Search

Background: Post COVID-19 condition (PCC) is an important complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection, affecting millions worldwide. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and severity of post COVID-19 condition (PCC) with novel SARS-CoV-2 variants and after prior vaccination. Methods: We used pooled data from 1350 SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals from two representative population-based cohorts in Switzerland, diagnosed between Aug 5, 2020, and Feb 25, 2022. We descriptively analysed the prevalence and severity of PCC, defined as the presence and frequency of PCC-related symptoms six months after infection, among vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals infected with Wildtype, Delta, and Omicron SARS-CoV-2. We used multivariable logistic regression models to assess the association and estimate the risk reduction of PCC after infection with newer variants and prior vaccination. We further assessed associations with the severity of PCC using multinomial logistic regression. To identify groups of individuals with similar symptom patterns and evaluate differences in the presentation of PCC across variants, we performed exploratory hierarchical cluster analyses. Results: We found strong evidence that vaccinated individuals infected with Omicron had reduced odds of developing PCC compared to non-vaccinated Wildtype-infected individuals (odds ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.24–0.68). The odds among non-vaccinated individuals were similar after infection with Delta or Omicron compared to Wildtype SARS-CoV-2. We found no differences in PCC prevalence with respect to the number of received vaccine doses or timing of last vaccination. The prevalence of PCC-related symptoms among vaccinated, Omicron-infected individuals was lower across severity levels. In cluster analyses, we identified four clusters of diverse systemic, neurocognitive, cardiorespiratory, and musculoskeletal symptoms, with similar patterns across variants. Conclusion: The risk of PCC appears to be lowered with infection by the Omicron variant and after prior vaccination. This evidence is crucial to guide future public health measures and vaccination strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) treatment, survival benefits have been shown by adding docetaxel or recent androgen receptor axis-targeted therapies (ARATs) abiraterone, apalutamide, or enzalutamide to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). However, the optimal treatment strategy in terms of costs and effects is unclear, not least due to high ARAT costs. Methods: To assess treatment cost-effectiveness, we developed a Markov cohort model with health states of progression-free disease, progressive disease and death for men with newly diagnosed mHSPC, with a 30-year time horizon. Survival data, adverse events and utilities were informed by randomized controlled trial results, our meta-analysis of re-created individual patient survival data, and publicly available sources of unit costs. We applied a Swiss healthcare payer perspective and discounted costs and effects by 3%. Results: We found a significant overall survival benefit for ADT+abiraterone versus ADT+docetaxel. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was predicted to be EUR 39,814 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. ADT+apalutamide and ADT+enzalutamide incurred higher costs and lower QALYs compared to ADT+abiraterone. For all ARATs, drug costs constituted the most substantial cost component. Results were stable except for a large univariable reduction in the pre-progression utility under ADT+abiraterone and very large variations in drug prices. Conclusions: Our model projected ADT+abiraterone to be cost-effective compared to ADT+docetaxel at a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 70,400/QALY (CHF 100,000 applying purchasing power parities). Given lower estimated QALYs for ADT+apalutamide and ADT+enzalutamide compared to ADT+abiraterone, the former only became cost-effective (the preferred) treatment option(s) at substantial 75–80% (80–90%) price reductions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Isolation is an indispensable measure to contain the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but it may have a negative impact on mental health and overall wellbeing. Evidence on the isolation experience, facilitating and complicating factors is needed to mitigate negative effects. Methods and findings: This observational, population-based cohort study enrolled 1547 adults from the general population with SARS-CoV-2 infection reported to authorities between 27 February 2020 and 19 January 2021 in Zurich, Switzerland. We assessed the proportion of individuals reporting symptoms of depression and anxiety before, during and after isolation (by DASS-21), and queried worries, positive experiences, and difficulties. We analyzed the association of these outcomes with socio-demographics using ordinal regression. Additionally, we report free-text statements by participants to capture most important aspects of isolation. The proportion of participants affected by depression or anxiety increased during isolation from 10·0% to 17·1% and 9·1% to 17·6%, respectively. Ordinal regression showed that taking care of children increased the difficulty of isolation (OR 2·10, CI 1·43–3·08) and risk of non-compliance (OR 1·63, CI 1·05–2·53), especially in younger participants. A facilitating factor that individuals commonly expressed was receiving more support during isolation. Conclusion: Isolation due to SARS-CoV-2 presents a mental burden, especially for younger individuals and those taking care of children. Public health authorities need to train personnel and draw from community-based resources to provide targeted support, information, and guidance to individuals during isolation. Such efforts could alleviate the negative impact isolation has on the mental and physical health of individuals and ensure compliance of the population with recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Longer-term consequences after SARS-CoV-2 infection are becoming an important burden to societies and healthcare systems. Data on post-COVID-19 syndrome in the general population are required for the timely planning of healthcare services and resources. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of impaired health status and physical and mental health symptoms among individuals at least six months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to characterize their healthcare utilization. Methods: This population-based prospective cohort study (Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort) enrolled 431 adults from the general population with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reported to health authorities between 27 February 2020 and 05 August 2020 in the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland. We evaluated the proportion of individuals reporting not to have fully recovered since SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the proportion reporting fatigue (Fatigue Assessment Scale), dyspnea (mMRC dyspnea scale) or depression (DASS-21) at six to eight months after diagnosis. Furthermore, the proportion of individuals with at least one healthcare contact after their acute illness was evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess factors associated with these main outcomes. Results: Symptoms were present in 385 (89%) participants at diagnosis and 81 (19%) were initially hospitalized. At six to eight months, 111 (26%) reported not having fully recovered. 233 (55%) participants reported symptoms of fatigue, 96 (25%) had at least grade 1 dyspnea, and 111 (26%) had DASS-21 scores indicating symptoms of depression. 170 (40%) participants reported at least one general practitioner visit related to COVID-19 after acute illness, and 10% (8/81) of initially hospitalized individuals were rehospitalized. Individuals that have not fully recovered or suffer from fatigue, dyspnea or depression were more likely to have further healthcare contacts. However, a third of individuals (37/111) that have not fully recovered did not seek further care. Conclusions: In this population-based study, a relevant proportion of participants suffered from longer-term consequences after SARS-CoV-2 infection. With millions infected across the world, our findings emphasize the need for the timely planning of resources and patient-centered services for post-COVID-19 care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic challenges societies in unknown ways, and individuals experience a substantial change in their daily lives and activities. Our study aims to describe these changes using population-based self-reported data about social and health behavior in a random sample of the Swiss population during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of the present article is two-fold: First, we want to describe the study methodology. Second, we want to report participant characteristics and study findings of the first survey wave to provide some baseline results for our study. Methods: Our study design is a longitudinal online panel of a random sample of the Swiss population. We measure outcome indicators covering general well-being, physical and mental health, social support, healthcare use and working state over multiple survey waves. Results: From 8,174 contacted individuals, 2,026 individuals participated in the first survey wave which corresponds to a response rate of 24.8%. Most survey participants reported a good to very good general life satisfaction (93.3%). 41.4% of the participants reported a worsened quality of life compared to before the COVID-19 emergency and 9.8% feelings of loneliness. Discussion: The COVID-19 Social Monitor is a population-based online survey which informs the public, health authorities, and the scientific community about relevant aspects and potential changes in social and health behavior during the COVID-19 emergency and beyond. Future research will follow up on the described study population focusing on COVID-19 relevant topics such as subgroup differences in the impact of the pandemic on well-being and quality of life or different dynamics of perceived psychological distress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Vaccine-serotype (VT) invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) rates declined substantially following introduction of 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7) into national immunization programs. Increases in non-vaccine-serotype(NVT) IPD rates occurred in some sites, presumably representing serotype replacement. We used a standardized approach to describe serotype-specific IPD changes among multiple sites after PCV7 introduction. Methods and Findings: Of 32 IPD surveillance datasets received, we identified 21 eligible databases with rate data ≥ 2 years before and ≥ 1 year after PCV7 introduction. Expected annual rates of IPD absent PCV7 introduction were estimated by extrapolation using either Poisson regression modeling of pre-PCV7 rates or averaging pre-PCV7 rates. To estimate whether changes in rates had occurred following PCV7 introduction, we calculated site specific rate ratios by dividing observed by expected IPD rates for each post-PCV7 year. We calculated summary rate ratios (RRs) using random effects meta-analysis. For children Conclusions: Consistent and significant decreases in both overall and VT IPD in children occurred quickly and were sustained for 7 years after PCV7 introduction, supporting use of PCVs. Increases in NVT IPD occurred in most sites, with variable magnitude. These findings may not represent the experience in low-income countries or the effects after introduction of higher valency PCVs. High-quality, population-based surveillance of serotype-specific IPD rates is needed to monitor vaccine impact as more countries, including low-income countries, introduce PCVs and as higher valency PCVs are used. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary., Introduction In 2008, Streptococcus pneumoniae was estimated to have caused 540,000 deaths among children less than 5 years old worldwide [1]. Seven-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7) was licensed and introduced [...]

Big data trends in biomedical and health research enable large-scale and multi-dimensional aggregation and analysis of heterogeneous data sources, which could ultimately result in preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic benefit. The methodological novelty and computational complexity of big data health research raises novel challenges for ethics review. In this study, we conducted a scoping review of the literature using five databases to identify and map the major challenges of health-related big data for Ethics Review Committees (ERCs) or analogous institutional review boards. A total of 1093 publications were initially identified, 263 of which were included in the final synthesis after abstract and full-text screening performed independently by two researchers. Both a descriptive numerical summary and a thematic analysis were performed on the full-texts of all articles included in the synthesis. Our findings suggest that while big data trends in biomedicine hold the potential for advancing clinical research, improving prevention and optimizing healthcare delivery, yet several epistemic, scientific and normative challenges need careful consideration. These challenges have relevance for both the composition of ERCs and the evaluation criteria that should be employed by ERC members when assessing the methodological and ethical viability of health-related big data studies. Based on this analysis, we provide some preliminary recommendations on how ERCs could adaptively respond to those challenges. This exploration is designed to synthesize useful information for researchers, ERCs and relevant institutional bodies involved in the conduction and/or assessment of health-related big data research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medical end-of-life decisions (MELD) and shared decision-making are increasingly important issues for a majority of persons at the end of life. Little is known, however, about the impact of physician characteristics on these practices. We aimed at investigating whether MELDs depend on physician characteristics when controlling for patient characteristics and place of death. Methods and findings: Using a random sample (N = 8,963) of all deaths aged 1 year or older registered in Switzerland between 7 August 2013 and 5 February 2014, questionnaires covering MELD details and physicians' demographics, life stance and medical formation were sent to certifying physicians. The response rate was 59.4% (N = 5,328). Determinants of MELDs were analyzed in binary and multinomial logistic regression models. MELDs discussed with the patient or relatives were a secondary outcome. A total of 3,391 non-sudden nor completely unexpected deaths were used, 83% of which were preceded by forgoing treatment(s) and/or intensified alleviation of pain/symptoms intending or taking into account shortening of life. International medical graduates reported forgoing treatment less often, either alone (RRR = 0.30; 95% CI: 0.21–0.41) or combined with the intensified alleviation of pain and symptoms (RRR = 0.44; 0.34–0.55). The latter was also more prevalent among physicians who graduated in 2000 or later (RRR = 1.60; 1.17–2.19). MELDs were generally less frequent among physicians with a religious affiliation. Shared-decision making was analyzed among 2,542 decedents. MELDs were discussed with patient or relatives less frequently when physicians graduated abroad (OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.50–0.87) and more frequently when physicians graduated more recently; physician's sex and religion had no impact. Conclusions: Physicians' characteristics, including the country of medical education and time since graduation had a significant effect on the likelihood of an MELD and of shared decision-making. These findings call for additional efforts in physicians' education and training concerning end-of-life practices and improved communication skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Aspirin is widely used for prevention of cardiovascular disease. In recent years randomized trials also suggested a preventive effect for various types of cancer. We aimed to assess, in a quantitative way, benefits and harms of aspirin for primary prevention of both cardiovascular disease and cancer for a general US population between 40 and 85 years of age. Methods: We used the Gail/National Cancer Institute approach for assessing benefits and harms. This approach provides a probability that a treatment is more beneficial than harmful and incorporates multiple outcomes, the importance of these outcomes, considers different outcome risks and treats mortality as a competing risk. Our main outcomes were the risks of seven types of cancer, myocardial infarction, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke and gastrointestinal bleeding. We obtained effect estimates from recent meta-analyses of randomized trials and used baseline risks from the Centers for Disease Control. We conducted four sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of different assumptions about outcome risks and preferences and considered the sampling variation of the effect estimates for aspirin. Results: The main analysis as well as the sensitivity analyses showed that aspirin has more benefits than harms. In the main analysis, the index (positive if number of prevented events > excess number of harm events over 10 years per 1,000 persons) ranged from 2 (95% CI 0.0 to 11.8; in women age 45 to 54 years) to 8 (95% CI -0.1 to 83.7; in men age 65 to 74 years). In the sensitivity analyses, the index was also positive for all age categories suggesting more benefits than harms. Conclusion: This study suggests an overall benefit of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer based on population-based data. For individual preventive counseling, additional benefit harm analyses should explore which individuals should or should not take aspirin based on their risk profile for cardiovascular, cancer and gastrointestinal outcomes and based on their outcome preferences. Thereby, risk-stratified and preference-sensitive prevention could become a reality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Comorbidities are common in COPD, but quantifying their burden is difficult. Currently there is a COPD-specific comorbidity index to predict mortality and another to predict general quality of life. We sought to develop and validate a COPD-specific comorbidity score that reflects comorbidity burden on patient-centered outcomes. Materials and Methods: Using the COPDGene study (GOLD II-IV COPD), we developed comorbidity scores to describe patient-centered outcomes employing three techniques: 1) simple count, 2) weighted score, and 3) weighted score based upon statistical selection procedure. We tested associations, area under the Curve (AUC) and calibration statistics to validate scores internally with outcomes of respiratory disease-specific quality of life (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, SGRQ), six minute walk distance (6MWD), modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea score and exacerbation risk, ultimately choosing one score for external validation in SPIROMICS. Results: Associations between comorbidities and all outcomes were comparable across the three scores. All scores added predictive ability to models including age, gender, race, current smoking status, pack-years smoked and FEV1 (p<0.001 for all comparisons). Area under the curve (AUC) was similar between all three scores across outcomes: SGRQ (range 0·7624–0·7676), MMRC (0·7590–0·7644), 6MWD (0·7531–0·7560) and exacerbation risk (0·6831–0·6919). Because of similar performance, the comorbidity count was used for external validation. In the SPIROMICS cohort, the comorbidity count performed well to predict SGRQ (AUC 0·7891), MMRC (AUC 0·7611), 6MWD (AUC 0·7086), and exacerbation risk (AUC 0·7341). Conclusions: Quantifying comorbidity provides a more thorough understanding of the risk for patient-centered outcomes in COPD. A comorbidity count performs well to quantify comorbidity in a diverse population with COPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Acknowledgment of all serious limitations to research evidence is important for patient care and scientific progress. Formal research on how biomedical authors acknowledge limitations is scarce. Objectives: To assess the extent to which limitations are acknowledged in biomedical publications explicitly, and implicitly by investigating the use of phrases that express uncertainty, so-called hedges; to assess the association between industry support and the extent of hedging. Design: We analyzed reporting of limitations and use of hedges in 300 biomedical publications published in 30 high and medium -ranked journals in 2007. Hedges were assessed using linguistic software that assigned weights between 1 and 5 to each expression of uncertainty. Results: Twenty-seven percent of publications (81/300) did not mention any limitations, while 73% acknowledged a median of 3 (range 1–8) limitations. Five percent mentioned a limitation in the abstract. After controlling for confounders, publications on industry-supported studies used significantly fewer hedges than publications not so supported (p = 0.028). Limitations: Detection and classification of limitations was – to some extent – subjective. The weighting scheme used by the hedging detection software has subjective elements. Conclusions: Reporting of limitations in biomedical publications is probably very incomplete. Transparent reporting of limitations may protect clinicians and guideline committees against overly confident beliefs and decisions and support scientific progress through better design, conduct or analysis of new studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Only few countries have cohorts enabling specific and up-to-date cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation. Individual risk assessment based on study samples that differ too much from the target population could jeopardize the benefit of risk charts in general practice. Our aim was to provide up-to-date and valid CVD risk estimation for a Swiss population using a novel record linkage approach. Methods: Anonymous record linkage was used to follow-up (for mortality, until 2008) 9,853 men and women aged 25–74 years who participated in the Swiss MONICA (MONItoring of trends and determinants in CVD) study of 1983–92. The linkage success was 97.8%, loss to follow-up 1990–2000 was 4.7%. Based on the ESC SCORE methodology (Weibull regression), we used age, sex, blood pressure, smoking, and cholesterol to generate three models. We compared the 1) original SCORE model with a 2) recalibrated and a 3) new model using the Brier score (BS) and cross-validation. Results: Based on the cross-validated BS, the new model (BS = 14107×10−6) was somewhat more appropriate for risk estimation than the original (BS = 14190×10−6) and the recalibrated (BS = 14172×10−6) model. Particularly at younger age, derived absolute risks were consistently lower than those from the original and the recalibrated model which was mainly due to a smaller impact of total cholesterol. Conclusion: Using record linkage of observational and routine data is an efficient procedure to obtain valid and up-to-date CVD risk estimates for a specific population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The population with multiple chronic conditions is growing. Prior studies indicate that patients with comorbidities are frequently excluded from trials but do not address whether information is available in trials to draw conclusions about treatment effects for these patients. Methods and Findings: We conducted a literature survey of trials from 11 Cochrane Reviews for four chronic diseases (diabetes, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and stroke). The Cochrane Reviews systematically identified and summarized trials on the effectiveness of diuretics, metformin, anticoagulants, longacting beta-agonists alone or in combination with inhaled corticosteroids, lipid lowering agents, exercise and diet. Eligible studies were reports of trials included in the Cochrane reviews and additional papers that described the methods of these trials. We assessed the exclusion and inclusion of people with comorbidities, the reporting of comorbidities, and whether comorbidities were considered as potential modifiers of treatment effects. Overall, the replicability of both the inclusion criteria (mean [standard deviation (SD)]: 6.0 (2.1), range (min-max): 1-9.5) and exclusion criteria(mean(SD): 5.3 (2.1), range: 1-9.5) was only moderate. Trials excluded patients with many common comorbidities. The proportion of exclusions for comorbidities ranged from 0-42 percent for heart failure, 0-55 percent for COPD, 0-44 percent for diabetes, and 0-39 percent for stroke. Seventy of the 161 trials (43.5%) described the prevalence of any comorbidity among participants with the index disease. The reporting of comorbidities in trials was very limited, in terms of reporting an operational definition and method of ascertainment for the presence of comorbidity and treatments for the comorbidity. It was even less common that the trials assessed whether comorbidities were potential modifiers of treatment effects. Conclusions: Comorbidities receive little attention in chronic disease trials. Given the public health importance of people with multiple chronic conditions, trials should better report on comorbidities and assess the effect comorbidities have on treatment outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The development of optimal strategies to treat impaired mobility related to ageing and chronic disease requires better ways to detect and measure it. Digital health technology, including body worn sensors, has the potential to directly and accurately capture real-world mobility. Mobilise-D consists of 34 partners from 13 countries who are working together to jointly develop and implement a digital mobility assessment solution to demonstrate that real-world digital mobility outcomes have the potential to provide a better, safer, and quicker way to assess, monitor, and predict the efficacy of new interventions on impaired mobility. The overarching objective of the study is to establish the clinical validity of digital outcomes in patient populations impacted by mobility challenges, and to support engagement with regulatory and health technology agencies towards acceptance of digital mobility assessment in regulatory and health technology assessment decisions., Methods/design: The Mobilise-D clinical validation study is a longitudinal observational cohort study that will recruit 2400 participants from four clinical cohorts. The populations of the Innovative Medicine Initiative-Joint Undertaking represent neurodegenerative conditions (Parkinson's Disease), respiratory disease (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), neuro-inflammatory disorder (Multiple Sclerosis), fall-related injuries, osteoporosis, sarcopenia, and frailty (Proximal Femoral Fracture). In total, 17 clinical sites in ten countries will recruit participants who will be evaluated every six months over a period of two years. A wide range of core and cohort specific outcome measures will be collected, spanning patient-reported, observer-reported, and clinician-reported outcomes as well as performance-based outcomes (physical measures and cognitive/mental measures). Daily-living mobility and physical capacity will be assessed directly using a wearable device. These four clinical cohorts were chosen to obtain generalizable clinical findings, including diverse clinical, cultural, geographical, and age representation. The disease cohorts include a broad and heterogeneous range of subject characteristics with varying chronic care needs, and represent different trajectories of mobility disability., Discussion: The results of Mobilise-D will provide longitudinal data on the use of digital mobility outcomes to identify, stratify, and monitor disability. This will support the development of widespread, cost-effective access to optimal clinical mobility management through personalised healthcare. Further, Mobilise-D will provide evidence-based, direct measures which can be endorsed by regulatory agencies and health technology assessment bodies to quantify the impact of disease-modifying interventions on mobility., Trial Registration: ISRCTN12051706., Competing Interests: McRoberts is the manufacturer of the DynaPort. JE is employee of McRoberts. CB has done consultation work for Philipps Healthcare, Bosch Healthcare, Eli Lilly and Gait-up; he has received speaker honoraria from Amgen, Pfizer and Nutricia. LS is working as the Chief Technical Officer for Rölke Pharma. JMH reports having submitted a patent for assessment of mobility using wearable sensors in 400 Parkinson’s disease; the intellectual property rights 401 are held by the Tel Aviv Medical Center. GC has received consulting and speaking fees from Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Genzyme Corporation, Merck KGgA, Merck Serono SpA, Celgene Group, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Almirall SpA, Janssen. MFG is a full-time employee of Teva Pharmaceuticals. RRM is a full-time employee of The Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.