Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(9): 1573-1584, 2022 Oct 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1978216

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2_ infections in healthcare workers (HCWs) is critical for healthcare delivery. We aimed to estimate and characterize the prevalence and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a US HCW cohort and to identify risk factors associated with infection. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of HCWs at 3 Bay Area medical centers using serial surveys and SARS-CoV-2 viral and orthogonal serological testing, including measurement of neutralizing antibodies. We estimated baseline prevalence and cumulative incidence of COVID-19. We performed multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to estimate associations of baseline factors with incident infections and evaluated the impact of time-varying exposures on time to COVID-19 using marginal structural models. RESULTS: A total of 2435 HCWs contributed 768 person-years of follow-up time. We identified 21 of 2435 individuals with prevalent infection, resulting in a baseline prevalence of 0.86% (95% confidence interval [CI], .53%-1.32%). We identified 70 of 2414 incident infections (2.9%), yielding a cumulative incidence rate of 9.11 cases per 100 person-years (95% CI, 7.11-11.52). Community contact with a known COVID-19 case was most strongly correlated with increased hazard for infection (hazard ratio, 8.1 [95% CI, 3.8-17.5]). High-risk work-related exposures (ie, breach in protective measures) drove an association between work exposure and infection (hazard ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.3-4.8). More cases were identified in HCWs when community case rates were high. CONCLUSIONS: We observed modest COVID-19 incidence despite consistent exposure at work. Community contact was strongly associated with infections, but contact at work was not unless accompanied by high-risk exposure.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , Incidence , Prevalence , Longitudinal Studies , Health Personnel , Cohort Studies
2.
Lancet Respir Med ; 10(9): 888-899, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1864689

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012). INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adolescent , Adult , Azetidines , COVID-19/drug therapy , Dexamethasone , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen , Purines , Pyrazoles , SARS-CoV-2 , Sulfonamides , Treatment Outcome
3.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(7): 1260-1264, 2022 04 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1702505

ABSTRACT

This post hoc analysis of the Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Trial-1 (ACTT-1) shows a treatment effect of remdesivir (RDV) on progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death. Additionally, we create a risk profile that better predicts progression than baseline oxygen requirement alone. The highest risk group derives the greatest treatment effect from RDV.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 9(12)2021 Nov 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1542830

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The study was designed to compare intentions to receive COVID-19 vaccination by race-ethnicity, to identify beliefs that may mediate the association between race-ethnicity and intention to receive the vaccine and to identify the demographic factors and beliefs most strongly predictive of intention to receive a vaccine. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey conducted from November 2020 to January 2021, nested within a longitudinal cohort study of the prevalence and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 among a general population-based sample of adults in six San Francisco Bay Area counties (called TrackCOVID). Study Cohort: In total, 3161 participants among the 3935 in the TrackCOVID parent cohort responded. RESULTS: Rates of high vaccine willingness were significantly lower among Black (41%), Latinx (55%), Asian (58%), Multi-racial (59%), and Other race (58%) respondents than among White respondents (72%). Black, Latinx, and Asian respondents were significantly more likely than White respondents to endorse lack of trust of government and health agencies as a reason not to get vaccinated. Participants' motivations and concerns about COVID-19 vaccination only partially explained racial-ethnic differences in vaccination willingness. Concerns about a rushed government vaccine approval process and potential bad reactions to the vaccine were the two most important factors predicting vaccination intention. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine outreach campaigns must ensure that the disproportionate toll of COVID-19 on historically marginalized racial-ethnic communities is not compounded by inequities in vaccination. Efforts must emphasize messages that speak to the motivations and concerns of groups suffering most from health inequities to earn their trust to support informed decision making.

6.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(12): 1365-1376, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1472211

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 µg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492475. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87-1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3-7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2-6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69-2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group. INTERPRETATION: Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo. FUNDING: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA).


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Interferon beta-1a/therapeutic use , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Alanine/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Japan , Male , Mexico , Middle Aged , Oxygen , Oxygen Saturation , Republic of Korea , SARS-CoV-2 , Singapore , Treatment Outcome , United States
7.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 8(8): ofab385, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1361798

ABSTRACT

We characterized the antibody composition of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) and the immunologic responses of hospitalized COVID-19 patients after receiving CCP or nonimmune fresh frozen plasma. Despite selection of CCP with significantly higher total immunoglobulin G than recipients, neutralizing antibody levels did not differ between donor plasma and CCP recipients.

9.
J Neurosurg Spine ; : 1-9, 2020 Oct 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1016048

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, quaternary-care facilities continue to provide care for patients in need of urgent and emergent invasive procedures. Perioperative protocols are needed to streamline care for these patients notwithstanding capacity and resource constraints. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel was assembled at the University of California, San Francisco, with 26 leaders across 10 academic departments, including 7 department chairpersons, the chief medical officer, the chief operating officer, infection control officers, nursing leaders, and resident house staff champions. An epidemiologist, an ethicist, and a statistician were also consulted. A modified two-round, blinded Delphi method based on 18 agree/disagree statements was used to build consensus. Significant disagreement for each statement was tested using a one-sided exact binomial test against an expected outcome of 95% consensus using a significance threshold of p < 0.05. Final triage protocols were developed with unblinded group-level discussion. RESULTS: Overall, 15 of 18 statements achieved consensus in the first round of the Delphi method; the 3 statements with significant disagreement (p < 0.01) were modified and iteratively resubmitted to the expert panel to achieve consensus. Consensus-based protocols were developed using unblinded multidisciplinary panel discussions. The final algorithms 1) quantified outbreak level, 2) triaged patients based on acuity, 3) provided a checklist for urgent/emergent invasive procedures, and 4) created a novel scoring system for the allocation of personal protective equipment. In particular, the authors modified the American College of Surgeons three-tiered triage system to incorporate more urgent cases, as are often encountered in neurosurgery and spine surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Urgent and emergent invasive procedures need to be performed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The consensus-based protocols in this study may assist healthcare providers to optimize perioperative care during the pandemic.

10.
Am J Transplant ; 20(11): 3225-3233, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-457438

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused significant morbidity and mortality for patients and stressed healthcare systems worldwide. The clinical features, disease course, and serologic response of COVID-19 among immunosuppressed patients such as solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients, who are at presumed risk for more severe disease, are not well characterized. We describe our institutional experience with COVID-19 among 10 SOT patients, including the clinical presentation, treatment modalities, and outcomes of 7 renal transplant recipients, 1 liver transplant recipient, 1 heart transplant recipient, and 1 lung transplant recipient. In addition, we report the serologic response in SOT recipients, documenting a positive IgG response in all 7 hospitalized patients. We also review the existing literature on COVID-19 in SOT recipients to consolidate the current knowledge on COVID-19 in the SOT population for the transplant community.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Immunocompromised Host , Organ Transplantation/methods , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Transplant Recipients , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL