Journal: medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences
Use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, especially in combination with azithromycin, has raised safety concerns. Here, we report safety data from three outpatient randomized clinical trials.
Respiratory distress requiring intubation is the most serious complication associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Methods In this retrospective study, we used survival analysis to determine whether or not mortality following intubation was associated with hormone exposure in patients treated at New York Presbyterian/ Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Here, we report the overall hazards ratio for each hormone for exposure before and after intubation for intubated and mechanically ventilated patients.
Results Among the 189,987 patients, we identified 948 intubation periods across 791 patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 or infected with SARS-CoV2 and 3,497 intubation periods across 2,981 patients who were not. Melatonin exposure after intubation was statistically associated with a positive outcome in COVID-19 (demographics and comorbidities adjusted HR: 0.131, 95% CI: 7.76E-02 - 0.223, p -value = 8.19E-14) and non-COVID-19 (demographics and comorbidities adjusted HR: 0.278, 95% CI: 0.142 - 0.542, p -value = 1.72E-04) intubated patients. Additionally, melatonin exposure after intubation was statically associated with a positive outcome in COVID-19 patients (demographics and comorbidities adjusted HR: 0.127, 95% CI: 6.01E-02 - 0.269, p -value = 7.15E-08).
Conclusions Melatonin exposure after intubation is significantly associated with a positive outcome in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Additionally, melatonin exposure after intubation is significantly associated with a positive outcome in COVID-19 patients requiring mechanical ventilation. While our models account for many covariates, including clinical history and demographics, it is impossible to rule out confounding or collider biases within our population. Further study into the possible mechanism of this observation is warranted.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is spread by direct, indirect, or close contact with infected people via infected respiratory droplets or saliva. Crowded indoor environments with sustained close contact and conversations are a particularly high-risk setting.
The COVID-19 pandemic poses an existential threat to many US residential colleges: either they open their doors to students in September or they risk serious financial consequences.
SARS-CoV-2 is difficult to contain because many transmissions occur during the pre-symptomatic phase of infection. Moreover, in contrast to influenza, while most SARS-CoV-2 infected people do not transmit the virus to anybody, a small percentage secondarily infect large numbers of people. We designed mathematical models of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza which link observed viral shedding patterns with key epidemiologic features of each virus, including distributions of the number of secondary cases attributed to each infected person (individual R0) and the duration between symptom onset in the transmitter and secondarily infected person (serial interval). We identify that people with SARS-CoV-2 or influenza infections are usually contagious for fewer than one day congruent with peak viral load several days after infection, and that transmission is unlikely below a certain viral load. SARS-CoV-2 super-spreader events with over 10 secondary infections occur when an infected person is briefly shedding at a very high viral load and has a high concurrent number of exposed contacts. The higher predisposition of SARS-CoV-2 towards super-spreading events is not due to its 1-2 additional weeks of viral shedding relative to influenza. Rather, a person infected with SARS-CoV-2 exposes more people within equivalent physical contact networks than a person infected with influenza, likely due to aerosolization of virus. Our results support policies that limit crowd size in indoor spaces and provide viral load benchmarks for infection control and therapeutic interventions intended to prevent secondary transmission.
Children with SARS-CoV-2 infection typically have mild symptoms that do not require medical attention, leaving a gap in our understanding of the spectrum of illnesses that the virus causes in children.
Covid-19 excess deaths refer to increases in mortality over what would normally have been expected in the absence of the Covid-19 pandemic. In this study, we take advantage of spatial variation in Covid-19 mortality across US counties to construct an Ordinary Least Squares regression model estimating its relationship with all-cause mortality. We then examine how the extent of excess mortality not assigned to Covid-19 varies across subsets of counties defined by demographic, structural, and policy characteristics. We estimate that 20.4% [95% CI (13.7%, 27.2%)] of excess deaths between February 1 and August 26, 2020 were ascribed to causes of death other than Covid-19 itself. Excess deaths not assigned to Covid-19 were even higher than predicted by our model in counties with high income inequality, low median income, low homeownership, and high percentages of Black residents, showing a pattern related to socioeconomic disadvantage and structural racism. Our work suggests that inequities in excess deaths attributable to Covid-19 may be even greater than revealed by data reporting deaths assigned to Covid-19 alone.
We conducted an extensive serological study to quantify population-level exposure and define correlates of immunity against SARS-CoV-2. We found that relative to mild COVID-19 cases, individuals with severe disease exhibited elevated authentic virus-neutralizing titers and antibody levels against nucleocapsid (N) and the receptor binding domain (RBD) and the S2 region of spike protein. Unlike disease severity, age and sex played lesser roles in serological responses. All cases, including asymptomatic individuals, seroconverted by 2 weeks post-PCR confirmation. RBD- and S2-specific and neutralizing antibody titers remained elevated and stable for at least 2-3 months post-onset, whereas those against N were more variable with rapid declines in many samples. Testing of 5882 self-recruited members of the local community demonstrated that 1.24% of individuals showed antibody reactivity to RBD. However, 18% (13/73) of these putative seropositive samples failed to neutralize authentic SARS-CoV-2 virus. Each of the neutralizing, but only 1 of the non-neutralizing samples, also displayed potent reactivity to S2. Thus, inclusion of multiple independent assays markedly improved the accuracy of antibody tests in low seroprevalence communities and revealed differences in antibody kinetics depending on the viral antigen. In contrast to other reports, we conclude that immunity is durable for at least several months after SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Recovery from COVID-19 is associated with production of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, but it is uncertain whether these confer immunity. We describe viral RNA shedding duration in hospitalized patients and identify patients with recurrent shedding. We sequenced viruses from two distinct episodes of symptomatic COVID-19 separated by 144 days in a single patient, to conclusively describe reinfection with a new strain harboring the spike variant D614G. With antibody and B cell analytics, we show correlates of adaptive immunity, including a differential response to D614G. Finally, we discuss implications for vaccine programs and begin to define benchmarks for protection against reinfection from SARS-CoV-2.
Forty million U.S. residents lost their jobs in the first two months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In response, the Federal Government expanded unemployment insurance benefits in both size ($600/week supplement) and scope (to include caregivers and self-employed workers). We assessed the relationship between unemployment insurance and food insecurity among people who lost their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic in the period when the federal unemployment insurance supplement was in place. We analyzed data from the Understanding Coronavirus in America (UAC) cohort, a longitudinal survey collected by the University of Southern California Center for Economic and Social Research (CESR) every two weeks between April 1 and July 8, 2020. We limited the sample to individuals living in households earning less than $75,000 in February 2020 who lost their jobs during COVID-19. Using difference-in-differences and event study regression models, we evaluated the association between receipt of unemployment insurance and self-reported food insecurity and eating less due to financial constraints. We found that 40.5% of those living in households earning less than $75,000 and employed in February 2020 experienced unemployment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of those who lost their jobs, 31% reported food insecurity and 33% reported eating less due to financial constraints. Food insecurity peaked in April 2020 and declined over time, but began to increase again among people receiving unemployment insurance during the final wave of the survey ahead of the federal supplement to unemployment insurance ending. Food insecurity and eating less were more common among people who were non-White, lived in lower-income households, younger, and who were sexual or gender minorities. Receipt of unemployment insurance was associated with a 4.4 percentage point (95% CI: -7.8 to -0.9 percentage points) decline in food insecurity (a 30.3% relative decline compared to the average level of food insecurity during the study period). Receipt of unemployment insurance was also associated with a 6.1 percentage point (95% CI: -9.6 to -2.7 percentage point) decline in eating less due to financial constraints (a 42% relative decline). Estimates from event study specifications revealed that reductions in food insecurity and eating less were greatest in the four-week period immediately following receipt of unemployment insurance, with no evidence of differential pre-existing trends in either outcome. We conclude that receiving unemployment insurance benefits during the period when the $600/week federal supplement was in place was associated with large reductions in food insecurity.