Update: 18 - 01 - 2023 (628506 entries)

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

Use:  Impact  Relevance & Impact
201Escape from neutralizing antibodies by SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variants  

Neutralizing antibodies elicited by prior infection or vaccination are likely to be key for future protection of individuals and populations against SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, passively administered antibodies are among the most promising therapeutic and prophylactic anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents. However, the degree to which SARS-CoV-2 will adapt to evade neutralizing antibodies is unclear. Using a recombinant chimeric VSV/SARS-CoV-2 reporter virus, we show that functional SARS-CoV-2 S protein variants with mutations in the receptor-binding domain (RBD) and N-terminal domain that confer resistance to monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma can be readily selected. Notably, SARS-CoV-2 S variants that resist commonly elicited neutralizing antibodies are now present at low frequencies in circulating SARS-CoV-2 populations. Finally, the emergence of antibody-resistant SARS-CoV-2 variants that might limit the therapeutic usefulness of monoclonal antibodies can be mitigated by the use of antibody combinations that target distinct neutralizing epitopes.

Elife2020       LitCov and CORD-19
202Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1  

N Engl J Med2020       LitCov and CORD-19
203Profile of humoral and cellular immune responses to single doses of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines in residents and staff within residential care homes (VIVALDI): an observational study  

BACKGROUND: Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have been prioritised for COVID-19 vaccination because of the high COVID-19 mortality in this population. Several countries have implemented an extended interval of up to 12 weeks between the first and second vaccine doses to increase population coverage of single-dose vaccination. We aimed to assess the magnitude and quality of adaptive immune responses following a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine in LTCF residents and staff. METHODS: From the LTCFs participating in the ongoing VIVALDI study (ISRCTN14447421), staff and residents who had received a first dose of COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2 [tozinameran] or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19), had pre-vaccination and post-vaccination blood samples (collected between Dec 11, 2020, and Feb 16, 2021), and could be linked to a pseudoidentifier in the COVID-19 Data Store were included in our cohort. Past infection with SARS-CoV-2 was defined on the basis of nucleocapsid-specific IgG antibodies being detected through a semiquantitative immunoassay, and participants who tested positive on this assay after but not before vaccination were excluded from the study. Processed blood samples were assessed for spike-specific immune responses, including spike-specific IgG antibody titres, T-cell responses to spike protein peptide mixes, and inhibition of ACE2 binding by spike protein from four variants of SARS-CoV-2 (the original strain as well as the B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1 variants). Responses before and after vaccination were compared on the basis of age, previous infection status, role (staff or resident), and time since vaccination. FINDINGS: Our cohort comprised 124 participants from 14 LTCFs: 89 (72%) staff (median age 48 years [IQR 35·5–56]) and 35 (28%) residents (87 years [77–90]). Blood samples were collected a median 40 days (IQR 25–47; range 6–52) after vaccination. 30 (24%) participants (18 [20%] staff and 12 [34%] residents) had serological evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. All participants with previous infection had high antibody titres following vaccination that were independent of age (r(s)=0·076, p=0·70). In participants without evidence of previous infection, titres were negatively correlated with age (r(s)=–0·434, p<0·0001) and were 8·2-times lower in residents than in staff. This effect appeared to result from a kinetic delay antibody generation in older infection-naive participants, with the negative age correlation disappearing only in samples taken more than 42 days post-vaccination (r(s)=–0·207, p=0·20; n=40), in contrast to samples taken after 0–21 days (r(s)=–0·774, p=0·0043; n=12) or 22–42 days (r(s)=–0·437, p=0·0034; n=43). Spike-specific cellular responses were similar between older and younger participants. In infection-naive participants, antibody inhibition of ACE2 binding by spike protein from the original SARS-CoV-2 strain was negatively correlated with age (r(s)=–0·439, p<0·0001), and was significantly lower against spike protein from the B.1.351 variant (median inhibition 31% [14–100], p=0·010) and the P.1 variant (23% [14–97], p<0·0001) than against the original strain (58% [27–100]). By contrast, a single dose of vaccine resulted in around 100% inhibition of the spike–ACE2 interaction against all variants in people with a history of infection. INTERPRETATION: History of SARS-CoV-2 infection impacts the magnitude and quality of antibody response after a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine in LTCF residents. Residents who are infection-naive have delayed antibody responses to the first dose of vaccine and should be considered for an early second dose where possible. FUNDING: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Lancet Healthy Longev2021       LitCov and CORD-19
204The perspective of Canadian Healthcare professionals on abortion service during the COVID-19 pandemic  

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic and pandemic response created novel challenges for abortion services. Canada was uniquely positioned to transition to telemedicine because internationally common restrictions on abortion medication were removed before the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize the experiences of abortion health care professionals in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of the pandemic response on abortion services. METHODS: We conducted a sequential mixed methods study between July 2020 and January 2021. We invited physicians, nurse practitioners and administrators to participate in a cross-sectional survey containing an open-ended question about the impact of the pandemic response on abortion care. We employed an inductive codebook thematic analysis, which informed the development of a second, primarily quantitative survey. RESULTS: Our initial survey had 307 respondents and our second had 78. Fifty-three percent were family physicians. Our first survey found respondents considered abortion access essential. We identified three key topicss: access to abortion care was often maintained despite pandemic-related challenges (e.g. difficulty obtaining tests, additional costs); change of practice to low-touch medication abortion care and provider perceptions of patient experience, including shifting demand, telemedicine acceptability and increased rural access. The second survey indicated uptake of telemedicine medication abortion among 89% of participants except in Quebec, where regulations meant procedures were nearly exclusively surgical. Restrictions did not delay care according to 76% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian health care professionals report their facilities deemed abortion an essential service. Provinces and territories, except Quebec, described a robust pandemic transition to telemedicine to ensure access to services. PODCAST: An accompanying podcast is available in the Supplementary Data, in which the authors Dr Madeleine Ennis and Kate Wahl discuss their research on how family planning care and access to abortion services have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fam Pract2021       LitCov and CORD-19
205A prospective, randomized, controlled study assessing vagus nerve stimulation using the gammaCore-Sapphire device for patients with moderate to severe CoViD-19 Respiratory Symptoms (SAVIOR): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial"  

OBJECTIVES: Primary Objective: The primary objective is to reduce initiation of mechanical ventilator dependency in patients with moderate to severe CoViD- 19. This will be measured as the difference between the control group and active group for subjects admitted to the hospital for CoViD-19. Secondary Objectives: • To evaluate cytokine trends / Prevent cytokine storms • To evaluate supplemental oxygen requirements • To decrease mortality of CoViD-19 patients • Delay onset of ventilation TRIAL DESIGN: The study is a single centre, 2-arm, prospective, randomized (ratio 1:1), controlled trial with parallel groups design to compare the reduction of respiratory distress in a CoViD-19 population, using the intervention of the gammaCore®-Sapphire device plus standard of care (active) vs. standard of care alone (SoC) - the control group. The gammaCore® treatments will be used acutely and prophylactically. The active and control groups will be matched for disease and severity. PARTICIPANTS: i. Inclusion Criteria 1. Patient older than 18 years. 2. Been tested positive or suspected/presumed positive for CoViD-19. Has a cough, shortness of breath or respiratory O(2): 3. Agree to use the gammaCore®-Sapphire device as intended and to follow all of the requirements of the study including recording required study data; 4. Patient is able to provide signed and witnessed Informed Consent; ii. Exclusion Criteria 1. Pregnant women. 2. On home/therapy oxygen (i.e. for patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) at baseline prior to development of CoViD-19. 3. Patient already enrolled in a clinical trial using immunotherapeutic regimen for CoViD-19. 4. History of aneurysm, intracranial hemorrhage, brain tumors, or significant head trauma. 5. Known or suspected severe atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, severe carotid artery disease (eg, bruits or history of transient ischemic attack or cerebrovascular accident), congestive heart failure, known severe coronary artery disease, or recent myocardial infarction. 6. Uncontrolled high blood pressure (>140/90). 7. Current implantation of an electrical and/or neurostimulator device, including but not limited to a cardiac pacemaker or defibrillator, vagal neurostimulator, deep brain stimulator, spinal stimulator, bone growth stimulator, or cochlear implant. 8. Current implantation of metal cervical spine hardware or a metallic implant near the gammaCore stimulation site. 9. Belongs to a vulnerable population or has any condition such that his or her ability to provide informed consent, comply with the follow-up requirements, or provide self-assessments is compromised (e.g. homeless, developmentally disabled and prisoner). Participants will be recruited from Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia in Spain. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Prophylactic: Administer 2 doses (at 2 minutes each) of gammaCore®(-)Sapphire, one dose on each side of the neck scheduled three times a day (morning, mid-day and 1 hour before bed at night). Acute respiratory failure or shortness of breath: Administer 2 doses (at 2 minutes each) of gammaCore®-Sapphire, one on each side of the neck. If shortness of breath (SOB) persists 20 minutes after the start of the first treatment, a second dose will be administered. Max doses per day is 9 or 18 stimulations. Plus standard of care. Standard of care: oxygen therapy, antibiotics and ventilatory support if necessary depending on the clinic. MAIN OUTCOMES: Initiation of mechanical ventilation, from randomization until ICU admission or hospital discharge, whatever occurs first. Safety; ascertainment of Adverse Effects/Serious Adverse Events, from randomisation to ICU admission or hospital discharge, whatever occurs first. Cytokine Storm measured by: Tumor necrosis factor α, Interleukin 6, Interleukin 1β. Days 1,3,5,10,15 and/or at hospital discharge. Mortality and/or need for Critical Care admission, from randomisation until ICU admission or hospital discharge, whatever occurs first, O2 saturation levels , from randomization until ICU admission or hospital discharge, whatever occurs first. Need for supplemental oxygen, from randomisation until ICU admission or hospital discharge, whatever occurs first. RANDOMISATION: The patients are classified according to their oxygen levels as mild, moderate and severe and randomized according to their classification to the intervention and control in a ratio of 1:1. The randomization will be stratified for gender and age. BLINDING (MASKING): This is an open label study, it is not possible to blind the participants and healthcare providers to the intervention. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): The total number of patients to be included in the study is 90, with 45 in each study group TRIAL STATUS: The protocol version is 8.0 from 07(th) April 2020. The recruitment began 20th April 2020 and is expected to be complete 31st July 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered in clinicaltrials.gov on 29th April 2020 with the identification number: NCT04368156 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.

Trials2020       LitCov and CORD-19
206S Protein-Reactive IgG and Memory B Cell Production after Human SARS-CoV-2 Infection Includes Broad Reactivity to the S2 Subunit  

The high susceptibility of humans to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), reflects the novelty of the virus and limited preexisting B cell immunity. IgG against the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein, which carries the novel receptor binding domain (RBD), is absent or at low levels in unexposed individuals. To better understand the B cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection, we asked whether virus-reactive memory B cells (MBCs) were present in unexposed subjects and whether MBC generation accompanied virus-specific IgG production in infected subjects. We analyzed sera and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from non-SARS-CoV-2-exposed healthy donors and COVID-19 convalescent subjects. Serum IgG levels specific for SARS-CoV-2 proteins (S, including the RBD and S2 subunit, and nucleocapsid [N]) and non-SARS-CoV-2 proteins were related to measurements of circulating IgG MBC levels. Anti-RBD IgG was absent in unexposed subjects. Most unexposed subjects had anti-S2 IgG, and a minority had anti-N IgG, but IgG MBCs with these specificities were not detected, perhaps reflecting low frequencies. Convalescent subjects had high levels of IgG against the RBD, S2, and N, together with large populations of RBD- and S2-reactive IgG MBCs. Notably, IgG titers against the S protein of the human coronavirus OC43 were higher in convalescent subjects than in unexposed subjects and correlated strongly with anti-S2 titers. Our findings indicate cross-reactive B cell responses against the S2 subunit that might enhance broad coronavirus protection. Importantly, our demonstration of MBC induction by SARS-CoV-2 infection suggests that a durable form of B cell immunity is maintained even if circulating antibody levels wane.

mBio2020       LitCov and CORD-19
207Modelling of hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests on admission to hospital from A&E: rapid cost-effectiveness analysis  


Health Technol Assess2021       LitCov and CORD-19
208Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019  


Nature2020       LitCov and CORD-19
209A longitudinal study on the mental health of general population during the COVID-19 epidemic in China  

Abstract In addition to being a public physical health emergency, Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) affected global mental health, as evidenced by panic-buying worldwide as cases soared. Little is known about changes in levels of psychological impact, stress, anxiety and depression during this pandemic. This longitudinal study surveyed the general population twice - during the initial outbreak, and the epidemic's peak four weeks later, surveying demographics, symptoms, knowledge, concerns, and precautionary measures against COVID-19. There were 1738 respondents from 190 Chinese cities (1210 first-survey respondents, 861 second-survey respondents; 333 respondents participated in both). Psychological impact and mental health status were assessed by the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21), respectively. IES-R measures PTSD symptoms in survivorship after an event. DASS -21 is based on tripartite model of psychopathology that comprise a general distress construct with distinct characteristics. This study found that there was a statistically significant longitudinal reduction in mean IES-R scores (from 32.98 to 30.76, p<0.01) after 4 weeks. Nevertheless, the mean IES-R score of the first- and second-survey respondents were above the cut-off scores (>24) for PTSD symptoms, suggesting that the reduction in scores was not clinically significant. During the initial evaluation, moderate-to-severe stress, anxiety and depression were noted in 8.1%, 28.8% and 16.5%, respectively and there were no significant longitudinal changes in stress, anxiety and depression levels (p>0.05). Protective factors included high level of confidence in doctors, perceived survival likelihood and low risk of contracting COVID-19, satisfaction with health information, personal precautionary measures. As countries around the world brace for an escalation in cases, Governments should focus on effective methods of disseminating unbiased COVID-19 knowledge, teaching correct containment methods, ensuring availability of essential services/commodities, and providing sufficient financial support.

Brain Behav Immun2020       LitCov and CORD-19
210Association of a Third Dose of BNT162b2 Vaccine With Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Healthcare Workers in Israel  


JAMA2022       LitCov and CORD-19
211Covid-19 Vaccine Effectiveness against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variant  

BACKGROUND: A rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) cases due to the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in highly vaccinated populations has aroused concerns about the effectiveness of current vaccines. METHODS: We used a test-negative case–control design to estimate vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease caused by the omicron and delta (B.1.617.2) variants in England. Vaccine effectiveness was calculated after primary immunization with two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca), or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine and after a booster dose of BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or mRNA-1273. RESULTS: Between November 27, 2021, and January 12, 2022, a total of 886,774 eligible persons infected with the omicron variant, 204,154 eligible persons infected with the delta variant, and 1,572,621 eligible test-negative controls were identified. At all time points investigated and for all combinations of primary course and booster vaccines, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease was higher for the delta variant than for the omicron variant. No effect against the omicron variant was noted from 20 weeks after two ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 doses, whereas vaccine effectiveness after two BNT162b2 doses was 65.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63.9 to 67.0) at 2 to 4 weeks, dropping to 8.8% (95% CI, 7.0 to 10.5) at 25 or more weeks. Among ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 primary course recipients, vaccine effectiveness increased to 62.4% (95% CI, 61.8 to 63.0) at 2 to 4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster before decreasing to 39.6% (95% CI, 38.0 to 41.1) at 10 or more weeks. Among BNT162b2 primary course recipients, vaccine effectiveness increased to 67.2% (95% CI, 66.5 to 67.8) at 2 to 4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster before declining to 45.7% (95% CI, 44.7 to 46.7) at 10 or more weeks. Vaccine effectiveness after a ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 primary course increased to 70.1% (95% CI, 69.5 to 70.7) at 2 to 4 weeks after an mRNA-1273 booster and decreased to 60.9% (95% CI, 59.7 to 62.1) at 5 to 9 weeks. After a BNT162b2 primary course, the mRNA-1273 booster increased vaccine effectiveness to 73.9% (95% CI, 73.1 to 74.6) at 2 to 4 weeks; vaccine effectiveness fell to 64.4% (95% CI, 62.6 to 66.1) at 5 to 9 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Primary immunization with two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 vaccine provided limited protection against symptomatic disease caused by the omicron variant. A BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster after either the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 primary course substantially increased protection, but that protection waned over time. (Funded by the U.K. Health Security Agency.)

N Engl J Med2022       LitCov and CORD-19
212Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic  

BACKGROUND: Before 2020, mental disorders were leading causes of the global health-related burden, with depressive and anxiety disorders being leading contributors to this burden. The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has created an environment where many determinants of poor mental health are exacerbated. The need for up-to-date information on the mental health impacts of COVID-19 in a way that informs health system responses is imperative. In this study, we aimed to quantify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the prevalence and burden of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders globally in 2020. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of data reporting the prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic and published between Jan 1, 2020, and Jan 29, 2021. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, preprint servers, grey literature sources, and consulted experts. Eligible studies reported prevalence of depressive or anxiety disorders that were representative of the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic and had a pre-pandemic baseline. We used the assembled data in a meta-regression to estimate change in the prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders between pre-pandemic and mid-pandemic (using periods as defined by each study) via COVID-19 impact indicators (human mobility, daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rate, and daily excess mortality rate). We then used this model to estimate the change from pre-pandemic prevalence (estimated using Disease Modelling Meta-Regression version 2.1 [known as DisMod-MR 2.1]) by age, sex, and location. We used final prevalence estimates and disability weights to estimate years lived with disability and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders. FINDINGS: We identified 5683 unique data sources, of which 48 met inclusion criteria (46 studies met criteria for major depressive disorder and 27 for anxiety disorders). Two COVID-19 impact indicators, specifically daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and reductions in human mobility, were associated with increased prevalence of major depressive disorder (regression coefficient [B] 0·9 [95% uncertainty interval 0·1 to 1·8; p=0·029] for human mobility, 18·1 [7·9 to 28·3; p=0·0005] for daily SARS-CoV-2 infection) and anxiety disorders (0·9 [0·1 to 1·7; p=0·022] and 13·8 [10·7 to 17·0; p<0·0001]. Females were affected more by the pandemic than males (B 0·1 [0·1 to 0·2; p=0·0001] for major depressive disorder, 0·1 [0·1 to 0·2; p=0·0001] for anxiety disorders) and younger age groups were more affected than older age groups (−0·007 [–0·009 to −0·006; p=0·0001] for major depressive disorder, −0·003 [–0·005 to −0·002; p=0·0001] for anxiety disorders). We estimated that the locations hit hardest by the pandemic in 2020, as measured with decreased human mobility and daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rate, had the greatest increases in prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders. We estimated an additional 53·2 million (44·8 to 62·9) cases of major depressive disorder globally (an increase of 27·6% [25·1 to 30·3]) due to the COVID-19 pandemic, such that the total prevalence was 3152·9 cases (2722·5 to 3654·5) per 100 000 population. We also estimated an additional 76·2 million (64·3 to 90·6) cases of anxiety disorders globally (an increase of 25·6% [23·2 to 28·0]), such that the total prevalence was 4802·4 cases (4108·2 to 5588·6) per 100 000 population. Altogether, major depressive disorder caused 49·4 million (33·6 to 68·7) DALYs and anxiety disorders caused 44·5 million (30·2 to 62·5) DALYs globally in 2020. INTERPRETATION: This pandemic has created an increased urgency to strengthen mental health systems in most countries. Mitigation strategies could incorporate ways to promote mental wellbeing and target determinants of poor mental health and interventions to treat those with a mental disorder. Taking no action to address the burden of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders should not be an option. FUNDING: Queensland Health, National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Lancet2021       LitCov and CORD-19
213Multisite Clinical Validation of Isothermal Amplification-Based SARS-CoV-2 Detection Assays Using Different Sampling Strategies  

Isothermal amplification-based tests have been introduced as rapid, low-cost, and simple alternatives to real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection. The clinical performance of two isothermal amplification-based tests (Atila Biosystems iAMP coronavirus disease of 2019 [COVID-19] detection test and OptiGene COVID-19 direct plus RT-loop-mediated isothermal amplification [LAMP] test) was compared with that of clinical RT-PCR assays using different sampling strategies. A total of 1,378 participants were tested across 4 study sites. Compared with standard of care RT-PCR testing, the overall sensitivity and specificity of the Atila iAMP test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 were 76.2% and 94.9%, respectively, and increased to 88.8% and 89.5%, respectively, after exclusion of an outlier study site. Sensitivity varied based on the anatomic site from which the sample was collected. Sensitivity for nasopharyngeal sampling was 65.4% (range across study sites, 52.8% to 79.8%), for midturbinate was 88.2%, for saliva was 55.1% (range across study sites, 42.9% to 77.8%), and for anterior nares was 66.7% (range across study sites, 63.6% to 76.5%). The specificity for these anatomic collection sites ranged from 96.7% to 100%. Sensitivity improved in symptomatic patients (overall, 82.7%) and those with a higher viral load (overall, 92.4% for cycle threshold [C(T)] of ≤25). Sensitivity and specificity of the OptiGene direct plus RT-LAMP test, which was conducted at a single study site, were 25.5% and 100%, respectively. The Atila iAMP COVID test with midturbinate sampling is a rapid, low-cost assay for detecting SARS-CoV-2, especially in symptomatic patients and those with a high viral load, and could be used to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in clinical settings. Variation of performance between study sites highlights the need for site-specific clinical validation of these assays before clinical adoption. IMPORTANCE Numerous SARS-CoV-2 detection assays have been developed and introduced into the market under emergency use authorizations (EUAs). EUAs are granted primarily based on small studies of analytic sensitivity and specificity with limited clinical validations. A thorough clinical performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 assays is important to understand the strengths, limitations, and specific applications of these assays. In this first large-scale multicentric study, we evaluated the clinical performance and operational characteristics of two isothermal amplification-based SARS-CoV-2 tests, namely, (i) iAMP COVID-19 detection test (Atila BioSystems, USA) and (ii) COVID-19 direct plus RT-LAMP test (OptiGene Ltd., UK), compared with those of clinical RT-PCR tests using different sampling strategies (i.e., nasopharyngeal, self-sampled anterior nares, self-sampled midturbinate, and saliva). An important specific use for these isothermal amplification-based, rapid, low-cost, and easy-to-perform SARS-CoV-2 assays is to allow for a safer return to preventive clinical encounters, such as cancer screening, particularly in low- and middle-income countries that have low SARS-CoV-2 vaccination rates.

Microbiol Spectr2021       LitCov and CORD-19
214Behavioral Intention to Receive a COVID-19 Vaccination Among Chinese Factory Workers: Cross-sectional Online Survey  

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines will become available in China soon. Understanding communities’ responses to the forthcoming COVID-19 vaccines is important. We applied the theory of planned behavior as the theoretical framework. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the prevalence of and factors associated with behavioral intention to receive self-financed or free COVID-19 vaccinations among Chinese factory workers who resumed work during the pandemic. We examined the effects of factors including sociodemographics, perceptions related to COVID-19 vaccination, exposure to information about COVID-19 vaccination through social media, and COVID-19 preventive measures implemented by individuals and factories. METHODS: Participants were full-time employees 18 years or older who worked in factories in Shenzhen. Factory workers in Shenzhen are required to receive a physical examination annually. Eligible workers attending six physical examination sites were invited to complete a survey on September 1-7, 2020. Out of 2653 eligible factory workers, 2053 (77.4%) completed the online survey. Multivariate two-level logistic regression models and ordinal logistic regression models were fitted. RESULTS: The prevalence of behavioral intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccination was 66.6% (n=1368, conditional on 80% vaccine efficacy and market rate) and 80.6% (n=1655, conditional on 80% vaccine efficacy and free vaccines). After adjusting for significant background characteristics, positive attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.20, 95% CI 1.15-1.25 and AOR 1.24, 95% CI 1.19-1.30), perceived support from significant others for getting a COVID-19 vaccination (AOR 1.43, 95% CI 1.32-1.55 and AOR 1.37, 95% CI 1.25-1.50), and perceived behavioral control to get a COVID-19 vaccination (AOR 1.51, 95% CI 1.32-1.73 and AOR 1.28, 95% CI 1.09-1.51) were positively associated with both dependent variables (conditional on 80% vaccine efficacy and market rate or free vaccines, respectively). Regarding social media influence, higher frequency of exposure to positive information related to COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a higher intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccination at market rate (AOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.39-1.70) or a free vaccination (AOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.35-1.71). Higher self-reported compliance with wearing a face mask in the workplace (AOR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02-1.58 and AOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.24-2.27) and other public spaces (AOR 1.80, 95% CI 1.42-2.29 and AOR 1.34, 95% CI 1.01-1.77), hand hygiene (AOR 1.21, 95% CI 1.00-1.47 and AOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.19-1.93), and avoiding social gatherings (AOR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.47 and AOR 1.55, 95% CI 1.23-1.95) and crowded places (AOR 1.24, 95% CI 1.02-1.51 and AOR 1.73, 95% CI 1.37-2.18) were also positively associated with both dependent variables. The number of COVID-19 preventive measures implemented by the factory was positively associated with the intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccination under both scenarios (AOR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04-1.12 and AOR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.11). CONCLUSIONS: Factory workers in China reported a high behavioral intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. The theory of planned behavior is a useful framework to guide the development of future campaigns promoting COVID-19 vaccination.

J Med Internet Res2021       LitCov and CORD-19
215Surveillance of Safety of 3 Doses of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination Using Electronic Health Records  

IMPORTANCE: Recent reports on waning of COVID-19 vaccine–induced immunity have led to the approval and rollout of additional doses and booster vaccinations. Individuals at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection are receiving additional vaccine doses in addition to the regimen that was tested in clinical trials. Risks and adverse event profiles associated with additional vaccine doses are currently not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of third-dose vaccination with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study was conducted using electronic health record (EHR) data from December 2020 to October 2021 from the multistate Mayo Clinic Enterprise. Participants included all 47 999 individuals receiving 3-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccines within the study setting who met study inclusion criteria. Participants were divided into 2 cohorts by vaccine brand administered and served as their own control groups, with no comparison made between cohorts. Data were analyzed from September through November 2021. EXPOSURES: Three doses of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Vaccine-associated adverse events were assessed via EHR report. Adverse event risk was quantified using the percentage of study participants who reported the adverse event within 14 days after each vaccine dose and during a 14-day control period, immediately preceding the first vaccine dose. RESULTS: Among 47 999 individuals who received 3-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, 38 094 individuals (21 835 [57.3%] women; median [IQR] age, 67.4 [52.5-76.5] years) received BNT162b2 (79.4%) and 9905 individuals (5099 [51.5%] women; median [IQR] age, 67.7 [59.5-73.9] years) received mRNA-1273 (20.6%). Reporting of severe adverse events remained low after the third vaccine dose, with rates of pericarditis (0.01%; 95% CI, 0%-0.02%), anaphylaxis (0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.01%), myocarditis (0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.01%), and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (no individuals) consistent with results from earlier studies. Significantly more individuals reported low-severity adverse events after the third dose compared with after the second dose, including fatigue (2360 individuals [4.92%] vs 1665 individuals [3.47%]; P < .001), lymphadenopathy (1387 individuals [2.89%] vs 995 individuals [2.07%]; P < .001), nausea (1259 individuals [2.62%] vs 979 individuals [2.04%]; P < .001), headache (1185 individuals [2.47%] vs 992 individuals [2.07%]; P < .001), arthralgia (1019 individuals [2.12%] vs 816 individuals [1.70%]; P < .001), myalgia (956 individuals [1.99%] vs 784 individuals [1.63%]; P < .001), diarrhea (817 individuals [1.70%] vs 595 individuals [1.24%]; P < .001), fever (533 individuals [1.11%] vs 391 individuals [0.81%]; P < .001), vomiting (528 individuals [1.10%] vs 385 individuals [0.80%]; P < .001), and chills (224 individuals [0.47%] vs 175 individuals [0.36%]; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that although third-dose vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased reporting of low-severity adverse events, risk of severe adverse events remained comparable with risk associated with the standard 2-dose regime. These findings suggest the safety of third vaccination doses in individuals who were eligible for booster vaccination at the time of this study.

JAMA Netw Open2022       LitCov and CORD-19
216Impact and effectiveness of mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths following a nationwide vaccination campaign in Israel: an observational study using national surveillance data  

BACKGROUND: Following the emergency use authorisation of the Pfizer–BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 (international non-proprietary name tozinameran) in Israel, the Ministry of Health (MoH) launched a campaign to immunise the 6·5 million residents of Israel aged 16 years and older. We estimated the real-world effectiveness of two doses of BNT162b2 against a range of SARS-CoV-2 outcomes and to evaluate the nationwide public-health impact following the widespread introduction of the vaccine. METHODS: We used national surveillance data from the first 4 months of the nationwide vaccination campaign to ascertain incident cases of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and outcomes, as well as vaccine uptake in residents of Israel aged 16 years and older. Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 outcomes (asymptomatic infection, symptomatic infection, and COVID-19-related hospitalisation, severe or critical hospitalisation, and death) was calculated on the basis of incidence rates in fully vaccinated individuals (defined as those for whom 7 days had passed since receiving the second dose of vaccine) compared with rates in unvaccinated individuals (who had not received any doses of the vaccine), with use of a negative binomial regression model adjusted for age group (16–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 55–64, 65–74, 75–84, and ≥85 years), sex, and calendar week. The proportion of spike gene target failures on PCR test among a nationwide convenience-sample of SARS-CoV-2-positive specimens was used to estimate the prevelance of the B.1.1.7 variant. FINDINGS: During the analysis period (Jan 24 to April 3, 2021), there were 232 268 SARS-CoV-2 infections, 7694 COVID-19 hospitalisations, 4481 severe or critical COVID-19 hospitalisations, and 1113 COVID-19 deaths in people aged 16 years or older. By April 3, 2021, 4 714 932 (72·1%) of 6 538 911 people aged 16 years and older were fully vaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2. Adjusted estimates of vaccine effectiveness at 7 days or longer after the second dose were 95·3% (95% CI 94·9–95·7; incidence rate 91·5 per 100 000 person-days in unvaccinated vs 3·1 per 100 000 person-days in fully vaccinated individuals) against SARS-CoV-2 infection, 91·5% (90·7–92·2; 40·9 vs 1·8 per 100 000 person-days) against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, 97·0% (96·7–97·2; 32·5 vs 0·8 per 100 000 person-days) against symptomatic COVID-19, 97·2% (96·8–97·5; 4·6 vs 0·3 per 100 000 person-days) against COVID-19-related hospitalisation, 97·5% (97·1–97·8; 2·7 vs 0·2 per 100 000 person-days) against severe or critical COVID-19-related hospitalisation, and 96·7% (96·0–97·3; 0·6 vs 0·1 per 100 000 person-days) against COVID-19-related death. In all age groups, as vaccine coverage increased, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 outcomes declined. 8006 of 8472 samples tested showed a spike gene target failure, giving an estimated prevalence of the B.1.1.7 variant of 94·5% among SARS-CoV-2 infections. INTERPRETATION: Two doses of BNT162b2 are highly effective across all age groups (≥16 years, including older adults aged ≥85 years) in preventing symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19-related hospitalisations, severe disease, and death, including those caused by the B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 variant. There were marked and sustained declines in SARS-CoV-2 incidence corresponding to increasing vaccine coverage. These findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccination can help to control the pandemic. FUNDING: None.

Lancet2021       LitCov and CORD-19
217Cross-Neutralization of Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern by Antibodies Targeting Distinct Epitopes on Spike  

Several severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants have arisen that exhibit increased viral transmissibility and partial evasion of immunity induced by natural infection and vaccination. To address the specific antibody targets that were affected by recent viral variants, we generated 43 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) from 10 convalescent donors that bound three distinct domains of the SARS-CoV-2 spike. Viral variants harboring mutations at K417, E484, and N501 could escape most of the highly potent antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD). Despite this, we identified 12 neutralizing mAbs against three distinct regions of the spike protein that neutralize SARS-CoV-2 and variants of concern (VOCs), including B.1.1.7 (alpha), P.1 (gamma), and B.1.617.2 (delta). Notably, antibodies targeting distinct epitopes could neutralize discrete variants, suggesting that different variants may have evolved to disrupt the binding of particular neutralizing antibody classes. These results underscore that humans exposed to the first pandemic wave of prototype SARS-CoV-2 possess neutralizing antibodies against current variants and that it is critical to induce antibodies targeting multiple distinct epitopes of the spike that can neutralize emerging variants of concern.

mBio2021       LitCov and CORD-19
218Attitudes and Intentions of US Veterans Regarding COVID-19 Vaccination  

IMPORTANCE: Compared with the general population, veterans are at high risk for COVID-19 and have a complex relationship with the government. This potentially affects their attitudes toward receiving COVID-19 vaccines. OBJECTIVE: To assess veterans’ attitudes toward and intentions to receive COVID-19 vaccines. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional web-based survey study used data from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients’ Veterans Insight Panel, fielded between March 12 and 28, 2021. Of 3420 veterans who were sent a link to complete a 58-item web-based survey, 1178 veterans (34%) completed the survey. Data were analyzed from April 1 to August 25, 2021. EXPOSURES: Veterans eligible for COVID-19 vaccines. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The outcomes of interest were veterans’ experiences with COVID-19, vaccination status and intention groups, reasons for receiving or not receiving a vaccine, self-reported health status, and trusted and preferred sources of information about COVID-19 vaccines. Reasons for not getting vaccinated were classified into categories of vaccine deliberation, dissent, distrust, indifference, skepticism, and policy and processes. RESULTS: Among 1178 respondents, 974 (83%) were men, 130 (11%) were women, and 141 (12%) were transgender or nonbinary; 58 respondents (5%) were Black, 54 veterans (5%) were Hispanic or Latino, and 987 veterans (84%) were non-Hispanic White. The mean (SD) age of respondents was 66.7 (10.1) years. A total of 817 respondents (71%) self-reported being vaccinated against COVID-19. Of 339 respondents (29%) who were not vaccinated, those unsure of getting vaccinated were more likely to report fair or poor overall health (32 respondents [43%]) and mental health (33 respondents [44%]) than other nonvaccinated groups (overall health: range, 20%-32%; mental health: range, 18%-40%). Top reasons for not being vaccinated were skepticism (120 respondents [36%] were concerned about side effects; 65 respondents [20%] preferred using few medications; 63 respondents [19%] preferred gaining natural immunity), deliberation (74 respondents [22%] preferred to wait because vaccine is new), and distrust (61 respondents [18%] did not trust the health care system). Among respondents who were vaccinated, preventing oneself from getting sick (462 respondents [57%]) and contributing to the end of the COVID-19 pandemic (453 respondents [56%]) were top reasons for getting vaccinated. All veterans reported the VA as 1 of their top trusted sources of information. The proportion of respondents trusting their VA health care practitioner as a source of vaccine information was higher among those unsure about vaccination compared with those who indicated they would definitely not or probably not get vaccinated (18 respondents [26%] vs 15 respondents [15%]). There were no significant associations between vaccine intention groups and age (χ(2)(4) = 5.90; P = .21) or gender (χ(2)(2) = 3.99; P = .14). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These findings provide information needed to develop trusted messages used in conversations between VA health care practitioners and veterans addressing specific vaccine hesitancy reasons, as well as those in worse health. Conversations need to emphasize societal reasons for getting vaccinated and benefits to one’s own health.

JAMA Netw Open2021       LitCov and CORD-19
219COVID-19 vaccine waning and effectiveness and side-effects of boosters: a prospective community study from the ZOE COVID Study  

BACKGROUND: With the surge of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, countries have begun offering COVID-19 vaccine booster doses to high-risk groups and, more recently, to the adult population in general. However, uncertainty remains over how long primary vaccination series remain effective, the ideal timing for booster doses, and the safety of heterologous booster regimens. We aimed to investigate COVID-19 primary vaccine series effectiveness and its waning, and the safety and effectiveness of booster doses, in a UK community setting. METHODS: We used SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates in individuals from a longitudinal, prospective, community-based study (ZOE COVID Study), in which data were self-reported through an app, to assess the effectiveness of three COVID-19 vaccines (ChAdOx1 nCov19 [Oxford-AstraZeneca], BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNtech], and mRNA1273 [Moderna]) against infection in the 8 months after completion of primary vaccination series. In individuals receiving boosters, we investigated vaccine effectiveness and reactogenicity, by assessing 16 self-reported systemic and localised side-effects. We used multivariate Poisson regression models adjusting for confounders to estimate vaccine effectiveness. FINDINGS: We included 620 793 participants who received two vaccine doses (204 731 [33·0%] received BNT162b2, 405 239 [65·3%] received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and 10 823 [1·7%] received mRNA-1273) and subsequently had a SARS-CoV-2 test result between May 23 (chosen to exclude the period of alpha [B.1.1.7] variant dominance) and Nov 23, 2021. 62 172 (10·0%) vaccinated individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and were compared with 40 345 unvaccinated controls (6726 [16·7%] of whom tested positive). Vaccine effectiveness waned after the second dose: at 5 months, BNT162b2 effectiveness was 82·1% (95% CI 81·3–82·9), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 effectiveness was 75·7% (74·9–76·4), and mRNA-1273 effectiveness was 84·3% (81·2–86·9). Vaccine effectiveness decreased more among individuals aged 55 years or older and among those with comorbidities. 135 932 individuals aged 55 years or older received a booster (2123 [1·6%] of whom tested positive). Vaccine effectiveness for booster doses in 0–3 months after BNT162b2 primary vaccination was higher than 92·5%, and effectiveness for heterologous boosters after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was at least 88·8%. For the booster reactogenicity analysis, in 317 011 participants, the most common systemic symptom was fatigue (in 31 881 [10·1%] participants) and the most common local symptom was tenderness (in 187 767 [59·2%]). Systemic side-effects were more common for heterologous schedules (32 632 [17·9%] of 182 374) than for homologous schedules (17 707 [13·2%] of 134 637; odds ratio 1·5, 95% CI 1·5–1·6, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: After 5 months, vaccine effectiveness remained high among individuals younger than 55 years. Booster doses restore vaccine effectiveness. Adverse reactions after booster doses were similar to those after the second dose. Homologous booster schedules had fewer reported systemic side-effects than heterologous boosters. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, ZOE, National Institute for Health Research, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Medical Research Council

Lancet Infect Dis2022       LitCov and CORD-19
220Investigating Mental Health of US College Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Survey Study  

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic has generally increased levels of stress and depression among the public. However, the impact on college students in the United States has not been well-documented. OBJECTIVE: This paper surveys the mental health status and severity of depression and anxiety of college students in a large university system in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An online survey was conducted among undergraduate and graduate students recruited from Texas A&M University via email. The survey consisted of two standardized scales—the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and the General Anxiety Disorder-7—for depression and anxiety, and additional multiple-choice and open-ended questions regarding stressors and coping mechanisms specific to COVID-19. RESULTS: Among the 2031 participants, 48.14% (n=960) showed a moderate-to-severe level of depression, 38.48% (n=775) showed a moderate-to-severe level of anxiety, and 18.04% (n=366) had suicidal thoughts. A majority of participants (n=1443, 71.26%) indicated that their stress/anxiety levels had increased during the pandemic. Less than half of the participants (n=882, 43.25%) indicated that they were able to cope adequately with the stress related to the current situation. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of respondents showing depression, anxiety, and/or suicidal thoughts is alarming. Respondents reported academic-, health-, and lifestyle-related concerns caused by the pandemic. Given the unexpected length and severity of the outbreak, these concerns need to be further understood and addressed.

J Med Internet Res2020       LitCov and CORD-19
221COVID-19 Pandemic and Vaccines Update on Challenges and Resolutions  

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is caused by a positive-stranded RNA virus called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), belonging to the Coronaviridae family. This virus originated in Wuhan City, China, and became the cause of a multiwave pandemic that has killed 3.46 million people worldwide as of May 22, 2021. The havoc intensified with the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants (B.1.1.7; Alpha, B.1.351; Beta, P.1; Gamma, B.1.617; Delta, B.1.617.2; Delta-plus, B.1.525; Eta, and B.1.429; Epsilon etc.) due to mutations generated during replication. More variants may emerge to cause additional pandemic waves. The most promising approach for combating viruses and their emerging variants lies in prophylactic vaccines. Several vaccine candidates are being developed using various platforms, including nucleic acids, live attenuated virus, inactivated virus, viral vectors, and protein-based subunit vaccines. In this unprecedented time, 12 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been phased in following WHO approval, 184 are in the preclinical stage, and 100 are in the clinical development process. Many of them are directed to elicit neutralizing antibodies against the viral spike protein (S) to inhibit viral entry through the ACE-2 receptor of host cells. Inactivated vaccines, to the contrary, provide a wide range of viral antigens for immune activation. Being an intracellular pathogen, the cytotoxic CD8(+) T Cell (CTL) response remains crucial for all viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, and needs to be explored in detail. In this review, we try to describe and compare approved vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 that are currently being distributed either after phase III clinical trials or for emergency use. We discuss immune responses induced by various candidate vaccine formulations; their benefits, potential limitations, and effectiveness against variants; future challenges, such as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE); and vaccine safety issues and their possible resolutions. Most of the current vaccines developed against SARS-CoV-2 are showing either promising or compromised efficacy against new variants. Multiple antigen-based vaccines (multivariant vaccines) should be developed on different platforms to tackle future variants. Alternatively, recombinant BCG, containing SARS-CoV-2 multiple antigens, as a live attenuated vaccine should be explored for long-term protection. Irrespective of their efficacy, all vaccines are efficient in providing protection from disease severity. We must insist on vaccine compliance for all age groups and work on vaccine hesitancy globally to achieve herd immunity and, eventually, to curb this pandemic.

Front Cell Infect Microbiol2021       LitCov and CORD-19
222How do children and adolescents with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) experience lockdown during the COVID-19 outbreak?  

OBJECTIVES: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the French government has decided a general lockdown. This unprecedented situation has raised concerns about children's and adolescent's mental health. Children and adolescents diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may find this context of restrained activity particularly tricky. The objectives of our study are to gather information about the well-being and global life conditions of children and adolescents with ADHD during the COVID-19 outbreak in France. METHODS: We designed a survey including both open-ended questions and questionnaire items for parents of children and adolescents with ADHD. Parents responded to the following open-ended questions: 1) “How is your child doing since the lockdown?” 2) “How is life at home since the lockdown?” 3) “If you had a remote service provision with a mental health professional (e.g. by telephone or video technology), please share your thoughts and any suggestions with us” 4) “Please share any other items that you think are important about ADHD symptoms of your child and the lockdown situation”. This survey was posted on social media on the 6th of April and disseminated by French ADHD-parent and patient organizations. The present article reports the descriptive, qualitative and textometrical analyses of the survey. RESULTS: Between day 20 and 30 of lockdown, 538 parents responded to the survey, and we included 533 responses in the final analysis. The vast majority of responders were women 95 % (95 % CI 93,50; 97,18) with children whose mean age was 10,5 (95 % CI 7.58; 13.44). Since the lockdown, 34.71 % (95 % CI 30.70; 38.94) of children experienced a worsening in well-being, 34.33 % (95 % CI 30.34; 38.56) showed no significant changes and 30.96 % (95 % CI 27.09; 35.10) were doing better according to their parents. The thematic analysis showed that an improvement of their children's anxiety was one of the main topics addressed by parents. This improvement related to less school-related strain and flexible schedules that respected their children's rhythm. Improved self-esteem was another topic that parents linked with a lesser exposure of their children to negative feed-back. Parents repeatedly reported both inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity. However, optimal lockdown life conditions seemed to compensate for the impact of ADHD symptoms (e.g. sufficient space at home, presence of a garden). Some parents reported worsening of general well-being in their children, and this manifested as oppositional/defiant attitudes and emotional outbursts. Parents also cited sleep problems and anxiety in this context. As regards everyday life during lock-down, at-home schooling was another major topic–parents described that their children struggled to complete school-related tasks and that teachers seemed to have forgotten about academic accommodations. The lockdown situation seems to have raised parents’ awareness of the role of inattention and ADHD symptoms in their children's learning difficulties. Due to potential selection biases, the results of our survey may not be generalizable to all children and adolescents with ADHD. The main strengths of this rapid survey-based study lies in the reactivity of the participants and the quality and diversity of their responses to the open-ended questions. CONCLUSIONS: According to their parents, most children and adolescents with ADHD experience stability or improvement of their well-being. An improvement in school-related anxiety and the flexible adjustment to the children's’ rhythms as well as parents’ increased awareness of the difficulties their children experience are among the key topics in parents’ descriptions.

Encephale2020       LitCov and CORD-19
223An Intranasal OMV-Based Vaccine Induces High Mucosal and Systemic Protecting Immunity Against a SARS-CoV-2 Infection  

The development of more effective, accessible, and easy to administer COVID-19 vaccines next to the currently marketed mRNA, viral vector, and whole inactivated virus vaccines is essential to curtailing the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. A major concern is reduced vaccine-induced immune protection to emerging variants, and therefore booster vaccinations to broaden and strengthen the immune response might be required. Currently, all registered COVID-19 vaccines and the majority of COVID-19 vaccines in development are intramuscularly administered, targeting the induction of systemic immunity. Intranasal vaccines have the capacity to induce local mucosal immunity as well, thereby targeting the primary route of viral entry of SARS-CoV-2 with the potential of blocking transmission. Furthermore, intranasal vaccines offer greater practicality in terms of cost and ease of administration. Currently, only eight out of 112 vaccines in clinical development are administered intranasally. We developed an intranasal COVID-19 subunit vaccine, based on a recombinant, six-proline-stabilized, D614G spike protein (mC-Spike) of SARS-CoV-2 linked via the LPS-binding peptide sequence mCramp (mC) to outer membrane vesicles (OMVs) from Neisseria meningitidis. The spike protein was produced in CHO cells, and after linking to the OMVs, the OMV-mC-Spike vaccine was administered to mice and Syrian hamsters via intranasal or intramuscular prime-boost vaccinations. In all animals that received OMV-mC-Spike, serum-neutralizing antibodies were induced upon vaccination. Importantly, high levels of spike-binding immunoglobulin G (IgG) and A (IgA) antibodies in the nose and lungs were only detected in intranasally vaccinated animals, whereas intramuscular vaccination only induced an IgG response in the serum. Two weeks after their second vaccination, hamsters challenged with SARS-CoV-2 were protected from weight loss and viral replication in the lungs compared to the control groups vaccinated with OMV or spike alone. Histopathology showed no lesions in lungs 7 days after challenge in OMV-mC-Spike-vaccinated hamsters, whereas the control groups did show pathological lesions in the lung. The OMV-mC-Spike candidate vaccine data are very promising and support further development of this novel non-replicating, needle-free, subunit vaccine concept for clinical testing.

Front Immunol2021       LitCov and CORD-19
224WHO Declares COVID-19 a Pandemic  

The World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020, has declared the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak a global pandemic (1). At a news briefing , WHO Director-General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, noted that over the past 2 weeks, the number of cases outside China increased 13-fold and the number of countries with cases increased threefold. Further increases are expected. He said that the WHO is deeply concerned both by the alarming levels of spread and severity and by the alarming levels of inaction, and he called on countries to take action now to contain the virus. We should double down, he said. We should be more aggressive. [...].

Acta Biomed2020       LitCov and CORD-19
225Effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis  

BACKGROUND: To date, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) becomes increasingly fierce due to the emergence of variants. Rapid herd immunity through vaccination is needed to block the mutation and prevent the emergence of variants that can completely escape the immune surveillance. We aimed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in the real world and to establish a reliable evidence-based basis for the actual protective effect of the COVID-19 vaccines, especially in the ensuing waves of infections dominated by variants. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from inception to July 22, 2021. Observational studies that examined the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines among people vaccinated were included. Random-effects or fixed-effects models were used to estimate the pooled vaccine effectiveness (VE) and incidence rate of adverse events after vaccination, and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: A total of 58 studies (32 studies for vaccine effectiveness and 26 studies for vaccine safety) were included. A single dose of vaccines was 41% (95% CI: 28–54%) effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections, 52% (31–73%) for symptomatic COVID-19, 66% (50–81%) for hospitalization, 45% (42–49%) for Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admissions, and 53% (15–91%) for COVID-19-related death; and two doses were 85% (81–89%) effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections, 97% (97–98%) for symptomatic COVID-19, 93% (89–96%) for hospitalization, 96% (93–98%) for ICU admissions, and 95% (92–98%) effective for COVID-19-related death, respectively. The pooled VE was 85% (80–91%) for the prevention of Alpha variant of SARS-CoV-2 infections, 75% (71–79%) for the Beta variant, 54% (35–74%) for the Gamma variant, and 74% (62–85%) for the Delta variant. The overall pooled incidence rate was 1.5% (1.4–1.6%) for adverse events, 0.4 (0.2–0.5) per 10 000 for severe adverse events, and 0.1 (0.1–0.2) per 10 000 for death after vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have reassuring safety and could effectively reduce the death, severe cases, symptomatic cases, and infections resulting from SARS-CoV-2 across the world. In the context of global pandemic and the continuous emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants, accelerating vaccination and improving vaccination coverage is still the most important and urgent matter, and it is also the final means to end the pandemic. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40249-021-00915-3.

Infect Dis Poverty2021       LitCov and CORD-19
226Endothelial cell infection and endotheliitis in COVID-19  

Lancet2020       LitCov and CORD-19
227Neurologic Manifestations of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 in Wuhan, China  


JAMA Neurol2020       LitCov and CORD-19
228Australia in 2030: what is our path to health for all?  


Med J Aust2021       LitCov and CORD-19
229Pathophysiology, Transmission, Diagnosis and Treatment of COVID-19: A Review  


JAMA2020       LitCov and CORD-19
230Comparative analysis of the risks of hospitalisation and death associated with SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) and delta (B.1.617.2) variants in England: a cohort study  

BACKGROUND: The omicron variant (B.1.1.529) of SARS-CoV-2 has demonstrated partial vaccine escape and high transmissibility, with early studies indicating lower severity of infection than that of the delta variant (B.1.617.2). We aimed to better characterise omicron severity relative to delta by assessing the relative risk of hospital attendance, hospital admission, or death in a large national cohort. METHODS: Individual-level data on laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases resident in England between Nov 29, 2021, and Jan 9, 2022, were linked to routine datasets on vaccination status, hospital attendance and admission, and mortality. The relative risk of hospital attendance or admission within 14 days, or death within 28 days after confirmed infection, was estimated using proportional hazards regression. Analyses were stratified by test date, 10-year age band, ethnicity, residential region, and vaccination status, and were further adjusted for sex, index of multiple deprivation decile, evidence of a previous infection, and year of age within each age band. A secondary analysis estimated variant-specific and vaccine-specific vaccine effectiveness and the intrinsic relative severity of omicron infection compared with delta (ie, the relative risk in unvaccinated cases). FINDINGS: The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of hospital attendance (not necessarily resulting in admission) with omicron compared with delta was 0·56 (95% CI 0·54–0·58); for hospital admission and death, HR estimates were 0·41 (0·39–0·43) and 0·31 (0·26–0·37), respectively. Omicron versus delta HR estimates varied with age for all endpoints examined. The adjusted HR for hospital admission was 1·10 (0·85–1·42) in those younger than 10 years, decreasing to 0·25 (0·21–0·30) in 60–69-year-olds, and then increasing to 0·47 (0·40–0·56) in those aged at least 80 years. For both variants, past infection gave some protection against death both in vaccinated (HR 0·47 [0·32–0·68]) and unvaccinated (0·18 [0·06–0·57]) cases. In vaccinated cases, past infection offered no additional protection against hospital admission beyond that provided by vaccination (HR 0·96 [0·88–1·04]); however, for unvaccinated cases, past infection gave moderate protection (HR 0·55 [0·48–0·63]). Omicron versus delta HR estimates were lower for hospital admission (0·30 [0·28–0·32]) in unvaccinated cases than the corresponding HR estimated for all cases in the primary analysis. Booster vaccination with an mRNA vaccine was highly protective against hospitalisation and death in omicron cases (HR for hospital admission 8–11 weeks post-booster vs unvaccinated: 0·22 [0·20–0·24]), with the protection afforded after a booster not being affected by the vaccine used for doses 1 and 2. INTERPRETATION: The risk of severe outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection is substantially lower for omicron than for delta, with higher reductions for more severe endpoints and significant variation with age. Underlying the observed risks is a larger reduction in intrinsic severity (in unvaccinated individuals) counterbalanced by a reduction in vaccine effectiveness. Documented previous SARS-CoV-2 infection offered some protection against hospitalisation and high protection against death in unvaccinated individuals, but only offered additional protection in vaccinated individuals for the death endpoint. Booster vaccination with mRNA vaccines maintains over 70% protection against hospitalisation and death in breakthrough confirmed omicron infections. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research, Community Jameel, and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

Lancet2022       LitCov and CORD-19
231Competitive SARS-CoV-2 Serology Reveals Most Antibodies Targeting the Spike Receptor-Binding Domain Compete for ACE2 Binding  

As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to spread around the world, there is an urgent need for new assay formats to characterize the humoral response to infection. Here, we present an efficient, competitive serological assay that can simultaneously determine an individual’s seroreactivity against the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein and determine the proportion of anti-Spike antibodies that block interaction with the human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) required for viral entry. In this approach based on the use of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), we present natively folded viral Spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD)-containing antigens via avidin-biotin interactions. Sera are then competed with soluble ACE2-Fc, or with a higher-affinity variant thereof, to determine the proportion of ACE2 blocking anti-RBD antibodies. Assessment of sera from 144 SARS-CoV-2 patients ultimately revealed that a remarkably consistent and high proportion of antibodies in the anti-RBD pool targeted the epitope responsible for ACE2 engagement (83% ± 11%; 50% to 107% signal inhibition in our largest cohort), further underscoring the importance of tailoring vaccines to promote the development of such antibodies. IMPORTANCE With the emergence and continued spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and of the associated disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there is an urgent need for improved understanding of how the body mounts an immune response to the virus. Here, we developed a competitive SARS-CoV-2 serological assay that can simultaneously determine whether an individual has developed antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) and measure the proportion of these antibodies that block interaction with the human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) required for viral entry. Using this assay and 144 SARS-CoV-2 patient serum samples, we found that a majority of anti-RBD antibodies compete for ACE2 binding. These results not only highlight the need to design vaccines to generate such blocking antibodies but also demonstrate the utility of this assay to rapidly screen patient sera for potentially neutralizing antibodies.

mSphere2020       LitCov and CORD-19
232SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Hospitalizations Among Persons Aged ≥16 Years, by Vaccination Status-Los Angeles County, California, May 1-July 25, 2021  

COVID-19 vaccines fully approved or currently authorized for use through Emergency Use Authorization from the Food and Drug Administration are critical tools for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic; however, even with highly effective vaccines, a proportion of fully vaccinated persons will become infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). To characterize postvaccination infections, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) used COVID-19 surveillance and California Immunization Registry 2 (CAIR2) data to describe age-adjusted infection and hospitalization rates during May 1-July 25, 2021, by vaccination status. Whole genome sequencing (WGS)-based SARS-CoV-2 lineages and cycle threshold (Ct) values from qualitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for two SARS-CoV-2 gene targets, including the nucleocapsid (N) protein gene region and the open reading frame 1 ab (ORF1ab) polyprotein gene region,* were reported for a convenience sample of specimens. Among 43,127 reported SARS-CoV-2 infections in Los Angeles County residents aged ≥16 years, 10,895 (25.3%) were in fully vaccinated persons, 1,431 (3.3%) were in partially vaccinated persons, and 30,801 (71.4%) were in unvaccinated persons. Much lower percentages of fully vaccinated persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 were hospitalized (3.2%), were admitted to an intensive care unit (0.5%), and required mechanical ventilation (0.2%) compared with partially vaccinated persons (6.2%, 1.0%, and 0.3%, respectively) and unvaccinated persons (7.6%, 1.5%, and 0.5%, respectively) (p<0.001 for all comparisons). On July 25, the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among unvaccinated persons was 4.9 times and the hospitalization rate was 29.2 times the rates among fully vaccinated persons. During May 1-July 25, the percentages of B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant infections estimated from 6,752 samples with lineage data increased among fully vaccinated persons (from 8.6% to 91.2%), partially vaccinated persons (from 0% to 88.1%), and unvaccinated persons (from 8.2% to 87.1%). In May, there were differences in median Ct values by vaccination status; however, by July, no differences were detected among specimens from fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated persons by gene targets. These infection and hospitalization rate data indicate that authorized vaccines were protective against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 during a period when transmission of the Delta variant was increasing. Efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccination, in coordination with other prevention strategies, are critical to preventing COVID-19-related hospitalizations and deaths.

MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep2021       LitCov and CORD-19
233Determining the optimal strategy for reopening schools, the impact of test and trace interventions and the risk of occurrence of a second COVID-19 epidemic wave in the UK: a modelling study  

BACKGROUND: As lockdown measures to slow the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection begin to ease in the UK, it is important to assess the impact of any changes in policy, including school reopening and broader relaxation of physical distancing measures. We aimed to use an individual-based model to predict the impact of two possible strategies for reopening schools to all students in the UK from September, 2020, in combination with different assumptions about relaxation of physical distancing measures and the scale-up of testing. METHODS: In this modelling study, we used Covasim, a stochastic individual-based model for transmission of SARS-CoV-2, calibrated to the UK epidemic. The model describes individuals' contact networks stratified into household, school, workplace, and community layers, and uses demographic and epidemiological data from the UK. We simulated six different scenarios, representing the combination of two school reopening strategies (full time and a part-time rota system with 50% of students attending school on alternate weeks) and three testing scenarios (68% contact tracing with no scale-up in testing, 68% contact tracing with sufficient testing to avoid a second COVID-19 wave, and 40% contact tracing with sufficient testing to avoid a second COVID-19 wave). We estimated the number of new infections, cases, and deaths, as well as the effective reproduction number (R) under different strategies. In a sensitivity analysis to account for uncertainties within the stochastic simulation, we also simulated infectiousness of children and young adults aged younger than 20 years at 50% relative to older ages (20 years and older). FINDINGS: With increased levels of testing (between 59% and 87% of symptomatic people tested at some point during an active SARS-CoV-2 infection, depending on the scenario), and effective contact tracing and isolation, an epidemic rebound might be prevented. Assuming 68% of contacts could be traced, we estimate that 75% of individuals with symptomatic infection would need to be tested and positive cases isolated if schools return full-time in September, or 65% if a part-time rota system were used. If only 40% of contacts could be traced, these figures would increase to 87% and 75%, respectively. However, without these levels of testing and contact tracing, reopening of schools together with gradual relaxing of the lockdown measures are likely to induce a second wave that would peak in December, 2020, if schools open full-time in September, and in February, 2021, if a part-time rota system were adopted. In either case, the second wave would result in R rising above 1 and a resulting second wave of infections 2·0–2·3 times the size of the original COVID-19 wave. When infectiousness of children and young adults was varied from 100% to 50% of that of older ages, we still found that a comprehensive and effective test–trace–isolate strategy would be required to avoid a second COVID-19 wave. INTERPRETATION: To prevent a second COVID-19 wave, relaxation of physical distancing, including reopening of schools, in the UK must be accompanied by large-scale, population-wide testing of symptomatic individuals and effective tracing of their contacts, followed by isolation of diagnosed individuals. FUNDING: None.

Lancet Child Adolesc Health2020       LitCov and CORD-19
234Mental Healthcare in French correctional facilities during the Covid-19 pandemic  

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

Encephale2020       LitCov and CORD-19
235A Glycosylated RBD Protein Induces Enhanced Neutralizing Antibodies against Omicron and Other Variants with Improved Protection against SARS-CoV-2 Infection  


J Virol2022       LitCov
236Stressors faced by healthcare professionals and coping strategies during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany  

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has exerted great pressure on national health systems, which have aimed to ensure comprehensive healthcare at all times. Healthcare professionals working with COVID-19 patients are on the frontline and thereby confronted with enormous demands. Although early reports exist on the psychological impact of the pandemic on frontline medical staff working in Asia, little is known about its impact on healthcare professionals in other countries and across various work sectors. The present cross-sectional, online survey sought to investigate common work stressors among healthcare professionals, their psychological stress as well as coping resources during the pandemic. METHODS: A sample of 575 healthcare professionals (57% male) in three different sectors (hospital, prehospital emergency care, and outpatient service) reported their experiences concerning work and private stressors, psychological stress, and coping strategies between April 17, 2020 and June 5, 2020. To capture pandemic-specific answers, most of the items were adapted or newly developed. Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were conducted to detect underlying latent factors relating to COVID-specific work stressors. In a next step, the effects of these latent stressors across various work sectors on psychological stress (perceived stress, fatigue, and mood) were examined by means of structural equation models (SEM). To add lived experience to the findings, responses to open-ended questions about healthcare professionals’ stressors, effective crisis measures and prevention, and individual coping strategies were coded inductively, and emergent themes were identified. RESULTS: The EFA revealed that the examined work stressors can be grouped into four latent factors: “fear of transmission”, “interference of workload with private life”, “uncertainty/lack of knowledge”, and “concerns about the team”. The SEM results showed that “interference of workload with private life” represented the pivotal predictor of psychological stress. “Concerns about the team” had stress-reducing effects. The latent stressors had an equal effect on psychological stress across work sectors. On average, psychological stress levels were moderate, yet differed significantly between sectors (all p < .001); the outpatient group experienced reduced calmness and more stress than the other two sectors, while the prehospital group reported lower fatigue than the other two sectors. The prehospital group reported significantly higher concerns about the team than the hospital group (p < .001). In their reports, healthcare professionals highlighted regulations such as social distancing and the use of compulsory masks, training, experience and knowledge exchange, and social support as effective coping strategies during the pandemic. The hospital group mainly mentioned organizational measures such as visiting bans as effective crisis measures, whereas the prehospital sector most frequently named governmental measures such as contact restrictions. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated the need for sector-specific crisis measures to effectively address the specific work stressors faced by the outpatient sector in particular. The results on pandemic-specific work stressors reveal that healthcare professionals might benefit from coping strategies that facilitate the utilization of social support. At the workplace, team commitment and knowledge exchange might buffer against adverse psychological stress responses. Schedules during pandemics should give healthcare workers the opportunity to interact with families and friends in ways that facilitate social support outside work. Future studies should investigate cross-sector stressors using a longitudinal design to identify both sector- and time-specific measures. Ultimately, an international comparison of stressors and measures in different sectors of healthcare systems is desirable.

PLoS One2022       LitCov and CORD-19
237Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries  


CA Cancer J Clin2021       CORD-19
238Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome by SARS-CoV-2 Infection or Other Etiologic Agents Among Brazilian Indigenous Population: An Observational Study from the First Year of Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 Pandemic  

BACKGROUND: Indigenous peoples are vulnerable to pandemics, including to the coronavirus disease (COVID)-19, since it causes high mortality and specially, the loss of elderly Indigenous individuals. METHODS: The epidemiological data of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) by SARS-CoV-2 infection or other etiologic agents (OEA) among Brazilian Indigenous peoples during the first year of COVID-19 pandemic was obtained from a Brazilian Ministry of Health open-access database to perform an observational study. Considering only Indigenous individuals diagnosed with SARS by COVID-19, the epidemiology data were also evaluated as risk of death. The type of sample collection for virus screening, demographic profile, clinical symptoms, comorbidities, and clinical evolution were evaluated. The primary outcome was considered the death in the Brazilian Indigenous individuals and the secondary outcome, the characteristics of Brazilian Indigenous infected by SARS-CoV-2 or OEA, as the need for intensive care unit admission or the need for mechanical ventilation support. The statistical analysis was done using Logistic Regression Model. Alpha of 0.05. FINDINGS: A total of 3,122 cases of Indigenous individuals with SARS in Brazil were reported during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of these, 1,994 were diagnosed with COVID-19 and 730/1,816 (40.2%) of them died. The death rate among individuals with SARS-CoV-2 was three-fold increased when compared to the group of individuals with OEA. Several symptoms (myalgia, loss of smell, and sore throat) and comorbidities (cardiopathy, systemic arterial hypertension, and diabetes mellitus) were more prevalent in the COVID-19 group when compared to Indigenous individuals with OEA. Similar profile was observed considering the risk of death among the Indigenous individuals with COVID-19 who presented several symptoms (oxygen saturation <95%, dyspnea, and respiratory distress) and comorbidities (renal disorders, cardiopathy, and diabetes mellitus). The multivariate analysis was significant in differentiating between the COVID-19-positive and non-COVID-19 patients [X(2)((7))=65.187; P-value<0.001]. Among the patients’ features, the following contributed in relation to the diagnosis of COVID-19: age [≥43 years-old [y.o.]; OR=1.984 (95%CI=1.480-2.658)]; loss of smell [OR=2.373 (95%CI=1.461-3.854)]; presence of previous respiratory disorders [OR=0.487; 95%CI=0.287-0.824)]; and fever [OR=1.445 (95%CI=1.082-1.929)]. Also, the multivariate analysis was able to predict the risk of death [X(2)((9))=293.694; P-value<0.001]. Among the patients’ features, the following contributed in relation to the risk of death: male gender [OR=1.507 (95%CI=1.010-2.250)]; age [≥60 y.o.; OR=3.377 (95%CI=2.292-4.974)]; the need for ventilatory support [invasive mechanical ventilation; OR=24.050 (95%CI=12.584-45.962) and non-invasive mechanical ventilation; OR=2.249 (95%CI=1.378-3.671)]; dyspnea [OR=2.053 (95%CI=1.196-3.522)]; oxygen saturation <95% [OR=1.691 (95%CI=1.050-2.723)]; myalgia [OR=0.423 (95%CI=0.191-0.937)]; and the presence of kidney disorders [OR=3.135 (95%CI=1.144-8.539)]. INTERPRETATION: The Brazilian Indigenous peoples are in a vulnerable situation during the COVID-19 pandemic and presented an increased risk of death due to COVID-19. Several factors were associated with enhanced risk of death, as male sex, older age (≥60 y.o.), and need for ventilatory support; also, other factors might help to differentiate SARS by COVID-19 or by OEA, as older age (≥43 y.o.), loss of smell, and fever. FUNDING: Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (Foundation for Research Support of the State of São Paulo; #2021/05810-7).

Lancet Reg Health Am2022       LitCov and CORD-19
239Risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a multiethnic cohort of United Kingdom healthcare workers (UK-REACH): A cross-sectional analysis  


PLoS Med2022       LitCov and CORD-19
240Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant  

BACKGROUND: The B.1.617.2 (delta) variant of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), has contributed to a surge in cases in India and has now been detected across the globe, including a notable increase in cases in the United Kingdom. The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines against this variant has been unclear. METHODS: We used a test-negative case–control design to estimate the effectiveness of vaccination against symptomatic disease caused by the delta variant or the predominant strain (B.1.1.7, or alpha variant) over the period that the delta variant began circulating. Variants were identified with the use of sequencing and on the basis of the spike (S) gene status. Data on all symptomatic sequenced cases of Covid-19 in England were used to estimate the proportion of cases with either variant according to the patients’ vaccination status. RESULTS: Effectiveness after one dose of vaccine (BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) was notably lower among persons with the delta variant (30.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 25.2 to 35.7) than among those with the alpha variant (48.7%; 95% CI, 45.5 to 51.7); the results were similar for both vaccines. With the BNT162b2 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 93.7% (95% CI, 91.6 to 95.3) among persons with the alpha variant and 88.0% (95% CI, 85.3 to 90.1) among those with the delta variant. With the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 74.5% (95% CI, 68.4 to 79.4) among persons with the alpha variant and 67.0% (95% CI, 61.3 to 71.8) among those with the delta variant. CONCLUSIONS: Only modest differences in vaccine effectiveness were noted with the delta variant as compared with the alpha variant after the receipt of two vaccine doses. Absolute differences in vaccine effectiveness were more marked after the receipt of the first dose. This finding would support efforts to maximize vaccine uptake with two doses among vulnerable populations. (Funded by Public Health England.)

N Engl J Med2021       LitCov and CORD-19
241Authors' response: Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany: potential for bias  


Scand J Work Environ Health2022       LitCov
242Distance learning in clinical medical education amid COVID-19 pandemic in Jordan: current situation, challenges and perspectives  

BACKGROUND: As COVID-19 has been declared as a pandemic disease by the WHO on March 11th, 2020, the global incidence of COVID-19 disease increased dramatically. In response to the COVID-19 situation, Jordan announced the emergency state on the 19th of March, followed by the curfew on 21 March. All educational institutions have been closed as well as educational activities including clinical medical education have been suspended on the 15th of March. As a result, Distance E-learning emerged as a new method of teaching to maintain the continuity of medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic related closure of educational institutions. Distance E-Learning is defined as using computer technology to deliver training, including technology-supported learning either online, offline, or both. Before this period, distance learning was not considered in Jordanian universities as a modality for education. This study aims to explore the situation of distance E-learning among medical students during their clinical years and to identify possible challenges, limitations, satisfaction as well as perspectives for this approach to learning. METHODS: This cross-sectional study is based on a questionnaire that was designed and delivered to medical students in their clinical years. For this study, the estimated sample size (n = 588) is derived from the online Raosoft sample size calculator. RESULTS: A total of 652 students have completed the questionnaire, among them, 538 students (82.5%) have participated in distance learning in their medical schools amid COVID-19 pandemic. The overall satisfaction rate in medical distance learning was 26.8%, and it was significantly higher in students with previous experience in distance learning in their medical schools as well as when instructors were actively participating in learning sessions, using multimedia and devoting adequate time for their sessions. The delivery of educational material using synchronous live streaming sessions represented the major modality of teaching and Internet streaming quality and coverage was the main challenge that was reported by 69.1% of students. CONCLUSION: With advances in technologies and social media, distance learning is a new and rapidly growing approach for undergraduate, postgraduate, and health care providers. It may represent an optimal solution to maintain learning processes in exceptional and emergency situations such as COVID-19 pandemic. Technical and infrastructural resources reported as a major challenge for implementing distance learning, so understanding technological, financial, institutional, educators, and student barriers are essential for the successful implementation of distance learning in medical education.

BMC Med Educ2020       LitCov and CORD-19
243A high rate of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a large-scale survey on Arabs  

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy can limit the benefits of available vaccines in halting the spread of COVID-19 pandemic. Previously published studies paid little attention to Arab countries, which has a population of over 440 million. In this study, we present the results of the first large-scale multinational study that measures vaccine hesitancy among Arab-speaking subjects. METHODS: An online survey in Arabic was conducted from 14 January 2021 to 29 January 2021. It consisted of 17 questions capturing demographic data, acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine, attitudes toward the need for COVID-19 vaccination and associated health policies, and reasons for vaccination hesitancy. R software v.4.0.2 was used for data analysis and visualization. RESULTS: The survey recruited 36,220 eligible participants (61.1% males, 38.9% females, mean age 32.6 ± 10.8 years) from all the 23 Arab countries and territories (83.4%) and 122 other countries (16.6%). Our analysis shows a significant rate of vaccine hesitancy among Arabs in and outside the Arab region (83% and 81%, respectively). The most cited reasons for hesitancy are concerns about side effects and distrust in health care policies, vaccine expedited production, published studies and vaccine producing companies. We also found that female participants, those who are 30–59 years old, those with no chronic diseases, those with lower level of academic education, and those who do not know the type of vaccine authorized in their countries are more hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccination. On the other hand, participants who regularly receive the influenza vaccine, health care workers, and those from countries with higher rates of COVID-19 infections showed more vaccination willingness. Interactive representation of our results is posted on our project website at https://mainapp.shinyapps.io/CVHAA. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show higher vaccine hesitancy and refusal among Arab subjects, related mainly to distrust and concerns about side effects. Health authorities and Arab scientific community have to transparently address these concerns to improve vaccine acceptance. FUNDING: This study received no funding.

Elife2021       LitCov and CORD-19
244A novel coronavirus outbreak of global health concern  

Lancet2020       LitCov and CORD-19
245The species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus: classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2  

The present outbreak of a coronavirus-associated acute respiratory disease called coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is the third documented spillover of an animal coronavirus to humans in only two decades that has resulted in a major epidemic. The Coronaviridae Study Group (CSG) of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, which is responsible for developing the classification of viruses and taxon nomenclature of the family Coronaviridae, has assessed the placement of the human pathogen, tentatively named 2019-nCoV, within the Coronaviridae. Based on phylogeny, taxonomy and established practice, the CSG recognizes this virus as forming a sister clade to the prototype human and bat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses (SARS-CoVs) of the species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, and designates it as SARS-CoV-2. In order to facilitate communication, the CSG proposes to use the following naming convention for individual isolates: SARS-CoV-2/host/location/isolate/date. While the full spectrum of clinical manifestations associated with SARS-CoV-2 infections in humans remains to be determined, the independent zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 highlights the need for studying viruses at the species level to complement research focused on individual pathogenic viruses of immediate significance. This will improve our understanding of virus–host interactions in an ever-changing environment and enhance our preparedness for future outbreaks.

Nat Microbiol2020       LitCov and CORD-19
246Inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 viral entry upon blocking N- and O-glycan elaboration  

The Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, its receptor-binding domain (RBD), and its primary receptor ACE2 are extensively glycosylated. The impact of this post-translational modification on viral entry is yet unestablished. We expressed different glycoforms of the Spike-protein and ACE2 in CRISPR-Cas9 glycoengineered cells, and developed corresponding SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus. We observed that N- and O-glycans had only minor contribution to Spike-ACE2 binding. However, these carbohydrates played a major role in regulating viral entry. Blocking N-glycan biosynthesis at the oligomannose stage using both genetic approaches and the small molecule kifunensine dramatically reduced viral entry into ACE2 expressing HEK293T cells. Blocking O-glycan elaboration also partially blocked viral entry. Mechanistic studies suggest multiple roles for glycans during viral entry. Among them, inhibition of N-glycan biosynthesis enhanced Spike-protein proteolysis. This could reduce RBD presentation on virus, lowering binding to host ACE2 and decreasing viral entry. Overall, chemical inhibitors of glycosylation may be evaluated for COVID-19.

Elife2020       LitCov and CORD-19
247Clinical characteristics of 116 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study  

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

BMC Infect Dis2020       LitCov and CORD-19
248Prevalence and Related Factors of Depression, Anxiety, Acute Stress and Insomnia Symptoms Among Medical Staffs Experiencing the Second Wave of COVID-19 Pandemic in Xinjiang, China  

The prevalence and related factors of mental health impact among medical staffs who experienced the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in China is unknown. Therefore, this survey was conducted to investigate the prevalence and related factors of depressive, anxiety, acute stress, and insomnia symptoms in medical staffs in Kashi, Xinjiang, China during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among medical staffs working in First People's Hospital of Kashi, Xinjiang. The questionnaire collected demographic data and self-design questions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Impact of Events Scale-6, the Insomnia Severity Index, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7, the Perceived Social Support Scale, the Chinese Big Five Personality Inventory-15, and the Trait Coping Style Questionnaire were used to measure psychological symptoms or characteristics. Binary logistic regression was carried out to examine the associations between socio-demographic factors and symptoms of depression, anxiety, stress, and insomnia. In total, data from 123 participants were finally included, among which the prevalence rate of depressive, anxiety, acute stress, and insomnia symptoms is 60.2, 49.6, 43.1, and 41.1%, respectively. The regression model revealed that minority ethnicity, being worried about infection, spending more time on following pandemic information, and neurotic personality were positively associated with the mental health symptoms, while extraversion personality, higher education level, and better social support were negatively associated. In our study, the prevalence of mental health impact was high among medical staffs in Kashi, China who experienced the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Several factors were found to be associated with mental health conditions. These findings could help identify medical staffs at risk for mental health problems and be helpful for making precise mental health intervention policies during the resurgence. Our study may pave way for more research into Xinjiang during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Front Public Health2021       LitCov and CORD-19
249Prevalence of Perceived Stress, Anxiety, Depression and Obsessive-Compulsive Symptoms in Healthcare Workers and Other Workers in Alberta During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Survey  

BACKGROUND: During pandemics, effective containment and mitigation measures may also negatively influence psychological stability. As knowledge about COVID-19 rapidly evolves, global implementation of containment and mitigation measures has varied greatly, with impacts to mental wellness. Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health needs of health care workers and other workers may help mitigate mental health impacts and secure sustained delivery of health care and other essential goods and services. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the self-reported prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms in health care workers and other workers seeking support through Text4Hope, an evidence-based SMS text messaging service supporting the mental health of residents of Alberta, Canada, during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey gathered demographic (age, gender, ethnicity, education, relationship, housing and employment status, employment type, and isolation status) and clinical characteristics using validated tools (self-reported stress, anxiety, depression, and contamination/hand hygiene obsessive-compulsive symptoms). Descriptive statistics and chi-square analysis were used to compare the clinical characteristics of health care workers and other workers. Post hoc analysis was conducted on variables with >3 response categories using adjusted residuals. Logistic regression determined associations between worker type and likelihood of self-reported symptoms of moderate or high stress, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder, while controlling for other variables. RESULTS: Overall, 8267 surveys were submitted by 44,992 Text4Hope subscribers (19.39%). Of these, 5990 respondents were employed (72.5%), 958 (11.6%) were unemployed, 454 (5.5%) were students, 559 (6.8%) were retired, 234 (2.8%) selected “other,” and 72 (0.9%) did not indicate their employment status. Most employed survey respondents were female (n=4621, 86.2%). In the general sample, the 6-week prevalence rates for moderate or high stress, anxiety, and depression symptoms were 85.6%, 47.0%, and 44.0%, respectively. Self-reported symptoms of moderate or high stress, anxiety, and depression were all statistically significantly higher in other workers than in health care workers (P<.001). Other workers reported higher obsessive-compulsive symptoms (worry about contamination and compulsive handwashing behavior) after the onset of the pandemic (P<.001), while health care worker symptoms were statistically significantly higher before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (P<.001). This finding should be interpreted with caution, as it is unclear the extent to which the adaptive behavior of health care workers or the other workers might be misclassified by validated tools during a pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing symptoms of prevalent stress, anxiety, depression, and obsessive-compulsive behavior in health care workers and other workers may enhance our understanding of COVID-19 mental health needs. Research is needed to understand more fully the relationship between worker type, outbreak phase, and mental health changes over time, as well as the utility of validated tools in health care workers and other workers during pandemics. Our findings underscore the importance of anticipating and mitigating the mental health effects of pandemics using integrated implementation strategies. Finally, we demonstrate the ease of safely and rapidly assessing mental health needs using an SMS text messaging platform during a pandemic. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/19292

JMIR Ment Health2020       LitCov and CORD-19
250Social Media Insights Into US Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Longitudinal Analysis of Twitter Data  

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented mitigation efforts that disrupted the daily lives of millions. Beyond the general health repercussions of the pandemic itself, these measures also present a challenge to the world’s mental health and health care systems. Considering that traditional survey methods are time-consuming and expensive, we need timely and proactive data sources to respond to the rapidly evolving effects of health policy on our population’s mental health. Many people in the United States now use social media platforms such as Twitter to express the most minute details of their daily lives and social relations. This behavior is expected to increase during the COVID-19 pandemic, rendering social media data a rich field to understand personal well-being. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to answer three research questions: (1) What themes emerge from a corpus of US tweets about COVID-19? (2) To what extent did social media use increase during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic? and (3) Does sentiment change in response to the COVID-19 pandemic? METHODS: We analyzed 86,581,237 public domain English language US tweets collected from an open-access public repository in three steps. First, we characterized the evolution of hashtags over time using latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) topic modeling. Second, we increased the granularity of this analysis by downloading Twitter timelines of a large cohort of individuals (n=354,738) in 20 major US cities to assess changes in social media use. Finally, using this timeline data, we examined collective shifts in public mood in relation to evolving pandemic news cycles by analyzing the average daily sentiment of all timeline tweets with the Valence Aware Dictionary and Sentiment Reasoner (VADER) tool. RESULTS: LDA topics generated in the early months of the data set corresponded to major COVID-19–specific events. However, as state and municipal governments began issuing stay-at-home orders, latent themes shifted toward US-related lifestyle changes rather than global pandemic-related events. Social media volume also increased significantly, peaking during stay-at-home mandates. Finally, VADER sentiment analysis scores of user timelines were initially high and stable but decreased significantly, and continuously, by late March. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore the negative effects of the pandemic on overall population sentiment. Increased use rates suggest that, for some, social media may be a coping mechanism to combat feelings of isolation related to long-term social distancing. However, in light of the documented negative effect of heavy social media use on mental health, social media may further exacerbate negative feelings in the long-term for many individuals. Thus, considering the overburdened US mental health care structure, these findings have important implications for ongoing mitigation efforts.

J Med Internet Res2020       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.

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