Real-world impact of vaccination on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) incidence in healthcare personnel at an academic medical center

RETINAL VEIN OCCLUSIONS BEFORE AND DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: Visual Outcomes and Treatment Patterns in a Country with no Mandatory Lockdown

PURPOSE

To investigate the incidence, treatment patterns, and visual outcomes in patients with branch retinal vein occlusion (RVO) and central RVO before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in a country with no mandatory lockdown.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 788 patients presenting with a RVO during the years 2019 to 2022 at St. Erik Eye Hospital. The control group and study groups consisted of patients presenting before and during the pandemic, respectively.

RESULTS

The incidence of diagnosed RVO cases decreased from 281 patients before the pandemic to 236 patients during the first year of the pandemic ( P < 0.05). In patients with branch RVO at the end of follow-up, the best-corrected visual acuity improved 10.3 letters (95% confidence intervals [CI] 7.6-12.9) in the control group compared with 14.3 letters (95% CI 12.6-16.0) in the study groups ( P < 0.05). In patients with central RVO, the best-corrected visual acuity improved 6.3 letters (95% CI 2.7-10.0) in the control group compared with 8.6 letters (95% CI 5.7-11.4) in the study groups (p = NS). Overall, the number of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections increased from 7.0 (95% CI 6.6-7.3) in the control group to 7.6 (95% CI 7.4-7.8) in the study groups ( P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Good visual and anatomical outcomes were sustained, and the number of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections increased significantly in patients with RVO during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Tracheostomies of Patients With COVID-19: A Survey of Infection Reported by Health Care Professionals

BACKGROUND

Health care professionals (HCPs) performing tracheostomies in patients with COVID-19 may be at increased risk of infection.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate factors underlying HCPs' COVID-19 infection and determine whether tracheostomy providers report increased rates of infection.

METHODS

An anonymous international survey examining factors associated with COVID-19 infection was made available November 2020 through July 2021 to HCPs at a convenience sample of hospitals, universities, and professional organizations. Infections reported were compared between HCPs involved in tracheostomy on patients with COVID-19 and HCPs who were not involved.

RESULTS

Of the 361 respondents (from 33 countries), 50% (n = 179) had performed tracheostomies on patients with COVID-19. Performing tracheostomies on patients with COVID-19 was not associated with increased infection in either univariable (P = .06) or multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.90-2.46; P = .13). Working in a low- or middle-income country (LMIC) was associated with increased infection in both univariable (P < .001) and multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 2.88; CI, 1.50-5.53; P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Performing tracheostomy was not associated with COVID-19 infection, suggesting that tracheostomies can be safely performed in infected patients with appropriate precautions. However, HCPs in LMICs may face increased infection risk.

Synergistic influence of air temperature and vaccination on COVID-19 transmission and mortality in 146 countries or regions

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the influence of vaccination and air temperature on COVID-19 transmission and severity.

METHODS

The study data in 146 countries from January 6, 2020 to July 28, 2022 were aggregated into 19,856 weeks. Country-level weekly incidence, time-varying reproduction number (Rt), mortality, and infection-fatality ratio (IFR) were compared among groups of these weeks with different vaccination rates and air temperatures.

RESULTS

Weeks with <15 °C air temperature and 60% vaccination showed the highest incidence (mean, 604; SD, 855; 95% CI, 553-656, unit, /100,000 persons; N = 1073) and the highest rate of weeks with >1 Rt (mean, 41.6%; SD, 1.49%; 95% CI, 39.2-45.2%; N = 1090), while weeks with >25 °C and <20% showed the lowest incidence (mean, 24; SD, 75; 95% CI, 22-26; N = 5805) and the lowest rate of weeks with >1 Rt (mean, 15.3%; SD, 0.461%; 95% CI, 14.2-16.2%; N = 6122). Mortality in weeks with <15 °C (mean, 2.1; SD, 2.8; 95% CI, 2.0-2.2, unit, /100,000 persons; N = 4365) was five times of the mortality in weeks with >25 °C (mean, 0.44; SD, 1; 95% CI, 0.41-0.46; N = 7741). IFR ranged between 2% and 2.6% (SD, 1.9%-2.4%; 95% CI, 2.0-2.7%) at < 20% vaccination level, 1.8% (SD, 2%-2.2%; 95% CI, 1.7-2.0%) at 20-60% vaccination level, and 0.7%-1% (SD, 1%-1.8%; 95% CI, 0.7-1.1%) at > 60% vaccination level and at all air temperatures (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccination was insufficient to mitigate the transmission since the significantly elevated weekly incidence and >1 Rt rate in weeks with high vaccination, while IFR was reduced by high vaccination. Countries with long-term low air temperature were affected by high transmission and high mortality.

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the incidence, hospitalization, and mortality from COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Vaccination, one of the most important and effective ways of preventing infectious diseases, has recently been used to control the COVID-19 pandemic. The present meta-analysis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the incidence, hospitalization, and mortality from COVID-19.

Methods

A systematic search was performed independently in Scopus, PubMed via Medline, ProQuest, and Google Scholar electronic databases as well as preprint servers using the keywords under study. We used random-effect models and the heterogeneity of the studies was assessed using I ² and χ² statistics. In addition, the Pooled Vaccine Effectiveness (PVE) obtained from the studies was calculated by converting based on the type of outcome.

Results

A total of 54 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The PVE against SARS-COV 2 infection were 71% [odds ratio (OR) = 0.29, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.23-0.36] in the first dose and 87% (OR = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.08-0.21) in the second dose. The PVE for preventing hospitalization due to COVID-19 infection was 73% (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.18-0.41) in the first dose and 89% (OR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.07-0.17) in the second dose. With regard to the type of vaccine, mRNA-1273 and combined studies in the first dose and ChAdOx1 and mRNA-1273 in the second dose had the highest effectiveness in preventing infection. Regarding the COVID-19-related mortality, PVE was 68% (HR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.23-0.45) in the first dose and 92% (HR = 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02-0.29) in the second dose.

Conclusion

The results of this meta-analysis indicated that vaccination against COVID-19 with BNT162b2 mRNA, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx1, and also their combination, was associated with a favorable effectiveness against SARS-CoV2 incidence rate, hospitalization, and mortality rate in the first and second doses in different populations. We suggest that to prevent the severe form of the disease in the future, and, in particular, in the coming epidemic picks, vaccination could be the best strategy to prevent the severe form of the disease.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier [CRD42021289937].

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on Infection Prevention for Healthcare Personnel Caring for Patients with Suspected or Known COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Since its emergence in late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions like coughing and care activities like aerosol-generating procedures likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators.

OBJECTIVE

Develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known COVID-19.

METHODS

IDSA formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The IDSA guideline panel agreed on eight recommendations, including two updated recommendations and one new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for eight specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.