Search

Background: Although psychiatric disorders have been associated with reduced immune responses to other vaccines, it remains unknown whether they influence COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE). This study evaluated risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and estimated mRNA VE stratified by psychiatric disorder status., Methods: In a retrospective cohort analysis of the VISION Network in four US states, the rate of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalization between December 2021 and August 2022 was compared across psychiatric diagnoses and by monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination status using Cox proportional hazards regression., Results: Among 2,436,999 adults, 22.1% had ≥1 psychiatric disorder. The incidence of COVID-19-associated hospitalization was higher among patients with any versus no psychiatric disorder (394 vs. 156 per 100,000 person-years, p < 0.001). Any psychiatric disorder (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.27; 95% CI, 1.18-1.37) and mood (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.15-1.36), anxiety (aHR, 1.33, 95% CI, 1.22-1.45), and psychotic (aHR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.14-1.74) disorders were each significant independent predictors of hospitalization. Among patients with any psychiatric disorder, aHRs for the association between vaccination and hospitalization were 0.35 (95% CI, 0.25-0.49) after a recent second dose, 0.08 (95% CI, 0.06-0.11) after a recent third dose, and 0.33 (95% CI, 0.17-0.66) after a recent fourth dose, compared to unvaccinated patients. Corresponding VE estimates were 65%, 92%, and 67%, respectively, and were similar among patients with no psychiatric disorder (68%, 92%, and 79%)., Conclusion: Psychiatric disorders were associated with increased risk of COVID-19-associated hospitalization. However, mRNA vaccination provided similar protection regardless of psychiatric disorder status, highlighting its benefit for individuals with psychiatric disorders., (© 2024 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The purpose of this systematic review is to provide updated evidence on the preferred induction therapy for the treatment of HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis considering the most recent evidence available in order to inform the need for updates to WHO guidelines., Methods: We searched Medline via PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov for published or completed randomized clinical trials that evaluated induction treatment of first episode HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis from 9 July 2018 (date of last search) to 1 September 2021., Results: One randomized clinical trial of 844 people with HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis met the inclusion criteria. Participants were randomized to: (1) amphotericin deoxycholate for 7 days, with flucytosine and fluconazole (control); or (2) a single dose of liposomal amphotericin 10 mg/kg with flucytosine and fluconazole (intervention). In the intention-to-treat analysis, 10-week mortality was 24.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 20.7-29.3%] in the single-dose liposomal amphotericin group compared with 28.7% (95% CI: 24.4-33.4%) in the control group. The absolute difference in 10-week mortality was -3.9% with an upper one-sided 95% CI of 1.2%, within the 10% pre-specified non-inferiority margin. Fewer participants had grade 3 and 4 adverse events in the intervention arm compared with the control arm (50.0% vs. 62.3%, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: In the single study included in this systematic review, single high-dose liposomal amphotericin B with flucytosine and fluconazole was non-inferior to the WHO-recommended standard of care induction therapy for HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis, with significantly fewer adverse events., (© 2022 The Authors. HIV Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British HIV Association.)

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, self-reported COVID-19 vaccination might facilitate rapid evaluations of vaccine effectiveness (VE) when source documentation (e.g., immunization information systems [IIS]) is not readily available. We evaluated the concordance of COVID-19 vaccination status ascertained by self-report versus source documentation and its impact on VE estimates., Methods: Hospitalized adults (≥18 years) admitted to 18 U.S. medical centers March-June 2021 were enrolled, including COVID-19 cases and SARS-CoV-2 negative controls. Patients were interviewed about COVID-19 vaccination. Abstractors simultaneously searched IIS, medical records, and other sources for vaccination information. To compare vaccination status by self-report and documentation, we estimated percent agreement and unweighted kappa with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We then calculated VE in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization of full vaccination (2 doses of mRNA product ≥14 days prior to illness onset) independently using data from self-report or source documentation., Results: Of 2520 patients, 594 (24%) did not have self-reported vaccination information to assign vaccination group; these patients tended to be more severely ill. Among 1924 patients with both self-report and source documentation information, 95.0% (95% CI: 93.9-95.9%) agreement was observed, with a kappa of 0.9127 (95% CI: 0.9109-0.9145). VE was 86% (95% CI: 81-90%) by self-report data only and 85% (95% CI: 81-89%) by source documentation data only., Conclusions: Approximately one-quarter of hospitalized patients could not provide self-report COVID-19 vaccination status. Among patients with self-report information, there was high concordance with source documented status. Self-report may be a reasonable source of COVID-19 vaccination information for timely VE assessment for public health action., (© 2022 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Background: We estimated SARS-CoV-2 Delta- and Omicron-specific effectiveness of two and three mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses in adults against symptomatic illness in US outpatient settings., Methods: Between October 1, 2021, and February 12, 2022, research staff consented and enrolled eligible participants who had fever, cough, or loss of taste or smell and sought outpatient medical care or clinical SARS-CoV-2 testing within 10 days of illness onset. Using the test-negative design, we compared the odds of receiving two or three mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses among SARS-CoV-2 cases versus controls using logistic regression. Regression models were adjusted for study site, age, onset week, and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was calculated as (1 - adjusted odds ratio) × 100%., Results: Among 3847 participants included for analysis, 574 (32%) of 1775 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the Delta predominant period and 1006 (56%) of 1794 participants tested positive during the Omicron predominant period. When Delta predominated, VE against symptomatic illness in outpatient settings was 63% (95% CI: 51% to 72%) among mRNA two-dose recipients and 96% (95% CI: 93% to 98%) for three-dose recipients. When Omicron predominated, VE was 21% (95% CI: -6% to 41%) among two-dose recipients and 62% (95% CI: 48% to 72%) among three-dose recipients., Conclusions: In this adult population, three mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses provided substantial protection against symptomatic illness in outpatient settings when the Omicron variant became the predominant cause of COVID-19 in the United States. These findings support the recommendation for a third mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose., Competing Interests: Ana Florea reports unrelated institutional grant support for research from Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Moderna, and Pfizer. Carlos G. Grijalva reports consulting fees from Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi Pasteur, and institutional grant support from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, Campbell Alliance/Syneos Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health. Emily T. Martin reports institutional grant support from Merck. Arnold S. Monto reports personal fees from Sanofi and non‐financial support from Seqirus. Mary Patricia Nowalk reports unrelated institutional grant support and personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme and institutional investigator‐initiated grant support from Sanofi Pasteur. Sara Y. Tartof reports unrelated institutional grant support from Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed., (Published 2022. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: We sought to assess whether persistent COVID-19 symptoms beyond 6 months (Long-COVID) among patients with mild COVID-19 is associated with poorer health status, quality of life, and psychological distress., Methods: This was a multicenter prospective cohort study that included adult outpatients with acute COVID-19 from eight sites during 2-week sampling periods from April 1 and July 28, 2020. Participants were contacted 6-11 months after their first positive SARS-CoV-2 to complete a survey, which collected information on the severity of eight COVID-19 symptoms using a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not present) to 3 (severe) at 1 month before COVID-19 (pre-illness) and at follow-up; the difference for each was calculated as an attributable persistent symptom severity score. A total attributable persistent COVID-19 symptom burden score was calculated by summing the attributable persistent severity scores for all eight symptoms. Outcomes measured at long-term follow-up comprised overall health status (EuroQol visual analogue scale), quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and psychological distress (Patient Health Questionnaire-4). The association between the total attributable persistent COVID-19 burden score and each outcome was analyzed using multivariable proportional odds regression., Results: Of the 2092 outpatients with COVID-19, 436 (21%) responded to the survey. The median (IQR) attributable persistent COVID-19 symptom burden score was 2 (0, 4); higher scores were associated with lower overall health status (aOR 0.63; 95% CI: 0.57-0.69), lower quality of life (aOR: 0.65; 95%CI: 0.59-0.72), and higher psychological distress (aOR: 1.40; 95%CI, 1.28-1.54) after adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, education, and income., Conclusions: In participants with mild acute COVID-19, the burden of persistent symptoms was significantly associated with poorer long-term health status, poorer quality of life, and psychological distress., (© 2022 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)