The Association Between Periodontal Disease and C-Reactive Protein In Patients With a History Of Heart Attack

The patient population consisted of a maximum of 18,570 subjects who completed the NHANES III questionnaire and examination from 1988 - 1994. The physical examination included such things as body mass index and serum samples, social and medical history. The periodontal examination recorded probing depth, attachment loss and gingival bleeding. Serum samples were analyzed for CRP levels, cholesterol levels etc. Demographic, cardiovascular and oral health variables were compared in subjects with a history of heart attack. Result showed that history of heart attack is associated with increased odds ratio for elevated CRP, diabetes, hypertension, cholesterol, male gender, non-white race and smoking. Of the periodontal indicators of disease, only gingival bleeding had an increased odds ratio for association with heart attack history. The unadjusted odds ratio was 1.25 with 95% CI[0.84-1.87]. The adjusted odds ratio increase to 1.93 with 95% CI [1.02-3.71]. These findings are consistent with previous research indicating that elevated CRP is associated with increased risk of heart attack. The interesting finding of this study is that only gingival bleeding, not probing depth or attachment loss, had an increased odds ratio for an associated with self-reported history of heart attack

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Liver injury in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An International observational cohort study

Background: Using a large dataset, we evaluated prevalence and severity of alterations in liver enzymes in COVID-19 and association with patient-centred outcomes.MethodsWe included hospitalized patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection from the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) database. Key exposure was baseline liver enzymes (AST, ALT, bilirubin). Patients were assigned Liver Injury Classification score based on 3 components of enzymes at admission: Normal; Stage I) Liver injury: any component between 1-3x upper limit of normal (ULN); Stage II) Severe liver injury: any component & GE;3x ULN. Outcomes were hospital mortality, utilization of selected resources, complications, and durations of hospital and ICU stay. Analyses used logistic regression with associations expressed as adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsOf 17,531 included patients, 46.2% (8099) and 8.2% (1430) of patients had stage 1 and 2 liver injury respectively. Compared to normal, stages 1 and 2 were associated with higher odds of mortality (OR 1.53 [1.37-1.71]; OR 2.50 [2.10-2.96]), ICU admission (OR 1.63 [1.48-1.79]; OR 1.90 [1.62-2.23]), and invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 1.43 [1.27-1.70]; OR 1.95 (1.55-2.45). Stages 1 and 2 were also associated with higher odds of developing sepsis (OR 1.38 [1.27-1.50]; OR 1.46 [1.25-1.70]), acute kidney injury (OR 1.13 [1.00-1.27]; OR 1.59 [1.32-1.91]), and acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR 1.38 [1.22-1.55]; OR 1.80 [1.49-2.17]).ConclusionsLiver enzyme abnormalities are common among COVID-19 patients and associated with worse outcomes

Implementation of Recommendations on the Use of Corticosteroids in Severe COVID-19

Importance: Research diversity and representativeness are paramount in building trust, generating valid biomedical knowledge, and possibly in implementing clinical guidelines. Objectives: To compare variations over time and across World Health Organization (WHO) geographic regions of corticosteroid use for treatment of severe COVID-19; secondary objectives were to evaluate the association between the timing of publication of the RECOVERY (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial (June 2020) and the WHO guidelines for corticosteroids (September 2020) and the temporal trends observed in corticosteroid use by region and to describe the geographic distribution of the recruitment in clinical trials that informed the WHO recommendation. Design, setting, and participants: This prospective cohort study of 434 851 patients was conducted between January 31, 2020, and September 2, 2022, in 63 countries worldwide. The data were collected under the auspices of the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC)-WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol for Severe Emerging Infections. Analyses were restricted to patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 (a subset of the ISARIC data set). Exposure: Corticosteroid use as reported to the ISARIC-WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol for Severe Emerging Infections. Main outcomes and measures: Number and percentage of patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 who received corticosteroids by time period and by WHO geographic region. Results: Among 434 851 patients with confirmed severe or critical COVID-19 for whom receipt of corticosteroids could be ascertained (median [IQR] age, 61.0 [48.0-74.0] years; 53.0% male), 174 307 (40.1%) received corticosteroids during the study period. Of the participants in clinical trials that informed the guideline, 91.6% were recruited from the United Kingdom. In all regions, corticosteroid use for severe COVID-19 increased, but this increase corresponded to the timing of the RECOVERY trial (time-interruption coefficient 1.0 [95% CI, 0.9-1.2]) and WHO guideline (time-interruption coefficient 1.9 [95% CI, 1.7-2.0]) publications only in Europe. At the end of the study period, corticosteroid use for treatment of severe COVID-19 was highest in the Americas (5421 of 6095 [88.9%]; 95% CI, 87.7-90.2) and lowest in Africa (31 588 of 185 191 [17.1%]; 95% CI, 16.8-17.3). Conclusions and relevance: The results of this cohort study showed that implementation of the guidelines for use of corticosteroids in the treatment of severe COVID-19 varied geographically. Uptake of corticosteroid treatment was lower in regions with limited clinical trial involvement. Improving research diversity and representativeness may facilitate timely knowledge uptake and guideline implementation

The value of open-source clinical science in pandemic response: lessons from ISARIC

International audienc