Category: Corona Virus Vaccine

(AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)

A study by the Kinder Institute at Rice University shows that Asians and Latinos are the most supportive of COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Partnering with UT Health Science Center in San Antonio, Rice surveyed 900 participants in the fall of 2021. As residents of the San Antonio region waited in line to get the vaccine, each participant was asked if they would support a vaccine mandate.

"When we asked the question, we found out that not everybody would support a vaccine mandate, which was interesting. We found that 59% of participants thought that it was a positive thing. But, when we started digging a little more into the data, we found that there were important racial and ethnic differences that we needed to start looking at and learning more about that, said Luz Garcini, Assistant Professor and Interim Director at Rice Kinder Institute. She also co-authored the study. 80% of the people of Asian background reported the potential support of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, compared to other ethnic groups. The next one to follow were the people of Latino origin."

She said to better understand the responses of specific communities to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is essential to consider the context in which the responses occurred. She says the Asian and Latino cultures tend to be high in collectivistic values.

"Your own behavior has implications for the people around you and you are always looking for the common good. So, if we start thinking in the collectivistic approach, it will also make sense if they believed the vaccination is the way to go, regardless of their opinion, they would be supportive of that," Garcini said.

The survey also showed groups between 16 to 25 years old and those older than 55 were also more likely to support vaccine mandates. She explained, likely because younger people want to be social, and the older group is concerned about the risk of getting COVID-19 with pre-existing conditions. The report also showed single participants as compared to married participants showed more support for the vaccine mandate, Garcini said also likely due to the social aspect. Less significant differences were documented between individuals with varying education levels. 66% of the respondents with an education level of high school or below supported mandates compared to 59% of individuals with any kind of higher education (including trade school).

"Sometimes I say knowledge can be a curse, the more you know, the more you start asking questions. You start evaluating alternatives, she said. The data does not tell us the whole story. I think the bigger message here, is the importance of listening to people's stories, understanding what influences their decisions and their behaviors, so that we can be prepared, God forbid, in case of future emergencies."

More:

Study: Asians and Latinos are most supportive of COVID vaccine mandates - Houston Public Media

Flu season has arrived. If you got the COVID vaccine, you might be wondering, do you still need to get the flu shot? And if so, when? We didn't see a lot of flu last year, mainly because of the lockdowns, as well as the fact that most of us were wearing masks and social distancing.

Many experts believe that might lead to a serious flu season, given the fact that most of us were not exposed to flu last year, so we might not have as much immune protection. As a result, we might be at greater risk for flu this year than previous years.

Since we're also seeing more COVID breakthrough infections, you definitely want to protect yourself. Could you imagine the impact of getting the flu and COVID at the same time? That's a double whammy you do not want to put your body through. So go ahead and get the flu shot.

Now, remember, it takes a couple of weeks after the shot for you to be protected, so please don't wait too long. And don't worry about the flu vaccine interfering with the COVID vaccine or any boosters. Previously, the CDC recommended waiting 14 days between the COVID vaccine and any other vaccines, but now they say you can get both the flu vaccine and the COVID vaccine at the same time. You might just want to consider putting them in different arms. ","publisher":"WebMD Video"}

Hide Video Transcript

JOHN WHYTE

Many experts believe that might lead to a serious flu season, given the fact that most of us were not exposed to flu last year, so we might not have as much immune protection. As a result, we might be at greater risk for flu this year than previous years.

Since we're also seeing more COVID breakthrough infections, you definitely want to protect yourself. Could you imagine the impact of getting the flu and COVID at the same time? That's a double whammy you do not want to put your body through. So go ahead and get the flu shot.

Now, remember, it takes a couple of weeks after the shot for you to be protected, so please don't wait too long. And don't worry about the flu vaccine interfering with the COVID vaccine or any boosters. Previously, the CDC recommended waiting 14 days between the COVID vaccine and any other vaccines, but now they say you can get both the flu vaccine and the COVID vaccine at the same time. You might just want to consider putting them in different arms.

Go here to see the original:

Should You Get the Flu Shot if You Got the COVID-19 Vaccine? - WebMD

Today,JAMA Internal Medicinepublished a study calculating the protection offered by the latest Pfizer COVID-19 XBB vaccine compared to older vaccines against COVID-associated hospitalization and emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) visits.

The test-negative case-control study of the BNT162b2 XBB vaccine was performed among adults in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health system from October 10 to December 10, 2023. XBB was the dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States at that time but has since been supplanted by JN.1.

The study included patients who presented with an acute respiratory illness and had a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test and controls who had an acute respiratory illness but tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. A total of 2,854 cases and 15,345 controls (median age, 56) were included in the studies.

The authors compared outcomes among those who had received an updated XBB vaccine and those who had not received an XBB vaccine of any kind, regardless of prior COVID-19 vaccination or infection history.

"Receipt of prior (non-XBB) versions of COVID-19 vaccines was also compared with being unvaccinated to estimate remaining protection from older vaccines," the authors said.

Compared to those who had not received an updated XBB vaccine, recipients had 62% protection against COVID-19 hospitalization (95% confidence interval [CI], 32% to 79%). Protection was 58% against ED/UC visits (95% CI, 48% to 67%).

A history of vaccination with pre-XBB vaccines did not significantly reduce the risk of COVID-19 outcomes, including hospital admission, and outcomes were similar to those of unvaccinated patients.

The median time between vaccination with a non-XBB vaccine and illness was 1 to 2 years, while the median time between vaccination with an XBB vaccine and illness was 34 days.

The combination of waning vaccine-induced immunity and continuous SARS-CoV-2 strain evolution eventually renders prior versions of vaccines ineffective.

"The present findings help reaffirm current recommendations for broad age-based use of annually updated COVID-19 vaccines in the US to improve protection against COVID-19 each year prior to likely winter peaks in disease activity," the authors concluded. "The combination of waning vaccine-induced immunity and continuous SARS-CoV-2 strain evolution eventually renders prior versions of vaccines ineffective."

In an invited commentary on the study, Gopi Mohan, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, and others, write, "These findings illuminate the issue of waning immunity and point to the importance of regular boosting in addition to updating vaccine formulations."

Read the original:

Latest XBB COVID-19 vaccine offers protection against hospitalization, deaths - University of Minnesota Twin Cities

WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court on Monday rejected two appeals related to COVID-19 vaccines from Childrens Health Defense, the anti-vaccine nonprofit founded by independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The justices did not comment in letting stand rulings against the group from the federal appeals courts in New Orleans and Philadelphia.

In a case from Texas, the group joined parents in objecting to the U.S. Food and Drug Administrations authorization to administer coronavirus vaccines to children. In a case from New Jersey, Childrens Health Defense challenged a Rutgers University requirement, imposed in 2021, for most students to be vaccinated to attend courses on campus, though the school did not force faculty or staff to be vaccinated.

Childrens Health Defense has a lawsuit pending against a number of news organizations, among them The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy took leave from the group when he announced his run for president but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.

Follow the APs coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

Read more:

Supreme Court rejects COVID-19 vaccine appeals from nonprofit founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - The Associated Press

WHO. COVID-19 Weekly Epidemiological Update - Edition 158. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/weekly-epidemiological-update-on-covid-19---1-september-2023.

WHO. Global COVID-19 vaccination strategy in a changing world. July 2022 Update. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/global-covid-19-vaccination-strategy-in-a-changing-world--july-2022-update.

Atmar RL, Lyke KE, Deming ME, Jackson LA, Branche AR, El Sahly HM, et al. Homologous and heterologous COVID-19 booster vaccinations. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(11):104657.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

WHO. SAGE updates COVID-19 vaccination guidance. Available from: https://www.who.int/news/item/28-03-2023-sage-updates-covid-19-vaccination-guidance.

Cheng H, Peng Z, Si S, Alifu X, Zhou H, Chi P, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of homologous and heterologous primeboost immunization with COVID-19 vaccine: systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccines. 2022;10(5):798.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Deng J, Ma Y, Liu Q, Du M, Liu M, Liu J. Comparison of the effectiveness and safety of heterologous booster doses with homologous booster doses for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(17):10752.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Au WY, Cheung PPH. Effectiveness of heterologous and homologous covid-19 vaccine regimens: living systematic review with network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2022;377:e069989.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Korang SK, Juul S, Nielsen EE, Feinberg J, Siddiqui F, Ong G, et al. Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING VACCINE Project). Syst Rev. 2020;9(1):262.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. Available from http://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

Wohlin C, Kalinowski M, Romero Felizardo K, Mendes E. Successful combination of database search and snowballing for identification of primary studies in systematic literature studies. Inf Softw Technol. 2022;147:106908.

Article Google Scholar

Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) [Computer program]. The copenhagen trial unit, centre for clinical intervention research, the capital region, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet. 2021. 2021.

Google Scholar

DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):17788.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):153958.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Demets DL. Methods for combining randomized clinical trials: strengths and limitations. Stat Med. 1987;6(3):3418.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Jakobsen JC, Wetterslev J, Winkel P, Lange T, Gluud C. Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):120.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Higgins JPT. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):55760.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Hebel C, Thomsen AR. A survey of mechanisms underlying current and potential COVID-19 vaccines. APMIS. 2023;131(2):3760.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Verdecia M, Kokai-Kun JF, Kibbey M, Acharya S, Venema J, Atouf F. COVID-19 vaccine platforms: delivering on a promise? Hum Vaccines Immunother. 2021;17(9):287393.

Article CAS Google Scholar

Lee ARYB, Wong SY, Chai LYA, Lee SC, Lee MX, Muthiah MD, et al. Efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2022:e068632. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-068632.

Hall VG, Ferreira VH, Wood H, Ierullo M, Majchrzak-Kita B, Manguiat K, et al. Delayed-interval BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination enhances humoral immunity and induces robust T cell responses. Nat Immunol. 2022;23(3):3805.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Catal M, Li X, Prats C, Prieto-Alhambra D. The impact of prioritisation and dosing intervals on the effects of COVID-19 vaccination in Europe: an agent-based cohort model. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):18812.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(1):6475.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in random-effects model meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9(1):86.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Wetterslev J, Jakobsen JC, Gluud C. Trial sequential analysis in systematic reviews with meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):39.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Brok J, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Wetterslev J. Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(8):7639.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Castellini G, Bruschettini M, Gianola S, Gluud C, Moja L. Assessing imprecision in Cochrane systematic reviews: a comparison of GRADE and trial sequential analysis. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):110.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Zhang Y, Ma X, Yan G, Wu Y, Chen Y, Zhou Z, et al. Immunogenicity, durability, and safety of an mRNA and three platform-based COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose following two doses of CoronaVac in China: a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. eClinicalMedicine. 2022;54:101680.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Li J, Hou L, Guo X, Jin P, Wu S, Zhu J, et al. Heterologous AD5-nCOV plus CoronaVac versus homologous CoronaVac vaccination: a randomized phase 4 trial. Nat Med. 2022;28(2):4019.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Omma A, Batirel A, Aydin M, Yilmaz Karadag F, Erden A, Kucuksahin O, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of inactive vaccines as booster doses for COVID-19 in Trkiye: a randomized trial. Hum Vaccines Immunother. 2022;18(6):2122503.

Article Google Scholar

Yong X, Liu J, Zeng Y, Nie J, Cui X, Wang T, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a heterologous booster with an RBD virus-like particle vaccine following two- or three-dose inactivated COVID-19 vaccine. Hum Vaccines Immunother. 2023;19(3):2267869.

Article Google Scholar

Bonelli M, Mrak D, Tobudic S, Sieghart D, Koblischke M, Mandl P, et al. Additional heterologous versus homologous booster vaccination in immunosuppressed patients without SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroconversion after primary mRNA vaccination: a randomised controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81(5):68794.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Mrak D, Sieghart D, Simader E, Tobudic S, Radner H, Mandl P, et al. Heterologous vector versus homologous mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccination in non-seroconverted immunosuppressed patients: a randomized controlled trial. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):5362.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Natori Y, Martin E, Mattiazzi A, Arosemena L, Ortigosa-Goggins M, Shobana S, et al. A pilot single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial comparing BNT162b2 vs. JNJ-78436735 vaccine as the third dose after two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine in solid organ transplant recipients. Transpl Int. 2023;36:10938.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Reindl-Schwaighofer R, Heinzel A, Mayrdorfer M, Jabbour R, Hofbauer TM, Merrelaar A, et al. Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antibody response 4 weeks after homologous vs heterologous third vaccine dose in kidney transplant recipients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2022;182(2):165.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Sharifi Aliabadi L, Karami M, Barkhordar M, Hashemi Nazari SS, Kavousi A, Ahmadvand M, et al. Homologous versus heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccination in autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients: a blinded randomized controlled trial. Front Immunol. 2023;14:1237916.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Jin PF, Guo XL, Gou JB, Hou LH, Song ZZ, Zhu T, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of heterologous immunisation with Ad5-nCOV in healthy adults aged 60 years and older primed with an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac): a phase 4, randomised, observer-blind, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Reg Health - West Pac. 2023;38: 100829.

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Corominas J, Garriga C, Prenafeta A, Moros A, Caete M, Barreiro A, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of the protein-based PHH-1V compared to BNT162b2 as a heterologous SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccine in adults vaccinated against COVID-19: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority phase IIb trial. Lancet Reg Health - Eur. 2023;28:100613.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Munro APS, Janani L, Cornelius V, Aley PK, Babbage G, Baxter D, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of seven COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose (booster) following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK (COV-BOOST): a blinded, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2021;398(10318):225876.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Kaabi NA, Yang YK, Du LF, Xu K, Shao S, Liang Y, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a hybrid-type vaccine booster in BBIBP-CorV recipients in a randomized phase 2 trial. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):3654.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Rose W, Raju R, Babji S, George A, Madhavan R, Leander Xavier JV, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of homologous and heterologous booster vaccination of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (COVISHIELDTM) and BBV152 (COVAXIN): a non-inferiority phase 4, participant and observer-blinded, randomised study. Lancet Reg Health - Southeast Asia. 2023;100141.

Google Scholar

Shinkai M, Sonoyama T, Kamitani A, Shibata RY, Seki NM, Omoto S, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of booster dose of S-268019-b or BNT162b2 in Japanese participants: an interim report of phase 2/3, randomized, observer-blinded, noninferiority study. Vaccine. 2022;40(32):432833.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Launay O, Cachanado M, Luong Nguyen LB, Ninove L, Lachtre M, Ben Ghezala I, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of beta-adjuvanted recombinant booster vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(4):3746.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Fadlyana E, Setiabudi D, Kartasasmita CB, Putri ND, Rezeki Hadinegoro S, Mulholland K, et al. Immunogenicity and safety in healthy adults of full dose versus half doses of COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1-S or BNT162b2) or full-dose CoronaVac administered as a booster dose after priming with CoronaVac: a randomised, observer-masked, controlled trial in Indonesia. Lancet Infect Dis. 2023;23(5):54555.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Leung NHL, Cheng SMS, Cohen CA, Martn-Snchez M, Au NYM, Luk LLH, et al. Comparative antibody and cell-mediated immune responses, reactogenicity, and efficacy of homologous and heterologous boosting with CoronaVac and BNT162b2 (Cobovax): an open-label, randomised trial. Lancet Microbe. 2023;4(9):e67082.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Costa Clemens SA, Weckx L, Clemens R, Almeida Mendes AV, Ramos Souza A, Silveira MBV, et al. Heterologous versus homologous COVID-19 booster vaccination in previous recipients of two doses of CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccine in Brazil (RHH-001): a phase 4, non-inferiority, single blind, randomised study. Lancet. 2022;399(10324):5219.

Article CAS Google Scholar

Roa CC, De Los Reyes MRA, Plennevaux E, Smolenov I, Hu B, Gao F, et al. Superior Boosting of Neutralizing Titers Against Omicron SARS-CoV-2 Variants by heterologous SCB-2019 vaccine vs a homologous booster in CoronaVac-primed adults. J Infect Dis. 2023;228(9):125362.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Ahi M, Hamidi Farahani R, Basiri P, Karimi Rahjerdi A, Sheidaei A, Gohari K, et al. Comparison of the safety and immunogenicity of FAKHRAVAC and BBIBP-CorV vaccines when administrated as booster dose: a parallel two arms, randomized, double blind clinical trial. Vaccines. 2022;10(11):1800.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Poh XY, Tan CW, Lee IR, Chavatte JM, Fong SW, Prince T, et al. Antibody response of heterologous vs homologous messenger RNA vaccine boosters against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 omicron variant: interim results from the PRIBIVAC study, a randomized clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;75(12):208896.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Kulkarni PS, Gunale B, Kohli S, Lalwani S, Tripathy S, Kar S, et al. A phase 3, randomized, non-inferiority study of a heterologous booster dose of SARS CoV-2 recombinant spike protein vaccine in adults. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):16579.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Akahata W, Sekida T, Nogimori T, Ode H, Tamura T, Kono K, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 self-amplifying RNA vaccine expressing an anchored RBD: a randomized, observer-blind phase 1 study. Cell Rep Med. 2023;4(8): 101134.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Hannawi S, Yan L, Saf Eldin L, Abuquta A, Alamadi A, Mahmoud SA, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of multivalent SARS-CoV-2 protein vaccines: a randomized phase 3 trial. eClinicalMedicine. 2023;64:102195.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Hannawi S, Saf Eldin L, Abuquta A, Alamadi A, Mahmoud SA, Hassan A, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a tetravalent and bivalent SARS-CoV-2 protein booster vaccine in men. Nat Commun. 2023;14(1):4043.

Continued here:

Heterologous versus homologous COVID-19 booster vaccinations for adults: systematic review with meta-analysis and ... - BMC Medicine

In a recent cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers from the United States of America investigated the association between the use of cannabis and tobacco and health outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). They found that smokers and cannabis users showed a greater risk of hospitalization and adverse outcomes in COVID-19 as compared to non-smokers or those not using cannabis, despite controlling for other risk factors.

Study: Cannabis, Tobacco Use, and COVID-19 Outcomes. Image Credit:JOURNEY STUDIO7/ Shutterstock

COVID-19 continues to impact public health, causing morbidity and mortality. Despite 76% of US adults being partially vaccinated against the disease, factors like vaccine hesitancy and new virus strains highlight the need to identify contributors to poor outcomes. While non-modifiable factors such as age, sex, race, and comorbidity are reported to be linked to severe infection, research on modifiable factors like substance use remains limited.

Previous studies show that cigarette smoking is associated with the worsening of COVID-19 outcomes, and preliminary evidence links substance use disorders and alcohol use to higher risks of severe disease and breakthrough infections. Research on cannabis use and COVID-19 is scarce and conflicting, with some studies indicating higher infection and mortality rates among users, while others suggest protective effects.

Data from electronic health records (EHR) may help address these understanding gaps. Therefore, researchers in the present study aimed to evaluate whether substance use, specifically cannabis use and tobacco smoking, is associated with COVID19related outcomes such as hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and all-cause mortality. The hypothesis was that both tobacco smoking and cannabis use are linked to worse outcomes following COVID-19 infection.

In the present multi-institutional, retrospective cohort study, EHR data from 72,501 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 during the period from February 2020 to January 2022 were included. COVID-19 cases were defined by diagnosis based on the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM), positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR), antibody, or antigen tests. The mean age of the participants was 48.9 years; 59.7% of them were female, and 27.6% of the patients were Black. Approximately 26.8% of patients received a COVID-19 vaccine before diagnosis.

The primary outcomes were hospitalization, admission to the ICU, and all-cause mortality, including post-hospital mortality and overall survival. Demographic and treatment-related covariates, such as age, sex, race, ethnicity, and insurance status, were additionally extracted. Tobacco smoking and cannabis use were self-reported in the EHR, with current use documented and included in analyses. Statistical analysis included the use of chi-square tests, logistic regression, Cox proportional hazards regression, scaled Schoenfeld residuals check, and Bonferroni correction.

About 70.4% of the total participants were hospitalized, 6.5% required ICU visits, and 3.7% suffered mortality. Further, 13.4% of the participants were found to be current smokers, 24.4% were former smokers, and 9.7% were current cannabis users. Both current and former smoking were found to be associated with a significantly increased risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, and all-cause mortality following COVID-19 (p<0.001), even after adjusting for various demographic and health factors. The risk of progression to all-cause mortality was found to be higher in patients above 65 years of age with current or former smoking. Current smokers also showed a higher probability of hospitalization than former smokers.

Similarly, cannabis use was found to be significantly associated with increased risks of hospitalization (OR 1.80) and ICU admission (OR 1.27) following COVID-19 but not with increased all-cause mortality. The associations between tobacco and cannabis use with COVID-19 outcomes remained consistent when adjusted for comorbidities. While current and former smoking were found to be associated with a lower probability of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, cannabis use did not appear to influence vaccine receipt when adjusting for variables significantly.

Further, alcohol abuse was documented in 0.3%, and vape use was recorded in 1.9% of patients, both showing a greater risk for hospitalization (OR = 3.34 and 1.20, respectively). Data limitations precluded the evaluation of their associations with COVID-19 ICU admission and mortality.

Overall, the study adds to current evidence by using extensive EHR data to identify associations between tobacco and cannabis use with increased risks of adverse COVID-19 outcomes while also exploring preliminary associations with alcohol abuse and vaping. However, the study is limited by potential confounding from time-varying factors, reliance on self-reported and variably documented substance use in EHRs, lack of details on cannabis and tobacco product use, potential detection bias, non-representativeness of the sample, and incomplete capture of patient outcomes.

In conclusion, the study suggests that current and former smoking, as well as cannabis use, increases the risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality in COVID-19 patients. The associations remain significant after adjusting for demographic and comorbidity factors, emphasizing cannabis use as an independent risk factor for adverse outcomes post-COVID-19 diagnosis. The findings highlight the need for further research on the effect of substance use on COVID-19 outcomes, especially with the increasing legalization of marijuana use.

Here is the original post:

Study reveals cannabis and tobacco users face higher COVID-19 hospitalization and adverse outcomes - News-Medical.Net

(Precision Vaccinations News)

Novavax, Inc. today announced that it has filed for a type II variation of existing Marketing Authorization with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for its JN.1 COVID-19 vaccine (NVX-CoV2705) for individuals aged 12 and older.

The submission follows guidance from EMA and theWorld Health Organizationto target the JN.1 lineage for the Fall 2024 season.

Novavax's non-mRNA JN.1 COVID-19 vaccine targets the "parent strain" of KP.2 and KP.3.2

NVX-CoV2705 is an updated version of Novavax's authorizedCOVID-19 vaccine (NVX-CoV2373).

"Novavax is working closely with European markets seeking to offer a protein-based alternative to mRNA this fall for COVID-19 vaccination," saidJohn C. Jacobs, President and Chief Executive Officer, Novavax, in a press release on June 24, 2024.

"Our updated COVID-19 vaccine is active against current circulating (SARS-CoV-2) strains, including KP.2 and KP.3."

Nonclinical data have demonstrated that Novavax's JN.1 COVID-19 vaccine induces broad neutralization responses to JN.1 lineage viruses, including those containing the F456L and R346T mutations, and to "FLiRT" and "FLuQE" variants.

Novavax's vaccine also produces conserved polyfunctional, Th1-biased CD4+ T cell responses to a range of JN.1 lineage variants.

Novavax confirmed it intends to have its JN.1 COVID-19 vaccine in unit-dose vials available for immediate release in the European Union after approval.

Novavax has alsofiledwith the U.S. FDAand is working with other regulatory authorities globally to authorize or approve its JN.1 COVID-19 vaccine.

Read more here:

Europe's Authorization Pending for Updated Protein-based, Non-mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine - Precision Vaccinations

The CDC is reporting low COVID-19 activity nationally, but that it is likely growing in Texas and 29 other states. That includes some recent upticks in Dallas County.

County Health Director Dr. Phillip Huangsays data from wastewater testing points to increased activity. But the same upticks have occurred the past several summers.

"A lot of the vaccinations occurred prior to winter, some of that protection starts to wane during that period,' Dr. Huang said. "Then with more travel, and a lot of exposure and people getting together during the summer months."

However, Dallas County is urging people 65 and older to get up to date on booster vaccinations.

We still see hospitalizations. And almost all of the hospitalizations have been in that 65 and older group, Dr. Huang said. And so, that's where the CDC updated recommendations, for that age group to get the booster or another shot for that additional protection.

Dr. Huang said the rest of the population should maintain precautions, including wearing masks in crowded situations or if youre in a higher-risk population.

KERAs Sam Baker talked with Dr. Jeff SoRelle, an assistant professor of pathology at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas about the latest variants contributing to COVID spread in North Texas.

The main variants that we're seeing right now are called CP.2 and CP.3. They're really kind of in the same family as the JN.1. That was the previous dominant variant over the springtime.

Are these part of the group of variants known as FLiRT?

Yes. These are called FLiRT variants, mostly because of the kind of mutations that they have. It had an F change to an L amino acid, and they had an R change to a T amino acid. So that's where you get the f-l-r-t. And that sounds like a flirt when you add it together.

How do they compare to what we have seen before? Are they more infectious, for instance?

They are appearing to be more infectious insofar as they are resistant to the immune response. The key, though, is that they are the same positions that are important for the virus to enter into cells and infect them.

So, while they also are in immune systems, they're also not quite as effective at infecting. This just goes to show how important it is to evade immunity.

Explain that a bit.

Sure. So, there's a dynamic arms race between the virus and host. The virus continues to evolve, but so does our immune system. The immune system is very effective at preventing the virus from becoming very severe. And in these cases, the viruses gain a little bit more ahead. But the immune system will likely continue to catch up. It's getting help as well from vaccines that are continuing to be evolved.

Are the variants then more dangerous in any way?

As far as severity, there's no change there. There's no real change in the symptoms. Most people will get a cold or flu-like symptoms, last for a few days less than a week usually, and then begin to resolve.

Do the current vaccinations offer protection from the new variants?

The most recent vaccines that we have do still provide protection, and at the same time, we are getting an updated formulation for the next rollout that will come next fall, late summer.

So the best thing we can hope for now is for the public to maintain or take the right precautions here, maybe to keep infections at a minimum?

That's a great question. I think it's important to know that the people that are most vulnerable are those who are more elderly or have immune-compromised conditions, such they don't respond to vaccines very well or don't have an immune system that is able to mount that effective response to evolve its variants.

And so I think we can do to protect ourselves as there are still medications such as Paxlovid that is still recommended for high-risk individuals and still shown to be effective against these JN.1 and KP.2 and KP.3 variants.

It's also important that you notice we do have some symptoms that seem like Covid, and you may have exposure to some of these vulnerable populations. It's a good idea to keep a few COVID tests at home and test yourself quickly. Sometimes it is good to do two different kinds of testing just to make sure that you don't miss it.

In the meantime, are we in the midst or is there the potential for a summer Covid wave?

You know, over the last several years, there seem to be these timed waves of increases in COVID-19 cases, and we tend to have them in the middle of the winter and at the end of the summer.

And what we've seen in the last several years, though, is that the waves become much gentler and lower, and fewer people get into the hospital becoming, well, not quite as sick. And the case rates are much lower overall nationally. And I think that we hope to see that trend continue this year.

RESOURCES:

Are We Headed for Another Summer COVID-19 Wave?

New virus variants threaten a summer Covid-19 wave, but experts say the risk remains uncertain

COVID Data Tracker

Dallas County HHS Dashboard

See the article here:

How the FLiRT variant is affecting COVID-19 activity in Dallas County - KERA News

TAMPA, Fla. The FDA has issued an updated recommendation for the fall COVID-19 vaccine formula.

"Coverage in the fall is going to be interesting because we dont know what will happen in the fall, right? said Dr. Jill Roberts, associate professor for the USF College of Public Health.

Thats why vaccine advisors are tasked with making the best decision based on which COVID-19 strains are circulating.

These two strains, the KP.2 and KP.3, are now counting for half of all of cases in the U.S., said Roberts.

Theyre part of the FLiRT variants, which, in total, make up 62.9% of new COVID-19 cases in the United States right now, according to the latest CDC data. This is something the FDA has been closely monitoring.

Whats likely going to happen is that the two strains are going to continue to take off. Theyll probably cover most of the percentage of all the strains that we see in the U.S., said Roberts.

A few days ago, the FDA told drugmakers to update the fall COVID-19 vaccine formula to target the KP.2 strain if possible to create a more effective vaccine for the fall.

This change in the recommendation comes just after the group voted earlier this month for the fall boosters to target the JN.1 variant.

They changed their recommendation to say, 'Okay, lets actually put these KP guys in the vaccine,' said Roberts.

After further monitoring of the circulating strains, the FDA made the change since the spread of the JN.1 mutation has drastically declined in recent weeks.

The changes should not delay the vaccine rollout.

However, not all drug manufacturers can pivot that quickly since production of the new shots is already underway.

And so your two mRNAs Pfizer and Moderna, can change really fast. Novavax cannot because of the way that vaccine is actually made. Its harder to change it, so it probably wont. In fact, the company has already said, were not going to change it, weve already started production for fall shots, said Roberts.

The FDA did not make a recommendation on who should get the new booster in the fall. That will be left up to the CDC.

That advisory meeting is scheduled for June 26-28.

Original post:

FDA advises vaccine manufacturers to make COVID-19 booster targeting KP.2 strain - ABC Action News Tampa Bay

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court on Monday turned away two Covid-related appeals brought by Children's Health Defense, the anti-vaccine group founded by independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The decision by the justices not to hear the cases leaves in place lower court rulings against the group.

One case challenged the Food and Drug Administration's emergency authorization of Covid-19 vaccines in December 2020, while the other was brought against Rutgers University in New Jersey over its Covid-19 vaccine mandate.

In the FDA case, the group claimed in court papers that Covid vaccines were "ineffective and lacked proper vetting." The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that Kennedy's group did not have legal standing to sue.

In the Rutgers dispute, the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the plaintiffs "have not stated any plausible claim for relief."

Kennedy himself took leave from the group in April 2023 to run for president. He failed to make inroads in the Democratic primaries and is now running as an independent.

On the campaign trail he has mostly downplayed his anti-vaccine activity, but in November he spoke at a Children's Health Defense conference.

Kennedy is listed as a lawyer on the Rutgers filing at the Supreme Court despite his leave of absence from the group.

In a separate vaccine-related case, the court also turned away a challenge to Connecticut's decision to repeal a religious exemption for school vaccinations.

Lawrence Hurley covers the Supreme Court for NBC News.

See the original post here:

Supreme Court rejects appeals brought by RFK Jr.-founded anti-vaccine group over Covid shots - NBC News