CONSISE statement on the reporting of Seroepidemiologic Studies for influenza (ROSES-I statement): an extension of the STROBE statement

published_or_final_versio

Ten months of temporal variation in the clinical journey of hospitalised patients with COVID-19: an observational cohort

Background: There is potentially considerable variation in the nature and duration of the care provided to hospitalised patients during an infectious disease epidemic or pandemic. Improvements in care and clinician confidence may shorten the time spent as an inpatient, or the need for admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) or high density unit (HDU). On the other hand, limited resources at times of high demand may lead to rationing. Nevertheless, these variables may be used as static proxies for disease severity, as outcome measures for trials, and to inform planning and logistics. Methods: We investigate these time trends in an extremely large international cohort of 142,540 patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Investigated are: time from symptom onset to hospital admission, probability of ICU/HDU admission, time from hospital admission to ICU/HDU admission, hospital case fatality ratio (hCFR) and total length of hospital stay. Results: Time from onset to admission showed a rapid decline during the first months of the pandemic followed by peaks during August/September and December 2020. ICU/HDU admission was more frequent from June to August. The hCFR was lowest from June to August. Raw numbers for overall hospital stay showed little variation, but there is clear decline in time to discharge for ICU/HDU survivors. Conclusions: Our results establish that variables of these kinds have limitations when used as outcome measures in a rapidly-evolving situation. Funding: This work was supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z] and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Ten months of temporal variation in the clinical journey of hospitalised patients with COVID-19: an observational cohort

Background: There is potentially considerable variation in the nature and duration of the care provided to hospitalised patients during an infectious disease epidemic or pandemic. Improvements in care and clinician confidence may shorten the time spent as an inpatient, or the need for admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) or high density unit (HDU). On the other hand, limited resources at times of high demand may lead to rationing. Nevertheless, these variables may be used as static proxies for disease severity, as outcome measures for trials, and to inform planning and logistics. Methods: We investigate these time trends in an extremely large international cohort of 142,540 patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Investigated are: time from symptom onset to hospital admission, probability of ICU/HDU admission, time from hospital admission to ICU/HDU admission, hospital case fatality ratio (hCFR) and total length of hospital stay. Results: Time from onset to admission showed a rapid decline during the first months of the pandemic followed by peaks during August/September and December 2020. ICU/HDU admission was more frequent from June to August. The hCFR was lowest from June to August. Raw numbers for overall hospital stay showed little variation, but there is clear decline in time to discharge for ICU/HDU survivors. Conclusions: Our results establish that variables of these kinds have limitations when used as outcome measures in a rapidly-evolving situation. Funding: This work was supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z] and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Experimental treatment of Ebola virus disease with brincidofovir

Background The nucleotide analogue brincidofovir was developed to prevent and treat infections caused by double-stranded DNA viruses. Based on in vitro data suggesting an antiviral effect against Ebola virus, brincidofovir was included in the World Health Organisation list of agents that should be prioritised for clinical evaluation in patients with Ebola virus disease (EVD) during the West African epidemic. Methods and Findings In this single-arm phase 2 trial conducted in Liberia, patients with laboratory-confirmed EVD (two months of age or older, enrolment bodyweight ≥50 kg) received oral brincidofovir 200 mg as a loading dose on day 0, followed by 100 mg brincidofovir on days 3, 7, 10, and 14. Bodyweight-adjusted dosing was used for patients weighing <50 kg at enrolment. The primary outcome was survival at Day 14 after the first dose of brincidofovir. Four patients were enrolled between 01 January 2015 and 31 January 2015. The trial was stopped following the decision by the manufacturer to terminate their program of development of brincidofovir for EVD. No Serious Adverse Reactions or Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reactions were identified. All enrolled subjects died of an illness consistent with EVD. Conclusions Due to the small sample size it was not possible to determine the efficacy of brincidofovir for the treatment of EVD. The premature termination of the trial highlights the need to establish better practices for preclinical in-vitro and animal screening of therapeutics for potentially emerging epidemic infectious diseases prior to their use in patients

Antibody landscapes after influenza virus infection or vaccination.

We introduce the antibody landscape, a method for the quantitative analysis of antibody-mediated immunity to antigenically variable pathogens, achieved by accounting for antigenic variation among pathogen strains. We generated antibody landscapes to study immune profiles covering 43 years of influenza A/H3N2 virus evolution for 69 individuals monitored for infection over 6 years and for 225 individuals pre- and postvaccination. Upon infection and vaccination, titers increased broadly, including previously encountered viruses far beyond the extent of cross-reactivity observed after a primary infection. We explored implications for vaccination and found that the use of an antigenically advanced virus had the dual benefit of inducing antibodies against both advanced and previous antigenic clusters. These results indicate that preemptive vaccine updates may improve influenza vaccine efficacy in previously exposed individuals.This is the author’s version of the work. It will be under embargo for 6 months following publication. It is posted here by permission of the AAAS for personal use, not for redistribution. The final version is available from AAAS in Science at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6212/996.long

Dissemination and implementation of an educational tool for veterans on complementary and alternative medicine: a case study

Background Predicting when and where pathogens will emerge is difficult, yet, as shown by the recent Ebola and Zika epidemics, effective and timely responses are key. It is therefore crucial to transition from reactive to proactive responses for these pathogens. To better identify priorities for outbreak mitigation and prevention, we developed a cohesive framework combining disparate methods and data sources, and assessed subnational pandemic potential for four viral haemorrhagic fevers in Africa, Crimean–Congo haemorrhagic fever, Ebola virus disease, Lassa fever, and Marburg virus disease. Methods In this multistage analysis, we quantified three stages underlying the potential of widespread viral haemorrhagic fever epidemics. Environmental suitability maps were used to define stage 1, index-case potential, which assesses populations at risk of infection due to spillover from zoonotic hosts or vectors, identifying where index cases could present. Stage 2, outbreak potential, iterates upon an existing framework, the Index for Risk Management, to measure potential for secondary spread in people within specific communities. For stage 3, epidemic potential, we combined local and international scale connectivity assessments with stage 2 to evaluate possible spread of local outbreaks nationally, regionally, and internationally. Findings We found epidemic potential to vary within Africa, with regions where viral haemorrhagic fever outbreaks have previously occurred (eg, western Africa) and areas currently considered non-endemic (eg, Cameroon and Ethiopia) both ranking highly. Tracking transitions between stages showed how an index case can escalate into a widespread epidemic in the absence of intervention (eg, Nigeria and Guinea). Our analysis showed Chad, Somalia, and South Sudan to be highly susceptible to any outbreak at subnational levels. Interpretation Our analysis provides a unified assessment of potential epidemic trajectories, with the aim of allowing national and international agencies to pre-emptively evaluate needs and target resources. Within each country, our framework identifies at-risk subnational locations in which to improve surveillance, diagnostic capabilities, and health systems in parallel with the design of policies for optimal responses at each stage. In conjunction with pandemic preparedness activities, assessments such as ours can identify regions where needs and provisions do not align, and thus should be targeted for future strengthening and support

Prospective validation of the 4C prognostic models for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol

Purpose: To prospectively validate two risk scores to predict mortality (4C Mortality) and in-hospital deterioration (4C Deterioration) among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. // Methods: Prospective observational cohort study of adults (age ≥18 years) with confirmed or highly suspected COVID-19 recruited into the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study in 306 hospitals across England, Scotland and Wales. Patients were recruited between 27 August 2020 and 17 February 2021, with at least 4 weeks follow-up before final data extraction. The main outcome measures were discrimination and calibration of models for in-hospital deterioration (defined as any requirement of ventilatory support or critical care, or death) and mortality, incorporating predefined subgroups. // Results: 76 588 participants were included, of whom 27 352 (37.4%) deteriorated and 12 581 (17.4%) died. Both the 4C Mortality (0.78 (0.77 to 0.78)) and 4C Deterioration scores (pooled C-statistic 0.76 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.77)) demonstrated consistent discrimination across all nine National Health Service regions, with similar performance metrics to the original validation cohorts. Calibration remained stable (4C Mortality: pooled slope 1.09, pooled calibration-in-the-large 0.12; 4C Deterioration: 1.00, –0.04), with no need for temporal recalibration during the second UK pandemic wave of hospital admissions. // Conclusion: Both 4C risk stratification models demonstrate consistent performance to predict clinical deterioration and mortality in a large prospective second wave validation cohort of UK patients. Despite recent advances in the treatment and management of adults hospitalised with COVID-19, both scores can continue to inform clinical decision making

Development and validation of the ISARIC 4C Deterioration model for adults hospitalised with COVID-19: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Prognostic models to predict the risk of clinical deterioration in acute COVID-19 cases are urgently required to inform clinical management decisions. METHODS: We developed and validated a multivariable logistic regression model for in-hospital clinical deterioration (defined as any requirement of ventilatory support or critical care, or death) among consecutively hospitalised adults with highly suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who were prospectively recruited to the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C) study across 260 hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales. Candidate predictors that were specified a priori were considered for inclusion in the model on the basis of previous prognostic scores and emerging literature describing routinely measured biomarkers associated with COVID-19 prognosis. We used internal-external cross-validation to evaluate discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility across eight National Health Service (NHS) regions in the development cohort. We further validated the final model in held-out data from an additional NHS region (London). FINDINGS: 74 944 participants (recruited between Feb 6 and Aug 26, 2020) were included, of whom 31 924 (43·2%) of 73 948 with available outcomes met the composite clinical deterioration outcome. In internal-external cross-validation in the development cohort of 66 705 participants, the selected model (comprising 11 predictors routinely measured at the point of hospital admission) showed consistent discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility across all eight NHS regions. In held-out data from London (n=8239), the model showed a similarly consistent performance (C-statistic 0·77 [95% CI 0·76 to 0·78]; calibration-in-the-large 0·00 [-0·05 to 0·05]); calibration slope 0·96 [0·91 to 1·01]), and greater net benefit than any other reproducible prognostic model. INTERPRETATION: The 4C Deterioration model has strong potential for clinical utility and generalisability to predict clinical deterioration and inform decision making among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Department for International Development, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, EU Platform for European Preparedness Against (Re-)emerging Epidemics, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool, NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London

Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19:a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial

Summary Background No specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models. Methods We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2–10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir–ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656. Findings Between Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87–1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95–2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early. Interpretation In this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies

Evaluation of Convalescent Plasma for Ebola Virus Disease in Guinea

: In the wake of the recent outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in several African countries, the World Health Organization prioritized the evaluation of treatment with convalescent plasma derived from patients who have recovered from the disease. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma for the treatment of EVD in Guinea. : In this nonrandomized, comparative study, 99 patients of various ages (including pregnant women) with confirmed EVD received two consecutive transfusions of 200 to 250 ml of ABO-compatible convalescent plasma, with each unit of plasma obtained from a separate convalescent donor. The transfusions were initiated on the day of diagnosis or up to 2 days later. The level of neutralizing antibodies against Ebola virus in the plasma was unknown at the time of administration. The control group was 418 patients who had been treated at the same center during the previous 5 months. The primary outcome was the risk of death during the period from 3 to 16 days after diagnosis with adjustments for age and the baseline cycle-threshold value on polymerase-chain-reaction assay; patients who had died before day 3 were excluded. The clinically important difference was defined as an absolute reduction in mortality of 20 percentage points in the convalescent-plasma group as compared with the control group. : A total of 84 patients who were treated with plasma were included in the primary analysis. At baseline, the convalescent-plasma group had slightly higher cycle-threshold values and a shorter duration of symptoms than did the control group, along with a higher frequency of eye redness and difficulty in swallowing. From day 3 to day 16 after diagnosis, the risk of death was 31% in the convalescent-plasma group and 38% in the control group (risk difference, -7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -18 to 4). The difference was reduced after adjustment for age and cycle-threshold value (adjusted risk difference, -3 percentage points; 95% CI, -13 to 8). No serious adverse reactions associated with the use of convalescent plasma were observed. : The transfusion of up to 500 ml of convalescent plasma with unknown levels of neutralizing antibodies in 84 patients with confirmed EVD was not associated with a significant improvement in survival. (Funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02342171.).<br/