SummaryBackgroundThe vascular and gastrointestinal effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs), are not well characterised, particularly in patients at increased risk of vascular disease. We aimed to provide such information through meta-analyses of randomised trials.MethodsWe undertook meta-analyses of 280 trials of NSAIDs versus placebo (124 513 participants, 68 342 person-years) and 474 trials of one NSAID versus another NSAID (229 296 participants, 165 456 person-years). The main outcomes were major vascular events (non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or vascular death); major coronary events (non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death); stroke; mortality; heart failure; and upper gastrointestinal complications (perforation, obstruction, or bleed).FindingsMajor vascular events were increased by about a third by a coxib (rate ratio [RR] 1·37, 95% CI 1·14–1·66; p=0·0009) or diclofenac (1·41, 1·12–1·78; p=0·0036), chiefly due to an increase in major coronary events (coxibs 1·76, 1·31–2·37; p=0·0001; diclofenac 1·70, 1·19–2·41; p=0·0032). Ibuprofen also significantly increased major coronary events (2·22, 1·10–4·48; p=0·0253), but not major vascular events (1·44, 0·89–2·33). Compared with placebo, of 1000 patients allocated to a coxib or diclofenac for a year, three more had major vascular events, one of which was fatal. Naproxen did not significantly increase major vascular events (0·93, 0·69–1·27). Vascular death was increased significantly by coxibs (1·58, 99% CI 1·00–2·49; p=0·0103) and diclofenac (1·65, 0·95–2·85, p=0·0187), non-significantly by ibuprofen (1·90, 0·56–6·41; p=0·17), but not by naproxen (1·08, 0·48–2·47, p=0·80). The proportional effects on major vascular events were independent of baseline characteristics, including vascular risk. Heart failure risk was roughly doubled by all NSAIDs. All NSAID regimens increased upper gastrointestinal complications (coxibs 1·81, 1·17–2·81, p=0·0070; diclofenac 1·89, 1·16–3·09, p=0·0106; ibuprofen 3·97, 2·22–7·10, p<0·0001; and naproxen 4·22, 2·71–6·56, p<0·0001).InterpretationThe vascular risks of high-dose diclofenac, and possibly ibuprofen, are comparable to coxibs, whereas high-dose naproxen is associated with less vascular risk than other NSAIDs. Although NSAIDs increase vascular and gastrointestinal risks, the size of these risks can be predicted, which could help guide clinical decision making.FundingUK Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation.

Background In December, 2019, the newly identified severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in Wuhan, China, causing COVID-19, a respiratory disease presenting with fever, cough, and often pneumonia. WHO has set the strategic objective to interrupt spread of SARS-CoV-2 worldwide. An outbreak in Bavaria, Germany, starting at the end of January, 2020, provided the opportunity to study transmission events, incubation period, and secondary attack rates.Methods A case was defined as a person with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by RT-PCR. Case interviews were done to describe timing of onset and nature of symptoms and to identify and classify contacts as high risk (had cumulative face-to-face contact with a confirmed case for ≥15 min, direct contact with secretions or body fluids of a patient with confirmed COVID-19, or, in the case of health-care workers, had worked within 2 m of a patient with confirmed COVID-19 without personal protective equipment) or low risk (all other contacts). High-risk contacts were ordered to stay at home in quarantine for 14 days and were actively followed up and monitored for symptoms, and low-risk contacts were tested upon self-reporting of symptoms. We defined fever and cough as specific symptoms, and defined a prodromal phase as the presence of non-specific symptoms for at least 1 day before the onset of specific symptoms. Whole genome sequencing was used to confirm epidemiological links and clarify transmission events where contact histories were ambiguous; integration with epidemiological data enabled precise reconstruction of exposure events and incubation periods. Secondary attack rates were calculated as the number of cases divided by the number of contacts, using Fisher's exact test for the 95% CIs.Findings Patient 0 was a Chinese resident who visited Germany for professional reasons. 16 subsequent cases, often with mild and non-specific symptoms, emerged in four transmission generations. Signature mutations in the viral genome occurred upon foundation of generation 2, as well as in one case pertaining to generation 4. The median incubation period was 4•0 days (IQR 2•3-4•3) and the median serial interval was 4•0 days (3•0-5•0). Transmission events were likely to have occurred presymptomatically for one case (possibly five more), at the day of symptom onset for four cases (possibly five more), and the remainder after the day of symptom onset or unknown. One or two cases resulted from contact with a case during the prodromal phase. Secondary attack rates were 75•0% (95% CI 19•0-99•0; three of four people) among members of a household cluster in common isolation, 10•0% (1•2-32•0; two of 20) among household contacts only together until isolation of the patient, and 5•1% (2•6-8•9; 11 of 217) among non-household, high-risk contacts.Interpretation Although patients in our study presented with predominately mild, non-specific symptoms, infectiousness before or on the day of symptom onset was substantial. Additionally, the incubation period was often very short ...

No abstract

We report an outbreak of coronavirus disease with 74 cases related to a nightclub in Germany in March 2020. Staff members were particularly affected (attack rate 56%) and likely caused sustained viral transmission after an event at the club. This outbreak illustrates the potential for superspreader events and corroborates current club closures.

Purpose Adequate patient allocation is pivotal for optimal resource management in strained healthcare systems, and requires detailed knowledge of clinical and virological disease trajectories. The purpose of this work was to identify risk factors associated with need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), to analyse viral kinetics in patients with and without IMV and to provide a comprehensive description of clinical course. Methods A cohort of 168 hospitalised adult COVID-19 patients enrolled in a prospective observational study at a large European tertiary care centre was analysed. Results Forty-four per cent (71/161) of patients required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Shorter duration of symptoms before admission (aOR 1.22 per day less, 95% CI 1.10–1.37, p < 0.01) and history of hypertension (aOR 5.55, 95% CI 2.00–16.82, p < 0.01) were associated with need for IMV. Patients on IMV had higher maximal concentrations, slower decline rates, and longer shedding of SARS-CoV-2 than non-IMV patients (33 days, IQR 26–46.75, vs 18 days, IQR 16–46.75, respectively, p < 0.01). Median duration of hospitalisation was 9 days (IQR 6–15.5) for non-IMV and 49.5 days (IQR 36.8–82.5) for IMV patients. Conclusions Our results indicate a short duration of symptoms before admission as a risk factor for severe disease that merits further investigation and different viral load kinetics in severely affected patients. Median duration of hospitalisation of IMV patients was longer than described for acute respiratory distress syndrome unrelated to COVID-19.