Evaluation of COVID-19 vaccines in primary prevention against infections and reduction in severity of illness following the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant in Shanghai.

Objectives: To evaluate COVID-19 vaccines in primary prevention against infections and lessen the severity of illness following the most recent outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in Shanghai. Data sources: Data from 153,544 COVID-19 patients admitted to the Shanghai "Four-Leaf Clover" Fangcang makeshift shelter hospital were collected using a structured electronic questionnaire, which was then merged with electronic medical records of the hospital. For healthy controls, data on vaccination status and other information were obtained from 228 community-based residents, using the same structured electronic questionnaire. Methods: To investigate whether inactivated vaccines were effective in protecting against SARS-CoV-2 virus, we estimated the odds ratio (OR) of the vaccination by comparing cases and matched community-based healthy controls. To evaluate the potential benefits of vaccination in lowering the risk of symptomatic infection (vs. asymptomatic), we estimated the relative risk (RR) of symptomatic infections among diagnosed patients. We also applied multivariate stepwise logistic regression analyses to measure the risk of disease severity (symptomatic vs. asymptomatic and moderate/severe vs. mild) in the COVID-19 patient cohort with vaccination status as an independent variable while controlling for potential confounding factors. Results: Of the 153,544 COVID-19 patients included in the analysis, the mean age was 41.59 years and 90,830 were males (59.2%). Of the study cohort, 118,124 patients had been vaccinated (76.9%) and 143,225 were asymptomatic patients (93.3%). Of the 10,319 symptomatic patients, 10,031 (97.2%), 281 (2.7%), and 7 (0.1%) experienced mild, moderate, and severe infections, respectively. Hypertension (8.7%) and diabetes (3.0%) accounted for the majority of comorbidities. There is no evidence that the vaccination helped protect from infections (OR = 0.82, p = 0.613). Vaccination, however, offered a small but significant protection against symptomatic infections (RR = 0.92, p < 0.001) and halved the risk of moderate/severe infections (OR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.37-0.61). Older age (≥60 years) and malignant tumors were significantly associated with moderate/severe infections. Conclusion: Inactivated COVID-19 vaccines helped provide small but significant protection against symptomatic infections and halved the risk of moderate/severe illness among symptomatic patients. The vaccination was not effective in blocking the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant community spread.

Exploring research team members' and trial participants' perceptions of acceptability and implementation within one videoconference-based supportive care program for individuals affected by systemic sclerosis during COVID-19: a qualitative interview study.

The SPIN-CHAT Program was designed to support mental health among individuals with systemic sclerosis (SSc; commonly known as scleroderma) and at least mild anxiety symptoms at the onset of COVID-19. The program was formally evaluated in the SPIN-CHAT Trial. Little is known about program and trial acceptability, and factors impacting implementation from the perspectives of research team members and trial participants. Thus, the propose of this follow-up study was to explore research team members' and trial participants' experiences with the program and trial to identify factors impacting acceptability and successful implementation. Data were collected cross-sectionally through one-on-one, videoconference-based, semi-structured interviews with 22 research team members and 30 purposefully recruited trial participants (Mage = 54.9, SD = 13.0 years). A social constructivist paradigm was adopted, and data were analyzed thematically. Data were organized into seven themes: (i) getting started: the importance of prolonged engagement and exceeding expectations; (ii) designing the program and trial: including multiple features; (iii) training: research team members are critical to positive program and trial experiences; (iv) offering the program and trial: it needs to be flexible and patient-oriented; (v) maximizing engagement: navigating and managing group dynamics; (vi) delivering a videoconference-based supportive care intervention: necessary, appreciated, and associated with some barriers; and (vii) refining the program and trial: considering modification when offered beyond the period of COVID-19 restrictions. Trial participants were satisfied with and found the SPIN-CHAT Program and Trial to be acceptable. Results offer implementation data that can guide the design, development, and refinement of other supportive care programs seeking to promote psychological health during and beyond COVID-19.

The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network COVID-19 Home-isolation Activities Together (SPIN-CHAT) Program, a videoconference-based supportive care program, was designed to protect and enhance mental health in individuals affected by systemic sclerosis (commonly known as scleroderma) with at least mild anxiety symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. A trial was conducted to evaluate the SPIN-CHAT Program, and results were generally positive. However, important gaps in knowledge remained. Specifically, research team members' and participants' perceptions of SPIN-CHAT Trial acceptability (including satisfaction) and factors impacting implementation of the SPIN-CHAT Program had not yet been explored. To fill this gap, we conducted one-on-one, videoconference-based, semi-structured interviewed with 22 research team members and 30 purposefully recruited trial participants. Interviews sought to gain insights into research team members' and trial participants' experiences within the SPIN-CHAT Program, delivery preferences, and aspects that were/were not beneficial. Findings suggest research team members and participants valued the SPIN-CHAT Program and found the trial to be acceptable. Results also highlight important factors to consider when designing, developing, and/or refining videoconference-based supportive care programs.

Comparison of mental health symptoms before and during the covid-19 pandemic: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 134 cohorts.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise results of mental health outcomes in cohorts before and during the covid-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv, and Open Science Framework Preprints. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies comparing general mental health, anxiety symptoms, or depression symptoms assessed from 1 January 2020 or later with outcomes collected from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019 in any population, and comprising ≥90% of the same participants before and during the covid-19 pandemic or using statistical methods to account for missing data. Restricted maximum likelihood random effects meta-analyses (worse covid-19 outcomes representing positive change) were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence Studies. RESULTS: As of 11 April 2022, 94 411 unique titles and abstracts including 137 unique studies from 134 cohorts were reviewed. Most of the studies were from high income (n=105, 77%) or upper middle income (n=28, 20%) countries. Among general population studies, no changes were found for general mental health (standardised mean difference (SMD)change 0.11, 95% confidence interval -0.00 to 0.22) or anxiety symptoms (0.05, -0.04 to 0.13), but depression symptoms worsened minimally (0.12, 0.01 to 0.24). Among women or female participants, general mental health (0.22, 0.08 to 0.35), anxiety symptoms (0.20, 0.12 to 0.29), and depression symptoms (0.22, 0.05 to 0.40) worsened by minimal to small amounts. In 27 other analyses across outcome domains among subgroups other than women or female participants, five analyses suggested that symptoms worsened by minimal or small amounts, and two suggested minimal or small improvements. No other subgroup experienced changes across all outcome domains. In three studies with data from March to April 2020 and late 2020, symptoms were unchanged from pre-covid-19 levels at both assessments or increased initially then returned to pre-covid-19 levels. Substantial heterogeneity and risk of bias were present across analyses. CONCLUSIONS: High risk of bias in many studies and substantial heterogeneity suggest caution in interpreting results. Nonetheless, most symptom change estimates for general mental health, anxiety symptoms, and depression symptoms were close to zero and not statistically significant, and significant changes were of minimal to small magnitudes. Small negative changes occurred for women or female participants in all domains. The authors will update the results of this systematic review as more evidence accrues, with study results posted online (https://www.depressd.ca/covid-19-mental-health). REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020179703.

A qualitative interview study exploring the psychological health impacts of the SPIN-CHAT program among people with systemic sclerosis at the onset of COVID-19: perceptions of trial participants and research team members.

PURPOSE: Explore trial participants' and research team members' perceptions of the impact of the videoconference-based, supportive care program (SPIN-CHAT Program) during early COVID-19 for individuals with systemic sclerosis (SSc). METHODS: Data were collected cross-sectionally. A social constructivist paradigm was adopted, and one-on-one videoconference-based, semi-structured interviews were conducted with SPIN-CHAT Trial participants and research team members. A hybrid inductive-deductive approach and reflexive thematic analysis were used. RESULTS: Of the 40 SPIN-CHAT Trial participants and 28 research team members approached, 30 trial participants (Mean age = 54.9; SD = 13.0 years) and 22 research team members agreed to participate. Those who took part in interviews had similar characteristics to those who declined. Five themes were identified: (1) The SPIN-CHAT Program conferred a range of positive psychological health outcomes, (2) People who don't have SSc don't get it: The importance of SSc-specific programming, (3) The group-based format of the SPIN-CHAT Program created a safe space to connect and meet similar others, (4) The structure and schedule of the SPIN-CHAT Program reduced feelings of boredom and contributed to enhanced psychological health, (5) The necessity of knowledge, skills, and tools to self-manage SSc and navigate COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Participants' and research team members' perspectives elucidated SPIN-CHAT Program benefits and how these benefits may have been realized. Results underscore the importance of social support from similar others, structure, and self-management to enhance psychological health during COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04335279)IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe videoconference-based, supportive care SPIN-CHAT Program enhanced psychological health amongst individuals affected by systemic sclerosis.SPIN-CHAT Program participants and research team members shared that being around similar others, program structure, and self-management support were important and may have contributed to enhanced psychological health.Further efforts are required to explore experiences within supportive care programs to better understand if and how psychological health is impacted.

Targeting intracellular Neu1 for coronavirus infection treatment.

There are currently no effective therapies for COVID-19 or antivirals against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and vaccines appear less effective against new SARS-CoV-2 variants; thus, there is an urgent need to understand better the virulence mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 and the host response to develop therapeutic agents. Herein, we show that host Neu1 regulates coronavirus replication by controlling sialylation on coronavirus nucleocapsid protein. Coronavirus nucleocapsid proteins in COVID-19 patients and in coronavirus HCoV-OC43-infected cells were heavily sialylated; this sialylation controlled the RNA-binding activity and replication of coronavirus. Neu1 overexpression increased HCoV-OC43 replication, whereas Neu1 knockdown reduced HCoV-OC43 replication. Moreover, a newly developed Neu1 inhibitor, Neu5Ac2en-OAcOMe, selectively targeted intracellular sialidase, which dramatically reduced HCoV-OC43 and SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro and rescued mice from HCoV-OC43 infection-induced death. Our findings suggest Neu1 inhibitors could be used to limit SARS-CoV-2 replication in patients with COVID-19, making Neu1 a potential therapeutic target for COVID-19 and future coronavirus pandemics.

Global patterns of antigen receptor repertoire disruption across adaptive immune compartments in COVID-19.

Whereas pathogen-specific T and B cells are a primary focus of interest during infectious disease, we have used COVID-19 to ask whether their emergence comes at a cost of broader B cell and T cell repertoire disruption. We applied a genomic DNA-based approach to concurrently study the immunoglobulin-heavy (IGH) and T cell receptor (TCR) ß and δ chain loci of 95 individuals. Our approach detected anticipated repertoire focusing for the IGH repertoire, including expansions of clusters of related sequences temporally aligned with SARS-CoV-2-specific seroconversion, and enrichment of some shared SARS-CoV-2-associated sequences. No significant age-related or disease severity-related deficiencies were noted for the IGH repertoire. By contrast, whereas focusing occurred at the TCRß and TCRδ loci, including some TCRß sequence-sharing, disruptive repertoire narrowing was almost entirely limited to many patients aged older than 50 y. By temporarily reducing T cell diversity and by risking expansions of nonbeneficial T cells, these traits may constitute an age-related risk factor for COVID-19, including a vulnerability to new variants for which T cells may provide key protection.

Systematic review of mental health symptom changes by sex or gender in early-COVID-19 compared to pre-pandemic.

Women and gender-diverse individuals have faced disproportionate socioeconomic burden during COVID-19. There have been reports of greater negative mental health changes compared to men based on cross-sectional research that has not accounted for pre-COVID-19 differences. We compared mental health changes from pre-COVID-19 to during COVID-19 by sex or gender. MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection: Citation Indexes, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv (preprints), and Open Science Framework Preprints (preprint server aggregator) were searched to August 30, 2021. Eligible studies included mental health symptom change data by sex or gender. 12 studies (10 unique cohorts) were included, all of which reported dichotomized sex or gender data. 9 cohorts reported results from March to June 2020, and 2 of these also reported on September or November to December 2020. One cohort included data pre-November 2020 data but did not provide dates. Continuous symptom change differences were not statistically significant for depression (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12, 95% CI -0.09-0.33; 4 studies, 4,475 participants; I2 = 69.0%) and stress (SMD = - 0.10, 95% CI -0.21-0.01; 4 studies, 1,533 participants; I2 = 0.0%), but anxiety (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI 0.07-0.22; 4 studies, 4,344 participants; I2 = 3.0%) and general mental health (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI 0.12-0.18; 3 studies, 15,692 participants; I2 = 0.0%) worsened more among females/women than males/men. There were no significant differences in changes in proportions above cut-offs: anxiety (difference = - 0.05, 95% CI - 0.20-0.11; 1 study, 217 participants), depression (difference = 0.12, 95% CI -0.03-0.28; 1 study, 217 participants), general mental health (difference = - 0.03, 95% CI - 0.09-0.04; 3 studies, 18,985 participants; I2 = 94.0%), stress (difference = 0.04, 95% CI - 0.10-0.17; 1 study, 217 participants). Mental health outcomes did not differ or were worse by small amounts among women than men during early COVID-19.

Effects of mental health interventions among people hospitalized with COVID-19 infection: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effects of mental health interventions among people hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and searched 9 databases (2 Chinese-language) from December 31, 2019 to June 28, 2021. Eligible randomized controlled trials assessed interventions among hospitalized COVID-19 patients that targeted mental health symptoms. Due to the poor quality of trials, we sought to verify accuracy of trial reports including results. RESULTS: We identified 47 randomized controlled trials from China (N = 42), Iran (N = 4) and Turkey (N = 1) of which 21 tested the efficacy of psychological interventions, 5 physical and breathing exercises, and 21 a combination of interventions. Trial information could only be verified for 3 trials of psychological interventions (cognitive behavioral, guided imagery, multicomponent online), and these were the only trials with low risk of bias on at least 4 of 7 domains. Results could not be pooled or interpreted with confidence due to the degree of poor reporting and trial quality, the frequency of what were deemed implausibly large effects, and heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Trials of interventions to address mental health in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, collectively, are not of sufficient quality to inform practice. Health care providers should refer to existing expert recommendations and standard hospital-based practices. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020179703); registered on April 17, 2020.

Safety and immunogenicity of one versus two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 for patients with cancer: interim analysis of a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety profiles of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer is unknown. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine in patients with cancer. METHODS: For this prospective observational study, we recruited patients with cancer and healthy controls (mostly health-care workers) from three London hospitals between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 18, 2021. Participants who were vaccinated between Dec 8 and Dec 29, 2020, received two 30 µg doses of BNT162b2 administered intramuscularly 21 days apart; patients vaccinated after this date received only one 30 µg dose with a planned follow-up boost at 12 weeks. Blood samples were taken before vaccination and at 3 weeks and 5 weeks after the first vaccination. Where possible, serial nasopharyngeal real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR) swab tests were done every 10 days or in cases of symptomatic COVID-19. The coprimary endpoints were seroconversion to SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein in patients with cancer following the first vaccination with the BNT162b2 vaccine and the effect of vaccine boosting after 21 days on seroconversion. All participants with available data were included in the safety and immunogenicity analyses. Ongoing follow-up is underway for further blood sampling after the delayed (12-week) vaccine boost. This study is registered with the NHS Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales (REC ID 20/HRA/2031). FINDINGS: 151 patients with cancer (95 patients with solid cancer and 56 patients with haematological cancer) and 54 healthy controls were enrolled. For this interim data analysis of the safety and immunogenicity of vaccinated patients with cancer, samples and data obtained up to March 19, 2021, were analysed. After exclusion of 17 patients who had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 (detected by either antibody seroconversion or a positive rRT-PCR COVID-19 swab test) from the immunogenicity analysis, the proportion of positive anti-S IgG titres at approximately 21 days following a single vaccine inoculum across the three cohorts were 32 (94%; 95% CI 81-98) of 34 healthy controls; 21 (38%; 26-51) of 56 patients with solid cancer, and eight (18%; 10-32) of 44 patients with haematological cancer. 16 healthy controls, 25 patients with solid cancer, and six patients with haematological cancer received a second dose on day 21. Of the patients with available blood samples 2 weeks following a 21-day vaccine boost, and excluding 17 participants with evidence of previous natural SARS-CoV-2 exposure, 18 (95%; 95% CI 75-99) of 19 patients with solid cancer, 12 (100%; 76-100) of 12 healthy controls, and three (60%; 23-88) of five patients with haematological cancers were seropositive, compared with ten (30%; 17-47) of 33, 18 (86%; 65-95) of 21, and four (11%; 4-25) of 36, respectively, who did not receive a boost. The vaccine was well tolerated; no toxicities were reported in 75 (54%) of 140 patients with cancer following the first dose of BNT162b2, and in 22 (71%) of 31 patients with cancer following the second dose. Similarly, no toxicities were reported in 15 (38%) of 40 healthy controls after the first dose and in five (31%) of 16 after the second dose. Injection-site pain within 7 days following the first dose was the most commonly reported local reaction (23 [35%] of 65 patients with cancer; 12 [48%] of 25 healthy controls). No vaccine-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: In patients with cancer, one dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine yields poor efficacy. Immunogenicity increased significantly in patients with solid cancer within 2 weeks of a vaccine boost at day 21 after the first dose. These data support prioritisation of patients with cancer for an early (day 21) second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. FUNDING: King's College London, Cancer Research UK, Wellcome Trust, Rosetrees Trust, and Francis Crick Institute.

Some characteristics of clinical sequelae of COVID-19 survivors from Wuhan, China: A multi-center longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: The pandemic of COVID-19 has a persistent impact on global health, yet its sequelae need to be addressed at a wide scale around the globe. This study aims to investigate the characteristics, prevalence, and risk factors for mid-term (>6 months) clinical sequelae in a cohort of COVID-19 survivors. METHODS: Totally 715 COVID-19 survivors discharged before April 1, 2020, from three medical centers in Wuhan, China, were included. The longitudinal study was conducted by telephone interviews based on a questionnaire including the clinical sequelae of general, respiratory, and cardiovascular systems. Demographics and some characteristics of clinical sequelae of the survivors were recorded and analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was applied to explore the risk factors for the sequelae. RESULTS: The median time interval from discharge to telephone interview was 225.0 days. The COVID-19 survivors' median ages were 69 years, and 51.3% were male. Among them, 29.9% had at least one clinical sequela. There were 19.2%, 22.7%, and 5.0% of the survivors reporting fatigue, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular symptoms, respectively. Comorbidities, disease severity, the application of mechanical ventilation and high-flow oxygen therapy, and the history of re-admission were associated with the presence of clinical sequelae. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides further evidence for the prevalence and characteristics of clinical sequelae of COVID-19 survivors, suggesting long-term monitoring and management is needed for their full recovery.

Telehealth Adaptation for Multidisciplinary Colorectal Cancer Clinic During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background The study objectives were to transition in-person colorectal cancer multidisciplinary clinic (MDC) to a telehealth MDC (tele-MDC) format and to assess early outcomes.  Methods A colorectal tele-MDC was devised, in which patients used remote-access technology while supervised by a clinician. The team consisted of surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, and pathologists. Outcomes were assessed with patient and provider surveys, using a 5-point Likert scale (higher = more favorable). Results A total of 18 patients participated in the tele-MDC. Surveyed patients (n=18) and physicians (n=19) were satisfied with the quality of care (mean Likert = 4.93, 4.53, respectively), and low standard deviations (range 0-1.03) across all questions reflected homogeneity in satisfaction with the metrics surveyed. Conclusions This pilot study demonstrates that a functional colorectal cancer tele-MDC is a feasible alternative to in-person MDC during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, with the potential for a high degree of patient and physician satisfaction.

Risks, characteristics, and control strategies of disinfection-residual-bacteria (DRB) from the perspective of microbial community structure.

The epidemic of COVID-19 has aroused people's particular attention to biosafety. A growing number of disinfection products have been consumed during this period. However, the flaw of disinfection has not received enough attention, especially in water treatment processes. While cutting down the quantity of microorganisms, disinfection processes exert a considerable selection effect on bacteria and thus reshape the microbial community structure to a great extent, causing the problem of disinfection-residual-bacteria (DRB). These systematic and profound changes could lead to the shift in regrowth potential, bio fouling potential, as well as antibiotic resistance level and might cause a series of potential risks. In this review, we collected and summarized the data from the literature in recent 10 years about the microbial community structure shifting of natural water or wastewater in full-scale treatment plants caused by disinfection. Based on these data, typical DRB with the most reporting frequency after disinfection by chlorine-containing disinfectants, ozone disinfection, and ultraviolet disinfection were identified and summarized, which were the bacteria with a relative abundance of over 5% in the residual bacteria community and the bacteria with an increasing rate of relative abundance over 100% after disinfection. Furthermore, the phylogenic relationship and potential risks of these typical DRB were also analyzed. Twelve out of fifteen typical DRB genera contain pathogenic strains, and many were reported of great secretion ability. Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter possess multiple disinfection resistance and could be considered as model bacteria in future studies of disinfection. We also discussed the growth, secretion, and antibiotic resistance characteristics of DRB, as well as possible control strategies. The DRB phenomenon is not limited to water treatment but also exists in the air and solid disinfection processes, which need more attention and more profound research, especially in the period of COVID-19.

Neutralization potency of monoclonal antibodies recognizing dominant and subdominant epitopes on SARS-CoV-2 Spike is impacted by the B.1.1.7 variant.

Interaction of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike receptor binding domain (RBD) with the receptor ACE2 on host cells is essential for viral entry. RBD is the dominant target for neutralizing antibodies, and several neutralizing epitopes on RBD have been molecularly characterized. Analysis of circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants has revealed mutations arising in the RBD, N-terminal domain (NTD) and S2 subunits of Spike. To understand how these mutations affect Spike antigenicity, we isolated and characterized >100 monoclonal antibodies targeting epitopes on RBD, NTD, and S2 from SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals. Approximately 45% showed neutralizing activity, of which ∼20% were NTD specific. NTD-specific antibodies formed two distinct groups: the first was highly potent against infectious virus, whereas the second was less potent and displayed glycan-dependant neutralization activity. Mutations present in B.1.1.7 Spike frequently conferred neutralization resistance to NTD-specific antibodies. This work demonstrates that neutralizing antibodies targeting subdominant epitopes should be considered when investigating antigenic drift in emerging variants.

Author Correction: A dynamic COVID-19 immune signature includes associations with poor prognosis.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-01186-5.

Validation of the COVID-19 Fears Questionnaires for Chronic Medical Conditions: A Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network COVID-19 Cohort study

Objective Fear associated with medical vulnerability should be considered when assessing mental health among individuals with chronic medical conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective was to develop and validate the COVID-19 Fears Questionnaire for Chronic Medical Conditions. Methods Fifteen initial items were generated based on suggestions from 121 people with the chronic autoimmune disease systemic sclerosis (SSc;scleroderma). Patients in a COVID-19 SSc cohort completed items between April 9 and 27, 2020. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and item analysis were used to select items for inclusion. Cronbach's alpha and Pearson correlations were used to evaluate internal consistency reliability and convergent validity. Factor structure was confirmed with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in follow-up data collection two weeks later. Results 787 participants completed baseline measures;563 of them completed the follow-up assessment. Ten of 15 initial items were included in the final questionnaire. EFA suggested that a single dimension explained the data reasonably well. There were no indications of floor or ceiling effects. Cronbach's alpha was 0.91. Correlations between the COVID-19 Fears Questionnaire and measures of anxiety (r = 0.53), depressive symptoms (r = 0.44), and perceived stress (r = 0.50) supported construct validity. CFA supported the single-factor structure (χ2(35) = 311.2, p < 0.001, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.97, Comparative Fit Index = 0.96, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.12). Conclusion The COVID-19 Fears Questionnaire for Chronic Medical Conditions can be used to assess fear among people at risk due to pre-existing medical conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Acute Immune Signatures and Their Legacies in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 Infected Cancer Patients.

Given the immune system's importance for cancer surveillance and treatment, we have investigated how it may be affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection of cancer patients. Across some heterogeneity in tumor type, stage, and treatment, virus-exposed solid cancer patients display a dominant impact of SARS-CoV-2, apparent from the resemblance of their immune signatures to those for COVID-19+ non-cancer patients. This is not the case for hematological malignancies, with virus-exposed patients collectively displaying heterogeneous humoral responses, an exhausted T cell phenotype and a high prevalence of prolonged virus shedding. Furthermore, while recovered solid cancer patients' immunophenotypes resemble those of non-virus-exposed cancer patients, recovered hematological cancer patients display distinct, lingering immunological legacies. Thus, while solid cancer patients, including those with advanced disease, seem no more at risk of SARS-CoV-2-associated immune dysregulation than the general population, hematological cancer patients show complex immunological consequences of SARS-CoV-2 exposure that might usefully inform their care.

Factors associated with fears due to COVID-19: A Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) COVID-19 cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: No studies have examined factors associated with fear in any group of people vulnerable during COVID-19 due to pre-existing medical conditions. OBJECTIVE: To investigate factors associated with fear of consequences of COVID-19 among people living with a pre-existing medical condition, the autoimmune disease systemic sclerosis (SSc; scleroderma), including country. METHODS: Pre-COVID-19 data from the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) Cohort were linked to COVID-19 data collected in April 2020. Multivariable linear regression was used to assess factors associated with continuous scores of the 10-item COVID-19 Fears Questionnaire for Chronic Medical Conditions, controlling for pre-COVID-19 anxiety symptoms. RESULTS: Compared to France (N = 156), COVID-19 Fear scores among participants from the United Kingdom (N = 50) were 0.12 SD (95% CI 0.03 to 0.21) higher; scores for Canada (N = 97) and the United States (N = 128) were higher, but not statistically significant. Greater interference of breathing problems was associated with higher fears due to COVID-19 (Standardized regression coefficient = 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.23). Participants with higher financial resources adequacy scores had lower COVID-19 Fear scores (Standardized coefficient = -0.18, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Fears due to COVID-19 were associated with clinical and functional vulnerabilities in this chronically ill population. This suggests that interventions may benefit from addressing specific clinical issues that apply to specific populations. Financial resources, health policies and political influences may also be important. The needs of people living with chronic illness during a pandemic may differ depending on the social and political context in which they live.

Validation of the COVID-19 Fears Questionnaires for Chronic Medical Conditions: A Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network COVID-19 Cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Fear associated with medical vulnerability should be considered when assessing mental health among individuals with chronic medical conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective was to develop and validate the COVID-19 Fears Questionnaire for Chronic Medical Conditions. METHODS: Fifteen initial items were generated based on suggestions from 121 people with the chronic autoimmune disease systemic sclerosis (SSc; scleroderma). Patients in a COVID-19 SSc cohort completed items between April 9 and 27, 2020. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and item analysis were used to select items for inclusion. Cronbach's alpha and Pearson correlations were used to evaluate internal consistency reliability and convergent validity. Factor structure was confirmed with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in follow-up data collection two weeks later. RESULTS: 787 participants completed baseline measures; 563 of them completed the follow-up assessment. Ten of 15 initial items were included in the final questionnaire. EFA suggested that a single dimension explained the data reasonably well. There were no indications of floor or ceiling effects. Cronbach's alpha was 0.91. Correlations between the COVID-19 Fears Questionnaire and measures of anxiety (r = 0.53), depressive symptoms (r = 0.44), and perceived stress (r = 0.50) supported construct validity. CFA supported the single-factor structure (χ2(35) = 311.2, p < 0.001, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.97, Comparative Fit Index = 0.96, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.12). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 Fears Questionnaire for Chronic Medical Conditions can be used to assess fear among people at risk due to pre-existing medical conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A dynamic COVID-19 immune signature includes associations with poor prognosis.

Improved understanding and management of COVID-19, a potentially life-threatening disease, could greatly reduce the threat posed by its etiologic agent, SARS-CoV-2. Toward this end, we have identified a core peripheral blood immune signature across 63 hospital-treated patients with COVID-19 who were otherwise highly heterogeneous. The signature includes discrete changes in B and myelomonocytic cell composition, profoundly altered T cell phenotypes, selective cytokine/chemokine upregulation and SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Some signature traits identify links with other settings of immunoprotection and immunopathology; others, including basophil and plasmacytoid dendritic cell depletion, correlate strongly with disease severity; while a third set of traits, including a triad of IP-10, interleukin-10 and interleukin-6, anticipate subsequent clinical progression. Hence, contingent upon independent validation in other COVID-19 cohorts, individual traits within this signature may collectively and individually guide treatment options; offer insights into COVID-19 pathogenesis; and aid early, risk-based patient stratification that is particularly beneficial in phasic diseases such as COVID-19.