COVID-19 burden differed by city districts and ethnicities during the pre-vaccination era in Amsterdam, the Netherlands

BackgroundDuring the first wave of COVID-19 in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, a disproportional number of COVID-19 hospitalizations occurred in individuals with an ethnic minority background and in individuals living in city districts with a lower socioeconomic status (SES). In this study, we assessed whether these disparities continued throughout the second wave, when SARS-CoV-2 testing was available to anyone with symptoms but prior to the availability of COVID-19 vaccination.MethodsSurveillance data on all notified SARS-CoV-2 cases in Amsterdam between 15 June 2020 and 20 January 2021 were matched to municipal registration data to obtain the migration background of cases. Crude and directly age- and sex-standardized rates (DSR) of confirmed cases, hospitalizations, and deaths per 100,000 population were calculated overall, and by city districts, and migration backgrounds. Rate differences (RD) and rate ratios (RR) were calculated to compare DSR between city districts and migration backgrounds. We used multivariable Poisson regression to assess the association of city districts, migration backgrounds, age, and sex with rates of hospitalization.ResultsA total of 53,584 SARS-CoV-2 cases (median age 35 years [IQR = 25–74]) were notified, of whom 1,113 (2.1%) were hospitalized and 297 (0.6%) deceased. DSR of notified infections, hospitalization, and deaths per 100,000 population were higher in lower SES peripheral city districts (South-East/North/New-West) than higher SES central districts (Central/West/South/East), with almost a 2-fold higher hospitalization DSR in peripheral compared to central districts (RR = 1.86, 95%CI = 1.74–1.97). Individuals with a non-European migration background also had a higher COVID-19 burden, particularly with respect to hospitalization rates, with a 4.5-fold higher DSR for individuals with a non-European background compared to ethnic-Dutch (RR 4.51, 95%CI = 4.37–4.65). City districts, migration backgrounds, male gender, and older age were independently associated with COVID-19 hospitalization rates.DiscussionIndividuals with a non-European background and individuals living in city districts with lower SES continued to independently have the highest COVID-19 burden in the second wave of COVID-19 in Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Clinical Pathway for Coronary Atherosclerosis in Patients Without Conventional Modifiable Risk Factors JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Reducing the incidence and prevalence of standard modifiable cardiovascular risk factors (SMuRFs) is critical to tackling the global burden of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, a substantial number of individuals develop coronary atherosclerosis despite no SMuRFs. SMuRFless patients presenting with myocardial infarction have been observed to have an unexpected higher early mortality compared to their counterparts with at least 1 SMuRF. Evidence for optimal management of these patients is lacking. We assembled an international, multidisciplinary team to develop an evidence-based clinical pathway for SMuRFless CAD patients. A modified Delphi method was applied. The resulting pathway confirms underlying atherosclerosis and true SMuRFless status, ensures evidence-based secondary prevention, and considers additional tests and interventions for less typical contributors. This dedicated pathway for a previously overlooked CAD population, with an accompanying registry, aims to improve outcomes through enhanced adherence to evidence-based secondary prevention and additional diagnosis of modifiable risk factors observed

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on infection and utilization of fecal microbiota transplantation

Previous research has demonstrated that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) gains cell entry through the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor, which is abundantly found throughout the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, resulting in a wide array of GI manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). By gaining entry into the intestinal epithelial and stromal cells, SARS-CoV-2 has been observed to cause intestinal inflammation and gut dysbiosis. Alterations in gut microbiota are known to be involved in the pathophysiology of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). During the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, rates of CDI were similar to historical data despite the increased use of antibiotics. This may be due to increased emphasis on hygiene and protective equipment and reduced C. difficile testing as diarrhea was presumed to be COVID-19 related. Studies also demonstrated additional risk factors for CDI in COVID-19 patients, including length of hospitalization and new abdominal pain during admission. Although not associated with increased mortality, CDI was associated with increased length of hospital stay among patients admitted with COVID-19. Due to fecal viral shedding and concern of oral–fecal transmission of SARS-CoV-2, increased safety regulations were introduced to fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) leading to reduced rates of this procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. FMT for recurrent CDI during the COVID-19 pandemic remained highly effective without any reports of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. In addition, limited data show that FMT may be effective in treating COVID-19 and restoring healthy gut microbiota. The goal of this article is to review the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on hospital-acquired CDI and the utilization of FMT

Toll-Like Receptors (TLRs) Expression in Contracted Capsules Compared to Uncontracted Capsules

Introduction: The etiology of capsular contracture after surgical implantation of breast implants remains unclear, but an important role is seen for the immune system. Toll-like receptors are immune receptors recognizing both pathogen-associated molecular patterns and damage-associated molecular patterns. The former are present on bacteria such as Staphylococcus epidermidis (bacteria earlier associated with capsular contracture), and the latter are released after (mechanical) stress. The aim of this study was to investigate the expression of TLRs 1–10 in relation to capsular contracture. Materials and Methods: Fifty consecutive breast capsules were collected during implant removal or replacement. The extent of capsular contracture was scored according to the Baker score. A sample specimen (0.5 cm3) was obtained from all tissues. cDNA was synthesized from isolated mRNA from the collected specimens. PCR analyses were conducted to test for cDNA presence and to quantify concentration. TLR1–10 expression was measured for each of the Baker scores separately and compared to all Baker scores. Results: Expression of all TLRs in all Baker scores was seen. TLR2 and TLR6 were more often present in contracted samples (Baker 3 or 4) compared to uncontracted samples (Baker 1 or 2) [Baker 2 vs. 3 (p = 0.034) and Baker 2 vs. 3 (p = 0.003), respectively]. None of the TLRs displayed a significantly higher expression in contracted capsules compared to uncontracted capsules. Conclusion: This study shows that TLR2 and TLR6 are more often expressed in contracted capsules compared to non-contracted capsules however not in higher concentrations. Level of Evidence III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266