Explore the vast range of titles available.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282658.].

Longer-term consequences after SARS-CoV-2 infection are becoming an important burden to societies and healthcare systems. Data on post-COVID-19 syndrome in the general population are required for the timely planning of healthcare services and resources. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of impaired health status and physical and mental health symptoms among individuals at least six months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to characterize their healthcare utilization. This population-based prospective cohort study (Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort) enrolled 431 adults from the general population with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reported to health authorities between 27 February 2020 and 05 August 2020 in the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland. We evaluated the proportion of individuals reporting not to have fully recovered since SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the proportion reporting fatigue (Fatigue Assessment Scale), dyspnea (mMRC dyspnea scale) or depression (DASS-21) at six to eight months after diagnosis. Furthermore, the proportion of individuals with at least one healthcare contact after their acute illness was evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess factors associated with these main outcomes. Symptoms were present in 385 (89%) participants at diagnosis and 81 (19%) were initially hospitalized. At six to eight months, 111 (26%) reported not having fully recovered. 233 (55%) participants reported symptoms of fatigue, 96 (25%) had at least grade 1 dyspnea, and 111 (26%) had DASS-21 scores indicating symptoms of depression. 170 (40%) participants reported at least one general practitioner visit related to COVID-19 after acute illness, and 10% (8/81) of initially hospitalized individuals were rehospitalized. Individuals that have not fully recovered or suffer from fatigue, dyspnea or depression were more likely to have further healthcare contacts. However, a third of individuals (37/111) that have not fully recovered did not seek further care. In this population-based study, a relevant proportion of participants suffered from longer-term consequences after SARS-CoV-2 infection. With millions infected across the world, our findings emphasize the need for the timely planning of resources and patient-centered services for post-COVID-19 care.

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate longer term symptoms and health outcomes associated with post-covid-19 condition within a cohort of individuals with a SARS-CoV-2 infection.DesignPopulation based, longitudinal cohort.SettingGeneral population of canton of Zurich, Switzerland.Participants1106 adults with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were not vaccinated before infection and 628 adults who did not have an infection.Main outcome measuresTrajectories of self-reported health status and covid-19 related symptoms between months six, 12, 18, and 24 after infection and excess risk of symptoms at six months after infection compared with individuals who had no infection.Results22.9% (95% confidence interval 20.4% to 25.6%) of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 did not fully recover by six months. The proportion of individuals who had an infection who reported not having recovered decreased to 18.5% (16.2% to 21.1%) at 12 months and 17.2% (14.0% to 20.8%) at 24 months after infection. When assessing changes in self-reported health status, most participants had continued recovery (68.4% (63.8% to 72.6%)) or had an overall improvement (13.5% (10.6% to 17.2%)) over time. Yet, 5.2% (3.5% to 7.7%) had a worsening in health status and 4.4% (2.9% to 6.7%) had alternating periods of recovery and health impairment. The point prevalence and severity of covid-19 related symptoms also decreased over time, with 18.1% (14.8% to 21.9%) reporting symptoms at 24 months. 8.9% (6.5% to 11.2%) of participants reported symptoms at all four follow-up time points, while in 12.5% (9.8% to 15.9%) symptoms were alternatingly absent and present. Symptom prevalence was higher among individuals who were infected compared with those who were not at six months (adjusted risk difference 17.0% (11.5% to 22.4%)). Excess risk (adjusted risk difference) for individual symptoms among those infected ranged from 2% to 10%, with the highest excess risks observed for altered taste or smell (9.8% (7.7% to 11.8%)), post-exertional malaise (9.4% (6.1% to 12.7%)), fatigue (5.4% (1.2% to 9.5%)), dyspnoea (7.8% (5.2% to 10.4%)), and reduced concentration (8.3% (6.0% to 10.7%)) and memory (5.7% (3.5% to 7.9%)).ConclusionsUp to 18% of individuals who were not vaccinated before infection had post-covid-19 condition up to two years after infection, with evidence of excess symptom risk compared with controls. Effective interventions are needed to reduce the burden of post-covid-19 condition. Use of multiple outcome measures and consideration of the expected rates of recovery and heterogeneity in symptom trajectories are important in the design and interpretation of clinical trials.Study registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN14990068Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18181860

The current guidelines of statins for primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention were based on results from systematic reviews and meta-analyses that suffer from limitations. We searched in PubMed for existing systematic reviews and individual open-label or double-blinded randomized controlled trials that compared a statin with a placebo or another, which were published in English until January 01, 2018. We performed a random-effect pairwise meta-analysis of all statins as a class and network meta-analysis for the specific statins on different benefit and harm outcomes. In the pairwise meta-analyses, statins as a class showed statistically significant risk reductions on non-fatal MI (risk ratio [RR] 0.62, 95% CI 0.53-0.72), CVD mortality (RR 0.80, 0.71-0.91), all-cause mortality (RR 0.89, 0.85-0.93), non-fatal stroke (RR 0.83, 0.75-0.92), unstable angina (RR 0.75, 0.63-0.91), and composite major cardiovascular events (RR 0.74, 0.67-0.81). Statins increased statistically significantly relative and absolute risks of myopathy (RR 1.08, 1.01-1.15; Risk difference [RD] 13, 2-24 per 10,000 person-years); renal dysfunction (RR 1.12, 1.00-1.26; RD 16, 0-36 per 10,000 person-years); and hepatic dysfunction (RR 1.16, 1.02-1.31; RD 8, 1-16 per 10,000 person-years). The drug-level network meta-analyses showed that atorvastatin and rosuvastatin were most effective in reducing CVD events while atorvastatin appeared to have the best safety profile. All statins showed statistically significant risk reduction of CVD and all-cause mortality in primary prevention populations while increasing the risk for some harm risks. However, the benefit-harm profile differed by statin type. A quantitative assessment of the benefit-harm balance is thus needed since meta-analyses alone are insufficient to inform whether statins provide net benefit.

Epilepsy is a common, serious condition. Fortunately, seizure risk decreases with increasing seizure-free time on antiseizure medications (ASMs). Eventually, patients may consider whether to stop ASMs, which requires weighing treatment benefit versus burden. We developed a questionnaire to quantify patient preferences relevant to ASM decision-making. Respondents rated how concerning they would finding relevant items (e.g., seizure risks, side effects, cost) on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, 0–100) and then repeatedly chose the most and least concerning item from subsets (best-worst scaling, BWS). We pretested with neurologists, then recruited adults with epilepsy who were seizure-free at least one year. Primary outcomes were recruitment rate, and qualitative and Likert-based feedback. Secondary outcomes included VAS ratings and best-minus-worst scores. Thirty-one of 60 (52%) contacted patients completed the study. Most patients felt VAS questions were clear (28; 90%), easy to use (27; 87%), and assessed preferences well (25; 83%). Corresponding results for BWS questions were 27 (87%), 29 (97%), and 23 (77%). Physicians suggested adding a ‘warmup’ question showing a completed example and simplifying terminology. Patients suggested ways to clarify instructions. Cost, inconvenience of taking medication, and laboratory monitoring were the least concerning items. Cognitive side effects and a 50% seizure risk in the next year were the most concerning items. Twelve (39%) of patients made at least one ‘inconsistent choice’ for example ranking a higher seizure risk as lower concern compared with a lower seizure risk, though ‘inconsistent choices’ represented only 3% of all question blocks. Our recruitment rate was favorable, most patients agreed the survey was clear, and we describe areas for improvement. ‘Inconsistent’ responses may lead us to collapse seizure probability items into a single ‘seizure’ category. Evidence regarding how patients weigh benefits and harms may inform care and guideline development.

To better understand the development of SARS-CoV-2-specific immunity over time, a detailed evaluation of humoral and cellular responses is required. Here, we characterize anti-Spike (S) IgA and IgG in a representative population-based cohort of 431 SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals up to 217 days after diagnosis, demonstrating that 85% develop and maintain anti-S responses. In a subsample of 64 participants, we further assess anti-Nucleocapsid (N) IgG, neutralizing antibody activity, and T cell responses to Membrane (M), N, and S proteins. In contrast to S-specific antibody responses, anti-N IgG levels decline substantially over time and neutralizing activity toward Delta and Omicron variants is low to non-existent within just weeks of Wildtype SARS-CoV-2 infection. Virus-specific T cells are detectable in most participants, albeit more variable than antibody responses. Cluster analyses of the co-evolution of antibody and T cell responses within individuals identify five distinct trajectories characterized by specific immune patterns and clinical factors. These findings demonstrate the relevant heterogeneity in humoral and cellular immunity to SARS-CoV-2 while also identifying consistent patterns where antibody and T cell responses may work in a compensatory manner to provide protection. The persistence of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 after recovery from infection is an indicator for subsequent protection against infection. Here the authors follow recovered patients and measure antibody and T cell responses and find that these two parts of the immune response may have different longevity.

Isolation is an indispensable measure to contain the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but it may have a negative impact on mental health and overall wellbeing. Evidence on the isolation experience, facilitating and complicating factors is needed to mitigate negative effects. This observational, population-based cohort study enrolled 1547 adults from the general population with SARS-CoV-2 infection reported to authorities between 27 February 2020 and 19 January 2021 in Zurich, Switzerland. We assessed the proportion of individuals reporting symptoms of depression and anxiety before, during and after isolation (by DASS-21), and queried worries, positive experiences, and difficulties. We analyzed the association of these outcomes with socio-demographics using ordinal regression. Additionally, we report free-text statements by participants to capture most important aspects of isolation. The proportion of participants affected by depression or anxiety increased during isolation from 10·0% to 17·1% and 9·1% to 17·6%, respectively. Ordinal regression showed that taking care of children increased the difficulty of isolation (OR 2·10, CI 1·43-3·08) and risk of non-compliance (OR 1·63, CI 1·05-2·53), especially in younger participants. A facilitating factor that individuals commonly expressed was receiving more support during isolation. Isolation due to SARS-CoV-2 presents a mental burden, especially for younger individuals and those taking care of children. Public health authorities need to train personnel and draw from community-based resources to provide targeted support, information, and guidance to individuals during isolation. Such efforts could alleviate the negative impact isolation has on the mental and physical health of individuals and ensure compliance of the population with recommendations.

As research documenting disparate impacts of COVID-19 by race and ethnicity grows, little attention has been given to dynamics in mortality disparities during the pandemic and whether changes in disparities persist. We estimate age-standardized monthly allcause mortality in the United States from January 2018 through February 2022 for seven racial/ethnic populations. Using joinpoint regression, we quantify trends in racespecific rate ratios relative to non-Hispanic White mortality to examine the magnitude of pandemic-related shifts in mortality disparities. Prepandemic disparities were stable from January 2018 through February 2020. With the start of the pandemic, relative mortality disadvantages increased for American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN), Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (NHOPI), and Black individuals, and relative mortality advantages decreased for Asian and Hispanic groups. Rate ratios generally increased during COVID-19 surges, with different patterns in the summer 2021 and winter 2021/2022 surges, when disparities approached prepandemic levels for Asian and Black individuals. However, two populations below age 65 fared worse than White individuals during these surges. For AIAN people, the observed rate ratio reached 2.25 (95% CI = 2.14, 2.37) in October 2021 vs. a prepandemic mean of 1.74 (95% CI = 1.62, 1.86), and for NHOPI people, the observed rate ratio reached 2.12 (95% CI = 1.92, 2.33) in August 2021 vs. a prepandemic mean of 1.31 (95% CI = 1.13, 1.49). Our results highlight the dynamic nature of racial/ethnic disparities in mortality and raise alarm about the exacerbation of mortality inequities for Indigenous groups due to the pandemic.

Background Patient preferences are key parameters to evaluate benefit-harm balance of statins for primary prevention but they are not readily available to guideline developers and decision makers. Our study aimed to elicit patient preferences for benefit and harm outcomes related to use of statins for primary cardiovascular disease prevention and to examine how the preferences differ across economically and socio–culturally different environments. Methods We conducted preference-eliciting surveys using best-worst scaling designed with a balanced incomplete-block design (BIBD) on 13 statins-related outcomes on 220 people in Ethiopia and Switzerland. The participants made tradeoff decisions and selected the most and least worrisome outcomes concurrently from each scenario generated using the BIBD. The design yielded 34,320 implied paired-comparisons and 2860 paired-responses as unit of analysis for eliciting the preferences that were analyzed using a conditional-logit model on a relative scale and surface under the cumulative ranking curve from multivariate random-effects meta-analysis model on a scale of 0 to 1. Results There was high internal consistency of responses and minimal amount of measurement error in both surveys. Severe stroke was the most worrisome outcome with a ceiling preference of 1 (on 0 to 1 scale) followed by severe myocardial infarction, 0.913 (95% CI, 0.889–0.943), and cancer, 0.846 (0.829–0.855); while treatment discontinuation, 0.090 (0.023–0.123), and nausea/headache, 0.060 (0.034–0.094) were the least worrisome outcomes. Preferences were similar between Ethiopia and Switzerland with overlapping uncertainty intervals and concordance correlation of 0.97 (0.90–0.99). Conclusions Our study provides much needed empirical evidence on preferences that help clinical guidelines consider for weighing the benefit and harm outcomes when recommending for or against statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. The preferences are consistent across the disparate settings; however, we recommend inclusion of more countries in future studies to ensure the generalizability of the preferences to all environments.

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the SwissCovid digital proximity tracing (DPT) app in notifying exposed individuals and prompting them to quarantine earlier compared to individuals notified only by manual contact tracing (MCT). Methods: A population-based sample of cases and close contacts from the Zurich SARS-CoV-2 Cohort was surveyed regarding SwissCovid app use and SARS-CoV-2 exposure. We descriptively analyzed app adherence and effectiveness, and evaluated its effects on the time between exposure and quarantine among contacts using stratified multivariable time-to-event analyses. Results: We included 393 SARS-CoV-2 infected cases and 261 close contacts. 62% of cases reported using SwissCovid and among those, 88% received and uploaded a notification code. 71% of close contacts were app users, of which 38% received a warning. Non-household contacts notified by SwissCovid started quarantine 1 day earlier and were more likely to quarantine earlier than those not warned by the app (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.15–2.03). Conclusion: These findings provide evidence that DPT may reach exposed contacts faster than MCT, with earlier quarantine and potential interruption of SARS-CoV-2 transmission chains.