Search

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic poses a significant global health threat, characterized by high morbidity, severity, and the emergence of concerning variants. Latin America has been greatly affected, with high infection and mortality rates. Vaccination plays a crucial role in mitigating severe disease and controlling the pandemic. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) in hospitalized vaccination target groups in Ecuador., Methods: This is a test-negative design study. We used data reported through sentinel surveillance of SARI between May 2021 and March 2022 in Ecuador. Patients with case criteria of SARI and hospitalized for a minimum of 24 hours were included in the study. Cases were defined as patients with SARI with a positive RT-qPCR test for SARS-CoV-2 and controls were those with a negative result. Information on vaccination status was obtained from the national vaccination registry, a valid dose of vaccination was considered when it was administered at least 14 days prior to symptom onset. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) (1-OR/OR) was calculated using a logistic regression., Results: A total of 1,277 patients were included in the analysis of VE. The adjusted vaccine effectiveness (aVE) in preventing hospitalization, adjusted for sex, age group, presence of one or more comorbidities, and period of the predominance of the omicron variant, was 44.5% for the partial primary schedule, 74.7% for the complete primary schedule, and 79.9% for the complete primary schedule plus booster doses. The aVE in avoiding ICU admissions was close to 80% with both the complete primary schedule and the booster doses, and in avoiding deaths, the aVE was 89% and 98%, respectively., Conclusions: In Ecuador, COVID-19 vaccination prevents hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths. The effectiveness of the vaccines improves with more doses, offering increased protection across all age groups., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The large number of patients worldwide infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus has overwhelmed health-care systems globally. The Anti-Coronavirus Therapies (ACT) outpatient trial aimed to evaluate anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin for prevention of disease progression in community patients with COVID-19., Methods: The ACT outpatient, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial, was done at 48 clinical sites in 11 countries. Patients in the community aged 30 years and older with symptomatic, laboratory confirmed COVID-19 who were within 7 days of diagnosis and at high risk of disease progression were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive colchicine 0·6 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0·6 mg once daily for 25 days versus usual care, and in a second (1:1) randomisation to receive aspirin 100 mg once daily for 28 days versus usual care. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was assessed at 45 days in the intention-to-treat population; for the colchicine randomisation it was hospitalisation or death, and for the aspirin randomisation it was major thrombosis, hospitalisation, or death. The ACT outpatient trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324463 and is ongoing., Findings: Between Aug 27, 2020, and Feb 10, 2022, 3917 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine or control and to aspirin or control; after excluding 36 patients due to administrative reasons 3881 individuals were included in the analysis (n=1939 colchicine vs n=1942 control; n=1945 aspirin vs 1936 control). Follow-up was more than 99% complete. Overall event rates were 5 (0·1%) of 3881 for major thrombosis, 123 (3·2%) of 3881 for hospitalisation, and 23 (0·6%) of 3881 for death; 66 (3·4%) of 1939 patients allocated to colchicine and 65 (3·3%) of 1942 patients allocated to control experienced hospitalisation or death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·72-1·43, p=0·93); and 59 (3·0%) of 1945 of patients allocated to aspirin and 73 (3·8%) of 1936 patients allocated to control experienced major thrombosis, hospitalisation, or death (HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·57-1·13, p=0·21). Results for the primary outcome were consistent in all prespecified subgroups, including according to baseline vaccination status, timing of randomisation in relation to onset of symptoms (post-hoc analysis), and timing of enrolment according to the phase of the pandemic (post-hoc analysis). There were more serious adverse events with colchicine than with control (34 patients [1·8%] of 1939 vs 27 [1·4%] of 1942) but none in either group that led to discontinuation of study interventions. There was no increase in serious adverse events with aspirin versus control (31 [1·6%] vs 31 [1·6%]) and none that led to discontinuation of study interventions., Interpretation: The results provide no support for the use of colchicine or aspirin to prevent disease progression or death in outpatients with COVID-19., Funding: Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Bayer, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, and Thistledown Foundation., Translations: For the Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JWE reports grants or in-kind support from Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Pfizer, Janssen, and Sanofi-Aventis and honoraria from Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli-Lilly, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Merck, Pfizer, Janssen, Sanofi-Aventis, and Servier. SSJ reports grant support from Boston Scientific and consulting fees from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. EPB-C reports grant support from Bayer, Roche, BMS–Pfizer. RPW reports grant support from Bayer, Roche, and BMS-Pfizer, grant and honorarium from Boehringer-Ingelheim, and consultancy fees from Atricure and Phasebio. LMP-V reports ACT study support from Unilab, RiteMed Phils, Philippine Council for Health Research and Development, grant support from Wellcome Trust and Sanofi. AA reports institutional grant support from Bayer and EMS, lecture fees from Bayer, Sanofi-Aventis. DX reports ACT study funding from CIHR, grant support from PHRI, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coco Cola India, Indian Council of Medical Research, Pfizer, UK Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust, speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Sanofi, meeting support from the Indian Council of Medical Research, Eli Lilly, and Sanofi, and leadership roles in SOCHARA and ISCR. RDL reports institutional grant support from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi, consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, Sanofi, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Portola, honoraria from Pfizer and meeting travel support from IQVIA. OB reports grant support from Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Amgen, Novartis, Servier, and Pfizer. SW reports grant support from NIH, honoraria from Pfizer, and safety monitoring committee of an AIDS Clinical Trial. SSA reports grants from CIHR and PHAC, honoraria or consulting fees from Bayer, Janssen Pharma, meeting support from Heart and Stroke Canada, committee member at American Heart Association, Canadian Cardiovascular Society, Heart and Stroke Canada. JB reports consulting fees from Bayer. SC reports ACT study funding from Bayer, owns Bayer stock, is a board member of Canadian Arrhythmia Network, is an institutional advisory board member at the Institute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health, Canadian Institutes for Health Research. MEF reports institutional grants from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk and consulting fees from Otitopic. ML reports participation in vaccine advisory boards for Medicago, Pfizer, Sanofi, and is on the data safety and monitoring board for CanSino Biologics. SY reports institutional grant support from Bayer and honoraria and travel costs for lectures from Bayer. SR, LX, LH, SIB, WMT, MH, AK, WH, SKS, PL-J, ALD, PP, CF, AY, and ZA have no disclosures to report., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: COVID-19 disease is accompanied by a dysregulated immune response and hypercoagulability. The Anti-Coronavirus Therapies (ACT) inpatient trial aimed to evaluate anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin for prevention of disease progression in patients hospitalised with COVID-19., Methods: The ACT inpatient, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial was done at 62 clinical centres in 11 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with symptomatic, laboratory confirmed COVID-19 who were within 72 h of hospitalisation or worsening clinically if already hospitalised were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive colchicine 1·2 mg followed by 0·6 mg 2 h later and then 0·6 mg twice daily for 28 days versus usual care; and in a second (1:1) randomisation, to the combination of rivaroxaban 2·5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily for 28 days versus usual care. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome, assessed at 45 days in the intention-to-treat population, for the colchicine randomisation was the composite of the need for high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death; and for the rivaroxaban plus aspirin randomisation was the composite of major thrombosis (myocardial infarction, stroke, acute limb ischaemia, or pulmonary embolism), the need for high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death. The trial is registered at www., Clinicaltrials: gov, NCT04324463 and is ongoing., Findings: Between Oct 2, 2020, and Feb 10, 2022, at 62 sites in 11 countries, 2749 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine or control and the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin or to the control. 2611 patients were included in the analysis of colchicine (n=1304) versus control (n=1307); 2119 patients were included in the analysis of rivaroxaban and aspirin (n=1063) versus control (n=1056). Follow-up was more than 98% complete. Overall, 368 (28·2%) of 1304 patients allocated to colchicine and 356 (27·2%) of 1307 allocated to control had a primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·90-1·21, p=0·58); and 281 (26·4%) of 1063 patients allocated to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin and 300 (28·4%) of 1056 allocated to control had a primary outcome (HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·78-1·09, p=0·32). Results were consistent in subgroups defined by vaccination status, disease severity at baseline, and timing of randomisation in relation to onset of symptoms. There was no increase in the number of patients who had at least one serious adverse event for colchicine versus control groups (87 [6·7%] of 1304 vs 90 [6·9%] of 1307) or with rivaroxaban and aspirin versus control groups (85 [8·0%] vs 91 [8·6%]). Among patients assigned to colchicine, 8 (0·61%) had adverse events that led to discontinuation of study drug, mostly gastrointestinal in nature. 17 (1·6%) patients assigned to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin had bleeding compared with seven (0·66%) of those allocated to control (p=0·042); the number of serious bleeding events was two (0·19%) versus six (0·57%), respectively (p=0·18). No patients assigned to rivaroxaban and aspirin had serious adverse events that led to discontinuation of study drug., Interpretation: Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19, neither colchicine nor the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin prevent disease progression or death., Funding: Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Bayer, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, Thistledown Foundation., Translations: For the Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JWE reports grant or in-kind support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, Sanofi-Aventis and honoraria from Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myer-Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli-Lilly, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Merck, Pfizer, Janssen, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier. SSJ reports grant support from Boston Scientific, honoraria from Medtronic, Penumbra. EPB-C reports grant support from Bayer, Roche, BMS-Pfizer. RPW reports grant support from Bayer, Roche, BMS-Pfizer, grant and honorarium from Boehringer-Ingelheim, and consultancy fees from Atricure and Phasebio. MLD reports grant support from the Population Health Research Institute (PHRI) to manage the ACT study in Argentina. RD reports grant support from PHRI to manage the ACT study in Argentina. AA reports institutional grant support from Bayer and EMS, and lecture fees from Bayer and Sanofi-Aventis. SW reports grant support from NIH, honoraria from Pfizer, and safety monitoring committee of an AIDS Clinical Trial Group. RDL reports institutional grant support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Glaxo Smith Kline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi, consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, Sanofi, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Portola, honoraria from Pfizer and meeting travel support from IQVIA. OB reports grant support from Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Amgen, Novartis, Servier, Pfizer. SSA reports grants from CIHR and PHAC, honoraria and consulting fees from Bayer and Janssen Pharma, meeting support from Heart and Stroke Canada, is committee member at the American Heart Association, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and Heart and Stroke Canada. JB reports consulting fees from Bayer. SC reports ACT study funding from Bayer, owns Bayer stock, is a board member of Canadian Arrhythmia Network, is an institutional advisory board member at the Institute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health, Canadian Institutes for Health Research. MEF reports institutional grants from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk and consulting fees from Otitopic. ML reports participation in vaccine advisory boards for Medicago, Pfizer, and Sanofi and is on the data safety and monitoring board for CanSino Biologics. SY reports institutional grant support from Bayer and honoraria, and travel costs for lectures from Bayer. SR, LX, LH, SIB, AY, SKS, WMT, MH, WH, AA, OD, CF, and PL-J have no disclosures to report., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In January 2018, Ecuador changed its routine immunization schedule by replacing one full dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) administered intramuscularly at 2 months of age with two doses of fractional IPV (1/5th of full dose, fIPV) administered intradermally at 2 and 4 months of age; and bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (serotypes 1 and 3, bOPV) continues to be used. We compared seroprevalence and titres of polio antibodies achieved by the past and the current immunization schedules., Methods: This was a cross-sectional serological survey in children in Ecuador who received bOPV and either one IPV dose in 2017 or two fIPV doses in 2018. One blood sample was collected between October 2020 and March 2021 and analysed for presence of poliovirus neutralizing antibodies at CDC, Atlanta by microneutralization assay., Findings: We obtained 321 analysable samples from 329 (97·6%) enrolled children (160 received IPV and 161 fIPV). For serotype 2, seroprevalence was 50·0% (CI95%= 44·2-55·8%) for IPV and 83·2% (CI95%=78·5-87·1%) for fIPV recipients (p<0·001). Median antibody titers for serotype 2 were significantly lower for IPV than for fIPV recipients (3·0, CI95%= 3 - 3·5 vs. 4·8, CI95%= 4·5 - 5·2, p<0·001). Seroprevalence for serotypes 1 and 3 was above 90% and was not significantly different between IPV and fIPV recipients., Interpretation: Ecuador achieved significantly better poliovirus serotype 2 immunogenicity with two fIPV doses than with one IPV dose, while preserving vaccine supply and reducing costs. Our data provide further evidence that fIPV is a beneficial and potentially a cost-effective option in polio immunization., Funding: WHO obtained funds for the study from Rotary International., Competing Interests: None declared, all authors., (© 2022 World Health Organization.)