Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-22283268

RESUMO

BackgroundThe annual reappearance of respiratory viruses has been recognized for decades. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic altered typical respiratory virus transmission patterns. COVID-19 mitigation measures taken during the pandemic were targeted at SARS-CoV-2 respiratory transmission and thus broadly impacted the burden of acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs), in general. MethodsWe used the longitudinal Household Influenza Vaccine Evaluation (HIVE) cohort of households in southeast Michigan to characterize mitigation strategy adherence, respiratory illness burden, and the circulation of 15 respiratory viruses during the COVID-19 pandemic determined by RT-PCR of respiratory specimens collected at illness onset. Study participants were surveyed twice during the study period (March 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021), and serologic specimens were collected for antibody measurement by electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. Incidence rates of ARI reports and virus detections were calculated and compared using incidence rate ratios for the study period and a pre-pandemic period of similar length. ResultsOverall, 437 participants reported a total of 772 ARIs and 329 specimens (42.6%) had respiratory viruses detected. Rhinoviruses were the most frequently detected organism, but seasonal coronaviruses--excluding SARS-CoV-2--were also common. Illness reports and percent positivity were lowest from May to August 2020, when mitigation measures were most stringent. Study participants were more adherent to mitigation measures in the first survey compared with the second survey. Supplemental serology surveillance identified 5.3% seropositivity for SARS-CoV-2 in summer 2020; 3.0% between fall 2020 and winter 2021; and 11.3% in spring 2021. Compared to a pre-pandemic period of similar length, the incidence rate of total reported ARIs for the study period was 50% lower (95% CI: 0.5, 0.6; p<0.001) than the incidence rate from March 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017. ConclusionsThe burden of ARI in the HIVE cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic fluctuated, with declines occurring concurrently with the widespread use of public health measures. It is notable, however, that rhinovirus and seasonal coronaviruses continued to circulate even as influenza and SARS-CoV-2 circulation was low.

2.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-22276228

RESUMO

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of a primary COVID-19 vaccine series plus a booster dose with a primary series alone for the prevention of Omicron variant COVID-19 hospitalization. Design: Multicenter observational case-control study using the test-negative design to evaluate vaccine effectiveness (VE). Setting: Twenty-one hospitals in the United States (US). Participants: 3,181 adults hospitalized with an acute respiratory illness between December 26, 2021 and April 30, 2022, a period of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (BA.1, BA.2) predominance. Participants included 1,572 (49%) case-patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 and 1,609 (51%) control patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Median age was 64 years, 48% were female, and 21% were immunocompromised; 798 (25%) were vaccinated with a primary series plus booster, 1,326 (42%) were vaccinated with a primary series alone, and 1,057 (33%) were unvaccinated. Main Outcome Measures: VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated for a primary series plus a booster and a primary series alone by comparing the odds of being vaccinated with each of these regimens versus being unvaccinated among cases versus controls. VE analyses were stratified by immune status (immunocompetent; immunocompromised) because the recommended vaccine schedules are different for these groups. The primary analysis evaluated all COVID-19 vaccine types combined and secondary analyses evaluated specific vaccine products. Results: Among immunocompetent patients, VE against Omicron COVID-19 hospitalization for a primary series plus one booster of any vaccine product dose was 77% (95% CI: 71-82%), and for a primary series alone was 44% (95% CI: 31-54%) (p<0.001). VE was higher for a boosted regimen than a primary series alone for both mRNA vaccines used in the US (BNT162b2: primary series plus booster VE 80% (95% CI: 73-85%), primary series alone VE 46% (95% CI: 30-58%) [p<0.001]; mRNA-1273: primary series plus booster VE 77% (95% CI: 67-83%), primary series alone VE 47% (95% CI: 30-60%) [p<0.001]). Among immunocompromised patients, VE for a primary series of any vaccine product against Omicron COVID-19 hospitalization was 60% (95% CI: 41-73%). Insufficient sample size has accumulated to calculate effectiveness of boosted regimens for immunocompromised patients. Conclusions: Among immunocompetent people, a booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine provided additional benefit beyond a primary vaccine series alone for preventing COVID-19 hospitalization due to the Omicron variant.

3.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-22270558

RESUMO

ObjectivesTo characterize the clinical severity of COVID-19 caused by Omicron, Delta, and Alpha SARS-CoV-2 variants among hospitalized adults and to compare the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to prevent hospitalizations caused by each variant. DesignA case-control study of 11,690 hospitalized adults. SettingTwenty-one hospitals across the United States. ParticipantsThis study included 5728 cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and 5962 controls hospitalized without COVID-19. Cases were classified into SARS-CoV-2 variant groups based on viral whole genome sequencing, and if sequencing did not reveal a lineage, by the predominant circulating variant at the time of hospital admission: Alpha (March 11 to July 3, 2021), Delta (July 4 to December 25, 2021), and Omicron (December 26, 2021 to January 14, 2022). Main Outcome MeasuresVaccine effectiveness was calculated using a test-negative design for COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to prevent COVID-19 hospitalizations by each variant (Alpha, Delta, Omicron). Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, disease severity on the WHO Clinical Progression Ordinal Scale was compared among variants using proportional odds regression. ResultsVaccine effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines to prevent COVID-19-associated hospitalizations included: 85% (95% CI: 82 to 88%) for 2 vaccine doses against Alpha; 85% (95% CI: 83 to 87%) for 2 doses against Delta; 94% (95% CI: 92 to 95%) for 3 doses against Delta; 65% (95% CI: 51 to 75%) for 2 doses against Omicron; and 86% (95% CI: 77 to 91%) for 3 doses against Omicron. Among hospitalized unvaccinated COVID-19 patients, severity on the WHO Clinical Progression Scale was higher for Delta than Alpha (adjusted proportional odds ratio [aPOR] 1.28, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.46), and lower for Omicron than Delta (aPOR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.77). Compared to unvaccinated cases, severity was lower for vaccinated cases for each variant, including Alpha (aPOR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.49), Delta (aPOR 0.44, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.51), and Omicron (aPOR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.85). ConclusionsmRNA vaccines were highly effective in preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalizations from Alpha, Delta, and Omicron variants, but three vaccine doses were required to achieve protection against Omicron similar to the protection that two doses provided against Delta and Alpha. Among adults hospitalized with COVID-19, Omicron caused less severe disease than Delta, but still resulted in substantial morbidity and mortality. Vaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 had significantly lower disease severity than unvaccinated patients for all the variants.

4.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21260647

RESUMO

Evaluations of vaccine effectiveness (VE) are important to monitor as COVID-19 vaccines are introduced in the general population. Research staff enrolled symptomatic participants seeking outpatient medical care for COVID-19-like illness or SARS-CoV-2 testing from a multisite network. VE was evaluated using the test-negative design. Among 236 SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test-positive and 576 test-negative participants aged [≥]16 years, VE of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 was 91% (95% CI: 83-95) for full vaccination and 75% (95% CI: 55-87) for partial vaccination. Vaccination was associated with prevention of most COVID-19 cases among people seeking outpatient medical care.

5.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21259776

RESUMO

BackgroundAs SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage increases in the United States (US), there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe Covid-19 and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes. MethodsIn a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11 - May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent Covid-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with Covid-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. ResultsAmong 1210 participants, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.8% were Hispanic, and 20.6% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 was most common variant (59.7% of sequenced viruses). Full vaccination (receipt of two vaccine doses [≥]14 days before illness onset) had been received by 45/590 (7.6%) cases and 215/620 (34.7%) controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 86.9% (95% CI: 80.4 to 91.2%). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18-49 years (97.3%; 95% CI: 78.9 to 99.7%). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough Covid hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were [≥]50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (59.2%; 95% CI: 11.9 to 81.1%) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI: 85.5 to 94.7%). ConclusionDuring March-May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing Covid-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.

6.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-20042556

RESUMO

BackgroundCommunity based studies of influenza and other respiratory viruses (e.g. SARS-COV-2) require laboratory confirmation of infection. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, social distancing guidelines require alternative data collection in order protect both research staff and participants. Home-collected respiratory specimens are less resource intensive, can be collected earlier after symptom onset, and provide a low-contact means of data collection. A prospective, multi-year, community-based cohort study is an ideal setting to examine the utility of home-collected specimens for identification of influenza. MethodsWe describe the feasibility and reliability of home-collected specimens for the detection of influenza. We collected data and specimens between October 2014 and June 2017 from the Household Influenza Vaccine Evaluation (HIVE) Study. Cohort participants were asked to collect a nasal swab at home upon onset of acute respiratory illness. Research staff also collected nose and throat swab specimens in the study clinic within 7 days of onset. We estimated agreement using Cohens kappa and calculated sensitivity and specificity of home-collected compared to staff-collected specimens. ResultsWe tested 336 paired staff- and home-collected respiratory specimens for influenza by RT-PCR; 150 staff-collected specimens were positive for influenza A/H3N2, 23 for influenza A/H1N1, 14 for influenza B/Victoria, and 31 for influenza B/Yamagata. We found moderate agreement between collection methods for influenza A/H3N2 (0.70) and B/Yamagata (0.69) and high agreement for influenza A/H1N1 (0.87) and B/Victoria (0.86). Sensitivity ranged from 78-86% for all influenza types and subtypes. Specificity was high for influenza A/H1N1 and both influenza B lineages with a range from 96-100%, and slightly lower for A/H3N2 infections (88%). ConclusionsCollection of nasal swab specimens at home is both feasible and reliable for identification of influenza virus infections.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...