Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has challenged public health agencies globally. In order to effectively target government responses, it is critical to identify the individuals most at risk of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), developing severe clinical signs, and mortality. We undertook a systematic review of the literature to present the current status of scientific knowledge in these areas and describe the need for unified global approaches, moving forwards, as well as lessons learnt for future pandemics. METHODS: Medline, Embase and Global Health were searched to the end of April 2020, as well as the Web of Science. Search terms were specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19. Comparative studies of risk factors from any setting, population group and in any language were included. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened by two reviewers and extracted in duplicate into a standardised form. Data were extracted on risk factors for COVID-19 disease, severe disease, or death and were narratively and descriptively synthesised. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred and thirty-eight papers were identified post-deduplication. Thirty-three met our inclusion criteria, of which 26 were from China. Six assessed the risk of contracting the disease, 20 the risk of having severe disease and ten the risk of dying. Age, gender and co-morbidities were commonly assessed as risk factors. The weight of evidence showed increasing age to be associated with severe disease and mortality, and general comorbidities with mortality. Only seven studies presented multivariable analyses and power was generally limited. A wide range of definitions were used for disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: The volume of literature generated in the short time since the appearance of SARS-CoV-2 has been considerable. Many studies have sought to document the risk factors for COVID-19 disease, disease severity and mortality; age was the only risk factor based on robust studies and with a consistent body of ...

Background: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has challenged public health agencies globally. In order to effectively target government responses, it is critical to identify the individuals most at risk of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), developing severe clinical signs, and mortality. We undertook a systematic review of the literature to present the current status of scientific knowledge in these areas and describe the need for unified global approaches, moving forwards, as well as lessons learnt for future pandemics. Methods: Medline, Embase and Global Health were searched to the end of April 2020, as well as the Web of Science. Search terms were specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19. Comparative studies of risk factors from any setting, population group and in any language were included. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened by two reviewers and extracted in duplicate into a standardised form. Data were extracted on risk factors for COVID-19 disease, severe disease, or death and were narratively and descriptively synthesised. Results: One thousand two hundred and thirty-eight papers were identified post-deduplication. Thirty-three met our inclusion criteria, of which 26 were from China. Six assessed the risk of contracting the disease, 20 the risk of having severe disease and ten the risk of dying. Age, gender and co-morbidities were commonly assessed as risk factors. The weight of evidence showed increasing age to be associated with severe disease and mortality, and general comorbidities with mortality. Only seven studies presented multivariable analyses and power was generally limited. A wide range of definitions were used for disease severity. Conclusions: The volume of literature generated in the short time since the appearance of SARS-CoV-2 has been considerable. Many studies have sought to document the risk factors for COVID-19 disease, disease severity and mortality; age was the only risk factor based on robust studies and with a consistent body of evidence. Mechanistic studies are required to understand why age is such an important risk factor. At the start of pandemics, large, standardised, studies that use multivariable analyses are urgently needed so that the populations most at risk can be rapidly protected. Registration: This review was registered on PROSPERO as CRD42020177714.

Funding HRS and MF are supported by the Medical Research Council [MR/R008345/1]. CJ's salary came through MRC core funding MC_UU_12023/26. SJS is funded by the Wellcome Trust [WT 209560/Z/17/Z]. CRS has received funding from the Medical Research Council [MR/R008345/1], the National Institute for Health Research [11/46/23] and the New Zealand Health Research Council [20/1018] and Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment. EV is funded by the Medical Research Council [MR/R008345/1] through the EAVE II grant and supported by the Scottish Government. We also acknowledge the support of HDR UK. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Health Technology Assessment programme, NIHR, NHS, or the UK Department of Health. Our funders had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, and in writing the manuscript. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

EAVE II is funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_PC_19075) with the support of BREATHE: the Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004), which is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. Additional support has been provided through Public Health Scotland and the Community Health and Social Care Directorate of the Scottish Government. R.H. acknowledges support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research, the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford and the NIHR Oxford BREATHE Centre. We thank D. Kelly from Albasoft Limited for support with making primary care data available and J. Pickett, W. Inglis-Humphrey, V. Hammersley, M. Georgiou, L. Brook and L. Gonzalez Rienda for support with project management and administration. We thank the EAVE II Public Advisory Group. Our thanks to J. Quint, R. Al-Shahi Salman and Q. Hill for their help with reviewing code lists. Our thanks also to G. Schiff and L. Smeeth for reviewing this work before submission to the UK's Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Data availability A data dictionary covering the datasets used in this study can be found at https://github.com/ EAVE-II/EAVE-II- data-dictionary. The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available because they are based on de-identified national clinical records. These are, however, available by application via Scotland's National Safe Haven from Public Health Scotland. The data used in this study can be accessed by researchers through NHS Scotland's Public Benefit and Privacy Panel via its Electronic Data Research and Innovation Service49. Code availability All code used in this study is publicly available at https://github.com/ EAVE-II/Covid- vaccine-safety-haemo. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

EAVE II is funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_PC_19075) with the support of BREATHE: the Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004), which is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. Additional support has been provided through Public Health Scotland and the Community Health and Social Care Directorate of the Scottish Government. R.H. acknowledges support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research, the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford and the NIHR Oxford BREATHE Centre. ; Reports of ChAdOx1 vaccine-associated thrombocytopenia and vascular adverse events have led to some countries restricting its use. Using a national prospective cohort, we estimated associations between exposure to first-dose ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 vaccination and hematological and vascular adverse events using a nested incident-matched case-control study and a confirmatory self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis. An association was found between ChAdOx1 vaccination and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) (0-27 d after vaccination; adjusted rate ratio (aRR) = 5.77, 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.41-13.83), with an estimated incidence of 1.13 (0.62-1.63) cases per 100,000 doses. An SCCS analysis confirmed that this was unlikely due to bias (RR = 1.98 (1.29-3.02)). There was also an increased risk for arterial thromboembolic events (aRR = 1.22, 1.12-1.34) 0-27 d after vaccination, with an SCCS RR of 0.97 (0.93-1.02). For hemorrhagic events 0-27 d after vaccination, the aRR was 1.48 (1.12-1.96), with an SCCS RR of 0.95 (0.82-1.11). A first dose of ChAdOx1 was found to be associated with small increased risks of ITP, with suggestive evidence of an increased risk of arterial thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events. The attenuation of effect found in the SCCS analysis means that there is the potential for overestimation of the reported results, which might indicate the presence of some residual confounding or confounding by indication. Public health authorities should inform their jurisdictions of these relatively small increased risks associated with ChAdOx1. No positive associations were seen between BNT162b2 and thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed