Design of the HEM-POWR study:A prospective, observational study of real-world treatment with damoctocog alfa pegol in patients with haemophilia A

INTRODUCTION: Haemophilia A is a rare bleeding disorder caused by defects in coagulation factor VIII (FVIII). Damoctocog alfa pegol (BAY 94–9027, Jivi, Bayer, Germany) is a site-specifically PEGylated, extended-half-life, recombinant FVIII, approved for use in previously treated patients (PTPs) aged ≥12 years with haemophilia A. However, a real-world evidence regarding routine clinical use of damoctocog alfa pegol is limited. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: HEM-POWR is a multinational, multicentre, non-interventional, prospective, postmarketing cohort study evaluating the effectiveness and safety of real-world treatment with damoctocog alfa pegol. Estimated enrolment is ≥200 PTPs with haemophilia A, receiving damoctocog alfa pegol (on-demand, prophylaxis or intermittent prophylaxis (as per local label)), observed for 36 months. Primary outcomes are total bleeding events and annualised bleeding rate; secondary outcomes include long-term safety, joint health, pharmacokinetics, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from validated questionnaires and perioperative haemostasis. Where applicable, reasons for switching to damoctocog alfa pegol, choice of treatment regimen and dose will also be captured. Exploratory and descriptive statistical analyses will be performed, and will be stratified by parameters including, but not limited to, prophylaxis regimen and haemophilia severity. Patients can record bleeds and consumption in electronic (e) Diaries, ePROs, and can access non-promotional study information (videos explaining study procedures) via an online patient portal. Optionally, patients can enrol in the LIFE-ACTIVE substudy designed to investigate the relationship between activity (measured by the ActiGraph CP Insight watch) and effectiveness parameters collected from HEM-POWR. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Study approval was obtained by local independent ethics committees and authorities in participating study centres across Europe, the Americas and Asia. Informed consent from patients or their legal representative is a requirement for participation. The study results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and presented at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03932201, EUPAS26416. PROTOCOL VERSION AND DATE: V.1.2, 27 September 2019

How to transform European housing into healthy and sustainable living spaces using a Belgian case study? – the RenovActive principles tackle climate and renovation challenges

The RenovActive renovation concept seeks to offer healthy, affordable, easy to reproduce, scalable solutions for the existing building stock of European housing. The concept was developed and tested in a prototype phase, where 7 principles have been applied to a semidetached house built in the 1920s, situated in a garden city in Brussels. The renovated prototype was occupied by a family and monitored for two years. The monitoring was performed, after renovation, both through data, sensors, and extensive interviews and questionnaires with the family. In general, the family living in the house is very satisfied with the indoor environment. The results show a general indoor CO2- concentration below 900 ppm, and an indoor temperature between 21°C and 26°C. The technical and sociological monitoring show indication for the additional potential to optimize and improve indoor comfort levels and perception. As an example, there are discrepancies between setpoints and programming we initiated, based on standards and scientific inputs, based on predicted behaviors. But user interactions, and preferences in real life situation when occupying the house, as well as situational perceptions and culture, modified user setpoints compared to our initial setpoints, that in some settings could have a negative impact on the indoor environment. This indicates that a technical system operating the indoor environment must be both flexible and robust to accommodate for multiple and varying preferences of building inhabitants.publishedVersio

Impact of respirator versus surgical masks on SARS-CoV-2 acquisition in healthcare workers: a prospective multicentre cohort.

BACKGROUND There is insufficient evidence regarding the role of respirators in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We analysed the impact of filtering facepiece class 2 (FFP2) versus surgical masks on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 acquisition among Swiss healthcare workers (HCW). METHODS Our prospective multicentre cohort enrolled HCW from June to August 2020. Participants were asked about COVID-19 risk exposures/behaviours, including preferentially worn mask type when caring for COVID-19 patients outside of aerosol-generating procedures. The impact of FFP2 on (1) self-reported SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal PCR/rapid antigen tests captured during weekly surveys, and (2) SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion between baseline and January/February 2021 was assessed. RESULTS We enrolled 3259 participants from nine healthcare institutions, whereof 716 (22%) preferentially used FFP2. Among these, 81/716 (11%) reported a SARS-CoV-2-positive swab, compared to 352/2543 (14%) surgical mask users; seroconversion was documented in 85/656 (13%) FFP2 and 426/2255 (19%) surgical mask users. Adjusted for baseline characteristics, COVID-19 exposure, and risk behaviour, FFP2 use was non-significantly associated with decreased risk for SARS-CoV-2-positive swab (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.0) and seroconversion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.0); household exposure was the strongest risk factor (aHR 10.1, 95% CI 7.5-13.5; aOR 5.0, 95% CI 3.9-6.5). In subgroup analysis, FFP2 use was clearly protective among those with frequent (> 20 patients) COVID-19 exposure (aHR 0.7 for positive swab, 95% CI 0.5-0.8; aOR 0.6 for seroconversion, 95% CI 0.4-1.0). CONCLUSIONS Respirators compared to surgical masks may convey additional protection from SARS-CoV-2 for HCW with frequent exposure to COVID-19 patients

Post-acute sequelae after SARS-CoV-2 infection by viral variant and vaccination status: a multicenter cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND Disentangling the effects of SARS-CoV-2 variants and vaccination on the occurrence of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) is crucial to estimate and reduce the burden of PASC. METHODS We performed a cross-sectional analysis (May/June 2022) within a prospective multicenter healthcare worker (HCW) cohort in North-Eastern Switzerland. HCW were stratified by viral variant and vaccination status at time of their first positive SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab. HCW without positive swab and with negative serology served as controls. The sum of eighteen self-reported PASC symptoms was modeled with univariable and multivariable negative-binomial regression to analyse the association of mean symptom number with viral variant and vaccination status. RESULTS Among 2'912 participants (median age 44 years, 81.3% female), PASC symptoms were significantly more frequent after wild-type infection (estimated mean symptom number 1.12, p<0.001; median time since infection 18.3 months), after Alpha/Delta infection (0.67 symptoms, p<0.001; 6.5 months), and after Omicron BA.1 infections (0.52 symptoms, p=0.005; 3.1 months) compared to uninfected controls (0.39 symptoms). After Omicron BA.1 infection, the estimated mean symptom number was 0.36 for unvaccinated individuals, compared to 0.71 with 1-2 vaccinations (p=0.028) and 0.49 with ≥3 prior vaccinations (p=0.30). Adjusting for confounders, only wild-type (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.08-3.83) and Alpha/Delta infection (aRR 1.93, 95% CI 1.10-3.46) were significantly associated with the outcome. CONCLUSIONS Previous infection with pre-Omicron variants was the strongest risk factor for PASC symptoms among our HCW. Vaccination prior to Omicron BA.1 infection was not associated with a clear protective effect against PASC symptoms in this population

Impact of baseline SARS-CoV-2 antibody status on syndromic surveillance and the risk of subsequent COVID-19-a prospective multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND In a prospective healthcare worker (HCW) cohort, we assessed the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection according to baseline serostatus. METHODS Baseline serologies were performed among HCW from 23 Swiss healthcare institutions between June and September 2020, before the second COVID-19 wave. Participants answered weekly electronic questionnaires covering information about nasopharyngeal swabs (PCR/rapid antigen tests) and symptoms compatible with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Screening of symptomatic staff by nasopharyngeal swabs was routinely performed in participating facilities. We compared numbers of positive nasopharyngeal tests and occurrence of COVID-19 symptoms between HCW with and without anti-nucleocapsid antibodies. RESULTS A total of 4812 HCW participated, wherein 144 (3%) were seropositive at baseline. We analyzed 107,807 questionnaires with a median follow-up of 7.9 months. Median number of answered questionnaires was similar (24 vs. 23 per person, P = 0.83) between those with and without positive baseline serology. Among 2712 HCW with ≥ 1 SARS-CoV-2 test during follow-up, 3/67 (4.5%) seropositive individuals reported a positive result (one of whom asymptomatic), compared to 547/2645 (20.7%) seronegative participants, 12 of whom asymptomatic (risk ratio [RR] 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07 to 0.66). Seropositive HCWs less frequently reported impaired olfaction/taste (6/144, 4.2% vs. 588/4674, 12.6%, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15-0.73), chills (19/144, 13.2% vs. 1040/4674, 22.3%, RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90), and limb/muscle pain (28/144, 19.4% vs. 1335/4674, 28.6%, RR 0.68 95% CI 0.49-0.95). Impaired olfaction/taste and limb/muscle pain also discriminated best between positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 results. CONCLUSIONS Having SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies provides almost 80% protection against SARS-CoV-2 re-infection for a period of at least 8 months

Risk and symptoms of COVID-19 in health professionals according to baseline immune status and booster vaccination during the Delta and Omicron waves in Switzerland-A multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND Knowledge about protection conferred by previous Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and/or vaccination against emerging viral variants allows clinicians, epidemiologists, and health authorities to predict and reduce the future Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) burden. We investigated the risk and symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 (re)infection and vaccine breakthrough infection during the Delta and Omicron waves, depending on baseline immune status and subsequent vaccinations. METHODS AND FINDINGS In this prospective, multicentre cohort performed between August 2020 and March 2022, we recruited hospital employees from ten acute/nonacute healthcare networks in Eastern/Northern Switzerland. We determined immune status in September 2021 based on serology and previous SARS-CoV-2 infections/vaccinations: Group N (no immunity); Group V (twice vaccinated, uninfected); Group I (infected, unvaccinated); Group H (hybrid: infected and ≥1 vaccination). Date and symptoms of (re)infections and subsequent (booster) vaccinations were recorded until March 2022. We compared the time to positive SARS-CoV-2 swab and number of symptoms according to immune status, viral variant (i.e., Delta-dominant before December 27, 2021; Omicron-dominant on/after this date), and subsequent vaccinations, adjusting for exposure/behavior variables. Among 2,595 participants (median follow-up 171 days), we observed 764 (29%) (re)infections, thereof 591 during the Omicron period. Compared to group N, the hazard ratio (HR) for (re)infection was 0.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22 to 0.50, p < 0.001) for V, 0.25 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.57, p = 0.001) for I, and 0.04 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.10, p < 0.001) for H in the Delta period. HRs substantially increased during the Omicron period for all groups; in multivariable analyses, only belonging to group H was associated with protection (adjusted HR [aHR] 0.52, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.77, p = 0.001); booster vaccination was associated with reduction of breakthrough infection risk in groups V (aHR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.85, p = 0.001) and H (aHR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00, p = 0.048), largely observed in the early Omicron period. Group H (versus N, risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97, p = 0.021) and participants with booster vaccination (versus nonboosted, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.88, p < 0.001) reported less symptoms during infection. Important limitations are that SARS-CoV-2 swab results were self-reported and that results on viral variants were inferred from the predominating strain circulating in the community at that time, rather than sequencing. CONCLUSIONS Our data suggest that hybrid immunity and booster vaccination are associated with a reduced risk and reduced symptom number of SARS-CoV-2 infection during Delta- and Omicron-dominant periods. For previously noninfected individuals, booster vaccination might reduce the risk of symptomatic Omicron infection, although this benefit seems to wane over time

Clinical symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection during the Omicron period in relation to baseline immune status and booster vaccination-A prospective multicentre cohort of health professionals (SURPRISE study).

The effects of different types of pre-existing immunity on the frequency of clinical symptoms caused by the SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection were prospectively assessed in healthcare workers during the Omicron period. Among 518 participants, hybrid immunity was associated with symptom reduction for dizziness, muscle or limb pain and headache as compared to vaccination only. Moreover, the frequencies of dizziness, cough and muscle or limb pain were lower in participants who had received a booster vaccine dose. Thus, hybrid immunity appeared to be superior in preventing specific symptoms during breakthrough infection compared to vaccination alone. A booster vaccine dose conferred additional symptom reduction

Symptoms Compatible With Long Coronavirus Disease (COVID) in Healthcare Workers With and Without Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection-Results of a Prospective Multicenter Cohort.

BACKGROUND The burden of long-term symptoms (ie, long COVID) in patients after mild COVID-19 is debated. Within a cohort of healthcare workers (HCWs), frequency and risk factors for symptoms compatible with long COVID are assessed. METHODS Participants answered baseline (August/September 2020) and weekly questionnaires on SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) results and acute disease symptoms. In January 2021, SARS-CoV-2 serology was performed; in March, symptoms compatible with long COVID (including psychometric scores) were asked and compared between HCWs with positive NPS, seropositive HCWs without positive NPS (presumable asymptomatic/pauci-symptomatic infections), and negative controls. The effect of time since diagnosis and quantitative anti-spike protein antibodies (anti-S) was evaluated. Poisson regression was used to identify risk factors for symptom occurrence. RESULTS Of 3334 HCWs (median, 41 years; 80% female), 556 (17%) had a positive NPS and 228 (7%) were only seropositive. HCWs with positive NPS more frequently reported ≥1 symptom compared with controls (73% vs 52%, P 6 months ago; anti-S titers correlated with high symptom scores. Acute viral symptoms in weekly questionnaires best predicted long-COVID symptoms. Physical activity at baseline was negatively associated with neurocognitive impairment and fatigue scores. CONCLUSIONS Seropositive HCWs without positive NPS are only mildly affected by long COVID. Exhaustion/burnout is common, even in noninfected HCWs. Physical activity might be protective against neurocognitive impairment/fatigue symptoms after COVID-19