ABSTRACT
BACKGROUNDVaccination has been effective in ameliorating the impact of COVID-19. However, estimation of vaccine effectiveness (VE) is still unavailable for some widely used vaccines and underrepresented groups. Here, we report on the effectiveness of a nation-wide COVID-19 vaccination program in Mexico. METHODSWe used a test-negative design within a national COVID-19 surveillance system to assess VE of the BNT162b2, mRNA-12732, Gam-COVID-Vac, Ad5-nCoV, Ad26.COV2.S, ChAdOx1 and CoronaVac vaccines, against SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 related hospitalization and death for adults [≥]18 years in Mexico. VE was estimated using Cox proportional hazard models considering time-varying vaccination status in partial and fully vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated adults, adjusted by age, sex, comorbidities and municipality. We also estimated VE for adults [≥]60 years, for cases with diabetes and comparing periods with predominance of variants B.1.1.519 and B.1.617.2. RESULTSWe assessed 793,487 vaccinated compared to 4,792,338 unvaccinated adults between December 24th, 2020, and September 27th, 2021. VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection was highest for fully vaccinated individuals with mRNA-12732 (91.5%, 95%CI 90.3-92.4) and Ad26.COV2.S (82.2%, 95%CI 81.4-82.9), whereas for COVID-19 related hospitalization were BNT162b2 (84.3%, 95%CI 83.6-84.9) and Gam-COVID-Vac (81.4% 95%CI 79.5-83.1) and for mortality BNT162b2 (89.8%, 95%CI 89.2-90.2) and mRNA-12732 (93.5%, 95%CI 86.0-97.0). VE for all evaluated vaccines was reduced for adults [≥]60 years, people with diabetes, and in periods of Delta variant predominance. CONCLUSIONSAll evaluated vaccines were effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 related hospitalization and death. Mass vaccination campaigns with multiple vaccine products are feasible and effective to maximize vaccination coverage.
ABSTRACT
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico City has been sharp, as several social inequalities coexist with chronic comorbidities. Here, we conducted an in-depth evaluation of the impact of social, municipal, and individual factors on the COVID-19 pandemic in working-age population living in Mexico City. To this end, we used data from the National Epidemiological Surveillance System; furthermore, we used a multidimensional metric, the social lag index (DISLI), to evaluate its interaction with mean urban population density (MUPD) and its impact on COVID-19 rates. Influence DISLI and MUPD on the effect of vehicular mobility policies on COVID-19 rates were also tested. Finally, we assessed the influence of MUPD and DISLI on discrepancies of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 excess mortality compared with death certificates from the General Civil Registry. We detected vulnerable groups who belonged to economically active sectors and who experienced increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes. The impact of social inequalities transcends individuals and has significant effects at a municipality level, with and interaction between DISLI and MUPD. Marginalized municipalities with high population density experienced an accentuated risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes. Additionally, policies to reduce vehicular mobility had differential impacts across marginalized municipalities. Finally, we report an under-registry of COVID-19 deaths and significant excess mortality associated with non-COVID-19 deaths closely related to MUPD/DISLI in an ambulatory setting, which could be a negative externality of hospital reconversion. In conclusion, social, individual, and municipality-wide factors played a significant role in shaping the course of the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico City.
ABSTRACT
PurposeThe awake prone position (PP) strategy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a safe, simple, and cost-effective technique used to improve hypoxemia. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between awake PP (AP) and endotracheal intubation in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). MethodsIn this retrospective, multicentre observational study conducted between 1 May and 12 June 2020 in 27 hospitals in Mexico and Ecuador, non-intubated patients with COVID-19 managed with AP or awake supine positioning (AS) were included to evaluate intubation and mortality risk in AP patients through logistic regression models; multivariable adjustment, propensity score analyses, and E-values were calculated to limit confounding. A CART model with cross-validation was also built. This study was registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04407468 Results827 non-intubated patients with COVID-19 in the AP (n=505) and AS (n=322) groups were included for analysis. Less patients in the AP group required endotracheal intubation (23.6% vs 40.4%) or died (20% vs 37.9%). AP was a protective factor for intubation even after multivariable adjustment (OR=0.39, 95%CI:0.28-0.56, p<0.0001, E-value=2.01), which prevailed after propensity score analysis (OR=0.32, 95%CI:0.21-0.49, p<0.0001, E-value=2.21), and mortality (adjusted OR=0.38, 95%CI:0.25-0.57, p<0.0001, E-value=1.98). The main variables associated with PP failure in AP patients were age, lower SpO2/FiO2, and management with a non-rebreather mask. In the CART model, only two variables were used: SpO2/FiO2 (F 97.7, p<0.001) and PP (X2 50.5, p<0.001), with an overall percentage of 75.2%. ConclusionPP in awake hospitalised patients with COVID-19 is associated with a lower risk of intubation and mortality.
ABSTRACT
AimTo evaluate all-cause mortality risk in patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in Mexico City treated with repurposed antivirals and antibiotics. MethodsThis real-world retrospective cohort study contemplated 395,343 patients evaluated for suspected COVID-19 between February 24 and September 14, 2020 in 688 primary-to-tertiary medical units in Mexico City. Patients were included with a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2; those receiving unspecified antivirals, excluded; and antivirals prescribed in <30 patients, eliminated. Survival and mortality risks were determined for patients receiving antivirals, antibiotics, both, or none. Results136,855 patients were analyzed; mean age 44.2 (SD:16.8) years; 51.3% were men. 16.6% received antivirals (3%), antibiotics (10%), or both (3.6%). Antivirals studied were Oseltamivir (n=8414), Amantadine (n=319), Lopinavir-Ritonavir (n=100), Rimantadine (n=61), Zanamivir (n=39), and Acyclovir (n=36). Survival with antivirals (73.7%, p<0.0001) and antibiotics (85.8%, p<0.0001) was lower than no antiviral/antibiotic (93.6%). After multivariable adjustment, increased risk of death occurred with antivirals (HR=1.72, 95%CI:1.61-1.84) in ambulatory (HR=4.7, 95%CI:3.94-5.62) and non-critical (HR=2.03, 95%CI:1.86-2.21) patients. Oseltamivir increased mortality risk in the general population (HR=1.72, 95%CI:1.61-1.84), ambulatory (HR=4.79, 95%CI:4.01-5.75), non-critical (HR=2.05, 95%CI:1.88-2.23), and pregnancy (HR=8.35, 95%CI:1.77-39.30); as well as hospitalized (HR=1.13, 95%CI:1.01-1.26) and critical patients (HR:1.22, 95%CI:1.05-1.43) after propensity score-matching. Antibiotics were a risk factor in general population (HR=1.13, 95%CI:1.08-1.19) and pediatrics (HR=4.22, 95%CI:2.01-8.86), but a protective factor in hospitalized (HR=0.81, 95%CI:0.77-0.86) and critical patients (HR=0.67, 95%CI:0.63-0.72). ConclusionsNo significant benefit for repurposed antivirals was observed; oseltamivir was associated with increased mortality. Antibiotics increased mortality risk in the general population but may increase survival in hospitalized and critical patients. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWNO_LICurrent recommendations for using repurposed antivirals and antibiotics for COVID-19 are conflicting. C_LIO_LIFew antivirals (i.e. lopinavir-ritonavir) have been shown to provide no additional benefit for COVID-19 in clinical trials; other antivirals may be having widespread use in real-world settings without formal assessment in clinical trials. C_LIO_LIReal-world use of repurposed antivirals and antibiotics for COVID-19 in population-based studies have not been performed; important populations have been left largely understudied (ambulatory patients, pregnant women, and pediatrics). C_LI WHAT THIS STUDY ADDSO_LIThis is the first real-world observational study evaluating amantadine, rimantadine, zanamivir, and acyclovir for COVID-19; no registered studies to evaluate these drugs exist. Only one study has evaluated risk of death for oseltamivir. Lopinavir-ritonavir have been previously evaluated in clinical trials. C_LIO_LIRepurposed antivirals and antibiotics were commonly prescribed in 688 ambulatory units and hospitals of Mexico City despite unclear recommendations for their use out of clinical trials. C_LIO_LIOseltamivir was associated with increased mortality risk; other repurposed antivirals (zanamivir, amantadine, rimantadine, and acyclovir) had no significant and consistent impact on mortality. Antibiotics were associated with increased mortality risk in the general population but may increase survival in hospitalized and critical patients. C_LI
ABSTRACT
We sought to develop and validate a multivariable prediction model of death in Mexican patients with COVID-19, by using demographic and patient history predictors. We conducted a national retrospective cohort in two different sets of patients from the Mexican COVID-19 Epidemiologic Surveillance Study. To develop the model, we included 264,026 patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 between February 28 and May 30, 2020. To validate the model, 592,160 patients studied between June 1 and July 23, 2020 were included. Patients with a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 and complete unduplicated data were eligible. Demographic and patient history variables were analyzed through Multivariable Cox regression models to evaluate predictors to be included in the prognostic scoring system called PH-Covid19. 83,779 patients were included to develop the model; 100,000, to validate the model. Eight predictors (age, sex, diabetes, COPD, immunosuppression, hypertension, obesity, and CKD) were included in the PH-Covid19 scoring system (range of values: -2 to 25 points). The predictive model has a discrimination of death of 0.8 (95%CI:0.796-0.804). The PH-Covid19 scoring system was developed and validated in Mexican patients to aid clinicians to stratify patients with COVID-19 at risk of fatal outcomes, allowing for better and efficient use of resources.
