Metagenomic assessment of gut microbial communities and risk of severe COVID-19 (preprint)

The gut microbiome is a critical modulator of host immunity and is linked to the immune response to respiratory viral infections. However, few studies have gone beyond describing broad compositional alterations in severe COVID-19, defined as acute respiratory or other organ failure. We profiled 127 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (n=79 with severe COVID-19 and 48 with moderate) who collectively provided 241 stool samples from April 2020 to May 2021 to identify links between COVID-19 severity and gut microbial taxa, their biochemical pathways, and stool metabolites. 48 species were associated with severe disease after accounting for antibiotic use, age, sex, and various comorbidities. These included significant in-hospital depletions of Fusicatenibacter saccharivorans and Roseburia hominis, each previously linked to post-acute COVID syndrome or “long COVID”, suggesting these microbes may serve as early biomarkers for the eventual development of long COVID. A random forest classifier achieved excellent performance when tasked with predicting whether stool was obtained from patients with severe vs. moderate COVID-19. Dedicated network analyses demonstrated fragile microbial ecology in severe disease, characterized by fracturing of clusters and reduced negative selection. We also observed shifts in predicted stool metabolite pools, implicating perturbed bile acid metabolism in severe disease. Here, we show that the gut microbiome differentiates individuals with a more severe disease course after infection with COVID-19 and offer several tractable and biologically plausible mechanisms through which gut microbial communities may influence COVID-19 disease course. Further studies are needed to validate these observations to better leverage the gut microbiome as a potential biomarker for disease severity and as a target for therapeutic intervention.

Diet quality and risk and severity of COVID-19: a prospective cohort study (preprint)

Objective: Poor metabolic health and certain lifestyle factors have been associated with risk and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but data for diet are lacking. We aimed to investigate the association of diet quality with risk and severity of COVID-19 and its intersection with socioeconomic deprivation. Design: We used data from 592,571 participants of the smartphone-based COVID Symptom Study. Diet quality was assessed using a healthful plant-based diet score, which emphasizes healthy plant foods such as fruits or vegetables. Multivariable Cox models were fitted to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for COVID-19 risk and severity defined using a validated symptom-based algorithm or hospitalization with oxygen support, respectively. Results: Over 3,886,274 person-months of follow-up, 31,815 COVID-19 cases were documented. Compared with individuals in the lowest quartile of the diet score, high diet quality was associated with lower risk of COVID-19 (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.94) and severe COVID-19 (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47-0.74). The joint association of low diet quality and increased deprivation on COVID-19 risk was higher than the sum of the risk associated with each factor alone (Pinteraction=0.005). The corresponding absolute excess rate for lowest vs highest quartile of diet score was 22.5 (95% CI, 18.8-26.3) and 40.8 (95% CI, 31.7-49.8; 10,000 person-months) among persons living in areas with low and high deprivation, respectively. Conclusions: A dietary pattern characterized by healthy plant-based foods was associated with lower risk and severity of COVID-19. These association may be particularly evident among individuals living in areas with higher socioeconomic deprivation.

Aspirin and NSAID use and the risk of COVID-19 (preprint)

Early reports raised concern that use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may increase risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disease (COVID-19). Users of the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application reported use of aspirin and other NSAIDs between March 24 and May 8, 2020. Users were queried daily about symptoms, COVID-19 testing, and healthcare seeking behavior. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine the risk of COVID-19 among according to aspirin or non-aspirin NSAID users. Among 2,736,091 individuals in the U.S., U.K., and Sweden, we documented 8,966 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 60,817,043 person-days of follow-up. Compared to non-users and after stratifying by age, sex, country, day of study entry, and race/ethnicity, non-aspirin NSAID use was associated with a modest risk for testing COVID-19 positive (HR 1.23 [1.09, 1.32]), but no significant association was observed among aspirin users (HR 1.13 [0.92, 1.38]). After adjustment for lifestyle factors, comorbidities and baseline symptoms, any NSAID use was not associated with risk (HR 1.02 [0.94, 1.10]). Results were similar for those seeking healthcare for COVID-19 and were not substantially different according to lifestyle and sociodemographic factors or after accounting for propensity to receive testing. Our results do not support an association of NSAID use, including aspirin, with COVID-19 infection. Previous reports of a potential association may be due to higher rates of comorbidities or use of NSAIDs to treat symptoms associated with COVID-19. One Sentence Summary NSAID use is not associated with COVID-19 risk.

The Effect of Famotidine on Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (preprint)

Introduction: Famotidine is a competitive histamine H2-receptor antagonist most commonly used for gastric acid suppression but thought to have potential efficacy in treating patients with COVID-19. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to summarize the current literature and report clinical outcomes on the use of famotidine for treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: Five databases were searched through February 12, 2021 to identify observational studies that reported on associations of famotidine use with outcomes in COVID-19. Meta-analysis was conducted for composite primary clinical outcome (e.g. rate of death, intubation, or intensive care unit admissions) and death separately, where either aggregate odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) was calculated. Results: Four studies, reporting on 46,435 total patients and 3,110 patients treated with famotidine, were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant association between famotidine use and composite outcomes in patients with COVID-19: HR 0.63 (95% CI: 0.35, 1.16). Across the three studies that reported mortality separated from other endpoints, there was no association between famotidine use during hospitalization and risk of death - HR 0.67 (95% CI: 0.26, 1.73) and OR 0.79 (95% CI: 0.19, 3.34). Heterogeneity ranged from 83.69% to 88.07%. Conclusion: Based on the existing observational studies, famotidine use is not associated with a reduced risk of mortality or combined outcome of mortality, intubation, and/or intensive care services in hospitalized individuals with COVID-19, though heterogeneity was high, and point estimates suggested a possible protective effect for the composite outcome that may not have been observed due to lack of power. Further RCTs may help determine the efficacy and safety of famotidine as a treatment for COVID-19 patients in various care settings of the disease

Racial and ethnic differences in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake (preprint)

Background Racial and ethnic minorities have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. In the initial phase of population-based vaccination in the United States (U.S.) and United Kingdom (U.K.), vaccine hesitancy and limited access may result in disparities in uptake. Methods We performed a cohort study among U.S. and U.K. participants in the smartphone-based COVID Symptom Study (March 24, 2020-February 16, 2021). We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (unsure/not willing) and receipt. Results In the U.S. ( n =87,388), compared to White non-Hispanic participants, the multivariable ORs of vaccine hesitancy were 3.15 (95% CI: 2.86 to 3.47) for Black participants, 1.42 (1.28 to 1.58) for Hispanic participants, 1.34 (1.18 to 1.52) for Asian participants, and 2.02 (1.70 to 2.39) for participants reporting more than one race/other. In the U.K. ( n =1,254,294), racial and ethnic minorities had similarly elevated hesitancy: compared to White participants, their corresponding ORs were 2.84 (95% CI: 2.69 to 2.99) for Black participants, 1.66 (1.57 to 1.76) for South Asian participants, 1.84 (1.70 to 1.98) for Middle East/East Asian participants, and 1.48 (1.39 to 1.57) for participants reporting more than one race/other. Among U.S. participants, the OR of vaccine receipt was 0.71 (0.64 to 0.79) for Black participants, a disparity that persisted among individuals who specifically endorsed a willingness to obtain a vaccine. In contrast, disparities in uptake were not observed in the U.K. Conclusions COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was greater among racial and ethnic minorities, and Black participants living in the U.S. were less likely to receive a vaccine than White participants. Lower uptake among Black participants in the U.S. during the initial vaccine rollout is attributable to both hesitancy and disparities in access.

Colchicine use in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis (preprint)

Introduction: Colchicine may inhibit inflammasome signaling and reduce proinflammatory cytokines, a purported mechanism of COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to report on the state of the current literature on the use of colchicine in COVID-19 and to investigate the reported clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients by colchicine usage. Methods: The literature was searched from January 2019 through January 28, 2021. References were screened to identify studies that reported the effect of colchicine usage on COVID-19 outcomes including mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, or mechanical ventilation. Studies were meta-analyzed for mortality by the subgroup of trial design (RCT vs observational) and ICU status. Studies reporting an odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) were analyzed separately. Results: Six studies, reporting on 5,033 patients, were included in this review. Across the six studies, COVID-19 patients who had colchicine had a lower risk of mortality - HR of 0.25 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.66) and OR of 0.36 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.76). Among the three observational studies, COVID-19 patients who received colchicine had a lower risk of mortality - HR of 0.25 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.66) and OR of 0.21 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.71). Among three randomized controlled trials, the summary point estimate suggests a direction toward benefit in mortality that is not statistically significant among patients receiving colchicine versus placebo - OR of 0.49 (95% CI: 0.20, 1.24). Conclusion: Colchicine may reduce the risk of mortality in individuals with COVID-19. Further prospective investigation is warranted to determine the efficacy of colchicine as treatment in COVID-19 patients in various care settings of the disease.

Association of social distancing and masking with risk of COVID-19 (preprint)

Given the continued burden of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) disease (COVID-19) across the U.S., there is a high unmet need for data to inform decision-making regarding social distancing and universal masking. We examined the association of community-level social distancing measures and individual masking with risk of predicted COVID-19 in a large prospective U.S. cohort study of 198,077 participants. Individuals living in communities with the greatest social distancing had a 31% lower risk of predicted COVID-19 compared with those living in communities with poor social distancing. Self-reported masking was associated with a 63% reduced risk of predicted COVID-19 even among individuals living in a community with poor social distancing. These findings provide support for the efficacy of mask-wearing even in settings of poor social distancing in reducing COVID-19 transmission. In the current environment of relaxed social distancing mandates and practices, universal masking may be particularly important in mitigating risk of infection.

Racial and ethnic determinants of Covid-19 risk (preprint)

BackgroundRacial and ethnic minorities have disproportionately high hospitalization rates and mortality related to the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). There are comparatively scant data on race and ethnicity as determinants of infection risk. MethodsWe used a smartphone application (beginning March 24, 2020 in the United Kingdom [U.K.] and March 29, 2020 in the United States [U.S.]) to recruit 2,414,601 participants who reported their race/ethnicity through May 25, 2020 and employed logistic regression to determine the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for a positive Covid-19 test among racial and ethnic groups. ResultsWe documented 8,858 self-reported cases of Covid-19 among 2,259,841 non-Hispanic white; 79 among 9,615 Hispanic; 186 among 18,176 Black; 598 among 63,316 Asian; and 347 among 63,653 other racial minority participants. Compared with non-Hispanic white participants, the risk for a positive Covid-19 test was increased across racial minorities (aORs ranging from 1.24 to 3.51). After adjustment for socioeconomic indices and Covid-19 exposure risk factors, the associations (aOR [95% CI]) were attenuated but remained significant for Hispanic (1.58 [1.24-2.02]) and Black participants (2.56 [1.93-3.39]) in the U.S. and South Asian (1.52 [1.38-1.67]) and Middle Eastern participants (1.56 [1.25-1.95]) in the U.K. A higher risk of Covid-19 and seeking or receiving treatment was also observed for several racial/ethnic minority subgroups. ConclusionsOur results demonstrate an increase in Covid-19 risk among racial and ethnic minorities not completely explained by other risk factors for Covid-19, comorbidities, and sociodemographic characteristics. Further research investigating these disparities are needed to inform public health measures.

Symptom clusters in Covid19: A potential clinical prediction tool from the COVID Symptom study app (preprint)

As no one symptom can predict disease severity or the need for dedicated medical support in COVID-19, we asked if documenting symptom time series over the first few days informs outcome. Unsupervised time series clustering over symptom presentation was performed on data collected from a training dataset of completed cases enlisted early from the COVID Symptom Study Smartphone application, yielding six distinct symptom presentations. Clustering was validated on an independent replication dataset between May 1- May 28th, 2020. Using the first 5 days of symptom logging, the ROC-AUC of need for respiratory support was 78.8%, substantially outperforming personal characteristics alone (ROC-AUC 69.5%). Such an approach could be used to monitor at-risk patients and predict medical resource requirements days before they are required.

Risk of symptomatic Covid-19 among frontline healthcare workers (preprint)

BackgroundData for frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited and whether personal protective equipment (PPE) mitigates this risk is unknown. We evaluated risk for COVID-19 among frontline HCWs compared to the general community and the influence of PPE. MethodsWe performed a prospective cohort study of the general community, including frontline HCWs, who reported information through the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application beginning on March 24 (United Kingdom, U.K.) and March 29 (United States, U.S.) through April 23, 2020. We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of a positive COVID-19 test. FindingsAmong 2,035,395 community individuals and 99,795 frontline HCWs, we documented 5,545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34,435,272 person-days. Compared with the general community, frontline HCWs had an aHR of 11{middle dot}6 (95% CI: 10{middle dot}9 to 12{middle dot}3) for reporting a positive test. The corresponding aHR was 3{middle dot}40 (95% CI: 3{middle dot}37 to 3{middle dot}43) using an inverse probability weighted Cox model adjusting for the likelihood of receiving a test. A symptom-based classifier of predicted COVID-19 yielded similar risk estimates. Compared with HCWs reporting adequate PPE, the aHRs for reporting a positive test were 1{middle dot}46 (95% CI: 1{middle dot}21 to 1{middle dot}76) for those reporting PPE reuse and 1{middle dot}31 (95% CI: 1{middle dot}10 to 1{middle dot}56) for reporting inadequate PPE. Compared with HCWs reporting adequate PPE who did not care for COVID-19 patients, HCWs caring for patients with documented COVID-19 had aHRs for a positive test of 4{middle dot}83 (95% CI: 3{middle dot}99 to 5{middle dot}85) if they had adequate PPE, 5{middle dot}06 (95% CI: 3{middle dot}90 to 6{middle dot}57) for reused PPE, and 5{middle dot}91 (95% CI: 4{middle dot}53 to 7{middle dot}71) for inadequate PPE. InterpretationFrontline HCWs had a significantly increased risk of COVID-19 infection, highest among HCWs who reused PPE or had inadequate access to PPE. However, adequate supplies of PPE did not completely mitigate high-risk exposures. FundingZoe Global Ltd., Wellcome Trust, EPSRC, NIHR, UK Research and Innovation, Alzheimers Society, NIH, NIOSH, Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness RESEARCH IN CONTEXTO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSThe prolonged course of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, coupled with sustained challenges supplying adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) for frontline healthcare workers (HCW), have strained global healthcare systems in an unprecedented fashion. Despite growing awareness of this problem, there are few data to inform policy makers on the risk of COVID-19 among HCWs and the impact of PPE on their disease burden. Prior reports of HCW infections are based on cross sectional data with limited individual-level information on risk factors for infection. A PubMed search for articles published between January 1, 2020 and May 5, 2020 using the terms "covid-19", "healthcare workers", and "personal protective equipment," yielded no population-scale investigations exploring this topic. Added value of this studyIn a prospective study of 2,135,190 individuals, frontline HCWs may have up to a 12-fold increased risk of reporting a positive COVID-19 test. Compared with those who reported adequate availability of PPE, frontline HCWs with inadequate PPE had a 31% increase in risk. However, adequate availability of PPE did not completely reduce risk among HCWs caring for COVID-19 patients. Implications of all the available evidenceBeyond ensuring adequate availability of PPE, additional efforts to protect HCWs from COVID-19 are needed, particularly as lockdown is lifted in many regions of the world.