Clinical Endpoints for Evaluating Efficacy in COVID-19 Vaccine Trials

Estimating vaccine efficacy during open-label follow-up of COVID-19 vaccine trials based on population-level surveillance data

While rapid development and roll out of COVID-19 vaccines is necessary in a pandemic, the process limits the ability of clinical trials to assess longer-term vaccine efficacy. We leveraged COVID-19 surveillance data in the U.S. to evaluate vaccine efficacy in U.S. Government-funded COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials with a three-step estimation process. First, we used a compartmental epidemiological model informed by county-level surveillance data, a "population model", to estimate SARS-CoV-2 incidence among the unvaccinated. Second, a "cohort model" was used to adjust the population SARS-CoV-2 incidence to the vaccine trial cohort, taking into account individual participant characteristics and the difference between SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease. Third, we fit a regression model estimating the offset between the cohort-model-based COVID-19 incidence in the unvaccinated with the placebo-group COVID-19 incidence in the trial during blinded follow-up. Counterfactual placebo COVID-19 incidence was estimated during open-label follow-up by adjusting the cohort-model-based incidence rate by the estimated offset. Vaccine efficacy during open-label follow-up was estimated by contrasting the vaccine group COVID-19 incidence with the counterfactual placebo COVID-19 incidence. We documented good performance of the methodology in a simulation study. We also applied the methodology to estimate vaccine efficacy for the two-dose AZD1222 COVID-19 vaccine using data from the phase 3 U.S. trial (ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT04516746). We estimated AZD1222 vaccine efficacy of 59.1% (95% uncertainty interval (UI): 40.4%-74.3%) in April, 2021 (mean 106 days post-second dose), which reduced to 35.7% (95% UI: 15.0%-51.7%) in July, 2021 (mean 198 days post-second-dose). We developed and evaluated a methodology for estimating longer-term vaccine efficacy. This methodology could be applied to estimating counterfactual placebo incidence for future placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy trials of emerging pathogens with early termination of blinded follow-up, to active-controlled or uncontrolled COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials, and to other clinical endpoints influenced by vaccination.

Vaccinating against a Novel Pathogen: A Critical Review of COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Evidence

We study the experience with COVID-19 vaccination of an initially naïve population, which can inform planning for vaccination against the next novel, highly transmissible pathogen. We focus on the first two pandemic years (wild strain through Delta), because after the Omicron wave in early 2022, very few people were still SARS-CoV-2-naïve. Almost all were vaccinated, infected, or often both. We review the evidence on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) and waning effectiveness over time and the relative effectiveness of the four principal vaccines used in developed Western countries: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA1273 (Moderna), Ad26.CoV2.S (Johnson&Johnson), and ChAdOx1-S (AstraZeneca). As a basis for our analysis, we conducted a PRISMA-compliant review of all studies on PubMed through 15 August 2022, reporting VE against four endpoints for these four vaccines: any infection, symptomatic infection, hospitalization, and death. The mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2, mRNA1273) had high initial VE against all endpoints but protection waned after approximately six months, with BNT162b2 declining faster than mRNA1273. Both mRNA vaccines outperformed the viral vector vaccines (Ad26.CoV2.S and ChAdOx1-S). A third "booster" dose, roughly six months after the initial doses, substantially reduced symptomatic infection, hospitalization, and death. In hindsight, a third dose should be seen as part of the normal vaccination schedule. Our analysis highlights the importance of the real-time population-level surveillance needed to assess evidence for waning, and the need for rapid regulatory response to this evidence.

Covid19Vaxplorer: a free, online, user-friendly COVID-19 Vaccine Allocation Comparison Tool

Background

There are many COVID-19 vaccines currently available, however, Low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) still have large proportions of their populations unvaccinated. Decision-makers must decide how to effectively allocate available vaccines (e.g. boosters or primary series vaccination, which age groups to target) but LMIC often lack the resources to undergo quantitative analyses of vaccine allocation, resulting in ad-hoc policies. We developed Covid19Vaxplorer (https://covid19vaxplorer.fredhutch.org/), a free, user-friendly online tool that simulates region-specific COVID-19 epidemics in conjunction with vaccination with the purpose of providing public health officials worldwide with a tool for vaccine allocation planning and comparison.

Methods

We developed an age-structured mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and COVID-19 vaccination. The model considers vaccination with up to three different vaccine products, primary series and boosters. We simulated partial immunity derived from waning of natural infection and vaccination. The model is embedded in an online tool, Covid19Vaxplorer that was optimized for its ease of use. By prompting users to fill information through several windows to input local parameters (e.g. cumulative and current prevalence), epidemiological parameters (e.g basic reproduction number, current social distancing interventions), vaccine parameters (e.g. vaccine efficacy, duration of immunity) and vaccine allocation (both by age groups and by vaccination status). Covid19Vaxplorer connects the user to the mathematical model and simulates, in real time, region-specific epidemics. The tool then produces key outcomes including expected numbers of deaths, hospitalizations and cases, with the possibility of simulating several scenarios of vaccine allocation at once for a side-by-side comparison.

Results

We provide two usage examples of Covid19Vaxplorer for vaccine allocation in Haiti and Afghanistan, which had as of Spring 2023 2% and 33% of their populations vaccinated, and show that for these particular examples, using available vaccine as primary series vaccinations prevents more deaths than using them as boosters. Covid19Vaxplorer allows users in 183 regions in the world to compare several vaccination strategies simultaneously, adjusting parameters to their local epidemics, infrastructure and logistics. Covid19Vaxplorer is an online, free, user-friendly tool that facilitates evidence-based decision making for vaccine distribution.

Comparing Natural Language Processing and Structured Medical Data to Develop a Computable Phenotype for Patients Hospitalized Due to COVID-19: Retrospective Analysis

Background

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, many hospitals conducted routine testing of hospitalized patients for SARS-CoV-2 infection upon admission. Some of these patients are admitted for reasons unrelated to COVID-19 and incidentally test positive for the virus. Because COVID-19-related hospitalizations have become a critical public health indicator, it is important to identify patients who are hospitalized because of COVID-19 as opposed to those who are admitted for other indications.

Objective

We compared the performance of different computable phenotype definitions for COVID-19 hospitalizations that use different types of data from electronic health records (EHRs), including structured EHR data elements, clinical notes, or a combination of both data types.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective data analysis, using clinician chart review-based validation at a large academic medical center. We reviewed and analyzed the charts of 586 hospitalized individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in January 2022. We used LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) regression and random forests to fit classification algorithms that incorporated structured EHR data elements, clinical notes, or a combination of structured data and clinical notes. We used natural language processing to incorporate data from clinical notes. The performance of each model was evaluated based on the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) and an associated decision rule based on sensitivity and positive predictive value. We also identified top words and clinical indicators of COVID-19-specific hospitalization and assessed the impact of different phenotyping strategies on estimated hospital outcome metrics.

Results

Based on a chart review, 38.2% (224/586) of patients were determined to have been hospitalized for reasons other than COVID-19, despite having tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. A computable phenotype that used clinical notes had significantly better discrimination than one that used structured EHR data elements (AUROC: 0.894 vs 0.841; P<.001) and performed similarly to a model that combined clinical notes with structured data elements (AUROC: 0.894 vs 0.893; P=.91). Assessments of hospital outcome metrics significantly differed based on whether the population included all hospitalized patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 or those who were determined to have been hospitalized due to COVID-19.

Conclusions

These findings highlight the importance of cause-specific phenotyping for COVID-19 hospitalizations. More generally, this work demonstrates the utility of natural language processing approaches for deriving information related to patient hospitalizations in cases where there may be multiple conditions that could serve as the primary indication for hospitalization.

Comparison of anti-spike IgG, anti-spike IgA levels and neutralizing antibody activity induced by CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccines in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases receiving immunosuppressive therapy

BACKGROUND

The importance of COVID-19 vaccination for patients on immunosuppressive (IS) medication has increased due to the high risk of severe disease or mortality. Different vaccines have varying efficacy rates against symptomatic COVID-19, ranging from 46.8% to 95%. The objective of this study was to examine the differences in anti-Spike IgG, anti-Spike IgA, and neutralizing antibody (NAb) activity between the inactive CoronaVac vaccine and the mRNA-based BNT162b2 vaccine in IS patients.

METHOD

A total of 441 volunteers, including 104 IS patients, 263 healthy controls (HC), who received two doses of CoronaVac or BNT162b2, and 74 unvaccinated patients with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, were included in the study. Anti-spike IgG, IgA, and NAb activity were investigated.

RESULTS

Immunogenicity with BNT162b2 was higher than with CoronaVac, but in IS groups, it was lower than HC (CoronaVac-IS: 79.3%, CoronaVac-HC: 96.5%, p < 0.001; BNT162b2-IS: 91.3%, BNT162b2-HC: 100%, p = 0.005). With CoronaVac, anti-Spike IgG levels were significantly lower than BNT162b2 (CoronaVac-IS: 234.5AU/mL, CoronaVac-HC: 457.85AU/mL; BNT162b2-IS: 5311.2AU/mL, BNT162b2-HC: 8842.8AU/mL). NAb activity in the BNT162b2 group was significantly higher. NAb and anti-Spike IgG levels were found to be correlated. Among the IS group, a significantly lower response to the vaccines was observed when using rituximab. IgA levels were found to be lower with CoronaVac.

CONCLUSIONS

Although immunogenicity was lower in IS patients, an acceptable response was obtained with both vaccines, and significantly higher anti-Spike IgG, anti-Spike IgA, and NAb activity levels were obtained with BNT162b2.

Interpretation of active-control randomised trials: the case for a new analytical perspective involving averted events

Active-control trials, where an experimental treatment is compared with an established treatment, are performed when the inclusion of a placebo control group is deemed to be unethical. For time-to-event outcomes, the primary estimand is usually the rate ratio, or the closely-related hazard ratio, comparing the experimental group with the control group. In this article we describe major problems in the interpretation of this estimand, using examples from COVID-19 vaccine and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis trials. In particular, when the control treatment is highly effective, the rate ratio may indicate that the experimental treatment is clearly statistically inferior even when it is worthwhile from a public health perspective. We argue that it is crucially important to consider averted events as well as observed events in the interpretation of active-control trials. An alternative metric that incorporates this information, the averted events ratio, is proposed and exemplified. Its interpretation is simple and conceptually appealing, namely the proportion of events that would be averted by using the experimental treatment rather than the control treatment. The averted events ratio cannot be directly estimated from the active-control trial, and requires an additional assumption about either: (a) the incidence that would have been observed in a hypothetical placebo arm (the counterfactual incidence) or (b) the efficacy of the control treatment (relative to no treatment) that pertained in the active-control trial. Although estimation of these parameters is not straightforward, this must be attempted in order to draw rational inferences. To date, this method has been applied only within HIV prevention research, but has wider applicability to treatment trials and other disease areas.

Opportunities and challenges of leveraging COVID-19 vaccine innovation and technologies for developing sustainable vaccine manufacturing capabilities in Africa

The COVID-19 pandemic heralded unprecedented resource mobilisation and global scientific collaboration to rapidly develop effective vaccines. Regrettably, vaccine distribution has been inequitable, particularly in Africa where manufacturing capacity remains nominal. To address this, several initiatives are underway to develop and manufacture COVID-19 vaccines in Africa. Nevertheless, diminishing demand for COVID-19 vaccines, the cost competitiveness of producing goods locally, intellectual property rights issues, and complex regulatory environments among other challenges can undermine these ventures. We outline how extending COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing in Africa to include diverse products, multiple vaccine platforms, and advanced delivery systems will ensure sustainability. Possible models, including leveraging public-academic-private partnerships to enhance success of vaccine manufacturing capacity in Africa are also discussed. Intensifying research in vaccine discovery on the continent could yield vaccines that further bolster sustainability of local production, ensuring greater pandemic preparedness in resource-constrained environments, and long-term health systems security.

COVID-19 associated coagulopathy: A bibliometric investigation

Infection with SARS-CoV-2 initiates an immune-hemostatic response. While both systems are intimately connected and necessary for an efficient immune response to contain the infection, excessive coagulation activation might exceed the valuable benefits by causing thrombotic consequences and excessive inflammation. This biological response is new to clinicians and researchers, and accordingly, tremendous studies have been conducted on coagulopathy and its relationship to COVID-19 disease during this pandemic. Therefore, it takes a research insight from a bibliometric perspective to determine research hotspots and trends of COVID-19 associated coagulopathy (C19-CA). The analysis relies on the Scopus database for bibliographic content and Visualization of Similarities viewer software to map bibliometric data of C19-CA. Our study finds the most eminent authors, journals, institutions, funding organizations, and countries that publish in the C19-CA. Additionally; this research employs bibliometric analysis of co-authorship, co-citations, bibliographic coupling, and co-occurrence of keywords. A total of 2242 studies were retrieved, and the number of annual publications of C19-CA showed remarkable growth. The top-publishing authors on C19-CA are Smadja, D.M., Diehl, J.L., and Gendron, N (France). The total number of articles published in English in these three years was 1241, with the original article accounting for 99.8% and conference papers accounting for 0.2%. Huazhong University of Science and Technology (China) is the top-productive institution, with the US being the top-publishing country. Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis received the highest number of original articles. The research results were mainly published in the fields of Medicine, Biochemistry, Genetics, and Molecular Biology, Immunology and Microbiology. Yuanyuan Li, who is (China), is the top-collaborating author. China and its authors have the highest number of citations. Keywords' co-occurrence analyses of the authors and all keywords revealed the following themes in C19-CA; abnormal coagulation parameters, pulmonary coagulopathy, venous and arterial thrombotic disorders, distinct features of coagulopathy, inflammation, and thrombosis in COVID-19, and anticoagulants and thrombolytic therapies. By combining bibliometric analysis with VOSviewer software, we identified C19-CA's leaders, collaborating institutions, and research hotspots, as well as give references for future research paths.

Pharmaceutical approaches for COVID-19: An update on current therapeutic opportunities

SARS-CoV-2, a newly discovered coronavirus, has been linked to the COVID-19 pandemic and is currently an important public health issue. Despite all the work done to date around the world, there is still no viable treatment for COVID-19. This study examined the most recent evidence on the efficacy and safety of several therapeutic options available including natural substances, synthetic drugs and vaccines in the treatment of COVID-19. Various natural compounds such as sarsapogenin, lycorine, biscoclaurine, vitamin B₁₂, glycyrrhizic acid, riboflavin, resveratrol and kaempferol, various vaccines and drugs such as AZD1222, mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, Sputnik V, and remdesivir, lopinavir, favipiravir, darunavir, oseltamivir, and umifenovir, resp., have been discussed comprehensively. We attempted to provide exhaustive information regarding the various prospective therapeutic approaches available in order to assist researchers and physicians in treating COVID-19 patients.

Identification of Vaccine Effects When Exposure Status Is Unknown

Results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) help determine vaccination strategies and related public health policies. However, defining and identifying estimands that can guide policies in infectious disease settings is difficult, even in an RCT. The effects of vaccination critically depend on characteristics of the population of interest, such as the prevalence of infection, the number of vaccinated, and social behaviors. To mitigate the dependence on such characteristics, estimands, and study designs, that require conditioning or intervening on exposure to the infectious agent have been advocated. But a fundamental problem for both RCTs and observational studies is that exposure status is often unavailable or difficult to measure, which has made it impossible to apply existing methodology to study vaccine effects that account for exposure status. In this study, we present new results on this type of vaccine effects. Under plausible conditions, we show that point identification of certain relative effects is possible even when the exposure status is unknown. Furthermore, we derive sharp bounds on the corresponding absolute effects. We apply these results to estimate the effects of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine on SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19) conditional on postvaccine exposure to the virus, using data from a large RCT.

Enhancement of polyethylene glycol-cell fusion efficiency by novel application of transient pressure using a jet injector

Cell-cell fusion involves the fusion of somatic cells into a single hybrid cell. It is not only a physiological process but also an important cell engineering technology which can be applied to various fields, such as regenerative medicine, antibody engineering, genetic engineering, and cancer therapy. There are three major methods of cell fusion: electrical cell fusion, polyethylene glycol (PEG) cell fusion, and virus-mediated cell fusion. Although PEG cell fusion is the most economical approach and does not require expensive instrumentation, it has a poor fusion rate and induces a high rate of cell cytotoxicity. To improve the fusion rate of the PEG method, we combined it with the pyro-drive jet injector (PJI). PJI provides instant pressure instead of cell agitation to increase the probability of cell-to-cell contact and shorten the distance between cells in the process of cell fusion. Here, we report that this improved fusion method not only decreased cell cytotoxicity during the fusion process, but also increased fusion rate compared with the conventional PEG method. Furthermore, we tested the functionality of cells fused using the PJI-PEG method and found them to be comparable to those fused using the conventional PEG method in terms of their application for dendritic cell (DC)-tumor cell fusion vaccine production; in addition, the PJI-PEG method demonstrated excellent performance in hybridoma cell preparation. Taken together, our data indicate that this method improves cell fusion efficiency as compared to the PEG method and thus has the potential for use in various applications that require cell fusion technology.

Comparison of the Onset and End of Specific and Major Side Effects in Iranian Teenage Participants Vaccinated With COVID-19 Vaccine: Sinopharm and Soberana

Background

Clinical trials were conducted on children on side effects after vaccination. We tried to assess the frequency and onset of the main symptoms in children who were vaccinated. We aimed to evaluate early and delayed adverse effects after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine among Iranian pediatrics and adolescents in a national survey.

Methods

This cross-sectional study included people <18 years who received the Soberana (PastoCoVac) and Sinopharm vaccines since 2021. The basic information was gender, age, type of vaccine, and reaction after vaccination besides the main events that occurred for them. The required data were collected via a predetermined checklist by trained interviewers through phone calls by their parents or legal guardians. The independent t test and Fisher exact test were used. P values less than 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

A total of 11,042 participants (age range, 10-18 years) consisting of 5374 boys (47.8%) and 5768 girls (52.2%) were studied and 88.1% of the children (n = 9727) were vaccinated by Sinopharm and 11.9% (n = 1315) by Soberana. The data of kidney-related side effects had delayed improvement of side effects after the Sinopharm compared with the Soberana vaccines (P = 0.012). Cardiovascular and hematological side effects showed early-onset (P = 0.006) and delayed improvement of side effects (P = 0.002) after the Soberana vaccine compared with the Sinopharm vaccine. Neurological side effects showed delayed improvement of side effects after the Soberana vaccine compared with the Sinopharm vaccine (P = 0.027). Joint-related side effects showed early-onset (P = 0.004) and delayed improvement of side effects (P = 0.023) after the Soberana vaccine compared with the Sinopharm vaccine. Respiratory side effects showed delayed improvement of side effects after the Soberana vaccine compared with the Sinopharm vaccine (P = 0.013), and dermatological side effects showed early-onset (P = 0.050) and delayed improvement of side effects (P = 0.035) after the Soberana vaccine compared with the Sinopharm vaccine. There was not any statistically significant difference regarding gastrointestinal side effects between the 2 vaccines (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The cardiovascular and hematological, joint-related (non-neurologic musculoskeletal) and dermatological side effects after the Soberana vaccine appear earlier and end later compared with the Sinopharm vaccine. Improvement of renal side effects in the Sinopharm vaccine group and improvement of neurological and respiratory side effects in the Soberana vaccine group occurred with delay compared with other vaccines.

Effectiveness of two coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines (viral vector and inactivated viral vaccine) against severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in a cohort of healthcare workers

OBJECTIVE

We investigated real-world vaccine effectiveness for Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and CoronaVac against laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare workers (HCWs).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil between January 1, 2021 and August 3, 2021, to assess vaccine effectiveness. We calculated vaccine effectiveness as 1 - rate ratio (RR), with RR determined by adjusting Poisson models with the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection as the outcome and the vaccination status as the main variable. We used the logarithmic link function and simple models adjusting for sex, age, and job types.

RESULTS

In total, 13,813 HCWs met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. Among them, 6,385 (46.2%) received the CoronaVac vaccine, 5,916 (42.8%) received the ChAdOx1 vaccine, and 1,512 (11.0%) were not vaccinated. Overall, COVID-19 occurred in 6% of unvaccinated HCWs, 3% of HCWs who received 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine, and 0.7% of HCWs who received 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine (P < .001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated vaccine effectiveness rates were 51.3% for CoronaVac, and 88.1% for ChAdOx1 vaccine. Both vaccines reduced the number of hospitalizations, the length of hospital stay, and the need for mechanical ventilation. In addition, 19 SARS-CoV-2 samples from 19 HCWs were screened for mutations of interest. Of 19 samples, 18 were the γ (gamma) variant.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both COVID-19 vaccines (viral vector and inactivated virus) can significantly prevent COVID-19 among HCWs, CoronaVac was much less effective. The COVID-19 vaccines were also effective against the dominant γ variant.

The associations between COVID-19 vaccination and psychological disorders among healthcare workers in China

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 has caused an unprecedented psychological affection that might impact the nationwide vaccination program in China. This study was to explore the association between COVID-19 vaccination and psychological disorders among healthcare workers.

METHODS

The study included 1571 healthcare workers from an anonymous online survey. Participants' sociodemographic characteristics, uptake data for the COVID-19 vaccine, and scores of the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21) were collected. Nonparametric tests were conducted to compare the mean scores of DASS-21 between different subgroups. The potential factors related to psychological disorders of healthcare workers were analyzed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

The vaccination rate was 69.6 %, the incidence of vaccine-related adverse events was 35.13 %, and the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress were 24.8 %, 32 %, and 33.4 % in this study, respectively. Compared to vaccinated participants (single-dose and double-dose vaccines), unvaccinated participants got significantly higher mean scores of DASS-21 (p < 0.05 for all). Vaccinated participants who suffered no adverse events scored significantly lower than those who suffered 1-2 or ≥3 adverse events (p < 0.05 for all). Vaccination was negatively associated with higher depression, anxiety, and stress, however, the number of vaccine-related adverse events was positively associated with them.

LIMITATIONS

As this is a cross-sectional study, we could only speculate on the causality.

CONCLUSIONS

An obvious impact of the psychological disorders on the COVID-19 vaccine coverage and related adverse events was detected in this study. Public health agencies should attach great importance to the psychological states of our citizens before getting vaccinated.

Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment of COVID-19 Vaccines Using the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

In the early SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, four major vaccines were approved despite limited efficacy and safety data through short regulatory review periods. Thus, it is necessary to assess the benefit-risk (BR) profiles of the COVID-19 vaccines. We conducted a quantitative BR assessment for four COVID-19 vaccines (mRNA-based: mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2; viral vector-based: Ad26.COV.2 and ChAdOx1-S) using multi-criteria decision analysis. Three benefit criteria and two risk criteria were considered: preventing COVID-19 infection for (1) adults aged ≥18 years; (2) seniors aged 60 years or older; and (3) severe COVID-19, adverse events (AEs), and serious AEs. Data were retrieved from clinical trials, observational studies, and county-specific AE monitoring reports. Based on the collected data, vaccines were scored for each criterion. 22 professionals weighted each criterion. The overall BR score was calculated using scores and weights. mRNA-1273 was the most preferred vaccine in pre-authorization and BNT162b2 in post-authorization. We found that the mRNA vaccine had a good balance between the benefits and risks. Using this BR assessment, the benefit-risk profile of COVID-19 vaccines can be updated with cumulated data. It will contribute to building evidence for decision making by policy makers and health professionals.

Comparison of test-negative and syndrome-negative controls in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness evaluations for preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations in the United States

BACKGROUND

Test-negative design (TND) studies have produced validated estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) for influenza vaccine studies. However, syndrome-negative controls have been proposed for differentiating bias and true estimates in VE evaluations for COVID-19. To understand the use of alternative control groups, we compared characteristics and VE estimates of syndrome-negative and test-negative VE controls.

METHODS

Adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in 18 states March 11-August 31, 2021 were eligible for analysis. Case patients had symptomatic acute respiratory infection (ARI) and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Control groups were test-negative patients with ARI but negative SARS-CoV-2 testing, and syndrome-negative controls were without ARI and negative SARS-CoV-2 testing. Chi square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to detect differences in baseline characteristics. VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated using logistic regression comparing adjusted odds of prior mRNA vaccination between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and each control group.

RESULTS

5811 adults (2726 cases, 1696 test-negative controls, and 1389 syndrome-negative controls) were included. Control groups differed across characteristics including age, race/ethnicity, employment, previous hospitalizations, medical conditions, and immunosuppression. However, control-group-specific VE estimates were very similar. Among immunocompetent patients aged 18-64 years, VE was 93 % (95 % CI: 90-94) using syndrome-negative controls and 91 % (95 % CI: 88-93) using test-negative controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite demographic and clinical differences between control groups, the use of either control group produced similar VE estimates across age groups and immunosuppression status. These findings support the use of test-negative controls and increase confidence in COVID-19 VE estimates produced by test-negative design studies.

Estimating conditional vaccine effectiveness

Vaccine effectiveness for COVID-19 is typically estimated for different outcomes that often are hierarchical in severity (e.g. any documented infection, symptomatic infection, hospitalization, death) and subsets of each other. Conditional effectiveness for a more severe outcome conditional on a less severe outcome is the protection offered against the severe outcome (e.g. death) among those who already sustained the less severe outcome (e.g. documented infection). The concept applies also to the protection offered by previous infection rather than vaccination. Formulas and a nomogram are provided here for calculating conditional effectiveness. Illustrative examples are presented from recent vaccine effectiveness studies, including situations where effectiveness for different outcomes changed at different pace over time. E(death | documented infection) is the percent decrease in the case fatality rate and E(death | infection) is the percent decrease in the infection fatality rate (IFR). Conditional effectiveness depends on many factors and should not be misinterpreted as a causal effect estimate. However, it may be used for better personalized communication of the benefits of vaccination, considering also IFR and epidemic activity in public health decision-making and communication.

Evaluating Primary Endpoints for COVID-19 Therapeutic Trials to Assess Recovery

Rationale: Uncertainty regarding the natural history of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to difficulty in efficacy endpoint selection for therapeutic trials. Capturing outcomes that occur after hospital discharge may improve assessment of clinical recovery among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Objectives: Evaluate 90-day clinical course of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, comparing three distinct definitions of recovery. Methods: We used pooled data from three clinical trials of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies to compare: 1) the hospital discharge approach; 2) the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19) trials sustained recovery approach; and 3) a comprehensive approach. At the time of enrollment, all patients were hospitalized in a non-ICU setting without organ failure or major extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. We defined discordance as a difference between time to recovery. Measurements and Main Results: Discordance between the hospital discharge and comprehensive approaches occurred in 170 (20%) of 850 enrolled participants, including 126 hospital readmissions and 24 deaths after initial hospital discharge. Discordant participants were older (median age, 68 vs. 59 years; P < 0.001) and more had a comorbidity (84% vs. 70%; P < 0.001). Of 170 discordant participants, 106 (62%) had postdischarge events captured by the TICO approach. Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 20% had clinically significant postdischarge events within 90 days after randomization in patients who would be considered "recovered" using the hospital discharge approach. Using the TICO approach balances length of follow-up with practical limitations. However, clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics should use follow-up times up to 90 days to assess clinical recovery more accurately.

Pediatric and Adolescent COVID-19 Vaccination Side Effects: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Iranian Teenage group in 2021

To determine the safety and efficacy profile of teenager COVID‐19 vaccination. In this retrospective cohort study, contact numbers of parents of teenagers under 18 years of age referred to a teenager vaccination centers in Tehran‐Iran to receive the corona vaccine were collected, and the following information was obtained via the phones: demographic information, type of vaccine, and the number of doses received, as well as additional information like complications and required treatments. Eleven thousand forty‐two subjects aged 10−18 years, mean age 14.55 ± 1.83 year  including 5374 boys and 5768 girls were investigated. 88.1% received the Sinopharm and 11.9% the Soberana vaccine. General side effects, including fatigue, fever and chills, injection site pain and dizziness, and so forth happened in 2978 cases; 7421 children presented with at least one general or organ‐specific side effect following vaccination, including potentially critical side effects, such as vascular injuries, respiratory complication, and so forth. 0.1% of the subject needed hospital admission. The breakthrough infection happened in 200 individuals. Our study shows that Sinopharm and Soberana (PastoCoVac) COVID‐19 vaccines are generally safe with no serious side effects in less than 18 years old. COVID‐19 infection and reinfection can occur after vaccination, but the incidence is actually tolerable and significantly lower than in the unvaccinated group.

Only 0.1% of the children with side effects related to vaccination need hospital admission.

Regarding the ABO group, +A and then +O were the dominant blood group that developed COVID‐19.

In total, 412 children developed major side effects (observed in 3.73% of all population and account for 5.5% of all observed side effects).

In total, 3289 children developed general side effects following vaccination (0.2978 i.e., 2978 cases per 10 000 vaccinated children or about 30% of vaccinated children).

There were 7421 children (67%) with at least one general or organ‐specific side effect following vaccination, including dermatological, gastrointestinal, respiratory, joint‐related, neurological, cardiovascular, and renal side effects following vaccination.

All children who developed COVID‐19 after vaccination had a previous history of COVID‐19.

There is no difference regarding the development of COVID‐19 after vaccination between the two vaccines of Sinopharm and Soberana.

Only 1.8% of the children developed COVID‐19 after vaccination (Sinopharm [1.9%] and Soberana [1.5%]).

After receiving both doses, the chance of developing COVID‐19 was the lowest.

Regarding general side effects, fatigue, pain, and dizziness were higher in the Sinopharm group compared to the Soberana group.

Soberana shows early side effects compared to Sinopharm.

A Review on SARS-CoV-2 Genome in the Aquatic Environment of Africa: Prevalence, Persistence and the Future Prospects

The COVID-19 pandemic (Coronavirus disease 2019) remains problematic in all its manifestations on the global stage where countless events of human-to-human exposure have led to fatal cases; thus, the aftermath being an unprecedented public health concern, with inaccessible health care and the instability of economies and financial institutions. These pose massive obstacles that can insatiably devour existing human resources causing negative impacts, especially in developing countries. Tracking the origin, dissemination and mutating strains of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) on population-wide scales is a somewhat overwhelming task, with the urgent need to map the dissemination and magnitude of SARS-CoV-2 in near real-time. This review paper focuses on the poor sanitation of some waterbodies and wastewater management policies in low-income African countries, highlighting how these contribute to the COVID-19 pandemic on the continent. Since the outbreak of the novel coronavirus pandemic, there has been an upsurge in scientific literature and studies concerning SARS-CoV-2 with different opinions and findings. The current paper highlights the challenges and also summarizes the environmental aspects related to the monitoring and fate of the SARS-CoV-2 genomes in the aquatic milieu of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Optimizing Spatio-Temporal Allocation of the COVID-19 Vaccine Under Different Epidemiological Landscapes

An efficient and safe vaccine is expected to allow people to return to normal life as soon as possible. However, vaccines for new diseases are likely to be in short supply during the initial deployment due to narrow production capacity and logistics. There is an urgent need to optimize the allocation of limited vaccines to improve the population effectiveness of vaccination. Existing studies mostly address a single epidemiological landscape. The robustness of the effectiveness of other proposed strategies is difficult to guarantee under other landscapes. In this study, a novel vaccination allocation model based on spatio-temporal heterogeneity of epidemiological landscapes is proposed. This model was combined with optimization algorithms to determine the near-optimal spatio-temporal allocation for vaccines with different effectiveness and coverage. We fully simulated the epidemiological landscapes during vaccination, and then minimized objective functions independently under various epidemiological landscapes and degrees of viral transmission. We find that if all subregions are in the middle or late stages of the pandemic, the difference between the effectiveness of the near-optimal and pro-rata strategies is very small in most cases. In contrast, under other epidemiological landscapes, when minimizing deaths, the optimizer tends to allocate the remaining doses to sub-regions with relatively higher risk and expected coverage after covering the elderly. While to minimize symptomatic infections, allocating vaccines first to the higher-risk sub-regions is near-optimal. This means that the pro-rata allocation is a good option when the subregions are all in the middle to late stages of the pandemic. Moreover, we suggest that if all subregions are in the period of rapid virus transmission, vaccines should be administered to older adults in all subregions simultaneously, while when the epidemiological dynamics of the subregions are significantly different, priority can be given to older adults in subregions that are still in the early stages of the pandemic. After covering the elderly in the region, high-risk sub-regions can be prioritized.

The Race for COVID-19 Vaccines: The Various Types and Their Strengths and Weaknesses

SARS-CoV-2 causes the highly contagious coronavirus disease (COVID-19), first discovered in Wuhan, China, in December of 2019. As of August 21, 2021, over 211 million people have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and 4.42 million people have died from the disease worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected world economies, global public health infrastructure, and social behaviors. Despite physical distancing and the advent of symptomatic and monoclonal antibody therapies, perhaps the most effective method to combat COVID-19 remains the creation of immunity through vaccines. Scientific communities globally have been diligently working to develop vaccines since the start of the pandemic. Though a few have been authorized for use, the Pfizer vaccine was the first to be given full approval in the United States in August 2021 – being the quickest vaccine to ever be developed. Although several vaccines produced via different approaches are in use, no mortality has been reported thus far from vaccine use. Here, we highlight the latest advances in the development of the COVID-19 vaccines, specifically the lead candidates that are in late-stage clinical trials or authorized for emergency use. As SARS-CoV-2 uses its spike protein to enter a host cell and cause infection, most vaccine candidates target this protein. This review describes the various COVID-19 vaccines - authorized and/or under development - and their composition, advantages, and potential limitations as the world continues to fight this devastating pandemic.

Advanced Liver Fibrosis Correlates With Impaired Efficacy of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine in Medical Employees

The Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine has been offered to nonallergic ≥16-year-old Israeli adults since December 19, 2020. Data regarding factors associated with vaccine ineffectiveness are limited. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of hepatic fibrosis on the efficacy of the BioNTech vaccine. Serum severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 spike immunoglobulins (S IgG) obtained at least 7 days following vaccination completion was correlated with the prevaccine calculated Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score among 719 employees in the Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem. Positive vaccine response (S IgG levels ≥ 19 AU/mL) was found in 708 of 719 individuals (98.5%). Vaccine failure (S IgG levels < 19) was found in 11 (1.5%); of these, 7 were immunosuppressed. Mean FIB-4 available in 501 of 708 vaccine responders was 1.13 ± 0.66, mean age 51.4 ± 12.4 years (29.3% males), and mean S IgG titers 239.7 ± 86.1 AU/mL. Similar to the general population, 70.5% had normal FIB-4 (<1.3), 26.8% undetermined FIB-4 (1.3-2.67), and 2.7% advanced FIB-4 (>2.67). When divided into response subgroups, 158 of 501 individuals (30.1%) with IgG titers 19-100 AU/mL had a mean FIB-4 of 1.48 ± 0.82; 198 (39.5%) with IgG titers 101-200 AU/mL had mean FIB-4 of 1.22 ± 0.76; 83 (16.6%) with titers 201-300 AU/mL had mean FIB-4 of 1.04 ± 0.48; 38 (7.6%) individuals with IgG titers 301-400 AU/ml had a mean FIB-4 of 1.08 ± 0.63; and 121 (24.2%) with IgG titers >400 AU/mL had mean FIB-4 of 1.18 ± 0.87. Increased FIB-4, age, and male gender significantly correlated with lower postvaccine IgG titers (P < 0.001). FIB-4 results were confirmed using FibroScan data displaying advanced fibrosis impact on weakened COVID-19 vaccine response. Conclusion: Immune suppression, older age, male gender, and advanced chronic liver disease are risk factors for lower vaccine response. The FIB-4 provides a simple tool to prioritize candidates for third-dose vaccine booster.

Distinct gut microbiota and health outcomes in asymptomatic infection, viral nucleic acid test re-positive, and convalescent COVID-19 cases

Gut microbiota composition is suggested to associate with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity, but the impact of gut microbiota on health outcomes is largely unclear. We recruited 81 individuals from Wuhan, China, including 13 asymptomatic infection cases (Group A), 24 COVID-19 convalescents with adverse outcomes (Group C), 31 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) re-positive cases (Group D), and 13 non-COVID-19 healthy controls (Group H). The microbial features of Groups A and D were similar and exhibited higher gut microbial diversity and more abundant short-chain fatty acid (SCFA)-producing species than Group C. Group C was enriched with opportunistic pathogens and virulence factors related to adhesion and toxin production. The abundance of SCFA-producing species was negatively correlated, while Escherichia coli was positively correlated with adverse outcomes. All three groups (A, C, and D) were enriched with the mucus-degrading species Akkermansia muciniphila, but decreased with Bacteroides-encoded carbohydrate-active enzymes. The pathways of vitamin B6 metabolic and folate biosynthesis were decreased, while selenocompound metabolism was increased in the three groups. Specifically, the secondary bile acid (BA) metabolic pathway was enriched in Group A. Antibiotic resistance genes were common among the three groups. Conclusively, the gut microbiota was related to the health outcomes of COVID-19. Dietary supplementations (SCFAs, BA, selenium, folate, vitamin B6) may be beneficial to COVID-19 patients.

Effectiveness of Heterologous Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine Booster Dosing in Brazilian Healthcare Workers, 2021

BACKGROUND

Little is currently known about vaccine effectiveness (VE) for either 2 doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) viral vector vaccine or CoronaVac (Instituto Butantan) inactivated viral vaccine followed by a third dose of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech) among healthcare workers (HCWs).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil from January to December 2021. VE was defined as 1 - incidence rate ratio (IRR), with IRR determined using Poisson models with the occurrence of laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection as the outcome, adjusting for age, sex, and job type. We compared those receiving viral vector or inactivated viral primary series (2 doses) with those who received an mRNA booster.

RESULTS

A total of 11 427 HCWs met the inclusion criteria. COVID-19 was confirmed in 31.5% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine versus 0.9% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001) and 9.8% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine versus 1% among HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated VE was 92.0% for 2 CoronaVac vaccines plus mRNA booster and 60.2% for 2 ChAdOx1 vaccines plus mRNA booster, when compared with those with no mRNA booster. Of 246 samples screened for mutations, 191 (77.6%) were Delta variants.

CONCLUSIONS

While 2 doses of ChAdOx1 or CoronaVac vaccines prevent COVID-19, the addition of a Pfizer/BioNTech booster provided significantly more protection.

Knowledge, Perceptions and Behaviors Related to COVID-19 in a University Setting in Malaysia

Background

In Malaysia the COVID-19 disease (COVID-19) has continued to escalate since its first detection in late January 2020, despite widespread implementation of control measures. This study aims to determine the knowledge, perception and behaviors with respect to COVID-19 in the midst of the third wave of the infection.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was carried out among staffs and students of Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR). The survey consists of basic sociodemographic information, 22 items on knowledge on COVID-19, 3 items on perceived self-risk, 2 items on preparedness & perceived self-efficacy, 10 items on preventive (own) measures, 9 items assessing unwanted and desirable behaviors during the pandemic. Simple and multiple linear regression were performed to determine the factors associated with knowledge, preventive measures adopted, self-risk perception, preparedness & perceived self-efficacy, and behaviors.

Results

A total of 434 responded to the survey of whom the majority (85.1%) had high scores for knowledge (mean score of 18.72 out of 22). A significant positive association was found between knowledge and older age (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 0.046 (0.022), p = 0.039), those from medical faculty (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 0.870 (0.420), p = 0.039) and residence in high-risk areas (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 0.831 (0.295), p = 0.005). Predictors for higher perception of COVID-19 risk included presence of COVID-19 cases among social contacts (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 0.751 (0.308), p = 0.015) and living with elderly (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 1.137 (0.296), p < 0.001), while that for perception of preparedness and self-efficacy were living with children (adjusted Beta coefficient (SE) = 0.440 (0.173), p = 0.011) and absence of positive cases among social contacts (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 0.418 (0.183), p = 0.023). Good preventive measures among the respondents were positively associated with knowledge (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 0.116 (0.025), p < 0.001), as well as with female gender (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 0.348 (0.142), p = 0.014). Unwanted behavior was significantly associated with male gender (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 0.664 (0.321), p = 0.039) and COVID-19 positive status (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 9.736 (3.297), p = 0.003). Knowledge of COVID-19 (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 0.069 (0.035), p = 0.048) and being married (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 0.917 (0.462), p = 0.048) were the predictors of desirable behavior.

Conclusion

Overall, the UTAR community had demonstrated a good level of knowledge and preventive behaviors, albeit with some areas for improvement.

Linking genomic and epidemiologic information to advance the study of COVID-19

The outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) at the end of 2019 turned into a global pandemic. To help analyze the spread and evolution of the virus, we collated and analyzed data related to the viral genome, sequence variations, and locations in temporal and spatial distribution from GISAID. Information from the Wikipedia web page and published research papers were categorized and mined to extract epidemiological data, which was then integrated with the public dataset. Genomic and epidemiological data were matched with public information, and the data quality was verified by manual curation. Finally, an online database centered on virus genomic information and epidemiological data can be freely accessible at https://www.biosino.org/kgcov/, which is helpful to identify relevant knowledge and devising epidemic prevention and control policies in collaboration with disease control personnel.

Measurement(s)	Viral Epidemiology • genetic sequence variation analysis
Technology Type(s)	digital curation • Bioinformatics
Sample Characteristic - Organism	Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Randomized controlled trial of favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine, and standard care in patients with mild/moderate COVID-19 disease

Favipiravir has antiviral activity against influenza, West Nile virus, and yellow fever virus and against flaviviruses. The objective of this pilot study was to compare three arms: favipiravir; hydroxychloroquine; standard care (no specific SARS-CoV-2 treatment) only, in symptomatic patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 in an open-labelled randomized clinical trial. The trial was registered with Bahrain National Taskforce for Combatting COVID-19 on the 7th of May 2020 (registration code: NCT04387760). 150 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 disease were randomized into one of three arms: favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine, or standard care only. The primary outcome was the clinical scale at the end of study follow up (day 14 or on discharge/death) based on a points scale. The secondary outcomes were viral clearance, biochemical parameter changes and mortality at 30-days. Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups. The proportion of patients who achieved a clinical scale < 2 did not differ between groups. The favipiravir-treated and hydroxychloroquine-treated group showed increased viral clearance (OR, 95%CI 2.38, 0.83–6.78, OR, 95%CI 2.15, 0.78–5.92, respectively) compared to standard care, but this was not significant. The biochemical profile did not differ between groups, except for the platelet count (P < 0.03) and uric acid (P < 0.004) that were higher with favipiravir-treatment. Primary or secondary outcome measures did not differ between favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine, and standard therapy for mild to moderate COVID-19 disease; therefore, whilst favipiravir therapy appeared safe with a trend to increased viral clearance, there was no superior therapeutic utility.

Clinical trials registration. NCT04387760. Registration date: 07/05/2020.

Alterations in 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 15O-Water PET Brain Findings in Patients With Neurological Symptoms After COVID-19 Vaccination: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate functional abnormalities in the brain of patients with neurological adverse effects following COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) vaccination using 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 15O-water PET.

METHODS

Eight patients (1 man and 7 women, aged 26-47 years [median age, 36.5 years]) who experienced neurological symptoms after the first COVID-19 vaccination underwent CT, MRI, 18F-FDG PET/MRI, and 15O-water PET of the brain. After 7 days, each patient underwent a follow-up 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 15O-water PET of the brain. Imaging data were analyzed using visual and semiquantitative analyses, which included a cluster subtraction workflow (P = 0.05).

RESULTS

There was no evidence of vascular abnormalities, acute infarction, or hemorrhage on the CT or MRI scans. On the 15O-water PET images, 1 patient had mildly significant decreases in perfusion in the bilateral thalamus and bilateral cerebellum, and another patient showed a diffuse increase in perfusion in the cerebral white matter. The visual and semiquantitative analyses showed hypometabolism in the bilateral parietal lobes in all 8 patients on both the first and follow-up 18F-FDG PET/MRI scans. Metabolic changes in the bilateral cuneus were also observed during the first visit; all patients exhibited neurological symptoms. Moreover, 6 patients showed hypometabolism, and 2 patients showed hypermetabolism.

CONCLUSION

All regions of metabolic abnormality were part of the fear network model that has been implicated in anxiety. Our study findings support the concepts of and provide evidence for the immunization stress-related response and the biopsychosocial model.

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: clinical endpoints and psychological perspectives: A literature review

Background

About 270 million cases have been confirmed, and 5.3 million fatalities Worldwide due to SARS-CoV-2. Several vaccine candidates have entered phase 3 of the clinical trial and are being investigated to provide immunity to the maximum percentage of people. A safe and effective vaccine is required to tackle the current COVID-19 waves. There have been reports that clinical endpoints and psychological parameters are necessary to consider vaccine efficacy. This review examines the clinical endpoints required for a successful SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and the influences of psychological parameters on its efficacy.

Methods

The main research question was to find out the clinical endpoints that determine the vaccine efficacy? And what kind of psychological parameters affect the vaccine efficacy? The information was taken from several journals, databases, and scientific search engines like Googe scholar, Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, Science direct, WHO website, and other various sites. The research studies were searched using keywords; SAR-CoV-2 vaccine efficacy, psychological effect on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, SARS-CoV-2 vaccine endpoints.

Results

This review has highlighted various clinical endpoints that are the main determinants of clinical vaccine efficacy. Currently, vaccinations are being carried out throughout the world; it is important to investigate the main determinants affecting vaccine efficacy. We have focused on the clinical endpoints and the influence of psychological parameters that affect the vaccine efficacy in clinical settings. The primary endpoints include the risk of infection, symptoms, and severity of COVID-19, while hospitalization length, supplemental oxygen requirement, and mechanical ventilation are secondary endpoints in the clinical endpoints. Some tangential endpoints were also considered, including organ dysfunction, stroke, and MI. Many psychological associated things have influenced the vaccine efficacy, like the lower antibody titers in the vaccinated people. In addition to that, Short- and long-term stress and sleep deprivation were also found to affect the vaccine efficacy.

Conclusion

The review summarizes the important clinical endpoints required for a successful vaccine candidate. In addition to primary and secondary endpoints, auxiliary endpoints and the disease burden also play an important role in modulating vaccine efficacy. Moreover, the psychological perspective also influences vaccine efficacy. Effective follow-up of participants should follow to examine the clinical endpoints to reach any conclusion about vaccine efficacy.

Vaccine-Induced Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antibody Response and the Path to Accelerating Development (Determining a Correlate of Protection)

As new public health challenges relating to COVID-19 emerge, such as variant strains, waning vaccine efficacy over time, and decreased vaccine efficacy for special populations (immunocompromised hosts), it is important to determine a correlate of protection (CoP) to allow accurate bridging studies for special populations and against variants of concern. Large-scale phase 3 clinical trials are inefficient to rapidly assess novel vaccine candidates for variant strains or special populations, because these trials are slow and costly. Defining a practical CoP will aid in efficiently conducting future assessments to further describe protection for individuals and on a population level for surveillance.

Analysis of People’s Attitude Toward COVID-19 Vaccine and Its Information Sources in Thailand

Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy has become a global problem. Therefore, we aimed to determine the relationship between the information sources on vaccines and the willingness of people to be vaccinated in Thailand.

Methods

A sample of 500 respondents was drawn from an Internet research panel, and a questionnaire survey was administered to evaluate respondents’ willingness to be vaccinated by sex, age group, educational background, occupation, and presence of chronic diseases, as well as their information sources on COVID-19 vaccines. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analysis were employed to assess the relationship between vaccine hesitancy/refusal and other variables.

Results

Our results demonstrated that 90.2% of the participants were either willing to vaccinate or were already vaccinated. By contrast, 6.0% were hesitant and 3.8% did not want to be vaccinated. Females, people with education less than master’s/bachelor’s degree or high school, day laborers, housewives, and unemployed were significantly related to vaccine hesitation/refusal. Furthermore, they were less likely than the vaccine willingness group to use information resources from the Ministry of Health, public health centers, or medical associations.

Conclusions

As vaccine hesitancy and refusal ratio were found to be substantially lower than in a previous study for Thailand and other countries, public authorities should poll the public to identify vaccine-hesitant populations and their reasoning and provide appropriate information directly to the general public.

Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine effectiveness against Sars-Cov-2 infection: Findings from a large observational study in Israel

Development of an effective vaccine against Covid-19 is crucial to reducing infection. mRNA BNT162b2, developed and manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech, was one of the first FDA-approved vaccinations reporting high efficacy (95%) and minimal side effects. Evaluating effectiveness of BNT162b2 in a general population has been made possible after the implementation of a nation-wide vaccination program in Israel. This retrospective cohort study was carried out in Maccabi HealthCare services, Israel among 1.6 million members aged 16 and over. The population was divided into those who were at least seven days post- second vaccination and those who had not been vaccinated. Number of days till the end of the study or Covid-19 infection, Covid-19-related hospitalization and mortality was calculated for each participant between 18.1.2021 to 25.4.2021. Participants who had reached day eight after second vaccination during the study period could contribute days to both groups. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated using a conditional Poisson model, controlling for age group, gender, hypertension, diabetes and obesity, fitted within clusters defined by geographical statistical area and calendar week. BNT162b2 was found effective for the total population group for infection, hospitalization and mortality, with adjusted VE of 93·0% (CI:92·6-93·4%), 93·4% (CI:91·9-94·7%) and 91·1% (CI:86·5-94·1%) respectively. VE for infection was lower for participants aged 75 and over, and for those with hypertension, diabetes and obesity. This study strengthens the evidence that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination is effective in preventing infection, hospitalization and mortality.

COVID-19 pandemic-related mortality, infection, symptoms, complications, comorbidities, and other aspects of physical health among healthcare workers globally: An umbrella review

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has continued to cause unprecedented concern across the globe since the beginning of the outbreak. Healthcare workers, particularly those working on the front line, remain one of the most affected groups. Various studies have investigated different aspects of the physical health of healthcare workers; however, limited evidence on the overall physical health of healthcare workers has been collectively examined.

Aim

To examine the various aspects of physical health and well-being of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Design

An umbrella review.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive literature search on Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE and supplemented the search with Google Scholar. Key terms related to ‘COVID-19’, ‘physical health’, ‘healthcare worker’ and ‘systematic review’ were used in the search. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses were included if they were published in the English language, could be obtained in full-text format, and assessed the physical health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers were included. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute's checklist for systematic reviews. The data were narratively synthesised in line with the ‘Synthesis Without Meta-analysis’ guideline.

Results

Thirteen systematic reviews (represented as K = 13) that synthesized data from 1230 primary studies/reports and 1,040,336 participants met the inclusion criteria. The findings indicate a death rate of between 0.3 and 54.2 per 100 infections (K = 4). The overall case-fatality rate was estimated to be 0.87% (approximately 9 deaths per 1000 infections, K = 3). The overall infection rate among healthcare workers ranged from 3.9% to 11% (K = 5), with the highest rate associated with healthcare workers involved in screening. Considering geographic regions, the highest number of infections was reported in Europe (78.2% of 152,888 infected healthcare workers, K = 1). More nurses and female healthcare workers were infected, while deaths occurred mainly among men and medical doctors. The commonly reported symptoms included cough (56–80%, K = 3), fever (57–85%, K = 3), and headache (7–81%, K = 3), while hypertension was the most prevalent comorbidity (7%, K = 1). Additionally, a high prevalence of poor sleep quality (41–43%, K = 2), work-related stress (33–44.86%, K = 5) and personal protective equipment-associated skin injuries (48.2–97%, K = 2) affected the healthcare workers. The most reported preventive measures included laboratory testing, clinical diagnosis, adequate personal protective equipment, self-isolation, and training/orientation for infection control.

Conclusion

Healthcare workers experienced considerable COVID-19-related physical health issues, including mortalities. This requires targeted interventions and health policies to support healthcare workers worldwide to ensure timely management of the pandemic.

Tweetable abstract: This umbrella review highlights the global mortalities, infections, and other aspects of physical health of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in vaccinated individuals: measurement, causes and impact

Breakthrough infections with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in fully vaccinated individuals are receiving intense scrutiny because of their importance in determining how long restrictions to control virus transmission will need to remain in place in highly vaccinated populations as well as in determining the need for additional vaccine doses or changes to the vaccine formulations and/or dosing intervals. Measurement of breakthrough infections is challenging outside of randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind field trials. However, laboratory and observational studies are necessary to understand the impact of waning immunity, viral variants and other determinants of changing vaccine effectiveness against various levels of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity. Here, we describe the approaches being used to measure vaccine effectiveness and provide a synthesis of the burgeoning literature on the determinants of vaccine effectiveness and breakthrough rates. We argue that, rather than trying to tease apart the contributions of factors such as age, viral variants and time since vaccination, the rates of breakthrough infection are best seen as a consequence of the level of immunity at any moment in an individual, the variant to which that individual is exposed and the severity of disease being considered. We also address key open questions concerning the transition to endemicity, the potential need for altered vaccine formulations to track viral variants, the need to identify immune correlates of protection, and the public health challenges of using various tools to counter breakthrough infections, including boosters in an era of global vaccine shortages.

Phase 3 Safety and Efficacy of AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) Covid-19 Vaccine

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of the AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) vaccine in a large, diverse population at increased risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the United States, Chile, and Peru has not been known.

METHODS

In this ongoing, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial, we investigated the safety, vaccine efficacy, and immunogenicity of two doses of AZD1222 as compared with placebo in preventing the onset of symptomatic and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) 15 days or more after the second dose in adults, including older adults, in the United States, Chile, and Peru.

RESULTS

A total of 32,451 participants underwent randomization, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive AZD1222 (21,635 participants) or placebo (10,816 participants). AZD1222 was safe, with low incidences of serious and medically attended adverse events and adverse events of special interest; the incidences were similar to those observed in the placebo group. Solicited local and systemic reactions were generally mild or moderate in both groups. Overall estimated vaccine efficacy was 74.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.3 to 80.5; P<0.001) and estimated vaccine efficacy was 83.5% (95% CI, 54.2 to 94.1) in participants 65 years of age or older. High vaccine efficacy was consistent across a range of demographic subgroups. In the fully vaccinated analysis subgroup, no severe or critical symptomatic Covid-19 cases were observed among the 17,662 participants in the AZD1222 group; 8 cases were noted among the 8550 participants in the placebo group (<0.1%). The estimated vaccine efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (nucleocapsid antibody seroconversion) was 64.3% (95% CI, 56.1 to 71.0; P<0.001). SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binding and neutralizing antibodies increased after the first dose and increased further when measured 28 days after the second dose.

CONCLUSIONS

AZD1222 was safe and efficacious in preventing symptomatic and severe Covid-19 across diverse populations that included older adults. (Funded by AstraZeneca and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04516746.).

How to Test Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Vaccines Ethically Even After One Is Available

Although vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have now been found safe and efficacious, there remains an urgent global health need to test both these vaccines and additional vaccines against the same virus. Under variable conditions, either standard or unusual designs would for both familiar and often-missed reasons make continued testing possible and ethical.

Vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics for covid-19: redesigning systems to improve pandemic response

Rohit Ramchandani and colleagues propose a framework to ensure essential public health tools are fairly distributed in future pandemics

A hybrid approach based on ELECTRE III ‐genetic algorithm and TOPSIS method for selection of optimal COVID ‐19 vaccines

COVID‐19 pandemic poses unprecedented challenges to the world health system, prompting academics and health professionals to develop appropriate solutions. Researchers reported different COVID‐19 vaccines introduced by institutions and companies around the globe, which are at different stages of development. However, research developing an integrated framework for selecting and ranking the optimal potential vaccine against COVID‐19 is minimal. This paper aimed to fill this gap by using a hybrid methodology based on ELimination Et Choice Translating REality III (ELECTRE III)–Genetic Algorithm (GA) and Technique of Order Preference Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) approach to select the optimal SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine. ELECTRE III method yields a fathomable analysis of the concordance index, while GA is known for its ability to disaggregate decision‐making preferences from holistic decisions. TOPSIS is preferred for picking an ideal and an anti‐ideal solution. Thus, combining ELECTRE III‐GA and TOPSIS is considered the best model to assess vaccines against the pandemic. The results confirm that the best vaccines rely on a high level of safety, efficacy, and availability. Our developed evaluation framework can help healthcare professionals and researchers gain research information and make critical decisions regarding potential vaccines against the disease.

The Effect of the COVID-19 Vaccine on Daily Cases and Deaths Based on Global Vaccine Data

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a global pandemic, has caused over 216 million cases and 4.50 million deaths as of 30 August 2021. Vaccines can be regarded as one of the most powerful weapons to eliminate the pandemic, but the impact of vaccines on daily COVID-19 cases and deaths by country is unclear. This study aimed to investigate the correlation between vaccines and daily newly confirmed cases and deaths of COVID-19 in each country worldwide. Methods: Daily data on firstly vaccinated people, fully vaccinated people, new cases and new deaths of COVID-19 were collected from 187 countries. First, we used a generalized additive model (GAM) to analyze the association between daily vaccinated people and daily new cases and deaths of COVID-19. Second, a random effects meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the global pooled results. Results: In total, 187 countries and regions were included in the study. During the study period, 1,011,918,763 doses of vaccine were administered, 540,623,907 people received at least one dose of vaccine, and 230,501,824 people received two doses. For the relationship between vaccination and daily increasing cases of COVID-19, the results showed that daily increasing cases of COVID-19 would be reduced by 24.43% [95% CI: 18.89, 29.59] and 7.50% [95% CI: 6.18, 8.80] with 10,000 fully vaccinated people per day and at least one dose of vaccine, respectively. Daily increasing deaths of COVID-19 would be reduced by 13.32% [95% CI: 3.81, 21.89] and 2.02% [95% CI: 0.18, 4.16] with 10,000 fully vaccinated people per day and at least one dose of vaccine, respectively. Conclusions: These findings showed that vaccination can effectively reduce the new cases and deaths of COVID-19, but vaccines are not distributed fairly worldwide. There is an urgent need to accelerate the speed of vaccination and promote its fair distribution across countries.

The short-term effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines among healthcare workers: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Objective:

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at risk of COVID-19 due to high levels of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Thus, effective vaccines are needed. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on COVID-19 short-term vaccine effectiveness among HCWs.

Methods:

We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 2019 to June 11, 2021, for studies evaluating vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 among HCWs. To meta-analyze the extracted data, we calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for COVID-19 between vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 − DOR). We also performed a stratified analysis for vaccine effectiveness by vaccination status: 1 dose and 2 doses of the vaccine.

Results:

We included 13 studies, including 173,742 HCWs evaluated for vaccine effectiveness in the meta-analysis. The vast majority (99.9%) of HCWs were vaccinated with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. The pooled DOR for symptomatic COVID-19 among vaccinated HCWs was 0.072 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.028–0.184) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 92.8% (95% CI, 81.6%–97.2%). In stratified analyses, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 among HCWs who had received 1 dose of vaccine was 82.1% (95% CI, 46.1%–94.1%) and the vaccine effectiveness among HCWs who had received 2 doses was 93.5% (95% CI, 82.5%–97.6%).

Conclusions:

The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are highly effective against symptomatic COVID-19, even with 1 dose. More observational studies are needed to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness of other COVID-19 vaccines, COVID-19 breakthrough after vaccination, and vaccine efficacy against new variants.

[COVID-19 vaccination: the reality after clinical trials]

After the start of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, enough clinical experience is already accumulating, in the real world and outside clinical trials, to resolve some of the questions that are still pending about this problem. The Scientific Committee on COVID-19 of the Madrid College of Physicians has discussed and reviewed some of these issues with a multidisciplinary approach. The following document is an attempt to answer some of these questions with the information available so far. This document is structured in questions on different aspects of the indications, efficacy and tolerance of anti-COVID-19 vaccination.

Mathematical Modeling of Vaccines That Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Transmission

SARS-CoV-2 vaccine clinical trials assess efficacy against disease (VEDIS), the ability to block symptomatic COVID-19. They only partially discriminate whether VEDIS is mediated by preventing infection completely, which is defined as detection of virus in the airways (VESUSC), or by preventing symptoms despite infection (VESYMP). Vaccine efficacy against transmissibility given infection (VEINF), the decrease in secondary transmissions from infected vaccine recipients, is also not measured. Using mathematical modeling of data from King County Washington, we demonstrate that if the Moderna (mRNA-1273QS) and Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccines, which demonstrated VEDIS > 90% in clinical trials, mediate VEDIS by VESUSC, then a limited fourth epidemic wave of infections with the highly infectious B.1.1.7 variant would have been predicted in spring 2021 assuming rapid vaccine roll out. If high VEDIS is explained by VESYMP, then high VEINF would have also been necessary to limit the extent of this fourth wave. Vaccines which completely protect against infection or secondary transmission also substantially lower the number of people who must be vaccinated before the herd immunity threshold is reached. The limited extent of the fourth wave suggests that the vaccines have either high VESUSC or both high VESYMP and high VEINF against B.1.1.7. Finally, using a separate intra-host mathematical model of viral kinetics, we demonstrate that a 0.6 log vaccine-mediated reduction in average peak viral load might be sufficient to achieve 50% VEINF, which suggests that human challenge studies with a relatively low number of infected participants could be employed to estimate all three vaccine efficacy metrics.

COVID-19 controlled human infection studies: worries about local community impact and demands for local engagement

In spring, summer and autumn 2020, one abiding argument against controlled human infection (CHI) studies of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been their impact on local communities. Leading scientists and bioethicists expressed concern about undue usage of local residents' direly needed scarce resources at a time of great need and even about their unintended infection. They recommended either avoiding CHI trials or engaging local communities before conducting any CHIs. Similar recommendations were not made for the alternative-standard phase III field trials of these same vaccines. We argue that the health effects of CHI studies on local residents not participating in the study tend to be smaller and more positive than those of field trials. That is all the more so now that tested vaccines are being rolled out. Whether or not local community engagement is necessary for urgent vaccine studies in the pandemic, the case for its engagement is stronger prior to field trials than prior to CHI studies.