Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(4): e227038, 2022 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1787607

ABSTRACT

Importance: Recent reports on waning of COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity have led to the approval and rollout of additional doses and booster vaccinations. Individuals at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection are receiving additional vaccine doses in addition to the regimen that was tested in clinical trials. Risks and adverse event profiles associated with additional vaccine doses are currently not well understood. Objective: To evaluate the safety of third-dose vaccination with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted using electronic health record (EHR) data from December 2020 to October 2021 from the multistate Mayo Clinic Enterprise. Participants included all 47 999 individuals receiving 3-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccines within the study setting who met study inclusion criteria. Participants were divided into 2 cohorts by vaccine brand administered and served as their own control groups, with no comparison made between cohorts. Data were analyzed from September through November 2021. Exposures: Three doses of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. Main Outcomes and Measures: Vaccine-associated adverse events were assessed via EHR report. Adverse event risk was quantified using the percentage of study participants who reported the adverse event within 14 days after each vaccine dose and during a 14-day control period, immediately preceding the first vaccine dose. Results: Among 47 999 individuals who received 3-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, 38 094 individuals (21 835 [57.3%] women; median [IQR] age, 67.4 [52.5-76.5] years) received BNT162b2 (79.4%) and 9905 individuals (5099 [51.5%] women; median [IQR] age, 67.7 [59.5-73.9] years) received mRNA-1273 (20.6%). Reporting of severe adverse events remained low after the third vaccine dose, with rates of pericarditis (0.01%; 95% CI, 0%-0.02%), anaphylaxis (0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.01%), myocarditis (0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.01%), and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (no individuals) consistent with results from earlier studies. Significantly more individuals reported low-severity adverse events after the third dose compared with after the second dose, including fatigue (2360 individuals [4.92%] vs 1665 individuals [3.47%]; P < .001), lymphadenopathy (1387 individuals [2.89%] vs 995 individuals [2.07%]; P < .001), nausea (1259 individuals [2.62%] vs 979 individuals [2.04%]; P < .001), headache (1185 individuals [2.47%] vs 992 individuals [2.07%]; P < .001), arthralgia (1019 individuals [2.12%] vs 816 individuals [1.70%]; P < .001), myalgia (956 individuals [1.99%] vs 784 individuals [1.63%]; P < .001), diarrhea (817 individuals [1.70%] vs 595 individuals [1.24%]; P < .001), fever (533 individuals [1.11%] vs 391 individuals [0.81%]; P < .001), vomiting (528 individuals [1.10%] vs 385 individuals [0.80%]; P < .001), and chills (224 individuals [0.47%] vs 175 individuals [0.36%]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that although third-dose vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased reporting of low-severity adverse events, risk of severe adverse events remained comparable with risk associated with the standard 2-dose regime. These findings suggest the safety of third vaccination doses in individuals who were eligible for booster vaccination at the time of this study.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Aged , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Cohort Studies , Electronic Health Records , Female , Humans , Male , RNA, Messenger , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/adverse effects , Vaccines, Synthetic
2.
Cell Death Discov ; 8(1): 124, 2022 Mar 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1751709

ABSTRACT

Acute cardiac injury has been observed in a subset of COVID-19 patients, but the molecular basis for this clinical phenotype is unknown. It has been hypothesized that molecular mimicry may play a role in triggering an autoimmune inflammatory reaction in some individuals after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here we investigate if linear peptides contained in proteins that are primarily expressed in the heart also occur in the SARS-CoV-2 proteome. Specifically, we compared the library of 136,704 8-mer peptides from 144 human proteins (including splicing variants) to 9926 8-mers from all the viral proteins in the reference SARS-CoV-2 proteome. No 8-mers were exactly identical between the reference human proteome and the reference SARS-CoV-2 proteome. However, there were 45 8-mers that differed by only one amino acid when compared to the reference SARS-CoV-2 proteome. Interestingly, analysis of protein-coding mutations from 141,456 individuals showed that one of these 8-mers from the SARS-CoV-2 Replicase polyprotein 1a/1ab (KIALKGGK) is identical to an MYH6 peptide encoded by the c.5410 C > A (Q1804K) genetic variation, which has been observed at low prevalence in Africans/African Americans (0.08%), East Asians (0.3%), South Asians (0.06%), and Latino/Admixed Americans (0.003%). Furthermore, analysis of 4.85 million SARS-CoV-2 genomes from over 200 countries shows that viral evolution has already resulted in 20 additional 8-mer peptides that are identical to human heart-enriched proteins encoded by reference sequences or genetic variants. Whether such mimicry contributes to cardiac inflammation during or after COVID-19 illness warrants further experimental evaluation. We suggest that SARS-CoV-2 variants harboring peptides identical to human cardiac proteins should be investigated as "viral variants of cardiac interest".

3.
Med (N Y) ; 3(1): 28-41.e8, 2022 Jan 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1559964

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are safe and effective, but increasing reports of breakthrough infections highlight the need to vigilantly monitor and compare the effectiveness of these vaccines. METHODS: We retrospectively compared protection against symptomatic infection conferred by mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 at Mayo Clinic sites from December 2020 to September 2021. We used a test-negative case-control design to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) and to compare the odds of symptomatic infection after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2, while adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geography, comorbidities, and calendar time of vaccination and testing. FINDINGS: Both vaccines were highly effective over the study duration (VEmRNA-1273: 84.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 81.6%-86.2%; VEBNT162b2: 75.6%, 95% CI: 72.2%-78.7%), but their effectiveness was reduced during July-September (VEmRNA-1273: 75.6%, 95% CI: 70.1%-80%; VEBNT162b2: 63.5%, 95% CI: 55.8%-69.9%) as compared to December-May (VEmRNA-1273: 93.7%, 95% CI: 90.4%-95.9%; VEBNT162b2: 85.7%, 95% CI: 81.4%-88.9%). Adjusted for demographic characteristics, clinical comorbidities, time of vaccination, and time of testing, the odds of experiencing a symptomatic breakthrough infection were lower after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 than with BNT162b2 (odds ratio: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.55-0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Both mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 strongly protect against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. It is imperative to continue monitoring and comparing available vaccines over time and with respect to emerging variants to inform public and global health decisions. FUNDING: This study was funded by nference.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics
4.
J Clin Invest ; 131(19)2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1448085

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUNDClinical data to support the use of bamlanivimab for the treatment of outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) are needed.METHODS2335 Patients who received single-dose bamlanivimab infusion between November 12, 2020, and February 17, 2021, were compared with a propensity-matched control of 2335 untreated patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic facilities across 4 states. The primary outcome was the rate of hospitalization at days 14, 21, and 28.RESULTSThe median age of the population was 63 years; 47.3% of the bamlanivimab-treated cohort were 65 years or more; 49.3% were female and 50.7% were male. High-risk characteristics included hypertension (54.2%), BMI greater than or equal to 35 (32.4%), diabetes mellitus (26.5%), chronic lung disease (25.1%), malignancy (16.6%), and renal disease (14.5%). Patients who received bamlanivimab had lower all-cause hospitalization rates at days 14 (1.5% vs. 3.5%; risk ratio [RR], 0.41), 21 (1.9% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.49), and 28 (2.5% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.63). Secondary exploratory outcomes included lower intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates at days 14 (0.14% vs. 1%; RR, 0.14), 21 (0.25% vs.1%; RR, 0.25), and 28 (0.56% vs.1.1%; RR. 0.51) and lower all-cause mortality at days 14 (0% vs. 0.33%), 21 (0.05% vs. 0.4%; RR,0.13), and 28 (0.11% vs. 0.44%; RR, 0.26). Adverse events were uncommon with bamlanivimab, occurring in 19 of 2355 patients, and were most commonly fever (n = 6), nausea (n = 5), and lightheadedness (n = 3).CONCLUSIONSAmong high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with bamlanivimab was associated with a statistically significant lower rate of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality compared with usual care.FUNDINGMayo Clinic.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage , COVID-19 , Hospitalization , SARS-CoV-2/metabolism , Administration, Intravenous , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/metabolism , COVID-19/mortality , Disease-Free Survival , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Risk Factors , Survival Rate
5.
iScience ; 24(7): 102780, 2021 Jul 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1284160

ABSTRACT

Patients with COVID-19 can experience symptoms and complications after viral clearance. It is important to identify clinical features of patients who are likely to experience these prolonged effects. We conducted a retrospective study to compare longitudinal laboratory test measurements (hemoglobin, hematocrit, estimated glomerular filtration rate, serum creatinine, and blood urea nitrogen) in patients rehospitalized after PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 clearance (n = 104) versus patients not rehospitalized after viral clearance (n = 278). Rehospitalized patients had lower median hemoglobin levels in the year prior to COVID-19 diagnosis (Cohen's D = -0.50; p = 1.2 × 10-3) and during their active SARS-CoV-2 infection (Cohen's D = -0.71; p = 4.6 × 10-8). Rehospitalized patients were also more likely to be diagnosed with moderate or severe anemia during their active infection (Odds Ratio = 4.07; p = 4.99 × 10-9). These findings suggest that anemia-related laboratory tests should be considered in risk stratification algorithms for patients with COVID-19.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL