Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection,hospitalization, and death when combining a first dose ChAdOx1 vaccine with a subsequent mRNA vaccine in Denmark: A nationwide population-based cohort study

BackgroundThe recommendations in several countries to stop using the ChAdOx1 vaccine has led to vaccine programs combining different Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine types, which necessitates knowledge on vaccine effectiveness (VE) of heterologous vaccine schedules. The aim of this Danish nationwide population-based cohort study was therefore to estimate the VE against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and COVID-19–related hospitalization and death following the first dose of the ChAdOx1 vaccine and the combination of the ChAdOx1/mRNA vaccines.Methods and findingsAll individuals alive in or immigrating to Denmark from 9 February 2021 to 23 June 2021 were identified in the Danish Civil Registration System. Information on exposure, outcomes, and covariates was obtained from Danish national registries. Poisson and Cox regression models were used to calculate crude and adjusted VE, respectively, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19–related hospitalization or death comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals. The VE estimates were adjusted for calendar time as underlying time and for sex, age, comorbidity, country of origin, and hospital admission. The analyses included 5,542,079 individuals (97.6% of the total Danish population). A total of 144,360 individuals were vaccinated with the ChAdOx1 vaccine as the first dose, and of these, 136,551 individuals received an mRNA vaccine as the second dose. A total of 1,691,464 person-years and 83,034 SARS-CoV-2 infections were included. The individuals vaccinated with the first dose of the ChAdOx1 vaccine dose had a median age of 45 years. The study population was characterized by an equal distribution of males and females; 6.7% and 9.2% originated from high-income and other countries, respectively. The VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection when combining the ChAdOx1 and an mRNA vaccine was 88% (95% CI: 83; 92) 14 days after the second dose and onwards. There were no COVID-19–related hospitalizations or deaths among the individuals vaccinated with the combined vaccine schedule during the study period. Study limitations including unmeasured confounders such as risk behavior and increasing overall vaccine coverage in the general population creating herd immunity are important to take into consideration when interpreting the results.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed a large reduction in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection when combining the ChAdOx1 and an mRNA vaccine, compared with unvaccinated individuals.

Mie Agermose Gram and co-workers study the effectiveness of heterologous SARS-CoV-2 vaccine combinations in the Danish population.     

Association of disease severity and death outcome with vaccination status of admitted COVID-19 patients in delta period of SARS-COV-2 in mixed variety of vaccine background

To understand the effectual role of COVID-19 vaccination, we must analyze its effectiveness in dampening the disease severity and death outcome in patients who acquire infection and require hospitalization. The goal of this study was to see if there was an association between disease progression in admitted COVID-19 patients and their prior vaccination exposure. A prospective cohort study based on 1640 admitted COVID-19 patients were carried between June 2021 and October 2021. Depending on vaccination exposure they were divided into vaccinated (exposed) and unvaccinated (unexposed) groups, excluding partially vaccinated patients. Disease severity was assessed at admission on severity index scale. Disease progression to mortality or need of mechanical ventilation and survival were taken as outcome. Absolute difference with 95%CI and Risk Ratio were calculated using cross tabulation, Chi square test and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Among 1514 total analyzed cohort (median age, 53 years [IQR, 17,106]; 43.7% from 46 to 65 years of age group, 56.2% males,33.4% with no comorbid factor for disease progression) 369(24.4%) were vaccinated breakthrough cases and 1145(75.6%) were unvaccinated controls. 556(36.7%) progressed to death or mechanical ventilation, 958(63.3%) patients survived and were discharged home. Disease progression to death or mechanical ventilation was significantly associated with decreased likelihood of vaccination (24.9% among vaccinated breakthrough vs 40.5% unvaccinated controls, [Absolute difference ?15.6% 95%CI (?10.2% to ?20.6%); RR 0.615 95%CI (0.509, 0.744); p <.001]). This association was stronger for old age population and for increase time span between second dose of vaccine and onset of symptoms. There was no statistically significant difference among different types of vaccination and occurrence of outcome when compared to unvaccinated controls (RR 0.607(0.482, 0.763); 0.673(0.339, 1.33) and 0.623(0.441, 0.881) for Inactivated virus vaccine, mRNA and Adenovirus vector-based vaccine respectively. The patients who were fully vaccinated against SARS-COV-2 die or shift to mechanical ventilation less frequently than unvaccinated COVID-19 admitted patients.     

COVID-19 severity and cardiovascular outcomes in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease

BackgroundData regarding outcomes among patients with cancer and co-morbid cardiovascular disease (CVD)/cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) after SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited.ObjectivesTo compare Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related complications among cancer patients with and without co-morbid CVD/CVRF.MethodsRetrospective cohort study of patients with cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2, reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from 03/17/2020 to 12/31/2021. CVD/CVRF was defined as established CVD or no established CVD, male ≥ 55 or female ≥ 60 years, and one additional CVRF. The primary endpoint was an ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome including need for hospitalization, supplemental oxygen, intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation, ICU or mechanical ventilation plus vasopressors, and death. Secondary endpoints included incident adverse CV events. Ordinal logistic regression models estimated associations of CVD/CVRF with COVID-19 severity. Effect modification by recent cancer therapy was evaluated.ResultsAmong 10,876 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with cancer (median age 65 [IQR 54–74] years, 53% female, 52% White), 6253 patients (57%) had co-morbid CVD/CVRF. Co-morbid CVD/CVRF was associated with higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted OR: 1.25 [95% CI 1.11–1.40]). Adverse CV events were significantly higher in patients with CVD/CVRF (all p<0.001). CVD/CVRF was associated with worse COVID-19 severity in patients who had not received recent cancer therapy, but not in those undergoing active cancer therapy (OR 1.51 [95% CI 1.31–1.74] vs. OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.90–1.20], p_interaction <0.001).ConclusionsCo-morbid CVD/CVRF is associated with higher COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer, particularly those not receiving active cancer therapy. While infrequent, COVID-19 related CV complications were higher in patients with comorbid CVD/CVRF. (COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry [CCC19]; NCT04354701).     

Predictors of Severe COVID-19 in Patients With Diabetes: A Multicenter Review

ObjectiveDiabetes is an independent risk factor for severe SARS-CoV-2 infections. This study aims to elucidate the risk factors predictive of more severe outcomes in patients with diabetes by comparing the clinical characteristics of those requiring inpatient admissions with those who remain outpatient.MethodsA retrospective review identified 832 patients—631 inpatients and 201 outpatients—with diabetes and a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result between March 1 and June 15, 2020. Comparisons between the outpatient and inpatient cohorts were conducted to identify risk factors associated with severity of disease determined by admission rate and mortality. Previous dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor use and disease outcomes were analyzed.ResultsRisk factors for increased admission included older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.01-1.06]; P = .003), the presence of chronic kidney disease (OR, 2.32 [1.26-4.28]; P = .007), and a higher hemoglobin A1c at the time of admission (OR, 1.25 [1.12-1.39]; P < .001). Lower admission rates were seen in those with commercial insurance. Increased mortality was seen in individuals with older age (OR, 1.09 [1.07-1.11]; P < .001), higher body mass index number (OR, 1.04 [1.01-1.07]; P = .003), and higher hemoglobin A1c value at the time of diagnosis of COVID-19 (OR, 1.12 [1.01-1.24]; P = .028) and patients requiring hospitalization. Lower mortality was seen in those with hyperlipidemia. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor use prior to COVID-19 infection was not associated with a decreased hospitalization rate.ConclusionThis retrospective review offers the first analysis of outpatient predictors for admission rate and mortality of COVID-19 in patients with diabetes.     

Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 hospitalization with the Alpha,Delta, or Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant: A nationwide Danish cohort study

BackgroundThe continued occurrence of more contagious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants and waning immunity over time require ongoing reevaluation of the vaccine effectiveness (VE). This study aimed to estimate the effectiveness in 2 age groups (12 to 59 and 60 years or above) of 2 or 3 vaccine doses (BNT162b2 mRNA or mRNA-1273) by time since vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization in an Alpha-, Delta-, or Omicron-dominated period.Methods and findingsA Danish nationwide cohort study design was used to estimate VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalization with the Alpha, Delta, or Omicron variant. Information was obtained from nationwide registries and linked using a unique personal identification number. The study included all previously uninfected residents in Denmark aged 12 years or above (18 years or above for the analysis of 3 doses) in the Alpha (February 20 to June 15, 2021), Delta (July 4 to November 20, 2021), and Omicron (December 21, 2021 to January 31, 2022) dominated periods. VE estimates including 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated (1-hazard ratio∙100) using Cox proportional hazard regression models with underlying calendar time and adjustments for age, sex, comorbidity, and geographical region. Vaccination status was included as a time-varying exposure. In the oldest age group, VE against infection after 2 doses was 90.7% (95% CI: 88.2; 92.7) for the Alpha variant, 82.3% (95% CI: 75.5; 87.2) for the Delta variant, and 39.9% (95% CI: 26.3; 50.9) for the Omicron variant 14 to 30 days since vaccination. The VE waned over time and was 73.2% (Alpha, 95% CI: 57.1; 83.3), 50.0% (Delta, 95% CI: 46.7; 53.0), and 4.4% (Omicron, 95% CI: −0.1; 8.7) >120 days since vaccination. Higher estimates were observed after the third dose with VE estimates against infection of 86.1% (Delta, 95% CI: 83.3; 88.4) and 57.7% (Omicron, 95% CI: 55.9; 59.5) 14 to 30 days since vaccination. Among both age groups, VE against COVID-19 hospitalization 14 to 30 days since vaccination with 2 or 3 doses was 98.1% or above for the Alpha and Delta variants. Among both age groups, VE against COVID-19 hospitalization 14 to 30 days since vaccination with 2 or 3 doses was 95.5% or above for the Omicron variant. The main limitation of this study is the nonrandomized study design including potential differences between the unvaccinated (reference group) and vaccinated individuals.ConclusionsTwo vaccine doses provided high protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalization with the Alpha and Delta variants with protection, notably against infection, waning over time. Two vaccine doses provided only limited and short-lived protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection with Omicron. However, the protection against COVID-19 hospitalization following Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher. The third vaccine dose substantially increased the level and duration of protection against infection with the Omicron variant and provided a high level of sustained protection against COVID-19 hospitalization among the +60-year-olds.

Mie Agermose Gram and colleagues estimate vaccine effectiveness against infection and COVID-19 hospitalization with the Alpha, Delta or Omicron variant in Denmark.     

Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on lung cancer patients: A meta-analysis

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses a great challenge to the treatment of lung cancer patients.Materials and methodsThe PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies published before March 15, 2022, and Stata 14.0 software was used to perform a meta-analysis with a random-effects model. The odds ratio (OR) along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported.ResultsOur meta-analysis included 80 articles with 318,352 patients involved. The proportion of lung cancer patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was 2.4% (95% CI: 0.02–0.03) prior to the Omicron variant outbreak. Among COVID-19 patients, those with lung cancer showed a higher mortality rate than those with other types of malignant solid tumors (OR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.61–2.06) and non-cancer patients (OR = 4.67, 95% CI: 3.61–6.05); however, no significant difference was observed in the mortality rate between patients with lung cancer and those with hematologic malignancies (OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.85–1.33). SARS-CoV-2 infection significantly increased the mortality rate in lung cancer patients (OR = 8.94, 95% CI: 6.50–12.31). By contrast, the all-cause mortality rate in lung cancer patients (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.69–1.57) and the proportion of patients diagnosed with advanced lung cancer (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.85–1.27) did not significantly change before and after the pandemic.ConclusionsMore attention should be paid on improving the health of lung cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Interferon-induced transmembrane protein-3 genetic variant rs12252 is associated with COVID-19 mortality

Interferon-induced membrane proteins (IFITM) 3 gene variants are known risk factor for severe viral diseases. We examined whether IFITM3 variant may underlie the heterogeneous clinical outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection-induced COVID-19 in large Arab population. We genotyped 880 Saudi patients; 93.8% were PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, encompassing most COVID-19 phenotypes. Mortality at 90 days was 9.1%. IFITM3-SNP, rs12252-G allele was associated with hospital admission (OR = 1.65 [95% CI; 1.01–2.70], P = 0.04]) and mortality (OR = 2.2 [95% CI; 1.16–4.20], P = 0.01). Patients less than 60 years old had a lower survival probability if they harbor this allele (log-rank test P = 0.002). Plasma levels of IFNγ were significantly lower in a subset of patients with AG/GG genotypes than patients with AA genotype (P = 0.00016). Early identification of these individuals at higher risk of death may inform precision public health response.     

Mortalidad en pacientes con demencia que cursaron internación en unidades de cuidados críticos

ObjectiveTo determine the mortality and comorbidities associated of patients with dementia admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) on the hospitalization and at one year of follow-up.Materials and methodsA retrospective observational cohort study was carried out between 2012 and 2017 at the Hospital Italiano de San Justo, of patients who were admitted to the ICU, these were observed up to hospitalary death, out hospital death one year of hospitalization, the disenrollment from the institution's health plan or the end of the follow-up.ResultsA total of 163 patients were included for analysis. We recorded those 79 patients (48.47%) died one year after the hospitalization, of them 25 (15.34%) in ICU and 8 (4.91%) in general room. The most frequent causes of death were respiratory. The factors most associated with mortality were: orotracheal intubation (HR = 2.01; 95% CI: 1.11-3.65; P = .02), history of leukemia (HR = 8.55; 95% CI: 1.82-40.05; P ≤ .05), elevated Charlson (HR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.04-1.41; P = .05), and elevated APACHE II at admission (HR = 1.07; 95% CI: 1.03-1.11; P ≤ .05).ConclusionsThe present study expresses the prognosis of patients with a diagnosis of dementia admitted to the ICU and that depends not only on their baseline neurological status but also on the severity at admission and comorbidities.     

Factores de riesgo de mortalidad en pacientes mayores de 65 años hospitalizados por COVID-19

Background and objectiveCOVID-19 is a disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and has caused a global pandemic that we are currently suffering from.Objectiveto identify factors associated with the death of patients aged 65 years or older hospitalized for COVID-19.Materials and methodsRetrospective cohort study. We included patients aged 65 years or older who were hospitalized for COVID-19 and dead o discharged between March 5 and 25, 2020. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death.Results277 patients were included in this study. The bivariate analysis showed significant differences (p < 0.05) between survivors and non survivors: age, increased dependence and comorbidity, history of ischemic heart disease, renal failure and non-hematological neoplasms, heart failure during admission, leukocytosis, elevated creatinine, PCR, GOT and troponin Ic values, lymphopenia, and decreased blood pH and SatO2. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that age ≥ 65 years (OR: 4.23 (95% CI: 1.43-12.52; p = 0.009), lymphopenia < 1000/μL (OR: 2.36 (95% CI: 1.07-5.20; p = 0.033), creatinine > 1.2 mg/dL (OR: 3.08 (95% CI: 1.37-6.92; p = 0.006), SatO₂ < 90% (OR: 2.29 (95% CI: 1.01-5.21; p = 0.049) and troponin Ic > 11 ng/mL (OR: 2.32 (95% CI: 1.04-5.16; p = 0.040) were independently associated with higher hospital mortality.ConclusionsOlder age, lymphopenia, SatO₂ < 90%, elevated creatinine and troponin Ic values were independently associated with higher mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, these factors could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis.     

Antiviral drug treatment for nonsevere COVID-19: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background:Randomized trial evidence suggests that some antiviral drugs are effective in patients with COVID-19. However, the comparative effectiveness of antiviral drugs in nonsevere COVID-19 is unclear.Methods:We searched the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE (Living Overview of Evidence) database for randomized trials comparing antiviral treatments, standard care or placebo in adult patients with nonsevere COVID-19 up to Apr. 25, 2022. Reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.Results:We identified 41 trials, which included 18 568 patients. Compared with standard care or placebo, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir–ritonavir each reduced risk of death with moderate certainty (10.9 fewer deaths per 1000, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.6 to 4.5 fewer for molnupiravir; 11.7 fewer deaths per 1000, 95% CI 13.1 fewer to 2.6 more). Compared with molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir–ritonavir probably reduced risk of hospital admission (27.8 fewer admissions per 1000, 95% CI 32.8 to 18.3 fewer; moderate certainty). Remdesivir probably has no effect on risk of death, but may reduce hospital admissions (39.1 fewer admissions per 1000, 95% CI 48.7 to 13.7 fewer; low certainty).Interpretation:Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir–ritonavir probably reduce risk of hospital admissions and death among patients with nonsevere COVID-19. Nirmatrelvir–ritonavir is probably more effective than molnupiravir for reducing risk of hospital admissions. Most trials were conducted with unvaccinated patients, before the emergence of the Omicron variant; the effectiveness of these drugs must thus be tested among vaccinated patients and against newer variants.

Most trials addressing the treatment of patients with COVID-19 have targeted patients admitted to hospital with severe or critical disease.¹ However, more recently, several treatments, including antiviral drugs, antidepressants, monoclonal antibodies and inhaled corticosteroids, have been studied for patients with nonsevere COVID-19.² Preliminary evidence from ongoing or recently completed trials suggests that 2 novel antiviral drugs — molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir–ritonavir (Paxlovid) — may be effective at reducing risk of hospital admission.^3–5 To date, evidence on antiviral drugs for nonsevere COVID-19 has not been systematically synthesized or appraised. Furthermore, although efficacy data from trials of molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir–ritonavir and remdesivir are promising, no head-to-head trials have compared these drugs.A network meta-analysis allows for comparison of treatments that have not been compared in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), using pooled estimates from direct and indirect evidence. They can provide guidance to clinicians and evidence users in determining which treatments are superior. This is particularly important as health care systems attempt to prioritize access to effective COVID-19 treatments in the early stages of the disease.We sought to compare the effectiveness of antiviral drugs for patients with nonsevere COVID-19.     

Factores de riesgo asociados a fallecimiento por la variante ómicron de COVID-19: análisis retrospectivo con personas mayores de Canarias

Background and aimsSince the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the elderly population has had the highest rates of complications and mortality. This study aimed to determine the influence of different risk factors on deaths due to the Omicron variant in the Canary Islands.Materials and methodsA retrospective observational study of 16,998 cases of COVID-19 over 40 years of age was conducted in the Canary Islands between August 1, 2022, and January 31, 2023. We extracted sociodemographic data (age and sex) and clinical data (death, vaccination history, hospital admission, previous diseases, and treatments).ResultsAmong the deaths, there was a higher proportion of males aged over 70 years, with diabetes, cardiovascular, renal, respiratory, and systemic diseases, and nursing home residents. Significant differences were observed in the number of doses of the vaccine. The multiple regression model showed that male sex (OR [95% CI] = 1.92 [1.42–2.58]), age (70–79 years, 9.11 [4.27–19.43]; 80–89 years, 21.72 [10.40–45.36]; 90–99 years, 66.24 [31.03–141.38]; 100 years or older, 69.22 [12.97–369.33]), being unvaccinated (6.96, [4.01–12.08]), or having the last dose administered at least 12 months before the diagnosis (2.38, [1.48–3.81]) were significantly associated with mortality.ConclusionsMultiple factors may increase the risk of mortality due to COVID-19 in the elderly population. In our study, we found that only three predictors can effectively explain the variability: older age, male sex, and not being vaccinated or last vaccination date prior to one year.     

SARS-CoV-2 vaccine uptake in a multi-ethnic UK healthcare workforce: A cross-sectional study

BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) and ethnic minority groups are at increased risk of COVID-19 infection and adverse outcomes. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination is now available for frontline UK HCWs; however, demographic/occupational associations with vaccine uptake in this cohort are unknown. We sought to establish these associations in a large UK hospital workforce.Methods and findingsWe conducted cross-sectional surveillance examining vaccine uptake amongst all staff at University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust. We examined proportions of vaccinated staff stratified by demographic factors, occupation, and previous COVID-19 test results (serology/PCR) and used logistic regression to identify predictors of vaccination status after adjustment for confounders. We included 19,044 HCWs; 12,278 (64.5%) had received SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Compared to White HCWs (70.9% vaccinated), a significantly smaller proportion of ethnic minority HCWs were vaccinated (South Asian, 58.5%; Black, 36.8%; p < 0.001 for both). After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, occupation, SARS-CoV-2 serology/PCR results, and COVID-19-related work absences, factors found to be negatively associated with vaccine uptake were younger age, female sex, increased deprivation, pregnancy, and belonging to any non-White ethnic group (Black: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.30, 95% CI 0.26–0.34, p < 0.001; South Asian: aOR 0.67, 95% CI 0.62–0.72, p < 0.001). Those who had previously had confirmed COVID-19 (by PCR) were less likely to be vaccinated than those who had tested negative. Limitations include data being from a single centre, lack of data on staff vaccinated outside the hospital system, and that staff may have taken up vaccination following data extraction.ConclusionsEthnic minority HCWs and those from more deprived areas as well as younger staff and female staff are less likely to take up SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. These findings have major implications for the delivery of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination programmes, in HCWs and the wider population, and should inform the national vaccination programme to prevent the disparities of the pandemic from widening.

In a cross-sectional study, Dr. Christopher A. Martin and colleagues investigate factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccine uptake in a multi-ethnic healthcare workforce in UK.     

Population-based evaluation of the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir–ritonavir for reducing hospital admissions and mortality from COVID-19

Background:A randomized controlled trial involving a high-risk, unvaccinated population that was conducted before the Omicron variant emerged found that nirmatrelvir–ritonavir was effective in preventing progression to severe COVID-19. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir–ritonavir in preventing severe COVID-19 while Omicron and its subvariants predominate.Methods:We conducted a population-based cohort study in Ontario that included all residents who were older than 17 years of age and had a positive polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 between Apr. 4 and Aug. 31, 2022. We compared patients treated with nirmatrelvir–ritonavir with patients who were not treated and measured the primary outcome of hospital admission from COVID-19 or all-cause death at 1–30 days, and a secondary outcome of all-cause death. We used weighted logistic regression to calculate weighted odds ratios (ORs) with confidence intervals (CIs) using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to control for confounding.Results:The final cohort included 177 545 patients, 8876 (5.0%) who were treated with nirmatrelvir–ritonavir and 168 669 (95.0%) who were not treated. The groups were well balanced with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics after applying stabilized IPTW. We found that the occurrence of hospital admission or death was lower in the group given nirmatrelvir–ritonavir than in those who were not (2.1% v. 3.7%; weighted OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.47–0.67). For death alone, the weighted OR was 0.49 (95% CI 0.39–0.62). Our findings were similar across strata of age, drug–drug interactions, vaccination status and comorbidities. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 case of severe COVID-19 was 62 (95% CI 43–80), which varied across strata.Interpretation:Nirmatrelvir–ritonavir was associated with significantly reduced odds of hospital admission and death from COVID-19, which supports use to treat patients with mild COVID-19 who are at risk for severe disease.

Antiviral therapies to treat COVID-19 and prevent severe outcomes such as hospital admission and death are valuable tools in the global pandemic response. The Evaluation of protease inhibition for COVID-19 in high-risk patients (EPIC-HR) randomized controlled trial (RCT) of nirmatrelvir–ritonavir identified an 89% reduction in progression to severe COVID-19 in participants at high risk of severe disease who were treated, compared with placebo.¹ However, the trial was conducted between July and December 2021, which was before the emergence of the Omicron variant that is less virulent than the progenitor virus,² and excluded vaccinated people, as well as those taking medications with potential drug interactions.¹ The Evaluation of protease inhibition for COVID-19 in standard-risk patients (EPIC-SR) trial recently reported nonsignificant findings in a press release.³In real-world evaluations of nirmatrelvir–ritonavir while the Omicron variant and its subvariants were predominating, a significant protective effect was seen in adults 65 years of age and older in Israel.⁴ A retrospective cohort study involving patients with COVID-19 who attended designated outpatient clinics in Hong Kong between Feb. 16 and Mar. 31, 2022, identified a reduced risk of hospital admission in adults when given nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, albeit attenuated compared with the EPIC-HR trial.⁵ Studies that have stratified participants by vaccination status identified similar reductions in relative risk in vaccinated cohorts but with smaller reductions in absolute risk because of the lower baseline risk of hospital admission or death from COVID-19.^4,6,7 Observational studies have risks of bias that include residual confounding and immortal time bias.⁸In Ontario, nirmatrelvir–ritonavir became widely available and funded for all patients in the community by April 2022, with clinical criteria set by the government limiting access only to patients who were older, had comorbidities or were undervaccinated.^9,10 The Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table provided clinical practice guidance to Ontario clinicians on the use of therapeutics for COVID-19 with stricter high-risk criteria based on patients who were most likely to benefit from the limited supplies of antiviral drug at the time.¹¹ A large proportion of patients who received nirmatrelvir–ritonavir in Ontario would have been excluded from the EPIC-HR trial population (e.g., those previously vaccinated or receiving concomitant medications with significant drug–drug interactions). Observational data evaluating use of nirmatrelvir–ritonavir can inform future policy and guidelines. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir–ritonavir on health outcomes, including hospital admission and death from COVID-19, while Omicron and its subvariants predominated.     

The Impact of Influenza Vaccinations on the Adverse Effects and Hospitalization Rate in the Elderly: A National Based Study in an Asian Country

Objectives

To examine the risk of adverse effects of special interest in persons vaccinated against seasonal influenza compared with unvaccinated persons aged 65 and above.

Methods

We retrospectively observed 41,986 vaccinated elderly persons and 50,973 unvaccinated elderly persons in Taiwan from October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2009, using the National Health Insurance database. Neurological and autoimmune disorders and one-year hospitalization rates and in-hospital mortality rates were analyzed according to the vaccination status. Propensity score analysis was used to assess the relationship between adverse outcomes, hospitalization rates, and vaccination status.

Results

45% of the elderly received influenza vaccination. Multiple logistic regression showed that the probability of being vaccinated was related to more patients visiting for URI symptoms (odds ratio (OR), 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02–1.03), men (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.12–1.17), increased age (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.02–1.03), and more comorbidities (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.17–1.23). There were no statistical differences in neurological and autoimmune diseases between the vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals using propensity score analysis, but vaccinated persons had a reduced hospitalization rate of 19% (odds ratio [OR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77–0.84) for the first six-months and 13% for one-year of follow-up (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.85–0.9).

Conclusions

Based on data from the one-year follow-ups among 93,049 elderly persons in Taiwan, reassuring results for selected neurological and autoimmune diseases were found among the vaccinated individuals after adjusting other factors. Influenza vaccination decreased the risk for hospitalization. Public health strategies must continue to improve the influenza vaccination rate among the elderly with information based upon tangible evidence.     

Clinical characteristics,risk factors,and rate of severity of a nationwide COVID-19 Saudi cohort

ObjectiveTo evaluate COVID19 patients’ clinical characteristics, risk factors, and COVID-19 severity at baseline and over one month following hospitalization.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective cohort study of 598 Saudi COVID19 patients recruited from 4 major medical institutions nationwide between June 01, 2020, and February 28, 2021. Patients were stratified into different demographic characteristics and COVID-19 severity scale.ResultsOf the 598 hospitalized adult COVID19 patients (mean [range] age, 57 [46 to 65] years; 59% male), 300 (50.16%) had severe clinical COVID-19. Comorbidity was high among hospitalized patients (73.5 %), with diabetes mellitus (n=; 46%) and hypertension (n=; 41%) being the most common prevalent. In a multivariate logistic regression model, patient demographics and clinical factors such as age (odds ratio [OR], 1.014 per year; 95% CI, 1.003–1.025), male sex (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.02–2.62), diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.06–2.49), obesity (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.26–2.94), oxygen saturation<92% (OR, 4.83; 95% CI, 2.96–7.86), and high neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (OR, 3.74 per unit; 95% CI, 1.96–7.14) were independently associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Moreover, more than 60% of male patients and middle-aged patients (40–60 years) were associated with the use of COVID-19 medications, including favipiravir and dexamethasone, during their hospital stay. Additionally, the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation was the highest in female patients (61.5%) and in middle-aged patients (46.2%). However, the death rate was slightly higher in males (56%) than in female patients and in elderly patients (52%). In Cox proportional analysis, age associated with increased risk of 60-days mortality (Hazard ratio; HR, 1.05 per year; 95% CI, 1.018–1.098). Additionally, the Riyadh region associated with more COVID-19 cases required invasive respiratory support (57.7%) and Jeddah was associated with more deceased COVID-19 cases (44%).ConclusionsThe data shows that comorbidity is associated with hospitalization among COVID-19 patients, which indicates the level of severity. Infection during the winter season (November), male gender, elderly, and those with pre-existing diabetes mellitus or obesity were associated with higher COVID-19 clinical severity.     

Cancer risk associated with the use of valsartan in Korea: A nationwide cohort study

BackgroundDespite valsartan’s widespread use, few studies have explored its potential carcinogenicity. We evaluated the association between valsartan and cancer.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from 2002 to 2015 gathered from the National Health Insurance database. Patients with hypertension aged ≥ 30 who used valsartan or other angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) were included. Eligible patients were those with no prior history of the use of any ARBs, diagnosis of cancer, or organ transplantation in the 4 years predating their first use of the drugs of interest. The primary and secondary outcomes included the occurrence of all cancers and site-specific solid cancers, respectively. After applying propensity score (PS) matching, Cox regression was used to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsA total of 1,550,734 individuals were identified as new users of valsartan or other ARBs. Of the 153,047 valsartan users, 16,047 were diagnosed with cancer. No increased risk of overall cancer was observed in valsartan users as compared to other ARB users (aHR = 1.00; 95 % CI, 0.98–1.02). Valsartan was, however, associated with a slightly elevated risk of liver (aHR = 1.09; 95 % CI, 1.01–1.16) and kidney cancer (aHR = 1.11; 95 % CI, 1.02–1.22).ConclusionCompared with other ARBs, valsartan did not increase the risk of overall cancer. A slightly increased risk for some solid cancers was associated with valsartan use, though the absolute rate difference was small.     

Associations between prior HPV4 vaccine doses and cervical cancer screening participation

BackgroundCervical cancer screening, regardless of HPV vaccination, is a cornerstone of cancer prevention. This study evaluated associations between prior HPV vaccine doses and initiation and continued participation of screening by age at vaccination.MethodsUsing electronic medical records for a safety net healthcare system (Truman Medical Center), women aged 14⿿26 y vaccinated (n = 1123) between 07/01/2006 and 10/1/2009 were randomly selected and matched on birth year and health campus to unvaccinated (n = 1123) women. Frequency of screening was determined through 07/01/2013. Hazard ratios (HR) for screening were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression.ResultsScreening rates were higher after vaccination: unvaccinated (53%), first (62%), second (59%) or third (61%) doses. Women who initiated screening were less likely to complete the vaccine series, regardless of age. Women receiving one dose were more likely than unvaccinated women to initiate screening (HR = 2.98 95% Confidence Interval (CI):2.45⿿3.61) and were more likely to screen than those receiving two (1 vs. 2, HR = 2.94 95% CI:2.09⿿4.14) or three doses (1 vs. 3, HR = 3.15 95% CI:2.21⿿4.48). Compared to unvaccinated women, women <21 y who completed 3-doses were 1.8-times more likely to screen at ⿥21 y, whereas vaccinated women ⿥21 y were more likely to screen regardless of number of doses (p < 0.0001).ConclusionsWomen who were vaccinated were more likely to screen than unvaccinated women; screening rate was highest after and occurred closest to the first vaccine dose. Research evaluating the efficacy of a one-dose vaccine is warranted and may provide both higher vaccination and screening rates.