Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
Thorax ; 77(Suppl 1):A25-A26, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-2119053


Introduction and ObjectivesLittle is known about how demographic, behavioural, and vaccine-related factors affect risk of post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection. We aimed to identify risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection after primary and booster vaccinations.MethodsThis prospective, population-based, UK study in adults (≥16 years) vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 assessed risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection up to February, 2022, for participants who completed a primary vaccination course (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT1262b2) and those who received a booster dose (BNT1262b2 or mRNA-1273). Cox regression models explored associations between sociodemographic, behavioural, clinical, pharmacological, and nutritional factors and test-positive breakthrough infection, adjusted for local weekly SARS-CoV-2 incidence and testing behaviours.Results1051 (7.1%) of 14,713 post-primary participants and 1009 (9.4%) of 10,665 post-booster participants reported breakthrough infection, over a median follow-up of 203 days (IQR 195–216) and 85 days (66–103), respectively. Primary vaccination with ChAdOx1 (vs BNT182b2) was associated with higher risk of infection in both post-primary analysis (adjusted hazard ratio 1.63, 95% CI 1.41–1.88) and after an mRNA-1273 booster (1.26 [1.00–1.57] vs BNT162b2 primary and booster). Lower risk of infection was associated with older age (post-primary: 0.97 [0.96–0.97] per year;post-booster: 0.97 [0.97–0.98]), whereas higher risk of infection was associated with lower educational attainment (post-primary: 1.78 [1.44–2.20] for primary or secondary vs postgraduate;post-booster: 1.46 [1.16–1.83]) and at least three weekly visits to indoor public places (post-primary: 1.36 [1.13–1.63] vs none;post-booster: 1.29 [1.07–1.56]).ConclusionsVaccine type, socioeconomic status, age, and behaviours affect risk of breakthrough infection after primary and booster vaccinations. These findings can inform public health messaging and prioritisation for future vaccinations.Please refer to page A208 for declarations of interest related to this .

Thorax ; 77(Suppl 1):A29, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-2118578


IntroductionVitamin D deficiency associates with susceptibility to COVID-19 and other acute respiratory infections (ARI).ObjectiveTo determine whether a ‘test-and-treat’ approach to vitamin D replacement in the general population reduces incidence of COVID-19 or other ARI.MethodsWe randomly assigned 6200 UK adults to receive an offer of a postal vitamin D test with postal provision of a 6-month supply of higher-dose vitamin D (3200 IU/d, n=1550) or lower-dose vitamin D (800 IU/d, n=1550) to those with 25(OH)D <75 nmol/L vs no offer of vitamin D testing or supplementation (n=3100). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants experiencing at least one test- or doctor-confirmed ARI of any cause at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included incidence of COVID-19.Results2958/3100 adults randomised to intervention accepted the offer of testing, of whom 2690 (90.9%) had 25(OH)D <75 nmol/L and received vitamin D supplements (1356 higher-dose, 1334 lower-dose). 72 adults in the higher-dose offer group, 86 in the lower-dose offer group and 132 in the no offer group experienced at least one ARI of any cause during follow-up (odds ratio [OR] for higher-dose vs. no offer 1.05, 95% CI 0.78–1.40;OR for lower-dose vs. no offer 1.27, 0.96–1.68). COVID-19 was diagnosed in 32 adults in the higher-dose offer group, 48 in the lower-dose offer group and 68 in the no offer group (OR for higher-dose vs. no offer 0.90, 0.59–1.37;OR for lower-dose vs. no offer 1.37, 0.94–1.99).ConclusionsIn adults with a high baseline prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency, a test-and-treat approach to vitamin D replacement did not reduce risk of all-cause ARI or COVID-19.Please refer to page A209 for declarations of interest related to this .

Thorax ; 76(SUPPL 1):A60-A61, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1147439


Background: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 10,933 participants in 25 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation for prevention of acute respiratory infections (ARI) revealed a protective effect. Since then, data from 15 new RCTs with over 20,000 participants have emerged. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of data from RCTs of vitamin D for ARI prevention using a random effects model. Pre-specified sub-group analyses were done to determine whether effects of vitamin D on risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentration or dosing regimen. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and the International Standard RCT Number (ISRCTN) registry from inception to 1st May 2020. Findings We identified 40 eligible RCTs (total 30,956 participants, aged 0 to 95 years). Data were obtained for 29,841 (96.5%) of 30,909 participants in 39 studies. For the primary comparison of vitamin D supplementation vs. placebo, the intervention reduced ARI risk overall (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98;P for heterogeneity 0.009). No statistically significant effect of vitamin D was seen for sub-groups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects were seen for trials using a daily dosing regimen (Table presented) (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93);at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89);and for a duration of ≤12 months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94). Vitamin D did not influence the risk of experiencing a serious adverse event. Risk of bias within studies was assessed as being low for all but two trials. A funnel plot showed asymmetry, suggesting that small trials showing non-protective effects of vitamin D may have been omitted from the meta-analysis. Interpretation: Vitamin D supplementation was safe and reduced risk of ARI, despite evidence of heterogeneity across trials. The overall effect size may have been over-estimated due to publication bias. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU vitamin D for up to 12 months. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires investigation.