Risk for Reinfection After SARS-CoV-2: A Living, Rapid Review for American College of Physicians Practice Points on the Role of the Antibody Response in Conferring Immunity Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: The strength and duration of immunity from infection with SARS-CoV-2 are important for public health planning and clinical practice. PURPOSE: To synthesize evidence on protection against reinfection after SARS-CoV-2 infection. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), the World Health Organization global literature database, ClinicalTrials.gov, COVID19reviews.org, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Longitudinal studies that compared the risk for reinfection after SARS-CoV-2 infection versus infection risk in individuals with no prior infection. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators sequentially extracted study data and rated quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Across 18 eligible studies, reinfection risk ranged from 0% to 2.2%. In persons with recent SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with unvaccinated, previously uninfected individuals, 80% to 98% of symptomatic infections with wild-type or Alpha variants were prevented (high strength of evidence). In the meta-analysis, previous infection reduced risk for reinfection by 87% (95% CI, 84% to 90%), equaling 4.3 fewer infections per 100 persons in both the general population (risk difference, -0.043 [CI, -0.071 to -0.015]) and health care workers (risk difference, -0.043 [CI, -0.069 to -0.016]), and 26.6 fewer infections per 100 persons in care facilities (risk difference, -0.266 [CI, -0.449 to -0.083]). Protection remained above 80% for at least 7 months, but no study followed patients after the emergence of the Delta or Omicron variant. Results for the elderly were conflicting. LIMITATION: Methods to ascertain and diagnose infections varied. CONCLUSION: Before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, persons with recent infection had strong protection against symptomatic reinfections for 7 months compared with unvaccinated, previously uninfected individuals. Protection in immunocompromised persons, racial and ethnic subgroups, and asymptomatic index case patients is unclear. The durability of protection in the setting of the Delta and Omicron variants is unknown. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42020207098).

Antibody Response After SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Implications for Immunity : A Rapid Living Review.

BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of the antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection remains unclear. PURPOSE: To synthesize evidence on the prevalence, levels, and durability of detectable antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection and whether antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 confer natural immunity. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization global literature database, and Covid19reviews.org from 1 January through 15 December 2020, limited to peer-reviewed publications available in English. STUDY SELECTION: Primary studies characterizing the prevalence, levels, and duration of antibodies in adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR); reinfection incidence; and unintended consequences of antibody testing. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators sequentially extracted study data and rated quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Moderate-strength evidence suggests that most adults develop detectable levels of IgM and IgG antibodies after infection with SARS-CoV-2 and that IgG levels peak approximately 25 days after symptom onset and may remain detectable for at least 120 days. Moderate-strength evidence suggests that IgM levels peak at approximately 20 days and then decline. Low-strength evidence suggests that most adults generate neutralizing antibodies, which may persist for several months like IgG. Low-strength evidence also suggests that older age, greater disease severity, and presence of symptoms may be associated with higher antibody levels. Some adults do not develop antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection for reasons that are unclear. LIMITATIONS: Most studies were small and had methodological limitations; studies used immunoassays of variable accuracy. CONCLUSION: Most adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by RT-PCR develop antibodies. Levels of IgM peak early in the disease course and then decline, whereas IgG peaks later and may remain detectable for at least 120 days. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42020207098).

Retention Strategies for Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Adults: A Rapid Evidence Review.

OBJECTIVES: Although medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) save lives, treatment retention remains challenging. Identification of interventions to improve MOUD retention is of interest to policymakers and researchers. On behalf of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, we conducted a rapid evidence review on interventions to improve MOUD retention. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library from February 2009 through August 2019 for systematic reviews and randomized trials of care settings, services, logistical support, contingency management, health information technology (IT), extended-release (XR) formulations, and psychosocial interventions that assessed retention at least 3 months. RESULTS: Two systematic reviews and 39 primary studies were included; most did not focus on retention as the primary outcome. Initiating MOUD in soon-to-be-released incarcerated people improved retention following release. Contingency management may improve retention using antagonist but not agonist MOUD. Retention with interventions integrating medical, psychiatric, social services, or IT did not differ from in-person treatment-as-usual approaches. Retention was comparable with XR- compared to daily buprenorphine formulations and conflicting with XR-naltrexone monthly injection compared to daily buprenorphine. Most psychosocial interventions did not improve retention. DISCUSSION: Consistent but sparse evidence supports criminal justice prerelease MOUD initiation, and contingency management interventions for antagonist MOUD. Integrating MOUD with medical, psychiatric, social services, delivering through IT, or administering via XR-MOUD formulations did not worsen retention. Fewer than half of the studies we identified focused on retention as a primary outcome. Studies used different measures of retention, making it difficult to compare effectiveness. Additional inquiry into the causes of low retention would inform future interventions.Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42019134739.

His-bundle pacing versus biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients: A crossover design comparison.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) typically is attempted with biventricular pacing (BiVP). One-third of patients are nonresponders. His-bundle pacing (HBP) has been evaluated as an alternative means of effecting CRT because it generates truly physiologic ventricular activation, as evidenced in part by the morphologic identity between normally conducted and paced QRS complexes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of, and clinical response to, permanent HBP as an alternative to BiVP in CRT-indicated patients. METHODS: Patients were implanted with a right atrial pacing lead, defibrillation lead, left ventricular (LV) lead via the coronary sinus, and HBP lead. His and LV leads were plugged into the LV port via a Y-adapter. After successful implant, patients were randomized in single patient-blinded fashion to either HBP or BiVP. After 6 months, patients were crossed over to the other pacing modality and followed for another 6 months. Quality-of-life assessments, echocardiographic measurements, New York Heart Association classification, and 6-minute hall walk test were obtained at baseline and at each 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were enrolled; 21 (72%) demonstrated electrical resynchronization (QRS narrowing) at implant. Twelve patients completed the crossover analysis at 1 year. Clinical outcomes (quality of life, New York Heart Association functional class, 6-minute hall walk test, LV ejection fraction) were significantly improved for both pacing modes compared with baseline measures. CONCLUSION: In this crossover comparison between HBP and BiVP, HBP was found to effect an equivalent CRT response. QRS narrowing was observed in 21 of 29 patients, suggesting this approach may be feasible in more patients with left bundle branch block than previously assumed.