Showing papers by "University of London published in 2021"
••
University of Oxford1, Federal University of São Paulo2, University of the Witwatersrand3, Stellenbosch University4, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine5, University of Sheffield6, University of London7, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust8, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust9, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust10, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust11, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust12, St George's, University of London13, AstraZeneca14, North Bristol NHS Trust15, University College Hospital16, University of Hull17, Escola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública18, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte19, Northwest University (China)20, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria21, Glasgow Dental Hospital and School22, Boston Children's Hospital23, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul24, Western General Hospital25, University of Glasgow26, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust27, University of Cambridge28, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust29, Aneurin Bevan University Health Board30
TL;DR: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials.
3,741 citations
••
TL;DR: A review of the literature on mutations of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the primary antigen, focusing on their impacts on antigenicity and contextualizing them in the protein structure is presented in this article.
Abstract: Although most mutations in the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) genome are expected to be either deleterious and swiftly purged or relatively neutral, a small proportion will affect functional properties and may alter infectivity, disease severity or interactions with host immunity. The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in late 2019 was followed by a period of relative evolutionary stasis lasting about 11 months. Since late 2020, however, SARS-CoV-2 evolution has been characterized by the emergence of sets of mutations, in the context of ‘variants of concern’, that impact virus characteristics, including transmissibility and antigenicity, probably in response to the changing immune profile of the human population. There is emerging evidence of reduced neutralization of some SARS-CoV-2 variants by postvaccination serum; however, a greater understanding of correlates of protection is required to evaluate how this may impact vaccine effectiveness. Nonetheless, manufacturers are preparing platforms for a possible update of vaccine sequences, and it is crucial that surveillance of genetic and antigenic changes in the global virus population is done alongside experiments to elucidate the phenotypic impacts of mutations. In this Review, we summarize the literature on mutations of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the primary antigen, focusing on their impacts on antigenicity and contextualizing them in the protein structure, and discuss them in the context of observed mutation frequencies in global sequence datasets. The evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been characterized by the emergence of mutations and so-called variants of concern that impact virus characteristics, including transmissibility and antigenicity. In this Review, members of the COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) Consortium and colleagues summarize mutations of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, focusing on their impacts on antigenicity and contextualizing them in the protein structure, and discuss them in the context of observed mutation frequencies in global sequence datasets.
2,047 citations
••
TL;DR: Using a variety of statistical and dynamic modeling approaches, the authors estimate that this variant has a 43 to 90% (range of 95% credible intervals, 38 to 130%) higher reproduction number than preexisting variants, and a fitted two-strain dynamic transmission model shows that VOC 202012/01 will lead to large resurgences of COVID-19 cases.
Abstract: A severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant, VOC 202012/01 (lineage B.1.1.7), emerged in southeast England in September 2020 and is rapidly spreading toward fixation. Using a variety of statistical and dynamic modeling approaches, we estimate that this variant has a 43 to 90% (range of 95% credible intervals, 38 to 130%) higher reproduction number than preexisting variants. A fitted two-strain dynamic transmission model shows that VOC 202012/01 will lead to large resurgences of COVID-19 cases. Without stringent control measures, including limited closure of educational institutions and a greatly accelerated vaccine rollout, COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths across England in the first 6 months of 2021 were projected to exceed those in 2020. VOC 202012/01 has spread globally and exhibits a similar transmission increase (59 to 74%) in Denmark, Switzerland, and the United States.
1,935 citations
••
TL;DR: Survey data from across 19 countries reveal heterogeneity in attitudes toward acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine and suggest that trust in government is associated with vaccine confidence.
Abstract: Several coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are currently in human trials. In June 2020, we surveyed 13,426 people in 19 countries to determine potential acceptance rates and factors influencing acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Of these, 71.5% of participants reported that they would be very or somewhat likely to take a COVID-19 vaccine, and 48.1% reported that they would accept their employer's recommendation to do so. Differences in acceptance rates ranged from almost 90% (in China) to less than 55% (in Russia). Respondents reporting higher levels of trust in information from government sources were more likely to accept a vaccine and take their employer's advice to do so.
1,923 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: JBl received funding from NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol and by the MRC ConDuCT-II Hub (Collaboration and innovation for Difficult and Complex randomised controlled Trials In Invasive procedures).
Abstract: The UK Medical Research Council’s widely used guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions has been replaced by a new framework, commissioned jointly by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, which takes account of recent developments in theory and methods and the need to maximise the efficiency, use, and impact of research.
1,080 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
••
TL;DR: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks as discussed by the authors.
862 citations
••
TL;DR: The authors in this article reviewed potential challenges to success in each of these dimensions and discussed policy implications. But having licensed vaccines is not enough to achieve global control of COVID-19: they also need to be produced at scale, priced affordably, allocated globally so that they are available where needed, and widely deployed in local communities.
782 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 and Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S vaccines against confirmed covid-19 symptoms (including the UK variant of concern B.1.7), admissions to hospital, and deaths.
Abstract: Objective To estimate the real world effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 and Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S vaccines against confirmed covid-19 symptoms (including the UK variant of concern B.1.1.7), admissions to hospital, and deaths. Design Test negative case-control study. Setting Community testing for covid-19 in England. Participants 156 930 adults aged 70 years and older who reported symptoms of covid-19 between 8 December 2020 and 19 February 2021 and were successfully linked to vaccination data in the National Immunisation Management System. Interventions Vaccination with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S. Main outcome measures Primary outcomes were polymerase chain reaction confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, admissions to hospital for covid-19, and deaths with covid-19. Results Participants aged 80 years and older vaccinated with BNT162b2 before 4 January 2021 had a higher odds of testing positive for covid-19 in the first nine days after vaccination (odds ratio up to 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.77), indicating that those initially targeted had a higher underlying risk of infection. Vaccine effectiveness was therefore compared with the baseline post-vaccination period. Vaccine effects were noted 10 to 13 days after vaccination, reaching a vaccine effectiveness of 70% (95% confidence interval 59% to 78%), then plateauing. From 14 days after the second dose a vaccination effectiveness of 89% (85% to 93%) was found compared with the increased baseline risk. Participants aged 70 years and older vaccinated from 4 January (when ChAdOx1-S delivery commenced) had a similar underlying risk of covid-19 to unvaccinated individuals. With BNT162b2, vaccine effectiveness reached 61% (51% to 69%) from 28 to 34 days after vaccination, then plateaued. With ChAdOx1-S, effects were seen from 14 to 20 days after vaccination, reaching an effectiveness of 60% (41% to 73%) from 28 to 34 days, increasing to 73% (27% to 90%) from day 35 onwards. On top of the protection against symptomatic disease, a further 43% (33% to 52%) reduced risk of emergency hospital admission and 51% (37% to 62%) reduced risk of death was observed in those who had received one dose of BNT162b2. Participants who had received one dose of ChAdOx1-S had a further 37% (3% to 59%) reduced risk of emergency hospital admission. Follow-up was insufficient to assess the effect of ChAdOx1-S on mortality. Combined with the effect against symptomatic disease, a single dose of either vaccine was about 80% effective at preventing admission to hospital with covid-19 and a single dose of BNT162b2 was 85% effective at preventing death with covid-19. Conclusion Vaccination with either one dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic covid-19 in older adults, and with further protection against severe disease. Both vaccines showed similar effects. Protection was maintained for the duration of follow-up (>6 weeks). A second dose of BNT162b2 was associated with further protection against symptomatic disease. A clear effect of the vaccines against the B.1.1.7 variant was found.
767 citations
••
TL;DR: This paper conducted a randomized controlled trial in the UK and USA to quantify how exposure to online misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines affects intent to vaccinate to protect oneself or others, and found that in both countries-as of September 2020-fewer people would 'definitely' take a vaccine than is likely required for herd immunity.
Abstract: Widespread acceptance of a vaccine for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will be the next major step in fighting the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but achieving high uptake will be a challenge and may be impeded by online misinformation. To inform successful vaccination campaigns, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in the UK and the USA to quantify how exposure to online misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines affects intent to vaccinate to protect oneself or others. Here we show that in both countries-as of September 2020-fewer people would 'definitely' take a vaccine than is likely required for herd immunity, and that, relative to factual information, recent misinformation induced a decline in intent of 6.2 percentage points (95th percentile interval 3.9 to 8.5) in the UK and 6.4 percentage points (95th percentile interval 4.0 to 8.8) in the USA among those who stated that they would definitely accept a vaccine. We also find that some sociodemographic groups are differentially impacted by exposure to misinformation. Finally, we show that scientific-sounding misinformation is more strongly associated with declines in vaccination intent.
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors analyzed a dataset that links 2.245,263 positive SARS-CoV-2 community tests and 17,452 deaths associated with COVID-19 in England from 1 November 2020 to 14 February 2021.
Abstract: SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7, a variant that was first detected in the UK in September 20201, has spread to multiple countries worldwide. Several studies have established that B.1.1.7 is more transmissible than pre-existing variants, but have not identified whether it leads to any change in disease severity2. Here we analyse a dataset that links 2,245,263 positive SARS-CoV-2 community tests and 17,452 deaths associated with COVID-19 in England from 1 November 2020 to 14 February 2021. For 1,146,534 (51%) of these tests, the presence or absence of B.1.1.7 can be identified because mutations in this lineage prevent PCR amplification of the spike (S) gene target (known as S gene target failure (SGTF)1). On the basis of 4,945 deaths with known SGTF status, we estimate that the hazard of death associated with SGTF is 55% (95% confidence interval, 39–72%) higher than in cases without SGTF after adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, residence in a care home, the local authority of residence and test date. This corresponds to the absolute risk of death for a 55–69-year-old man increasing from 0.6% to 0.9% (95% confidence interval, 0.8–1.0%) within 28 days of a positive test in the community. Correcting for misclassification of SGTF and missingness in SGTF status, we estimate that the hazard of death associated with B.1.1.7 is 61% (42–82%) higher than with pre-existing variants. Our analysis suggests that B.1.1.7 is not only more transmissible than pre-existing SARS-CoV-2 variants, but may also cause more severe illness. Analysis of community-tested cases of SARS-CoV-2 indicates that the B.1.1.7 variant is not only more transmissible than pre-existing variants, but may also cause more severe illness, and is associated with a higher risk of death.
••
TL;DR: There is preliminary evidence that children and adolescents have lower susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2, with the pooled odds ratio of 0.56 for being an infected contact compared with adults, although seroprevalence in adolescents appeared similar to adults.
Abstract: Importance The degree to which children and adolescents are infected by and transmit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is unclear. The role of children and adolescents in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is dependent on susceptibility, symptoms, viral load, social contact patterns, and behavior. Objective To systematically review the susceptibility to and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among children and adolescents compared with adults. Data Sources PubMed and medRxiv were searched from database inception to July 28, 2020, and a total of 13 926 studies were identified, with additional studies identified through hand searching of cited references and professional contacts. Study Selection Studies that provided data on the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adolescents (younger than 20 years) compared with adults (20 years and older) derived from contact tracing or population screening were included. Single-household studies were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis PRISMA guidelines for abstracting data were followed, which was performed independently by 2 reviewers. Quality was assessed using a critical appraisal checklist for prevalence studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken. Main Outcomes and Measures Secondary infection rate (contact-tracing studies) or prevalence or seroprevalence (population screening studies) among children and adolescents compared with adults. Results A total of 32 studies comprising 41 640 children and adolescents and 268 945 adults met inclusion criteria, including 18 contact-tracing studies and 14 population screening studies. The pooled odds ratio of being an infected contact in children compared with adults was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.37-0.85), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 94.6%). Three school-based contact-tracing studies found minimal transmission from child or teacher index cases. Findings from population screening studies were heterogenous and were not suitable for meta-analysis. Most studies were consistent with lower seroprevalence in children compared with adults, although seroprevalence in adolescents appeared similar to adults. Conclusions and Relevance In this meta-analysis, there is preliminary evidence that children and adolescents have lower susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2, with an odds ratio of 0.56 for being an infected contact compared with adults. There is weak evidence that children and adolescents play a lesser role than adults in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at a population level. This study provides no information on the infectivity of children.
••
••
University of Oxford1, Australian National University2, Harvard University3, University of Bristol4, University of Manchester5, London School of Economics and Political Science6, University of London7, University of Cambridge8, Tufts University9, Medical Research Council10, Imperial College London11
TL;DR: The results indicate that, by using effective interventions, some countries could control the epidemic while avoiding stay-at-home orders, and this model accounts for uncertainty in key epidemiological parameters, such as the average delay from infection to death.
Abstract: Governments are attempting to control the COVID-19 pandemic with nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). However, the effectiveness of different NPIs at reducing transmission is poorly understood. We gathered chronological data on the implementation of NPIs for several European, and other, countries between January and the end of May 2020. We estimate the effectiveness of NPIs, ranging from limiting gathering sizes, business closures, and closure of educational institutions to stay-at-home orders. To do so, we used a Bayesian hierarchical model that links NPI implementation dates to national case and death counts and supported the results with extensive empirical validation. Closing all educational institutions, limiting gatherings to 10 people or less, and closing face-to-face businesses each reduced transmission considerably. The additional effect of stay-at-home orders was comparatively small.
••
TL;DR: A global analysis of the spread of recently emerged SARS-CoV-2 variants and estimate changes in effective reproduction numbers at country-specific level using sequence data from GISAID is presented in this paper.
Abstract: We present a global analysis of the spread of recently emerged SARS-CoV-2 variants and estimate changes in effective reproduction numbers at country-specific level using sequence data from GISAID. Nearly all investigated countries demonstrated rapid replacement of previously circulating lineages by the World Health Organization-designated variants of concern, with estimated transmissibility increases of 29% (95% CI: 24-33), 25% (95% CI: 20-30), 38% (95% CI: 29-48) and 97% (95% CI: 76-117), respectively, for B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1 and B.1.617.2.
••
TL;DR: The SIREN study as discussed by the authors showed that the BNT162b2 vaccine can prevent both symptomatic and asymptomatic infection in working-age adults in the UK.
••
St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust1, Middle East Technical University2, Koç University3, University of London4, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists5, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust6, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust7, North Bristol NHS Trust8, University of Birmingham9, St George's, University of London10, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health11, Public Health England12, King's College London13
TL;DR: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes is presented in this article. But no systematic synthesis of evidence of this effect has been undertaken.
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigated the degree to which infection with SARS-CoV-2 confers protection against subsequent reinfection, and estimated protection against repeat infection.
••
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.
••
University of London1, University of Glasgow2, University of Edinburgh3, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory4, Cornell University5, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center6, University of Cambridge7, University of Zurich8, University of Lugano9, Maynooth University10, University of New South Wales11, ETH Zurich12, Boston Children's Hospital13, University of Liverpool14, National Institutes of Health15, Washington University in St. Louis16
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors demonstrate that the immunodominant SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) receptor binding motif (RBM) is a highly variable region of S and provide epidemiological, clinical, and molecular characterization of a prevalent, sentinel RBM mutation, N439K.
••
National Institute for Health Research1, University of London2, University of Auckland3, Anglia Ruskin University4, University of Cambridge5, Sun Yat-sen University6, Queen's University Belfast7, 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, University of New South Wales28, The George Institute for Global Health29, 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: A significant proportion of COVID-19 patients discharged from hospital experience ongoing symptoms of breathlessness, fatigue, anxiety, depression and exercise limitation at 2-3 months from disease-onset.
••
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine1, Kenyatta University2, University of London3, University of Tübingen4, Karolinska Institutet5, Lusaka Apex Medical University6, Zambian Ministry of Health7, National Institute for Medical Research8, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences9, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi10, Stellenbosch University11, University of Cape Coast12, University of Maryland, Baltimore13, University of Cape Town14, Johns Hopkins University15, University of Pittsburgh16, Barts Health NHS Trust17, Queen Mary University of London18, University College London19
TL;DR: In 2019, TB remained the most common cause of death from a single infectious pathogen globally, and an estimated 10.0 million people developed TB disease in 2019, and there were an estimated 1.2 million TB deaths among HIV-negative people and an additional 208, 000 deaths among people living with HIV as discussed by the authors.
••
TL;DR: In this article, a living systematic review was conducted to synthesize evidence on Long Covid characteristics, to inform clinical management, rehabilitation, and interventional studies to improve long term outcomes.
Abstract: Background: While it is now apparent clinical sequelae (often called Long Covid) may persist after acute Covid-19, their nature, frequency, and aetiology are poorly characterised. This study aims to regularly synthesise evidence on Long Covid characteristics, to inform clinical management, rehabilitation, and interventional studies to improve long term outcomes.
Methods: A living systematic review. Medline, CINAHL (EBSCO), Global Health (Ovid), WHO Global Research Database on Covid-19, LitCOVID, and Google Scholar were searched up to 17th March 2021. Published studies including at least 100 people with confirmed or clinically suspected Covid-19 at 12 weeks or more post-onset were included. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and meta-analyses to estimate prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Results: Thirty-nine studies were included: 32 cohort, six cross-sectional, and one case-control. Most showed high or moderate risk of bias. None were set in low-income countries, limited studies included children. Studies reported on 10,951 people (48% female) in 12 countries. Most followed-up post hospital discharge (78%, 8520/10951). The longest mean follow-up was 221.7 (SD: 10.9) days post Covid-19 onset. An extensive range of symptoms with wide prevalence was reported, most commonly weakness (41%; 95% CI 25% to 59%), malaise (33%; 95% CI 15% to 57%), fatigue (31%; 95% CI 24% to 39%), concentration impairment (26%; 95% CI 21% to 32%), and breathlessness (25%; 95% CI 18% to 34%). Other frequent symptoms included musculoskeletal, neurological, and psychological. 37% (95% CI 18% to 60%) of people reported reduced quality of life.
Conclusion: Long Covid is a complex condition with heterogeneous symptoms. The nature of the studies precludes a precise case definition or evaluation of risk factors. There is an urgent need for prospective, robust, standardised controlled studies into aetiology, risk factors, and biomarkers to characterise Long Covid in different at-risk populations and settings.
Systematic review registration: The protocol was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42020211131).
••
TL;DR: In this article, the authors reviewed COVID-19 responses in 28 countries using a new health systems resilience framework, and synthesize four salient elements that underlie highly effective national responses and offer recommendations toward strengthening health system resilience globally.
Abstract: Health systems resilience is key to learning lessons from country responses to crises such as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this perspective, we review COVID-19 responses in 28 countries using a new health systems resilience framework. Through a combination of literature review, national government submissions and interviews with experts, we conducted a comparative analysis of national responses. We report on domains addressing governance and financing, health workforce, medical products and technologies, public health functions, health service delivery and community engagement to prevent and mitigate the spread of COVID-19. We then synthesize four salient elements that underlie highly effective national responses and offer recommendations toward strengthening health systems resilience globally.
••
TL;DR: In this article, the emergence of variants with specific mutations in key epitopes in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 raises concerns pertinent to mass vaccination campaigns and use of monoclonal antibodies.
Abstract: Summary Background Emergence of variants with specific mutations in key epitopes in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 raises concerns pertinent to mass vaccination campaigns and use of monoclonal antibodies. We aimed to describe the emergence of the B.1.1.7 variant of concern (VOC), including virological characteristics and clinical severity in contemporaneous patients with and without the variant. Methods In this cohort study, samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 on PCR that were collected from Nov 9, 2020, for patients acutely admitted to one of two hospitals on or before Dec 20, 2020, in London, UK, were sequenced and analysed for the presence of VOC-defining mutations. We fitted Poisson regression models to investigate the association between B.1.1.7 infection and severe disease (defined as point 6 or higher on the WHO ordinal scale within 14 days of symptoms or positive test) and death within 28 days of a positive test and did supplementary genomic analyses in a cohort of chronically shedding patients and in a cohort of remdesivir-treated patients. Viral load was compared by proxy, using PCR cycle threshold values and sequencing read depths. Findings Of 496 patients with samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 on PCR and who met inclusion criteria, 341 had samples that could be sequenced. 198 (58%) of 341 had B.1.1.7 infection and 143 (42%) had non-B.1.1.7 infection. We found no evidence of an association between severe disease and death and lineage (B.1.1.7 vs non-B.1.1.7) in unadjusted analyses (prevalence ratio [PR] 0·97 [95% CI 0·72–1·31]), or in analyses adjusted for hospital, sex, age, comorbidities, and ethnicity (adjusted PR 1·02 [0·76–1·38]). We detected no B.1.1.7 VOC-defining mutations in 123 chronically shedding immunocompromised patients or in 32 remdesivir-treated patients. Viral load by proxy was higher in B.1.1.7 samples than in non-B.1.1.7 samples, as measured by cycle threshold value (mean 28·8 [SD 4·7] vs 32·0 [4·8]; p=0·0085) and genomic read depth (1280 [1004] vs 831 [682]; p=0·0011). Interpretation Emerging evidence exists of increased transmissibility of B.1.1.7, and we found increased virus load by proxy for B.1.1.7 in our data. We did not identify an association of the variant with severe disease in this hospitalised cohort. Funding University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, University College London/University College London Hospitals NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the effects of COVID-19-related hospitalisation on health and employment, to identify factors associated with recovery, and to describe recovery phenotypes were determined.
••
University of Bern1, University of Bristol2, Norwegian University of Science and Technology3, Erasmus University Rotterdam4, Harvard University5, International Agency for Research on Cancer6, University of Cambridge7, Charité8, Northwestern University9, Brigham and Women's Hospital10, University of Groningen11, University of London12, Queen Mary University of London13, Copenhagen University Hospital14, University of Cape Town15, King's College London16, McGill University17
TL;DR: The STROBE-MR Statement as discussed by the authors provides guidelines for reporting Mendelian Randomization (MR) studies and provides a set of guidelines to improve the reporting of these studies.
Abstract: Importance Mendelian randomization (MR) studies use genetic variation associated with modifiable exposures to assess their possible causal relationship with outcomes and aim to reduce potential bias from confounding and reverse causation. Objective To develop the STROBE-MR Statement as a stand-alone extension to the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guideline for the reporting of MR studies. Design, Setting, and Participants The development of the STROBE-MR Statement followed the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) framework guidance and used the STROBE Statement as a starting point to draft a checklist tailored to MR studies. The project was initiated in 2018 by reviewing the literature on the reporting of instrumental variable and MR studies. A group of 17 experts, including MR methodologists, MR study design users, developers of previous reporting guidelines, and journal editors, participated in a workshop in May 2019 to define the scope of the Statement and draft the checklist. The draft checklist was published as a preprint in July 2019 and discussed on the preprint platform, in social media, and at the 4th Mendelian Randomization Conference. The checklist was then revised based on comments, further refined through 2020, and finalized in July 2021. Findings The STROBE-MR checklist is organized into 6 sections (Title and Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Other Information) and includes 20 main items and 30 subitems. It covers both 1-sample and 2-sample MR studies that assess 1 or multiple exposures and outcomes, and addresses MR studies that follow a genome-wide association study and are reported in the same article. The checklist asks authors to justify why MR is a helpful method to address the study question and state prespecified causal hypotheses. The measurement, quality, and selection of genetic variants must be described and attempts to assess validity of MR-specific assumptions should be well reported. An item on data sharing includes reporting when the data and statistical code required to replicate the analyses can be accessed. Conclusions and Relevance STROBE-MR provides guidelines for reporting MR studies. Improved reporting of these studies could facilitate their evaluation by editors, peer reviewers, researchers, clinicians, and other readers, and enhance the interpretation of their results.
••
TL;DR: In this article, an observational cohort study of adults (aged ≥18 years) registered with primary care practices in England for whom electronic health records were available through the OpenSAFELY platform, and who had at least 1 year of continuous registration at the start of each study period (Feb 1 to Aug 3, 2020 [wave 1], and Sept 1 to Dec 31, 2020[wave 2]).