Enoxaparin for outpatients with COVID-19: 90-day results from the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multinational, phase III OVID trial.

INTRODUCTION: The benefits of early thromboprophylaxis in symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients remain unclear. We present the 90-day results from the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, investigator-initiated, multinational OVID phase III trial. METHODS: Outpatients aged 50 years or older with acute symptomatic COVID-19 were randomised to receive enoxaparin 40 mg for 14 days once daily vs. standard of care (no thromboprophylaxis). The primary outcome was the composite of untoward hospitalisation and all-cause death within 30 days from randomisation. Secondary outcomes included arterial and venous major cardiovascular events, as well as the primary outcome within 90 days from randomisation. The study was prematurely terminated based on statistical criteria after the predefined interim analysis of 30-day data, which has been previously published. In the present analysis, we present the final, 90-day data from OVID and we additionally investigate the impact of thromboprophylaxis on the resolution of symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 472 patients included in the intention-to-treat population, 234 were randomised to receive enoxaparin and 238 no thromboprophylaxis. The median age was 57 (Q1-Q3: 53-62) years and 217 (46 %) were women. The 90-day primary outcome occurred in 11 (4.7 %) patients of the enoxaparin arm and in 11 (4.6 %) controls (adjusted relative risk 1.00; 95 % CI: 0.44-2.25): 3 events per group occurred after day 30. The 90-day incidence of cardiovascular events was 0.9 % in the enoxaparin arm vs. 1.7 % in controls (relative risk 0.51; 95 % CI: 0.09-2.75). Individual symptoms improved progressively within 90 days with no difference between groups. At 90 days, 42 (17.9 %) patients in the enoxaparin arm and 40 (16.8 %) controls had persistent respiratory symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: In adult community patients with COVID-19, early thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin did not improve the course of COVID-19 neither in terms of hospitalisation and death nor considering COVID-19-related symptoms.

Mindfulness predicts less depression, anxiety, and social impairment in emergency care personnel: A longitudinal study.

Medical personnel working in emergency rooms (ER) are at increased risk of mental health problems and suicidality. There is increasing evidence that mindfulness-based interventions can improve burnout and other mental health outcomes in health care providers. In contrast, few longitudinal prospective studies have examined protective functions of dispositional mindfulness in this population. The objective of this study was to examine whether mindfulness prospectively predicts anxiety, depression, and social impairment in a sample of emergency care professionals. The authors administered online surveys to ER personnel prior to work in ER, and at 3 and 6 months follow up. Participants were 190 ER personnel (73% residents, 16% medical students, 11% nurses). Linear mixed effects regression was used to model longitudinal 3-month and 6-month follow up of depression, anxiety, and social impairment. Predictors included time-varying contemporaneous work stressors, perceived social support at work and life events, and baseline dispositional mindfulness, demographics, and workplace characteristics. Mindfulness indexed when starting ER work predicted less depression, anxiety, and social impairment 6 months later. Mindfulness remained a strong predictor of mental health outcomes after controlling for time-varying stressful events in emergency care, negative life events, and social support at work. Mindfulness moderated the adverse impact of poor social support at work on depression. To our knowledge, this is the first longitudinal study to show that mindfulness prospectively and robustly predicts anxiety, depression, and social impairment. Results support the role of mindfulness as a potential resilience factor in at-risk health care providers.

Reduced Relative Sensitivity of the Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay in Saliva Compared to Nasopharyngeal Swabs.

Early identification and isolation of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals is central to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) serve as a specimen for detection by RT-PCR and rapid antigen screening tests. Saliva has been confirmed as a reliable alternative specimen for RT-PCR and has been shown to be valuable for diagnosing children and in repetitive mass testing due to its non-invasive collection. Combining the advantages of saliva with those of antigen tests would be highly attractive to further increase test capacities. Here, we evaluated the performance of the Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay (Roche) in RT-PCR-positive paired NPS and saliva samples (N = 87) and unpaired NPS (N = 100) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 IVD test). We observed a high positive percent agreement (PPA) of the antigen assay with RT-PCR in NPS, reaching 87.2% across the entire cohort, whereas the overall PPA for saliva was insufficient (40.2%). At Ct values ≤ 28, PPA were 100% and 91.2% for NPS and saliva, respectively. At lower viral loads, the sensitivity loss of the antigen assay in saliva was striking. At Ct values ≤ 35, the PPA for NPS remained satisfactory (91.5%), whereas the PPA for saliva dropped to 46.6%. In conclusion, saliva cannot be recommended as a reliable alternative to NPS for testing with the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay. As saliva is successfully used broadly in combination with RT-PCR testing, it is critical to create awareness that suitability for RT-PCR cannot be translated to implementation in antigen assays without thorough evaluation of each individual test system.

High Efficacy of Saliva in Detecting SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR in Adults and Children.

Rising demands for repetitive SARS-CoV-2 screens and mass testing necessitate additional test strategies. Saliva may serve as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) as its collection is simple, non-invasive and amenable for mass- and home testing, but its rigorous validation, particularly in children, is missing. We conducted a large-scale head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-PCR in saliva and NPS of 1270 adults and children reporting to outpatient test centers and an emergency unit. In total, 273 individuals were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in either NPS or saliva. SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results in the two specimens showed a high agreement (overall percent agreement = 97.8%). Despite lower viral loads in the saliva of both adults and children, detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva fared well compared to NPS (positive percent agreement = 92.5%). Importantly, in children, SARS-CoV-2 infections were more often detected in saliva than NPS (positive predictive value = 84.8%), underlining that NPS sampling in children can be challenging. The comprehensive parallel analysis reported here establishes saliva as a generally reliable specimen for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, with particular advantages for testing children, that is readily applicable to increase and facilitate repetitive and mass testing in adults and children.