The Relative Risk of COVID-19 in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients Over Waves of the Pandemic.

Vinson AJ ，Anzalone AJ ，Schissel M ，Dai R ，Agarwal G ，Lee SB ，Olex A ，Mannon RB ... -  《-》

The prevalence of postacute sequelae of coronavirus disease 2019 in solid organ transplant recipients: Evaluation of risk in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative.

Postacute sequelae after the coronavirus disease (COVID) of 2019 (PASC) is increasingly recognized, although data on solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients (SOTRs) are limited. Using the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, we performed 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) of all adult SOTR and nonimmunosuppressed/immunocompromised (ISC) patients with acute COVID infection (August 1, 2021 to January 13, 2023) for a subsequent PASC diagnosis using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine not only the association of SOT status with PASC, but also other patient factors after stratifying by SOT status. Prior to PSM, there were 8769 SOT and 1 576 769 non-ISC patients with acute COVID infection. After PSM, 8756 SOTR and 8756 non-ISC patients were included; 2.2% of SOTR (n = 192) and 1.4% (n = 122) of non-ISC patients developed PASC (P value < .001). In the overall matched cohort, SOT was independently associated with PASC (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-2.01). Among SOTR, COVID infection severity (aOR, 11.6; 95% CI, 3.93-30.0 for severe vs mild disease), older age (aOR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03 per year), and mycophenolate mofetil use (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.38-3.05) were each independently associated with PASC. In non-ISC patients, only depression (aOR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.24-3.07) and COVID infection severity were. In conclusion, PASC occurs more commonly in SOTR than in non-ISC patients, with differences in risk profiles based on SOT status.

Vinson AJ ，Schissel M ，Anzalone AJ ，Dai R ，French ET ，Olex AL ，Lee SB ，Ison M ，Mannon RB ，National COVID Cohort Collaborative ... -  《-》

The risk and consequences of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection in solid organ transplant recipients relative to non-immunosuppressed controls.

Clinical outcomes in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with breakthrough COVID (BTCo) after two doses of mRNA vaccination compared to the non-immunocompromised/immunosuppressed (ISC) general population, are not well described. In a cohort of adult patients testing positive for COVID-19 between December 10, 2020 and April 4, 2022, we compared the cumulative incidence of BTCo in a non-ISC population to SOT recipients (overall and by organ type) using the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) including data from 36 sites across the United States. We assessed the risk of complications post-BTCo in vaccinated SOT recipients versus SOT with unconfirmed vaccination status (UVS) using multivariable Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression. BTCo occurred in 4776 vaccinated SOT recipients over a median of 149 days (IQR 99-233), with the highest cumulative incidence in heart recipients. The relative risk of BTCo was greatest in SOT recipients (relative to non-ISC) during the pre-Delta period (HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.80-3.08). The greatest relative benefit with vaccination for both non-ISC and SOT cohorts was in BTCo mortality (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.36-0.39 for non-ISC; HR 0.67, 95% 0.57-0.78 for SOT relative to UVS). While the relative benefit of vaccine was less in SOT than non-ISC, SOT patients still exhibited significant benefit with vaccination.

Vinson AJ ，Anzalone AJ ，Sun J ，Dai R ，Agarwal G ，Lee SB ，French E ，Olex A ，Ison MG ，Mannon RB ，N3C consortium ... -  《-》

Risk factors for severe outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 through the waves of the pandemic: Comparing patients with and without solid organ transplantation.

While coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is no longer a public health emergency, certain patients remain at risk of severe outcomes. To better understand changing risk profiles, we studied the risk factors for patients with and without solid organ transplantation (SOT) through the various waves of the pandemic. Using the National COVID Cohort Collaborative we studied a cohort of adult patients testing positive for COVID-19 between January 1, 2020, and May 2, 2022. We separated the data into waves of COVID-19 as defined by the Centers for Disease Control. In our primary outcome, we used multivariable survival analysis to look at various risk factors for hospitalization in those with and without SOT. A total of 3,570,032 patients were captured. We found an overall risk attenuation of adverse COVID-19-associated outcomes over time. In both non-SOT and SOT populations, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure were risk factors for hospitalization. For SOT specifically, longer time periods between transplant and COVID-19 were protective and age was a risk factor. Notably, asthma was not a risk factor for major adverse renal cardiovascular events, hospitalization, or mortality in either group. Our study provides a longitudinal view of the risks associated with adverse COVID-related outcomes amongst SOT and non-SOT patients, and how these risk factors evolved over time. Our work will help inform providers and policymakers to better target high-risk patients.

Lee SB ，Dai R ，French E ，Anzalone JA ，Olex AL ，Ge J ，Schissel M ，Agarwal G ，Vinson A ，Madhira V ，Mannon RB ，N3C Consortium ... -  《-》

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings.

Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment. This is the first update of a Cochrane review published 6 May 2022, with one new study added. To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces aimed at reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to other interventions or no intervention. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collections, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv to 13 April 2023. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by coworkers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls (i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment). We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias, and GRADE methods to evaluate the certainty of evidence for each outcome. We identified 2 studies including a total of 16,014 participants. Elimination-of-exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards, which was an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) working at 86 schools were assigned to the test-based attendance strategy. The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (rate ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 working days) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 working days) in the intervention group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71% in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention. The trial did not measure our other outcomes of SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, or hospitalisation. We found seven ongoing studies using elimination-of-hazard strategies, six RCTs and one non-randomised trial. Administrative control interventions We found one ongoing RCT that aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine in preventing COVID-19 infection and reducing disease severity. Combinations of eligible interventions We included one non-randomised study examining a combination of elimination of hazards, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. The study was conducted in two large retail companies in Italy in 2020. The study compared a safety operating protocol, measurement of body temperature and oxygen saturation upon entry, and a SARS-CoV-2 test strategy with a minimum activity protocol. Both groups received protective equipment. All employees working at the companies during the study period were included: 1987 in the intervention company and 1798 in the control company. The study did not report an outcome of interest for this systematic review. Other intervention categories We did not find any studies in this category. We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. A test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absenteeism rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. The non-randomised study included in our updated search did not report any outcome of interest for this Cochrane review. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective. The included RCT did not report on any of our other primary outcomes (i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events). We identified no completed studies on any other interventions specified in this review; however, eight eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

Constantin AM ，Noertjojo K ，Sommer I ，Pizarro AB ，Persad E ，Durao S ，Nussbaumer-Streit B ，McElvenny DM ，Rhodes S ，Martin C ，Sampson O ，Jørgensen KJ ，Bruschettini M ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》