ABSTRACT
Introduction: Hearing loss following a viral infection is a common entity. In recent studies, hearing loss has been seen among Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infected patients, but its association is yet to be established. Aim: To determine the presence of hearing loss and its type in patients after COVID-19 infection. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary health centre, Department of Otorhinolaryngology at Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, Chettinad Hospital and Research Institute, Chennai, from October 2021 to April 2022. Total of 125 patients, who had a positive history of COVID-19 infection, were reviewed in the Otorhinolaryngology Department, one month after they were tested Real Time-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) positive. After obtaining proper clinical history and examination, Pure Tone Audiometry (PTA) were done. Audiological report was assessed and analysed. Qualitative variables will be expressed in proportions and quantitative variables in Mean±SD/ Median (IQR), Chi- square test was applied. Results: This study included 65 males (52%) and 60 females (48%), and the mean age was 38.44±10.9 years years. Among the 125 patients, 12 (9.6%) were diabetic, 14 (11.2%) were hypertensive, 5 (4%) had dyslipidaemia, 3 (2.4%) were hypothyroid, while remaining 91 patients (72.8%) had no co-morbidities. Sensorineural Hearing Loss (SNHL) was found among 45 patients (34 with unilateral and 11 with bilateral involvement). Out of them, 2 (4.5%) (4.5%) were in the age group of 18-30 years, 19 (42.2%) in 31-45 years and 24 (53.3%) between 46-60 years age group. Based on the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of hearing loss, 27 patients had mild sensorineural hearing loss, 12 patients with moderate, and 6 patients with moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss. Conclusion: SNHL were found among patients who had COVID-19 infection, but due to the absence of a pre COVID-19 documented audiogram, it was difficult to conclude whether the hearing loss had occurred due to COVID-19, pre-existing hearing loss, or age-related. Further studies are required for proper understanding and correlation.
ABSTRACT
Lockdown and social distancing due to COVID-19 affected the mental health and lifestyle of the population. However, there is insufficient evidence of alterations in eating behavior. Our study seeks to describe the relationship between eating behavior and eating habits among Chilean adults during the confinement period. A sample of 760 Chilean subjects was analyzed, who answered surveys using Google Forms, considering demographic characteristics, social distancing, dietary habits and EB. More than half of the participants consider that their dietary intake increased during confinement. Changes in dietary intake were analyzed according to food group, and a decrease in the consumption of fish, fruits and dairy pro- ducts was observed, while legumes, processed foods and soft drinks showed an increase, which represents risk factors for the development of cardiovascular diseases. When analyzing eating behavior, a greater difficulty in stopping eating was observed when faced with external stimuli;increased intake associated with complex emotional situations, and when isolating the group that decreased their intake of unhealthy foods, a greater ability to limit their intake for weight control was reported. Our results are similar to other studies, and they reinforce that confinement is related to eating behavior, leading to changes in eating habits, which indicates that, at the public health level, post-pandemic nutritional strategies, should be focused on regulating eating behavior in order to guide habits towards healthy eating. Keywords: COVID-19;Dietary intake;Eating behavior;Food intake;Lockdown.
ABSTRACT
Background: Real-world evidence on effectiveness of booster or additional doses of COVID-19 vaccine is limited. Methods: Using patient-level data from 50 sites in the U.S. National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), we estimated COVID-19 booster vaccine effectiveness compared to full vaccination alone (completed 2 doses mRNA or 1 dose Janssen vaccine). At each month following full vaccination, we created comparable cohorts of patients with boosters propensity-score matched to those without boosters by age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidities, geographic region, prior COVID-19 infection, and calendar month of full vaccination. Booster efficacy was evaluated among patients with and without immunosuppressed/compromised conditions (ISC;HIV infection, solid organ or bone marrow transplant, autoimmune diseases, and cancer). We used Cox regression models to estimate hazards of breakthrough infection (COVID-19 diagnosis after last dose of vaccine) and logistic regression models to compare the risk of death ≤45 days after a breakthrough infection in the boosted vs. matched non-boosted groups. Results: By 11/18/2021, 656390 patients had received full vaccination, and 125409 fully vaccinated had received an additional booster (median time from last vaccine to booster dose: 7.4 months, IQR:6.6, 8.2). At completion of full vaccination, median age was 50 (IQR 33-64) years, 43% male, 50% white, 11% Black, 18% Latinx, 4.8% Asian American/Pacific Islander, and 20% had ISC. People receiving a booster were more likely to be older, male, white, and have ISC. Booster vaccine was significantly associated with a reduced hazard of breakthrough infection (Table). Booster efficacy ranged from 46% (booster receipt 1-4 months after full vaccination) to 83% (receipt 7 months after full vaccination) in people without ISC. Vaccine efficacy was lower, ranging from 43%-65%, in ISC patients (Table). Compared to fully vaccinated patients without booster receipt, patients with booster had an 83% (OR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.28) reduced risk of COVID-19 related death, independent of demographics, geographic region, comorbidities, ISC, prior COVID-19 infection, and time of full vaccination. Conclusion: A booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine has high effectiveness in reducing breakthrough infection risk among all fully vaccinated individuals, though only with moderate effectiveness among ISC patients. Nonetheless, booster vaccination significantly reduced risk for COVID-19 related death regardless of ISC status.
ABSTRACT
Background: It is not known if people with HIV (PWH) in the United States (US) have different access to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR (COVID-19) testing, or positivity proportions (among those tested), than people without HIV (PWOH). We describe COVID-19 testing and positivity proportions in 6 large geographically and demographically diverse cohorts of PWH and PWOH. Methods: The Corona-Infectious-Virus Epidemiology Team (CIVET) is comprised of five COVID-19 clinical cohorts within a health system (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA;Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic States, Rockville, MD;University of North Carolina Health, Chapel Hill, NC;Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN;Veterans Aging Cohort Study) and one established classical HIV cohort (MACS/WIHS Combined Cohort Study). Each participating cohort is restricted to individuals who were alive and “in-cohort” in 2020 (definitions of which were operationalized to fit the structure of each cohort). We calculated the percentage of patients in-cohort who were COVID-19 tested, and the proportion COVID-19 positive monthly, by HIV status, from March 1 to August 31, 2020. We report findings from the classical cohort separately because results are based on self-reported information. Results: In the 5 clinical cohorts, PWH ranged from N=2,515 to 31,040, and N=77,019 to 3,710,360 PWOH. Over the 6 month study period, the percentage of PWH who were tested for COVID-19 (13.5%-21.2%) was slightly higher than PWOH (10.8%-14.3%) in each of the cohorts (p-values in each cohort <0.001). However, among those tested, the percentage of patients with positive COVID-19 tests was similar regardless of HIV status (Figure). In the classical cohort that contributed self-reported testing and positive information (PWH N=2,222;PWOH N=1,417), the proportion tested was similar by HIV status (PWH 38.1% vs. PWOH 37.4%), but PWH had a greater positivity proportion (9.0%) compared with PWOH (5.3%, p-value=0.012). Conclusion: Although PWH had higher testing rates compared with PWOH, we did not find evidence of increased positivity among those tested in 5 clinical cohorts with large diverse populations across the US. We will continue to monitor testing, positivity, and COVID-19 related health outcomes in PWH and PWOH using our multiple data sources and leveraging the expertise of established longitudinal cohort studies in the CIVETS collaboration.