Future COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Refusal in Healthcare Workers after a Massive Breakthrough Infection Wave, a Nationwide Survey-Based Study.

Background: An unprecedented coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) wave occurred in China between December 2022 and January 2023, challenging the efficacy of the primary series of COVID-19 vaccines. The attitudes toward future COVID-19 booster vaccines (CBV) after the massive breakthrough infection among healthcare workers remain unknown. This study aimed to explore the prevalence and determinants of future CBV refusal after the unprecedented COVID-19 wave among healthcare workers. Methods: Between 9 and 19 February 2023, a cross-sectional nationwide online survey was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire vaccine among healthcare workers in China. Sociodemographics, profession, presence of chronic medical conditions, previous COVID-19 infection, attitudes towards future CBV, and reasons for future CBV refusal were collected. We estimated odds ratio [OR] with 95% confidence interval [CI] using a multivariable logistic regression model to explore the factors associated with future CBV refusal. Results: Among the 1618 participants who completed the survey, 1511 respondents with two or more doses of COVID-19 vaccines were analyzed. A total of 648 (41.8%) of respondents were unwilling to receive a future CBV. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed the association of CBV refusal with profession (vs. other staff, physician-adjusted OR 1.17, 95%CI 0.79-1.72, nurse-adjusted OR 1.88, 95%CI 1.24-2.85, p = 0.008), history of allergy (adjusted OR 1.72, 95%CI 1.05-2.83, p = 0.032), a lower self-perceived risk of future COVID-19 infection (p < 0.001), and a lower belief in CBV effectiveness (p = 0.014), safety (p < 0.001), and necessities for healthcare workers and the public (p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: Our findings highlight that a considerable proportion of healthcare workers were against a future booster dose after an unprecedented COVID-19 wave. Self-perception of future COVID-19 risk, and potential harm or doubtful efficacy of vaccines are the main determinants. Our findings may help public health authorities to establish future COVID-19 vaccination programs.

Protocol for a prospective double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled feasibility trial of octreotide infusion during liver transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Liver transplantation is a complex operation that can provide significant improvements in quality of life and survival to the recipients. However, serious complications are common and include major haemorrhage, hypotension and renal failure. Blood transfusion and the development of acute kidney injury lead to both short-term and long-term poor patient outcomes, including an increased risk of death, graft failure, length of stay and reduced quality of life. Octreotide may reduce the incidence of renal dysfunction, perioperative haemorrhage and enhance intraoperative blood pressure. However, octreotide does have risks, including resistant bradycardia, hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia and QT prolongation. Hence, a randomised controlled trial of octreotide during liver transplantation is needed to determine the cost-efficacy and safety of its use; this study represents a feasibility study prior to this trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We describe a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled feasibility study of continuous infusion of octreotide during liver transplantation surgery. We will recruit 30 adult patients at two liver transplant centres. A blinded infusion during surgery will be administered in a 2:1 ratio of octreotide:placebo. The primary outcomes will determine the feasibility of this study design. These include the recruitment ratio, correct administration of blinded study intervention, adverse event rates, patient and clinician enrolment refusal and completion of data collection. Secondary outcome measures of efficacy and safety will help shape future trials by assessing potential primary outcome measures and monitoring safety end points. No formal statistical tests are planned. This manuscript represents study protocol number 1.3, dated 2 June 2021. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received Research Ethics Committee approval. The main study outcomes will be submitted to an open-access journal. TRIAL SPONSOR: The Joint Research Office, University College London, UK.Neither the sponsor nor the funder have any role in study design, collection, management, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the study report or the decision to submit the report for publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04941911) with recruitment due to start in August 2021 with anticipated completion in July 2022. CLINICAL TRIALS UNIT: Surgical and Interventional Group, Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London.

The impact of the UK COVID-19 pandemic on patient-reported health outcomes after stroke: a retrospective sequential comparison.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic and related social isolation measures are likely to have adverse consequences on community healthcare provision and outcome after acute illnesses treated in hospital, including stroke. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient-reported health outcomes after hospital admission for acute stroke. METHODS: This retrospective study included adults with acute stroke admitted to the University College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Hyperacute Stroke Unit. We included two separate cohorts of consecutively enrolled patients from the same geographical population at two time points: 16th March-16th May 2018 (pre-COVID-19 pandemic); and 16th March-16th May 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic). Patients in both cohorts completed the validated Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 (PROMIS-29 version 2.0) at 30 days after stroke. RESULTS: We included 205 patients who were alive at 30 days (106 admitted before and 99 admitted during the COVID-19 pandemic), of whom 201/205 (98%) provided patient-reported health outcomes. After adjustment for confounding factors, admission with acute stroke during the COVID-19 pandemic was independently associated with increased anxiety (ß = 28.0, p < 0.001), fatigue (ß = 9.3, p < 0.001), depression (ß = 4.5, p = 0.002), sleep disturbance (ß = 2.3, p = 0.018), pain interference (ß = 10.8, p < 0.001); and reduced physical function (ß = 5.2, p < 0.001) and participation in social roles and activities (ß = 6.9, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Compared with the pre-pandemic cohort, patients admitted with acute stroke during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic reported poorer health outcomes at 30 day follow-up in all domains. Stroke service planning for any future pandemic should include measures to mitigate this major adverse impact on patient health.

Convalescent plasma for COVID-19: a meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific antibodies, particularly those preventing interaction between the viral spike receptor-binding domain and the host angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor, may prevent viral entry into host cells and disease progression. METHODS: We performed a systematic review, meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis (TSA), and meta-regression of RCTs to evaluate the benefit of convalescent plasma for COVID-19. The primary outcome was 28-30 day mortality. Secondary outcomes included need for mechanical ventilation and ICU admission. Data sources were PubMed, Embase, MedRxiv, and the Cochrane library on July 2, 2021. RESULTS: We identified 17 RCTs that recruited 15 587 patients with 8027 (51.5%) allocated to receive convalescent plasma. Convalescent plasma use was not associated with a mortality benefit (24.7% vs 25.5%; odds ratio [OR]=0.94 [0.85-1.04]; P=0.23; I2=4%; TSA adjusted confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.05), or reduction in need for mechanical ventilation (15.7% vs 15.4%; OR=1.01 [0.92-1.11]; P=0.82; I2=0%; TSA adjusted CI, 0.91-1.13), or ICU admission (22.4% vs 16.7%; OR=0.80 [0.21-3.09]; P=0.75; I2=63%; TSA adjusted CI, 0.0-196.05). Meta-regression did not reveal association with titre of convalescent plasma, timing of administration, or risk of death and treatment effect (P>0.05). Risk of bias was high in most studies. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19, there was no clear mortality benefit associated with convalescent plasma treatment. In patients with mild disease, convalescent plasma did not prevent either the need for mechanical ventilation or ICU admission. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42021234201 (PROSPERO).

Clinical Features of Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) is a new syndrome associated with the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 adenoviral vector vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Data are lacking on the clinical features of and the prognostic criteria for this disorder. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients with suspected VITT who presented to hospitals in the United Kingdom between March 22 and June 6, 2021. Data were collected with the use of an anonymized electronic form, and cases were identified as definite or probable VITT according to prespecified criteria. Baseline characteristics and clinicopathological features of the patients, risk factors, treatment, and markers of poor prognosis were determined. RESULTS: Among 294 patients who were evaluated, we identified 170 definite and 50 probable cases of VITT. All the patients had received the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and presented 5 to 48 days (median, 14) after vaccination. The age range was 18 to 79 years (median, 48), with no sex preponderance and no identifiable medical risk factors. Overall mortality was 22%. The odds of death increased by a factor of 2.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4 to 5.2) among patients with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, by a factor of 1.7 (95% CI, 1.3 to 2.3) for every 50% decrease in the baseline platelet count, by a factor of 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.3) for every increase of 10,000 fibrinogen-equivalent units in the baseline d-dimer level, and by a factor of 1.7 (95% CI, 1.1 to 2.5) for every 50% decrease in the baseline fibrinogen level. Multivariate analysis identified the baseline platelet count and the presence of intracranial hemorrhage as being independently associated with death; the observed mortality was 73% among patients with platelet counts below 30,000 per cubic millimeter and intracranial hemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS: The high mortality associated with VITT was highest among patients with a low platelet count and intracranial hemorrhage. Treatment remains uncertain, but identification of prognostic markers may help guide effective management. (Funded by the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.).

Tocilizumab in COVID-19: a meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, and meta-regression of randomized-controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels discriminate between patients with mild and severe COVID-19, making IL-6 inhibition an attractive therapeutic strategy. We conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis (TSA), and meta-regression of randomized-controlled trials to ascertain the benefit of IL-6 blockade with tocilizumab for COVID-19. METHODS: We included randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) allocating patients with COVID-19 to tocilizumab. Our control group included standard care or placebo. Trials co-administering other pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 were not excluded. Primary outcome was 28-30 day mortality. Secondary outcomes included progression-to-severe disease defined as need for mechanical ventilation, intensive-care unit (ICU) admission, or a composite. RESULTS: We identified 10 RCTs using tocilizumab, 9 of which reported primary outcome data (mortality), recruiting 6493 patients with 3358 (52.2%) allocated to tocilizumab. Tocilizumab may be associated with an improvement in mortality (24.4% vs. 29.0%; OR 0.87 [0.74-1.01]; p = 0.07; I2 = 10%; TSA adjusted CI 0.66-1.14). Meta-regression suggested a relationship between treatment effect and mortality risk, with benefit at higher levels of risk (logOR vs %risk beta = -0.018 [-0.037 to -0.002]; p = 0.07). Tocilizumab did reduce the need for mechanical ventilation and was associated with a benefit in the composite secondary outcome but did not reduce ICU admission. CONCLUSIONS: For hospitalized COVID-19 patients, there is some evidence that tocilizumab use may be associated with a short-term mortality benefit, but further high-quality data are required. Its benefits may also lie in reducing the need for mechanical ventilation.

The effect of vascular risk factor burden on the severity of COVID-19 illness, a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cardiovascular comorbidities are at high risk of poor outcome from COVID-19. However, how the burden (number) of vascular risk factors influences the risk of severe COVID-19 disease remains unresolved. Our aim was to investigate the association of severe COVID-19 illness with vascular risk factor burden. METHODS: We included 164 (61.8 ± 13.6 years) patients with COVID-19 in this retrospective study. We compared the difference in clinical characteristics, laboratory findings and chest computed tomography (CT) findings between patients with severe and non-severe COVID-19 illness. We evaluated the association between the number of vascular risk factors and the development of severe COVID-19 disease, using a Cox regression model. RESULTS: Sixteen (9.8%) patients had no vascular risk factors; 38 (23.2%) had 1; 58 (35.4%) had 2; 34 (20.7%) had 3; and 18 (10.9%) had ≥4 risk factors. Twenty-nine patients (17.7%) experienced severe COVID-19 disease with a median (14 [7-27] days) duration between onset to developing severe COVID-19 disease, an event rate of 4.47 per 1000-patient days (95%CI 3.10-6.43). Kaplan-Meier curves showed a gradual increase in the risk of severe COVID-19 illness (log-rank P < 0.001) stratified by the number of vascular risk factors. After adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities as potential confounders, vascular risk factor burden remained associated with an increasing risk of severe COVID-19 illness. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with increasing vascular risk factor burden have an increasing risk of severe COVID-19 disease, and this population might benefit from specific COVID-19 prevention (e.g., self-isolation) and early hospital treatment measures.