Dataset Information

Real World Estimate of Vaccination Protection in Individuals Hospitalized for COVID-19.

ABSTRACT: Whether vaccination confers a protective effect against progression after hospital admission for COVID-19 remains to be elucidated. Observational study including all the patients admitted to San Paolo Hospital in Milan for COVID-19 in 2021. Previous vaccination was categorized as: none, one dose, full vaccination (two or three doses >14 days before symptoms onset). Data were collected at hospital admission, including demographic and clinical variables, age-unadjusted Charlson Comorbidity index (CCI). The highest intensity of ventilation during hospitalization was registered. The endpoints were in-hospital death (primary) and mechanical ventilation/death (secondary). Survival analysis was conducted by means of Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models. Effect measure modification by age was formally tested. We included 956 patients: 151 (16%) fully vaccinated (18 also third dose), 62 (7%) one dose vaccinated, 743 (78%) unvaccinated. People fully vaccinated were older and suffering from more comorbidities than unvaccinated. By 28 days, the risk of death was of 35.9% (95%CI: 30.1-41.7) in unvaccinated, 41.5% (24.5-58.5) in one dose and 28.4% (18.2-38.5) in fully vaccinated (p = 0.63). After controlling for age, ethnicity, CCI and month of admission, fully vaccinated participants showed a risk reduction of 50% for both in-hospital death, AHR 0.50 (95%CI: 0.30-0.84) and for mechanical ventilation or death, AHR 0.49 (95%CI: 0.35-0.69) compared to unvaccinated, regardless of age (interaction p > 0.56). Fully vaccinated individuals in whom vaccine failed to keep them out of hospital, appeared to be protected against critical disease or death when compared to non-vaccinated. These data support universal COVID-19 vaccination.

SUBMITTER: d'Arminio Monforte A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9031136 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Real World Estimate of Vaccination Protection in Individuals Hospitalized for COVID-19.

d'Arminio Monforte Antonella A Tavelli Alessandro A De Benedittis Sara S Bai Francesca F Tincati Camilla C Gazzola Lidia L Viganò Ottavia O Allegrini Marina M Mondatore Debora D Tesoro Daniele D Barbanotti Diletta D Mulé Giovanni G Castoldi Roberto R De Bona Anna A Bini Teresa T Chiumello Davide D Centanni Stefano S Passarella Sabrina S Orfeo Nicola N Marchetti Giulia G Cozzi-Lepri Alessandro A For The Spid Group

Vaccines 20220401 4

Whether vaccination confers a protective effect against progression after hospital admission for COVID-19 remains to be elucidated. Observational study including all the patients admitted to San Paolo Hospital in Milan for COVID-19 in 2021. Previous vaccination was categorized as: none, one dose, full vaccination (two or three doses >14 days before symptoms onset). Data were collected at hospital admission, including demographic and clinical variables, age-unadjusted Charlson Comorbidity index ( ...[more]

PMID: 35455299

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionUptake of COVID-19 vaccination remains suboptimal in the United States and other settings. Though early reports indicated that a strong majority of people were interested in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, the association between vaccine intention and uptake is not yet fully understood. Ourobjective was todescribe predictors of vaccine uptake, and estimate the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of self-reported COVID-19 vaccine status compared to a comprehensive statewide COVID-19 vaccine registry.MethodsA cohort of California residents that received a molecular test for SARS-CoV-2 infection during 24 February-5 December 2021 were enrolled in a telephone-administered survey. Survey participants were matched with records in a statewide immunization registry. Cox proportional hazards model were used to compare time to vaccination among those unvaccinated at survey enrollment by self-reported COVID-19 vaccination intention.ResultsAmong 864 participants who were unvaccinated at the time of interview, 272 (31%) had documentation of receipt of COVID-19 vaccination at a later date; including 194/423 (45.9%) who had initially reported being willing to receive vaccination, 41/185 (22.2%) who reported being unsure about vaccination, and 37/278 (13.3%) who reported unwillingness to receive vaccination.Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for registry-confirmed COVID-19 vaccination were 0.49 (95% confidence interval: 0.32-0.76) and 0.21 (0.12-0.36) for participants expressing uncertainty and unwillingness to receive vaccination, respectively, as compared with participants who reported being willing to receive vaccination. Time to vaccination was shorter among participants from higher-income households (aHR = 3.30 [2.02-5.39]) and who reported co-morbidities or immunocompromising conditions (aHR = 1.54 [1.01-2.36]).Sensitivity of self-reported COVID-19 vaccination status was 82% (80-85%) overall, and 98% (97-99%) among those referencing vaccination records; specificity was 87% (86-89%).ConclusionWillingness to receive COVID-19 vaccination was an imperfect predictor of real-world vaccine uptake. Improved messaging about COVID-19 vaccination regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status may help improve uptake.

Project description:ObjectivePrescription trends and patterns of anti-COVID-19 drugs in hospitalized patients were examined based on real world data to understand the use of anti-COVID-19 drugs in clinical practice in Japan.DesignThe longitudinal and cross-sectional study was conducted utilizing data from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021 of the MID-NET® medical information database, which stored the electronic medical records, administrative claim data, and diagnosis procedure combination data of patients in Japan.ParticipantsHospitalized patients with a COVID-19-related diagnosis who received at least one anti-COVID-19 drug between April 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021.ExposuresThe following 14 drugs were included in this study: remdesivir, baricitinib, combination product of casirivimab and imdevimab, favipiravir, dexamethasone, ivermectin, azithromycin, nafamostat mesylate, camostat mesylate, ciclesonide, tocilizumab, sarilumab, combination product of lopinavir and ritonavir, and hydroxychloroquine.ResultsWe identified 5,717 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and prescribed at least one anti-COVID-19 drug. The entire cohort generally included patients over 41-50 years and more males. The most common prescription pattern was dexamethasone monotherapy (22.9%), followed by the concomitant use of remdesivir and dexamethasone (15.0%), azithromycin monotherapy (15.0%), remdesivir monotherapy (10.2%), and nafamostat mesylate monotherapy (8.5%). However, an often prescribed anti-COVID-19 drug differed depending on the period.Conclusions and relevanceThis study revealed the real-world situation of anti-COVID-19 drug prescriptions in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Japan. A prescribed drug would depend on the latest scientific evidence, such as efficacy, safety, and approval status, at the time of prescription. Understanding the prescription of anti-COVID-19 drugs will be important for providing the most up-to-date treatments to patients and evaluating the benefit and/or risk of anti-COVID-19 drugs based on the utilization of an electronic medical record database.

Project description:IntroductionReal-world safety studies can provide important evidence on the thromboembolic risk associated with COVID-19 vaccines, considering that millions of people have been already vaccinated against COVID-19. In this study, we aimed to estimate the incidence of thromboembolic events after COVID-19 vaccination and to compare the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine with other COVID-19 vaccines.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective real-world safety study using data from two different data sources: the Italian Pharmacovigilance database (Rete Nazionale di Farmacovigilanza, RNF) and the Campania Region Health system (Sistema INFOrmativo saNità CampanIA, SINFONIA). From the start date of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign (27 December 2021) to 27 September 2022, information on COVID-19 vaccinations and thromboembolic events were extracted from the two databases. The reporting rate (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (95%CI) of thromboembolic events for 10,000 doses was calculated for each COVID-19 vaccine. Moreover, the odds of being vaccinated with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine vs. the other COVID-19 vaccines in cases with thromboembolic events vs. controls without thromboembolic events were computed.ResultsA total of 12,692,852 vaccine doses were administered in the Campania Region, of which 6,509,475 (51.28%) were in females and mostly related to the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine (65.05%), followed by Moderna (24.31%), Oxford-AstraZeneca (9.71%), Janssen (0.91%), and Novavax (0.02%) vaccines. A total of 641 ICSRs with COVID-19 vaccines and vascular events were retrieved from the RNF for the Campania Region, of which 453 (70.67%) were in females. Most ICSRs reported the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine (65.05%), followed by Oxford-AstraZeneca (9.71%), Moderna (24.31%), and Janssen (0.91%). A total of 2451 events were reported in the ICSRs (3.8 events for ICSRs), of which 292 were thromboembolic events. The higher RRs of thromboembolic events were found with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine (RR: 4.62, 95%CI: 3.50-5.99) and Janssen vaccine (RR: 3.45, 95%CI: 0.94-8.82). Thromboembolic events were associated with a higher likelihood of exposure to the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine compared to Pfizer-BioNtech (OR: 6.06; 95%CI: 4.22-8.68) and Moderna vaccines (OR: 6.46; 95%CI: 4.00-10.80).ConclusionWe observed a higher reporting of thromboembolic events with viral-vector-based vaccines (Oxford-AstraZeneca and Janssen) and an increased likelihood of being exposed to the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine compared to the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna) among thromboembolic cases.

Project description:BackgroundMost studies assessing the impact of online media and social media use on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy predominantly rely on survey data, which often fail to capture the clustering of health opinions and behaviors within real-world networks. In contrast, research using social network analysis aims to uncover the diverse communities and discourse themes related to vaccine support and hesitancy within social media platforms. Despite these advancements, there is a gap in the literature on how a person's social circle affects vaccine acceptance, wherein an important part of social influence stems from offline interactions.ObjectiveWe aimed to examine how online media consumption influences vaccination decisions within real-world social networks by analyzing unique quantitative network data collected from Romania, an Eastern European state and member of the European Union.MethodsWe conducted 83 face-to-face interviews with participants from a living lab in Lerești, a small rural community in Romania, using a personal network analysis framework. This approach involved gathering data on both the respondents and individuals within their social circles (referred to as alters). After excluding cases with missing data, our analysis proceeded with 73% (61/83) of the complete personal networks. To examine the hierarchical structure of alters nested within ego networks, we used a mixed multilevel logistic regression model with random intercepts. The model aimed to predict vaccination status among alters, with the focal independent variable being the respondents' preferred source of health and prevention information. This variable was categorized into 3 types: traditional media, online media (including social media), and a combination of both, with traditional media as the reference category.ResultsIn this study, we analyzed 61 personal networks, encompassing between 15 and 25 alters each, totaling 1280 alters with valid data across all variables of interest. Our primary findings indicate that alters within personal networks, whose respondents rely solely on online media for health information, exhibit lower vaccination rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.37, 95% CI 0.15-0.92; P=.03). Conversely, the transition from exclusive traditional media use to a combination of both traditional and online media does not significantly impact vaccination rate odds (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.32-1.78; P=.52). In addition, our analysis revealed that alters in personal networks of respondents who received the vaccine are more likely to have received the vaccine themselves (OR 3.75, 95% CI 1.79-7.85; P<.001).ConclusionsReal-world networks combine diverse human interactions and attributes along with consequences on health opinions and behaviors. As individuals' vaccination status is influenced by how their social alters use online media and vaccination behavior, further insights are needed to create tailored communication campaigns and interventions regarding vaccination in areas with low levels of digital health literacy and vaccination rates, as Romania exposes.

Dataset Information

Real World Estimate of Vaccination Protection in Individuals Hospitalized for COVID-19.

Publications

Real World Estimate of Vaccination Protection in Individuals Hospitalized for COVID-19.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets