Risk factors for long coronavirus disease 2019 (long COVID) among healthcare personnel, Brazil, 2020-2022.

OBJECTIVE: To determine risk factors for the development of long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare personnel (HCP). METHODS: We conducted a case-control study among HCP who had confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 working in a Brazilian healthcare system between March 1, 2020, and July 15, 2022. Cases were defined as those having long COVID according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition. Controls were defined as HCP who had documented COVID-19 but did not develop long COVID. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the association between exposure variables and long COVID during 180 days of follow-up. RESULTS: Of 7,051 HCP diagnosed with COVID-19, 1,933 (27.4%) who developed long COVID were compared to 5,118 (72.6%) who did not. The majority of those with long COVID (51.8%) had 3 or more symptoms. Factors associated with the development of long COVID were female sex (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.39), age (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02), and 2 or more SARS-CoV-2 infections (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.50). Those infected with the SARS-CoV-2 δ (delta) variant (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.50) or the SARS-CoV-2 o (omicron) variant (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.78), and those receiving 4 COVID-19 vaccine doses prior to infection (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.19) were significantly less likely to develop long COVID. CONCLUSIONS: Long COVID can be prevalent among HCP. Acquiring >1 SARS-CoV-2 infection was a major risk factor for long COVID, while maintenance of immunity via vaccination was highly protective.

Antimicrobial oral lavage reduces the SARS-CoV-2 load in intubated patients: randomized clinical trial

Background The oral cavity can be a reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 and may play a crucial role in the viral transmission in the hospital environment. Objective To investigate whether an oral hygiene protocol with chlorhexidine (CHX) used alone and in combination with hydrogen peroxide (HP) in the intensive care unit was effective in reducing the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the oral cavity. Methods SARS-CoV-2 viral load was measured on oral fluid samples collected from patients undergoing orotracheal intubation. The study sample was randomly in: CHX group (n = 19) - oral rinse using only 0.12% CHX solution;HP+CHX group (n = 24) - oral rinse with 1.5% HP and 0.12% CHX. The samples were collected before the interventions (T0), immediately (T1), 30 minutes (T2) and 60 minutes (T3) after the procedure. Results A significant viral load reduction was observed at T1 (mean ± SD:–0.57 ± 0.19 log10;–73.2%;p = 0.022) in the HP+CHX group. No statistically significant differences between any time points were observed in the CHX group. Conclusion The HP+CHX oral rinses significantly reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the oral fluid immediately after the procedure. The CHX oral rinse alone did not result in any significant viral load reductions.

Cellular and Humoral Immune Responses to Vaccination for COVID-19 Are Negatively Impacted by Senescent T Cells: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND: Herein, we aimed to follow up on the cellular and humoral immune responses of a group of individuals who initially received the CoronaVac vaccine, followed by a booster with the Pfizer vaccine. METHODS: Blood samples were collected: before and 30 days after the first CoronaVac dose; 30, 90, and 180 days after the second CoronaVac dose, and also 20 days after the booster with the Pfizer vaccine. RESULTS: Whilst the positivity to gamma interferon-type cellular response increased after the first CoronaVac dose, neutralizing and IgG antibody levels only raised 30 days after the second dose, followed by a drop in these responses after 90 and 180 days. The booster with the Pfizer vaccine elicited a robust cellular and humoral response. A higher number of double-negative and senescent T cells, as well as increased pro-inflammatory cytokines levels were found in the participants with lower humoral immune responses. CONCLUSION: CoronaVac elicited an early cellular response, followed by a humoral response, which dropped 90 days after the second dose. The booster with the Pfizer vaccine significantly enhanced these responses. Furthermore, a pro-inflammatory systemic status was found in volunteers who presented senescent T cells, which could putatively impair the immune response to vaccination.

Antimicrobial oral lavage reduces the SARS-CoV-2 load in intubated patients: randomized clinical trial.

Background: The oral cavity can be a reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 and may play a crucial role in the viral transmission in the hospital environment. Objective: To investigate whether an oral hygiene protocol with chlorhexidine (CHX) used alone and in combination with hydrogen peroxide (HP) in the intensive care unit was effective in reducing the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the oral cavity. Methods: SARS-CoV-2 viral load was measured on oral fluid samples collected from patients undergoing orotracheal intubation. The study sample was randomly in: CHX group (n = 19) - oral rinse using only 0.12% CHX solution; HP+CHX group (n = 24) - oral rinse with 1.5% HP and 0.12% CHX. The samples were collected before the interventions (T0), immediately (T1), 30 minutes (T2) and 60 minutes (T3) after the procedure. Results: A significant viral load reduction was observed at T1 (mean ± SD:-0.57 ± 0.19 log10;-73.2%;p = 0.022) in the HP+CHX group. No statistically significant differences between any time points were observed in the CHX group. Conclusion: The HP+CHX oral rinses significantly reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the oral fluid immediately after the procedure. The CHX oral rinse alone did not result in any significant viral load reductions.

Effectiveness of two COVID-19 vaccines (viral vector and inactivated viral vaccine) against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate real-world vaccine effectiveness (VE) for Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and CoronaVac against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil between January 1, 2021 and August 3, 2021. To assess VE, we calculated VE=1-RR (rate ratio), with RR determined by adjusting Poisson models with the occurrence of COVID-19 infection as the outcome, and the vaccination status as the main exploratory variable. We used the logarithmic link function and simple models adjusting for sex, age and job types. RESULTS: 13,813 HCWs met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. 6,385 (46.2%) received the CoronaVacvaccine, 5,916 (42.8%) received the ChAdOx1 vaccine, and 1,512 (11.0%) were not vaccinated. Overall, COVID-19 infection cases happened in 6% of unvaccinated HCWs, 3% of HCWs receiving two doses of CoronaVacvaccine, and 0.7% of HCWs receiving two doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine (p-value< 0.001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated VE was 51.3% for CoronaVac, and 88.1% for ChAdOx1 vaccine. Both vaccines reduced the number of hospitalizations, the length of hospital stay, and the need of mechanical ventilation. Nineteen SARSCoV-2 samples from nineteen HCWs were screened for mutations of interest. Eighteen out of nineteen of those samples were Gamma SARS-CoV-2 variant. CONCLUSIONS: While both COVID-19 vaccines (viral vector and inactivated virus) can significantly prevent COVID-19 infection among HCWs, CoronaVac was much less effective. The COVID-19 vaccines were also effective even against a dominant Gamma variant.

Effectiveness of heterologous COVID-19 vaccine booster dosing in Brazilian healthcare workers, 2021.

OBJECTIVES: Little is currently known about vaccine effectiveness (VE) for either two doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) viral vector vaccine or CoronaVac inactivated viral vaccine followed by a third dose of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech) among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil from January to December 2021. VE was defined as 1-IRR (incidence rate ratio), with IRR determined using Poisson models with the occurrence of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection as the outcome, adjusting for age, sex, and job type. We compared those receiving viral vector or inactivated viral primary series (two doses) to those who received an mRNA booster. RESULTS: A total of 11,427 HCWs met the inclusion criteria. COVID-19 was confirmed in 31.5% of HCWs receiving two doses of CoronaVac vaccine vs. 0.9% of HCWs receiving two doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (p < 0.001), and 9.8% of HCWs receiving two doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine vs. 1% among HCWs receiving two doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (p < 0.001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated VE was 92.0% for two CoronaVac vaccines plus mRNA booster, and 60.2% for two ChAdOx1 vaccines plus mRNA booster, when compared to those with no mRNA booster. Of 246 samples screened for mutations, 191 (77.6%) were Delta variants. CONCLUSIONS: While two doses of ChAdOx1 or CoronaVac vaccines prevent COVID-19, the addition of a Pfizer/BioNTech booster provided significantly more protection.

The short-term effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines among healthcare workers: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Objective: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at risk of COVID-19 due to high levels of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Thus, effective vaccines are needed. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on COVID-19 short-term vaccine effectiveness among HCWs. Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 2019 to June 11, 2021, for studies evaluating vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 among HCWs. To meta-analyze the extracted data, we calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for COVID-19 between vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 - DOR). We also performed a stratified analysis for vaccine effectiveness by vaccination status: 1 dose and 2 doses of the vaccine. Results: We included 13 studies, including 173,742 HCWs evaluated for vaccine effectiveness in the meta-analysis. The vast majority (99.9%) of HCWs were vaccinated with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. The pooled DOR for symptomatic COVID-19 among vaccinated HCWs was 0.072 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.028-0.184) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 92.8% (95% CI, 81.6%-97.2%). In stratified analyses, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 among HCWs who had received 1 dose of vaccine was 82.1% (95% CI, 46.1%-94.1%) and the vaccine effectiveness among HCWs who had received 2 doses was 93.5% (95% CI, 82.5%-97.6%). Conclusions: The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are highly effective against symptomatic COVID-19, even with 1 dose. More observational studies are needed to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness of other COVID-19 vaccines, COVID-19 breakthrough after vaccination, and vaccine efficacy against new variants.

Technical performance of a lateral flow immunoassay for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG in the outpatient follow-up of non-severe cases and at different times after vaccination: comparison with enzyme and chemiluminescent immunoassays.

This study assessed the technical performance of a rapid lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (LFIA) for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and compared LFIA results with chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) results and an in-house enzyme immunoassay (EIA). To this end, a total of 216 whole blood or serum samples from three groups were analyzed: the first group was composed of 68 true negative cases corresponding to blood bank donors, healthy young volunteers, and eight pediatric patients diagnosed with other coronavirus infections. The serum samples from these participants were obtained and stored in a pre-COVID-19 period, thus they were not expected to have COVID-19. In the second group of true positive cases, we chose to replace natural cases of COVID-19 by 96 participants who were expected to have produced anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies 30-60 days after the vaccine booster dose. The serum samples were collected on the same day that LFIA were tested either by EIA or CLIA. The third study group was composed of 52 participants (12 adults and 40 children) who did or did not have anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies due to specific clinical scenarios. The 12 adults had been vaccinated more than seven months before LFIA testing, and the 40 children had non-severe COVID-19 diagnosed using RT-PCR during the acute phase of infection. They were referred for outpatient follow-up and during this period the serum samples were collected and tested by CLIA and LFIA. All tests were performed by the same healthcare operator and there was no variation of LFIA results when tests were performed on finger prick whole blood or serum samples, so that results were grouped for analysis. LFIA's sensitivity in detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies was 90%, specificity 97.6%, efficiency 93%, PPV 98.3%, NPV 86.6%, and likelihood ratio for a positive or a negative result were 37.5 and 0.01 respectively. There was a good agreement (Kappa index of 0.677) between LFIA results and serological (EIA or CLIA) results. In conclusion, LFIA analyzed in this study showed a good technical performance and agreement with reference serological assays (EIA or CLIA), therefore it can be recommended for use in the outpatient follow-up of non-severe cases of COVID-19 and to assess anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody production induced by vaccination and the antibodies decrease over time. However, LFIAs should be confirmed by using reference serological assays whenever possible.

Distinct Immunological Profiles Help in the Maintenance of Salivary Secretory IgA Production in Mild Symptoms COVID-19 Patients.

Background: Relevant aspects regarding the SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis and the systemic immune response to this infection have been reported. However, the mucosal immune response of the upper airways two months after SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with mild/moderate symptoms is still not completely described. Therefore, we investigated the immune/inflammatory responses of the mucosa of the upper airways of mild/moderate symptom COVID-19 patients two months after the SARS-CoV-2 infection in comparison to a control group composed of non-COVID-19 healthy individuals. Methods: A cohort of 80 volunteers (age 37.2 ± 8.2), including non-COVID-19 healthy individuals (n=24) and COVID-19 patients (n=56) who presented mild/moderate symptoms during a COVID-19 outbreak in Brazil in November and December of 2020. Saliva samples were obtained two months after the COVID-19 diagnosis to assess the levels of SIgA by ELISA and the cytokines by multiplex analysis. Results: Salivary levels of SIgA were detected in 39 volunteers into the COVID-19 group and, unexpectedly, in 14 volunteers in the control group. Based on this observation, we distributed the volunteers of the control group into without SIgA or with SIgA sub-groups, and COVID-19 group into without SIgA or with SIgA sub-groups. Individuals with SIgA showed higher levels of IL-10, IL-17A, IFN-γ, IL-12p70, IL-13, and IFN-α than those without SIgA. In intergroup analysis, the COVID-19 groups showed higher salivary levels of IL-10, IL-13, IL-17A, and IFN-α than the control group. No statistical differences were verified in the salivary levels of IL-6 and IFN-ß. Lower IL-12p70/IL-10 and IFN-γ/IL-10 ratios were found in the control group without SIgA than the control group with SIgA and the COVID-19 group with SIgA. Conclusion: We were able to present, for the first time, that associations between distinct immunological profiles can help the mucosal immunity to maintain the salivary levels of SIgA in COVID-19 patients two months after the SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Distinct Immunological Profiles Help in the Maintenance of Salivary Secretory IgA Production in Mild Symptoms COVID-19 Patients

Background Relevant aspects regarding the SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis and the systemic immune response to this infection have been reported. However, the mucosal immune response of the upper airways two months after SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with mild/moderate symptoms is still not completely described. Therefore, we investigated the immune/inflammatory responses of the mucosa of the upper airways of mild/moderate symptom COVID-19 patients two months after the SARS-CoV-2 infection in comparison to a control group composed of non-COVID-19 healthy individuals. Methods A cohort of 80 volunteers (age 37.2 ± 8.2), including non-COVID-19 healthy individuals (n=24) and COVID-19 patients (n=56) who presented mild/moderate symptoms during a COVID-19 outbreak in Brazil in November and December of 2020. Saliva samples were obtained two months after the COVID-19 diagnosis to assess the levels of SIgA by ELISA and the cytokines by multiplex analysis. Results Salivary levels of SIgA were detected in 39 volunteers into the COVID-19 group and, unexpectedly, in 14 volunteers in the control group. Based on this observation, we distributed the volunteers of the control group into without SIgA or with SIgA sub-groups, and COVID-19 group into without SIgA or with SIgA sub-groups. Individuals with SIgA showed higher levels of IL-10, IL-17A, IFN-γ, IL-12p70, IL-13, and IFN-α than those without SIgA. In intergroup analysis, the COVID-19 groups showed higher salivary levels of IL-10, IL-13, IL-17A, and IFN-α than the control group. No statistical differences were verified in the salivary levels of IL-6 and IFN-β. Lower IL-12p70/IL-10 and IFN-γ/IL-10 ratios were found in the control group without SIgA than the control group with SIgA and the COVID-19 group with SIgA. Conclusion We were able to present, for the first time, that associations between distinct immunological profiles can help the mucosal immunity to maintain the salivary levels of SIgA in COVID-19 patients two months after the SARS-CoV-2 infection.

SARS-CoV-2 and rhinovirus infections: are there differences in clinical presentation, laboratory abnormalities, and outcomes in the pediatric population?

This study aims to assess COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses in pediatric patients. Between April 17 and September 30, 2020, we collected 1,566 respiratory samples from 1,044 symptomatic patients who were younger than 18 years old to assess SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of these, 919 were analyzed for other respiratory pathogens (ORP). Patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or ORP were included. We evaluated 76 pediatric COVID-19 infections and 157 other respiratory virus infections. Rhinovirus occurred in 132/157 (84%). COVID-19 patients who were significantly older, had more fevers, headaches and pneumonia than those with ORP. The median white blood cell count was lower in patients with SARS-CoV-2 than in those with ORP (6,470 versus 8,170; p=0.02). COVID-19 patients had significantly worse symptoms than those with ORP.

Impact of COVID-19 Disease in Early Breast Cancer Management: A Summary of the Current Evidence.

PURPOSE: An expert panel on breast cancer and COVID-19 disease was convened to address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic for early breast cancer (eBC) management. METHODS: To ensure that the most clinically relevant information was addressed, essential information was drawn from several of the latest national and international guidelines and another technical document. The expert panel met in five virtual closed sessions from November 2020 to May 2021 to consult on the relevant data from evidence-based results. The data gathered were discussed on an online platform. RESULTS: This article reports the expert panel's highlights of these meetings' discussions. In addition, it provides practical recommendations covering topics regarding diagnosis, treatment, and management of patients with eBC in clinical settings routinely encountered by health care professionals amid the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: This article provided guidance on several topics regarding eBC management amid the COVID-19 pandemics to inform safer care practices.

Adverse drug reactions and drug interactions in the treatment of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Objectives: To identify drugs that were administered off label to hospitalized patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to identify adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and drug-drug interactions associated with these therapies. Methods: This case-control study was conducted in a Brazilian hospital from March to April 2020 among patients with suspected COVID-19, comparing those with positive severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results and those with negative results. Results: The most commonly used medications in both groups were azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine. There was a significantly higher prevalence of reactions among patients with positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 (48.5% vs 28.8%; P = .008) in the propensity score-matched cohort, and the most commonly reported ADRs among these patients were diarrhea (43.8%), elevated liver enzymes (31.3%), and nausea and vomiting (29.7%). Conclusions: Our data demonstrate that ADRs and drug-drug interactions are common with off-label treatments for COVID-19.

The long-term effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Background: Although multiple studies revealed high vaccine effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines within 3 months after the completion of vaccines, long-term vaccine effectiveness has not been well established, especially after the δ (delta) variant became prominent. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of long-term vaccine effectiveness. Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 2019 to November 15, 2021, for studies evaluating the long-term vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19 hospitalization among individuals who received 2 doses of Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccines, or 1 dose of the Janssen vaccine. Long-term was defined as >5 months after the last dose. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with 95% confidence interval for COVID-19 between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 - DOR). Results: In total, 16 studies including 17,939,172 individuals evaluated long-term vaccine effectiveness and were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for COVID-19 was 0.158 (95% CI: 0.157-0.160) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 84.2% (95% CI, 84.0- 84.3%). Estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization was 88.7% (95% CI, 55.8%-97.1%). Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 during the δ variant period was 61.2% (95% CI, 59.0%-63.3%). Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19 and COVID-19 hospitalization across a long-term period for the circulating variants during the study period. More observational studies are needed to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness of third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, the vaccine effectiveness of mixing COVID-19 vaccines, COVID-19 breakthrough infection, and vaccine effectiveness against newly emerging variants.

Effectiveness of toothpastes on SARS-CoV-2 viral load in saliva

Introduction : The effect of toothpastes on viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2, is unknown. This study investigated the short-term effect of toothpastes containing antimicrobial properties in patients with COVID-19 to determine if they could reduce the SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load. Methods : Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (n = 83) were instructed to perform tooth brushing with one of three arms: a toothpaste containing 0.96% zinc (zinc oxide, zinc citrate) in a silica base (Test 1);toothpaste containing 0.454% SnF2 in a silica base (Test 2), and a nonantibacterial toothpaste (control). Saliva was collected before intervention (T0), immediately after intervention (T1), and 30 (T2) and 60 min (T3) after intervention. The SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load was measured using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) assays. For Test 1 and Test 2 toothpastes, the fold reductions were normalized to baseline and to the control toothpaste at each time point after brushing. A fold change of ≥2 is considered clinically effective. Results : Brushing with the Test 1 toothpaste reduced the SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load by 4.06-fold at T1, by 2.36-fold at T2, and by 1.42-fold at T3. Similarly, brushing with a Test 2 toothpaste reduced the SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load by 2.33-fold at T1, by 2.38-fold at T2, and by 0.77-fold at T3. Conclusion : Immediately after brushing, the use of antimicrobial toothpastes reduced the salivary viral load of patients with COVID-19. The trial was registered on https://clinicaltrials.gov/ (NCT04537962).

Long term persistence of coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 infection.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a case of a long-term persistence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (from March 26 to May 20, 2020) was identified at a private hospital in São Paulo, SP, Brazil. The long-term positivity for SARS-CoV-2 in reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction tests of a patient diagnosed with COVID-19 suggests, at least part of patients who recovered, may still carry and transmit the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This fact emphasizes the importance of having at least two negative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test results for SARS-CoV-2. Serological assays were not particularly helpful in the case described, since the patient had very low antibodies titers at the end of the follow-up period. Low viral loads may not be detected by current molecular methods, leading to wrong conclusions regarding viral clearance.

Short-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the short-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines among immunocompromised patients to prevent laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio [DOR] (95% CI) for COVID-19 infection between immunocompromised patients and healthy people or those with stable chronic medical conditions. VE was estimated as 100% x (1-DOR). We also investigated the rates of developing anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein IgG between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Twenty studies evaluating COVID-19 vaccine response, and four studies evaluating VE were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for symptomatic COVID-19 infection in immunocompromised patients was 0.296 (95% CI: 0.108-0.811) with an estimated VE of 70.4% (95% CI: 18.9%- 89.2%). When stratified by diagnosis, IgG antibody levels were much higher in the control group compared to immunocompromised patients with solid organ transplant (pOR 232.3; 95% Cl: 66.98-806.03), malignant diseases (pOR 42.0, 95% Cl: 11.68-151.03), and inflammatory rheumatic diseases (pOR 19.06; 95% Cl: 5.00-72.62). CONCLUSIONS: We found COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were effective against symptomatic COVID-19 among the immunocompromised patients but had lower VE compared to the controls. Further research is needed to understand the discordance between antibody production and protection against symptomatic COVID-19 infection.

Differences in children and adolescents with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a cohort study in a Brazilian tertiary referral hospital.

OBJECTIVES: To compare demographic/clinical/laboratory/treatments and outcomes among children and adolescents with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study that included patients diagnosed with pediatric COVID-19 (aged <18 years) between April 11, 2020 and April 22, 2021. During this period, 102/5,951 (1.7%) of all admissions occurred in neonates, children, and adolescents. Furthermore, 3,962 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection samples were processed in patients aged <18 years, and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 155 (4%) inpatients and outpatients. Six/155 pediatric patients were excluded from the study. Therefore, the final group included 149 children and adolescents (n=97 inpatients and 52 outpatients) with positive SARS-CoV-2 results. RESULTS: The frequencies of sore throat, anosmia, dysgeusia, headache, myalgia, nausea, lymphopenia, pre-existing chronic conditions, immunosuppressive conditions, and autoimmune diseases were significantly reduced in children and adolescents (p<0.05). Likewise, the frequencies of enoxaparin use (p=0.037), current immunosuppressant use (p=0.008), vasoactive agents (p=0.045), arterial hypotension (p<0.001), and shock (p=0.024) were significantly lower in children than in adolescents. Logistic regression analysis showed that adolescents with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 had increased odds ratios (ORs) for sore throat (OR 13.054; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.750-61.977; p=0.001), nausea (OR 8.875; 95% CI 1.660-47.446; p=0.011), and lymphopenia (OR 3.575; 95% CI 1.355-9.430; p=0.010), but also had less hospitalizations (OR 0.355; 95% CI 0.138-0.916; p=0.032). The additional logistic regression analysis on patients with preexisting chronic conditions (n=108) showed that death as an outcome was significantly associated with pediatric severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) (OR 22.300; 95% CI 2.341-212.421; p=0.007) and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) (OR 11.261; 95% CI 1.189-106. 581; p=0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Half of the laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases occurred in adolescents. Individuals belonging to this age group had an acute systemic involvement of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Pediatric SARS and MIS-C were the most important factors associated with the mortality rate in pediatric chronic conditions with COVID-19.

Self-collected unstimulated saliva, oral swab, and nasopharyngeal swab specimens in the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVES: The presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus in the saliva of patients infected with COVID-19 has been confirmed by several studies. However, the use of saliva for the diagnosis of COVID-19 remains limited, because of the discrepancies in the results, which might be due to using different saliva sampling methods. The purpose of this study was to compare the consistency of SARS-CoV-2 detection using two different saliva sampling methods (oral swab and unstimulated saliva) to that of the standard nasopharyngeal swab. METHODS: Fifty-five subjects were recruited from a pool of COVID-19 inpatient at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein (HIAE), Brazil. Nasopharyngeal swab, oral swab, and self-collected unstimulated saliva samples were examined for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR. RESULTS: Self-collected unstimulated saliva demonstrated 87.3% agreement in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus as compared with the nasopharyngeal swab, while oral swab displayed 65.9% agreement when compared to nasopharyngeal swab and 73% when compared to self-collected unstimulated saliva. CONCLUSION: Unstimulated self-collected saliva samples have shown a higher agreement with the nasopharyngeal swab samples for SARS-COV-2 detection than that obtained when using oral swab samples. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study compares the accuracy of COVID-19 test using different saliva sampling methods to that of nasopharyngeal swab. Given the need for a simple self-applied test that can be performed at home, our findings support the efficacy of self-collected unstimulated saliva samples in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, alleviating the demands for swab supplies, personal protective equipment, and healthcare personnel.

Detection of coronavirus-2 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction in conjunctival swabs from patients with severe form of Coronavirus disease 2019 in São Paulo, Brazil.

OBJECTIVES: To test conjunctival swabs from patients with laboratory-confirmed severe forms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 on real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR). METHODS: Fifty conjunctival swabs were collected from 50 in-patients with laboratory-confirmed severe forms of COVID-19 at the largest teaching hospital and referral center in Brazil (HCFMUSP, São Paulo, SP). The samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 on rRT-PCR with the primers and probes described in the CDC protocol which amplify the region of the nucleocapsid N gene (2019_nCoV_N1 and 2019_nCoV_N2) of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and compared with naso/oropharyngeal swabs collected within 24 hours of the conjunctival swabs. RESULTS: Five conjunctival samples (10%) tested positive (amplification of the N1 and N2 primer/probe sets) while two conjunctival samples (4%) yielded inconclusive results (amplification of the N1 primer/probe set only). The naso/oropharyngeal swabs were positive for SARS-CoV-2 on rRT-PCR in 34 patients (68%), negative in 14 (28%) and inconclusive in 2 (4%). The 5 patients with positive conjunctival swabs had positive (n=2), negative (n=2) or inconclusive (n=1) naso/oropharyngeal swabs on rRT-PCR. Patients with negative or inconclusive naso/oropharyngeal swabs had the diagnosis of COVID-19 confirmed by previous positive rRT-PCR results or by serology. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to present conjunctival swab rRT-PCR results for SARS-CoV-2 in a Brazilian population. In our sample of 50 patients with severe forms of COVID-19, 10% had positive conjunctival swabs, most of which were correlated with positive naso/oropharyngeal rRT-PCR results.