Mental health symptoms in scleroderma during COVID-19: a Scleroderma Patient-centred Intervention Network (SPIN) cohort longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVES: People with systemic sclerosis (SSc) are vulnerable in COVID-19 and face challenges related to shifting COVID-19 risk and protective restrictions. We evaluated mental health symptom trajectories in people with SSc through March 2022. METHODS: The longitudinal Scleroderma Patient-centred Intervention Network (SPIN) COVID-19 cohort was launched in April 2020 and included participants from the ongoing SPIN Cohort and external enrolees. Analyses included estimated means with 95% CIs for anxiety and depression symptoms pre-COVID-19 for ongoing SPIN Cohort participants and anxiety, depression, loneliness, and fear of COVID-19 for all participants across 28 COVID-19 assessments up to March 2022. We conducted sensitivity analyse including estimating trajectories using only responses from participants who completed >90% of items for ≥21 of 28 possible assessments ("completers") and stratified analyses for all outcomes by sex, age, country, and SSc subtype. RESULTS: Anxiety symptoms increased in early 2020 but returned to pre-COVID-19 levels by mid-2020 and remained stable through March 2022. Depression symptoms did not initially change but were slightly lower by mid-2020 compared to pre-COVID-19 and were stable through March 2022. COVID-19 fear started high and decreased. Loneliness did not change across the pandemic. Results were similar for completers and for all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: People with SSc continue to face COVID-19 challenges related to ongoing risk, the opening of societies, and removal of protective restrictions. People with SSc, in aggregate, appear to be weathering the pandemic well, but health care providers should be mindful that some individuals may benefit from mental health support.

Comparison of mental health symptoms before and during the covid-19 pandemic: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 134 cohorts.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise results of mental health outcomes in cohorts before and during the covid-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv, and Open Science Framework Preprints. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies comparing general mental health, anxiety symptoms, or depression symptoms assessed from 1 January 2020 or later with outcomes collected from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019 in any population, and comprising ≥90% of the same participants before and during the covid-19 pandemic or using statistical methods to account for missing data. Restricted maximum likelihood random effects meta-analyses (worse covid-19 outcomes representing positive change) were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence Studies. RESULTS: As of 11 April 2022, 94 411 unique titles and abstracts including 137 unique studies from 134 cohorts were reviewed. Most of the studies were from high income (n=105, 77%) or upper middle income (n=28, 20%) countries. Among general population studies, no changes were found for general mental health (standardised mean difference (SMD)change 0.11, 95% confidence interval -0.00 to 0.22) or anxiety symptoms (0.05, -0.04 to 0.13), but depression symptoms worsened minimally (0.12, 0.01 to 0.24). Among women or female participants, general mental health (0.22, 0.08 to 0.35), anxiety symptoms (0.20, 0.12 to 0.29), and depression symptoms (0.22, 0.05 to 0.40) worsened by minimal to small amounts. In 27 other analyses across outcome domains among subgroups other than women or female participants, five analyses suggested that symptoms worsened by minimal or small amounts, and two suggested minimal or small improvements. No other subgroup experienced changes across all outcome domains. In three studies with data from March to April 2020 and late 2020, symptoms were unchanged from pre-covid-19 levels at both assessments or increased initially then returned to pre-covid-19 levels. Substantial heterogeneity and risk of bias were present across analyses. CONCLUSIONS: High risk of bias in many studies and substantial heterogeneity suggest caution in interpreting results. Nonetheless, most symptom change estimates for general mental health, anxiety symptoms, and depression symptoms were close to zero and not statistically significant, and significant changes were of minimal to small magnitudes. Small negative changes occurred for women or female participants in all domains. The authors will update the results of this systematic review as more evidence accrues, with study results posted online (https://www.depressd.ca/covid-19-mental-health). REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020179703.

High dose rifampin for 2 months vs standard dose rifampin for 4 months, to treat TB infection: Protocol of a 3-arm randomized trial (2R2).

INTRODUCTION: Tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT) is an essential component for TB elimination. In order to be successfully implemented on a large scale, TPT needs to be safe, affordable and widely available in all settings. Short TPT regimens, that are less burdensome than longer regimens, to patients and health systems, are needed. Doses of rifampin higher than the standard 10mg/kg/day were tolerated in studies to reduce duration of treatment for tuberculosis disease (TBD). The objective of this trial is to test the safety of high dose rifampin monotherapy to shorten the duration of the currently recommended TPT of 4 months rifampin. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a phase 2b, randomised, controlled, parallel group, superiority, partially-blind trial. Primary outcomes are completion of treatment (as a proxy measure of tolerability) and safety. The two experimental arms comprise 60 days of (i) 20mg/kg/day or (ii) 30mg/kg/day rifampin; the control arm comprises 120 days of 10mg/kg/day rifampin as TPT. Participants are adults and children 10 years or older, eligible for TPT. Completion is the primary outcome, measured by pill count and is defined as taking minimum of 80% of treatment in 120% of allowed time; it will be tested for superiority by logistic regression. Safety outcome comprises proportion of grade 3-5 adverse events and grade 1-2 rash, adjudicated related to study drug, and resulting in permanent drug discontinuation; compared for non-inferiority between each of the two high dose arms and the standard arm, using Poisson regression. A sample size of 1,359 participants will give 80% power to detect a 10% difference in completion rates and a 1% difference in the safety outcome. The study is conducted in Canada, Indonesia and Vietnam. Enrolment is ongoing at all sites. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals from a local research ethics board (REB) have been obtained at all participating sites and by the trial coordinating centre. Approval has been given by drug regulatory agencies in Canada and Indonesia and by Ministry of Health in Vietnam; participants give written informed consent before participation. All data collected are non-nominal. Primary results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal when all participants have completed treatment; results of secondary outcomes will be submitted for publication at the end of study; all sites will receive the final data of participants from their sites. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03988933). Coordinating center is the study team working at McGill University Health Center-Research Institute (MUHC-RI); sponsor is the MUHC-RI; funding has been granted by Canadian Institute of Health Research (FDN-143350).

Standard error estimation in meta-analysis of studies reporting medians.

We consider the setting of an aggregate data meta-analysis of a continuous outcome of interest. When the distribution of the outcome is skewed, it is often the case that some primary studies report the sample mean and standard deviation of the outcome and other studies report the sample median along with the first and third quartiles and/or minimum and maximum values. To perform meta-analysis in this context, a number of approaches have recently been developed to impute the sample mean and standard deviation from studies reporting medians. Then, standard meta-analytic approaches with inverse-variance weighting are applied based on the (imputed) study-specific sample means and standard deviations. In this article, we illustrate how this common practice can severely underestimate the within-study standard errors, which results in poor coverage for the pooled mean in common effect meta-analyses and overestimation of between-study heterogeneity in random effects meta-analyses. We propose a straightforward bootstrap approach to estimate the standard errors of the imputed sample means. Our simulation study illustrates how the proposed approach can improve the estimation of the within-study standard errors and consequently improve coverage for the pooled mean in common effect meta-analyses and estimation of between-study heterogeneity in random effects meta-analyses. Moreover, we apply the proposed approach in a meta-analysis to identify risk factors of a severe course of COVID-19.

Outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Canada: impact of ethnicity, migration status and country of birth.

BACKGROUND: Ethnoracial groups in high-income countries have a 2-fold higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, associated hospitalizations, and mortality than Whites. Migrants are an ethnoracial subset that may have worse COVID-19 outcomes due to additional barriers accessing care, but there are limited data on in-hospital outcomes. We aimed to disaggregate and compare COVID-19 associated hospital outcomes by ethnicity, immigrant status and region of birth. METHODS: Adults with community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalized March 1-June 30, 2020, at four hospitals in Montréal, Quebec, Canada, were included. Age, sex, socioeconomic status, comorbidities, migration status, region of birth, self-identified ethnicity [White, Black, Asian, Latino, Middle East/North African], intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and mortality were collected. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for ICU admission and mortality by immigrant status, ethnicity and region of birth adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic status and comorbidities were estimated using Fine and Gray competing risk models. RESULTS: Of 1104 patients (median [IQR] age, 63.0 [51.0-76.0] years; 56% males), 57% were immigrants and 54% were White. Immigrants were slightly younger (62 vs 65 years; p = 0.050), had fewer comorbidities (1.0 vs 1.2; p < 0.001), similar crude ICU admissions rates (33.0% vs 28.2%) and lower mortality (13.3% vs 17.6%; p < 0.001) than Canadian-born. In adjusted models, Blacks (aHR 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.83) and Asians (1.64, 1.15-2.34) were at higher risk of ICU admission than Whites, but there was significant heterogeneity within ethnic groups. Asians from Eastern Asia/Pacific (2.15, 1.42-3.24) but not Southern Asia (0.97, 0.49-1.93) and Caribbean Blacks (1.39, 1.02-1.89) but not SSA Blacks (1.37, 0.86-2.18) had a higher risk of ICU admission. Blacks had a higher risk of mortality (aHR 1.56, p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Data disaggregated by region of birth identified subgroups of immigrants at increased risk of COVID-19 ICU admission, providing more actionable data for health policymakers to address health inequities.

In-hospital outcomes of SARS-CoV-2-infected health care workers in the COVID-19 pandemic first wave, Quebec, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCW), particularly immigrants and ethnic minorities are at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Outcomes during a COVID-19 associated hospitalization are not well described among HCW. We aimed to describe the characteristics of HCW admitted with COVID-19 including immigrant status and ethnicity and the associated risk factors for Intensive Care unit (ICU) admission and death. METHODS: Adults with laboratory-confirmed community-acquired COVID-19 hospitalized from March 1 to June 30, 2020, at four tertiary-care hospitals in Montréal, Canada were included. Demographics, comorbidities, occupation, immigration status, country of birth, ethnicity, workplace exposures, and hospital outcomes (ICU admission and death) were obtained through a chart review and phone survey. A Fine and Gray competing risk proportional hazards model was used to estimate the risk of ICU admission among HCW stratified by immigrant status and region of birth. RESULTS: Among 1104 included persons, 150 (14%) were HCW, with a phone survey participation rate of 68%. HCWs were younger (50 vs 64 years; p<0.001), more likely to be female (61% vs 41%; p<0.001), migrants (68% vs 55%; p<0.01), non-White (65% vs 41%; p<0.001) and healthier (mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0.3 vs 1.2; p<0.001) compared to non-HCW. They were as likely to be admitted to the ICU (28% vs 31%; p = 0.40) but were less likely to die (4% vs. 17%; p<0.001). Immigrant HCW accounted for 68% of all HCW cases and, compared to Canadian HCW, were more likely to be personal support workers (PSW) (54% vs. 33%, p<0.01), to be Black (58% vs 4%) and to work in a Residential Care Facility (RCF) (59% vs 33%; p = 0.05). Most HCW believed that they were exposed at work, 55% did not always have access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and 40% did not receive COVID-19-specific Infection Control (IPAC) training. CONCLUSION: Immigrant HCW were particularly exposed to COVID-19 infection in the first wave of the pandemic in Quebec. Despite being young and healthy, one third of all HCW required ICU admission, highlighting the importance of preventing workplace transmission through strong infection prevention and control measures, including high COVID-19 vaccination coverage.

Efficacy and effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for death prevention: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is consistent evidence that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have statistical and clinical significant efficacy to prevent incident and severe cases of COVID-19, although different outcomes were analyzed and different risk reductions were observed. However, randomized control trials (RCT) were not designed or powered to assess whether the vaccines prevent deaths, even though this was a secondary or exploratory outcome across many studies. Early real-world observational data suggest that these vaccines are highly effective in reducing hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Our objective is to summarize and appraise-the existing evidence on the efficacy and real-world effectiveness of all SARS-CoV-2 vaccines currently approved for full or limited use to prevent all-cause and COVID-19-attributed mortality. METHODS: The population consists of persons with a record of vaccination status and the outcome of interest. Randomized controlled trials, comparative cohort and case-control studies reporting vaccination with any of the vaccines approved (intervention) will be eligible. The primary outcome will be all cause deaths. COVID-19-attributed deaths and deaths attributable to the vaccination (adverse event deaths) will be secondary outcomes. We will compare deaths occurring in vaccinated persons versus those non-vaccinated or having received placebo. Studies in any language will be eligible. Two independent reviewers will screen for inclusion and assess quality of studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and the ROBINS-1 tool, as appropriate. Hazard ratios will be calculated. Assessment of statistical heterogeneity amongst the studies will be done using I2 and prediction intervals, as well as visual inspection of the forest plots. Publication bias will be assessed using a funnel plot and Egger statistical test if we have more than 10 studies in a forest plot. We have followed the PRISMA-Protocol checklist for the current protocol, which is registered at Prospero (York University, CRD42021262211).

Systematic review of mental health symptom changes by sex or gender in early-COVID-19 compared to pre-pandemic.

Women and gender-diverse individuals have faced disproportionate socioeconomic burden during COVID-19. There have been reports of greater negative mental health changes compared to men based on cross-sectional research that has not accounted for pre-COVID-19 differences. We compared mental health changes from pre-COVID-19 to during COVID-19 by sex or gender. MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection: Citation Indexes, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv (preprints), and Open Science Framework Preprints (preprint server aggregator) were searched to August 30, 2021. Eligible studies included mental health symptom change data by sex or gender. 12 studies (10 unique cohorts) were included, all of which reported dichotomized sex or gender data. 9 cohorts reported results from March to June 2020, and 2 of these also reported on September or November to December 2020. One cohort included data pre-November 2020 data but did not provide dates. Continuous symptom change differences were not statistically significant for depression (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12, 95% CI -0.09-0.33; 4 studies, 4,475 participants; I2 = 69.0%) and stress (SMD = - 0.10, 95% CI -0.21-0.01; 4 studies, 1,533 participants; I2 = 0.0%), but anxiety (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI 0.07-0.22; 4 studies, 4,344 participants; I2 = 3.0%) and general mental health (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI 0.12-0.18; 3 studies, 15,692 participants; I2 = 0.0%) worsened more among females/women than males/men. There were no significant differences in changes in proportions above cut-offs: anxiety (difference = - 0.05, 95% CI - 0.20-0.11; 1 study, 217 participants), depression (difference = 0.12, 95% CI -0.03-0.28; 1 study, 217 participants), general mental health (difference = - 0.03, 95% CI - 0.09-0.04; 3 studies, 18,985 participants; I2 = 94.0%), stress (difference = 0.04, 95% CI - 0.10-0.17; 1 study, 217 participants). Mental health outcomes did not differ or were worse by small amounts among women than men during early COVID-19.

Impact of COVID-19 on Tuberculosis Prevention and Treatment in Canada: A Multicenter Analysis of 10 833 Patients.

We assessed the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on treatment of latent tuberculosis, and of active tuberculosis, at 3 centers in Montreal and Toronto, using data from 10 833 patients (8685 with latent tuberculosis infection, 2148 with active tuberculosis). Observation periods prior to declarations of COVID-19 public health emergencies ranged from 219 to 744 weeks, and after declarations, from 28 to 33 weeks. In the latter period, reductions in latent tuberculosis infection treatment initiation rates ranged from 30% to 66%. At 2 centers, active tuberculosis treatment rates fell by 16% and 29%. In Canada, cornerstone measures for tuberculosis elimination weakened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Effects of mental health interventions among people hospitalized with COVID-19 infection: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effects of mental health interventions among people hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and searched 9 databases (2 Chinese-language) from December 31, 2019 to June 28, 2021. Eligible randomized controlled trials assessed interventions among hospitalized COVID-19 patients that targeted mental health symptoms. Due to the poor quality of trials, we sought to verify accuracy of trial reports including results. RESULTS: We identified 47 randomized controlled trials from China (N = 42), Iran (N = 4) and Turkey (N = 1) of which 21 tested the efficacy of psychological interventions, 5 physical and breathing exercises, and 21 a combination of interventions. Trial information could only be verified for 3 trials of psychological interventions (cognitive behavioral, guided imagery, multicomponent online), and these were the only trials with low risk of bias on at least 4 of 7 domains. Results could not be pooled or interpreted with confidence due to the degree of poor reporting and trial quality, the frequency of what were deemed implausibly large effects, and heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Trials of interventions to address mental health in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, collectively, are not of sufficient quality to inform practice. Health care providers should refer to existing expert recommendations and standard hospital-based practices. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020179703); registered on April 17, 2020.

Role of Human Antigen R (HuR) in the Regulation of Pulmonary ACE2 Expression.

Patients with COPD may be at an increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19 because of ACE2 upregulation, the entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2. Chronic exposure to cigarette smoke, the main risk factor for COPD, increases pulmonary ACE2. How ACE2 expression is controlled is not known but may involve HuR, an RNA binding protein that increases protein expression by stabilizing mRNA. We hypothesized that HuR would increase ACE2 protein expression. We analyzed scRNA-seq data to profile ELAVL1 expression in distinct respiratory cell populations in COVID-19 and COPD patients. HuR expression and cellular localization was evaluated in COPD lung tissue by multiplex immunohistochemistry and in human lung cells by imaging flow cytometry. The regulation of ACE2 expression was evaluated using siRNA-mediated knockdown of HuR. There is a significant positive correlation between ELAVL1 and ACE2 in COPD cells. HuR cytoplasmic localization is higher in smoker and COPD lung tissue; there were also higher levels of cleaved HuR (CP-1). HuR binds to ACE2 mRNA but knockdown of HuR does not change ACE2 protein levels in primary human lung fibroblasts (HLFs). Our work is the first to investigate the association between ACE2 and HuR. Further investigation is needed to understand the mechanistic underpinning behind the regulation of ACE2 expression.

Feasibility of remote neurocognitive assessment: pandemic adaptations for a clinical trial, the Cognition and Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Parkinson's Disease, Effect of Positive Airway Pressure Therapy (COPE-PAP) study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic poses challenges for timely outcome assessment in randomized clinical trials (RCT). Our aim was to describe our remote neurocognitive testing (NCT) protocol administered by telephone in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). METHODS: We studied PD patients with OSA and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score ≤ 27 participating in a RCT assessing OSA treatment impact on cognition. Trial outcomes included change in MoCA and specific cognitive domains from baseline to 3 and 6 months. With COVID19 pandemic-related restrictions, 3-month visits were converted from in-person to telephone administration with materials mailed to participants for compatible tests and retrieved by courier the same day. In exploratory analyses, we compared baseline vs. 3-month results in the control arm, which were not expected to change significantly (test-re-test), using a paired t-test and assessed agreement with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Seven participants were approached and agreed to remote NCT at 3-month follow-up. Compared to the in-person NCT control arm group, they were younger (60.6 versus 70.6 years) and had a shorter disease course (3.9 versus 9.2 years). Remote NCT data were complete. The mean test-retest difference in MoCA was similar for in-person and remote NCT control-arm groups (between group difference - 0.69; 95%CI - 3.67, 2.29). Agreement was good for MOCA and varied for specific neurocognitive tests. CONCLUSION: Telephone administration of the MoCA and a modified neurocognitive battery is feasible in patients with PD and OSA. Further validation will require a larger sample size.

The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Self-Management (SPIN-SELF) Program: protocol for a two-arm parallel partially nested randomized controlled feasibility trial with progression to full-scale trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic sclerosis (scleroderma; SSc) is a rare autoimmune connective tissue disease. We completed an initial feasibility trial of an online self-administered version of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Self-Management (SPIN-SELF) Program using the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. Due to low intervention offer uptake, we will conduct a new feasibility trial with progression to full-scale trial, using a two-arm parallel, partially nested RCT design. The SPIN-SELF Program has also been revised to include facilitator-led videoconference group sessions in addition to online material. We will test the group-based intervention delivery format, then evaluate the effect of the SPIN-SELF Program on disease management self-efficacy (primary) and patient activation, social appearance anxiety, and functional health outcomes (secondary). METHODS: This study is a feasibility trial with progression to full-scale RCT, pending meeting pre-defined criteria, of the SPIN-SELF Program. Participants will be recruited from the ongoing SPIN Cohort ( http://www.spinsclero.com/en/cohort ) and via social media and partner patient organizations. Eligible participants must have SSc and low to moderate disease management self-efficacy (Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease (SEMCD) Scale score ≤ 7.0). Participants will be randomized (1:1 allocation) to the group-based SPIN-SELF Program or usual care for 3 months. The primary outcome in the full-scale trial will be disease management self-efficacy based on SEMCD Scale scores at 3 months post-randomization. Secondary outcomes include SEMCD scores 6 months post-randomization plus patient activation, social appearance anxiety, and functional health outcomes at 3 and 6 months post-randomization. We will include 40 participants to assess feasibility. At the end of the feasibility portion, stoppage criteria will be used to determine if the trial procedures or SPIN-SELF Program need important modifications, thereby requiring a re-set for the full-scale trial. Otherwise, the full-scale RCT will proceed, and outcome data from the feasibility portion will be utilized in the full-scale trial. In the full-scale RCT, 524 participants will be recruited. DISCUSSION: The SPIN-SELF Program may improve disease management self-efficacy, patient activation, social appearance anxiety, and functional health outcomes in people with SSc. SPIN works with partner patient organizations around the world to disseminate its programs free-of-charge. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04246528 . Registered on 27 January 2020.

Inhaled and intranasal ciclesonide for the treatment of covid-19 in adult outpatients: CONTAIN phase II randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if inhaled and intranasal ciclesonide are superior to placebo at decreasing respiratory symptoms in adult outpatients with covid-19. DESIGN: Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial. SETTING: Three Canadian provinces (Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia). PARTICIPANTS: 203 adults aged 18 years and older with polymerase chain reaction confirmed covid-19, presenting with fever, cough, or dyspnoea. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to receive either inhaled ciclesonide (600 µg twice daily) and intranasal ciclesonide (200 µg daily) or metered dose inhaler and nasal saline placebos for 14 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was symptom resolution at day 7. Analyses were conducted on the modified intention-to-treat population (participants who took at least one dose of study drug and completed one follow-up survey) and adjusted for stratified randomisation by sex. RESULTS: The modified intention-to-treat population included 203 participants: 105 were randomly assigned to ciclesonide (excluding two dropouts and one loss to follow-up) and 98 to placebo (excluding three dropouts and six losses to follow-up). The median age was 35 years (interquartile range 27-47 years) and 54% were women. The proportion of participants with resolution of symptoms by day 7 did not differ significantly between the intervention group (42/105, 40%) and control group (34/98, 35%); absolute adjusted risk difference 5.5% (95% confidence interval -7.8% to 18.8%). Results might be limited to the population studied, which mainly included younger adults without comorbidities. The trial was stopped early, therefore could have been underpowered. CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, the combination of inhaled and intranasal ciclesonide did not show a statistically significant increase in resolution of symptoms among healthier young adults with covid-19 presenting with prominent respiratory symptoms. As evidence is insufficient to determine the benefit of inhaled and intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of covid-19, further research is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04435795.

Can we predict the severe course of COVID-19 - a systematic review and meta-analysis of indicators of clinical outcome?

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been reported in over 40million people globally with variable clinical outcomes. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed demographic, laboratory and clinical indicators as predictors for severe courses of COVID-19. METHODS: This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO under CRD42020177154. We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, MedRvix and bioRvix) for publications from December 2019 to May 31st 2020. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled odds ratios and differences of medians between (1) patients admitted to ICU versus non-ICU patients and (2) patients who died versus those who survived. We adapted an existing Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool for outcome studies. RESULTS: Of 6,702 unique citations, we included 88 articles with 69,762 patients. There was concern for bias across all articles included. Age was strongly associated with mortality with a difference of medians (DoM) of 13.15 years (95% confidence interval (CI) 11.37 to 14.94) between those who died and those who survived. We found a clinically relevant difference between non-survivors and survivors for C-reactive protein (CRP; DoM 69.10 mg/L, CI 50.43 to 87.77), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; DoM 189.49 U/L, CI 155.00 to 223.98), cardiac troponin I (cTnI; DoM 21.88 pg/mL, CI 9.78 to 33.99) and D-Dimer (DoM 1.29mg/L, CI 0.9 to 1.69). Furthermore, cerebrovascular disease was the co-morbidity most strongly associated with mortality (Odds Ratio 3.45, CI 2.42 to 4.91) and ICU admission (Odds Ratio 5.88, CI 2.35 to 14.73). DISCUSSION: This comprehensive meta-analysis found age, cerebrovascular disease, CRP, LDH and cTnI to be the most important risk-factors that predict severe COVID-19 outcomes and will inform clinical scores to support early decision-making.

Effects of a multi-faceted education and support programme on anxiety symptoms among people with systemic sclerosis and anxiety during COVID-19 (SPIN-CHAT): a two-arm parallel, partially nested, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: No trials have tested multifaceted mental health interventions recommended by public health organisations during COVID-19. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effect of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network COVID-19 Home-isolation Activities Together (SPIN-CHAT) Program on anxiety symptoms and other mental health outcomes among people vulnerable during COVID-19 owing to a pre-existing medical condition. METHODS: The SPIN-CHAT Trial was a pragmatic, two-arm, parallel, partially nested, randomised, controlled trial (1:1 allocation to intervention or waitlist). Eligible participants with systemic sclerosis were recruited from the international SPIN COVID-19 Cohort. SPIN COVID-19 Cohort participants were eligible for the trial if they completed baseline measures and had at least mild anxiety symptoms, had not tested positive for COVID-19, and were not currently receiving mental health counselling. SPIN-CHAT is a 4-week (3 sessions per week) videoconference-based group intervention that provided education and practice with mental health coping strategies, and provided social support to reduce isolation. Groups included 6-10 participants. The primary outcome analysed in the intention-to-treat population was anxiety symptoms (PROMIS Anxiety 4a version 1.0) immediately post-intervention. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04335279 and is complete. FINDINGS: Of participants who completed baseline measures between April 9, 2020, and April 27, 2020, 560 participants were eligible and 172 participants were randomly assigned to intervention (n=86) or waitlist (n=86). Mean age was 55·0 years (SD 11·4 years), 162 (94%) were women, and 136 (79%) identified as White. In intention-to-treat analyses, the intervention did not significantly reduce anxiety symptoms post-intervention (-1·57 points, 95% CI -3·59 to 0·45; standardised mean difference [SMD] -0·22 points) but reduced symptoms 6 weeks later (-2·36 points, 95% CI -4·56 to -0·16; SMD -0·31). Depression symptoms were significantly lower 6 weeks post-intervention (-1·64 points, 95% CI -2·91 to -0·37; SMD -0·31); no other secondary outcomes were significant. No adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: The intervention did not significantly improve anxiety symptoms or other mental health outcomes post-intervention. However, anxiety and depression symptoms were significantly lower 6 weeks later, potentially capturing the time it took for new skills and social support between intervention participants to affect mental health. Multi-faceted interventions such as SPIN-CHAT have potential to address mental health needs in vulnerable groups during COVID-19, yet uncertainty remains about effectiveness. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR; VR4-172745, MS1-173066); McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity Emergency COVID-19 Research Fund; Scleroderma Canada, made possible by an educational grant for patient support programming from Boehringer Ingelheim; the Scleroderma Society of Ontario; Scleroderma Manitoba; Scleroderma Atlantic; Scleroderma Australia; Scleroderma New South Wales; Scleroderma Victoria; Scleroderma Queensland; Scleroderma SASK; the Scleroderma Association of BC; and Sclérodermie Québec.

Performance of Saliva, Oropharyngeal Swabs, and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the highest-yield sample for diagnostic testing for respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The need to increase capacity for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a variety of settings, combined with shortages of sample collection supplies, have motivated a search for alternative sample types with high sensitivity. We systematically reviewed the literature to understand the performance of alternative sample types compared to NP swabs. We systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv (last retrieval 1 October 2020) for comparative studies of alternative specimen types (saliva, oropharyngeal [OP], and nasal [NS] swabs) versus NP swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). A logistic-normal random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate % positive alternative-specimen, % positive NP, and % dual positives overall and in subgroups. The QUADAS 2 tool was used to assess bias. From 1,253 unique citations, we identified 25 saliva, 11 NS, 6 OP, and 4 OP/NS studies meeting inclusion criteria. Three specimen types captured lower % positives (NS [82%, 95% CI: 73 to 90%], OP [84%, 95% CI: 57 to 100%], and saliva [88%, 95% CI: 81 to 93%]) than NP swabs, while combined OP/NS matched NP performance (97%, 95% CI: 90 to 100%). Absence of RNA extraction (saliva) and utilization of a more sensitive NAAT (NS) substantially decreased alternative-specimen yield of positive samples. NP swabs remain the gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, although alternative specimens are promising. Much remains unknown about the impact of variations in specimen collection, processing protocols, and population (pediatric versus adult, late versus early in disease course), such that head-to head studies of sampling strategies are urgently needed.

Validation of the COVID-19 Fears Questionnaires for Chronic Medical Conditions: A Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network COVID-19 Cohort study

Objective Fear associated with medical vulnerability should be considered when assessing mental health among individuals with chronic medical conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective was to develop and validate the COVID-19 Fears Questionnaire for Chronic Medical Conditions. Methods Fifteen initial items were generated based on suggestions from 121 people with the chronic autoimmune disease systemic sclerosis (SSc;scleroderma). Patients in a COVID-19 SSc cohort completed items between April 9 and 27, 2020. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and item analysis were used to select items for inclusion. Cronbach's alpha and Pearson correlations were used to evaluate internal consistency reliability and convergent validity. Factor structure was confirmed with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in follow-up data collection two weeks later. Results 787 participants completed baseline measures;563 of them completed the follow-up assessment. Ten of 15 initial items were included in the final questionnaire. EFA suggested that a single dimension explained the data reasonably well. There were no indications of floor or ceiling effects. Cronbach's alpha was 0.91. Correlations between the COVID-19 Fears Questionnaire and measures of anxiety (r = 0.53), depressive symptoms (r = 0.44), and perceived stress (r = 0.50) supported construct validity. CFA supported the single-factor structure (χ2(35) = 311.2, p < 0.001, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.97, Comparative Fit Index = 0.96, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.12). Conclusion The COVID-19 Fears Questionnaire for Chronic Medical Conditions can be used to assess fear among people at risk due to pre-existing medical conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.