The experiences of patients ill with COVID-19-like symptoms and the role of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in supporting them: A qualitative study in eight European countries during the first wave of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Access to testing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was limited, impacting patients with COVID-19-like symptoms. Current qualitative studies have been limited to one country or were conducted outside Europe. OBJECTIVES: To explore - in eight European countries - the experiences of patients consulting in primary care with COVID-19-like symptoms during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: Sixty-six semi-structured interviews, informed by a topic guide, were conducted by telephone or in person between April and July 2020. Patients with COVID-19-like symptoms were purposively recruited in primary care sites in eight countries and sampled based on age, gender, and symptom presentation. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis techniques were used to develop a framework representing data across settings. Data adequacy was attained by collecting rich data. RESULTS: Seven themes were identified, which described the experiences of patients consulting. Two themes are reported in this manuscript describing the role of COVID-19 testing in this experience. Patients described significant distress due to their symptoms, especially those at higher risk of complications from COVID-19, and those with severe symptoms. Patients wanted access to testing to identify the cause of their illness and minimise the burden of managing uncertainty. Some patients testing positive for COVID-19 assumed they would be immune from future infection. CONCLUSION: Patients experiencing novel and severe symptoms, particularly those with comorbidities, experienced a significant emotional and psychological burden due to concerns about COVID-19. Testing provided reassurance over health status and helped patients identify which guidance to follow. Testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 led to some patients thinking they were immune from future infection, thus influencing subsequent behaviour.

Validation of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 antibody test in general practice.

OBJECTIVES: To validate a rapid serological test (RST) for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies used in seroprevalence studies in healthcare providers, including primary healthcare providers (PHCPs) in Belgium. DESIGN: A phase III validation study of the RST (OrientGene) within a prospective cohort study. SETTING: Primary care in Belgium. PARTICIPANTS: Any general practitioner (GP) working in primary care in Belgium and any other PHCP from the same GP practice who physically manages patients were eligible in the seroprevalence study. For the validation study, all participants who tested positive (376) on the RST at the first testing timepoint (T1) and a random sample of those who tested negative (790) and unclear (24) were included. INTERVENTION: At T2, 4 weeks later, PHCPs performed the RST with fingerprick blood (index test) immediately after providing a serum sample to be analysed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies using a two-out-of-three assay (reference test). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The RST accuracy was estimated using inverse probability weighting to correct for missing reference test data, and considering unclear RST results as negative for the sensitivity and positive for the specificity. Using these conservative estimates, the true seroprevalence was estimated both for T2 and RST-based prevalence values found in a cohort study with PHCPs in Belgium. RESULTS: 1073 paired tests (403 positive on the reference test) were included. A sensitivity of 73% (a specificity of 92%) was found considering unclear RST results as negative (positive). For an RST-based prevalence at T1 (13.9), T2 (24.9) and T7 (70.21), the true prevalence was estimated to be 9.1%, 25.9% and 95.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The RST sensitivity (73%) and specificity (92%) make an RST-based seroprevalence below (above) 23% overestimate (underestimate) the true seroprevalence. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04779424.

Effect of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Initiation on Organ Support-Free Days in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non-critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was organ support-free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS: On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support-free days among critically ill patients was 10 (-1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (-1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support-free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Long-term (180-Day) Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 in the REMAP-CAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown. Objective: To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83. Results: Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies. Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

The impact of variant and vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 symptomatology; three prospective household cohorts.

OBJECTIVES: We compared age-stratified SARS-CoV-2 symptomatology of wild-type/Alpha vs Omicron BA.1/BA.2 variant infected individuals and the impact of COVID-19 booster vaccination on Omicron symptom burden. METHODS: Data from three European prospective household cohorts were used (April 2020 to April 2021 and January to March 2022). Standardized outbreak protocols included (repeated) polymerase chain reaction testing, paired serology, and daily symptom scoring for all household members. Comparative analyses were performed on 346 secondary household cases from both periods. RESULTS: Children <12 years (all unvaccinated) experienced more symptoms and higher severity scores during Omicron compared with wild-type/Alpha period (P ≤0.01). In adults, Omicron disease duration and severity were reduced (P ≤ 0.095). Omicron was associated with lower odds for loss of smell or taste (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.50) and higher but non-significant odds for upper respiratory symptoms, fever, and fatigue (aORs: 1.85-2.23). No differences were observed in disease severity or duration between primary vs booster series vaccinated adults (P ≥0.12). CONCLUSION: The Omicron variant causes higher symptom burden in children compared with wild-type/Alpha and lower in adults, possibly due to previous vaccination. A shift in symptoms occurred with reduction in loss of smell/taste for Omicron. No additional effect of booster vaccination on Omicron symptom burden was observed.

Predictive model for BNT162b2 vaccine response in cancer patients based on blood cytokines and growth factors.

Background: Patients with cancer, especially hematological cancer, are at increased risk for breakthrough COVID-19 infection. So far, a predictive biomarker that can assess compromised vaccine-induced anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity in cancer patients has not been proposed. Methods: We employed machine learning approaches to identify a biomarker signature based on blood cytokines, chemokines, and immune- and non-immune-related growth factors linked to vaccine immunogenicity in 199 cancer patients receiving the BNT162b2 vaccine. Results: C-reactive protein (general marker of inflammation), interleukin (IL)-15 (a pro-inflammatory cytokine), IL-18 (interferon-gamma inducing factor), and placental growth factor (an angiogenic cytokine) correctly classified patients with a diminished vaccine response assessed at day 49 with >80% accuracy. Amongst these, CRP showed the highest predictive value for poor response to vaccine administration. Importantly, this unique signature of vaccine response was present at different studied timepoints both before and after vaccination and was not majorly affected by different anti-cancer treatments. Conclusion: We propose a blood-based signature of cytokines and growth factors that can be employed in identifying cancer patients at persistent high risk of COVID-19 despite vaccination with BNT162b2. Our data also suggest that such a signature may reflect the inherent immunological constitution of some cancer patients who are refractive to immunotherapy.

Challenges of data sharing in European Covid-19 projects: A learning opportunity for advancing pandemic preparedness and response.

The COVID-19 pandemic saw a massive investment into collaborative research projects with a focus on producing data to support public health decisions. We relay our direct experience of four projects funded under the Horizon2020 programme, namely ReCoDID, ORCHESTRA, unCoVer and SYNCHROS. The projects provide insight into the complexities of sharing patient level data from observational cohorts. We focus on compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and ethics approvals when sharing data across national borders. We discuss procedures for data mapping; submission of new international codes to standards organisation; federated approach; and centralised data curation. Finally, we put forward recommendations for the development of guidelines for the application of GDPR in case of major public health threats; mandatory standards for data collection in funding frameworks; training and capacity building for data owners; cataloguing of international use of metadata standards; and dedicated funding for identified critical areas.

Patients' and clinicians' perspectives on the primary care consultations for acute respiratory infections during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: an eight-country qualitative study in Europe.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients' and clinicians' perceptions of healthcare-seeking behaviour and delivery of care is unclear. The pandemic accelerated the use of remote care, and understanding its benefits and drawbacks may inform its implementation during current and future healthcare emergencies. AIM: To explore patients' and primary care professionals' (PCPs) experiences of primary care delivery in the first wave of the pandemic. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews in primary care in eight European countries (England, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, Poland, Sweden, and Germany). METHOD: A total of 146 interviews were conducted with 80 PCPs and 66 patients consulting for respiratory tract infection (RTI) symptoms, in eight European countries. Data were collected between April and July 2020, and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: It was found that patients accepted telemedicine when PCPs spent time to understand and address their concerns, but a minority preferred in-person consultations. PCPs felt that remote consultations created emotional distance between themselves and patients, and they reported having to manage diverse COVID-19-related medical and social concerns. CONCLUSION: Remote consultations for RTI symptoms may be acceptable long term if both groups are happy to use this format, but it is important that PCPs take time to address patients' concerns and provide safety-netting advice.

Performance of the FREND™ COVID-19 IgG/IgM Duo point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection.

PURPOSE: In the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic, multiple serological assays for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immune response are currently being developed. This study compares the FRENDTM COVID-19 IgG/IgM Duo (NanoEntec) a point of care (POCT) assay with the automated Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 electrochemiluminescent assay (Roche Diagnostics). METHODS: Serum samples (n = 81) from PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive patients at different time points after the onset of symptoms were analyzed with both assays. An additional 24 serum samples with cross reactivity potential were also included. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the COVID-19 IgG/IgM Duo assay was higher as compared to the Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay, especially when using the combined IgM/IgG result in samples analyzed within 6 days after the onset of symptoms (46.2% vs. 15.4%). The sensitivity of both assays increased with increasing time interval after the onset of symptoms and reached 100% for the COVID-19 IgG/IgM Duo assay in samples taken 14 days or more after symptom onset. Specificity of the COVID-19 IgG/IgM Duo assay was 95.8% for IgM, 91.7% for IgG and 87.5% for the combination of both. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the sensitivity of both assays was highly dependent on the time interval between the onset of the COVID-19 symptoms and serum sampling. Furthermore, rapid serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by means of the FRENDTM COVID-19 IgG/IgM Duo POCT assay showed a comparable diagnostic performance as the reference automated immunoassay.

Prevalence, incidence and longevity of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among primary healthcare providers in Belgium: a prospective cohort study with 12 months of follow-up.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence, incidence and longevity of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among primary healthcare providers (PHCPs). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with 12 months of follow-up. SETTING: Primary care in Belgium. PARTICIPANTS: Any general practitioner (GP) working in primary care in Belgium and any other PHCP from the same GP practice who physically manages (examines, tests, treats) patients were eligible. A convenience sample of 3648 eligible PHCPs from 2001 GP practices registered for this study (3044 and 604 to start in December 2020 and January 2021, respectively). 3390 PHCPs (92,9%) participated in their first testing time point (2820 and 565, respectively) and 2557 PHCPs (70,1%) in the last testing time point (December 2021). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were asked to perform a rapid serological test targeting IgM and IgG against the receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 and to complete an online questionnaire at each of maximum eight testing time points. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The prevalence, incidence and longevity of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 both after natural infection and after vaccination. RESULTS: Among all participants, 67% were women and 77% GPs. Median age was 43 years. The seroprevalence in December 2020 (before vaccination availability) was 15.1% (95% CI 13.5% to 16.6%), increased to 84.2% (95% CI 82.9% to 85.5%) in March 2021 (after vaccination availability) and reached 93.9% (95% CI 92.9% to 94.9%) in December 2021 (during booster vaccination availability and fourth (delta variant dominant) COVID-19 wave). Among not (yet) vaccinated participants the first monthly incidence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was estimated to be 2.91% (95% CI 1.80% to 4.01%). The longevity of antibodies is higher in PHCPs with self-reported COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that occupational health measures provided sufficient protection when managing patients. High uptake of vaccination resulted in high seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in PHCPs in Belgium. Longevity of antibodies was supported by booster vaccination and virus circulation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04779424.

Evaluation of Saliva as a Matrix for RT-PCR Analysis and Two Rapid Antigen Tests for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

The use of saliva for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) sparks debate due to presumed lower sensitivity and lack of standardization. Our aim was to evaluate the performance characteristics of (i) saliva collected by the ORAcollectTM device as a matrix for SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and (ii) 2 saliva rapid antigen tests (AgRDT). From 342 ambulatory individuals, both a nasopharyngeal swab and saliva sample via ORAcollectTM were obtained for a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test. Furthermore, 54 and 123 additionally performed the V-ChekTM or WhistlingTM saliva AgRDT. In total, 35% of individuals screened positive for SARS-CoV-2 via nasopharyngeal swab. Saliva, as a matrix for the RT-PCR, had a specificity of 96.5% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 91.3%. Interestingly, 6 out of 8 patients thought to be false positive in saliva re-tested positive by nasopharyngeal sampling after 2 to 9 days. Both V-ChekTM and WhistlingTM AgRDT had a lack of sensitivity, resulting in an NPV of 66.9 and 67.3%, respectively. Saliva proved to be a sensitive and specific matrix for SARS-CoV-2 detection by the RT-PCR. In this setting, saliva might have an earlier window of detection than the nasopharyngeal swab. By contrast, both AgRDT showed an unacceptably low sensitivity and NPV.

Saliva testing among teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic: Effects on health concerns, well-being, and precautionary behavior.

RATIONALE: At the start of 2021, several SARS-CoV-2 cluster outbreaks in schools threatened in-person education and created a fairly chaotic and frightening environment for school personnel. To keep the schools open while preventing COVID-19 outbreaks, intensive diagnostic testing in teachers and school personnel was strongly recommended but missing at the time. OBJECTIVES: A project was launched in Belgian schools to weekly analyze the morning saliva of school personnel using PCR-testing to detect and prevent COVID-19 positive cases. In this quasi-experimental study, we aimed to examine whether the implementation of this saliva testing project impacted school personnel's pandemic-related health concerns, well-being, and adherence to the health-protective measures, contrasting experimental with control schools. METHODS: The data were collected during the third wave (Alpha-wave, February-March 2021) of the pandemic. The sample consisted of 435 participants from 34 different schools across Flanders (Belgium) (78.8% female; M age = 43.87 years, range = 21-67) of which 82% participated in the weekly saliva tests (i.e., experimental group) and 18% took part in the control group. RESULTS: Results from a series of linear mixed regression models showed that saliva testing buffered against an increase in health concerns among tested school personnel but did not affect participants' general well-being. Slight declines in adherence to the health-protective behaviors were observed, yet this was only the case for participants who felt less supported by their school principal. High degrees of principals' support also fostered the sharpest decreases in school staff's pandemic-related health concerns. CONCLUSIONS: When keeping the schools open in unstable pandemic times, weekly saliva testing is a promising strategy to prevent cluster outbreaks while simultaneously safeguarding health concerns among school personnel. School principals appear to play a critical role in the implementation of saliva testing to secure positive effects.

Atypical Antibody Dynamics During Human Coronavirus HKU1 Infections.

Human coronavirus HKU1 (HCoV-HKU1) is one of the four endemic coronaviruses. It has been suggested that there is a difference in incidence, with PCR-confirmed HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-OC43 infections occurring more commonly, whereas HCoV-HKU1 is the least seen. Lower incidence of HCoV-HKU1 infection has also been observed in serological studies. The current study aimed to investigate antibody dynamics during PCR-confirmed HCoV-HKU1 infections using serum collected during infection and 1 month later. We expressed a new HCoV-HKU1 antigen consisting of both the linker and carboxy-terminal domain of the viral nucleocapsid protein and implemented it in ELISA. We also applied a spike-based Luminex assay on serum samples from PCR-confirmed infections by the four endemic HCoVs. At least half of HCoV-HKU1-infected subjects consistently showed no antibody rise via either assay, and some subjects even exhibited substantial antibody decline. Investigation of self-reported symptoms revealed that HCoV-HKU1-infected subjects rated their illness milder than subjects infected by other HCoVs. In conclusion, HCoV-HKU1 infections reported in this study displayed atypical antibody dynamics and milder symptoms when compared to the other endemic HCoVs.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in young children attending day-care centres in Belgium, May 2020 to February 2022.

Presence of SARS-CoV-2 was monitored in nasopharyngeal samples from young children aged 6-30 months attending day-care centres (DCCs) in Belgium from May 2020-February 2022. SARS-CoV-2 carriage among DCC children was only detected from November 2021, after emergence of Delta and Omicron variants, in 9 of the 42 DCCs screened. In only one DCC, two children tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the same sampling time point, suggesting limited transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Belgian DCCs among young children during the studied period.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 within households: a remote prospective cohort study in European countries.

Household transmission studies are useful to quantify SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics. We conducted a remote prospective household study to quantify transmission, and the effects of subject characteristics, household characteristics, and implemented infection control measures on transmission. Households with a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 index case were enrolled < 48 h following test result. Follow-up included digitally daily symptom recording, regular nose-throat self-sampling and paired dried blood spots from all household members. Samples were tested for virus detection and SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Secondary attack rates (SARs) and associated factors were estimated using logistic regression. In 276 households with 920 participants (276 index cases and 644 household members) daily symptom diaries and questionnaires were completed by 95%, and > 85% completed sample collection. 200 secondary SARS-CoV-2 infections were detected, yielding a household SAR of 45.7% (95% CI 39.7-51.7%) and per-person SAR of 32.6% (95%CI: 28.1-37.4%). 126 (63%) secondary cases were detected at enrollment. Mild (aRR = 0.57) and asymptomatic index cases (aRR = 0.29) were less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2, compared to index cases with an acute respiratory illness (p = 0.03 for trend), and child index cases (< 12 years aRR = 0.60 and 12-18 years aRR = 0.85) compared to adults (p = 0.03 for trend). Infection control interventions in households had no significant effect on transmission. We found high SARs with the majority of transmissions occuring early after SARS-CoV-2 introduction into the household. This may explain the futile effect of implemented household measures. Age and symptom status of the index case influence secondary transmission. Remote, digitally-supported study designs with self-sampling are feasible for studying transmission under pandemic restrictions.

Antimicrobial Prescribing Patterns in Patients with COVID-19 in Russian Multi-Field Hospitals in 2021: Results of the Global-PPS Project.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global public health challenge with understudied effects on antimicrobial usage. We aimed to analyze antimicrobial prescribing patterns in COVID-19 patients in Russian multi-field hospitals by means of the Global-PPS Project developed by the University of Antwerp. Out of 999 patients in COVID-19 wards in six hospitals surveyed in 2021, 51.3% received antimicrobials (79% in intensive care, 47.5% in medical wards). Systemic antivirals and antibiotics were prescribed to 31% and 35.1% of patients, respectively, and a combination of both to 14.1% of patients. The top antivirals administered were favipiravir (65%), remdesivir (19.2%), and umifenovir (15.8%); the top antibiotics were ceftriaxone (29.7%), levofloxacin (18%), and cefoperazone/sulbactam (10.4%). The vast majority of antibiotics was prescribed for treatment of pneumonia or COVID-19 infection (59.3% and 25.1%, respectively). Treatment was based on biomarker data in 42.7% of patients but was targeted only in 29.6% (6.7% for antibiotics). The rate of non-compliance with guidelines reached 16.6%. Antimicrobial prescribing patterns varied considerably in COVID-19 wards in Russian hospitals with groundlessly high rates of systemic antibiotics. Antimicrobial usage surveillance and stewardship should be applied to inpatient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Primary care for patients with respiratory tract infection before and early on in the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study in 16 European countries

ObjectiveTo describe primary health care (consultation characteristics and management) for patients contacting their general practitioner (GP) with a respiratory tract infection (RTI) early on in the COVID-19 pandemic in contrasting European countries, with comparison to prepandemic findings.SettingPrimary care in 16 countries (79 practices), when no routine SARS-CoV-2 testing was generally available.Design and participantsBefore (n=4376) and early in the pandemic (n=3301), patients with RTI symptoms were registered in this prospective audit study.Outcome measuresConsultation characteristics (type of contact and use of PPE) and management characteristics (clinical assessments, diagnostic testing, prescribing, advice and referral) were registered. Differences in these characteristics between countries and between pandemic and prepandemic care are described.ResultsCare for patients with RTIs rapidly switched to telephone/video consultations (10% in Armenia, 91% in Denmark), and when consultations were face-to-face, GPs used PPE during 97% (95% CI 96% to 98%) of contacts. Laboratory testing for SARS-CoV-2 in primary care patients with RTIs was rapidly implemented in Denmark (59%) and Germany (31%), while overall testing for C reactive protein decreased. The proportion of patients prescribed antibiotics varied considerably between countries (3% in Belgium, 48% in UK) and was lower during the pandemic compared with the months before, except for Greece, Poland and UK. GPs provided frequent and varied COVID-related advice and more frequently scheduled a follow-up contact (50%, 95% CI 48% to 52%). GPs reported a slightly higher degree of confidence in the likely effectiveness of their management in face-to-face (73% (very) confident, 95% CI 71% to 76%) than in virtual consultations (69%, 95% CI 67% to 71%).ConclusionsDespite between-country variation in consultation characteristics, access to SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing and medication prescribing, GPs reported a high degree of confidence in managing their patients with RTIs in the emerging pandemic. Insight in the highly variable pandemic responses, as measured in this multicountry audit, can aid in fine-tuning national action and in coordinating a pan-European response during future pandemic threats.

The European clinical research response to optimise treatment of patients with COVID-19: lessons learned, future perspective, and recommendations.

Clinicians have worked feverishly to treat patients with COVID-19 while also carrying out clinical research studies. We discuss how the clinical research community responded to the pandemic in Europe, what lessons were learned, and provide recommendations for future clinical research response during pandemics. We focused on two platform trials: RECOVERY and REMAP-CAP. Both trials were able to enrol patients very rapidly during the beginning of the pandemic because of pre-established structures and procedures, and because they share simple execution and flexibility to adjust when evidence emergences. However, contracting, regulatory hurdles, and competition with (often inadequately designed or underpowered) national trials was a major challenge in several EU countries. We recommend the creation of structures and partnerships that facilitate prioritisation of clinical research, simplification of clinical trial delivery, development of digital models and procedures for data collection and sharing, development of a mechanism to rapidly leverage pandemic funding and to connect EU funding with national funding, and investment in clinical trial networks, platform trials, and master protocols. Finally, the future pandemic clinical research response of the EU should be embedded in the global response. We believe that globally connected clinical trial networks will be essential to respond more effectively to future infectious diseases outbreaks.

Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support-Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021). Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions. Results: The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Conditionality of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in European countries.

The COVID-19 vaccine rollout has offered a powerful preventive measure to help control SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Nevertheless, long-standing public hesitation around vaccines heightened concerns that vaccine coverage would not achieve desired public health impacts, particularly in light of more contagious variants. This cross-sectional survey was conducted online just before the European vaccine rollout in December 2020 among 7000 respondents (aged 18-65) in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and Ukraine. The survey included open text boxes for fuller explanation of responses. Overall, 56.9% of respondents would accept a COVID-19 vaccine, 19.0% would not, and 24.1% did not know or preferred not to say. By country, between 44% (France) and 66% (Italy) of respondents would accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Respondents expressed conditionality in open responses, voicing concerns about vaccine safety and mistrust of authorities. We highlight lessons learned about the dynamism of vaccine conditionality and persistence of safety concerns.