Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 29
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(10): 1768-1775, 2021 11 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1522134

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We performed a population-based study to describe the impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection on pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: This prospective, population-based study included pregnant women who consecutively presented at first/second trimester visits or at delivery at 3 hospitals in Barcelona, Spain. SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (immunoglobulin [Ig] G and IgM/IgA) were measured in all participants, and nasopharyngeal real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was performed at delivery. The primary outcome was a composite of pregnancy complications in SARS-CoV-2-positive vs negative women that included miscarriage, preeclampsia, preterm delivery, perinatal death, small-for-gestational-age newborn, or neonatal admission. Secondary outcomes were components of the primary outcome plus abnormal fetal growth, malformation, or intrapartum fetal distress. Outcomes were also compared between positive symptomatic and positive asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 women. RESULTS: Of 2225 pregnant women, 317 (14.2%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (n = 314, 99.1%) and/or RT-PCR (n = 36, 11.4%). Among positive women, 217 (68.5%) were asymptomatic, 93 (29.3%) had mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and 7 (2.2%) had pneumonia, of whom 3 required intensive care unit admission. In women with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection, the primary outcome occurred in 43 (13.6%) and 268 (14%), respectively (risk difference, -0.4%; 95% confidence interval, -4.1% to 4.1). Compared with noninfected women, those with symptomatic COVID-19 had increased rates of preterm delivery (7.2% vs 16.9%, P = .003) and intrapartum fetal distress (9.1% vs 19.2%, P = .004), while asymptomatic women had rates that were similar to those of noninfected cases. Among 143 fetuses from infected mothers, none had anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgA in cord blood. CONCLUSIONS: The overall rate of pregnancy complications in women with SARS-CoV-2 infection was similar to that of noninfected women. However, symptomatic COVID-19 was associated with modest increases in preterm delivery and intrapartum fetal distress.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
2.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(47): 1762-1766, 2020 Nov 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1389859

ABSTRACT

Most persons infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), develop virus-specific antibodies within several weeks, but antibody titers might decline over time. Understanding the timeline of antibody decline is important for interpreting SARS-CoV-2 serology results. Serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline health care personnel at 13 hospitals and tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 during April 3-June 19, 2020, and again approximately 60 days later to assess this timeline. The percentage of participants who experienced seroreversion, defined as an antibody signal-to-threshold ratio >1.0 at baseline and <1.0 at the follow-up visit, was assessed. Overall, 194 (6.0%) of 3,248 participants had detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 at baseline (1). Upon repeat testing approximately 60 days later (range = 50-91 days), 146 (93.6%) of 156 participants experienced a decline in antibody response indicated by a lower signal-to-threshold ratio at the follow-up visit, compared with the baseline visit, and 44 (28.2%) experienced seroreversion. Participants with higher initial antibody responses were more likely to have antibodies detected at the follow-up test than were those who had a lower initial antibody response. Whether decay in these antibodies increases risk for reinfection and disease remains unanswered. However, these results suggest that serology testing at a single time point is likely to underestimate the number of persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a negative serologic test result might not reliably exclude prior infection.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Betacoronavirus/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Personnel, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Adult , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
3.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 642723, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1229179

ABSTRACT

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection serves as an important diagnostic marker for past SARS-CoV-2 infection and is essential to determine the spread of COVID-19, monitor potential COVID-19 long-term effects, and to evaluate possible protection from reinfection. A study was conducted across three hospital sites in a large central London NHS Trust in the UK, to evaluate the prevalence and duration of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody positivity in healthcare workers. Methods: A matrix equivalence study consisting of 228 participants was undertaken to evaluate the Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 IgG/IgM rapid test device. Subsequently, 2001 evaluable healthcare workers (HCW), representing a diverse population, were enrolled in a HCW study between June and August 2020. A plasma sample from each HCW was evaluated using the Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 IgG/IgM rapid test device, with confirmation of IgG-positive results by the Abbott ArchitectTM SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay. 545 participants, of whom 399 were antibody positive at enrolment, were followed up at 3 months. Results: The Panbio™ COVID-19 IgG/IgM rapid test device demonstrated a high concordance with laboratory tests. SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected in 506 participants (25.3%) at enrolment, with a higher prevalence in COVID-19 frontline (28.3%) than non-frontline (19.9%) staff. At follow-up, 274/399 antibody positive participants (68.7%) retained antibodies; 4/146 participants negative at enrolment (2.7%) had seroconverted. Non-white ethnicity, older age, hypertension and COVID-19 symptoms were independent predictors of higher antibody levels (OR 1.881, 2.422-3.034, 2.128, and 1.869 respectively), based on Architect™ index quartiles; participants in the first three categories also showed a greater antibody persistence at 3 months. Conclusion: The SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid IgG positivity rate among healthcare staff was high, declining by 31.3% during the 3-month follow-up interval. Interestingly, the IgG-positive participants with certain risk factors for severe COVID-19 illness (older age, Black or Asian Ethnicity hypertension) demonstrated greater persistence over time when compared to the IgG-positive participants without these risk factors.

4.
N Engl J Med ; 384(20): 1899-1909, 2021 05 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1216484

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants threatens progress toward control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. In a phase 1-2 trial involving healthy adults, the NVX-CoV2373 nanoparticle vaccine had an acceptable safety profile and was associated with strong neutralizing-antibody and antigen-specific polyfunctional CD4+ T-cell responses. Evaluation of vaccine efficacy was needed in a setting of ongoing SARS-CoV-2 transmission. METHODS: In this phase 2a-b trial in South Africa, we randomly assigned human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-negative adults between the ages of 18 and 84 years or medically stable HIV-positive participants between the ages of 18 and 64 years in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses of either the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine (5 µg of recombinant spike protein with 50 µg of Matrix-M1 adjuvant) or placebo. The primary end points were safety and vaccine efficacy against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic Covid-19 at 7 days or more after the second dose among participants without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Of 6324 participants who underwent screening, 4387 received at least one injection of vaccine or placebo. Approximately 30% of the participants were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline. Among 2684 baseline seronegative participants (94% HIV-negative and 6% HIV-positive), predominantly mild-to-moderate Covid-19 developed in 15 participants in the vaccine group and in 29 in the placebo group (vaccine efficacy, 49.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.1 to 72.8). Vaccine efficacy among HIV-negative participants was 60.1% (95% CI, 19.9 to 80.1). Of 41 sequenced isolates, 38 (92.7%) were the B.1.351 variant. Post hoc vaccine efficacy against B.1.351 was 51.0% (95% CI, -0.6 to 76.2) among the HIV-negative participants. Preliminary local and systemic reactogenicity events were more common in the vaccine group; serious adverse events were rare in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was efficacious in preventing Covid-19, with higher vaccine efficacy observed among HIV-negative participants. Most infections were caused by the B.1.351 variant. (Funded by Novavax and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04533399.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Double-Blind Method , HIV Seronegativity , HIV Seropositivity , Humans , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , South Africa , Young Adult
5.
Lancet ; 397(10286): 1725-1735, 2021 05 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1201329

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 adenoviral vector vaccines have been rapidly rolled out in the UK from December, 2020. We aimed to determine the factors associated with vaccine coverage for both vaccines and documented the vaccine effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in a cohort of health-care workers undergoing regular asymptomatic testing. METHODS: The SIREN study is a prospective cohort study among staff (aged ≥18 years) working in publicly-funded hospitals in the UK. Participants were assigned into either the positive cohort (antibody positive or history of infection [indicated by previous positivity of antibody or PCR tests]) or the negative cohort (antibody negative with no previous positive test) at the beginning of the follow-up period. Baseline risk factors were collected at enrolment, symptom status was collected every 2 weeks, and vaccination status was collected through linkage to the National Immunisations Management System and questionnaires. Participants had fortnightly asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing and monthly antibody testing, and all tests (including symptomatic testing) outside SIREN were captured. Data cutoff for this analysis was Feb 5, 2021. The follow-up period was Dec 7, 2020, to Feb 5, 2021. The primary outcomes were vaccinated participants (binary ever vacinated variable; indicated by at least one vaccine dose recorded by at least one of the two vaccination data sources) for the vaccine coverage analysis and SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by a PCR test for the vaccine effectiveness analysis. We did a mixed-effect logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with vaccine coverage. We used a piecewise exponential hazard mixed-effects model (shared frailty-type model) using a Poisson distribution to calculate hazard ratios to compare time-to-infection in unvaccinated and vaccinated participants and estimate the impact of the BNT162b2 vaccine on all PCR-positive infections (asymptomatic and symptomatic). This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN11041050, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: 23 324 participants from 104 sites (all in England) met the inclusion criteria for this analysis and were enrolled. Included participants had a median age of 46·1 years (IQR 36·0-54·1) and 19 692 (84%) were female; 8203 (35%) were assigned to the positive cohort at the start of the analysis period, and 15 121 (65%) assigned to the negative cohort. Total follow-up time was 2 calendar months and 1 106 905 person-days (396 318 vaccinated and 710 587 unvaccinated). Vaccine coverage was 89% on Feb 5, 2021, 94% of whom had BNT162b2 vaccine. Significantly lower coverage was associated with previous infection, gender, age, ethnicity, job role, and Index of Multiple Deprivation score. During follow-up, there were 977 new infections in the unvaccinated cohort, an incidence density of 14 infections per 10 000 person-days; the vaccinated cohort had 71 new infections 21 days or more after their first dose (incidence density of eight infections per 10 000 person-days) and nine infections 7 days after the second dose (incidence density four infections per 10 000 person-days). In the unvaccinated cohort, 543 (56%) participants had typical COVID-19 symptoms and 140 (14%) were asymptomatic on or 14 days before their PCR positive test date, compared with 29 (36%) with typical COVID-19 symptoms and 15 (19%) asymptomatic in the vaccinated cohort. A single dose of BNT162b2 vaccine showed vaccine effectiveness of 70% (95% CI 55-85) 21 days after first dose and 85% (74-96) 7 days after two doses in the study population. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that the BNT162b2 vaccine can prevent both symptomatic and asymptomatic infection in working-age adults. This cohort was vaccinated when the dominant variant in circulation was B1.1.7 and shows effectiveness against this variant. FUNDING: Public Health England, UK Department of Health and Social Care, and the National Institute for Health Research.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/supply & distribution , Health Personnel , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , RNA, Messenger , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Cohort Studies , England , Humans , Prospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
6.
N Engl J Med ; 384(23): 2187-2201, 2021 06 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1196903

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Ad26.COV2.S vaccine is a recombinant, replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 vector encoding full-length severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein in a prefusion-stabilized conformation. METHODS: In an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned adult participants in a 1:1 ratio to receive a single dose of Ad26.COV2.S (5×1010 viral particles) or placebo. The primary end points were vaccine efficacy against moderate to severe-critical coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) with an onset at least 14 days and at least 28 days after administration among participants in the per-protocol population who had tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: The per-protocol population included 19,630 SARS-CoV-2-negative participants who received Ad26.COV2.S and 19,691 who received placebo. Ad26.COV2.S protected against moderate to severe-critical Covid-19 with onset at least 14 days after administration (116 cases in the vaccine group vs. 348 in the placebo group; efficacy, 66.9%; adjusted 95% confidence interval [CI], 59.0 to 73.4) and at least 28 days after administration (66 vs. 193 cases; efficacy, 66.1%; adjusted 95% CI, 55.0 to 74.8). Vaccine efficacy was higher against severe-critical Covid-19 (76.7% [adjusted 95% CI, 54.6 to 89.1] for onset at ≥14 days and 85.4% [adjusted 95% CI, 54.2 to 96.9] for onset at ≥28 days). Despite 86 of 91 cases (94.5%) in South Africa with sequenced virus having the 20H/501Y.V2 variant, vaccine efficacy was 52.0% and 64.0% against moderate to severe-critical Covid-19 with onset at least 14 days and at least 28 days after administration, respectively, and efficacy against severe-critical Covid-19 was 73.1% and 81.7%, respectively. Reactogenicity was higher with Ad26.COV2.S than with placebo but was generally mild to moderate and transient. The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the two groups. Three deaths occurred in the vaccine group (none were Covid-19-related), and 16 in the placebo group (5 were Covid-19-related). CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of Ad26.COV2.S protected against symptomatic Covid-19 and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and was effective against severe-critical disease, including hospitalization and death. Safety appeared to be similar to that in other phase 3 trials of Covid-19 vaccines. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development and others; ENSEMBLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04505722.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Asymptomatic Diseases/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Double-Blind Method , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acuity , Proportional Hazards Models , Young Adult
7.
JMIR Form Res ; 5(4): e24760, 2021 Apr 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1183751

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In December 2019, a novel coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2 was identified as the cause of a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. It rapidly spread due to human-to-human transmission, resulting in a global pandemic. Nearly every country, including Qatar, has established guidelines and regulations to limit the spread of the virus and to preserve public health. However, these procedures have been associated with negative effects on the psychological and intellectual well-being of individuals, including children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the psychological influence of home isolation and social distancing on children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic in Qatar, and the strategies used to cope with these measures. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was undertaken using an online questionnaire administered through SMS text messaging. All home-isolated children and adolescents registered at the Primary Health Care Corporation aged 7-18 years were invited to participate in the study. Children and adolescents with intellectual disadvantages were excluded. A P value of .05 (two-tailed) was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Data were collected from 6608 participants from June 23 to July 18, 2020. Nearly all participants adhered to the official regulations during the period of home isolation and social distancing; however, 69.1% (n=4568) of parents believed their children were vulnerable to the virus compared to 25% (n=1652) who expressed they were not vulnerable at all. Higher levels of anger, depression, and general anxiety were prevalent among 1.3% (n=84), 3.9% (n=260), and 1.6% (n=104) of participants, respectively. The mean score for the emotional constructs anger and depression decreased with increased compliance with regulations (P=.04 and P=.11, respectively). The differences in mean score for all psychological and coping strategies used among participants across the 3 levels of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 were statistically significant. The mean score varied little with increasing reported vulnerability to the virus. This mild variation can make a difference when the sample size is large, as is the case in this study. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for psychological and social disruptions is important for the development of strategies by schools and health care providers to assess and monitor behavioral changes and negative psychological impact during post-COVID-19 reintegration. Participants experiencing higher levels of anxiety should be given more attention during reintegration and transitional phases in schools. Although electronic devices and social media platforms may have lowered anxiety levels in some cases, it is important to address how they are used and how content is tailored to children and adolescents. It is also important to maintain an active lifestyle for children and young persons, and encourage them not to neglect their physical health, as this promotes a better psychological state of mind.

8.
Int J Eat Disord ; 54(7): 1283-1288, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1182136

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the impact of COVID-19 on young women's disordered eating and their responses to online interventions to reduce disordered eating. METHOD: University students at risk of developing an eating disorder (N = 100) were randomly assigned to either receiving an online intervention to reduce disordered eating or not. Forty-one participants entered the study from September 2019 to March 2020 (pre-COVID) and 59 after physical distancing was introduced due to COVID pandemic (during COVID). Online assessments were conducted at baseline and 1-week follow up. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in weight concerns, disordered eating, and negative affect among participants entering the trial during COVID compared to pre-COVID. The increases in the first two variables remained when adjusting for baseline negative affect. No significant interactions between time, condition and COVID status were observed. DISCUSSION: Young women experienced increased levels of disordered eating after the onset of COVID. While no interactions with COVID were detected, changes to within-group effect sizes for disordered eating more than doubled for both online interventions and assessment from pre-COVID to during COVID, suggesting any attention to issues related to disordered eating in the context of reduced social contact may be beneficial.


Subject(s)
Body Dissatisfaction/psychology , COVID-19/psychology , Feeding and Eating Disorders/epidemiology , Pandemics , Students/psychology , Adolescent , Adult , Australia/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Feeding and Eating Disorders/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Risk Assessment , Students/statistics & numerical data , Universities , Young Adult
9.
Pharmacol Rep ; 73(6): 1642-1649, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1174060

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The negative impacts of proton pump inhibitor (PPI), including the risk of pneumonia and mortality, have been reported previously. This meta-analysis aimed to address the current interest of whether the administration of PPI could increase the susceptibility and risk of poor outcome in COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search from PubMed, Embase, EBSCOhost, and EuropePMC databases up until 3 December 2020. The main outcome was composite poor outcome which comprised of mortality and severe COVID-19. Severe COVID-19 in this study was defined as patients with COVID-19 that fulfill the criteria for severe CAP, including the need for intensive unit care or mechanical ventilation. The secondary outcome was susceptibility, based on cohort comparing COVID-19 positive and COVID-19 negative participants. RESULTS: There were a total of 290,455 patients from 12 studies in this meta-analysis. PPI use was associated with increased composite poor outcome (OR 1.85 [1.13, 3.03], p = 0.014; I2 90.26%). Meta-regression analysis indicate that the association does not vary by age (OR 0.97 [0.92, 1.02], p = 0.244), male (OR 1.05 [0.99, 1.11], p = 0.091), hypertension (OR 9.98 [0.95, 1.02], p = 0.317), diabetes (OR 0.99 [0.93, 1.05], p = 0.699), chronic kidney disease (OR 1.01 [0.93, 1.10], p = 0.756), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use (OR 1.02 [0.96, 1.09], p = 0.499), and pre-admission/in-hospital PPI use (OR 0.77 [0.26, 2.31], p = 0.644). PPI use was not associated with the susceptibility to COVID-19 (OR 1.56 [0.48, 5.05], p = 0.46; I2 99.7%). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed a potential association between PPI use and composite poor outcome, but not susceptibility. PROSPERO ID: CRD42020224286.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Proton Pump Inhibitors/adverse effects , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/physiopathology , Diabetes Mellitus , Disease Progression , Female , Humans , Hypertension , Male , Middle Aged , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index
10.
PLoS One ; 16(3): e0248921, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1173655

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Determine the diagnostic accuracy of two antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 at the point of care and define individuals' characteristics providing best performance. METHODS: We performed a prospective, single-center, point of care validation of two Ag-RDT in comparison to RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs. RESULTS: Between October 9th and 23rd, 2020, 1064 participants were enrolled. The PanbioTM Covid-19 Ag Rapid Test device (Abbott) was validated in 535 participants, with 106 positive Ag-RDT results out of 124 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 85.5% (95% CI: 78.0-91.2). Specificity was 100.0% (95% CI: 99.1-100) in 411 RT-PCR negative individuals. The Standard Q Ag-RDT (SD Biosensor, Roche) was validated in 529 participants, with 170 positive Ag-RDT results out of 191 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 89.0% (95%CI: 83.7-93.1). One false positive result was obtained in 338 RT-PCR negative individuals, yielding a specificity of 99.7% (95%CI: 98.4-100). For individuals presenting with fever 1-5 days post symptom onset, combined Ag-RDT sensitivity was above 95%. Lower sensitivity of 88.2% was seen on the same day of symptom development (day 0). CONCLUSIONS: We provide an independent validation of two widely available commercial Ag-RDTs, both meeting WHO criteria of ≥80% sensitivity and ≥97% specificity. Although less sensitive than RT-PCR, these assays could be beneficial due to their rapid results, ease of use, and independence from existing laboratory structures. Testing criteria focusing on patients with typical symptoms in their early symptomatic period onset could further increase diagnostic value.


Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/analysis , COVID-19 Testing , Point-of-Care Systems , Residence Characteristics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Time Factors , Viral Load
11.
PLoS One ; 16(4): e0249710, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1170007

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Rapid antigen tests hold much promise for use in the school environment. However, the performance of these tests in non-clinical settings and among one of the main target populations in schools-asymptomatic children-is unclear. To address this gap, we examined the positive and negative concordance between the BinaxNOW™ rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay and an RT-PCR test among children at a community-based Covid-19 testing site. METHODS: We conducted rapid antigen (BinaxNOW™) and oral fluid RT-PCR (Curative Labs) tests on children presenting at a walk-up testing site in Los Angeles County from November 25, 2020 to December 9, 2020. Positive concordance was determined as the fraction of RT-PCR positive participants that were also antigen positive. Negative concordance was determined as the fraction of RT-PCR negative participants that were also antigen negative. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine the association between positive or negative concordance and participant age, race-ethnicity, sex at birth, symptoms and Ct values. RESULTS: 226 children tested positive on RT-PCR; 127 children or 56.2% (95% CI: 49.5% to 62.8%) of these also tested positive on the rapid antigen test. Positive concordance was higher among symptomatic children (64.4%; 95% CI: 53.4% to 74.4%) compared to asymptomatic children (51.1%; 95% CI: 42.5% to 59.7%). Positive concordance was negatively associated with Ct values and was 93.8% (95% CI: 69.8% to 99.8%) for children with Ct values less than or equal to 25. 548 children tested negative on RT-PCR; 539 or 98.4% (95% CI: 96.9% to 99.2%) of these also tested negative on the rapid antigen test. Negative concordance was higher among asymptomatic children. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid antigen testing can successfully identify most COVID infections in children with viral load levels likely to be infectious. Serial rapid testing may help compensate for limited sensitivity in early infection.


Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/analysis , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Mass Screening/methods , Adolescent , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Los Angeles/epidemiology , Male , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Schools , Sensitivity and Specificity , Viral Load/methods
12.
N Engl J Med ; 384(20): 1885-1898, 2021 05 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1135713

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the safety and efficacy of vaccines against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in different populations is essential, as is investigation of the efficacy of the vaccines against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including the B.1.351 (501Y.V2) variant first identified in South Africa. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) in people not infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in South Africa. Participants 18 to less than 65 years of age were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses of vaccine containing 5×1010 viral particles or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride solution) 21 to 35 days apart. Serum samples obtained from 25 participants after the second dose were tested by pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization assays against the original D614G virus and the B.1.351 variant. The primary end points were safety and efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic coronavirus 2019 illness (Covid-19) more than 14 days after the second dose. RESULTS: Between June 24 and November 9, 2020, we enrolled 2026 HIV-negative adults (median age, 30 years); 1010 and 1011 participants received at least one dose of placebo or vaccine, respectively. Both the pseudovirus and the live-virus neutralization assays showed greater resistance to the B.1.351 variant in serum samples obtained from vaccine recipients than in samples from placebo recipients. In the primary end-point analysis, mild-to-moderate Covid-19 developed in 23 of 717 placebo recipients (3.2%) and in 19 of 750 vaccine recipients (2.5%), for an efficacy of 21.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], -49.9 to 59.8). Among the 42 participants with Covid-19, 39 cases (95.1% of 41 with sequencing data) were caused by the B.1.351 variant; vaccine efficacy against this variant, analyzed as a secondary end point, was 10.4% (95% CI, -76.8 to 54.8). The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the vaccine and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: A two-dose regimen of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine did not show protection against mild-to-moderate Covid-19 due to the B.1.351 variant. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04444674; Pan African Clinical Trials Registry number, PACTR202006922165132).


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , SARS-CoV-2 , Adenoviridae , Adolescent , Adult , Antibodies, Neutralizing/physiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Middle Aged , South Africa , T-Lymphocytes/physiology , Treatment Failure , Vaccine Potency , Young Adult
13.
EClinicalMedicine ; 33: 100786, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1118400

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented demand for testing - for diagnosis and prognosis - as well as for investigation into the impact of the disease on the host metabolism. Sebum sampling has the potential to support both needs by looking at what the virus does to us, rather than looking for the virus itself. METHODS: In this pilot study, sebum samples were collected from 67 hospitalised patients (30 COVID-19 positive and 37 COVID-19 negative) by gauze swab. Lipidomics analysis was carried out using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry, identifying 998 reproducible features. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were applied to the resulting feature set. FINDINGS: Lipid levels were depressed in COVID-19 positive participants, indicative of dyslipidemia; p-values of 0·022 and 0·015 were obtained for triglycerides and ceramides respectively, with effect sizes of 0·44 and 0·57. Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis showed separation of COVID-19 positive and negative participants with sensitivity of 57% and specificity of 68%, improving to 79% and 83% respectively when controlled for confounding comorbidities. INTERPRETATION: COVID-19 dysregulates many areas of metabolism; in this work we show that the skin lipidome can be added to the list. Given that samples can be provided quickly and painlessly, we conclude that sebum is worthy of future consideration for clinical sampling. FUNDING: The authors acknowledge funding from the EPSRC Impact Acceleration Account for sample collection and processing, as well as EPSRC Fellowship Funding EP/R031118/1, the University of Surrey and BBSRC BB/T002212/1. Mass Spectrometry was funded under EP/P001440/1.

14.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(4)2021 02 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1112711

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: No previous study has investigated the SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and the changes in the proportion of positive results due to lockdown measures from the angle of workers' vulnerability to coronavirus in Greece. Two community-based programs were implemented to evaluate the SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and investigate if the prevalence changes were significant across various occupations before and one month after lockdown. METHODS: Following consent, sociodemographic, clinical, and job-related information were recorded. The VivaDiag™ SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test was used. Positive results confirmed by a real-time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction for SARS-COV-2. RESULTS: Positive participants were more likely to work in the catering/food sector than negative participants before the lockdown. Lockdown restrictions halved the new cases. No significant differences in the likelihood of being SARS-CoV-2 positive for different job categories were detected during lockdown. The presence of respiratory symptoms was an independent predictor for rapid antigen test positivity; however, one-third of newly diagnosed patients were asymptomatic at both time points. CONCLUSIONS: The catering/food sector was the most vulnerable to COVID-19 at the pre-lockdown evaluation. We highlight the crucial role of community-based screening with rapid antigen testing to evaluate the potential modes of community transmission and the impact of infection control strategies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Occupations , Antigens, Viral/analysis , Communicable Disease Control , Greece/epidemiology , Humans , Occupational Exposure/analysis , Prevalence
15.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 8(2): ofaa589, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1091231

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Clinical diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is essential to the detection and prevention of COVID-19. Sudden onset of loss of taste and smell is a hallmark of COVID-19, and optimal ways for including these symptoms in the screening of patients and distinguishing COVID-19 from other acute viral diseases should be established. METHODS: We performed a case-control study of patients who were polymerase chain reaction-tested for COVID-19 (112 positive and 112 negative participants), recruited during the first wave (March 2020-May 2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic in Israel. Patients reported their symptoms and medical history by phone and rated their olfactory and gustatory abilities before and during their illness on a 1-10 scale. RESULTS: Changes in smell and taste occurred in 68% (95% CI, 60%-76%) and 72% (95% CI, 64%-80%) of positive patients, with odds ratios of 24 (range, 11-53) and 12 (range, 6-23), respectively. The ability to smell was decreased by 0.5 ± 1.5 in negatives and by 4.5 ± 3.6 in positives. A penalized logistic regression classifier based on 5 symptoms had 66% sensitivity, 97% specificity, and an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.83 on a holdout set. A classifier based on degree of smell change was almost as good, with 66% sensitivity, 97% specificity, and 0.81 AUC. The predictive positive value of this classifier was 0.68, and the negative predictive value was 0.97. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported quantitative olfactory changes, either alone or combined with other symptoms, provide a specific tool for clinical diagnosis of COVID-19. A simple calculator for prioritizing COVID-19 laboratory testing is presented here.

16.
Obes Surg ; 31(5): 2115-2124, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1042543

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Home lockdown and isolation due to COVID-19 have been related to negative changes in mood, sleep, and eating behaviors. People with obesity are especially vulnerable to emotional eating and might be more prone to weight gain and negative outcomes during lockdown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individuals scheduled for an appointment at the Obesity Unit of a Tertiary Hospital between March 16 and June 21 (n=1230). An online survey was distributed on May 11. Multivariable logistic regression models and general linear models were used to assess the relationship between perceived COVID-19 threat, BS status, and outcome variables. RESULTS: Of the 603 (72.0% females, 39% aged >55 years) respondents, 223 (36.9%) were BS naïve (non-BS), 134 (22.2%) underwent BS within the two previous years (BS<2y), and 245 (40.6%) more than 2 years before (BS>2y). Participants worried about being infected by COVID-19 showed significantly larger changes in family contact (p=0.04), mood (p<0.01), sleep (p<0.01), dietary habits (p=0.05), purchases of unhealthy food (p=0.02), snacking (p=0.05), and physical activity (p=0.02). Non-BS and BS>2y participants reported greater impact of lockdown in mood (p<0.01), experienced more negative changes in dietary habits (p<0.01), and had a higher likelihood for weight gain (OR: 5.61, 95% CI: 3.0-10.46; OR: 5.45, 95% CI: 2.87-10.35, respectively) compared to BS<2y. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 pandemic is having a substantial negative impact in our population affected by obesity. During lockdown, people more than 2 years before BS behave like people without history of BS. Strategies addressed to prevent negative metabolic outcomes in this population are urgently needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Obesity, Morbid , Aged , Communicable Disease Control , Feeding Behavior , Female , Humans , Life Style , Male , Obesity/epidemiology , Obesity, Morbid/surgery , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain/epidemiology
17.
Asian J Psychiatr ; 57: 102562, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1039257

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To date, no study has evaluated the association of alcohol dependence with the outcome of the COVID-19 infection. AIM: The current study aimed to evaluate the association of substance dependence (alcohol and tobacco) with the outcome (i.e., time to have two consecutive negative test reports) of the COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: The mean age of the study participants (n = 95) was 37.2 yrs (SD-13.2). More than half of the participants were males. About one-fourth (N = 25; 26.3 %) were consuming various substances in a dependent pattern. Alcohol dependence was present in 21 participants (22.1 %), and Tobacco dependence was present in 10.5 % of participants. Even after using gender, age, and physical illness as covariates, patients with any kind of substance dependence had a significantly lower chance of having a negative report on RT-PCR on 14th day, 18th 23rd day. CONCLUSION: Persons with substance dependence takes a longer time to test negative on RT-PCR, once diagnosed with COVID-19 infection. Mental health professionals involved in the care of patients with COVID-19 should accordingly prepare these patients for a possible longer hospital stay to reduce the distress associated with prolongation of hospital stay.


Subject(s)
Alcoholism/epidemiology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Tobacco Use Disorder/epidemiology , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Time Factors , Young Adult
18.
Trials ; 22(1): 9, 2021 Jan 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1011237

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess the efficacy of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells (MSC) versus a control arm as described in the primary endpoint. 2. To evaluate the effects of MSC on the secondary efficacy endpoints. 3. To evaluate the safety and tolerability profiles of MSC. 4. To study soluble and cellular biomarkers that might be involved in the course of the disease and the response to the investigational product. TRIAL DESIGN: A double-blind, randomized, controlled, trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MSC intravenous administration in patients with COVID-induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) compared to a control arm. PARTICIPANTS: The trial is being conducted at a third level hospital, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, in Majadahonda, Madrid (Spain). Inclusion criteria 1. Informed consent prior to performing study procedures (witnessed oral consent with written consent by representatives will be accepted to avoid paper handling). Written consent by patient or representatives will be obtained whenever possible. 2. Adult patients ≥18 years of age at the time of enrolment. 3. Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection as determined by Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), in oropharyngeal swabs or any other relevant specimen obtained during the course of the disease. Alternative tests (e.g., rapid antigen tests) are also acceptable as laboratory confirmation if their specificity has been accepted by the Sponsor. 4. Moderate to severe ARDS (PaO2/FiO2 ratio equal or less than 200 mmHg) for less than 96 hours at the time of randomization. 5. Patients requiring invasive ventilation are eligible within 72 hours from intubation. 6. Eligible for ICU admission, according to the clinical team. Exclusion criteria 1. Imminent and unavoidable progression to death within 24 hours, irrespective of the provision of treatments (in the opinion of the clinical team). 2. "Do Not Attempt Resuscitation" order in place. 3. Any end-stage organ disease or condition, which in the investigator's opinion, makes the patient an unsuitable candidate for treatment. 4. History of a moderate/severe lung disorder requiring home-based oxygen therapy. 5. Patient requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO), haemodialysis or hemofiltration at the time of treatment administration. 6. Current diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. 7. Active neoplasm, except carcinoma in situ or basalioma. 8. Known allergy to the products involved in the allogeneic MSC production process. 9. Current pregnancy or lactation (women with childbearing potential should have a negative pregnancy test result at the time of study enrolment). 10. Current participation in a clinical trial with an experimental treatment for COVID-19 (the use of any off-label medicine according to local treatment protocols is not an exclusion criteria). 11. Any circumstances that in the investigator's opinion compromises the patient's ability to participate in the clinical trial. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: - Experimental treatment arm: Allogeneic MSC (approximately 1 x 106 cells/kg). - Control arm: placebo solution (same composition as the experimental treatment, without the MSC). One single intravenous dose of the assigned treatment will be administered on Day 0 of the study. All trial participants will receive standard of care (SOC). In the context of the current worldwide pandemic, SOC can include medicines that are being used in clinical practice (e.g. lopinavir/ritonavir; hydroxy/chloroquine, tocilizumab, etc.), as well as those authorised for COVID (e.g., remdesivir). MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary endpoint: Change in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio from baseline to day 7 of treatment administration, or to the last available PaO2/FiO2 ratio if death occurs before day 7. Secondary endpoints: - All-cause mortality on days 7, 14, and 28 after treatment. - PaO2/FiO2 ratio at baseline and days 2, 4, 7, 14 and 28 after treatment. - Oxygen saturation (by standardized measurement) at baseline, daily until day 14, and on day 28 after treatment. - Time to PaO2/FiO2 ratio greater than 200 mmHg. - Subjects' clinical status on the WHO 7-point ordinal scale at baseline, daily until day 14, and on day 28 after treatment. - Time to an improvement of one category from admission on the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. - Percentage of patients that worsen at least one category on the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. - Percentage of patients that improve at least one category (maintained 48h) on the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. - Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scale at baseline and days 2, 4, 7, 14 and 28 after treatment. - Duration of hospitalization (days). - Duration of ICU stay (days). - Oxygen therapy-free days in the first 28 days after treatment. - Duration of supplemental oxygen. - Incidence of and duration of non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation in the first 28 days after treatment. - Mechanical ventilation-free days in the first 28 days after treatment. - Ventilation parameters. - Incidence of new onset pulmonary fibrosis at 3 and 12 months after treatment, based on CT scan and pulmonary function tests. - Survival at 3 and 12 months. - Cumulative incidence of Serious Adverse events (SAEs) and Grade 3 and 4 Adverse Events (AEs). - Cumulative incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) in the experimental treatment arm. - Cumulative incidence of AEs of special interest. - Levels of analytical markers (C-Reactive Protein, lymphocyte and neutrophil counts, lymphocyte subpopulations, LDH, ferritin, D-dimer, coagulation tests and cytokines...) at baseline and days 2, 4, 7, 14 and 28 after treatment. - Other soluble and cellular biomarkers that might be involved in the course of the disease and the response to MSC. RANDOMISATION: The assignment to treatment will be carried out randomly and blinded, with a 1:1 allocation. Randomization will be done through a centralized system embedded in the electronic Case Report Form (CRF). BLINDING (MASKING): To ensure blinding, treatments will be prepared for administration at the Cell Production Unit and the administration of the treatment will be masked, not allowing the identification of the Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP). NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total of 20 participants are planned to be randomized, 10 to each treatment group. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version: 1.2, dated October 14th, 2020 Start of recruitment: 01/10/2020 End of recruitment (estimated): December 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number: 2020-002193-27 , registered on July 14th, 2020. NCT number: NCT04615429 , registered on November 4th, 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/administration & dosage , COVID-19/therapy , Mesenchymal Stem Cell Transplantation/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Administration, Intravenous , Adult , Biomarkers/blood , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic , Combined Modality Therapy/adverse effects , Combined Modality Therapy/methods , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , Mesenchymal Stem Cell Transplantation/adverse effects , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/blood , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Severity of Illness Index , Spain , Standard of Care , Transplantation, Homologous/adverse effects , Transplantation, Homologous/methods
19.
Biol Conserv ; 254: 108952, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1009319

ABSTRACT

With >1 400 species, bats comprise the second-largest order of mammals and provide critical ecological services as insect consumers, pollinators, and seed dispersers. Yet, bats are frequently associated with infectious human diseases such as SARS, MERS, and Ebola. As early as the end of January 2020, several virological studies have suggested bats as a probable origin for SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19. How does the public view the role of bats in COVID-19? Here we report pilot data collected shortly after the outbreak of COVID-19 using two online surveys, combined with a conservation intervention experiment, primarily on people who are receiving or have received higher education in China. We found that 84% of the participants of an online survey (n = 13 589) have misunderstood the relationship between bats and COVID-19, which strengthened negative attitudes towards bats. Knowledge of bats, gender, and education level of the participants affected their attitudes towards bats. Participants who indicated a better knowledge of bats had a more positive attitude towards bats. The proportion of female participants who had negative attitudes towards bats was higher than that of male participants. Participants with a higher education level indicated a more positive attitude towards bats after the outbreak of COVID-19. A specially prepared bat conservation lecture improved peoples' knowledge of bats and the positive attitudes, but failed to correct the misconception that bats transmit SARS-CoV-2 to humans directly. We suggest that the way virologists frame the association of bats with diseases, the countless frequently inaccurate media coverages, and the natural perceptual bias of bats carrying and transmitting diseases to humans contributed to the misunderstandings. This probably led to a rise in the events of evicting bats from dwellings and structures by humans and the legislative proposal for culling disease-relevant wildlife in China. A better understanding of the relationship between disease, wildlife and human health could help guide the public and policymakers in an improved program for bat conservation.

20.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(1)2020 12 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1006308

ABSTRACT

(1) Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected the lives of older people. In this study, we examine changes in physical activity, sleep quality, and psychosocial variables among older people during COVID-19 lockdown. We build on cross-sectional studies on this topic by assessing change longitudinally. We also examined whether participant characteristics including demographic, cognitive, personality, and health variables were related to more positive or negative changes during lockdown. (2) Methods: 137 older participants (mean age 84 years) from the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936 study were included in the analysis. They completed the same questionnaires assessing physical activity, sleep quality, mental wellbeing, social support, loneliness, neighbourhood cohesion, and memory problems before (mostly 2 years earlier) and again during national lockdown. (3) Results: On average, levels of physical activity were reduced (those doing minimal physical activity increased from 10% to 19%) and perceived social support increased during lockdown (effect size drm = 0.178). More positive change in the psychosocial and behavioural outcome variables during lockdown was associated with personality traits (greater intellect, emotional stability, and extraversion) and having a higher general cognitive ability. Participants with a history of cardiovascular disease, more symptoms of anxiety, or who lived alone were more likely to experience negative changes in the outcome variables during lockdown. (4) Discussion: These results provide further insight into the experiences of older people during the COVID-19 pandemic and could help to identify those at greatest risk of negative psychosocial or behavioural changes during this time.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Exercise , Pandemics , Sleep , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Loneliness , Mental Health , Scotland , Social Support
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL