Daily positive and negative affect during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic influenced emotional experiences globally. We examined daily positive and negative affect between May/June 2020 and February 2021 (N = 151,049; 3,509,982 observations) using a convenience sample from a national mobile application-based survey that asked for daily affect reports. Four questions were examined: (1) How did people in the United States feel from May/June 2020 to February 2021?; (2) What demographic variables are related to positive and negative affect?; (3) What is the relationship between experienced stressors and daily affect?; and (4) What is the relationship between daily affect and preventive behavior? Positive affect increased, and negative decreased over time. Demographic differences mirrored those from before the pandemic (e.g., younger participants reported more negative and less positive affect). Stressors such as feeling unwell, experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, exposure to COVID-19, and lack of sleep were associated with less positive and more negative affect. Exercising protective behaviors predicted future affect, and affect also predicted future protective behaviors (e.g., less protective behavior when happy but more when grateful and thoughtful). The implications for public health communication were discussed.

Unraveling attributes of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in the U.S.: a large nationwide study

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are useful tools to combat the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but vaccine reluctance threatens these vaccines' effectiveness. To address COVID-19 vaccine reluctance and ensure equitable distribution, understanding the extent of and factors associated with vaccine acceptance and uptake is critical. We report the results of a large nationwide study in the US conducted December 2020-May 2021 of 36,711 users from COVID-19-focused smartphone-based app How We Feel on their willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. We identified sociodemographic and behavioral factors that were associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake, and we found several vulnerable groups at increased risk of COVID-19 burden, morbidity, and mortality were more likely to be reluctant to accept a vaccine and had lower rates of vaccination. Our findings highlight specific populations in which targeted efforts to develop education and outreach programs are needed to overcome poor vaccine acceptance and improve equitable access, diversity, and inclusion in the national response to COVID-19.

Unraveling Attributes of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Uptake in the U.S.: A Large Nationwide Study

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are powerful tools to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, but vaccine hesitancy threatens these vaccines’ effectiveness. To address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and ensure equitable distribution, understanding the extent of and factors associated with vaccine acceptance and uptake is critical. We report the results of a large nationwide study conducted December 2020-May 2021 of 34,470 users from COVID-19-focused smartphone-based app How We Feel on their willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Nineteen percent of respondents expressed vaccine hesitancy, the majority being undecided. Of those who were undecided or unlikely to get a COVID-19 vaccine, 86% reported they ultimately did receive a COVID-19 vaccine. We identified sociodemographic and behavioral factors that were associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake, and we found several vulnerable groups at increased risk of COVID-19 burden, morbidity, and mortality were more likely to be vaccine hesitant and had lower rates of vaccination. Our findings highlight specific populations in which targeted efforts to develop education and outreach programs are needed to overcome vaccine hesitancy and improve equitable access, diversity, and inclusion in the national response to COVID-19.

Population-scale longitudinal mapping of COVID-19 symptoms, behaviour and testing

Despite the widespread implementation of public health measures, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread in the United States. To facilitate an agile response to the pandemic, we developed How We Feel, a web and mobile application that collects longitudinal self-reported survey responses on health, behaviour and demographics. Here, we report results from over 500,000 users in the United States from 2 April 2020 to 12 May 2020. We show that self-reported surveys can be used to build predictive models to identify likely COVID-19-positive individuals. We find evidence among our users for asymptomatic or presymptomatic presentation; show a variety of exposure, occupational and demographic risk factors for COVID-19 beyond symptoms; reveal factors for which users have been SARS-CoV-2 PCR tested; and highlight the temporal dynamics of symptoms and self-isolation behaviour. These results highlight the utility of collecting a diverse set of symptomatic, demographic, exposure and behavioural self-reported data to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.

Population-scale Longitudinal Mapping of COVID-19 Symptoms, Behavior, and Testing Identifies Contributors to Continued Disease Spread in the United States

Despite social distancing and shelter-in-place policies, COVID-19 continues to spread in the United States. A lack of timely information about factors influencing COVID-19 spread and testing has hampered agile responses to the pandemic. We developed How We Feel, an extensible web and mobile application that aggregates self-reported survey responses, to fill gaps in the collection of COVID-19-related data. How We Feel collects longitudinal and geographically localized information on users' health, behavior, and demographics. Here we report results from over 500,000 users in the United States from April 2, 2020 to May 12, 2020. We show that self- reported surveys can be used to build predictive models of COVID-19 test results, which may aid in identification of likely COVID-19 positive individuals. We find evidence among our users for asymptomatic or presymptomatic presentation, as well as for household and community exposure, occupation, and demographics being strong risk factors for COVID-19. We further reveal factors for which users have been SARS-CoV-2 PCR tested, as well as the temporal dynamics of self- reported symptoms and self-isolation behavior in positive and negative users. These results highlight the utility of collecting a diverse set of symptomatic, demographic, and behavioral self- reported data to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.

Salvage Therapy with Amprenavir, Lopinavir and Ritonavir 200 Mg/D or 400 Mg/D in HIV-Infected Patients in Virological Failure

Objectives

To compare the antiviral efficacy of a salvage therapy combining lopinavir and amprenavir with 200 mg/d or 400 mg/d ritonavir, together with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, over a 26-week period in HIV-infected patients in whom multiple anti-retroviral regimens had failed.

Design

Phase IIb, randomized, open-label, multicentre trial. Patients were eligible if they had <500 CD4+ cells/mm3 and >4 log10 copies/ml HIV-RNA after treatment with at least two protease inhibitors (PIs) and one non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor.

Results

At baseline ( n=37), the median CD4+ cell count was 207/mm3 and the median plasma HIV-1 RNA level was 4.7 log10 copies/ml; the median number of PI mutations was seven and the median decrease in phenotypic susceptibility to lopinavir and amprenavir was 9.7 and 2.6, respectively. The mean number of antiretrovirals received prior to randomization was 7.7. The fall in the median HIV-1 RNA level at week 26 was -1.4 log10 copies/ml in the 200 mg/d ritonavir group and -2.5 log10 copies/ml in the 400 mg/d group ( P=0.02). Viral load fell below 50 copies/ml in 32% and 61% of patients, respectively ( P=0.07). After adjustment for the ritonavir dose, a smaller number of PI mutations was the only baseline characteristic associated with a better virological response at week 26. Amprenavir concentrations were significantly lower in presence of lopinavir. The lopinavir inhibitory quotient at week 6 correlated weakly with the change in the HIV-RNA level at week 26.

Conclusion

Combination of amprenavir, lopinavir and 400 mg/d ritonavir shows significant virological efficacy without increased toxicity in HIV-infected patients in whom multiple antiretroviral regimens have failed.