Monocyte migration profiles define disease severity in acute COVID-19 and unique features of long COVID.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a dysregulated immune response but it is unclear how immune dysfunction contributes to the chronic morbidity persisting in many COVID-19 patients during convalescence (long COVID). METHODS: We assessed phenotypical and functional changes of monocytes in COVID-19 patients during hospitalisation and up to 9 months of convalescence following COVID-19, respiratory syncytial virus or influenza A. Patients with progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease were included as a positive control for severe, ongoing lung injury. RESULTS: Monocyte alterations in acute COVID-19 patients included aberrant expression of leukocyte migration molecules, continuing into convalescence (n=142) and corresponding with specific symptoms of long COVID. Long COVID patients with unresolved lung injury, indicated by sustained shortness of breath and abnormal chest radiology, were defined by high monocyte expression of C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 6 (CXCR6) (p<0.0001) and adhesion molecule P-selectin glycoprotein ligand 1 (p<0.01), alongside preferential migration of monocytes towards the CXCR6 ligand C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 16 (CXCL16) (p<0.05), which is abundantly expressed in the lung. Monocyte CXCR6 and lung CXCL16 were heightened in patients with progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (p<0.001), confirming a role for the CXCR6-CXCL16 axis in ongoing lung injury. Conversely, monocytes from long COVID patients with ongoing fatigue exhibited a sustained reduction of the prostaglandin-generating enzyme cyclooxygenase 2 (p<0.01) and CXCR2 expression (p<0.05). These monocyte changes were not present in respiratory syncytial virus or influenza A convalescence. CONCLUSIONS: Our data define unique monocyte signatures that define subgroups of long COVID patients, indicating a key role for monocyte migration in COVID-19 pathophysiology. Targeting these pathways may provide novel therapeutic opportunities in COVID-19 patients with persistent morbidity.

Prognostic factors for mortality, intensive care unit and hospital admission due to SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies in Europe.

BACKGROUND: As mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is strongly age-dependent, we aimed to identify population subgroups at an elevated risk for adverse outcomes from COVID-19 using age-/gender-adjusted data from European cohort studies with the aim to identify populations that could potentially benefit from booster vaccinations. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to investigate the role of underlying medical conditions as prognostic factors for adverse outcomes due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), including death, hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mechanical ventilation within three separate settings (community, hospital and ICU). Cohort studies that reported at least age and gender-adjusted data from Europe were identified through a search of peer-reviewed articles published until 11 June 2021 in Ovid Medline and Embase. Results are presented as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals and absolute risk differences in deaths per 1000 COVID-19 patients. FINDINGS: We included 88 cohort studies with age-/gender-adjusted data from 6 653 207 SARS-CoV-2 patients from Europe. Hospital-based mortality was associated with high and moderate certainty evidence for solid organ tumours, diabetes mellitus, renal disease, arrhythmia, ischemic heart disease, liver disease and obesity, while a higher risk, albeit with low certainty, was noted for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure. Community-based mortality was associated with a history of heart failure, stroke, diabetes and end-stage renal disease. Evidence of high/moderate certainty revealed a strong association between hospitalisation for COVID-19 and solid organ transplant recipients, sleep apnoea, diabetes, stroke and liver disease. INTERPRETATION: The results confirmed the strong association between specific prognostic factors and mortality and hospital admission. Prioritisation of booster vaccinations and the implementation of nonpharmaceutical protective measures for these populations may contribute to a reduction in COVID-19 mortality, ICU and hospital admissions.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in educational settings in 2020: a review.

OBJECTIVES: School closures have been used as a core non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) during the COVID-19 pandemic. This review aims at identifying SARS-CoV-2 transmission in educational settings during the first waves of the pandemic. METHODS: This literature review assessed studies published between December 2019 and 1 April 2021 in Medline and Embase, which included studies that assessed educational settings from approximately January 2020 to January 2021. The inclusion criteria were based on the PCC framework (P-Population, C-Concept, C-Context). The study Population was restricted to people 1-17 years old (excluding neonatal transmission), the Concept was to assess child-to-child and child-to-adult transmission, while the Context was to assess specifically educational setting transmission. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria, ranging from daycare centres to high schools and summer camps, while eight studies assessed the re-opening of schools in the 2020-2021 school year. In principle, although there is sufficient evidence that children can both be infected by and transmit SARS-CoV-2 in school settings, the SAR remain relatively low-when NPI measures are implemented in parallel. Moreover, although the evidence was limited, there was an indication that younger children may have a lower SAR than adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: Transmission in educational settings in 2020 was minimal-when NPI measures were implemented in parallel. However, with an upsurge of cases related to variants of concern, continuous surveillance and assessment of the evidence is warranted to ensure the maximum protection of the health of students and the educational workforce, while also minimising the numerous negative impacts that school closures may have on children.

Intermittent prophylactic antibiotics for bronchiectasis.

BACKGROUND: Bronchiectasis is a common but under-diagnosed chronic disorder characterised by permanent dilation of the airways arising from a cycle of recurrent infection and inflammation. Symptoms including chronic, persistent cough and productive phlegm are a significant burden for people with bronchiectasis, and the main aim of treatment is to reduce exacerbation frequency and improve quality of life. Prophylactic antibiotic therapy aims to break this infection cycle and is recommended by clinical guidelines for adults with three or more exacerbations a year, based on limited evidence. It is important to weigh the evidence for bacterial suppression against the prevention of antibiotic resistance and further evidence is required on the safety and efficacy of different regimens of intermittently administered antibiotic treatments for people with bronchiectasis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of intermittent prophylactic antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains studies identified through multiple electronic searches and handsearches of other sources. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted searches on 6 September 2021, with no restriction on language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least three months' duration comparing an intermittent regime of prophylactic antibiotics with placebo, usual care or an alternate intermittent regimen. Intermittent prophylactic administration was defined as repeated courses of antibiotics with on-treatment and off-treatment intervals of at least 14 days' duration. We included adults and children with a clinical diagnosis of bronchiectasis confirmed by high resolution computed tomography (HRCT), plain film chest radiograph, or bronchography and a documented history of recurrent chest infections. We excluded studies where participants received high dose antibiotics immediately prior to enrolment or those with a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA), primary ciliary dyskinesia, hypogammaglobulinaemia, sarcoidosis, or a primary diagnosis of COPD. Our primary outcomes were exacerbation frequency and serious adverse events. We did not exclude studies on the basis of review outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or relative risk (RRs) and continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs). We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We conducted GRADE assessments for the following primary outcomes: exacerbation frequency; serious adverse events and secondary outcomes: antibiotic resistance; hospital admissions; health-related quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs, with interventions ranging from 16 to 48 weeks, involving 2180 adults. All evaluated one of three types of antibiotics over two to six cycles of 28 days on/off treatment: aminoglycosides, ß-lactams or fluoroquinolones. Two studies also included 12 cycles of 14 days on/off treatment with fluoroquinolones. Participants had a mean age of 63.6 years, 65% were women and approximately 85% Caucasian. Baseline FEV1 ranged from 55.5% to 62.6% predicted. None of the studies included children. Generally, there was a low risk of bias in the included studies. Antibiotic versus placebo: cycle of 14 days on/off. Ciprofloxacin reduced the frequency of exacerbations compared to placebo (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93; I2 = 65%; 2 studies, 469 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with eight people (95% CI 6 to 28) needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome. The intervention increased the risk of antibiotic resistance more than twofold (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.36 to 3.35; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 624 participants; high-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events, lung function (FEV1), health-related quality of life, and adverse effects did not differ between groups. Antibiotic versus placebo: cycle of 28 days on/off. Antibiotics did not reduce overall exacerbation frequency (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.02; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1695 participants; high-certainty evidence) but there were fewer severe exacerbations (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.93; I2 = 54%; 3 studies, 624 participants), though this should be interpreted with caution due to low event rates. The risk of antibiotic resistance was more than twofold higher based on a pooled analysis (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.42; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 685 participants; high-certainty evidence) and consistent with unpooled data from four further studies. Serious adverse events, time to first exacerbation, duration of exacerbation, respiratory-related hospital admissions, lung function, health-related quality of life and adverse effects did not differ between study groups. Antibiotic versus usual care. We did not find any studies that compared intermittent antibiotic regimens with usual care. Cycle of 14 days on/off versus cycle of 28 days on/off. Exacerbation frequency did not differ between the two treatment regimens (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.24; I2 = 71%; 2 studies, 625 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) However, inconsistencies in the results from the two trials in this comparison indicate that the apparent aggregated similarities may not be reliable. There was no evidence of a difference in antibiotic resistance between groups (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.48; I2 = 60%; 2 studies, 624 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events, adverse effects, lung function and health-related quality of life did not differ between the two antibiotic regimens. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, in adults who have frequent chest infections, long-term antibiotics given at 14-day on/off intervals slightly reduces the frequency of those infections and increases antibiotic resistance. Intermittent antibiotic regimens result in little to no difference in serious adverse events. The impact of intermittent antibiotic therapy on children with bronchiectasis is unknown due to an absence of evidence, and further research is needed to establish the potential risks and benefits.

Management of COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Failure with Alternatives to Invasive Mechanical Ventilation: High-Flow Oxygen, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, and Noninvasive Ventilation.

Patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may develop acute respiratory failure (ARF) with compromised gas exchange. These patients require oxygen and possibly ventilatory support, which can be delivered via different devices. Initially, oxygen therapy will often be administered through a conventional binasal oxygen catheter or air-entrainment mask. However, when higher rates of oxygen flow are needed, patients are often stepped up to high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). BiPAP, CPAP, and HFNC may be beneficial alternatives to IMV for COVID-19-associated ARF. Current evidence suggests that when nasal catheter oxygen therapy is insufficient for adequate oxygenation of patients with COVID-19-associated ARF, CPAP should be provided for prolonged periods. Subsequent escalation to IMV may be implemented if necessary.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and COVID-19: interrelationships.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and COVID-19 have many potentially negative interrelationships, which may influence the course of infection and clinical outcomes. The aim of this review is to provide clinicians with an up-to-date perspective of the complex interactions between COPD and COVID-19. RECENT FINDINGS: We consider mechanisms that could increase SARS-CoV-2 infection susceptibility in COPD, including increased ACE2 expression, reduced antiviral defence and dysfunctional immunity. We review evidence that COPD is associated with worse clinical outcomes from COVID-19 in analyses that have adjusted for confounding factors, and describe the mechanisms responsible. We discuss the use of inhaled corticosteroids in the context of susceptibility to COVID-19, and consider the impact of COVID-19 on the usual care of COPD patients. SUMMARY: The current review highlights the evidence that COPD patients have worse outcomes from COVID-19, and the multiple mechanisms responsible.

Screening, Diagnostic and Prognostic Tests for COVID-19: A Comprehensive Review.

While molecular testing with real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) remains the gold-standard test for COVID-19 diagnosis and screening, more rapid or affordable molecular and antigen testing options have been developed. More affordable, point-of-care antigen testing, despite being less sensitive compared to molecular assays, might be preferable for wider screening initiatives. Simple laboratory, imaging and clinical parameters could facilitate prognostication and triage. This comprehensive review summarises current evidence on the diagnostic, screening and prognostic tests for COVID-19.

Current developments and future directions in COPD.

The European Respiratory Society journals publish respiratory research and policy documents of the highest quality, offering a platform for the exchange and promotion of scientific knowledge. In this article, focusing on COPD, the third leading cause of death globally, we summarise novel research highlights focusing on the disease's underlying mechanisms, epidemiology and management, with the aim to inform and inspire respiratory clinicians and researchers.

Childhood asthma outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from the PeARL multi-national cohort.

BACKGROUND: The interplay between COVID-19 pandemic and asthma in children is still unclear. We evaluated the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on childhood asthma outcomes. METHODS: The PeARL multinational cohort included 1,054 children with asthma and 505 non-asthmatic children aged between 4 and 18 years from 25 pediatric departments, from 15 countries globally. We compared the frequency of acute respiratory and febrile presentations during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between groups and with data available from the previous year. In children with asthma, we also compared current and historical disease control. RESULTS: During the pandemic, children with asthma experienced fewer upper respiratory tract infections, episodes of pyrexia, emergency visits, hospital admissions, asthma attacks, and hospitalizations due to asthma, in comparison with the preceding year. Sixty-six percent of asthmatic children had improved asthma control while in 33% the improvement exceeded the minimal clinically important difference. Pre-bronchodilatation FEV1 and peak expiratory flow rate were improved during the pandemic. When compared to non-asthmatic controls, children with asthma were not at increased risk of LRTIs, episodes of pyrexia, emergency visits, or hospitalizations during the pandemic. However, an increased risk of URTIs emerged. CONCLUSION: Childhood asthma outcomes, including control, were improved during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, probably because of reduced exposure to asthma triggers and increased treatment adherence. The decreased frequency of acute episodes does not support the notion that childhood asthma may be a risk factor for COVID-19. Furthermore, the potential for improving childhood asthma outcomes through environmental control becomes apparent.

Self-Reported Real-World Safety and Reactogenicity of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Vaccine Recipient Survey.

An online survey was conducted to compare the safety, tolerability and reactogenicity of available COVID-19 vaccines in different recipient groups. This survey was launched in February 2021 and ran for 11 days. Recipients of a first COVID-19 vaccine dose ≥7 days prior to survey completion were eligible. The incidence and severity of vaccination side effects were assessed. The survey was completed by 2002 respondents of whom 26.6% had a prior COVID-19 infection. A prior COVID-19 infection was associated with an increased risk of any side effect (risk ratio 1.08, 95% confidence intervals (1.05-1.11)), fever (2.24 (1.86-2.70)), breathlessness (2.05 (1.28-3.29)), flu-like illness (1.78 (1.51-2.10)), fatigue (1.34 (1.20-1.49)) and local reactions (1.10 (1.06-1.15)). It was also associated with an increased risk of severe side effects leading to hospital care (1.56 (1.14-2.12)). While mRNA vaccines were associated with a higher incidence of any side effect (1.06 (1.01-1.11)) compared with viral vector-based vaccines, these were generally milder (p < 0.001), mostly local reactions. Importantly, mRNA vaccine recipients reported a considerably lower incidence of systemic reactions (RR < 0.6) including anaphylaxis, swelling, flu-like illness, breathlessness and fatigue and of side effects requiring hospital care (0.42 (0.31-0.58)). Our study confirms the findings of recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating that COVID-19 vaccines are generally safe with limited severe side effects. For the first time, our study links prior COVID-19 illness with an increased incidence of vaccination side effects and demonstrates that mRNA vaccines cause milder, less frequent systemic side effects but more local reactions.

Developing trustworthy recommendations as part of an urgent response (1-2 weeks): a GRADE concept paper.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to propose an approach for developing trustworthy recommendations as part of urgent responses (1-2 week) in the clinical, public health, and health systems fields. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a review of the literature, outlined a draft approach, refined the concept through iterative discussions, a workshop by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Rapid Guidelines project group, and obtained feedback from the larger Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. RESULTS: A request for developing recommendations within 2 week is the usual trigger for an urgent response. Although the approach builds on the general principles of trustworthy guideline development, we highlight the following steps: (1) assess the level of urgency; (2) assess feasibility; (3) set up the organizational logistics; (4) specify the question(s); (5) collect the information needed; (6) assess the adequacy of identified information; (7) develop the recommendations using one of the 4 potential approaches: adopt existing recommendations, adapt existing recommendations, develop new recommendations using existing adequate systematic review, or develop new recommendations using expert panel input; and (8) consider an updating plan. CONCLUSION: An urgent response for developing recommendations requires building a cohesive, skilled, and highly motivated multidisciplinary team with the necessary clinical, scientific, and methodological expertise; adapting to shifting needs; complying with the principles of transparency; and properly managing conflicts of interest.

Outcomes Evaluated in Controlled Clinical Trials on the Management of COVID-19: A Methodological Systematic Review.

It is crucial that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) evaluate the outcomes that are critical to patients and clinicians, to facilitate relevance, interpretability, and comparability. This methodological systematic review describes the outcomes evaluated in 415 RCTs on the management of COVID-19, that were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, by 5 May 2020, and the instruments used to measure these outcomes. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the selection of outcomes and instruments. Mortality, adverse events and treatment success or failure are only evaluated in 64.4%, 48.4% and 43% of the included studies, respectively, while other outcomes are selected less often. Studies focusing on more severe presentations (hospitalized patients or requiring intensive care) most frequently evaluate mortality (72.5%) and adverse events (55.6%), while hospital admission (50.8%) and viral detection/load (55.6%) are most frequently assessed in the community setting. Outcome measurement instruments are poorly reported and heterogeneous. Follow-up does not exceed one month in 64.3% of these earlier trials, and long-term COVID-19 burden is rarely assessed. The methodological issues identified could delay the introduction of potentially life-saving treatments in clinical practice. Our findings demonstrate the need for greater consistency, to enable decision makers to compare and contrast studies.

Impact of COVID-19 on Pediatric Asthma: Practice Adjustments and Disease Burden.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether asthma may affect susceptibility or severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in children and how pediatric asthma services worldwide have responded to the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric asthma services and on disease burden in their patients. METHODS: An online survey was sent to members of the Pediatric Asthma in Real Life think tank and the World Allergy Organization Pediatric Asthma Committee. It included questions on service provision, disease burden, and the clinical course of confirmed cases of COVID-19 infection among children with asthma. RESULTS: Ninety-one respondents, caring for an estimated population of more than 133,000 children with asthma, completed the survey. COVID-19 significantly impacted pediatric asthma services: 39% ceased physical appointments, 47% stopped accepting new patients, and 75% limited patients' visits. Consultations were almost halved to a median of 20 (interquartile range, 10-25) patients per week. Virtual clinics and helplines were launched in most centers. Better than expected disease control was reported in 20% (10%-40%) of patients, whereas control was negatively affected in only 10% (7.5%-12.5%). Adherence also appeared to increase. Only 15 confirmed cases of COVID-19 were reported among the population; the estimated incidence is not apparently different from the reports of general pediatric cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Children with asthma do not appear to be disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Outcomes may even have improved, possibly through increased adherence and/or reduced exposures. Clinical services have rapidly responded to the pandemic by limiting and replacing physical appointments with virtual encounters.