Does BCG provide long-term protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection? A case-control study in Quebec, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, before severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines became available, it was hypothesized that BCG (Bacillus Calmette-Guérin), which stimulates innate immunity, could provide protection against SARS-CoV-2. Numerous ecological studies, plagued by methodological deficiencies, revealed a country-level association between BCG use and lower COVID-19 incidence and mortality. We aimed to determine whether BCG administered in early life decreased the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adulthood and the severity of COVID-19. METHODS: This case-control study was conducted in Quebec, Canada. Cases were patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test performed at two hospitals between March-October 2020. Controls were identified among patients with non-COVID-19 samples processed by the same microbiology laboratories during the same period. Enrolment was limited to individuals born in Quebec between 1956 and 1976, whose vaccine status was accessible in a computerized registry of 4.2 million BCG vaccinations. RESULTS: We recruited 920 cases and 2123 controls. Fifty-four percent of cases (n = 424) and 53% of controls (n = 1127) had received BCG during childhood (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.89-1.21), while 12% of cases (n = 114) and 11% of controls (n = 235) had received two or more BCG doses (OR: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.88-1.46). After adjusting for age, sex, material deprivation, recruiting hospital and occupation there was no evidence of protection conferred by BCG against SARS-CoV-2 (AOR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.84-1.21). Among cases, 77 (8.4%) needed hospitalization and 18 (2.0%) died. The vaccinated were as likely as the unvaccinated to require hospitalization (AOR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.62-1.67) or to die (AOR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.32-2.39). CONCLUSIONS: BCG does not provide long-term protection against symptomatic COVID-19 or severe forms of the disease.

Anosmie et dysgueusie associées à l'infection au SRAS-CoV-2: étude cas­témoins appariée selon l'âge.

CONTEXTE: On a signalé l'anosmie et la dysgueusie comme symptômes potentiels de la maladie à coronavirus 2019. Cette étude visait à confirmer si ces symptômes sont caractéristiques chez les personnes ayant eu un résultat positif au dépistage du coronavirus du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère 2 (SRAS-CoV-2). MÉTHODES: Nous avons réalisé une étude cas­témoins appariée selon l'âge dans la région des Cantons-de-l'Est, au Québec, entre le 10 et le 23 mars 2020. Nous avons inclus les adultes (18 ans et plus) ayant obtenu un résultat positif au dépistage du SRAS-CoV-2 par test d'amplification en chaîne par polymérase couplée à une transcription inverse. Les cas ont été appariés (1:1) par tranche d'âge de 5 ans avec des témoins sélectionnés aléatoirement parmi tous les patients ayant eu un résultat négatif au dépistage pendant la même période. Les données démographiques et de laboratoire ont été récupérées dans les dossiers médicaux. Les symptômes cliniques et les comorbidités associés à l'anosmie et à la dysgueusie ont été notés lors d'entrevues téléphoniques faites au moyen d'un questionnaire standardisé. RÉSULTATS: Parmi les 2883 personnes soumises au dépistage du SRAS-CoV-2, nous avons recensé 134 cas positifs (70 femmes [52,2 %] et 64 hommes [47,8 %]; âge médian 57,1 ans [intervalle interquartile 41,2­64,5 ans]). Les symptômes indépendamment associés à l'infection confirmée au SRAS-CoV-2 dans une analyse de régression logistique conditionnelle étaient les suivants : anosmie et/ou dysgueusie (rapport de cotes [RC] ajusté 62,9; intervalle de confiance [IC] de 95 % 11,0­359,7), myalgie (RC ajusté 7,6; IC de 95 % 1,9­29,9), vision trouble (RC ajusté 0,1; IC de 95 % 0,0­0,8) et douleur thoracique (RC ajusté 0,1; IC de 95 % 0,0­0,6). INTERPRÉTATION: Nous avons observé un lien étroit entre les symptômes olfactifs et gustatifs et la positivité au SRAS-CoV-2. Ces symptômes devraient être considérés comme une caractéristique fréquente et distinctive de l'infection au SRAS-CoV-2 et devraient servir d'indication de dépistage, et même de répétition du dépistage chez les personnes dont le résultat initial est négatif.

Anosmia and dysgeusia associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an age-matched case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Anosmia and dysgeusia have been reported as potential symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019. This study aimed to confirm whether anosmia and dysgeusia are specific symptoms among those who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: We conducted an age-matched case-control study in the Eastern Townships region of Quebec between Mar. 10 and Mar. 23, 2020. We included adults (age ≥ 18 yr) who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Cases were matched (1:1) according to 5-year age groups with control patents selected randomly from among all patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 during the same period. Demographic and laboratory information was collected from medical records. Clinical symptoms and comorbidities associated with anosmia and dysgeusia were obtained by telephone interview with a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: Among 2883 people tested for SARS-CoV-2, we identified 134 positive cases (70 women [52.2%] and 64 men [47.8%]; median age 57.1 [interquartile range 41.2-64.5] yr). The symptoms independently associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity in conditional logistic regression were anosmia or dysgeusia or both (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 62.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 11.0-359.7), presence of myalgia (adjusted OR 7.6, 95% CI 1.9-29.9), blurred vision (adjusted OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.0-0.8) and chest pain (adjusted OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.0-0.6). INTERPRETATION: We found a strong association between olfactory and gustatory symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 positivity. These symptoms should be considered as common and distinctive features of SARS-CoV-2 infection and should serve as an indication for testing and possible retesting of people whose first test result is negative.

Short and long-term safety of the 2009 AS03-adjuvanted pandemic vaccine.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the short and the long term safety of the 2009 AS03 adjuvanted monovalent pandemic vaccine through an active web-based electronic surveillance. We compared its safety profile to that of the seasonal trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) for 2010-2011. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Health care workers (HCW) vaccinated in 2009 with the pandemic vaccine (Arepanrix ® from GSK) or HCW vaccinated in 2010 with the 2010-2011 TIV were invited to participate in a web-based active surveillance of vaccine safety. They completed two surveys the day-8 survey covered the first 7 days post-vaccination and the day-29 survey covered events occurring 8 to 28 days after vaccination. Those who reported a problem were called by a nurse to obtain details. The main outcome was the occurrence of a new health problem or the worsening of an existing health condition that resulted in a medical consultation or work absenteeism. For the pandemic vaccine, a six-month follow-up for the occurrence of serious adverse events (SAE) was conducted. Among the 6242 HCW who received the pandemic vaccine, 440 (7%) reported 468 events compared to 328 of the 7645 HCW (4.3%) who reported 339 events after the seasonal vaccine. The 2009 pandemic vaccine was associated with significantly more local reactions than the 2010-2011 seasonal vaccine (1% vs. 0.03%, p<0.001). Paresthesia was reported by 7 HCW (0.1%) after the pandemic vaccine but by none after the seasonal vaccine. For the pandemic vaccine, no clustering of SAE was found in the 6 month follow-up. CONCLUSION: The 2009 pandemic vaccine seems to have a good safety profile, similar to the 2010-2011 TIV, with the exception of local reactions. This surveillance was adequately powered to identify AE associated with an excess risk ≥1 per 1000 vaccinations but is insufficient to detect rare AE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01289418, NCT01318876.

Impact of guideline-consistent therapy on outcome of patients with healthcare-associated and community-acquired pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: A new category of healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) has been added in the most recent American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA) guidelines, since multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens are more common in patients with HCAP than in those with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The optimal empirical management of patients with HCAP remains controversial and adherence to guidelines is inconsistent. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 3295 adults admitted for pneumonia in an academic centre of Canada, between 1997 and 2008. RESULTS: MDR pathogens were more common among patients with HCAP than in those with CAP, but less so than in other studies. Compared with patients with CAP, those with HCAP had a higher all-cause 30 day mortality [68/563 (12%) versus 201/2732 (7%); P < 0.001] and more frequent need for mechanical ventilation [78/563 (14%) versus 276/2732 (10%); P = 0.01]. In patients with CAP, mortality was lower when treatment was concordant with guidelines [86/1557 (6%) versus 109/1097 (10%) if discordant; adjusted odds ratio 0.6 (0.4-0.8); P < 0.001]. In HCAP, mortality was similar whether or not empirical treatment was concordant with guidelines [6/35 (17%) versus 18/148 (12%) if discordant; P = 0.4]. However, 30 day mortality tended to be higher when the empirical treatment was microbiologically ineffective [4/22 (18%) versus 17/187 (9%) when effective; P = 0.3]. CONCLUSIONS: HCAP is associated with worse outcomes than CAP. MDR pathogens were implicated in only a small fraction of HCAP cases. In our study, unlike CAP, non-respect of current HCAP guidelines had no adverse effect on the ultimate outcome. Strategies for the empirical management of HCAP should be tailored to the local epidemiological context.