[The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, December 2022]

Background: The large number of patients worldwide infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus has overwhelmed health-care systems globally. The Anti-Coronavirus Therapies (ACT) outpatient trial aimed to evaluate anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin for prevention of disease progression in community patients with COVID-19.

Methods: The ACT outpatient, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial, was done at 48 clinical sites in 11 countries. Patients in the community aged 30 years and older with symptomatic, laboratory confirmed COVID-19 who were within 7 days of diagnosis and at high risk of disease progression were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive colchicine 0·6 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0·6 mg once daily for 25 days versus usual care, and in a second (1:1) randomisation to receive aspirin 100 mg once daily for 28 days versus usual care. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was assessed at 45 days in the intention-to-treat population; for the colchicine randomisation it was hospitalisation or death, and for the aspirin randomisation it was major thrombosis, hospitalisation, or death. The ACT outpatient trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324463 and is ongoing.

Findings: Between Aug 27, 2020, and Feb 10, 2022, 3917 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine or control and to aspirin or control; after excluding 36 patients due to administrative reasons 3881 individuals were included in the analysis (n=1939 colchicine vs n=1942 control; n=1945 aspirin vs 1936 control). Follow-up was more than 99% complete. Overall event rates were 5 (0·1%) of 3881 for major thrombosis, 123 (3·2%) of 3881 for hospitalisation, and 23 (0·6%) of 3881 for death; 66 (3·4%) of 1939 patients allocated to colchicine and 65 (3·3%) of 1942 patients allocated to control experienced hospitalisation or death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·72–1·43, p=0·93); and 59 (3·0%) of 1945 of patients allocated to aspirin and 73 (3·8%) of 1936 patients allocated to control experienced major thrombosis, hospitalisation, or death (HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·57–1·13, p=0·21). Results for the primary outcome were consistent in all prespecified subgroups, including according to baseline vaccination status, timing of randomisation in relation to onset of symptoms (post-hoc analysis), and timing of enrolment according to the phase of the pandemic (post-hoc analysis). There were more serious adverse events with colchicine than with control (34 patients [1·8%] of 1939 vs 27 [1·4%] of 1942) but none in either group that led to discontinuation of study interventions. There was no increase in serious adverse events with aspirin versus control (31 [1·6%] vs 31 [1·6%]) and none that led to discontinuation of study interventions.

Interpretation: The results provide no support for the use of colchicine or aspirin to prevent disease progression or death in outpatients with COVID-19.

[The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, December 2022]

Background: The large number of patients worldwide infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus has overwhelmed health-care systems globally. The Anti-Coronavirus Therapies (ACT) outpatient trial aimed to evaluate anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin for prevention of disease progression in community patients with COVID-19.

Methods: The ACT outpatient, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial, was done at 48 clinical sites in 11 countries. Patients in the community aged 30 years and older with symptomatic, laboratory confirmed COVID-19 who were within 7 days of diagnosis and at high risk of disease progression were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive colchicine 0·6 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0·6 mg once daily for 25 days versus usual care, and in a second (1:1) randomisation to receive aspirin 100 mg once daily for 28 days versus usual care. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was assessed at 45 days in the intention-to-treat population; for the colchicine randomisation it was hospitalisation or death, and for the aspirin randomisation it was major thrombosis, hospitalisation, or death. The ACT outpatient trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324463 and is ongoing.

Findings: Between Aug 27, 2020, and Feb 10, 2022, 3917 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine or control and to aspirin or control; after excluding 36 patients due to administrative reasons 3881 individuals were included in the analysis (n=1939 colchicine vs n=1942 control; n=1945 aspirin vs 1936 control). Follow-up was more than 99% complete. Overall event rates were 5 (0·1%) of 3881 for major thrombosis, 123 (3·2%) of 3881 for hospitalisation, and 23 (0·6%) of 3881 for death; 66 (3·4%) of 1939 patients allocated to colchicine and 65 (3·3%) of 1942 patients allocated to control experienced hospitalisation or death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·72–1·43, p=0·93); and 59 (3·0%) of 1945 of patients allocated to aspirin and 73 (3·8%) of 1936 patients allocated to control experienced major thrombosis, hospitalisation, or death (HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·57–1·13, p=0·21). Results for the primary outcome were consistent in all prespecified subgroups, including according to baseline vaccination status, timing of randomisation in relation to onset of symptoms (post-hoc analysis), and timing of enrolment according to the phase of the pandemic (post-hoc analysis). There were more serious adverse events with colchicine than with control (34 patients [1·8%] of 1939 vs 27 [1·4%] of 1942) but none in either group that led to discontinuation of study interventions. There was no increase in serious adverse events with aspirin versus control (31 [1·6%] vs 31 [1·6%]) and none that led to discontinuation of study interventions.

Interpretation: The results provide no support for the use of colchicine or aspirin to prevent disease progression or death in outpatients with COVID-19.

[PLoS ONE, 9 September 2022]

Importance: The measurement of laboratory biomarkers plays a critical role in managing patients with COVID-19. However, to date most systematic reviews examining the association between laboratory biomarkers and mortality in hospitalized patients early in the pandemic focused on small sets of biomarkers, did not account for multiple studies including patients within the same institutions during overlapping timeframes, and did not include a significant number of studies conducted in countries other than China.

Objective: To provide a comprehensive summary and an evidence map examining the relationship between a wide range of laboratory biomarkers and mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the early phase of the pandemic in multiple countries.

Evidence review: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched from Dec 2019 to March 9, 2021. A total of 14,049 studies were identified and screened independently by two raters; data was extracted by a single rater and verified by a second. Quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Case Series Critical Appraisal tool. To allow comparison across biomarkers, standardized mean differences (SMD) were used to quantify the relationship between laboratory biomarkers and hospital mortality. Meta-regression was conducted to account for clustering within institutions and countries.

Results: Our systematic review included 94 case-series studies from 30 countries. Across all biomarkers, the largest and most precise SMDs were observed for cardiac (troponin (1.03 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.21)), and BNP/NT-proBNP (0.93 (0.52 to 1.34)), inflammatory (IL-6 (0.97 (0.67 to 1.28) and Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (0.94 (0.59 to 1.29)), and renal biomarkers (blood urea nitrogen (1.01 (0.79 to 1.23)) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (-0.96 (-1.42 to -0.50)). There was heterogeneity for most biomarkers across countries with studies conducted in China generally having larger effect sizes.

Conclusions and relevance: The results of this study provide an early pandemic summary of the relationship between biomarkers and mortality in hospitalized patients. We found our estimated ESs were generally attenuated compared to previous systematic reviews which predominantly included studies conducted in China. Despite using sophisticated methodology to examine studies across countries, heterogeneity in reporting of case-series studies early in the pandemic limits clinical interpretability.

[BMJ Open, 2 November 2023]

Introduction: There are limited data on the longitudinal impact of Lyme disease. Predictors of recovery have not been fully established using validated data collection instruments. There are sparse data on the immunological response to infection over time.

Methods and analysis: This study is a longitudinal cohort study that will recruit 120 participants with Lyme disease in Ontario and Nova Scotia, Canada, with follow-up for up to 24 months. Data will be collected using the Short-Form 36 physical and mental component summaries, Depression and Anxiety Severity Scale Questionnaire, Fatigue Severity Scale and a battery of neuropsychological tests. Mononuclear cells, gene expression and cytokine profiling from blood samples will be used to assess immunological response. Analyses will include the use of non-linear mixed-effects modelling and proportional hazards models.

Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval has been obtained from ethics boards at McMaster University (Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board) (7564), Queens University (EMD 315-20) and Nova Scotia Health Research Ethics Board (1027173), and the study is enrolling participants. Written informed consent is obtained from all participants. The results will be disseminated by publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference. A brief report will be provided to decision-makers and patient groups.

[Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 8 August 2023]

Background and Objective: To identify COVID-19 actionable statements (e.g., recommendations) focused on specific disadvantaged populations in the living map of COVID-19 recommendations (eCOVIDRecMap) and describe how health equity was assessed in the development of the formal recommendations.

Methods: We employed the place of residence, race or ethnicity or culture, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socio-economic status, and social capital-Plus framework to identify statements focused on specific disadvantaged populations. We assessed health equity considerations in the evidence to decision frameworks (EtD) of formal recommendations for certainty of evidence and impact on health equity criteria according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria.

Results: We identified 16% (124/758) formal recommendations and 24% (186/819) good practice statements (GPS) that were focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Formal recommendations (40%, 50/124) and GPS (25%, 47/186) most frequently focused on children. Seventy-six percent (94/124) of the recommendations were accompanied with EtDs. Over half (55%, 52/94) of those considered indirectness of the evidence for disadvantaged populations. Considerations in impact on health equity criterion most frequently involved implementation of the recommendation for disadvantaged populations (17%, 16/94).

Conclusion: Equity issues were rarely explicitly considered in the development COVID-19 formal recommendations focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Guidance is needed to support the consideration of health equity in guideline development during health emergencies.

[Thorax, 9 July 2023]

Introduction: Airway disease exacerbations are cyclical related to respiratory virus prevalence. The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with reduced exacerbations possibly related to public health measures and their impact on non-COVID-19 respiratory viruses. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of non-COVID-19 respiratory viruses during the pandemic compared with prior in Ontario, Canada and healthcare utilisation related to asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and respiratory tract infection.

Methods: This is a population-based retrospective analysis of respiratory virus tests, emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalisations between 2015 and 2021 in Ontario. Weekly virus testing data were used to estimate viral prevalence for all non-COVID-19 respiratory viruses. We plotted the %positivity and observed and expected counts of each virus to visualise the impact of the pandemic. We used Poisson and binomial logistic regression models to estimate the change in %positivity, count of positive viral cases and count of healthcare utilisation during the pandemic.

Results: The prevalence of all non-COVID-19 respiratory viruses decreased dramatically during the pandemic compared with prior. Comparing periods, the incidence rate ratio (IRR) for positive cases corresponded to a >90% reduction for non-COVID-19 respiratory viruses except adenovirus and rhino/enterovirus. Asthma-related ED visits and hospital admissions fell by 57% (IRR 0.43 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.48)) and 61% (IRR 0.39 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.46)). COPD-related ED visits and admissions fell by 63% (IRR 0.37 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.45)) and 45% (IRR 0.55 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.62)). Respiratory tract infection ED visits and admissions fell by 85% (IRR 0.15 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.22)), and 85% (IRR 0.15 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.24)). Rather than the usual peaks in disease condition, during the pandemic, healthcare utilisation peaked in October when rhino/enterovirus peaked.

Conclusions: The prevalence of nearly all non-COVID-19 respiratory viruses decreased during the pandemic and was associated with marked reductions in ED visits and hospitalisations. The re-emergence of rhino/enterovirus was associated with increased healthcare utilisation.

[Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases, August 2023]

Purpose of review: This review summarizes the epidemiological evidence for respiratory personal protective equipment for SARA-CoV-2, a topic of considerable controversy.

Recent findings : The main findings are that the observational studies and non-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) randomized trials do not provide clear evidence that the N95 respirators offer superior protection over surgical masks. A randomized controlled trial on COVID-19 provides evidence that the absolute risk to healthcare workers over time using surgical masks is similar to N95 respirators.

Summary : The implications of the findings are that surgical masks and N95 respirators can be considered for respiratory protection in healthcare workers.

[Vaccine, 29 September 2023]

Background: Influenza vaccines prevent influenza-related morbidity and mortality; however, suboptimal vaccine effectiveness (VE) of non-adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (naTIV) or quadrivalent formulations in older adults prompted the use of enhanced products such as adjuvanted TIV (aTIV). Here, the VE of aTIV is compared to naTIV for preventing influenza-associated hospitalization among older adults.

Methods: A test-negative design study was used with pooled data from the 2012 to 2015 influenza seasons. An inverse probability of treatment (IPT)-weighted logistic regression estimated the Odds Ratio (OR) for laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalization. VE was calculated as (1-OR)*100% with accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results: Of 7,101 adults aged ≥ 65, 3,364 received naTIV and 526 received aTIV. The overall VE against influenza hospitalization was 45.9% (95% CI: 40.2%–51.1%) for naTIV and 53.5% (42.8%–62.3%) for aTIV. No statistically significant differences in VE were found between aTIV and naTIV by age group or influenza season, though a trend favoring aTIV over naTIV was noted. Frailty may have impacted VE in aTIV recipients compared to those receiving naTIV, according to an exploratory analysis; VE adjusted by frailty was 59.1% (49.6%–66.8%) for aTIV and 44.8% (39.1%–50.0%) for naTIV. The overall relative VE of aTIV to naTIV against laboratory-confirmed influenza hospital admission was 25% (OR 0.75; 0.61–0.92), demonstrating statistically significant benefit favoring aTIV.

Conclusions: Adjusting for frailty, aTIV showed statistically significantly better protection than naTIV against influenza-associated hospitalizations in older adults. In future studies, it is important to consider frailty as a significant confounder of VE.

[ERJ Open Research, 25 September 2023]

Background Residents in long-term care homes, who tend to be of advanced age and frail, are at increased risk of respiratory infections. The respiratory microbiota is known to change with age, but whether these changes contribute to the risk of infection is not known. Our goal was to determine how the nasal microbiota of frail older adults changes during symptoms of influenza-like illness (ILI) and how this may be impacted by enrolment in a placebo-controlled trial testing the feasibility of administering a Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG probiotic to prevent respiratory infection (2014–2017).

Methods The microbiome of the nasal (mid-turbinate) of 150 residents of long-term care homes was interrogated using 16S rRNA gene sequencing.

Results We identified a diverse and individualised microbiota which could be separated into nine distinct clusters based on Bray–Curtis distances. Samples collected during symptoms of ILI differed statistically from those collected pre- and post-cold and influenza season, and we observed decreased temporal stability (as measured by movement between clusters) in individuals who experienced ILI compared to those who did not.

Conclusions The use of probiotics decreased ILI-induced changes to the microbiota; however, it is not clear whether this decrease is sufficient to prevent respiratory illness.

[Clinical Infectious Diseases, 15 December 2023]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a major impact on all facets of life, including outcomes that were very significant to the health of the general public but also deleterious to the economy, culture, politics, social cohesion, food security, travel, human rights, education, and access to accurate information (1,2). The response to the COVID-19 pandemic was hampered by tensions between the dichotomous perspectives of public health and the acceptance (or lack thereof) of social measures intended to curb transmission, such as lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates, and curfews. Among other unintended consequences, these measures exposed considerable conflict, in part fed by a variety of opinions that emerged from the lack of clear scientific evidence.

It is widely accepted that randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) provide the least biased evidence when testing interventions (3). Randomization provides balanced groups of participants with respect to known and unknown bias, whereas observational studies are prone to confounding and cannot address unknown confounders. RCTs of pharmaceutical interventions including antivirals and vaccines were designed, funded, and deployed at an unprecedented pace during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the same expediency was not seen for RCTs for nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). For reasons that are not well understood, RCTs failed to be designed and implemented for some of the most disruptive policies applied to address COVID-19, a situation that has been described as a “pandemic tragedy” (4,5). Some have suggested that RCTs in a pandemic are too difficult or impossible to conduct and that mechanistic or observational evidence is sufficient (6). Unfortunately, pursuing this type of evidence, to the exclusion of knowledge derived from RCTs, will not provide the best information that is essential to guide public health decisions during a pandemic.

[Epidemiology, 12 January 2024]

There are limited data on individual risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection (including unrecognized infection). In this seroepidemiologic substudy of an ongoing prospective cohort study of community-dwelling adults, participants were thoroughly characterized pre-pandemic. The SARS-CoV-2 infection was ascertained by serology. Among 8,719 participants from 11 high-, middle-, and low-income countries, 3,009 (35%) were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2. Characteristics independently associated with seropositivity were younger age (odds ratio, OR; 95% confidence interval, CI, per five-year increase: 0.95; 0.91–0.98) and body mass index >25 kg/m2 (OR, 95% CI: 1.16, 1.01–1.34). Smoking (as compared with never smoking, OR, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.70–0.97) and COVID-19 vaccination (OR, 95% CI: 0.70, 0.60–0.82) were associated with a reduced risk of seropositivity. Among seropositive participants, 83% were unaware of having been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Seropositivity and a lack of awareness of infection were more common in lower-income countries. The COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (including recognized and unrecognized infections). Overweight or obesity is an independent risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Infection and lack of infection awareness are more common in lower-income countries.

[Vaccine, 24 October 2024]

Background: The demand for COVID-19 vaccines has diminished as the pandemic lingers. Understanding vaccine hesitancy among essential workers is important in reducing the impact of future pandemics by providing effective immunization programs delivered expeditiously.

Method: Two surveys exploring COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in 2021 and 2022 were conducted in cohorts of health care providers (HCP) and education workers participating in prospective studies of COVID-19 illnesses and vaccine uptake. Demographic factors and opinions about vaccines (monovalent and bivalent) and public health measures were collected in these self-reported surveys. Modified multivariable Poisson regression was used to determine factors associated with hesitancy.

Results: In 2021, 3 % of 2061 HCP and 6 % of 3417 education workers reported hesitancy (p < 0.001). In December 2022, 21 % of 868 HCP and 24 % of 1457 education workers reported being hesitant to receive a bivalent vaccine (p = 0.09). Hesitance to be vaccinated with the monovalent vaccines was associated with earlier date of survey completion, later receipt of first COVID-19 vaccine dose, no influenza vaccination, and less worry about becoming ill with COVID-19. Factors associated with hesitance to be vaccinated with a bivalent vaccine that were common to both cohorts were receipt of two or fewer previous COVID-19 doses and lower certainty that the vaccines were safe and effective.

Conclusion: Education workers were somewhat more likely than HCP to report being hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccines but reasons for hesitancy were similar. Hesitancy was associated with non-receipt of previous vaccines (i.e., previous behaviour), less concern about being infected with SARS-CoV-2, and concerns about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines for both cohorts. Maintaining inter-pandemic trust in vaccines, ensuring rapid data generation during pandemics regarding vaccine safety and effectiveness, and effective and transparent communication about these data are all needed to support pandemic vaccination programs.

[The Lancet Microbe, November 2024]

The WHO research agenda for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in human health has identified 40 research priorities to be addressed by the year 2030. These priorities focus on bacterial and fungal pathogens of crucial importance in addressing AMR, including drug-resistant pathogens causing tuberculosis. These research priorities encompass the entire people-centred journey, covering prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of antimicrobial-resistant infections, in addition to addressing the overarching knowledge gaps in AMR epidemiology, burden and drivers, policies and regulations, and awareness and education. The research priorities were identified through a multistage process, starting with a comprehensive scoping review of knowledge gaps, with expert inputs gathered through a survey and open call. The priority setting involved a rigorous modified Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative approach, ensuring global representation and applicability of the findings. The ultimate goal of this research agenda is to encourage research and investment in the generation of evidence to better understand AMR dynamics and facilitate policy translation for reducing the burden and consequences of AMR.