Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
PNAS Nexus ; 1(3): pgac071, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2222701

ABSTRACT

Case reports of patients infected with COVID-19 and influenza virus ("flurona") have raised questions around the prevalence and severity of coinfection. Using data from HHS Protect Public Data Hub, NCBI Virus, and CDC FluView, we analyzed trends in SARS-CoV-2 and influenza hospitalized coinfection cases and strain prevalences. We also characterized coinfection cases across the Mayo Clinic Enterprise from January 2020 to April 2022. We compared expected and observed coinfection case counts across different waves of the pandemic and assessed symptoms and outcomes of coinfection and COVID-19 monoinfection cases after propensity score matching on clinically relevant baseline characteristics. From both the Mayo Clinic and nationwide datasets, the observed coinfection rate for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza has been higher during the Omicron era (2021 December 14 to 2022 April 2) compared to previous waves, but no higher than expected assuming infection rates are independent. At the Mayo Clinic, only 120 coinfection cases were observed among 197,364 SARS-CoV-2 cases. Coinfected patients were relatively young (mean age: 26.7 years) and had fewer serious comorbidities compared to monoinfected patients. While there were no significant differences in 30-day hospitalization, ICU admission, or mortality rates between coinfected and matched COVID-19 monoinfection cases, coinfection cases reported higher rates of symptoms including congestion, cough, fever/chills, headache, myalgia/arthralgia, pharyngitis, and rhinitis. While most coinfection cases observed at the Mayo Clinic occurred among relatively healthy individuals, further observation is needed to assess outcomes among subpopulations with risk factors for severe COVID-19 such as older age, obesity, and immunocompromised status.

2.
Sci Rep ; 13(1): 257, 2023 01 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2186044

ABSTRACT

The emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants and vaccine breakthrough infections globally mandated the characterization of the immuno-evasive features of SARS-CoV-2. Here, we systematically analyzed 2.13 million SARS-CoV-2 genomes from 188 countries/territories (up to June 2021) and performed whole-genome viral sequencing from 102 COVID-19 patients, including 43 vaccine breakthrough infections. We identified 92 Spike protein mutations that increased in prevalence during at least one surge in SARS-CoV-2 test positivity in any country over a 3-month window. Deletions in the Spike protein N-terminal domain were highly enriched for these 'surge-associated mutations' (Odds Ratio = 14.19, 95% CI 6.15-32.75, p value = 3.41 × 10-10). Based on a longitudinal analysis of mutational prevalence globally, we found an expanding repertoire of Spike protein deletions proximal to an antigenic supersite in the N-terminal domain that may be one of the key contributors to the evolution of highly transmissible variants. Finally, we generated clinically annotated SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequences from 102 patients and identified 107 unique mutations, including 78 substitutions and 29 deletions. In five patients, we identified distinct deletions between residues 85-90, which reside within a linear B cell epitope. Deletions in this region arose contemporaneously on a diverse background of variants across the globe since December 2020. Overall, our findings based on genomic-epidemiology and clinical surveillance suggest that the genomic deletion of dispensable antigenic regions in SARS-CoV-2 may contribute to the evasion of immune responses and the evolution of highly transmissible variants.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/genetics , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/genetics , Breakthrough Infections , Mutation , Sequence Deletion
3.
PNAS nexus ; 1(3), 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1940182

ABSTRACT

Case reports of patients infected with COVID-19 and influenza virus (“flurona”) have raised questions around the prevalence and severity of coinfection. Using data from HHS Protect Public Data Hub, NCBI Virus, and CDC FluView, we analyzed trends in SARS-CoV-2 and influenza hospitalized coinfection cases and strain prevalences. We also characterized coinfection cases across the Mayo Clinic Enterprise from January 2020 to April 2022. We compared expected and observed coinfection case counts across different waves of the pandemic and assessed symptoms and outcomes of coinfection and COVID-19 monoinfection cases after propensity score matching on clinically relevant baseline characteristics. From both the Mayo Clinic and nationwide datasets, the observed coinfection rate for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza has been higher during the Omicron era (2021 December 14 to 2022 April 2) compared to previous waves, but no higher than expected assuming infection rates are independent. At the Mayo Clinic, only 120 coinfection cases were observed among 197,364 SARS-CoV-2 cases. Coinfected patients were relatively young (mean age: 26.7 years) and had fewer serious comorbidities compared to monoinfected patients. While there were no significant differences in 30-day hospitalization, ICU admission, or mortality rates between coinfected and matched COVID-19 monoinfection cases, coinfection cases reported higher rates of symptoms including congestion, cough, fever/chills, headache, myalgia/arthralgia, pharyngitis, and rhinitis. While most coinfection cases observed at the Mayo Clinic occurred among relatively healthy individuals, further observation is needed to assess outcomes among subpopulations with risk factors for severe COVID-19 such as older age, obesity, and immunocompromised status.

4.
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 , BNT162 Vaccine , 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 , mRNA Vaccines
5.
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 , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics
6.
Med (N Y) ; 2(8): 965-978.e5, 2021 08 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1294062

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination campaign unfolds, it is important to continuously assess the real-world safety of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized vaccines. Curation of large-scale electronic health records (EHRs) enables near-real-time safety evaluations that were not previously possible. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we deployed deep neural networks over a large EHR system to automatically curate the adverse effects mentioned by physicians in over 1.2 million clinical notes between December 1, 2020 and April 20, 2021. We compared notes from 68,266 individuals who received at least one dose of BNT162b2 (n = 51,795) or mRNA-1273 (n = 16,471) to notes from 68,266 unvaccinated individuals who were matched by demographic, geographic, and clinical features. FINDINGS: Individuals vaccinated with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 had a higher rate of return to the clinic, but not the emergency department, after both doses compared to unvaccinated controls. The most frequently documented adverse effects within 7 days of each vaccine dose included myalgia, headache, and fatigue, but the rates of EHR documentation for each side effect were remarkably low compared to those derived from active solicitation during clinical trials. Severe events, including anaphylaxis, facial paralysis, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, were rare and occurred at similar frequencies in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of vaccine-related adverse effects from over 1.2 million EHR notes of more than 130,000 individuals reaffirms the safety and tolerability of the FDA-authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in practice. FUNDING: This study was funded by nference.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Humans , Mass Vaccination , RNA, Messenger , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , United States , United States Food and Drug Administration
7.
Elife ; 92020 07 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-635065

ABSTRACT

Understanding temporal dynamics of COVID-19 symptoms could provide fine-grained resolution to guide clinical decision-making. Here, we use deep neural networks over an institution-wide platform for the augmented curation of clinical notes from 77,167 patients subjected to COVID-19 PCR testing. By contrasting Electronic Health Record (EHR)-derived symptoms of COVID-19-positive (COVIDpos; n = 2,317) versus COVID-19-negative (COVIDneg; n = 74,850) patients for the week preceding the PCR testing date, we identify anosmia/dysgeusia (27.1-fold), fever/chills (2.6-fold), respiratory difficulty (2.2-fold), cough (2.2-fold), myalgia/arthralgia (2-fold), and diarrhea (1.4-fold) as significantly amplified in COVIDpos over COVIDneg patients. The combination of cough and fever/chills has 4.2-fold amplification in COVIDpos patients during the week prior to PCR testing, in addition to anosmia/dysgeusia, constitutes the earliest EHR-derived signature of COVID-19. This study introduces an Augmented Intelligence platform for the real-time synthesis of institutional biomedical knowledge. The platform holds tremendous potential for scaling up curation throughput, thus enabling EHR-powered early disease diagnosis.


Subject(s)
Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Adult , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Chills/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Diarrhea/virology , Dysgeusia/virology , Female , Fever/virology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Myalgia/virology , Olfaction Disorders/virology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL