Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 31
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Lancet ; 399(10319): 25-35, 2022 01 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34942103

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Reports suggest that COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness is decreasing, but whether this reflects waning or new SARS-CoV-2 variants-especially delta (B.1.617.2)-is unclear. We investigated the association between time since two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in Scotland (where delta was dominant), with comparative analyses in Brazil (where delta was uncommon). METHODS: In this retrospective, population-based cohort study in Brazil and Scotland, we linked national databases from the EAVE II study in Scotland; and the COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign, Acute Respiratory Infection Suspected Cases, and Severe Acute Respiratory Infection/Illness datasets in Brazil) for vaccination, laboratory testing, clinical, and mortality data. We defined cohorts of adults (aged ≥18 years) who received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and compared rates of severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, COVID-19 hospital admission or death) across fortnightly periods, relative to 2-3 weeks after the second dose. Entry to the Scotland cohort started from May 19, 2021, and entry to the Brazil cohort started from Jan 18, 2021. Follow-up in both cohorts was until Oct 25, 2021. Poisson regression was used to estimate rate ratios (RRs) and vaccine effectiveness, with 95% CIs. FINDINGS: 1 972 454 adults received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in Scotland and 42 558 839 in Brazil, with longer follow-up in Scotland because two-dose vaccination began earlier in Scotland than in Brazil. In Scotland, RRs for severe COVID-19 increased to 2·01 (95% CI 1·54-2·62) at 10-11 weeks, 3·01 (2·26-3·99) at 14-15 weeks, and 5·43 (4·00-7·38) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. The pattern of results was similar in Brazil, with RRs of 2·29 (2·01-2·61) at 10-11 weeks, 3·10 (2·63-3·64) at 14-15 weeks, and 4·71 (3·83-5·78) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. In Scotland, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 83·7% (95% CI 79·7-87·0) at 2-3 weeks, to 75·9% (72·9-78·6) at 14-15 weeks, and 63·7% (59·6-67·4) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. In Brazil, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 86·4% (85·4-87·3) at 2-3 weeks, to 59·7% (54·6-64·2) at 14-15 weeks, and 42·2% (32·4-50·6) at 18-19 weeks. INTERPRETATION: We found waning vaccine protection of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against COVID-19 hospital admissions and deaths in both Scotland and Brazil, this becoming evident within three months of the second vaccine dose. Consideration needs to be given to providing booster vaccine doses for people who have received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Scottish Government, Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, Fiocruz, Fazer o Bem Faz Bem Programme; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. TRANSLATION: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , COVID-19/mortalidad , COVID-19/prevención & control , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/administración & dosificación , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Brasil , Femenino , Hospitalización , Humanos , Inmunización Secundaria , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Escocia/epidemiología , Factores de Tiempo , Vacunación
2.
PLoS Med ; 19(2): e1003927, 2022 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35192598

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Several countries restricted the administration of ChAdOx1 to older age groups in 2021 over safety concerns following case reports and observed versus expected analyses suggesting a possible association with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST). Large datasets are required to precisely estimate the association between Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and CVST due to the extreme rarity of this event. We aimed to accomplish this by combining national data from England, Scotland, and Wales. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We created data platforms consisting of linked primary care, secondary care, mortality, and virological testing data in each of England, Scotland, and Wales, with a combined cohort of 11,637,157 people and 6,808,293 person years of follow-up. The cohort start date was December 8, 2020, and the end date was June 30, 2021. The outcome measure we examined was incident CVST events recorded in either primary or secondary care records. We carried out a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis of this outcome following first dose vaccination with ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2. The observation period consisted of an initial 90-day reference period, followed by a 2-week prerisk period directly prior to vaccination, and a 4-week risk period following vaccination. Counts of CVST cases from each country were tallied, then expanded into a full dataset with 1 row for each individual and observation time period. There was a combined total of 201 incident CVST events in the cohorts (29.5 per million person years). There were 81 CVST events in the observation period among those who a received first dose of ChAdOx1 (approximately 16.34 per million doses) and 40 for those who received a first dose of BNT162b2 (approximately 12.60 per million doses). We fitted conditional Poisson models to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Vaccination with ChAdOx1 was associated with an elevated risk of incident CVST events in the 28 days following vaccination, IRR = 1.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.11). We did not find an association between BNT162b2 and CVST in the 28 days following vaccination, IRR = 0.78 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.77). Our study had some limitations. The SCCS study design implicitly controls for variables that are constant over the observation period, but also assumes that outcome events are independent of exposure. This assumption may not be satisfied in the case of CVST, firstly because it is a serious adverse event, and secondly because the vaccination programme in the United Kingdom prioritised the clinically extremely vulnerable and those with underlying health conditions, which may have caused a selection effect for individuals more prone to CVST. Although we pooled data from several large datasets, there was still a low number of events, which may have caused imprecision in our estimates. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed a small elevated risk of CVST events following vaccination with ChAdOx1, but not BNT162b2. Our analysis pooled information from large datasets from England, Scotland, and Wales. This evidence may be useful in risk-benefit analyses of vaccine policies and in providing quantification of risks associated with vaccination to the general public.


Asunto(s)
Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/prevención & control , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , SARS-CoV-2/patogenicidad , Trombosis de los Senos Intracraneales/etiología , Adulto , Anciano , Vacuna BNT162/efectos adversos , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Estudios de Casos y Controles , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/efectos adversos , Estudios de Cohortes , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Reino Unido , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Gales
3.
Lancet ; 397(10285): 1646-1657, 2021 05 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33901420

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines have shown high efficacy against disease in phase 3 clinical trials and are now being used in national vaccination programmes in the UK and several other countries. Studying the real-world effects of these vaccines is an urgent requirement. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between the mass roll-out of the first doses of these COVID-19 vaccines and hospital admissions for COVID-19. METHODS: We did a prospective cohort study using the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19-EAVE II-database comprising linked vaccination, primary care, real-time reverse transcription-PCR testing, and hospital admission patient records for 5·4 million people in Scotland (about 99% of the population) registered at 940 general practices. Individuals who had previously tested positive were excluded from the analysis. A time-dependent Cox model and Poisson regression models with inverse propensity weights were fitted to estimate effectiveness against COVID-19 hospital admission (defined as 1-adjusted rate ratio) following the first dose of vaccine. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 22, 2021, a total of 1 331 993 people were vaccinated over the study period. The mean age of those vaccinated was 65·0 years (SD 16·2). The first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was associated with a vaccine effect of 91% (95% CI 85-94) for reduced COVID-19 hospital admission at 28-34 days post-vaccination. Vaccine effect at the same time interval for the ChAdOx1 vaccine was 88% (95% CI 75-94). Results of combined vaccine effects against hospital admission due to COVID-19 were similar when restricting the analysis to those aged 80 years and older (83%, 95% CI 72-89 at 28-34 days post-vaccination). INTERPRETATION: Mass roll-out of the first doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 vaccines was associated with substantial reductions in the risk of hospital admission due to COVID-19 in Scotland. There remains the possibility that some of the observed effects might have been due to residual confounding. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevención & control , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Vacunación Masiva , Pandemias/prevención & control , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/epidemiología , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Escocia/epidemiología , Clase Social , Adulto Joven
4.
Thorax ; 77(5): 497-504, 2022 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34782484

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The QCovid algorithm is a risk prediction tool that can be used to stratify individuals by risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality. Version 1 of the algorithm was trained using data covering 10.5 million patients in England in the period 24 January 2020 to 30 April 2020. We carried out an external validation of version 1 of the QCovid algorithm in Scotland. METHODS: We established a national COVID-19 data platform using individual level data for the population of Scotland (5.4 million residents). Primary care data were linked to reverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR) virology testing, hospitalisation and mortality data. We assessed the performance of the QCovid algorithm in predicting COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths in our dataset for two time periods matching the original study: 1 March 2020 to 30 April 2020, and 1 May 2020 to 30 June 2020. RESULTS: Our dataset comprised 5 384 819 individuals, representing 99% of the estimated population (5 463 300) resident in Scotland in 2020. The algorithm showed good calibration in the first period, but systematic overestimation of risk in the second period, prior to temporal recalibration. Harrell's C for deaths in females and males in the first period was 0.95 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.95) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.93), respectively. Harrell's C for hospitalisations in females and males in the first period was 0.81 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.82) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.82), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Version 1 of the QCovid algorithm showed high levels of discrimination in predicting the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths in adults resident in Scotland for the original two time periods studied, but is likely to need ongoing recalibration prospectively.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Adulto , Algoritmos , Calibración , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Hospitalización , Humanos , Masculino , Escocia/epidemiología
5.
Thorax ; 76(9): 867-873, 2021 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33782079

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic's impact on people with asthma is poorly understood. We hypothesised that lockdown restrictions were associated with reductions in severe asthma exacerbations requiring emergency asthma admissions and/or leading to death. METHODS: Using data from Public Health Scotland and the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank in Wales, we compared weekly counts of emergency admissions and deaths due to asthma over the first 18 weeks in 2020 with the national averages over 2015-2019. We modelled the impact of instigating lockdown on these outcomes using interrupted time-series analysis. Using fixed-effect meta-analysis, we derived pooled estimates of the overall changes in trends across the two nations. We also investigated trends in asthma-related primary care prescribing and emergency department (ED) attendances in Wales. RESULTS: Lockdown was associated with a 36% pooled reduction in emergency admissions for asthma (incidence rate ratio, IRR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.83, p value 0.001) across both countries. There was no significant change in asthma deaths (pooled IRR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.17 to 1.94, p value 0.37). ED asthma attendances in Wales declined during lockdown (IRR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.73 to 0.99, p value 0.03). A large spike of 121% more inhaled corticosteroids and 133% more oral corticosteroid prescriptions was seen in Wales in the week before lockdown. CONCLUSIONS: National lockdowns were associated with substantial reductions in severe asthma exacerbations leading to hospital admission across both Scotland and Wales, with no corresponding increase in asthma deaths.


Asunto(s)
Asma/mortalidad , COVID-19/prevención & control , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Admisión del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Atención Primaria de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Administración por Inhalación , Corticoesteroides/uso terapéutico , Asma/tratamiento farmacológico , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/tendencias , Humanos , Análisis de Series de Tiempo Interrumpido , Admisión del Paciente/tendencias , Atención Primaria de Salud/tendencias , SARS-CoV-2 , Escocia/epidemiología , Gales/epidemiología
6.
BMC Med ; 19(1): 124, 2021 05 17.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33993870

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing national lockdowns have dramatically changed the healthcare landscape. The pandemic's impact on people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains poorly understood. We hypothesised that the UK-wide lockdown restrictions were associated with reductions in severe COPD exacerbations. We provide the first national level analyses of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and first lockdown on severe COPD exacerbations resulting in emergency hospital admissions and/or leading to death as well as those recorded in primary care or emergency departments. METHODS: Using data from Public Health Scotland and the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank in Wales, we accessed weekly counts of emergency hospital admissions and deaths due to COPD over the first 30 weeks of 2020 and compared these to the national averages over the preceding 5 years. For both Scotland and Wales, we undertook interrupted time-series analyses to model the impact of instigating lockdown on these outcomes. Using fixed-effect meta-analysis, we derived pooled estimates of the overall changes in trends across the two nations. RESULTS: Lockdown was associated with 48% pooled reduction in emergency admissions for COPD in both countries (incidence rate ratio, IRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.58), relative to the 5-year averages. There was no statistically significant change in deaths due to COPD (pooled IRR 1.08, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.33). In Wales, lockdown was associated with 39% reduction in primary care consultations for acute exacerbation of COPD (IRR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.71) and 46% reduction in COPD-related emergency department attendances (IRR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: The UK-wide lockdown was associated with the most substantial reductions in COPD exacerbations ever seen across Scotland and Wales, with no corresponding increase in COPD deaths. This may have resulted from reduced transmission of respiratory infections, reduced exposure to outdoor air pollution and/or improved COPD self-management.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/prevención & control , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/epidemiología , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/mortalidad , Cuarentena , COVID-19/complicaciones , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Hospitalización , Humanos , Incidencia , Análisis de Series de Tiempo Interrumpido , Pandemias , Atención Primaria de Salud , SARS-CoV-2 , Escocia , Gales
7.
Clin Infect Dis ; 71(7): e94-e104, 2020 10 23.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31688921

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Influenza infection is a trigger of asthma attacks. Influenza vaccination can potentially reduce the incidence of influenza in people with asthma, but uptake remains persistently low, partially reflecting concerns about vaccine effectiveness (VE). METHODS: We conducted a test-negative designed case-control study to estimate the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in people with asthma in Scotland over 6 seasons (2010/2011 to 2015/2016). We used individual patient-level data from 223 practices, which yielded 1 830 772 patient-years of data that were linked with virological (n = 5910 swabs) data. RESULTS: Vaccination was associated with an overall 55.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45.8-62.7) risk reduction of laboratory-confirmed influenza infections in people with asthma over 6 seasons. There were substantial variations in VE between seasons, influenza strains, and age groups. The highest VE (76.1%; 95% CI, 55.6-87.1) was found in the 2010/2011 season, when the A(H1N1) strain dominated and there was a good antigenic vaccine match. High protection was observed against the A(H1N1) (eg, 2010/2011; 70.7%; 95% CI, 32.5-87.3) and B strains (eg, 2010/2011; 83.2%; 95% CI, 44.3-94.9), but there was lower protection for the A(H3N2) strain (eg, 2014/2015; 26.4%; 95% CI, -12.0 to 51.6). The highest VE against all viral strains was observed in adults aged 18-54 years (57.0%; 95% CI, 42.3-68.0). CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccination gave meaningful protection against laboratory-confirmed influenza in people with asthma across all seasons. Strategies to boost influenza vaccine uptake have the potential to substantially reduce influenza-triggered asthma attacks.


Asunto(s)
Asma , Subtipo H1N1 del Virus de la Influenza A , Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Adolescente , Adulto , Asma/complicaciones , Asma/epidemiología , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Humanos , Subtipo H3N2 del Virus de la Influenza A , Virus de la Influenza B , Gripe Humana/complicaciones , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estaciones del Año , Vigilancia de Guardia , Vacunación , Adulto Joven
8.
Clin Infect Dis ; 65(8): 1388-1395, 2017 Oct 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28591866

RESUMEN

There is uncertainty about the effectiveness of influenza vaccination in persons with asthma and its impact on asthma outcomes, which may contribute to the suboptimal vaccination rates in persons with asthma. This systematic review and meta-analysis involved searching 12 international databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and high-quality quasi-experimental and epidemiological studies (1970-2016). The risk of bias was low for 3 included RCTs. The quality of 3 included observational studies was moderate. The quality of evidence was very low for all study outcomes. Pooled vaccine effectiveness in 1825 persons with asthma from 2 test-negative design case-control studies was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31%-56%) for laboratory-confirmed influenza. Pooled efficacy of live vaccines in reducing influenza was 81% (95% CI, 33%- 94%). Live vaccine reduced febrile illness by 72% (95% CI, 20%-90%). Influenza vaccine prevented 59%-78% of asthma attacks leading to emergency visits and/or hospitalizations. For persons with asthma, influenza vaccination may be effective in both reducing influenza infection and asthma attacks.


Asunto(s)
Asma , Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Asma/epidemiología , Asma/prevención & control , Humanos , Vacunas contra la Influenza/administración & dosificación , Vacunas contra la Influenza/uso terapéutico , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Gripe Humana/prevención & control
9.
Eur Respir J ; 49(6)2017 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28619959

RESUMEN

There is currently no consensus on approaches to defining asthma or assessing asthma outcomes using electronic health record-derived data. We explored these approaches in the recent literature and examined the clarity of reporting.We systematically searched for asthma-related articles published between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2015, extracted the algorithms used to identify asthma patients and assess severity, control and exacerbations, and examined how the validity of these outcomes was justified.From 113 eligible articles, we found significant heterogeneity in the algorithms used to define asthma (n=66 different algorithms), severity (n=18), control (n=9) and exacerbations (n=24). For the majority of algorithms (n=106), validity was not justified. In the remaining cases, approaches ranged from using algorithms validated in the same databases to using nonvalidated algorithms that were based on clinical judgement or clinical guidelines. The implementation of these algorithms was suboptimally described overall.Although electronic health record-derived data are now widely used to study asthma, the approaches being used are significantly varied and are often underdescribed, rendering it difficult to assess the validity of studies and compare their findings. Given the substantial growth in this body of literature, it is crucial that scientific consensus is reached on the underlying definitions and algorithms.


Asunto(s)
Asma/diagnóstico , Estudios Clínicos como Asunto/normas , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Algoritmos , Registros Electrónicos de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud/métodos , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud/normas , Mejoramiento de la Calidad
11.
J Glob Health ; 12: 05014, 2022 May 21.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35596571

RESUMEN

Background: Long COVID is defined as symptoms and signs related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that are present at least four weeks following acute infection. These symptoms and signs are poorly characterised but may be associated with significant morbidity. We sought to synthesise the evidence on their incidence to guide future research, policy and practice. Methods: We searched Medline and Embase for longitudinal cohort studies from January 2020 to July 2021 that investigated adults with long COVID at least four weeks after acute infection. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for cohort studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed with subgroup analysis by follow-up time (4-12 vs more than 12 weeks). Results: 19 studies were included, 13 of which included patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The total sample size was 10 643 and the follow-up time ranged from 30 to 340 days. Risk of bias was assessed as high in one study, moderate in two studies and low in the remaining 16 studies. The most common symptoms and signs seen at any time point in long COVID were fatigue (37%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 23-55), dyspnoea (21%; 95% CI = 14-30), olfactory dysfunction (17%; 95% CI = 9-29), myalgia (12%; 95% CI = 5-25), cough (11%; 95% CI = 6-20) and gustatory dysfunction (10%; 95% CI = 7-17). High heterogeneity was seen for all meta-analyses and the presence of some funnel plot asymmetry may indicate reporting bias. No effect of follow-up time was found for any symptom or sign included in the subgroup analysis. Conclusions: We have summarised evidence from longitudinal cohort studies on the most common symptoms and signs associated with long COVID. High heterogeneity seen in the meta-analysis means pooled incidence estimates should be interpreted with caution. This heterogeneity may be attributable to studies including patients from different health care settings and countries.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Adulto , COVID-19/complicaciones , Estudios de Cohortes , Humanos , Estudios Longitudinales , SARS-CoV-2 , Síndrome Post Agudo de COVID-19
12.
J Glob Health ; 12: 05025, 2022 Jul 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35802764

RESUMEN

Background: In July 2021, a new variant of SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) in the Delta lineage was detected in the United Kingdom (UK), named AY.4.2 or "Delta plus". By October 2021, the AY.4.2 variant accounted for approximately 10-11% of cases in the UK. AY.4.2 was designated as a variant under investigation by the UK Health and Security Agency on 20 October 2021. This study aimed to investigate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019) infection and COVID-19 hospitalisation/death for the AY.4.2 variant. Methods: We used the Scotland-wide Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance (EAVE-II) platform to estimate the VE of the ChAdOx1, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273 vaccines against symptomatic infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes in adults. The study was conducted from June 8 to October 25, 2021. We used a test-negative design (TND) to estimate VE against reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection while adjusting for sex, socioeconomic status, number of coexisting conditions, and splines in time and age. We also performed a cohort study using a Cox proportional hazards model to estimate VE against a composite outcome of COVID-19 hospital admission or death, with the same adjustments. Results: We found an overall VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection due to AY.4.2 of 73% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 62-81) for >14 days post-second vaccine dose. Good protection against AY.4.2 symptomatic infection was observed for BNT162b2, ChAdOx1, and mRNA-1273. In unvaccinated individuals, the hazard ratio (HR) for COVID-19 hospital admission or death from AY.4.2 among community detected cases was 1.77 (95% CI = 1.02-3.07) relative to unvaccinated individuals who were infected with Delta, after adjusting for multiple potential confounders. VE against AY.4.2 COVID-19 admissions or deaths was 87% (95% CI = 74-93) >28 days post-second vaccination relative to unvaccinated. Conclusions: We found that AY.4.2 was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisations or deaths in unvaccinated individuals compared with Delta and that vaccination provided substantial protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 and severe COVID-19 outcomes following Delta AY.4.2 infection. High levels of vaccine uptake and protection offered by existing vaccines, as well as the rapid emergence of the Omicron variant may have contributed to the AY.4.2 variant never progressing to a variant of concern.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Adulto , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Estudios de Cohortes , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Escocia/epidemiología , Eficacia de las Vacunas
13.
Lancet Respir Med ; 10(4): 347-354, 2022 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35033224

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There is considerable uncertainty over whether adults with asthma should be offered booster vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 and, if so, who should be prioritised for booster vaccination. We were asked by the UK's Joint Commission on Vaccination and Immunisation to undertake an urgent analysis to identify which adults with asthma were at an increased risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes to inform deliberations on booster COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: This national incident cohort study was done in all adults in Scotland aged 18 years and older who were included in the linked dataset of Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II). We used data from EAVE II to investigate the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and the composite outcome of intensive care unit (ICU) admission or death from COVID-19 among adults with asthma. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to derive adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for the association between asthma and COVID-19 hospital admission and ICU admission or death, stratified by markers of history of an asthma attack defined by either oral corticosteroid prescription (prednisolone, prednisone, and dexamethasone) in the 2 years before March 1, 2020, or hospitalisation for asthma before March 1, 2020. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, previous hospitalisation, and vaccine status. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2020, and July 27, 2021, 561 279 (12·7%) of 4 421 663 adults in Scotland had clinician-diagnosed-and-recorded-asthma. Among adults with asthma, 39 253 (7·0%) had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, of whom 4828 (12·3%) were admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (among them, an estimated 600 [12·4%] might have been due to nosocomial infections). Adults with asthma were found to be at an increased risk of COVID-19 hospital admission (adjusted HR 1·27, 95% CI 1·23-1·32) compared with those without asthma. When using oral corticosteroid prescribing in the preceding 2 years as a marker for history of an asthma attack, the adjusted HR was 1·54 (95% CI 1·46-1·61) for those with three or more prescribed courses of oral corticosteroids, 1·37 (1·26-1·48) for those with two prescribed courses, 1·30 (1·23-1·37) for those with one prescribed course, and 1·15 (1·11-1·21) for those without any courses, compared with those aged 18 years or older without asthma. Adults with asthma were found to be at an increased risk of COVID-19 ICU admission or death compared with those without asthma (adjusted HR 1·13, 95 % CI 1·05-1·22). The adjusted HR was 1·44 (95% CI 1·31-1·58) for those with three or more prescribed courses of oral corticosteroids, 1·27 (1·09-1·48) for those with two prescribed courses, 1·04 (0·93-1·16) for those with one prescribed course, and 1·06 (0·97-1·17) for those without any course, compared with adults without asthma. INTERPRETATION: Adults with asthma who have required two or more courses of oral corticosteroids in the previous 2 years or a hospital admission for asthma before March 1, 2020, are at increased risk of both COVID-19 hospitalisation and ICU admission or death. Patients with a recent asthma attack should be considered a priority group for booster COVID-19 vaccines. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, and Scottish Government.


Asunto(s)
Asma , COVID-19 , Adolescente , Adulto , Asma/tratamiento farmacológico , Asma/epidemiología , COVID-19/epidemiología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Estudios de Cohortes , Hospitalización , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Escocia/epidemiología
14.
BMJ Open ; 12(7): e059385, 2022 07 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35793922

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 is commonly experienced as an acute illness, yet some people continue to have symptoms that persist for weeks, or months (commonly referred to as 'long-COVID'). It remains unclear which patients are at highest risk of developing long-COVID. In this protocol, we describe plans to develop a prediction model to identify individuals at risk of developing long-COVID. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use the national Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II) platform, a population-level linked dataset of routine electronic healthcare data from 5.4 million individuals in Scotland. We will identify potential indicators for long-COVID by identifying patterns in primary care data linked to information from out-of-hours general practitioner encounters, accident and emergency visits, hospital admissions, outpatient visits, medication prescribing/dispensing and mortality. We will investigate the potential indicators of long-COVID by performing a matched analysis between those with a positive reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 infection and two control groups: (1) individuals with at least one negative RT-PCR test and never tested positive; (2) the general population (everyone who did not test positive) of Scotland. Cluster analysis will then be used to determine the final definition of the outcome measure for long-COVID. We will then derive, internally and externally validate a prediction model to identify the epidemiological risk factors associated with long-COVID. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The EAVE II study has obtained approvals from the Research Ethics Committee (reference: 12/SS/0201), and the Public Benefit and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care (reference: 1920-0279). Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences. Understanding the predictors for long-COVID and identifying the patient groups at greatest risk of persisting symptoms will inform future treatments and preventative strategies for long-COVID.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/complicaciones , COVID-19/epidemiología , Estudios de Cohortes , Hospitalización , Humanos , Estudios Observacionales como Asunto , SARS-CoV-2 , Síndrome Post Agudo de COVID-19
15.
Pragmat Obs Res ; 13: 1-8, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35210898

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR) databases provide rich, longitudinal data on interactions with healthcare providers and can be used to advance research into respiratory conditions. However, since these data are primarily collected to support health care delivery, clinical coding can be inconsistent, resulting in inherent challenges in using these data for research purposes. METHODS: We systematically searched existing international literature and UK code repositories to find respiratory disease codelists for asthma from January 2018, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and respiratory tract infections from January 2020, based on prior searches. Medline searches using key terms provided in article lists. Full-text articles, supplementary files, and reference lists were examined for codelists, and codelists repositories were searched. A reproducible methodology for codelists creation was developed with recommended lists for each disease created based on multidisciplinary expert opinion and previously published literature. RESULTS: Medline searches returned 1126 asthma articles, 70 COPD articles, and 90 respiratory infection articles, with 3%, 22% and 5% including codelists, respectively. Repository searching returned 12 asthma, 23 COPD, and 64 respiratory infection codelists. We have systematically compiled respiratory disease codelists and from these derived recommended lists for use by researchers to find the most up-to-date and relevant respiratory disease codelists that can be tailored to individual research questions. CONCLUSION: Few published papers include codelists, and where published diverse codelists were used, even when answering similar research questions. Whilst some advances have been made, greater consistency and transparency across studies using routine data to study respiratory diseases are needed.

16.
J R Soc Med ; 115(1): 22-30, 2022 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34672832

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the association between multimorbidity among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and their subsequent risk of mortality. We also explored the interaction between the presence of multimorbidity and the requirement for an individual to shield due to the presence of specific conditions and its association with mortality. DESIGN: We created a cohort of patients hospitalised in Scotland due to COVID-19 during the first wave (between 28 February 2020 and 22 September 2020) of the pandemic. We identified the level of multimorbidity for the patient on admission and used logistic regression to analyse the association between multimorbidity and risk of mortality among patients hospitalised with COVID-19. SETTING: Scotland, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients hospitalised due to COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality as recorded on National Records of Scotland death certificate and being coded for COVID-19 on the death certificate or death within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test. RESULTS: Almost 58% of patients admitted to the hospital due to COVID-19 had multimorbidity. Adjusting for confounding factors of age, sex, social class and presence in the shielding group, multimorbidity was significantly associated with mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.48, 95%CI 1.26-1.75). The presence of multimorbidity and presence in the shielding patients list were independently associated with mortality but there was no multiplicative effect of having both (adjusted odds ratio 0.91, 95%CI 0.64-1.29). CONCLUSIONS: Multimorbidity is an independent risk factor of mortality among individuals who were hospitalised due to COVID-19. Individuals with multimorbidity could be prioritised when making preventive policies, for example, by expanding shielding advice to this group and prioritising them for vaccination.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/mortalidad , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Multimorbilidad , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , SARS-CoV-2 , Escocia/epidemiología , Determinantes Sociales de la Salud , Factores Sociodemográficos
17.
Nat Med ; 28(3): 504-512, 2022 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35027756

RESUMEN

Population-level data on COVID-19 vaccine uptake in pregnancy and SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes are lacking. We describe COVID-19 vaccine uptake and SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women in Scotland, using whole-population data from a national, prospective cohort. Between the start of a COVID-19 vaccine program in Scotland, on 8 December 2020 and 31 October 2021, 25,917 COVID-19 vaccinations were given to 18,457 pregnant women. Vaccine coverage was substantially lower in pregnant women than in the general female population of 18-44 years; 32.3% of women giving birth in October 2021 had two doses of vaccine compared to 77.4% in all women. The extended perinatal mortality rate for women who gave birth within 28 d of a COVID-19 diagnosis was 22.6 per 1,000 births (95% CI 12.9-38.5; pandemic background rate 5.6 per 1,000 births; 452 out of 80,456; 95% CI 5.1-6.2). Overall, 77.4% (3,833 out of 4,950; 95% CI 76.2-78.6) of SARS-CoV-2 infections, 90.9% (748 out of 823; 95% CI 88.7-92.7) of SARS-CoV-2 associated with hospital admission and 98% (102 out of 104; 95% CI 92.5-99.7) of SARS-CoV-2 associated with critical care admission, as well as all baby deaths, occurred in pregnant women who were unvaccinated at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis. Addressing low vaccine uptake rates in pregnant women is imperative to protect the health of women and babies in the ongoing pandemic.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Complicaciones Infecciosas del Embarazo , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Prueba de COVID-19 , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Humanos , Embarazo , Complicaciones Infecciosas del Embarazo/epidemiología , Complicaciones Infecciosas del Embarazo/prevención & control , Mujeres Embarazadas , Estudios Prospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacunación
18.
BMJ Open ; 12(2): e050062, 2022 02 14.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35165107

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which emerged in December 2019, has caused millions of deaths and severe illness worldwide. Numerous vaccines are currently under development of which a few have now been authorised for population-level administration by several countries. As of 20 September 2021, over 48 million people have received their first vaccine dose and over 44 million people have received their second vaccine dose across the UK. We aim to assess the uptake rates, effectiveness, and safety of all currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the UK. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use prospective cohort study designs to assess vaccine uptake, effectiveness and safety against clinical outcomes and deaths. Test-negative case-control study design will be used to assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) against laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Self-controlled case series and retrospective cohort study designs will be carried out to assess vaccine safety against mild-to-moderate and severe adverse events, respectively. Individual-level pseudonymised data from primary care, secondary care, laboratory test and death records will be linked and analysed in secure research environments in each UK nation. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models will be carried out to estimate vaccine uptake levels in relation to various population characteristics. VE estimates against laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection will be generated using a generalised additive logistic model. Time-dependent Cox models will be used to estimate the VE against clinical outcomes and deaths. The safety of the vaccines will be assessed using logistic regression models with an offset for the length of the risk period. Where possible, data will be meta-analysed across the UK nations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We obtained approvals from the National Research Ethics Service Committee, Southeast Scotland 02 (12/SS/0201), the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage independent Information Governance Review Panel project number 0911. Concerning English data, University of Oxford is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation and the National Health Service (NHS) Digital Data Security and Protection Policy. This is an approved study (Integrated Research Application ID 301740, Health Research Authority (HRA) Research Ethics Committee 21/HRA/2786). The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub meets NHS Digital's Data Security and Protection Toolkit requirements. In Northern Ireland, the project was approved by the Honest Broker Governance Board, project number 0064. Findings will be made available to national policy-makers, presented at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Humanos , Estudios Observacionales como Asunto , Estudios Prospectivos , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Escocia/epidemiología , Medicina Estatal
19.
Lancet Digit Health ; 3(8): e517-e525, 2021 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34238721

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, national-level surveillance platforms with real-time individual person-level data are required to monitor and predict the epidemiological and clinical profile of COVID-19 and inform public health policy. We aimed to create a national dataset of patient-level data in Scotland to identify temporal trends and COVID-19 risk factors, and to develop a novel statistical prediction model to forecast COVID-19-related deaths and hospitalisations during the second wave. METHODS: We established a surveillance platform to monitor COVID-19 temporal trends using person-level primary care data (including age, sex, socioeconomic status, urban or rural residence, care home residence, and clinical risk factors) linked to data on SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests, hospitalisations, and deaths for all individuals resident in Scotland who were registered with a general practice on Feb 23, 2020. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the association between clinical risk groups and time to hospitalisation and death. A survival prediction model derived from data from March 1 to June 23, 2020, was created to forecast hospital admissions and deaths from October to December, 2020. We fitted a generalised additive spline model to daily SARS-CoV-2 cases over the previous 10 weeks and used this to create a 28-day forecast of the number of daily cases. The age and risk group pattern of cases in the previous 3 weeks was then used to select a stratified sample of individuals from our cohort who had not previously tested positive, with future cases in each group sampled from a multinomial distribution. We then used their patient characteristics (including age, sex, comorbidities, and socioeconomic status) to predict their probability of hospitalisation or death. FINDINGS: Our cohort included 5 384 819 people, representing 98·6% of the entire estimated population residing in Scotland during 2020. Hospitalisation and death among those testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 between March 1 and June 23, 2020, were associated with several patient characteristics, including male sex (hospitalisation hazard ratio [HR] 1·47, 95% CI 1·38-1·57; death HR 1·62, 1·49-1·76) and various comorbidities, with the highest hospitalisation HR found for transplantation (4·53, 1·87-10·98) and the highest death HR for myoneural disease (2·33, 1·46-3·71). For those testing positive, there were decreasing temporal trends in hospitalisation and death rates. The proportion of positive tests among older age groups (>40 years) and those with at-risk comorbidities increased during October, 2020. On Nov 10, 2020, the projected number of hospitalisations for Dec 8, 2020 (28 days later) was 90 per day (95% prediction interval 55-125) and the projected number of deaths was 21 per day (12-29). INTERPRETATION: The estimated incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on positive tests recorded in this unique data resource has provided forecasts of hospitalisation and death rates for the whole of Scotland. These findings were used by the Scottish Government to inform their response to reduce COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme, UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, Scottish Government Director General Health and Social Care.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Predicción , Hospitalización , Modelos Estadísticos , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/mortalidad , Prueba de Ácido Nucleico para COVID-19/estadística & datos numéricos , Prueba de Ácido Nucleico para COVID-19/tendencias , Niño , Preescolar , Comorbilidad/tendencias , Femenino , Humanos , Incidencia , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Almacenamiento y Recuperación de la Información , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Atención Primaria de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Factores de Riesgo , Escocia/epidemiología , Factores Sexuales
20.
BMJ Open ; 11(11): e054861, 2021 11 19.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34799365

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has caused millions of hospitalisations and deaths globally. A range of vaccines have been developed and are being deployed at scale in the UK to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection, which have reduced risk of infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes. Those with COVID-19 are now being treated with several repurposed drugs based on evidence emerging from recent clinical trials. However, there is currently limited real-world data available related to the use of these drugs in routine clinical practice. The purpose of this study is to address the prevailing knowledge gaps regarding the use of dexamethasone, remdesivir and tocilizumab by conducting an exploratory drug utilisation study, aimed at providing in-depth descriptions of patients receiving these drugs as well as the treatment patterns observed in Scotland. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Retrospective cohort study, comprising adult patients admitted to hospital with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 across five Scottish Health Boards using data from in-hospital ePrescribing linked to the Early Estimation of Vaccine and Anti-Viral Effectiveness (EAVE II) COVID-19 surveillance platform. The primary outcome will be exposure to the medicines of interest (dexamethasone, remdesivir, tocilizumab), either alone or in combination; exposure will be described in terms of drug(s) of choice; prescribed and administered dose; treatment duration; and any changes in treatment, for example, dose escalation and/or switching to an alternative drug. Analyses will primarily be descriptive in nature. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical and information governance approvals have been obtained by the National Research Ethics Service Committee, South East Scotland 02 and the Public Benefit and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care, respectively. Findings from this study will be presented at academic and clinical conferences, and to the funders and other interested parties as appropriate; study findings will also be published in peer-reviewed journals. Publications will be available on the EAVE II website (https://www.ed.ac.uk/usher/eave-ii/key-outputs/our-publications), alongside lay summaries and infographics aimed at the general public. Press releases will also be considered, if appropriate.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Adulto , Antivirales , Humanos , Estudios Observacionales como Asunto , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Escocia
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA