Secondary infections in critically ill patients with viral pneumonia due to COVID-19 and influenza: a historical cohort study Infections secondaires chez les patients gravement malades atteints de pneumonie virale due à la COVID-19 et à la grippe : une étude de cohorte historique

Purpose To compare the incidence and nature of secondary infections (SI) between critically ill patients with viral pneumonia due to COVID-19 and seasonal influenza and explore the association between SI and clinical outcomes. Methods We conducted a historical cohort study of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at two tertiary care centers during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and patients admitted with influenza during the 2018–2019 season. The primary outcome was the rate of SI. Secondary outcomes included rates of ICU and in-hospital mortality, organ-support-dependent disease, and length of ICU and hospital stay. Results Secondary infections developed in 55% of 95 COVID-19 patients and 51% of 47 influenza patients (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.16;95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 2.33). After adjusting for baseline differences between cohorts, there were no significant differences between the COVID-19 cohort and the influenza cohort (adjusted OR, 1.00;95% CI, 0.41 to 2.44). COVID-19 patients with SI had longer ICU and hospital stays and duration of mechanical ventilation. The SI incidence was higher in COVID-19 patients treated with steroids than in those not treated with steroids (15/20, 75% vs 37/75, 49%). Conclusion Secondary infections were common among critically ill patients with viral pneumonia including COVID-19. We found no difference in the incidence of SI between COVID-19 and influenza in our cohort study, but SI in patients with COVID-19 were associated with worse clinical outcomes and increased healthcare resource use. The small cohort size precludes any causal inferences but may provide a basis for future research. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12630-022-02376-0.

Secondary infections in critically ill patients with viral pneumonia due to COVID-19 and influenza: a historical cohort study.

PURPOSE: To compare the incidence and nature of secondary infections (SI) between critically ill patients with viral pneumonia due to COVID-19 and seasonal influenza and explore the association between SI and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a historical cohort study of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at two tertiary care centers during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and patients admitted with influenza during the 2018-2019 season. The primary outcome was the rate of SI. Secondary outcomes included rates of ICU and in-hospital mortality, organ-support-dependent disease, and length of ICU and hospital stay. RESULTS: Secondary infections developed in 55% of 95 COVID-19 patients and 51% of 47 influenza patients (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 2.33). After adjusting for baseline differences between cohorts, there were no significant differences between the COVID-19 cohort and the influenza cohort (adjusted OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.41 to 2.44). COVID-19 patients with SI had longer ICU and hospital stays and duration of mechanical ventilation. The SI incidence was higher in COVID-19 patients treated with steroids than in those not treated with steroids (15/20, 75% vs 37/75, 49%). CONCLUSION: Secondary infections were common among critically ill patients with viral pneumonia including COVID-19. We found no difference in the incidence of SI between COVID-19 and influenza in our cohort study, but SI in patients with COVID-19 were associated with worse clinical outcomes and increased healthcare resource use. The small cohort size precludes any causal inferences but may provide a basis for future research.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Comparer l'incidence et la nature des infections secondaires entre les patients gravement malades atteints de pneumonie virale due à la COVID-19 et ceux atteints de la grippe saisonnière et explorer l'association entre les infections secondaires et les issues cliniques. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude de cohorte historique de patients admis à l'unité de soins intensifs (USI) dans deux centres de soins tertiaires pendant la première vague de la pandémie de COVID-19 et de patients admis pour la grippe au cours de la saison 2018-2019. Le critère d'évaluation principal était le taux d'infections secondaires. Les critères d'évaluation secondaires comprenaient les taux de mortalité à l'USI et à l'hôpital, les maladies nécessitant un support d'organes et la durée du séjour à l'USI et à l'hôpital. RéSULTATS: Des infections secondaires se sont développées chez 55 % des 95 patients atteints de COVID-19 et 51 % des 47 patients grippaux (rapport des cotes [RC] non ajusté, 1,16; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 0,57 à 2,33). Après ajustement pour tenir compte des différences initiales entre les cohortes, aucune différence significative n'a été observée entre la cohorte de COVID-19 et la cohorte de grippe (RC ajusté, 1,00; IC 95 %, 0,41 à 2,44). Les patients atteints de COVID-19 atteints d'infections secondaires ont séjourné plus longtemps aux soins intensifs et à l'hôpital et la durée de la ventilation mécanique était plus longue pour ces patients. L'incidence d'infections secondaires était plus élevée chez les patients atteints de COVID-19 traités par stéroïdes que chez ceux non traités par stéroïdes (15/20, 75 % vs 37/75, 49 %). CONCLUSION: Les infections secondaires étaient fréquentes chez les patients gravement malades atteints de pneumonie virale, y compris de COVID-19. Nous n'avons observé aucune différence dans l'incidence d'infections secondaires entre les patients atteints de COVID-19 et ceux atteints de grippe dans notre étude de cohorte, mais les infections secondaires chez les patients atteints de COVID-19 étaient associées à de moins bonnes issues cliniques et à une utilisation accrue des ressources de soins de santé. La petite taille de la cohorte exclut toute inférence causale, mais peut fournir une base pour les recherches futures.

Initial health care costs for COVID-19 in British Columbia and Ontario, Canada: an interprovincial population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 imposed substantial health and economic burdens. Comprehensive population-based estimates of health care costs for COVID-19 are essential for planning and policy evaluation. We estimated publicly funded health care costs in 2 Canadian provinces during the pandemic's first wave. METHODS: In this historical cohort study, we linked patients with their first positive SARS-CoV-2 test result by June 30, 2020, in 2 Canadian provinces (British Columbia and Ontario) to health care administrative databases and matched to negative or untested controls. We stratified patients by highest level of initial care: community, long-term care, hospital (without admission to the intensive care unit [ICU]) and ICU. Mean publicly funded health care costs for patients and controls, mean net (attributable to COVID-19) costs and total costs were estimated from 30 days before to 120 days after the index date, or to July 31, 2020, in 30-day periods for patients still being followed by the start of each period. RESULTS: We identified 2465 matched people with a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 in BC and 28 893 in Ontario. Mean age was 53.4 (standard deviation [SD] 21.8) years (BC) and 53.7 (SD 22.7) years (Ontario); 55.7% (BC) and 56.1% (Ontario) were female. Net costs in the first 30 days after the index date were $22 010 (95% confidence interval [CI] 19 512 to 24 509) and $15 750 (95% CI 15 354 to 16 147) for patients admitted to hospital, and $65 828 (95% CI 58 535 to 73 122) and $56 088 (95% CI 53 721 to 58 455) for ICU patients in BC and Ontario, respectively. In the community and long-term care settings, net costs were near 0. Total costs for all people, from 30 days before to 30 days after the index date, were $22 128 330 (BC) and $175 778 210 (Ontario). INTERPRETATION: During the first wave, we found that mean costs attributable to COVID-19 were highest for patients with ICU admission and higher in BC than Ontario. Reducing the number of people who acquire COVID-19 and severity of illness are required to mitigate the economic impact of COVID-19.

Automated digital counselling with social network support as a novel intervention for patients with heart failure: protocol for randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Heart failure (HF) symptoms improve through self-care, for which adherence remains low among patients despite the provision of education for these behaviours by clinical teams. Open Access Digital Community Promoting Self-Care, Peer Support and Health Literacy (ODYSSEE-vCHAT) combines automated digital counselling with social network support to improve mortality and morbidity, engagement with self-care materials, and health-related quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Use of ODYSSEE-vCHAT via Internet-connected personal computer by 162 HF patients will be compared with a control condition over 22 months. The primary outcome is a composite index score of all-cause mortality, all-cause emergency department visits, and HF-related hospitalisation at trial completion. Secondary outcomes include individual components of the composite index, engagement with self-care materials, and patient-reported measures of physical and psychosocial well-being, disease management, health literacy, and substance use. Patients are recruited from tertiary care hospitals in Toronto, Canada and randomised on a 1:1 ratio to both arms of the trial. Online assessments occur at baseline (t=0), months 4, 8 and 12, and trial completion. Ordinal logistic regression analyses and generalised linear models will evaluate primary and secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by the research ethics boards at the University Health Network (20-5960), Sunnybrook Hospital (5117), and Mount Sinai Hospital (21-022-E). Informed consent of eligible patients occurs in person or online. Findings will be shared with key stakeholders and the public. Results will allow for the preparation of a Canada-wide phase III trial to evaluate the efficacy of ODYSSEE-vCHAT in improving clinical outcomes and raising the standard of outpatient care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04966104.

Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Variants in Transplant Recipients After Two and Three Doses of mRNA-1273 Vaccine : Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is more severe in transplant recipients. Variants of concern have supplanted wild-type virus. In transplant recipients, data are limited on 2-dose or 3-dose vaccine immunogenicity against variant viruses. OBJECTIVE: To assess neutralizing antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants in transplant recipients after 2 and 3 vaccine doses. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of a third dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine versus placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04885907). SETTING: Single-center transplant program. PATIENTS: Organ transplant recipients. INTERVENTION: Third dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine versus placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Sera were analyzed for neutralization against wild-type virus and the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants using a surrogate virus neutralization assay and a spike-pseudotyped lentivirus assay. RESULTS: A total of 117 transplant recipients were analyzed (60 in the mRNA-1273 group and 57 in the placebo group). Sera were obtained before and 4 to 6 weeks after the third dose. After 2 doses, the proportion of patients with positive neutralization for all 3 variants was small compared with wild-type virus. After the third dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine, the proportion with a positive neutralization response versus placebo was improved for all 3 variants as measured by both assays. Based on the pseudovirus neutralization assay against the Delta variant, 33 of 60 (55%) patients were positive in the mRNA-1273 group versus 10 of 57 (18%) in the placebo group (difference, 37 [95% CI, 19 to 53] percentage points). The differences were 36 (CI, 17 to 51) percentage points for the Alpha variant and 31 (CI, 15 to 46) percentage points for the Beta variant. In the mRNA-1273 group, lower neutralization values were observed for variants compared with wild-type virus, especially the Beta variant. LIMITATIONS: There is no clear correlate of protection for neutralizing antibody. This was a secondary analysis. CONCLUSION: In organ transplant recipients, a third dose of mRNA vaccine increases neutralizing antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 variants compared with placebo. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Ajmera Transplant Centre.

Post-exposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 in close contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases (CORIPREV): study protocol for a cluster-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is a well-established strategy for the prevention of infectious diseases, in which recently exposed people take a short course of medication to prevent infection. The primary objective of the COVID-19 Ring-based Prevention Trial with lopinavir/ritonavir (CORIPREV-LR) is to evaluate the efficacy of a 14-day course of oral lopinavir/ritonavir as PEP against COVID-19 among individuals with a high-risk exposure to a confirmed case. METHODS: This is an open-label, multicenter, 1:1 cluster-randomized trial of LPV/r 800/200 mg twice daily for 14 days (intervention arm) versus no intervention (control arm), using an adaptive approach to sample size calculation. Participants will be individuals aged > 6 months with a high-risk exposure to a confirmed COVID-19 case within the past 7 days. A combination of remote and in-person study visits at days 1, 7, 14, 35, and 90 includes comprehensive epidemiological, clinical, microbiologic, and serologic sampling. The primary outcome is microbiologically confirmed COVID-19 infection within 14 days after exposure, defined as a positive respiratory tract specimen for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction. Secondary outcomes include safety, symptomatic COVID-19, seropositivity, hospitalization, respiratory failure requiring ventilator support, mortality, psychological impact, and health-related quality of life. Additional analyses will examine the impact of LPV/r on these outcomes in the subset of participants who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline. To detect a relative risk reduction of 40% with 80% power at α = 0.05, assuming the secondary attack rate in ring members (p0) = 15%, 5 contacts per case and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.05, we require 110 clusters per arm, or 220 clusters overall and approximately 1220 enrollees after accounting for 10% loss-to-follow-up. We will modify the sample size target after 60 clusters, based on preliminary estimates of p0, ICC, and cluster size and consider switching to an alternative drug after interim analyses and as new data emerges. The primary analysis will be a generalized linear mixed model with logit link to estimate the effect of LPV/r on the probability of infection. Participants who test positive at baseline will be excluded from the primary analysis but will be maintained for additional analyses to examine the impact of LPV/r on early treatment. DISCUSSION: Harnessing safe, existing drugs such as LPV/r as PEP could provide an important tool for control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Novel aspects of our design include the ring-based prevention approach, and the incorporation of remote strategies for conducting study visits and biospecimen collection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04321174 ) on March 25, 2020.

Risk factors and protective measures for healthcare worker infection during highly infectious viral respiratory epidemics: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate risk factors for healthcare worker (HCW) infection in viral respiratory pandemics: severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), SARS CoV-1, influenza A H1N1, influenza H5N1. To improve understanding of HCW risk management amid the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases from conception until July 2020 for studies comparing infected HCWs (cases) and noninfected HCWs (controls) and risk factors for infection. Outcomes included HCW types, infection prevention practices, and medical procedures. Pooled effect estimates with pathogen-specific stratified meta-analysis and inverse variance meta-regression analysis were completed. We used the GRADE framework to rate certainty of evidence. (PROSPERO no. CRD42020176232, 6 April 2020.). RESULTS: In total, 54 comparative studies were included (n = 191,004 HCWs). Compared to nonfrontline HCWs, frontline HCWs were at increased infection risk (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.24-2.22), and the risk was greater for HCWs involved in endotracheal intubations (risk difference, 35.2%; 95% CI, 21.4-47.9). Use of gloves, gown, surgical mask, N95 respirator, face protection, and infection training were each strongly protective against infection. Meta-regression showed reduced infection risk in frontline HCWs working in facilities with infection designated wards (OR, -1.04; 95% CI, -1.53 to -0.33, P = .004) and performing aerosol-generating medical procedures in designated centers (OR, -1.30; 95% CI, -2.52 to -0.08; P = .037). CONCLUSIONS: During highly infectious respiratory pandemics, widely available protective measures such as use of gloves, gowns, and face masks are strongly protective against infection and should be instituted, preferably in dedicated settings, to protect frontline HCW during waves of respiratory virus pandemics.

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. RESULTS: 463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Corticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

Protecting Frontline Health Care Workers from COVID-19 with Hydroxychloroquine Pre-exposure Prophylaxis: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled multisite trial in Toronto, Canada.

OBJECTIVES: Primary Objective: To determine if pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with 400mg hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), taken orally once daily reduces microbiologically confirmed COVID-19 among front line health care workers at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Secondary Objectives: To compare the following between study arms: adverse events; symptomatic COVID-19; duration of symptomatic COVID-19; days hospitalized attributed to COVID-19; respiratory failure attributable to COVID-19 requiring i) non-invasive ventilation or ii) intubation/mechanical ventilation; mortality attributed to COVID-19, number of days unable to work attributed to COVID-19, seroconversion (COVID-19 negative to COVID-19 positive over the study period); ability of participant plasma to neutralize SARS-CoV-2 virus in vitro; To describe short-term psychological distress associated with risk of COVID-19 exposure at 1, 60, 120 days of the study. To explore laboratory markers within participants with confirmed COVID-19: including circulating markers of host immune and endothelial activation in participant plasma and their correlation with disease severity and outcome TRIAL DESIGN: The HEROS study is a two-arm, parallel-group, individually randomized (1:1 allocation ratio), placebo controlled, participant and investigator-blinded, multi-site superiority trial of oral HCQ 400 mg taken once daily for 90 days as PrEP to prevent COVID-19 in health care workers at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. At 90 days, there is an open label extension wherein all participants are offered a one-month course of HCQ 400mg once daily for PrEP of COVID-19. PARTICIPANTS: Frontline HCWs aged 18 years of age or older, at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure (including staff of emergency departments, intensive care units, intubation teams, COVID-wards, and staff deployed to Long Term Care facilities) of five academic hospitals in downtown Toronto, Canada. Exclusion criteria include: currently pregnant, planning to become pregnant during the study period, and/or breast feeding; known hypersensitivity/allergy to hydroxychloroquine or to 4-aminoquinoline compounds; current use of hydroxychloroquine; known prolonged QT syndrome and/or baseline resting ECG with QTc>450 ms and/or concomitant medications which simultaneously may prolong the QTc that cannot be temporarily suspended/replaced; known pre-existing retinopathy, G6PD deficiency, porphyria, liver disease including cirrhosis, encephalopathy, hepatitis or alcoholism, diabetes on oral hypoglycemics or insulin, or renal insufficiency/failure; disclosure of self-administered use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine within 12 weeks prior to study; confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 at time of enrollment. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention: hydroxychloroquine, 400mg (2 tablets) orally per day. Comparator: placebo, two tablets visually identical to the intervention, orally per day MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is microbiologically confirmed COVID-19 (i.e. SARS-CoV-2 infection). This is a composite endpoint which includes positive results from any validated SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic assay including detection of viral RNA, and/or seroconversion. Participants will be assessed at baseline, and then undergo monthly follow-up at day 30, 60, and 90, 120. At each visit, participants will provide an oropharyngeal sample, blood sample, and will undergo electrocardiogram monitoring of the QTc interval. Secondary outcome measures include: adverse events; symptom duration of COVID-19; days of hospitalization attributed to COVID-19; respiratory failure requiring ventilator support attributed to COVID-19; mortality attributed to COVID-19; total days off work attributed to COVID-19; seropositivity (reactive serology by day 120); and short term psychological impact of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at day 1, 60, 120 days using the K10, a validated measure of non-specific psychological distress. RANDOMISATION: Within each site, participants will be individually randomized to either the intervention arm with HCQ or the placebo arm using a fixed 1:1 allocation ratio using an interactive web-based response system to ensure concealment of allocation. Randomization schedules will be computer-generated and blocked using variable block sizes. BLINDING (MASKING): All participants, research coordinators, technicians, clinicians and investigators will be blinded to the participant allocation group. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) N=988, randomised into two groups of 494 patients. TRIAL STATUS: This summary describes protocol version No. 1.6, May 15, 2020. Recruitment is ongoing - started April 20, 2020 and anticipated end date is July 30, 2021 TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.com Identifier: ISRCTN14326006, registered April 14, 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).