RESUMEN
BackgroundThere is limited data on the prevalence and risk factors for long COVID, with a shortage of prospective studies with appropriate control groups and adequate sample size. We therefore performed a prospective study to determine the prevalence and risk factors for long COVID. MethodsWe recruited patients age [≥] 15 years who were clinically suspected of having acute SARS-CoV-2 infection from September 2020 to April 2021. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected for RT-PCR 3-5 days post symptom onset. Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were collected using structured questionnaires from persons positive and negative for SARS-COV-2. Follow-up was performed by telephone interview to assess early outcomes and persistent symptoms. For COVID-19 cases, 5D-3L EuroQol questionnaire was used to assess the impact of symptoms on quality of life. ResultsWe followed 814 participants (412 COVD-19 positive and 402 COVID-19 negative persons) of whom the majority (741 / 814) had mild symptoms. Both the COVID-19 positive and the COVID-19 negative groups had similar sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, except for the rate of hospitalization (15.8% vs 1.5%, respectively). One month after disease onset, 122 (29.6%) individuals reported residual symptoms in the COVID-19 positive group or the long COVID group versus 24 (6%) individuals in the COVID-19 negative group. In the long COVID group, fatigue, olfactory disorder, and myalgia were the most frequent symptoms which occurred in the acute phase. Compared to recovered patients, female sex, older age and having > 5 symptoms during the acute phase were risk factors for long COVID. Quality of life was evaluated in 102 out of 122 cases of long COVID with 57 (55.9%) reporting an impact in at least one dimension of the EuroQol 5D-3L questionnaire. ConclusionIn this prospective study consisting predominantly of patients with mild disease, the persistence of symptoms after acute disease was highly associated with long COVID-19 (29.6% vs 6% of COVID negative group). The risk factors for long COVID were older age, female sex, and polysymptomatic acute disease.
RESUMEN
Hybrid immunity (infection plus vaccination) provided high protection against infection and severe disease in the periods of delta and gamma variants of concern. However, the protection of hybrid immunity in the Omicron era remains unknown. We performed a test-negative study using Brazilian national databases between January 01 and March 22, 2022, a period of predominant circulation of the Omicron variant in Brazil. Hybrid immunity offered low protection against infection, with rapid waning, compared to unvaccinated with or without previous infection. For severe illness (hospitalisation or death), the protection, although already high for unvaccinated pre-infected increased regardless of the type of vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S, BNT162b2, ChAdOx-1 or CoronaVac). In conclusion, during the Omicron-dominant period in Brazil, hybrid immunity offered high protection against severe illness and low protection against infection.
RESUMEN
BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccines have proven highly effective among SARS-CoV-2 naive individuals, but their effectiveness in preventing symptomatic infection and severe outcomes among individuals with prior infection is less clear. MethodsUtilizing national COVID-19 notification, hospitalization, and vaccination datasets from Brazil, we performed a case-control study using a test-negative design to assess the effectiveness of four vaccines (CoronaVac, ChAdOx1, Ad26.COV2.S and BNT162b2) among individuals with laboratory-confirmed prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. We matched RT-PCR positive, symptomatic COVID-19 cases with RT-PCR-negative controls presenting with symptomatic illnesses, restricting both groups to tests performed at least 90 days after an initial infection. We used multivariable conditional logistic regression to compare the odds of test positivity, and the odds of hospitalization or death due to COVID-19, according to vaccination status and time since first or second dose of vaccines. FindingsAmong individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection [≥] 14 days from vaccine series completion was 39.4% (95% CI 36.1-42.6) for CoronaVac, 56.0% (95% CI 51.4-60.2) for ChAdOx1, 44.0% (95% CI 31.5-54.2) for Ad26.COV2.S, and 64.8% (95% CI 54.9-72.4) for BNT162b2. For the two-dose vaccine series (CoronaVac, ChAdOx1, and BNT162b2), effectiveness against symptomatic infection was significantly greater after the second dose compared with the first dose. Effectiveness against hospitalization or death [≥] 14 days from vaccine series completion was 81.3% (95% CI 75.3-85.8) for CoronaVac, 89.9% (95% CI 83.5-93.8) for ChAdOx1, 57.7% (95% CI -2.6-82.5) for Ad26.COV2.S, and 89.7% (95% CI 54.3-97.7) for BNT162b2. InterpretationAll four vaccines conferred additional protection against symptomatic infections and severe outcomes among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Provision of a full vaccine series to individuals following recovery from COVID-19 may reduce morbidity and mortality. FundingBrazilian National Research Council, Fundacao Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, JBS S.A., Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, Generalitat de Catalunya. RESEARCH IN CONTEXTO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched PubMed, medRxiv, and SSRN for articles published from January 1, 2020 until December 15, 2021, with no language restrictions, using the search terms "vaccine effectiveness" AND "previous*" AND ("SARS-CoV-2" OR "COVID-19"). We found several studies evaluating ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2, and one additionally reporting on mRNA-1273 and Ad26.COV2.S, which found that previously infected individuals who were vaccinated had lower risk of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. One study found that risk of hospitalization was lower for previously infected individuals after a full series of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. Limited evidence is available comparing effectiveness of one versus two doses among individuals with prior infection. No studies reported effectiveness of inactivated vaccines among previously infected individuals. Added value of this studyWe used national databases of COVID-19 case surveillance, laboratory testing, and vaccination from Brazil to investigate effectiveness of CoronaVac, ChAdOx1, Ad26.COV2.S and BNT162b2 among individuals with a prior, laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. We matched >22,000 RT-PCR-confirmed re-infections with >145,000 RT-PCR-negative controls using a test-negative design. All four vaccines were effective against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, with effectiveness from 14 days after series completion ranging from 39-65%. For vaccines with two-dose regimens, the second dose provided significantly increased effectiveness compared with one dose. Effectiveness against COVID-19-associated hospitalization or death from 14 days after series completion was >80% for CoronaVac, ChAdOx1and BNT162b2. Implications of all the available evidenceWe find evidence that four vaccines, using three different platforms, all provide protection to previously infected individuals against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe outcomes, with a second dose conferring significant additional benefits. These results support the provision of a full vaccine series among individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
RESUMEN
BackgroundHigh rates of virus transmission and the presence of variants of concern can affect vaccine effectiveness (VE). Both conditions occur in low-income countries, which primarily use viral vector or inactivated virus vaccine technologies. Such countries conducted few VE analyses, and most lack the power to evaluate effectiveness in subgroups. MethodsThe present retrospective cohort study evaluated the effectiveness of Vaxzevria and CoronaVac vaccines for COVID-19-related infection in 75,919,840 Brazilian vaccinees from January 18 to July 24, 2021. Study outcomes included documented infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), COVID-19-related hospitalization, ICU admission, and death. We estimated VE using Cox regression adjusted for individual demographic characteristics. ResultsVaccination with Vaxzevria or CoronaVac was effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection and highly effective against hospitalization, ICU admission, and death in individuals up to 79 years. From 80-89 years of age, Vaxzevria led to 89.9%(95CI:87.7-91.7) VE against death versus 67.2%(95CI:63.6-70.5) for CoronaVac. Above 90 years, 65.4%(95CI:46.1-77.8) protection was conferred to Vaxzevria-vaccinated individuals versus 33.6%(95CI:21.9-43.5) in CoronaVac-vaccinated individuals. Furthermore, the post-vaccination daily incidence rate shows a stepwise increase from younger to elder decades of life. ConclusionsVaxzevria demonstrated overall effectiveness against severe COVID-19 up to 89 years and CoronaVac up to 79 years of age. There is a stepwise effectiveness reduction for both vaccines for each decade of life. Our results suggest that individuals aged 80 years or older may benefit from an expedited booster dose. Ongoing evaluations, including any additional vaccines authorized, are crucial to monitoring long-term vaccine effectiveness.
RESUMEN
ObjectiveTo describe persistent symptoms after acute COVID-19 in different spectrum of disease severity in a population from an upper/middle income country, and identify the main clinical features impacting the quality of life. DesignCross-sectional study. SettingOutpatient clinic from a public post-COVID-19 health center (CPC) at Bahia-Brazil, a state where 80% are black or mixed race. ParticipantsPatients admitted between August 2020 and February 2021 with symptoms at least one month after the onset of COVID-19. Main outcome measuresPACS and related disorders such as hospitalization one month or later after disease onset, biochemical dysregulation and reduced quality of life (EQ-5D-5L questionnaire). ResultsAmong 683 individuals assisted at CPC in this period, 602 were recruited. Patients had average of 52 ({+/-}14.6) years, 355 (59%) were female, 528 (88%) black/brown. Individuals were classified as mild (39.9%), moderate (27.9%) or severe (32.2%) during acute illness if outpatient, hospitalized non-UCI or UCI, respectively. Most patients reported a polysymptomatic profile, in median eight (IQR=6-9) acute symptoms. The most frequent residual symptoms were dyspnea (66%), fatigue (62%) and chest pain (43%). Women were more affected regardless disease severity at acute stage: presented more residual symptoms [4 (2-6) vs 3 (2-4)] and a higher impact in quality of life. Altered HbA1c [(184/275 (66.9%)], high CRP levels [195/484 (40.3%)] and anemia [143/545 (26.2%)] were the most common abnormalities in laboratory exams. 76 patients presented HbA1c above 6.4% although only 42 referred previous diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. After one month of disease onset, 30 patients required hospitalization, including seven cases with mild acute illness. Hospital admission after acute disease was required on 30 patients, seven (23%) were mild. Quality of life had been affected for 357/404 (88.4%) patients according to EuroQoL (EQ-5D-5L), mainly the domains of anxiety/depression [severe or extreme anxiety for 79/401 (19.7%)] and pain/discomfort [severe or extreme pain for 71/403 (17.6%)]. The median EuroQoL Global Score was 70 [IQR 50-80]. PACS symptoms such as dyspnea, chest pain, and fatigue, was associated with decreased quality of life. ConclusionsPACS, such as dyspnea, chest pain and fatigue, occurred after variable degree of disease severity. Among this majority black/mixed-race patients, woman seemed to be more affected. Other consequences included post-acute hospitalization, and abnormal glucose metabolism and reduced quality of life. Summary BoxSection 1: What is already known on this topic: {checkmark}Post-Acute COVID Syndrome (PACS) comprises a set of persistent or new-onset symptoms after illness onset. {checkmark}As far as we know, there are no studies describing PACS in a population principally black and mixed-race. Additionally, few studies have addressed PACS among outpatients. Section 2: What this study adds: {checkmark}Similar PACS were reported after mild, moderate and severe illness. Dyspnea, fatigue and chest pain were the most prevalent symptoms in this population presenting majority of black/mixed-race patients. {checkmark}Women presented more residual symptoms, a higher frequency of myalgia and worse score for mobility, usual activities, anxiety/depression, and pain. {checkmark}Hospitalization may occur one month or later after mild or moderate/severe acute infection due to respiratory and vascular disorders. Abnormal glucose metabolism was detected in the absence of previous diagnosis of diabetes mellitus.
RESUMEN
The herd immunity threshold is the proportion of a population that must be immune to an infectious disease, either by natural infection or vaccination such that, in the absence of additional preventative measures, new cases decline and the effective reproduction number falls below unity. This fundamental epidemiological parameter is still unknown for the recently-emerged COVID-19, and mathematical models have predicted very divergent results. Population studies using antibody testing to infer total cumulative infections can provide empirical evidence of the level of population immunity in severely affected areas. Here we show that the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Manaus, located in the Brazilian Amazon, increased quickly during March and April and declined more slowly from May to September. In June, one month following the epidemic peak, 44% of the population was seropositive for SARS-CoV-2, equating to a cumulative incidence of 52%, after correcting for the false-negative rate of the antibody test. The seroprevalence fell in July and August due to antibody waning. After correcting for this, we estimate a final epidemic size of 66%. Although non-pharmaceutical interventions, plus a change in population behavior, may have helped to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Manaus, the unusually high infection rate suggests that herd immunity played a significant role in determining the size of the epidemic.
