Background: Never before have clinical trials drawn as much public attention as those testing interventions for COVID-19. We aimed to describe the worldwide COVID-19 clinical research response and its evolution over the first 100 days of the pandemic. Methods: Descriptive analysis of planned, ongoing or completed trials by April 9, 2020 testing any intervention to treat or prevent COVID-19, systematically identified in trial registries, preprint servers, and literature databases. A survey was conducted of all trials to assess their recruitment status up to July 6, 2020. Results: Most of the 689 trials (overall target sample size 396,366) were small (median sample size 120; interquartile range [IQR] 60-300) but randomized (75.8%; n=522) and were often conducted in China (51.1%; n=352) or the USA (11%; n=76). 525 trials (76.2%) planned to include 155,571 hospitalized patients, and 25 (3.6%) planned to include 96,821 health-care workers. Treatments were evaluated in 607 trials (88.1%), frequently antivirals (n=144) or antimalarials (n=112); 78 trials (11.3%) focused on prevention, including 14 vaccine trials. No trial investigated social distancing. Interventions tested in 11 trials with >5,000 participants were also tested in 169 smaller trials (median sample size 273; IQR 90-700). Hydroxychloroquine alone was investigated in 110 trials. While 414 trials (60.0%) expected completion in 2020, only 35 trials (4.1%; 3,071 participants) were completed by July 6. Of 112 trials with detailed recruitment information, 55 had recruited <20% of the targeted sample; 27 between 20-50%; and 30 over 50% (median 14.8% [IQR 2.0-62.0%]). Conclusions: The size and speed of the COVID-19 clinical trials agenda is unprecedented. However, most trials were small investigating a small fraction of treatment options. The feasibility of this research agenda is questionable, and many trials may end in futility, wasting research resources. Much better coordination is needed to respond to global health threats.

To exploit the full potential of big routine data in healthcare and to efficiently communicate and collaborate with information technology specialists and data analysts, healthcare epidemiologists should have some knowledge of large-scale analysis techniques, particularly about machine learning. This review focuses on the broad area of machine learning and its first applications in the emerging field of digital healthcare epidemiology.

We prospectively evaluated direct costs of contact precautions using on-site observation. Additional mean costs per patient day were calculated for extra materials used, increased workload, and one-off isolation activities. The cost of contact precautions was $158.90 (95% confidence interval, $124.90‒$192.80) per patient day. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:101-103.

Background: Never before have clinical trials drawn as much public attention as those testing interventions for COVID-19. We aimed to describe the worldwide COVID-19 clinical research response and its evolution over the first 100 days of the pandemic. Methods: Descriptive analysis of planned, ongoing or completed trials by April 9, 2020 testing any intervention to treat or prevent COVID-19, systematically identified in trial registries, preprint servers, and literature databases. A survey was conducted of all trials to assess their recruitment status up to July 6, 2020. Results: Most of the 689 trials (overall target sample size 396,366) were small (median sample size 120; interquartile range [IQR] 60-300) but randomized (75.8%; n=522) and were often conducted in China (51.1%; n=352) or the USA (11%; n=76). 525 trials (76.2%) planned to include 155,571 hospitalized patients, and 25 (3.6%) planned to include 96,821 health-care workers. Treatments were evaluated in 607 trials (88.1%), frequently antivirals (n=144) or antimalarials (n=112); 78 trials (11.3%) focused on prevention, including 14 vaccine trials. No trial investigated social distancing. Interventions tested in 11 trials with >5,000 participants were also tested in 169 smaller trials (median sample size 273; IQR 90-700). Hydroxychloroquine alone was investigated in 110 trials. While 414 trials (60.0%) expected completion in 2020, only 35 trials (4.1%; 3,071 participants) were completed by July 6. Of 112 trials with detailed recruitment information, 55 had recruited <20% of the targeted sample; 27 between 20-50%; and 30 over 50% (median 14.8% [IQR 2.0-62.0%]). Conclusions: The size and speed of the COVID-19 clinical trials agenda is unprecedented. However, most trials were small investigating a small fraction of treatment options. The feasibility of this research agenda is questionable, and many trials may end in futility, wasting research resources. Much better coordination is needed to respond to global health threats.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Background Syphilis is re-emerging globally in general and HIV-infected populations, and repeated syphilis episodes may play a central role in syphilis transmission among core groups. Besides sexual behavioral factors, little is known about determinants of repeated syphilis episodes in HIV-infected individuals—including the potential impact of preceding syphilis episodes on subsequent syphilis risk. Methods In the prospective Swiss HIV cohort study, with routine syphilis testing since 2004, we analyzed HIV-infected men who have sex with men (MSM). Our primary outcome was first and repeated syphilis episodes. We used univariable and multivariable Andersen-Gill models to evaluate risk factors for first and repeated incident syphilis episodes. Results Within the 14-year observation period, we included 2513 HIV-infected MSM with an initially negative syphilis test. In the univariable and multivariable analysis, the number of prior syphilis episodes (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] per 1-episode increase, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01–1.31), having occasional sexual partners with or without condomless anal sex (aHR, 4.99; 95% CI, 4.08–6.11; and aHR, 2.54; 95% CI, 2.10–3.07), and being currently on antiretroviral therapy (aHR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.21–2.16) were associated with incident syphilis. Conclusions In HIV-infected MSM, we observed no indication of decreased syphilis risk with repeated syphilis episodes. The extent of sexual risk behavior over time was the strongest risk factor for repeated syphilis episodes. The observed association of antiretroviral therapy with repeated syphilis episodes warrants further immunological and epidemiological investigation.

Background Leukocyte telomere length (TL) shortens with age and is associated with coronary artery disease (CAD) events in the general population. Persons living with HIV (PLWH) may have accelerated atherosclerosis and shorter TL than the general population. It is unknown whether TL is associated with CAD in PLWH. Methods We measured TL by quantitative PCR in white Swiss HIV Cohort Study participants. Cases had a first CAD event during 01.01.2000-31.12.2017. We matched 1-3 PLWH controls without CAD events on sex, age, and observation time. We obtained univariable and multivariable odds ratios (OR) for CAD from conditional logistic regression analyses. Results We included 333 cases (median age 54 years; 14% women; 83% with suppressed HIV RNA) and 745 controls. Median time (interquartile range) of TL measurement was 9.4 (5.9-13.8) years prior to CAD event. Compared to the 1st (shortest) TL quintile, participants in the 5th (longest) TL quintile had univariable and multivariable CAD event OR=0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.91) and OR=0.54 (0.31-0.96). Multivariable OR for current smoking was 1.93 (1.27-2.92), dyslipidemia OR=1.92 (1.41-2.63), and for recent abacavir, cumulative lopinavir, indinavir, and darunavir exposure was OR=1.82 (1.27-2.59), OR=2.02 (1.34-3.04), OR=3.42 (2.14-5.45), and OR=1.66 (1.00-2.74), respectively. The TL-CAD association remained significant when adjusting only for Framingham risk score, when excluding TL outliers, and when adjusting for CMV-seropositivity, HCV-seropositivity, time spent with detectable HIV viremia, and injection drug use. Conclusion In PLWH, TL measured &gt;9 years before, is independently associated with CAD events after adjusting for multiple traditional and HIV-related factors.

Background Preliminary studies that analyzed surrogate markers have suggested that operating room (OR) door openings may be a risk factor for surgical site infection (SSI). We therefore aimed to estimate the effect of OR door openings on SSI risk in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Methods This prospective, observational study involved consecutive patients undergoing cardiac surgery in 2 prespecified ORs equipped with automatic door-counting devices from June 2016 to October 2017. Occurrence of an SSI within 30 days after cardiac surgery was our primary outcome measure. Respective outcome data were obtained from a national SSI surveillance cohort. We analyzed the relationship between mean OR door opening frequencies and SSI risk by use of uni- and multivariable Cox regression models. Results A total of 301 594 OR door openings were recorded during the study period, with 87 676 eligible door openings being logged between incision and skin closure. There were 688 patients included in the study, of whom 24 (3.5%) developed an SSI within 30 days after surgery. In uni- and multivariable analysis, an increased mean door opening frequency during cardiac surgery was associated with higher risk for consecutive SSI (adjusted hazard ratio per 5-unit increment, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.11–2.00; P = .008). The observed effect was driven by internal OR door openings toward the clean instrument preparation room. Conclusions Frequent door openings during cardiac surgery were independently associated with an increased risk for SSI. This finding warrants further study to establish a potentially causal relationship between OR door openings and the occurrence of SSI.