Sex-disaggregated effectiveness data reporting in COVID-19 vaccine research: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Sex and gender are believed to influence vaccine response. Yet, the relationship between sex and gender and COVID-19 vaccine efficacy is poorly understood and remains under-investigated. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to determine whether and to what extent post-approval COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies report sex-disaggregated VE data. We searched four publication and pre-publication databases and additional grey literature sources for relevant published/preprint studies released between 1 January 2020 and 1 October 2021 (i.e., pre-Omicron era). We included observational studies providing VE estimates for one or more licensed/approved COVID-19 vaccines and including both males and females. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk-of-bias through a modified version of Cochrane's ROBINS-I tool. A qualitative data synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Here we show that, among 240 eligible publications, 68 (28.3%) do not report the sex distribution among participants. Only 21/240 (8.8%) studies provide sex-disaggregated VE estimates, and high between-study heterogeneity regarding design, target population, outcomes, and vaccine type/timing prevent the assessment of sex in determining COVID-19 VE across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that few COVID-19 vaccine research publications account for sex. Improved adherence to recommended reporting guidelines will ensure that the evidence generated can be used to better understand the relationship between sex and gender and VE.

The level of protection that vaccines provide against COVID-19 might depend on a person's sex or gender. However, sex and gender are not always reported in studies on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. Here, we systematically reviewed the literature on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and looked at whether the studies we found separated out their data on vaccine effectiveness by participants' sex. Out of the 240 publications we identified, 68 (28.3%) did not report the sex of the participants in their study, and only 21 studies (8.8%) reported vaccine effectiveness data separated by sex. These results show that a substantial proportion of COVID-19 vaccine research publications do not account for sex. Efforts should be made by researchers to study and report the relationship between sex and vaccine effectiveness, to help to optimise vaccination strategies so that all people are adequately protected.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in a Population-Based Study of Minnesota Residents.

COVID-19 continues to be a public health concern in the United States. Although safe and effective vaccines have been developed, a significant proportion of the US population has not received a COVID-19 vaccine. This cross-sectional study aimed to describe the demographics and behaviors of Minnesota adults who have not received the primary series of the COVID-19 vaccine, or the booster shot using data from the Minnesota COVID-19 Antibody Study (MCAS) collected through a population-based sample between September and December 2021. Data were collected using a web-based survey sent to individuals that responded to a similar survey in 2020 and their adult household members. The sample was 51% female and 86% White/Non-Hispanic. A total of 9% of vaccine-eligible participants had not received the primary series and 23% of those eligible to receive a booster had not received it. Older age, higher education, better self-reported health, $75,000 to $100,000 annual household income, mask-wearing, and social distancing were associated with lower odds of hesitancy. Gender, race, and previous COVID-19 infection were not associated with hesitancy. The most frequently reported reason for not receiving a COVID-19 vaccination was safety concerns. Mask-wearing and being age 65 or older were the only strong predictors of lower odds of vaccine hesitancy for both the primary series and booster analyses.

A Research and Development (R&D) Roadmap for Broadly Protective Coronavirus Vaccines: A Pandemic Preparedness Strategy

Broadly protective coronavirus vaccines are an important tool for protecting against future SARS-CoV-2 variants and could play a critical role in mitigating the impact of future outbreaks or pandemics caused by novel coronaviruses. The Coronavirus Vaccines Research and Development (R&D) Roadmap (CVR) is aimed at promoting the development of such vaccines. The CVR, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and The Rockefeller Foundation, was generated through a collaborative and iterative process, which was led by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota and involved 50 international subject matter experts and recognized leaders in the field. This report summarizes the major issues and areas of research outlined in the CVR and identifies high-priority milestones. The CVR covers a 6-year timeframe and is organized into five topic areas: virology, immunology, vaccinology, animal and human infection models, and policy and finance. Included in each topic area are key barriers, gaps, strategic goals, milestones, and additional R&D priorities. The roadmap includes 20 goals and 86 R&D milestones, 22 of which are ranked as high priority. By identifying key issues, and milestones for addressing them, the CVR provides a framework to guide funding and research campaigns that promote the development of broadly protective coronavirus vaccines.

A research and development (R&D) roadmap for broadly protective coronavirus vaccines: A pandemic preparedness strategy.

Broadly protective coronavirus vaccines are an important tool for protecting against future SARS-CoV-2 variants and could play a critical role in mitigating the impact of future outbreaks or pandemics caused by novel coronaviruses. The Coronavirus Vaccines Research and Development (R&D) Roadmap (CVR) is aimed at promoting the development of such vaccines. The CVR, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and The Rockefeller Foundation, was generated through a collaborative and iterative process, which was led by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota and involved 50 international subject matter experts and recognized leaders in the field. This report summarizes the major issues and areas of research outlined in the CVR and identifies high-priority milestones. The CVR covers a 6-year timeframe and is organized into five topic areas: virology, immunology, vaccinology, animal and human infection models, and policy and finance. Included in each topic area are key barriers, gaps, strategic goals, milestones, and additional R&D priorities. The roadmap includes 20 goals and 86 R&D milestones, 26 of which are ranked as high priority. By identifying key issues, and milestones for addressing them, the CVR provides a framework to guide funding and research campaigns that promote the development of broadly protective coronavirus vaccines.

What drives willingness to receive a new vaccine that prevents an emerging infectious disease? A discrete choice experiment among university students in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: There is a critical need to identify the drivers of willingness to receive new vaccines against emerging and epidemic diseases. A discrete choice experiment is the ideal approach to evaluating how individuals weigh multiple attributes simultaneously. We assessed the degree to which six attributes were associated with willingness to be vaccinated among university students in Uganda. METHODS: We conducted a single-profile discrete choice experiment at Makerere University in 2019. Participants were asked whether or not they would be vaccinated in 8 unique scenarios where attributes varied by disease risk, disease severity, advice for or against vaccination from trusted individuals, recommendations from influential figures, whether the vaccine induced indirect protection, and side effects. We calculated predicted probabilities of vaccination willingness using mixed logistic regression models, comparing health professional students with all other disciplines. FINDINGS: Of the 1576 participants, 783 (49.8%) were health professional students and 685 (43.5%) were female. Vaccination willingness was high (78%), and higher among health students than other students. We observed the highest vaccination willingness for the most severe disease outcomes and the greatest exposure risks, along with the Minister of Health's recommendation or a vaccine that extended secondary protection to others. Mild side effects and recommendations against vaccination diminished vaccination willingness. INTERPRETATION: Our results can be used to develop evidence-based messaging to encourage uptake for new vaccines. Future vaccination campaigns, such as for COVID-19 vaccines in development, should consider acknowledging individual risk of exposure and disease severity and incorporate recommendations from key health leaders.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring COVID-19 infection risk among health care workers (HCWs) is a public health priority. We examined the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among HCWs following the fall infection surge in Minnesota, and before and after COVID-19 vaccination. Additionally, we assessed demographic and occupational risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We conducted two rounds of seroprevalence testing among a cohort of HCWs: samples in round 1 were collected from 11/22/20-02/21/21 and in round 2 from 12/18/20-02/15/21. Demographic and occupational exposures assessed with logistic regression were age, sex, healthcare role and setting, and number of children in the household. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 IgG seropositivity. A secondary outcome, SARS-CoV-2 infection, included both seropositivity and self-reported SARS-CoV-2 test positivity. RESULTS: In total, 459 HCWs were tested. 43/454 (9.47%) had a seropositive sample 1 and 75/423 (17.7%) had a seropositive sample 2. By time of sample 2 collection, 54% of participants had received at least one vaccine dose and seroprevalence was 13% among unvaccinated individuals. Relative to physicians, the odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection in other roles were increased (Nurse Practitioner: OR[95%CI] 1.93[0.57,6.53], Physician's Assistant: 1.69[0.38,7.52], Nurse: 2.33[0.94,5.78], Paramedic/EMTs: 3.86[0.78,19.0], other: 1.68[0.58,4.85]). The workplace setting was associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection (p = 0.04). SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among HCWs reporting duties in the ICU vs. those working in an ambulatory clinic was elevated: OR[95%CI] 2.17[1.01,4.68]. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in HCW increased during our study period which was consistent with community infection rates. HCW role and setting-particularly working in the ICU-is associated with higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Willingness to be vaccinated, preventative behaviors, and social contact patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic among US college students.

Objective: To assess the frequency of preventative COVID-19 behaviors and vaccination willingness among United States (US) college and university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants: Participants (N = 653) were ≥18 years old and students at institutions for higher education in the US in March 2020. Methods: Students self-reported preventative behaviors, willingness to be vaccinated, and social contact patterns during four waves of online surveys from May-August 2020. Results: Student engagement in preventative behaviors was generally high. The majority of students intended to be vaccinated (81.5%). Overall, there were no significant differences in the proportion adopting preventative behaviors or in willingness to be vaccinated by sex or geographic location. The most common reason for willingness to get vaccinated was wanting to contribute to ending COVID-19 outbreaks (44.7%). Conclusions: Early in the pandemic, college students primarily reported willingness to vaccinate and adherence to preventative behaviors. Outreach strategies are needed to continue this momentum.

The complexity of examining laboratory-based biological markers associated with mortality in hospitalized patients during early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and evidence map.

IMPORTANCE: The measurement of laboratory biomarkers plays a critical role in managing patients with COVID-19. However, to date most systematic reviews examining the association between laboratory biomarkers and mortality in hospitalized patients early in the pandemic focused on small sets of biomarkers, did not account for multiple studies including patients within the same institutions during overlapping timeframes, and did not include a significant number of studies conducted in countries other than China. OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive summary and an evidence map examining the relationship between a wide range of laboratory biomarkers and mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the early phase of the pandemic in multiple countries. EVIDENCE REVIEW: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched from Dec 2019 to March 9, 2021. A total of 14,049 studies were identified and screened independently by two raters; data was extracted by a single rater and verified by a second. Quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Case Series Critical Appraisal tool. To allow comparison across biomarkers, standardized mean differences (SMD) were used to quantify the relationship between laboratory biomarkers and hospital mortality. Meta-regression was conducted to account for clustering within institutions and countries. RESULTS: Our systematic review included 94 case-series studies from 30 countries. Across all biomarkers, the largest and most precise SMDs were observed for cardiac (troponin (1.03 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.21)), and BNP/NT-proBNP (0.93 (0.52 to 1.34)), inflammatory (IL-6 (0.97 (0.67 to 1.28) and Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (0.94 (0.59 to 1.29)), and renal biomarkers (blood urea nitrogen (1.01 (0.79 to 1.23)) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (-0.96 (-1.42 to -0.50)). There was heterogeneity for most biomarkers across countries with studies conducted in China generally having larger effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this study provide an early pandemic summary of the relationship between biomarkers and mortality in hospitalized patients. We found our estimated ESs were generally attenuated compared to previous systematic reviews which predominantly included studies conducted in China. Despite using sophisticated methodology to examine studies across countries, heterogeneity in reporting of case-series studies early in the pandemic limits clinical interpretability.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Dose, Infection, and Disease Outcomes for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Review.

The relationship between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) dose, infection, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes remains poorly understood. This review summarizes the existing literature regarding this issue, identifies gaps in current knowledge, and suggests opportunities for future research. In humans, host characteristics, including age, sex, comorbidities, smoking, and pregnancy, are associated with severe COVID-19. Similarly, in animals, host factors are strong determinants of disease severity, although most animal infection models manifest clinically with mild to moderate respiratory disease. The influence of variants of concern as it relates to infectious dose, consequence of overall pathogenicity, and disease outcome in dose-response remains unknown. Epidemiologic data suggest a dose-response relationship for infection contrasting with limited and inconsistent surrogate-based evidence between dose and disease severity. Recommendations include the design of future infection studies in animal models to investigate inoculating dose on outcomes and the use of better proxies for dose in human epidemiology studies.

COVID-19 vaccine confidence and reasons for vaccination among health care workers and household members.

BACKGROUND: The majority of healthcare workers (HCW) in the US report being fully vaccinated against COVID-19, yet little is known about vaccine decision-making for their household members, including children. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey July-August 2021 of HCW and their household members in Minnesota. RESULTS: 94 % of eligible participants were vaccinated with the most common reasons being wanting to protect oneself, family and loved ones. Safety concerns were the most commonly reported reasons for not being vaccinated; a significantly higher proportion of unvaccinated compared to vaccinated HCW (58 % vs 12 %, p = 0.0035) and household adults (25 % vs 5 %, p = 0.03) reported prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nearly half of unvaccinated adults and two-thirds of unvaccinated children would be vaccinated if a vaccine mandate were in place. CONCLUSIONS: Despite high COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among HCWs, more research is required to identify and address the needs and concerns of healthcare workers who decline COVID-19 vaccination despite availability.

Identification of Natural SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Seroprevalence Studies Among Vaccinated Populations.

Most SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays cannot distinguish between antibodies that developed after natural infection and those that developed after vaccination. We assessed the accuracy of a nucleocapsid-containing assay in identifying natural infection among vaccinated individuals. A longitudinal cohort composed of health care workers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area was enrolled. Two rounds of seroprevalence studies separated by 1 month were conducted from November 2020 to January 2021 among 81 participants. Capillary blood from rounds 1 and 2 was tested for IgG antibodies against spike proteins by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (spike-only assay). During round 2, IgGs reactive to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (nucleocapsid-containing assay) were assessed. Vaccination status at round 2 was determined by self-report. Area under the curve was computed to determine the discriminatory ability of the nucleocapsid-containing assay for identification of recent infection. Participants had a mean age of 40 years (range, 23 to 66 years); 83% were female. Round 1 seroprevalence was 9.5%. Before round 2 testing, 46% reported vaccination. Among those not recently infected, in comparing vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals, elevated levels of spike 1 (P<.001) and spike 2 (P=.01) were observed, whereas nucleocapsid levels were not statistically significantly different (P=.90). Among all participants, nucleocapsid response predicted recent infection with an area under the curve of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.88 to 0.99). Among individuals vaccinated more than 10 days before antibody testing, the specificity of the nucleocapsid-containing assay was 92%, whereas the specificity of the spike-only assay was 0%. An IgG assay identifying reactivity to nucleocapsid protein is an accurate predictor of natural infection among a partially vaccinated population, whereas a spike-only assay performed poorly.

Stress, anxiety, and sleep among college and university students during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: We categorized levels of self-reported stress, anxiety, worry, and sleep among US college and university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an anonymous online survey between May 7 and June 21, 2020. RESULTS: Nearly all participants reported worry about the pandemic. Nearly half (95% CI: 43.3-51.3) reported moderate-to-severe anxiety, and 42.0% (95% CI: 38.0-45.9) reported experiencing poor sleep quality. Those with moderate-to-severe anxiety were more likely (OR: 3.3; 95% CI: 2.4-4.7) to report poor sleep quality than those with less anxiety. Moderate or extreme worry about the pandemic was associated with poor sleep quality (OR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.1-2.1). CONCLUSIONS: Our survey found high levels of stress, worry, anxiety, and poor sleep among US college and university students during the early months of the pandemic. Universities should prioritize access to resources for healthy coping to help students manage anxiety and improve sleep quality as the pandemic continues.

Severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) screening among symptom-free healthcare workers.

Transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is possible among symptom-free individuals. Patients are avoiding medically necessary healthcare visits for fear of becoming infected in the healthcare setting. We screened 489 symptom-free healthcare workers for SARS-CoV-2 and found no positive results, strongly suggesting that the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was <1%.

COVID-19: The CIDRAP Viewpoint Part 5: SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Surveillance: A National Framework

From the Introduction: Effective surveillance of an emerging infectious disease such as COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] poses unique challenges. Public health agencies have had to significantly increase their disease surveillance capacities to be able to rapidly identify new COVID-19 patients, follow up with their contacts, monitor disease trends over time, and identify hot spots of disease transmission, often with limited testing. Despite this increase in COVID-19 surveillance capacities, gaps remain. It's essential, therefore, to outline the main goals of COVID-19 surveillance and address key challenges to its effective implementation.COVID-19 (Disease);Public health surveillance;Epidemiology

COVID-19: The CIDRAP Viewpoint Part 3: Smart Testing for COVID-19 Virus and Antibodies

From the Introduction: Testing for SARS-CoV-2 [severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2]--the virus that causes COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019]--is one part of the complex system required to address the pandemic. Testing is essential to confirm infection in cases and contacts, guide patient care, inform our understanding of transmission dynamics, prepare the health system for case surges, and inform the level of economic activity consistent with public health goals for limiting SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Technology to conduct molecular, antigen, and serology tests is now available, and additional technologies will be made available soon. The requirements for SARS-CoV-2 testing are unprecedented in both their urgency and the need for scalability, which present both technical and policy challenges. Current plans for clinical and public health laboratory testing do not sufficiently address the infrastructure needed to perform such tests. Critical guidance and coordination at the federal level is needed to meet the SARS-CoV-2 testing demand.COVID-19 (Disease);Disaster response--Plans

SARS-CoV-2 Screening Among Symptom-Free Healthcare Workers.

BACKGROUND: Transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is possible among symptom-free individuals and some patients are avoiding medically necessary healthcare visits for fear of becoming infected in the healthcare setting. Limited data are available on the point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in symptom-free U.S. healthcare workers (HCW). METHODS: A cross-sectional convenience sample of symptom-free HCWs from the metropolitan area surrounding Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota was enrolled between April 20 th and June 24 th , 2020. A participant self-collected nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) was obtained. SARS-CoV-2 infection was assessed via polymerase chain reaction. Participants were queried about their willingness to repeat a self-collection NPS for diagnostic purposes. We had >95% power to detect at least one positive test if the true underlying prevalence of SARS-CoV2 was ≥1%. RESULTS: Among n=489 participants 80% were female and mean age±SD was 41±11. Participants reported being physicians (14%), nurse practitioners (8%), physician's assistants (4%), nurses (51%), medics (3%), or other which predominantly included laboratory technicians and administrative roles (22%). Exposure to a known/suspected COVID-19 case in the 14 days prior to enrollment was reported in 40% of participants. SARS-CoV-2 was not detected in any participant. Over 95% of participants reported a willingness to repeat a self-collected NP swab in the future. CONCLUSIONS: The point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was likely <1% in a convenience sample of symptom-free Minnesota healthcare workers from April 20 th and June 24 th , 2020. Self-collected NP swabs are well-tolerated and a viable alternative to provider-collected swabs to preserve PPE.