Understanding COVID-19 Risk in Patients With Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Population-Based Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Testing.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence of and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 testing and infection in immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) patients versus matched non-IMID comparators from the general population. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, matched cohort study among adult residents from Ontario, Canada, from January 2020 to December 2020. We created cohorts for the following IMIDs: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases, multiple sclerosis (MS), iritis, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), polymyalgia rheumatica, and vasculitis. Each patient was matched with 5 patients without IMIDs based on sociodemographic factors. We estimated the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 testing and infection in IMID patients and non-IMID patients. Multivariable logistic regressions assessed odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: We studied 493,499 patients with IMIDs and 2,466,946 patients without IMIDs. Patients with IMIDs were more likely to have at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 test versus patients without IMIDs (27.4% versus 22.7%), but the proportion testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 was identical (0.9% in both groups). Overall, IMID patients had 20% higher odds of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 (odds ratio 1.20 [95% confidence interval 1.19-1.21]). The odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection varied across IMID groups but was not significantly elevated for most IMID groups compared with non-IMID comparators. The odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection was lower in IBD and MS and marginally higher in RA and iritis. CONCLUSION: Patients across all IMIDs were more likely to be tested for SARS-CoV-2 versus those without IMIDs. The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection varied across disease subgroups.

New evidence of impaired expression recognition in developmental prosopagnosia.

Developmental prosopagnosia (DP) is a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by lifelong face recognition difficulties. To date, it remains unclear whether or not individuals with DP experience impaired recognition of facial expressions. It has been proposed that DPs may have sufficient perceptual ability to correctly interpret facial expressions when tasks are relatively easy (e.g., the stimuli are unambiguous and viewing conditions are optimal), but exhibit subtle impairments when tested under more challenging conditions. In the present study, we sought to take advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic to test this view. It is well-established that the surgical-type masks worn during the pandemic hinder the recognition and interpretation of facial emotion in typical participants. Relative to typical participants, we hypothesized that DPs may be disproportionately impaired when asked to interpret the facial emotion of people wearing face masks. We compared the ability of 34 DPs and 60 age-matched typical controls to recognize facial emotions i) when the whole face is visible, and ii) when the lower portion of the face is covered with a surgical mask. When expression stimuli were viewed without a mask, the DPs and typical controls exhibited similar levels of performance. However, when expression stimuli were shown with a mask, the DPs showed signs of subtle expression recognition deficits. The DPs were particularly prone to mislabeling masked expressions of happiness as emotion neutral. These results add to a growing body of evidence that under some conditions, DPs do exhibit subtle deficits of expression recognition.

COVID-19 Hospitalizations, Intensive Care Unit Stays, Ventilation, and Death Among Patients With Immune-mediated Inflammatory Diseases Compared to Controls.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization risk in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) compared with matched non-IMID comparators from the general population. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, matched cohort study using health administrative data from January to July 2020 in Ontario, Canada. Cohorts for each of the following IMIDs were assembled: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis, systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), multiple sclerosis (MS), iritis, inflammatory bowel disease, polymyalgia rheumatica, and vasculitis. Each patient was matched with 5 non-IMID comparators based on sociodemographic factors. We compared the cumulative incidence of hospitalizations for COVID-19 and their outcomes between IMID and non-IMID patients. RESULTS: A total of 493,499 patients with IMID (417 hospitalizations) and 2,466,946 non-IMID comparators (1519 hospitalizations) were assessed. The odds of being hospitalized for COVID-19 were significantly higher in patients with IMIDs compared with their matched non-IMID comparators (matched unadjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.37, adjusted OR 1.23). Significantly higher risk of hospitalizations was found in patients with iritis (OR 1.46), MS (OR 1.83), PsA (OR 2.20), RA (OR 1.42), SARDs (OR 1.47), and vasculitis (OR 2.07). COVID-19 hospitalizations were associated with older age, male sex, long-term care residence, multimorbidity, and lower income. The odds of complicated hospitalizations were 21% higher among all IMID vs matched non-IMID patients, but this association was attenuated after adjusting for demographic factors and comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Patients with IMIDs were at higher risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19. This risk was explained in part by their comorbidities.

How does the presence of a surgical face mask impair the perceived intensity of facial emotions?

The use of surgical-type face masks has become increasingly common during the COVID-19 pandemic. Recent findings suggest that it is harder to categorise the facial expressions of masked faces, than of unmasked faces. To date, studies of the effects of mask-wearing on emotion recognition have used categorisation paradigms: authors have presented facial expression stimuli and examined participants' ability to attach the correct label (e.g., happiness, disgust). While the ability to categorise particular expressions is important, this approach overlooks the fact that expression intensity is also informative during social interaction. For example, when predicting an interactant's future behaviour, it is useful to know whether they are slightly fearful or terrified, contented or very happy, slightly annoyed or angry. Moreover, because categorisation paradigms force observers to pick a single label to describe their percept, any additional dimensionality within observers' interpretation is lost. In the present study, we adopted a complementary emotion-intensity rating paradigm to study the effects of mask-wearing on expression interpretation. In an online experiment with 120 participants (82 female), we investigated how the presence of face masks affects the perceived emotional profile of prototypical expressions of happiness, sadness, anger, fear, disgust, and surprise. For each of these facial expressions, we measured the perceived intensity of all six emotions. We found that the perceived intensity of intended emotions (i.e., the emotion that the actor intended to convey) was reduced by the presence of a mask for all expressions except for anger. Additionally, when viewing all expressions except surprise, masks increased the perceived intensity of non-intended emotions (i.e., emotions that the actor did not intend to convey). Intensity ratings were unaffected by presentation duration (500ms vs 3000ms), or attitudes towards mask wearing. These findings shed light on the ambiguity that arises when interpreting the facial expressions of masked faces.

Convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an open-label, randomized controlled trial.

The efficacy of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Although most randomized controlled trials have shown negative results, uncontrolled studies have suggested that the antibody content could influence patient outcomes. We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma for adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen within 12 d of respiratory symptom onset ( NCT04348656 ). Patients were allocated 2:1 to 500 ml of convalescent plasma or standard of care. The composite primary outcome was intubation or death by 30 d. Exploratory analyses of the effect of convalescent plasma antibodies on the primary outcome was assessed by logistic regression. The trial was terminated at 78% of planned enrollment after meeting stopping criteria for futility. In total, 940 patients were randomized, and 921 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Intubation or death occurred in 199/614 (32.4%) patients in the convalescent plasma arm and 86/307 (28.0%) patients in the standard of care arm-relative risk (RR) = 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.43, P = 0.18). Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% versus 26.4%; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.02-1.57, P = 0.034). The antibody content significantly modulated the therapeutic effect of convalescent plasma. In multivariate analysis, each standardized log increase in neutralization or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity independently reduced the potential harmful effect of plasma (odds ratio (OR) = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.95 and OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87, respectively), whereas IgG against the full transmembrane spike protein increased it (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.14-2.05). Convalescent plasma did not reduce the risk of intubation or death at 30 d in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Transfusion of convalescent plasma with unfavorable antibody profiles could be associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to standard care.

Convalescent plasma for adults with acute COVID-19 respiratory illness (CONCOR-1): study protocol for an international, multicentre, randomized, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been used for numerous viral diseases including influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome, Middle East respiratory syndrome and Ebola virus; however, evidence to support its use is weak. SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus responsible for the 2019 global pandemic of COVID-19 community acquired pneumonia. We have undertaken a randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: CONCOR-1 is an open-label, multicentre, randomized trial. Inclusion criteria include the following: patients > 16 years, admitted to hospital with COVID-19 infection, receiving supplemental oxygen for respiratory complications of COVID-19, and availability of blood group compatible CCP. Exclusion criteria are : onset of respiratory symptoms more than 12 days prior to randomization, intubated or imminent plan for intubation, and previous severe reactions to plasma. Consenting patients are randomized 2:1 to receive either approximately 500 mL of CCP or standard of care. CCP is collected from donors who have recovered from COVID-19 and who have detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies quantified serologically. The primary outcome is intubation or death at day 30. Secondary outcomes include ventilator-free days, length of stay in intensive care or hospital, transfusion reactions, serious adverse events, and reduction in SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Exploratory analyses include patients who received CCP containing high titre antibodies. A sample size of 1200 patients gives 80% power to detect a 25% relative risk reduction assuming a 30% baseline risk of intubation or death at 30 days (two-sided test; α = 0.05). An interim analysis and sample size re-estimation will be done by an unblinded independent biostatistician after primary outcome data are available for 50% of the target recruitment (n = 600). DISCUSSION: This trial will determine whether CCP will reduce intubation or death non-intubated adults with COVID-19. The trial will also provide information on the role of and thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 antibody titres and neutralization assays for donor qualification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04348656 . Registered on 16 April 2020.

Ramping Up the Delivery of Cardiac Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Guidance Statement From the Canadian Society of Cardiac Surgeons.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a profound global effect. Its rapid transmissibility has forced whole countries to adopt strict measures to contain its spread. As part of necessary pandemic planning, most Canadian cardiac surgical programs have prioritized and delayed elective procedures in an effort to reduce the burden on the health care system and to mobilize resources in the event of a pandemic surge. While the number of COVID-19 cases continue to increase worldwide, new cases have begun to decline in many jurisdictions. This "flattening of the curve" has inevitably prompted discussions around reopening of the economy, relaxing some public health restrictions, and resuming nonurgent health care delivery. This document provides a template for cardiac surgical programs to begin to ramp-up the delivery of cardiac surgery in a deliberate and graded fashion as the COVID-19 pandemic burden begins to ease that is guided by 3 principles. First, all recommendations from public health authorities regarding COVID-19 containment must continue to be followed to minimize disease spread, ensure patient safety, and protect health care personnel. Second, patients awaiting elective cardiac surgery need to be proactively managed, reprioritizing those with high-risk anatomy or whose clinical status is deteriorating. Finally, case volumes should be steadily increased in a mutually agreed upon fashion and must balance the clinical needs of patients awaiting surgery against the overall requirements of the health care system.

Cardiac Surgery in Canada During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Guidance Statement From the Canadian Society of Cardiac Surgeons.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared that COVID-19 was a pandemic.1 At that time, only 118,000 cases had been reported globally, 90% of which had occurred in 4 countries.1 Since then, the world landscape has changed dramatically. As of March 31, 2020, there are now nearly 800,000 cases, with truly global involvement.2 Countries that were previously unaffected are currently experiencing mounting rates of the novel coronavirus infection with associated increases in COVID-19-related deaths. At present, Canada has more than 8000 cases of COVID-19, with considerable variation in rates of infection among provinces and territories.3 Amid concerns over growing resource constraints, cardiac surgeons from across Canada have been forced to make drastic changes to their clinical practices. From prioritizing and delaying elective cases to altering therapeutic strategies in high-risk patients, cardiac surgeons, along with their heart teams, are having to reconsider how best to manage their patients. It is with this in mind that the Canadian Society of Cardiac Surgeons (CSCS) and its Board of Directors have come together to formulate a series of guiding statements. With strong representation from across the country and the support of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society, the authors have attempted to provide guidance to their colleagues on the subjects of leadership roles that cardiac surgeons may assume during this pandemic: patient assessment and triage, risk reduction, and real-time sharing of expertise and experiences.