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

Objective
Diagnostic testing is an important tool to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, yet access to and uptake of testing vary widely 3 years into the pandemic. The WHO recommends the use of COVID-19 self-testing as an option to help expand testing access. We aimed to calculate the cost of providing COVID-19 self-testing across countries and distribution modalities.

Design
We estimated economic costs from the provider perspective to calculate the total cost and the cost per self-test kit distributed for three scenarios that differed by costing period (pilot, annual), the number of tests distributed (actual, planned, scaled assuming an epidemic peak) and self-test kit costs (pilot purchase price, 50% reduction).

Setting
We used data collected between August and December 2022 in Brazil, Georgia, Malaysia, Ethiopia and the Philippines from pilot implementation studies designed to provide COVID-19 self-tests in a variety of settings—namely, workplace and healthcare facilities.

Results
Across all five countries, 173 000 kits were distributed during pilot implementation with the cost/test distributed ranging from $2.44 to $12.78. The cost/self-test kit distributed was lowest in the scenario that assumed implementation over a longer period (year), with higher test demand (peak) and a test kit price reduction of 50% ($1.04–3.07). Across all countries and scenarios, test procurement occupied the greatest proportion of costs: 58–87% for countries with off-site self-testing (outside the workplace, for example, home) and 15–50% for countries with on-site self-testing (at the workplace). Staffing was the next key cost driver, particularly for distribution modalities that had on-site self-testing (29–35%) versus off-site self-testing (7–27%).

Conclusions
Our results indicate that it is likely to cost between $2.44 and $12.78 per test to distribute COVID-19 self-tests across common settings in five heterogeneous countries. Cost-effectiveness analyses using these results will allow policymakers to make informed decisions on optimally scaling up COVID-19 self-test distribution programmes across diverse settings and evolving needs.

Objective
Conflicting evidence for the association between COVID-19 and adverse perinatal outcomes exists. This study examined the associations between maternal COVID-19 during pregnancy and adverse perinatal outcomes including preterm birth (PTB), low birth weight (LBW), small-for-gestational age (SGA), large-for-gestational age (LGA) and fetal death; as well as whether the associations differ by trimester of infection.

Design and setting
The study used a retrospective Mexican birth cohort from the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS), Mexico, between January 2020 and November 2021.

Participants
We used the social security administrative dataset from IMSS that had COVID-19 information and linked it with the IMSS routine hospitalisation dataset, to identify deliveries in the study period with a test for SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy.

Outcome measures
PTB, LBW, SGA, LGA and fetal death. We used targeted maximum likelihood estimators, to quantify associations (risk ratio, RR) and CIs. We fit models for the overall COVID-19 sample, and separately for those with mild or severe disease, and by trimester of infection. Additionally, we investigated potential bias induced by missing non-tested pregnancies.

Results
The overall sample comprised 17 340 singleton pregnancies, of which 30% tested positive. We found that those with mild COVID-19 had an RR of 0.89 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.99) for PTB and those with severe COVID-19 had an RR of 1.53 (95% CI 1.07 to 2.19) for LGA. COVID-19 in the first trimester was associated with fetal death, RR=2.36 (95% CI 1.04, 5.36). Results also demonstrate that missing non-tested pregnancies might induce bias in the associations.

Conclusions
In the overall sample, there was no evidence of an association between COVID-19 and adverse perinatal outcomes. However, the findings suggest that severe COVID-19 may increase the risk of some perinatal outcomes, with the first trimester potentially being a high-risk period.

Objectives
An increased risk of stroke has been reported among patients with COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to investigate the nationwide prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among patients with acute ischaemic stroke and to study the impact on stroke severity, quality of care and mortality on an individual patient level.

Design
This was a nationwide register-based cohort study.

Setting
We used data from several Danish registers which were linked at an individual patient level using the unique civil registration number assigned to all Danish citizens. Patients were identified from the Danish Stroke Registry and information on SARS-CoV-2 infection status was collected from the Danish National COVID-19 Registry. Concurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as a positive PCR test within 31 days prior to, and 1 day after, stroke admission. Information on comorbidity was collected from the Danish National Patient Registry and information on vital status was collected from the Danish Civil Registration System.

Participants
A total of 11 502 patients admitted with acute ischaemic stroke from 10 March 2020 to 31 May 2021 were included in the study.

Results
Among the included patients, the majority (84.6%) were tested for SARS-CoV-2, but only 68 had a positive test. These patients were more prone to have atrial fibrillation and were more often treated with reperfusion therapy. They had a significantly increased risk of severe stroke (adjusted relative risk (aRR) 1.93, 95% CI: 1.22 to 3.04) and a significantly increased 30-day mortality risk (aRR 2.29, 95% CI: 1.19 to 4.39). There was no difference in the proportion of patients fulfilling relevant performance measures on quality of care.

Conclusion
In this nationwide study, only 0.6% of patients with acute ischaemic stroke were tested positive for a concurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection. The patients with SARS-CoV-2 presented with more severe strokes.

Seduta del Consiglio Marche. Bassetti, nel 2003 salvò il pianeta

Annals of Internal Medicine, Ahead of Print.

Annals of Internal Medicine, Ahead of Print.

Objective
Dipeptidase-1 (DPEP-1) is a recently discovered leucocyte adhesion receptor for neutrophils and monocytes in the lungs and kidneys and serves as a potential therapeutic target to attenuate inflammation in moderate-to-severe COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the DPEP-1 inhibitor, LSALT peptide, to prevent specific organ dysfunction in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

Design
Phase 2a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, trial.

Setting
Hospitals in Canada, Turkey and the USA.

Participants
A total of 61 subjects with moderate-to-severe COVID-19.

Interventions
Randomisation to LSALT peptide 5 mg intravenously daily or placebo for up to 14 days.

Primary and secondary outcome measures
The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects alive and free of respiratory failure and/or the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT). Numerous secondary and exploratory endpoints were assessed including ventilation-free days, and changes in kidney function or serum biomarkers.

Results
At 28 days, 27 (90.3%) and 28 (93.3%) of subjects in the placebo and LSALT groups were free of respiratory failure and the need for RRT (p=0.86). On days 14 and 28, the number of patients still requiring more intensive respiratory support (O2 ≥6 L/minute, non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) was 6 (19.4%) and 3 (9.7%) in the placebo group versus 2 (6.7%) and 2 (6.7%) in the LSALT group, respectively (p=0.14; p=0.67). Unadjusted analysis of ventilation-free days demonstrated 22.8 days for the LSALT group compared with 20.9 in the placebo group (p=0.4). LSALT-treated subjects had a significant reduction in the fold expression from baseline to end of treatment of serum CXCL10 compared with placebo (p=0.02). Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups.

Conclusion
In a Phase 2 study, LSALT peptide was demonstrated to be safe and tolerated in patients hospitalised with moderate-to-severe COVID-19.

Trial registration number
NCT04402957.

Luxenburger H, Thimme R. SARS-CoV-2 and the liver: clinical and immunological features in chronic liver disease. Gut 2023;72:1783-94
The correct legend for figure 4 should be:
Effect of booster vaccination on the adaptive immune response in LTR and AIH patients (A) Booster vaccination significantly improves the SARS-CoV- 2-specific antibody response in AIH, while the frequency of T cells remains stable. (B) Booster vaccination significantly improves the SARS-CoV-2- specific antibody response in LTR, while the frequency of T cells remains stable. (C) After two RNA vaccine doses, the CD4+T cell subset distribution is altered in LTR with lower frequencies of TFH cells, however, the frequencies increase after booster infection. AIH, autoimmune hepatitis; LTR, liver transplant recipients; TFH cells: T follicular helper cells.

We read Kennedy et al1’s findings with interest, and report in-depth analyses of antibody and T cell responses in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to COVID-19 vaccination. We prospectively recruited 100 SARS-CoV-2-uninfected patients with IBD on varying treatments at the Royal Melbourne Hospital (HREC/74403/MH-2021). Healthcare workers who did not have IBD and were not on immunosuppressive medication were enrolled as controls with approvals from Melbourne Health (HREC/68355/MH-2020) and University of Melbourne (HREC 22268, 21626). Participant characteristics are outlined in table 1. IBD medication regimens needed to be stable for at least 8 weeks prior to enrolment. Only one participant was on concomitant low-dose systemic corticosteroids with anti-TNF combination therapy. Eighty-nine patients received BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech), and 11 received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca). No participants had a clinical history of SARS-CoV-2 infection at enrolment. Anti-S1/2 and anti-RBD SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were measured at baseline and at five time…

This Medical News story discusses a recent study that found people who are immunocompromised clear SARS-CoV-2 at varying rates.

Objectives
To determine the most epidemiologically effective and cost-effective school-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) self-testing strategies among teachers and students.

Design
Mathematical modelling and economic evaluation.

Setting and participants
Simulated school and community populations were parameterised to Brazil, Georgia and Zambia, with SARS-CoV-2 self-testing strategies targeted to teachers and students in primary and secondary schools under varying epidemic conditions.

Interventions
SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT self-testing strategies for only teachers or teachers and students—only symptomatically or symptomatically and asymptomatically at 5%, 10%, 40% or 100% of schools at varying frequencies.

Outcome measures
Outcomes were assessed in terms of total infections and symptomatic days among teachers and students, as well as total infections and deaths within the community under the intervention compared with baseline. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for infections prevented among teachers and students.

Results
With respect to both the reduction in infections and total cost, symptomatic testing of all teachers and students appears to be the most cost-effective strategy. Symptomatic testing can prevent up to 69·3%, 64·5% and 75·5% of school infections in Brazil, Georgia and Zambia, respectively, depending on the epidemic conditions, with additional reductions in community infections. ICERs for symptomatic testing range from US$2 to US$19 per additional school infection averted as compared with symptomatic testing of teachers alone.

Conclusions
Symptomatic testing of teachers and students has the potential to cost-effectively reduce a substantial number of school and community infections.

Objective
Patients receiving immunosuppressives have been excluded from trials for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine efficacy. Investigation of immunosuppressants’ impact on effectiveness of vaccines, particularly in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID), is therefore required.

Design
We performed a nationwide cohort study to assess the risk of COVID-19 infection in vaccinated patients with IMID exposed to immunosuppressives compared with IMID unexposed to immunosuppressives. Exposure to immunosuppressives in the 120 days before receiving the second SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination was assessed. Patients were followed from date of second vaccination and weighted Cox models were used to estimate the risk of infection associated with immunosuppressives. Secondary outcomes included hospitalisation and death associated with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Risk of infection by immunosuppressant drug class was also analysed.

Setting
This study used population-representative data from Danish national health registries in the period from 1 January to 30 November 2021.

Results
Overall, 152 440 patients were followed over 19 341 person years. Immunosuppressants were associated with a significantly increased risk of infection across IMID (HR: 1.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.5), in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (HR: 1.6, 95% CI 1.4 to 1.9) and arthropathy (HR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.4) but not psoriasis (HR: 1.1, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.4). Immunosuppressants were also associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation across IMID (HR: 1.4, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.0), particularly in IBD (HR: 2.1, 95% CI 1.0 to 4.1). No significantly increased risk of death in immunosuppressant exposed patients was identified. Analyses by immunosuppressant drug class showed increased COVID-19 infection and hospitalisation with anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF), systemic corticosteroid, and rituximab and other immunosuppressants in vaccinated patients with IMID.

Conclusion
Immunosuppressive therapies reduced effectiveness of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination against infection and hospitalisation in patients with IMID. Anti-TNF, systemic corticosteroids, and rituximab and other immunosuppressants were particularly associated with these risks.

Objective
To identify and summarise the evidence on the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA detection and persistence in body fluids associated with sexual activity (saliva, semen, vaginal secretion, urine and faeces/rectal secretion).

Eligibility
All studies that reported detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva, semen, vaginal secretion, urine and faeces/rectal swabs.

Information sources
The WHO COVID-19 database from inception to 20 April 2022.

Risk of bias assessment
The National Institutes of Health tools.

Synthesis of results
The proportion of patients with positive results for SARS-CoV-2 and the proportion of patients with a viral duration/persistence of at least 14 days in each fluid was calculated using fixed or random effects models.

Included studies
A total of 182 studies with 10 023 participants.

Results
The combined proportion of individuals with detection of SARS-CoV-2 was 82.6% (95% CI: 68.8% to 91.0%) in saliva, 1.6% (95% CI: 0.9% to 2.6%) in semen, 2.7% (95% CI: 1.8% to 4.0%) in vaginal secretion, 3.8% (95% CI: 1.9% to 7.6%) in urine and 31.8% (95% CI: 26.4% to 37.7%) in faeces/rectal swabs. The maximum viral persistence for faeces/rectal secretions was 210 days, followed by semen 121 days, saliva 112 days, urine 77 days and vaginal secretions 13 days. Culturable SARS-CoV-2 was positive for saliva and faeces.

Limitations
Scarcity of longitudinal studies with follow-up until negative results.

Interpretation
SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in all fluids associated with sexual activity but was rare in semen and vaginal secretions. Ongoing droplet precautions and awareness of the potential risk of contact with faecal matter/rectal mucosa are needed.

PROSPERO registration number
CRD42020204741.

New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 390, Issue 8, Page 771-772, February 2024.

Annals of Internal Medicine, Ahead of Print.