Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 28
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
J Clin Microbiol ; : JCM0171721, 2021 Oct 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1639280

ABSTRACT

Background: We aimed to assess the specificity of SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection assays among people with tissue-borne parasitic infections. Methods: We tested three SARS-CoV-2 antibody-detection assays [cPass SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Antibody Detection Kit (cPass), Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (Abbott Architect), and STANDARD Q COVID-19 IgM/IgG Combo Rapid Test ("SD RDT IgM"/"SD RDT IgG")] among 559 pre-COVID-19 seropositive sera for several parasitic infections. Results: The specificity of assays was 95-98% overall. However, lower specificity was observed among sera from patients with protozoan infections of the reticuloendothelial system, such as human African trypanosomiasis (Abbott Architect; 88% [95%CI 75-95]), visceral leishmaniasis (SD RDT IgG; 80% [95%CI 30-99]), and from patients with recent malaria from a holoendemic area of Senegal (ranging from 91% for Abbott Architect and SD RDT IgM to 98-99% for cPass and SD RDT IgG). For specimens from patients with evidence of past or present helminth infection overall, test specificity estimates were all ≥ 96%. Sera collected from patients clinically suspected of parasitic infections that tested negative for these infections yielded a specificity of 98-100%. The majority (>85%) of false-positive results were positive by only one assay. Conclusions: The specificity of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays among sera from patients with tissue-borne parasitic infections was below the threshold required for decisions about individual patient care. Specificity is markedly increased by the use of confirmatory testing with a second assay. Finally, the SD RDT IgG proved similarly specific to laboratory-based assays and provides an option in low-resource settings when detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG is indicated.

2.
CMAJ ; 2022 Jan 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1629651

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 remains ill defined in a global context. The World Health Organization Solidarity randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated remdesivir in patients across many countries, with Canada enrolling patients using an expanded data collection format in the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) trial. We report on the Canadian findings, with additional demographics, characteristics and clinical outcomes, to explore the potential for differential effects across different health care systems. METHODS: We performed an open-label, pragmatic RCT in Canadian hospitals, in conjunction with the Solidarity trial. We randomized patients to 10 days of remdesivir (200 mg intravenously [IV] on day 0, followed by 100 mg IV daily), plus standard care, or standard care alone. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in clinical severity, oxygen- and ventilator-free days (at 28 d), incidence of new oxygen or mechanical ventilation use, duration of hospital stay, and adverse event rates. We performed a priori subgroup analyses according to duration of symptoms before enrolment, age, sex and severity of symptoms on presentation. RESULTS: Across 52 Canadian hospitals, we randomized 1282 patients between Aug. 14, 2020, and Apr. 1, 2021, to remdesivir (n = 634) or standard of care (n = 648). Of these, 15 withdrew consent or were still in hospital, for a total sample of 1267 patients. Among patients assigned to receive remdesivir, in-hospital mortality was 18.7%, compared with 22.6% in the standard-of-care arm (relative risk [RR] 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.03), and 60-day mortality was 24.8% and 28.2%, respectively (95% CI 0.72 to 1.07). For patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline, the need for mechanical ventilation was 8.0% in those assigned remdesivir, and 15.0% in those receiving standard of care (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75). Mean oxygen-free and ventilator-free days at day 28 were 15.9 (± standard deviation [SD] 10.5) and 21.4 (± SD 11.3) in those receiving remdesivir and 14.2 (± SD 11) and 19.5 (± SD 12.3) in those receiving standard of care (p = 0.006 and 0.007, respectively). There was no difference in safety events of new dialysis, change in creatinine, or new hepatic dysfunction between the 2 groups. INTERPRETATION: Remdesivir, when compared with standard of care, has a modest but significant effect on outcomes important to patients and health systems, such as the need for mechanical ventilation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no.NCT04330690.

3.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2022 Jan 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1627755

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: People in prison are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to overcrowding and challenges in implementing infection prevention and control measures. We examined the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 and associated carceral risk factors among incarcerated adult men in Quebec, Canada. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional seroprevalence study in 2021 in three provincial prisons, representing 45% of Quebec's incarcerated male provincial population. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity (Roche Elecsys® serology test). Participants completed self-administered questionnaires on sociodemographic, clinical, and carceral characteristics. The association of carceral variables with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was examined using Poisson regression models with robust standard errors. Crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Between January 19 and September 15, 2021, 246 of 1,100 (22%) recruited individuals tested positive across three prisons (range 15-27%). Seropositivity increased with time spent in prison since March 2020 (aPR 2.17, 95%CI 1.53-3.07 for "all" vs. "little time"), employment during incarceration (aPR 1.64, 95%CI 1.28-2.11 vs. not), shared meal consumption during incarceration ("with cellmates": aPR 1.46, 95%CI 1.08-1.97 vs. "alone"; "with sector": aPR 1.34, 95%CI 1.03-1.74 vs. "alone"), and incarceration post-prison outbreak (aPR 2.32, 95% CI 1.69-3.18 vs. "pre-outbreak"). CONCLUSIONS: The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among incarcerated individuals was high and varied between prisons. Several carceral factors were associated with seropositivity, underscoring the importance of decarceration and occupational safety measures, individual meal consumption, and enhanced infection prevention and control measures including vaccination during incarceration.

4.
CMAJ ; 193(49): E1868-E1877, 2021 12 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1591952

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected health care workers. We sought to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among hospital health care workers in Quebec, Canada, after the first wave of the pandemic and to explore factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. METHODS: Between July 6 and Sept. 24, 2020, we enrolled health care workers from 10 hospitals, including 8 from a region with a high incidence of COVID-19 (the Montréal area) and 2 from low-incidence regions of Quebec. Eligible health care workers were physicians, nurses, orderlies and cleaning staff working in 4 types of care units (emergency department, intensive care unit, COVID-19 inpatient unit and non-COVID-19 inpatient unit). Participants completed a questionnaire and underwent SARS-CoV-2 serology testing. We identified factors independently associated with higher seroprevalence. RESULTS: Among 2056 enrolled health care workers, 241 (11.7%) had positive SARS-CoV-2 serology. Of these, 171 (71.0%) had been previously diagnosed with COVID-19. Seroprevalence varied among hospitals, from 2.4% to 3.7% in low-incidence regions to 17.9% to 32.0% in hospitals with outbreaks involving 5 or more health care workers. Higher seroprevalence was associated with working in a hospital where outbreaks occurred (adjusted prevalence ratio 4.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.63-6.57), being a nurse or nursing assistant (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.34, 95% CI 1.03-1.74) or an orderly (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.49, 95% CI 1.12-1.97), and Black or Hispanic ethnicity (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.41, 95% CI 1.13-1.76). Lower seroprevalence was associated with working in the intensive care unit (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.71) or the emergency department (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.39-0.98). INTERPRETATION: Health care workers in Quebec hospitals were at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly in outbreak settings. More work is needed to better understand SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics in health care settings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/etiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Demography , Health Personnel , Hospitals , Humans , Incidence , Occupational Diseases/blood , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Pandemics , Quebec/epidemiology , Risk Factors , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Surveys and Questionnaires
5.
PLoS One ; 16(12): e0261003, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1556871

ABSTRACT

The true severity of infection due to COVID-19 is under-represented because it is based on only those who are tested. Although nucleic acid amplifications tests (NAAT) are the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnostic testing, serological assays provide better population-level SARS-CoV-2 prevalence estimates. Implementing large sero-surveys present several logistical challenges within Canada due its unique geography including rural and remote communities. Dried blood spot (DBS) sampling is a practical solution but comparative performance data on SARS-CoV-2 serological tests using DBS is currently lacking. Here we present test performance data from a well-characterized SARS-CoV-2 DBS panel sent to laboratories across Canada representing 10 commercial and 2 in-house developed tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Three commercial assays identified all positive and negative DBS correctly corresponding to a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 100% (95% CI = 72.2, 100). Two in-house assays also performed equally well. In contrast, several commercial assays could not achieve a sensitivity greater than 40% or a negative predictive value greater than 60%. Our findings represent the foundation for future validation studies on DBS specimens that will play a central role in strengthening Canada's public health policy in response to COVID-19.

6.
Ethics Hum Res ; 43(6): 19-27, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1530137

ABSTRACT

Excluding pregnant people from Covid-19 clinical trials may lead to unintended harmful consequences. For this study, an online questionnaire was sent to physicians belonging to Canadian professional medical associations in order to evaluate their perspectives on the participation of pregnant women in Covid-19 clinical trials. The majority of respondents expressed support for including pregnant women in Covid-19 trials (119/165; 72%), especially those investigating therapies with a prior safety record in pregnancy (139/164; 85%). The main perceived barriers to inclusion identified were unwillingness of pregnant patients to participate and of treating teams to offer participation, the burden of regulatory approval, and a general "culture of exclusion" of pregnant women from trials. We describe why some physicians may be reluctant to include pregnant individuals in trials, and we identify barriers to the appropriate participation of pregnant people in clinical research.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Physicians , Canada , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Pregnant Women , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(2): 287-288, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526981
8.
Ethics Hum Res ; 43(6): 19-27, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1482124

ABSTRACT

Excluding pregnant people from Covid-19 clinical trials may lead to unintended harmful consequences. For this study, an online questionnaire was sent to physicians belonging to Canadian professional medical associations in order to evaluate their perspectives on the participation of pregnant women in Covid-19 clinical trials. The majority of respondents expressed support for including pregnant women in Covid-19 trials (119/165; 72%), especially those investigating therapies with a prior safety record in pregnancy (139/164; 85%). The main perceived barriers to inclusion identified were unwillingness of pregnant patients to participate and of treating teams to offer participation, the burden of regulatory approval, and a general "culture of exclusion" of pregnant women from trials. We describe why some physicians may be reluctant to include pregnant individuals in trials, and we identify barriers to the appropriate participation of pregnant people in clinical research.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Physicians , Canada , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Pregnant Women , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Can J Kidney Health Dis ; 8: 20543581211040332, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1430367

ABSTRACT

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impacted transplant programs across Canada. Objective: We evaluated the implications of delays in transplantation among Canadian end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients to allow pretransplant vaccination. Design: We used a Markov microsimulation model and ESKD patient perspective to study the effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years [QALY]) of living (LD) or deceased donor (DD) kidney transplantation followed by 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine versus delay in LD ("Delay LD") or refusal of DD offer ("Delay DD") to receive 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine pretransplant. Setting: Canadian dialysis and transplant centers. Patients: We simulated a 10 000-waitlisted ESKD patient cohort, which was predictively modeled for a lifetime horizon in monthly cycles. Measurements: Inputs on patient and graft survival estimates by patient, LD or DD characteristics, were extracted from the Treatment of End-Stage Organ Failure in Canada, Canadian Organ Replacement Register, 2009 to 2018. In addition, a literature review provided inputs on quality of life, SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility, new variants of concern, mortality risk, and antibody responses to 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. Methods: We conducted base case, scenario, and sensitivity analyses to illustrate the impact of patient, donor, vaccine, and pandemic characteristics on the preferred strategy. Results: In the average waitlisted Canadian patient, receiving 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine post-transplant provided an effectiveness of 22.32 (95% confidence interval: 22.00-22.7) for LD and 19.34 (19.02-19.67) QALYs for DD. Delaying transplants for 6 months to allow 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine before LD and DD transplant yielded effectiveness of 22.83 (21.51-23.14) and 20.65 (20.33-20.96) QALYs, respectively. Scenario analysis suggested a benefit to short delays in DD transplants to receive 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in waitlisted patients ≥55 years. Two-way sensitivity analysis suggested decreased effectiveness of the strategy prioritizing 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine prior to DD transplant the longer the delay and the higher the Kidney Donor Risk Index of the eventual DD transplant. When assessing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (infection rates ≥10-fold and associated mortality ≥3-fold vs base case), we found short delays to allow 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine administration pretransplant to be preferable. Limitations: Risks associated with nosocomial exposure of LDs were not considered. There was uncertainty regarding input parameters related to SARS-CoV-2 infection, new variants, and COVID-19 severity in ESKD patients. Given rollout of population-level SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, we assumed a linear decrease in infection rates over 1 year. Proportions of patients mounting an antibody response to 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were considered in lieu of data on vaccine efficacy in dialysis and following transplantation. Non-age-stratified annual mortality rates were used for waitlisted candidates. Conclusions: Our analyses suggest that short delays allowing pretransplant vaccination offered comparable to greater effectiveness than pursuing transplantation without delay, proposing transplant candidates should be prioritized to receive at least 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Our scenario and sensitivity analyses suggest that caution must be exercised when declining DD offers in patients offered low risk DD and who are likely to incur significant delays in access to transplantation. While population-level herd immunity may decrease infection risk in transplant patients, more data are required on vaccine efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 and variants of concern in ESKD, and how efficacy may be modified by a third vaccine dose, maintenance immunosuppression and timing of induction and rejection therapies.

11.
IDCases ; 25: e01225, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1320153

ABSTRACT

We describe a case of nosocomial mucormycosis of the thigh in an immunocompromised patient admitted with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome.

12.
PLoS One ; 16(6): e0252617, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1280619

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Many studies report the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies. We aimed to synthesize seroprevalence data to better estimate the level and distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection, identify high-risk groups, and inform public health decision making. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched publication databases, preprint servers, and grey literature sources for seroepidemiological study reports, from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. We included studies that reported a sample size, study date, location, and seroprevalence estimate. We corrected estimates for imperfect test accuracy with Bayesian measurement error models, conducted meta-analysis to identify demographic differences in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and meta-regression to identify study-level factors associated with seroprevalence. We compared region-specific seroprevalence data to confirmed cumulative incidence. PROSPERO: CRD42020183634. RESULTS: We identified 968 seroprevalence studies including 9.3 million participants in 74 countries. There were 472 studies (49%) at low or moderate risk of bias. Seroprevalence was low in the general population (median 4.5%, IQR 2.4-8.4%); however, it varied widely in specific populations from low (0.6% perinatal) to high (59% persons in assisted living and long-term care facilities). Median seroprevalence also varied by Global Burden of Disease region, from 0.6% in Southeast Asia, East Asia and Oceania to 19.5% in Sub-Saharan Africa (p<0.001). National studies had lower seroprevalence estimates than regional and local studies (p<0.001). Compared to Caucasian persons, Black persons (prevalence ratio [RR] 3.37, 95% CI 2.64-4.29), Asian persons (RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.96-3.11), Indigenous persons (RR 5.47, 95% CI 1.01-32.6), and multi-racial persons (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.60-2.24) were more likely to be seropositive. Seroprevalence was higher among people ages 18-64 compared to 65 and over (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.11-1.45). Health care workers in contact with infected persons had a 2.10 times (95% CI 1.28-3.44) higher risk compared to health care workers without known contact. There was no difference in seroprevalence between sex groups. Seroprevalence estimates from national studies were a median 18.1 times (IQR 5.9-38.7) higher than the corresponding SARS-CoV-2 cumulative incidence, but there was large variation between Global Burden of Disease regions from 6.7 in South Asia to 602.5 in Sub-Saharan Africa. Notable methodological limitations of serosurveys included absent reporting of test information, no statistical correction for demographics or test sensitivity and specificity, use of non-probability sampling and use of non-representative sample frames. DISCUSSION: Most of the population remains susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Public health measures must be improved to protect disproportionately affected groups, including racial and ethnic minorities, until vaccine-derived herd immunity is achieved. Improvements in serosurvey design and reporting are needed for ongoing monitoring of infection prevalence and the pandemic response.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Child , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Incidence , Middle Aged , Sensitivity and Specificity , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Young Adult
13.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 8(6): ofab220, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1276208

ABSTRACT

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) surrogate neutralization assays that obviate the need for viral culture offer substantial advantages regarding throughput and cost. The cPass SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Antibody Detection Kit (GenScript) is the first such commercially available assay that detects antibodies that block receptor-binding domain (RBD)/angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-2 interaction. We aimed to evaluate cPass to inform its use and assess its added value compared with anti-RBD enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). Methods: Serum reference panels comprising 205 specimens were used to compare cPass to plaque-reduction neutralization test (PRNT) and a pseudotyped lentiviral neutralization (PLV) assay for detection of neutralizing antibodies. We assessed the correlation of cPass with an ELISA detecting anti-RBD immunoglobulin (Ig)G, IgM, and IgA antibodies at a single timepoint and across intervals from onset of symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results: Compared with PRNT-50, cPass sensitivity ranged from 77% to 100% and specificity was 95% to 100%. Sensitivity was also high compared with the pseudotyped lentiviral neutralization assay (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 85-97), but specificity was lower (58%; 95% CI, 48-67). Highest agreement between cPass and ELISA was for anti-RBD IgG (r = 0.823). Against the pseudotyped lentiviral neutralization assay, anti-RBD IgG sensitivity (99%; 95% CI, 94-100) was very similar to that of cPass, but overall specificity was lower (37%; 95% CI, 28-47). Against PRNT-50, results of cPass and anti-RBD IgG were nearly identical. Conclusions: The added value of cPass compared with an IgG anti-RBD ELISA was modest.

14.
Nat Med ; 27(6): 1071-1078, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1233716

ABSTRACT

Several severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines are being deployed, but the global need greatly exceeds the supply, and different formulations might be required for specific populations. Here we report Day 42 interim safety and immunogenicity data from an observer-blinded, dose escalation, randomized controlled study of a virus-like particle vaccine candidate produced in plants that displays the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein (CoVLP: NCT04450004 ). The co-primary outcomes were the short-term tolerability/safety and immunogenicity of CoVLP formulations assessed by neutralizing antibody (NAb) and cellular responses. Secondary outcomes in this ongoing study include safety and immunogenicity assessments up to 12 months after vaccination. Adults (18-55 years, n = 180) were randomized at two sites in Quebec, Canada, to receive two intramuscular doses of CoVLP (3.75 µg, 7.5 µg, and 15 µg) 21 d apart, alone or adjuvanted with AS03 or CpG1018. All formulations were well tolerated, and adverse events after vaccination were generally mild to moderate, transient and highest in the adjuvanted groups. There was no CoVLP dose effect on serum NAbs, but titers increased significantly with both adjuvants. After the second dose, NAbs in the CoVLP + AS03 groups were more than tenfold higher than titers in Coronavirus 2019 convalescent sera. Both spike protein-specific interferon-γ and interleukin-4 cellular responses were also induced. This pre-specified interim analysis supports further evaluation of the CoVLP vaccine candidate.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/prevention & control , Vaccines, Virus-Like Particle/administration & dosage , Adolescent , Adult , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/genetics , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Canada , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/immunology , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/virology , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus , Vaccines, Virus-Like Particle/adverse effects , Young Adult
15.
Crit Care Med ; 49(9): 1558-1566, 2021 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1191495

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 binds and inhibits angiotensin-converting enzyme-2. The frequency of acute cardiac injury in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 is unknown. The objective was to compare the rates of cardiac injury by angiotensin-converting enzyme-2-binding viruses from viruses that do not bind to angiotensin-converting enzyme-2. DATA SOURCES: We performed a systematic review of coronavirus disease 2019 literature on PubMed and EMBASE. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies with ten or more hospitalized adults with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 or other viral pathogens that described the occurrence of acute cardiac injury. This was defined by the original publication authors or by: 1) myocardial ischemia, 2) new cardiac arrhythmia on echocardiogram, or 3) new or worsening heart failure on echocardiogram. DATA EXTRACTION: We compared the rates of cardiac injury among patients with respiratory infections with viruses that down-regulate angiotensin-converting enzyme-2, including H1N1, H5N1, H7N9, and severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-1, to those with respiratory infections from other influenza viruses that do not bind angiotensin-converting enzyme-2, including Influenza H3N2 and influenza B. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 57 studies including 34,072 patients, acute cardiac injury occurred in 50% (95% CI, 44-57%) of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019. The overall risk of acute cardiac injury was 21% (95% CI, 18-26%) among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019. In comparison, 37% (95% CI, 26-49%) of critically ill patients with other respiratory viruses that bind angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (p = 0.061) and 12% (95% CI, 7-22%) of critically ill patients with other respiratory viruses that do not bind angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (p < 0.001) experienced a cardiac injury. CONCLUSIONS: Acute cardiac injury may be associated with whether the virus binds angiotensin-converting enzyme-2. Acute cardiac injury occurs in half of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients, but only 12% of patients infected by viruses that do not bind to angiotensin-converting enzyme-2.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2/metabolism , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors , COVID-19/complications , Heart Failure/etiology , Influenza, Human/complications , Myocardial Ischemia/etiology , SARS-CoV-2/metabolism , Acute Disease , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/etiology , Down-Regulation , Humans , Influenza A virus/metabolism , Influenza B virus/metabolism
16.
CMAJ Open ; 9(1): E181-E188, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1124785

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Clinical data on patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) provide clinicians and public health officials with information to guide practice and policy. The aims of this study were to describe patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital and intensive care, and to investigate predictors of outcome to characterize severe acute respiratory infection. METHODS: This observational cohort study used Canadian data from 32 selected hospitals included in a global multisite cohort between Jan. 24 and July 7, 2020. Adult and pediatric patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received care in an intensive care unit (ICU) and a sampling of up to the first 60 patients receiving care on hospital wards were included. We performed descriptive analyses of characteristics, interventions and outcomes. The primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality, with secondary analyses of the length of hospital and ICU stay. RESULTS: Between January and July 2020, among 811 patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of COVID-19, the median age was 64 (interquartile range [IQR] 53-75) years, 495 (61.0%) were men, 46 (5.7%) were health care workers, 9 (1.1%) were pregnant, 26 (3.2%) were younger than 18 years and 9 (1.1%) were younger than 5 years. The median time from symptom onset to hospital admission was 7 (IQR 3-10) days. The most common symptoms on admission were fever, shortness of breath, cough and malaise. Diabetes, hypertension and cardiac, kidney and respiratory disease were the most common comorbidities. Among all patients, 328 received care in an ICU, admitted a median of 0 (IQR 0-1) days after hospital admission. Critically ill patients received treatment with invasive mechanical ventilation (88.8%), renal replacement therapy (14.9%) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (4.0%); 26.2% died. Among those receiving mechanical ventilation, 31.2% died. Age was an influential predictor of mortality (odds ratio per additional year of life 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.09). INTERPRETATION: Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 commonly had fever, respiratory symptoms and comorbid conditions. Increasing age was associated with the development of critical illness and death; however, most critically ill patients in Canada, including those requiring mechanical ventilation, survived and were discharged from hospital.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Critical Care , Hospitalization , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , Canada/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Critical Illness , Disease Management , Disease Progression , Female , Humans , Incidence , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Pandemics , Pregnancy , Public Health Surveillance , Severity of Illness Index , Young Adult
17.
Int J Infect Dis ; 104: 671-676, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1101290

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The global death toll from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has exceeded 2 million, and treatments to decrease mortality are needed urgently. OBJECTIVES: To examine the probabilities of a clinically meaningful reduction in mortality for remdesivir and systemic corticosteroids. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a probabilistic re-analysis of clinical trial data for corticosteroids and remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 using a Bayesian random effects meta-analytic approach. Studies were identified from existing meta-analyses performed by the World Health Organization. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Posterior probabilities of an absolute decrease in mortality compared with control patients, by subgroups based on oxygen requirements, were calculated for corticosteroids and remdesivir. Probabilities of ≥1%, ≥2% and ≥5% absolute decrease in mortality were quantified. RESULTS: For patients needing mechanical ventilation, the probability of ≥1% absolute decrease in mortality was 4% for remdesivir and 93% for corticosteroids. For patients needing supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation, the probability of ≥1% absolute decrease in mortality was 81% for remdesivir and 93% for dexamethasone. Finally, for patients who did not need oxygen support, the probability of ≥1% absolute decrease in mortality was 29% for remdesivir and 4% for dexamethasone. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Using a Bayesian analytic approach, remdesivir had low probability of achieving a clinically meaningful reduction in mortality, except for patients needing supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation. Corticosteroids were more promising for patients needing oxygen support, especially mechanical ventilation. While awaiting more definitive studies, this probabilistic interpretation of the evidence will help to guide treatment decisions for clinicians, as well as guideline and policy makers.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , Humans , Probability , Respiration, Artificial
18.
Ann Intern Med ; 173(8): 623-631, 2020 10 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-981646

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: No effective oral therapy exists for early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether hydroxychloroquine could reduce COVID-19 severity in adult outpatients. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from 22 March through 20 May 2020. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04308668). SETTING: Internet-based trial across the United States and Canada (40 states and 3 provinces). PARTICIPANTS: Symptomatic, nonhospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or probable COVID-19 and high-risk exposure within 4 days of symptom onset. INTERVENTION: Oral hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 more days) or masked placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Symptoms and severity at baseline and then at days 3, 5, 10, and 14 using a 10-point visual analogue scale. The primary end point was change in overall symptom severity over 14 days. RESULTS: Of 491 patients randomly assigned to a group, 423 contributed primary end point data. Of these, 341 (81%) had laboratory-confirmed infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or epidemiologically linked exposure to a person with laboratory-confirmed infection; 56% (236 of 423) were enrolled within 1 day of symptoms starting. Change in symptom severity over 14 days did not differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (difference in symptom severity: relative, 12%; absolute, -0.27 point [95% CI, -0.61 to 0.07 point]; P = 0.117). At 14 days, 24% (49 of 201) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine had ongoing symptoms compared with 30% (59 of 194) receiving placebo (P = 0.21). Medication adverse effects occurred in 43% (92 of 212) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine versus 22% (46 of 211) receiving placebo (P < 0.001). With placebo, 10 hospitalizations occurred (2 non-COVID-19-related), including 1 hospitalized death. With hydroxychloroquine, 4 hospitalizations occurred plus 1 nonhospitalized death (P = 0.29). LIMITATION: Only 58% of participants received SARS-CoV-2 testing because of severe U.S. testing shortages. CONCLUSION: Hydroxychloroquine did not substantially reduce symptom severity in outpatients with early, mild COVID-19. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Private donors.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Outpatients , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Adult , Antimalarials/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Double-Blind Method , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors
19.
Ann Intern Med ; 173(6): 450-460, 2020 09 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-937708

ABSTRACT

Accurate serologic tests to detect host antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will be critical for the public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Many use cases are envisaged, including complementing molecular methods for diagnosis of active disease and estimating immunity for individuals. At the population level, carefully designed seroepidemiologic studies will aid in the characterization of transmission dynamics and refinement of disease burden estimates and will provide insight into the kinetics of humoral immunity. Yet, despite an explosion in the number and availability of serologic assays to test for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, most have undergone minimal external validation to date. This hinders assay selection and implementation, as well as interpretation of study results. In addition, critical knowledge gaps remain regarding serologic correlates of protection from infection or disease, and the degree to which these assays cross-react with antibodies against related coronaviruses. This article discusses key use cases for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection tests and their application to serologic studies, reviews currently available assays, highlights key areas of ongoing research, and proposes potential strategies for test implementation.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/immunology , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Serologic Tests/methods , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...