RESUMO
Abstract textO_ST_ABSBackgroundC_ST_ABSFront-line healthcare workers (HCWs) could be at-risk for Monkeypox infections. Vaccine hesitancy also affects HCWs and has an impact on their own attitudes toward vaccination. In the context of the exhaustion due to COVID-19 pandemic, we aimed to evaluate intentions to get vaccinated against Monkeypox in HCWs in France and Belgium. MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional study (snowball sampling) using a self-administered online questionnaire to evaluate intentions to get vaccinated against Monkeypox in HCWs if a recommendation for HCWs vaccination was made. We compared demographics characteristics, vaccine readiness, eagerness for COVID-19 vaccine, and confidence in HCW with Chi-square tests, student-t and performed a binary regression. ResultsAmon the 397 respondents, if a specific recommendation was made for HCWs vaccination against Monkeypox was made, 55.4 % will probably get the vaccine, while 79 % would accept the vaccine if recommended to the general population. COVID-19 vaccine eagerness and having concerns about Monkeypox epidemics were associated with favorable attitude toward Monkeypox vaccination in HCWs with respective adjusted odds ratio and 95 % Confidence Interval 2.5 (1.03-6.1), 2.6 (1.3-5.3). Forty-four HCWs (11 %) self-identified as at-risk for Monkeypox infections. ConclusionAcceptance of Monkeypox vaccination in HCWs is probably moderate, HCWs are probably complacent and did not perceive the risk of Monkeypox infections in the context of professional exposure.
RESUMO
In spite of the widespread implementation of preventive strategies, the prevalence of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) remains high. The prevalence of multidrug resistant organisms is high in HAIs. In 2019, the World Health Organization retained antimicrobial resistance as one of the ten issues for global health. The development of vaccines may contribute to the fight against antimicrobial resistance to reduce the burden of HAIs. Staphylococcus aureus, Gram negative bacteria and Clostridium difficile are the most frequent pathogens reported in HAIs. Consequently, the development of vaccines against these pathogens is crucial. At this stage, the goal of obtaining effective vaccines against S.aureus and Gram negative bacteria has not yet been achieved. However, we can expect in the near future availability of a vaccine against C. difficile. In addition, identifying populations who may benefit from these vaccines is complex, as at-risk patients are not great responders to vaccines, or as vaccination may occur too late, when they are already confronted to the risk. Vaccinating healthcare workers (HCWs) against these pathogens may have an impact only if HCWs play a role in the transmission and in the pathogens acquisition in patients, if the vaccine is effective to reduce pathogens carriage and if vaccine coverage is sufficient to protect patients. Acceptance of these potential vaccines should be evaluated and addressed in patients and in HCWs.
RESUMO
BackgroundVariant-adaptated vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as boosters are needed to increase a broader protection against SARS CoV-2 variants. New adjuvanted recombinant protein vaccines as heterologous boosters could maximize the response. MethodsIn this randomized, single-blinded, multicenter trial, adults who had received two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) 3 to7 months before were randomly assigned to receive a boost of BNT162b2, Sanofi/GSK SARS-CoV-2 adjuvanted recombinant protein MV D614 (monovalent parental formulation) or SARS-CoV-2 adjuvanted recombinant protein MV B.1.351 vaccine (monovalent Beta formulation). The primary endpoint was the percentage of subjects with a [≥]10-fold increase in neutralizing antibody titers for the Wuhan (D614) and B.1.351 (Beta) SARS-CoV-2 viral strains between day 0 and day 15. FindingsThe percentages of participants whose neutralizing antibody titers against the Wuhan (D614) SARS-CoV-2 strain increased by a factor [≥]10 between day 0 and day 15 was 55.3% (95% CI 43.4-66.7) in MV D614 group (n=76), 76.1% (64.5-85.4) in MV B.1.351 (Beta) group (n=71) and 63.2% (51.3-73.9) in BNT162b2 group (n=76). These percentages were 44.7% (33.3-56.6), 84.5% (74.0-92.0) and 51.3% (39.6-63.0) for the B.1.351 (Beta) viral strain, respectively. Higher neutralizing antibodies rates against Delta and Omicron BA.1 variants were also elicited after Sanofi/GSK MV Beta vaccine compared to the other vaccines. Comparable reactogenicity profile was observed with the three vaccines. InterpretationHeterologous boosting with the Sanofi/GSK Beta formulation vaccine resulted in a higher neutralizing antibody response against Beta variant but also the original strain and Delta and Omicron BA.1 variants, compared with mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine or the Sanofi/GSK MVD614 formulation. New vaccines containing Beta spike protein may represent an interesting strategy for broader protection against SARS CoV-2 variants. FundingFrench Ministries of Solidarity and Health and Research and Sanofi Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05124171; EudraCT identifier 2021-004550-33.
RESUMO
BackgroundThe antiviral efficacy of remdesivir is still controversial. We aimed at evaluating its clinical effectiveness in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen and/or ventilator support. Following prior publication of preliminary results, here we present the final results after completion of data monitoring. MethodsIn this European multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948; EudraCT2020-000936-23), participants were randomly allocated to receive usual standard of care (SoC) alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir and IFN-{beta}-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzyme, severe chronic kidney disease, any contra-indication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before randomization, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breast-feeding. Here, we report results for remdesivir + SoC versus SoC alone. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg infusion on day 1, followed by once daily infusions of 100 mg up to 9 days, for a total duration of 10 days. It could be stopped after 5 days if the participant was discharged. Treatment assignation was performed via web-based block randomisation stratified on illness severity and administrative European region. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. FindingsBetween March 22nd, 2020 and January 21st, 2021, 857 participants were randomised to one of the two arms in 5 European countries and 843 participants were included for the evaluation of remdesivir (control, n=423; remdesivir, n=420). At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was as follow in the remdesivir and control groups, respectively: Not hospitalized, no limitations on activities: 62/420 (14.8%) and 72/423 (17.0%); Not hospitalized, limitation on activities: 126/420 (30%) and 135/423 (31.9%); Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen: 56/420 (13.3%) and 31/423 (7.3%); Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen: 75/420 (17.9%) and 65/423 (15.4%); Hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices: 16/420 (3.8%) and 16/423 (3.8%); Hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO: 64/420 (15.2%) and 80/423 (18.9%); Death: 21/420 (5%) and 24/423 (5.7%). The difference between treatment groups was not statistically significant (OR for remdesivir, 1.02, 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.70, P=0.93). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of Serious Adverse Events between treatment groups (remdesivir, n=147/410, 35.9%, versus control, n=138/423, 32.6%, p=0.29). InterpretationRemdesivir use for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was not associated with clinical improvement at day 15. FundingEuropean Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, DIM One Health Ile-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB; Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), AGMT gGmbH, FEDER "European Regional Development Fund", Portugal Ministry of Health, Portugal Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation. Remdesivir was provided free of charge by Gilead.
RESUMO
ObjectivesWe evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-{beta}-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in COVID-19 inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support. While preliminary results were previously published, we present here the final results, following completion of the data monitoring. MethodsWe conducted a phase 3 multi-centre open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), add-on trial to Solidarity (NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 quantification in respiratory specimens, pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, which were stopped prematurely. ResultsThe intention-to-treat population included 593 participants (lopinavir/ritonavir, n=147; lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-{beta}-1a, n=147; hydroxychloroquine, n=150; control, n=149), among whom 421 (71.0%) were male, the median age was 64 years (IQR, 54-71) and 214 (36.1%) had a severe disease. The day 15 clinical status was not improved with investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.82, (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.25, P=0.36); lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-{beta}-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.05, P=0.08); hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.94 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, P=0.76). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of Serious Adverse Events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms. ConclusionIn adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-{beta}-1a and hydroxychloroquine did not improve the clinical status at day 15, nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.
RESUMO
ObjectivesReaching the last pockets of unvaccinated people is challenging, and has led to consider COVID-19 mandatory vaccination. Our aim was to assess attitudes toward COVID-19 mandatory vaccination in France before the announcement and factors associated with opposition to this type of policy. MethodsBetween the 10th and the 23rd of May 2021, we conducted a cross-sectional online survey among a representative sample of the French population aged 18 and over and a specific sample of the French Senior Population over 65. ResultsAmong 3,056 respondents, 1,314 (43.0 %) were in favor of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination, 1,281 (41.9 %) were opposed to such a policy, and 461 (15.1 %) were undecided. Among opponents to COVID-19 mandatory vaccination for the general population, 385 (30.05 %) were in favor of a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs). In multivariate analysis, age groups 18-24 years, and 25-34 years were significantly more opposed than the reference group (>75 years old) with respective adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) 4.67 (1.73-12.61) and 3.74 (1.57-8.93). No intention of getting COVID-19 vaccine was strongly associated with opposition to mandatory vaccination with aOR 10.67 (95 % CI 6.41-17.76). In comparison with partisans of the center, partisans of the far left and green parties were more likely to be opposed to COVID-19 mandatory vaccine with respective aOR (95 % CI) 1;89 (1.06-3.38) and 2.08 (1.14-3.81). ConclusionAttitudes toward mandatory COVID-19 vaccination are split in the French general population, and the debate might become politicized.
RESUMO
BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 mutations appeared recently and can lead to conformational changes in the spike protein and probably induce modifications in antigenicity. In this study, we wanted to assess the neutralizing capacity of antibodies to prevent cell infection, using a live virus neutralisation test. MethodsSera samples were collected from different populations: two-dose vaccinated COVID-19-naive healthcare workers (HCWs; Pfizer-BioNTech BNT161b2), 6-months post mild COVID-19 HCWs, and critical COVID-19 patients. We tested various clades such as 19A (initial one), 20B (B.1.1.241 lineage), 20I/501Y.V1 (B.1.1.7 lineage), and 20H/501Y.V2 (B.1.351 lineage). ResultsNo significant difference was observed between the 20B and 19A isolates for HCWs with mild COVID-19 and critical patients. However, a significant decrease in neutralisation ability was found for 20I/501Y.V1 in comparison with 19A isolate for critical patients and HCWs 6-months post infection. Concerning 20H/501Y.V2, all populations had a significant reduction in neutralising antibody titres in comparison with the 19A isolate. Interestingly, a significant difference in neutralisation capacity was observed for vaccinated HCWs between the two variants whereas it was not significant for the convalescent groups. ConclusionNeutralisation capacity was slightly reduced for critical patients and HCWs 6-months post infection. No neutralisation escape could be feared concerning the two variants of concern in both populations. The reduced neutralising response observed towards the 20H/501Y.V2 in comparison with the 19A and 20I/501Y.V1 isolates in fully immunized subjects with the BNT162b2 vaccine is a striking finding of the study.
RESUMO
BackgroundLopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-{beta}-1a and hydroxychloroquine efficacy for COVID-19 have been evaluated, but detailed evaluation is lacking. ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-{beta}-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir for improving the clinical, virological outcomes in COVID-19 inpatients. DesignOpen-label, randomized, adaptive, controlled trial. SettingMulti-center trial with patients from France. Participants583 COVID-19 inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support InterventionStandard of care (SoC, control), SoC plus lopinavir/ritonavir (400 mg lopinavir and 100 mg ritonavir every 12h for 14 days), SoC plus lopinavir/ritonavir plus IFN-{beta}-1a (44 g of subcutaneous IFN-{beta}-1a on days 1, 3, and 6), SoC plus hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice on day 1 then 400 mg once daily for 9 days) or SoC plus remdesivir (200 mg intravenously on day 1 then 100 mg once-daily for hospitalization duration or 10 days). MeasurementsThe primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 quantification in respiratory specimens and safety analyses. ResultsAdjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) for the WHO 7-point ordinal scale were not in favor of investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, aOR 0.83, 95%CI, 0.55 to 1.26, P=0.39; lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-{beta}-1a versus control, aOR 0.69, 95%CI, 0.45 to 1.04, P=0.08; hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93, 95%CI, 0.62 to 1.41, P=0.75. No significant effect on SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance in respiratory tract was evidenced. Lopinavir/ritonavir-containing treatments were significantly associated with more SAE. LimitationsNot a placebo-controlled, no anti-inflammatory agents tested. ConclusionNo improvement of the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance in respiratory tract specimens by studied drugs. This comforts the recent Solidarity findings. RegistrationNCT04315948. FundingPHRC 2020, Dim OneHealth, REACTing
RESUMO
ContextSevere Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that emerged late in 2019 is the etiologic agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). There is an urgent need to develop curative and preventive therapeutics to limit the current pandemic and to prevent the re-emergence of Covid-19. This study aimed to assess the in vitro activity of copper gluconate against SRAS-CoV-2. MethodsVero E6 cells were treated with copper gluconate 18 hours before infection. Cells were infected with a recombinant GFP expressing SARS-CoV-2. Infected cells were maintained in fresh medium containing copper gluconate for an additional 48-hour period. The infection level was measured by the confocal microscopy-based high content screening method. The cell viability in presence of copper gluconate was assessed by XTT assay. ResultsThe viability of Vero E6 cells treated with copper gluconate up to 200 M was found to be similar to that of untreated cells, but it dropped below 40% with 400 M of this agent. The infection rate was 23.8%, 18.9%, 20.6%, 6.9%, 5.3%,5.2% in cells treated with 0, 2, 10, 25, 50 and 100 M of copper gluconate respectively. As compared to untreated cells, the number of infected cells was reduced by 71%, 77%, and 78% with 25, 50, and 100 M of copper gluconate respectively (p < 0.05). ConclusionCopper gluconate was found to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 infection in Vero E6 cells. Furthers studies are needed to determine whether copper homeostasis could play a role in SARS-CoV-2 infection. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=76 SRC="FIGDIR/small/422548v1_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (26K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1f99949org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1bebae6org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@e05e37org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@49a3b2_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG C_FIG
RESUMO
Understanding the immune responses elicited by SARS-CoV-2 infection is critical in terms of protection from re-infection and, thus, for public health policy and for vaccine development against the COVID-19. Here, using either live SARS-CoV-2 particles or retroviruses pseudotyped with the SARS-CoV-2 S viral surface protein (Spike), we studied the neutralizing antibody (nAb) response in serum specimens from a cohort of 140 SARS-CoV-2 qPCR-confirmed patients, including patient with mild symptoms but also more severe form including those that require intensive care. We show that nAb titers were strongly correlated with disease severity and with anti-Spike IgG levels. Indeed, patients from intensive care units exhibited high nAb titers, whereas patients with milder disease symptoms displayed heterogenous nAb titers and asymptomatic or exclusive outpatient care patients had no or poor nAb levels. We found that the nAb activity in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients displayed a relatively rapid decline after recovery, as compared to individuals infected with alternative coronaviruses. We show the absence of cross-neutralization between endemic coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2, indicating that previous infection by human coronaviruses may not generate protective nAb against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Finally, we found that the D614G mutation in the Spike protein, which has recently been identified as the major variant now found in Europe, does not allow neutralization escape. Altogether, our results contribute to the understanding of the immune correlate of SARS-CoV-2 induced disease and claim for a rapid evaluation of the role of the humoral response in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2.
RESUMO
BackgroundThe world is facing the COVID-19 pandemic. Development of vaccine is challenging. AimTo determine the proportion of people who intend to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in France or to participate in a vaccine clinical trial. MethodsWe conducted an anonymous on-line survey from the 26th of March to the 20th of April 2020. Primary endpoints were the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19 if a vaccine was available or participate in a vaccine clinical trial. ResultsThree thousand two hundred and fifty nine individuals answered the survey; women accounted for 67.4 % of the responders, 670 (20.6 %) were under 30 years of age, 1,502 (46.1 %) between 30-49 years, 803 (24.6 %) between 50-64 years, 271 (8.3%) between 65-80 years, 13 (0.4%) over 80 years of age. According to their statements, 2.512 participants (77.6%, 95 % CI 76.2-79 %) will certainly or probably agree to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Older age, male gender, fear about COVID-19, being healthcare workers and individual perceived risk were associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance Vaccine hesitancy was associated with a decrease in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. One thousand and five hundred and fifty responders (47.6 % 95 % CI 45.9-49.3 %) will certainly or probably agree to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial. Conclusions and RelevanceNearly 75 % and 48 % of the survey responders were likely to accept vaccination or participation in a clinical trial against COVID-19. Vaccine hesitancy will be the major barrier to COVID-19 vaccine uptake.
