COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness in Autumn and Winter 2022 to 2023 Among Older Europeans.

Importance: In the context of emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants or lineages and new vaccines, it is key to accurately monitor COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (CVE) to inform vaccination campaigns. Objective: To estimate the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines administered in autumn and winter 2022 to 2023 against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (with all circulating viruses and XBB lineage in particular) among people aged 60 years or older in Europe, and to compare different CVE approaches across the exposed and reference groups used. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study obtained data from VEBIS (Vaccine Effectiveness, Burden and Impact Studies), a multicenter study that collects COVID-19 and influenza data from 11 European sites: Croatia; France; Germany; Hungary; Ireland; Portugal; the Netherlands; Romania; Spain, national; Spain, Navarre region; and Sweden. Participants were primary care patients aged 60 years or older with acute respiratory infection symptoms who were recruited at the 11 sites after the start of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign from September 2022 to August 2023. Cases and controls were defined as patients with positive and negative, respectively, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results. Exposures: The exposure was COVID-19 vaccination. The exposure group consisted of patients who received a COVID-19 vaccine during the autumn and winter 2022 to 2023 vaccination campaign and 14 days or more before symptom onset. Reference group included patients who were not vaccinated during or in the 6 months before the 2022 to 2023 campaign (seasonal CVE), those who were never vaccinated (absolute CVE), and those who were vaccinated with at least the primary series 6 months or more before the campaign (relative CVE). For relative CVE of second boosters, patients receiving their second booster during the campaign were compared with those receiving 1 booster 6 months or more before the campaign. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed, medically attended, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Four CVE estimates were generated: seasonal, absolute, relative, and relative of second boosters. CVE was estimated using logistic regression, adjusting for study site, symptom onset date, age, chronic condition, and sex. Results: A total of 9308 primary care patients were included, with 1687 cases (1035 females; median [IQR] age, 71 [65-79] years) and 7621 controls (4619 females [61%]; median [IQR] age, 71 [65-78] years). Within 14 to 89 days after vaccination, seasonal CVE was 29% (95% CI, 14%-42%), absolute CVE was 39% (95% CI, 6%-60%), relative CVE was 31% (95% CI, 15% to 44%), and relative CVE of second boosters was 34% (95% CI, 18%-47%) against all SARS-CoV-2 variants. In the same interval, seasonal CVE was 44% (95% CI, -10% to 75%), absolute CVE was 52% (95% CI, -23% to 82%), relative CVE was 47% (95% CI, -8% to 77%), and relative CVE of second boosters was 46% (95% CI, -13% to 77%) during a period of high XBB circulation. Estimates decreased with time since vaccination, with no protection from 180 days after vaccination. Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study among older Europeans, all CVE approaches suggested that COVID-19 vaccines administered in autumn and winter 2022 to 2023 offered at least 3 months of protection against symptomatic, medically attended, laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The effectiveness of new COVID-19 vaccines against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants should be continually monitored using CVE seasonal approaches.

Estimated Impact of Nirsevimab on the Incidence of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections Requiring Hospital Admission in Children < 1 Year, Weeks 40, 2023, to 8, 2024, Spain.

BACKGROUND: Data from the sentinel surveillance system of severe acute respiratory infections in Spain were used to estimate the impact of administration of nirsevimab to children born from 1 April 2023 onwards. METHODS: Estimated RSV hospitalisations in < 1-year-olds during weeks 40, 2023, to 8, 2024, were compared to the number that would be expected after accounting for the background change in RSV circulation in the 2023/24 season, compared to 2022/23. RESULTS: We estimated 9364-9875 RSV hospitalisations less than expected, corresponding to a 74%-75% reduction.

¿Cómo son los últimos meses de vida de los pacientes con insuficiencia renal crónica avanzada en los que se desestima el tratamiento con hemodiálisis o con diálisis peritoneal? / What are the last months of life like for advanced chronic renal failure patients who are not considered candidates for treatment with haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis?

OBJETIVO: Objetivo primario. Determinar la supervivencia y los factores predictores de supervivencia en pacientes con insuficiencia renal crónica avanzada (IRCA) desestimados para tratamiento renal sustitutivo (TRS). Objetivos secundarios. Describir: a) las características sociodemográficas de los pacientes y del cuidador principal; b) la etiología de la nefropatía y la comorbilidad asociada; c) variables clínicas de los pacientes cuando son incluidos en el programa; d) la evolución clínica en términos de tensión arterial (TA), número de episodios de sobrecarga hídrica, tratamientos recibidos, frecuencia de hospitalizaciones, causas de las mismas, lugar y causa del fallecimiento; e) la evolución de los parámetros analíticos; f) el grado de información del diagnóstico y del pronóstico del paciente y de la familia, y g) la actividad asistencial realizada por los equipos de soporte de atención paliativa domiciliaria (ESAPD) durante el seguimiento. Material y MÉTODO: DISEÑO: Estudio descriptivo longitudinal de cohorte histórica. Ámbito. ESAPD áreas 1, 5 y 7 de Madrid. Sujetos a estudio. Pacientes con IRCA que han sido considerados y desestimados para TRS. Criterios de selección.1) Pacientes con IRCA que han sido considerados y desestimados para depuración extrarrenal, y 2) el paciente y/o cuidador y/o familia acepta el seguimiento de la enfermedad por el ESAPD y/o por su médico de Atención Primaria. Tamaño de la muestra. Se seleccionaron todas las historias clínicas de los archivos desde la creación de los respectivos ESAPD, desde 1997 hasta diciembre del 2009. Variables analizadas.1) Respuesta principal: tiempo de supervivencia; 2) variables secundarias: 2.1) sociodemográficas paciente y cuidador principal; edad, sexo; cuidador principal: estado civil, parentesco; 2.2) variables relacionadas con la enfermedad renal; etiología de la nefropatía, motivo de exclusión de TRS, comorbilidad; 2.3) variables clínicas; grado de control TA a lo largo de la evolución de la enfermedad; se recoge la TA en sucesivas visitas; presencia o ausencia de alguno de los siguientes síntomas al inicio del programa: edemas, dolor, estreñimiento, prurito, disnea, insomnio, ansiedad, tristeza y deterioro cognitivo; número de episodios sobrecarga hídrica; causa de salida del programa; lugar del fallecimiento; causa del fallecimiento y síntomas presentes en situación de últimos días; 2.4) variables terapéuticas; número de fármacos al inicio del programa; número de fármacos a la salida del programa de los pacientes cuyo motivo de salida era el exitus; tipo de fármacos; número de transfusiones realizadas; 2.5) variables de ingresos hospitalarios; número de ingresos hospitalarios; causas de hospitalización; 2.6) variables analíticas; grado de control a lo largo de la enfermedad de parámetros analíticos hasta el fallecimiento; 2.7) variables del grado de información del diagnóstico y del pronóstico; 2.8) variables de actividad asistencial; número de visitas domiciliarias realizadas al paciente. RESULTADOS: N: 102 pacientes. Edad media: 79,62 (9,94) años. Etiología IRCA más frecuentes: vascular 37, no filiada 32, diabética 15.comorbilidad: SCG riesgo bajo 17, SCG riesgo medio 35, SCG riesgo alto 50. Ponderación media del índice de Charlson: 6,88 (2,5). Causa desestimación TRS: comorbilidad 47,5%, edad 25,7%, decisión paciente 22,8%, otras 4%. Grado información diagnóstico paciente y cuidador 57,9 y 94,4%, respectivamente. Grado información pronóstica paciente y cuidador 11,8 y 90%, respectivamente. Síntomas más frecuentes en primera visita: disnea 33,3%, prurito 30,4%, insomnio 34,3%, tristeza 36,3 y edemas 43,1%. Mediana consumo fármacos al inicio: 10, al final de seguimiento: 11. Número de transfusiones: 5. Número de ingresos hospitalarios: 50, por sobrecarga hídrica: 35, comorbilidad: 12, oliguria: 3. Causa exitus: IRCA 72,9%, enfermedad intercurrente 27,1%. Localización exitus: domicilio 39, hospital agudos 31, unidad cuidados paliativos 13, urgencias 2. Media visitas por ESAPD: 11,32, mediana: 6,5. Mediana supervivencia: 4 meses, supervivencia al año: 25%. Factores predictores de supervivencia: creatinina primera visita HZ 1,106 (IC 95% 1,01-1,20), p = 0,024; edad 71-80 años, HZ 4,42 (IC 95% 1,60-12,21), edad>81 años, HZ 2,97 (IC 95% 1,16-7,61). No se asoció a supervivencia niveles TA, volumen diuresis, niveles sodio, potasio, calcio, fósforo ni hemoglobina. CONCLUSIONES: Los pacientes con IRCA en los que se desestimó TRS y que fueron seguidos en su domicilio por unidades de cuidados paliativos a domicilio tuvieron una mediana de supervivencia de 4 meses, siendo la edad y la función renal residual factores predictores de supervivencia, sin que la comorbilidad ni los niveles de electrólitos, TA ni el volumen de diuresis se asocien a supervivencia. Durante el seguimiento la causa más frecuente de ingreso hospitalario fue la sobrecarga hídrica. La mayoría de los pacientes fallecieron por la progresión de la IRCA, en su domicilio o en una unidad de cuidados paliativos de media-larga estancia

OBJECTIVE: Primary OBJECTIVE: To determine survival and survival predictive factors in advanced chronic renal failure (ACRF) patients not considered candidates for renal replacement therapy (RRT). Secondary OBJECTIVES: To describe: a) the sociodemographic characteristics of the patients and the main caregiver; b) the aetiology and associated comorbidity of the nephropathy; c) the clinical variables of patients when they are included in the programme; d) the clinical outcome in terms of blood pressure (BP), episodes of fluid overload, treatments received, frequency of hospitalisation, causes of hospitalisation, place and cause of death; e) the evolution of analytical parameters; f) the degree of information about diagnosis and prognosis given to the patient and family, and g) care activity provided by the domiciliary palliative care support team (DPCST) during follow-up. Material and method: DESIGN: Longitudinal descriptive study of a historical cohort. Scope. DPCST of Madrid areas 1, 5 and 7. Study subjects. Patients with ACRF not considered candidates for RRT. Selection criteria.1) patients with ACRF considered and rejected for extra-renal depuration, and 2) the patient and/or caregiver and/or family had accepted follow-up by the DPCST and/or his or her Primary Care physician. Sample size. All clinical histories from the archives of the DPCSTs were selected, from 1997 up to December 2009. Variables analysed.1) Main answer: time of survival; 2) secondary variables: 2.1) sociodemographic characteristics of patient and caregiver: age and gender; main caregiver: marital status, kinship; 2.2) variables related to the renal disease: the aetiology of the nephropathy, reason for exclusion from RRT, comorbidity; 2.3) CLINICAL VARIABLES: degree of BP control during evolution of disease; measurements from several visits were collected; at initiation of programme, the presence or absence of the following was recorded: oedema, pain, constipation, pruritus, dyspnoea, insomnia, anxiety, sadness and cognitive deterioration; number of episodes of fluid overload; cause for exiting the programme; place of death; cause of death and symptoms observed in last days situation; 2.4) therapeutic variables: number of medications at beginning of programme, number of medications at time of exiting the programme, when cause of exit was death; type of medications; number of transfusions received; 2.5) variables of hospital admission: number of admissions; causes of admission; 2.6) analytical variables: degree of control of analytical parameters during illness until death; 2.7) variables on the degree of information about diagnosis and prognosis; 2.8) variables of care activity: number of domiciliary visits to the patient. RESULTS: N: 102 PATIENTS: Mean age: 76.92 (9.94) years. Aetiology ACRF: vascular 37, unknown origin 32, diabetic 15.comorbidity: low risk SCG 17; medium risk SCG 35; high risk SCG 50. Median Charlson comorbidity index: 6.88 (2.5). Cause for rejection for RRT: comorbidity 47.5%, age 25.7%, patient's decision 22.8%, others 4%. Degree of information about diagnosis to patient and caregiver: 57.9 and 94.4%, respectively. Degree of information about prognosis to patient and caregiver: 11.8 and 90%, respectively. Symptoms on first visit: dyspnoea 33.3%, pruritus 30.4%, insomnia 34.3%, sadness 36.3%, oedema 43.1%. Average medications at beginning of follow-up: 10. At the end: 11. Number of transfusions: 5. Number of hospital admissions: 50; caused by fluid overload: 35, comorbidity: 12, oliguria: 3. Cause of death: ACRF 72.9%, intercurrent illness 27.1%. Place of death: home 39, acute hospitalization ward 31, palliative care ward 13, emergency room 2. Average of visits by DPCST: 11.32, median 6.5. Average survival: 4 months, survival at one year: 25%. Predictive survival factors: creatinine on first visit HZ 1.106 (95% CI 1.01-1.20), p=.024; age 71-80 years, HZ 4.42 (95% CI 1.60-12.21), age>81 years, HZ 2.97 (95% CI 1.16-7.61). The following were not associated with survival rates: BP, volume of diuresis, levels of sodium, potassium, calcium, phosphorus and haemoglobin. CONCLUSIONS: ACRF patients rejected for RRT receiving domiciliary follow-up by palliative care teams had an average survival of 4 months; age and residual renal function were predictive factors for survival, whereas comorbidity, electrolyte levels, BP and diuresis were not. During follow-up, the most frequent cause of hospital admission was fluid overload. Most patients died because of disease progression, at home or in a palliative care medium-long term hospital ward