Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 31
Filter
1.
Monatsschr Kinderheilkd ; : 1-4, 2020 Nov 06.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1905986

ABSTRACT

Due to the shortage of pediatric hospital beds in general and due to the large annual burden of hospital admissions for common respiratory tract infections, such as influenza or RSV [respiratory syncytial virus] in particular, it can be expected that hospitalization of children with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV­2 infections will face hospitals with an even more tense situation than usual in the winter 2020/2021. This tenuous shortage may touch various aspects but in the first place it will affect isolation and cohorting. In addition, this shortage will not only apply to acutely ill children with viral respiratory tract infections but all children with need for hospital care, either chronically ill or e.g. being premature babies or newborns. Therefore, approaches are required which on the one hand are based on pragmatic grounds but on the other hand fulfill the basics of hygiene and infection control. The recommendations proposed in this statement are intended to give assistance to hospitals for the management of testing, isolation and cohorting of pediatric patients with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV­2 infections. The most important factor navigating the essential measures is the cumulative incidence of newly diagnosed infections per 100,000 over the last 7 days, which is given by the RKI or the local public health authorities. In the situation of low (<25/100,000) or medium (25-50/100,000) incidence the respective diagnostic measures and hospital admission can be performed under standard hygiene precautions and the children will be cohorted according to their clinical presentation until the results of SARS-CoV­2 test (or RSV [respiratory syncytial virus] or influenza test) are available. In the situation of high (>50/100,000) incidence the respective diagnostic measures and the admission have to be performed under SARS-CoV­2 precautions as specified by the RKI, and the children have to be isolated until the results of SARS-CoV­2 test are available. The assessment of the incidence figures and the respective measures may be adapted by the local public health authorities on an individual basis. In case of shortfalls in admission capacities, the requirement of acute emergency care may necessitate that isolation and cohorting in the hospital will have to be performed temporarily in a less restrictive way than recommended here for standard.

2.
Ann Am Thorac Soc ; 18(10): 1624-1633, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1448591

ABSTRACT

Rationale: Patients with asthma were advised to avoid coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and comply with medication during the COVID-19 pandemic. Respiratory tract infection is a common cause of asthma exacerbations. There has not been evidence suggesting the link between COVID-19 and asthma exacerbation, especially in places with dramatic responses in infection control with universal masking and aggressive social distancing. Objectives: To assess the number for admissions of asthma exacerbations in January to April 2020 in Hong Kong with reference to admission in the past 5 years. Methods: Admission records of asthma exacerbations were retrieved from the Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System. Patients aged 18 years or older with a known history of asthma admitted for asthma exacerbation were included. Log-linear was used to model count, with year and masking used as covariate and further analysis on ambient temperature and length of hospital stays. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the mortality rate and mechanical ventilation between the periods. Admissions for myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and gastric ulcer were included as controls. Results: The number of admissions for asthma exacerbations significantly decreased by 53.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 50.4-55.8%) in 2020 compared with monthly average admission in 2015-2019, with a higher magnitude of decrease compared with control diagnoses. Admissions for asthma exacerbations decreased by 2.0% (95% CI, 1.8-2.2%) with every 1°C (1.8°F) increase in temperature and by 0.8% with every 1% increase in masking (95% CI, 0.8-0.9%). Conclusions: Hospitalization number for asthma exacerbations significantly decreased in early 2020, with similar length of stay. This was observed with concomitant practice of universal masking and social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong. We proposed that universal masking and social distancing reduced respiratory viral infection, leading to fewer hospital admissions for asthma exacerbations.


Subject(s)
Asthma , COVID-19 , Asthma/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Hospitals , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 4499, 2021 02 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1383120

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the study was to compare clinical characteristics and mortality among adults infected with human coronaviruses (HCoV) 229E and OC43. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults (≥ 18 years) admitted to the ward of a university teaching hospital for suspected viral infection from October 2012 to December 2017. Multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to test for respiratory viruses. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare mortality among patients with HCoV 229E and HCoV OC43 infections. The main outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Of 8071 patients tested, 1689 were found to have a respiratory virus infection. Of these patients, 133 had HCoV infection, including 12 mixed infections, 44 HCoV 229E infections, and 77 HCoV OC43 infections. HCoV 229E infections peaked in January and February, while HCoV OC43 infections occurred throughout the year. The 30-day all-cause mortality was 25.0% among patients with HCoV 229E infection, and 9.1% among patients with HCoV OC43 infection (adjusted odds ratio: 3.58, 95% confidence interval: 1.19-10.75). Infections with HCoVs 229E and OC43 appear to have different seasonal patterns, and HCoV 229E might be more virulent than HCoV OC43.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus 229E, Human/genetics , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Coronavirus OC43, Human/genetics , Aged , Coinfection/mortality , Coinfection/virology , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Respiratory Tract Infections/mortality , Respiratory Tract Infections/virology , Retrospective Studies
4.
Eur J Clin Invest ; 51(12): e13626, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1273086

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Fever-7 is a test evaluating host mRNA expression levels of IFI27, JUP, LAX, HK3, TNIP1, GPAA1 and CTSB in blood able to detect viral infections. This test has been validated mostly in hospital settings. Here we have evaluated Fever-7 to identify the presence of respiratory viral infections in a Community Health Center. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted in the "Servicio de Urgencias de Atención Primaria" in Salamanca, Spain. Patients with clinical signs of respiratory infection and at least one point in the National Early Warning Score were recruited. Fever-7 mRNAs were profiled on a Nanostring nCounter® SPRINT instrument from blood collected upon patient enrolment. Viral diagnosis was performed on nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPAs) using the Biofire-RP2 panel. RESULTS: A respiratory virus was detected in the NPAs of 66 of the 100 patients enrolled. Median National Early Warning Score was 7 in the group with no virus detected and 6.5 in the group with a respiratory viral infection (P > .05). The Fever-7 score yielded an overall AUC of 0.81 to predict a positive viral syndromic test. The optimal operating point for the Fever-7 score yielded a sensitivity of 82% with a specificity of 71%. Multivariate analysis showed that Fever-7 was a robust marker of viral infection independently of age, sex, major comorbidities and disease severity at presentation (OR [CI95%], 3.73 [2.14-6.51], P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Fever-7 is a promising host immune mRNA signature for the early identification of a respiratory viral infection in the community.


Subject(s)
RNA, Messenger/blood , Respiratory Tract Infections/diagnosis , Virus Diseases/diagnosis , Adaptor Proteins, Vesicular Transport/genetics , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cathepsin B/genetics , DNA-Binding Proteins/genetics , Early Warning Score , Female , Gene Expression Profiling , Humans , Male , Membrane Glycoproteins/genetics , Membrane Proteins/genetics , Nasopharynx/virology , Respiratory Tract Infections/blood , Respiratory Tract Infections/genetics , Transcriptome , Virus Diseases/blood , Virus Diseases/genetics , gamma Catenin/genetics
5.
Front Immunol ; 12: 660298, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1256379

ABSTRACT

In addition to SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, emerging viruses that cause respiratory viral infections will continue to arise. Increasing evidence suggests a delayed, possibly suppressed, type 1 interferon (IFN-I) response occurs early during COVID-19 and other viral respiratory infections such as SARS and MERS. These observations prompt considering IFN-ß as a prophylactic or early intervention for respiratory viral infections. A rationale for developing and testing intranasal interferon beta (IFN-ß) as an immediately available intervention for new respiratory viral infections that will arise unexpectedly in the future is presented and supported by basic and clinical trial observations. IFN-ß prophylaxis could limit the spread and consequences of an emerging respiratory viral infection in at-risk individuals while specific vaccines are being developed.


Subject(s)
Interferon Type I/administration & dosage , Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , Virus Diseases/prevention & control , Administration, Intranasal , Humans , Respiratory Tract Infections/drug therapy , Respiratory Tract Infections/immunology , Severity of Illness Index , Virus Diseases/drug therapy , Virus Diseases/immunology
6.
Adv Exp Med Biol ; 1318: 197-208, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1222715

ABSTRACT

Viral respiratory tract infections are prevalent in children. They have substantial effects on childhood morbidity throughout the world, especially in developing countries. In this chapter, we describe the preliminary characteristics of pediatric COVID-19 and discover that severe and critical disease in children is rare. Many children remain asymptomatic. The reason why severity increases with progressing age and largely spares children is not yet known. In the search for possible explanations, we explore key differences between the pediatric and adult immune responses to new pathogens, and in host factors, such as ACE2 abundance.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pediatrics , Adult , Child , Humans , Peptidyl-Dipeptidase A , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Pediatr Emerg Care ; 37(4): 232-236, 2021 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1180679

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were to describe the clinical characteristics of febrile infants younger than 90 days with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, to investigate the prevalence of serious bacterial infections (SBIs) in these infants, and to compare the risk of SBI in SARS-CoV-2-positive febrile infants with sex- and age-matched SARS-CoV- 2-negative febrile infants. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted from March to November 2020 in a tertiary children's hospital. Patients were identified by International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes and included if age was younger than 90 days, a SARS-CoV-2 test was performed, and at least 1 bacterial culture was collected. Positive cases of SARS-CoV-2 were age- and sex-matched to negative controls for analysis. Serious bacterial infection was defined as a urinary tract infection, bacterial enteritis, bacteremia, and/or bacterial meningitis. RESULTS: Fifty-three SARS-CoV-2-positive infants were identified with a higher rate of respiratory symptoms and lower white blood cell and C-reactive protein values than their SARS-CoV-2 matched controls. The rate of SBI in the SARS-CoV-2-positive infants was 8% compared with 34% in the controls; the most common infections were urinary tract infections (6% vs 23%). There were no cases of bacteremia or bacterial meningitis in the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) infants and 2 (4%) cases of bacteremia in the controls. The relative risk of any SBI between the 2 groups was 0.22 (95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.6; P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that febrile infants younger than 90 days with COVID-19 have lower rates of SBI than their matched SARS-CoV-2-negative controls. These data are consistent with previous studies describing lower risks of SBI in febrile infants with concomitant viral respiratory tract infections.


Subject(s)
Bacterial Infections/etiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Risk Assessment/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Bacterial Infections/epidemiology , COVID-19/complications , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies , United States
8.
J Clin Microbiol ; 59(4)2021 03 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1177519

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), continues to spread worldwide. Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies plays an important role in understanding and controlling the pandemic, notably through epidemiological surveillance. Well-validated and highly specific SARS-CoV-2 serological assays are urgently needed. We describe here the analytical and clinical performance of Vidas SARS-CoV-2 IgM and Vidas SARS-CoV-2 IgG, two CE-marked, emergency use authorization (EUA)-authorized, automated, qualitative assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG, respectively. Both assays showed high within-run and within-laboratory precision (coefficients of variation < 11.0%) and very low cross-reactivity toward sera of patients with a past common coronavirus or respiratory virus infection. Clinical specificity determined on up to 989 prepandemic healthy donors was ≥99% with a narrow 95% confidence interval for both IgM and IgG assays. Clinical sensitivity was determined on up to 232 samples from 130 reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients. The positive percent agreement (PPA) with SARS-CoV-2 PCR reached 100% at ≥16 days (Vidas SARS-CoV-2 IgM) and ≥32 days (Vidas SARS-CoV-2 IgG) of symptom onset. Combined IgM/IgG test results improved the PPA compared to each test alone. SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroconversion followed closely that of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and remained stable over time, while SARS-CoV-2 IgM levels rapidly declined. Interestingly, SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG responses were significantly higher in COVID-19 hospitalized versus nonhospitalized patients. Altogether, the Vidas SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG assays are highly specific and sensitive serological tests suitable for the reliable detection of past acute SARS-CoV-2 infections.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Viral , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Immunoglobulin M , Pandemics , Sensitivity and Specificity
9.
Lancet Reg Health Eur ; 4: 100084, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1174412

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is spreading globally and treatment options remain limited. A formulation of niclosamide, a potent anti-SARS-CoV-2 agent and a broad-spectrum antiviral treatment candidate, optimized for inhalation and intranasal administration (UNI91104) was developed. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, single-centre, dose-ascending Phase 1 trial to assess the safety of UNI91104 in Denmark (NCT04576312). Healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to a ascending single dose in cohort 1-4 and five doses over 2.5 days in cohort 5. Inclusion criteria included a minimum 80% of predicted lung function. Exclusion criteria included severe, clinically significant allergies and current acute or chronic condition especially airway diseases. Safety was evaluated through adverse events (AEs) and pulmonary function tests including forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) tests. The primary endpoints were defined as the frequency of reported AEs and the change of safety variables relative to pre-dose. Data from all enroled healthy volunteers receiving any amount of IMP was included in the primary analyses. The pharmacokinetics of UNI91104 was determined. FINDINGS: The trial was conducted between 29 June 2020 and 08 August 2020. Thirty-four healthy volunteers received UNI91104 and ten placebo. No serious AEs or discontinuation were reported. Mild irritation in the upper respiratory tract following inhalation of UNI91104 was reported as most frequent AE (45 events in 26 healthy volunteers, 59% of all healthy volunteers). Nasal application was well-tolerated. There was no evidence of difference in the change of mean levels of pulmonary function tests between active and placebo group across all cohorts. Five healthy volunteers (11.4%) (1 on placebo) had signs of increased transient FeNO and 4 on active (9.1%) experienced asymptomatic drops in FEV1, which resolved spontaneously or were reversible with a ß2-agonist. Niclosamide exhibited dose-proportional pharmacokinetics following inhalation and intranasal administration. INTERPRETATION: UNI91104, a promising candidate for inhalation and intranasal therapy against COVID-19 and other viral respiratory tract infections is well-tolerated in healthy volunteers and warrants further testing in patient trials. FUNDING: The study was funded by Innovationsfonden Denmark and UNION therapeutics.

10.
Am J Transplant ; 21(5): 1789-1800, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-897176

ABSTRACT

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are exposed to respiratory viral infection (RVI) during seasonal epidemics; however, the associated burden of disease has not been fully characterized. We describe the epidemiology and outcomes of RVI in a cohort enrolling 3294 consecutive patients undergoing SOT from May 2008 to December 2015 in Switzerland. Patient and allograft outcomes, and RVI diagnosed during routine clinical practice were prospectively collected. Median follow-up was 3.4 years (interquartile range 1.61-5.56). Six hundred ninety-six RVIs were diagnosed in 151/334 (45%) lung and 265/2960 (9%) non-lung transplant recipients. Cumulative incidence was 60% (95% confidence interval [CI] 53%-69%) in lung and 12% (95% CI 11%-14%) in non-lung transplant recipients. RVI led to 17.9 (95% CI 15.7-20.5) hospital admissions per 1000 patient-years. Intensive care unit admission was required in 4% (27/691) of cases. Thirty-day all-cause case fatality rate was 0.9% (6/696). Using proportional hazard models we found that RVI (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.45; 95% CI 1.62-3.73), lower respiratory tract RVI (aHR 3.45; 95% CI 2.15-5.52), and influenza (aHR 3.57; 95% CI 1.75-7.26) were associated with graft failure or death. In this cohort of SOT recipients, RVI caused important morbidity and may affect long-term outcomes, underlying the need for improved preventive strategies.


Subject(s)
Influenza, Human , Organ Transplantation , Respiratory Tract Infections , Cohort Studies , Humans , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Organ Transplantation/adverse effects , Prospective Studies , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/etiology , Seasons , Switzerland , Transplant Recipients
11.
Front Physiol ; 12: 622987, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1154243

ABSTRACT

Upper respiratory viral infections can decrease the sense of smell either by inflammatory restriction of nasal airflow that carries the odorant molecules or through interference in olfactory sensory neuron function. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, triggered by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), worldwide reports of severe smell loss (anosmia/hyposmia) revealed a different type of olfactory dysfunction associated with respiratory virus infection. Since self-reported perception of smell is subjective and SARS-CoV-2 exposure is variable in the general population, we aimed to study a population that would be more homogeneously exposed to the virus. Here, we investigated the prevalence of olfactory loss in frontline health professionals diagnosed with COVID-19 in Brazil, one of the major epicenters of the disease. We also analyzed the rate of olfactory function recovery and the particular characteristics of olfactory deficit in this population. A widely disclosed cross-sectional online survey directed to health care workers was developed by a group of researchers to collect data concerning demographic information, general symptoms, otolaryngological symptoms, comorbidities, and COVID-19 test results. Of the 1,376 health professionals who completed the questionnaire, 795 (57.8%) were working directly with COVID-19 patients, either in intensive care units, emergency rooms, wards, outpatient clinics, or other areas. Five-hundred forty-one (39.3%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and 509 (37%) were not tested. Prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19-positive subjects was 83.9% (454 of 541) compared to 12.9% (42 of 326) of those who tested negative and to 14.9% (76 of 509) of those not tested. Olfactory dysfunction incidence was higher in those working in wards, emergency rooms, and intensive care units compared to professionals in outpatient clinics. In general, remission from olfactory symptoms was frequent by the time of responses. Taste disturbances were present in 74.1% of infected participants and were significantly associated with hyposmia. In conclusion, olfactory dysfunction is highly correlated with exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in health care professionals, and remission rates up to 2 weeks are high.

12.
Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol ; 21(3): 245-251, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1153254

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Data regarding the effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on host-microbiome alteration and subsequent effects on susceptibility and clinical course of COVID-19, especially in atopic patients, are currently limited. Here, we review the studies regarding the microbiome of atopic patients with other respiratory infections and discuss the potential role of probiotics as therapeutic targets for COVID-19 to decrease its susceptibility and severity of COVID-19. RECENT FINDINGS: Respiratory tract virus infection affects the gut and airway microbiome structures and host's immune function. Diverse factors in atopic diseases affect the airway and gut microbiome structures, which are expected to negatively influence host health. However, response to respiratory virus infection in atopic hosts depends on the preexisting microbiome and immune responses. This may explain the inconclusiveness of the effects of COVID-19 on the susceptibility, morbidity, and mortality of patients with atopic diseases. Beneficial probiotics may be a therapeutic adjuvant in COVID-19 infection as the beneficial microbiome can decrease the viral load in the early phase of respiratory virus infection and improve the morbidity and mortality. SUMMARY: Application of probiotics can be a potential adjuvant treatment in respiratory virus infection to improve host immune responses and disturbed microbiome structures in atopic patients. Further related studies involving COVID-19 are warranted in near future.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Dysbiosis , Gastrointestinal Microbiome/immunology , Hypersensitivity , Pandemics , Probiotics/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/microbiology , COVID-19/therapy , Dysbiosis/epidemiology , Dysbiosis/immunology , Dysbiosis/microbiology , Dysbiosis/therapy , Humans , Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Hypersensitivity/immunology , Hypersensitivity/microbiology , Hypersensitivity/therapy
13.
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg ; 115(12): 1362-1388, 2021 12 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1137993

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a respiratory viral infection, has affected more than 78 million individuals worldwide as of the end of December 2020. Previous studies reported that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus infections may affect the gastrointestinal (GI) system. In this review we outline the important GI manifestations of COVID-19 and discuss the possible underlying pathophysiological mechanisms and their diagnosis and management. GI manifestations are reported in 11.4-61.1% of individuals with COVID-19, with variable onset and severity. The majority of COVID-19-associated GI symptoms are mild and self-limiting and include anorexia, diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain/discomfort. A minority of patients present with an acute abdomen with aetiologies such as acute pancreatitis, acute appendicitis, intestinal obstruction, bowel ischaemia, haemoperitoneum or abdominal compartment syndrome. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 RNA has been found in biopsies from all parts of the alimentary canal. Involvement of the GI tract may be due to direct viral injury and/or an inflammatory immune response and may lead to malabsorption, an imbalance in intestinal secretions and gut mucosal integrity and activation of the enteric nervous system. Supportive and symptomatic care is the mainstay of therapy. However, a minority may require surgical or endoscopic treatment for acute abdomen and GI bleeding.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pancreatitis , Acute Disease , Gastrointestinal Tract , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Viruses ; 13(1)2021 Jan 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1059594

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Co-infections of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with respiratory viruses, bacteria and fungi have been reported to cause a wide range of illness. OBJECTIVES: We assess the prevalence of co-infection of SARS-CoV-2 with seasonal respiratory viruses, document the respiratory viruses detected among individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2, and describe characteristics of individuals with respiratory virus co-infection detected. METHODS: Specimens included in this study were submitted as part of routine clinical testing to Public Health Ontario Laboratory from individuals requiring testing for SARS-CoV-2 and/or seasonal respiratory viruses. RESULTS: Co-infection was detected in a smaller proportion (2.5%) of individuals with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 than those with seasonal respiratory viruses (4.3%); this difference was not significant. Individuals with any respiratory virus co-infection were more likely to be younger than 65 years of age and male than those with single infection. Those with SARS-CoV-2 co-infection manifested mostly mild respiratory symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this study may not support routine testing for seasonal respiratory viruses among all individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2, as they were rare during the study period nor associated with severe disease. However, testing for seasonal respiratory viruses should be performed in severely ill individuals, in which detection of other viruses may assist with patient management.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Coinfection/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/complications , Canada/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Coinfection/virology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Ontario/epidemiology , Prevalence , Respiratory Tract Infections/complications , Respiratory Tract Infections/virology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Young Adult
15.
Pediatr Pulmonol ; 56(5): 1271-1273, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1023307

ABSTRACT

To assess the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on cystic fibrosis (CF) pulmonary exacerbations (PEx) we performed a retrospective review of PEx events at our CF Center and compared the rate of PEx in 2019 versus 2020. Restrictions on social interaction due to the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with a lower number of PEx events at our pediatric CF Center, suggesting that these restrictions also reduced exposure to other respiratory viral infection in children with CF.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cystic Fibrosis/complications , Physical Distancing , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Child , Child, Preschool , Disease Progression , Female , Humans , Indiana/epidemiology , Male , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Retrospective Studies
16.
Gene Ther ; 28(6): 290-305, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-977265

ABSTRACT

The novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) is a highly infectious acute respiratory disease caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Related Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) (Prec Clin Med 2020;3:9-13, Lancet 2020;395:497-506, N. Engl J Med 2020a;382:1199-207, Nature 2020;579:270-3). SARS-CoV-2 surveillance is essential to controlling widespread transmission. However, there are several challenges associated with the diagnostic of the COVID-19 during the current outbreak (Liu and Li (2019), Nature 2020;579:265-9, N. Engl J Med 2020;382:727-33). Firstly, the high number of cases overwhelms diagnostic test capacity and proposes the need for a rapid solution for sample processing (Science 2018;360:444-8). Secondly, SARS-CoV-2 is closely related to other important coronavirus species and subspecies, so detection assays can give false-positive results if they are not efficiently specific to SARS-CoV-2. Thirdly, patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection sometimes have a different respiratory viral infection or co-infections with SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses (MedRxiv 2020a;1-18). Confirmation of the COVID-19 is performed mainly by virus isolation followed by RT-PCR and sequencing (N. Engl J Med 2020;382:727-33, MedRxiv 2020a, Turkish J Biol 2020;44:192-202). The emergence and outbreak of the novel coronavirus highlighted the urgent need for new therapeutic technologies that are fast, precise, stable, easy to manufacture, and target-specific for surveillance and treatment. Molecular biology tools that include gene-editing approaches such as CRISPR-Cas12/13-based SHERLOCK, DETECTR, CARVER and PAC-MAN, antisense oligonucleotides, antisense peptide nucleic acids, ribozymes, aptamers, and RNAi silencing approaches produced with cutting-edge scientific advances compared to conventional diagnostic or treatment methods could be vital in COVID-19 and other future outbreaks. Thus, in this review, we will discuss potent the molecular biology approaches that can revolutionize diagnostic of viral infections and therapies to fight COVID-19 in a highly specific, stable, and efficient way.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Gene Editing , RNA Interference , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , CRISPR-Cas Systems , Humans , Oligonucleotides, Antisense
17.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 11: CD006207, 2020 11 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-934984

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL on 1 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 March 2020. We conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis on the newly included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of trials investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. In previous versions of this review we also included observational studies. However, for this update, there were sufficient RCTs to address our study aims.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Three pairs of review authors independently extracted data using a standard template applied in previous versions of this review, but which was revised to reflect our focus on RCTs and cluster-RCTs for this update. We did not contact trialists for missing data due to the urgency in completing the review. We extracted data on adverse events (harms) associated with the interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs in this update, bringing the total number of randomised trials to 67. There were no included studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Six ongoing studies were identified, of which three evaluating masks are being conducted concurrent with the COVID pandemic, and one is completed. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods, but several studies were conducted during the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Thus, studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Compliance with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID-19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). There is uncertainty over the effects of N95/P2 respirators when compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcomes of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; very low-certainty evidence; 3 trials; 7779 participants) and ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). The evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). Restricting the pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies. One ongoing study recruiting 576 people compares N95/P2 respirators with medical surgical masks for healthcare workers during COVID-19. Hand hygiene compared to control Settings included schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. In a comparison of hand hygiene interventions with control (no intervention), there was a 16% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86; 7 trials; 44,129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 10 trials; 32,641 participants; low-certainty evidence) and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials; 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence) suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled all 16 trials (61,372 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. The pooled data showed that hand hygiene may offer a benefit with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. Few trials measured and reported harms. There are two ongoing studies of handwashing interventions in 395 children outside of COVID-19. We identified one RCT on quarantine/physical distancing. Company employees in Japan were asked to stay at home if household members had ILI symptoms. Overall fewer people in the intervention group contracted influenza compared with workers in the control group (2.75% versus 3.18%; hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). However, those who stayed at home with their infected family members were 2.17 times more likely to be infected. We found no RCTs on eye protection, gowns and gloves, or screening at entry ports. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID-19 pandemic. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low-moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.


Subject(s)
Hand Hygiene , Masks , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , Virus Diseases/prevention & control , Virus Shedding , Bias , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Case-Control Studies , Epidemics , Humans , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/transmission , Influenza, Human/virology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/transmission , Respiratory Tract Infections/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/prevention & control , Virus Diseases/epidemiology , Virus Diseases/transmission
18.
Cleve Clin J Med ; 87(11): 659-663, 2020 11 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-908366

ABSTRACT

In COVID-19, respiratory infection with SARS-CoV-2 plus another virus (viral co-infection) or with SARS-CoV-2 plus a bacterial pathogen (combined viral and bacterial pneumonia) has been described. Secondary bacterial pneumonia can follow the initial phase of viral respiratory infection or occur during the recovery phase. No obvious pattern or guidelines exist for viral co-infection, combined viral and bacterial pneumonia, or secondary bacterial pneumonia in COVID-19. Based on existing clinical data and experience with similar viruses such as influenza and SARS-CoV, the management approach in COVID-19 should, ideally, take into consideration the overall presentation and the trajectory of illness.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , Coinfection , Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Patient Care Management/methods , Pneumonia, Bacterial , Pneumonia, Viral , Virus Diseases , Bacteria/classification , Bacteria/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coinfection/diagnosis , Coinfection/etiology , Coinfection/therapy , Community-Acquired Infections/epidemiology , Community-Acquired Infections/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/therapy , Diagnosis, Differential , Humans , Pneumonia, Bacterial/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Bacterial/etiology , Pneumonia, Bacterial/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Virus Diseases/epidemiology , Virus Diseases/therapy
19.
J Pers Med ; 10(4)2020 Oct 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-908350

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic represents an unprecedented global challenge in this century. COVID-19 is a viral respiratory infection, yet the clinical characteristics of this infection differ in spinal cord injury patients from those observed in the general population. Cough and asthenia are the most frequent symptoms in this population. Moreover, infected spinal cord injury patients rarely present complications that require admission to an Intensive Care Unit, in contrast to the general population. Thus, there is a clear need to understand how COVID-19 affects spinal cord injury patients from a molecular perspective. Here, we employed an -omics strategy in order to identify variations in protein abundance in spinal cord injury patients with and without COVID-19. After a quantitative differential analysis using isobaric tags and mass spectrometry and a verification phase, we have found differences mainly related to coagulation and platelet activation. Our results suggest a key role of heparin in the response of spinal cord injury patients to COVID-19 infection, showing a significant correlation between these proteins and heparin dose. Although the number of patients is limited, these data may shed light on new therapeutic options to improve the management these patients and, possibly, those of the general population as well.

20.
Br J Haematol ; 188(4): 560-569, 2020 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-829537

ABSTRACT

Viral respiratory infections (VRIs) contribute to the morbidity and transplant-related mortality (TRM) after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and strategies to prevent and treat VRIs are warranted. We monitored VRIs before and after transplant in children undergoing allogeneic HSCT with nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA) and assessed the impact on clinical outcome. Between 2007 and 2017, 585 children underwent 620 allogeneic HSCT procedures. Out of 75 patients with a positive NPA screen (12%), transplant was delayed in 25 cases (33%), while 53 children started conditioning with a VRI. Patients undergoing HSCT with a positive NPA screen had a significantly lower overall survival (54% vs. 79%) and increased TRM (26% vs. 7%) compared to patients with a negative NPA. Patients with a positive NPA who delayed transplant and cleared the virus before conditioning had improved overall survival (90%) and lower TRM (5%). Pre-HSCT positive NPA was the only significant risk factor for progression to a lower respiratory tract infection and was a major risk factor for TRM. Transplant delay, whenever feasible, in case of a positive NPA screen for VRIs can positively impact on survival of children undergoing HSCT.


Subject(s)
Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation , Respiratory Tract Infections/mortality , Transplantation Conditioning , Virus Diseases/mortality , Adolescent , Child , Child, Preschool , Disease-Free Survival , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Retrospective Studies , Survival Rate , Time Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL