Covid19-Sources

Repeated SARS-CoV-2 infections may be prematurely aging human immune systems, research suggests

In order to design actionable SARS-CoV-2 strategies, we extended the SEIRS model to support stratified isolation levels for healthy 60 and vulnerable individuals. At first, we forced isolation levels to be uniform, showing that daily deaths curves of all metropolitan areas in the analysis can be fitted using homogeneous Ro=3.3. In the process, we established the possibility that an extremely short infectiousness period of 2 days coupled with 5 days exposure may be responsible for the multiple deaths valleys observed during the weeks following lockdowns. Regardless of the infectiousness period, we realized that is possible to infer non-uniform isolation levels for healthy 60 and vulnerable by forcing the model to match the 60 to 60 age serology ratio reported in seroprevalence studies. Since the serology ratio is more robust than absolute values, we argue immunity level estimations made in this way (Madrid 43%; Catalonia 24%; Brussels 73%; and Stockholm 65%) are closer to reality. In locations where we didn’t find reliable serology, we performed immunity estimations assuming Spain’s serology ratio (Paris: 24%; London: 34%). We predict that, with the exception of Brussels, no location can return to normal life without having a second wave (albeit in Stockholm a smaller one). For locations far from the herd immunity threshold (HIT) we searched what isolation values allow to return to normal life in 90 days minimizing final deaths, shockingly all found isolations for healthy 60 were negative (i.e. coronavirus parties minimize final deaths). Then, assuming an ideal 1-day long vaccination campaign with a 77% efficacy vaccine, we compared predicted final deaths of those 90-day strategies for all possible vaccination dates with a 180-day long vaccine waiting strategy that imposes 0.40 mandatory isolation to healthy 60 and results in 0.65 isolation to vulnerable. We found that 180-day of mandatory isolations to healthy 60 (i.e. schools and workplaces closed) produces more final deaths if the vaccination date is later than (Madrid: March 7 2021; Catalonia: Dec 26 2020; Paris: Jan 12 2021; London: Jan 25 2021). We conclude that our 2-stratum SEIRS model is suitable to predict SARS-CoV-2 epidemic behavior and can be used to minimize covid-19 disease and isolations related damages.

With reinfections on the rise, scientists warn that each bout increases your risk of troubling outcomes, from long COVID to heart disease.

This cohort study of health care workers in Israel evaluates whether a fourth BNT162b2 vaccine dose lowered breakthrough infection rates of SARS-CoV-2.

Deutsche Forscher haben ein Gen entdeckt, das seine Träger offenbar vor tödlichen Verläufen von Covid-19 schützt. Zehn Prozent der Europäer besitzen GNB3 TT und damit eine stärkere Immunantwort.

Monitoring ambulanter Akut- und Notfälle in Deutschland und aktuelle Aktivität respiratorischer Erkrankungen des Zi.

Background More than two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, it is generally assumed that most of the population has developed anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from infection and/or vaccination. However, public health decision-making is hindered by the lack of up-to-date and precise characterization of the immune landscape in the population. We thus aimed to estimate anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies seroprevalence and cross-variant neutralization capacity after Omicron became dominant in Geneva, Switzerland. Methods We conducted a population-based serosurvey between April 29th and June 9th, 2022, recruiting children and adults of all ages from age-stratified random samples of the Geneva general population. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody presence was assessed using commercial immunoassays targeting either the spike (S) or nucleocapsid (N) protein. Antibodies neutralization capacity against different SARS-CoV-2 variants was evaluated using a cell-free Spike trimer-ACE2 binding-based surrogate neutralization assay. Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and neutralization capacity were estimated using Bayesian modeling frameworks accounting for the demographics, vaccination, and infection statuses of the Geneva population. Results Among the 2521 individuals included in the analysis (55.2% women; 21.4% aged

Introduction The COVID-19 booster vaccination programme in England used both BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines. Direct comparisons of the effectiveness against severe COVID-19 of these two vaccines for boosting have not been made in trials or observational data. Methods On behalf of NHS England, we used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database to match adult recipients of each vaccine type on date of vaccination, primary vaccine course, age, and other characteristics. Recipients were eligible if boosted between 29 October 2021 and 31 January 2022, and followed up for 12 weeks. Outcomes were positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalisation, and COVID-19 death. We estimated the cumulative incidence of each outcome, and quantified comparative effectiveness using risk differences (RD) and hazard ratios (HRs). Results 1,528,431 people were matched in each group, contributing a total 23,150,504 person-weeks of follow-up. The 12-week risks per 1,000 people of positive SARS-CoV-2 test were 103.2 (95%CI 102.4 to 104.0) for BNT162b2 and 96.0 (95.2 to 96.8) for mRNA-1273: the HR comparing mRNA-1273 with BNT162b2 was 0.92 (95%CI 0.91 to 0.92). For COVID-19 hospitalisations the 12-week risks per 1,000 were 0.65 (95%CI 0.56 to 0.75) and 0.44 (0.36 to 0.54): HR 0.67 (95%CI 0.58 to 0.78). COVID-19 deaths were rare: the 12-week risks per 1,000 were 0.03 (95%CI 0.02 to 0.06) and 0.01 (0.01 to 0.02): HR 1.23 (95%CI 0.59 to 2.56). Comparative effectiveness was generally similar within subgroups. Conclusion Booster vaccination with mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine was more effective than BNT162b2 in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalisation during the first 12 weeks after vaccination. ### Competing Interest Statement BG's work on better use of data in healthcare more broadly is currently funded in part by: the Bennett Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation; all Bennett Institute staff are supported by BG's grants on this work. EW holds grants from MRC. RHK was funded by UK Research and Innovation (Future Leaders Fellowship MR/S017968/1). ### Funding Statement This work was jointly funded by UKRI [COV0076;MR/V015737/1], the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme (MC\_PC\_20030; MC\_PC\_20059; COV-LT-0009), NIHR and Asthma UK-BLF. The OpenSAFELY data science platform is funded by the Wellcome Trust (222097/Z/20/Z). ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: This study was approved by the Health Research Authority (REC reference 20/LO/0651) and by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Ethics Board (reference 21863). I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable. Yes Detailed pseudonymised patient data is potentially re-identifiable and therefore not shared. All study code is available for inspection and re-use at https://github.com/opensafely/comparative-booster

Objective To examine infants in Scotland aged 0-27 days with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection; the risk of neonatal infection by factors including maternal infection status and gestation at birth; and the need for hospital admission among infected neonates. Design Population-based cohort study. Setting and population All live births in Scotland, 1 March 2020 to 31 January 2022. Results There were 141 neonates with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection over the study period, giving an overall infection rate of 153 per 100,000 live births (141/92,009). Among infants born to women with confirmed infection around the time of birth, the infection rate was 1,811 per 100,000 live births (15/828). Nearly two-thirds (92/141, 65.2%) of babies with confirmed neonatal infection had an associated admission to neonatal or (more commonly) paediatric care. Of those admitted to hospital, 6/92 (6.5%) infants were admitted to neonatal or paediatric intensive care, however none of these six had COVID-19 recorded as the main diagnosis underlying their admission. There were no neonatal deaths among babies with confirmed infection. Implications and relevance Confirmed neonatal SARS-CoV-2 infection is uncommon. Secular trends in the neonatal infection rate broadly follow those seen in the general population, albeit at a lower level. Maternal infection at birth increases the risk of neonatal infection, but most babies with neonatal infection are born to women without confirmed infection. A high proportion of neonates with confirmed infection are admitted to hospital, with resulting implications for the baby, family, and services, although their outcomes are generally good. ### Competing Interest Statement CG and JK are lead investigators for the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit study Neonatal complications of COVID-19 and co-investigators for the SARS-CoV-2 infection in neonates or in pregnancy: outcomes at 18 months (SINEPOST) study. The other authors declare no competing interests. ### Funding Statement COPS is a sub-study of EAVE II which is funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/R008345/1) with the support of BREATHE - The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health [MC\_PC\_19004] which is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. Additional support has been provided through Public Health Scotland and Scottish Government DG Health and Social Care and the Data and Connectivity National Core Study led by Health Data Research UK in partnership with the Office for National Statistics and funded by UK Research and Innovation. COPS has received additional funding from Tommys charity and support from Sands charity. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: COPS has ethical approval from the National Research Ethics Service Committee, South East Scotland 02 (REC 12/SS/0201: SA 2) and information governance approval from the Public Benefit and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care (2021-0116). I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable. Yes Patient-level data underlying this article cannot be shared publicly due to data protection and confidentiality requirements. Data access for approved researchers can be authorised by the Public Benefit and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care (https://www.informationgovernance.scot.nhs.uk/pbpphsc/). Enquiries regarding data availability should be directed to phs.edris@phs.scot.

Facemasks have become a symbol of disease prevention in the context of COVID-19; yet, there still exists a paucity of collected scientific evidence surrounding their epidemiological efficacy in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. This systematic review sought to analyze the efficacy of facemasks, regardless of type, on the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in both healthcare and community settings. The initial review yielded 1732 studies, which were reviewed by three study team members. Sixty-one full text studies were found to meet entry criteria, and 13 studies yielded data that was used in the final analysis. In all, 243 subjects were infected with COVID-19, of whom 97 had been wearing masks and 146 had not. The probability of getting COVID-19 for mask wearers was 7% (97/1463, p=0.002), for non-mask wearers, probability was 52% (158/303, p=0.94). The Relative Risk of getting COVID-19 for mask wearers was 0.13 (95% CI: 0.10-0.16). Based on these results, we determined that across healthcare and community settings, those who wore masks were less likely to contact COVID-19. Future investigations are warranted as more information becomes available. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement This study did not receive any funding. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable. Yes All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.

Healing the sick, not cutting taxes, must be the priority In his final speeches as prime minister, Boris Johnson listed seemingly endless achievements. Prominent among them was the claim that more people are in work now than before the pandemic. Yet any employers listening may have struggled to reconcile that with their frantic search for people to harvest crops, serve in hotels and restaurants, provide health and social care, and ensure that transport hubs can operate. Front page pictures in newspapers of long queues at airports and crops rotting in fields painted a different picture. The explanation for this apparent paradox was simple. The prime minister’s claim, like so many he has made, was false. The independent fact checking organisation Full Fact provided the true figures in April 2022: the workforce actually had 600 000 fewer workers than before the pandemic. Full Fact noted with disappointment that Johnson had, by then, made this claim nine times in parliament without correcting the record.1 Yet despite formal complaints from official statisticians,23 he remains undeterred …

Among unvaccinated pregnant women, SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Delta wave, in comparison to the pre-Delta period, was associated with increased requirement for oxygen support (including ECMO) and higher maternal mortality. Disease severity and pregnancy complications were similar between the Omi …

This is the eighth update alert for a living rapid review (1) on the use of masks for the prevention of respiratory virus infections, including SARS-CoV-2, in health care and community settings. The first 3 updates (2–4) were monthly, after which the interval was switched to bimonthly (5, 6). Beginning in June 2021, the interval was extended to biannually. For this update, searches were done from 3 December 2021 to 2 June 2022 using the same search methods as the original review. Inclusion was restricted to randomized trials and observational studies that controlled for confounders. Non–peer-reviewed studies were excluded unless they were based on data collected after February 2021 to capture evidence on mask use in the B.1.617.2 (Delta) and B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant predominant periods. The update searches identified 1592 citations. No new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 new observational studies on the association of mask use and SARS-CoV-2 infection met inclusion criteria (Supplement Table 1). Three studies were done in community settings (7–9), and 2 studies (10, 11) were done in health care settings. One preprint study (9) of mask use in community settings collected data during Delta and Omicron predominant periods; the other studies were done before the emergence of these variants. All studies had methodological limitations, including unclear or low participation rate, potential recall bias, and failure to report attrition or missing data (Supplement Table 2).

Vitamin D for COVID-19. Treatment studies - 38% improvement, p 0.0001 Sufficiency studies - 55% improvement, p 0.0001

New research to be presented at this year's European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID 2022, Lisbon, 23–26 April) suggests that many of the symptoms connected to post-COVID ...

Studies have demonstrated a potential correlation between low vitamin D status and both an increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and poorer clinical outcomes. This retrospective study examines if, and to what degree, a relationship exists between ...

A randomized controlled trial of calcifediol (25-hydroxyvitamin D3) as a treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Córdoba, Spain, found that the treatment was associated with reduced ICU admissions with very large effect size and high statistical significance, but the study has had limited impact because it had only 76 patients and imperfect blinding, and did not measure vitamin D levels pre- and post-treatment or adjust for several comorbidities. Here we reanalyze the reported results of the study using rigorous and well established statistical techniques, and find that the randomization, large effect size, and high statistical significance address many of these concerns. We show that random assignment of patients to treatment and control groups is highly unlikely to distribute comorbidities or other prognostic indicators sufficiently unevenly to account for the large effect size. We also show that imperfect blinding would need to have had an implausibly large effect to account for the reported results. Finally, comparison with two additional randomized clinical trials of vitamin D supplementation for COVID-19 in India and Brazil indicates that early intervention and rapid absorption may be crucial for the observed benefits of vitamin D. We conclude that the Córdoba study provides sufficient evidence to warrant immediate, well-designed pivotal clinical trials of early calcifediol administration in a broader cohort of inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement No funding was received. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: Since this was a reanalysis of published information, no IRB or oversight board was involved. All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable. Yes All data is included in the paper.

Convalescent human-derived SARS-CoV-2 RBD and NTD antibodies mediated neutralization as well as infection enhancement in vitro, yet infusion of these antibodies in mice or cynomolgus macaques resulted in suppression of virus replication.

A subset of antibodies detected in patients with severe COVID-19 target a specific region of the N-terminal domain of the spike protein and enhance binding of the virus to the ACE2 receptor.

Nature - Antibody-mediated SARS-CoV-2 uptake by monocytes and macrophages triggers inflammatory cell death that aborts the production of infectious virus but causes systemic inflammation that...

Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, treatment with calcifediol, compared with those not receiving calcifediol, was significantly associated with lower in-hospital mortality during the first 30 days. The observational design and sample size may limit the interpretation of these findings.

The systemic illness associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection results in hospitalization rate of 380.3 hospitalizations per 100,000 population, overwhelming health care systems. Vitamin D regulates expression of approximately 11,000 genes spanning many physiologic ...

Infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) poses an enormous challenge to health care systems throughout the world. Without causal treatment, identification of modifiable prognostic factors may help to improve outcomes. ...

Vitamin D deficiency was previously correlated with incidence and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We investigated the association between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) level on admission and radiologic stage and outcome of COVID-19 ...

OBJECTIVE. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of type 1 diabetes in children and adolescents during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

KreuzimmunitätDie #Impfung sorgt für den Basisschutz und dafür, dass wir vor schwerem #COVID19 geschützt sind. Eine Durchbruchsinfektion baut den lokalen Schutz in den Schleimhäuten aus. https://t.co/QDyl4zzo7v— Johann Holzmann (@JohannHolzmann) July 26, 2022

The vitamin D endocrine system may have a variety of actions on cells and tissues involved in COVID-19 progression especially by decreasing the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Calcifediol can rapidly increase serum 25OHD concentration. We therefore ...

A randomized controlled trial of calcifediol (25-hydroxyvitamin D3) as a treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Córdoba, Spain, found that the treatment was associated with reduced ICU admissions with very large effect size and high statistical significance, but the study has had limited impact because it had only 76 patients and imperfect blinding, and did not measure vitamin D levels pre- and post-treatment or adjust for several comorbidities. Here we reanalyze the reported results of the study using rigorous and well established statistical techniques, and find that the randomization, large effect size, and high statistical significance address many of these concerns. We show that random assignment of patients to treatment and control groups is highly unlikely to distribute comorbidities or other prognostic indicators sufficiently unevenly to account for the large effect size. We also show that imperfect blinding would need to have had an implausibly large effect to account for the reported results. Finally, comparison with two additional randomized clinical trials of vitamin D supplementation for COVID-19 in India and Brazil indicates that early intervention and rapid absorption may be crucial for the observed benefits of vitamin D. We conclude that the Córdoba study provides sufficient evidence to warrant immediate, well-designed pivotal clinical trials of early calcifediol administration in a broader cohort of inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19.

This cohort study estimates the proportion of SARS-CoV-2–positive children with post–COVID-19 conditions 90 days after a positive test result, compares this proportion with SARS-CoV-2–negative children, and assesses factors associated with post–COVID-19 conditions.

Background: Much research shows that blood calcidiol (25(OH)D3) levels correlate strongly with SARS-CoV-2 infection severity. There is open discussion regarding whether low D3 is caused by the infection or if deficiency negatively affects immune defense. ...