Predictors of clinical evolution of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hematological patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Main aim of this systematic review is to quantify the risk and identify predictors of clinical evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in hematological patients compared to different control populations. Two independent reviewers screened the literature assessing clinical outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adult patients with active hematological malignancies published up to June 2021. Primary outcome was COVID-19 related mortality, secondary outcomes were hospital and intensive-care admission, mechanical ventilation (MV), and thromboembolic events. Variables related to study setting, baseline patients' demographic, comorbidities, underlying hematological disease, ongoing chemotherapy, COVID-19 presentation, and treatments were extracted. A total of 67 studies including 10,061 hematological patients and 111,143 controls were included. Most of the studies were retrospective cohorts (51 studies, 76%) and only 19 (13%) provided data for a control group. A significant increased risk of clinical progression in the hematological population compared to the controls was found in terms of COVID-19 related mortality (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.77-2.54), hospitalization (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.15-3.43), intensive-care admission (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.38-2.26), and MV (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.71-2.75). The risk remained significantly higher in the subgroup analysis comparing hematological patients versus solid cancer. Meta-regression analysis of uncontrolled studies showed that older age, male sex, and hypertension were significantly related to worse clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in hematological population. Older age and hypertension were found to be associated also to thromboembolic events. In conclusion, hematological patients have a higher risk of COVID-19 clinical progression compared to both the general population and to patients with solid cancer.

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.

Impact of COVID-19 and Antibiotic Treatments on Gut Microbiome: A Role for Enterococcus spp.

OBJECTIVE: Several studies showed the substantial use of antibiotics and increased risk of antimicrobial resistant infections in patients with COVID-19. The impact of COVID-19-related treatments and antibiotics on gut dysbiosis has not been clarified. DESIGN: The prospective cohort study included hospitalized COVID-19 patients (April-December 2020). The gut microbiome composition was analysed by 16S sequencing. The gut diversity and changes in opportunistic bacteria (OBs) or symbionts were analysed according to clinical parameters, laboratory markers of disease progression, type of non-antibiotic COVID-19 treatments (NACT) and type, WHO AWaRe group, and duration of antibiotic therapy (AT). RESULTS: A total of 82 patients (mean age 66 ± 13 years, 70% males) were enrolled. The relative abundance of Enterococcus was significantly correlated with duration of hospitalization, intensive care unit stay, O2 needs, and D-dimer, ferritin, and IL-6 blood levels. The presence of Enterococcus showed the highest number of correlations with NACT, AT, and AT + NACT (e.g., hydroxychloroquine ± lopinavir/ritonavir) and increased relative abundance with AWaRe Watch/Reserve antibiotics, AT duration, and combinations. Abundance of Dorea, Agathobacter, Roseburia, and Barnesiella was negatively correlated with AT and corticosteroids use. Patients with increased IL-6, D-dimer, and ferritin levels receiving AT were more likely to show dysbiosis with increased abundance of Enterococcus and Bilophila bacteria and decreased abundance of Roseburia compared with those not receiving AT. CONCLUSION: Microbiome diversity is affected by COVID-19 severity. In this context, antibiotic treatment may shift the gut microbiome composition towards OBs, particularly Enterococcus. The impact of treatment-driven dysbiosis on OBs infections and long-term consequences needs further study to define the role of gut homeostasis in COVID-19 recovery and inform targeted interventions.

Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care tests in acute community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care tests could be essential in differentiating bacterial and viral acute community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections and driving antibiotic stewardship in the community. OBJECTIVES: To assess diagnostic test accuracy of point-of-care tests in community settings for acute community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections. DATA SOURCES: Multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Open Gray) from inception to 31 May 2021, without language restrictions. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Diagnostic test accuracy studies involving patients at primary care, outpatient clinic, emergency department and long-term care facilities with a clinical suspicion of acute community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections. The comparator was any test used as a comparison to the index test. In order not to limit the study inclusion, the comparator was not defined a priori. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Four investigators independently extracted data, rated risk of bias, and assessed the quality using QUADAS-2. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: The measures of diagnostic test accuracy were calculated with 95% CI. RESULTS: A total of 421 studies addressed at least one point-of-care test. The diagnostic performance of molecular tests was higher compared with that of rapid diagnostic tests for all the pathogens studied. The accuracy of stand-alone signs and symptoms or biomarkers was poor. Lung ultrasound showed high sensitivity and specificity (90% for both) for the diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia. Rapid antigen-based diagnostic tests for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, human metapneumovirus, and Streptococcus pneumoniae had sub-optimal sensitivity (range 49%-84%) but high specificity (>80%). DISCUSSION: Physical examination and host biomarkers are not sufficiently reliable as stand-alone tests to differentiate between bacterial and viral pneumonia. Lung ultrasound shows higher accuracy than chest X-ray for bacterial pneumonia at emergency department. Rapid antigen-based diagnostic tests cannot be considered fully reliable because of high false-negative rates. Overall, molecular tests for all the pathogens considered were found to be the most accurate.

Getting through COVID-19 together: Understanding local governments' social media communication.

This study provides new insights into how local governments (LGs) manage pandemic-related crisis communication with citizens on their social media (SM) profiles. We analyze over 3000 posts published on SM profiles of selected LGs in Poland to get insights on rhetorical communication strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic. We document LGs as they go beyond the simple transmission of information to citizens and use SM in an engaging and educational manner. We found three types of rhetorical strategies and their resonance with the public. Our analysis suggests that LGs are likely to apply the Together communication strategy, which is the most engaging.

Assessment of COVID-19 progression on day 5 from symptoms onset.

BACKGROUND: A major limitation of current predictive prognostic models in patients with COVID-19 is the heterogeneity of population in terms of disease stage and duration. This study aims at identifying a panel of clinical and laboratory parameters that at day-5 of symptoms onset could predict disease progression in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Prospective cohort study on hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19. Patient-level epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory data were collected at fixed time-points: day 5, 10, and 15 from symptoms onset. COVID-19 progression was defined as in-hospital death and/or transfer to ICU and/or respiratory failure (PaO2/FiO2 ratio < 200) within day-11 of symptoms onset. Multivariate regression was performed to identify predictors of COVID-19 progression. A model assessed at day-5 of symptoms onset including male sex, age > 65 years, dyspnoea, cardiovascular disease, and at least three abnormal laboratory parameters among CRP (> 80 U/L), ALT (> 40 U/L), NLR (> 4.5), LDH (> 250 U/L), and CK (> 80 U/L) was proposed. Discrimination power was assessed by computing area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) values. RESULTS: A total of 235 patients with COVID-19 were prospectively included in a 3-month period. The majority of patients were male (148, 63%) and the mean age was 71 (SD 15.9). One hundred and ninety patients (81%) suffered from at least one underlying illness, most frequently cardiovascular disease (47%), neurological/psychiatric disorders (35%), and diabetes (21%). Among them 88 (37%) experienced COVID-19 progression. The proposed model showed an AUC of 0.73 (95% CI 0.66-0.81) for predicting disease progression by day-11. CONCLUSION: An easy-to-use panel of laboratory/clinical parameters computed at day-5 of symptoms onset predicts, with fair discrimination ability, COVID-19 progression. Assessment of these features at day-5 of symptoms onset could facilitate clinicians' decision making. The model can also play a role as a tool to increase homogeneity of population in clinical trials on COVID-19 treatment in hospitalized patients.

Deepening inequalities: What did COVID-19 reveal about the gendered nature of academic work?

This study discusses the gendered nature of the transformation of academic work, which has been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. We collected empirical material in spring 2020, at the peak of the pandemic, via 28 interviews with academics in Poland. The results illustrate the far-reaching and lasting impacts of the pandemic on academia that reinforce existing gender inequalities and bring new ones. The study also reveals the invisible academic work, which is performed mostly by female faculty. This work, neither recognized nor rewarded in the course of women's academic careers, deepens the gendered organization of work in higher education institutions.

Nucleic acid amplification tests on respiratory samples for the diagnosis of coronavirus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Management and control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) relies on reliable diagnostic testing. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for the diagnosis of coronavirus infections. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Open Grey and conference proceeding until May 2019. PubMed and medRxiv were updated for COVID-19 on 31st August 2020. STUDY ELIGIBILITY: Studies were eligible if they reported on agreement rates between different NAATs using clinical samples. PARTICIPANTS: Symptomatic patients with suspected upper or lower respiratory tract coronavirus infection. METHODS: The new NAAT was defined as the index test and the existing NAAT as reference standard. Data were extracted independently in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Confidence regions (CRs) surrounding summary sensitivity/specificity pooled by bivariate meta-analysis are reported. Heterogeneity was assessed using meta-regression. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies were included, 22 of which included 10 181 persons before COVID-19 and 29 including 8742 persons diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The overall summary sensitivity was 89.1% (95%CR 84.0-92.7%) and specificity 98.9% (95%CR 98.0-99.4%). Nearly all the studies evaluated different PCRs as both index and reference standards. Real-time RT PCR assays resulted in significantly higher sensitivity than other tests. Reference standards at high risk of bias possibly exaggerated specificity. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of studies evaluating SARS-COV-2 were 90.4% (95%CR 83.7-94.5%) and 98.1% (95%CR 95.9-99.2), respectively. SARS-COV-2 studies using samples from the lower respiratory tract, real-time RT-PCR, and tests targeting the N or S gene or more than one gene showed higher sensitivity, and assays based on reverse transcriptase loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), especially when targeting only the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) gene, showed significantly lower sensitivity compared to other studies. CONCLUSIONS: Pooling all studies to date shows that on average 10% of patients with coronavirus infections might be missed with PCR tests. Variables affecting sensitivity and specificity can be used for test selection and development.