The Corona Immunitas Digital Follow-Up eCohort to Monitor Impacts of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic in Switzerland: Study Protocol and First Results

Objectives: To describe the rationale, organization, and procedures of the Corona Immunitas Digital Follow-Up (CI-DFU) eCohort and to characterize participants at baseline. Methods: Participants of Corona Immunitas, a population-based nationwide SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence study in Switzerland, were invited to join the CI-DFU eCohort in 11 study centres. Weekly online questonnaires cover health status changes, prevention measures adherence, and social impacts. Monthly questionnaires cover additional prevention adherence, contact tracing apps use, vaccination and vaccine hesitancy, and socio-economic changes. Results: We report data from the 5 centres that enrolled in the CI-DFU between June and October 2020 (covering Basel City/Land, Fribourg, Neuchâtel, Ticino, Zurich). As of February 2021, 4636 participants were enrolled and 85,693 weekly and 27,817 monthly questionnaires were collected. Design-based oversampling led to overrepresentation of individuals aged 65+ years. People with higher education and income were more likely to enroll and be retained. Conclusion: Broad enrolment and robust retention of participants enables scientifically sound monitoring of pandemic impacts, prevention, and vaccination progress. The CI-DFU eCohort demonstrates proof-of-principle for large-scale, federated eCohort study designs based on jointly agreed principles and transparent governance. Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; digital follow-up; eCohort; population-based study; prevention; public health surveillanc

Lipid-Lowering Trials Are Not Representative of Patients Managed in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Exclusion Criteria.

Background Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) might not be representative of the real-world population because of unreasonable exclusion criteria. We sought to determine which groups of patients are excluded from RCTs that included lipid-lowering therapy. Methods and Results We retrieved all trials from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists Collaboration and systematically searched for large (≥1000 participants) lipid-lowering therapy RCTs, defined as statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9 inhibitors. We predefined groups: older adults (>70 or >75 years), women, non-Whites, chronic kidney failure, heart failure, immunosuppression, cancer, dementia, treated thyroid disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, mental illness, atrial fibrillation, multimorbidity (≥2 chronic diseases), and polypharmacy. We counted the number of RCTs excluding patients of the predefined groups and meta-analyzed the prevalence of included patients to obtain pooled estimates with a random-effects model. We included 42 RCTs (298 605 patients). Eighty-one percent of trials excluded patients with severe and 76% those with moderate kidney failure. Seventy-one percent of trials excluded groups of women, 64% excluded patients with moderate to severe heart failure, 64% those with immunosuppressant conditions, 48% those with cancer, 29% those with dementia, and 29% of trials excluded older adults. The pooled prevalence for patients >70 years of age was 25% (95% CI, 0%-49%), 11% (3%-18%) for >75 years of age, and 51% (38%-63%) for multimorbidity. Conclusions The majority of lipid-lowering therapy trials excluded patients with common diseases, such as moderate-to-severe kidney disease or heart failure or with immunosuppression. Underrepresenting certain populations, including women and older adults, might lead to limited transportability of study results and uncertainty on possible side-effects and efficacy in these groups. Future trials should promote diversity in the recruitment strategies and improve equity in cardiovascular research. Registration URL: ClinicalTrials.gov; Unique Identifier: CRD42021253909

Is living in a household with children associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in adults? Results from the Swiss national seroprevalence study Corona Immunitas

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine whether living in a household with children is associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in adults and investigated interacting factors that may influence this association. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 serology testing was performed in randomly selected individuals from the general population between end of October 2020 and February 2021 in 11 cantons in Switzerland. Data on sociodemographic and household characteristics, employment status, and health-related history was collected using questionnaires. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association of living with children <18 years of age (number, age group) and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. Further, we assessed the influence of reported non-household contacts, employment status, and gender. RESULTS: Of 2393 working age participants (18-64 years), 413 (17.2%) were seropositive. Our results suggest that living with children and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity are likely to be associated (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.22, 95% confidence interval [0.98-1.52], adjusted OR 1.25 [0.99-1.58]). A pattern of a positive association was also found for subgroups of children aged 0-11 years (OR 1.21 [0.90-1.60]) and 12-17 years (OR 1.14 [0.78-1.64]). Odds of seropositivity were higher with more children (OR 1.14 per additional child [1.02-1.27]). Men had higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection when living with children than women (interaction: OR 1.74 [1.10-2.76]). CONCLUSIONS: In adults from the general population living with children seems associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. However, child-related infection risk is not the same for every subgroup and depends on factors like gender. Further factors determining child-related infection risk need to be identified and causal links investigated

Is living in a household with children associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in adults? Results from the Swiss national seroprevalence study Corona Immunitas.

BACKGROUND We aimed to determine whether living in a household with children is associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in adults and investigated interacting factors that may influence this association. METHODS SARS-CoV-2 serology testing was performed in randomly selected individuals from the general population between end of October 2020 and February 2021 in 11 cantons in Switzerland. Data on sociodemographic and household characteristics, employment status, and health-related history was collected using questionnaires. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association of living with children <18 years of age (number, age group) and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. Further, we assessed the influence of reported non-household contacts, employment status, and gender. RESULTS Of 2393 working age participants (18-64 years), 413 (17.2%) were seropositive. Our results suggest that living with children and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity are likely to be associated (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.22, 95% confidence interval [0.98-1.52], adjusted OR 1.25 [0.99-1.58]). A pattern of a positive association was also found for subgroups of children aged 0-11 years (OR 1.21 [0.90-1.60]) and 12-17 years (OR 1.14 [0.78-1.64]). Odds of seropositivity were higher with more children (OR 1.14 per additional child [1.02-1.27]). Men had higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection when living with children than women (interaction: OR 1.74 [1.10-2.76]). CONCLUSIONS In adults from the general population living with children seems associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. However, child-related infection risk is not the same for every subgroup and depends on factors like gender. Further factors determining child-related infection risk need to be identified and causal links investigated. TRIAL REGISTRATION https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN18181860

Changes in Healthcare Utilization During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Potential Causes—A Cohort Study From Switzerland

Objectives: To describe the frequency of and reasons for changes in healthcare utilization in those requiring ongoing treatment, and to assess characteristics associated with change, during the second wave of the pandemic.Methods: Corona Immunitas e-cohort study (age ≥20 years) participants completed monthly questionnaires. We compared participants reporting a change in healthcare utilization with those who did not using descriptive and bivariate statistics. We explored characteristics associated with the number of changes using negative binomial regression.Results: The study included 3,190 participants from nine research sites. One-fifth reported requiring regular treatment. Among these, 14% reported a change in healthcare utilization, defined as events in which participants reported that they changed their ongoing treatment, irrespective of the reason. Reasons for change were medication changes and side-effects, specifically for hypertension, or pulmonary embolism treatment. Females were more likely to report changes [Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) = 2.15, p = 0.002]. Those with hypertension were least likely to report changes [IRR = 0.35, p = 0.019].Conclusion: Few of those requiring regular treatment reported changes in healthcare utilization. Continuity of care for females and chronic diseases besides hypertension must be emphasized

Lipid-Lowering Therapy and Risk of Hemorrhagic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND There is debate over whether statins increase risk of hemorrhagic stroke, so we assessed current evidence, including data from new statin trials and trials of nonstatin low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C)- and triglyceride-lowering therapies. METHODS AND RESULTS We performed a systematic review of large randomized clinical trials (≥1000 patients with ≥2 years follow-up) of LDL-C-lowering therapy (statin, ezetimibe, and PCSK-9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor) and triglyceride-lowering therapy (omega-3 supplements and fibrate) that reported hemorrhagic stroke as an outcome. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to July 2, 2021 and updated a meta-analysis of cardiovascular statin trials published in 2012. Among our several subgroup analyses, we looked at difference depending on stroke status and also depending on age. We identified 37 trials for LDL-C lowering (284 301 participants) and 11 for triglyceride lowering (120 984 participants). Overall, we found a higher risk of hemorrhagic stroke for LDL-C lowering, risk ratio (RR) 1.16 (95% CI, 1.01-1.32, P=0.03). For statins (33 trials, 216 258 participants), RR=1.17 (95% CI, 1.01-1.36); for PCSK-9 inhibitors (2 trials, 46 488 participants), RR=0.86 (95% CI, 0.43-1.74); and for ezetimibe (2 trials, 21 555 participants), RR=1.14 (95% CI, 0.64-2.03). In statin trials of patients with previous stroke/transient ischemic attack, RR was 1.46 (95% CI, 1.05-2.04), and in trials with mean age ≥65 years old, RR=1.34 (95% CI, 1.04-1.73) (Pint=0.14 and Pint=0.23 respectively); for triglyceride lowering (11 trials, 120 984 participants), RR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.86-1.30). CONCLUSIONS We found evidence for a small increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke events with LDL-C-lowering therapies but no clear evidence for triglyceride-lowering therapies. REGISTRATION URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; Unique identifier: CRD42021275363

Is there a shift from cardiovascular to cancer death in lipid-lowering trials? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BackgroundLipid-lowering therapy (LLT) reduces cardiovascular (CV) events, but data are conflicting on all-cause mortality, especially among older adults. Though LLT does not induce cancer, some randomized clinical trials (RCTs) found a pattern of increased cancer death under LLT. Our objective was to assess a possible shift from CV to cancer death in LLT trials (i.e. an increase in cancer and decrease in CV death) and to investigate potential subgroups at risk.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We retrieved RCTs from MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central until 08/2023. We extracted the number of CV and cancer deaths in the treatment vs. in the control arm, calculated the relative risk (RR) by dividing the risk of death in the treatment over the risk of death in the control group and then pooled them using random-effect meta-analysis. We performed subgroup analyses on primary and secondary prevention, and according to different age cut-offs.ResultsWe included 27 trials with 188'259 participants (23 statin; 4 ezetimibe trials). The trials reported 4056 cancer deaths, 2061 under LLT and 1995 in control groups. Overall, there was no increased risk of cancer mortality (RR 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.97-1.10), with no difference between primary and secondary prevention. In the subgroup analyses for RCTs with ≥15% of participants aged ≥75 years, the RR of cancer death was 1.11 (1.00-1.23), while the RR for CV death was 0.96 (0.91-1.01). For RCTs with a mean age ≥ 70 years, the RR for cancer death was 1.21 (0.99-1.47).ConclusionLLT does not lead to a shift from CV to cancer death. However, there might be a possible shift with a pattern of increased cancer deaths in trials with more older adults, particularly ≥75 years. Individual participant data from LLT trials should be made public to allow further investigations.Prospero registrationCRD42021271658

S1 Dataset -

BackgroundLipid-lowering therapy (LLT) reduces cardiovascular (CV) events, but data are conflicting on all-cause mortality, especially among older adults. Though LLT does not induce cancer, some randomized clinical trials (RCTs) found a pattern of increased cancer death under LLT. Our objective was to assess a possible shift from CV to cancer death in LLT trials (i.e. an increase in cancer and decrease in CV death) and to investigate potential subgroups at risk.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We retrieved RCTs from MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central until 08/2023. We extracted the number of CV and cancer deaths in the treatment vs. in the control arm, calculated the relative risk (RR) by dividing the risk of death in the treatment over the risk of death in the control group and then pooled them using random-effect meta-analysis. We performed subgroup analyses on primary and secondary prevention, and according to different age cut-offs.ResultsWe included 27 trials with 188’259 participants (23 statin; 4 ezetimibe trials). The trials reported 4056 cancer deaths, 2061 under LLT and 1995 in control groups. Overall, there was no increased risk of cancer mortality (RR 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.97–1.10), with no difference between primary and secondary prevention. In the subgroup analyses for RCTs with ≥15% of participants aged ≥75 years, the RR of cancer death was 1.11 (1.00–1.23), while the RR for CV death was 0.96 (0.91–1.01). For RCTs with a mean age ≥ 70 years, the RR for cancer death was 1.21 (0.99–1.47).ConclusionLLT does not lead to a shift from CV to cancer death. However, there might be a possible shift with a pattern of increased cancer deaths in trials with more older adults, particularly ≥75 years. Individual participant data from LLT trials should be made public to allow further investigations.PROSPERO registrationCRD42021271658</div

Search strategy.

BackgroundLipid-lowering therapy (LLT) reduces cardiovascular (CV) events, but data are conflicting on all-cause mortality, especially among older adults. Though LLT does not induce cancer, some randomized clinical trials (RCTs) found a pattern of increased cancer death under LLT. Our objective was to assess a possible shift from CV to cancer death in LLT trials (i.e. an increase in cancer and decrease in CV death) and to investigate potential subgroups at risk.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We retrieved RCTs from MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central until 08/2023. We extracted the number of CV and cancer deaths in the treatment vs. in the control arm, calculated the relative risk (RR) by dividing the risk of death in the treatment over the risk of death in the control group and then pooled them using random-effect meta-analysis. We performed subgroup analyses on primary and secondary prevention, and according to different age cut-offs.ResultsWe included 27 trials with 188’259 participants (23 statin; 4 ezetimibe trials). The trials reported 4056 cancer deaths, 2061 under LLT and 1995 in control groups. Overall, there was no increased risk of cancer mortality (RR 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.97–1.10), with no difference between primary and secondary prevention. In the subgroup analyses for RCTs with ≥15% of participants aged ≥75 years, the RR of cancer death was 1.11 (1.00–1.23), while the RR for CV death was 0.96 (0.91–1.01). For RCTs with a mean age ≥ 70 years, the RR for cancer death was 1.21 (0.99–1.47).ConclusionLLT does not lead to a shift from CV to cancer death. However, there might be a possible shift with a pattern of increased cancer deaths in trials with more older adults, particularly ≥75 years. Individual participant data from LLT trials should be made public to allow further investigations.PROSPERO registrationCRD42021271658</div