Search

This paper estimates the dynamic effect of vaccination on mortality from COVID-19 using weekly data from 26 European Union countries during 2021. Our analysis relies on the double machine learning method to control for multiple confounders, including nonpharmaceutical interventions, climate variables, mobility factors, variants of concern, country- and week-specific shocks. In our baseline specification, we show that a 10 percentage point increase in cumulative doses per hundred inhabitants averts 5.08 COVID-19 deaths per million inhabitants at the eight-week horizon and 26.41 deaths in the eight-week time window considered. The average reduction in mortality in this window is close to 50%. Further estimates reveal that the effect of doses administered to adults aged 18–59 does not statistically differ from that of doses received by people aged 60 and over. Finally, vaccine-specific estimates document that mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) are more cost-effective in saving lives than Comirnaty (Pfizer), while we are unable to demonstrate any effect of Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background This study aimed to describe the mortality excess during the three first epidemic periods of COVID-19 in all regions of France. Methods Two complementary approaches were implemented. First, we described the number of death of patients infected with or diagnosed with COVID-19 in health care (HC) and medico-social (MS) institutions. Then, we estimated general all-cause mortality excess (all ages) by comparing the mortality observed with the expected mortality. We used a daily number of death model according to a negative binomial distribution, as a function of the long-term trend in mortality (penalized spline function of time) and its seasonal variation (cyclic spline function). The model provided expected mortality during epidemic periods with a 95% credibility interval. Each region defined three epidemic periods, including the overseas territories. Results The two approaches were consistent in the most affected regions but there are major regional disparities that vary according to the epidemic period. There is an east–west gradient in the relative excess of deaths from all-causes during each epidemic period. The deaths observed in HC and MS institutions alone do not explain the excess (or deficit) of mortality in each region and epidemic period. Conclusion An analysis by age group according to the two approaches and a comparison of death specific causes could provide a better understanding of these differences. Electronic death registration system (mortality by medical causes) would allow a rapid mortality related estimation to an emerging pathology like Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) but is still insufficient for real-time medical causes of death monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author comments on a research paper on the prevalence, incidence and mortality of delirium in the COVID-19 disease, which references a study by S. C. Shao et al., published in a 2021 issue of "Age Ageing". Topics discussed include the characteristics of delirium, the challenges facing health professionals in managing delirium in patients with COVID-19, findings on its prevalence on admission and during hospitalization, and the study's implications for care for patients with delirium.

Mortality of candidemia in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients has not been deeply studied despite evidence suggesting an increased occurrence. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the available evidence about these patients' mortality and length of stay. Data about the in-hospital, all-cause and 30-day mortality, and length of stay were pooled. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess sources of heterogeneity. Twenty-six articles out of the 1915 records retrieved during the search were included in this review. The pooled in-hospital mortality was 62.62% (95% CI, 54.77% to 69.86%), while the mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) was 66.77% (95% CI, 57.70% to 74.75%). The pooled median in-hospital length of stay was 30.41 (95% CI, 12.28 to 48.55) days, while the pooled median length of stay in the ICU was 28.28 (95% CI, 20.84 to 35.73) days. The subgroup analyses did not identify the sources of heterogeneity in any of the analyses. Our results showed high mortality in patients with candidemia and COVID-19, suggesting the need to consider screening measures to prevent this life-threatening condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION Does exogenous estrogen use affect COVID-19-related mortality in women? SUMMARY ANSWER Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) was associated with a lower likelihood of all-cause fatality related to COVID-19 in postmenopausal women (odds ratio (OR) 0.28, 95% CI 0.18, 0.44; 4 studies, 21 517 women) but the combined oral contraceptive pill in premenopausal women did not have a significant effect (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.42–2.41; 2 studies, 5099 women). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Men are much more likely to die from COVID-19 than women. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION In this systematic meta-analysis, a literature search was conducted using the following search terms related toCOVID-19 and estrogen, sex hormones, hormonal replacement, menopause, or contraception. The PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched to identify relevant studies published between December 2019 and December 2021. We also searched MedRxiv as a preprint database and reviewed the reference lists of all included studies and clinical trial registries for ongoing clinical studies until December 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS All comparative studies that compared the rates mortality and morbidity (hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and ventilation support) due to COVID-19 in women using exogenous estrogen to a control group of women (nonusers) were included. A review of the studies for inclusion, extraction of data, and assessment of the risk of bias was performed independently by two reviewers. The ROBINS-I tool and the RoB 2 tool were used for bias assessment of the included studies. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were calculated using Review Manager V5.4.1. The I 2 statistic was used to quantify heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE After searching the databases, we identified a total of 5310 studies. After removing duplicate records, ineligible studies, and ongoing studies, a total of four cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial comprising 177 809 participants were included in this review. There was a moderate certainty of evidence that MHT was associated with a lower likelihood of all-cause fatality related to COVID-19 (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.18, 0.44; I 2 = 0%; 4 studies, 21 517 women). The review indicated a low certainty of evidence for other outcomes. The mortality rate of premenopausal women in the combined oral contraceptive pill group did not differ significantly from the control group (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.42–2.41; 2 studies, 5099 women). MHT marginally increased the rate of hospitalization and ICU admission (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.18–1.61; 3 studies, 151 485 women), but there was no significant difference in the need for respiratory support between MHT users and nonusers (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.52–1.59; 3 studies, 151 485 women). Overall, the tendency and magnitude of the effects of MHT in postmenopausal women with COVID-19 were consistent across the included studies. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The certainty of the evidence for other outcomes of this review may be limited, as all included studies were cohort studies. In addition, the dosages and durations of exogenous estrogen used by postmenopausal women varied from study to study, and combined progestogen administration may have had some effect on the outcomes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The findings of this study can aid in counseling postmenopausal women taking MHT when they are diagnosed with COVID, as they have a lower chance of death than those not taking MHT. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(s) Khon Kaen University provided financial support for this review and had no involvement at any stage of the study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. REGISTRATION NUMBER PROSPERO, CRD42021271882. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background To understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mortality, this study investigates overall, sex- and age-specific excess all-cause mortality in 20 countries, during 2020. Methods Total, sex- and age-specific weekly all-cause mortality for 2015–2020 was collected from national vital statistics databases. Excess mortality for 2020 was calculated by comparing weekly 2020 observed mortality against expected mortality, estimated from historical data (2015–2019) accounting for seasonality, long- and short-term trends. Crude and age-standardized rates were analysed for total and sex-specific mortality. Results Austria, Brazil, Cyprus, England and Wales, France, Georgia, Israel, Italy, Northern Ireland, Peru, Scotland, Slovenia, Sweden, and the USA displayed substantial excess age-standardized mortality of varying duration during 2020, while Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Mauritius, Norway, and Ukraine did not. In sex-specific analyses, excess mortality was higher in males than females, except for Slovenia (higher in females) and Cyprus (similar in both sexes). Lastly, for most countries substantial excess mortality was only detectable (Austria, Cyprus, Israel, and Slovenia) or was higher (Brazil, England and Wales, France, Georgia, Italy, Northern Ireland, Sweden, Peru and the USA) in the oldest age group investigated. Peru demonstrated substantial excess mortality even in the <45 age group. Conclusions This study highlights that excess all-cause mortality during 2020 is context dependent, with specific countries, sex- and age-groups being most affected. As the pandemic continues, tracking excess mortality is important to accurately estimate the true toll of COVID-19, while at the same time investigating the effects of changing contexts, different variants, testing, quarantine, and vaccination strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objective To investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on non-COVID-19 deaths in Mexico. Methods This study analyzes monthly administrative data on 15 different causes of death in Mexico from 2017 to 2020. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on non-COVID-19 deaths are conducted using a difference-in-differences methodology and an event study. Results The evidence shows mixed results. There is an increase in six causes of death: diabetes (36.8%), hypertension (25.8%), heart attacks (40.9%), bronchitis- asthma (24.2%), anemia (28.6%) and prostate cancer (21.4%). There is a decrease in two causes of death: traffic accidents (8.8%) and HIV (13.8%). There are null effects for seven causes of death: breast cancer, cerebrovascular disease, malnutrition, alcohol-related liver disease, renal insufficiency, homicides and suicides. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic affected non-COVID-19 deaths caused by diseases that require intensive healthcare services. Conversely, this pandemic reduced social interactions, which contributed to a decrease on deaths such as traffic accidents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Previous analyses on sex differences in case fatality rates at population-level data had limited adjustment for key patient clinical characteristics thought to be associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes. We aimed to estimate the risk of specific organ dysfunctions and mortality in women and men. Methods and results This retrospective cross-sectional study included 17 hospitals within 5 European countries participating in the International Survey of Acute Coronavirus Syndromes COVID-19 (NCT05188612). Participants were individuals hospitalized with positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from March 2020 to February 2022. Risk-adjusted ratios (RRs) of in-hospital mortality, acute respiratory failure (ARF), acute heart failure (AHF), and acute kidney injury (AKI) were calculated for women vs. men. Estimates were evaluated by inverse probability weighting and logistic regression models. The overall care cohort included 4499 patients with COVID-19-associated hospitalizations. Of these, 1524 (33.9%) were admitted to intensive care unit (ICU), and 1117 (24.8%) died during hospitalization. Compared with men, women were less likely to be admitted to ICU [RR: 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.71–0.91]. In general wards (GWs) and ICU cohorts, the adjusted women-to-men RRs for in-hospital mortality were of 1.13 (95% CI: 0.90–1.42) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.70–1.05; p interaction = 0.04). Development of AHF, AKI, and ARF was associated with increased mortality risk (odds ratios: 2.27, 95% CI: 1.73–2.98; 3.85, 95% CI: 3.21–4.63; and 3.95, 95% CI: 3.04–5.14, respectively). The adjusted RRs for AKI and ARF were comparable among women and men regardless of intensity of care. In contrast, female sex was associated with higher odds for AHF in GW, but not in ICU (RRs: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.94–1.67 vs. 0.83; 95% CI: 0.59–1.16, p interaction = 0.04). Conclusions Women in GW were at increased risk of AHF and in-hospital mortality for COVID-19 compared with men. For patients receiving ICU care, fatal complications including AHF and mortality appeared to be independent of sex. Equitable access to COVID-19 ICU care is needed to minimize the unfavourable outcome of women presenting with COVID-19-related complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Concerns have been raised that angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitors (ACE-I) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) might facilitate transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 leading to more severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) disease and an increased risk of mortality. We aimed to investigate the association between ACE-I/ARB treatment and risk of death amongst people with COVID-19 in the first 6 months of the pandemic. Methods We identified a cohort of adults diagnosed with either confirmed or probable COVID-19 (from 1 January to 21 June 2020) using computerized medical records from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) primary care database. This comprised 465 general practices in England, United Kingdom with a nationally representative population of 3.7 million people. We constructed mixed-effects logistic regression models to quantify the association between ACE-I/ARBs and all-cause mortality among people with COVID-19, adjusted for sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, concurrent medication, smoking status, practice clustering, and household number. Results There were 9,586 COVID-19 cases in the sample and 1,463 (15.3%) died during the study period between 1 January 2020 and 21 June 2020. In adjusted analysis ACE-I and ARBs were not associated with all-cause mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85–1.21 and OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67–1.07, respectively). Conclusion Use of ACE-I/ARB, which are commonly used drugs, did not alter the odds of all-cause mortality amongst people diagnosed with COVID-19. Our findings should inform patient and prescriber decisions concerning continued use of these medications during the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Social determinants of health (SDOH) have been associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes. We examined patterns in COVID-19–related mortality by SDOH and compared these patterns to those for non–COVID-19 mortality. Methods Residents of Ontario, Canada, aged ≥20 years were followed from 1 March 2020 to 2 March 2021. COVID-19–related death was defined as death within 30 days following or 7 days prior to a positive COVID-19 test. Area-level SDOH from the 2016 census included median household income; proportion with diploma or higher educational attainment; proportion essential workers, racially minoritized groups, recent immigrants, apartment buildings, and high-density housing; and average household size. We examined associations between SDOH and COVID-19–related mortality, and non-COVID-19 mortality using cause-specific hazard models. Results Of 11 810 255 individuals, we observed 3880 COVID-19–related deaths and 88 107 non–COVID-19 deaths. After accounting for demographics, baseline health, and other area-level SDOH, the following were associated with increased hazards of COVID-19–related death (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: lower income (1.30 [1.04–1.62]), lower educational attainment (1.27 [1.07–1.52]), higher proportions essential workers (1.28 [1.05–1.57]), racially minoritized groups (1.42 [1.08–1.87]), apartment buildings (1.25 [1.07–1.46]), and large vs medium household size (1.30 [1.12–1.50]). Areas with higher proportion racially minoritized groups were associated with a lower hazard of non–COVID-19 mortality (0.88 [0.84–0.92]). Conclusions Area-level SDOH are associated with COVID-19–related mortality after accounting for demographic and clinical factors. COVID-19 has reversed patterns of lower non–COVID-19 mortality among racially minoritized groups. Pandemic responses should include strategies to address disproportionate risks and inequitable coverage of preventive interventions associated with SDOH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Corona Virus Disease (COVID‐19) pandemic has increased mortality in countries worldwide. To evaluate the impact of the pandemic on mortality, the use of excess mortality rather than reported COVID‐19 deaths has been suggested. Excess mortality, however, requires estimation of mortality under nonpandemic conditions. Although many methods exist to forecast mortality, they are either complex to apply, require many sources of information, ignore serial correlation, and/or are influenced by historical excess mortality. We propose a linear mixed model that is easy to apply, requires only historical mortality data, allows for serial correlation, and down‐weighs the influence of historical excess mortality. Appropriateness of the linear mixed model is evaluated with fit statistics and forecasting accuracy measures for Belgium and the Netherlands. Unlike the commonly used 5‐year weekly average, the linear mixed model is forecasting the year‐specific mortality, and as a result improves the estimation of excess mortality for Belgium and the Netherlands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Lymphocyte ratios reflect inflammation and have been associated with adverse outcomes in a range of diseases. We sought to determine any association between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and mortality in a haemodialysis cohort, including a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection subpopulation. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed of adults commencing hospital haemodialysis in the West of Scotland during 2010–21. NLR and PLR were calculated from routine samples around haemodialysis initiation. Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to assess mortality associations. Results In 1720 haemodialysis patients over a median of 21.9 (interquartile range 9.1–42.9) months, there were 840 all-cause deaths. NLR but not PLR was associated with all-cause mortality after multivariable adjustment [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for in participants with baseline NLR in quartile 4 (NLR ≥8.23) versus quartile 1 (NLR <3.12) 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32–2.00]. The association was stronger for cardiovascular death (NLR quartile 4 versus 1 aHR 3.06, 95% CI 1.53–6.09) than for non-cardiovascular death (NLR quartile 4 versus 1 aHR 1.85, 95% CI 1.34–2.56). In the COVID-19 subpopulation, both NLR and PLR at haemodialysis initiation were associated with risk of COVID-19-related death after adjustment for age and sex (NLR: aHR 4.69, 95% CI 1.48–14.92 and PLR: aHR 3.40, 95% CI 1.02–11.36; for highest vs lowest quartiles). Conclusions NLR is strongly associated with mortality in haemodialysis patients while the association between PLR and adverse outcomes is weaker. NLR is an inexpensive, readily available biomarker with potential utility in risk stratification of haemodialysis patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objectives It is well documented that college student populations are vulnerable to food insecurity and other adverse environmental conditions. Additionally, exposure to environmental adversity can have deleterious, long-term effects on physical and mental health. This study applies evolutionary life history theory to examine the relationship between environmental adversity, mental distress and diet among resource insecure university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methodology Structured and semi-structured surveys were used to assess perceptions of environmental adversity (including mortality risk, food insecurity and resource availability; and changes in these factors over the course of COVID-19), mental distress, diet and use of campus support services. Participants included 51 college students recruited through an economic crisis center located at a large public university in southern California. Results Most students were experiencing mental distress and food insecurity, and food insecurity and other components of adversity increased during COVID-19. Food insecurity was significantly associated with both perceived extrinsic mortality risk and mental distress, whereas mental distress was significantly associated with reduced dietary quality and caloric intake. Use of two or more campus support resources and/or living with family or rent free disrupted the associations of food insecurity with extrinsic mortality risk and mental distress. Conclusion and Implication This study contributes to a growing body of applied evolutionary frameworks concerned with the health and wellbeing of economically vulnerable populations. It also provides novel insights informed by life history theory into interventions and recommendations for improving support services for financially insecure college students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background It is not known whether sotrovimab, a neutralizing monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment authorized for early symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, is also effective in preventing the progression of severe disease and mortality following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Delta variant infection. Methods In an observational cohort study of nonhospitalized adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1 October 2021–11 December 2021, using electronic health records from a statewide health system plus state-level vaccine and mortality data, we used propensity matching to select 3 patients not receiving mAbs for each patient who received outpatient sotrovimab treatment. The primary outcome was 28-day hospitalization; secondary outcomes included mortality and severity of hospitalization. Results Of 10 036 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 522 receiving sotrovimab were matched to 1563 not receiving mAbs. Compared to mAb-untreated patients, sotrovimab treatment was associated with a 63% decrease in the odds of all-cause hospitalization (raw rate 2.1% vs 5.7%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI],.19–.66) and an 89% decrease in the odds of all-cause 28-day mortality (raw rate 0% vs 1.0%; aOR, 0.11; 95% CI,.0–.79), and may reduce respiratory disease severity among those hospitalized. Conclusions Real-world evidence demonstrated sotrovimab effectiveness in reducing hospitalization and all-cause 28-day mortality among COVID-19 outpatients during the Delta variant phase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To establish the demographic characteristics, laboratory findings and clinical outcomes in patients with autoimmune disease (AD) compared with a propensity-matched cohort of patients without AD admitted with COVID-19 to hospitals in the UK. Methods This is a multicentre observational study across 26 NHS Trusts. Data were collected both retrospectively and prospectively using a predesigned standardized case record form. Adult patients (≥18 years) admitted between 1 April 2020 and 31 July 2020 were included. Results Overall, 6288 patients were included to the study. Of these, 394 patients had AD prior to admission with COVID-19. Of 394 patients, 80 patients with SLE, RA or aPL syndrome were classified as severe rheumatologic AD. A higher proportion of those with AD had anaemia [240 (60.91%) vs 206 (52.28%), P  = 0.015], elevated LDH [150 (38.08%) vs 43 (10.92%), P  < 0.001] and raised creatinine [122 (30.96%) vs 86 (21.83%), P  = 0.01], respectively. A significantly higher proportion of patients with severe rheumatologic AD had elevated CRP [77 (96.25%) vs 70 (87.5%), P  = 0.044] and LDH [20 (25%) vs 6 (7.5%), P  = 0.021]. Patients with severe rheumatologic AD had significantly higher mortality [32/80 (40%)] compared with propensity matched cohort of patients without AD [20/80 (25%), P  = 0.043]. However, there was no difference in 180-day mortality between propensity-matched cohorts of patients with or without AD in general (P  = 0.47). Conclusions Patients with severe rheumatologic AD had significantly higher mortality. Anaemia, renal impairment and elevated LDH were more frequent in patients with any AD while elevated CRP and LDH were more frequent in patients with severe rheumatologic AD both of which have been shown to associate with increased mortality in patients with COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Limited recent observational data have suggested that there may be a protective effect of oestrogen on the severity of COVID-19 disease. Our aim was to investigate the association between hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) use and the likelihood of death in women with COVID-19.Methods: We undertook a retrospective cohort study using routinely collected computerized medical records from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) primary care database. We identified a cohort of 1,863,478 women over 18 years of age from 465 general practices in England. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to quantify the association between HRT or COCP use and all-cause mortality among women diagnosed with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in unadjusted and adjusted models.Results: There were 5,451 COVID-19 cases within the cohort. HRT was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality in COVID-19 (adjusted OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.94). There were no reported events for all-cause mortality in women prescribed COCPs. This prevented further examination of the impact of COCP.Conclusions: We found that HRT prescription within 6 months of a recorded diagnosis of COVID-19 infection was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality. Further work is needed in larger cohorts to examine the association of COCP in COVID-19, and to further investigate the hypothesis that oestrogens may contribute a protective effect against COVID-19 severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic is of major scientific and political interest.Methods: We critically reviewed different estimates of all-cause excess mortality for the five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), which have been much studied during the COVID-19 pandemic, using the latest register data to discuss uncertainties and implications.Results: We show using back-calculation of expected deaths from Nordic all-cause deaths that the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model is a clear outlier in the compared estimates and likely substantially overestimates excess mortality of Finland and Denmark, and probably Sweden. Our review suggests a range of total Nordic excess deaths of perhaps 15 000-20 000, but results are sensitive to assumptions in the models as shown.Conclusions: We document substantial heterogeneity and uncertainty in estimates of excess mortality. All estimates should be taken with caution in their interpretation as they miss detailed account of demographics, such as changes in the age group populations over the study period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We compared the performance of prognostic tools for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using parameters fitted either at the time of hospital admission or across all time points of an admission. This cohort study used clinical data to model the dynamic change in prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 at a single hospital center in the United Kingdom, including all patients admitted from February 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020, and then followed up for 60 days for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, death, or discharge from the hospital. We incorporated clinical observations and blood tests into 2 time-varying Cox proportional hazards models predicting daily 24- to 48-hour risk of admission to the ICU for those eligible for escalation of care or death for those ineligible for escalation. In developing the model, 491 patients were eligible for ICU escalation and 769 were ineligible for escalation. Our model had good discrimination of daily risk of ICU admission in the validation cohort (n  = 1,141; C statistic: C  = 0.91, 95% confidence interval: 0.89, 0.94) and our score performed better than other scores (National Early Warning Score 2, International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Comprehensive Clinical Characterisation Collaboration score) calculated using only parameters measured on admission, but it overestimated the risk of escalation (calibration slope = 0.7). A bespoke daily SARS-CoV-2 escalation risk prediction score can predict the need for clinical escalation better than a generic early warning score or a single estimation of risk calculated at admission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Unlike other countries, South Korea did not implement a large-scale lockdown or closure of businesses to manage the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but relied on changes in population behaviours and early isolation and treatment of patients. It is important to evaluate the effectiveness of such alternative strategies on the mortality of the general population. Methods Mortality and monthly population data from 2013 to 2020 were obtained. A quasi-Poisson regression model adjusting for age structure, seasonality and time was used to evaluate whether underlying trends for monthly mortality rate have changed with the pandemic. Stratification analyses based on sex and location of deaths (inside vs outside of medical facilities) were conducted. Results The risk estimates showed no changes in non-accidental mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic [relative risk (RR) (95% confidence interval, 95% CI), slope change: 1.00 (1.00, 1.01), step change: 0.99 (0.97, 1.01)] compared with those before the pandemic. In cause-specific analysis, there was an abrupt and sustained decrease in the mortality rate of respiratory diseases [RR (95% CI), step change: 0.81 (0.77, 0.84)]. In the analysis of deaths by location, an increase in non-accidental mortality [RR (95% CI), slope change: 1.01 (1.01, 1.02), step change: 1.16 (1.11, 1.22)] and several cause-specific mortalities was observed outside of medical facilities. Conclusions The non-accidental mortality rate in South Korea for the first year of the pandemic followed the historical trends. However, there was a decrease in mortality associated with respiratory diseases, and an increase in mortality occurring outside of medical facilities. The findings may be attributed to changes in public behaviours, and availability of medical resources during the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective People with inflammatory arthritis have an increased incidence of serious illness and mortality, placing them at risk of poor outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study explored patients' perceptions of risk from COVID-19 over a longitudinal period of the pandemic. Methods Fifteen adults with inflammatory arthritis attending a National Health Service rheumatology service each took part in three semi-structured telephone interviews conducted between 16 September 2020 and 29 July 2021. Interpretive phenomenological analysis was undertaken by two researchers and two public contributors. Results Four main themes relating to perceptions of risk from COVID-19 were identified: inflammatory arthritis; medications and co-morbidities; immediate social environment; health policy communication; and media influence. Participants recognized that having inflammatory arthritis increased their individual risk. Perceptions of risk and associated fear increased during the pandemic, influenced by family/friends who had had COVID-19 and health policy communications. The perceived constant use of negative messages led to many participants disengaging with the media. At the final interviews, when the vaccination programme was well established, participants continued to assess the risk and benefits of engaging in activities. Conclusion This study demonstrates the breadth of factors that influenced perceptions of risk in people with an inflammatory arthritis. As health professionals, we have only a small sphere of influence over some of these factors, namely health-care communications. People with inflammatory arthritis appropriately knew that their condition increased their infection risk, but more could be done to consider how and to what extent we involve patients in explaining risk at times of crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND There is controversy over the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on the prognosis in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), therefore, we aim to further explore the effect of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors on COVID-19-associated disease severity and mortality. METHODS We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, medRxiv, and bioRxiv from inception to 6 September 2021. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome was severe disease which was defined as admission to the intensive care unit, the use of noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation, or death. RESULTS A total of 7 randomized controlled trials involving 1,321 COVID-19 patients were included. Fixed-effects meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of ACEI/ARB was not associated with higher risk of mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57–1.22, P = 0.10, I 2 = 43%) and disease severity (RR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.71–1.05, P = 0.11, I 2 = 47%). However, the subgroup analysis showed that compared with no ACEI/ARB use, the use of ARB was associated with a significant reduction of mortality (RR = 0.23, CI 0.09–0.60, P = 0.55, I 2 = 0%) and disease severity (RR = 0.38, CI 0.19–0.77, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, based on the available data, ACEI/ARB is not associated with the risk of mortality and disease severity in COVID-19 patients. And ACEI/ARB medications, especially ARB, should not be discontinued for patients with COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic causes an overwhelming number of hospitalization and deaths with a significant socioeconomic impact. The vast majority of studies indicate that asthma and allergic diseases do not represent a risk factor for COVID-19 susceptibility nor cause a more severe course of disease. This raises the opportunity to investigate the underlying mechanisms of the interaction between an allergic background and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The majority of patients with asthma, atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, food allergies and drug allergies exhibit an over-expression of type 2 immune and inflammatory pathways with the contribution of epithelial cells, innate lymphoid cells, dendritic cells, T cells, eosinophils, mast cells, basophils, and the type 2 cytokines interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, IL-9, IL-13, and IL-31. The potential impact of type 2 inflammation-related allergic diseases on susceptibility to COVID-19 and severity of its course have been reported. In this review, the prevalence of asthma and other common allergic diseases in COVID-19 patients is addressed. Moreover, the impact of allergic and non-allergic asthma with different severity and control status, currently available asthma treatments such as inhaled and oral corticosteroids, short- and long-acting β2 agonists, leukotriene receptor antagonists and biologicals on the outcome of COVID-19 patients is reviewed. In addition, possible protective mechanisms of asthma and type 2 inflammation on COVID-19 infection, such as the expression of SARS-CoV-2 entry receptors, antiviral activity of eosinophils and cross-reactive T-cell epitopes, are discussed. Potential interactions of other allergic diseases with COVID-19 are postulated, including recommendations for their management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Preliminary studies have suggested a link between socio-economic characteristics and COVID-19 mortality. Such studies have been carried out on particular geographies within the USA or selective data that do not represent the complete experience for 2020.Methods: We estimated COVID-19 mortality rates, number of years of life lost to SARS-CoV-2 and reduction in life expectancy during each of the three pandemic waves in 2020 for 3144 US counties grouped into five socio-economic status categories, using daily death data from the Johns Hopkins University of Medicine and weekly mortality age structure from the Centers for Disease Control.Results: During March-May 2020, COVID-19 mortality was highest in the most socio-economically advantaged quintile of counties and lowest in the two most-disadvantaged quintiles. The pattern reversed during June-August and widened by September-December, such that COVID-19 mortality rates were 2.58 times higher in the bottom than in the top quintile of counties. Differences in the number of years of life lost followed a similar pattern, ultimately resulting in 1.002 (1.000, 1.004) million years in the middle quintile to 1.381 (1.378, 1.384) million years of life lost in the first (most-disadvantaged) quintile during the whole year.Conclusions: Diverging trajectories of COVID-19 mortality among the poor and affluent counties indicated a progressively higher rate of loss of life among socio-economically disadvantaged communities. Accounting for socio-economic disparities when allocating resources to control the spread of the infection and to reinforce local public health infrastructure would reduce inequities in the mortality burden of the disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS) COVID-19 Working Group developed a control banding matrix to provide guidance for employers and others to help assess the risks of COVID-19 infection during the pandemic. The matrix was based on occupational hygiene principles and the judgement of the occupational health practitioners involved; since objective data on workers' exposure were unavailable. Users of the matrix identify one of five exposure categories based on generic job descriptions and example occupations, and these categories are linked to generic guidance on interventions at source, on the exposure pathway and for individual workers. The risk matrix was published on the BOHS website and the guidance has been downloaded more than 2000 times. The matrix has had limited evaluation for reliability, but the data suggest that the highest exposure ranked jobs were associated with higher age-standardized mortality in Britain during the pandemic. However, there was considerable variability in exposure assignments between assessors, which underlines the need for the control guidance to be precautionary. The BOHS calls on academic researchers to undertake further work to validate the reliability of the tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Mortality is a critical measure of disease impact. The European Union (EU) countries share the same regulatory framework but different implementation policies. Methods We extracted cumulative COVID-19 mortality data across the EU countries. We evaluated the 27 member states using the location quotient (LQ) to adjust for the expected mortality in the whole EU region, where an LQ <1 signifies a more and an LQ >1 a less favorable outcome. We categorized EU members into 3 distinct profiles based on their LQ estimates: favorable profile, LQ ≤0.9; unfavorable profile, LQ >1.10; and average profile, LQ between 0.9 and 1.10. We compared LQ estimates and profiles with the prevaccination era that ended in December 2020 with the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. Results Twelve member states had a favorable profile, 4 had an average profile, and 11 had an unfavorable profile. In quantitative analysis, an improvement (negative LQ difference) was noted across countries with higher vaccination coverage (median, 71% fully vaccinated vs 57% for countries with positive LQ differences). There was a significant negative association between the share of fully vaccinated and LQ changes (ρ = –0.62, P  < .001) and a significant 4-month lag effect. After COVID-19 vaccines became available, 4 countries improved their profile and 5 moved to a worse profile. Conclusions There is significant variability in mortality and impact of COVID-19 between countries, even if they share the same regulatory framework. Extending immunization coverage may lead the transition to a more favorable profile, and alter the trajectory of COVID-19 mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Years of Life Lost (YLLs) measure the shortfall in life expectancy due to a medical condition and have been used in multiple contexts. Previously it was estimated that there were 1.2 million YLLs associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) deaths in the USA through 11 July 2020. The aim of this study is to update YLL estimates for the first full year of the pandemic. Methods We employed data regarding COVID-19 deaths in the USA through 31 January 2021 by jurisdiction, gender and age group. We used actuarial life expectancy tables by gender and age to estimate YLLs. Results We estimated roughly 3.9 million YLLs due to COVID-19 deaths, which correspond to roughly 9.2 YLLs per death. We observed a large range across states in YLLs per 10 000 capita, with New York City at 298 and Vermont at 12. Nationally, the YLLs per 10 000 capita were greater for males than females (136.3 versus 102.3), but there was significant variation in the differences across states. Conclusions Our estimates provide further insight into the mortality effects of COVID-19. The observed differences across states and genders demonstrate the need for disaggregated analyses of the pandemic's effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this brief communication, we discuss the confusion of mortality with fatality in the interpretation of evidence in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and how this confusion affects the translation of science into policy and practice. We discuss how this confusion has influenced COVID-19 policy in France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom and discuss the implications for decision-making about COVID-19 vaccine distribution. We also discuss how this confusion is an example of a more general statistical fallacy we term the "Missing Link Fallacy." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to be a major global health burden. This study aims to estimate the all-cause excess mortality occurring in the COVID-19 outbreak in Japan, 2020, by sex and age group.Methods: Daily time series of mortality for the period January 2015-December 2020 in all 47 prefectures of Japan were obtained from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan. A two-stage interrupted time-series design was used to calculate excess mortality. In the first stage, we estimated excess mortality by prefecture using quasi-Poisson regression models in combination with distributed lag non-linear models, adjusting for seasonal and long-term variations, weather conditions and influenza activity. In the second stage, we used a random-effects multivariate meta-analysis to synthesize prefecture-specific estimates at the nationwide level.Results: In 2020, we estimated an all-cause excess mortality of -20 982 deaths [95% empirical confidence intervals (eCI): -38 367 to -5472] in Japan, which corresponded to a percentage excess of -1.7% (95% eCI: -3.1 to -0.5) relative to the expected value. Reduced deaths were observed for both sexes and in all age groups except those aged <60 and 70-79 years.Conclusions: All-cause mortality during the COVID-19 outbreak in Japan in 2020 was decreased compared with a historical baseline. Further evaluation of cause-specific excess mortality is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Variations in the age patterns and magnitudes of excess deaths, as well as differences in population sizes and age structures, make cross-national comparisons of the cumulative mortality impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic challenging. Life expectancy is a widely used indicator that provides a clear and cross-nationally comparable picture of the population-level impacts of the pandemic on mortality.Methods: Life tables by sex were calculated for 29 countries, including most European countries, Chile and the USA, for 2015-2020. Life expectancy at birth and at age 60 years for 2020 were contextualized against recent trends between 2015 and 2019. Using decomposition techniques, we examined which specific age groups contributed to reductions in life expectancy in 2020 and to what extent reductions were attributable to official COVID-19 deaths.Results: Life expectancy at birth declined from 2019 to 2020 in 27 out of 29 countries. Males in the USA and Lithuania experienced the largest losses in life expectancy at birth during 2020 (2.2 and 1.7 years, respectively), but reductions of more than an entire year were documented in 11 countries for males and 8 among females. Reductions were mostly attributable to increased mortality above age 60 years and to official COVID-19 deaths.Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered significant mortality increases in 2020 of a magnitude not witnessed since World War II in Western Europe or the breakup of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe. Females from 15 countries and males from 10 ended up with lower life expectancy at birth in 2020 than in 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aimed to investigate overall and sex-specific excess all-cause mortality since the inception of the COVID-19 pandemic until August 2020 among 22 countries.Methods: Countries reported weekly or monthly all-cause mortality from January 2015 until the end of June or August 2020. Weekly or monthly COVID-19 deaths were reported for 2020. Excess mortality for 2020 was calculated by comparing weekly or monthly 2020 mortality (observed deaths) against a baseline mortality obtained from 2015-2019 data for the same week or month using two methods: (i) difference in observed mortality rates between 2020 and the 2015-2019 average and (ii) difference between observed and expected 2020 deaths.Results: Brazil, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, the UK (England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland) and the USA demonstrated excess all-cause mortality, whereas Australia, Denmark and Georgia experienced a decrease in all-cause mortality. Israel, Ukraine and Ireland demonstrated sex-specific changes in all-cause mortality.Conclusions: All-cause mortality up to August 2020 was higher than in previous years in some, but not all, participating countries. Geographical location and seasonality of each country, as well as the prompt application of high-stringency control measures, may explain the observed variability in mortality changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background We aimed to describe trends in adverse outcomes among patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between February and September 2020 within a national healthcare system. Methods We identified enrollees in the national United States Veterans Affairs healthcare system who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 28 February 2020 and 30 September 2020 (n = 55 952), with follow-up extending to 19 November 2020. We determined trends over time in incidence of the following outcomes that occurred within 30 days of testing positive: hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and death. Results Between February and July 2020, there were marked downward trends in the 30-day incidence of hospitalization (44.2% to 15.8%), ICU admission (20.3% to 5.3%), mechanical ventilation (12.7% to 2.2%), and death (12.5% to 4.4%), which subsequently plateaued between July and September 2020. These trends persisted after adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, documented symptoms, and laboratory tests, including among subgroups of patients hospitalized, admitted to the ICU, or treated with mechanical ventilation. From February to September, there were decreases in the use of hydroxychloroquine (56.5% to 0%), azithromycin (48.3% to 16.6%), vasopressors (20.6% to 8.7%), and dialysis (11.6% to 3.8%) and increases in the use of dexamethasone (3.4% to 53.1%), other corticosteroids (4.9% to 29.0%), and remdesivir (1.7% to 45.4%) among hospitalized patients. Conclusions The risk of adverse outcomes in SARS-CoV-2–positive patients decreased markedly between February and July, with subsequent stabilization from July to September. These trends were not explained by changes in measured baseline patient characteristics and may reflect changing treatment practices or viral pathogenicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Patients with autoimmune diseases were advised to shield to avoid coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but information on their prognosis is lacking. We characterized 30-day outcomes and mortality after hospitalization with COVID-19 among patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, and compared outcomes after hospital admissions among similar patients with seasonal influenza. Methods A multinational network cohort study was conducted using electronic health records data from Columbia University Irving Medical Center [USA, Optum (USA), Department of Veterans Affairs (USA), Information System for Research in Primary Care-Hospitalization Linked Data (Spain) and claims data from IQVIA Open Claims (USA) and Health Insurance and Review Assessment (South Korea). All patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, diagnosed and/or hospitalized between January and June 2020 with COVID-19, and similar patients hospitalized with influenza in 2017–18 were included. Outcomes were death and complications within 30 days of hospitalization. Results We studied 133 589 patients diagnosed and 48 418 hospitalized with COVID-19 with prevalent autoimmune diseases. Most patients were female, aged ≥50 years with previous comorbidities. The prevalence of hypertension (45.5–93.2%), chronic kidney disease (14.0–52.7%) and heart disease (29.0–83.8%) was higher in hospitalized vs diagnosed patients with COVID-19. Compared with 70 660 hospitalized with influenza, those admitted with COVID-19 had more respiratory complications including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and higher 30-day mortality (2.2–4.3% vs 6.32–24.6%). Conclusion Compared with influenza, COVID-19 is a more severe disease, leading to more complications and higher mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Interleukin-6 inhibitors showed promising results in observational trials of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Aim To evaluate whether interleukin-6 inhibitor tocilizumab (TCZ) reduces mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Design A systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TCZ vs. placebo/control, for treatment of adults with COVID-19. Primary outcome was 28–30 days all-cause mortality. Search was conducted up to 1 April 2021. Two independent reviewers screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled. We performed subgroup analysis for patients with critical illness and sensitivity analyses. Results Eight RCTs were included, assessing 6481 patients with mostly severe non-critical COVID-19 infection. TCZ was associated with a reduction in all-cause 28–30-day mortality compared to placebo/control (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.82–0.96). Among the subgroup of critically ill patients no reduced mortality was demonstrated (RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.74–1.19). No mortality benefit with TCZ was demonstrated in trials that used steroids for >80% of patients. TCZ was associated with significantly reduced risk for mechanical ventilation (MV); for combined endpoint of death or MV and for intensive care unit (ICU) admission. No significant difference in adverse events was demonstrated. Risk of serious superinfection was significantly lower with TCZ (RR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.35–0.93). Conclusion The treatment with TCZ reduces 28–30 days all-cause mortality, ICU admission, superinfections, MV and the combined endpoint of death or MV. Among critically ill patients, and when steroids were used for most patients, no mortality benefit was demonstrated. Additional research should further define sub-groups that would benefit most and preferred timing of administration of TCZ in severe COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background COVID-19 deaths are commoner among care-home residents, but the mortality burden has not been quantified. Methods Care-home residency was identified via a national primary care registration database linked to mortality data. Life expectancy was estimated using Makeham–Gompertz models to (i) describe yearly life expectancy from November 2015 to October 2020 (ii) compare life expectancy (during 2016–18) between care-home residents and the wider population and (iii) apply care-home life expectancy estimates to COVID-19 death counts to estimate years of life lost (YLL). Results Among care-home residents, life expectancy in 2015/16 to 2019/20 ranged from 2.7 to 2.3 years for women and 2.3 to 1.8 years for men. Age–sex-specific life expectancy in 2016–18 in care-home residents was lower than in the Scottish population (10 and 2.5 years in those aged 70 and 90, respectively). Applying care home-specific life expectancies to COVID-19 deaths yield mean YLLs for care-home residents of 2.6 and 2.2 for women and men, respectively. In total YLL care-home residents have lost 3,560 years in women and 2,046 years in men. Approximately half of deaths and a quarter of YLL attributed to COVID-19 were accounted for by the 5% of over-70s who were care-home residents. Conclusion COVID-19 infection has led to the loss of substantial years of life in care-home residents aged 70 years and over in Scotland. Prioritising the 5% of older adults who are care-home residents for vaccination is justified not only in terms of total deaths, but also in terms of YLL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background epidemiological data on COVID-19 infection in care homes are scarce. We analysed data from a large provider of long-term care for older people to investigate infection and mortality during the first wave of the pandemic. Methods cohort study of 179 UK care homes with 9,339 residents and 11,604 staff. We used manager-reported daily tallies to estimate the incidence of suspected and confirmed infection and mortality in staff and residents. Individual-level electronic health records from 8,713 residents were used to model risk factors for confirmed infection, mortality and estimate attributable mortality. Results 2,075/9,339 residents developed COVID-19 symptoms (22.2% [95% confidence interval: 21.4%; 23.1%]), while 951 residents (10.2% [9.6%; 10.8%]) and 585 staff (5.0% [4.7%; 5.5%]) had laboratory-confirmed infections. The incidence of confirmed infection was 152.6 [143.1; 162.6] and 62.3 [57.3; 67.5] per 100,000 person-days in residents and staff, respectively. Sixty-eight percent (121/179) of care homes had at least one COVID-19 infection or COVID-19-related death. Lower staffing ratios and higher occupancy rates were independent risk factors for infection. Out of 607 residents with confirmed infection, 217 died (case fatality rate: 35.7% [31.9%; 39.7%]). Mortality in residents with no direct evidence of infection was twofold higher in care homes with outbreaks versus those without (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.2 [1.8; 2.6]). Conclusions findings suggest many deaths occurred in people who were infected with COVID-19, but not tested. Higher occupancy and lower staffing levels were independently associated with risks of infection. Protecting staff and residents from infection requires regular testing for COVID-19 and fundamental changes to staffing and care home occupancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Monoclonal antibody treatment may prevent complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We sought to quantify the impact of bamlanivimab monoclonal antibody monotherapy on hospitalization and mortality among outpatients at high risk of COVID-19 complications. Methods In this observational study we compared outpatients who received bamlanivimab monoclonal antibody from December 9, 2020 to March 3, 2021 to nontreated patients with a positive polymerase chain reaction or antigen test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the same period who were eligible for monoclonal antibody treatment. The primary outcome was 28-day hospitalization or all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was hospitalization or emergency department visit without hospitalization. The risk-adjusted odds of study outcomes comparing bamlanivimab treated and untreated patients was determined using 1:5 propensity matching and multivariable logistic regression. Results Among 232 patients receiving bamlanivimab matched with 1160 comparator patients, the mean age was 67 years, 56% were female, and 196 (14%) of patients experienced hospitalization or mortality. After adjustment for propensity to receive treatment, bamlanivimab treatment was associated with a significantly reduced risk-adjusted odds of hospitalization or mortality within 28 days (odds ratio [OR], 0.40; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.24–0.69; P <.001). Bamlanivimab treatment was also associated with a significantly lower risk adjusted odds of hospitalization or emergency department visit without hospitalization (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35–0.82; P =.004). The results were most strongly associated with patients age 65 years and older. Conclusions Bamlanivimab monoclonal antibody monotherapy was associated with reduced hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Use of bamlanivimab monotherapy for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 infection was associated with reductions in hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days. Benefit was strongest in those age 65 years or older [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, hemodialysis patients constitute one of the most vulnerable patient populations as they have more significant comorbidities and need to visit healthcare settings frequently even under pandemic conditions. It was also largely demonstrated that hemodialysis patients have high mortality rates with severe to fatal disease due to COVID-19 during their initial hospitalization. Even though the functional decline and fatigue after severe infections are not a novel entity, some long-term effects of COVID-19 have drawn attention with their prolonged effects even after discharge. A recent prospective, observational study by Carriazo et al. provided the first evidence to compare long-term mortality rates of hemodialysis patients with and without COVID-19. Carriazo et al. stated a hazard ratio of 3.00 for the mortality rates of hemodialysis patients over a 1-year follow-up period after their COVID-19 diagnosis. They emphasized that the high mortality rates of hemodialysis patients with COVID-19 are not limited to the initial hospitalization period but also continue after discharge, especially in the first 3 months. In light of this study, it can be recommended that hemodialysis patients with COVID-19 should be monitored closely and continuously, and hemodialysis patients should be prioritized for vaccination against COVID-19 with close follow-up for their antibody levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We reviewed publicly available data from major US health jurisdictions to compare severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 case fatality rates in people experiencing homelessness with the general population. The case fatality rate among people experiencing homelessness was 1.3 times (95% CI, 1.1–1.5) that of the general population, suggesting that people experiencing homelessness should be prioritized for vaccination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented on extensive Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission associated with low mortality in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Topics include hypothesized that the immunological memory against Plasmodium falciparum merozoites primes SARSCoV-2–infected cells for early phagocytosis; and high incidence was associated with higher mortality rates or saturation of hospital services.