Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 237
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
BMJ Open ; 12(1): e053051, 2022 01 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1606133

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has become a global health challenge. SARS-CoV-2 can infect host cells via the ACE2 receptor, which is widely expressed in the corpus cavernosum, testis and male reproductive tract, and participates in erection, spermatogenesis and androgen metabolism. Also, the immune response and persistent fever resulting from COVID-19 may lead to damage of the testicular activity, consequently compromising male fertility. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science and Technology Journal database, Chinese Biomedical Databases and Wanfang Data will be systematically searched for observational studies (case-control and cohort) published up to March 2021 in English or in Chinese literature on the impacts of COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 on male reproductive function. This protocol will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. The primary outcome will be semen parameters, and the additional outcomes will include: (a) detection of SARS-COV-2 in semen, (b) male sexual hormones, (c) sperm DNA fragmentation index, (d) erectile function, (e) evaluation of testis and also the male genital tract. Two reviewers will independently extract data from the included studies based on a predesigned data extraction form. The risk of bias of included studies will be evaluated through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Review Manager software V.5.3 will be used for statistical analysis. Q statistic and I² test will be performed to assess the heterogeneity among studies. Sensitivity analysis will be used to explore the robustness of pooled effects. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system to assess the quality of evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required and results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021245161.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Case-Control Studies , Humans , Male , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Observational Studies as Topic , Pandemics , Research Design , SARS-CoV-2 , Systematic Reviews as Topic
2.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(24)2021 12 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1580742

ABSTRACT

Background: This proposal aims to explain some of the gaps in scientific knowledge on the natural history of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), with a specific focus on immune, inflammatory, and metabolic markers, in parallel with temporal assessment of clinical and mental health in patients with COVID-19. The study will explore the temporal modulatory effects of physical activity and body composition on individual trajectories. This approach will provide a better understanding of the survival mechanisms provided by the immunomodulatory role of physical fitness. Methods: We will conduct a prospective observational cohort study including adult patients previously infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus who have expressed a mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. Procedures will be conducted for all participants at baseline, six weeks after vaccination, and again at 12 months. At each visit, a venous blood sample will be collected for immune phenotypic characterization and biochemistry assays (inflammatory and metabolic parameters). Also, body composition, physical activity level, cardiovascular and pulmonary function, peripheral and respiratory muscle strength, functional exercise capacity, and mental health will be evaluated. Using the baseline information, participants will be grouped based on physical activity levels (sedentary versus active), body composition (normal weight versus overweight or obese), and SARS-CoV-2 status (positive versus negative). A sub-study will provide mechanistic evidence using an in-vitro assay based on well-trained individuals and age-matched sedentary controls who are negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Whole blood will be stimulated using recombinant human coronavirus to determine the cytokine profile. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from healthy well-trained participants will be collected and treated with homologous serum (from the main study; samples collected before and after the vaccine) and recombinant coronavirus (inactive virus). The metabolism of PBMCs will be analyzed using Respirometry (Seahorse). Data will be analyzed using multilevel repeated-measures ANOVA. Conclusions: The data generated will help us answer three main questions: (1) Does the innate immune system of physically active individuals respond better to viral infections compared with that of sedentary people? (2) which functional and metabolic mechanisms explain the differences in responses in participants with different physical fitness levels? and (3) do these mechanisms have long-term positive modulatory effects on mental and cardiovascular health? Trial registration number: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials: RBR-5dqvkv3. Registered on 21 September 2021.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Exercise , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Immunity , Leukocytes, Mononuclear , Observational Studies as Topic , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
4.
BMJ Open ; 11(12): e050501, 2021 12 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1583111

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Alterations in the cholinergic metabolism may cause various clinical symptoms of schizophrenia. In addition to the 'monoamine hypothesis,' neuroinflammation is also discussed as a cause of schizophrenia. To date, there has been no evidence of alterations in the central cholinergic transmitter balance in patients with schizophrenia under clinical conditions. By contrast, studies in critically ill patients have established the measurement of acetylcholinesterase activity as a suitable surrogate parameter of central cholinergic transmitter balance/possible pathophysiological changes. Butyrylcholinesterase activity has been established as a parameter indicating possible (neuro)inflammatory processes. Both parameters can now be measured using a point-of-care approach. Therefore, the primary objective of this study is to investigate whether acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase activity differs in patients with various forms of schizophrenia. Secondary objectives address the possible association between acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase activity and (1) schizophrenic symptoms using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, (2) the quantity of antipsychotics taken and (3) the duration of illness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is designed as a prospective, observational cohort study with one independent control group. It is being carried out at the Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy III, Ulm University Hospital, Germany. Patient enrolment started in October 2020, and the anticipated end of the study is in January 2022. The enrolment period was set from October 2020 to December 2021 (extension required due to SARS-CoV-2 pandemic). The sample size is calculated at 50 patients in each group. Esterase activity is measured on hospital admission (acute symptomatology) and after referral to a postacute ward over a period of three consecutive days. The matched control group will be created after reaching 50 patients with schizophrenia. This will be followed by a comprehensive statistical analysis of the data set. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was registered prospectively in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00023143,URL: https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00023143) after approval by the ethics committee of the University of Ulm, Germany Trial Code No. 280/20. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00023143; Pre-results.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Schizophrenia , Acetylcholinesterase , Butyrylcholinesterase , Cholinergic Agents , Cohort Studies , Control Groups , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Schizophrenia/drug therapy , Treatment Outcome
5.
BMJ Open ; 11(12): e054208, 2021 12 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1583097

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Most existing vaccines require higher or additional doses or adjuvants to provide similar protection for people living with HIV (PLWH) compared with HIV-uninfected individuals. Additional research is necessary to inform COVID-19 vaccine use in PLWH. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentred observational Canadian cohort study will enrol 400 PLWH aged >16 years from Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver. Subpopulations of PLWH of interest will include individuals: (1) >55 years of age; (2) with CD4 counts <350 cells/mm3; (3) with multimorbidity (>2 comorbidities) and (4) 'stable' or 'reference' PLWH (CD4 T cells >350 cells/mm3, suppressed viral load for >6 months and <1 comorbidity). Data for 1000 HIV-negative controls will be obtained via a parallel cohort study (Stop the Spread Ottawa), using similar time points and methods. Participants receiving >1 COVID-19 vaccine will attend five visits: prevaccination; 1 month following the first vaccine dose; and at 3, 6 and 12 months following the second vaccine dose. The primary end point will be the percentage of PLWH with COVID-19-specific antibodies at 6 months following the second vaccine dose. Humoral and cell-mediated immune responses, and the interplay between T cell phenotypes and inflammatory markers, will be described. Regression techniques will be used to compare COVID-19-specific immune responses to determine whether there are differences between the 'unstable' PLWH group (CD4 <350 cells/mm3), the stable PLWH cohort and the HIV-negative controls, adjusting for factors believed to be associated with immune response. Unadjusted analyses will reveal whether there are differences in driving factors associated with group membership. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics boards at all participating institutions have granted ethics approval for this study. Written informed consent will be obtained from all study participants prior to enrolment. The findings will inform the design of future COVID-19 clinical trials, dosing strategies aimed to improve immune responses and guideline development for PLWH. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04894448.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , HIV Infections , COVID-19 Vaccines , Canada , Cohort Studies , Diterpenes , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Observational Studies as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
7.
Geriatr Nurs ; 42(5): 1230-1239, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575510

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to systematically examine the association between dementia and mortality among older adults with COVID-19. To do so, we conducted a search of 7 databases for relevant full-text articles. A cohort study and case-control study were included. A meta-analysis was performed to synthesize the pooled odds ratio with a random-effects model. We identified studies that reported mortality among older adults with dementia and non-dementia who have COVID-19. The pooled mortality rates of dementia and non-dementia older adults infected with COVID-19 were 39% (95% CI: 0.23-0.54%, I2 = 83.48%) and 20% (95% CI: 0.16-0.25%, I2 = 83.48%), respectively. Overall, dementia was the main factor influencing poor health outcomes and high rates of mortality in older adults with COVID-19 infection (odds ratio 2.96; 95% CI 2.00-4.38, I2 = 29.7%), respectively. Our results show that older adults with dementia with COVID-19 infection have a higher risk of mortality compared with older adults without dementia. This current study further highlights the need to provide focused care to the older adults with dementia or cognitive impairment who have COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Dementia , Aged , Case-Control Studies , Cohort Studies , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Anaesthesist ; 70(8): 673-680, 2021 Aug.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1573821

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The reported mortality for sepsis and septic shock varies between 15% and 59% in international comparison. For Germany, the number of studies is limited. Previous estimations of mortality in Germany are outdated or based on claims data analyses. Various authors discuss whether lacking quality initiatives and treatment standards in Germany could cause higher mortality for sepsis. This contrasts with the internationally well-recognized performance of the German intensive care infrastructure during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to estimate 30-day and 90-day mortality of patients with sepsis and patients with septic shock in Germany and to compare the mortality with that of other industrialized regions (Europe, North America). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic literature search included interventional and observational studies published between 2009 and 2020 in PubMed and the Cochrane Library that analyzed adult patients with sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock in Europe and North America. Studies with less than 20 patients were excluded. The 30-day and 90-day mortality for sepsis and septic shock were pooled separately for studies conducted in Germany, Europe (excluding Germany) and North America in a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Mortality over time was analyzed in a linear regression model. RESULTS: Overall, 134 studies were included. Of these, 15 studies were identified for the estimation of mortality in Germany, covering 10,434 patients, the number of patients per study ranged from 28 to 4183 patients. The 30-day mortality for sepsis was 26.50% (95% confidence interval, CI: 19.86-33.15%) in Germany, 23.85% (95% CI: 20.49-27.21%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 19.58% (95% CI: 14.03-25.14%) in North America. The 30-day mortality for septic shock was 30.48% (95% CI: 29.30-31.67%) in Germany, 34.57% (95% CI: 33.51-35.64%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 33.69% (95% CI: 31.51-35.86%) in North America. The 90-day mortality for septic shock was 38.78% (95% CI: 32.70-44.86%) in Germany, 41.90% (95% CI: 38.88-44.91%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 34.41% (95% CI: 25.66-43.16%) in North America. A comparable decreasing trend in sepsis 30-day mortality was observed in all considered regions since 2009. CONCLUSION: Our analysis does not support the notion that mortality related to sepsis and septic shock in Germany is higher in international comparison. A higher mortality would not be obvious either, since intensive care, for example also during the COVID-19 pandemic, is regarded as exemplary in Germany and the structural quality, such as the number of intensive care beds per 100,000 inhabitants, is high in international comparison. Nevertheless, deficits could also exist outside intensive care medicine. A comparison of international individual studies should take greater account of the structure of healthcare systems, the severity of disease and the limitations resulting from the data sources used.


Subject(s)
Sepsis , Shock, Septic , Adult , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic , Sepsis/mortality , Shock, Septic/mortality
9.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 10: CD013717, 2020 10 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1557155

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In late 2019, first cases of coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, were reported in Wuhan, China. Subsequently COVID-19 spread rapidly around the world. To contain the ensuing pandemic, numerous countries have implemented control measures related to international travel, including border closures, partial travel restrictions, entry or exit screening, and quarantine of travellers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of travel-related control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic on infectious disease and screening-related outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19-specific databases, including the WHO Global Database on COVID-19 Research, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the CDC COVID-19 Research Database on 26 June 2020. We also conducted backward-citation searches with existing reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of travel-related control measures affecting human travel across national borders during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also included studies concerned with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) as indirect evidence. Primary outcomes were cases avoided, cases detected and a shift in epidemic development due to the measures. Secondary outcomes were other infectious disease transmission outcomes, healthcare utilisation, resource requirements and adverse effects if identified in studies assessing at least one primary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author screened titles and abstracts; all excluded abstracts were screened in duplicate. Two review authors independently screened full texts. One review author extracted data, assessed risk of bias and appraised study quality. At least one additional review author checked for correctness of all data reported in the 'Risk of bias' assessment, quality appraisal and data synthesis. For assessing the risk of bias and quality of included studies, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool for observational studies concerned with screening, ROBINS-I for observational ecological studies and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. One review author assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE, and the review author team discussed ratings. MAIN RESULTS: We included 40 records reporting on 36 unique studies. We found 17 modelling studies, 7 observational screening studies and one observational ecological study on COVID-19, four modelling and six observational studies on SARS, and one modelling study on SARS and MERS, covering a variety of settings and epidemic stages. Most studies compared travel-related control measures against a counterfactual scenario in which the intervention measure was not implemented. However, some modelling studies described additional comparator scenarios, such as different levels of travel restrictions, or a combination of measures. There were concerns with the quality of many modelling studies and the risk of bias of observational studies. Many modelling studies used potentially inappropriate assumptions about the structure and input parameters of models, and failed to adequately assess uncertainty. Concerns with observational screening studies commonly related to the reference test and the flow of the screening process. Studies on COVID-19 Travel restrictions reducing cross-border travel Eleven studies employed models to simulate a reduction in travel volume; one observational ecological study assessed travel restrictions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Very low-certainty evidence from modelling studies suggests that when implemented at the beginning of the outbreak, cross-border travel restrictions may lead to a reduction in the number of new cases of between 26% to 90% (4 studies), the number of deaths (1 study), the time to outbreak of between 2 and 26 days (2 studies), the risk of outbreak of between 1% to 37% (2 studies), and the effective reproduction number (1 modelling and 1 observational ecological study). Low-certainty evidence from modelling studies suggests a reduction in the number of imported or exported cases of between 70% to 81% (5 studies), and in the growth acceleration of epidemic progression (1 study). Screening at borders with or without quarantine Evidence from three modelling studies of entry and exit symptom screening without quarantine suggests delays in the time to outbreak of between 1 to 183 days (very low-certainty evidence) and a detection rate of infected travellers of between 10% to 53% (low-certainty evidence). Six observational studies of entry and exit screening were conducted in specific settings such as evacuation flights and cruise ship outbreaks. Screening approaches varied but followed a similar structure, involving symptom screening of all individuals at departure or upon arrival, followed by quarantine, and different procedures for observation and PCR testing over a period of at least 14 days. The proportion of cases detected ranged from 0% to 91% (depending on the screening approach), and the positive predictive value ranged from 0% to 100% (very low-certainty evidence). The outcomes, however, should be interpreted in relation to both the screening approach used and the prevalence of infection among the travellers screened; for example, symptom-based screening alone generally performed worse than a combination of symptom-based and PCR screening with subsequent observation during quarantine. Quarantine of travellers Evidence from one modelling study simulating a 14-day quarantine suggests a reduction in the number of cases seeded by imported cases; larger reductions were seen with increasing levels of quarantine compliance ranging from 277 to 19 cases with rates of compliance modelled between 70% to 100% (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With much of the evidence deriving from modelling studies, notably for travel restrictions reducing cross-border travel and quarantine of travellers, there is a lack of 'real-life' evidence for many of these measures. The certainty of the evidence for most travel-related control measures is very low and the true effects may be substantially different from those reported here. Nevertheless, some travel-related control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic may have a positive impact on infectious disease outcomes. Broadly, travel restrictions may limit the spread of disease across national borders. Entry and exit symptom screening measures on their own are not likely to be effective in detecting a meaningful proportion of cases to prevent seeding new cases within the protected region; combined with subsequent quarantine, observation and PCR testing, the effectiveness is likely to improve. There was insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of travel-related quarantine on its own. Some of the included studies suggest that effects are likely to depend on factors such as the stage of the epidemic, the interconnectedness of countries, local measures undertaken to contain community transmission, and the extent of implementation and adherence.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Travel-Related Illness , COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Diseases, Imported/epidemiology , Communicable Diseases, Imported/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Humans , Models, Theoretical , Observational Studies as Topic , Quarantine , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/prevention & control
10.
Glob Heart ; 16(1): 22, 2021 04 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1557646

ABSTRACT

Background: The emergence of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has presented an unprecedented global challenge for the healthcare community. The ability of SARS-CoV-2 to get transmitted during the asymptomatic phase, and its high infectivity have led to the rapid transmission of COVID-19 beyond geographic regions facilitated by international travel, leading to a pandemic. To guide effective control and interventions, primary data is required urgently, globally, including from low- and middle-income countries where documentation of cardiovascular manifestations and risk factors in people hospitalized with COVID-19 is limited. Objectives: This study aims to describe the cardiovascular manifestations and cardiovascular risk factors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods: We propose to conduct an observational cohort study involving 5000 patients recruited from hospitals in low-, middle- and high-income countries. Eligible adult COVID-19 patients will be recruited from the participating hospitals and followed-up until 30 days post admission. The outcomes will be reported at discharge and includes the need of ICU admission, need of ventilator, death (with cause), major adverse cardiovascular events, neurological outcomes, acute renal failure, and pulmonary outcomes. Conclusion: Given the enormous burden posed by COVID-19 and the associated severe prognostic implication of CVD involvement, this study will provide useful insights on the risk factors for severe disease, clinical presentation, and outcomes of various cardiovascular manifestations in COVID-19 patients particularly from low and middle income countries from where the data remain scant.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Cardiovascular Diseases/virology , Global Health , Observational Studies as Topic/methods , Cohort Studies , Hospitalization , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Pandemics , Prognosis , Risk Factors
11.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(24)2021 12 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1554902

ABSTRACT

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with COVID-19 in intensive care units (ICU) is frequent, but risk factors (RF) remain unidentified. In this meta-analysis (CRD42020188764) we searched for observational studies from ICUs reporting the association between VTE and RF in Medline/Embase up to 15 April 2021. Reviewers independently extracted data in duplicate and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Analyses were conducted using the random-effects model and produced a non-adjusted odds ratio (OR). We analysed 83 RF from 21 studies (5296 patients). We found moderate-certainty evidence for an association between VTE and the D-dimer peak (OR 5.83, 95%CI 3.18-10.70), and length of hospitalization (OR 7.09, 95%CI 3.41-14.73) and intubation (OR 2.61, 95%CI 1.94-3.51). We identified low-certainty evidence for an association between VTE and CRP (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.32-2.53), D-dimer (OR 4.58, 95% CI 2.52-8.50), troponin T (OR 8.64, 95% CI 3.25-22.97), and the requirement for inotropic drugs (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.15-2.43). Traditional VTE RF (i.e., history of cancer, previous VTE events, obesity) were not found to be associated to VTE in COVID-19. Anticoagulation was not associated with a decreased VTE risk. VTE RF in severe COVID-19 correspond to individual illness severity, and inflammatory and coagulation parameters.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Venous Thromboembolism , Hospitalization , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Venous Thromboembolism/epidemiology
12.
BMJ Open ; 11(11): e054861, 2021 11 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526506

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has caused millions of hospitalisations and deaths globally. A range of vaccines have been developed and are being deployed at scale in the UK to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection, which have reduced risk of infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes. Those with COVID-19 are now being treated with several repurposed drugs based on evidence emerging from recent clinical trials. However, there is currently limited real-world data available related to the use of these drugs in routine clinical practice. The purpose of this study is to address the prevailing knowledge gaps regarding the use of dexamethasone, remdesivir and tocilizumab by conducting an exploratory drug utilisation study, aimed at providing in-depth descriptions of patients receiving these drugs as well as the treatment patterns observed in Scotland. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Retrospective cohort study, comprising adult patients admitted to hospital with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 across five Scottish Health Boards using data from in-hospital ePrescribing linked to the Early Estimation of Vaccine and Anti-Viral Effectiveness (EAVE II) COVID-19 surveillance platform. The primary outcome will be exposure to the medicines of interest (dexamethasone, remdesivir, tocilizumab), either alone or in combination; exposure will be described in terms of drug(s) of choice; prescribed and administered dose; treatment duration; and any changes in treatment, for example, dose escalation and/or switching to an alternative drug. Analyses will primarily be descriptive in nature. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical and information governance approvals have been obtained by the National Research Ethics Service Committee, South East Scotland 02 and the Public Benefit and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care, respectively. Findings from this study will be presented at academic and clinical conferences, and to the funders and other interested parties as appropriate; study findings will also be published in peer-reviewed journals. Publications will be available on the EAVE II website (https://www.ed.ac.uk/usher/eave-ii/key-outputs/our-publications), alongside lay summaries and infographics aimed at the general public. Press releases will also be considered, if appropriate.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Antiviral Agents , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Scotland
13.
Pharmacotherapy ; 41(11): 884-906, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525482

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The results of studies of tocilizumab (TCZ) in COVID-19 are contradictory. Our study aims to update medical evidence from controlled observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the use of TCZ in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We searched the following databases from January 1, 2020 to April 13, 2021 (date of the last search): MEDLINE database through the PubMed search engine and Scopus, using the terms ("COVID-19" [Supplementary Concept]) AND "tocilizumab" [Supplementary Concept]). RESULTS: Sixty four studies were included in the present study: 54 were controlled observational studies (50 retrospective and 4 prospective) and 10 were RCTs. The overall results provided data from 20,616 hospitalized patients with COVID-19: 7668 patients received TCZ in addition to standard of care (SOC) (including 1915 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) with reported mortality) and 12,948 patients only receiving SOC (including 4410 patients admitted to the ICU with reported mortality). After applying the random-effects model, the hospital-wide (including ICU) pooled mortality odds ratio (OR) of patients with COVID-19 treated with TCZ was 0.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.56-0.93). The pooled hospital-wide mortality OR was 1.25 (95% CI = 0.74-2.18) in patients admitted at conventional wards versus 0.66 (95% CI = 0.59-0.76) in patients admitted to the ICU. The pooled OR of hospital-wide mortality (including ICU) of COVID-19 patients treated with TCZ plus corticosteroids (CS) was 0.67 (95% CI = 0.54-0.84). The pooled in-hospital mortality OR was 0.71 (95% CI = 0.35-1.42) when TCZ was early administered (≤10 days from symptom onset) versus 0.83 (95% CI 0.48-1.45) for late administration (>10 days from symptom onset). The meta-analysis did not find significantly higher risk for secondary infections in COVID-19 patients treated with TCZ. CONCLUSIONS: TCZ prevented mortality in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. This benefit was seen to a greater extent in patients receiving concomitant CS and when TCZ administration occurred within the first 10 days after symptom onset.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , COVID-19 , Adrenal Cortex Hormones , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
14.
BMJ Open ; 11(11): e045718, 2021 11 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1522967

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Alopecia areata (AA) is a common cause of immune-mediated non-scarring hair loss. Links between AA and common mental health, autoimmune and atopic conditions, and common infections have previously been described but remain incompletely elucidated and contemporary descriptions of the epidemiology of AA in the UK are lacking. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Retrospective study series using a large population-based cohort (5.2 million) from the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) database, exploring four themes: AA epidemiology, mental health comorbidities, autoimmune/atopic associations and common infections.In the epidemiology theme, we will describe the incidence and point prevalence of AA overall and by age, sex and sociodemographic factors. Healthcare utilisation (primary care visits and secondary care referrals) and treatments for AA will also be assessed. In the mental health theme, we will explore the prevalence and incidence of mental health conditions (anxiety, depressive episodes, recurrent depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, agoraphobia, self-harm and parasuicide) in people with AA compared with matched controls. We will also explore the mental health treatment patterns (medication and psychological interventions), time off work and unemployment rates. Within the autoimmune/atopic associations theme, we will examine the prevalence of atopic (atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, asthma) and autoimmune conditions (Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, coeliac disease, type 1 diabetes, Hashimoto's thyroiditis, Graves' disease, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), polymyalgia rheumatica, Sjögren's syndrome, psoriasis, vitiligo, multiple sclerosis, pernicious anaemia) in people with AA compared with matched controls. We will also estimate the incidence of new-onset atopic and autoimmune conditions after AA diagnosis. Within the common infections theme, we will examine the incidence of common infections (respiratory tract infection, pneumonia, acute bronchitis, influenza, skin infection, urinary tract infection, genital infections, gastrointestinal infection, herpes simplex, herpes zoster, meningitis, COVID-19) in people with AA compared with matched controls. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Health Research Authority decision tool classed this a study of usual practice, ethics approval was not required. Study approval was granted by the RCGP RSC Study Approval Committee. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. OBSERVATIONAL STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04239521.


Subject(s)
Alopecia Areata , Autoimmune Diseases , COVID-19 , Dermatitis, Atopic , Alopecia Areata/epidemiology , Autoimmune Diseases/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Atopic/epidemiology , Humans , Mental Health , Observational Studies as Topic , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
15.
PLoS One ; 16(11): e0259514, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1502075

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Famotidine is a competitive histamine H2-receptor antagonist most commonly used for gastric acid suppression but thought to have potential efficacy in treating patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to summarize the current literature and report clinical outcomes on the use of famotidine for treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Five databases were searched through February 12, 2021 to identify observational studies that reported on associations of famotidine use with outcomes in COVID-19. Meta-analysis was conducted for composite primary clinical outcome (e.g. rate of death, intubation, or intensive care unit admissions) and death separately, where either aggregate odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) was calculated. RESULTS: Four studies, reporting on 46,435 total patients and 3,110 patients treated with famotidine, were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant association between famotidine use and composite outcomes in patients with COVID-19: HR 0.63 (95% CI: 0.35, 1.16). Across the three studies that reported mortality separated from other endpoints, there was no association between famotidine use during hospitalization and risk of death-HR 0.67 (95% CI: 0.26, 1.73) and OR 0.79 (95% CI: 0.19, 3.34). Heterogeneity ranged from 83.69% to 88.07%. CONCLUSION: Based on the existing observational studies, famotidine use is not associated with a reduced risk of mortality or combined outcome of mortality, intubation, and/or intensive care services in hospitalized individuals with COVID-19, though heterogeneity was high, and point estimates suggested a possible protective effect for the composite outcome that may not have been observed due to lack of power. Further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may help determine the efficacy and safety of famotidine as a treatment for COVID-19 patients in various care settings of the disease.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Famotidine/therapeutic use , Hospitalization , Adult , Aged , Data Management , Female , Histamine H2 Antagonists/therapeutic use , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Observational Studies as Topic , Odds Ratio , Proportional Hazards Models , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Risk , SARS-CoV-2
16.
Infect Dis Poverty ; 10(1): 119, 2021 Sep 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1496233

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The incubation period is a crucial index of epidemiology in understanding the spread of the emerging Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this study, we aimed to describe the incubation period of COVID-19 globally and in the mainland of China. METHODS: The searched studies were published from December 1, 2019 to May 26, 2021 in CNKI, Wanfang, PubMed, and Embase databases. A random-effect model was used to pool the mean incubation period. Meta-regression was used to explore the sources of heterogeneity. Meanwhile, we collected 11 545 patients in the mainland of China outside Hubei from January 19, 2020 to September 21, 2020. The incubation period fitted with the Log-normal model by the coarseDataTools package. RESULTS: A total of 3235 articles were searched, 53 of which were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled mean incubation period of COVID-19 was 6.0 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.6-6.5) globally, 6.5 days (95% CI 6.1-6.9) in the mainland of China, and 4.6 days (95% CI 4.1-5.1) outside the mainland of China (P = 0.006). The incubation period varied with age (P = 0.005). Meanwhile, in 11 545 patients, the mean incubation period was 7.1 days (95% CI 7.0-7.2), which was similar to the finding in our meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For COVID-19, the mean incubation period was 6.0 days globally but near 7.0 days in the mainland of China, which will help identify the time of infection and make disease control decisions. Furthermore, attention should also be paid to the region- or age-specific incubation period.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Global Health , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , China/epidemiology , Databases, Factual , Female , Global Health/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Observational Studies as Topic
17.
BMJ Open ; 11(7): e048198, 2021 07 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1495461

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a rare, chronic, autoimmune disease, mediated by immunoglobulin G antibodies, which causes debilitating muscle weakness. As with most rare diseases, there is little patient-reported data with which to understand and address patient needs. This study explores the impact of MG in the real world from the patient perspective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a 2-year prospective, observational, digital, longitudinal study of adults with MG, resident in the following countries: the USA, Japan, Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Spain, Canada and Belgium. The planned sample size is 2000. Recruitment will be community based, via patient advocacy groups, social media and word of mouth. Participants will use a smartphone application (app) to check eligibility, provide consent and contribute data. Planned data entry is as follows: (1) personal profile on enrollment-covering demographics, MG characteristics and previous care; (2) monthly event tracker-current treatments, healthcare visits, treatment-related adverse events, productivity losses; (3) monthly selection of validated generic and disease-specific patient-reported outcomes instruments: EQ-5D-5L, Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living, Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life 15-item revised scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Health Utilities Index III. Analyses are planned for when the study has been running in most countries for approximately 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been reviewed and granted ethics approval by Salus IRB for participants resident in the following countries: Germany, the UK and the US. Local ethics approval is being sought for the following study countries: Belgium, Canada, France, Italy, Japan and Spain. Study results will be communicated to the public and participants via conference presentations and journal publications, as well as regular email, social media and in-application communication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04176211.


Subject(s)
Activities of Daily Living , Myasthenia Gravis , Adult , Belgium , Canada , France , Germany , Humans , Italy , Japan , Longitudinal Studies , Observational Studies as Topic , Prospective Studies , Quality of Life , Spain , Treatment Outcome
18.
Pharmacol Res Perspect ; 9(6): e00861, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1487514

ABSTRACT

Most but not all observational studies of statin treatment of COVID-19 patients suggest that treatment improves outcomes. However, almost all of these studies fail to consider that withdrawing statins after hospital admission may have detrimental effects, a finding which cardiovascular investigators have known for 15-20 years. Continuing or starting statin treatment after hospital admission consistently improves cardiovascular outcomes. Similarly, inpatient statin treatment of COVID-19 improves survival. For this reason, observational studies of the effectiveness of outpatient-documented statin treatment of COVID-19 patients must consider the negative consequences of statin withdrawal after hospital admission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Observational Studies as Topic , Patient Admission , Treatment Outcome , Withholding Treatment
19.
Syst Rev ; 10(1): 281, 2021 10 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1486597

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study is twofold: (1) to examine the effect of COVID-19 safety measures, enacted to prevent transmission of SARS-nCOV-2, on total physical activity in the adult general population (≥ 18 years) and (2) to analyze the impact of the factor "severity of safety measures" on potential changes in physical activity. The secondary objective is to investigate the effects of safety measures on the respective PA intensities, i.e., sedentary behavior, light, moderate, and vigorous physical activity. METHODS: A systematic literature search will be performed in the following online databases: Medline (on Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, L.OVE Coronavirus disease by Epistemonikos, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. All obtained citations will undergo title and abstract as well as full-text screening by two independent reviewers. Observational studies investigating the effects of safety measures on physical activity patterns in the adult general population will be included. The standardized mean difference in total physical activity per time unit between pre- and during COVID-19 or between normative data and during COVID-19 will be the primary outcome. The standardized mean difference in sedentary time, light, moderate, and vigorous physical activity will be assessed as secondary outcomes. Eligible studies will be divided between the reviewers for data extraction using a pilot-tested data form. Risk of bias assessment will be performed using a standard assessment tool. If suitable, a random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression with a unit of safety measure severity as the independent variable will be performed. DISCUSSION: This study will synthesize available data reporting the effect of COVID-19 safety measures on physical activity patterns in adults. Furthermore, we will incorporate a unit for the severity of safety measures for better generalizability of the results. These findings will be of great value for public health policymaking and estimating future health consequences. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021231039.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Exercise , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Observational Studies as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Systematic Reviews as Topic
20.
BMJ Open ; 11(10): e055611, 2021 10 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1462979

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Inadequate antibody response to mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has been described among kidney transplant recipients. Immunosuppression level and specifically, use of antimetabolite in the maintenance immunosuppressive regimen, are associated with inadequate response. In light of the severe consequences of COVID-19 in solid organ transplant recipients, we believe it is justified to examine new vaccination strategies in these patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: BECAME is a single-centre, open-label, investigator-initiated randomised controlled, superiority trial, aiming to compare immunosuppression reduction combined with a third BNT162b2 vaccine dose versus third dose alone. The primary outcome will be seropositivity rate against SARS-CoV-2. A sample size of 154 patients was calculated for the seropositivity endpoint assuming 25% seropositivity in the control group and 50% in the intervention group. A sample of participants per arm will be also tested for T-cell response. We also plan to perform a prospective observational study, evaluating seropositivity among ~350 kidney transplant recipients consenting to receive a third vaccine dose, who are not eligible for the randomised controlled trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial is approved by local ethics committee of Rabin Medical Center (RMC-0192-21). All participants will be required to provide written informed consent. Results of this trial will be published; trial data will be available. Protocol amendments will be submitted to the local ethics committee. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04961229.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Kidney Transplantation , Vaccines , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic , RNA, Messenger , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...