Gut microbiota profile of COVID-19 patients: Prognosis and risk stratification (MicroCOVID-19 study).

Background: Gut microbiota is intrinsically associated with the immune system and can promote or suppress infectious diseases, especially viral infections. This study aims to characterize and compare the microbiota profile of infected patients with SARS-CoV-2 (milder or severe symptoms), non-infected people, and recovered patients. This is a national, transversal, observational, multicenter, and case-control study that analyzed the microbiota of COVID-19 patients with mild or severe symptoms at home, at the hospital, or in the intensive care unit, patients already recovered, and healthy volunteers cohabiting with COVID-19 patients. DNA was isolated from stool samples and sequenced in a NGS platform. A demographic questionnaire was also applied. Statistical analysis was performed in SPSS. Results: Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratios were found to be significantly lower in infected patients (1.61 and 2.57) compared to healthy volunteers (3.23) and recovered patients (3.89). Furthermore, the microbiota composition differed significantly between healthy volunteers, mild and severe COVID-19 patients, and recovered patients. Furthermore, Escherichia coli, Actinomyces naeslundii, and Dorea longicatena were shown to be more frequent in severe cases. The most common COVID-19 symptoms were linked to certain microbiome groups. Conclusion: We can conclude that microbiota composition is significantly affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection and may be used to predict COVID-19 clinical evolution. Therefore, it will be possible to better allocate healthcare resources and better tackle future pandemics.

Gut microbiota profile of COVID-19 patients: Prognosis and risk stratification (MicroCOVID-19 study)

Background Gut microbiota is intrinsically associated with the immune system and can promote or suppress infectious diseases, especially viral infections. This study aims to characterize and compare the microbiota profile of infected patients with SARS-CoV-2 (milder or severe symptoms), non-infected people, and recovered patients. This is a national, transversal, observational, multicenter, and case–control study that analyzed the microbiota of COVID-19 patients with mild or severe symptoms at home, at the hospital, or in the intensive care unit, patients already recovered, and healthy volunteers cohabiting with COVID-19 patients. DNA was isolated from stool samples and sequenced in a NGS platform. A demographic questionnaire was also applied. Statistical analysis was performed in SPSS. Results Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratios were found to be significantly lower in infected patients (1.61 and 2.57) compared to healthy volunteers (3.23) and recovered patients (3.89). Furthermore, the microbiota composition differed significantly between healthy volunteers, mild and severe COVID-19 patients, and recovered patients. Furthermore, Escherichia coli, Actinomyces naeslundii, and Dorea longicatena were shown to be more frequent in severe cases. The most common COVID-19 symptoms were linked to certain microbiome groups. Conclusion We can conclude that microbiota composition is significantly affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection and may be used to predict COVID-19 clinical evolution. Therefore, it will be possible to better allocate healthcare resources and better tackle future pandemics.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Breast Cancer Management in Portugal: A Cross-Sectional Survey-Based Study of Medical Oncologists.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer care providers have faced many challenges in delivering safe care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-sectional survey-based study investigated the impact of the pandemic on clinical practices of Portuguese medical oncologists caring for patients with breast cancer. METHODS: An anonymous online survey comprising 42 questions gathered information regarding COVID-19 testing, treatment in (neo)adjuvant and metastatic settings, and other aspects of breast cancer management. Practices before and during the pandemic were compared, and potential differences in outcomes according to respondents' regions, case volumes, and practice type were explored. RESULTS: Of 129 respondents, 108 worked in the public health system, giving a representative national picture of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer management. Seventy-one percent of respondents reported a reduction in visits for new cases of breast cancer, and there was a shift towards increased use of telemedicine. Clinical decision-making was largely unaffected in the most aggressive indications (i.e., triple-negative, HER2-positive, visceral crisis). The use of neoadjuvant therapy increased when access to surgery was difficult, whereas dose-dense regimens decreased, and cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor treatment decreased for less aggressive disease and increased for more aggressive disease. The use of oral formulations and metronomic chemotherapy regimens increased, and clinical trial participation decreased. Some differences by respondents' region and case volume were noted. CONCLUSION: Medical oncologists in Portugal implemented many changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, most of which were logical and reasonable responses to the current healthcare emergency; however, the true impact on patient outcomes remains unknown.

This study was an online survey of Portuguese medical oncologists to determine how they managed patients with breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. Forty-two questions covered topics such as how COVID testing was done, the types of cancer treatments used, and how this compared to before the pandemic. It also examined whether the geographic region, the number of patients each doctor was responsible for (caseload), and the type of medical institution influenced how patients with breast cancer were managed. One hundred and twenty-nine oncologists completed the survey, of whom 108 worked in the public health system, making this survey representative of breast cancer management during the COVID-19 pandemic across Portugal. Most (71%) said there were fewer visits for new cases of breast cancer during lockdown. The use of telemedicine increased, as did the use of pre-surgery hormone therapy or chemotherapy when access to surgery was difficult, and the use of anticancer medications taken orally or metronomically (low doses given frequently over a long time period). Chemotherapy given very frequently (dose-dense) was used less often, and fewer patients participated in clinical trials. Treatment decisions for patients with aggressive breast cancer types (e.g., triple-negative breast cancer) were largely unchanged, except for greater use of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors­drugs targeting the cell cycle and cell division control. Geographic region and caseload influenced treatment decisions. All of these changes in breast cancer treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic were logical and reasonable for the circumstances, but their long-term impact is not yet known.

Covid-19 pandemic policy monitor (COV-PPM) - European level tracking data of non-pharmaceutical interventions.

The Covid-19 Pandemic Policy Monitor (COV-PPM) dataset prospectively documents non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) taken to contain SARS-Cov-2 transmission across countries in EU27, EEA and UK. In Germany, measures have also been recorded at the federal state and, partially, at the district levels. NPIs implemented since January 2020 have been retrieved and updated weekly from March 2020, from official governments webpages, Ministries of Health, National (Public) Health Institutes or Administrations. NPI categories collected refer to restrictions, closures or changes in functioning implemented in 13 domains: public events (gatherings in indoor or outdoor spaces); public institutions (kindergartens, schools, universities); public spaces (shops, bars, restaurants); public transport (trains, buses, trams, metro); citizens movement/mobility (e.g. pedestrians, cars, ships); border closures (air, land or sea, all incoming travels, from high-risk regions, only non-nationals); measures to improve the healthcare system (e.g. human resources or technical reinforcement, redistribution, material or infrastructural); measures for risk/vulnerable groups (e.g. elderly, chronically ill, pregnant); economic measures (e.g. lay-off rules establishment, actions to avoid job-loss, tax relaxation); testing policies (e.g. testing criteria changes); nose and mouth protection rules, vaccination and others/miscellaneous measures.

Predicting COVID-19 Vaccination Intention: The Determinants of Vaccine Hesitancy.

Do people want to be vaccinated against COVID-19? Herd immunity is dependent on individuals' willingness to be vaccinated since vaccination is not mandatory. Our main goal was to investigate people's intention to be vaccinated and their intentions to vaccinate their children. Moreover, we were interested in understanding the role of the personal characteristics, psychological factors, and the lockdown context on that decision. Therefore, we conducted an online survey during the lockdown in Portugal (15 January 2021 until 14 March 2021). Participants completed a socio-demographic questionnaire, questions about their intentions of being vaccinated, concerns about the vaccine, a COVID-19 attitudes and beliefs scale, a COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and beliefs scale, and the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) Scale. Our results showed that from the 649 participants, 63% of the participants reported being very likely to have the vaccine, while 60% reported being very likely to vaccinate their children. We conducted two linear regression models, explaining 65% of the variance for personal vaccination and 56% of the variance for children vaccination. We found that the COVID-19 vaccine general beliefs and attitudes were the main determinants of vaccination intention. Additionally, our proposed artificial neural network model was able to predict with 85% accuracy vaccination intention. Thus, our results suggest that psychological factors are an essential determinant of vaccination intention. Thus, public policy decision makers may use these insights for predicting vaccine hesitancy and designing effective vaccination communication strategies.

SARS-Cov-2 prevalence, transmission, health-related outcomes and control strategies in homeless shelters: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: People experiencing homelessness (PEH) may be at risk for COVID19. We synthesised evidence on SARS-Cov-2 infection, transmission, outcomes of disease, effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI), and the effectiveness of strategies for infection prevention and control (IPC). METHODS: Systematic review of articles, indexed in electronic databases (EMBASE, WHO-Covid19, Web of Science), institutional websites and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's live map of COVID-19 evidence, and published from December 1st, 2019, to March 3rd, 2021. Empirical papers of any study design addressing Covid-19 and health(-related) outcomes in PEH or shelters' staff were included. (PROSPERO-2020-CRD42020187033). FINDINGS: Of 536 publications, 37 studies were included (two modelling, 31 observational, four qualitative studies). Random-effect meta-analysis yields a baseline SARS-Cov-2 prevalence of 2•32% (95% Confidence-Interval, 95%CI=1•30-3•34) in PEH and 1•55% (95%CI=0•79-2•31) in staff. In outbreaks, the pooled prevalence increases to 31•59% (95%CI=20•48-42•71) in PEH and 14•80% (95%CI=10•73-18•87) in staff. Main IPC strategies were universal rapid testing, expansion of non-congregate housing, and in-shelter measures (bed spacing, limited staff rotation, reduction in number of residents). INTERPRETATION: 32% of PEH and 15% staff are infected during outbreaks of SARS-Cov-2 in homeless shelters. Most studies were conducted in the USA. No studies were found quantifying health-related outcomes of NPI. Overview and evaluation of IPC strategies for PEH, a better understanding of disease transmission, and reliable data on PEH within Covid-19 notification systems are needed. Qualitative studies may serve to voice PEH and shelter staff experiences, and guide future evaluations and IPC strategies. FUNDING: None.

Associations with COVID-19 Symptoms, Prevention Interest, and Testing Among Sexual and Gender Minority Adults in a Diverse National Sample.

Purpose: Sexual and gender minority (SGM) and racial/ethnic minority populations may differ in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevention, testing, and vaccine interest, although little research has explored these disparities. It is critical to understand the differential experiences within minoritized communities to ensure effective intervention and vaccine rollout. Methods: In a national online survey of U.S. adult SGM individuals, conducted between April and August 2020, 932 participants responded about COVID-19 testing, symptoms, interest in vaccination, and interest in at-home testing. Bivariate associations between these outcomes and demographic factors, including sexual orientation, gender identity, endorsing intersex traits, gender modality, race/ethnicity, and HIV status were calculated. Results: Despite 24% of the sample reporting COVID-19 symptoms, testing was relatively low at 13.3%. Transgender and bisexual/pansexual individuals were more likely to be interested in a COVID-19 vaccine and an at-home test compared with cisgender and gay/lesbian respondents, respectively. Compared with cisgender individuals, transgender individuals were nearly twice as likely to report COVID-19 symptoms. Latinx individuals were less likely to be interested in a future COVID-19 vaccination and Black individuals were less likely to be interested in an at-home COVID-19 test compared with White participants. Both respondents who endorsed intersex traits and people with HIV were less likely to be interested in an at-home test compared with those who did not endorse having intersex traits and people without HIV, respectively. Conclusions: These results show critical disparities in COVID-19 symptomology and prevention interest within SGM populations that must be taken into account when designing or tailoring effective COVID-19 interventions.

Evidence of Social and Structural COVID-19 Disparities by Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Race/Ethnicity in an Urban Environment.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has had widespread social, psychological, and economic impacts. However, these impacts are not distributed equally: already marginalized populations, specifically racial/ethnic minority groups and sexual and gender minority populations, may be more likely to suffer the effects of COVID-19. The COVID-19 Resiliency Survey was conducted by the city of Chicago to assess the impact of COVID-19 on city residents in the wake of Chicago's initial lockdown, with particular focus on the experiences of minority populations. Chi-square tests of independence were performed to compare COVID-19-related outcomes and impacts on heterosexual vs. sexual minority populations, cisgender vs. gender minority populations, and White vs. racial/ethnic minority subgroups. Marginalized populations experienced significant disparities in COVID-19 exposure, susceptibility, and treatment access, as well as in psychosocial effects of the pandemic. Notably, Black and Latinx populations reported significant difficulties accessing food and supplies (p = 0.002). Healthcare access disparities were also visible, with Black and Latinx respondents reporting significantly lower levels of access to a provider to see if COVID-19 testing would be appropriate (p = 0.013), medical services (p = 0.001), and use of telehealth for mental health services (p = 0.001). Sexual minority respondents reported significantly lower rates of using telehealth for mental health services (p = 0.011), and gender minority respondents reported significantly lower levels of primary care provider access (p = 0.016). There are evident COVID-19 disparities experienced in Chicago especially for Black, Latinx, sexual minority, and gender minority groups. A greater focus must be paid to health equity, including providing increased resources and supplies for affected groups, adapting to inequities in the built environment, and ensuring adequate access to healthcare services to ameliorate the burden of COVID-19 on these marginalized populations.