Category: Covid-19 Vaccine

The BA.1 subvariant of Omicron was responsible for the initial Omicron outbreaks around the world. However, BA.1 has been quickly replaced by BA.2 within months, and later by BA.4 and BA.5 (BA.4/5). As of early September 2023, the subvariants of Omicron are circulating, including EG.5, XBB.1.5, and XBB.1.16, and are considered the dominant nationwide. Subsequently, these characteristics of Omicron affect how it spreads and responds to treatments and vaccinations [28,29,30].

In early December 2021, the first case of Omicron was reported in Saudi Arabia with a highly transmissible nature and risk of immune evasion. However, since the beginning of COVID-19 in early March 2020, the government in Saudi Arabia implemented a comprehensive response to prevent the pandemic surge involving travel restrictions, lockdowns of schools and universities, and suspension of attendance, followed by a complete curfew. Moreover, the Umrah was suspended, and the booking of Hajj was restricted to local COVID-19 recovered cases [31,32,33].

We conducted a cohort study including 14,103 individuals with SARS-CoV-2 living in KSA, aiming to estimate the distribution of Omicron variant in different regions of Saudi Arabia and to determine the effectiveness of different types of vaccines with the Omicron variant. In the current study, 59.48% were fully vaccinated (>7days after of two or more doses), 13.12% were partially vaccinated (>14days after first dose through day 7 after second dose), and 27.40% were unvaccinated (days from cohort entry until receipt of first vaccine dose) [26]. Unvaccinated individuals were significantly younger than the vaccinated and partially vaccinated population with p<0.001, as well the largest proportion of the unvaccinated group were non-Saudi with p<0.001.

The high coverage of COVID-19 vaccination among the Saudi population is translated to the effort of the government in implementing a ranged distribution plan for vaccination targeting the largest size of the population of each city, prioritizing cities of high population as the capital Riyadh, followed by Jeddah, Dammam, Madinah, and Makkah. [34].

In the present study, simple and multiple logistic regression is used to study the association between vaccination status and ICU admission while controlling for age and gender. In unvaccinated participants were 2.7 times higher of being admitted to the ICU compared to the fully vaccinated participants. This is in line with a study published recently they found hospitalization rates were 10.5 times higher in unvaccinated persons and 2.5 times higher in vaccinated persons with no booster dose [35]. However, some studies found the protection against Omicron depends on the type of vaccine, in a large cohort research in Singapore involving over 2.5 million people aged 30 or older. These data demonstrate that booster mRNA vaccine protection against severe COVID-19 was persistent over six months independent of vaccine combination, and 3-dose of inactivated vaccine type gave more protection than 2-dose but less protection than 3-dose mRNA [36].

Also, Cox regression is conducted to see the effect of number of doses on ICU admission while adjusted for age and gender. We found that the HR for ICU admission is increased when the age is increased. Similar results have been observed in previous literature they found those under 40years old represent a small proportion of the total number of most severe COVID-19 cases in Europe [37]. Our finding found that there is no difference between males and females in regard to ICU admission. In contrast, an early finding revealed that men are more at risk for a worse outcome [38].

At the same time, the risk of admission to the ICU is decreased with a higher number of doses. This analysis shows that the booster and two doses effectively reduce the risk of ICU admission due to Omicron infection, compared to one dose by 91% and 43%, respectively. This finding is similar to the Qatari study, they found that booster is effective by 76.5% (95% CI, 55.9%-87.5%) against Omicron-related hospitalization and death [16].

We also studied the distribution of the Omicron variant across different regions of Saudi Arabia. The first conducted study for Omicron-infected patients was in a single medical center in Saudi Arabia. This was achieved by AlBahrani et al., showing that the rate of hospitalization (14%) was lower than previously reported in the first and second wave of COVID-19. Nonetheless, the hospitalization rate was inversely correlated with the number of vaccination doses with least admission (5.4%) among fully vaccinated patients. They reported a rate of ICU admission 3.5% and 2% mechanical ventilation rate [1].

In the current study, the vaccination status was significantly different in different regions as the highest proportion of fully vaccinated participants inhabited Tabouk with 71.8% followed by Asir region with 64% then the Eastern region with 62.8% of its population.

Regarding Omicron infection, Al-Madinah Al-Monawarah had the highest number of cases followed by Riyadh region, then Makkah Al-Mokarramah region. It is worth mentioning that during the study period (Jan 2022- Jun 2022), Saudi Arabia has lifted all COVID-19 restrictions on Hajj and Umrah for local and international pilgrims. The announcement was made after the Ministry of Hajj and Umrah released Ramadan 2022 Operational Plan of the two holy mosques [39]. This might explain the highest number of cases, especially in Al-Madinah and Makkah.

The disparity in ICU among regions may include several factors; the literature indicates the association between socio-demographic factors and variations in COVID-19 outcomes. Likewise, many studies have reported the relationship between comorbidities and severe COVID-19 [40,41,42]. For example, the fact that Najran had the highest rate of ICU admission could relate to advanced age and comorbidities such as Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2), cardiovascular disease, and obesity, which was discussed previously in a national study [43]. Whereas demographics factors and comorbidities are related to regional variation, other factors, such as disparities in income, access to healthcare resources, education levels, and overall population health, are associated with the COVID-19 outcome in different regions [44,45,46].

One of the limitations in this study is the data was only limited to the samples received by PHA as a part of surveillance. Also, the assessment of differences in behavior or adherence to the COVID-19 precautions are unaccounted among vaccination groups in this study. For example, those who were unvaccinated may be less likely to wear a mask or take precautions. So, this could either lead to overestimation or underestimation. However, this limitation is minimized because of the high willingness and rate of vaccination in Saudi Arabia.

To eliminate confounders, we adjusted for age and sex, but we did not account for other factors that may have influenced the outcomes, such as comorbidity, obesity, smoking and occupation. However, given the studys observational nature, residual confounding remains possible despite adjustment for several potential confounders.

We did not estimate the vaccine's effectiveness against death, symptomatic infections or organ injury because we assessed only patients who have been admitted to ICU.

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first investigation to analyze and report the effectiveness of two different vaccines against the COVID-19 Omicron variant in Saudi Arabia. Nonetheless, this study includes a large and diverse population from various regions in Saudi Arabia. As the majority of all ages had already received their third doses during Omicron dominant period, it was possible to estimate the effectiveness of two and three doses in the study period.

Original post:

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against ICU admission during ... - BMC Infectious Diseases

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribunes daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

A sweeping ban on COVID-19 vaccine mandates for employees of private Texas businesses is on its way to Gov. Greg Abbotts desk, carrying with it a $50,000 fine for employers who punish workers for refusing the shot.

Senate Bill 7, by state Sen. Mayes Middleton, R-Galveston, cleared its final hurdle Tuesday when senators agreed on a 17-11 vote to accept the House version of the legislation, which raised the fine from the $10,000 initially proposed in the bill.

The legislation, which Republican lawmakers have been trying to pass since 2021, offers no exceptions for doctors offices, clinics or other health facilities. The bill also includes unpaid volunteers and students working in medical internships or other unpaid positions as part of graduation requirements.

Private employers are allowed by the legislation to require unvaccinated employees and contractors to wear protective gear, such as masks, or enact other reasonable measures to protect medically vulnerable people who work or come into their places of businesses or medical facilities.

The legislation makes it illegal, however, for any employer to take action against or otherwise place requirements on an unvaccinated employee that the Texas Workforce Commission determines would adversely affect the employee or constitute punishment.

Bill sponsors said the ban will be the strongest in the nation.

At the end of the day, this is about protecting the individual's ability [to stay employed] and making sure that they have the right to choose whether or not to get the shot, Middleton said.

Enforcement would be handled through employee complaints to the workforce commission, with violators subject to the fine and potential lawsuits by the Texas attorney general.

Opponents of the bill, mostly Democrats, argued that it took away business owners freedom to decide who to hire, which contractors to do business with, and how to keep their customers and employees safe. Critics also argued that the ban would prevent health care professionals from imposing vaccine policies that lower the risk of viral spread for their patients.

Some lawmakers also said they were concerned that business owners could be subject to expensive legal and administrative costs for trying to enact other measures to protect their employees, like requiring unvaccinated employees to change offices or work remotely. The bill is vague on whether such actions would be prohibited.

Are you telling me if I'm making my living, running a food truck, and I want to hire someone to help me flip the burgers, and I happen to be one of those crazy people who think that COVID is bad for me, I can't precondition their employment on them being vaccinated? said state Sen. Nathan Johnson, D-Dallas. Wheres the balance in that?

Abbott included the ban in his agenda for the special legislative session, which ends next week.

Texans lived for three years under a statewide COVID-19 emergency declaration, which Abbott maintained in spite of pushback from his party. He promised to lift it only after lawmakers had codified his executive orders that prohibited local COVID restrictions.

During the regular legislative session, lawmakers obliged by prohibiting local governments from requiring masks, vaccines or business shutdowns in response to COVID-19. That law went into effect Sept. 1. Efforts to extend the ban to private businesses, however, fell short.

Abbott ended the emergency declaration over the summer, which the bills supporters say triggered a critical need to protect workers who did not want to be vaccinated against the virus.

Read more:

Sweeping ban on COVID-19 vaccine mandates by private employers heads to governor - The Texas Tribune

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla discusses the pharma company's next big drug after its COVID vaccine on 'The Claman Countdown.'

Pfizer on Tuesday reported its first quarterly loss since 2019 as demand for its COVID products dwindled.

Sales of the company's coronavirus vaccine Comirnaty dropped 70% during the third quarter compared with the same period a year earlier. Sales of its COVID-19 treatment Paxlovid fell 97% from the same period a year ago, the company said.

Pfizer, which announced a $3.5 billion cost-cutting program earlier this month, slashed $9 billion off its 2023 sales forecast after agreeing to take back nearly 8 million Paxlovid treatment courses from the U.S. government.

Pfizer expects Paxlovid to remain available for free to Americans through the end of the year.

PFIZER SAYS IT'S EYEING A $110 TO $130 LIST PRICE FOR COVID-19 VACCINE IN U.S.

Pfizer's Paxlovid is displayed on July 7, 2022, in Pembroke Pines, Florida. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images / Getty Images)

The company posted a net loss of 42 cents per share for the third quarter. Excluding one-time items, Pfizer reported a loss of 17 cents per share compared with analysts' expectations for a loss of 34 cents, and a profit of $1.78 per share a year ago.

Pfizer also said it will book a $5.6 billion charge for write-offs related to its COVID inventory.

NEW PFIZER PILL CHALLENGING OZEMPIC WILL BE A HUGE, HUGE DRUG: DR. MARC SIEGEL

The company noted that the drop in revenue from COVID products would be partially offset by "expected operational growth" from its non-COVID-19 in-line portfolio, including new product and indication launches and recently acquired products.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said the company is "encouraged by the strong performance of Pfizers non-COVID products in the third quarter of 2023."

Revenue from Pfizers non-COVID products grew 10% operationally during the quarter.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

In particular, Bourla noted recent milestones including the approval and launch of its RVS vaccine Abrysvo in the European Union as well as the U.S. approval and launch of Elrexfio, a medication used to treat adults with multiple myeloma.

Pfizer, one of the producers of the COVID-19 vaccine, is developing a new vaccine designed to protect against Lyme disease. (REUTERS/File Photo / Reuters)

Bourla said the company is also making headway on its acquisition of cancer-focused biotech company Seagen Inc.

Follow this link:

Pfizer quarterly results hit by soft demand for COVID-19 products - Fox Business

The vaccination programme this winter season offers a flu vaccine in the form of a nasal spray for children aged 2-12 years and an injectable flu vaccine for other eligible individuals.

The flu and COVID-19 booster vaccines are available through participating GPs and pharmacies and can be administered at the same time.

The uptake of these vaccines has been high so far, Dept of Health has confirmed.

Chief Medical Officer Professor Breda Smyth advised the vaccines are safe and effective. Meanwhile, she also highlighted the importance of good hand hygiene and respiratory etiquette.

As the two vaccines can be administered at the same time, its a quick and easy way for people to protect their health, as well as protecting those around them, Professor Smyth said.

Young children in particular are more likely to be very sick from flu, so I am asking parents to please consider getting your child vaccinated.

The flu vaccine for children is a nasal spray and is administered quickly and painlessly, she added.

The nasal spray flu vaccine for children is available in some primary schools. Children who missed out on the flu vaccine in schools can still get them through GPs and pharmacies.

The flu vaccine is available free of charge for all persons aged 65 years and over, children aged 2 to 12, pregnant individuals, and patients aged 6-23 months and 13-64 years at increased risk of flu-related complications.

Those who can also get the flu vaccine for free are residents of nursing homes and other long-stay facilities, household contacts of people with underlying conditions or Down Syndrome, and Out of Home Care Givers (carers for people who have underlying chronic health conditions or have Down Syndrome).

Meanwhile, the COVID-19 boosters are available for those aged 50 years and older and those aged 5-49 years with immunocompromise associated with a suboptimal response to vaccination or with medical conditions associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation, severe disease or death.

The boosters are also available for pregnant persons if it is more than six months since their previous vaccine or COVID-19 infection.

All healthcare workers can get COVID-19 boosters and flu vaccines free of charge at walk-in vaccination clinics. The locations around the country can be found on the HSE website.

Chief Nursing Officer Rachel Kenna said: I am encouraging everyone who is eligible to please make an appointment to receive your flu jab and COVID-19 booster to help minimise the risk of serious illness.

See the article here:

Top doctors encourage people to get flu and COVID-19 vaccines 'before peak of virus season' - Irish Independent

By Ahmed Aboulenein and Michael Erman

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Over 15 million people in the United States, around 4.5% of the population, had received the updated COVID-19 shots by Oct. 27, a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) spokesperson said on Wednesday, lagging behind last year's vaccinations.

Close to 23 million people had received updated boosters as of Oct. 26 last year, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data shows. The 2022 fall vaccination campaign started around 10 days earlier than this year's.

"As of Oct. 27, more than 15 million Americans have received the updated COVID-19 vaccine and over 19 million vaccines have shipped to pharmacies and other locations, with 91% of Americans 12 years and older living within 5-miles of a vaccination site," the spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

The updated shots from Pfizer and BioNTech, Moderna or Novavax are single-target vaccines aimed at the XBB.1.5 Omicron subvariant of the coronavirus, which was dominant in the U.S. for much of this year but has since been overtaken by other variants as the virus evolves.

Rollout of the Pfizer and Moderna shots began in earnest after the CDC recommended them on Sept. 12. The rollout of last year's updated shots targeting two virus variants started about 10 days earlier, and by Oct. 26, around 23 million Americans had rolled up their sleeves for one of them.

U.S. public health officials have expressed hope that Americans will welcome the new vaccines as they would an annual flu shot. But demand for COVID vaccines has dropped sharply since 2021, when they first became available.

Around 56.5 million people, or 17% of the U.S. population, received last year's version of the vaccines.

(Reporting by Ahmed Aboulenein in Washington and Michael Erman in New York; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Aurora Ellis)

Continue reading here:

Over 15 million Americans got updated COVID vaccines so far - Yahoo News

Rachel Chamberlain, RRT, received her flu vaccination because of her experience treating patients with complications from the flu.

I have witnessed what the flu can do to patients, Chamberlain says. That is why its so important to get your flu vaccination.

Have you received yourflu vaccination yet? Employees and volunteers can get their flu vaccinationand updated COVID-19 vaccinationfrom 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday at the University Employee Health Clinic or at one of these scheduled flu vaccination clinics.

All UI Health Care employees and volunteers are required to receive the influenza vaccine or decline it into comply with this years mandatory flu vaccination campaign.

Learn more about how to get vaccinated on ourflu landing page.

Read the rest here:

Why I chose to get vaccinated: 'I have witnessed what the flu can do to patients' - The Loop - University of Iowa Health Care

Suffolk County reported the following information related to COVID-19 on October 30, 2023

According to CDC, hospital admission rates and the percentage of COVID-19 deaths among all deaths are now the primary surveillance metrics.

COVID-19 Hospitalizations for the week ending October 21, 2023

Daily Hospitalization Summary for Suffolk County From October 30, 2023

NOTE: HOSPITALS ARE NO LONGER REPORTING DATA TO NYSDOH ON WEEKENDS OR HOLIDAYS.

Fatalities 10/30/23

COVID-19 Case Tracker October 28, 2023

Note: As of May 11, 2023, COVID-19 Community Levels (CCLs) and COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels are no longer calculatable, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

* As of 4/4/22, HHS no longer requires entities conducting COVID testing to report negative or indeterminate antigen test results. This may impact the number and interpretation of total test results reported to the state and also impacts calculation of test percent positivity. Because of this, as of 4/5/22, test percent positivity is calculated using PCR tests only. Reporting of total new daily cases (positive results) and cases per 100k will continue to include PCR and antigen tests.

COVID-19 Vaccination Information

Last updated 5/12/23

Vaccination Clinics

As of September 12, 2023, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services is not authorized to offer COVID-19 vaccines to ALL Suffolk County residents.

The department will offer the updated vaccine to only uninsured and underinsured patients through New York State's Vaccines for Children program and Vaccines for Adults program, also known as the Bridge Access Program.

Those with insurance that covers the COVID-19 vaccine are encouraged to receive their vaccines at their local pharmacies, health care providers offices, or local federally qualified health centers.

The department has ordered the updated COVID-19 vaccine and will announce when the vaccine becomes available.

FOR HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS

New York State Links

CDC COVID Data Tracker Rates of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 hospitalizations by vaccination status

For additional information or explanation of data, click on the links provided in throughout this page.

View original post here:

COVID-19 update 10-31-23 - Suffolk County Government (.gov)

Schacter, D. L., Guerin, S. A. & St. Jacques, P. L. Memory distortion: an adaptive perspective. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15, 467474 (2011).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Newman, E. J. & Lindsay, D. S. False memories: what the hell are they for? Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 23, 11051121 (2009).

Article Google Scholar

Wilson, A. & Ross, M. The identity function of autobiographical memory: time is on our side. Memory 11, 137149 (2003).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Murphy, G., Loftus, E. F., Grady, R. H., Levine, L. J. & Greene, C. M. False memories for fake news during Irelands abortion referendum. Psychol. Sci. 30, 14491459 (2019).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Calvillo, D. P., Harris, J. D. & Hawkins, W. C. Partisan bias in false memories for misinformation about the 2021 U.S. Capitol riot. Memory 31, 137146 (2023).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Schacter, D. L., Greene, C. M. & Murphy, G. Bias and constructive processes in a self-memory system. Memory https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2023.2232568 (2023).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Lenharo, M. WHO declares end to COVID-19s emergency phase. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01559-z (05 May 2023).

Betsch, C., Wieler, L. H. & Habersaat, K. Monitoring behavioural insights related to COVID-19. Lancet 395, 12551256 (2020).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Greene, C. M., De Saint Laurent, C., Hegarty, K. & Murphy, G. False memories for true and false vaccination information form in line with preexisting vaccine opinions. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 36, 12001208 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Simmank, J. & Schneider, J. War alles anders? ZEIT Online https://www.zeit.de/gesundheit/2022-09/corona-massnahmen-lockdown-kritik-querdenker (2022).

Herz, H., Kistler, D., Zehnder, C. & Zihlmann, C. Hindsight Bias and Trust in Government: Evidence from the United States. CESifo Working Paper No. 9767 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4123827 (SSRN, 2022).

Giroux, M. E., Derksen, D. G., Coburn, P. I. & Bernstein, D. M. Hindsight bias and COVID-19: hindsight was not 20/20 in 2020. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 12, 105115 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Bor, A., Jrgensen, F. & Petersen, M. B. Discriminatory attitudes against unvaccinated people during the pandemic. Nature 613, 704711 (2023).

Article CAS PubMed ADS Google Scholar

Henkel, L., Sprengholz, P., Korn, L., Betsch, C. & Bhm, R. The association between vaccination status identification and societal polarization. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7, 231239 (2023).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Korn, L., Bhm, R., Meier, N. W. & Betsch, C. Vaccination as a social contract. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 1489014899 (2020).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central ADS Google Scholar

West, T. V. & Kenny, D. A. The truth and bias model of judgment. Psychol. Rev. 118, 357378 (2011).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Zimmermann, F. The dynamics of motivated beliefs. Am. Econ. Rev. 110, 337363 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Saucet, C. & Villeval, M. C. Motivated memory in dictator games. Games Econ. Behav. 117, 250275 (2019).

Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar

Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J. & Cox, W. T. L. Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: a prejudice habit-breaking intervention. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48, 12671278 (2012).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Carnes, M. et al. The effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: a cluster randomized, controlled trial. Acad. Med. 90, 221230 (2015).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Hossain, T. & Okui, R. The binarized scoring rule. Rev. Econ. Stud. 80, 9841001 (2013).

Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar

Van Der Zwet, K., Barros, A. I., Van Engers, T. M. & Sloot, P. M. A. Emergence of protests during the COVID-19 pandemic: quantitative models to explore the contributions of societal conditions. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9, 68 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Dryhurst, S. et al. Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world. J. Risk Res. 23, 9941006 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Petersen, M. B., Osmundsen, M. & Arceneaux, K. The need for chaos and motivations to share hostile political rumors. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055422001447 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Mller, M. W. Selective Memory around Big Life Decisions. Working Paper https://fass.nus.edu.sg/ecs/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2022/08/MuellerMW_SelectiveMemory.pdf (2022).

Levine, L. J., Prohaska, V., Burgess, S. L., Rice, J. A. & Laulhere, T. M. Remembering past emotions: the role of current appraisals. Cogn. Emot. 15, 393417 (2001).

Article Google Scholar

Follow this link:

Historical narratives about the COVID-19 pandemic are ... - Nature.com

We found that study participants who received mRNA vaccines as primary series had the lowest reinfection rate and the highest increase in antibody titers. Those who received inactivated virus vaccines had the highest reinfection rate and the lowest rise in antibody titers. In terms of individual brands of COVID-19 vaccine, there were no identified cases of probable reinfection among participants given inactivated Vero Cells and Ad26.COV2.S vaccines as primary series. However, these two brands had the lowest number of recipients (only one and nine participants received the inactivated Vero cells vaccine and Ad26.COV2.S vaccines, respectively). We observed the highest reinfection rate among vaccinees who received Sputnik V, followed by CoronaVac.

We noted that the highest reinfection rate was observed among participants who received Sputnik V (Gamaleya) despite the large rise in antibody titer after primary series vaccination. This may be due to other variables that influence reinfection rates, including age, co-morbidities, employment, and exposure to COVID-19 [10].

The reinfection rates of the unvaccinated and partially vaccinated study participants were paradoxically lower compared to those who were fully vaccinated, regardless of type of vaccine. This may be explained by the epidemiologic context in relation to the timing of vaccination, as shown in Fig.2. There were two COVID-19 surges in the Philippines during the study periodthe Delta variant surge in August-October 2021 and the Omicron variant surge in January-February 2022. Of the 64 cases of probable reinfection, 6 (9.4%) occurred during the Delta variant surge while 39 (60.9%) occurred during the Omicron variant surge. During the time of these surges, majority of study participants were already fully vaccinated. Thus, the lower reinfection rates of the unvaccinated and partially vaccinated study participants may reflect the lower incidence of COVID-19 infection in the Philippines during the start of the study period.

Epidemiological context in the Philippines and the vaccination status of study participants. (Image modified from the https://doh.gov.ph/covid19tracker) [11]. BE1=first blood extraction at day 21, BE2=second blood extraction at day 90, BE3=third blood extraction at day 180, BE4=fourth blood extraction at day 270, BE5=fifth blood extraction at day 360,

Our findings are consistent with other studies that found that higher antibody levels were associated with a lower risk of COVID-19 infection [12]. In our study, those who received mRNA vaccines primary series had the largest rise in antibody titers and correspondingly, the lowest reinfection rate. These findings are also consistent with the results of systematic reviews showing that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection was highest for the primary series of mRNA vaccine [4, 5].

The mRNA vaccines consist of a lipid nanoparticle enveloping an mRNA molecule that encodes the viral Spike protein. This vaccine induces antigen-specific follicular helper T cell development in the germinal centers of the draining lymph nodes, which would lead to B cell activation, antibody isotype switching, affinity maturation, and formation of plasma cells and memory B cells [13]. This mechanism of action closely resembles the immune response to a natural infection, which may explain why mRNA vaccines stimulate higher antibody titers and consequently, produce greater effectiveness against COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death [14].

We also observed that the GMT ratio of all types of vaccine exceeded 4. A four-fold increase in antibody titers is generally the minimum rise interpreted as an adequate antibody response [15]. This supports the findings of studies in other countries that the various types of vaccines demonstrate acceptable immunogenicity despite variation in the actual magnitude of humoral response [16]. Among the seven brands of COVID-19 vaccines received by the study participants, only the inactivated Vero cells vaccine had a GMT ratio less than 4. However, only 1 participant received this vaccine.

Among the study participants who received booster doses, the largest GMT ratios were observed among those with inactivated virus vaccine as the primary series, likely due to the lower pre-booster titer compared to those who received viral vectors and mRNA vaccines as primary series. An inverse relationship with pre-immunization titer level and degree of humoral response has been demonstrated in other studies, where a higher pre-vaccination titer is associated with a lower rise in antibody post-vaccination [17].

The GMT ratio was higher with heterologous boosters after inactivated virus and viral vectors primary series compared to homologous boosters. However, among those who received mRNA vaccine as primary series, the GMT ratio was higher for those given homologous boosters compared to heterologous boosters. These findings are consistent with studies in other countries reporting better immunogenicity for heterologous compared to homologous boosters for inactivated virus vaccines, and conversely, better immunogenicity for homologous boosters for mRNA vaccines [18, 19]. The lower GMT ratio of heterologous booster for mRNA vaccine may be due to the use of viral vectors as the booster in 5 out of the 20 participants. As shown in our study and in other published studies, viral vector vaccines generally result in a smaller rise in antibody titers compared to mRNA vaccines. Our findings suggest that the administration of mRNA vaccines as booster, whether as a heterologous booster or homologous booster, results in larger rise in antibody titers.

In this study, adverse events following immunization were more frequently reported among mRNA and viral vector vaccines compared to inactivated virus vaccines. This finding is consistent with other studies [6, 20]. Increased vaccine reactogenicity has been associated with higher post-vaccination antibody levels [21]. This was observed in this study, with participants who received inactivated virus vaccines having the lowest GMT ratio and also the lowest percentage of adverse events following immunization.

Our study had the following limitations. First, in the primary cohort study we conducted, we could not do laboratory confirmation of reinfection due to the unavailability of routine genomic testing for symptomatic patients. Instead, an adjudication committee determined whether reported events were probable reinfections. Hence, the reinfection rates we report in this study refer to probable reinfection rather than confirmed reinfection. Furthermore, reinfection rates in the main cohort study were probably underestimated because testing via RT-PCR or antigen test was encouraged but not provided for free for participants with symptoms consistent with COVID-19. Some symptomatic study participants refused to undergo testing. The study was also unable to detect cases of asymptomatic reinfection. Thus, the reinfection rates reported in this study are likely to be underestimated.

Another limitation is that the antibody titers measured were binding antibodies, not neutralizing antibodies. Tests for neutralizing antibodies are ideal since these are the antibodies that directly interfere the binding and uptake of virus to the host cells [21]. At the time the cohort study was being conducted, there were no certified biosafety level 3 laboratories in the country. However, studies have demonstrated neutralizing antibodies strongly correlate with RBD-specific binding antibodies, and that RBD-specific binding antibody titers can serve as surrogate measures for neutralizing titers [22].

Another limitation in this study is the variation in the timing of antibody titer determination in relation to vaccination, since antibody tests were performed at fixed time points based on the initial COVID-19 infection. Means and standard deviations of the number of interval days between the antibody determination and vaccination were reported to provide appropriate context to the results.

Moreover, the semi-quantitative laboratory test used in the study had an upper limit of detection of 250 U/mL. We performed 10-fold dilution according to manufacturer recommendations to increase the upper limit of detection to 2,500 U/mL. However, several results still exceeded 2,500 U/mL. We performed 100-fold and 1,000-fold dilutions to increase the upper limit of detection to 250,000 U/mL; however, the resulting values at this higher range may have diminished accuracy.

Another limitation is the presence of several confounding variables that affect reinfection rate and antibody titers aside from vaccination. Due to these issues, and the small sample size of the completed cohort study, this study was designed as a descriptive study and the results are intended to be exploratory in nature. Inferential statistics was not done.

Furthermore, the completed cohort study primarily aimed to determine symptoms of COVID-19 reinfection during the follow-up calls. Participants were also asked if they received the COVID-19 vaccine, and the type, brand and date of vaccination. From this recorded data, adverse events following immunization were extracted. However, this is prone to reporting bias. Although COVID-19 symptoms have several similarities as systemic adverse events following immunization, other symptoms such as rashes, flushing or local erythema which were not directly asked by the researchers may have been missed if the information was not volunteered by the study participants. Moreover, data for this study was heavily reliant on the completeness and accuracy of the data recorded in the completed cohort study.

More here:

Reinfection rates, change in antibody titers and adverse events after ... - BMC Infectious Diseases

PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] The global COVID-19 vaccination campaign saved 2.4 million lives in 141 countries and could have saved about 670,000 more had the vaccines been distributed equitably.

Thats according to a new working paper from researchers at the University of Southern Californias Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics and the Brown University School of Public Health.

The National Bureau of Economic Research circulated the working paper, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, for discussion and comment this week.

The benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines are far-reaching by multiple measures, said co-author Christopher M. Whaley, an associate professor of health services, policy and practice at Brown.

"Our study shows the enormous health impacts of COVID-19 vaccines, which in turn have huge economic benefits, Whaley said. "In terms of lives saved and economic value, the COVID-19 vaccination campaign is likely the most impactful public health response in recent memory."

The findings suggest that vaccination and therapeutics are much better at preventing death than other policies aimed at slowing the spread of the virus, the authors said.

The global rollout of COVID vaccines was the largest public health campaign in human history, said co-author Neeraj Sood, a senior fellow at USCs Schaeffer Center and director of its COVID-19 Initiative. By saving 2.46 million lives, the vaccines were much more effective than non-pharmaceutical interventions such as lockdowns and mask mandates.

The researchers examined the real-world effectiveness of the global COVID-19 vaccination campaign on all-cause mortality, which accounts for both direct and indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 vaccination efforts fully vaccinated more than 2 billion people within the first eight months after launching, and the teams working paper is the first to estimate the effect the vaccines on excess deaths globally using observational data. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines excess deaths as the difference between observed and expected numbers of deaths over a specific time period. Excess deaths are a better measure than COVID-19 death data, the researchers noted, which can be incorrectly reported.

While approximately 2.4 million deaths were averted from January to August 2021, researchers concluded that roughly 670,000 more lives could have been saved if vaccines were distributed in proportion to the populations of the 141 nations. Because of the current market-based approach, high-income countries had more immediate access to vaccines than low and middle-income countries, the authors said.

The working paper also provides an economic analysis of the global vaccination campaign, with country-specific information, with as well as comparisons with alternative distribution scenarios.

Virat Agrawal, a Ph.D. candidate at USCs Sol Price School of Public Policy, was the third co-author of the study: Establishing a global vaccine distribution policy will be crucial in preparing for future pandemics, he said.

The research was supported bythe National Institute on Aging (R01AG073286) and the Peter G. Peterson Foundation Pandemic Response Policy Research Fund.

See the rest here:

COVID-19 vaccination campaign saved 2.4 million lives, according ... - Brown University