Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 34
Filter
1.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-332042

ABSTRACT

Background South Asians represent the largest non-white ethnic group in Canada. The Greater Toronto Area (GTA), home to a high proportion of South Asians, emerged as a COVID-19 hot spot. Early in the pandemic, the South Asian community was identified as having risk factors for exposure and specific barriers to accessing testing and reliable health information, rendering them uniquely vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Objectives To investigate the burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection among South Asians in the GTA, and to determine which demographic characteristics were most closely aligned with seropositivity, in this cross-sectional analysis of a prospective cohort study. Methods Participants from the GTA were enrolled between April and July 2021. Seropositivity for anti-spike and anti-nucleocapsid antibodies was determined from dried blood spots, and age and sex standardized to the Ontario South Asian population. Demographics, risk perceptions, and sources of COVID-19 information were collected via questionnaire in a subset. Results Among the 916 South Asians enrolled, mean age 41 years, the age and sex standardized seropositivity was 23.6% (95% CI: 20.8%-26.4%). Approximately one-third identified as essential workers, and 19% reported living in a multi-generational household. Over half perceived high COVID-19 risk due to their geographic location, and 36% due to their type of employment. The top three most trusted sources of COVID-related information included healthcare providers/public health, traditional media sources, and social media. Conclusion By the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, approximately one-quarter of a sample of South Asians in Ontario had serologic evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Insight into factors that render certain populations at risk can help future pandemic planning and disease control efforts.

2.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 9(3): ofac043, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1758831

ABSTRACT

Dealing with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been a monumental test of medical skills and resources worldwide. The management of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) can at times be difficult, but treating CAP in the setting of COVID-19 can be particularly trying and confusing and raises a number of challenging questions relating to etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. This article is based on the authors' experiences and presents an overview of how CAP during COVID-19 is handled in Canada. We touch on the issues of microbial etiology in patients with CAP in the setting of COVID-19 as well as diagnostic, site of care, and treatment approaches. Published guidelines are the basis of management of CAP and are discussed in the context of Canadian data. We also outline the usual treatment approaches to COVID-19, particularly in patients who have been hospitalized.

3.
CJC Open ; 2022 Mar 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1712513

ABSTRACT

Background: Effective treatments for COVID-19 are urgently needed but conducting randomized trials during the pandemic has been challenging. Methods: The Anti-Coronavirus Therapy (ACT) trials are parallel factorial international trials that aimed to enroll 3,500 outpatients and 2,500 inpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. The outpatient trial is evaluating colchicine versus usual care, and aspirin versus usual care. The primary outcome for the colchicine randomization is hospitalization or death, and for the aspirin randomization is major thrombosis, hospitalization, or death. The inpatient trial is evaluating colchicine versus usual care, and the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin 100 mg once daily versus usual care. The primary outcome for the colchicine randomization is need for high flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death, and for the rivaroxaban plus aspirin randomization is major thrombotic events, need for high flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death. Results: At the completion of enrolment on February 10, 2022, the outpatient trial had enrolled 3,917 patients and the inpatient trial 2,754 patients. Challenges encountered included lack of preliminary data about the interventions under evaluation, uncertainties related to the expected event rates, delays in regulatory and ethics approvals and in obtaining study interventions, as well as the changing pattern of the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: The ACT trials will determine the efficacy of anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin given alone or in combination with rivaroxaban across the spectrum of mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19. Lessons learned from the conduct of these trials will inform planning of future trials.

4.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2021 Jun 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1705947

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens are now commercially available. The most widely used tests are rapid lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Ag) assays have also been developed. The overall accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests, however, is not well defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is the third in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by IDSA. OBJECTIVE: IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and non-medical settings. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on five diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address antigen testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals as well as assess single versus repeat testing strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Data on the clinical performance of U.S. Food and Drug Administration SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization is mostly limited to single, one-time testing versus standard nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) as the reference standard. Rapid Ag tests have high specificity and low to modest sensitivity compared to reference NAAT methods. Antigen test sensitivity is heavily dependent on viral load, with differences observed between symptomatic compared to asymptomatic individuals and the time of testing post onset of symptoms. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remain the diagnostic methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing can help identify some individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

5.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(12): e2141328, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1592856

ABSTRACT

Importance: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have high rates of morbidity and mortality. Objective: To assess the efficacy of colchicine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Estudios Clínicos Latino América (ECLA) Population Health Research Institute (PHRI) COLCOVID trial was a multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial performed from April 17, 2020, to March 28, 2021, in adults with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection followed for up to 28 days. Participants received colchicine vs usual care if they were hospitalized with COVID-19 symptoms and had severe acute respiratory syndrome or oxygen desaturation. The main exclusion criteria were clear indications or contraindications for colchicine, chronic kidney disease, and negative results on a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 before randomization. Data were analyzed from June 20 to July 25, 2021. Interventions: Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to usual care or usual care plus colchicine. Colchicine was administered orally in a loading dose of 1.5 mg immediately after randomization, followed by 0.5 mg orally within 2 hours of the initial dose and 0.5 mg orally twice a day for 14 days or discharge, whichever occurred first. Main Outcomes and Measures: The first coprimary outcome was the composite of a new requirement for mechanical ventilation or death evaluated at 28 days. The second coprimary outcome was death at 28 days. Results: A total of 1279 hospitalized patients (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [14.6] years; 449 [35.1%] women and 830 [64.9%] men) were randomized, including 639 patients in the usual care group and 640 patients in the colchicine group. Corticosteroids were used in 1171 patients (91.5%). The coprimary outcome of mechanical ventilation or 28-day death occurred in 160 patients (25.0%) in the colchicine group and 184 patients (28.8%) in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.02; P = .08). The second coprimary outcome, 28-day death, occurred in 131 patients (20.5%) in the colchicine group and 142 patients (22.2%) in the usual care group (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.12). Diarrhea was the most frequent adverse effect of colchicine, reported in 68 patients (11.3%). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that compared with usual care, colchicine did not significantly reduce mechanical ventilation or 28-day mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04328480.


Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Colchicine/therapeutic use , Hospitalization , Intubation, Intratracheal , Respiration, Artificial , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/pathology , Colchicine/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Inflammation/drug therapy , Inflammation/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Standard of Care
6.
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol ; 9(5): 276-292, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1531931

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) revealed a protective effect of this intervention. We aimed to examine the link between vitamin D supplementation and prevention of ARIs in an updated meta-analysis. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for studies listed from database inception to May 1, 2020. Double-blind RCTs of vitamin D3, vitamin D2, or 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) supplementation for any duration, with a placebo or low-dose vitamin D control, were eligible if they had been approved by a research ethics committee, and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and prespecified as an efficacy outcome. Studies reporting results of long-term follow-up of primary RCTs were excluded. Aggregated study-level data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration and age, were obtained from study authors. Using the proportion of participants in each trial who had one or more ARIs, we did a random-effects meta-analysis to obtain pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs to estimate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs (primary outcome) compared with placebo. Subgroup analyses were done to estimate whether the effects of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25(OH)D concentration (<25 nmol/L vs 25·0-49·9 nmol/L vs 50·0-74·9 nmol/L vs >75·0 nmol/L), vitamin D dose (daily equivalent of <400 international units [IU] vs 400-1000 IU vs 1001-2000 IU vs >2000 IU), dosing frequency (daily vs weekly vs once per month to once every 3 months), trial duration (≤12 months vs >12 months), age at enrolment (<1·00 years vs 1·00-15·99 years vs 16·00-64·99 years vs ≥65·00 years), and presence versus absence of airway disease (ie, asthma only, COPD only, or unrestricted). Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020190633. FINDINGS: We identified 1528 articles, of which 46 RCTs (75 541 participants) were eligible. Data for the primary outcome were obtained for 48 488 (98·1%) of 49 419 participants (aged 0-95 years) in 43 studies. A significantly lower proportion of participants in the vitamin D supplementation group had one or more ARIs (14 332 [61·3%] of 23 364 participants) than in the placebo group (14 217 [62·3%] of 22 802 participants), with an OR of 0·92 (95% CI 0·86-0·99; 37 studies; I2=35·6%, pheterogeneity=0·018). No significant effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs was observed for any of the subgroups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects of supplementation were observed in trials in which vitamin D was given in a daily dosing regimen (OR 0·78 [95% CI 0·65-0·94]; 19 studies; I2=53·5%, pheterogeneity=0·003), at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (0·70 [0·55-0·89]; ten studies; I2=31·2%, pheterogeneity=0·16), for a duration of 12 months or less (0·82 [0·72-0·93]; 29 studies; I2=38·1%, pheterogeneity=0·021), and to participants aged 1·00-15·99 years at enrolment (0·71 [0·57-0·90]; 15 studies; I2=46·0%, pheterogeneity=0·027). No significant interaction between allocation to the vitamin D supplementation group versus the placebo group and dose, dose frequency, study duration, or age was observed. In addition, no significant difference in the proportion of participants who had at least one serious adverse event in the vitamin supplementation group compared with the placebo group was observed (0·97 [0·86-1·07]; 36 studies; I2=0·0%, pheterogeneity=0·99). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. INTERPRETATION: Despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials, vitamin D supplementation was safe and overall reduced the risk of ARI compared with placebo, although the risk reduction was small. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU for up to 12 months, and age at enrolment of 1·00-15·99 years. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires further investigation. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
Respiratory Tract Infections/diet therapy , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , Vitamin D/administration & dosage , Dietary Supplements , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment Outcome
7.
Vaccine ; 39(48): 7058-7065, 2021 11 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525976

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although influenza vaccines provide protection against influenza viruses, concern has been raised that they may increase susceptibility to non-influenza respiratory viruses. As pandemic lockdowns end, temporal overlap of circulation of seasonal influenza viruses and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is expected. Understanding the impact of influenza vaccination on risk of coronavirus infection is therefore of considerable public health importance. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized trial where children and adolescents in Canadian Hutterite colonies were randomly assigned by colony to receive the 2008-2009 seasonal inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) or a control hepatitis A (HepA) vaccine. All 3273 colony members (vaccinated children and nonvaccine recipients) were followed for the primary outcome of RT-PCR confirmed seasonal coronavirus infection. Serum collected pre- and post-vaccination was analyzed for titers of IgG antibodies towards human coronaviruses (HCoV). RESULTS: The incidence of coronavirus infection was 0·18/1000 person-days in the colonies that received TIV vs 0.36/1000 person-days in the control group, hazard ratio (HR) 0.49 [0.21-1.17]. The risk reduction among non-vaccine recipients in the TIV group compared to the control group was HR 0.55 [0.24-1.23]. There was an increase in the geometric mean fold change of HCoV-OC43 antibody titers following TIV compared to HepA vaccine (mean difference 1.2 [0.38-2.06], p = 0.007), and an increase in geometric mean HCoV-NL63 antibody titers post-TIV (262.9 vs 342.9, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The influenza vaccine does not increase the risk of a coronavirus infection. Instead, the influenza vaccine may reduce the rate of coronavirus infections by inducing cross-reactive anti-coronavirus IgG antibodies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , Adolescent , Antibodies, Viral , Canada , Child , Communicable Disease Control , Humans , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination , Vaccines, Inactivated
8.
Expert Rev Vaccines ; 21(1): 83-89, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1503429

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Inflammatory conditions affecting the heart and surrounding tissues have been recently reported following mRNA vaccination. Evaluating trends in the epidemiology of these events and possible mechanisms related to vaccination will enhance vaccine safety surveillance and inform best practices for future vaccine campaigns. AREAS COVERED: Epidemiology of the burden of vaccine-associated myocarditis are reviewed. Key summaries of available data from public health advisory bodies and vaccine safety surveillance databases are critically reviewed. The possible biological pathways for vaccine-associated heart inflammations are introduced. A critical synthesis of available information to inform vaccine recommendations and best practices is provided. The citations were selected by the authors based on PubMed searches of the literature, national vaccine safety surveillance databases and summaries from national public health bodies. EXPERT OPINION: Myocarditis may be associated with vaccination, through several biological mechanisms. Studies have shown that live viral vaccinations can act as a trigger for hypersensitivity inflammatory reactions, but further work is required to examine how the mRNA formulation may induce these autoimmune responses. Given that the risk of these adverse events is low, and the benefit of protection against disease is so great, the receipt of mRNA vaccines is recommended.


Subject(s)
Myocarditis , Humans , Myocarditis/epidemiology , /adverse effects
9.
BMJ ; 374: n2231, 2021 09 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1438073

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021). STUDY SELECTION: Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm. RESULTS: As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative. CONCLUSION: In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement. FUNDING: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321). READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy/methods , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/immunology , Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Network Meta-Analysis , Treatment Outcome
10.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2021 Jun 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1280097

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens are now commercially available. The most widely used tests are rapid lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Ag) assays have also been developed. The overall accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests, however, is not well defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is the third in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by IDSA. OBJECTIVE: IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and non-medical settings. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on five diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address antigen testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals as well as assess single versus repeat testing strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Data on the clinical performance of U.S. Food and Drug Administration SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization is mostly limited to single, one-time testing versus standard nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) as the reference standard. Rapid Ag tests have high specificity and low to modest sensitivity compared to reference NAAT methods. Antigen test sensitivity is heavily dependent on viral load, with differences observed between symptomatic compared to asymptomatic individuals and the time of testing post onset of symptoms. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remain the diagnostic methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing can help identify some individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

12.
J Rheumatol ; 48(8): 1330-1339, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1229339

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To develop guidance on the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD). METHODS: The Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) formed a multidisciplinary panel including rheumatologists, researchers, methodologists, vaccine experts, and patients. The panel used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Outcomes were prioritized according to their importance for patients and clinicians. Evidence from the COVID-19 clinical trials was summarized. Indirect evidence for non-COVID-19 vaccines in ARD was also considered. The GRADE evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework was used to develop a recommendation for the use of the 4 COVID-19 vaccines approved in Canada as of March 25, 2021 (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1, and Ad26.COV2.S), over 4 virtual panel meetings. RESULTS: The CRA guideline panel suggests using COVID-19 vaccination in persons with ARD. The panel unanimously agreed that for the majority of patients, the potential health benefits of vaccination outweigh the potential harms in people with ARDs. The recommendation was graded as conditional because of low or very low certainty of the evidence on the effects in the population of interest, primarily due to indirectness and imprecise effect estimates. The panel felt strongly that persons with autoimmune rheumatic diseases who meet local eligibility should not be required to take additional steps compared to people without ARDs to obtain their vaccination. Guidance on medications, implementation, monitoring of vaccine uptake, and research priorities are also provided. CONCLUSION: This recommendation will be updated over time as new evidence emerges, with the latest recommendation, evidence summaries, and EtD available on the CRA website.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 , Rheumatic Diseases , Rheumatology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Canada , Humans , Rheumatic Diseases/complications , Vaccination
13.
BMJ ; 373: n949, 2021 04 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1203960

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19. DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: Random effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials-six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Carrageenan/pharmacology , Global Health/statistics & numerical data , Hydroxychloroquine/pharmacology , Ivermectin/pharmacology , Anti-Infective Agents/pharmacology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Chemoprevention/methods , Chemoprevention/statistics & numerical data , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Uncertainty
14.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(4): JC47, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1170552

ABSTRACT

SOURCE CITATION: Guo CC, Mi JQ, Nie H. Seropositivity rate and diagnostic accuracy of serological tests in 2019-nCoV cases: a pooled analysis of individual studies. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2020;24:10208-18. 33090430.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Viral , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Immunoglobulin M , Sensitivity and Specificity , Serologic Tests
15.
Cells ; 10(3)2021 03 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1159480

ABSTRACT

As highlighted by the COVID-19 global pandemic, elderly individuals comprise the majority of cases of severe viral infection outcomes and death. A combined inability to control viral replication and exacerbated inflammatory immune activation in elderly patients causes irreparable immune-mediated tissue pathology in response to infection. Key to these responses are type I, II, and III interferons (IFNs), which are involved in inducing an antiviral response, as well as controlling and suppressing inflammation and immunopathology. IFNs support monocyte/macrophage-stimulated immune responses that clear infection and promote their immunosuppressive functions that prevent excess inflammation and immune-mediated pathology. The timing and magnitude of IFN responses to infection are critical towards their immunoregulatory functions and ability to prevent immunopathology. Aging is associated with multiple defects in the ability of macrophages and dendritic cells to produce IFNs in response to viral infection, leading to a dysregulation of inflammatory immune responses. Understanding the implications of aging on IFN-regulated inflammation will give critical insights on how to treat and prevent severe infection in vulnerable individuals. In this review, we describe the causes of impaired IFN production in aging, and the evidence to suggest that these impairments impact the regulation of the innate and adaptive immune response to infection, thereby causing disease pathology.


Subject(s)
Adaptive Immunity , Aging/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , Immunity, Innate , Interferons/physiology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Virus Replication/immunology , Aged , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Inflammation/drug therapy , Inflammation/immunology , Interferon Type I/immunology , Interferon Type I/therapeutic use , Interferon-gamma/immunology , Interferon-gamma/therapeutic use , Interferons/immunology , Interferons/therapeutic use
16.
Crit Care Med ; 49(3): e219-e234, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1069322

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. METHODS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Disease Management , Intensive Care Units , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants , Evidence-Based Medicine , Hemodynamics , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine , Immunization, Passive , Patient Positioning , Ventilation
17.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2021 Jan 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1042276

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Direct detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acids in respiratory tract specimens informs patient, healthcare institution and public health level decision-making. The numbers of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests are rapidly increasing, as is the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recognized a significant need for frequently updated systematic reviews of the literature to inform evidence-based best practice guidance. OBJECTIVE: The IDSA's goal was to develop an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss the nuance of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings and highlight important unmet research needs in the COVID-19 diagnostic testing space. METHODS: IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 17 diagnostic recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Universal access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention and the public response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Information on the clinical performance of available tests is rapidly emerging, but the quality of evidence of the current literature is considered moderate to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is recommended for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case. Testing asymptomatic individuals without known exposure is suggested when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions, dictate eligibility for surgery, or inform solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation timing. Ultimately, prioritization of testing will depend on institutional-specific resources and the needs of different patient populations.

19.
medRxiv ; 2020 Nov 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-955727

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections revealed a protective effect of the intervention. Since then, 20 new RCTs have been completed. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D for ARI prevention using a random effects model. Pre-specified sub-group analyses were done to determine whether effects of vitamin D on risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentration or dosing regimen. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry from inception to 1st May 2020. Double-blind RCTs of supplementation with vitamin D or calcidiol, of any duration, were eligible if they were approved by a Research Ethics Committee and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and pre-specified as an efficacy outcome. Aggregate data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration, were obtained from study authors. The study was registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42020190633). FINDINGS: We identified 45 eligible RCTs (total 73,384 participants). Data were obtained for 46,331 (98.0%) of 47,262 participants in 42 studies, aged 0 to 95 years. For the primary comparison of vitamin D supplementation vs. placebo, the intervention reduced risk of ARI overall (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; P for heterogeneity 0.01). No statistically significant effect of vitamin D was seen for any of the sub-groups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects were seen for trials in which vitamin D was given using a daily dosing regimen (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93); at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89); and for a duration of ≤12 months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.93). No significant interaction was seen between allocation to vitamin D vs. placebo and dose frequency, dose size, or study duration. Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. A funnel plot showed left-sided asymmetry (P=0.008, Egger's test). INTERPRETATION: Vitamin D supplementation was safe and reduced risk of ARI, despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU vitamin D for up to 12 months. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires investigation. FUNDING: None.

20.
CMAJ ; 192(47): E1559-E1570, 2020 Nov 23.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-941707

ABSTRACT

CONTEXTE: On ne connaît pas encore avec certitude l'innocuité et l'efficacité du plasma de convalescent comme traitement de la forme grave de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-2019). Afin d'appuyer la conception de lignes directrices sur la prise en charge de la COVID-19, nous avons effectué une revue systématique et une méta-analyse sur l'utilisation du plasma de convalescent pour le traitement de cette maladie et d'autres formes graves d'infections respiratoires virales. MÉTHODES: En mars 2020, nous avons effectué des recherches dans des bases de données biomédicales internationales et chinoises, des registres d'essais cliniques et des sources prépubliées afin de recenser des essais randomisés et contrôlés (ERC) et des études non randomisées comparant les issues de patients ayant reçu du plasma de convalescent à celles de patients n'en ayant pas reçu. Ont été inclus les patients ayant une infection aiguë attribuable à un coronavirus, au virus de l'influenza ou au virus Ebola. Nous avons également réalisé une méta-analyse à l'aide d'un modèle à effets aléatoires et évalué la qualité des données probantes au moyen de l'approche GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). RÉSULTATS: Sur les 1099 études uniques initialement repérées, 6 étaient admissibles, et aucune d'entre elles ne portait sur des patients atteints de la COVID-19. Une étude non randomisée (n = 40) sur l'administration de plasma de convalescent à des patients atteints du coronavirus du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SRAS-CoV) a fourni des données peu concluantes sur le taux de mortalité (risque relatif [RR] 0,10; intervalle de confiance [IC] de 95 % 0,01 à 1,70). Des estimations regroupées provenant de 4 ERC sur l'influenza (n = 572) n'ont pas montré d'effet manifeste sur le taux de mortalité (4 ERC; RR 0,94; IC de 95 % 0,49 à 1,81), le rétablissement complet (2 ERC; rapports de cotes [RC] 1,04; IC de 95 % 0,69 à 1,64) et la durée d'hospitalisation (3 ERC; différence moyenne [DM] −1,62; IC de 95 % −3,82 à 0,58 jours). La qualité des données était très faible pour tous les paramètres relatifs à l'efficacité. Dans les ERC sur l'influenza, aucun ou peu d'événements indésirables graves ont été associés au plasma de convalescent (RR 0,85; IC de 95 % 0,56 à 1,29; données de faible qualité). INTERPRÉTATION: Les études portant sur des formes graves d'infections respiratoires virales autres que la COVID-19 ont fourni des données indirectes de très faible qualité semblant indiquer que le plasma de convalescent n'offre aucun bénéfice ou offre des bénéfices minimes pour le traitement de la COVID-19, de même que des données de faible qualité montrant qu'il n'entraîne pas d'événements indésirables graves.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Pandemics , Plasma , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL