Safety and immunogenicity of the protein-based PHH-1V compared to BNT162b2 as a heterologous SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccine in adults vaccinated against COVID-19 : a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority phase IIb trial

A SARS-CoV-2 protein-based heterodimer vaccine, PHH-1V, has been shown to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy young adults in a first-in-human, Phase I/IIa study dose-escalation trial. Here, we report the interim results of the Phase IIb HH-2, where the immunogenicity and safety of a heterologous booster with PHH-1V is assessed versus a homologous booster with BNT162b2 at 14, 28 and 98 days after vaccine administration. The HH-2 study is an ongoing multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority Phase IIb trial, where participants 18 years or older who had received two doses of BNT162b2 were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive a booster dose of vaccine-either heterologous (PHH-1V group) or homologous (BNT162b2 group)-in 10 centres in Spain. Eligible subjects were allocated to treatment stratified by age group (18-64 versus ≥65 years) with approximately 10% of the sample enrolled in the older age group. The primary endpoints were humoral immunogenicity measured by changes in levels of neutralizing antibodies (PBNA) against the ancestral Wuhan-Hu-1 strain after the PHH-1V or the BNT162b2 boost, and the safety and tolerability of PHH-1V as a boost. The secondary endpoints were to compare changes in levels of neutralizing antibodies against different variants of SARS-CoV-2 and the T-cell responses towards the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein peptides. The exploratory endpoint was to assess the number of subjects with SARS-CoV-2 infections ≥14 days after PHH-1V booster. This study is ongoing and is registered with , . From 15 November 2021, 782 adults were randomly assigned to PHH-1V (n = 522) or BNT162b2 (n = 260) boost vaccine groups. The geometric mean titre (GMT) ratio of neutralizing antibodies on days 14, 28 and 98, shown as BNT162b2 active control versus PHH-1V, was, respectively, 1.68 (p < 0.0001), 1.31 (p = 0.0007) and 0.86 (p = 0.40) for the ancestral Wuhan-Hu-1 strain; 0.62 (p < 0.0001), 0.65 (p < 0.0001) and 0.56 (p = 0.003) for the Beta variant; 1.01 (p = 0.92), 0.88 (p = 0.11) and 0.52 (p = 0.0003) for the Delta variant; and 0.59 (p ≤ 0.0001), 0.66 (p < 0.0001) and 0.57 (p = 0.0028) for the Omicron BA.1 variant. Additionally, PHH-1V as a booster dose induced a significant increase of CD4 + and CD8 + T-cells expressing IFN-γ on day 14. There were 458 participants who experienced at least one adverse event (89.3%) in the PHH-1V and 238 (94.4%) in the BNT162b2 group. The most frequent adverse events were injection site pain (79.7% and 89.3%), fatigue (27.5% and 42.1%) and headache (31.2 and 40.1%) for the PHH-1V and the BNT162b2 groups, respectively. A total of 52 COVID-19 cases occurred from day 14 post-vaccination (10.14%) for the PHH-1V group and 30 (11.90%) for the BNT162b2 group (p = 0.45), and none of the subjects developed severe COVID-19. Our interim results from the Phase IIb HH-2 trial show that PHH-1V as a heterologous booster vaccine, when compared to BNT162b2, although it does not reach a non-inferior neutralizing antibody response against the Wuhan-Hu-1 strain at days 14 and 28 after vaccination, it does so at day 98. PHH-1V as a heterologous booster elicits a superior neutralizing antibody response against the previous circulating Beta and the currently circulating Omicron BA.1 SARS-CoV-2 variants in all time points assessed, and for the Delta variant on day 98 as well. Moreover, the PHH-1V boost also induces a strong and balanced T-cell response. Concerning the safety profile, subjects in the PHH-1V group report significantly fewer adverse events than those in the BNT162b2 group, most of mild intensity, and both vaccine groups present comparable COVID-19 breakthrough cases, none of them severe. HIPRA SCIENTIFIC, S.L.U

Impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular testing in the United States versus the rest of the world

Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-US institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital with and without respiratory symptoms

Background: COVID-19 is primarily known as a respiratory illness; however, many patients present to hospital without respiratory symptoms. The association between non-respiratory presentations of COVID-19 and outcomes remains unclear. We investigated risk factors and clinical outcomes in patients with no respiratory symptoms (NRS) and respiratory symptoms (RS) at hospital admission. Methods: This study describes clinical features, physiological parameters, and outcomes of hospitalised COVID-19 patients, stratified by the presence or absence of respiratory symptoms at hospital admission. RS patients had one or more of: cough, shortness of breath, sore throat, runny nose or wheezing; while NRS patients did not. Results: Of 178,640 patients in the study, 86.4&nbsp;% presented with RS, while 13.6&nbsp;% had NRS. NRS patients were older (median age: NRS: 74 vs RS: 65) and less likely to be admitted to the ICU (NRS: 36.7&nbsp;% vs RS: 37.5&nbsp;%). NRS patients had a higher crude in-hospital case-fatality ratio (NRS 41.1&nbsp;% vs. RS 32.0&nbsp;%), but a lower risk of death after adjusting for confounders (HR 0.88 [0.83-0.93]). Conclusion: Approximately one in seven COVID-19 patients presented at hospital admission without respiratory symptoms. These patients were older, had lower ICU admission rates, and had a lower risk of in-hospital mortality after adjusting for confounders

Reduction of cardiac imaging tests during the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of Italy. Findings from the IAEA Non-invasive Cardiology Protocol Survey on COVID-19 (INCAPS COVID)

Background: In early 2020, COVID-19 massively hit Italy, earlier and harder than any other European country. This caused a series of strict containment measures, aimed at blocking the spread of the pandemic. Healthcare delivery was also affected when resources were diverted towards care of COVID-19 patients, including intensive care wards. Aim of the study: The aim is assessing the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac imaging in Italy, compare to the Rest of Europe (RoE) and the World (RoW). Methods: A global survey was conducted in May–June 2020 worldwide, through a questionnaire distributed online. The survey covered three periods: March and April 2020, and March 2019. Data from 52 Italian centres, a subset of the 909 participating centres from 108 countries, were analyzed. Results: In Italy, volumes decreased by 67% in March 2020, compared to March 2019, as opposed to a significantly lower decrease (p &lt; 0.001) in RoE and RoW (41% and 40%, respectively). A further decrease from March 2020 to April 2020 summed up to 76% for the North, 77% for the Centre and 86% for the South. When compared to the RoE and RoW, this further decrease from March 2020 to April 2020 in Italy was significantly less (p = 0.005), most likely reflecting the earlier effects of the containment measures in Italy, taken earlier than anywhere else in the West. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic massively hit Italy and caused a disruption of healthcare services, including cardiac imaging studies. This raises concern about the medium- and long-term consequences for the high number of patients who were denied timely diagnoses and the subsequent lifesaving therapies and procedures

International Impact of COVID-19 on the Diagnosis of Heart Disease

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has adversely affected diagnosis and treatment of noncommunicable diseases. Its effects on delivery of diagnostic care for cardiovascular disease, which remains the leading cause of death worldwide, have not been quantified. Objectives: The study sought to assess COVID-19's impact on global cardiovascular diagnostic procedural volumes and safety practices. Methods: The International Atomic Energy Agency conducted a worldwide survey assessing alterations in cardiovascular procedure volumes and safety practices resulting from COVID-19. Noninvasive and invasive cardiac testing volumes were obtained from participating sites for March and April 2020 and compared with those from March 2019. Availability of personal protective equipment and pandemic-related testing practice changes were ascertained. Results: Surveys were submitted from 909 inpatient and outpatient centers performing cardiac diagnostic procedures, in 108 countries. Procedure volumes decreased 42% from March 2019 to March 2020, and 64% from March 2019 to April 2020. Transthoracic echocardiography decreased by 59%, transesophageal echocardiography 76%, and stress tests 78%, which varied between stress modalities. Coronary angiography (invasive or computed tomography) decreased 55% (p &lt; 0.001 for each procedure). In multivariable regression, significantly greater reduction in procedures occurred for centers in countries with lower gross domestic product. Location in a low-income and lower–middle-income country was associated with an additional 22% reduction in cardiac procedures and less availability of personal protective equipment and telehealth. Conclusions: COVID-19 was associated with a significant and abrupt reduction in cardiovascular diagnostic testing across the globe, especially affecting the world's economically challenged. Further study of cardiovascular outcomes and COVID-19–related changes in care delivery is warranted

Impact of COVID-19 on Diagnostic Cardiac Procedural Volume in Oceania: The IAEA Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocol Survey on COVID-19 (INCAPS COVID)

Objectives: The INCAPS COVID Oceania study aimed to assess the impact caused by the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiac procedure volume provided in the Oceania region. Methods: A retrospective survey was performed comparing procedure volumes within March 2019 (pre-COVID-19) with April 2020 (during first wave of COVID-19 pandemic). Sixty-three (63) health care facilities within Oceania that perform cardiac diagnostic procedures were surveyed, including a mixture of metropolitan and regional, hospital and outpatient, public and private sites, and 846 facilities outside of Oceania. The percentage change in procedure volume was measured between March 2019 and April 2020, compared by test type and by facility. Results: In Oceania, the total cardiac diagnostic procedure volume was reduced by 52.2% from March 2019 to April 2020, compared to a reduction of 75.9% seen in the rest of the world (p&lt;0.001). Within Oceania sites, this reduction varied significantly between procedure types, but not between types of health care facility. All procedure types (other than stress cardiac magnetic resonance [CMR] and positron emission tomography [PET]) saw significant reductions in volume over this time period (p&lt;0.001). In Oceania, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) decreased by 51.6%, transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) by 74.0%, and stress tests by 65% overall, which was more pronounced for stress electrocardiograph (ECG) (81.8%) and stress echocardiography (76.7%) compared to stress single-photon emission computerised tomography (SPECT) (44.3%). Invasive coronary angiography decreased by 36.7% in Oceania. Conclusion: A significant reduction in cardiac diagnostic procedure volume was seen across all facility types in Oceania and was likely a function of recommendations from cardiac societies and directives from government to minimise spread of COVID-19 amongst patients and staff. Longer term evaluation is important to assess for negative patient outcomes which may relate to deferral of usual models of care within cardiology

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

ISARIC-COVID-19 dataset: A Prospective, Standardized, Global Dataset of Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 dataset is one of the largest international databases of prospectively collected clinical data on people hospitalized with COVID-19. This dataset was compiled during the COVID-19 pandemic by a network of hospitals that collect data using the ISARIC-World Health Organization Clinical Characterization Protocol and data tools. The database includes data from more than 705,000 patients, collected in more than 60 countries and 1,500 centres worldwide. Patient data are available from acute hospital admissions with COVID-19 and outpatient follow-ups. The data include signs and symptoms, pre-existing comorbidities, vital signs, chronic and acute treatments, complications, dates of hospitalization and discharge, mortality, viral strains, vaccination status, and other data. Here, we present the dataset characteristics, explain its architecture and how to gain access, and provide tools to facilitate its use

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 &amp; 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