Search

Background: Social restrictions and vaccination seem to have shaped the pandemic development in Europe, but the influence of geographical position is still debated. This study aims to verify whether the pandemic spread through Europe following a particular direction, during the period between the start of the pandemic and November 2021. The existence of a spatial gradient for epidemic intensity is also hypothesized. Methods: Daily COVID-19 epidemiological data were extracted from Our World in Data COVID-19 database, which also included vaccination and non-pharmacological interventions data. Latitude and longitude of each country's centroid were used as geographic variables. Epidemic periods were delimited from epidemic surge data. Multivariable linear and Cox's regression models were performed for each epidemic period to test if geographical variables influenced surge dates. Generalized additive models (GAM) were used to test the spatial gradient hypothesis with three epidemic intensity measures. Results: Linear models suggest a possible west-east shift in the first epidemic period and features a significant association of NPIs with epidemic surge delay. Neither latitude nor longitude had significant associations with epidemic surge timing in both second and third periods. Latitude displays strong negative associations with all epidemic intensity measures in GAM models. Vaccination was also negatively associated with intensity. Conclusions: A longitudinal spread of the pandemic in Europe seems plausible, particularly concerning the first wave. However, a recurrent trend was not observed. Southern Europe countries may have experienced increased transmissibility and incidence, despite climatic conditions apparently unfavourable to the virus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Returning universities to full on-campus operations while the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is ongoing has been a controversial discussion in many countries. The risk of large outbreaks in dense course settings is contrasted by the benefits of in-person teaching. Transmission risk depends on a range of parameters, such as vaccination coverage and efficacy, number of contacts, and adoption of nonpharmaceutical intervention measures. Owing to the generalized academic freedom in Europe, many universities are asked to autonomously decide on and implement intervention measures and regulate on-campus operations. In the context of rapidly changing vaccination coverage and parameters of the virus, universities often lack sufficient scientific insight on which to base these decisions. Methods To address this problem, we analyzed a calibrated, data-driven agent-based simulation of transmission dynamics among 13 284 students and 1482 faculty members in a medium-sized European university. Wed use a colocation network reconstructed from student enrollment data and calibrate transmission risk based on outbreak size distributions in education institutions. We focused on actionable interventions that are part of the already existing decision process of universities to provide guidance for concrete policy decisions. Results Here we show that, with the Omicron variant of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, even a reduction to 25% occupancy and universal mask mandates are not enough to prevent large outbreaks, given the vaccination coverage of about 85% reported for students in Austria. Conclusions Our results show that controlling the spread of the virus with available vaccines in combination with nonpharmaceutical intervention measures is not feasible in the university setting if presence of students and faculty on campus is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Amiodarone is an effective medication in preventing atrial fibrillation (AF), but it interferes with the metabolism of warfarin., Objectives: This study sought to examine the association of major thrombotic clinical events and bleeding with the use of amiodarone in the ARISTOTLE (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation) trial., Methods: Baseline characteristics of patients who received amiodarone at randomization were compared with those who did not receive amiodarone. The interaction between randomized treatment and amiodarone was tested using a Cox model, with main effects for randomized treatment and amiodarone and their interaction. Matching on the basis of a propensity score was used to compare patients who received and who did not receive amiodarone at the time of randomization., Results: In ARISTOTLE, 2,051 (11.4%) patients received amiodarone at randomization. Patients on warfarin and amiodarone had time in the therapeutic range that was lower than patients not on amiodarone (56.5% vs. 63.0%; p < 0.0001). More amiodarone-treated patients had a stroke or a systemic embolism (1.58%/year vs. 1.19%/year; adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03 to 2.10; p = 0.0322). Overall mortality and major bleeding rates were elevated, but were not significantly different in amiodarone-treated patients and patients not on amiodarone. When comparing apixaban with warfarin, patients who received amiodarone had a stroke or a systemic embolism rate of 1.24%/year versus 1.85%/year (HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.15), death of 4.15%/year versus 5.65%/year (HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.98), and major bleeding of 1.86%/year versus 3.06%/year (HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.96). In patients who did not receive amiodarone, the stroke or systemic embolism rate was 1.29%/year versus 1.57%/year (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.00), death was 3.43%/year versus 3.68%/year (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.05), and major bleeding was 2.18%/year versus 3.03%/year (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.84). The interaction p values for amiodarone use by apixaban treatment effects were not significant., Conclusions: Amiodarone use was associated with significantly increased stroke and systemic embolism risk and a lower time in the therapeutic range when used with warfarin. Apixaban consistently reduced the rate of stroke and systemic embolism, death, and major bleeding compared with warfarin in amiodarone-treated patients and patients who were not on amiodarone., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)