Global phylogenomic diversity of Brucella abortus: spread of a dominant lineage

Brucella abortus is a globally important zoonotic pathogen largely found in cattle hosts and is typically transmitted to humans through contaminated dairy products or contact with diseased animals. Despite the long, shared history of cattle and humans, little is known about how trade in cattle has spread this pathogen throughout the world. Whole genome sequencing provides unparalleled resolution to investigate the global evolutionary history of a bacterium such as B. abortus by providing phylogenetic resolution that has been unobtainable using other methods. We report on large-scale genome sequencing and analysis of B. abortus collected globally from cattle and 16 other hosts from 52 countries. We used single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to identify genetic variation in 1,074 B. abortus genomes and using maximum parsimony generated a phylogeny that identified four major clades. Two of these clades, clade A (median date 972 CE; 95% HPD, 781–1142 CE) and clade B (median date 150 BCE; 95% HPD, 515 BCE–164 CE), were exceptionally diverse for this species and are exclusively of African origin where provenance is known. The third clade, clade C (median date 949 CE; 95% HPD, 766–1102 CE), had most isolates coming from a broad swath of the Middle East, Europe, and Asia, also had relatively high diversity. Finally, the fourth major clade, clade D (median date 1467 CE; 95% HPD, 1367–1553 CE) comprises the large majority of genomes in a dominant but relatively monomorphic group that predominantly infects cattle in Europe and the Americas. These data are consistent with an African origin for B. abortus and a subsequent spread to the Middle East, Europe, and Asia, probably through the movement of infected cattle. We hypothesize that European arrival to the Americas starting in the 15th century introduced B. abortus from Western Europe through the introduction of a few common cattle breeds infected with strains from clade D. These data provide the foundation of a comprehensive global phylogeny of this important zoonotic pathogen that should be an important resource in human and veterinary epidemiology

COVAD survey 2 long-term outcomes: unmet need and protocol

Vaccine hesitancy is considered a major barrier to achieving herd immunity against COVID-19. While multiple alternative and synergistic approaches including heterologous vaccination, booster doses, and antiviral drugs have been developed, equitable vaccine uptake remains the foremost strategy to manage pandemic. Although none of the currently approved vaccines are live-attenuated, several reports of disease flares, waning protection, and acute-onset syndromes have emerged as short-term adverse events after vaccination. Hence, scientific literature falls short when discussing potential long-term effects in vulnerable cohorts. The COVAD-2 survey follows on from the baseline COVAD-1 survey with the aim to collect patient-reported data on the long-term safety and tolerability of COVID-19 vaccines in immune modulation. The e-survey has been extensively pilot-tested and validated with translations into multiple languages. Anticipated results will help improve vaccination efforts and reduce the imminent risks of COVID-19 infection, especially in understudied vulnerable groups

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable