Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37396193

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the long-term vaccine effectiveness between those receiving viral vector [Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1)] or inactivated viral (CoronaVac) primary series (2 doses) and those who received an mRNA booster (Pfizer/BioNTech) (the third dose) among healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) in Brazil from January 2021 to July 2022. To assess the variation in the effectiveness of booster dose over time, we estimated the effectiveness rate by taking the log risk ratio as a function of time. Results: Of 14,532 HCWs, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was confirmed in 56.3% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine versus 23.2% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001), and 37.1% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine versus 22.7% among HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001). The highest vaccine effectiveness with mRNA booster was observed 30 days after vaccination: 91% for the CoronaVac vaccine group and 97% for the ChAdOx1 vaccine group. Vacine effectiveness declined to 55% and 67%, respectively, at 180 days. Of 430 samples screened for mutations, 49.5% were SARS-CoV-2 delta variants and 34.2% were SARS-CoV-2 omicron variants. Conclusions: Heterologous COVID-19 vaccines were effective for up to 180 days in preventing COVID-19 in the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variant eras, which suggests the need for a second booster.

2.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 44(1): 75-81, 2023 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35351217

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: We investigated real-world vaccine effectiveness for Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and CoronaVac against laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil between January 1, 2021 and August 3, 2021, to assess vaccine effectiveness. We calculated vaccine effectiveness as 1 - rate ratio (RR), with RR determined by adjusting Poisson models with the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection as the outcome and the vaccination status as the main variable. We used the logarithmic link function and simple models adjusting for sex, age, and job types. RESULTS: In total, 13,813 HCWs met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. Among them, 6,385 (46.2%) received the CoronaVac vaccine, 5,916 (42.8%) received the ChAdOx1 vaccine, and 1,512 (11.0%) were not vaccinated. Overall, COVID-19 occurred in 6% of unvaccinated HCWs, 3% of HCWs who received 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine, and 0.7% of HCWs who received 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine (P < .001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated vaccine effectiveness rates were 51.3% for CoronaVac, and 88.1% for ChAdOx1 vaccine. Both vaccines reduced the number of hospitalizations, the length of hospital stay, and the need for mechanical ventilation. In addition, 19 SARS-CoV-2 samples from 19 HCWs were screened for mutations of interest. Of 19 samples, 18 were the γ (gamma) variant. CONCLUSIONS: Although both COVID-19 vaccines (viral vector and inactivated virus) can significantly prevent COVID-19 among HCWs, CoronaVac was much less effective. The COVID-19 vaccines were also effective against the dominant γ variant.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pneumonia , Humans , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19 Vaccines , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel
3.
Clin Infect Dis ; 76(3): e360-e366, 2023 02 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35639918

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Little is currently known about vaccine effectiveness (VE) for either 2 doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) viral vector vaccine or CoronaVac (Instituto Butantan) inactivated viral vaccine followed by a third dose of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech) among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil from January to December 2021. VE was defined as 1 - incidence rate ratio (IRR), with IRR determined using Poisson models with the occurrence of laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection as the outcome, adjusting for age, sex, and job type. We compared those receiving viral vector or inactivated viral primary series (2 doses) with those who received an mRNA booster. RESULTS: A total of 11 427 HCWs met the inclusion criteria. COVID-19 was confirmed in 31.5% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine versus 0.9% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001) and 9.8% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine versus 1% among HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated VE was 92.0% for 2 CoronaVac vaccines plus mRNA booster and 60.2% for 2 ChAdOx1 vaccines plus mRNA booster, when compared with those with no mRNA booster. Of 246 samples screened for mutations, 191 (77.6%) were Delta variants. CONCLUSIONS: While 2 doses of ChAdOx1 or CoronaVac vaccines prevent COVID-19, the addition of a Pfizer/BioNTech booster provided significantly more protection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Viral Vaccines , Humans , Adolescent , Adult , Brazil/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Health Personnel , RNA, Messenger
4.
J Occup Environ Med ; 62(10): e593-e597, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32826546

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To describe the strategies to monitor and expand access to care for a health system workers in the first 2 months of the COVID-19 epidemic in Brazil. METHODS: Description of the implemented strategy based on the guidelines developed to address the surveillance and care of a large health system's workforce in the COVID-19 epidemic. RESULTS: During phase 1, the surveillance strategy focused on monitoring suspected cases among employees. In phase 2, surveillance was restricted to employees with confirmed COVID-19, aiming at monitoring of symptoms and following hospitalizations. Access to care was expanded. A total of 1089 employees were diagnosed with COVID-19, 89 required hospitalizations and none had died. CONCLUSION: The strategies adopted were promptly implemented and could be adapted to the changing epidemic dynamics, allowing low rates of adverse outcomes in this high-risk population.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Occupational Health , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Adult , Brazil/epidemiology , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Infection Control/organization & administration , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Registries , Risk Assessment , Workforce/organization & administration
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...