Search

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid), an oral antiviral treatment, is authorized for adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who are at increased risk for progression to severe illness. However, real-world evidence on the benefit of Paxlovid, according to vaccination status, age group, and underlying health conditions, is limited. To examine the benefit of Paxlovid in adults aged ≥18 years in the United States, a large electronic health record (EHR) data set (Cosmos

Background Although most adults infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) fully recover, a proportion have ongoing symptoms, or post-COVID conditions (PCC), after infection. The objective of this analysis was to estimate the number of United States (US) adults with activity-limiting PCC on 1 November 2021. Methods We modeled the prevalence of PCC using reported infections occurring from 1 February 2020 to 30 September 2021, and population-based, household survey data on new activity-limiting symptoms ≥1 month following SARS-CoV-2 infection. From these data sources, we estimated the number and proportion of US adults with activity-limiting PCC on 1 November 2021 as 95% uncertainty intervals, stratified by sex and age. Sensitivity analyses adjusted for underascertainment of infections and uncertainty about symptom duration. Results On 1 November 2021, at least 3.0–5.0 million US adults, or 1.2%–1.9% of the US adult population, were estimated to have activity-limiting PCC of ≥1 month’s duration. Population prevalence was higher in females (1.4%–2.2%) than males. The estimated prevalence after adjusting for underascertainment of infections was 1.7%–3.8%. Conclusions Millions of US adults were estimated to have activity-limiting PCC. These estimates can support future efforts to address the impact of PCC on the US population.

Previous infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has been estimated to confer up to 90% protection against reinfection, although this protection was lower against the Omicron variant compared with that against other SARS-CoV-2 variants (1-3). A test-negative design was used to estimate effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in preventing subsequent COVID-19-associated hospitalization among adults aged ≥18 years with a previous positive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) or diagnosis of COVID-19.

BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody tests have had limited recommended clinical application during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. To inform clinical practice, an understanding is needed of current perspectives of United States–based infectious disease (ID) physicians on the use, interpretation, and need for SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests.MethodsIn March 2022, members of the Emerging Infections Network (EIN), a national network of practicing ID physicians, were surveyed on types of SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays ordered, interpretation of test results, and clinical scenarios for which antibody tests were considered.ResultsOf 1867 active EIN members, 747 (40%) responded. Among the 583 who managed or consulted on COVID-19 patients, a majority (434/583 [75%]) had ordered SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests and were comfortable interpreting positive (452/578 [78%]) and negative (405/562 [72%]) results. Antibody tests were used for diagnosing post–COVID-19 conditions (61%), identifying prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (60%), and differentiating prior infection and response to COVID-19 vaccination (37%). Less than a third of respondents had used antibody tests to assess need for additional vaccines or risk stratification. Lack of sufficient evidence for use and nonstandardized assays were among the most common barriers for ordering tests. Respondents indicated that statements from professional societies and government agencies would influence their decision to order SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for clinical decision making.ConclusionsPracticing ID physicians are using SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests, and there is an unmet need for clarifying the appropriate use of these tests in clinical practice. Professional societies and US government agencies can support clinicians in the community through the creation of appropriate guidance.

Background Data assessing protection conferred from COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and/or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection during Delta and Omicron predominance periods in the United States are limited. Methods This cohort study included persons ≥18 years who had ≥1 health care encounter across 4 health systems and had been tested for SARS-CoV-2 before 26 August 2021. COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection defined the exposure. Cox regression estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for the Delta and Omicron periods; protection was calculated as (1−HR)×100%. Results Compared to unvaccinated and previously uninfected persons, during Delta predominance, protection against COVID-19–associated hospitalizations was high for those 2- or 3-dose vaccinated and previously infected, 3-dose vaccinated alone, and prior infection alone (range, 91%–97%, with overlapping 95% confidence intervals [CIs]); during Omicron predominance, estimates were lower (range, 77%–90%). Protection against COVID-19–associated emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounters during Delta predominance was high for those exposure groups (range, 86%–93%); during Omicron predominance, protection remained high for those 3-dose vaccinated with or without a prior infection (76%; 95% CI = 67%–83% and 71%; 95% CI = 67%–73%, respectively). Conclusions COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and/or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection provided protection against COVID-19–associated hospitalizations and ED/UC encounters regardless of variant. Staying up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccination still provides protection against severe COVID-19 disease, regardless of prior infection.

By November 30, 2021, approximately 130,781 COVID-19-associated deaths, one in six of all U.S. deaths from COVID-19, had occurred in California and New York.* COVID-19 vaccination protects against infection with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19), associated severe illness, and death (1,2); among those who survive, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection also confers protection against severe outcomes in the event of reinfection (3,4). The relative magnitude and duration of infection- and vaccine-derived protection, alone and together, can guide public health planning and epidemic forecasting. To examine the impact of primary COVID-19 vaccination and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection on COVID-19 incidence and hospitalization rates, statewide testing, surveillance, and COVID-19 immunization data from California and New York (which account for 18% of the U.S. population) were analyzed. Four cohorts of adults aged ≥18 years were considered: persons who were 1) unvaccinated with no previous laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, 2) vaccinated (14 days after completion of a primary COVID-19 vaccination series) with no previous COVID-19 diagnosis, 3) unvaccinated with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, and 4) vaccinated with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Age-adjusted hazard rates of incident laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases in both states were compared among cohorts, and in California, hospitalizations during May 30-November 20, 2021, were also compared. During the study period, COVID-19 incidence in both states was highest among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis compared with that among the other three groups. During the week beginning May 30, 2021, compared with COVID-19 case rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, COVID-19 case rates were 19.9-fold (California) and 18.4-fold (New York) lower among vaccinated persons without a previous diagnosis; 7.2-fold (California) and 9.9-fold lower (New York) among unvaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis; and 9.6-fold (California) and 8.5-fold lower (New York) among vaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. During the same period, compared with hospitalization rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization rates in California followed a similar pattern. These relationships changed after the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant (i.e., accounted for50% of sequenced isolates) in late June and July. By the week beginning October 3, compared with COVID-19 cases rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, case rates among vaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis were 6.2-fold (California) and 4.5-fold (New York) lower; rates were substantially lower among both groups with previous COVID-19 diagnoses, including 29.0-fold (California) and 14.7-fold lower (New York) among unvaccinated persons with a previous diagnosis, and 32.5-fold (California) and 19.8-fold lower (New York) among vaccinated persons with a previous diagnosis of COVID-19. During the same period, compared with hospitalization rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization rates in California followed a similar pattern. These results demonstrate that vaccination protects against COVID-19 and related hospitalization, and that surviving a previous infection protects against a reinfection and related hospitalization. Importantly, infection-derived protection was higher after the Delta variant became predominant, a time when vaccine-induced immunity for many persons declined because of immune evasion and immunologic waning (2,5,6). Similar cohort data accounting for booster doses needs to be assessed, as new variants, including Omicron, circulate. Although the epidemiology of COVID-19 might change with the emergence of new variants, vaccination remains the safest strategy to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and associated complications; all eligible persons should be up to date with COVID-19 vaccination. Additional recommendations for vaccine doses might be warranted in the future as the virus and immunity levels change.

From 2 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) household transmission studies (enrolling April 2020 to January 2022) with rapid enrollment and specimen collection for 14 days, 61% (43/70) of primary cases had culturable virus detected ≥6 days post-onset. Risk of secondary infection among household contacts tended to be greater when primary cases had culturable virus detected after onset. Regardless of duration of culturable virus, most secondary infections (70%, 28/40) had serial intervals

IntroductionAlthough SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were first approved under Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA in late 2020 for adults, approval for young children 6 months to < 5 years of age did not occur until 2022. Understanding real world vaccine effectiveness in the setting of emerging variants is critical. The primary goal of this study is to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against infection among children aged >6 months and adults aged MethodsCASCADIA is a four-year community-based prospective study of SARS-CoV-2 VE among adult and pediatric populations aged 6 months to 49 years in Oregon and Washington. At enrollment and regular intervals, participants complete a sociodemographic questionnaire. Individuals provide a blood sample at enrollment and annually thereafter, with additional, optional blood draws after infection and vaccination. Participants complete weekly self-collection of anterior nasal swabs and symptom questionnaires. Swabs are tested for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens by RT-PCR, with results of selected pathogens returned to participants; nasal swabs with SARS-CoV-2 detected will undergo whole genome sequencing. Participants who report symptoms outside of their weekly swab collection and symptom survey are asked to collect an additional swab. Participants who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 undergo serial swab collection every three days for three weeks. Serum samples are tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibody by binding and neutralization assays.AnalysisCox regression models will be used to estimate the hazard ratio associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among the pediatric and adult population, controlling for demographic factors and potential confounders, including clustering within households.Ethics and disseminationAll study materials including the protocol, consent forms, participant communication and recruitment materials, and data collection instruments were approved by the Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) Institutional Review Board, the IRB of record for the study.Strengths/LimitationsCASCADIA will include a large sample of children and adults that will contribute to estimation of vaccine effectiveness.The study will generate a data repository that can be used to address many research questions, such as duration of SARS-CoV-2 serologic results, post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, and re-infection rates.Retention and compliance may be challenging given the four-year duration of the study.Annual blood collection for assessment of humoral immunity may be a potential deterrent for participation, particularly among younger children.

Long-term sequelae after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection may impact well-being, yet existing data primarily focus on discrete symptoms and/or health care use.To compare patient-reported outcomes of physical, mental, and social well-being among adults with symptomatic illness who received a positive vs negative test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection.This cohort study was a planned interim analysis of an ongoing multicenter prospective longitudinal registry study (the Innovative Support for Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry [INSPIRE]). Participants were enrolled from December 11, 2020, to September 10, 2021, and comprised adults (aged ≥18 years) with acute symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection at the time of receipt of a SARS-CoV-2 test approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The analysis included the first 1000 participants who completed baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys consisting of questions from the 29-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29; 7 subscales, including physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, social participation, sleep disturbance, and pain interference) and the PROMIS Short Form-Cognitive Function 8a scale, for which population-normed T scores were reported.SARS-CoV-2 status (positive or negative test result) at enrollment.Mean PROMIS scores for participants with positive COVID-19 tests vs negative COVID-19 tests were compared descriptively and using multivariable regression analysis.Among 1000 participants, 722 (72.2%) received a positive COVID-19 result and 278 (27.8%) received a negative result; 406 of 998 participants (40.7%) were aged 18 to 34 years, 644 of 972 (66.3%) were female, 833 of 984 (84.7%) were non-Hispanic, and 685 of 974 (70.3%) were White. A total of 282 of 712 participants (39.6%) in the COVID-19-positive group and 147 of 275 participants (53.5%) in the COVID-19-negative group reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. After adjustment, improvements in well-being were statistically and clinically greater for participants in the COVID-19-positive group vs the COVID-19-negative group only for social participation (β = 3.32; 95% CI, 1.84-4.80; P .001); changes in other well-being domains were not clinically different between groups. Improvements in well-being in the COVID-19-positive group were concentrated among participants aged 18 to 34 years (eg, social participation: β = 3.90; 95% CI, 1.75-6.05; P .001) and those who presented for COVID-19 testing in an ambulatory setting (eg, social participation: β = 4.16; 95% CI, 2.12-6.20; P .001).In this study, participants in both the COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative groups reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. Although some individuals had clinically meaningful improvements over time, many reported moderate to severe impairments in well-being 3 months later. These results highlight the importance of including a control group of participants with negative COVID-19 results for comparison when examining the sequelae of COVID-19.

Background Although not validated, cycle threshold (Ct) values from real-time (r)RT-PCR are sometimes used as a proxy for infectiousness to inform public health decision-making. A better understanding of variant-specific viral dynamics, including RNA and infectious virus relationships, is needed to clarify implications for diagnostics and transmission. Methods Non-hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals were recruited ≤ 5 days post-onset and self-collected nasal swabs daily for two weeks. Sequencing was used to determine variant, an in-house quantitative rRT-PCR targeting N gene was used to produce Ct values and determine RNA load, and cytopathic effect was used to assess the presence or absence of infectious virus (binary outcome). We used a Ct threshold of 30 to define high-Ct (Ct > 30) or low-Ct (Ct ≤ 30) specimens and assessed the percentage of RNA-positive specimens that had infectious virus; variant-specific percentages were compared by Χ2 test. Results We included 113 and 200 RNA-positive specimens from 18 and 28 Omicron- and Delta-infected participants, respectively; timing of RNA-positive specimen collection was similar in both groups (median = 8d post-onset). Maximum observed RNA levels occurred at median of 5 days post-onset for both variants but were lower for participants with Omicron vs Delta [mean RNA copies/mL = 105.2 vs 107.9]. Despite lower RNA levels, infectious virus was frequently detected for both variants [Omicron: median duration = 4.5d; Delta: median = 6d; p = 0.13]. Omicron specimens with infectious virus had higher Cts vs Delta specimens [mean Ct = 29.9 vs 23.2, p < 0.001]. In high-Ct specimens (Ct > 30; Table), the percentage of specimens with infectious virus was typically higher for Omicron vs Delta, and was significantly higher in adults [27.3% vs 9.5%]. In low-Ct specimens (Ct ≤ 30), the percentage with infectious virus was similar or higher for Omicron vs Delta, and was significantly higher in children [87.5% vs 53.8%] and in those unvaccinated [94.1% vs 47.4%]. Conclusion CDC does not recommend the use of Ct values as a proxy for infectiousness. These data further highlight that Ct values may not provide a reliable or consistent proxy for infectiousness across variants. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

Before emergence in late 2021 of the highly transmissible B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1,2), several studies demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 was unlikely to be cultured from specimens with high cycle threshold (Ct) values

BACKGROUND Early antiretroviral therapy (ART) is necessary for HIV epidemic control and depends on early diagnosis and successful linkage to care. Since 2014, annual household-based HIV testing and counseling and linkage services have been provided through the Chokwe Health and Demographic Surveillance System for residents testing HIV positive in this high HIV-burden district. METHODS District-wide Test and Start [T&S, ART for all people living with HIV (PLHIV)] began in August 2016, supported by systematic interventions to improve linkage to care and treatment. Annual rounds (R) of random household surveys were conducted to assess trends in population prevalence of ART use and viral load suppression (

Although most adults infected with SARS-CoV-2 fully recover, a proportion have ongoing symptoms, or post-COVID conditions (PCC), after infection. The objective of this analysis was to estimate the number of US adults with activity-limiting PCC on November 1, 2021.We modeled the prevalence of PCC using reported infections occurring from February 1, 2020 - September 30, 2021, and population-based, household survey data on new activity-limiting symptoms ≥1 month following SARS-CoV-2 infection. From these data sources, we estimated the number and proportion of US adults with activity-limiting PCC on November 1, 2021, as 95% uncertainty intervals, stratified by sex and age. Sensitivity analyses adjusted for under-ascertainment of infections and uncertainty about symptom duration.On November 1, 2021, at least 3.0-5.0 million US adults were estimated to have activity-limiting PCC of ≥1 month duration, or 1.2%-1.9% of US adults. Population prevalence was higher in females (1.4%-2.2%) than males. The estimated prevalence after adjusting for under-ascertainment of infections was 1.7%-3.8%.Millions of US adults were estimated to have activity-limiting PCC. These estimates can support future efforts to address the impact of PCC on the U.S. population.

ObjectivesAlthough COVID-19 vaccines offer protection against infection and severe disease, there is limited information on the effect of vaccination on prolonged symptoms following COVID-19. Our objective was to determine differences in prevalence of prolonged symptoms 6 weeks after onset of COVID-19 among healthcare personnel (HCP) by vaccination status, and to assess differences in timing of return to work.DesignCohort analysis of HCP with COVID-19 enrolled in a multicentre vaccine effectiveness study. HCP with COVID-19 between December 2020 and August 2021 were followed up 6 weeks after illness onset.SettingHealth systems in 12 US states.ParticipantsHCP participating in a vaccine effectiveness study were eligible for inclusion if they had laboratory-confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 with mRNA vaccination (symptom onset ≥14 days after two doses) or no prior vaccination. Among 681 eligible participants, 419 (61%) completed a follow-up survey to assess symptoms reported 6 weeks after illness onset.ExposuresTwo doses of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine compared with no COVID-19 vaccine.Main outcome measuresPrevalence of symptoms 6 weeks after onset of COVID-19 illness and days to return to work.ResultsAmong 419 HCP with COVID-19, 298 (71%) reported one or more COVID-like symptoms 6 weeks after illness onset, with a lower prevalence among vaccinated participants compared with unvaccinated participants (60.6% vs 79.1%; adjusted risk ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.84). Following their illness, vaccinated HCP returned to work a median 2.0 days (95% CI 1.0 to 3.0) sooner than unvaccinated HCP (adjusted HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.79).ConclusionsReceipt of two doses of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine among HCP with COVID-19 illness was associated with decreased prevalence of COVID-like symptoms at 6 weeks and earlier return to work.

We quantify antibody and memory B-cell responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 at 6 and 12 months postinfection among 7 unvaccinated US coronavirus disease 2019 cases. All had detectable S-specific memory B cells and immunoglobulin G at both time points, with geometric mean titers of 117.2 BAU/mL and 84.0 BAU/mL at 6 and 12 months, respectively.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection elicits an antibody response that targets several viral proteins including spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N); S is the major target of neutralizing antibodies. Here, we assess levels of anti-N binding antibodies and anti-S neutralizing antibodies in unvaccinated children compared with unvaccinated older adults following infection. Specifically, we examine neutralization and anti-N binding by sera collected up to 52 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and compare these to a cohort of adults, including older adults, most of whom had mild infections that did not require hospitalization. Neutralizing antibody titers were lower in children than adults early after infection, but by 6 months titers were similar between age groups. The neutralizing activity of the children’s sera decreased modestly from one to six months; a pattern that was not significantly different from that observed in adults. However, infection of children induced much lower levels of anti-N antibodies than in adults, and levels of these anti-N antibodies decreased more rapidly in children than in adults, including older adults. These results highlight age-related differences in the antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 proteins and, as vaccines for children are introduced, may provide comparator data for the longevity of infection-elicited and vaccination-induced neutralizing antibody responses.

Background Pulmonary Tuberculosis (PTB) is a major health problem in prisons. Multiple studies of TB in regional Ethiopian prisons have assessed prevalence and risk factors but have not examined recently implemented screening programs for TB in prisons. This study compares bacteriologically-confirmed PTB (BC-PTB) prevalence in prison entrants versus residents and identifies risk factors for PTB in Kality prison, a large federal Ethiopian prison located in Addis Ababa, through a study of an enhanced TB screening program. Methods Participating prisoners (n = 13,803) consisted of 8,228 entrants screened continuously and 5,575 residents screened in two cross-sectional waves for PTB symptoms, demographics, TB risk factors, and medical history. Participants reporting at least one symptom of PTB were asked to produce sputum which was examined by microscopy for acid-fast bacilli, Xpert MTB/RIF assay and MGIT liquid culture. Prevalence of BC-PTB, defined as evidence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) in sputum by the above methods, was compared in entrants and residents for the study. Descriptive analysis of prevalence was followed by bivariate and multivariate analyses of risk factors. Results Prisoners were mainly male (86%), young (median age 26 years) and literate (89%). Prevalence of TB symptoms by screening was 17% (2,334/13,803) with rates in residents >5-fold higher than entrants. Prevalence of BC-PTB detected by screening in participating prisoners was 0.16% (22/13,803). Prevalence in residents increased in the second resident screening compared to the first (R1 = 0.10% and R2 = 0.39%, p = 0.027), but remained higher than in entrants (4.3-fold higher during R1 and 3.1-fold higher during R2). Drug resistance (DR) was found in 38% (5/13) of culture-isolated MTB. Risk factors including being ever diagnosed with TB, history of TB contact and low Body Mass Index (BMI) (, SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Background With 71% of Malawians living on

Background Severe malaria has a case fatality rate of 10-20 %; however, few studies have addressed the quality of severe malaria case management. This study evaluated the diagnostic and treatment practices of malaria patients admitted to inpatient health facilities (HF) in Malawi. Methods In July–August 2012, a nationwide, cross-sectional survey of severe malaria management was conducted in 36 HFs selected with equal probability from all eligible public sector HFs in Malawi. Patient records from all admissions during October 2011 and April 2012 (low and high season, respectively) were screened for an admission diagnosis of malaria or prescription of any anti-malarial. Eligible records were stratified by age (