Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 180
Filtrar
1.
Lancet Reg Health Am ; 34: 100755, 2024 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38737773

RESUMO

Background: The emergence of COVID-19 variants with immune scape and the waning of primary vaccine schemes effectiveness have prompted many countries to indicate first and second booster COVID-19 vaccine doses to prevent severe COVID-19. However, current available evidence on second booster dose effectiveness are mostly limited to high-income countries, older adults, and mRNA-based vaccination schemes scenarios. We aimed to investigate the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of the fourth dose compared to three doses for severe COVID-19 outcomes in Brazil; and compare the rVE of a fourth dose with an mRNA vaccine compared to adenovirus-based product in the same settings. Methods: We performed a target emulated trial using a population-based cohort of individuals aged 40 years or older who have received a homologous primary scheme of CoronaVac, ChAdOx1, or BNT162b2, and any third dose product and were eligible for the fourth dose in Brazil. The primary outcome was COVID-19 associated hospitalization or death. We built Cohort A matching individuals vaccinated with a fourth dose to individuals who received three doses to estimate the rVE of the fourth dose. We built Cohort B, a subset of Cohort A, matching mRNA-based (mRNA) to adenovirus-based fourth dose vaccinated individuals to compare their relative hazards for severe COVID-19. Findings: 46,693,484 individuals were included in Cohort A and 6,763,016 in Cohort B. 45% of them were aged between 40 and 60 years old, and 48% between 60 and 79 years old. In Cohort A, the most common previous series was a ChAdOx1 two-dose followed by BNT162b2 (44%), and a CoronaVac two-dose followed by a BNT162b2 (36%). Among those fourth dose vaccinated, 36.9% received ChAdOx1, 32.7% Ad26.COV2.S, 25.8% BNT162b2, and 4.7% CoronaVac. In Cohort B, among those who received an adenovirus fourth dose, 53.7% received ChAdOx1 and 46.3% received Ad26.COV2.S. The estimated rVE for the primary outcome of four doses compared to three doses was 44.1% (95% CI 42.3-46.0), with some waning during follow-up (rVE 7-60 days 46.8% [95% CI 44.4-49.1], rVE after 120 days 33.8% [95% CI 18.0-46.6]). Among fourth dose vaccinated individuals, mRNA-based vaccinated individuals had lower hazards for hospitalization or death compared to adenovirus-vaccinated individuals (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.87). After 120 days, no difference in hazards between groups was observed (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.93-1.97). Similar findings were observed for hospitalization and death separately, except no evidence for differences between fourth dose brands for death in Cohort B. Interpretation: In a heterogeneous scenario of primary and first booster vaccination combinations, a fourth dose provided meaningful and durable protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes. Compared to adenovirus-based booster, a fourth dose wild-type mRNA vaccine was associated with immediate lower hazards of hospitalization or death unsustained after 120 days. Funding: None.

2.
Int J Epidemiol ; 53(2)2024 Feb 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38514998

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence has reported positive associations between long-term exposure to air pollution and poor COVID-19 outcomes. Inconsistent findings have been reported for short-term air pollution, mostly from ecological study designs. Using individual-level data, we studied the association between short-term variation in air pollutants [nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter with a diameter of <2.5 µm (PM2.5) and a diameter of <10 µm (PM10) and ozone (O3)] and hospital admission among individuals diagnosed with COVID-19. METHODS: The COVAIR-CAT (Air pollution in relation to COVID-19 morbidity and mortality: a large population-based cohort study in Catalonia, Spain) cohort is a large population-based cohort in Catalonia, Spain including 240 902 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the primary care system from 1 March until 31 December 2020. Our outcome was hospitalization within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. We used individual residential address to assign daily air-pollution exposure, estimated using machine-learning methods for spatiotemporal prediction. For each pandemic wave, we fitted Cox proportional-hazards models accounting for non-linear-distributed lagged exposure over the previous 7 days. RESULTS: Results differed considerably by pandemic wave. During the second wave, an interquartile-range increase in cumulative weekly exposure to air pollution (lag0_7) was associated with a 12% increase (95% CI: 4% to 20%) in COVID-19 hospitalizations for NO2, 8% (95% CI: 1% to 16%) for PM2.5 and 9% (95% CI: 3% to 15%) for PM10. We observed consistent positive associations for same-day (lag0) exposure, whereas lag-specific associations beyond lag0 were generally not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests positive associations between NO2, PM2.5 and PM10 and hospitalization risk among individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 during the second wave. Cumulative hazard ratios were largely driven by exposure on the same day as hospitalization.


Assuntos
Poluentes Atmosféricos , Poluição do Ar , COVID-19 , Ozônio , Humanos , Espanha/epidemiologia , Estudos de Coortes , Dióxido de Nitrogênio/efeitos adversos , Dióxido de Nitrogênio/análise , Teste para COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Poluição do Ar/efeitos adversos , Poluição do Ar/análise , Poluentes Atmosféricos/efeitos adversos , Poluentes Atmosféricos/análise , Material Particulado/efeitos adversos , Material Particulado/análise , Ozônio/efeitos adversos , Ozônio/análise , Hospitalização , Hospitais , Exposição Ambiental/efeitos adversos , Exposição Ambiental/análise
3.
Einstein (Sao Paulo) ; 22(spe1): eRW0352, 2024 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38477798

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To review the long-term outcomes (functional status and psychological sequelae) of survivors of critical illnesses due to epidemic viral pneumonia before the COVID-19 pandemic and to establish a benchmark for comparison of the COVID-19 long-term outcomes. METHODS: This systematic review of clinical studies reported the long-term outcomes in adults admitted to intensive care units who were diagnosed with viral epidemic pneumonia. An electronic search was performed using databases: MEDLINE®, Web of Science™, LILACS/IBECS, and EMBASE. Additionally, complementary searches were conducted on the reference lists of eligible studies. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The results were grouped into tables and textual descriptions. RESULTS: The final analysis included 15 studies from a total of 243 studies. This review included 771 patients with Influenza A, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. It analyzed the quality of life, functionality, lung function, mortality, rate of return to work, rehospitalization, and psychiatric symptoms. The follow-up periods ranged from 1 to 144 months. We found that the quality of life, functional capacity, and pulmonary function were below expected standards. CONCLUSION: This review revealed great heterogeneity between studies attributed to different scales, follow-up time points, and methodologies. However, this systematic review identified negative long-term effects on patient outcomes. Given the possibility of future pandemics, it is essential to identify the long-term effects of viral pneumonia outbreaks. This review was not funded. Prospero database registration: (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) under registration ID CRD42021190296.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Pneumonia Viral , Adulto , Humanos , Alta do Paciente , Pandemias , Qualidade de Vida , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva
4.
Environ Int ; 185: 108530, 2024 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38422877

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Factors that shape individuals' vulnerability to the effects of air pollution on COVID-19 severity remain poorly understood. We evaluated whether the association between long-term exposure to ambient NO2, PM2.5, and PM10 and COVID-19 hospitalisation differs by age, sex, individual income, area-level socioeconomic status, arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS: We analysed a population-based cohort of 4,639,184 adults in Catalonia, Spain, during 2020. We fitted Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for several potential confounding factors and evaluated the interaction effect between vulnerability indicators and the 2019 annual average of NO2, PM2.5, and PM10. We evaluated interaction on both additive and multiplicative scales. RESULTS: Overall, the association was additive between air pollution and the vulnerable groups. Air pollution and vulnerability indicators had a synergistic (greater than additive) effect for males and individuals with low income or living in the most deprived neighbourhoods. The Relative Excess Risk due to Interaction (RERI) was 0.21, 95 % CI, 0.15 to 0.27 for NO2 and 0.16, 95 % CI, 0.11 to 0.22 for PM2.5 for males; 0.13, 95 % CI, 0.09 to 0.18 for NO2 and 0.10, 95 % CI, 0.05 to 0.14 for PM2.5 for lower individual income and 0.17, 95 % CI, 0.12 to 0.22 for NO2 and 0.09, 95 % CI, 0.05 to 0.14 for PM2.5 for lower area-level socioeconomic status. Results for PM10 were similar to PM2.5. Results on multiplicative scale were inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term exposure to air pollution had a larger synergistic effect on COVID-19 hospitalisation for males and those with lower individual- and area-level socioeconomic status.


Assuntos
Poluentes Atmosféricos , Poluição do Ar , COVID-19 , Masculino , Adulto , Humanos , Poluentes Atmosféricos/efeitos adversos , Poluentes Atmosféricos/análise , Material Particulado/efeitos adversos , Material Particulado/análise , Dióxido de Nitrogênio/análise , Exposição Ambiental/efeitos adversos , Exposição Ambiental/análise , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Poluição do Ar/efeitos adversos , Poluição do Ar/análise , Hospitalização
5.
Chest ; 165(4): 870-880, 2024 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37838338

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, ICUs remained under stress and observed elevated mortality rates and high variations of outcomes. A knowledge gap exists regarding whether an ICU performing best during nonpandemic times would still perform better when under high pressure compared with the least performing ICUs. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does prepandemic ICU performance explain the risk-adjusted mortality variability for critically ill patients with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study examined a cohort of adults with real-time polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to 156 ICUs in 35 hospitals from February 16, 2020, through December 31, 2021, in Brazil. We evaluated crude and adjusted in-hospital mortality variability of patients with COVID-19 in the ICU during the pandemic. Association of baseline (prepandemic) ICU performance and in-hospital mortality was examined using a variable life-adjusted display (VLAD) during the pandemic and a multivariable mixed regression model adjusted by clinical characteristics, interaction of performance with the year of admission, and mechanical ventilation at admission. RESULTS: Thirty-five thousand six hundred nineteen patients with confirmed COVID-19 were evaluated. The median age was 52 years, median Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 was 42, and 18% underwent invasive mechanical ventilation. In-hospital mortality was 13% and 54% for those receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. Adjusted in-hospital mortality ranged from 3.6% to 63.2%. VLAD in the most efficient ICUs was higher than the overall median in 18% of weeks, whereas VLAD was 62% and 84% in the underachieving and least efficient groups, respectively. The least efficient baseline ICU performance group was associated independently with increased mortality (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.45-3.62) after adjusting for patient characteristics, disease severity, and pandemic surge. INTERPRETATION: ICUs caring for patients with COVID-19 presented substantial variation in risk-adjusted mortality. ICUs with better baseline (prepandemic) performance showed reduced mortality and less variability. Our findings suggest that achieving ICU efficiency by targeting improvement in organizational aspects of ICUs may impact outcomes, and therefore should be a part of the preparedness for future pandemics.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estado Terminal , Pandemias , Estudos Retrospectivos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Mortalidade Hospitalar
6.
Intensive Care Med ; 50(1): 17-35, 2024 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38112769

RESUMO

Autoimmune diseases encompass a broad spectrum of disorders characterized by disturbed immunoregulation leading to the development of specific autoantibodies, resulting in inflammation and multiple organ involvement. A distinction should be made between connective tissue diseases (mainly systemic lupus erythematosus, systemic scleroderma, inflammatory muscle diseases, and rheumatoid arthritis) and vasculitides (mainly small-vessel vasculitis such as antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis and immune-complex mediated vasculitis). Admission of patients with autoimmune diseases to the intensive care unit (ICU) is often triggered by disease flare-ups, infections, and organ failure and is associated with high mortality rates. Management of these patients is complex, including prompt disease identification, immunosuppressive treatment initiation, and life-sustaining therapies, and requires multi-disciplinary involvement. Data about autoimmune diseases in the ICU are limited and there is a need for multicenter, international collaboration to improve patients' diagnosis, management, and outcomes. The objective of this narrative review is to summarize the epidemiology, clinical features, and selected management of severe systemic autoimmune diseases.


Assuntos
Doenças Autoimunes , Lúpus Eritematoso Sistêmico , Vasculite , Humanos , Doenças Autoimunes/diagnóstico , Doenças Autoimunes/terapia , Lúpus Eritematoso Sistêmico/diagnóstico , Lúpus Eritematoso Sistêmico/terapia , Lúpus Eritematoso Sistêmico/complicações , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Vasculite/complicações , Vasculite/diagnóstico , Autoanticorpos
7.
Einstein (Säo Paulo) ; 22(spe1): eRW0352, 2024. tab, graf
Artigo em Inglês | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-1534336

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Objective To review the long-term outcomes (functional status and psychological sequelae) of survivors of critical illnesses due to epidemic viral pneumonia before the COVID-19 pandemic and to establish a benchmark for comparison of the COVID-19 long-term outcomes. Methods This systematic review of clinical studies reported the long-term outcomes in adults admitted to intensive care units who were diagnosed with viral epidemic pneumonia. An electronic search was performed using databases: MEDLINE®, Web of Science™, LILACS/IBECS, and EMBASE. Additionally, complementary searches were conducted on the reference lists of eligible studies. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The results were grouped into tables and textual descriptions. Results The final analysis included 15 studies from a total of 243 studies. This review included 771 patients with Influenza A, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. It analyzed the quality of life, functionality, lung function, mortality, rate of return to work, rehospitalization, and psychiatric symptoms. The follow-up periods ranged from 1 to 144 months. We found that the quality of life, functional capacity, and pulmonary function were below expected standards. Conclusion This review revealed great heterogeneity between studies attributed to different scales, follow-up time points, and methodologies. However, this systematic review identified negative long-term effects on patient outcomes. Given the possibility of future pandemics, it is essential to identify the long-term effects of viral pneumonia outbreaks. This review was not funded. Prospero database registration: (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) under registration ID CRD42021190296.

8.
Intensive Care Med ; 49(10): 1212-1222, 2023 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37812242

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) are the most frequent infectious complication in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). We aim to report the clinical characteristics of ICU-admitted patients due to nosocomial LRTI and to describe their microbiology and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted in 13 countries over two continents from 9th May 2016 until 16th August 2019. Characteristics and outcomes of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (VAT), ICU hospital-acquired pneumonia (ICU-HAP), HAP that required invasive ventilation (VHAP), and HAP in patients transferred to the ICU without invasive mechanical ventilation were collected. The clinical diagnosis and treatments were per clinical practice and not per protocol. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the study groups. RESULTS: 1060 patients with LRTI (72.5% male sex, median age 64 [50-74] years) were included in the study; 160 (15.1%) developed VAT, 556 (52.5%) VAP, 98 (9.2%) ICU-HAP, 152 (14.3%) HAP, and 94 (8.9%) VHAP. Patients with VHAP had higher serum procalcitonin (PCT) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores. Patients with VAP or VHAP developed acute kidney injury, acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiple organ failure, or septic shock more often. One thousand eight patients had microbiological samples, and 711 (70.5%) had etiological microbiology identified. The most common microorganisms were Pseudomonas aeruginosa (18.4%) and Klebsiella spp (14.4%). In 382 patients (36%), the causative pathogen shows some antimicrobial resistance pattern. ICU, hospital and 28-day mortality were 30.8%, 37.5% and 27.5%, respectively. Patients with VHAP had the highest ICU, in-hospital and 28-day mortality rates. CONCLUSION: VHAP patients presented the highest mortality among those admitted to the ICU. Multidrug-resistant pathogens frequently cause nosocomial LRTI in this multinational cohort study.


Assuntos
Infecção Hospitalar , Pneumonia Associada à Ventilação Mecânica , Infecções Respiratórias , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Feminino , Estudos de Coortes , Estudos Prospectivos , Infecção Hospitalar/diagnóstico , Infecções Respiratórias/epidemiologia , Pneumonia Associada à Ventilação Mecânica/diagnóstico , Hospitais , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva
10.
Lancet Respir Med ; 11(8): 739-754, 2023 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37475125

RESUMO

Individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection can develop symptoms that persist well beyond the acute phase of COVID-19 or emerge after the acute phase, lasting for weeks or months after the initial acute illness. The post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, which include physical, cognitive, and mental health impairments, are known collectively as long COVID or post-COVID-19 condition. The substantial burden of this multisystem condition is felt at individual, health-care system, and socioeconomic levels, on an unprecedented scale. Survivors of COVID-19-related critical illness are at risk of the well known sequelae of acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and chronic critical illness, and these multidimensional morbidities might be difficult to differentiate from the specific effects of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. We provide an overview of the manifestations of post-COVID-19 condition after critical illness in adults. We explore the effects on various organ systems, describe potential pathophysiological mechanisms, and consider the challenges of providing clinical care and support for survivors of critical illness with multisystem manifestations. Research is needed to reduce the incidence of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19-related critical illness and to optimise therapeutic and rehabilitative care and support for patients.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , COVID-19/complicações , Síndrome de COVID-19 Pós-Aguda , SARS-CoV-2 , Estado Terminal , Progressão da Doença
11.
BMC Public Health ; 23(1): 1267, 2023 06 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37386490

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Indigenous people have historically suffered devastating impacts from epidemics and continue to have lower access to healthcare and be especially vulnerable to respiratory infections. We estimated the coverage and effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 cases among indigenous people in Brazil. METHODS: We linked nationwide Covid-19 vaccination data with flu-like surveillance records and studied a cohort of vaccinated indigenous people aged ≥ 5 years between 18th January 2021 and 1st March 2022. We considered individuals unexposed from the date they received the first dose of vaccine until the 13th day of vaccination, partially vaccinated from the 14th day after the first dose until the 13th day after receiving the second dose, and fully vaccinated onwards. We estimated the Covid-19 vaccination coverage and used Poisson regression to calculate the relative risks (RR) and vaccine effectiveness (VE) of CoronaVac, ChAdOx1, and BNT162b2 against Covid-19 laboratory-confirmed cases incidence, mortality, hospitalisation, and hospital-progression to Intensive Care Unit (ICU) or death. VE was estimated as (1-RR)*100, comparing unexposed to partially or fully vaccinated. RESULTS: By 1st March 2022, 48.7% (35.0-62.3) of eligible indigenous people vs. 74.8% (57.9-91.8) overall Brazilians had been fully vaccinated for Covid-19. Among fully vaccinated indigenous people, we found a lower risk of symptomatic cases (RR: 0.47, 95%CI: 0.40-0.56) and mortality (RR: 0.47, 95%CI: 0.14-1.56) after the 14th day of the second dose. VE for the three Covid-19 vaccines combined was 53% (95%CI:44-60%) for symptomatic cases, 53% (95%CI:-56-86%) for mortality and 41% (95%CI:-35-75%) for hospitalisation. In our sample, we found that vaccination did not reduce Covid-19 related hospitalisation. However, among hospitalised patients, we found a lower risk of progression to ICU (RR: 0.14, 95%CI: 0.02-0.81; VE: 87%, 95%CI:27-98%) and Covid-19 death (RR: 0.04, 95%CI:0.01-0.10; VE: 96%, 95%CI: 90-99%) after the 14th day of the second dose. CONCLUSIONS: Lower coverage but similar Covid-19 VE among indigenous people than overall Brazilians suggest the need to expand access, timely vaccination, and urgently offer booster doses to achieve a great level of protection among this group.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Vacinas , Humanos , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Brasil/epidemiologia , Estudos de Coortes , Vacina BNT162 , Povos Indígenas
12.
BMJ Glob Health ; 8(5)2023 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37253531

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Few community-based interventions addressing the transmission control and clinical management of COVID-19 cases have been reported, especially in poor urban communities from low-income and middle-income countries. Here, we analyse the impact of a multicomponent intervention that combines community engagement, mobile surveillance, massive testing and telehealth on COVID-19 cases detection and mortality rates in a large vulnerable community (Complexo da Maré) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. METHODS: We performed a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis to estimate the impact of the multicomponent intervention in Maré, before (March-August 2020) and after the intervention (September 2020 to April 2021), compared with equivalent local vulnerable communities. We applied a negative binomial regression model to estimate the intervention effect in weekly cases and mortality rates in Maré. RESULTS: Before the intervention, Maré presented lower rates of reported COVID-19 cases compared with the control group (1373 vs 1579 cases/100 000 population), comparable mortality rates (309 vs 287 deaths/100 000 population) and higher case fatality rates (13.7% vs 12.2%). After the intervention, Maré displayed a 154% (95% CI 138.6% to 170.4%) relative increase in reported case rates. Relative changes in reported death rates were -60% (95% CI -69.0% to -47.9%) in Maré and -28% (95% CI -42.0% to -9.8%) in the control group. The case fatality rate was reduced by 77% (95% CI -93.1% to -21.1%) in Maré and 52% (95% CI -81.8% to -29.4%) in the control group. The DID showed a reduction of 46% (95% CI 17% to 65%) of weekly reported deaths and an increased 23% (95% CI 5% to 44%) of reported cases in Maré after intervention onset. CONCLUSION: An integrated intervention combining communication, surveillance and telehealth, with a strong community engagement component, could reduce COVID-19 mortality and increase case detection in a large vulnerable community in Rio de Janeiro. These findings show that investment in community-based interventions may reduce mortality and improve pandemic control in poor communities from low-income and middle-income countries.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Brasil/epidemiologia , Pobreza
13.
Front Public Health ; 11: 1126461, 2023.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37250083

RESUMO

Background: The lack of precise definitions and terminological consensus about the impact studies of COVID-19 vaccination leads to confusing statements from the scientific community about what a vaccination impact study is. Objective: The present work presents a narrative review, describing and discussing COVID-19 vaccination impact studies, mapping their relevant characteristics, such as study design, approaches and outcome variables, while analyzing their similarities, distinctions, and main insights. Methods: The articles screening, regarding title, abstract, and full-text reading, included papers addressing perspectives about the impact of vaccines on population outcomes. The screening process included articles published before June 10, 2022, based on the initial papers' relevance to this study's research topics. The main inclusion criteria were data analyses and study designs based on statistical modelling or comparison of pre- and post-vaccination population. Results: The review included 18 studies evaluating the vaccine impact in a total of 48 countries, including 32 high-income countries (United States, Israel, and 30 Western European countries) and 16 low- and middle-income countries (Brazil, Colombia, and 14 Eastern European countries). We summarize the main characteristics of the vaccination impact studies analyzed in this narrative review. Conclusion: Although all studies claim to address the impact of a vaccination program, they differ significantly in their objectives since they adopt different definitions of impact, methodologies, and outcome variables. These and other differences are related to distinct data sources, designs, analysis methods, models, and approaches.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Humanos , Estados Unidos , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinação , Renda , Modelos Estatísticos
14.
Nat Commun ; 14(1): 2916, 2023 05 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37225741

RESUMO

The association between long-term exposure to ambient air pollutants and severe COVID-19 is uncertain. We followed 4,660,502 adults from the general population in 2020 in Catalonia, Spain. Cox proportional models were fit to evaluate the association between annual averages of PM2.5, NO2, BC, and O3 at each participant's residential address and severe COVID-19. Higher exposure to PM2.5, NO2, and BC was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalization, ICU admission, death, and hospital length of stay. An increase of 3.2 µg/m3 of PM2.5 was associated with a 19% (95% CI, 16-21) increase in hospitalizations. An increase of 16.1 µg/m3 of NO2 was associated with a 42% (95% CI, 30-55) increase in ICU admissions. An increase of 0.7 µg/m3 of BC was associated with a 6% (95% CI, 0-13) increase in deaths. O3 was positively associated with severe outcomes when adjusted by NO2. Our study contributes robust evidence that long-term exposure to air pollutants is associated with severe COVID-19.


Assuntos
Poluentes Atmosféricos , Poluição do Ar , COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , Espanha/epidemiologia , Estudos de Coortes , Dióxido de Nitrogênio/toxicidade , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Poluição do Ar/efeitos adversos , Poluentes Atmosféricos/efeitos adversos , Material Particulado/efeitos adversos
15.
EClinicalMedicine ; 59: 101954, 2023 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37096186

RESUMO

Background: Omega-3 fatty acids are critical for neuropsychological functioning. Adolescence is increasingly believed to entail brain vulnerability to dietary intake. The potential benefit on adolescent neurodevelopment of consuming walnuts, a source of omega-3 alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), remains unclear. Methods: We conducted a 6-month multi-school-based randomised controlled nutrition intervention trial to assess whether walnut consumption has beneficial effects on the neuropsychological and behavioural development of adolescents. The study took place between 04/01/2016 and 06/30/2017 in twelve different high schools in Barcelona, Spain (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02590848). A total of 771 healthy teenagers aged 11-16 years were randomised into two equal groups (intervention or control). The intervention group received 30 g/day of raw walnut kernels to be incorporated into their diet for 6 months. Multiple primary endpoints concerning neuropsychological (working memory, attention, fluid intelligence, and executive function) and behavioural (socio-emotional and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD] symptoms) development were assessed at baseline and after intervention. Red blood cell (RBC) ALA status was determined at baseline and 6 months as a measure of compliance. Main analyses were based on intention-to-treat using a linear mixed-effects model. A per-protocol effect of the intervention was analysed using inverse-probability weighting to account for post-randomisation prognostic factors (including adherence) using generalised estimating equations. Findings: In intention-to-treat analyses, at 6 months there were no statistically significant changes between the intervention and control groups for all primary endpoints. RBC ALA (%) significantly increased only in the intervention group, coefficient = 0.04 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.03, 0.06; p < 0.0001). The per-protocol (adherence-adjusted) effect on improvement in attention score (hit reaction time variability) was -11.26 ms (95% CI = -19.92, -2.60; p = 0.011) for the intervention group as compared to the control group, improvement in fluid intelligence score was 1.78 (95% CI = 0.90, 2.67; p < 0.0001), and reduction of ADHD symptom score was -2.18 (95% CI = -3.70, -0.67; p = 0.0050). Interpretation: Our study suggested that being prescribed eating walnuts for 6 months did not improve the neuropsychological function of healthy adolescents. However, improved sustained attention, fluid intelligence, and ADHD symptoms were observed in participants who better complied with the walnut intervention. This study provides a foundation for further clinical and epidemiological research on the effect of walnuts and ALA on neurodevelopment in adolescents. Funding: This study was supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III through the projects 'CP14/00108, PI16/00261, PI21/00266' (co-funded by European Union Regional Development Fund 'A way to make Europe'). The California Walnut Commission (CWC) has given support by supplying the walnuts for free for the Walnuts Smart Snack Dietary Intervention Trial.

17.
Front Public Health ; 10: 1017337, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36457326

RESUMO

Background: A vaccination campaign targeted adults in response to the pandemic in the City of Rio de Janeiro. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and identify factors associated with seropositivity on vaccinated and unvaccinated residents. Methods: We performed a seroepidemiologic survey in all residents of Paquetá Island, a neighborhood of Rio de Janeiro city, during the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out. Serological tests were performed from June 16 to June 19, 2021, and adjusted seropositivity rates were estimated by age and epidemiological variables. Logistic regression models were used to estimate adjusted ORs for risk factors to SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in non-vaccinated individuals, and potential determinants of the magnitude of antibody responses in the seropositive population. Results: We included in the study 3,016 residents of Paquetá (83.5% of the island population). The crude seroprevalence of COVID-19 antibodies in our sample was 53.6% (95% CI = 51.0, 56.3). The risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in non-vaccinated individuals were history of confirmed previous COVID-19 infection (OR = 4.74; 95% CI = 3.3, 7.0), being a household contact of a case (OR = 1.93; 95% CI = 1.5, 2.6) and in-person learning (OR = 2.01; 95% CI = 1.4, 3.0). Potential determinants of the magnitude of antibody responses among the seropositive were hybrid immunity, the type of vaccine received, and time since the last vaccine dose. Being vaccinated with Pfizer or AstraZeneca (Beta = 2.2; 95% CI = 1.8, 2.6) determined higher antibody titers than those observed with CoronaVac (Beta = 1.2; 95% CI = 0.9, 1.5). Conclusions: Our study highlights the impact of vaccination on COVID-19 collective immunity even in a highly affected population, showing the difference in antibody titers achieved with different vaccines and how they wane with time, reinforcing how these factors should be considered when estimating effectiveness of a vaccination program at any given time. We also found that hybrid immunity was superior to both infection-induced and vaccine-induced immunity alone, and online learning protected students from COVID-19 exposure.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Vacinas , Adulto , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Estudos Soroepidemiológicos , Brasil/epidemiologia , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle
18.
PLoS Med ; 19(12): e1004136, 2022 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36454733

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The benefit of primary and booster vaccination in people who experienced a prior Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains unclear. The objective of this study was to estimate the effectiveness of primary (two-dose series) and booster (third dose) mRNA vaccination against Omicron (lineage BA.1) infection among people with a prior documented infection. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a test-negative case-control study of reverse transcription PCRs (RT-PCRs) analyzed with the TaqPath (Thermo Fisher Scientific) assay and recorded in the Yale New Haven Health system from November 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Overall, 11,307 cases (positive TaqPath analyzed RT-PCRs with S-gene target failure [SGTF]) and 130,041 controls (negative TaqPath analyzed RT-PCRs) were included (median age: cases: 35 years, controls: 39 years). Among cases and controls, 5.9% and 8.1% had a documented prior infection (positive SARS-CoV-2 test record ≥90 days prior to the included test), respectively. We estimated the effectiveness of primary and booster vaccination relative to SGTF-defined Omicron (lineage BA.1) variant infection using a logistic regression adjusted for date of test, age, sex, race/ethnicity, insurance, comorbidities, social venerability index, municipality, and healthcare utilization. The effectiveness of primary vaccination 14 to 149 days after the second dose was 41.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 14.1% to 59.4%, p 0.006) and 27.1% (95% CI: 18.7% to 34.6%, p < 0.001) for people with and without a documented prior infection, respectively. The effectiveness of booster vaccination (≥14 days after booster dose) was 47.1% (95% CI: 22.4% to 63.9%, p 0.001) and 54.1% (95% CI: 49.2% to 58.4%, p < 0.001) in people with and without a documented prior infection, respectively. To test whether booster vaccination reduced the risk of infection beyond that of the primary series, we compared the odds of infection among boosted (≥14 days after booster dose) and booster-eligible people (≥150 days after second dose). The odds ratio (OR) comparing boosted and booster-eligible people with a documented prior infection was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.54 to 1.16, p 0.222), whereas the OR comparing boosted and booster-eligible people without a documented prior infection was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.49 to 0.59, p < 0.001). This study's limitations include the risk of residual confounding, the use of data from a single system, and the reliance on TaqPath analyzed RT-PCR results. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that primary vaccination provided significant but limited protection against Omicron (lineage BA.1) infection among people with and without a documented prior infection. While booster vaccination was associated with additional protection against Omicron BA.1 infection in people without a documented prior infection, it was not found to be associated with additional protection among people with a documented prior infection. These findings support primary vaccination in people regardless of documented prior infection status but suggest that infection history may impact the relative benefit of booster doses.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , Adulto , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Razão de Chances , Vacinação
19.
Nat Commun ; 13(1): 5536, 2022 10 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36202800

RESUMO

The effectiveness of inactivated vaccines (VE) against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 caused by omicron is unknown. We conducted a nationwide, test-negative, case-control study to estimate VE for homologous and heterologous (BNT162b2) booster doses in adults who received two doses of CoronaVac in Brazil in the Omicron context. Analyzing 1,386,544 matched-pairs, VE against symptomatic disease was 8.6% (95% CI, 5.6-11.5) and 56.8% (95% CI, 56.3-57.3) in the period 8-59 days after receiving a homologous and heterologous booster, respectively. During the same interval, VE against severe Covid-19 was 73.6% (95% CI, 63.9-80.7) and 86.0% (95% CI, 84.5-87.4) after receiving a homologous and heterologous booster, respectively. Waning against severe Covid-19 after 120 days was only observed after a homologous booster. Heterologous booster might be preferable to individuals with completed primary series inactivated vaccine.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Adulto , Vacina BNT162 , Brasil/epidemiologia , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Humanos , Vacinas de Produtos Inativados
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...