Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
2.
Gastroenterology ; 162(7):S-1008, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1967396

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Immune-modulating medications for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) have been associated with suboptimal vaccine responses. There is conflicting data with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. METHODS: We measured SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immunogenicity at 2 weeks post 2nd mRNA vaccine in IBD patients as compared to normal healthy donors (NHD). We measured humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2: anti-spike Immunoglobulin G (IgG) and anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG were measured by ELISA, and neutralizing antibody titers were measured using recombinant, reporter SARS-CoV-2. Antigen specific memory B cells were measured using recombinant SARS-CoV-2 proteins. Activation induced marker T cell (AIM) assays were performed using SARS-CoV-2 spike megapools. Immunophenotyping was performed by flow cytometry. RESULTS: We enrolled 29 patients with IBD (19 with Crohn's disease, 10 with ulcerative colitis) on infliximab (IFX) monotherapy (N=9), IFX combination therapy with a thiopurine (N=9), vedolizumab monotherapy (N= 11) as compared to matched NHD (N=12). At 2 weeks post vaccination, all subjects made detectable anti-spike IgG and anti-RBD IgG. There were no differences in anti-spike IgG titers among the different groups. IBD patients on IFX monotherapy, but not IBD patients on IFX combination therapy or vedolizumab monotherapy, had lower anti-RBD and neutralization titers as compared to NHD (p-value: 0.041 and 0.023, respectively) (Fig. 1). There were no significant differences in the percentage of spike-specific or RBD-specific memory B cells in IBD patients as compared to NHD (Fig. 1). There were no differences in the percentage of spike-specific CD4+ or CD8+ T cells in all IBD patients as compared to NHDs (Fig. 2). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate overall comparable and perserved cell-mediated immunity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in a small cohort of IBD patients treated with a range of different immune-modulating medications as compared to healthy controls. Larger numbers of patients are needed to validate these findings.

3.
Embase;
Preprint in English | EMBASE | ID: ppcovidwho-327028

ABSTRACT

We address whether T cell responses induced by different vaccine platforms (mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, NVX-CoV2373) cross-recognize SARS-CoV-2 variants. Preservation of at least 83% and 85% for CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses was found, respectively, regardless of vaccine platform or variants analyzed. By contrast, highly significant decreases were observed for memory B cell and neutralizing antibody recognition of variants. Bioinformatic analyses showed full conservation of 91% and 94% of class II and class I spike epitopes. For Omicron, 72% of class II and 86% of class I epitopes were fully conserved, and 84% and 85% of CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses were preserved. In-depth epitope repertoire analysis showed a median of 11 and 10 spike epitopes recognized by CD4+ and CD8+ T cells from vaccinees. Functional preservation of the majority of the T cell responses may play an important role as a second-level defense against diverse variants.

4.
Working Paper Series National Bureau of Economic Research ; 25(36), 2020.
Article in English | GIM | ID: covidwho-1408090

ABSTRACT

We analyze the impact of Covid-19 on productivity in the United Kingdom using data derived from a large monthly firm panel survey. Our estimates suggest that Covid-19 will reduce TFP in the private sector by up to 5% in 2020 Q4, falling back to a 1% reduction in the medium term. Firms anticipate a large reduction in 'within-firm' productivity, primarily because measures to contain Covid-19 are expected to increase intermediate costs. The negative 'within-firm' effect is partially offset by a positive 'between-firm' effect as low productivity sectors, and the least productive firms among them, are disproportionately affected by Covid-19 and consequently make a smaller contribution to the economy. In the longer run, productivity growth is likely to be reduced by diminished R&D expenditure and diverted senior management time spent on dealing with the pandemic.

5.
Working Paper Series National Bureau of Economic Research ; 30, 2020.
Article in English | GIM | ID: covidwho-1408089

ABSTRACT

Uncertainty rises in recessions and falls in booms. But what is the causal relationship? We construct cross-country panel data on stock market levels and volatility and use natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and political shocks as instruments in regressions and VAR estimations. We find that increased volatility robustly lowers growth. We also structurally estimate a heterogeneous firms business cycle model with uncertainty and disasters and use this to analyze our empirical results. Finally, using our VAR results we estimate COVID-19 will reduce US GDP by 9% in 2020 based on the initial stock market returns and volatility response.

6.
Working Paper Series National Bureau of Economic Research ; 16(33), 2020.
Article in English | GIM | ID: covidwho-1408088

ABSTRACT

Assessing the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is essential for policymakers, but challenging because the crisis has unfolded with extreme speed. We identify three indicators - stock market volatility, newspaper-based economic uncertainty, and subjective uncertainty in business expectation surveys - that provide real-time forward-looking uncertainty measures. We use these indicators to document and quantify the enormous increase in economic uncertainty in the past several weeks. We also illustrate how these forward-looking measures can be used to assess the macroeconomic impact of the COVID-19 crisis. Specifically, we feed COVID-induced first-moment and uncertainty shocks into an estimated model of disaster effects developed by Baker, Bloom and Terry (2020). Our illustrative exercise implies a year-on-year contraction in U.S. real GDP of nearly 11 percent as of 2020 Q4, with a 90 percent confidence interval extending to a nearly 20 percent contraction. The exercise says that about half of the forecasted output contraction reflects a negative effect of COVID-induced uncertainty.

7.
Aea Papers and Proceedings ; 111:287-291, 2021.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-1266534
8.
Aea Papers and Proceedings ; 111:263-266, 2021.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-1266527
9.
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity ; : 329-371, 2020.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-1226879

ABSTRACT

We develop several pieces of evidence about the reallocative effects of the COVID-19 shock on impact and over time. First, the shock caused three to four new hires for every ten layoffs from March 1 to mid-May 2020. Second, we project that one-third or more of the layoffs during this period are permanent in the sense that job losers won't return to their old jobs at their previous employers. Third, firm-level forecasts at a one-year horizon imply rates of expected job and sales reallocation that are two to five times larger from April to June 2020 than before the pandemic. Fourth, full days working from home will triple from 5 percent of all workdays in 2019 to more than 15 percent after the pandemic ends. We also document pandemic-induced job gains at many firms and a sharp rise in cross-firm equity return dispersion in reaction to the pandemic. After developing the evidence, we consider implications for the economic outlook and for policy. Unemployment benefit levels that exceed worker earnings, policies that subsidize employee retention irrespective of the employer's commercial outlook, and barriers to worker mobility and business formation impede reallocation responses to the COVID-19 shock.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL