Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 60
Filter
1.
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe ; 17:100385, 2022.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-1799797

ABSTRACT

Summary Background The present study aimed to evaluate the persistent immunogenicity offered by a third dose of BNT162b2 against Delta and Omicron variants, in nursing home (NH) residents. Methods In this monocenter prospective observational study, anti-spike IgG levels, S1 domain reactive T cell counts, serum neutralizing antibody titers against Delta and Omicron variants were compared before and up to three months after the BNT162b2 booster dose, in NH residents without COVID-19 (COVID-19 naive) or with COVID-19 prior to initial vaccination (COVID-19 recovered). Findings 106 NH residents (median [interquartile range] age: 86·5 [81;91] years) were included. The booster dose induced a high increase of anti-spike antibody levels in all subjects (p < 0.0001) and a mild transient increase of specific T cells. Before the booster dose, Delta neutralization was detected in 19% (n = 8/43) and 88% (n = 37/42) of COVID-19 naive and COVID-19 recovered subjects, respectively. Three months after the booster dose, all NH residents developed and maintained a higher Delta neutralization (p < 0·0001). Before the booster dose, Omicron neutralization was detected in 5% (n = 2/43) and 55% (n = 23/42) of COVID-19 naive and COVID-19 recovered subjects, respectively, and three months after, in 84% and 95%, respectively. Neutralizing titers to Omicron were lower than to Delta in both groups with a 35-fold reduction compared to Delta. Interpretation The booster dose restores high neutralization titers against Delta in all NH residents, and at a lower level against Omicron in a large majority of participants. Future studies are warranted to assess if repeated BNT162b2 booster doses or new specific vaccines might be considered for protecting such fragile patients against Omicron and/or future SARS-CoV-2 variants. Funding French government through the Programme Investissement d'Avenir (I-SITE ULNE/ANR-16-IDEX-0004 ULNE) and the Label of COVID-19 National Research Priority (National Steering Committee on Therapeutic Trials and Other COVID-19 Research, CAPNET).

2.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-332623

ABSTRACT

Recombination is a crucial process in the evolution of many organisms. Although the evolutionary reasons behind its occurrence in RNA viruses are debated, this phenomenon has been associated with major epidemiological events such as virus host range expansion, antigenic shift or variation in virulence 1,2, and this process occurs frequently in positive strand RNA viruses such as coronaviruses. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been associated with the repeated emergence of variants of concern presenting increased transmissibility, severity or immune escape 3. The recent extensive circulation of Delta worldwide and its subsequent replacement by viruses of the Omicron lineage 4 (BA.1 then BA.2), have created conditions for genetic exchanges between viruses with both genetic diversity and phenotypic specificities 5-7. Here we report the identification and in vitro and in vivo characterization of a Delta-Omicron recombinant in Europe. This recombinant exhibits immune escape properties similar to Omicron, while its behavior in mice expressing the human ACE2 receptor is more similar to Delta. This recombinant provides a unique and natural opportunity to better understand the genotype to phenotype links in SARS-CoV-2.

3.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 2022 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1768664

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Schools were closed extensively in 2020-21 to counter SARS-CoV-2 spread, impacting students' education and wellbeing. With highly contagious variants expanding in Europe, safe options to maintain schools open are urgently needed. By estimating school-specific transmissibility, our study evaluates costs and benefits of different protocols for SARS-CoV-2 control at school. METHODS: We developed an agent-based model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools. We used empirical contact data in a primary and a secondary school and data from pilot screenings in 683 schools during the alpha variant (B.1.1.7) wave in March-June, 2021, in France. We fitted the model to observed school prevalence to estimate the school-specific effective reproductive number for the alpha (Ralpha) and delta (B.1.617.2; Rdelta) variants and performed a cost-benefit analysis examining different intervention protocols. FINDINGS: We estimated Ralpha to be 1·40 (95% CI 1·35-1·45) in the primary school and 1·46 (1·41-1·51) in the secondary school during the spring wave, higher than the time-varying reproductive number estimated from community surveillance. Considering the delta variant and vaccination coverage in Europe as of mid-September, 2021, we estimated Rdelta to be 1·66 (1·60-1·71) in primary schools and 1·10 (1·06-1·14) in secondary schools. Under these conditions, weekly testing of 75% of unvaccinated students (PCR tests on saliva samples in primary schools and lateral flow tests in secondary schools), in addition to symptom-based testing, would reduce cases by 34% (95% CI 32-36) in primary schools and 36% (35-39) in secondary schools compared with symptom-based testing alone. Insufficient adherence was recorded in pilot screening (median ≤53%). Regular testing would also reduce student-days lost up to 80% compared with reactive class closures. Moderate vaccination coverage in students would still benefit from regular testing for additional control-ie, weekly testing 75% of unvaccinated students would reduce cases compared with symptom-based testing only, by 23% in primary schools when 50% of children are vaccinated. INTERPRETATION: The COVID-19 pandemic will probably continue to pose a risk to the safe and normal functioning of schools. Extending vaccination coverage in students, complemented by regular testing with good adherence, are essential steps to keep schools open when highly transmissible variants are circulating. FUNDING: EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe Framework Programme, Agence Nationale de la Recherche, ANRS-Maladies Infectieuses Émergentes.

4.
J Antimicrob Chemother ; 2022 Mar 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1722504

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in COVID-19 hospitalized patients remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of remdesivir in blocking viral replication. METHODS: We analysed nasopharyngeal normalized viral loads from 665 hospitalized patients included in the DisCoVeRy trial (NCT04315948; EudraCT 2020-000936-23), randomized to either standard of care (SoC) or SoC + remdesivir. We used a mathematical model to reconstruct viral kinetic profiles and estimate the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in blocking viral replication. Additional analyses were conducted stratified on time of treatment initiation (≤7 or >7 days since symptom onset) or viral load at randomization (< or ≥3.5 log10 copies/104 cells). RESULTS: In our model, remdesivir reduced viral production by infected cells by 2-fold on average (95% CI: 1.5-3.2-fold). Model-based simulations predict that remdesivir reduced time to viral clearance by 0.7 days compared with SoC, with large inter-individual variabilities (IQR: 0.0-1.3 days). Remdesivir had a larger impact in patients with high viral load at randomization, reducing viral production by 5-fold on average (95% CI: 2.8-25-fold) and the median time to viral clearance by 2.4 days (IQR: 0.9-4.5 days). CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir halved viral production, leading to a median reduction of 0.7 days in the time to viral clearance compared with SoC. The efficacy was larger in patients with high viral load at randomization.

5.
EuropePMC;
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-327725

ABSTRACT

Objectives: We evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-beta-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in COVID-19 inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support. While preliminary results were previously published, we present here the final results, following completion of the data monitoring. Methods We conducted a phase 3 multi-centre open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), add-on trial to Solidarity ( NCT04315948 , EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 quantification in respiratory specimens, pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, which were stopped prematurely. Results The intention-to-treat population included 593 participants (lopinavir/ritonavir, n=147;lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-beta-1a, n=147;hydroxychloroquine, n=150;control, n=149), among whom 421 (71.0%) were male, the median age was 64 years (IQR, 54-71) and 214 (36.1%) had a severe disease. The day 15 clinical status was not improved with investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.82, (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.25, P=0.36);lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-beta-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.05, P=0.08);hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.94 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, P=0.76). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of Serious Adverse Events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms. Conclusion In adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-beta-1a and hydroxychloroquine did not improve the clinical status at day 15, nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.

6.
SSRN;
Preprint in English | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-325722

ABSTRACT

Background: The present study aimed to evaluate the persistent immunogenicity offered by a third dose of BNT162b2 against Delta and Omicron variants, in nursing home residents. Methods: In this monocenter prospective observational study, anti-spike IgG levels, S1 domain reactive T cell counts, serum neutralizing antibody titers against Delta and Omicron variants were compared before and up to 3 months after the BNT162b2 booster dose, in NH residents without COVID-19 (COVID-19 naive) or with COVID-19 prior to initial vaccination (COVID-19 recovered). Findings: 106 NH residents (median [interquartile range] age: 86∙5 [81;91] years) were included. The booster dose induced a high increase of anti-spike antibody levels in all subjects (p < 0∙0001) and a mild transient increase of specific T cells. Before the booster dose, Delta neutralization was detected in 19% (n=8/43) and 88% (n=37/42) of COVID-19 naive and COVID-19 recovered subjects, respectively. Three months after the booster dose, all NH residents developed and maintained a higher Delta neutralization (p < 0∙0001). Before the booster dose, Omicron neutralization was detected in 5% (n=2/43) and 55% (n=23/42) of COVID-19 naive and COVID-19 recovered subjects, respectively, and three months after, in 84% and 95%, respectively. Neutralizing titers to Omicron were lower than to Delta in both groups with a 35-fold reduction compared to Delta. Interpretation: The booster dose restores high neutralization titers against Delta in all NH residents, and at a lower level against Omicron in a large majority of participants. Repeated BNT162b2 booster doses or new specific vaccines might be considered for protecting such fragile patients. Trial Registration Details: The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, with the identifier NCT04760704. Funding Information: French government through the Programme Investissement d’Avenir (I-SITE ULNE/ANR-16- IDEX-0004 ULNE) and the Label of COVID-19 National Research Priority (National Steering Committee on Therapeutic Trials and Other COVID-19 Research, CAPNET). Declaration of Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Ethics Approval Statement: This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki principles for ethical research. The study was approved by the Ile-De-France V (ID-CRB 2021-A00119-32) ethics committee. All participants (and/or their legal representative if required) received detailed information and signed a consent form before participating in the study. Keywords: BNT162b2 vaccine, boost, SARS-CoV-2, Delta, Omicron, older people, immunogenicity

7.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-319611

ABSTRACT

Background: The efficacy of lockdown in containing the COVID-19 pandemic has been reported in different studies. However, the impact on sociodemographic characteristics of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 has not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to describe the changes in sociodemographic characteristics of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and to compare the transmission risk factors of COVID-19 before and during lockdown in France. Methods: : An observational retrospective study was conducted in a University Hospital in Paris, France. Data from patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in the Infectious Diseases Department between February 26 and May 11, 2020 were collected. The study population was divided into 2 groups: group A of patients infected before lockdown, and group B of patients infected during lockdown, considering a maximum incubation period of 14 days. Sociodemographic characteristics and transmission risk factors were compared between the 2 groups using Student's t-test for continuous variables and Chi-2 test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables. Results: : Three hundred eighty-three patients were included in the study, 305 (79.6%) in group A and 78 (20.4%) in group B. Patients in group A were significantly younger (60.0 versus (vs) 66.5 years (p=0.03)). The professionally active population was larger in group A (44.3% vs 24.4%). There were significantly more non-French-speaking people in group B (16.7% vs 6.6%, p<0.01). Most patients from group A had individual accommodation (92.8% vs 74.4%, p<0.01). Contact with a relative was the main transmission risk factor in both groups (24.6% vs 33.3%, p=0.16). Recent travel and large gathering were found only in group A. The proportion of people living in disadvantaged conditions, such as homeless people or people living in social housing, was significantly higher in group B (11.5% vs 4.3%, p=0.03) as was the proportion of institutionalized individuals (14.1% vs 3.0%, p<0.01). Conclusions: : In this study conducted in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in Paris, France, the likelihood of being infected despite the lockdown was higher for people who do not speak French, live in social housing, are homeless or institutionalized. Targeted measures have to be implemented to protect these populations.

8.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-304820

ABSTRACT

Background: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir is still controversial. We aimed at evaluating its clinical effectiveness in patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen and/or ventilator support.Methods: In this European multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial in adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948;EudraCT2020-000936-23), participants were randomly allocated to receive usual standard of care alone or in combination with intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once-daily for 9 days or until discharge). Treatment assignation was performed via web-based randomisation stratified on illness severity and administrative European region. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population.Findings: Between March 22nd, 2020 and January 21st, 2021, 857 participants were randomised to one of the two arms in 5 European countries and 832 participants were included for the evaluation of remdesivir (control, n=418;remdesivir, n=414). There was no difference in the clinical status neither at day 15 between treatment groups (OR for remdesivir, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.25, P=0.85) nor at day 29. The proportion of deaths at day 28 was not significantly different between control (8.9%) and remdesivir (8.2%) treatment groups (OR for remdesivir, 0.93 95%CI 0.57 to 1.52, P=0.77). There was also no difference on SARS-CoV-2 viral kinetics (effect of remdesivir on viral load slope, -0.004 log10 cp/10,000 cells/day, 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.02, P=0.75). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of Serious Adverse Events between treatment groups.Interpretation: The use of remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was not associated with clinical improvement at day 15 or day 29, nor with a reduction in mortality, nor with a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 RNA.Trial Registration: DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948;EudraCT2020-000936-23Funding: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, DIM One Health Île-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB;Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE)Declaration of Interests: Dr. Costagliola reports grants and personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mentré reports grants from INSERM Reacting (French Government), grants from Ministry of Health (French Government), grants from European Commission, during the conduct of the study;grants from Sanofi, grants from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. Hites reports grants from The Belgian Center for Knowledge (KCE), grants from Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB, during the conduct of the study;personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mootien reports non-financial support from GILEAD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gaborit reports non-financial support from Gilead, non- financial support from MSD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Botelho-Nevers reports other from Pfizer, other from Janssen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lacombe reports personal fees and non-financial support from Gilead, personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Wallet reports personal fees and non-financial support from Jazz pharmaceuticals, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and nonPage financial support from Kite-Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Kimmoun reports personal fees from Aguettan, personal fees from Aspen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Thiery reports personal fees from AMGEN, outside the submitted work. Dr. Burdet reports personal fees from Da Volterra, personal fees from Mylan Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Dr. Poissy reports personal fees from Gilead for lectures, outside the submitted work. Dr. Goehringer reports personal fees from G lead Sciences, non-financial support from Gilead Sciences, grants from Biomerieux, non-financial support from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Peytavin reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences, personal fees from Merck France, personal fees from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees from TheraTechnologies, outside the submitted work. Dr. Danion reports personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Raffi reports personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees from Theratechnologies, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gallien reports personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from ViiV, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work;and has received consulting fee from Gilead in August 2020 to check the registration file of remdesivir for the French administration. Dr. Nseir reports personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Biomérieux, personal fees from BioRad, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lefèvre reports personal fees from Mylan, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Guedj reports personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. Other authors have nothing to disclose.Ethics Approval Statement: The trial was approved by the Ethics Committee (CPP Ile-de-France-III, approval #20.03.06.51744), and is sponsored by the Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (Inserm, France);it was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all included participants (or their legal representatives if unable to consent). The present analysis is based on the protocol v11.0 of December 12th, 2020.

9.
Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses Formation ; 1(1):13-23, 2022.
Article in French | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1678933

ABSTRACT

Les thérapeutiques en cours d’évaluation pour la COVID-19 interviennent à différents stades de la maladie. Alors que la prophylaxie à large échelle en population générale fait désormais appel à la vaccination, des molécules antivirales sont en cours d’évaluation pour la prophylaxie post-exposition, dont les anticorps monoclonaux, notamment chez les patients à haut risque d’évolution vers une forme sévère de COVID-19. La phase précoce de la maladie, symptomatique ou non, pourrait bénéficier d'une stimulation de l'immunité antivirale naturelle, comme les interférons de type 1 ou de l'administration de traitements antiviraux, et notamment les anticorps monoclonaux. À une phase plus avancée de la maladie, la corticothérapie a montré un bénéfice sur la mortalité chez des patients en hospitalisation conventionnelle ou en réanimation nécessitant un support en oxygène. Malgré de nombreux échecs de traitements antiviraux, des molécules antivirales ainsi que des thérapies ciblées anti-inflammatoires sont encore en cours d’évaluation.

11.
M�decine et Maladies Infectieuses Formation ; 2022.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-1633994

ABSTRACT

Résumé Les thérapeutiques en cours d’évaluation pour la COVID-19 interviennent à différents stades de la maladie. Alors que la prophylaxie à large échelle en population générale fait désormais appel à la vaccination, des molécules antivirales sont en cours d’évaluation pour la prophylaxie post-exposition, dont les anticorps monoclonaux, notamment chez les patients à haut risque d’évolution vers une forme sévère de COVID-19. La phase précoce de la maladie, symptomatique ou non, pourrait bénéficier d'une stimulation de l'immunité antivirale naturelle, comme les interférons de type 1 ou de l'administration de traitements antiviraux, et notamment les anticorps monoclonaux. À une phase plus avancée de la maladie, la corticothérapie a montré un bénéfice sur la mortalité chez des patients en hospitalisation conventionnelle ou en réanimation nécessitant un support en oxygène. Malgré de nombreux échecs de traitements antiviraux, des molécules antivirales ainsi que des thérapies ciblées anti-inflammatoires sont encore en cours d’évaluation. There are different therapeutics options to treat COVID-19 at different stages of the disease. While large-scale prophylaxis in the general population now relies on vaccination, antiviral molecules such as monoclonal antibodies are being evaluated for post-exposure prophylaxis, particularly in patients at high risk of severe forms of COVID-19. The early phase of the disease, whether symptomatic or not, could benefit from stimulation of natural antiviral immunity such as type 1 interferons and/or from the administration of antiviral treatments including monoclonal antibodies. In more advanced stages of the disease, corticosteroid therapy has shown a benefit on mortality in hospitalized patients requiring oxygen support. Despite numerous disappointments of antiviral treatments, antiviral molecules are still being evaluated as well as targeted anti-inflammatory therapies.

12.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 638, 2022 01 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1621278

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 can cause acute respiratory distress syndrome, leading to death in many individuals. Evidence of a deleterious role of the innate immune system is accumulating, but the precise mechanisms involved remain unclear. In this study, we investigated the links between circulating innate phagocytes and severity in COVID-19 patients. We performed in-depth phenotyping of neutrophil and monocyte subpopulations and measured soluble activation markers in plasma. Additionally, anti-microbial functions (phagocytosis, oxidative burst, and NETosis) were evaluated on fresh cells from patients. Neutrophils and monocytes had a strikingly disturbed phenotype, and elevated concentrations of activation markers (calprotectin, myeloperoxidase, and neutrophil extracellular traps) were measured in plasma. Critical patients had increased CD13low immature neutrophils, LOX-1 + and CCR5 + immunosuppressive neutrophils, and HLA-DRlow downregulated monocytes. Markers of immature and immunosuppressive neutrophils were strongly associated with severity. Moreover, neutrophils and monocytes of critical patients had impaired antimicrobial functions, which correlated with organ dysfunction, severe infections, and mortality. Together, our results strongly argue in favor of a pivotal role of innate immunity in COVID-19 severe infections and pleads for targeted therapeutic options.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/immunology , Immunity, Innate , Immunocompromised Host , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Monocytes/immunology , Neutrophils/immunology , Phagocytes/immunology , Prognosis , Severity of Illness Index , Young Adult
14.
Front Cell Infect Microbiol ; 11: 792202, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1595214

ABSTRACT

Since its emergence in China at the end of 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has rapidly spread across the world to become a global public health emergency. Since then, the pandemic has evolved with the large worldwide emergence of new variants, such as the Alpha (B.1.1.7 variant), Beta (B.1.351 variant), and Gamma (P.1 variant), and some other under investigation such as the A.27 in France. Many studies are focusing on antibody neutralisation changes according to the spike mutations, but to date, little is known regarding their respective replication capacities. In this work, we demonstrate that the Alpha variant provides an earlier replication in vitro, on Vero E6 and A549 cells, than Beta, Gamma, A.27, and historical lineages. This earlier replication was associated with higher infectious titres in cell-culture supernatants, in line with the higher viral loads observed among Alpha-infected patients. Interestingly, Beta and Gamma variants presented similar kinetic and viral load than the other non-Alpha-tested variants.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Viral Load , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Kinetics , Pandemics
19.
BMC Infect Dis ; 21(1): 812, 2021 Aug 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1477268

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of lockdown in containing the COVID-19 pandemic has been reported in different studies. However, the impact on sociodemographic characteristics of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 has not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to describe the changes in sociodemographic characteristics of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and to compare the transmission risk factors of COVID-19 before and during lockdown in France. METHODS: An observational retrospective study was conducted in a University Hospital in Paris, France. Data from patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in the Infectious Diseases Department between February 26 and May 11, 2020 were collected. The study population was divided into 2 groups: group A of patients infected before lockdown, and group B of patients infected during lockdown, considering a maximum incubation period of 14 days. Sociodemographic characteristics and transmission risk factors were compared between the 2 groups using Student's t-test for continuous variables and Chi-2 test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-three patients were included in the study, 305 (79.6%) in group A and 78 (20.4%) in group B. Patients in group A were significantly younger (60.0 versus (vs) 66.5 years (p = 0.03)). The professionally active population was larger in group A (44.3% vs 24.4%). There were significantly more non-French-speaking people in group B (16.7% vs 6.6%, p <  0.01). Most patients from group A had individual accommodation (92.8% vs 74.4%, p <  0.01). Contact with a relative was the main transmission risk factor in both groups (24.6% vs 33.3%, p = 0.16). Recent travel and large gathering were found only in group A. The proportion of people living in disadvantaged conditions, such as homeless people or people living in social housing, was significantly higher in group B (11.5% vs 4.3%, p = 0.03) as was the proportion of institutionalized individuals (14.1% vs 3.0%, p <  0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this study conducted in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in Paris, France, the likelihood of being infected despite the lockdown was higher for people who do not speak French, live in social housing, are homeless or institutionalized. Targeted measures have to be implemented to protect these populations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Pandemics , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/transmission , Communicable Disease Control/methods , France/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Quarantine , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL