Changes in symptomatology, reinfection, and transmissibility associated with the SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7: an ecological study.

The SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7 was first identified in December, 2020, in England. We aimed to investigate whether increases in the proportion of infections with this variant are associated with differences in symptoms or disease course, reinfection rates, or transmissibility. We did an ecological study to examine the association between the regional proportion of infections with the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 variant and reported symptoms, disease course, rates of reinfection, and transmissibility. Data on types and duration of symptoms were obtained from longitudinal reports from users of the COVID Symptom Study app who reported a positive test for COVID-19 between Sept 28 and Dec 27, 2020 (during which the prevalence of B.1.1.7 increased most notably in parts of the UK). From this dataset, we also estimated the frequency of possible reinfection, defined as the presence of two reported positive tests separated by more than 90 days with a period of reporting no symptoms for more than 7 days before the second positive test. The proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections with the B.1.1.7 variant across the UK was estimated with use of genomic data from the COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium and data from Public Health England on spike-gene target failure (a non-specific indicator of the B.1.1.7 variant) in community cases in England. We used linear regression to examine the association between reported symptoms and proportion of B.1.1.7. We assessed the Spearman correlation between the proportion of B.1.1.7 cases and number of reinfections over time, and between the number of positive tests and reinfections. We estimated incidence for B.1.1.7 and previous variants, and compared the effective reproduction number, Rt, for the two incidence estimates. From Sept 28 to Dec 27, 2020, positive COVID-19 tests were reported by 36 920 COVID Symptom Study app users whose region was known and who reported as healthy on app sign-up. We found no changes in reported symptoms or disease duration associated with B.1.1.7. For the same period, possible reinfections were identified in 249 (0·7% [95% CI 0·6-0·8]) of 36 509 app users who reported a positive swab test before Oct 1, 2020, but there was no evidence that the frequency of reinfections was higher for the B.1.1.7 variant than for pre-existing variants. Reinfection occurrences were more positively correlated with the overall regional rise in cases (Spearman correlation 0·56-0·69 for South East, London, and East of England) than with the regional increase in the proportion of infections with the B.1.1.7 variant (Spearman correlation 0·38-0·56 in the same regions), suggesting B.1.1.7 does not substantially alter the risk of reinfection. We found a multiplicative increase in the Rt of B.1.1.7 by a factor of 1·35 (95% CI 1·02-1·69) relative to pre-existing variants. However, Rt fell below 1 during regional and national lockdowns, even in regions with high proportions of infections with the B.1.1.7 variant. The lack of change in symptoms identified in this study indicates that existing testing and surveillance infrastructure do not need to change specifically for the B.1.1.7 variant. In addition, given that there was no apparent increase in the reinfection rate, vaccines are likely to remain effective against the B.1.1.7 variant. Zoe Global, Department of Health (UK), Wellcome Trust, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (UK), National Institute for Health Research (UK), Medical Research Council (UK), Alzheimer's Society.

Graham MS ，Sudre CH ，May A ，Antonelli M ，Murray B ，Varsavsky T ，Kläser K ，Canas LS ，Molteni E ，Modat M ，Drew DA ，Nguyen LH ，Polidori L ，Selvachandran S ，Hu C ，Capdevila J ，COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) Consortium ，Hammers A ，Chan AT ，Wolf J ，Spector TD ，Steves CJ ，Ourselin S ... -  《The Lancet Regional Health》

The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Sample collection is a key driver of accuracy in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Viral load may vary at different anatomical sampling sites and accuracy may be compromised by difficulties obtaining specimens and the expertise of the person taking the sample. It is important to optimise sampling accuracy within cost, safety and accessibility constraints. To compare the sensitivity of different sampling collection sites and methods for the detection of current SARS-CoV-2 infection with any molecular or antigen-based test. Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 22 February 2022. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions. We included studies of symptomatic or asymptomatic people with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing testing. We included studies of any design that compared results from different sample types (anatomical location, operator, collection device) collected from the same participant within a 24-hour period. Within a sample pair, we defined a reference sample and an index sample collected from the same participant within the same clinical encounter (within 24 hours). Where the sample comparison was different anatomical sites, the reference standard was defined as a nasopharyngeal or combined naso/oropharyngeal sample collected into the same sample container and the index sample as the alternative anatomical site. Where the sample comparison was concerned with differences in the sample collection method from the same site, we defined the reference sample as that closest to standard practice for that sample type. Where the sample pair comparison was concerned with differences in personnel collecting the sample, the more skilled or experienced operator was considered the reference sample. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C checklists, tailored to this review. We present estimates of the difference in the sensitivity (reference sample (%) minus index sample sensitivity (%)) in a pair and as an average across studies for each index sampling method using forest plots and tables. We examined heterogeneity between studies according to population (age, symptom status) and index sample (time post-symptom onset, operator expertise, use of transport medium) characteristics. This review includes 106 studies reporting 154 evaluations and 60,523 sample pair comparisons, of which 11,045 had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ninety evaluations were of saliva samples, 37 nasal, seven oropharyngeal, six gargle, six oral and four combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples. Four evaluations were of the effect of operator expertise on the accuracy of three different sample types. The majority of included evaluations (146) used molecular tests, of which 140 used RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction). Eight evaluations were of nasal samples used with Ag-RDTs (rapid antigen tests). The majority of studies were conducted in Europe (35/106, 33%) or the USA (27%) and conducted in dedicated COVID-19 testing clinics or in ambulatory hospital settings (53%). Targeted screening or contact tracing accounted for only 4% of evaluations. Where reported, the majority of evaluations were of adults (91/154, 59%), 28 (18%) were in mixed populations with only seven (4%) in children. The median prevalence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was 23% (interquartile (IQR) 13%-40%). Risk of bias and applicability assessment were hampered by poor reporting in 77% and 65% of included studies, respectively. Risk of bias was low across all domains in only 3% of evaluations due to inappropriate inclusion or exclusion criteria, unclear recruitment, lack of blinding, nonrandomised sampling order or differences in testing kit within a sample pair. Sixty-eight percent of evaluation cohorts were judged as being at high or unclear applicability concern either due to inflation of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in study populations by selectively including individuals with confirmed PCR-positive samples or because there was insufficient detail to allow replication of sample collection. When used with RT-PCR • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between gargle and nasopharyngeal samples (on average -1 percentage points, 95% CI -5 to +2, based on 6 evaluations, 2138 sample pairs, of which 389 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between saliva collection from the deep throat and nasopharyngeal samples (on average +10 percentage points, 95% CI -1 to +21, based on 2192 sample pairs, of which 730 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was evidence that saliva collection using spitting, drooling or salivating was on average -12 percentage points less sensitive (95% CI -16 to -8, based on 27,253 sample pairs, of which 4636 had SARS-CoV-2) compared to nasopharyngeal samples. We did not find any evidence of a difference in the sensitivity of saliva collected using spitting, drooling or salivating (sensitivity difference: range from -13 percentage points (spit) to -21 percentage points (salivate)). • Nasal samples (anterior and mid-turbinate collection combined) were, on average, 12 percentage points less sensitive compared to nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -17 to -7), based on 9291 sample pairs, of which 1485 had SARS-CoV-2. We did not find any evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples collected from the mid-turbinates (3942 sample pairs) or from the anterior nares (8272 sample pairs). • There was evidence that oropharyngeal samples were, on average, 17 percentage points less sensitive than nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -29 to -5), based on seven evaluations, 2522 sample pairs, of which 511 had SARS-CoV-2. A much smaller volume of evidence was available for combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples and oral samples. Age, symptom status and use of transport media do not appear to affect the sensitivity of saliva samples and nasal samples. When used with Ag-RDTs • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples (sensitivity, on average, 0 percentage points -0.2 to +0.2, based on 3688 sample pairs, of which 535 had SARS-CoV-2). When used with RT-PCR, there is no evidence for a difference in sensitivity of self-collected gargle or deep-throat saliva samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples collected by healthcare workers when used with RT-PCR. Use of these alternative, self-collected sample types has the potential to reduce cost and discomfort and improve the safety of sampling by reducing risk of transmission from aerosol spread which occurs as a result of coughing and gagging during the nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal sample collection procedure. This may, in turn, improve access to and uptake of testing. Other types of saliva, nasal, oral and oropharyngeal samples are, on average, less sensitive compared to healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples, and it is unlikely that sensitivities of this magnitude would be acceptable for confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection with RT-PCR. When used with Ag-RDTs, there is no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples and healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The implications of this for self-testing are unclear as evaluations did not report whether nasal samples were self-collected or collected by healthcare workers. Further research is needed in asymptomatic individuals, children and in Ag-RDTs, and to investigate the effect of operator expertise on accuracy. Quality assessment of the evidence base underpinning these conclusions was restricted by poor reporting. There is a need for further high-quality studies, adhering to reporting standards for test accuracy studies.

Davenport C ，Arevalo-Rodriguez I ，Mateos-Haro M ，Berhane S ，Dinnes J ，Spijker R ，Buitrago-Garcia D ，Ciapponi A ，Takwoingi Y ，Deeks JJ ，Emperador D ，Leeflang MMG ，Van den Bruel A ，Cochrane COVID-19 Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.

Elwenspoek MM ，Thom H ，Sheppard AL ，Keeney E ，O'Donnell R ，Jackson J ，Roadevin C ，Dawson S ，Lane D ，Stubbs J ，Everitt H ，Watson JC ，Hay AD ，Gillett P ，Robins G ，Jones HE ，Mallett S ，Whiting PF ... -  《-》

Illness duration and symptom profile in symptomatic UK school-aged children tested for SARS-CoV-2.

In children, SARS-CoV-2 infection is usually asymptomatic or causes a mild illness of short duration. Persistent illness has been reported; however, its prevalence and characteristics are unclear. We aimed to determine illness duration and characteristics in symptomatic UK school-aged children tested for SARS-CoV-2 using data from the COVID Symptom Study, one of the largest UK citizen participatory epidemiological studies to date. In this prospective cohort study, data from UK school-aged children (age 5-17 years) were reported by an adult proxy. Participants were voluntary, and used a mobile application (app) launched jointly by Zoe Limited and King's College London. Illness duration and symptom prevalence, duration, and burden were analysed for children testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 for whom illness duration could be determined, and were assessed overall and for younger (age 5-11 years) and older (age 12-17 years) groups. Children with longer than 1 week between symptomatic reports on the app were excluded from analysis. Data from symptomatic children testing negative for SARS-CoV-2, matched 1:1 for age, gender, and week of testing, were also assessed. 258 790 children aged 5-17 years were reported by an adult proxy between March 24, 2020, and Feb 22, 2021, of whom 75 529 had valid test results for SARS-CoV-2. 1734 children (588 younger and 1146 older children) had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result and calculable illness duration within the study timeframe (illness onset between Sept 1, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021). The most common symptoms were headache (1079 [62·2%] of 1734 children), and fatigue (954 [55·0%] of 1734 children). Median illness duration was 6 days (IQR 3-11) versus 3 days (2-7) in children testing negative, and was positively associated with age (Spearman's rank-order rs 0·19, p<0·0001). Median illness duration was longer for older children (7 days, IQR 3-12) than younger children (5 days, 2-9). 77 (4·4%) of 1734 children had illness duration of at least 28 days, more commonly in older than younger children (59 [5·1%] of 1146 older children vs 18 [3·1%] of 588 younger children; p=0·046). The commonest symptoms experienced by these children during the first 4 weeks of illness were fatigue (65 [84·4%] of 77), headache (60 [77·9%] of 77), and anosmia (60 [77·9%] of 77); however, after day 28 the symptom burden was low (median 2 symptoms, IQR 1-4) compared with the first week of illness (median 6 symptoms, 4-8). Only 25 (1·8%) of 1379 children experienced symptoms for at least 56 days. Few children (15 children, 0·9%) in the negatively tested cohort had symptoms for at least 28 days; however, these children experienced greater symptom burden throughout their illness (9 symptoms, IQR 7·7-11·0 vs 8, 6-9) and after day 28 (5 symptoms, IQR 1·5-6·5 vs 2, 1-4) than did children who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Although COVID-19 in children is usually of short duration with low symptom burden, some children with COVID-19 experience prolonged illness duration. Reassuringly, symptom burden in these children did not increase with time, and most recovered by day 56. Some children who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 also had persistent and burdensome illness. A holistic approach for all children with persistent illness during the pandemic is appropriate. Zoe Limited, UK Government Department of Health and Social Care, Wellcome Trust, UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK Research and Innovation London Medical Imaging and Artificial Intelligence Centre for Value Based Healthcare, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, and Alzheimer's Society.

Molteni E ，Sudre CH ，Canas LS ，Bhopal SS ，Hughes RC ，Antonelli M ，Murray B ，Kläser K ，Kerfoot E ，Chen L ，Deng J ，Hu C ，Selvachandran S ，Read K ，Capdevila Pujol J ，Hammers A ，Spector TD ，Ourselin S ，Steves CJ ，Modat M ，Absoud M ，Duncan EL ... -  《-》

RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have been found to be efficient on SARS-CoV-2, and reported to be efficient in Chinese COV-19 patients. We evaluate the effect of hydroxychloroquine on respiratory viral loads. French Confirmed COVID-19 patients were included in a single arm protocol from early March to March 16th, to receive 600mg of hydroxychloroquine daily and their viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs was tested daily in a hospital setting. Depending on their clinical presentation, azithromycin was added to the treatment. Untreated patients from another center and cases refusing the protocol were included as negative controls. Presence and absence of virus at Day6-post inclusion was considered the end point. Six patients were asymptomatic, 22 had upper respiratory tract infection symptoms and eight had lower respiratory tract infection symptoms. Twenty cases were treated in this study and showed a significant reduction of the viral carriage at D6-post inclusion compared to controls, and much lower average carrying duration than reported in the litterature for untreated patients. Azithromycin added to hydroxychloroquine was significantly more efficient for virus elimination. Despite its small sample size, our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its effect is reinforced by azithromycin. This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). Concerns have been raised regarding this article, the substance of which relate to the articles' adherence to Elsevier's publishing ethics policies and the appropriate conduct of research involving human participants, as well as concerns raised by three of the authors themselves regarding the article's methodology and conclusions. Elsevier's Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics Team, in collaboration with the journal's co-owner, the International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (ISAC), and with guidance from an impartial field expert acting in the role of an independent Publishing Ethics Advisor, Dr. Jim Gray, Consultant Microbiologist at the Birmingham Children's and Women's Hospitals, U.K., conducted an investigation and determined that the below points constituted cause for retraction: • The journal has been unable to confirm whether any of the patients for this study were accrued before ethical approval had been obtained. The ethical approval dates for this article are stated as being 5th and 6th of March 2020 (ANSM and CPP respectively), while the article states that recruitment began in “early March”. The 17th author, Prof. Philippe Brouqui, has confirmed that the start date for patient accrual was 6th March 2020. The journal has not been able to establish whether all patients could have entered into the study in time for the data to have been analysed and included in the manuscript prior to its submission on the 20th March 2020, nor whether all patients were enrolled in the study upon admission as opposed to having been hospitalised for some time before starting the treatment described in the article. Additionally, the journal has not been able to establish whether there was equipoise between the study patients and the control patients. • The journal has not been able to establish whether the subjects in this study should have provided informed consent to receive azithromycin as part of the study. The journal has concluded that that there is reasonable cause to conclude that azithromycin was not considered standard care at the time of the study. The 17th author, Prof. Philippe Brouqui has attested that azithromycin treatment was not, at the time of the study, an experimental treatment but a possible treatment for, or preventative measure against, bacterial superinfections of viral pneumonia as described in section 2.4 of the article, and as such the treatment should be categorised as standard care that would not require informed consent. This does not fully address the journal's concerns around the use of azithromycin in the study. In section 3.1 of the article, it is stated that six patients received azithromycin to prevent (rather than treat) bacterial superinfection. All of these were amongst the patients who also received hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). None of the control patients are reported to have received azithromycin. This would indicate that only patients in the HCQ arm received azithromycin, all of whom were in one center. The recommendations for use of macrolides in France at the time the study was conducted indicate that azithromycin would not have been a logical agent to use as first-line prophylaxis against pneumonia due to the frequency of macrolide resistance amongst bacteria such as pneumococci. These two points suggest that azithromycin would not have been standard practice across southern France at the time the study was conducted and would have required informed consent. • Three of the authors of this article, Dr. Johan Courjon, Prof. Valérie Giordanengo, and Dr. Stéphane Honoré have contacted the journal to assert their opinion that they have concerns regarding the presentation and interpretation of results in this article and have stated they no longer wish to see their names associated with the article. • Author Prof. Valérie Giordanengo informed the journal that while the PCR tests administered in Nice were interpreted according to the recommendations of the national reference center, it is believed that those carried out in Marseille were not conducted using the same technique or not interpreted according to the same recommendations, which in her opinion would have resulted in a bias in the analysis of the data. This raises concerns as to whether the study was partially conducted counter to national guidelines at that time. The 17th author, Prof. Philippe Brouqui has attested that the PCR methodology was explained in reference 17 of the article. However, the article referred to by reference 17 describes several diagnostic approaches that were used (one PCR targeting the envelope protein only; another targeting the spike protein; and three commercially produced systems by QuantiNova, Biofire, and FTD). This reference does not clarify how the results were interpreted. It has also been noted during investigation of these concerns that only 76% (19/25) of patients were viral culture positive, resulting in uncertainty in the interpretation of PCR reports as has been raised by Prof. Giordanengo. As part of the investigation, the corresponding author was contacted and asked to provide an explanation for the above concerns. No response has been received within the deadline provided by the journal. Responses were received by the 3rd and 17th authors, Prof. Philippe Parola and Prof. Philippe Brouqui, respectively, and were reviewed as part of the investigation. These two authors, in addition to 1st author Dr. Philippe Gautret, 13th author Prof. Philippe Colson, and 15th author Prof. Bernard La Scola, disagreed with the retraction and dispute the grounds for it. Having followed due process and concluded the aforementioned investigation and based on the recommendation of Dr. Jim Gray acting in his capacity as independent Publishing Ethics Advisor, the co-owners of the journal (Elsevier and ISAC) have therefore taken the decision to retract the article.

Gautret P ，Lagier JC ，Parola P ，Hoang VT ，Meddeb L ，Mailhe M ，Doudier B ，Courjon J ，Giordanengo V ，Vieira VE ，Tissot Dupont H ，Honoré S ，Colson P ，Chabrière E ，La Scola B ，Rolain JM ，Brouqui P ，Raoult D ... -  《-》