Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 18 de 18
Filter
1.
Euro Surveill ; 27(21)2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1875327

ABSTRACT

IntroductionIn July and August 2021, the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant dominated in Europe.AimUsing a multicentre test-negative study, we measured COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic infection.MethodsIndividuals with COVID-19 or acute respiratory symptoms at primary care/community level in 10 European countries were tested for SARS-CoV-2. We measured complete primary course overall VE by vaccine brand and by time since vaccination.ResultsOverall VE was 74% (95% CI: 69-79), 76% (95% CI: 71-80), 63% (95% CI: 48-75) and 63% (95% CI: 16-83) among those aged 30-44, 45-59, 60-74 and ≥ 75 years, respectively. VE among those aged 30-59 years was 78% (95% CI: 75-81), 66% (95% CI: 58-73), 91% (95% CI: 87-94) and 52% (95% CI: 40-61), for Comirnaty, Vaxzevria, Spikevax and COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen, respectively. VE among people 60 years and older was 67% (95% CI: 52-77), 65% (95% CI: 48-76) and 83% (95% CI: 64-92) for Comirnaty, Vaxzevria and Spikevax, respectively. Comirnaty VE among those aged 30-59 years was 87% (95% CI: 83-89) at 14-29 days and 65% (95% CI: 56-71%) at ≥ 90 days between vaccination and onset of symptoms.ConclusionsVE against symptomatic infection with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant varied among brands, ranging from 52% to 91%. While some waning of the vaccine effect may be present (sample size limited this analysis to only Comirnaty), protection was 65% at 90 days or more between vaccination and onset.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Europe/epidemiology , Humans , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Primary Health Care , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
2.
Clin Otolaryngol ; 47(5): 561-567, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1874404

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To report the incidence of locoregional recurrence in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients under surveillance following treatment undergoing symptom-based remote assessment. DESIGN: A 16-week multicentre prospective cohort study. SETTING: UK ENT departments. PARTICIPANTS: HNC patients under surveillance following treatment undergoing symptom-based telephone assessment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of locoregional recurrent HNC after minimum 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Data for 1078 cases were submitted by 16 centres, with follow-up data completed in 98.9% (n = 1066). Following telephone consultation, 83.7% of referrals had their face-to-face appointments deferred (n = 897/1072). New symptoms were reported by 11.6% (n = 124/1072) at telephone assessment; 72.6% (n = 90/124) of this group were called for urgent assessments, of whom 48.9% (n = 44/90) came directly for imaging without preceding clinical review. The sensitivity and specificity for new symptoms as an indicator of cancer recurrence were 35.3% and 89.4%, respectively, with a negative predictive value of 99.7% (p = .002). Locoregional cancer identification rates after a minimum of 6 months of further monitoring, when correlated with time since treatment, were 6.0% (n = 14/233) <1 year; 2.1% (n = 16/747) between 1 and 5 years; and 4.3% (n = 4/92) for those >5 years since treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone assessment, using patient-reported symptoms, to identify recurrent locoregional HNC was widely adopted during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. The majority of patients had no face-to-face reviews or investigations. New symptoms were significantly associated with the identification of locoregional recurrent cancers with a high specificity, but a low sensitivity may limit symptom assessment being used as the sole surveillance method.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Head and Neck Neoplasms , COVID-19/epidemiology , Head and Neck Neoplasms/diagnosis , Head and Neck Neoplasms/epidemiology , Head and Neck Neoplasms/therapy , Humans , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/diagnosis , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/epidemiology , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/therapy , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Referral and Consultation , Symptom Assessment , Telephone
3.
Acta Paediatr ; 111(8): 1573-1582, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1807016

ABSTRACT

AIM: We investigated prolonged symptoms in children after COVID-19, including the clinical characteristics and risk factors. METHODS: This multicentre retrospective study focused on 451 children under 18 years old who were diagnosed with symptomatic COVID-19 between 14 March and 31 December 2020. Persistent symptoms were analysed with a telephone questionnaire by the attending physicians from 1 August to 30 September 2021. A control group of 98 with no history of COVID-19, who were treated for other reasons, was also included. RESULTS: Most (82.0%) of the cases had mild infections that required outpatient care and 5.1% were admitted to the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU). We found that 18.4% had symptoms that lasted 4-12 weeks. There were also 14.6% who were symptomatic for longer than 12 weeks and the odds risks were higher for children aged 5 years or more (OR 3.0), hospitalised (OR 3.9), admitted to the PICU (OR 4.3) and with relatives who were symptomatic for 12 weeks or more (OR 2.8). The controls had similar percentages of prolonged symptoms, despite having no history of COVID-19, especially those who were older than 5 years. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed that a worrying percentage of children had prolonged symptoms after COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adolescent , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units, Pediatric , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Antibiotics (Basel) ; 11(2)2022 Jan 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1667024

ABSTRACT

Studies suggest that the incidence of coinfections in patients with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is low, but a large number of patients receive antimicrobials during hospitalisation. This may fuel a rise in antimicrobial resistance (AMR). We conducted a multicentre point-prevalence survey in seven tertiary university hospitals (in medical wards and intensive care units) in Croatia, Italy, Serbia and Slovenia. Of 988 COVID-19 patients, 521 were receiving antibiotics and/or antifungals (52.7%; range across hospitals: 32.9-85.6%) on the day of the study. Differences between hospitals were statistically significant (χ2 (6, N = 988) = 192.57, p < 0.001). The majority of patients received antibiotics and/or antifungals within 48 h of admission (323/521, 62%; range across hospitals: 17.4-100%), their most common use was empirical (79.4% of prescriptions), and pneumonia was the main indication for starting the treatment (three-quarters of prescriptions). The majority of antibiotics prescribed (69.9%) belonged to the "Watch" group of the World Health Organization AWaRe classification. The pattern of antimicrobial use differed across hospitals. The data show that early empiric use of broad-spectrum antibiotics is common in COVID-19 patients, and that the pattern of antimicrobial use varies across hospitals. Judicious use of antimicrobials is warranted to prevent an increase in AMR.

5.
Int J Ment Health Syst ; 15(1): 85, 2021 Dec 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1632918

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pathways to care studies are feasible and tested means of finding the actual routes taken by patients before reaching proper care. In view of the predominance of nonprofessional service providers and the lack of previous large studies on pathways in Nepal, this multicenter study is needed. The aim of the study was to trace the various pathways and carers involved in mental health care; assess clinical variables such as the duration of untreated illness, clinical presentation and treatment; and compare geographically and culturally diverse landscapes. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, convenience sampling study performed at 14 centers where new cases were being taken. The World Health Organization Study of the Pathways-to-Care Schedule was applied. The Nepali version of the encounter form was used. The data were collected between 17 September and 16 October 2020 and were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Additionally, perspectives from local investigators were collected and discussed. RESULTS: Most of the first carers were native/religious faith healers (28.2%), followed by psychiatrists (26%). The median duration for the first psychiatric consultation was 3 weeks. The duration of untreated illness was 30.72 ± 80.34 (median: 4) weeks, and the time taken for this journey was 94.99 ± 274.58 (median: 30) min. The longest delay from the onset of illness to psychiatric care was for epilepsy {90.0 ± 199.0 (median: 25.5)} weeks, followed by neurotic illness {22.89 ± 73.45 (median: 2)} and psychotic illness {10.54 ± 18.28 (median: 2)} weeks. Overall, most patients with severe mental illnesses (SMIs) had their first contact with faithhealers (49%), then met with medical doctors (13%) or psychiatrists (28%). Marked differences in clinical presentation surfaced when hilly centers were compared with the Terai belt. CONCLUSIONS: Faith healers, general practitioners and hospital doctors are major carers, and the means of educating them for proper referral can be considered. The investigators see several hindrances and opportunities in the studied pathways. The employment of more mental health professionals and better mental health advocacy, public awareness programs and school education are suggested strategies to improve proper mental health care.

6.
Transpl Int ; 34(12): 2597-2608, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1488274

ABSTRACT

Although it is known that solid organ transplant recipients fare worse after COVID-19 infection, data on the impact of COVID-19 on clinical outcomes and allograft function in lung transplant (LTx) recipients are limited and based mainly on reports with short follow-up. In this nationwide study, all LTx recipients with COVID-19 diagnosed from 1 February 2020 to 30 April 2021 were included. The patients were followed until 1 August 2021 or death. We analysed demographics, clinical features, therapeutic management and outcomes, including lung function. Forty-seven patients were identified: median age was 59 (10-78) years, 53.1% were male, and median follow-up was 194 (23-509) days. COVID-19 was asymptomatic or mild at presentation in 48.9%. Nine patients (19.1%) were vaccinated pre-COVID infection. Two patients (4.3%) died within 28 days of testing positive, and the overall survival rate was 85.1%. The patients with asymptomatic or mild symptoms had a higher median % expected forced expiratory volume during the first second than the patients with worse symptoms (P = 0.004). LTx recipients develop the entire spectrum of COVID-19, and in addition to previously acknowledged risk factors, lower pre-COVID lung function was associated with more severe disease presentation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Lung Transplantation , Humans , Lung , Lung Transplantation/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Sweden , Transplant Recipients
7.
Euro Surveill ; 26(29)2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1323061

ABSTRACT

We measured COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection at primary care/outpatient level among adults ≥ 65 years old using a multicentre test-negative design in eight European countries. We included 592 SARS-CoV-2 cases and 4,372 test-negative controls in the main analysis. The VE was 62% (95% CI: 45-74) for one dose only and 89% (95% CI: 79-94) for complete vaccination. COVID-19 vaccines provide good protection against COVID-19 presentation at primary care/outpatient level, particularly among fully vaccinated individuals.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 Vaccines , Europe , Humans , Primary Health Care
8.
Emerg Med Australas ; 33(5): 900-910, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1294918

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN) was launched in 2009 with the intent for existing national and regional research networks in paediatric emergency care to organise globally for the conduct of collaborative research across networks. METHODS: PERN has grown from five to eight member networks over the past decade. With an executive committee comprising representatives from all member networks, PERN plays a supportive and collaborative rather than governing role. The full impact of PERN's facilitation of international collaborative research, although somewhat difficult to quantify empirically, can be measured indirectly by the observed growth of the field, the nature of the increasingly challenging research questions now being addressed and the collective capacity to generate and implement new knowledge in treating acutely ill and injured children. RESULTS: Beginning as a pandemic response studying H1N1 influenza risk factors in children, PERN research has progressed to multiple observational studies and ongoing global randomised controlled trials (RCTs). As a recent example, PERN has developed sufficient network infrastructure to enable the rapid initiation of a prospective observational study in response to the current COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Following its success with developing global research, the PERN goal now is to promote the implementation of scientific advances into everyday clinical practice by: (i) expanding the capacity for global RCTs; (ii) deepening the focus on implementation science; (iii) increasing attention to healthcare disparities; and (iv) expanding PERN's reach into resource-restricted regions. Through these actions, PERN aims to meet the needs of acutely ill and injured children throughout the world.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Medical Services , Child , Emergency Treatment , Health Services Research , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 9(6)2021 May 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1256676

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Acceleration of mass vaccination strategies is the only pathway to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare professionals and students have a key role in shaping public opinion about vaccines. This study aimed to evaluate the attitudes of dental students globally towards COVID-19 vaccines and explore the potential drivers for students' acceptance levels. METHODS: A global cross-sectional study was carried out in February 2021 using an online questionnaire. The study was liaised by the scientific committee of the International Association of Dental Students (IADS), and data were collected through the national and local coordinators of IADS member organizations. The dependent variable was the willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine, and the independent variables included demographic characteristics, COVID-19-related experience, and the drivers of COVID-19 vaccine-related attitude suggested by the WHO SAGE. RESULTS: A total of 6639 students from 22 countries, representing all world regions, responded to the questionnaire properly. Their mean age was 22.1 ± 2.8 (17-40) years, and the majority were females (70.5%), in clinical years (66.8%), and from upper-middle-income economies (45.7%). In general, 22.5% of dental students worldwide were hesitant, and 13.9% rejected COVID-19 vaccines. The students in low- and lower-middle-income (LLMI) economies had significantly higher levels of vaccine hesitancy compared to their peers in upper-middle- and high-income (UMHI) economies (30.4% vs. 19.8%; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The global acceptance level of dental students for COVID-19 vaccines was suboptimal, and their worrisome level of vaccine hesitancy was influenced by the socioeconomic context where the dental students live and study. The media and social media, public figures, insufficient knowledge about vaccines, and mistrust of governments and the pharmaceutical industry were barriers to vaccination. The findings of this study call for further implementation of epidemiology (infectious diseases) education within undergraduate dental curricula.

10.
Trials ; 22(1): 209, 2021 Mar 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1136242

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The main goal of the COVIDENZA trial is to evaluate if inhibition of testosterone signalling by enzalutamide can improve the outcome of patients hospitalised for COVID-19. The hypothesis is based on the observation that the majority of patients in need of intensive care are male, and the connection between androgen receptor signalling and expression of TMPRSS2, an enzyme important for SARS-CoV-2 host cell internalization. TRIAL DESIGN: Hospitalised COVID-19 patients will be randomised (2:1) to enzalutamide plus standard of care vs. standard of care designed to identify superiority. PARTICIPANTS: Included participants, men or women above 50 years of age, must be hospitalised for PCR confirmed COVID-19 symptoms and not in need of immediate mechanical ventilation. Major exclusion criteria are breast-feeding or pregnant women, hormonal treatment for prostate or breast cancer, treatment with immunosuppressive drugs, current symptomatic unstable cardiovascular disease (see Additional file 1 for further details). The trial is registered at Umeå University Hospital, Region Västerbotten, Sweden and 8 hospitals are approved for inclusion in Sweden. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Patients randomised to the treatment arm will be treated orally with 160 mg (4x40 mg) enzalutamide (Xtandi®) daily, for five consecutive days. The study is not placebo controlled. The comparator is standard of care treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary endpoints of the study are (time to) need of mechanical ventilation or discharge from hospital as assessed by a clinical 7-point ordinal scale (up to 30 days after inclusion). RANDOMISATION: Randomisation was stratified by center and sex. Each strata was randomized separately with block size six with a 2:1 allocation ratio (enzalutamide + "standard of care": "standard of care"). The randomisation list, with consecutive subject numbers, was generated by an independent statistician using the PROC PLAN procedure of SAS version 9.4 software (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, North Carolina) BLINDING (MASKING): This is an open-label trial. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): The trial is designed to have three phases. The first, an exploration phase of 45 participants (30 treatment and 15 control) will focus on safety and includes a more extensive laboratory assessment as well as more frequent safety evaluation. The second prolongation phase, includes the first 100 participants followed by an interim analysis to define the power of the study. The third phase is the continuation of the study up to maximum 600 participants included in total. TRIAL STATUS: The current protocol version is COVIDENZA v2.0 as of September 10, 2020. Recruitment started July 29, 2020 and is presently in safety pause after the first exploration phase. Recruitment is anticipated to be complete by 31 December 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Eudract number 2020-002027-10 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04475601 , registered June 8, 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Phenylthiohydantoin/analogs & derivatives , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Benzamides , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic , Female , Host-Pathogen Interactions , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Nitriles , Phenylthiohydantoin/adverse effects , Phenylthiohydantoin/therapeutic use , Prospective Studies , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Sweden , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , Virus Internalization/drug effects
11.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 2021 Feb 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1085573

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The standard RT-PCR assay for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is laborious and time-consuming, limiting testing availability. Rapid antigen-detection tests are faster and less expensive; however, the reliability of these tests must be validated before they can be used widely. The objective of this study was to determine the performance of the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (PanbioRT) (Abbott) in detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in nasopharyngeal swab specimens. METHODS: This prospective multicentre study was carried out in ten Spanish university hospitals and included individuals with clinical symptoms or epidemiological criteria of COVID-19. Only individuals with ≤7 days from the onset of symptoms or from exposure to a confirmed case of COVID-19 were included. Two nasopharyngeal samples were taken to perform the PanbioRT as a point-of-care test and a diagnostic RT-PCR test. RESULTS: Among the 958 patients studied, 325 (90.5%) had true-positive results. The overall sensitivity and specificity for the PanbioRT were 90.5% (95%CI 87.5-93.6) and 98.8% (95%CI 98-99.7), respectively. Sensitivity in participants who had a threshold cycle (CT) < 25 for the RT-PCR test was 99.5% (95%CI 98.4-100), and in participants with ≤5 days of the clinical course it was 91.8% (95%CI 88.8-94.8). Agreement between techniques was 95.7% (κ score 0.90; 95%CI 0.88-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: The PanbioRT performs well clinically, with even more reliable results for patients with a shorter clinical course of the disease or a higher viral load. The results must be interpreted based on the local epidemiological context.

12.
Clin Otolaryngol ; 46(3): 577-586, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1066640

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To report changes in practice brought about by COVID-19 and the implementation of new guidelines, and to explore factors relating to unscheduled re-presentations for patients discharged from the emergency department (ED). DESIGN: Prospective multicentre national audit over 12 weeks from 6th April 2020. SETTING: UK secondary care ENT departments. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with acute epistaxis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Re-presentation within 10 days for patients discharged from the ED. RESULTS: Eighty three centres from all four UK nations submitted 2631 valid cases. The majority of cases were ED referrals (89.7%, n = 2358/2631). 54.6% were discharged from the ED following ENT review (n = 1267/2322), of whom 19.5% re-presented within 10 days (n = 245/1259) and 6.8% were ultimately admitted (n = 86/1259). 46.7% of patients had a non-dissolvable pack inserted by ED prior to referral to ENT (n = 1099/2355). The discharge rates for ED patients and their subsequent re-presentation rates were as follows: non-dissolvable packs, 29.5% discharged (n = 332/1125), 18.2% re-presented (n = 60/330); dissolvable products, 71.1% discharged (n = 488/686), 21.8% re-presented (n = 106/486); cautery only, 89.2% discharged (n = 247/277), 20.0% re-presented (n = 49/245); and no intranasal intervention, 85.5% discharged (n = 200/234), 15.2% re-presented (n = 30/198). Univariable logistic regression showed that not being packed by ED, antiplatelet medications, failed cautery and recent epistaxis treatment were significant predictors of re-presentation within 10 days. CONCLUSIONS: Management of acute epistaxis was notably affected during the initial peak of the pandemic, with a shift towards reduced admissions. This national audit highlights that many patients who may previously have been admitted to hospital may be safely discharged from the ED following acute epistaxis.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Epistaxis/epidemiology , Acute Disease , Adult , Clinical Protocols , Epistaxis/therapy , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Medical Audit , Prospective Studies , United Kingdom
13.
Rheumatol Int ; 41(2): 345-353, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1064460

ABSTRACT

During the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic there were several barriers to treatment access and medication adherence in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. There is no information regarding the RA patient health status in Egypt during the COVID-19. Thus,the aim of this work was to study the impact of the pandemic on RA patients through a patient-reported questionnaire and to determine the influence of gender, geographic regions. This multi-centre study initiated by the Egyptian College of Rheumatology (ECR) was conducted on 1037 RA patients attending rheumatology clinics from 10 governorates. The questionnaire provided covered socio-demographic data, health/disease status, information/knowledge about COVID-19 and medical/family history of the infection. Patients mean age was 44.2 ± 12.3 years;855 females and 182 males; 539(52%) from rural and 497(48%) from urban areas. 41.8% reported a striking difficulty to obtain hydroxychloroquine during the pandemic. The majority (70%) considered maintaining a regular visit to the rheumatologist in addition to remote contact mainly by phone (44.4%) or via WhatsApp (33.1%), in particular among male and urban patients. Urban patients were more likely to be infected by COVID-19 (12.9% vs 6.2%; p < 0.0001) than rural. Northern cities had more patients with suspected COVID-19 (13.9% vs 6.1%; p < 0.0001); was significantly associated with more disease flares (30.8% vs 5.8%) with subsequent change in the RA treatment (20.9% vs 6.4%; p < 0.0001). Patients with RA faced remarkable difficulty to obtain their medications with subsequent change in their disease status. The challenges of the pandemic have hastened changes in the way we deliver health care.


Subject(s)
Arthritis, Rheumatoid/psychology , COVID-19/psychology , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Health Status Disparities , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Adult , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/therapy , Egypt , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 15(4): 429-438, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1042709

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Claims of influenza vaccination increasing COVID-19 risk are circulating. Within the I-MOVE-COVID-19 primary care multicentre study, we measured the association between 2019-20 influenza vaccination and COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre test-negative case-control study at primary care level, in study sites in five European countries, from March to August 2020. Patients presenting with acute respiratory infection were swabbed, with demographic, 2019-20 influenza vaccination and clinical information documented. Using logistic regression, we measured the adjusted odds ratio (aOR), adjusting for study site and age, sex, calendar time, presence of chronic conditions. The main analysis included patients swabbed ≤7 days after onset from the three countries with <15% of missing influenza vaccination. In secondary analyses, we included five countries, using multiple imputation with chained equations to account for missing data. RESULTS: We included 257 COVID-19 cases and 1631 controls in the main analysis (three countries). The overall aOR between influenza vaccination and COVID-19 was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.66-1.32). The aOR was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.58-1.46) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.51-1.67) among those aged 20-59 and ≥60 years, respectively. In secondary analyses, we included 6457 cases and 69 272 controls. The imputed aOR was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.79-0.95) among all ages and any delay between swab and symptom onset. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence that COVID-19 cases were more likely to be vaccinated against influenza than controls. Influenza vaccination should be encouraged among target groups for vaccination. I-MOVE-COVID-19 will continue documenting influenza vaccination status in 2020-21, in order to learn about effects of recent influenza vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Orthomyxoviridae/immunology , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/diagnosis , Case-Control Studies , Europe/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Logistic Models , Male , Odds Ratio , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Tract Infections/diagnosis , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
15.
J Viral Hepat ; 28(1): 80-88, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-979832

ABSTRACT

The interaction between existing chronic liver diseases caused by hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and COVID-19 has not been studied. We analysed 70 COVID-19 cases combined with HBV infection (CHI) to determine the epidemiological, clinical characteristics, treatment and outcome. We investigated clinical presentation, imaging and laboratory parameters of COVID-19 patients of seven hospitals from Jan 20 to March 20, 2020. Multivariate analysis was used to analyse risk factors for progression of patients with COVID-19 combined with HBV infection. Compared with COVID-19 without HBV infection (WHI) group, patients with dual infection had a higher proportion of severe/critically ill disease (32.86% vs. 15.27%, P = .000), higher levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate transaminase (AST) and activated partial thromboplastin (APTT) [50(28-69)vs 21(14-30), P = .000; 40(25-54) vs 23(18-30), P = .000; 34.0(27.2-38.7) vs 37.2(31.1-41.4), P = .031]. The utilization rates of Arbidol and immunoglobulin were significantly higher than those in the co-infected group [48.57% vs. 35.64%, P < .05; 21.43% vs. 8.18%, P < .001], while the utilization rate of chloroquine phosphate was lower (1.43% vs 14.00%, P < .05) in the co-infected patients group. Age and c-reactive protein (CRP) level were independent risk factors for recovery of patients with COVID-19 combined with HBV infection. The original characteristics of COVID-19 cases combined with HBV infection were higher rate of liver injury, coagulation disorders, severe/critical tendency and increased susceptibility. The elderly and patients with higher level of CRP were more likely to experience a severe outcome of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/pathology , Hepatitis B/epidemiology , Hepatitis B/pathology , Adult , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , China/epidemiology , Coinfection/complications , Coinfection/epidemiology , Coinfection/pathology , Coinfection/therapy , Female , Hepatitis B/complications , Hepatitis B/therapy , Hepatitis B virus , Humans , Liver/injuries , Liver/pathology , Liver/physiopathology , Male , Middle Aged , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
16.
Clin Otolaryngol ; 46(2): 363-372, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-955613

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To report changes in practice brought about by COVID-19 and the implementation of new guidelines for the management of tonsillitis and peritonsillar abscess (PTA), and to explore factors relating to unscheduled re-presentations for patients discharged from the emergency department (ED). DESIGN: Prospective multicentre national audit over 12 weeks from 6 April 2020. SETTING: UK secondary care ENT departments. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with acute tonsillitis or PTA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Re-presentation within 10 days for patients discharged from the ED. RESULTS: 83 centres submitted 765 tonsillitis and 416 PTA cases. 54.4% (n = 410) of tonsillitis and 45.3% (187/413) of PTAs were discharged from ED. 9.6% (39/408) of tonsillitis and 10.3% (19/184) of PTA discharges re-presented within 10 days, compared to 9.7% (33/341) and 10.6% (24/224) for those admitted from ED. The subsequent admission rate of those initially discharged from ED was 4.7% for tonsillitis and 3.3% for PTAs. IV steroids and antibiotics increased the percentage of patients able to swallow from 35.8% to 72.5% for tonsillitis (n = 270/754 and 441/608) and from 22.3% to 71.0% for PTA (n = 92/413 and 265/373). 77.2% of PTAs underwent drainage (n = 319/413), with no significant difference in re-presentations in those drained vs not-drained (10.6% vs 9.5%, n = 15/142 vs 4/42, P = .846). Univariable logistic regression showed no significant predictors of re-presentation within 10 days. CONCLUSIONS: Management of tonsillitis and PTA changed during the initial peak of the pandemic, shifting towards outpatient care. Some patients who may previously have been admitted to hospital may be safely discharged from the ED.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care/methods , COVID-19/epidemiology , Clinical Audit/methods , Disease Management , Pandemics , Patient Admission/trends , Tonsillitis/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Comorbidity , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , Tonsillitis/therapy , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
18.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 26(8): 1076-1081, 2020 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-547614

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of an ultrafast single-tube nucleic acid isothermal amplification detection assay for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA using clinical samples from multiple centres. METHODS: A reverse transcription recombinase-aided amplification (RT-RAA) assay for SARS-CoV-2 was conducted within 15 minutes at 39°C with portable instruments after addition of extracted RNA. The clinical performance of RT-RAA assay was evaluated using 947 clinical samples from five institutions in four regions of China; approved commercial fluorescence quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) kits were used for parallel detection. The sensitivity and specificity of RT-RAA were compared and analysed. RESULTS: The RT-RAA test results of 926 samples were consistent with those of qRT-PCR (330 were positive, 596 negative); 21 results were inconsistent. The sensitivity and specificity of RT-RAA was 97.63% (330/338, 95% confidence interval (CI) 95.21 to 98.90) and 97.87% (596/609, 95% CI 96.28 to 98.81) respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 96.21% (330/343, 95% CI 93.45 to 97.88) and 98.68% (596/604, 95% CI 97.30 to 99.38) respectively. The total coincidence rate was 97.78% (926/947, 95% CI 96.80 to 98.70), and the kappa was 0.952 (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: With comparable sensitivity and specificity to the commercial qRT-PCR kits, RT-RAA assay for SARS-CoV-2 exhibited the distinctive advantages of simplicity and rapidity in terms of operation and turnaround time.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/genetics , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , RNA, Viral/genetics , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/instrumentation , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Child , China , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/instrumentation , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Temperature , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL