Search

Background: Pregnant women are a vulnerable population to COVID-19 given an increased susceptibility to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection and pregnancy complications. However, few SARS-CoV-2 serological surveys have been performed among this population to assess the extent of the infection in sub-Saharan countries. The objectives of this study were to determine SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among Beninese pregnant women, to identify spatial seropositivity clusters and to analyse factors associated with the infection., Methods: A cross-sectional study including women in their third trimester of pregnancy attending the antenatal care (ANC) clinics at Allada (south Benin) and Natitingou (north Benin) was conducted. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) for detection of IgG/IgM against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were performed using capillary blood. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and associations between SARS-CoV-2 serostatus and maternal characteristics were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression. Spatial analyses were performed using the spatial scan statistics to identify spatial clusters of SARS-CoV-2 infection., Results: A total of 861 pregnant women were enrolled between May 4 and June 29, 2022. 58/861 (6.7%) participants reported having received COVID-19 vaccine. None of the participants had been diagnosed with COVID-19 during their pregnancy. SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected in 607/802 (75.7%; 95% CI 72.56%-78.62%) of unvaccinated participants. Several urban and rural spatial clusters of SARS-CoV-2 cases were identified in Allada and one urban spatial cluster was identified in Natitingou. Unvaccinated participants from Allada with at least one previous morbidity were at a three-times higher risk of presenting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (OR = 2.89; 95%CI 1.19%-7.00%)., Conclusion: Three out of four pregnant women had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, suggesting a high virus circulation among pregnant women in Benin, while COVID-19 vaccination coverage was low. Pregnant women with comorbidities may be at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This population should be prioritized for COVID-19 diagnosis and vaccination in order to prevent its deleterious effects., Trial Registration: NCT06170320 (retrospectively registered on December 21, 2023)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The world battled to defeat a novel coronavirus 2019 (SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19), a respiratory illness that is transmitted from person to person through contacts with droplets from infected persons. Despite efforts to disseminate preventable messages and adoption of mitigation strategies by governments and the World Health Organization (WHO), transmission spread globally. An accurate assessment of the transmissibility of the coronavirus remained a public health priority for many countries across the world to fight this pandemic, especially at the early onset. In this paper, we estimated the transmission potential of COVID-19 across 45 countries in sub-Saharan Africa using three approaches, namely, [Formula: see text] based on (i) an exponential growth model (ii) maximum likelihood (ML) estimation and (iii) a time-varying basic reproduction number at the early onset of the pandemic. Using data from March 14, 2020, to May 10, 2020, sub-Saharan African countries were still grappling with COVID-19 at that point in the pandemic. The region's basic reproduction number ([Formula: see text]) was 1.89 (95% CI: 1.767 to 2.026) using the growth model and 1.513 (95% CI: 1.491 to 1.535) with the maximum likelihood method, indicating that, on average, infected individuals transmitted the virus to less than two secondary persons. Several countries, including Sudan ([Formula: see text]: 2.03), Ghana ([Formula: see text]: 1.87), and Somalia ([Formula: see text]: 1.85), exhibited high transmission rates. These findings highlighted the need for continued vigilance and the implementation of effective control measures to combat the pandemic in the region. It is anticipated that the findings in this study would not only function as a historical record of reproduction numbers during the COVID-19 pandemic in African countries, but can serve as a blueprint for addressing future pandemics of a similar nature., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: COVID-19 vaccine coverage in low- and middle-income countries continues to be challenging. As supplies increase, coverage is increasingly becoming determined by rollout capacity. Methods: We developed a deterministic compartmental model of COVID-19 transmission to explore how age-, risk-, and dose-specific vaccine prioritisation strategies can minimise severe outcomes of COVID-19 in Sierra Leone. Results: Prioritising booster doses to older adults and adults with comorbidities could reduce the incidence of severe disease by 23% and deaths by 34% compared to the use of these doses as primary doses for all adults. Providing a booster dose to pregnant women who present to antenatal care could prevent 38% of neonatal deaths associated with COVID-19 infection during pregnancy. The vaccination of children is not justified unless there is sufficient supply to not affect doses delivered to adults. Conclusions: Our paper supports current WHO SAGE vaccine prioritisation guidelines (released January 2022). Individuals who are at the highest risk of developing severe outcomes should be prioritised, and opportunistic vaccination strategies considered in settings with limited rollout capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contact tracing forms a crucial part of the public-health toolbox in mitigating and understanding emergent pathogens and nascent disease outbreaks. Contact tracing in the United States was conducted during the pre-Omicron phase of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This tracing relied on voluntary reporting and responses, often using rapid antigen tests due to lack of accessibility to PCR tests. These limitations, combined with SARS-CoV-2's propensity for asymptomatic transmission, raise the question "how reliable was contact tracing for COVID-19 in the United States"? We answered this question using a Markov model to examine the efficiency with which transmission could be detected based on the design and response rates of contact tracing studies in the United States. Our results suggest that contact tracing protocols in the U.S. are unlikely to have identified more than 1.65% (95% uncertainty interval: 1.62-1.68%) of transmission events with PCR testing and 1.00% (95% uncertainty interval 0.98-1.02%) with rapid antigen testing. When considering a more robust contact tracing scenario, based on compliance rates in East Asia with PCR testing, this increases to 62.7% (95% uncertainty interval: 62.6-62.8%). We did not assume presence of asymptomatic transmission or superspreading, making our estimates upper bounds on the actual percentages traced. These findings highlight the limitations in interpretability for studies of SARS-CoV-2 disease spread based on U.S. contact tracing and underscore the vulnerability of the population to future disease outbreaks, for SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 continues to spread globally and in the absence of an effective treatment, the vaccine remains the best hope for controlling this disease. In this study, we seek to find out the extent to which people in Syria accept the Corona vaccine and what are the factors that affect their decision.Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in Syria during the period from January 3 to March 17, 2021. A structured self-administered questionnaire was distributed in two phases: The first phase included distributing the questionnaire as a Google Form on social media platforms. In the second phase, a paper version of the questionnaire was handed to patients, their companions, and workers in public hospitals. SPSS v.25 and R v.4.1.1 were used to analyze the data. Pearson Chi-square test and Logistic Regression were used to study the associations between categorical groups.Results: Of 7531 respondents, 3505 (46.5%) were males and 4026 (53.5%) were females. 3124 (41.5%) were 18-24 years old. Healthcare workers were participants' main sources of information (50.9%), followed by Social Media users (46.3%). 2790 (37%) of the participant are willing to be vaccinated, and 2334 (31%) were uncertain about it. Fear of possible side effects was the main reason for the reluctance to take the vaccine 1615 (62.4%), followed by mistrust of the vaccine formula 1522 (58.8%). 2218 (29.5%) participants think COVID-19 poses a major risk to them personally. Vaccination intention was significantly associated with gender, residence, financial status, educational level, and geographic origin.Conclusion: This study showed very negatively important results. The study participants Vaccination acceptance rate is almost the lowest when compared to its peers. A Lot of efforts should be made to correct misinformation about the vaccine and answer all questions about it, especially with a health system that has been ravaged by war for 10 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Shortly after the first publication on the new disease called Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19), studies on the causal consequences of this disease began to emerge, initially focusing only on transmission methods, and later on its consequences analyzed in terms of gender, age, and the presence of comorbidities. The aim of our research is to determine which comorbidities have the greatest negative impact on the worsening of the disease, namely which comorbidities indicate a predisposition to severe Covid-19, and to understand the gender and age representation of participants and comorbidities. The results of our study show that the dominant gender is male at 54.4% and the age of 65 and older. The most common comorbidities are arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular diseases. The dominant group is recovered participants aged 65 and older, with comorbidities most frequently present in this group. The highest correlation between patients with different severity of the disease was found with cardiovascular diseases, while the coefficient is slightly lower for the relationship between patients with different disease severity and urinary system diseases and hypertension. According to the regression analysis results, we showed that urinary system diseases have the greatest negative impact on the worsening of Covid-19, with the tested coefficient b being statistically significant as it is 0.030 < 0.05. An increase in cardiovascular diseases affects the worsening of Covid-19, with the tested coefficient b being statistically significant as it is 0.030 < 0.05. When it comes to arterial hypertension, it has a small impact on the worsening of Covid-19, but its tested coefficient b is not statistically significant as it is 0.169 > 0.05. The same applies to diabetes mellitus, which also has a small impact on the worsening of Covid-19, but its tested coefficient b is not statistically significant as it is 0.336 > 0.05. Our study has shown that comorbidities such as urinary system diseases and cardiovascular diseases tend to have a negative impact on Covid-19, leading to a poor outcome resulting in death, while diabetes mellitus and hypertension have an impact but without statistical significance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, several clinical trials have evaluated postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) among close contacts of an index individual with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because index individuals do not directly inform the efficacy of prevention interventions, they are seldom enrolled in COVID-19 PEP studies. However, adjusting for prognostic covariates such as an index individual's COVID-19 illness and risk behaviors can increase precision in PEP efficacy estimates, so approaches to accurately collecting this information about the index individual are needed. This analysis aimed to assess whether surveying household contacts captures the same information as surveying the index individual directly. Methods: REGN 2069/CoVPN 3502, a randomized controlled trial of COVID-19 PEP, enrolled household contacts of SARS-CoV-2 index individuals. CoVPN 3502-01 retrospectively enrolled and surveyed the index individuals. We compared responses to seven similar questions about the index individuals' transmission cofactors that were asked in both studies. We estimated the percent concordance between index individuals and their household contacts on each question, with 50% concordance considered equivalent to random chance. Results: Concordance between index individuals and contacts was high on the most objective questions, approximately 97% (95% CI: 90–99%) for index individual age group and 96% (88–98%) for hospitalization. Concordance was moderate for symptoms, approximately 85% (75–91%). Concordance on questions related to the index individual's behavior was only slightly better or no better than random: approximately 62% (51–72%) for whether they received COVID-19 treatment, 68% (57–77%) for sharing a bedroom, 70% (59–79%) for sharing a common room, and 49% (39–60%) for mask wearing at home. However, while contacts were surveyed within 96 h of the index individual testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, the median time to enrollment in CoVPN 3502-01 was 240 days, which may have caused recall bias in our results. Conclusions: Our results suggest a need to survey index individuals directly in order to accurately capture their transmission cofactors, rather than relying on their household contacts to report on their behavior. The lag in enrolling participants into CoVPN 3502-01 also highlights the importance of timely enrollment to minimize recall bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rapid antigen-detection tests for SARS-CoV-2 self-testing represent a useful tool for pandemic control and expanding access to community-level case screening. COVID-19 self-tests have been extensively used in high-income countries since 2021; however, their introduction and programmatic implementation in low- and middle-income countries was delayed. We aimed to identify and continuously improve a weekly COVID-19 self-testing model among staff at healthcare facilities and schools. Methods: This mixed-methods, observational prospective study was conducted in 5 healthcare centres and 24 schools in Georgia, between June and December 2022. The study comprised the integration of COVID-19 self-testing into the national mandatory testing programme for high-risk groups, with primary distribution of self-tests among staff performed weekly, plus secondary distribution to their household members. These use cases were selected because NCDC was seeking to strengthen their already strong weekly testing programme, by investigating self-testing to ease the burden of testing in the healthcare system. Online surveys and semi-structured interviews were used for data collection. Results: In total, 2156 participants were enrolled (1963 female, 72%). At baseline and mid- and end-points, 88%, 97% and 99%, respectively, of participants agreed/strongly agreed they would self-test. Similarly, the majority were willing to report their self-testing results (88%, 98% and 96% at baseline and mid- and end-points, respectively). Weekly reporting of test results to the national COVID-19 database was high during all the implementation. There were 622 COVID-19 positive results reported, and linked to care, from 601 individuals (282 participants and 319 household members). Findings from qualitative interviews showed great satisfaction with self-testing for its convenience, ease of use, trust in the results, no need to travel for diagnostics, and increased perception of safety. Conclusions: Our findings contribute to the evidence-base regarding self-testing strategies conducted via workplaces and secondary distribution to households. Willingness to perform a COVID-19 self-test increased after implementation. This pilot enhanced pandemic preparedness through expansion of the national self-testing reporting system, development of communications materials, changes in the national legal framework and coordination mechanisms, and improved perceptions around self-care in the community. The lessons learnt can inform operational aspects of the introduction and scale-up of self-care strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: SARS-CoV-2 reinfection rates have been shown to vary depending on the circulating variant, vaccination status and background immunity, as well as the time interval used to identify reinfections. This study describes the frequency of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections in Norway using different time intervals and assesses potential factors that could impact the risk of reinfections during the different variant waves. Methods: We used linked individual-level data from national registries to conduct a retrospective cohort study including all cases with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 from February 2020 to January 2022. Time intervals of 30, 60, 90 or 180 days between positive tests were used to define potential reinfections. A multivariable Cox regression model was used to assess the risk of reinfection in terms of variants adjusting for vaccination status, demographic factors, and underlying comorbidities. Results: The reinfection rate varied between 0.2%, 0.6% and 5.9% during the Alpha, Delta and early Omicron waves, respectively. In the multivariable model, younger age groups were associated with a higher risk of reinfection compared to older age groups, whereas vaccination was associated with protection against reinfection. Moreover, the risk of reinfection followed a pattern similar to risk of first infection. Individuals infected early in the pandemic had higher risk of reinfection than individuals infected in more recent waves. Conclusions: Reinfections increased markedly during the Omicron wave. Younger individuals, and primary infections during earlier waves were associated with an increased reinfection risk compared to primary infections during more recent waves, whereas vaccination was a protective factor. Our results highlight the importance of age and post infection waning immunity and are relevant when evaluating vaccination polices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since spring 2020, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has spread worldwide, causing dramatic global consequences in terms of medical, care, economic, cultural and bioethical dimensions. Although the resulting conflicts initially appeared to be quite similar in most countries, a closer look reveals a country-specific intensification and differentiation of issues. Our study focused on understanding and highlighting bioethical conflicts that were triggered, exposed or intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs). Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews with 39 ethics experts from 34 countries (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Ethiopia, France, Germany, India, Italy, Israel, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Poland, Romania, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, South Africa, Tunisia, Türkiye, United-Kingdom, United States of America, Zambia) from November 2020 to March 2021. We analysed the interviews using qualitative content analysis. Results: The scale of the bioethical challenges between countries differed, as did coping strategies for meeting these challenges. Data analysis focused on: Resource scarcity in clinical contexts: Scarcity of medical resources led to the need to prioritize the care of some COVID-19 patients in clinical settings globally. Because this entails the postponement of treatment for other patients, the possibility of serious present or future harm to deprioritized patients was identified as a relevant issue. Health literacy: The pandemic demonstrated the significance of health literacy and its influence on the effective implementation of health measures. Inequality and vulnerable groups: The pandemic highlighted the context-sensitivity and intersectionality of the vulnerabilities of women and children in LMICs and the aged in HICs. Conflicts surrounding healthcare professionals: The COVID-19 outbreak underscored the tough working conditions for nurses and other health professionals, raising awareness of the need for reform. Conclusion: The pandemic exposed pre-existing structural problems in LMICs and HICs. Without neglecting individual contextual factors in the observed countries, we created a mosaic of different voices of experts in bioethics across the globe, drawing attention to the need for international solidarity in the context of a global crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]