Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 8 de 8
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
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.

2.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21262149

RESUMO

BackgroundPrisons and jails are high-risk settings for COVID-19 transmission, morbidity, and mortality. COVID-19 vaccines may substantially reduce these risks, but evidence is needed of their effectiveness for incarcerated people, who are confined in large, risky congregate settings. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study to estimate effectiveness of mRNA vaccines, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna), against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections among incarcerated people in California prisons from December 22, 2020 through March 1, 2021. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provided daily data for all prison residents including demographic, clinical, and carceral characteristics, as well as COVID-19 testing, vaccination status, and outcomes. We estimated vaccine effectiveness using multivariable Cox models with time-varying covariates that adjusted for resident characteristics and infection rates across prisons. FindingsAmong 60,707 residents in the cohort, 49% received at least one BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 dose during the study period. Estimated vaccine effectiveness was 74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64-82%) from day 14 after first dose until receipt of second dose and 97% (95% CI, 88-99%) from day 14 after second dose. Effectiveness was similar among the subset of residents who were medically vulnerable (74% [95% CI, 62-82%] and 92% [95% CI, 74-98%] from 14 days after first and second doses, respectively), as well as among the subset of residents who received the mRNA-1273 vaccine (71% [95% CI, 58-80%] and 96% [95% CI, 67-99%]). ConclusionsConsistent with results from randomized trials and observational studies in other populations, mRNA vaccines were highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections among incarcerated people. Prioritizing incarcerated people for vaccination, redoubling efforts to boost vaccination and continuing other ongoing mitigation practices are essential in preventing COVID-19 in this disproportionately affected population. FundingHorowitz Family Foundation, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Science Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Advanced Micro Devices.

3.
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.

4.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21260595

RESUMO

Recent studies have provided key information about SARS-CoV-2 vaccines efficacy and effectiveness (VE). One important question that remains is whether the protection conferred by vaccines wanes over time. However, estimates over time are subject to bias from differential depletion of susceptibles between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Here we examine the extent to which biases occur under different scenarios and assess whether serologic testing has the potential to correct this bias. By identifying non-vaccine antibodies, these tests could identify individuals with prior infection. We find in scenarios with high baseline VE, differential depletion of susceptibles creates minimal bias in VE estimates, suggesting that any observed declines are likely not due to spurious waning alone. However, if baseline VE is lower, the bias for leaky vaccines (that reduce individual probability of infection given contact) is larger and should be corrected by excluding individuals with past infection if the mechanism is known to be leaky. Conducting analyses both unadjusted and adjusted for past infection could give lower and upper bounds for the true VE. Studies of VE should therefore enroll individuals regardless of prior infection history but also collect information, ideally through serologic testing, on this critical variable.

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-21250258

RESUMO

Observational studies of the effectiveness of vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are needed to inform real-world use. These are now in planning amid the ongoing rollout of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines globally. While traditional case-control (TCC) and test-negative design (TND) studies feature prominently among strategies used to assess vaccine effectiveness, such studies may encounter important threats to validity. Here we review the theoretical basis for estimation of vaccine direct effects under TCC and TND frameworks, addressing specific natural history parameters of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 relevant to these designs. Bias may be introduced by misclassification of cases and controls, particularly when clinical case criteria include common, non-specific indicators of COVID-19. When using diagnostic assays with high analytical sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection, individuals testing positive may be counted as cases even if their symptoms are due to other causes. The TCC may be particularly prone to confounding due to associations of vaccination with healthcare-seeking behavior or risk of infection. The TND reduces but may not eliminate this confounding, for instance if individuals who receive vaccination seek care or testing for less-severe infection. These circumstances indicate the two study designs cannot be applied naively to datasets gathered through public health surveillance or administrative sources. We suggest practical strategies to reduce bias in vaccine effectiveness estimates at the study design and analysis stages.

7.
Rachel M Burke; Sharon Balter; Emily Barnes; Vaughn Barry; Karri Bartlett; Karlyn D Beer; Isaac Benowitz; Holly M Biggs; Hollianne Bruce; Jonathan Bryant-Genevier; Jordan Cates; Kevin Chatham-Stephens; Nora Chea; Howard Chiou; Demian Christiansen; Victoria Chu; Shauna Clark; Sara H. Cody; Max Cohen; Erin E Conners; Vishal Dasari; Patrick Dawson; Traci DeSalvo; Matthew Donahue; Alissa Dratch; Lindsey Duca; Jeffrey Duchin; Jonathan W Dyal; Leora R Feldstein; Marty Fenstersheib; Marc Fischer; Rebecca Fisher; Chelsea Foo; Brandi Freeman-Ponder; Alicia M Fry; Jessica Gant; Romesh Gautom; Isaac Ghinai; Prabhu Gounder; Cheri T Grigg; Jeffrey Gunzenhauser; Aron J Hall; George S Han; Thomas Haupt; Michelle Holshue; Jennifer Hunter; Mireille B Ibrahim; Max W Jacobs; M. Claire Jarashow; Kiran Joshi; Talar Kamali; Vance Kawakami; Moon Kim; Hannah Kirking; Amanda Kita-Yarbro; Rachel Klos; Miwako Kobayashi; Anna Kocharian; Misty Lang; Jennifer Layden; Eva Leidman; Scott Lindquist; Stephen Lindstrom; Ruth Link-Gelles; Mariel Marlow; Claire P Mattison; Nancy McClung; Tristan McPherson; Lynn Mello; Claire M Midgley; Shannon Novosad; Megan T Patel; Kristen Pettrone; Satish K Pillai; Ian W Pray; Heather E Reese; Heather Rhodes; Susan Robinson; Melissa Rolfes; Janell Routh; Rachel Rubin; Sarah L Rudman; Denny Russell; Sarah Scott; Varun Shetty; Sarah E Smith-Jeffcoat; Elizabeth A Soda; Chris Spitters; Bryan Stierman; Rebecca Sunenshine; Dawn Terashita; Elizabeth Traub; Grace E Vahey; Jennifer R Verani; Megan Wallace; Matthew Westercamp; Jonathan Wortham; Amy Xie; Anna Yousaf; Matthew Zahn.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-20081901

RESUMO

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the respiratory disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first identified in Wuhan, China and has since become pandemic. As part of initial response activities in the United States, enhanced contact investigations were conducted to enable early identification and isolation of additional cases and to learn more about risk factors for transmission. MethodsClose contacts of nine early travel-related cases in the United States were identified. Close contacts meeting criteria for active monitoring were followed, and selected individuals were targeted for collection of additional exposure details and respiratory samples. Respiratory samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ResultsThere were 404 close contacts who underwent active monitoring in the response jurisdictions; 338 had at least basic exposure data, of whom 159 had [≥]1 set of respiratory samples collected and tested. Across all known close contacts under monitoring, two additional cases were identified; both secondary cases were in spouses of travel-associated case patients. The secondary attack rate among household members, all of whom had [≥]1 respiratory sample tested, was 13% (95% CI: 4 - 38%). ConclusionsThe enhanced contact tracing investigations undertaken around nine early travel-related cases of COVID-19 in the United States identified two cases of secondary transmission, both spouses. Rapid detection and isolation of the travel-associated case patients, enabled by public awareness of COVID-19 among travelers from China, may have mitigated transmission risk among close contacts of these cases.

8.
Stephanie A. Kujawski; Karen K Wong; Jennifer P. Collins; Lauren Epstein; Marie E. Killerby; Claire M. Midgley; Glen R. Abedi; N. Seema Ahmed; Olivia Almendares; Francisco N. Alvarez; Kayla N. Anderson; Sharon Balter; Vaughn Barry; Karri Bartlett; Karlyn Beer; Michael A. Ben-Aderet; Isaac Benowitz; Holly Biggs; Alison M. Binder; Stephanie R. Black; Brandon Bonin; Catherine M. Brown; Hollianne Bruce; Jonathan Bryant-Genevier; Alicia Budd; Diane Buell; Rachel Bystritsky; Jordan Cates; E. Matt Charles; Kevin Chatham-Stephens; Nora Chea; Howard Chiou; Demian Christiansen; Victoria Chu; Sara Cody; Max Cohen; Erin Conners; Aaron Curns; Vishal Dasari; Patrick Dawson; Traci DeSalvo; George Diaz; Matthew Donahue; Suzanne Donovan; Lindsey M. Duca; Keith Erickson; Mathew D. Esona; Suzanne Evans; Jeremy Falk; Leora R. Feldstein; Martin Fenstersheib; Marc Fischer; Rebecca Fisher; Chelsea Foo; Marielle J. Fricchione; Oren Friedman; Alicia M. Fry; Romeo R. Galang; Melissa M. Garcia; Susa I. Gerber; Graham Gerrard; Isaac Ghinai; Prabhu Gounder; Jonathan Grein; Cheri Grigg; Jeffrey D. Gunzenhauser; Gary I. Gutkin; Meredith Haddix; Aron J. Hall; George Han; Jennifer Harcourt; Kathleen Harriman; Thomas Haupt; Amber Haynes; Michelle Holshue; Cora Hoover; Jennifer C. Hunter; Max W. Jacobs; Claire Jarashow; Michael A. Jhung; Kiran Joshi; Talar Kamali; Shifaq Kamili; Lindsay Kim; Moon Kim; Jan King; Hannah L. Kirking; Amanda Kita-Yarbro; Rachel Klos; Miwako Kobayashi; Anna Kocharian; Kenneth K. Komatsu; Ram Koppaka; Jennifer E. Layden; Yan Li; Scott Lindquist; Stephen Lindstrom; Ruth Link-Gelles; Joana Lively; Michelle Livingston; Kelly Lo; Jennifer Lo; Xiaoyan Lu; Brian Lynch; Larry Madoff; Lakshmi Malapati; Gregory Marks; Mariel Marlow; Glenn E. Mathisen; Nancy McClung; Olivia McGovern; Tristan D. McPherson; Mitali Mehta; Audrey Meier; Lynn Mello; Sung-sil Moon; Margie Morgan; Ruth N. Moro; Janna' Murray; Rekha Murthy; Shannon Novosad; Sara E. Oliver; Jennifer O'Shea; Massimo Pacilli; Clinton R. Paden; Mark A. Pallansch; Manisha Patel; Sajan Patel; Isabel Pedraza; Satish K. Pillai; Talia Pindyck; Ian Pray; Krista Queen; Nichole Quick; Heather Reese; Brian Rha; Heather Rhodes; Susan Robinson; Philip Robinson; Melissa Rolfes; Janell Routh; Rachel Rubin; Sarah L. Rudman; Senthilkumar K. Sakthivel; Sarah Scott; Christopher Shepherd; Varun Shetty; Ethan A. Smith; Shanon Smith; Bryan Stierman; William Stoecker; Rebecca Sunenshine; Regina Sy-Santos; Azaibi Tamin; Ying Tao; Dawn Terashita; Natalie J. Thornburg; Suxiang Tong; Elizabeth Traub; Ahmet Tural; Anna Uehara; Timothy M. Uyeki; Grace Vahey; Jennifer R. Verani; Elsa Villarino; Megan Wallace; Lijuan Wang; John T. Watson; Matthew Westercamp; Brett Whitaker; Sarah Wilkerson; Rebecca C. Woodruff; Jonathan M. Wortham; Tiffany Wu; Amy Xie; Anna Yousaf; Matthew Zahn; Jing Zhang.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-20032896

RESUMO

IntroductionMore than 93,000 cases of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have been reported worldwide. We describe the epidemiology, clinical course, and virologic characteristics of the first 12 U.S. patients with COVID-19. MethodsWe collected demographic, exposure, and clinical information from 12 patients confirmed by CDC during January 20-February 5, 2020 to have COVID-19. Respiratory, stool, serum, and urine specimens were submitted for SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR testing, virus culture, and whole genome sequencing. ResultsAmong the 12 patients, median age was 53 years (range: 21-68); 8 were male, 10 had traveled to China, and two were contacts of patients in this series. Commonly reported signs and symptoms at illness onset were fever (n=7) and cough (n=8). Seven patients were hospitalized with radiographic evidence of pneumonia and demonstrated clinical or laboratory signs of worsening during the second week of illness. Three were treated with the investigational antiviral remdesivir. All patients had SARS-CoV-2 RNA detected in respiratory specimens, typically for 2-3 weeks after illness onset, with lowest rRT-PCR Ct values often detected in the first week. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected after reported symptom resolution in seven patients. SARS-CoV-2 was cultured from respiratory specimens, and SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in stool from 7/10 patients. ConclusionsIn 12 patients with mild to moderately severe illness, SARS-CoV-2 RNA and viable virus were detected early, and prolonged RNA detection suggests the window for diagnosis is long. Hospitalized patients showed signs of worsening in the second week after illness onset.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...