RESUMO
Background and Aims: Severe outcomes of COVID-19 are associated with advancing age and comorbidities. The specific aim of our study was to determine the impact of COVID-19 on the clinical course and outcome of patients with cirrhosis. Methods: We retrieved data from VA national repository and identified patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA who had cirrhosis. Each virus positive patient was propensity-matched with virus negative subjects by demographics and comorbidities. Primary endpoint was death within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis and secondary endpoint was hospitalization within 14 days. Results: Among 1,115,037 individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, 31,680 had cirrhosis. Of those patients, 4456 virus positive patients were propensity-matched with 8752 virus negative subjects. In this cohort of 13,208, median age was 67 years and 95% were male. Most had multiple comorbidities. Alcohol use, hepatitis C and MASH were the dominant etiologies of cirrhosis. At baseline, median MELD was 6% and 21% had hepatic decompensation. Advanced age was the most significant determinant of hospitalization and mortality. Comorbidities, alcohol use and MELD increased the likelihood of hospitalization whereas SARS-CoV-2 positivity had lower Day-14 hospitalization hazard. MELD was associated with higher mortality hazard whereas vaccination reduced the hazard of hospitalization and death. SARS-CoV-2 positivity increased the hazard of death at Day-30 by 72% and at Day-90 by 26%. Conclusion: Although patients with cirrhosis who developed COVID-19 were less likely to be hospitalized, they were more likely to die within 30 days compared to their virus negative counterparts. Vaccination was effective in reducing both hospitalization and death.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: We investigated the spectrum of infection and risk factors for invasive fungal disease due to Candida auris (CA) in Qatar. METHODS: We performed structured chart reviews on individuals with any positive CA culture between May 2019 and December 2022 at three tertiary care hospitals in Qatar. Invasive CA disease (ICAD) was defined as a positive sterile site culture, or any positive culture for CA with appropriate antifungal prescription. Main outcomes included proportion of individuals who developed ICAD among those with positive cultures, and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Among 331 eligible individuals, median age was 56 years, 83.1% were male, 70.7% were non-Qataris, and 37.5% had ≥ 3 comorbidities at baseline. Overall, 86.4% were deemed to have colonization and 13.6% developed ICAD. Those with ICAD were more likely to have invasive central venous or urinary catheterization and mechanical ventilation. Individuals with ICAD had longer prior ICU stay (16 vs 26 days, P = 0.002), and longer hospital length of stay (63 vs. 43 days; P = 0.003), and higher 30-day mortality (38% vs. 14%; P<0.001). In multivariable regression analysis, only mechanical ventilation was associated with a higher risk of ICAD (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.09-10.17). CONCLUSION: Invasive Candida auris Disease is associated with longer hospital stay and higher mortality. Severely ill persons on mechanical ventilation should be especially monitored for development of ICAD.
Assuntos
Mortalidade Hospitalar , Humanos , Masculino , Catar/epidemiologia , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Fatores de Risco , Idoso , Candidíase/epidemiologia , Candidíase/microbiologia , Candidíase/mortalidade , Candidíase/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Candida auris , Candidíase Invasiva/epidemiologia , Candidíase Invasiva/mortalidade , Candidíase Invasiva/microbiologia , Candidíase Invasiva/tratamento farmacológico , Antifúngicos/uso terapêutico , Tempo de Internação , Estudos Retrospectivos , Candida/isolamento & purificação , Candida/patogenicidadeRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the association between Coronavirus Disease 2019 mRNA vaccination and stroke in Qatar. METHODS: Between December 1, 2020, and April 11, 2023, a matched case-control study was conducted to investigate the association between 3036 acute stroke cases and 3036 controls drawn from the entire population of Qatar. RESULTS: The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for vaccination among cases compared to controls was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.75-1.00). The aOR was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.45-1.23) for a single vaccine dose, 0.87 (95% CI: 0.73-1.04) for primary-series vaccination (two doses), and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.66-1.25) for booster vaccination (three or more doses). The aOR was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.72-1.04) for BNT162b2 and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.67-1.11) for mRNA-1273. Subgroup analyses, considering different durations since vaccination, also demonstrated no association. Subgroup analyses based on nationality, age, number of coexisting conditions, or prior infection status yielded similar results. Subgroup analysis, stratified by stroke type, suggested an association between vaccination and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (aOR of 2.50 [95% CI: 0.97-6.44]), but it did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of an increased risk of stroke following vaccination, both in the short term and in the long term, extending beyond a year after receiving the vaccine.
Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Acidente Vascular Cerebral , Vacinação , Humanos , Catar/epidemiologia , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Masculino , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/epidemiologia , Idoso , Adulto , Vacinação/efeitos adversos , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Vacina BNT162/administração & dosagem , Razão de Chances , Vacina de mRNA-1273 contra 2019-nCoV , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Vaccines were developed and deployed to combat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. This study aimed to characterize patterns in the protection provided by the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 mRNA vaccines against a spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 infection symptoms and severities. METHODS: A national, matched, test-negative, case-control study was conducted in Qatar between January 1 and December 18, 2021, utilizing a sample of 238,896 PCR-positive tests and 6,533,739 PCR-negative tests. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated against asymptomatic, symptomatic, severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), critical COVID-19, and fatal COVID-19 infections. Data sources included Qatar's national databases for COVID-19 laboratory testing, vaccination, hospitalization, and death. RESULTS: Effectiveness of two-dose BNT162b2 vaccination was 75.6% (95% CI: 73.6-77.5) against asymptomatic infection and 76.5% (95% CI: 75.1-77.9) against symptomatic infection. Effectiveness against each of severe, critical, and fatal COVID-19 infections surpassed 90%. Immediately after the second dose, all categories-namely, asymptomatic, symptomatic, severe, critical, and fatal COVID-19-exhibited similarly high effectiveness. However, from 181 to 270 days post-second dose, effectiveness against asymptomatic and symptomatic infections declined to below 40%, while effectiveness against each of severe, critical, and fatal COVID-19 infections remained consistently high. However, estimates against fatal COVID-19 often had wide 95% confidence intervals. Analogous patterns were observed in three-dose BNT162b2 vaccination and two- and three-dose mRNA-1273 vaccination. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the results. CONCLUSION: A gradient in vaccine effectiveness exists and is linked to the symptoms and severity of infection, providing higher protection against more symptomatic and severe cases. This gradient intensifies over time as vaccine immunity wanes after the last vaccine dose. These patterns appear consistent irrespective of the vaccine type or whether the vaccination involves the primary series or a booster.
Assuntos
Vacina de mRNA-1273 contra 2019-nCoV , Vacina BNT162 , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Eficácia de Vacinas , Humanos , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/imunologia , Vacina BNT162/imunologia , Vacina BNT162/administração & dosagem , Catar/epidemiologia , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , Masculino , Vacina de mRNA-1273 contra 2019-nCoV/imunologia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Vacinas contra COVID-19/imunologia , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Feminino , Adulto , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Adulto Jovem , Adolescente , Idoso , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Vacinação/métodosRESUMO
Introduction: Reinfections are increasingly becoming a feature in the epidemiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, accurately defining reinfection poses methodological challenges. Conventionally, reinfection is defined as a positive test occurring at least 90 days after a previous infection diagnosis. Yet, this extended time window may lead to an underestimation of reinfection occurrences. This study investigated the prospect of adopting an alternative, shorter time window for defining reinfection. Methods: A longitudinal study was conducted to assess the incidence of reinfections in the total population of Qatar, from February 28, 2020 to November 20, 2023. The assessment considered a range of time windows for defining reinfection, spanning from 1 day to 180 days. Subgroup analyses comparing first versus repeat reinfections and a sensitivity analysis, focusing exclusively on individuals who underwent frequent testing, were performed. Results: The relationship between the number of reinfections in the population and the duration of the time window used to define reinfection revealed two distinct dynamical domains. Within the initial 15 days post-infection diagnosis, almost all positive tests for SARS-CoV-2 were attributed to the original infection. However, surpassing the 30-day post-infection threshold, nearly all positive tests were attributed to reinfections. A 40-day time window emerged as a sufficiently conservative definition for reinfection. By setting the time window at 40 days, the estimated number of reinfections in the population increased from 84,565 to 88,384, compared to the 90-day time window. The maximum observed reinfections were 6 and 4 for the 40-day and 90-day time windows, respectively. The 40-day time window was appropriate for defining reinfection, irrespective of whether it was the first, second, third, or fourth occurrence. The sensitivity analysis, confined to high testers exclusively, replicated similar patterns and results. Discussion: A 40-day time window is optimal for defining reinfection, providing an informed alternative to the conventional 90-day time window. Reinfections are prevalent, with some individuals experiencing multiple instances since the onset of the pandemic.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) with hospitalization or death within 30 days as compared with untreated controls previously uninfected and nonhospitalized. METHODS: We used a matched cohort design using inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW). Individuals prescribed NMV/r within 3 days of COVID-19 diagnosis were compared with IPTW-based untreated controls. Variables for IPTW included age, race, sex, body mass index, geographic location, vaccination status, and multiple comorbidities. Additional analyses were conducted on NMV/r-treated and propensity score-matched untreated controls. RESULTS: Among 7615 individuals prescribed NMV/r and 62 077 controls identified between 1 January 2022 and 25 February 2023, the risk of hospitalization/death was lower among NMV/r-treated persons vs untreated controls (243 vs 3468 events; absolute risk difference [ARD], -2.36 [95% CI, -2.57 to -2.14]). The difference was significant for those >60 and ≤60 years old (ARD, -3.86 [95% CI, -4.19 to -3.54] vs -0.27 [95% CI, -0.51 to -0.03]) and for persons asymptomatic and symptomatic (ARD, -7.09 [95% CI, -7.62 to -6.55] vs -1.46 [95% CI, -1.66 to -1.25]). Significant benefit was observed among individuals unvaccinated and vaccinated, with or without a booster dose. CONCLUSIONS: NMV/r is associated with a significant reduction in 30-day hospitalization or death among individuals previously uninfected and nonhospitalized.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Lactamas , Leucina , Nitrilas , Prolina , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , Teste para COVID-19 , Estudos de Coortes , Ritonavir/uso terapêutico , Hospitalização , Pontuação de Propensão , Antivirais/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to use infection testing databases to rapidly estimate effectiveness of prior infection in preventing reinfection ($P{E}_S$) by novel SARS-CoV-2 variants. Mathematical modeling was used to demonstrate a theoretical foundation for applicability of the test-negative, case-control study design to derive $P{E}_S$. Apart from the very early phase of an epidemic, the difference between the test-negative estimate for $P{E}_S$ and true value of $P{E}_S$ was minimal and became negligible as the epidemic progressed. The test-negative design provided robust estimation of $P{E}_S$ and its waning. Assuming that only 25% of prior infections are documented, misclassification of prior infection status underestimated $P{E}_S$, but the underestimate was considerable only when >50% of the population was ever infected. Misclassification of latent infection, misclassification of current active infection, and scale-up of vaccination all resulted in negligible bias in estimated $P{E}_S$. The test-negative design was applied to national-level testing data in Qatar to estimate $P{E}_S$ for SARS-CoV-2. $P{E}_S$ against SARS-CoV-2 Alpha and Beta variants was estimated at 97.0% (95% CI: 93.6-98.6) and 85.5% (95% CI: 82.4-88.1), respectively. These estimates were validated using a cohort study design. The test-negative design offers a feasible, robust method to estimate protection from prior infection in preventing reinfection.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: We investigated the contribution of age, coexisting medical conditions, sex, and vaccination to incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and of severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 in older adults since pandemic onset. METHODS: A national retrospective cohort study was conducted in the population of Qatar aged ≥50 years between February 5, 2020 and June 15, 2023. Adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for infection and for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes were estimated through Cox regression models. RESULTS: Cumulative incidence was 25.01% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 24.86-25.15%) for infection and 1.59% (95% CI: 1.55-1.64%) for severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 after a follow-up duration of 40.9 months. Risk of infection varied minimally by age and sex but increased significantly with coexisting conditions. Risk of infection was reduced with primary-series vaccination (AHR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.90-0.93) and further with first booster vaccination (AHR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.74-0.77). Risk of severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 increased exponentially with age and linearly with coexisting conditions. AHRs for severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 were 0.86 (95% CI: 0.7-0.97) for one dose, 0.15 (95% CI: 0.13-0.17) for primary-series vaccination, and 0.11 (95% CI: 0.08-0.14) for first booster vaccination. Sensitivity analysis restricted to only Qataris yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: Incidence of severe COVID-19 in older adults followed a dynamic pattern shaped by infection incidence, variant severity, and population immunity. Age, sex, and coexisting conditions were strong determinants of infection severity. Vaccine protection against severe outcomes showed a dose-response relationship, highlighting the importance of booster vaccination for older adults.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , Idoso , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , SARS-CoV-2 , Estudos de Coortes , Estudos Retrospectivos , Vacinação , ComorbidadeRESUMO
Laboratory evidence suggests a possibility of immune imprinting for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We investigated the differences in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in a cohort of persons who had a primary Omicron infection, but different vaccination histories using matched, national, retrospective, cohort studies. Adjusted hazard ratio for reinfection incidence, factoring adjustment for differences in testing rate, was 0.43 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39 to 0.49] comparing history of two-dose vaccination to no vaccination, 1.47 (95% CI: 1.23 to 1.76) comparing history of three-dose vaccination to two-dose vaccination, and 0.57 (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.68) comparing history of three-dose vaccination to no vaccination. Divergence in cumulative incidence curves increased markedly when the incidence was dominated by BA.4/BA.5 and BA.2.75* Omicron subvariants. The history of primary-series vaccination enhanced immune protection against Omicron reinfection, but history of booster vaccination compromised protection against Omicron reinfection. These findings do not undermine the public health utility of booster vaccination.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Reinfecção , Humanos , Reinfecção/prevenção & controle , Estudos Retrospectivos , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , SARS-CoV-2 , VacinaçãoRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: We assessed short-, medium-, and long-term all-cause mortality risks after a primary SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: A national, matched, retrospective cohort study was conducted in Qatar to assess risk of all-cause mortality in the national SARS-CoV-2 primary infection cohort compared with the national infection-naïve cohort. Associations were estimated using Cox proportional-hazards regression models. Analyses were stratified by vaccination status and clinical vulnerability status. RESULTS: Among unvaccinated persons, within 90 days after primary infection, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) comparing mortality incidence in the primary-infection cohort with the infection-naïve cohort was 1.19 (95% confidence interval 1.02-1.39). aHR was 1.34 (1.11-1.63) in persons more clinically vulnerable to severe COVID-19 and 0.94 (0.72-1.24) in those less clinically vulnerable. Beyond 90 days after primary infection, aHR was 0.50 (0.37-0.68); aHR was 0.41 (0.28-0.58) at 3-7 months and 0.76 (0.46-1.26) at ≥8 months. The aHR was 0.37 (0.25-0.54) in more clinically vulnerable persons and 0.77 (0.48-1.24) in less clinically vulnerable persons. Among vaccinated persons, mortality incidence was comparable in the primary-infection versus infection-naïve cohorts, regardless of clinical vulnerability status. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 mortality was primarily driven by an accelerated onset of death among individuals who were already vulnerable to all-cause mortality, but vaccination prevented these accelerated deaths.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , Catar/epidemiologia , Estudos de Coortes , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
Background: Waning of natural infection protection and vaccine protection highlight the need to evaluate changes in population immunity over time. Population immunity of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or of COVID-19 vaccination are defined, respectively, as the overall protection against reinfection or against breakthrough infection at a given point in time in a given population. Methods: We estimated these population immunities in Qatar's population between July 1, 2020 and November 30, 2022, to discern generic features of the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2. Effectiveness of previous infection, mRNA primary-series vaccination, and mRNA booster (third-dose) vaccination in preventing infection were estimated, month by month, using matched, test-negative, case-control studies. Findings: Previous-infection effectiveness against reinfection was strong before emergence of Omicron, but declined with time after a wave and rebounded after a new wave. Effectiveness dropped after Omicron emergence from 88.3% (95% CI: 84.8-91.0%) in November 2021 to 51.0% (95% CI: 48.3-53.6%) in December 2021. Primary-series effectiveness against infection was 84.0% (95% CI: 83.0-85.0%) in April 2021, soon after introduction of vaccination, before waning gradually to 52.7% (95% CI: 46.5-58.2%) by November 2021. Effectiveness declined linearly by â¼1 percentage point every 5 days. After Omicron emergence, effectiveness dropped from 52.7% (95% CI: 46.5-58.2%) in November 2021 to negligible levels in December 2021. Booster effectiveness dropped after Omicron emergence from 83.0% (95% CI: 65.6-91.6%) in November 2021 to 32.9% (95% CI: 26.7-38.5%) in December 2021, and continued to decline thereafter. Effectiveness of previous infection and vaccination against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 were generally >80% throughout the study duration. Interpretation: High population immunity against infection may not be sustained beyond a year, but population immunity against severe COVID-19 is durable with slow waning even after Omicron emergence. Funding: The Biomedical Research Program and the Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and the Biomathematics Research Core, both at Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Ministry of Public Health, Hamad Medical Corporation, Sidra Medicine, Qatar Genome Programme, Qatar University Biomedical Research Center, and Qatar University Internal Grant ID QUCG-CAS-23/24-114.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Protection against SARS-CoV-2 symptomatic infection and severe COVID-19 of previous infection, mRNA two-dose vaccination, mRNA three-dose vaccination, and hybrid immunity of previous infection and vaccination were investigated in Qatar for the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants. METHODS: Six national, matched, test-negative, case-control studies were conducted between January 18 and December 18, 2021 on a sample of 239,120 PCR-positive tests and 6,103,365 PCR-negative tests. FINDINGS: Effectiveness of previous infection against Alpha, Beta, and Delta reinfection was 89.5% (95% CI: 85.5-92.3%), 87.9% (95% CI: 85.4-89.9%), and 90.0% (95% CI: 86.7-92.5%), respectively. Effectiveness of two-dose BNT162b2 vaccination against Alpha, Beta, and Delta infection was 90.5% (95% CI, 83.9-94.4%), 80.5% (95% CI: 79.0-82.0%), and 58.1% (95% CI: 54.6-61.3%), respectively. Effectiveness of three-dose BNT162b2 vaccination against Delta infection was 91.7% (95% CI: 87.1-94.7%). Effectiveness of hybrid immunity of previous infection and two-dose BNT162b2 vaccination was 97.4% (95% CI: 95.4-98.5%) against Beta infection and 94.5% (95% CI: 92.8-95.8%) against Delta infection. Effectiveness of previous infection and three-dose BNT162b2 vaccination was 98.1% (95% CI: 85.7-99.7%) against Delta infection. All five forms of immunity had >90% protection against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 regardless of variant. Similar effectiveness estimates were observed for mRNA-1273. A mathematical model accurately predicted hybrid immunity protection by assuming that the individual effects of previous infection and vaccination acted independently. INTERPRETATION: Hybrid immunity, offering the strongest protection, was mathematically predicted by assuming that the immunities obtained from previous infection and vaccination act independently, without synergy or redundancy. FUNDING: The Biomedical Research Program and the Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and the Biomathematics Research Core, both at Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Ministry of Public Health, Hamad Medical Corporation, Sidra Medicine, Qatar Genome Programme, Qatar University Biomedical Research Center, and Qatar University Internal Grant ID QUCG-CAS-23/24-114.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Hepatite D , Humanos , Vacina BNT162 , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , SARS-CoV-2 , RNA Mensageiro , Vacinação , Imunidade AdaptativaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Clinical benefit of molnupiravir (MPV) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-infected subpopulations is unclear. METHODS: We used a matched cohort study design to determine the rate of hospitalization or death within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis among MPV treated and untreated controls. Participants were nonhospitalized, previously uninfected Veterans with a first confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection between 1 January and 31 August 2022, who were prescribed MPV within 3 days of COVID-19 diagnosis, and matched individuals who were not prescribed MPV. RESULTS: Among 1459 matched pairs, the incidence of hospitalization/death was not different among MPV treated versus untreated controls (48 vs 44 cases; absolute risk difference [ARD], 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], -.94 to 1.49). No benefit was observed among those >60 or ≤60 years old (ARD, 0.27; 95% CI, -1.25 to 1.79 vs ARD, -0.29; 95% CI, -1.22 to 1.80), those with specific comorbidities, or by vaccination status. A significant benefit was observed in asymptomatic but not in symptomatic persons (ARD, -2.80; 95% CI, -4.74 to -.87 vs ARD, 1.12; 95% CI -.31 to 2.55). Kaplan-Meier curves did not show a difference in proportion of persons who were hospitalized or died among MPV treated compared with untreated controls (logrank P = .7). CONCLUSIONS: MPV was not associated with a reduction in hospitalization or death within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. A subgroup of patients presenting without symptoms experienced a benefit.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , SARS-CoV-2 , Teste para COVID-19 , Estudos de Coortes , HospitalizaçãoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To investigate all-cause mortality, COVID-19 mortality and all-cause non-COVID-19 mortality in Qatar during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A national, retrospective cohort analysis and national, matched, retrospective cohort studies were conducted between 5 February 2020 and 19 September 2022. RESULTS: There were 5025 deaths during a follow-up time of 5 247 220 person-years, of which 675 were COVID-19 related. Incidence rates were 0.96 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.98) per 1000 person-years for all-cause mortality, 0.13 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.14) per 1000 person-years for COVID-19 mortality and 0.83 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.85) per 1000 person-years for all-cause non-COVID-19 mortality. Adjusted HR, comparing all-cause non-COVID-19 mortality relative to Qataris, was lowest for Indians at 0.38 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.44), highest for Filipinos at 0.56 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.69) and was 0.51 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.58) for craft and manual workers (CMWs). Adjusted HR, comparing COVID-19 mortality relative to Qataris, was lowest for Indians at 1.54 (95% CI 0.97 to 2.44), highest for Nepalese at 5.34 (95% CI 1.56 to 18.34) and was 1.86 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.60) for CMWs. Incidence rate of all-cause mortality for each nationality group was lower than the crude death rate in the country of origin. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of non-COVID-19 death was low and was lowest among CMWs, perhaps reflecting the healthy worker effect. Risk of COVID-19 death was also low, but was highest among CMWs, largely reflecting higher exposure during first epidemic wave, before advent of effective COVID-19 treatments and vaccines.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Catar/epidemiologia , Pandemias , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Accurate determination of the immediate causes of death in patients with COVID-19 is important for optimal care and mitigation strategies. METHODS: All deaths in Qatar between March 01, 2020, and August 31, 2022, flagged for likely relationship to COVID-19 were reviewed by two independent, trained reviewers using a standardized methodology to determine the immediate and contributory causes of death. RESULTS: Among 749 flagged deaths, the most common admitting diagnoses were respiratory tract infection (91%) and major adverse cardiac event (MACE, 2.3%). The most common immediate causes of death were COVID-19 pneumonia (66.2%), MACE (7.1%), hospital-associated pneumonia (HAP, 6.8%), bacteremia (6.3%), disseminated fungal infection (DFI, 5.2%), and thromboembolism (4.5%). After COVID-19 pneumonia, MACE was the predominant cause of death in the first 2 weeks but declined thereafter. No death occurred due to bacteremia, HAP, or DFI in the first week after hospitalization, but became increasingly common with increased length of stay in the hospital accounting for 9%, 12%, and 10% of all deaths after 4 weeks in the hospital, respectively. CONCLUSION: Nearly one-third of patients with COVID-19 infection die of non-COVID-19 causes, some of which are preventable. Mitigation strategies should be instituted to reduce the risk of such deaths.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , Causas de Morte , SARS-CoV-2 , Hospitalização , HospitaisRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Long-term effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA boosters in populations with different previous infection histories and clinical vulnerability profiles is inadequately understood. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of a booster (third dose) vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection and against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19, relative to that of primary-series (two-dose) vaccination over a follow-up duration of 1 year. METHODS: This observational, matched, retrospective, cohort study was done on the population of Qatar in people with different immune histories and different clinical vulnerability to infection. The source of data are Qatar's national databases for COVID-19 laboratory testing, vaccination, hospitalisation, and death. Associations were estimated using inverse-probability-weighted Cox proportional-hazards regression models. The primary outcome of the study is the effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA boosters against infection and against severe COVID-19. FINDINGS: Data were obtained for 2 228 686 people who had received at least two vaccine doses starting from Jan 5, 2021, of whom 658 947 (29·6%) went on to receive a third dose before data cutoff on Oct 12, 2022. There were 20 528 incident infections in the three-dose cohort and 30 771 infections in the two-dose cohort. Booster effectiveness relative to primary series was 26·2% (95% CI 23·6-28·6) against infection and 75·1% (40·2-89·6) against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19, during 1-year follow-up after the booster. Among people clinically vulnerable to severe COVID-19, effectiveness was 34·2% (27·0-40·6) against infection and 76·6% (34·5-91·7) against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19. Effectiveness against infection was highest at 61·4% (60·2-62·6) in the first month after the booster but waned thereafter and was modest at only 15·5% (8·3-22·2) by the sixth month. In the seventh month and thereafter, coincident with BA.4/BA.5 and BA.2·75* subvariant incidence, effectiveness was progressively negative albeit with wide CIs. Similar patterns of protection were observed irrespective of previous infection status, clinical vulnerability, or type of vaccine (BNT162b2 vs mRNA-1273). INTERPRETATION: Protection against omicron infection waned after the booster, and eventually suggested a possibility for negative immune imprinting. However, boosters substantially reduced infection and severe COVID-19, particularly among individuals who were clinically vulnerable, affirming the public health value of booster vaccination. FUNDING: The Biomedical Research Program and the Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and the Biomathematics Research Core (both at Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar), Ministry of Public Health, Hamad Medical Corporation, Sidra Medicine, Qatar Genome Programme, and Qatar University Biomedical Research Center.
Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica , COVID-19 , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estudos de Coortes , Vacina BNT162 , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , SARS-CoV-2/genéticaRESUMO
Background: Nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, and varenicline are smoking cessation medications (SCMs) shown to be similarly effective in people with and without human immunodeficiency virus (PWH and PWoH, respectively), although rates of receipt of these medications are unknown. Methods: We identified patients in the Veterans Aging Cohort Study with electronic health record-documented current smoking using clinical reminder data for tobacco use (2003-2018). We measured receipt of SCMs using Veterans Affairs pharmacy data for outpatient prescriptions filled 0-365 days after current smoking documentation. We used log-linear, Poisson-modified regression models to evaluate the relative risk (RR) for receiving SCM by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status, the annual rate of receipt, and rate difference among PWH relative to PWoH. Results: The sample included 92 632 patients (29 086 PWH), reflecting 381 637 documentations of current smoking. From 2003 to 2018, the proportion receiving SCMs increased from 15% to 34% for PWH and from 17% to 32% among PWoH. There was no statistical difference in likelihood of receiving SCM by HIV status (RR, 1.010; 95% confidence interval [CI], .994-1.026). Annual rates of receiving SCM increased for PWH by 4.3% per year (RR, 1.043; 95% CI, 1.040-1.047) and for PWoH by 3.7% per year (RR, 1.037; 95% CI, 1.036-1.038; rate difference +0.6% [RR, 1.006; 95% CI, 1.004-1.009]). Conclusions: In a national sample of current smokers, receipt of SCM doubled over the 16-year period, and differences by HIV status were modest. However, fewer than 35% of current smokers receive SCM annually. Efforts to improve SCM receipt should continue for both groups given the known dangers of smoking.