Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
PLoS Med ; 19(7): e1004056, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1962980

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Myocarditis and pericarditis following the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines administration have been reported, but their frequency is still uncertain in the younger population. This study investigated the association between Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mRNA vaccines, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273 and myocarditis/pericarditis in the population of vaccinated persons aged 12 to 39 years in Italy. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a self-controlled case series study (SCCS) using national data on COVID-19 vaccination linked to emergency care/hospital discharge databases. The outcome was the first diagnosis of myocarditis/pericarditis between 27 December 2020 and 30 September 2021. Exposure risk period (0 to 21 days from the vaccination day, subdivided in 3 equal intervals) for first and second dose was compared with baseline period. The SCCS model, adapted to event-dependent exposures, was fitted using unbiased estimating equations to estimate relative incidences (RIs) and excess of cases (EC) per 100,000 vaccinated by dose, age, sex, and vaccine product. Calendar period was included as time-varying confounder in the model. During the study period 2,861,809 persons aged 12 to 39 years received mRNA vaccines (2,405,759 BNT162b2; 456,050 mRNA-1273); 441 participants developed myocarditis/pericarditis (346 BNT162b2; 95 mRNA-1273). Within the 21-day risk interval, 114 myocarditis/pericarditis events occurred, the RI was 1.99 (1.30 to 3.05) after second dose of BNT162b2 and 2.22 (1.00 to 4.91) and 2.63 (1.21 to 5.71) after first and second dose of mRNA-1273. During the [0 to 7) days risk period, an increased risk of myocarditis/pericarditis was observed after first dose of mRNA-1273, with RI of 6.55 (2.73 to 15.72), and after second dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, with RIs of 3.39 (2.02 to 5.68) and 7.59 (3.26 to 17.65). The number of EC for second dose of mRNA-1273 was 5.5 per 100,000 vaccinated (3.0 to 7.9). The highest risk was observed in males, at [0 to 7) days after first and second dose of mRNA-1273 with RI of 12.28 (4.09 to 36.83) and RI of 11.91 (3.88 to 36.53); the number of EC after the second dose of mRNA-1273 was 8.8 (4.9 to 12.9). Among those aged 12 to 17 years, the RI was of 5.74 (1.52 to 21.72) after second dose of BNT162b2; for this age group, the number of events was insufficient for estimating RIs after mRNA-1273. Among those aged 18 to 29 years, the RIs were 7.58 (2.62 to 21.94) after first dose of mRNA-1273 and 4.02 (1.81 to 8.91) and 9.58 (3.32 to 27.58) after second dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273; the numbers of EC were 3.4 (1.1 to 6.0) and 8.6 (4.4 to 12.6) after first and second dose of mRNA-1273. The main study limitations were that the outcome was not validated through review of clinical records, and there was an absence of information on the length of hospitalization and, thus, the severity of the outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This population-based study of about 3 millions of residents in Italy suggested that mRNA vaccines were associated with myocarditis/pericarditis in the population younger than 40 years. According to our results, increased risk of myocarditis/pericarditis was associated with the second dose of BNT162b2 and both doses of mRNA-1273. The highest risks were observed in males of 12 to 39 years and in males and females 18 to 29 years vaccinated with mRNA-1273. The public health implication of these findings should be considered in the light of the proven mRNA vaccine effectiveness in preventing serious COVID-19 disease and death.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Myocarditis , Pericarditis , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , Adolescent , Adult , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Child , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Myocarditis/chemically induced , Myocarditis/epidemiology , Pericarditis/chemically induced , Pericarditis/epidemiology , Product Surveillance, Postmarketing , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/adverse effects , Young Adult
2.
Expert Rev Vaccines ; 21(7): 975-982, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1778823

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Consolidated information on the effectiveness of COVID-19 booster vaccination in Europe are scarce. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We assessed the effectiveness of a booster dose of an mRNA vaccine against any SARS-CoV-2 infection (symptomatic or asymptomatic) and severe COVID-19 (hospitalization or death) after over two months from administration among priority target groups (n = 18,524,568) during predominant circulation of the Delta variant in Italy (July-December 2021). RESULTS: Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against SARS-CoV-2 infection and, to a lesser extent, against severe COVID-19, among people ≥60 years and other high-risk groups (i.e. healthcare workers, residents in long-term-care facilities, and persons with comorbidities or immunocompromised), peaked in the time-interval 3-13 weeks (VE against infection = 67.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 62.5-71.3; VE against severe disease = 89.5%, 95% CI: 86.1-92.0) and then declined, waning 26 weeks after full primary vaccination (VE against infection = 12.2%, 95% CI: -4.7-26.4; VE against severe disease = 65.3%, 95% CI: 50.3-75.8). After 3-10 weeks from the administration of a booster dose, VE against infection and severe disease increased to 76.1% (95% CI: 70.4-80.7) and 93.0% (95% CI: 90.2-95.0), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the ongoing vaccination campaign in Italy, where the administration of a booster dose four months after completion of primary vaccination is recommended.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccines, Synthetic , mRNA Vaccines
3.
BMJ ; 376: e069052, 2022 02 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1759321

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe covid-19 at different time after vaccination. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Italy, 27 December 2020 to 7 November 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 33 250 344 people aged ≥16 years who received a first dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine and did not have a previous diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe covid-19 (admission to hospital or death). Data were divided by weekly time intervals after vaccination. Incidence rate ratios at different time intervals were estimated by multilevel negative binomial models with robust variance estimator. Sex, age group, brand of vaccine, priority risk category, and regional weekly incidence in the general population were included as covariates. Geographic region was included as a random effect. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness was calculated as (1-IRR)×100, where IRR=incidence rate ratio, with the time interval 0-14 days after the first dose of vaccine as the reference. RESULTS: During the epidemic phase when the delta variant was the predominant strain of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection significantly decreased (P<0.001) from 82% (95% confidence interval 80% to 84%) at 3-4 weeks after the second dose of vaccine to 33% (27% to 39%) at 27-30 weeks after the second dose. In the same time intervals, vaccine effectiveness against severe covid-19 also decreased (P<0.001), although to a lesser extent, from 96% (95% to 97%) to 80% (76% to 83%). High risk people (vaccine effectiveness -6%, -28% to 12%), those aged ≥80 years (11%, -15% to 31%), and those aged 60-79 years (2%, -11% to 14%) did not seem to be protected against infection at 27-30 weeks after the second dose of vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the vaccination campaigns targeting high risk people, those aged ≥60 years, and healthcare workers to receive a booster dose of vaccine six months after the primary vaccination cycle. The results also suggest that timing the booster dose earlier than six months after the primary vaccination cycle and extending the offer of the booster dose to the wider eligible population might be warranted.


Subject(s)
/immunology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Immunization, Secondary/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , /administration & dosage , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Incidence , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Severity of Illness Index , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Young Adult
4.
Euro Surveill ; 26(25)2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1288763

ABSTRACT

To assess the real-world impact of vaccines on COVID-19 related outcomes, we analysed data from over 7 million recipients of at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose in Italy. Taking 0-14 days post-first dose as reference, the SARS-CoV-2 infection risk subsequently decreased, reaching a reduction by 78% (incidence rate ratios (IRR): 0.22; 95% CI: 0.21-0.24) 43-49 days post-first dose. Similarly, hospitalisation and death risks decreased, with 89% (IRR: 0.11; 95% CI: 0.09-0.15) and 93% (IRR: 0.07; 95% CI: 0.04-0.11) reductions 36-42 days post-first dose. Our results support ongoing vaccination campaigns.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , COVID-19 Vaccines , Hospitalization , Hospitals , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Recenti Prog Med ; 112(4): 243-249, 2021 04.
Article in Italian | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1194517

ABSTRACT

Therapeutic plans (TPs) were introduced in Italy in 2004 in order to ensure the continuity in the prescription of new drugs between specialist physicians and general practitioners (GPs). Over the years this prescription tool was updated several times: starting from a paper form without any template ("paper TP") to a template defined by AIFA to collect specific clinical information, up to a web-based form to collect all information into a database. Over time-critical issues concerning its usefulness have been raised, especially when AIFA established several extensions for TP validity to ensure the social distancing required by the covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, after several years from their establishment, pending adoption of necessary implementing of Ministerial Decree of 25th March 2020, a check of the actual impact of TPs is required, in order to plan their review. This study provide a detailed overview of all TPs active in Italy at the 11th May 2020. From Farmadati database, all drugs reimbursed by the National Health Service (class A drugs) and requiring TP were selected. The consumption of these drugs has been derived from OsMed Reports that make available data of medicines consumption and expenditure in the general population in Italy. The analysis showed that TP is required for the prescription of 935 medicinal products (9.6% of class-A drugs) and 147 different active substances (belonging to 34 different Therapeutic Groups and 66 subgroups). Out of these, 67 (46%) required a paper TP without any template, 72 (49%) a paper TP on AIFA template, and 8 (5%) a web-based TP. The Therapeutic Group with the largest number of active ingredients with TP were antidiabetics (19.7%), followed by immunomodulating and immunosuppressants (9.5%) and medications for asthma and COPD (6.8%). Consumption analysis of drugs with TP showed that this prescription tool covers 943,899,598 DDD per year, equal to 2,586,026 DDD/day. This means that TPs have a very high impact in terms of the prevalence of patients treated on the entire care process. Of all annual DDDs prescribed on TP, 46.8% concerned drugs with TP on template AIFA, 34.5% drugs with web-based TP, while the remaining 18.7% drugs with paper TP without a template. This analysis may provide the basis for an analytical case-by-case review of TP maintenance needs, trying to maximize the benefits of this tool and to reduce its possible adverse effects. This review could be helpful to ensure the appropriateness in the drug uses, to enhance the role of general medicine, and to simplify the pathways of millions of patients ensuring the continuity of their care.


Subject(s)
Clinical Protocols , Drug Prescriptions/standards , Humans , Italy
6.
Drug Saf ; 43(12): 1297-1308, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1092868

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The epidemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been spreading globally, raising increasing concerns. There are several controversial hypotheses on the potentially harmful or beneficial effects of antihypertensive drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Furthermore, there is accumulating evidence, based on several observational studies, that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) do not increase the risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection. On the other hand, conflicting findings regarding the role of ACEIs/ARBs as prognosis modifiers in COVID-19 hospitalised patients have been reported. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this large-scale, retrospective cohort study was to investigate whether prior exposure to ACEIs and/or ARBs was associated with all-cause mortality among over 40,000 hospitalised COVID-19 patients compared with calcium channel blockers (CCBs), a potential therapeutic alternative. METHODS: This study was conducted using COVID-19 registries linked to claims databases from Lombardy, Veneto and Reggio Emilia (overall, 25% of Italian population). Overall, 42,926 patients hospitalised between 21 February and 21 April 2020 with a diagnosis of COVID-19 confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction tests were included in this study. All-cause mortality occurring in or out of hospital, as reported in the COVID-19 registry, was estimated. Using Cox models, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of all-cause mortality (along with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were estimated separately for ACEIs/ARBs and other antihypertensives versus CCBs and non-use. RESULTS: Overall, 11,205 in- and out-of-hospital deaths occurred over a median of 24 days of follow-up after hospital admission due to COVID-19. Compared with CCBs, adjusted analyses showed no difference in the risk of death among ACEI (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89-1.06) or ARB (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89-1.06) users. When non-use of antihypertensives was considered as a comparator, a modest statistically significant increase in mortality risk was observed for any antihypertensive use. However, when restricting to drugs with antihypertensive indications only, these marginal increases disappeared. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses confirmed our main findings. CONCLUSIONS: ACEI/ARB use is not associated with either an increased or decreased risk of all-cause mortality, compared with CCB use, in the largest cohort of hospitalised COVID-19 patients exposed to these drugs studied to date. The use of these drugs therefore does not affect the prognosis of COVID-19. This finding strengthens recommendations of international regulatory agencies about not withdrawing/switching ACEI/ARB treatments to modify COVID-19 prognosis.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , Hospitalization , Renin-Angiotensin System , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Calcium Channel Blockers/therapeutic use , Case-Control Studies , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Proportional Hazards Models , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Young Adult
7.
Recenti Prog Med ; 111(4): 253-256, 2020 Apr.
Article in Italian | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-110242

ABSTRACT

Given the succession of communications in scientific and popular circuits, tending to take for granted a role for vitamin D in the control of the coronavirus pandemic, the authors conducted an analysis of the literature currently available in order to recognize what is supported by opinions personal and what evidence of effectiveness. At the end of the bibliographic survey there is the current absence of evidence of efficacy in favor of vitamin D in the treatment of coronavirus infection in its various expressions. The diffusion of personal opinions as if they were evidence can be a disturbing factor for adequate assistance and for correct research.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Vitamin D/therapeutic use , Vitamins/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Calcifediol/blood , Cholecalciferol/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/etiology , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/etiology , Respiratory Tract Diseases/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Vitamin D Deficiency/complications
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL