Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Añadir filtros

Base de datos
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año
1.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 11(5)2023 May 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20232662

RESUMEN

Prior research generally finds that the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and Moderna (mRNA1273) COVID-19 vaccines provide similar protection against mortality, sometimes with a Moderna advantage due to slower waning. However, most comparisons do not address selection effects for those who are vaccinated and with which vaccine. We report evidence on large selection effects, and use a novel method to control for these effects. Instead of directly studying COVID-19 mortality, we study the COVID-19 excess mortality percentage (CEMP), defined as the COVID-19 deaths divided by non-COVID-19 natural deaths for the same population, converted to a percentage. The CEMP measure uses non-COVID-19 natural deaths to proxy for population health and control for selection effects. We report the relative mortality risk (RMR) for each vaccine relative to the unvaccinated population and to the other vaccine, using linked mortality and vaccination records for all adults in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, from 1 April 2021 through 30 June 2022. For two-dose vaccinees aged 60+, RMRs for Pfizer vaccinees were consistently over twice those for Moderna, and averaged 248% of Moderna (95% CI = 175%,353%). In the Omicron period, Pfizer RMR was 57% versus 23% for Moderna. Both vaccines demonstrated waning of two-dose effectiveness over time, especially for ages 60+. For booster recipients, the Pfizer-Moderna gap is much smaller and statistically insignificant. A possible explanation for the Moderna advantage for older persons is the higher Moderna dose of 100 µg, versus 30 µg for Pfizer. Younger persons (aged 18-59) were well-protected against death by two doses of either vaccine, and highly protected by three doses (no deaths among over 100,000 vaccinees). These results support the importance of a booster dose for ages 60+, especially for Pfizer recipients. They suggest, but do not prove, that a larger vaccine dose may be appropriate for older persons than for younger persons.

2.
J Clin Med ; 12(1)2022 Dec 27.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2241067

RESUMEN

Nasopharyngeal swab sample collection is the first-line testing method for diagnosing COVID-19 infection and other respiratory infections. Current information on how to properly perform nasopharyngeal swabbing in children is largely defective. This study aimed at collecting nostril to nasopharynx distance measurements on lateral skull radiographs of children and adolescents to design a nasopharyngeal swab meant to standardize and facilitate the sample collection procedure. A total of 323 cephalograms of 152 male and 171 female children aged 4-14 years taken for orthodontic reasons were selected. On each cephalogram, the shortest distance between the most anterosuperior point of the nostril contour and the nasopharynx outline was measured in mm parallel to the palatal plane. Descriptive statistics of the measurements were calculated for each age group. The lower limit of the 95% confidence intervals of the measurements was taken as a reference to design a swab shaft with marks that, at each age, delimitate a safety boundary for swab progression up to the posterior nasopharyngeal wall. The simplification of the procedure enabled by the newly designed nasopharyngeal swab is valuable to help healthcare providers perform specimen collection on children in a safe and effective way, perhaps under the less-than-ideal conditions possibly occurring in 'point-of-need' contexts.

3.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 11(2)2023 Feb 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2227716

RESUMEN

COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives; however, understanding the long-term effectiveness of these vaccines is imperative to developing recommendations for booster doses and other precautions. Comparisons of mortality rates between more and less vaccinated groups may be misleading due to selection bias, as these groups may differ in underlying health status. We studied all adult deaths during the period of 1 April 2021-30 June 2022 in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, linked to vaccination records, and we used mortality from other natural causes to proxy for underlying health. We report relative COVID-19 mortality risk (RMR) for those vaccinated with two and three doses versus the unvaccinated, using a novel outcome measure that controls for selection effects. This measure, COVID Excess Mortality Percentage (CEMP), uses the non-COVID natural mortality rate (Non-COVID-NMR) as a measure of population risk of COVID mortality without vaccination. We validate this measure during the pre-vaccine period (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.97) and demonstrate that selection effects are large, with non-COVID-NMRs for two-dose vaccinees often less than half those for the unvaccinated, and non-COVID NMRs often still lower for three-dose (booster) recipients. Progressive waning of two-dose effectiveness is observed, with an RMR of 10.6% for two-dose vaccinees aged 60+ versus the unvaccinated during April-June 2021, rising steadily to 36.2% during the Omicron period (January-June, 2022). A booster dose reduced RMR to 9.5% and 10.8% for ages 60+ during the two periods when boosters were available (October-December, 2021; January-June, 2022). Boosters thus provide important additional protection against mortality.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA