Risultati per: Identificate le origini evolutive di SARS-CoV-2

A Swedish study didn’t yield convincing evidence.

Introduction
People in need of care or support are severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We lack valid data of long-term assessments. We present a register study to detect the physical and psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people in need of care or support in Bavaria, Germany. To describe the persons’ life conditions comprehensively, we assess the perspectives and needs of the respective care teams too. Results will serve as evidence-based source to manage the pandemic and long-term prevention strategies.

Methods and analysis
The ‘Bavarian ambulatory COVID-19 Monitor’ is a multicentre registry including a purposive sample of up to 1000 patient–participants across three study sites in Bavaria. The study group consists of 600 people in need of care with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Control group 1 comprises 200 people in need of care with a negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, while control group 2 comprises 200 people with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test but are not in need of care. We assess the clinical course of infection, psychosocial aspects and care needs using validated measures. Follow-up is every 6 months for up to 3 years. Additionally, we assess up to 400 people linked to these patient–participants (caregivers, general practitioners (GPs)) for their health and needs. Main analyses are stratified by level of care I–V (I=minor/V=most severe impairment of independence), inpatient/outpatient care setting, sex and age. We use descriptive and inferential statistics to analyse cross-sectional data and changes over time. In qualitative interviews with 60 stakeholders (people in need of care, caregivers, GPs, politicians), we explore interface problems of different functional logics, of everyday and professional perspectives.

Ethics and dissemination
The Institutional Review Board of the University Hospital LMU Munich (#20-860) and the study sites (Universities of Wurzburg and Erlangen) approved the protocol. We disseminate the results by peer-reviewed publications, international conferences, governmental reports, etc.

Annals of Internal Medicine, Ahead of Print.

Bollipo et al1 presented recommendations for SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with chronic liver diseases (CLDs). Since their publication, at least three SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations are recommended for all persons regardless of comorbidities.2 Cancer and CLD are associated with impaired immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.3–6 However, patients with GI cancer, especially with hepatobilary carcinoma (HBC), are under-represented in published studies. In this prospective, longitudinal study, 120 patients with GI cancer, including 32.5% HBC, participated (table 1). Patients under anticancer therapy were analysed compared with patients with GI cancer in follow-up care (≥1 year off anticancer therapy). We present profound data on humoral response rates (SARS-CoV-2 antispike and surrogate neutralisation antibodies (sNAB) using SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (Abbott Laboratories) and cPass SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Antibody Detection Kit (GenScript), respectively). Of note, the ELISA analysing levels of sNAB…

We recently published in Gut to show that gut dysbiosis persisted for at least 6 months in patients with post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS).1 Murine and human studies have also reported microbial alterations associated with different PACS symptoms.2 3 With the pandemic entering its third year, PACS could potentially affect recovered individuals for over 1 year.4 It remains unknown whether PACS-associated gut dysbiosis would also linger for such a long time. Here, we conducted a prospective study to determine long-term alterations in the gut microbiome of patients with COVID-19 using shotgun metagenomic sequencing (). A total of 155 patients with COVID-19 in Hong Kong were followed up for an average of 14 months after SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance, and 155 age-matched, sex-matched and body mass index-matched subjects without COVID-19 were recruited as controls. Patients with COVID-19 were infected with the original or earlier variants…

Objectives
To validate a rapid serological test (RST) for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies used in seroprevalence studies in healthcare providers, including primary healthcare providers (PHCPs) in Belgium.

Design
A phase III validation study of the RST (OrientGene) within a prospective cohort study.

Setting
Primary care in Belgium.

Participants
Any general practitioner (GP) working in primary care in Belgium and any other PHCP from the same GP practice who physically manages patients were eligible in the seroprevalence study. For the validation study, all participants who tested positive (376) on the RST at the first testing timepoint (T1) and a random sample of those who tested negative (790) and unclear (24) were included.

Intervention
At T2, 4 weeks later, PHCPs performed the RST with fingerprick blood (index test) immediately after providing a serum sample to be analysed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies using a two-out-of-three assay (reference test).

Primary and secondary outcome measures
The RST accuracy was estimated using inverse probability weighting to correct for missing reference test data, and considering unclear RST results as negative for the sensitivity and positive for the specificity. Using these conservative estimates, the true seroprevalence was estimated both for T2 and RST-based prevalence values found in a cohort study with PHCPs in Belgium.

Results
1073 paired tests (403 positive on the reference test) were included. A sensitivity of 73% (a specificity of 92%) was found considering unclear RST results as negative (positive). For an RST-based prevalence at T1 (13.9), T2 (24.9) and T7 (70.21), the true prevalence was estimated to be 9.1%, 25.9% and 95.7%, respectively.

Conclusion
The RST sensitivity (73%) and specificity (92%) make an RST-based seroprevalence below (above) 23% overestimate (underestimate) the true seroprevalence.

Trial registration number
NCT04779424.

Objectives
Reverse transcriptase PCR is the most sensitive test for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. However, the scale-up of these tests in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been limited due to infrastructure and cost. Antigen rapid diagnostic tests are an alternative option for diagnosing active infection that may allow for faster, easier, less expensive and more widespread testing. We compared the implementation of antigen and PCR testing programmes in Rwanda.

Design
We retrospectively reviewed routinely collected PCR and antigen testing data for all reported tests conducted nationally. We administered semiquantitative surveys to healthcare workers (HCWs) involved in COVID-19 testing and care and clients receiving antigen testing.

Setting
Rwanda, November 2020–July 2021.

Participants
National SARS-CoV-2 testing data; 49 HCWs involved in COVID-19 testing and care; 145 clients receiving antigen testing.

Interventions
None (retrospective analysis of programme data).

Primary and secondary outcome measures
Test volumes, turnaround times, feasibility and acceptability of antigen testing.

Results
Data from 906 204 antigen tests and 445 235 PCR tests were included. Antigen testing increased test availability and case identification compared with PCR and had a median results return time of 0 days (IQR: 0–0). In contrast, PCR testing time ranged from 1 to 18 days depending on the sample collection site/district. Both HCWs and clients indicated that antigen testing was feasible and acceptable. Some HCWs identified stockouts and limited healthcare staff as challenges.

Conclusions
Antigen testing facilitated rapid expansion and decentralisation of SARS-CoV-2 testing across lower tier facilities in Rwanda, contributed to increased case identification, reduced test processing times, and was determined to be feasible and acceptable to clients and providers. Antigen testing will be an essential component of SARS-CoV-2 test and treat programmes in LMICs.

Objectives
In low-income settings with limited access to diagnosis, COVID-19 information is scarce. In September 2020, after the first COVID-19 wave, Mali reported 3086 confirmed cases and 130 deaths. Most reports originated from Bamako, with 1532 cases and 81 deaths (2.42 million inhabitants). This observed prevalence of 0.06% appeared very low. Our objective was to estimate SARS-CoV-2 infection among inhabitants of Bamako, after the first epidemic wave. We assessed demographic, social and living conditions, health behaviours and knowledges associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity.

Settings
We conducted a cross-sectional multistage household survey during September 2020, in three neighbourhoods of the commune VI (Bamako), where 30% of the cases were reported.

Participants
We recruited 1526 inhabitants in 3 areas, that is, 306 households, and 1327 serological results (≥1 years), 220 household questionnaires and collected answers for 962 participants (≥12 years).

Primary and secondary outcome measures
We measured serological status, detecting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies in blood sampled. We documented housing conditions and individual health behaviours through questionnaires among participants. We estimated the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths in the population of Bamako using the age and sex distributions.

Results
The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was 16.4% (95% CI 15.1% to 19.1%) after adjusting on the population structure. This suggested that ~400 000 cases and ~2000 deaths could have occurred of which only 0.4% of cases and 5% of deaths were officially reported. Questionnaires analyses suggested strong agreement with washing hands but lower acceptability of movement restrictions (lockdown/curfew), and mask wearing.

Conclusions
The first wave of SARS-CoV-2 spread broadly in Bamako. Expected fatalities remained limited largely due to the population age structure and the low prevalence of comorbidities. Improving diagnostic capacities to encourage testing and preventive behaviours, and avoiding the spread of false information remain key pillars, regardless of the developed or developing setting.

Ethics
This study was registered in the registry of the ethics committee of the Faculty of Medicine and Odonto-Stomatology and the Faculty of Pharmacy, Bamako, Mali, under the number: 2020/162/CA/FMOS/FAPH.

Introduction
The sequelae of COVID-19 have been described as a multisystemic condition, with a great impact on the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems with abnormalities in pulmonary function tests, such as lower diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLco) levels and pathological patterns in spirometry; persistence of radiological lesions; cardiac involvement such as myocarditis and pericarditis; and an increase in mental disorders such as anxiety and depression. Several factors, such as infection severity during the acute phase as well as vaccination status, have shown some variable effects on these post-COVID-19 conditions, mainly at a clinical level such as symptoms persistence. Longitudinal assessments and reversibility of changes across the spectrum of disease severity are required to understand the long-term impact of COVID-19.

Methods and analysis
A prospective cohort study aims to assess the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on cardiopulmonary function and quality of life after the acute phase of the disease over a 6-month follow-up period. Sample size was calculated to recruit 200 participants with confirmatory COVID-19 tests who will be subsequently classified according to infection severity. Four follow-up visits at baseline, month 1, month 3 and month 6 after discharge from the acute phase of the infection will be scheduled as well as procedures such as spirometry, DLco test, 6-minute walk test, chest CT scan, echocardiogram, ECG, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide measurement and RAND-36 scale. Primary outcomes are defined as abnormal pulmonary function test considered as DLco

Introduction
Inactivated, viral vector and mRNA vaccines have been used in the Nepali COVID-19 vaccination programme but there is little evidence on the effectiveness of these vaccines in this setting. The aim of this study is to describe COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness in Nepal and provide information on infections with SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Methods and analysis
This is a hospital-based, prospective test-negative case–control study conducted at Patan Hospital, Kathmandu. All patients >18 years of age presenting to Patan Hospital with COVID-19-like symptoms who have received a COVID-19 antigen/PCR test are eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome is vaccine effectiveness of licensed COVID-19 vaccines against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 disease.
After enrolment, information will be collected on vaccine status, date of vaccination, type of vaccine, demographics and other medical comorbidities. The primary outcome of interest is laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Cases (positive for SARS-CoV-2) and controls (negative for SARS-CoV-2) will be enrolled in a 1:4 ratio. Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 disease will be analysed by comparing vaccination status with SARS-CoV-2 test results.
Positive SARS-CoV-2 samples will be sequenced to identify circulating variants and estimate vaccine effectiveness against common variants.
Measuring vaccine effectiveness and identifying SARS-CoV-2 variants in Nepal will help to inform public health efforts. Describing disease severity in relation to specific SARS-CoV-2 variants and vaccine status will also inform future prevention and care efforts.

Ethics and dissemination
Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Oxford Tropical Ethics Committee (OxTREC) (ref: 561-21) and the Patan Academy of Health Sciences Institutional Review Board (ref: drs2111121578). The protocol and supporting study documents were approved for use by the Nepal Health Research Council (NHRC 550-2021). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and to the public health authorities in Nepal.

Annals of Internal Medicine, Ahead of Print.

Memory CD4 T cells generated after infection with OC43, a common cold coronavirus, also exhibited an immune response against SARS-CoV-2 in early childhood, according to results from 2- and 6-year-old children and adults who did not have antibodies against the novel coronavirus and from a group of adults who had recovered from COVID-19. By age 2 years, many children had antibodies against OC43; by age 6, the reactivity of the CD4 T cells had peaked and then declined in adulthood.

Introduction
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic remains a threat to public health. Soon after its outbreak, it became apparent that children are less severely affected. Indeed, opposing clinical manifestations between children and adults are observed for other infections. The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak provides the unique opportunity to study the underlying mechanisms. This protocol describes the methods of an observational study that aims to characterise age dependent differences in immune responses to primary respiratory infections using SARS-CoV-2 as a model virus and to assess age differences in clinical outcomes including lung function.

Methods and analysis
The study aims to recruit at least 120 children and 60 adults that are infected with SARS-CoV-2 and collect specimen for a multiomics analysis, including single cell RNA sequencing of nasal epithelial cells and peripheral blood mononuclear cells, mass cytometry of whole blood samples and nasal cells, mass spectrometry-based serum and plasma proteomics, nasal epithelial cultures with functional in vitro analyses, SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing, sequencing of the viral genome and lung function testing. Data obtained from this multiomics approach are correlated with medical history and clinical data. Recruitment started in October 2020 and is ongoing.

Ethics and dissemination
The study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (EA2/066/20). All collected specimens are stored in the central biobank of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin and are made available to all participating researchers and on request.

Trial registration number
DRKS00025715, pre-results publication.

Objectives
To identify incident SARS-CoV-2 infections and inform effective mitigation strategies in university settings, we piloted an integrated symptom and exposure monitoring and testing system among a cohort of university students and employees.

Design
Prospective cohort study.

Setting
A public university in California from June to August 2020.

Participants
2180 university students and 738 university employees.

Primary outcome measures
At baseline and endline, we tested participants for active SARS-CoV-2 infection via quantitative PCR (qPCR) test and collected blood samples for antibody testing. Participants received notifications to complete additional qPCR tests throughout the study if they reported symptoms or exposures in daily surveys or were selected for surveillance testing. Viral whole genome sequencing was performed on positive qPCR samples, and phylogenetic trees were constructed with these genomes and external genomes.

Results
Over the study period, 57 students (2.6%) and 3 employees (0.4%) were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection via qPCR test. Phylogenetic analyses revealed that a super-spreader event among undergraduates in congregate housing accounted for at least 48% of cases among study participants but did not spread beyond campus. Test positivity was higher among participants who self-reported symptoms (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 12.7; 95% CI 7.4 to 21.8) or had household exposures (IRR 10.3; 95% CI 4.8 to 22.0) that triggered notifications to test. Most (91%) participants with newly identified antibodies at endline had been diagnosed with incident infection via qPCR test during the study.

Conclusions
Our findings suggest that integrated monitoring systems can successfully identify and link at-risk students to SARS-CoV-2 testing. As the study took place before the evolution of highly transmissible variants and widespread availability of vaccines and rapid antigen tests, further research is necessary to adapt and evaluate similar systems in the present context.

Objectives
We evaluated the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC).

Design and setting
A retrospective cohort study using a COVID-19 specific, electronic medical record-based surveillance and outcomes registry from an eight-hospital tertiary hospital system in the Houston metropolitan area. Analyses were replicated across a global research network database.

Participants
We identified adult (≥18) patients with PASC. PASC was defined as experiencing constitutional (palpitations, malaise/fatigue, headache) or systemic (sleep disorder, shortness of breath, mood/anxiety disorders, cough and cognitive impairment) symptoms beyond the 28-day postinfection period.

Statistical analysis
We fit multivariable logistic regression models and report estimated likelihood of PASC associated with vaccination or mAb treatment as adjusted ORs with 95% CIs.

Results
Primary analyses included 53 239 subjects (54.9% female), of whom 5929, 11.1% (95% CI 10.9% to 11.4%), experienced PASC. Both vaccinated breakthrough cases (vs unvaccinated) and mAb-treated patients (vs untreated) had lower likelihoods for developing PASC, aOR (95% CI): 0.58 (0.52–0.66), and 0.77 (0.69–0.86), respectively. Vaccination was associated with decreased odds of developing all constitutional and systemic symptoms except for taste and smell changes. For all symptoms, vaccination was associated with lower likelihood of experiencing PASC compared with mAb treatment. Replication analysis found identical frequency of PASC (11.2%, 95% CI 11.1 to 11.3) and similar protective effects against PASC for the COVID-19 vaccine: 0.25 (0.21–0.30) and mAb treatment: 0.62 (0.59–0.66).

Conclusion
Although both COVID-19 vaccines and mAbs decreased the likelihood of PASC, vaccination remains the most effective tool for the prevention of long-term consequences of COVID-19.

Stroke, Ahead of Print. BACKGROUND:Whether the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines may cause a transient increased stroke risk is uncertain.METHODS:In a registry-based cohort of all adult residents at December 27, 2020, in Norway, we linked individual-level data on COVID-19 vaccination, positive SARS-CoV-2 test, hospital admissions, cause of death, health care worker status, and nursing home resident status extracted from the Emergency Preparedness Register for COVID-19 in Norway. The cohort was followed for incident intracerebral bleeding, ischemic stroke, and subarachnoid hemorrhage within the first 28 days after the first/second or third dose of mRNA vaccination until January 24, 2022. Stroke risk after vaccination relative to time not exposed to vaccination was assessed by Cox proportional hazard ratio, adjusted for age, sex, risk groups, health care personnel, and nursing home resident.RESULTS:The cohort included 4 139 888 people, 49.8% women, and 6.7% were ≥80 years of age. During the first 28 days after an mRNA vaccine, 2104 people experienced a stroke (82% ischemic stroke, 13% intracerebral hemorrhage, and 5% subarachnoid hemorrhage). Adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) after the first/second and after the third mRNA vaccine doses were 0.92 (0.85–1.00) and 0.89 (0.73–1.08) for ischemic stroke, 0.81 (0.67–0.98) and 1.05 (0.64–1.71) for intracerebral hemorrhage, and 0.64 (0.46–0.87) and 1.12 (0.57–2.19) for subarachnoid hemorrhage, respectively.CONCLUSIONS:We did not find increased risk of stroke during the first 28 days after an mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.