Really important study looking at daily sampling of early SARS-CoV-2 infection in 60 individuals, focusing on viral shedding for up to 14d. medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
Lots of stuff to learn here:
1. Sore throat, runny nose, and muscle aches had strongest relationship with positive viral culture. 2. For most individuals, nasal VL > saliva VL and viral shedding peaks at least 1d earlier in saliva vs. nasal. 3. Viral load is not perfectly predictive of infectiousness.
*4. Massive (i.e. 40-fold) heterogeneity in individual level infectiousness, with imperfect correlation with age. This means that features of the "the spreader" can be a very important contributor to superspreading. 5. No clear explanation of increased transmissibility of VOCs.
These kinds of studies help provide us insight into transmission dynamics, and suggests that the earlier salivary viral peak might prove helpful diagnostically (throat samples?).
They also tell us we have much to learn on incr. transmissibility of VOCs.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The 2021 AMR Preparedness Index is an excellent effort to look at what is 1 of our most pressing public health issues as some countries emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic: #AntimicrobialResistance
There are important findings for Canadians and their leaders: 1. We ain't so good!
2. We are behind the UK, US, France, Germany, India and Japan on a national strategy.
"Governments must make bolder financial investments ...
... should develop more ambitious National Action Plans and provide sufficient funding to achieve goals ... lean into AMR initiatives now"
3. We are kinda pathetic on governments' commitments to foster and support AMR innovation.
Govts "should implement pull incentive programs within the next 3 years ...
increase investments in AMR innovations for surveillance and diagnostics ...
ensure pricing reflects full value"
To my colleagues & trainees who have contacted me in distress over the past few days, I see you and hear you.
I don't post my thoughts about the Middle East because—even though I have studied its history tremendously over the years—I recognize that there are more than one truth.
I understand how you fear—as Jews or people sympathetic to the tragedy that Israelis are experiencing—expressing your views or trying to counter views that see only one side of a dispute that is much older than the state of Israel.
I also understand how uncomfortable you have been made to feel when colleagues or supervisors use their (mostly) professional platform to acknowledge the unquestionable and tragic suffering of Palestinians yet fail to acknowledge the suffering many Israelis are also experiencing.
Reluctantly, I feel I need to clarify some issues around why AZ doesn't make sense for most of Canada right now.
When NACI evaluated—using the hard endpoint of deaths—the risk-benefit of AZ vs. no AZ, it used a lower incidence 1 per 100 000.
With this modeling, it makes clear sense to give AZ vs. waiting for age 50-69 in a moderate incidence setting, and for all ages in high incidence setting.
But what happens if the VITT rate is 1:26 000 or 3.85/100 000? You get this ...
This means that it is only a slam dunk (vs. no vaccine) for age 50+ in high incidence (30 cases/100K/day) settings, and 40+ in very high incidence (60 cases/100K/day) settings. Even if VITT incidence is 1:40 000 (or 2.5/100K/day), your expected VITT deaths/100K are 0.63-1.0.
It all hinges on the estimates of VITT. Yesterday @COVIDSciOntario posted a VITT brief covid19-sciencetable.ca/sciencebrief/v… that gave updated estimates of risk: 1:26 000 to 1:127 000 (as opposed to govt doc using 1:100-250K), and I believe ours is the most accurate estimate of risk of VITT.
If we use the revised numbers, the incidence of an ICU admission from AZ vaccine becomes anywhere from 1.27-3.85/100 000. Using existing risk-benefit analysis, it means that it never makes "statistical sense" to use an AZ vaccine where the COVID incidence is moderate (7.5/100K/d)
Highlights for remdesivir 1. Not recommended for patients not on oxygen 2. Not recommended for patients mechanically ventilated. 3. Recommended for patients on low-flow supplemental O2 4. Consider for patients in between low-flow O2 and MV
Much of our advice comes from insights around this table of 28d mortality and the studies involved. We recognize that this isn't straightforward guidance.
I will start off by saying what we know about systemic corticosteroids in patients with COVID:
They likely work and save lives if patients need supplemental O2 or supported ventilation. The strongest evidence comes from the massive RECOVERY trial (N=6435, nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…). Importantly, dexamethasone appeared potentially harmful for patients not requiring O2.