Search

Additional file 1. Supplemental Tables S1���S3. Detailed information on recruitment of organizations and the research group of Corona Immunitas.

Additional file 1. Complications.

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. This work was supported by the Mobilise-D project that has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement No. 820820. This JU receives support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). The funding bodies do not have ultimate authority over any activities (study design, collection, management, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of reports and decision to submit for publication. A draft protocol for the clinical validation was provided as part of the grant/funding application. Content in this publication reflects the authors’ view and neither IMI nor the European Union, EFPIA, or any Associated Partners are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein. ISGlobal acknowledges support from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities through the “Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa 2019-2023” Program (CEX2018-000806-S), and support from the Generalitat de Catalunya through the CERCA Program. Heleen Demeyer is a post-doctoral fellow of the FWO Flanders. Heiko Gaßner is supported by the Fraunhofer Internal Programs under Grant No. Attract 044-602140 and 044-602150

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-mso-10.1177_20552173221117784 for Fingolimod versus interferon beta 1-a: Benefit–harm assessment approach based on TRANSFORMS individual patient data by Alessandra Spanu, Hélène E Aschmann, Jürg Kesselring and Milo A Puhan in Multiple Sclerosis Journal – Experimental, Translational and Clinical

Background At present, effectively implementing smoking cessation programs in the health care system constitutes a major challenge. A unique opportunity to initiate smoking cessation focuses on smokers scheduled for surgery. These patients are not only highly motivated to quit smoking but also likely to benefit from a reduction in postoperative complications which may translate into a decrease of costs. Nevertheless, surgical patients are not routinely informed about the benefits of preoperative smoking cessation. Potential reasons for this missed opportunity may be the lack of time and training of surgeons and anaesthesiologists. We therefore aim to analyse the impact of a preoperative high-intensity smoking cessation intervention on surgical complications up to a 90-day postoperative period in patients of various surgical disciplines. The hypothesis is that a preoperative smoking cessation program improves outcomes in smokers undergoing intermediate to high-risk surgery. Methods The present study is a single-centre, randomized trial with two parallel groups of smokers scheduled for surgery comparing surgery alone and surgery with preoperative smoking cessation. We plan to randomize 251 patients. The primary objective is to compare complications between patients with an institutional multifaceted smoking cessation intervention starting 4 weeks before surgery compared to patients in the advice-only group (control group) within a 90-day postoperative period. The primary endpoint is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®) within 90 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes include the length of hospital stay, cost of care, quality of life, smoking abstinence, and reduction in nicotine consumption. Discussion The hypothesis is that a preoperative smoking cessation program improves outcomes in smokers undergoing surgery. Trial registration BASEC #2021-02004; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05192837. Registered on January 14, 2022.

BackgroundPost COVID-19 condition (PCC) is an important complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection, affecting millions worldwide. Further evidence is needed on the risk of PCC after vaccination and infection with newer variants. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and severity of PCC across different variants and vaccination histories.MethodsWe 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.FindingsWe found strong evidence that vaccinated individuals infected with Omicron had a reduced risk of developing PCC compared to non-vaccinated Wildtype-infected individuals (odds ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.24–0.68). The risk among non-vaccinated individuals was 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.InterpretationThe 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.FundingSwiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), University of Zurich Foundation, Cantonal Department of Health Zurich, Swiss Federal Office of Public HealthStudy registrationsISRCTN14990068, ISRCTN18181860Research in contextEvidence before this studyWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and medRxiv for primary studies assessing the prevalence and symptoms associated with post COVID-19 condition (PCC) after infection with different SARS-CoV-2 variants and among infected individuals with and without prior vaccination. We used a specific search strategy limited to the timeframe between Jan 01, 2020, and Aug 29, 2022, without language restriction (reported in Supplementary Table S1). We further searched identified systematic reviews for additional references. We screened 221 unique records and identified four studies investigating the association of Delta or Omicron variant infections and 11 studies investigating the association of prior vaccination with PCC.Current evidence is uncertain whether infection with emerging variants may be associated with a reduction of the risk of developing PCC. Two studies found a decreased risk of PCC with Omicron compared to Delta infection, or to individuals infected during any prior wave. One study found a lower risk of PCC with Alpha compared to Wildtype SARS-CoV-2, but an increased risk among those infected with the Delta or Omicron variant. One study primarily examined symptom clusters across different waves. All identified studies defined PCC as symptoms occurring at ≥4 weeks or ≥12 weeks after infection, and were conducted among hospitalised patients, healthcare workers, or users of the United Kingdom ZOE symptom app.Evidence regarding the preventive effects of vaccination on PCC was of higher certainty, with eight out of 11 studies reporting a substantially reduced PCC incidence with mRNA- and adenovirus vector-based vaccines. The magnitude of the effect in these studies varied, with estimated adjusted odds ratios ranging from 0.22 to 0.85. Nonetheless, three studies found no difference between vaccinated and non-vaccinated infected individuals, including two of three studies evaluating PCC at six months after infection. The third study with a six-month horizon found a higher odds ratio than any other study reporting a reduction at ≥4 weeks or ≥12 weeks. Study populations and designs varied strongly, and only one study evaluated the independent effects of SARS-CoV-2 variants and vaccination.Added value of this studyThis study investigates the association of PCC with infection with Delta and Omicron variants and prior vaccination compared to Wildtype SARS-CoV-2 infection among unvaccinated individuals. We found that infection with the Omicron variant and prior vaccination were associated with a lower risk of developing PCC six months after infection. Compared to previous work, this study is the first to evaluate PCC with a longer-term follow-up, while simultaneously evaluating the risk reduction by Delta and Omicron variants and prior vaccination on PCC. By relying on prospectively collected data from two representative population-based cohorts, we were able to provide an in-depth analysis of the longer-term risk reduction through prior vaccination and novel variants, the severity of PCC-related symptoms, and symptom clusters across pandemic waves between 2020 and early 2022.Implications of all the available evidenceIn conjunction with existing evidence, our study suggests that infection with the Omicron variant and prior vaccination are likely to substantially reduce the risk of developing PCC compared to infection with Wildtype SARS-CoV-2 without prior vaccination. We demonstrate that this risk reduction persists up to six months after infection, and that PCC-related symptoms are reduced to a similar extent across different levels of severity. However, the risk of having mild to even potentially severe PCC six months after infection is not eliminated. Hence, vaccinations will likely continue to be an important mainstay in the management of the further course of the pandemic. The prevention of further infection and PCC may still provide important benefits for public health, even if SARS-CoV-2 further evolves to cause milder infections and becomes endemic. Therefore, information from this study will be crucial to guide vaccination strategies and decisions on timing and enforcement of public health measures worldwide.

BackgroundEvidence from population-based studies on the longer-term natural course of post COVID-19 condition is limited, but crucial for informing patients and healthcare providers and for effectively designing clinical trials.ObjectivesTo evaluate longer-term symptoms and health outcomes within a cohort of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals.DesignPopulation-based, longitudinal cohort.SettingGeneral population, Canton of Zurich, Switzerland.Patients1543 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 628 adults without infection.MeasurementsChanges in self-reported health status over time, factors associated with persistence of non-recovery, and prevalence and excess risk of symptoms at 6 and 12 months post-infection compared to non-infected individuals.Results25% of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals did not recover by 6 months. Of those, 67% and 58% also did not recover at 12 and 18 months after infection, respectively. Hospitalization for acute COVID-19, pre-existing fatigue and pain or discomfort, and presence of specific systemic, cardiovascular, or musculoskeletal symptoms at 6 months were associated with persistent non-recovery. Symptom prevalence was higher among infected individuals compared to non-infected individuals at 6 months (adjusted risk difference (aRD)=17%) and 12 months (aRD=20%). aRDs for individual symptoms ranged from 2% to 12%, with the highest excess risks observed for altered taste or smell, post-exertional malaise, fatigue, and reduced concentration and memory.LimitationsWe relied on self-reported assessments and did not assess the effects of vaccination or infection with emerging variants of concern.ConclusionThese findings emphasize the need for effective interventions to reduce the burden of post COVID-19 condition. They further demonstrate the importance of using multiple outcome measures and of considering the expected rates of natural recovery and heterogenous patient trajectories in the design and interpretation of clinical trials.

Additional file 2. Procedures.

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.

Background Digital proximity tracing (DPT) aims to complement manual contact tracing (MCT) in identifying exposed contacts and preventing further transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the population. Although several DPT apps, including SwissCovid, have shown to have promising effects on mitigating the pandemic, several challenges have impeded them from fully achieving the desired results. A key question now relates to how the effectiveness of DPT can be improved, which requires a better understanding of factors influencing its processes. Objective In this study, we aim to provide a detailed examination of the exposure notification (EN) cascade and to evaluate potential contextual influences for successful receipt of an EN and subsequent actions taken by cases and contacts in different exposure settings. Methods We used data from 285 pairs of SARS-CoV-2-infected cases and their contacts within an observational cohort study of cases and contacts identified by MCT and enrolled between August 6, 2020, and January 17, 2021, in the canton of Zurich, Switzerland. We surveyed participants with electronic questionnaires. Data were summarized descriptively and stratified by exposure setting. Results We found that only 79 (58.5%) of 135 contacts using the SwissCovid app whose corresponding cases reported to have triggered the EN also received one. Of these, 18 (22.8%) received the EN before MCT. Compared to those receiving an EN after MCT (61/79, 77.2%), we observed that a higher proportion of contacts receiving an EN before MCT were exposed in nonhousehold settings (11/18, 61.1%, vs 34/61, 55.7%) and their corresponding cases had more frequently reported mild-to-moderate symptoms (14/18, 77.8%, vs 42/61, 68.9%). Of the 18 contacts receiving an EN before MCT, 14 (77.8%) took recommended measures: 12 (66.7%) were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 7 (38.9%) called the SwissCovid Infoline. In nonhousehold settings, the proportion of contacts taking preventive actions after receiving an EN was higher compared to same-household settings (82%, vs 67%). In addition, 1 (9%) of 11 ENs received in the nonhousehold setting before MCT led to the identification of a SARS-CoV-2-infected case by prompting the contact to get tested. This corresponds to 1 in 85 exposures of a contact to a case in a nonhousehold setting, in which both were app users and the case triggered the EN. Conclusions Our descriptive evaluation of the DPT notification cascade provides further evidence that DPT is an important complementary tool in pandemic mitigation, especially in nonhousehold exposure settings. However, the effect of DPT apps can only be exerted if code generation processes are efficient and exposed contacts are willing to undertake preventive actions. This highlights the need to focus efforts on keeping barriers to efficient code generation as low as possible and promoting not only app adoption but also compliance with the recommended measures upon an EN. Trial Registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry 14990068; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN14990068