Retinal vein occlusion in the general population after COVID-19 vaccination and infection / Obstrucción venosa retiniana en la población general después de la vacunación y de la COVID-19

Introduction Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is mostly a consequence of vascular risk factors (VRF). COVID-19 vaccines have been related to vascular and thrombotic events (VTE). Objective To assess the RVO incidence in the general population in our health area and the possible relation with COVID-19 infection and vaccination. Methods Demographic features, classic VRF, thrombophilia data, COVID-19 status, and Framingham risk score were collected prospectively. Results 472 consecutive patients studied over 13 years with RVO were included (Valdecilla Cohort). Classic VRFs were present in 90%, antiphospholipid syndrome in 12.3%, and genetic thrombophilia in 13.5%. Ninety-one percent of RVO patients were vaccinated and 6.8% suffered COVID-19 infection. In the cohort, no patient had a new RVO after vaccination or infection. In the general population, 20 subjects had RVO after receiving the vaccine (0.006%). Overall, 8 cases occurred in the first-month post-vaccination and 12 after 30 days. In the early and late groups, there are 3 and 4 patients respectively, with a low-intermediate risk Framingham score. Twenty-nine patients in the cohort suffered SARS-CoV-2 infection, twenty-seven of them had RVO before infection. Two patients with low-risk Framingham scores had RVO after infection, one of them early (<1 month). Conclusion Vaccination and COVID-19 might be involved in the development of RVO in some cases, mainly in patients without VRF, thrombophilia, or chronic inflammatory conditions and with a lower Framingham score, especially in the first month after vaccination or infection (AU)

Introducción La oclusión venosa retiniana (OVR) es principalmente una consecuencia de los factores de riesgo vascular (FRV). Las vacunas contra la COVID-19 se han relacionado con eventos vasculares y trombóticos (EVT). Objetivo Evaluar la incidencia de OVR en la población general de nuestra área de salud y su posible relación con la COVID-19 y la vacunación. Métodos Se recopilaron prospectivamente las características demográficas, FRV clásicos, datos sobre trombofilia, padecimiento de la COVID-19 y puntuación de riesgo de Framingham. Resultados Se incluyeron 472 pacientes consecutivos con OVR, estudiados durante 13 años (Cohorte Valdecilla). Los FRV clásicos estaban presentes en el 90%, el síndrome antifosfolípido en el 12,3% y la trombofilia genética en el 13,5% de los casos. El 91% de los pacientes con OVR recibieron la vacuna frente a la COVID-19 y el 6.8% sufrió la infección. En la cohorte, ningún paciente tuvo una nueva OVR después de la vacunación o de la infección. En la población general, 20 sujetos presentaron OVR después de recibir la vacuna (0,006%). En general, 8 casos ocurrieron en el primer mes después de la vacunación y 12 después de 30 días. En los grupos precoz y tardío, 3 y 4 pacientes respectivamente, presentaban una puntuación de Framingham de riesgo bajo o intermedio. Veintinueve pacientes de la cohorte sufrieron infección por SARS-CoV-2 y 27 de ellos tuvieron una OVR antes de ésta. Dos pacientes con puntuaciones de Framingham de bajo riesgo presentaron una OVR después de la infección, uno de ellos precozmente (<1 mes). Conclusiones La vacunación y la COVID-19 podrían estar involucradas en el desarrollo de OVR en algunos casos, principalmente en pacientes sin FRV, trombofilia o procesos inflamatorios crónicos y con una puntuación de Framingham más baja, especialmente en el primer mes después de la vacunación o de la infección (AU)

Retinal vein occlusion in the general population after COVID-19 vaccination and infection.

INTRODUCTION: Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is mostly a consequence of vascular risk factors (VRF). COVID-19 vaccines have been related to vascular and thrombotic events (VTE). OBJECTIVE: To assess the RVO incidence in the general population in our health area and the possible relation with COVID-19 infection and vaccination. METHODS: Demographic features, classic VRF, thrombophilia data, COVID-19 status, and Framingham risk score were collected prospectively. RESULTS: 472 consecutive patients studied over 13 years with RVO were included (Valdecilla Cohort). Classic VRFs were present in 90%, antiphospholipid syndrome in 12.3%, and genetic thrombophilia in 13.5%. Ninety-one percent of RVO patients were vaccinated and 6.8% suffered COVID-19 infection. In the cohort, no patient had a new RVO after vaccination or infection. In the general population, 20 subjects had RVO after receiving the vaccine (0.006%). Overall, 8 cases occurred in the first-month post-vaccination and 12 after 30 days. In the early and late groups, there are 3 and 4 patients respectively, with a low-intermediate risk Framingham score. Twenty-nine patients in the cohort suffered SARS-CoV-2 infection, twenty-seven of them had RVO before infection. Two patients with low-risk Framingham scores had RVO after infection, one of them early (<1 month). CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination and COVID-19 might be involved in the development of RVO in some cases, mainly in patients without VRF, thrombophilia, or chronic inflammatory conditions and with a lower Framingham score, especially in the first month after vaccination or infection.

Immunogenicity, effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccine in older adults living in nursing homes: A real-life study / Inmunogenicidad, efectividad y seguridad de la vacuna COVID-19 en adultos mayores que viven en hogares geriátricos: un estudio de la vida real

Introduction: BNT162b2 (BioNTech and Pfizer) is a nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine that provides protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and is generally well tolerated. However, data about its efficacy, immunogenicity and safety in people of old age or with underlying chronic conditions are scarce. Purpose: To describe BNT162b2 (BioNTech and Pfizer) COVID-19 vaccine immunogenicity, effectiveness and reactogenicity after complete vaccination (two doses), and immunogenicity and reactogenicity after one booster, in elders residing in nursing homes (NH) and healthy NH workers in real-life conditions. Methods: Observational, ambispective, multicenter study. Older adults and health workers were recruited from three nursing homes of a private hospital corporation located in three Spanish cities. The primary vaccination was carried out between January and March 2021. The follow-up was 13 months. Humoral immunity, adverse events, SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations and deaths were evaluated. Cellular immunity was assessed in a participant subset. Results: A total of 181 residents (mean age 84.1 years; 89.9% females, Charlson index ≥2: 45%) and 148 members of staff (mean age 45.2 years; 70.2% females) were surveyed (n:329). After primary vaccination of 327 participants, vaccine response in both groups was similar; ≈70% of participants, regardless of the group, had an antibody titer above the cut-off considered currently protective (260BAU/ml). This proportion increased significantly to ≈ 98% after the booster (p<0.0001 in both groups). Immunogenicity was largely determined by a prior history of COVID-19 infection. Twenty residents and 3 workers were tested for cellular immunity. There was evidence of cellular immunity after primary vaccination and after booster. (AU)

Introducción: La vacuna BNT162b2 (BioNTech y Pfizer) es una vacuna de ARNm modificado con nucleósidos que proporcionó protección contra la infección por el SARS-CoV-2 y generalmente fue bien tolerada. Sin embargo, los datos sobre su efectividad y seguridad en personas de edad avanzada o con enfermedades crónicas subyacentes son escasos. Objetivo: Describir la inmunogenicidad, efectividad y seguridad de esta vacuna tras la vacunación completa (dos dosis), y la inmunogenicidad y reactogenicidad tras un refuerzo, en ancianos residentes en hogares geriátricos y trabajadores sanos de estos lugares en condiciones reales. Métodos: Estudio observacional, ambispectivo y multicéntrico. Se reclutaron ancianos y trabajadores sanitarios de tres hogares geriátricos de ancianos de un grupo hospitalario de entidad privada situados en tres ciudades españolas. La vacunación primaria se realizó entre enero y marzo de 2021. El seguimiento fue de 13 meses. Se evaluó la inmunidad humoral, los eventos adversos, las infecciones por SARS-CoV-2, las hospitalizaciones y las muertes. Se evaluó la inmunidad celular en un subconjunto de participantes. Resultados: Se registraron datos de 181 residentes (edad promedio 84,1 años; 89,9% mujeres, índice de Charlson ≥2: 45%) y 148 trabajadores (edad promedio 45,2 años; 70,2% mujeres) (n:329). Tras la primera dosis a 327 de los participantes, la respuesta a la vacuna en ambos grupos fue similar; ≈70% de los participantes, independientemente del grupo, tuvieron un título de anticuerpos por encima del corte considerado actualmente como protector (260 BAU/ml). Esta proporción aumentó significativamente a ≈ 98% después del refuerzo (p<0,0001 en ambos grupos). La inmunogenicidad se determinó en gran medida por los antecedentes de infección por COVID-19. Se analizó la inmunidad celular de 20 residentes y 3 trabajadores. Hubo evidencia de inmunidad celular después de la vacunación primaria y después del refuerzo. (AU)

Immunogenicity, effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccine in older adults living in nursing homes: A real-life study.

INTRODUCTION: BNT162b2 (BioNTech and Pfizer) is a nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine that provides protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and is generally well tolerated. However, data about its efficacy, immunogenicity and safety in people of old age or with underlying chronic conditions are scarce. PURPOSE: To describe BNT162b2 (BioNTech and Pfizer) COVID-19 vaccine immunogenicity, effectiveness and reactogenicity after complete vaccination (two doses), and immunogenicity and reactogenicity after one booster, in elders residing in nursing homes (NH) and healthy NH workers in real-life conditions. METHODS: Observational, ambispective, multicenter study. Older adults and health workers were recruited from three nursing homes of a private hospital corporation located in three Spanish cities. The primary vaccination was carried out between January and March 2021. The follow-up was 13 months. Humoral immunity, adverse events, SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations and deaths were evaluated. Cellular immunity was assessed in a participant subset. RESULTS: A total of 181 residents (mean age 84.1 years; 89.9% females, Charlson index ≥2: 45%) and 148 members of staff (mean age 45.2 years; 70.2% females) were surveyed (n:329). After primary vaccination of 327 participants, vaccine response in both groups was similar; ≈70% of participants, regardless of the group, had an antibody titer above the cut-off considered currently protective (260BAU/ml). This proportion increased significantly to ≈ 98% after the booster (p<0.0001 in both groups). Immunogenicity was largely determined by a prior history of COVID-19 infection. Twenty residents and 3 workers were tested for cellular immunity. There was evidence of cellular immunity after primary vaccination and after booster. During the study, one resident was hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2. No SARS-CoV-2-related deaths were reported and most adverse events were mild. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is immunogenic, effective and safe in elderly NH residents with underlying chronic conditions.

COVID-19 vaccination rate and willingness of an additional dose among inflammatory bowel disease patients receiving biologic therapy: Fearless and with desire / Tasa de vacunación y aceptación de la dosis adicional de la vacuna frente al COVID-19 en los pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal que reciben terapia biológica: sin miedo y con ganas

Background: Vaccination against COVID-19 prevents its severe forms and associated mortality and offers a promising action to control this pandemic. In September 2021, an additional dose of vaccine was approved in patients with immunosuppression including IBD patients on biologic agents. We evaluated the vaccination rate and additional dose willingness in this group of at risk patients. Methods: A single-center, cross-sectional study was performed among IBD patients on biologic agents and eligible for an additional dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. IBD clinical characteristics and type of vaccine and date of administration were checked in medical records. Acceptance was evaluated after telephone or face-to-face surveys in IBD patients. Results: Out of a total of 344 patients, 269 patients (46.1% male; mean age 47±16 years; Crohn's disease 73.6%) were included. Only 15 (5.6%) patients refused the COVID-19 vaccine mainly (40%) for conviction (COVID-19 pandemic denial). 33.3% would re-consider after discussing with their doctor and/or receiving information on the adverse effects of the vaccine. Previous to the additional dose, the COVID-19 vaccination was present in 94.4% of patients (n=254). Adverse effects occurred in 53.9% of the cases, mainly pain in the arm (40%). Up to 94.1% of the patients agreed to an additional dose and 79.4% had already received the additional dose at the final time of the assessment. Conclusions: IBD patients on biological agents accept the vaccine as well as an additional dose if recommended. Physicians in charge of IBD units should provide information and confidence in the use of the vaccine in these IBD patients.(AU)

Antecedentes: La vacunación frente al COVID-19 constituye una acción prometedora para controlar esta pandemia. En septiembre de 2021, se aprobó una dosis adicional de vacuna en pacientes con inmunosupresión, incluidos los pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal (EII) que reciben agentes biológicos. En este estudio se evaluó la tasa de vacunación y la disposición de recibir la dosis adicional de vacuna en este grupo de pacientes de riesgo. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio transversal unicéntrico con pacientes afectos de EII con tratamiento biológico y elegibles para una dosis adicional de la vacuna COVID-19. Se evaluó la aceptación y los efectos adversos de la vacuna mediante encuesta telefónica o presencial y se recopiló en las historias clínicas las características de la EII, el tipo de vacuna recibida y la fecha de administración. Resultados: De un total de 344 pacientes, 269 (46,1% varones; edad media 47±16 años; enfermedad de Crohn n=198) fueron incluidos. Solo 15 (5,6%) pacientes rechazaron la vacuna frente al COVID-19, el 40% por convicción (negación de la pandemia COVID-19). Antes de la dosis adicional, la vacuna COVID-19 se había administrado en el 94,4% de los pacientes (n=254). En el 53,9% de los casos presentaron efectos adversos, principalmente dolor en el brazo (40%). Hasta el 94,1% de los pacientes refería la aceptación de una dosis adicional de la vacuna y el 79,1% ya había recibido esta dosis adicional en el momento de la evaluación final. Conclusiones: Los pacientes con EII que reciben agentes biológicos aceptan la vacuna frente al COVID-19, así como una dosis adicional si se les recomienda. Los médicos responsables de las unidades de EII deben proporcionar información y confianza en el uso de la vacuna en estos pacientes.(AU)

Estudio de reactogenicidad en las vacunas mRNA frente a la COVID-19 / Reactogenicity Study of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19

Objetivo: Comparar la reactogenicidad entre los tipos de vacuna RNAm Commirnaty® (Pfizer) y Spikevax® (Moderna) frente a la COVID-19 en población sanitaria.Métodos: Estudio de prevalencia de los efectos adversos a corto plazo y sus consecuencias tras la administración de la primera y segunda dosis en profesionales y estudiantes de una institución sanitaria. Se administró un cuestionario de síntomas y sus consecuencias a los 7 días de la vacunación. Se calculó la prevalencia e intervalo de confianza del 95% (IC95%). Las diferencias entre vacunas se cuantificaron mediante las odds ratio (OR) e IC95%.Resultados: Completaron el cuestionario 1924 y 1170 sanitarios (tasas de respuesta 62.2% y 39.1%) tras la primera y la segunda dosis, respectivamente, de la vacuna Commirnaty®, y 410 (56.0%) y 107 (15.0%), de Spikevax®. Después de la primera dosis de Comirnaty® un 67,4% presentó algún efecto adverso, y un 76,1% para Spikevax® (OR 1,5 IC95% 1,2-1,9). En general mujeres y jóvenes mostraron mayor reactogenicidad y diferencias entre vacunas. Las consecuencias de los efectos adversos fueron más frecuentes para Spikevax®. La reactogenicidad fue superior tras la segunda dosis que tras la primera, para las dos vacunas (Comirnaty® 67,4% vs. 75,6%; Spikevax® 76,1% vs. 87,9%).Conclusiones: La mayor reactogenicidad y sus consecuencias, para la primera y segunda dosis de la vacuna Spikevax® respecto a Comirnaty®, y de la segunda dosis respecto a la primera dosis de ambas vacunas, aporta conocimiento útil para la planificación de campañas de vacunación frente a la COVID-19 en el entorno sanitario. (AU)

Objective: To compare the reactogenicity between the types of mRNA Commirnaty® (Pfiz-er) and Spikevax® (Moderna) vaccines against COVID-19 in a healthcare population.Methods: Cross sectional study of short-term adverse effects and their consequences (sick leave, limitations of daily life, etc.) after the administration of the first and second doses of both vaccines in professionals and students of a health institution. A questionnaire on symptoms and their consequences was administered seven days after each vaccination dose. The prevalence and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were calculated. Differences be-tween vaccines were quantified using the odds ratio (OR) and its 95%CI.Results: The questionnaire was completed by 1924 and 1170 healthcare providers (re-sponse rates 62.2% and 39.1%) after the first and second doses, respectively, of the Com-mirnaty® vaccine, and 410 (56.0%) and 107 (15.0%) of Spikevax®. After the first dose of Comirnaty®, 67.4% presented some adverse effect, and 76.1% for Spikevax® (OR 1.5 95%CI 1.2-1.9). In general, women and young people showed greater reactogenicity and differences between vaccines. Consequences of adverse effects were more frequent for Spikevax®. The reactogenicity was higher after the second than the first dose, for both vaccines (Comirnaty®: 67.4% vs. 75.6%; Spikevax®: 76.1% vs. 87.9%Conclusions: The greater reactogenicity and its consequences, for the first and second dose of the Spikevax® vaccine compared to Comirnaty®, and of the second dose com-pared to the first dose of both vaccines, provides useful knowledge for planning vaccination against COVID-19 campaigns in healthcare settings (AU)

Systemic lupus erythematosus myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination.

INTRODUCTION: Cases of acute myocarditis have been after administration of the BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S vaccine. OBJECTIVE: Describe another possible mechanism of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination. CASE PRESENTATION: We describe the clinical case of a 72-year-old female with pleuritic chest pain one week after the third of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. Serological tests for cardiotropic pathogens were negative, and autoimmunity screening was positive with anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) in 1:160 dilution, Anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA), and anti-histone antibodies. 18F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) showed a focal myocardial and pericardial inflammatory process in the cardiac apex. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) diagnosis was made with myocardial affection. As far as we know, this is the first report of a case of lupus myocarditis after the COVID-19 vaccine. CONCLUSION: Given the pathogenic rationales, the association between SLE and myocarditis should be considered.

Systemic lupus erythematosus myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination / Miocarditis por lupus eritematoso sistémico después de la vacunación contra el COVID-19

Introduction: Cases of acute myocarditis have been after administration of the BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S vaccine. Objective: Describe another possible mechanism of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination. Case presentation: We describe the clinical case of a 72-year-old female with pleuritic chest pain one week after the third of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. Serological tests for cardiotropic pathogens were negative, and autoimmunity screening was positive with anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) in 1:160 dilution, Anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA), and anti-histone antibodies. 18F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) showed a focal myocardial and pericardial inflammatory process in the cardiac apex. Results and discussion: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) diagnosis was made with myocardial affection. As far as we know, this is the first report of a case of lupus myocarditis after the COVID-19 vaccine. Conclusion: Given the pathogenic rationales, the association between SLE and myocarditis should be considered.(AU)

Introducción: Se han presentado casos de miocarditis aguda tras la administración de las vacunas BNT162b2 y Ad26.COV2.S. Objetivo: Describir otro posible mecanismo de miocarditis posterior a la vacunación contra el COVID-19. Presentación del caso: Describimos el caso clínico de una mujer de 72 años con dolor torácico pleurítico una semana después de la tercera vacuna de ARNm BNT162b2. Las pruebas serológicas para patógenos cardiotrópos fueron negativas y el cribado de autoinmunidad fue positivo con anticuerpos antinucleares (ANA) en dilución 1:160, anticuerpos anti-ADN de doble cadena (anti-dsADN) y antihistonas. La tomografía por emisión de positrones/tomografía computarizada (PET/TC) con 18F-fluorodesoxiglucosa (FDG) mostró un proceso inflamatorio miocárdico y pericárdico focal en el ápex cardíaco. Resultados y discusión: Se realizó el diagnóstico de lupus eritematoso sistémico (LES) con afectación miocárdica. Hasta donde sabemos, este es el primer reporte de un caso de miocarditis lúpica después de la vacuna contra el COVID-19. Conclusión: Dadas las justificaciones patogénicas, se debe considerar la asociación entre lupus eritematoso sistémico (LES) y miocarditis.(AU)

COVID-19 vaccination rate and willingness of an additional dose among inflammatory bowel disease patients receiving biologic therapy: Fearless and with desire.

Effective vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 are already available and offer a promising action to control the COVID-19 pandemic. IBD patients on biological agents accept the vaccine as well as an additional dose if recommended. BACKGROUND: Vaccination against COVID-19 prevents its severe forms and associated mortality and offers a promising action to control this pandemic. In September 2021, an additional dose of vaccine was approved in patients with immunosuppression including IBD patients on biologic agents. We evaluated the vaccination rate and additional dose willingness in this group of at risk patients. METHODS: A single-center, cross-sectional study was performed among IBD patients on biologic agents and eligible for an additional dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. IBD clinical characteristics and type of vaccine and date of administration were checked in medical records. Acceptance was evaluated after telephone or face-to-face surveys in IBD patients. RESULTS: Out of a total of 344 patients, 269 patients (46.1% male; mean age 47±16 years; Crohn's disease 73.6%) were included. Only 15 (5.6%) patients refused the COVID-19 vaccine mainly (40%) for conviction (COVID-19 pandemic denial). 33.3% would re-consider after discussing with their doctor and/or receiving information on the adverse effects of the vaccine. Previous to the additional dose, the COVID-19 vaccination was present in 94.4% of patients (n=254). Adverse effects occurred in 53.9% of the cases, mainly pain in the arm (40%). Up to 94.1% of the patients agreed to an additional dose and 79.4% had already received the additional dose at the final time of the assessment. CONCLUSIONS: IBD patients on biological agents accept the vaccine as well as an additional dose if recommended. Physicians in charge of IBD units should provide information and confidence in the use of the vaccine in these IBD patients.

Construção e utilização de instrumento de estratificação de risco para vacinação de idosos contra a Covid-19 / Construction and use of a risk stratification instrument for vaccination of elderly against Covid-19 / Construcción y uso de un instrumento de estratificación de riesgo para la vacunación del anciano contra el Covid- 19

Objetivo: Relatar a experiência da construção e utilização de um instrumento de estratificação de risco para vacinação de idosos contra a COVID-19. Métodos: Relato da experiência desenvolvida no município de Massapê ­ Ceará, durante o ano de 2021, a partir do início da campanha de vacinação de idosos contra a COVID-19. Descrição da Experiência: Por conta da escassez de imunobiológicos, na fase inicial da vacinação contra a COVID-19, a Secretaria da Saúde do município de Massapê, estado do Ceará, criou um instrumento para estratificação de riscos sanitários, epidemiológicos e sociais dos idosos, contendo seus dados sociodemográficos e as comorbidades. Após o estabelecimento das variáveis, foram estabelecidos escores para os estratos de risco, que foram classificados em baixo (um a três pontos), médio (quatro a seis pontos), alto (sete a nove pontos) e muito alto (dez pontos e mais). Considerações Finais: O estudo mostra que, apesar da pandemia de COVID-19, uma crise sanitária global sem precedentes como já dito, ações pontuais, mesmo que localizadas, podem ter efeito em cadeia e ser replicadas em outros cenários e momentos.

Objective: To report the experience of building and using a risk stratification instrument for vaccinating the elderly against COVID-19. Methods: Report of the experience developed in the municipality of Massapê - Ceará, during the year 2021, from the beginning of the vaccination campaign for the elderly against COVID-19. Experience Description: Due to the scarcity of immunobiologicals, in the initial phase of vaccination against COVID-19, the Department of Health of the municipality of Massapê, state of Ceará, created an instrument to stratify the health, epidemiological and social risks of the elderly, containing sociodemographic data and comorbidities of the elderly. After establishing the variables, scores were established for the risk strata, which were classified as low (one to three points), medium (four to six points), high (seven to nine points) and very high (ten points and more). Final Considerations: The study shows that, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented global health crisis as already mentioned, specific actions, even if localized, can have a chain effect and be replicated in other scenarios and times.

Objetivo: Relatar la experiencia de construcción y uso de un instrumento de estratificación de riesgo para la vacunación de ancianos contra la COVID-19. Métodos: Informe de la experiencia desarrollada en el municipio de Massapê - Ceará, durante el año 2021, desde el inicio de la campaña de vacunación de ancianos contra la COVID-19. Descripción de la Experiencia: Debido a la escasez de inmunobiológicos, en la fase inicial de la vacunación contra la COVID-19, la Secretaría de Salud del municipio de Massapê, estado de Ceará, creó un instrumento para estratificar los riesgos sanitarios, epidemiológicos y sociales de los ancianos, que contiene datos sociodemográficos y comorbilidades de los ancianos. Luego de establecer las variables, se establecieron puntajes para los estratos de riesgo, los cuales se clasificaron en bajo (uno a tres puntos), medio (cuatro a seis puntos), alto (siete a nueve puntos) y muy alto (diez puntos y más). Consideraciones finales: El estudio muestra que, a pesar de la pandemia de COVID-19, una crisis sanitaria mundial sin precedentes como ya se mencionó, las acciones específicas, aunque sean localizadas, pueden tener un efecto en cadena y replicarse en otros escenarios y tiempos.

Corazón y SARS-CoV-2 / The heart and SARS-CoV-2

El SARS-CoV-2 está causando actualmente una pandemia sostenida de COVID-19, con el riesgo de causar secuelas cardiacas a largo plazo en la población. El temor de que el SARS-CoV-2 cause un daño miocárdico mayor que otros virus convencionales se basa en su mecanismo de infección de células humanas a través del receptor de la enzima convertidora de la angiotensina 2 y las defensas antivirales innatas, hasta ahora reducidas contra un nuevo virus. El conocimiento de la aparición durante la infección aguda de otras afectaciones cardiacas, además de las clásicas miocarditis y pericarditis, las manifestaciones cardiacas observadas a largo plazo (COVID-19 persistente) y la incidencia incrementada de miocarditis y pericarditis tras la vacunación resulta de especial interés a fin de ofrecer a nuestros pacientes la mejor atención posible basada en la evidencia científica actual. (AU)

SARS-CoV-2 is currently causing a persistent COVID-19 pandemic, which poses a risk of causing long-term cardiovascular sequels in the population. The viral mechanism of cell infection through the angiotensin 2 converter enzyme receptor and the limited antiviral innate immune response are the suspected causes for a more frequent cardiovascular damage in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Knowledge of the appearance during acute infection of other cardiac conditions beyond the classical myocarditis and pericarditis, the long-term cardiac manifestations (persistent COVID-19), and the increased incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination is of special interest in order to offer our patients best practices based on current scientific evidence. (AU)

Análisis de las estrategias de vacunación frente a la COVID-19 en España y las bases científicas sobre las que se han sustentado (mayo 2022) / Analysis of vaccination strategy against COVID-19 in Spain. The scientific basics (may 2022)

Una vez transcurrido alrededor de un año y medio (en el momento de escribir estas líneas) desde el inicio de la campaña masiva de vacunación en la que, gracias a las altas coberturas alcanzadas en todos los grupos diana para vacunación, se ha conseguido reducir de manera muy significativa la morbimortalidad por la COVID-19, es importante revisar las bases científicas que han sustentado las recomendaciones implantadas hasta la fecha y aquellas que podrían adoptarse en un futuro próximo según la situación epidemiológica. El objetivo del presente artículo fue, por tanto, abordar los fundamentos de algunas de las decisiones técnicas propuestas desde la Ponencia de Programa y Registro de Vacunaciones y el Grupo de Trabajo Técnico de Vacunación frente a la COVID-19. A lo largo de once actualizaciones de la Estrategia de Vacunación frente a la COVID-19 en España, han sido objeto de intenso debate varias cuestiones relativas a los intervalos de vacunación entre dosis, la conveniencia del uso de diferentes tipos de vacunas, las combinaciones de las mismas, los beneficios de la inmunidad híbrida y el uso de una cuarta dosis (segunda dosis de recuerdo) para poblaciones seleccionadas. Todo ello sin olvidar aspectos esenciales de su seguridad. Este artículo se divide en los siguientes apartados: Intervalos de vacunación; Pauta heteróloga o mixta; Inmunidad híbrida (vacunación tras la infección e infección tras vacunación [breakthrough]); Segunda dosis de recuerdo.(AU)

After about a year and a half (at the moment these lines are being written) since the start of the massive vaccination campaign in which, thanks to the high coverage achieved in all groups eligible for vaccination, it has been possible to significantly reduce the morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19, it is important to review the scientific basics that have supported the recommendations implemented to date and those that could be adopted in the near future taking into consideration the epidemiological situation. The objective of this article is, therefore, to address the foundations of some of the technical decisions proposed by the Committee on Programme and Registry of Vaccinations (National Immunization Technical Advisory Group in Spain) and the Technical Working Group on Vaccination against COVID-19. Throughout the eleven updates of the Vaccination Strategy against COVID-19 in Spain, several issues pose intense debate as the vaccination intervals between doses, the convenience of using different types of vaccines, the use of heterologous schemes of vaccination, the benefits of hybrid immunity and the use of a fourth dose (second booster dose) for selected populations. All this without forgetting essential aspects of safety of vaccines. This article is divided into the following sections: Vaccination intervals; Heterologous or mixed scheme; Hybrid immunity (vaccination after infection and infection after vaccination[breakthrough]); Second booster dose.(AU)

The heart and SARS-CoV-2. / Corazón y SARS-CoV-2.

SARS-CoV-2 is currently causing a persistent COVID-19 pandemic, which poses a risk of causing long-term cardiovascular sequels in the population. The viral mechanism of cell infection through the angiotensin 2 converter enzyme receptor and the limited antiviral innate immune response are the suspected causes for a more frequent cardiovascular damage in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Knowledge of the appearance during acute infection of other cardiac conditions beyond the classical myocarditis and pericarditis, the long-term cardiac manifestations (persistent COVID-19), and the increased incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination is of special interest in order to offer our patients best practices based on current scientific evidence.

COVID-19 vaccination among Spanish nephrologists: Acceptance and side effects.

INTRODUCTION: Four vaccines against Covid-19 have been approved to date. Their acceptance and safety have not been addressed on healthcare workers. The aim of the present study is to evaluate vaccination rates and side effects among Spanish nephrologists. METHODS: All the Spanish nephrologists were invited to participate in this survey. Data on demographics, Covid-19 infection status, received vaccine doses and side effects were collected. Acceptance and side effects were analyzed for Covid-19 vaccination. Factors associated to vaccination were assessed and a multivariate adjusted model was constructed to determine independent predictors for Covid-19 vaccine side effects. RESULTS: A total of 708 nephrologists answered the survey (460 [65%] women, mean age 44±11 years). Six-hundred and eight (86%) had received the first dose and 513 (72%) were fully vaccinated. Most of the subjects (565, 93%) received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech®) vaccine. Among vaccinated nephrologists, 453 (75%) presented any side effect; the most frequent was local reaction (68%), followed by myalgia (44%), tiredness (39%) and headache (34%). Age (OR 0.97, 95%CI [0.95-0.99], p<0.0001) and prior Covid-19 infection (OR 2.37, 95%CI [1.27-4.42], p=0.007) were independent predictors for developing side effects with Covid-19 vaccine. Overall side effects were similar with both vaccines, being myalgia (p=0.006) and tiredness (p=0.032) more frequent with the Pfizer-BioNTech® one. CONCLUSION: Age and prior Covid-19 infection were predictors of vaccination side effects among Spanish nephrologists.