Showing papers by "Emory University published in 2021"
Brigham and Women's Hospital1, Baylor College of Medicine2, Emory University3, University of Maryland, Baltimore4, Saint Louis University5, University of Illinois at Chicago6, George Washington University7, University of California, San Diego8, Vanderbilt University9, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center10
TL;DR: The mRNA-1273 vaccine as discussed by the authors is a lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19.
Abstract: Background Vaccines are needed to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and to protect persons who are at high risk for complications. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19. Methods This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Results The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P Conclusions The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease. Aside from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.).
2,721 citations
University of Southern California1, French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation2, University of Oulu3, Princeton University4, University of Warwick5, Georgia Institute of Technology6, Rutgers University7, University of Virginia8, University of Washington9, Carnegie Mellon University10, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne11, University of Pittsburgh12, University of Wisconsin-Madison13, University of California, San Diego14, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign15, Nanyang Technological University16, Australian National University17, Stanford University18, IT University of Copenhagen19, Massachusetts Institute of Technology20, University of California, Berkeley21, Cornell University22, Emory University23, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology24
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe the state-of-the-art in the field of federated learning from the perspective of distributed optimization, cryptography, security, differential privacy, fairness, compressed sensing, systems, information theory, and statistics.
Abstract: The term Federated Learning was coined as recently as 2016 to describe a machine learning setting where multiple entities collaborate in solving a machine learning problem, under the coordination of a central server or service provider. Each client’s raw data is stored locally and not exchanged or transferred; instead, focused updates intended for immediate aggregation are used to achieve the learning objective. Since then, the topic has gathered much interest across many different disciplines and the realization that solving many of these interdisciplinary problems likely requires not just machine learning but techniques from distributed optimization, cryptography, security, differential privacy, fairness, compressed sensing, systems, information theory, statistics, and more. This monograph has contributions from leading experts across the disciplines, who describe the latest state-of-the art from their perspective. These contributions have been carefully curated into a comprehensive treatment that enables the reader to understand the work that has been done and get pointers to where effort is required to solve many of the problems before Federated Learning can become a reality in practical systems. Researchers working in the area of distributed systems will find this monograph an enlightening read that may inspire them to work on the many challenging issues that are outlined. This monograph will get the reader up to speed quickly and easily on what is likely to become an increasingly important topic: Federated Learning.
2,144 citations
University of Nebraska Medical Center1, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio2, Emory University3, National Institutes of Health4, Duke University5, University of California, Irvine6, University of Minnesota7, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center8, University of Florida9, Parkland Health & Hospital System10, University of California, San Diego11, Baylor College of Medicine12, University of Rochester13, Tan Tock Seng Hospital14, Scott & White Hospital15, University of California, San Francisco16, University of California, Davis17, University of Massachusetts Medical School18, University of Virginia19, Northwestern University20, Pennsylvania State University21, Providence Sacred Heart Medical Center and Children's Hospital22, University of Alabama at Birmingham23, Stanford University24, Denver Health Medical Center25, Seoul National University26, Changi General Hospital27, Kaiser Permanente28, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences29, Eli Lilly and Company30
TL;DR: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdes Vivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation.
Abstract: Background Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known. Methods We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15. Results A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003). Conclusions Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.).
1,301 citations
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Amal Kamal Abdel-Aziz2, Sara Abdelfatah3, Mahmoud Abdellatif4 +2980 more•Institutions (777)
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
1,129 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify studies assessing the long-term effects of COVID-19, which can involve persistence, sequelae, and other medical complications that last weeks to months after initial recovery.
Abstract: COVID-19 can involve persistence, sequelae, and other medical complications that last weeks to months after initial recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to identify studies assessing the long-term effects of COVID-19. LitCOVID and Embase were searched to identify articles with original data published before the 1st of January 2021, with a minimum of 100 patients. For effects reported in two or more studies, meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed using the MetaXL software to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% CI. PRISMA guidelines were followed. A total of 18,251 publications were identified, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of 55 long-term effects was estimated, 21 meta-analyses were performed, and 47,910 patients were included (age 17–87 years). The included studies defined long-COVID as ranging from 14 to 110 days post-viral infection. It was estimated that 80% of the infected patients with SARS-CoV-2 developed one or more long-term symptoms. The five most common symptoms were fatigue (58%), headache (44%), attention disorder (27%), hair loss (25%), and dyspnea (24%). Multi-disciplinary teams are crucial to developing preventive measures, rehabilitation techniques, and clinical management strategies with whole-patient perspectives designed to address long COVID-19 care.
969 citations
University of Washington1, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust2, McMaster University3, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic4, Emory University5, Federal University of São Paulo6, Ottawa Hospital7, St Thomas' Hospital8, University of Michigan9, Cooper University Hospital10, University of Kansas11, University of Amsterdam12, United Arab Emirates University13, University of Pittsburgh14, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences15, University of São Paulo16, University of Minnesota17, Population Health Research Institute18, University of Toronto19, Humanitas University20, University of Kentucky21, Ghent University Hospital22, University of Tokyo23, Peking Union Medical College Hospital24, Hebron University25, Monash University26, Copenhagen University Hospital27, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine28, Vanderbilt University29, Harvard University30, Brigham and Women's Hospital31, University of Ulsan32, University of Manitoba33, Makerere University34, Faculdade de Medicina de São José do Rio Preto35, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto36, Medanta37, University of the Witwatersrand38, New York University39, Washington University in St. Louis40, University of Alberta41, Hennepin County Medical Center42, University of Pennsylvania43, Hadassah Medical Center44, Hebrew University of Jerusalem45, Hochschule Hannover46, Brown University47
TL;DR: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications as discussed by the authors, which are either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements.
Abstract: Background
Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications.
Methods
We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements.
Results
The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care.
Conclusion
The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families.
893 citations
University College London1, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis2, University of Reading3, United Nations University4, University of London5, University of Colorado Boulder6, Umeå University7, Tsinghua University8, World Health Organization9, Cardiff University10, University of Geneva11, University of New England (United States)12, University of Birmingham13, Yale University14, University of Washington15, Northeastern University16, Virginia Tech17, University of Oxford18, University of York19, International Livestock Research Institute20, Cayetano Heredia University21, Harvard University22, Boston University23, University of Sussex24, Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology25, Emory University26, Columbia University27, Autonomous University of Barcelona28, Technische Universität München29, University of Melbourne30, Iran University of Medical Sciences31, University of Exeter32, Imperial College London33, University of Sheffield34, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control35, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu36, University of Santiago de Compostela37
TL;DR: TRANSLATIONS For the Chinese, French, German, and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
886 citations
Daniel Taliun1, Daniel N. Harris2, Michael D. Kessler2, Jedidiah Carlson1 +202 more•Institutions (61)
TL;DR: The Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) project as discussed by the authors aims to elucidate the genetic architecture and biology of heart, lung, blood and sleep disorders, with the ultimate goal of improving diagnosis, treatment and prevention of these diseases.
Abstract: The Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) programme seeks to elucidate the genetic architecture and biology of heart, lung, blood and sleep disorders, with the ultimate goal of improving diagnosis, treatment and prevention of these diseases The initial phases of the programme focused on whole-genome sequencing of individuals with rich phenotypic data and diverse backgrounds Here we describe the TOPMed goals and design as well as the available resources and early insights obtained from the sequence data The resources include a variant browser, a genotype imputation server, and genomic and phenotypic data that are available through dbGaP (Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes)1 In the first 53,831 TOPMed samples, we detected more than 400 million single-nucleotide and insertion or deletion variants after alignment with the reference genome Additional previously undescribed variants were detected through assembly of unmapped reads and customized analysis in highly variable loci Among the more than 400 million detected variants, 97% have frequencies of less than 1% and 46% are singletons that are present in only one individual (53% among unrelated individuals) These rare variants provide insights into mutational processes and recent human evolutionary history The extensive catalogue of genetic variation in TOPMed studies provides unique opportunities for exploring the contributions of rare and noncoding sequence variants to phenotypic variation Furthermore, combining TOPMed haplotypes with modern imputation methods improves the power and reach of genome-wide association studies to include variants down to a frequency of approximately 001% The goals, resources and design of the NHLBI Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) programme are described, and analyses of rare variants detected in the first 53,831 samples provide insights into mutational processes and recent human evolutionary history
801 citations
Harvard University1, university of lille2, University of California, San Francisco3, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai4, Sarah Cannon Research Institute5, Emory University6, Rutgers University7, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes8, Lille University of Science and Technology9, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven10, University of Würzburg11, Heidelberg University12, German Cancer Research Center13, University of Tübingen14, University of Hamburg15, Autonomous University of Barcelona16, University of Milan17, Bristol-Myers Squibb18, University of Navarra19
TL;DR: In this article, a B-cell maturation antigen-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, has shown clinical activity with expecable clinical outcomes with the use of idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel), also called bb2121.
Abstract: Background Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, also called bb2121), a B-cell maturation antigen–directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, has shown clinical activity with expec...
776 citations
University of Washington1, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust2, McMaster University3, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic4, Emory University5, Federal University of São Paulo6, Ottawa Hospital7, St Thomas' Hospital8, University of Michigan9, Cooper University Hospital10, University of Kansas11, University of Amsterdam12, United Arab Emirates University13, University of Pittsburgh14, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences15, University of São Paulo16, University of Minnesota17, Population Health Research Institute18, University of Toronto19, Humanitas University20, University of Kentucky21, Ghent University Hospital22, University of Tokyo23, Peking Union Medical College Hospital24, Hebron University25, Monash University26, Copenhagen University Hospital27, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine28, Vanderbilt University29, Brigham and Women's Hospital30, University of Ulsan31, University of Manitoba32, Makerere University33, Faculdade de Medicina de São José do Rio Preto34, National Institutes of Health35, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto36, Medanta37, University of the Witwatersrand38, New York University39, Washington University in St. Louis40, University of Alberta41, Hennepin County Medical Center42, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital43, University of Pennsylvania44, Hebrew University of Jerusalem45, Hochschule Hannover46, Brown University47
TL;DR: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications as mentioned in this paper, which are either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements.
Abstract: Background
Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications.
Methods
We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements.
Results
The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care.
Conclusion
The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families.
664 citations
TL;DR: A small number of adults received two 100-μg injections of Moderna’s mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and serum anti–spike protein and neutralizing antibody titers revealed immunogenicity and safety concerns.
Abstract: Immunogenicity and the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Thirty-four adults received two 100-μg injections of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and serum anti–spike protein and neutralizing antibody tit...
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center1, Cornell University2, Roswell Park Cancer Institute3, University of Adelaide4, Sarah Cannon Research Institute5, University of Cologne6, German Cancer Research Center7, University of Duisburg-Essen8, Fox Chase Cancer Center9, Institut Gustave Roussy10, University of Zurich11, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre12, Johns Hopkins University13, Emory University14, Amgen15, New York University16, Washington University in St. Louis17
TL;DR: Sotorasib showed anticancer activity in patients with KRAS p.G12C-mutated advanced solid tumors in a phase 1 study as discussed by the authors, and particularly promising anti-cancer activity was observed i...
Abstract: Background Sotorasib showed anticancer activity in patients with KRAS p.G12C–mutated advanced solid tumors in a phase 1 study, and particularly promising anticancer activity was observed i...
TL;DR: A total of 33 participants who received both doses of the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 had blood drawn over a period of 6 months.
Abstract: Persistence of Antibody after mRNA-1273 Vaccination A total of 33 participants who received both doses of the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 had blood drawn over a period of 6 months ...
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention1, United States Public Health Service2, Harvard University3, New York University4, University of Colorado Denver5, University of Texas at Dallas6, Nationwide Children's Hospital7, Johns Hopkins University8, Yale University9, Westchester Medical Center10, Rutgers University11, University of Alabama at Birmingham12, Children's Mercy Hospital13, University of Miami14, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill15, Baylor College of Medicine16, University of Mississippi17, Vanderbilt University18, SUNY Downstate Medical Center19, California State University, Long Beach20, University of Minnesota21, Saint Barnabas Medical Center22, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences23, Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute24, Boston Children's Hospital25, University of Washington26, Central Michigan University27, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai28, University of Iowa29, Indiana University30, Emory University31, Medical University of South Carolina32, University of Pennsylvania33, Northwestern University34
TL;DR: In this article, the authors compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of children and adolescents with MIS-C vs those with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at 66 US hospitals in 31 states.
Abstract: Importance Refinement of criteria for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) may inform efforts to improve health outcomes. Objective To compare clinical characteristics and outcomes of children and adolescents with MIS-C vs those with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Setting, Design, and Participants Case series of 1116 patients aged younger than 21 years hospitalized between March 15 and October 31, 2020, at 66 US hospitals in 31 states. Final date of follow-up was January 5, 2021. Patients with MIS-C had fever, inflammation, multisystem involvement, and positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or antibody test results or recent exposure with no alternate diagnosis. Patients with COVID-19 had positive RT-PCR test results and severe organ system involvement. Exposure SARS-CoV-2. Main Outcomes and Measures Presenting symptoms, organ system complications, laboratory biomarkers, interventions, and clinical outcomes. Multivariable regression was used to compute adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) of factors associated with MIS-C vs COVID-19. Results Of 1116 patients (median age, 9.7 years; 45% female), 539 (48%) were diagnosed with MIS-C and 577 (52%) with COVID-19. Compared with patients with COVID-19, patients with MIS-C were more likely to be 6 to 12 years old (40.8% vs 19.4%; absolute risk difference [RD], 21.4% [95% CI, 16.1%-26.7%]; aRR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.33-1.72] vs 0-5 years) and non-Hispanic Black (32.3% vs 21.5%; RD, 10.8% [95% CI, 5.6%-16.0%]; aRR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.17-1.76] vs White). Compared with patients with COVID-19, patients with MIS-C were more likely to have cardiorespiratory involvement (56.0% vs 8.8%; RD, 47.2% [95% CI, 42.4%-52.0%]; aRR, 2.99 [95% CI, 2.55-3.50] vs respiratory involvement), cardiovascular without respiratory involvement (10.6% vs 2.9%; RD, 7.7% [95% CI, 4.7%-10.6%]; aRR, 2.49 [95% CI, 2.05-3.02] vs respiratory involvement), and mucocutaneous without cardiorespiratory involvement (7.1% vs 2.3%; RD, 4.8% [95% CI, 2.3%-7.3%]; aRR, 2.29 [95% CI, 1.84-2.85] vs respiratory involvement). Patients with MIS-C had higher neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (median, 6.4 vs 2.7,P Conclusions and Relevance This case series of patients with MIS-C and with COVID-19 identified patterns of clinical presentation and organ system involvement. These patterns may help differentiate between MIS-C and COVID-19.
University College London1, University of Reading2, University of York3, United Nations University4, University of London5, Tsinghua University6, World Health Organization7, Cardiff University8, Yale University9, University of Birmingham10, University of Greenwich11, University of Washington12, Northeastern University13, Virginia Tech14, International Livestock Research Institute15, National University of Singapore16, Cayetano Heredia University17, Harvard University18, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis19, Boston University20, University of Sussex21, Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology22, Emory University23, Columbia University24, Autonomous University of Barcelona25, Technische Universität München26, University of Melbourne27, University of Copenhagen28, Iran University of Medical Sciences29, Technical University of Denmark30, Umeå University31, Max Planck Society32, University of Colorado Boulder33, University of Exeter34, University of Oxford35, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu36, University of Santiago de Compostela37, University of Hong Kong38
TL;DR: The 2021 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change : code red for a healthy future as mentioned in this paper, is the most recent publication of the Countdown on Health and Climate Change, 2019.
TL;DR: In this paper, a mutant SARS-CoV-2 that lacks the furin cleavage site (ΔPRRA) was generated, which had faster kinetics, improved fitness in Vero E6 cells and reduced spike protein processing.
Abstract: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-a new coronavirus that has led to a worldwide pandemic1-has a furin cleavage site (PRRAR) in its spike protein that is absent in other group-2B coronaviruses2. To explore whether the furin cleavage site contributes to infection and pathogenesis in this virus, we generated a mutant SARS-CoV-2 that lacks the furin cleavage site (ΔPRRA). Here we report that replicates of ΔPRRA SARS-CoV-2 had faster kinetics, improved fitness in Vero E6 cells and reduced spike protein processing, as compared to parental SARS-CoV-2. However, the ΔPRRA mutant had reduced replication in a human respiratory cell line and was attenuated in both hamster and K18-hACE2 transgenic mouse models of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis. Despite reduced disease, the ΔPRRA mutant conferred protection against rechallenge with the parental SARS-CoV-2. Importantly, the neutralization values of sera from patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and monoclonal antibodies against the receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 were lower against the ΔPRRA mutant than against parental SARS-CoV-2, probably owing to an increased ratio of particles to plaque-forming units in infections with the former. Together, our results demonstrate a critical role for the furin cleavage site in infection with SARS-CoV-2 and highlight the importance of this site for evaluating the neutralization activities of antibodies.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention1, United States Public Health Service2, Scientific Atlanta3, Veterans Health Administration4, Emory University5, Anschutz Medical Campus6, University of Rochester7, Ohio Department of Health8, Lake County9, New York State Department of Health10, University of California, Berkeley11, Vanderbilt University12, Oregon Health Authority13, New Mexico Department of Health14, Yale University15, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education16
TL;DR: Aggressive implementation of prevention strategies, including social distancing and rigorous hand hygiene, may benefit the population as a whole, as well as those at highest risk for COVID-19-related complications.
Abstract: Author(s): Kim, Lindsay; Garg, Shikha; O'Halloran, Alissa; Whitaker, Michael; Pham, Huong; Anderson, Evan J; Armistead, Isaac; Bennett, Nancy M; Billing, Laurie; Como-Sabetti, Kathryn; Hill, Mary; Kim, Sue; Monroe, Maya L; Muse, Alison; Reingold, Arthur L; Schaffner, William; Sutton, Melissa; Talbot, H Keipp; Torres, Salina M; Yousey-Hindes, Kimberly; Holstein, Rachel; Cummings, Charisse; Brammer, Lynnette; Hall, Aron J; Fry, Alicia M; Langley, Gayle E | Abstract: BackgroundCurrently, the United States has the largest number of reported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and deaths globally. Using a geographically diverse surveillance network, we describe risk factors for severe outcomes among adults hospitalized with COVID-19.MethodsWe analyzed data from 2491 adults hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between 1 March-2 May 2020, as identified through the Coronavirus Disease 2019-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network, which comprises 154 acute-care hospitals in 74 counties in 13 states. We used multivariable analyses to assess associations between age, sex, race and ethnicity, and underlying conditions with intensive care unit (ICU) admission and in-hospital mortality.ResultsThe data show that 92% of patients had ≥1 underlying condition; 32% required ICU admission; 19% required invasive mechanical ventilation; and 17% died. Independent factors associated with ICU admission included ages 50-64, 65-74, 75-84, and ≥85 years versus 18-39 years (adjusted risk ratios [aRRs], 1.53, 1.65, 1.84, and 1.43, respectively); male sex (aRR, 1.34); obesity (aRR, 1.31); immunosuppression (aRR, 1.29); and diabetes (aRR, 1.13). Independent factors associated with in-hospital mortality included ages 50-64, 65-74, 75-84, and ≥ 85 years versus 18-39 years (aRRs, 3.11, 5.77, 7.67, and 10.98, respectively); male sex (aRR, 1.30); immunosuppression (aRR, 1.39); renal disease (aRR, 1.33); chronic lung disease (aRR 1.31); cardiovascular disease (aRR, 1.28); neurologic disorders (aRR, 1.25); and diabetes (aRR, 1.19).ConclusionsIn-hospital mortality increased markedly with increasing age. Aggressive implementation of prevention strategies, including social distancing and rigorous hand hygiene, may benefit the population as a whole, as well as those at highest risk for COVID-19-related complications.
TL;DR: It was estimated that 80% (95% CI 65-92) of the patients that were infected with SARS-CoV-2 developed one or more symptoms, and there is a need for studies to stratify by sex, age, previous comorbidities, severity of COVID-19 (including asymptomatic), and duration of each symptom.
Abstract: Background: COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, can involve sequelae that last weeks to months after initial recovery. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to identify studies assessing the long-term effects of COVID-19 and estimate the prevalence of each symptom, sign, or laboratory parameters of patients at a post-COVID-19 stage.
Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, LitCOVID (PubMed and Medline) and Embase were searched by two independent researchers. Studies published before 1st of January 2021 and with a minimum of 100 patients were included. For effects reported in two or more studies, meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed using the MetaXL software to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistics. PRISMA guidelines were followed.
Findings: A total of 18,251 publications were identified, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of 55 long-term effects was estimated, 21 meta-analyses were performed, and 47,910 patients were included. The follow-up time ranged from 15 to 110 days post-viral infection. The age of the study participants ranged between 17 and 87 years. It was estimated that 80% (95% CI 65-92) of the patients that were infected with SARS-CoV-2 developed one or more symptoms. The five most common symptoms were fatigue (58%), headache (44%), attention disorder (27%), hair loss (25%), and dyspnea (24%). In order to have a better understanding, there is a need for studies to stratify by sex, age, previous comorbidities, severity of COVID-19 (including asymptomatic), and duration of each symptom.
Interpretation: From the clinical perspective, multi-disciplinary teams are crucial to developing preventive measures, rehabilitation techniques, and clinical management strategies with whole-patient perspectives designed to address after-COVID-19 care.
Funding: National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), and Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX.
Declaration of Interests: SLL is an employee of Novartis Pharmaceutical Company; the statements presented in the paper do not necessarily represent the position of the company. The remaining authors have no competing interests to declare.
National Institute for Health Research1, University of London2, University of Auckland3, University of Cambridge4, Anglia Ruskin University5, Queen's University Belfast6, Sun Yat-sen University7, The Fred Hollows Foundation8, Mbarara University of Science and Technology9, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare10, University of Geneva11, St Thomas' Hospital12, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust13, Southwest University of Visual Arts14, Orbis International15, International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness16, University of Cape Town17, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust18, University of Michigan19, Emory University20, Johns Hopkins University21, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary22, University of São Paulo23, University of Nairobi24, Seva Foundation25, Tilganga Institute of Ophthalmology26, Heidelberg University27, The George Institute for Global Health28, University of New South Wales29, L V Prasad Eye Institute30, College of Health Sciences, Bahrain31, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences32, International Institute of Minnesota33, University of the West Indies34, University of Melbourne35, Kenya Medical Training College36, Federal University of São Paulo37, Capital Medical University38, Singapore National Eye Center39, National University of Singapore40, Pan American Health Organization41, Brien Holden Vision Institute42, University of Calabar43
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors defined eye health as maximised vision, ocular health, and functional ability, thereby contributing to overall health and wellbeing, social inclusion, and quality of life.
TL;DR: This paper conducted a systematic review of empirical studies that assess saturation in qualitative research in order to identify sample sizes for saturation, strategies used to assess saturation, and guidance we can draw from these studies.
Niamh Mullins1, Andreas J. Forstner2, Andreas J. Forstner3, Andreas J. Forstner4 +396 more•Institutions (119)
TL;DR: The authors performed a genome-wide association study of 41,917 bipolar disorder cases and 371,549 controls of European ancestry, which identified 64 associated genomic loci, including genes encoding targets of antipsychotics, calcium channel blockers, antiepileptics and anesthetics.
Abstract: Bipolar disorder is a heritable mental illness with complex etiology. We performed a genome-wide association study of 41,917 bipolar disorder cases and 371,549 controls of European ancestry, which identified 64 associated genomic loci. Bipolar disorder risk alleles were enriched in genes in synaptic signaling pathways and brain-expressed genes, particularly those with high specificity of expression in neurons of the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus. Significant signal enrichment was found in genes encoding targets of antipsychotics, calcium channel blockers, antiepileptics and anesthetics. Integrating expression quantitative trait locus data implicated 15 genes robustly linked to bipolar disorder via gene expression, encoding druggable targets such as HTR6, MCHR1, DCLK3 and FURIN. Analyses of bipolar disorder subtypes indicated high but imperfect genetic correlation between bipolar disorder type I and II and identified additional associated loci. Together, these results advance our understanding of the biological etiology of bipolar disorder, identify novel therapeutic leads and prioritize genes for functional follow-up studies.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center1, Texas A&M University2, University of Colorado Denver3, University of Iowa4, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center5, Wake Forest University6, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine7, Hennepin County Medical Center8, Ohio State University9, Albert Einstein College of Medicine10, University of Washington11, Baystate Medical Center12, Intermountain Medical Center13, University of Michigan14, Oregon Health & Science University15, Emory University16, Emory Healthcare17, Cleveland Clinic18, Stanford University19, University of California, Los Angeles20, University of Miami21, Washington University in St. Louis22
TL;DR: In this article, the authors evaluated the association between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and hospitalization, and the association with progression to critical disease, using multivariable logistic regression.
Abstract: Importance A comprehensive understanding of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination requires consideration of disease attenuation, determined as whether people who develop COVID-19 despite vaccination have lower disease severity than unvaccinated people. Objective To evaluate the association between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines—mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)—and COVID-19 hospitalization, and, among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the association with progression to critical disease. Design, Setting, and Participants A US 21-site case-control analysis of 4513 adults hospitalized between March 11 and August 15, 2021, with 28-day outcome data on death and mechanical ventilation available for patients enrolled through July 14, 2021. Date of final follow-up was August 8, 2021. Exposures COVID-19 vaccination. Main Outcomes and Measures Associations were evaluated between prior vaccination and (1) hospitalization for COVID-19, in which case patients were those hospitalized for COVID-19 and control patients were those hospitalized for an alternative diagnosis; and (2) disease progression among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, in which cases and controls were COVID-19 patients with and without progression to death or mechanical ventilation, respectively. Associations were measured with multivariable logistic regression. Results Among 4513 patients (median age, 59 years [IQR, 45-69]; 2202 [48.8%] women; 23.0% non-Hispanic Black individuals, 15.9% Hispanic individuals, and 20.1% with an immunocompromising condition), 1983 were case patients with COVID-19 and 2530 were controls without COVID-19. Unvaccinated patients accounted for 84.2% (1669/1983) of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was significantly associated with decreased likelihood of vaccination (cases, 15.8%; controls, 54.8%; adjusted OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.13-0.18), including for sequenced SARS-CoV-2 Alpha (8.7% vs 51.7%; aOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.06-0.16) and Delta variants (21.9% vs 61.8%; aOR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.10-0.21). This association was stronger for immunocompetent patients (11.2% vs 53.5%; aOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.13) than immunocompromised patients (40.1% vs 58.8%; aOR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35-0.69) (P Conclusions and Relevance Vaccination with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was significantly less likely among patients with COVID-19 hospitalization and disease progression to death or mechanical ventilation. These findings are consistent with risk reduction among vaccine breakthrough infections compared with absence of vaccination.
Georgetown University1, Tufts Medical Center2, Anschutz Medical Campus3, Indiana University4, Columbia University5, Emory University6, West Virginia University7, Society of Thoracic Surgeons8, University of Florida9, University of Alabama at Birmingham10, University of Michigan11, Henry Ford Hospital12
TL;DR: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)-Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (Intermacs) 2020 Annual Report reviews outcomes on 25,551 patients undergoing primary isolated continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation between 2010 and 2019 as discussed by the authors.
TL;DR: Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor with known anti-inflammatory properties as discussed by the authors, which has been shown to reduce mortality in hospitalised adults with COVID-19.
Baylor College of Medicine1, Brigham and Women's Hospital2, University of Miami3, University of Pittsburgh4, Emory University5, University of Colorado Denver6, University of California, Los Angeles7, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center8, University of Cincinnati9, Henry Ford Health System10, University of Maryland, College Park11
TL;DR: The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy in preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-... as discussed by the authors ) in a phase 3, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial.
Abstract: Background At interim analysis in a phase 3, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial, the mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy in preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-...
Vanderbilt University1, Texas A&M University2, Scott & White Hospital3, University of Colorado Denver4, University of Iowa5, Wake Forest University6, Johns Hopkins University7, Hennepin County Medical Center8, Yeshiva University9, University of Washington10, Tufts University11, University of Utah12, University of Michigan13, Oregon Health & Science University14, Emory University15, Cleveland Clinic16, Stanford University17, University of California, Los Angeles18, University of Miami19, Washington University in St. Louis20, Ohio State University21
TL;DR: In this paper, a case-control analysis was conducted among 3,689 adults aged ≥18 years who were hospitalized at 21 U.S. hospitals across 18 states during March 11-August 15, 2021.
Abstract: Three COVID-19 vaccines are authorized or approved for use among adults in the United States (1,2). Two 2-dose mRNA vaccines, mRNA-1273 from Moderna and BNT162b2 from Pfizer-BioNTech, received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2020 for persons aged ≥18 years and aged ≥16 years, respectively. A 1-dose viral vector vaccine (Ad26.COV2 from Janssen [Johnson & Johnson]) received EUA in February 2021 for persons aged ≥18 years (3). The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine received FDA approval for persons aged ≥16 years on August 23, 2021 (4). Current guidelines from FDA and CDC recommend vaccination of eligible persons with one of these three products, without preference for any specific vaccine (4,5). To assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) of these three products in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization, CDC and collaborators conducted a case-control analysis among 3,689 adults aged ≥18 years who were hospitalized at 21 U.S. hospitals across 18 states during March 11-August 15, 2021. An additional analysis compared serum antibody levels (anti-spike immunoglobulin G [IgG] and anti-receptor binding domain [RBD] IgG) to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, among 100 healthy volunteers enrolled at three hospitals 2-6 weeks after full vaccination with the Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, or Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. Patients with immunocompromising conditions were excluded. VE against COVID-19 hospitalizations was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 91%-95%) than for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%; 95% CI = 85%-91%) (p = 0.011); VE for both mRNA vaccines was higher than that for the Janssen vaccine (71%; 95% CI = 56%-81%) (all p<0.001). Protection for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine declined 4 months after vaccination. Postvaccination anti-spike IgG and anti-RBD IgG levels were significantly lower in persons vaccinated with the Janssen vaccine than the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. Although these real-world data suggest some variation in levels of protection by vaccine, all FDA-approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization.
University of Utah1, University of Colorado Denver2, Oregon Health & Science University3, Harvard University4, University of California, San Diego5, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston6, Medical College of Wisconsin7, Medical University of South Carolina8, Northwestern University9, Emory University10, University of Pennsylvania11, University of São Paulo12, Karolinska Institutet13, Sun Yat-sen University14, Ghent University15, University of Chicago16, Rush University Medical Center17, University of Barcelona18, University of California, Los Angeles19, Vanderbilt University20, University of Arizona21, University of Kansas22, Université de Montréal23, University of Auckland24, Rutgers University25, University of Amsterdam26, Columbia University27, Eastern Virginia Medical School28, University of New South Wales29, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven30, Guy's Hospital31, Stanford University32, University of British Columbia33, Mayo Clinic34, Johns Hopkins University35, Korea University36, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences37, Jikei University School of Medicine38, University of Washington39, University of Siena40, University of East Anglia41, University of Adelaide42, Pusan National University43, University of Calgary44, University of Cincinnati45, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill46, Cleveland Clinic47, University of Winnipeg48, Chulalongkorn University49, Cornell University50, National University of Singapore51, University of Alabama at Birmingham52, University of Alberta53, Capital Medical University54
TL;DR: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in the understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease.
Abstract: I. Executive summary BACKGROUND: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR-RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR-RS-2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence-based findings of the document. Methods ICAR-RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence-based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence-based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results ICAR-RS-2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence-based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion This ICAR-RS-2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence-based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS.
Yale University1, University of Sydney2, Emory University3, Aarhus University4, University of Pennsylvania5, Harvard University6, Stanford University7, University of Toronto8, Northwestern University9, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center10, Henry Ford Health System11, University of Florida12, Thomas Jefferson University13, Columbia University14, Duke University15, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai16, Mayo Clinic17, Johns Hopkins University18, University of California, Los Angeles19, University of Twente20, University of Basel21, Université libre de Bruxelles22
TL;DR: In the early 2000s, a subcommittee of the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society (ACNS) set out to standardize terminology of periodic and rhythmic EEG patterns in the critically ill to aid in future research involving such patterns as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: In the early 2000s, a subcommittee of the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society (ACNS) set out to “standardize terminology of periodic and rhythmic EEG patterns in the critically ill to aid in future research involving such patterns.” The initial proposed terminology was published in 2005.1 This was presented at many meetings on several continents, subjected to multiple rounds of testing of interrater reliability, underwent many revisions, and was then published as an ACNS guideline in 2013.2 Interrater agreement of the 2012 version (published in early 2013) was very good, with almost perfect agreement for seizures, main terms 1 and 2, the +S modifier, sharpness, absolute amplitude, frequency, and number of phases.3 Agreement was substantial for the +F and +R modifiers (66% and 67%) but was only moderate for triphasic morphology (58%) and fair for evolution (21%, likely at least partly because of the short EEG samples provided).3 The authors concluded that interrater agreement for most terms in the ACNS critical care EEG terminology was high and that these terms were suitable for multicenter research on the clinical significance of these critical care EEG patterns.
With the help of infrastructure funding from the American Epilepsy Society and administrative and website support from the ACNS, a database that incorporated the ACNS terminology was developed for clinical and research purposes, tested during routine clinical care in multiple centers,4 and made available at no cost on the ACNS website (https://www.acns.org/research/critical-care-eeg-monitoring-research-consortium-ccemrc/ccemrc-public-database). This greatly enhanced the ability to complete multicenter investigations.
After the establishment of the standardized terminology and free access to a database incorporating these terms, there have been many investigations into the clinical significance of rhythmic and periodic patterns (RPPs) in critically ill patients. Patterns such as lateralized rhythmic delta activity (LRDA) were found to be highly associated with acute seizures,5,6 equivalent to the association found with lateralized periodic discharges (LPDs) in one study.5 The association of all the main patterns in the nomenclature with seizures was defined in a multicenter cohort of almost 5,000 patients, with seizure rates highest for LPDs, intermediate for LRDA and generalized periodic discharges (GPDs), and lowest for generalized rhythmic delta activity (GRDA).6 This and other studies have shown that several of the modifiers within the nomenclature do indeed have clinically relevant meaning. For example, studies have shown that higher frequency (especially >1.5 Hz), higher prevalence, longer duration, and having a “plus” modifier are all associated with a higher chance of acute seizures.6,7 On the other hand, whether a pattern was spontaneous or “stimulus-induced” did not seem to have a significant effect on its association with seizures.6 In other investigations, the “triphasic morphology” modifier was investigated blindly with multiple expert reviewers, calling into question its relationship with metabolic encephalopathy and its lack of a relationship with seizures.8,9 For patients with refractory status epilepticus treated with anesthetic-induced coma, the presence of “highly epileptiform” bursts suggested that an attempted wean off of anesthetics at that time was much more likely to lead to seizure recurrence than if the bursts were not highly epileptiform.10 Even long-term outcome seemed to be associated with some modifiers, with a higher risk of later epilepsy found if LPDs were more prevalent, had longer duration, or had a “plus” modifier.7
TL;DR: The authors showed that infection-blocking immunity wanes rapidly but that disease-reducing immunity is long-lived, and that once the endemic phase is reached and primary exposure is in childhood, SARS-CoV-2 may be no more virulent than the common cold.
Abstract: We are currently faced with the question of how the severity of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) may change in the years ahead. Our analysis of immunological and epidemiological data on endemic human coronaviruses (HCoVs) shows that infection-blocking immunity wanes rapidly but that disease-reducing immunity is long-lived. Our model, incorporating these components of immunity, recapitulates both the current severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the benign nature of HCoVs, suggesting that once the endemic phase is reached and primary exposure is in childhood, SARS-CoV-2 may be no more virulent than the common cold. We predict a different outcome for an emergent coronavirus that causes severe disease in children. These results reinforce the importance of behavioral containment during pandemic vaccine rollout, while prompting us to evaluate scenarios for continuing vaccination in the endemic phase.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors used a single experimental platform based on immunodeficient mice implanted with human lung tissue (hereafter, human lung-only mice (LoM)) to demonstrate the efficient in vivo replication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory virus (MERS)-CoV) and severe Acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus(SARSCoV-2) in a single mouse.
Abstract: All coronaviruses known to have recently emerged as human pathogens probably originated in bats1 Here we use a single experimental platform based on immunodeficient mice implanted with human lung tissue (hereafter, human lung-only mice (LoM)) to demonstrate the efficient in vivo replication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), as well as two endogenous SARS-like bat coronaviruses that show potential for emergence as human pathogens Virus replication in this model occurs in bona fide human lung tissue and does not require any type of adaptation of the virus or the host Our results indicate that bats contain endogenous coronaviruses that are capable of direct transmission to humans Our detailed analysis of in vivo infection with SARS-CoV-2 in human lung tissue from LoM showed a predominant infection of human lung epithelial cells, including type-2 pneumocytes that are present in alveoli and ciliated airway cells Acute infection with SARS-CoV-2 was highly cytopathic and induced a robust and sustained type-I interferon and inflammatory cytokine and chemokine response Finally, we evaluated a therapeutic and pre-exposure prophylaxis strategy for SARS-CoV-2 infection Our results show that therapeutic and prophylactic administration of EIDD-2801—an oral broad-spectrum antiviral agent that is currently in phase II/III clinical trials—markedly inhibited SARS-CoV-2 replication in vivo, and thus has considerable potential for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 Human and bat coronaviruses replicate efficiently in immunodeficient mice implanted with human lung tissue, and treatment or prophylaxis using EIDD-2801 in this model suggests that this oral antiviral agent may be effective in preventing COVID-19