Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 33
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 76(10): 1822-1831, 2023 05 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20236763

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Data on antibody kinetics are limited among individuals previously infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). From a cohort of healthcare personnel and other frontline workers in 6 US states, we assessed antibody waning after messenger RNA (mRNA) dose 2 and response to dose 3 according to SARS-CoV-2 infection history. METHODS: Participants submitted sera every 3 months, after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and after each mRNA vaccine dose. Sera were tested for antibodies and reported as area under the serial dilution curve (AUC). Changes in AUC values over time were compared using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Analysis included 388 participants who received dose 3 by November 2021. There were 3 comparison groups: vaccine only with no known prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 224); infection prior to dose 1 (n = 123); and infection after dose 2 and before dose 3 (n = 41). The interval from dose 2 and dose 3 was approximately 8 months. After dose 3, antibody levels rose 2.5-fold (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.2-3.0) in group 2 and 2.9-fold (95% CI = 2.6-3.3) in group 1. Those infected within 90 days before dose 3 (and median 233 days [interquartile range, 213-246] after dose 2) did not increase significantly after dose 3. CONCLUSIONS: A third dose of mRNA vaccine typically elicited a robust humoral immune response among those with primary vaccination regardless of SARS-CoV-2 infection >3 months prior to boosting. Those with infection <3 months prior to boosting did not have a significant increase in antibody concentrations in response to a booster.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , Antibody Formation , SARS-CoV-2 , RNA, Messenger , mRNA Vaccines , Antibodies, Viral
2.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 206(6): 730-739, 2022 09 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2257568

ABSTRACT

Rationale: Uncertainty regarding the natural history of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to difficulty in efficacy endpoint selection for therapeutic trials. Capturing outcomes that occur after hospital discharge may improve assessment of clinical recovery among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Objectives: Evaluate 90-day clinical course of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, comparing three distinct definitions of recovery. Methods: We used pooled data from three clinical trials of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies to compare: 1) the hospital discharge approach; 2) the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19) trials sustained recovery approach; and 3) a comprehensive approach. At the time of enrollment, all patients were hospitalized in a non-ICU setting without organ failure or major extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. We defined discordance as a difference between time to recovery. Measurements and Main Results: Discordance between the hospital discharge and comprehensive approaches occurred in 170 (20%) of 850 enrolled participants, including 126 hospital readmissions and 24 deaths after initial hospital discharge. Discordant participants were older (median age, 68 vs. 59 years; P < 0.001) and more had a comorbidity (84% vs. 70%; P < 0.001). Of 170 discordant participants, 106 (62%) had postdischarge events captured by the TICO approach. Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 20% had clinically significant postdischarge events within 90 days after randomization in patients who would be considered "recovered" using the hospital discharge approach. Using the TICO approach balances length of follow-up with practical limitations. However, clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics should use follow-up times up to 90 days to assess clinical recovery more accurately.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aftercare , Aged , Antibodies, Monoclonal , Humans , Patient Discharge , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
3.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 29(3): 599-604, 2023 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2215194

ABSTRACT

In a cohort of essential workers in the United States previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, risk factors for reinfection included being unvaccinated, infrequent mask use, time since first infection, and being non-Hispanic Black. Protecting workers from reinfection requires a multipronged approach including up-to-date vaccination, mask use as recommended, and reduction in underlying health disparities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Reinfection , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Risk Factors
4.
Ann Intern Med ; 175(10): 1401-1410, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2080840

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Levels of plasma SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) antigen may be an important biomarker in patients with COVID-19 and enhance our understanding of the pathogenesis of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether levels of plasma antigen can predict short-term clinical outcomes and identify clinical and viral factors associated with plasma antigen levels in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of baseline plasma antigen level from 2540 participants enrolled in the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients With COVID-19) platform trial from August 2020 to November 2021, with additional data on day 5 outcome and time to discharge. SETTING: 114 centers in 10 countries. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection with 12 days or less of symptoms. MEASUREMENTS: Baseline plasma viral N antigen level was measured at a central laboratory. Delta variant status was determined from baseline nasal swabs using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Associations between baseline patient characteristics and viral factors and baseline plasma antigen levels were assessed using both unadjusted and multivariable modeling. Association between elevated baseline antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater and outcomes, including worsening of ordinal pulmonary scale at day 5 and time to hospital discharge, were evaluated using logistic regression and Fine-Gray regression models, respectively. RESULTS: Plasma antigen was below the level of quantification in 5% of participants at enrollment, and 1000 ng/L or greater in 57%. Baseline pulmonary severity of illness was strongly associated with plasma antigen level, with mean plasma antigen level 3.10-fold higher among those requiring noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula compared with room air (95% CI, 2.22 to 4.34). Plasma antigen level was higher in those who lacked antispike antibodies (6.42 fold; CI, 5.37 to 7.66) and in those with the Delta variant (1.73 fold; CI, 1.41 to 2.13). Additional factors associated with higher baseline antigen level included male sex, shorter time since hospital admission, decreased days of remdesivir, and renal impairment. In contrast, race, ethnicity, body mass index, and immunocompromising conditions were not associated with plasma antigen levels. Plasma antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater was associated with a markedly higher odds of worsened pulmonary status at day 5 (odds ratio, 5.06 [CI, 3.41 to 7.50]) and longer time to hospital discharge (median, 7 vs. 4 days; subhazard ratio, 0.51 [CI, 0.45 to 0.57]), with subhazard ratios similar across all levels of baseline pulmonary severity. LIMITATIONS: Plasma samples were drawn at enrollment, not hospital presentation. No point-of-care test to measure plasma antigen is currently available. CONCLUSION: Elevated plasma antigen is highly associated with both severity of pulmonary illness and clinically important patient outcomes. Multiple clinical and viral factors are associated with plasma antigen level at presentation. These data support a potential role of ongoing viral replication in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , COVID-19/therapy , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Male , Nucleocapsid , SARS-CoV-2
5.
JAMA ; 328(15): 1523-1533, 2022 10 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2074838

ABSTRACT

Importance: Data on the epidemiology of mild to moderately severe COVID-19 are needed to inform public health guidance. Objective: To evaluate associations between 2 or 3 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and attenuation of symptoms and viral RNA load across SARS-CoV-2 viral lineages. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective cohort study of essential and frontline workers in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, Texas, and Utah with COVID-19 infection confirmed by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing and lineage classified by whole genome sequencing of specimens self-collected weekly and at COVID-19 illness symptom onset. This analysis was conducted among 1199 participants with SARS-CoV-2 from December 14, 2020, to April 19, 2022, with follow-up until May 9, 2022, reported. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 lineage (origin strain, Delta variant, Omicron variant) and COVID-19 vaccination status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical outcomes included presence of symptoms, specific symptoms (including fever or chills), illness duration, and medical care seeking. Virologic outcomes included viral load by quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing along with viral viability. Results: Among 1199 participants with COVID-19 infection (714 [59.5%] women; median age, 41 years), 14.0% were infected with the origin strain, 24.0% with the Delta variant, and 62.0% with the Omicron variant. Participants vaccinated with the second vaccine dose 14 to 149 days before Delta infection were significantly less likely to be symptomatic compared with unvaccinated participants (21/27 [77.8%] vs 74/77 [96.1%]; OR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0-0.6]) and, when symptomatic, those vaccinated with the third dose 7 to 149 days before infection were significantly less likely to report fever or chills (5/13 [38.5%] vs 62/73 [84.9%]; OR, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.0-0.3]) and reported significantly fewer days of symptoms (10.2 vs 16.4; difference, -6.1 [95% CI, -11.8 to -0.4] days). Among those with Omicron infection, the risk of symptomatic infection did not differ significantly for the 2-dose vaccination status vs unvaccinated status and was significantly higher for the 3-dose recipients vs those who were unvaccinated (327/370 [88.4%] vs 85/107 [79.4%]; OR, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.1-3.5]). Among symptomatic Omicron infections, those vaccinated with the third dose 7 to 149 days before infection compared with those who were unvaccinated were significantly less likely to report fever or chills (160/311 [51.5%] vs 64/81 [79.0%]; OR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.1-0.5]) or seek medical care (45/308 [14.6%] vs 20/81 [24.7%]; OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.2-0.9]). Participants with Delta and Omicron infections who received the second dose 14 to 149 days before infection had a significantly lower mean viral load compared with unvaccinated participants (3 vs 4.1 log10 copies/µL; difference, -1.0 [95% CI, -1.7 to -0.2] for Delta and 2.8 vs 3.5 log10 copies/µL, difference, -1.0 [95% CI, -1.7 to -0.3] for Omicron). Conclusions and Relevance: In a cohort of US essential and frontline workers with SARS-CoV-2 infections, recent vaccination with 2 or 3 mRNA vaccine doses less than 150 days before infection with Delta or Omicron variants, compared with being unvaccinated, was associated with attenuated symptoms, duration of illness, medical care seeking, or viral load for some comparisons, although the precision and statistical significance of specific estimates varied.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Vaccination , Viral Load , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/genetics , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Prospective Studies , RNA, Viral/analysis , RNA, Viral/genetics , RNA-Directed DNA Polymerase , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , United States/epidemiology , Viral Load/drug effects , Viral Load/genetics , Viral Load/statistics & numerical data , Whole Genome Sequencing , Asymptomatic Infections/epidemiology , Asymptomatic Infections/therapy , Time Factors , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data
6.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(1): e224-e233, 2022 08 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2017763

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The public health impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has motivated a rapid search for potential therapeutics, with some key successes. However, the potential impact of different treatments, and consequently research and procurement priorities, have not been clear. METHODS: Using a mathematical model of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, COVID-19 disease and clinical care, we explore the public-health impact of different potential therapeutics, under a range of scenarios varying healthcare capacity, epidemic trajectories; and drug efficacy in the absence of supportive care. RESULTS: The impact of drugs like dexamethasone (delivered to the most critically-ill in hospital and whose therapeutic benefit is expected to depend on the availability of supportive care such as oxygen and mechanical ventilation) is likely to be limited in settings where healthcare capacity is lowest or where uncontrolled epidemics result in hospitals being overwhelmed. As such, it may avert 22% of deaths in high-income countries but only 8% in low-income countries (assuming R = 1.35). Therapeutics for different patient populations (those not in hospital, early in the course of infection) and types of benefit (reducing disease severity or infectiousness, preventing hospitalization) could have much greater benefits, particularly in resource-poor settings facing large epidemics. CONCLUSIONS: Advances in the treatment of COVID-19 to date have been focused on hospitalized-patients and predicated on an assumption of adequate access to supportive care. Therapeutics delivered earlier in the course of infection that reduce the need for healthcare or reduce infectiousness could have significant impact, and research into their efficacy and means of delivery should be a priority.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , SARS-CoV-2 , Cost of Illness , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pharmaceutical Preparations
7.
Microbiol Spectr ; 10(3): e0103322, 2022 06 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1879118

ABSTRACT

Respiratory specimen collection materials shortages hampers severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing. We compared specimen alternatives and evaluated SARS-CoV-2 RNA stability under simulated shipping conditions. We compared concordance of RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 from flocked midturbinate swabs (MTS) in viral transport media (VTM), foam MTS without VTM, and saliva. Specimens were collected between August 2020 and April 2021 from three prospective cohorts. We compared RT-PCR cycle quantification (Cq) for Spike (S), Nucleocapsid (N), and the Open Reading Frame 1ab (ORF) genes for flocked MTS and saliva specimens tested before and after exposure to a range of storage temperatures (4-30°C) and times (2, 3, and 7 days). Of 1,900 illnesses with ≥2 specimen types tested, 335 (18%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected in ≥1 specimen; 304 (91%) were concordant across specimen types. Among illnesses with SARS-CoV-2 detection, 97% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 94-98%) were positive on flocked MTS, 99% (95% CI: 97-100%) on saliva, and 89% (95% CI: 84-93%) on foam MTS. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in flocked MTS and saliva stored up to 30°C for 7 days. All specimen types provided highly concordant SARS-CoV-2 results. These findings support a range of viable options for specimen types, collection, and transport methods that may facilitate SARS-CoV-2 testing during supply and personnel shortages. IMPORTANCE Findings from this analysis indicate that (1) self-collection of flocked and foam MTS and saliva samples is feasible in both adults and children, (2) foam MTS with VTM and saliva are both viable and reasonable alternatives to traditional flocked MTS in VTM for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and (3) these sample types may be stored and transported at ambient temperatures for up to 7 days without compromising sample quality. These findings support methods of sample collection for SARS-CoV-2 detection that may facilitate widespread community testing in the setting of supply and personnel shortages during the current pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Child , Humans , Prospective Studies , RNA, Viral/analysis , RNA, Viral/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Saliva , Specimen Handling/methods
8.
JMIR Res Protoc ; 11(7): e37929, 2022 Jul 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1875305

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Assessing the real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and understanding the incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 illness in children are essential to inform policy and guide health care professionals in advising parents and caregivers of children who test positive for SARS-CoV-2. OBJECTIVE: This report describes the objectives and methods for conducting the Pediatric Research Observing Trends and Exposures in COVID-19 Timelines (PROTECT) study. PROTECT is a longitudinal prospective pediatric cohort study designed to estimate SARS-CoV-2 incidence and COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against infection among children aged 6 months to 17 years, as well as differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccine response between children and adolescents. METHODS: The PROTECT multisite network was initiated in July 2021, which aims to enroll approximately 2305 children across four US locations and collect data over a 2-year surveillance period. The enrollment target was based on prospective power calculations and accounts for expected attrition and nonresponse. Study sites recruit parents and legal guardians of age-eligible children participating in the existing Arizona Healthcare, Emergency Response, and Other Essential Workers Surveillance (HEROES)-Research on the Epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in Essential Response Personnel (RECOVER) network as well as from surrounding communities. Child demographics, medical history, COVID-19 exposure, vaccination history, and parents/legal guardians' knowledge and attitudes about COVID-19 are collected at baseline and throughout the study. Mid-turbinate nasal specimens are self-collected or collected by parents/legal guardians weekly, regardless of symptoms, for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza testing via reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay, and the presence of COVID-like illness (CLI) is reported. Children who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 or influenza, or report CLI are monitored weekly by online surveys to report exposure and medical utilization until no longer ill. Children, with permission of their parents/legal guardians, may elect to contribute blood at enrollment, following SARS-CoV-2 infection, following COVID-19 vaccination, and at the end of the study period. PROTECT uses electronic medical record (EMR) linkages where available, and verifies COVID-19 and influenza vaccinations through EMR or state vaccine registries. RESULTS: Data collection began in July 2021 and is expected to continue through the spring of 2023. As of April 13, 2022, 2371 children are enrolled in PROTECT. Enrollment is ongoing at all study sites. CONCLUSIONS: As COVID-19 vaccine products are authorized for use in pediatric populations, PROTECT study data will provide real-world estimates of VE in preventing infection. In addition, this prospective cohort provides a unique opportunity to further understand SARS-CoV-2 incidence, clinical course, and key knowledge gaps that may inform public health. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/37929.

9.
BMJ Open ; 12(5): e055716, 2022 05 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1832449

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During adolescence, sleep and circadian timing shift later, contributing to restricted sleep duration and irregular sleep-wake patterns. The association of these developmental changes in sleep and circadian timing with cognitive functioning, and consequently academic outcomes, has not been examined prospectively. The role of ambient light exposure in these developmental changes is also not well understood. Here, we describe the protocol for the Circadian Light in Adolescence, Sleep and School (CLASS) Study that will use a longitudinal design to examine the associations of sleep-wake timing, circadian timing and light exposure with academic performance and sleepiness during a critical stage of development. We also describe protocol adaptations to enable remote data collection when required during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Approximately 220 healthy adolescents aged 12-13 years (school Year 7) will be recruited from the general community in Melbourne, Australia. Participants will be monitored at five 6 monthly time points over 2 years. Sleep and light exposure will be assessed for 2 weeks during the school term, every 6 months, along with self-report questionnaires of daytime sleepiness. Circadian phase will be measured via dim light melatonin onset once each year. Academic performance will be measured via national standardised testing (National Assessment Program-Literacy and Numeracy) and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Australian and New Zealand Standardised Third Edition in school Years 7 and 9. Secondary outcomes, including symptoms of depression, anxiety and sleep disorders, will be measured via questionnaires. DISCUSSION: The CLASS Study will enable a comprehensive longitudinal assessment of changes in sleep-wake timing, circadian phase, light exposure and academic performance across a key developmental stage in adolescence. Findings may inform policies and intervention strategies for secondary school-aged adolescents. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee and the Victorian Department of Education. Dissemination plans include scientific publications, scientific conferences, via stakeholders including schools and media. STUDY DATES: Recruitment occurred between October 2019 and September 2021, data collection from 2019 to 2023.


Subject(s)
Academic Performance , COVID-19 , Melatonin , Adolescent , Australia , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Circadian Rhythm , Humans , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Schools , Sleep
10.
J Infect Prev ; 23(4): 190-191, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1785102
11.
Ann Intern Med ; 175(2): 234-243, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1753917

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial, bamlanivimab, a SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing monoclonal antibody, given in combination with remdesivir, did not improve outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 based on an early futility assessment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the a priori hypothesis that bamlanivimab has greater benefit in patients without detectable levels of endogenous neutralizing antibody (nAb) at study entry than in those with antibodies, especially if viral levels are high. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multicenter trial. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. INTERVENTION: Bamlanivimab (7000 mg) or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Antibody, antigen, and viral RNA levels were centrally measured on stored specimens collected at baseline. Patients were followed for 90 days for sustained recovery (defined as discharge to home and remaining home for 14 consecutive days) and a composite safety outcome (death, serious adverse events, organ failure, or serious infections). RESULTS: Among 314 participants (163 receiving bamlanivimab and 151 placebo), the median time to sustained recovery was 19 days and did not differ between the bamlanivimab and placebo groups (subhazard ratio [sHR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.22]; sHR > 1 favors bamlanivimab). At entry, 50% evidenced production of anti-spike nAbs; 50% had SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid plasma antigen levels of at least 1000 ng/L. Among those without and with nAbs at study entry, the sHRs were 1.24 (CI, 0.90 to 1.70) and 0.74 (CI, 0.54 to 1.00), respectively (nominal P for interaction = 0.018). The sHR (bamlanivimab vs. placebo) was also more than 1 for those with plasma antigen or nasal viral RNA levels above median level at entry and was greatest for those without antibodies and with elevated levels of antigen (sHR, 1.48 [CI, 0.99 to 2.23]) or viral RNA (sHR, 1.89 [CI, 1.23 to 2.91]). Hazard ratios for the composite safety outcome (<1 favors bamlanivimab) also differed by serostatus at entry: 0.67 (CI, 0.37 to 1.20) for those without and 1.79 (CI, 0.92 to 3.48) for those with nAbs. LIMITATION: Subgroup analysis of a trial prematurely stopped because of futility; small sample size; multiple subgroups analyzed. CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab may differ depending on whether an endogenous nAb response has been mounted. The limited sample size of the study does not allow firm conclusions based on these findings, and further independent trials are required that assess other types of passive immune therapies in the same patient setting. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Aged , Alanine/adverse effects , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , Antibodies, Neutralizing/adverse effects , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antigens, Viral/blood , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Biomarkers/blood , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/virology , Double-Blind Method , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Humans , Male , Medical Futility , Middle Aged , RNA, Viral/blood , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Failure
12.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 71(11): 422-428, 2022 Mar 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1744553

ABSTRACT

The BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was recommended by CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for persons aged 12-15 years (referred to as adolescents in this report) on May 12, 2021, and for children aged 5-11 years on November 2, 2021 (1-4). Real-world data on vaccine effectiveness (VE) in these age groups are needed, especially because when the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant became predominant in the United States in December 2021, early investigations of VE demonstrated a decline in protection against symptomatic infection for adolescents aged 12-15 years and adults* (5). The PROTECT† prospective cohort of 1,364 children and adolescents aged 5-15 years was tested weekly for SARS-CoV-2, irrespective of symptoms, and upon COVID-19-associated illness during July 25, 2021-February 12, 2022. Among unvaccinated participants (i.e., those who had received no COVID-19 vaccine doses) with any laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, those with B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant infections were more likely to report COVID-19 symptoms (66%) than were those with Omicron infections (49%). Among fully vaccinated children aged 5-11 years, VE against any symptomatic and asymptomatic Omicron infection 14-82 days (the longest interval after dose 2 in this age group) after receipt of dose 2 of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 31% (95% CI = 9%-48%), adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, health information, frequency of social contact, mask use, location, and local virus circulation. Among adolescents aged 12-15 years, adjusted VE 14-149 days after dose 2 was 87% (95% CI = 49%-97%) against symptomatic and asymptomatic Delta infection and 59% (95% CI = 22%-79%) against Omicron infection. Fully vaccinated participants with Omicron infection spent an average of one half day less sick in bed than did unvaccinated participants with Omicron infection. All eligible children and adolescents should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations.


Subject(s)
BNT162 Vaccine/administration & dosage , BNT162 Vaccine/therapeutic use , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Vaccine Efficacy , Adolescent , Child , Child, Preschool , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Prospective Studies , United States
13.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 16(3): 585-593, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1621931

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate the impact of changes in estimates of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness on the incidence of laboratory-confirmed infection among frontline workers at high risk for SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We analyzed data from a prospective frontline worker cohort to estimate the incidence of COVID-19 by month as well as the association of COVID-19 vaccination, occupation, demographics, physical distancing, and mask use with infection risk. Participants completed baseline and quarterly surveys, and each week self-collected mid-turbinate nasal swabs and reported symptoms. RESULTS: Among 1018 unvaccinated and 3531 fully vaccinated workers, the monthly incidence of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in January 2021 was 13.9 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.4-17.4), declining to 0.5 (95% CI -0.4-1.4) per 1000 person-weeks in June. By September 2021, when the Delta variant predominated, incidence had once again risen to 13.6 (95% CI 7.8-19.4) per 1000 person-weeks. In contrast, there was no reportable incidence among fully vaccinated participants at the end of January 2021, and incidence remained low until September 2021 when it rose modestly to 4.1 (95% CI 1.9-3.8) per 1000. Below average facemask use was associated with a higher risk of infection for unvaccinated participants during exposure to persons who may have COVID-19 and vaccinated participants during hours in the community. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination was significantly associated with a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection despite Delta variant predominance. Our data demonstrate the added protective benefit of facemask use among both unvaccinated and vaccinated frontline workers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Responders , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Incidence , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Vaccination
14.
PLoS One ; 16(12): e0260820, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1581771

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused widespread disruptions including to health services. In the early response to the pandemic many countries restricted population movements and some health services were suspended or limited. In late 2020 and early 2021 some countries re-imposed restrictions. Health authorities need to balance the potential harms of additional SARS-CoV-2 transmission due to contacts associated with health services against the benefits of those services, including fewer new HIV infections and deaths. This paper examines these trade-offs for select HIV services. METHODS: We used four HIV simulation models (Goals, HIV Synthesis, Optima HIV and EMOD) to estimate the benefits of continuing HIV services in terms of fewer new HIV infections and deaths. We used three COVID-19 transmission models (Covasim, Cooper/Smith and a simple contact model) to estimate the additional deaths due to SARS-CoV-2 transmission among health workers and clients. We examined four HIV services: voluntary medical male circumcision, HIV diagnostic testing, viral load testing and programs to prevent mother-to-child transmission. We compared COVID-19 deaths in 2020 and 2021 with HIV deaths occurring now and over the next 50 years discounted to present value. The models were applied to countries with a range of HIV and COVID-19 epidemics. RESULTS: Maintaining these HIV services could lead to additional COVID-19 deaths of 0.002 to 0.15 per 10,000 clients. HIV-related deaths averted are estimated to be much larger, 19-146 discounted deaths per 10,000 clients. DISCUSSION: While there is some additional short-term risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission associated with providing HIV services, the risk of additional COVID-19 deaths is at least 100 times less than the HIV deaths averted by those services. Ministries of Health need to take into account many factors in deciding when and how to offer essential health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. This work shows that the benefits of continuing key HIV services are far larger than the risks of additional SARS-CoV-2 transmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/transmission , Health Services Accessibility/trends , Health Services/trends , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , HIV Infections/complications , HIV Infections/epidemiology , HIV Infections/therapy , HIV-1/pathogenicity , Health Services Administration , Humans , Models, Theoretical , Pandemics/prevention & control , Risk Assessment/methods , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity
15.
Vaccine ; 40(3): 494-502, 2022 01 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1560704

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: In a multi-center prospective cohort of essential workers, we assessed knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) by vaccine intention, prior SARS-CoV-2 positivity, and occupation, and their impact on vaccine uptake over time. METHODS: Initiated in July 2020, the HEROES-RECOVER cohort provided socio-demographics and COVID-19 vaccination data. Using two follow-up surveys approximately three months apart, COVID-19 vaccine KAP, intention, and receipt was collected; the first survey categorized participants as reluctant, reachable, or endorser. RESULTS: A total of 4,803 participants were included in the analysis. Most (70%) were vaccine endorsers, 16% were reachable, and 14% were reluctant. By May 2021, 77% had received at least one vaccine dose. KAP responses strongly predicted vaccine uptake, particularly positive attitudes about safety (aOR = 5.46, 95% CI: 1.4-20.8) and effectiveness (aOR = 5.0, 95% CI: 1.3-19.1). Participants' with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection were 22% less likely to believe the COVID-19 vaccine was effective compared with uninfected participants (aOR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64-0.96). This was even more pronounced in first responders compared with other occupations, with first responders 42% less likely to believe in COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (aOR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.40-0.84). Between administrations of the two surveys, 25% of reluctant, 56% reachable, and 83% of endorser groups received the COVID-19 vaccine. The reachable group had large increases in positive responses for questions about vaccine safety (10% of vaccinated, 34% of unvaccinated), and vaccine effectiveness (12% of vaccinated, 27% of unvaccinated). DISCUSSION: Our study demonstrates attitudes associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake and a positive shift in attitudes over time. First responders, despite potential high exposure to SARS-CoV-2, and participants with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection were more vaccine reluctant. CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine can shift over time. Targeting messages about the vaccine's safety and effectiveness in reducing SARS-CoV-2 virus infection and illness severity may increase vaccine uptake for reluctant and reachable participants.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination , Vaccine Efficacy
16.
JMIR Res Protoc ; 10(12): e31574, 2021 Dec 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1555360

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Workers critical to emergency response and continuity of essential services during the COVID-19 pandemic are at a disproportionally high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Prospective cohort studies are needed for enhancing the understanding of the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, identifying risk factors, assessing clinical outcomes, and determining the effectiveness of vaccination. OBJECTIVE: The Research on the Epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in Essential Response Personnel (RECOVER) prospective cohort study was designed to estimate the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, examine the risk factors for infection and clinical spectrum of illness, and assess the effectiveness of vaccination among essential workers. METHODS: The RECOVER multisite network was initiated in August 2020 and aims to enroll 3000 health care personnel (HCP), first responders, and other essential and frontline workers (EFWs) at 6 US locations. Data on participant demographics, medical history, and vaccination history are collected at baseline and throughout the study. Active surveillance for the symptoms of COVID-19-like illness (CLI), access of medical care, and symptom duration is performed by text messages, emails, and direct participant or medical record reports. Participants self-collect a mid-turbinate nasal swab weekly, regardless of symptoms, and 2 additional respiratory specimens at the onset of CLI. Blood is collected upon enrollment, every 3 months, approximately 28 days after a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 14 to 28 days after a dose of any COVID-19 vaccine. From February 2021, household members of RT-PCR-confirmed participants are self-collecting mid-turbinate nasal swabs daily for 10 days. RESULTS: The study observation period began in August 2020 and is expected to continue through spring 2022. There are 2623 actively enrolled RECOVER participants, including 280 participants who have been found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Enrollment is ongoing at 3 of the 6 study sites. CONCLUSIONS: Data collected through the cohort are expected to provide important public health information for essential workers at high risk for occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and allow early evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/31574.

17.
Gut ; 70(Suppl 4):A54-A55, 2021.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1504563

ABSTRACT

PTU-25 Table 1 2018 2019 2020 Total FBI Referral 10 20 31 Total DFBI 2 (20%) 4 (20%) 17 (55%) Number of patients 2 2 9 Objects Batteries Toothbrush, coins Bra wire, batteries, pen, glasses, paperclip, screws, toothbrush, blades Discussion2020 demonstrated a marked increase in OGD for FBI, of which 55% were DFBI compared with 20% in preceding years. All patients were ≤40 years of age. Commonest objects were long e.g. pens or high risk e.g. batteries/razors. However, a wider variety of objects were swallowed during the pandemic.Our outcomes reflect those in published data1, with most procedures successful when objects were known to be in the stomach.DFBI is often spontaneous and stress related, rather than a suicide attempt, on a background of complex personality disorder. It is thought DFBI gives a psychological ‘gain’ in forcing care, with multiple healthcare contacts resulting from the act2.Care plans are common in other forms of DSH but lacking in DFBI. These may benefit repeat attenders, ensuring endoscopy only performed when strictly necessary and minimising the psychological gain from the act.Mental health issues have increased during the pandemic, this has impacted on already stretched endoscopy services with increase in DFBI, possibly due to decreased access to psychiatric services. This act is resource intensive and difficult to manage, a care plan should be considered after admission with DFBI.4. Birk M et al. Removal of foreign bodies in the upper gastrointestinal tract in adults: ESGE Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy. 2016:48;1-81. Poynter B et al. Hard to Swallow: A systematic review of deliberate foreign body ingestion. Gen Hosp Psych. 2011:33(5);518-524Palese C, Al-kawas F. Repeat intentional foreign body ingestion: the importance of a multidisciplinary approach. Gast & Hep. 2012: 8(7);485-489

18.
J Int AIDS Soc ; 24 Suppl 6: e25813, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1487490

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Sisters with a Voice (Sisters), a programme providing community-led differentiated HIV prevention and treatment services, including condoms, HIV testing, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and antiretroviral therapy linkage for sex workers, reached over 26,000 female sex workers (FSW) across Zimbabwe in 2020. Zimbabwe's initial Covid "lockdown" in March 2020 and associated movement restrictions interrupted clinical service provision for 6 weeks, particularly in mobile clinics, triggering the adaptation of services for the Covid-19 context and a scale up of differentiated service delivery (DSD) models. PrEP service delivery decentralized with shifts from clinical settings towards community/home-based, peer-led PrEP services to expand and maintain access. We hypothesize that peer-led community-based provision of PrEP services influenced both demand and supply-side determinants of PrEP uptake. We observed the effect of these adaptations on PrEP uptake among FSW accessing services in Sisters in 2020. METHODS: New FSW PrEP initiations throughout 2020 were tracked by analysing routine Sisters programme data and comparing it with national PrEP initiation data for 2020. We mapped PrEP uptake among all negative FSW attending services in Sisters alongside Covid-19 adaptations and shifts in the operating environment throughout 2020: prior to lockdown (January-March 2020), during severe restrictions (April-June 2020), subsequent easing (July-September 2020) and during drug stockouts that followed (October-December 2020). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: PrEP uptake in 2020 occurred at rates <25% (315 initiations or fewer) per month prior to the emergence of Covid-19. In response to Covid-19 restrictions, DSD models were scaled up in April 2020, including peer demand creation, community-based delivery, multi-month dispensing and the use of virtual platforms for appointment scheduling and post-PrEP initiation support. Beginning May 2020, PrEP uptake increased monthly, peaking at an initiation rate of 51% (n = 1360) in September 2020. Unexpected rise in demand coincided with national commodity shortages between October and December 2020, resulting in restriction of new initiations with sites prioritizing refills. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the impact of Covid-19 on the Sisters Programme and FSW mobility, DSD adaptations led to a large increase in PrEP initiations compared to pre-Covid levels demonstrating that a peer-led, community-based PrEP service delivery model is effective and can be adopted for long-term use.


Subject(s)
Anti-HIV Agents , COVID-19 , HIV Infections , Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis , Sex Workers , Anti-HIV Agents/therapeutic use , Communicable Disease Control , Female , HIV Infections/drug therapy , HIV Infections/prevention & control , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
19.
PLoS Med ; 18(10): e1003831, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1477511

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: UNAIDS has established new program targets for 2025 to achieve the goal of eliminating AIDS as a public health threat by 2030. This study reports on efforts to use mathematical models to estimate the impact of achieving those targets. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We simulated the impact of achieving the targets at country level using the Goals model, a mathematical simulation model of HIV epidemic dynamics that includes the impact of prevention and treatment interventions. For 77 high-burden countries, we fit the model to surveillance and survey data for 1970 to 2020 and then projected the impact of achieving the targets for the period 2019 to 2030. Results from these 77 countries were extrapolated to produce estimates for 96 others. Goals model results were checked by comparing against projections done with the Optima HIV model and the AIDS Epidemic Model (AEM) for selected countries. We included estimates of the impact of societal enablers (access to justice and law reform, stigma and discrimination elimination, and gender equality) and the impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Results show that achieving the 2025 targets would reduce new annual infections by 83% (71% to 86% across regions) and AIDS-related deaths by 78% (67% to 81% across regions) by 2025 compared to 2010. Lack of progress on societal enablers could endanger these achievements and result in as many as 2.6 million (44%) cumulative additional new HIV infections and 440,000 (54%) more AIDS-related deaths between 2020 and 2030 compared to full achievement of all targets. COVID-19-related disruptions could increase new HIV infections and AIDS-related deaths by 10% in the next 2 years, but targets could still be achieved by 2025. Study limitations include the reliance on self-reports for most data on behaviors, the use of intervention effect sizes from published studies that may overstate intervention impacts outside of controlled study settings, and the use of proxy countries to estimate the impact in countries with fewer than 4,000 annual HIV infections. CONCLUSIONS: The new targets for 2025 build on the progress made since 2010 and represent ambitious short-term goals. Achieving these targets would bring us close to the goals of reducing new HIV infections and AIDS-related deaths by 90% between 2010 and 2030. By 2025, global new infections and AIDS deaths would drop to 4.4 and 3.9 per 100,000 population, and the number of people living with HIV (PLHIV) would be declining. There would be 32 million people on treatment, and they would need continuing support for their lifetime. Incidence for the total global population would be below 0.15% everywhere. The number of PLHIV would start declining by 2023.


Subject(s)
Disease Eradication , Global Health , Goals , HIV Infections/prevention & control , Models, Biological , Models, Theoretical , Public Health , Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/epidemiology , Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/prevention & control , Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/therapy , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19 , Cause of Death , Epidemics , Female , HIV Infections/epidemiology , HIV Infections/therapy , Humans , Incidence , Male , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Determinants of Health , United Nations , Young Adult
20.
Clin Trials ; 19(1): 52-61, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1463193

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Safe and effective therapies for COVID-19 are urgently needed. In order to meet this need, the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines public-private partnership initiated the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19. Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 is a multi-arm, multi-stage platform master protocol, which facilitates the rapid evaluation of the safety and efficacy of novel candidate antiviral therapeutic agents for adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Five agents have so far entered the protocol, with rapid answers already provided for three of these. Other agents are expected to enter the protocol throughout 2021. This protocol contains a number of key design and implementation features that, along with challenges faced by the protocol team, are presented and discussed. METHODS: Three clinical trial networks, encompassing a global network of clinical sites, participated in the protocol development and implementation. Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 utilizes a multi-arm, multi-stage design with an agile and robust approach to futility and safety evaluation at 300 patients enrolled, with subsequent expansion to full sample size and an expanded target population if the agent shows an acceptable safety profile and evidence of efficacy. Rapid recruitment to multiple agents is enabled through the sharing of placebo, the confining of agent-specific information to protocol appendices, and modular consent forms. In collaboration with the Food and Drug Administration, a thorough safety data collection and Data and Safety Monitoring Board schedule was developed for the study of potential therapeutic agents with limited in-human data in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: As of 8 August 2021, five agents have entered the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 master protocol and a total of 1909 participants have been randomized to one of these agents or matching placebo. There were a number of challenges faced by the study team that needed to be overcome in order to successfully implement Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 across a global network of sites. These included ensuring drug supply and reliable recruitment allowing for changing infection rates across the global network of sites, the need to balance the collection of data and samples without overburdening clinical staff and obtaining regulatory approvals across a global network of sites. CONCLUSION: Through a robust multi-network partnership, the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 protocol has been successfully used across a global network of sites for rapid generation of efficacy data on multiple novel antiviral agents. The protocol design and implementation features used in this protocol, and the approaches to address challenges, will have broader applicability. Mechanisms to facilitate improved communication and harmonization among country-specific regulatory bodies are required to achieve the full potential of this approach in dealing with a global outbreak.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Adult , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Hospitalization , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL