Risultati per: Long COVID: principali risultati, meccanismi e raccomandazioni

Objective
To examine the association between financial incentives from entry into a vaccine competition with the probability of vaccination for COVID-19.

Design
A cross-sectional study with adjustment for covariates using logistic regression.

Setting
October and November 2021, Australia.

Participants
2375 respondents of the Taking the Pulse of the Nation survey.

Primary and secondary outcome measures
The proportion of respondents who had any vaccination, a first dose only, or second dose after the competition opened.

Results
Those who entered the competition were 2.27 (95% CI 1.73 to 2.99) times more likely to be vaccinated after the competition opened on 1 October than those who did not enter—an increase in the probability of having any dose of 0.16 (95 % CI 0.10 to 0.21) percentage points. This increase was mostly driven by those receiving second doses. Entrants were 2.39 (95% CI 1.80 to 3.17) times more likely to receive their second dose after the competition opened.

Conclusions
Those who entered the Million Dollar Vax competition were more likely to have a vaccination after the competition opened compared with those who did not enter the competition, with this effect dominated by those receiving second doses.

Introduction
People experiencing homelessness are at high risk for COVID-19 and poor outcomes if infected. Vaccination offers protection against serious illness, and people experiencing homelessness have been prioritised in the vaccine roll-out in Toronto, Canada. Yet, current COVID-19 vaccination rates among people experiencing homelessness are lower than the general population. This study aims to characterise reasons for COVID-19 vaccine uptake and hesitancy among people experiencing homelessness, to identify strategies to overcome hesitancy and provide public health decision-makers with information to improve vaccine confidence and uptake in this priority population.

Methods and analysis
The Ku-gaa-gii pimitizi-win qualitative study (formerly the COVENANT study) will recruit up to 40 participants in Toronto who are identified as experiencing homelessness at the time of recruitment. Semistructured interviews with participants will explore general experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic (eg, loss of housing, social connectedness), perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine, factors shaping vaccine uptake and strategies for supporting enablers, addressing challenges and building vaccine confidence.

Ethics and dissemination
Approval for this study was granted by Unity Health Toronto Research Ethics Board. Findings will be communicated to groups organising vaccination efforts in shelters, community groups and the City of Toronto to construct more targeted interventions that address reasons for vaccine hesitancy among people experiencing homelessness. Key outputs will include a community report, academic publications, presentations at conferences and a Town Hall that will bring together people with lived expertise of homelessness, shelter staff, leading scholars, community experts and public health partners.

Objectives
Patient lead users can be defined as patients or relatives who use their knowledge and experience to improve their own or a relative’s care situation and/or the healthcare system, and who are active beyond what is usually expected. The objective of this study is to explore patient lead users’ experiences and engagement during the early COVID-19 pandemic.

Design
Qualitative in-depth interviews with a cross-sectional time horizon.

Setting
The early COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden, from 1 June through 14 September, 2020.

Participants
A total of 10 patient lead users were recruited from the Swedish patient lead users (spetspatient) network. All participants were living with different long-term conditions and matched the definition of being patient lead users.

Results
We found that during the early pandemic, patient lead users experienced that they no longer knew how to best manage their own health and care situations. On an individual level, they described an initial lack of knowledge, new routines, including a change in their health and an experience of people without a disease being in the same situation as them, for a while. On a systemic level, they described a fear of imminent unmet-care backlogs and decreased opportunities for sharing patient perspectives in care organisation, but also described increased networking.

Conclusions
Patient lead users can be seen as an emerging community of practice, and as such could be a valuable resource as a complementary communication channel for an improved health system. The health systems were not able to fully acknowledge and engage with the resource of patient lead users during the pandemic.

Objectives
To explore public reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic across diverse ethnic groups.

Design
Remote qualitative interviews and focus groups in English or Punjabi. Data were transcribed and analysed through inductive thematic analysis.

Setting
England and Wales, June to October 2020.

Participants
100 participants from 19 diverse ‘self-identified’ ethnic groups.

Results
Dismay, frustration and altruism were reported across all ethnic groups during the first 6–9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dismay was caused by participants’ reported individual, family and community risks, and loss of support networks. Frustration was caused by reported lack of recognition of the efforts of ethnic minority groups (EMGs), inaction by government to address COVID-19 and inequalities, rule breaking by government advisors, changing government rules around: border controls, personal protective equipment, social distancing, eating out, and perceived poor communication around COVID-19 and the Public Health England COVID-19 disparities report (leading to reported increased racism and social isolation). Altruism was felt by all, in the resilience of National Health Service (NHS) staff and their communities and families pulling together. Data, participants’ suggested actions and the behaviour change wheel informed suggested interventions and policies to help control COVID-19.

Conclusion
To improve trust and compliance future reports or guidance should clearly explain any stated differences in health outcomes by ethnicity or other risk group, including specific messages for these groups and concrete actions to minimise any risks. Messaging should reflect the uncertainty in data or advice and how guidance may change going forward as new evidence becomes available. A contingency plan is needed to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 across all communities including EMGs, the vulnerable and socially disadvantaged individuals, in preparation for any rise in cases and for future pandemics. Equality across ethnicities for healthcare is essential, and the NHS and local communities will need to be supported to attain this.

Background
The minimum clinically effective dose, and whether this is received in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of complex self-management interventions in long-term conditions (LTCs), can be unclear. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist states that dose should be clearly reported to ensure validity and reliable implementation.

Objectives
To identify whether the expected minimum clinically effective dose, and the dose participants received is reported within research articles and if reporting has improved since the TIDieR checklist was published.

Methods
Four databases were systematically searched (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, AMED and CINAHL) to identify published reports between 2008 and 2022 for RCTs investigating complex self-management interventions in LTCs. Data on reporting of dose were extracted and synthesised from the eligible articles.

Results
94 articles covering various LTCs including diabetes, stroke and arthritis were included. Most complex interventions involved behaviour change combined with education and/or exercise. The maximum dose was usually reported (n=90; 97.8%), but the expected minimum clinically effective dose and the dose received were reported in only 28 (30.4%) and 62 (67.4%) articles, respectively. Reporting of the expected minimum clinically effective dose and the dose participants received did not improve following the publication of the TIDieR checklist in 2014.

Conclusions
Interpreting results and implementing effective complex self-management interventions is difficult when researchers’ reporting of dose is not in line with guidelines. If trial findings indicate benefit from the intervention, clear reporting of dose ensures reliable implementation to standard care. If the results are non-significant, detailed reporting enables better interpretation of results, that is, differentiating between poor implementation and lack of effectiveness. This ensures quality of interventions and validity and generalisability of trial findings. Therefore, wider adoption of reporting the TIDieR checklist dose aspects is strongly recommended. Alternatively, customised guidelines for reporting dose in complex self-management interventions could be developed.

PROSPERO registration number
CRD42020180988.

In HIV and ID Observations, Dr. Paul Sax discusses an option for patients who can’t, or won’t, take oral antiretroviral therapy.

Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has a significant spill-over effect on people with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) over the long term, beyond the direct effect of COVID-19 infection. Evaluating changes in health outcomes, health service use and costs can provide evidence to optimise care for people with NCDs during and after the pandemic, and to better prepare outbreak responses in the future.

Methods and analysis
This is a population-based cohort study using electronic health records of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority (HA) CMS, economic modelling and serial cross-sectional surveys on health service use. This study includes people aged ≥18 years who have a documented diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease or chronic kidney disease with at least one attendance at the HA hospital or clinic between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019, and without COVID-19 infection. Changes in all-cause mortality, disease-specific outcomes, and health services use rates and costs will be assessed between pre-COVID-19 and-post-COVID-19 pandemic or during each wave using an interrupted time series analysis. The long-term health economic impact of healthcare disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic will be studied using microsimulation modelling. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression and Poisson/negative binomial regression will be used to evaluate the effect of different modes of supplementary care on health outcomes.

Ethics and dissemination
The study was approved by the institutional review board of the University of Hong Kong, the HA Hong Kong West Cluster (reference number UW 21–297). The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and international conferences.

Objective
To investigate whether Swedish men living with children had elevated risk for severe COVID-19 or infection with SARS-CoV-2 during the first three waves of the pandemic.

Design
Prospective registry-based cohort study.

Participants
1 557 061 Swedish men undergoing military conscription between 1968 and 2005 at a mean age of 18.3 (SD 0.73) years.

Main outcome measures
Infection with SARS-CoV-2 and hospitalisation due to COVID-19 from March 2020 to September 2021.

Results
There was a protective association between preschool children at home and hospitalisation due to COVID-19 during the first and third waves compared with only older or no children at all, with ORs (95% CIs) 0.63 (0.46 to 0.88) and 0.75 (0.68 to 0.94) respectively. No association was observed for living with children 6–12 years old, but for 13–17 years old, the risk increased. Age in 2020 did not explain these associations. Further adjustment for socioeconomic and health factors did not attenuate the results. Exposure to preschool children also had a protective association with testing positive with SARS-CoV-2, with or without hospitalisation, OR=0.91 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.93), while living with children of other ages was associated with increased odds of infection.

Conclusions
Cohabiting with preschool children was associated with reduced risk for severe COVID-19. Living with school-age children between 6 and 12 years had no association with severe COVID-19, but sharing the household with teenagers and young adults was associated with elevated risk. Our results are of special interest since preschools and compulsory schools (age 6–15 years) in Sweden did not close in 2020.

Objectives
The COVID-19 pandemic has influenced people’s concerns regarding infectious diseases and their preventive measures. However, the magnitude of the impact and the difference between countries are unclear. This study aimed to assess the magnitude of the impact of COVID-19 on public interest and people’s behaviours globally in preventing infectious diseases while comparing international trends and sustainability.

Design
An infodemiology and infoveillance study.

Setting
The study employed a web-based data collection to delineate public interest regarding COVID-19 preventive measures using Google Trends.

Primary and secondary outcome measures
A relative search volume was assigned to a keyword, standardising it from 0 to 100, with 100 representing the highest share of the term searches. The search terms “coronavirus”, “wash hand”, “social distancing”, “hand sanitizer” and “mask” were investigated across 196 different countries and regions from July 2018 to October 2021 and weekly reports of the relative search volume were obtained. Persistence of interest was assessed by comparing the first 20 weeks with the last 20 weeks of the study period.

Results
Although the relative search volume of “coronavirus” increased and was sustained at a significantly higher level (p

Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated existing challenges within the Canadian healthcare system and reinforced the need for long-term care (LTC) reform to prioritise building an integrated continuum of services to meet the needs of older adults. Almost all Canadians want to live, age and receive care at home, yet funding for home and community-based care and support services is limited and integration with primary care and specialised geriatric services is sparse. Optimisation of existing home and community care services would equip the healthcare system to proactively meet the needs of older Canadians and enhance capacity within the hospital and residential care sectors to facilitate access and reduce wait times for those whose needs are best served in these settings. The aim of this study is to design a model of long-term ‘life care’ at home (LTlifeC model) to sustainably meet the needs of a greater number of community-dwelling older adults.

Methods and analysis
An explanatory sequential mixed methods design will be applied across three phases. In the quantitative phase, secondary data analysis will be applied to historical Ontario Home Care data to develop unique groupings of patient needs according to known predictors of residential LTC home admission, and to define unique patient vignettes using dominant care needs. In the qualitative phase, a modified eDelphi process and focus groups will engage community-based clinicians, older adults and family caregivers in the development of needs-based home care packages. The third phase involves triangulation to determine initial model feasibility.

Ethics and dissemination
This study has received ethics clearance from the University of Waterloo Research Ethics Board (ORE #42182). Results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and local, national and international conferences. Other forms of knowledge mobilisation will include webinars, policy briefs and lay summaries to elicit support for implementation and pilot testing phases.

We have read with interest the recent papers of Kennedy et al1 2 regarding the attenuated anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response in patients with IBD and the crucial role of the COVID-19 vaccine in this cohort. The COVID-19 vaccine has been recommended especially for the vulnerable population, including immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.3–5 Therefore, we explored the rate of adverse events (AEs) and the onset of GI symptoms after vaccination with different COVID-19 vaccines in a large cohort of patients with IBD. In this prospective study, we collected data (demographic and clinical variables, COVID-19 vaccine type, local, systemic or allergic AEs, and GI symptoms) from 488 (mean age±SD 55.3±14.4 years, 44.9% male) patients with IBD (UC 50.4%, Crohn’s disease 47.8% and undetermined IBD 1.8%) on regular follow-up at our IBD unit who had been administered COVID-19 vaccination from June to July 2021. The…

Objectives
To examine how ecological inequalities in COVID-19 mortality rates evolved in England, and whether the first national lockdown impacted them. This analysis aimed to provide evidence for important lessons to inform public health planning to reduce inequalities in any future pandemics.

Design
Longitudinal ecological study.

Setting
307 lower-tier local authorities in England.

Primary outcome measure
Age-standardised COVID-19 mortality rates by local authority, regressed on Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and relevant epidemic dynamics.

Results
Local authorities that started recording COVID-19 deaths earlier were more deprived, and more deprived authorities saw faster increases in their death rates. By 6 April 2020 (week 15, the earliest time that the 23 March lockdown could have begun affecting death rates) the cumulative death rate in local authorities in the two most deprived deciles of IMD was 54% higher than the rate in the two least deprived deciles. By 4 July 2020 (week 27), this gap had narrowed to 29%. Thus, inequalities in mortality rates by decile of deprivation persisted throughout the first wave, but reduced during the lockdown.

Conclusions
This study found significant differences in the dynamics of COVID-19 mortality at the local authority level, resulting in inequalities in cumulative mortality rates during the first wave of the pandemic. The first lockdown in England was fairly strict—and the study found that it particularly benefited those living in more deprived local authorities. Care should be taken to implement lockdowns early enough, in the right places—and at a sufficiently strict level—to maximally benefit all communities, and reduce inequalities.

Introduction
Hyposmia and anosmia are common in COVID-19. Most patients regain normal smell within 4 weeks, but severe loss of smell persists roughly in 20% after 2 months and may last up to a year or longer. These persistent smell disorders greatly influence daily life. It is hypothesised that COVID-19 induces inflammation around the olfactory nerve and in the olfactory pathway, leading to smell disorders. Corticosteroids might reduce this local inflammatory response and improve smell.

Methods and analysis
We will conduct a single-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial to determine the efficacy of a short high-dose treatment of oral prednisolone for persistent loss of smell after COVID-19 in the early phase. We will include 116 patients with persistent ( >4 weeks) loss of smell within 12 weeks of COVID-19 diagnosis, based on a positive PCR/antigen test. One group receives 40 mg of prednisolone for 10 days and the other group receives matching placebo treatment. In addition, all patients will perform smell training for 12 weeks. The primary outcome is objective olfactory function measured by means of sniffin’ sticks test. Secondary outcomes are objective gustatory function by means of taste strips test and subjective taste and smell ability, trigeminal sensations, quality of life and nasal symptoms, measured by three questionnaires. These outcomes will be measured at inclusion before treatment and 12 weeks later.

Ethics and dissemination
The Institutional Review Board of the University Medical Center Utrecht approved the research protocol (21-635/G-D, October 2021). The trial results will be shared in peer-reviewed medical journals and scientific conferences.

Trial registration number
NL9635. EUCTR2021-004021-71-NL.

Objectives
To describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outpatient appointments for children and young people.

Setting
All National Health Service (public) hospitals in England.

Participants
All people in England aged

Introduction
The use of low-dose aspirin by pregnant women to prevent preterm pre-eclampsia is gradually increasing. The administration of aspirin during pregnancy improves perinatal outcome, which could translate into improved child outcome in the long term. However, antenatal exposure to aspirin could have adverse effects on child development that may manifest later in life. The aim of this follow-up study is to assess the long-term effects of antenatal exposure to low-dose aspirin compared with placebo on survival, (neuro)development, behaviour and general health at 4 years corrected age.

Methods and analysis
This is a follow-up study of the Dutch double-blind randomised controlled APRIL trial which assessed the effectiveness of treatment with aspirin (80 mg daily) compared with placebo for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a previous spontaneous preterm birth. Treatment was initiated before 16 weeks of gestation and continued until 36 weeks or birth. We aim to follow-up all 379 children born to women who participated in the APRIL trial and survived the neonatal period, at the corrected age of 4 years. The main outcomes are (neuro)development as assessed by the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, and behaviour as assessed by the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire. Additional outcomes include mortality, growth and general health from birth up to 4 years, and a composite outcome including mortality, abnormal (neuro)development and problem behaviour. Analyses will be performed by intention-to-treat using a superiority design.

Ethics and dissemination
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained from the Medical Research Ethics Committee from Amsterdam Medical Center (no. W20 289#20.325). The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.

Trial registration number
The APRIL trial (NTR5675, NL5553; EudraCT number 2015-003220-31) and the APRIL follow-up study (NL8950) are registered in the Dutch trial register. The study is funded by the Amsterdam Reproduction & Development research institute.

Objectives
The implementation of COVID-19 vaccination globally poses unprecedented stress to health systems particularly for countries with persisting health workforce shortages prior the pandemic. The present paper estimates the workforce requirement to reach 70% COVID-19 vaccination coverage in all countries by mid-2022 using service target–based estimation.

Methods
Health workforce data from National Health Workforce Accounts and vaccination coverage reported to WHO as of January 2022 were used. Workload parameters were used to estimate the number of health workers needed with a service target–based approach, the gap and the scale-up required partially accounting for countries’ challenges, as well as the associated costs in human resources.

Results
As of 1 January 2022, only 34 countries achieved 70% COVID-19 vaccination coverage and 61 countries covered less than a quarter of their population. This analysis showed that 1 831 000 health workers working full time would be needed to reach a global coverage of 70% COVID-19 vaccination by mid-2022. To avoid severe disruptions to health system, 744 000 additional health workers should be added to domestic resources mostly (77%) in low-income countries. In a sensitivity analysis, allowing for vaccination over 12 months instead of 6 months would decrease the scale-up to 476 000 health workers. The costing for the employment of these 744 000 additional health workers is estimated to be US$2.5 billion. In addition to such a massive scale-up, it is estimated that 29 countries would have needed to redeploy more than 20% of their domestic workforce, placing them at serious risk of not achieving the mid-year target.

Conclusion
Reaching 70% global coverage with COVID-19 vaccination by mid-2022 requires extraordinary efforts not before witnessed in the history of immunisation programmes. COVID-19 vaccination programmes should receive rapid and sustainable investment in health workforce.