Estimating the global impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on people living with HIV.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The COVID-19 pandemic and public health response have directly and indirectly affected broader health outcomes, especially for those with existing chronic conditions, including HIV. We examine our current understanding of the global impact of COVID-19 on people with HIV (PWH). RECENT FINDINGS: The interaction between COVID-19 and HIV is complex, making it challenging to estimate its true impact on PWH. Evidence to date does not suggest that HIV confers a higher risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2. However, once acquired, HIV increases the risk of severe COVID-19 and mortality, particularly in immunosuppressed viraemic individuals and in the context of traditional COVID-19 risk factors, including disparities in social determinants of health. In addition, COVID-19 vaccines may be less effective in the context of HIV infection with additional doses needed. The consequences of disruption of access to essential prevention and treatment services because of the pandemic are becoming evident and will likely adversely affect outcomes, risking decades of progress. SUMMARY: Given the increased mortality risk and reduced vaccine effectiveness seen in PWH, specific prevention and support measures are needed, including prioritization of vaccination and boosters, funding to mitigate the impact of pandemic and enabling integrated healthcare delivery during pandemics will be critical.

Competing health risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and early response: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has rapidly emerged as a global public health threat with infections recorded in nearly every country. Responses to COVID-19 have varied in intensity and breadth, but generally have included domestic and international travel limitations, closure of non-essential businesses, and repurposing of health services. While these interventions have focused on testing, treatment, and mitigation of COVID-19, there have been reports of interruptions to diagnostic, prevention, and treatment services for other public health threats. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a scoping review to characterize the early impact of COVID-19 on HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, sexual and reproductive health, and malnutrition. METHODS: A scoping literature review was completed using searches of PubMed and preprint servers (medRxiv/bioRxiv) from November 1st, 2019 to October 31st, 2020, using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms related to SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 and HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, sexual and reproductive health, and malnutrition. Empiric studies reporting original data collection or mathematical models were included, and available data synthesized by region. Studies were excluded if they were not written in English. RESULTS: A total of 1604 published papers and 205 preprints were retrieved in the search. Overall, 8.0% (129/1604) of published studies and 10.2% (21/205) of preprints met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review: 7.3% (68/931) on HIV, 7.1% (24/339) on tuberculosis, 11.6% (26/224) on malaria, 7.8% (19/183) on sexual and reproductive health, and 9.8% (13/132) on malnutrition. Thematic results were similar across competing health risks, with substantial indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and response on diagnostic, prevention, and treatment services for HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, sexual and reproductive health, and malnutrition. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 emerged in the context of existing public health threats that result in millions of deaths every year. Thus, effectively responding to COVID-19 while minimizing the negative impacts of COVID-19 necessitates innovation and integration of existing programs that are often siloed across health systems. Inequities have been a consistent driver of existing health threats; COVID-19 has worsened disparities, reinforcing the need for programs that address structural risks. The data reviewed here suggest that effective strengthening of health systems should include investment and planning focused on ensuring the continuity of care for both rapidly emergent and existing public health threats.

A population framework for predicting the proportion of people infected by the far-field airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 indoors.

The number of occupants in a space influences the risk of far-field airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 because the likelihood of having infectious and susceptible people both correlate with the number of occupants. This paper explores the relationship between occupancy and the probability of infection, and how this affects an individual person and a population of people. Mass-balance and dose-response models determine far-field transmission risks for an individual person and a population of people after sub-dividing a large reference space into 10 identical comparator spaces. For a single infected person, the dose received by an individual person in the comparator space is 10 times higher because the equivalent ventilation rate per infected person is lower when the per capita ventilation rate is preserved. However, accounting for population dispersion, such as the community prevalence of the virus, the probability of an infected person being present and uncertainty in their viral load, shows the transmission probability increases with occupancy and the reference space has a higher transmission risk. Also, far-field transmission is likely to be a rare event that requires a high emission rate, and there are a set of Goldilocks conditions that are just right when equivalent ventilation is effective at mitigating against transmission. These conditions depend on the viral load, because when they are very high or low, equivalent ventilation has little effect on transmission risk. Nevertheless, resilient buildings should deliver the equivalent ventilation rate required by standards as minimum.

Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: Update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Debate about the level of asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues. The amount of evidence is increasing and study designs have changed over time. We updated a living systematic review to address 3 questions: (1) Among people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) What is the infectiousness of asymptomatic and presymptomatic, compared with symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a population is accounted for by people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic? METHODS AND FINDINGS: The protocol was first published on 1 April 2020 and last updated on 18 June 2021. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 6 July 2021. Studies of people with PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2, which documented symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or mathematical modelling studies were included. Studies restricted to people already diagnosed, of single individuals or families, or without sufficient follow-up were excluded. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with a bespoke checklist and modelling studies with a published checklist. All data syntheses were done using random effects models. Review question (1): We included 130 studies. Heterogeneity was high so we did not estimate a mean proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range (IQR) 14% to 50%, prediction interval 2% to 90%), or in 84 studies based on screening of defined populations (IQR 20% to 65%, prediction interval 4% to 94%). In 46 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 25%, prediction interval 2% to 70%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.64, prediction interval 0.11 to 0.95, 8 studies). (3) In 13 modelling studies fit to data, the proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic individuals was higher than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the evidence include high heterogeneity and high risks of selection and information bias in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, and limited information about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: Based on studies published up to July 2021, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic, and asymptomatic infections were less infectious than symptomatic infections. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme and prediction intervals should be presented. Future studies should determine the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections caused by variants of concern and in people with immunity following vaccination or previous infection. Without prospective longitudinal studies with methods that minimise selection and measurement biases, further updates with the study types included in this living systematic review are unlikely to be able to provide a reliable summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic infections caused by SARS-CoV-2. REVIEW PROTOCOL: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ewys/).

Role and perception of clinical microbiology and infectious diseases trainees during the COVID-19 crisis.

Aim: To evaluate the role and perceptions of trainees during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: An online survey was designed to provide an insight into the significance of the COVID-19 pandemic on working conditions of infectious diseases and clinical microbiology trainees. Results: The main roles of trainees included management of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 (55%), research (53%) and diagnostic procedures (43%). The majority (82%) of trainees felt useful in managing the crisis. However, more than two-thirds felt more stressed and more tired compared with other rotations. Only 39% of the participants had access to psychological support. Conclusion: Due to the significant impact of the pandemic on infectious diseases and clinical microbiology trainees, further research should focus on their health and welfare in the post-pandemic period.

Aims and challenges of building national trainee networks in clinical microbiology and infectious disease disciplines.

Trainees represent the medical practice of tomorrow. Interactions and collaborations at the early stage in career will strengthen the future of our specialties, clinical microbiology and infectious diseases. Trainee networks at the national level help access the best education and career opportunities. The aim of this collaborative white paper between the Trainee Association of European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) and four national trainee networks is to discuss the motivation for building such networks and offer guidance for their creation and sustainability even during a health crisis.

COVID-19 vaccines: Keeping pace with SARS-CoV-2 variants.

As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic evolves, new variants continue to emerge. Some highly transmissible variants, such as Delta, also raised concerns about the effectiveness provided by current vaccines. Understanding immunological correlates of protection and how laboratory findings correspond to clinical effectiveness is imperative to shape future vaccination strategies.

Outcomes of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Related Hospitalization Among People With Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in the ISARIC World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Characterization Protocol (UK): A Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is conflicting about how human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) modulates coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We compared the presentation characteristics and outcomes of adults with and without HIV who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 207 centers across the United Kingdom and whose data were prospectively captured by the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Characterization Protocol (CCP) study. METHODS: We used Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression to describe the association between HIV status and day-28 mortality, after separate adjustment for sex, ethnicity, age, hospital acquisition of COVID-19 (definite hospital acquisition excluded), presentation date, 10 individual comorbidities, and disease severity at presentation (as defined by hypoxia or oxygen therapy). RESULTS: Among 47 592 patients, 122 (0.26%) had confirmed HIV infection, and 112/122 (91.8%) had a record of antiretroviral therapy. At presentation, HIV-positive people were younger (median 56 vs 74 years; P < .001) and had fewer comorbidities, more systemic symptoms and higher lymphocyte counts and C-reactive protein levels. The cumulative day-28 mortality was similar in the HIV-positive versus HIV-negative groups (26.7% vs. 32.1%; P = .16), but in those under 60 years of age HIV-positive status was associated with increased mortality (21.3% vs. 9.6%; P < .001 [log-rank test]). Mortality was higher among people with HIV after adjusting for age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-2.14; P = .05), and the association persisted after adjusting for the other variables (aHR 1.69; 95% CI 1.15-2.48; P = .008) and when restricting the analysis to people aged <60 years (aHR 2.87; 95% CI 1.70-4.84; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: HIV-positive status was associated with an increased risk of day-28 mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Long Covid in adults discharged from UK hospitals after Covid-19: A prospective, multicentre cohort study using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to establish the long-term effects of Covid-19 following hospitalisation. METHODS: 327 hospitalised participants, with SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited into a prospective multicentre cohort study at least 3 months post-discharge. The primary outcome was self-reported recovery at least ninety days after initial Covid-19 symptom onset. Secondary outcomes included new symptoms, disability (Washington group short scale), breathlessness (MRC Dyspnoea scale) and quality of life (EQ5D-5L). FINDINGS: 55% of participants reported not feeling fully recovered. 93% reported persistent symptoms, with fatigue the most common (83%), followed by breathlessness (54%). 47% reported an increase in MRC dyspnoea scale of at least one grade. New or worse disability was reported by 24% of participants. The EQ5D-5L summary index was significantly worse following acute illness (median difference 0.1 points on a scale of 0 to 1, IQR: -0.2 to 0.0). Females under the age of 50 years were five times less likely to report feeling recovered (adjusted OR 5.09, 95% CI 1.64 to 15.74), were more likely to have greater disability (adjusted OR 4.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 15.94), twice as likely to report worse fatigue (adjusted OR 2.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.31) and seven times more likely to become more breathless (adjusted OR 7.15, 95% CI 2.24 to 22.83) than men of the same age. INTERPRETATION: Survivors of Covid-19 experienced long-term symptoms, new disability, increased breathlessness, and reduced quality of life. These findings were present in young, previously healthy working age adults, and were most common in younger females. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Department for International Development and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Transmission Dynamics Should Inform Policy.

It is generally agreed that striking a balance between resuming economic and social activities and keeping the effective reproductive number (R0) below 1 using nonpharmaceutical interventions is an important goal until and even after effective vaccines become available. Therefore, the need remains to understand how the virus is transmitted in order to identify high-risk environments and activities that disproportionately contribute to its spread so that effective preventative measures could be put in place. Contact tracing and household studies, in particular, provide robust evidence about the parameters of transmission. In this Viewpoint, we discuss the available evidence from large-scale, well-conducted contact-tracing studies from across the world and argue that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission dynamics should inform policy decisions about mitigation strategies for targeted interventions according to the needs of the society by directing attention to the settings, activities, and socioeconomic factors associated with the highest risks of transmission.