Application of Phylodynamic Tools to Inform the Public Health Response to COVID-19: Qualitative Analysis of Expert Opinions

Background: In the wake of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, scientists have scrambled to collect and analyze SARS-CoV-2 genomic data to inform public health responses to COVID-19 in real time. Open source phylogenetic and data visualization platforms for monitoring SARS-CoV-2 genomic epidemiology have rapidly gained popularity for their ability to illuminate spatial-temporal transmission patterns worldwide. However, the utility of such tools to inform public health decision-making for COVID-19 in real time remains to be explored. Objective: The aim of this study is to convene experts in public health, infectious diseases, virology, and bioinformatics—many of whom were actively engaged in the COVID-19 response—to discuss and report on the application of phylodynamic tools to inform pandemic responses. Methods: In total, 4 focus groups (FGs) occurred between June 2020 and June 2021, covering both the pre- and postvariant strain emergence and vaccination eras of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Participants included national and international academic and government researchers, clinicians, public health practitioners, and other stakeholders recruited through purposive and convenience sampling by the study team. Open-ended questions were developed to prompt discussion. FGs I and II concentrated on phylodynamics for the public health practitioner, while FGs III and IV discussed the methodological nuances of phylodynamic inference. Two FGs per topic area to increase data saturation. An iterative, thematic qualitative framework was used for data analysis. Results: We invited 41 experts to the FGs, and 23 (56%) agreed to participate. Across all the FG sessions, 15 (65%) of the participants were female, 17 (74%) were White, and 5 (22%) were Black. Participants were described as molecular epidemiologists (MEs; n=9, 39%), clinician-researchers (n=3, 13%), infectious disease experts (IDs; n=4, 17%), and public health professionals at the local (PHs; n=4, 17%), state (n=2, 9%), and federal (n=1, 4%) levels. They represented multiple countries in Europe, the United States, and the Caribbean. Nine major themes arose from the discussions: (1) translational/implementation science, (2) precision public health, (3) fundamental unknowns, (4) proper scientific communication, (5) methods of epidemiological investigation, (6) sampling bias, (7) interoperability standards, (8) academic/public health partnerships, and (9) resources. Collectively, participants felt that successful uptake of phylodynamic tools to inform the public health response relies on the strength of academic and public health partnerships. They called for interoperability standards in sequence data sharing, urged careful reporting to prevent misinterpretations, imagined that public health responses could be tailored to specific variants, and cited resource issues that would need to be addressed by policy makers in future outbreaks. Conclusions: This study is the first to detail the viewpoints of public health practitioners and molecular epidemiology experts on the use of viral genomic data to inform the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The data gathered during this study provide important information from experts to help streamline the functionality and use of phylodynamic tools for pandemic responses

Vorapaxar in the secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Thrombin potently activates platelets through the protease-activated receptor PAR-1. Vorapaxar is a novel antiplatelet agent that selectively inhibits the cellular actions of thrombin through antagonism of PAR-1. METHODS: We randomly assigned 26,449 patients who had a history of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or peripheral arterial disease to receive vorapaxar (2.5 mg daily) or matching placebo and followed them for a median of 30 months. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. After 2 years, the data and safety monitoring board recommended discontinuation of the study treatment in patients with a history of stroke owing to the risk of intracranial hemorrhage. RESULTS: At 3 years, the primary end point had occurred in 1028 patients (9.3%) in the vorapaxar group and in 1176 patients (10.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for the vorapaxar group, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.94; P<0.001). Cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or recurrent ischemia leading to revascularization occurred in 1259 patients (11.2%) in the vorapaxar group and 1417 patients (12.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.95; P=0.001). Moderate or severe bleeding occurred in 4.2% of patients who received vorapaxar and 2.5% of those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.43 to 1.93; P<0.001). There was an increase in the rate of intracranial hemorrhage in the vorapaxar group (1.0%, vs. 0.5% in the placebo group; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Inhibition of PAR-1 with vorapaxar reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or ischemic events in patients with stable atherosclerosis who were receiving standard therapy. However, it increased the risk of moderate or severe bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRA 2P-TIMI 50 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00526474.)