Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-330740

ABSTRACT

In February 2021, Peru launched a vaccination campaign among healthcare personnel using BBIBP-CorV inactivated whole virus (BBIBP-CorV) COVID-19 vaccine. Two doses of BBIBP-CorV vaccine are recommended, 21 days apart. Data on BBIBP-CorV vaccine effectiveness will inform the use and acceptance of vaccination with BBIBP-CorV vaccine. We evaluated BBIBP-CorV vaccine effectiveness among an existing multi-year influenza cohort at two hospitals in Lima. We analyzed data on 290 participants followed between February and May 2021. Participants completed a baseline questionnaire and provided weekly self-collected anterior nasal swabs tested for SARS-CoV-2 by rRT-PCR for sixteen weeks. We performed multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for pre-selected characteristics (age, sex, exposure to COVID-19 patients, work in intensive care unit or emergency department, BMI, and exposure time in days). BBIBP-CorV vaccine effectiveness was calculated after the two-week post-vaccination period as (1-Odds Ratio for testing SARS-CoV-2 positive)x100%. SARS-CoV-2 was detected by rRT-PCR among 25 (9%) participants during follow-up (February-May 2021). Follow-up period ranged 1-11 weeks (median: 2 weeks). Among cohort participants who were fully vaccinated the adjusted vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection was estimated as 95% (95% CI: 70%, 99%) and 100% (95% CI: 88%, 100%) for those partially vaccinated. During the study period, vaccination of healthcare personnel with BBIBP-CorV vaccine was effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections in the weeks immediately following vaccination. This information can be used to support vaccination efforts in the region, especially among those who could be concerned about their effectiveness.

2.
Kompass Autoimmun ; 3(4):195-200, 2021.
Article in German | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1601604

ABSTRACT

Der vorliegende Artikel berichtet erstmals über ein bullöses pemphigoidartiges Exanthem in Verbindung mit COVID-19. In dieser Arbeit soll ein ungewöhnlicher dermatologischer Fall im Zusammenhang mit einer COVID-19-positiven Infektion vorgestellt werden, um die Virussymptomatik besser zu verstehen. Eine 37-jährige Frau mit Adipositas Grad 3, Diabetes mellitus Typ II und Hypertonie in der Vorgeschichte stellte sich im September 2020 in der Notaufnahme vor und wurde bis November 2020 ambulant und stationär behandelt. Nach Angaben der Patientin lagen bei ihr selbst oder in der Familie keine Hauterkrankungen vor. Die Patientin war vor der stationären Aufnahme positiv auf COVID-19 getestet worden und kam mit einem schweren persistierenden juckenden Exanthem, das die dermatopathologischen, serologischen und klinischen Kriterien für die Diagnose eines bullösen Pemphigoids erfüllte, ins Krankenhaus. Die histopathologische Untersuchung einer HE-gefärbten Stanzbiopsie aus der Beugeseite des linken Handgelenks ergab eine epidermale Keratinozytennekrose, subepidermale Bläschenbildung mit Eosinophilen, zarte Stränge in der papillären Dermis sowie ein subepidermales Ödem. In der direkten Imunfluoreszenz-Stanzbiopsie aus der Beugeseite des linken Handgelenks zeigte sich eine starke lineare IgG-Färbung in der dermoepidermalen Junktionszone mit einer etwas schwächeren fokalen linearen C3-Färbung. Die antigenspezifische Serologie war mit einem bullösen Pemphigoid vereinbar. Bislang liegen keine Berichte über einen Zusammenhang zwischen einer COVID-19-Infektion und einem bullösen Pemphigoid an der Haut vor;daher stellt dieser Fall eine wichtige Ergänzung der Evidenzlage dar und trägt dazu bei, das bullöse Pemphigoid im Zusammenhang mit einer Virusinfektion zu identifizieren.

5.
Open forum infectious diseases ; 8(Suppl 1):S289-S290, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1564997

ABSTRACT

Background Peru has one of the highest per capita SARS-CoV-2 death rates in Latin America. Healthcare workers (HCW) are a critical workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic but are themselves often at increased risk of infection. We evaluated SARS-CoV-2 attack rate and risk factors among frontline HCWs. Methods We performed a prospective cohort study of HCW serving two acute care hospitals in Lima, Peru from Aug 2020 to Mar 2021. Participants had baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology using the CDC ELISA, active symptom monitoring, and weekly respiratory specimen collection with COVID-19 exposure/risk assessment for 16-weeks regardless of symptoms. Respiratory specimens were tested by real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR). Results Of 783 eligible, 667 (85%) HCW were enrolled (33% nurse assistants, 29% non-clinical staff, 26% nurses, 7% physicians, and 6% other). At baseline and prior to COVID-19 vaccine introduction, 214 (32.1%;214/667) were reactive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. In total, 72 (10.8%;72/667) HCWs were found to be rRT-PCR positive during weekly follow-up. Of the rRT-PCR positive HCWs, 37.5% (27/72) did not report symptoms within 1-week of specimen collection. During follow up, HCW without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline were significantly more likely to be rRT-PCR positive (65/453, 14.3%) compared to those with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline (4/214, 1.9%) (p-value: < 0.001). Three HCW were both serologically reactive and rRT-PCR positive at baseline. Looking only at HCW without SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, nurse assistants (rRT-PCR positive: 18.6%;27/141) and non-clinical healthcare workers (16.5%;21/127) were at greater risk of infection compared to nurses (8.5%;10/118), physicians (7.9%;3/38), and other staff (10.3%;4/29) (RR 1.95;95%CI 1.2,3.3;p-value: 0.01). Conclusion Baseline SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and 16-week cumulative incidence were substantial in this pre-vaccination Peruvian HCW cohort. Almost 40% of new infections occurred in HCW without complaint of symptoms illustrating a limitation of symptom-based HCW screening for COVID-19 prevention. Nurse assistants and non-clinical healthcare workers were at greater risk of infection indicating a role for focused infection prevention and risk reduction strategies for some groups of HCW. Disclosures Fernanda C. Lessa, MD, MPH, Nothing to disclose

6.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(44): 1553-1559, 2021 Nov 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1502903

ABSTRACT

Immunocompromised persons, defined as those with suppressed humoral or cellular immunity resulting from health conditions or medications, account for approximately 3% of the U.S. adult population (1). Immunocompromised adults are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes (2) and might not acquire the same level of protection from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as do immunocompetent adults (3,4). To evaluate vaccine effectiveness (VE) among immunocompromised adults, data from the VISION Network* on hospitalizations among persons aged ≥18 years with COVID-19-like illness from 187 hospitals in nine states during January 17-September 5, 2021 were analyzed. Using selected discharge diagnoses,† VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization conferred by completing a 2-dose series of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine ≥14 days before the index hospitalization date§ (i.e., being fully vaccinated) was evaluated using a test-negative design comparing 20,101 immunocompromised adults (10,564 [53%] of whom were fully vaccinated) and 69,116 immunocompetent adults (29,456 [43%] of whom were fully vaccinated). VE of 2 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was lower among immunocompromised patients (77%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 74%-80%) than among immunocompetent patients (90%; 95% CI = 89%-91%). This difference persisted irrespective of mRNA vaccine product, age group, and timing of hospitalization relative to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance in the state of hospitalization. VE varied across immunocompromising condition subgroups, ranging from 59% (organ or stem cell transplant recipients) to 81% (persons with a rheumatologic or inflammatory disorder). Immunocompromised persons benefit from mRNA COVID-19 vaccination but are less protected from severe COVID-19 outcomes than are immunocompetent persons, and VE varies among immunocompromised subgroups. Immunocompromised persons receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should receive 3 doses and a booster, consistent with CDC recommendations (5), practice nonpharmaceutical interventions, and, if infected, be monitored closely and considered early for proven therapies that can prevent severe outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Immunocompromised Host/immunology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Female , Humans , Immunization Schedule , Laboratories , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , United States/epidemiology , Vaccines, Synthetic/administration & dosage , Young Adult
7.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(44): 1539-1544, 2021 Nov 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1502901

ABSTRACT

Previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) or COVID-19 vaccination can provide immunity and protection from subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness. CDC used data from the VISION Network* to examine hospitalizations in adults with COVID-19-like illness and compared the odds of receiving a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, and thus having laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, between unvaccinated patients with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection occurring 90-179 days before COVID-19-like illness hospitalization, and patients who were fully vaccinated with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine 90-179 days before hospitalization with no previous documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hospitalized adults aged ≥18 years with COVID-19-like illness were included if they had received testing at least twice: once associated with a COVID-19-like illness hospitalization during January-September 2021 and at least once earlier (since February 1, 2020, and ≥14 days before that hospitalization). Among COVID-19-like illness hospitalizations in persons whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90-179 days earlier, the odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (adjusted for sociodemographic and health characteristics) among unvaccinated, previously infected adults were higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine with no previous documented infection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 5.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.75-10.99). These findings suggest that among hospitalized adults with COVID-19-like illness whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90-179 days earlier, vaccine-induced immunity was more protective than infection-induced immunity against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Laboratories , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Vaccines, Synthetic/administration & dosage , Vaccines, Synthetic/immunology , Young Adult
8.
N Engl J Med ; 385(15): 1355-1371, 2021 10 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1397961

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the effectiveness of the vaccines against symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) currently authorized in the United States with respect to hospitalization, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), or ambulatory care in an emergency department or urgent care clinic. METHODS: We conducted a study involving adults (≥50 years of age) with Covid-19-like illness who underwent molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We assessed 41,552 admissions to 187 hospitals and 21,522 visits to 221 emergency departments or urgent care clinics during the period from January 1 through June 22, 2021, in multiple states. The patients' vaccination status was documented in electronic health records and immunization registries. We used a test-negative design to estimate vaccine effectiveness by comparing the odds of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated patients with those among unvaccinated patients. Vaccine effectiveness was adjusted with weights based on propensity-for-vaccination scores and according to age, geographic region, calendar time (days from January 1, 2021, to the index date for each medical visit), and local virus circulation. RESULTS: The effectiveness of full messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination (≥14 days after the second dose) was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87 to 91) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization, 90% (95% CI, 86 to 93) against infection leading to an ICU admission, and 91% (95% CI, 89 to 93) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. The effectiveness of full vaccination with respect to a Covid-19-associated hospitalization or emergency department or urgent care clinic visit was similar with the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines and ranged from 81% to 95% among adults 85 years of age or older, persons with chronic medical conditions, and Black or Hispanic adults. The effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was 68% (95% CI, 50 to 79) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization and 73% (95% CI, 59 to 82) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. CONCLUSIONS: Covid-19 vaccines in the United States were highly effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. This vaccine effectiveness extended to populations that are disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Readmission/statistics & numerical data , United States/epidemiology
9.
Case Rep Dermatol Med ; 2021: 5575111, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1262416

ABSTRACT

This manuscript presents a report of bullous pemphigoid rash associated with COVID-19 for the first time. The objective of this manuscript is to present a unique dermatological case in the setting of a COVID-19-positive infection to further recognize the virus symptomatology. A 37-year-old female with a past medical history of class III obesity, type II diabetes mellitus, and hypertension presented to the emergency department in September 2020 with inpatient and outpatient follow-up through to November 2020. The patient denied any personal or family history of skin disorders. The patient tested positive for COVID-19 prior to hospitalization and presented to the hospital with severe, persistent, pruritic rash meeting dermatopathological, serologic, and clinical criteria for bullous pemphigoid diagnosis. Histopathology H&E punch biopsy from her left flexor wrist demonstrated epidermal keratinocyte necrosis, subepidermal vesiculation with eosinophils, gossamer stranding of the papillary dermis, and subepidermal edema. Direct immunofluorescence punch biopsy from her left flexor wrist demonstrated strong linear IgG staining at the dermoepidermal junction, with weaker and focal linear C3 staining. Antigen-specific serology was consistent with bullous pemphigoid. There was no previously reported cutaneous association of COVID-19 infection with bullous pemphigoid making this case an important addition to the body of evidence helping to identify bullous pemphigoid in the setting of viral infection.

10.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 20(11): 1255-1262, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-684287

ABSTRACT

Background Scant data are available about global patterns of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spread and global epidemiology of early confirmed cases of COVID-19 outside mainland China. We describe the global spread of SARS-CoV-2 and characteristics of COVID-19 cases and clusters before the characterisation of COVID-19 as a pandemic. METHODS: Cases of COVID-19 reported between Dec 31, 2019, and March 10, 2020 (ie, the prepandemic period), were identified daily from official websites, press releases, press conference transcripts, and social media feeds of national ministries of health or other government agencies. Case characteristics, travel history, and exposures to other cases were abstracted. Countries with at least one case were classified as affected. Early cases were defined as those among the first 100 cases reported from each country. Later cases were defined as those after the first 100 cases. We analysed reported travel to affected countries among the first case reported from each country outside mainland China, demographic and exposure characteristics among cases with age or sex information, and cluster frequencies and sizes by transmission settings. FINDINGS: Among the first case reported from each of 99 affected countries outside of mainland China, 75 (76%) had recent travel to affected countries; 60 (61%) had travelled to China, Italy, or Iran. Among 1200 cases with age or sex information, 874 (73%) were early cases. Among 762 early cases with age information, the median age was 51 years (IQR 35-63); 25 (3%) of 762 early cases occurred in children younger than 18 years. Overall, 21 (2%) of 1200 cases were in health-care workers and none were in pregnant women. 101 clusters were identified, of which the most commonly identified transmission setting was households (76 [75%]; mean 2·6 cases per cluster [range 2-7]), followed by non-health-care occupational settings (14 [14%]; mean 4·3 cases per cluster [2-14]), and community gatherings (11 [11%]; mean 14·2 cases per cluster [4-36]). INTERPRETATION: Cases with travel links to China, Italy, or Iran accounted for almost two-thirds of the first reported COVID-19 cases from affected countries. Among cases with age information available, most were among adults aged 18 years and older. Although there were many clusters of household transmission among early cases, clusters in occupational or community settings tended to be larger, supporting a possible role for physical distancing to slow the progression of SARS-CoV-2 spread. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Epidemiological Monitoring , Global Health , Internet , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19 , Child , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Family Characteristics , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Travel , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL