Summary Background Data for front-line health-care workers and risk of COVID-19 are limited. We sought to assess risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers compared with the general community and the effect of personal protective equipment (PPE) on risk. Methods We did a prospective, observational cohort study in the UK and the USA of the general community, including front-line health-care workers, using self-reported data from the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application (app) from March 24 (UK) and March 29 (USA) to April 23, 2020. Participants were voluntary users of the app and at first use provided information on demographic factors (including age, sex, race or ethnic background, height and weight, and occupation) and medical history, and subsequently reported any COVID-19 symptoms. We used Cox proportional hazards modelling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of our primary outcome, which was a positive COVID-19 test. The COVID Symptom Study app is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04331509 . Findings Among 2 035 395 community individuals and 99 795 front-line health-care workers, we recorded 5545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34 435 272 person-days. Compared with the general community, front-line health-care workers were at increased risk for reporting a positive COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 11·61, 95% CI 10·93–12·33). To account for differences in testing frequency between front-line health-care workers and the general community and possible selection bias, an inverse probability-weighted model was used to adjust for the likelihood of receiving a COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 3·40, 95% CI 3·37–3·43). Secondary and post-hoc analyses suggested adequacy of PPE, clinical setting, and ethnic background were also important factors. Interpretation In the UK and the USA, risk of reporting a positive test for COVID-19 was increased among front-line health-care workers. Health-care systems should ensure adequate availability of PPE and develop additional strategies to protect health-care workers from COVID-19, particularly those from Black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds. Additional follow-up of these observational findings is needed. Funding Zoe Global, Wellcome Trust, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institutes of Health Research, UK Research and Innovation, Alzheimer's Society, National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness.

medRxiv preprint 2 Background: Data for frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited and whether personal protective equipment (PPE) mitigates this risk is unknown. We evaluated risk for COVID-19 among frontline HCWs compared to the general community and the influence of PPE. Methods:We performed a prospective cohort study of the general community, including frontline HCWs, who reported information through the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application beginning on March 24 (United Kingdom, U.K.) and March 29 (United States, U.S.) through April 23, 2020. We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of a positive COVID-19 test. Findings: Among 2,035,395 community individuals and 99,795 frontline HCWs, we documented 5,545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34,435,272 person-days. Compared with the general community, frontline HCWs had an aHR of 11·6 (95% CI: 10·9 to 12·3) for reporting a positive test. The corresponding aHR was 3·40 (95% CI: 3·37 to 3·43) using an inverse probability weighted Cox model adjusting for the likelihood of receiving a test. A symptom-based classifier of predicted COVID-19 yielded similar risk estimates. Compared with HCWs reporting adequate PPE, the aHRs for reporting a positive test were 1·46 (95% CI: 1·21 to 1·76) for those reporting PPE reuse and 1·31 (95% CI: 1·10 to 1·56) for reporting inadequate PPE. Compared with HCWs reporting adequate PPE who did not care for COVID-19 patients, HCWs caring for patients with documented COVID-19 had aHRs for a positive test of 4·83 (95% CI: 3·99 to 5·85) if they had adequate PPE, 5·06 (95% CI: 3·90 to 6·57) for reused PPE, and 5·91 (95% CI: 4·53 to 7·71) for inadequate PPE. Interpretation: Frontline HCWs had a significantly increased risk of COVID-19 infection, highest among HCWs who reused PPE or had inadequate access to PPE. However, adequate supplies of PPE did not completely mitigate high-risk exposures.

Objective-To examine the association between body weight and measures of male reproductive potential. Design-Cross-sectional studySetting-Fertility clinic in an academic medical center.Patients-483 male partners of subfertile couples. Interventions-NoneMain outcome measures-Standard semen analysis, sperm DNA fragmentation and serum levels of reproductive hormones.Results-As expected, BMI was positively related to estradiol levels and inversely related to total testosterone and SHBG levels. There was also a strong inverse relation between BMI and inhibin B levels and a lower testosterone:LH ratio among men with a BMI ≥ 35kg/m 2 . BMI was unrelated to sperm concentration, motility or morphology. Ejaculate volume decreased steadily with increasing BMI levels. Further, men with BMI ≥ 35kg/m 2 had a lower total sperm count (concentration × volume) than normal weight men (Adjusted difference in the median [95% CI] = −86 × 10 6 sperm [−134, −37]). Sperm with high DNA damage were significantly more numerous in obese men than in normal weight men.Corresponding Author: Jorge E. Chavarro, MD, Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, 665 Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02115, Phone: 617-432-4584, Fax: 617-432-2435, jchavarr@hsph.harvard.edu. Capsule Body mass index was related to reproductive hormone levels and total sperm count but unrelated to sperm concentration, motility or morphology in a group of men attending a fertility clinic. Conclusions-These data suggest that despite major differences in reproductive hormone levels with increasing body weight, only extreme levels of obesity may negatively influence male reproductive potential. NIH Public Access

BACKGROUND The global obesity epidemic has paralleled a decrease in semen quality. Yet, the association between obesity and sperm parameters remains controversial. The purpose of this report was to update the evidence on the association between BMI and sperm count through a systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS A systematic review of available literature (with no language restriction) was performed to investigate the impact of BMI on sperm count. Relevant studies published until June 2012 were identified from a Pubmed and EMBASE search. We also included unpublished data (n = 717 men) obtained from the Infertility Center of Bondy, France. Abstracts of relevant articles were examined and studies that could be included in this review were retrieved. Authors of relevant studies for the meta-analysis were contacted by email and asked to provide standardized data. RESULTS A total of 21 studies were included in the meta-analysis, resulting in a sample of 13 077 men from the general population and attending fertility clinics. Data were stratified according to the total sperm count as normozoospermia, oligozoospermia and azoospermia. Standardized weighted mean differences in sperm concentration did not differ significantly across BMI categories. There was a J-shaped relationship between BMI categories and risk of oligozoospermia or azoospermia. Compared with men of normal weight, the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for oligozoospermia or azoospermia was 1.15 (0.93-1.43) for underweight, 1.11 (1.01-1.21) for overweight, 1.28 (1.06-1.55) for obese and 2.04 (1.59-2.62) for morbidly obese men. CONCLUSIONS Overweight and obesity were associated with an increased prevalence of azoospermia or oligozoospermia. The main limitation of this report is that studied populations varied, with men recruited from both the general population and infertile couples. Whether weight normalization could improve sperm parameters should be evaluated further.