Effectiveness and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines, including Vaccination Issues in Trinidad and Tobago: A Systematic Review (preprint)

Vaccination against the SARS-CoV2 virus has shown great promise in managing the spread and severity of Covid-19. While these vaccines were able to provide a favourable response in controlling the SARS-CoV2 infection, its use came with accompanying side effects. This systematic review aimed to determine the effectiveness of the different Covid-19 vaccine subtypes and discover the side effects associated with each vaccine elsewhere but specially in Trinidad and Tobago. For this systematic review, the keywords “Pfizer-BioNTech OR Moderna OR Oxford-AstraZeneca OR Janssen OR Sinopharm OR Novavax AND Covid-19 vaccine efficacy” and “Covid-19 vaccines AND Trinidad and Tobago” were researched under PubMed, MEDLINE and other internet sources through which other notable journals, and documents were discovered and searched similarly as outlined previously. In doing so, 65 relevant articles were included as part of this review. Of the studies examined, overall the vaccine with the greatest VE was found to be Pfizer-BioNTech (95%), followed by Moderna (94.1%), Novavax (89.7%), AstraZeneca (70.4%), Sinopharm (67%) and finally Janssen (66.9%). The use of Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna was most efficacious in response to the different Covid-19 variants. Some side effects were common for all vaccine types however adverse effects were more commonly seen with vaccination by mRNA vaccines, Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-Astrazeneca. Researchers targeted individuals aged 18 and above residing in various geographical areas of TT, specifically focusing on those who had not received the COVID-19 vaccine and expressed hesitancy towards it. Convenience sampling was used to select the study participants, and formal in-depth virtual interviews were conducted on a one-to-one basis, employing a semi-structured questionnaire to guide the discussions. The interviews were meticulously recorded and transcribed, following the principles of reflexive thematic analysis, to distill key insights from the participants' responses. The study's findings, derived from the perspectives of 25 participants, illuminated a complex tapestry of reasons underlying vaccine hesitancy in Trinidad and Tobago. Notably, prominent themes emerged, including fear, doubts regarding vaccine efficacy, a perceived inadequacy of information, a sense of susceptibility to the virus, deep-seated mistrust, alternative herbal remedies, and religious reservations. Interestingly, the motivations expressed by these vaccine-hesitant individuals for potentially receiving the vaccine in the future were rooted in notions of necessity, an increased sense of susceptibility to the virus, a desire to reach a certain health benchmark, and a need for assurance regarding the vaccine's safety and effectiveness. This comprehensive exploration of vaccine hesitancy in TT provides valuable insights for public health officials and policymakers in crafting targeted strategies to address this critical issue within the local context. Conclusion: The findings of this study determined that vaccination against the SARS-CoV2 virus provided beneficial outcomes against infection, Covid-19 related hospitalizations, ICU admissions and mortality. While vaccination was deemed highly appropriate in managing the spread of the SARS-CoV2 virus and enhancing the outcomes in infected persons, the effectiveness of the different vaccine platforms indicated that certain vaccine platforms are preferential to others in different populations. In terms of vaccine efficacy, nucleic acid vaccines such as Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna showed the greatest effectiveness while inactivated whole virus vaccines such as Sinopharm and viral vectors like Janssen had the least effectiveness. The side effects, joint/muscle soreness, pain at the injection site, shoulder pain, headaches, fever, chills, weakness, epistaxis, renal and certain cardiovascular events were common for all vaccine types. Adverse effects were more frequent and severe with the mRNA vaccines by Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-Astrazeneca than inactivated whole virus vaccines. The data collected in this research can be very useful to help individuals make a decision on which vaccine would be appropriate for them. More long-term studies are needed to better gauge the scope of side effects for each vaccine type.

Changing Severity and Epidemiology of Adults Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States After Introduction of COVID-19 Vaccines, March 2021-August 2022.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the changing epidemiology of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) informs research priorities and public health policies. METHODS: Among adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed, acute COVID-19 between 11 March 2021, and 31 August 2022 at 21 hospitals in 18 states, those hospitalized during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron-predominant period (BA.1, BA.2, BA.4/BA.5) were compared to those from earlier Alpha- and Delta-predominant periods. Demographic characteristics, biomarkers within 24 hours of admission, and outcomes, including oxygen support and death, were assessed. RESULTS: Among 9825 patients, median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 60 years (47-72), 47% were women, and 21% non-Hispanic Black. From the Alpha-predominant period (Mar-Jul 2021; N = 1312) to the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineage-predominant period (Jun-Aug 2022; N = 1307): the percentage of patients who had ≥4 categories of underlying medical conditions increased from 11% to 21%; those vaccinated with at least a primary COVID-19 vaccine series increased from 7% to 67%; those ≥75 years old increased from 11% to 33%; those who did not receive any supplemental oxygen increased from 18% to 42%. Median (IQR) highest C-reactive protein and D-dimer concentration decreased from 42.0 mg/L (9.9-122.0) to 11.5 mg/L (2.7-42.8) and 3.1 mcg/mL (0.8-640.0) to 1.0 mcg/mL (0.5-2.2), respectively. In-hospital death peaked at 12% in the Delta-predominant period and declined to 4% during the BA.4/BA.5-predominant period. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to adults hospitalized during early COVID-19 variant periods, those hospitalized during Omicron-variant COVID-19 were older, had multiple co-morbidities, were more likely to be vaccinated, and less likely to experience severe respiratory disease, systemic inflammation, coagulopathy, and death.

A primer on proning in the emergency department.

Historically, the prone position was used almost exclusively in the ICU for patients suffering from refractory hypoxemia due to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Amidst the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, however, this technique has been increasingly utilized in settings outside of the ICU, particularly in the emergency department. With emerging evidence that patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who are not intubated and mechanically ventilated may benefit from the prone position, this strategy should not be isolated to only those with critical illness. This is a review of the pertinent physiology and evidence supporting prone positioning along with a step-by-step guide meant to familiarize those who are not already comfortable with the maneuver. Placing a patient in the prone position helps to improve ventilation-perfusion matching, dorsal lung recruitment, and ultimately gas exchange. Evidence also suggests there is improved oxygenation in both mechanically ventilated patients and those who are awake and spontaneously breathing, further reinforcing the utility of the prone position in non-ICU settings. Given present concerns about resource limitations because of the pandemic, prone positioning has especially demonstrable value as a technique to delay or even prevent intubation. Patients who are able to self-prone should be directed into the ''swimmer's position'' and then placed in reverse Trendelenburg position if further oxygenation is needed. If a mechanically ventilated patient is to be placed in the prone position, specific precautions should be taken to ensure the patient's safety and to prevent any unwanted sequelae of prone positioning.

Comparison of mRNA vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-associated hospitalization by vaccination source: Immunization information systems, electronic medical records, and self-report-IVY Network, February 1-August 31, 2022.

BACKGROUND: Accurate determination of COVID-19 vaccination status is necessary to produce reliable COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates. Data comparing differences in COVID-19 VE by vaccination sources (i.e., immunization information systems [IIS], electronic medical records [EMR], and self-report) are limited. We compared the number of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses identified by each of these sources to assess agreement as well as differences in VE estimates using vaccination data from each individual source and vaccination data adjudicated from all sources combined. METHODS: Adults aged ≥18 years who were hospitalized with COVID-like illness at 21 hospitals in 18 U.S. states participating in the IVY Network during February 1-August 31, 2022, were enrolled. Numbers of COVID-19 vaccine doses identified by IIS, EMR, and self-report were compared in kappa agreement analyses. Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was estimated using multivariable logistic regression models to compare the odds of COVID-19 vaccination between SARS-CoV-2-positive case-patients and SARS-CoV-2-negative control-patients. VE was estimated using each source of vaccination data separately and all sources combined. RESULTS: A total of 4499 patients were included. Patients with ≥1 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose were identified most frequently by self-report (n = 3570, 79 %), followed by IIS (n = 3272, 73 %) and EMR (n = 3057, 68 %). Agreement was highest between IIS and self-report for 4 doses with a kappa of 0.77 (95 % CI = 0.73-0.81). VE point estimates of 3 doses against COVID-19 hospitalization were substantially lower when using vaccination data from EMR only (VE = 31 %, 95 % CI = 16 %-43 %) than when using all sources combined (VE = 53 %, 95 % CI = 41 %-62%). CONCLUSION: Vaccination data from EMR only may substantially underestimate COVID-19 VE.

Effectiveness of Monovalent mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Preventing COVID-19-Associated Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Death Among Immunocompetent Adults During the Omicron Variant Period - IVY Network, 19 U.S. States, February 1, 2022-January 31, 2023.

As of April 2023, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in 1.1 million deaths in the United States, with approximately 75% of deaths occurring among adults aged ≥65 years (1). Data on the durability of protection provided by monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination against critical outcomes of COVID-19 are limited beyond the Omicron BA.1 lineage period (December 26, 2021-March 26, 2022). In this case-control analysis, the effectiveness of 2-4 monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses was evaluated against COVID-19-associated invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and in-hospital death among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during February 1, 2022-January 31, 2023. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against IMV and in-hospital death was 62% among adults aged ≥18 years and 69% among those aged ≥65 years. When stratified by time since last dose, VE was 76% at 7-179 days, 54% at 180-364 days, and 56% at ≥365 days. Monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination provided substantial, durable protection against IMV and in-hospital death among adults during the Omicron variant period. All adults should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccination to prevent critical COVID-19-associated outcomes.

The impact of COVID-19 on pulmonary function and airway reactivity after recovery in college-aged adults.

The purpose of this study was to determine (1) whether pulmonary function is reduced, and airway reactivity is increased after recovery from COVID-19 in individuals who did not have severe illness, and (2) whether physical activity levels had any impact on pulmonary function or airway reactivity. An exploratory aim of the study was also to assess whether number of symptoms was associated with pulmonary function outcomes. The maximal flow volume loop was used to measure pulmonary function in individuals who had previously tested positive for COVID-19 (COV; n = 20, 23.0 ± 5.4 years) and those who had not (CON; n = 20, 23.7 ± 5.5 years) before and after a hypertonic saline challenge (HSC) designed to increase airway reactivity. Self-reported symptoms and physical activity levels (MET (min/week)) were collected to examine their correlation with pulmonary outcomes. There were no significant differences in any pulmonary function outcomes between the COV and CON groups before or after the HSC. There were also no associations between physical activity and pulmonary function outcomes. However, among participants who reported greater than four symptoms, there was a larger decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s divided by forced vital capacity following HSC (p = 0.035). Pulmonary function and airway reactivity are not impacted after recovery from COVID-19 in young individuals; however, it appears that the number of symptoms reported may be associated with increased airway reactivity even after recovery in young adults who were not hospitalized with the virus.

Total and subgenomic RNA viral load in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 Alpha, Delta, and Omicron variants.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 genomic and subgenomic RNA levels are frequently used as a correlate of infectiousness. The impact of host factors and SARS-CoV-2 lineage on RNA viral load is unclear. METHODS: Total nucleocapsid (N) and subgenomic N (sgN) RNA levels were measured by RT-qPCR in specimens from 3,204 individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 at 21 hospitals. RT-qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) values were used to estimate RNA viral load. The impact of time of sampling, SARS-CoV-2 variant, age, comorbidities, vaccination, and immune status on N and sgN Ct values were evaluated using multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Ct values at presentation for N (mean ±standard deviation) were 24.14±4.53 for non-variants of concern, 25.15±4.33 for Alpha, 25.31±4.50 for Delta, and 26.26±4.42 for Omicron. N and sgN RNA levels varied with time since symptom onset and infecting variant but not with age, comorbidity, immune status, or vaccination. When normalized to total N RNA, sgN levels were similar across all variants. CONCLUSIONS: RNA viral loads were similar among hospitalized adults, irrespective of infecting variant and known risk factors for severe COVID-19. Total N and subgenomic RNA N viral loads were highly correlated, suggesting that subgenomic RNA measurements adds little information for the purposes of estimating infectivity.

Veno-venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19: A Call For System-Wide Checks to Ensure Equitable Delivery For All.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has emerged in the COVID-19 pandemic as a potentially beneficial yet scare resource for treating critically ill patients, with variable allocation across the United States. The existing literature has not addressed barriers patients may face in access to ECMO as a result of healthcare inequity. We present a novel patient-centered framework of ECMO access, providing evidence for potential bias and opportunities to mitigate this bias at every stage between a marginalized patient's initial presentation to treatment with ECMO. While equitable access to ECMO support is a global challenge, this piece focuses primarily on patients in the United States with severe COVID-19-associated ARDS to draw from current literature on VV-ECMO for ARDS and does not address issues that affect ECMO access on a more international scale.

Protection of mRNA vaccines against hospitalized COVID-19 in adults over the first year following authorization in the United States.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were authorized in the United States in December 2020. Although vaccine effectiveness (VE) against mild infection declines markedly after several months, limited understanding exists on the long-term durability of protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization. METHODS: Case control analysis of adults (≥18 years) hospitalized at 21 hospitals in 18 states March 11 - December 15, 2021, including COVID-19 case patients and RT-PCR-negative controls. We included adults who were unvaccinated or vaccinated with two doses of a mRNA vaccine before the date of illness onset. VE over time was assessed using logistic regression comparing odds of vaccination in cases versus controls, adjusting for confounders. Models included dichotomous time (<180 vs ≥180 days since dose two) and continuous time modeled using restricted cubic splines. RESULTS: 10,078 patients were included, 4906 cases (23% vaccinated) and 5172 controls (62% vaccinated). Median age was 60 years (IQR 46-70), 56% were non-Hispanic White, and 81% had ≥1 medical condition. Among immunocompetent adults, VE <180 days was 90% (95%CI: 88-91) vs 82% (95%CI: 79-85) at ≥180 days (p < 0.001). VE declined for Pfizer-BioNTech (88% to 79%, p < 0.001) and Moderna (93% to 87%, p < 0.001) products, for younger adults (18-64 years) [91% to 87%, p = 0.005], and for adults ≥65 years of age (87% to 78%, p < 0.001). In models using restricted cubic splines, similar changes were observed. CONCLUSION: In a period largely pre-dating Omicron variant circulation, effectiveness of two mRNA doses against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was largely sustained through 9 months.

Implementation of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Without On-Site Cardiac Surgery or Perfusion Support: A Tale of Two County Hospitals.

Patients with refractory respiratory and cardiac failure may present to noncardiac surgery centers. Prior studies have demonstrated that acute care surgeons, intensivists, and emergency medicine physicians can safely cannulate and manage patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Harborview Medical Center (Harborview) and Hennepin County Medical Center (Hennepin) are both urban, county-owned, level 1 trauma centers that implemented ECMO without direct, on-site cardiac surgery or perfusion support. Both centers 1) use an ECMO specialist model staffed by specially trained nurses and respiratory therapists and 2) developed comparable training curricula for ECMO specialists, intensivists, surgeons, and trainees. Each program began with venovenous ECMO to provide support for refractory hypoxemic respiratory failure and subsequently expanded to venoarterial ECMO support. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created an impetus for restructuring, with each program creating a consulting service to facilitate ECMO delivery across multiple intensive care units (ICUs) and to promote fellow and resident training and experience. Both Harborview and Hennepin, urban county hospitals 1,700 miles apart in the United States, independently implemented and operate adult ECMO programs without involvement from cardiovascular surgery or perfusion services. This experience further supports the role of ECMO specialists in the delivery of extracorporeal life support.

Absolute and Relative Vaccine Effectiveness of Primary and Booster Series of COVID-19 Vaccines (mRNA and Adenovirus Vector) Against COVID-19 Hospitalizations in the United States, December 2021-April 2022.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are increasingly reporting relative VE (rVE) comparing a primary series plus booster doses with a primary series only. Interpretation of rVE differs from traditional studies measuring absolute VE (aVE) of a vaccine regimen against an unvaccinated referent group. We estimated aVE and rVE against COVID-19 hospitalization in primary-series plus first-booster recipients of COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: Booster-eligible immunocompetent adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in the United States during December 25, 2021-April 4, 2022 were included. In a test-negative design, logistic regression with case status as the outcome and completion of primary vaccine series or primary series plus 1 booster dose as the predictors, adjusted for potential confounders, were used to estimate aVE and rVE. Results: A total of 2060 patients were analyzed, including 1104 COVID-19 cases and 956 controls. Relative VE against COVID-19 hospitalization in boosted mRNA vaccine recipients versus primary series only was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-74%); aVE was 81% (95% CI, 75%-86%) for boosted versus 46% (95% CI, 30%-58%) for primary. For boosted Janssen vaccine recipients versus primary series, rVE was 49% (95% CI, -9% to 76%); aVE was 62% (95% CI, 33%-79%) for boosted versus 36% (95% CI, -4% to 60%) for primary. Conclusions: Vaccine booster doses increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with a primary series. Comparing rVE measures across studies can lead to flawed interpretations of the added value of a new vaccination regimen, whereas difference in aVE, when available, may be a more useful metric.

Virus exposure and neurodegenerative disease risk across national biobanks.

With recent findings connecting the Epstein-Barr virus to an increased risk of multiple sclerosis and growing concerns regarding the neurological impact of the coronavirus pandemic, we examined potential links between viral exposures and neurodegenerative disease risk. Using time series data from FinnGen for discovery and cross-sectional data from the UK Biobank for replication, we identified 45 viral exposures significantly associated with increased risk of neurodegenerative disease and replicated 22 of these associations. The largest effect association was between viral encephalitis exposure and Alzheimer's disease. Influenza with pneumonia was significantly associated with five of the six neurodegenerative diseases studied. We also replicated the Epstein-Barr/multiple sclerosis association. Some of these exposures were associated with an increased risk of neurodegeneration up to 15 years after infection. As vaccines are currently available for some of the associated viruses, vaccination may be a way to reduce some risk of neurodegenerative disease.

Early Estimates of Bivalent mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness in Preventing COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Among Immunocompetent Adults Aged ≥65 Years - IVY Network, 18 States, September 8-November 30, 2022.

Monovalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, designed against the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2, successfully reduced COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality in the United States and globally (1,2). However, vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization has declined over time, likely related to a combination of factors, including waning immunity and, with the emergence of the Omicron variant and its sublineages, immune evasion (3). To address these factors, on September 1, 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended a bivalent COVID-19 mRNA booster (bivalent booster) dose, developed against the spike protein from ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineages, for persons who had completed at least a primary COVID-19 vaccination series (with or without monovalent booster doses) ≥2 months earlier (4). Data on the effectiveness of a bivalent booster dose against COVID-19 hospitalization in the United States are lacking, including among older adults, who are at highest risk for severe COVID-19-associated illness. During September 8-November 30, 2022, the Investigating Respiratory Viruses in the Acutely Ill (IVY) Network§ assessed effectiveness of a bivalent booster dose received after ≥2 doses of monovalent mRNA vaccine against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥65 years. When compared with unvaccinated persons, VE of a bivalent booster dose received ≥7 days before illness onset (median = 29 days) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was 84%. Compared with persons who received ≥2 monovalent-only mRNA vaccine doses, relative VE of a bivalent booster dose was 73%. These early findings show that a bivalent booster dose provided strong protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization in older adults and additional protection among persons with previous monovalent-only mRNA vaccination. All eligible persons, especially adults aged ≥65 years, should receive a bivalent booster dose to maximize protection against COVID-19 hospitalization this winter season. Additional strategies to prevent respiratory illness, such as masking in indoor public spaces, should also be considered, especially in areas where COVID-19 community levels are high (4,5).

Comparison of test-negative and syndrome-negative controls in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness evaluations for preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Test-negative design (TND) studies have produced validated estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) for influenza vaccine studies. However, syndrome-negative controls have been proposed for differentiating bias and true estimates in VE evaluations for COVID-19. To understand the use of alternative control groups, we compared characteristics and VE estimates of syndrome-negative and test-negative VE controls. METHODS: Adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in 18 states March 11-August 31, 2021 were eligible for analysis. Case patients had symptomatic acute respiratory infection (ARI) and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Control groups were test-negative patients with ARI but negative SARS-CoV-2 testing, and syndrome-negative controls were without ARI and negative SARS-CoV-2 testing. Chi square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to detect differences in baseline characteristics. VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated using logistic regression comparing adjusted odds of prior mRNA vaccination between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and each control group. RESULTS: 5811 adults (2726 cases, 1696 test-negative controls, and 1389 syndrome-negative controls) were included. Control groups differed across characteristics including age, race/ethnicity, employment, previous hospitalizations, medical conditions, and immunosuppression. However, control-group-specific VE estimates were very similar. Among immunocompetent patients aged 18-64 years, VE was 93 % (95 % CI: 90-94) using syndrome-negative controls and 91 % (95 % CI: 88-93) using test-negative controls. CONCLUSIONS: Despite demographic and clinical differences between control groups, the use of either control group produced similar VE estimates across age groups and immunosuppression status. These findings support the use of test-negative controls and increase confidence in COVID-19 VE estimates produced by test-negative design studies.

Effectiveness of Monovalent mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Among Immunocompetent Adults During BA.1/BA.2 and BA.4/BA.5 Predominant Periods of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant in the United States - IVY Network, 18 States, December 26, 2021-August 31, 2022.

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (B.1.1.529 or BA.1) became predominant in the United States by late December 2021 (1). BA.1 has since been replaced by emerging lineages BA.2 (including BA.2.12.1) in March 2022, followed by BA.4 and BA.5, which have accounted for a majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections since late June 2022 (1). Data on the effectiveness of monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against BA.4/BA.5-associated hospitalizations are limited, and their interpretation is complicated by waning of vaccine-induced immunity (2-5). Further, infections with earlier Omicron lineages, including BA.1 and BA.2, reduce vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates because certain persons in the referent unvaccinated group have protection from infection-induced immunity. The IVY Network† assessed effectiveness of 2, 3, and 4 doses of monovalent mRNA vaccines compared with no vaccination against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during December 26, 2021-August 31, 2022. During the BA.1/BA.2 period, VE 14-150 days after a second dose was 63% and decreased to 34% after 150 days. Similarly, VE 7-120 days after a third dose was 79% and decreased to 41% after 120 days. VE 7-120 days after a fourth dose was 61%. During the BA.4/BA.5 period, similar trends were observed, although CIs for VE estimates between categories of time since the last dose overlapped. VE 14-150 days and >150 days after a second dose was 83% and 37%, respectively. VE 7-120 days and >120 days after a third dose was 60%and 29%, respectively. VE 7-120 days after the fourth dose was 61%. Protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization waned even after a third dose. The newly authorized bivalent COVID-19 vaccines include mRNA from the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain and from shared mRNA components between BA.4 and BA.5 lineages and are expected to be more immunogenic against BA.4/BA.5 than monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (6-8). All eligible adults aged ≥18 years§ should receive a booster dose, which currently consists of a bivalent mRNA vaccine, to maximize protection against BA.4/BA.5 and prevent COVID-19-associated hospitalization.

Effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine for Preventing COVID-19 Hospitalizations and Progression to High Disease Severity in the United States.

Background . Adults in the United States (US) began receiving the adenovirus vector coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson [Janssen]), in February 2021. We evaluated Ad26.COV2.S vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalization and high disease severity during the first 10 months of its use. Methods . In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults (≥18 years) hospitalized 11 March to 15 December 2021, we estimated VE against susceptibility to COVID-19 hospitalization (VEs), comparing odds of prior vaccination with a single dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine between hospitalized cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we estimated VE against disease progression (VEp) to death or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), comparing odds of prior vaccination between patients with and without progression. Results . After excluding patients receiving mRNA vaccines, among 3979 COVID-19 case-patients (5% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S) and 2229 controls (13% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S), VEs of Ad26.COV2.S against COVID-19 hospitalization was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63-75%) overall, including 55% (29-72%) among immunocompromised patients, and 72% (64-77%) among immunocompetent patients, for whom VEs was similar at 14-90 days (73% [59-82%]), 91-180 days (71% [60-80%]), and 181-274 days (70% [54-81%]) postvaccination. Among hospitalized COVID-19 case-patients, VEp was 46% (18-65%) among immunocompetent patients. Conclusions . The Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization by 72% among immunocompetent adults without waning through 6 months postvaccination. After hospitalization for COVID-19, vaccinated immunocompetent patients were less likely to require IMV or die compared to unvaccinated immunocompetent patients.

Vaccine effectiveness of primary series and booster doses against covid-19 associated hospital admissions in the United States: living test negative design study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of a primary covid-19 vaccine series plus booster doses with a primary series alone for the prevention of hospital admission with omicron related covid-19 in the United States. DESIGN: Multicenter observational case-control study with a test negative design. SETTING: Hospitals in 18 US states. PARTICIPANTS: 4760 adults admitted to one of 21 hospitals with acute respiratory symptoms between 26 December 2021 and 30 June 2022, a period when the omicron variant was dominant. Participants included 2385 (50.1%) patients with laboratory confirmed covid-19 (cases) and 2375 (49.9%) patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 (controls). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was vaccine effectiveness against hospital admission with covid-19 for a primary series plus booster doses and a primary series alone by comparing the odds of being vaccinated with each of these regimens versus being unvaccinated among cases versus controls. Vaccine effectiveness analyses were stratified by immunosuppression status (immunocompetent, immunocompromised). The primary analysis evaluated all covid-19 vaccine types combined, and secondary analyses evaluated specific vaccine products. RESULTS: Overall, median age of participants was 64 years (interquartile range 52-75 years), 994 (20.8%) were immunocompromised, 85 (1.8%) were vaccinated with a primary series plus two boosters, 1367 (28.7%) with a primary series plus one booster, and 1875 (39.3%) with a primary series alone, and 1433 (30.1%) were unvaccinated. Among immunocompetent participants, vaccine effectiveness for prevention of hospital admission with omicron related covid-19 for a primary series plus two boosters was 63% (95% confidence interval 37% to 78%), a primary series plus one booster was 65% (58% to 71%), and for a primary series alone was 37% (25% to 47%) (P<0.001 for the pooled boosted regimens compared with a primary series alone). Vaccine effectiveness was higher for a boosted regimen than for a primary series alone for both mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech): 73% (44% to 87%) for primary series plus two boosters, 64% (55% to 72%) for primary series plus one booster, and 36% (21% to 48%) for primary series alone (P<0.001); mRNA-1273 (Moderna): 68% (17% to 88%) for primary series plus two boosters, 65% (55% to 73%) for primary series plus one booster, and 41% (25% to 54%) for primary series alone (P=0.001)). Among immunocompromised patients, vaccine effectiveness for a primary series plus one booster was 69% (31% to 86%) and for a primary series alone was 49% (30% to 63%) (P=0.04). CONCLUSION: During the first six months of 2022 in the US, booster doses of a covid-19 vaccine provided additional benefit beyond a primary vaccine series alone for preventing hospital admissions with omicron related covid-19. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living test negative design study that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

Decision support system to evaluate ventilation in the acute respiratory distress syndrome (DeVENT study)-trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) occurs in response to a variety of insults, and mechanical ventilation is life-saving in this setting, but ventilator-induced lung injury can also contribute to the morbidity and mortality in the condition. The Beacon Caresystem is a model-based bedside decision support system using mathematical models tuned to the individual patient's physiology to advise on appropriate ventilator settings. Personalised approaches using individual patient description may be particularly advantageous in complex patients, including those who are difficult to mechanically ventilate and wean, in particular ARDS. METHODS: We will conduct a multi-centre international randomised, controlled, allocation concealed, open, pragmatic clinical trial to compare mechanical ventilation in ARDS patients following application of the Beacon Caresystem to that of standard routine care to investigate whether use of the system results in a reduction in driving pressure across all severities and phases of ARDS. DISCUSSION: Despite 20 years of clinical trial data showing significant improvements in ARDS mortality through mitigation of ventilator-induced lung injury, there remains a gap in its personalised application at the bedside. Importantly, the protective effects of higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) were noted only when there were associated decreases in driving pressure. Hence, the pressures set on the ventilator should be determined by the diseased lungs' pressure-volume relationship which is often unknown or difficult to determine. Knowledge of extent of recruitable lung could improve the ventilator driving pressure. Hence, personalised management demands the application of mechanical ventilation according to the physiological state of the diseased lung at that time. Hence, there is significant rationale for the development of point-of-care clinical decision support systems which help personalise ventilatory strategy according to the current physiology. Furthermore, the potential for the application of the Beacon Caresystem to facilitate local and remote management of large numbers of ventilated patients (as seen during this COVID-19 pandemic) could change the outcome of mechanically ventilated patients during the course of this and future pandemics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04115709. Registered on 4 October 2019, version 4.0.

Neutralizing COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Blinded, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been one of the most common treatments for COVID-19, but most clinical trial data to date have not supported its efficacy. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is rigorously selected COVID-19 convalescent plasma with neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial among adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection and acute respiratory symptoms for < 14 days. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to receive one unit of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (n = 487) or placebo (n = 473). The primary outcome was clinical status (disease severity) 14 days following study infusion measured with a seven-category ordinal scale ranging from discharged from the hospital with resumption of normal activities (lowest score) to death (highest score). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable ordinal regression model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) < 1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with convalescent plasma than with placebo. In secondary analyses, trial participants were stratified according to the presence of endogenous anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies ("serostatus") at randomization. The trial included 13 secondary efficacy outcomes, including 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 974 randomized patients, 960 were included in the primary analysis. Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not differ between the convalescent plasma and placebo groups in the overall population (aOR, 1.04; one-seventh support interval [1/7 SI], 0.82-1.33), in patients without endogenous antibodies (aOR, 1.15; 1/7 SI, 0.74-1.80), or in patients with endogenous antibodies (aOR, 0.96; 1/7 SI, 0.72-1.30). None of the 13 secondary efficacy outcomes were different between groups. At 28 days, 89 of 482 (18.5%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and 80 of 465 (17.2%) patients in the placebo group had died (aOR, 1.04; 1/7 SI, 0.69-1.58). INTERPRETATION: Among adults hospitalized with COVID-19, including those seronegative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, treatment with convalescent plasma did not improve clinical outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04362176; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Understanding the Perseverance of the Muscular Dystrophy Community One-Year into the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we examined the long-term social and health impacts of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on people with muscular dystrophy. METHODS: We modified our prior COVID-19 Impact Survey to assess impacts from the continuing pandemic using feedback from muscular dystrophy experts, patients, and advocacy group/registry representatives. The survey assessed COVID-19 medical history, and the effects of the pandemic on social aspects, muscle disease, and medical care. We also used the validated 10-item Perceived Stress Scale. The de-identified, electronic survey was distributed to adults with muscular dystrophy via international patient registries and advocacy group websites from February 8, 2021 to March 22, 2021. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 1243 : 49% Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy (FSHD); 43% Myotonic Dystrophy (DM), and 8% Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophy (LGMD)) were mostly women and middle-aged (range 18-90 years). Rates of COVID-19 infections were low at 8% with zero deaths. Reported recovery times were also short with only 9% reporting a recovery period greater than eight weeks, and 7% requiring hospitalization with one individual requiring a ventilator. Major challenges reported during the pandemic included stress management, particularly for those with LGMD (27%), and wearing a mask (24%). The majority reported a slight worsening of their disease state. Respondents reported moderate stress levels (stress score = 16.4; range = 0-39), with higher stress levels reported by women and those under age 30 years. Seventy-percent of participants who had telemedicine visits were satisfied with the encounters; however, most reported a preference for in-person visits. CONCLUSIONS: People with muscular dystrophy found ways to manage their stress and overcome obstacles during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 infection rates and medical complications were similar to a general population. Telemedicine visits may have a more permanent role in care.