Objectives To estimate the marginal effectiveness of a fourth versus third dose and the vaccine effectiveness of mRNA covid-19 vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 against any infection, symptomatic infection, and severe outcomes (hospital admission or death) related to the omicron variant. Design Test negative design. Setting Long term care facilities in Ontario, Canada, 30 December 2021 to 27 April 2022. Participants After exclusions, 61 344 residents aged 60 years or older across 626 long term care facilities in Ontario, Canada who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 were included. Main outcome measures Laboratory confirmed omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection (any and symptomatic) by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and hospital admission or death. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate marginal effectiveness (four versus three doses) and vaccine effectiveness (two, three, or four doses versus no doses) while adjusting for personal characteristics, comorbidities, week of test, and previous positive SARS-CoV-2 test result more than 90 days previously. Results 13 654 residents who tested positive for omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection and 205 862 test negative controls were included. The marginal effectiveness of a fourth dose (95% of vaccine recipients received mRNA-1273 as the fourth dose) seven days or more after vaccination versus a third dose received 84 or more days previously was 19% (95% confidence interval 12% to 26%) against infection, 31% (20% to 41%) against symptomatic infection, and 40% (24% to 52%) against severe outcomes. Vaccine effectiveness in vaccine recipients (compared with unvaccinated) increased with each additional dose, and for a fourth dose was 49% (95% confidence interval 43% to 54%) against infection, 69% (61% to 76%) against symptomatic infection, and 86% (81% to 90%) against severe outcomes. Conclusions The findings suggest that compared with a third dose of mRNA covid-19 vaccine, a fourth dose improved protection against infection, symptomatic infection, and severe outcomes among long term care residents during an omicron dominant period. A fourth vaccine dose was associated with strong protection against severe outcomes in vaccinated residents compared with unvaccinated residents, although the duration of protection remains unknown.
There are limited data on vaccine effectiveness (VE) against the Omicron variant in adolescents. In Ontario, Canada, most vaccinated adolescents completed their primary series of BNT162b2 during summer 2021; third dose eligibility (6 months following a second dose) expanded to those aged 12-17 years in February 2022. We estimated 2-dose and 3-dose VE against Omicron (BA.1/BA.1.1) and Delta for this age group.
We estimated the effectiveness of a fourth dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine against Omicron infections and severe outcomes over time among long-term care residents in Ontario, Canada. Fourth doses provide additional protection against Omicron-related outcomes, but the protection wanes over time, with more waning seen against infection than severe outcomes.
We estimated the effectiveness of booster doses of monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron-associated severe outcomes among adults in Ontario, Canada. We used a test-negative design to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against hospitalization or death among SARS-CoV-2-tested adults aged ≥50 years from January 2 to October 1, 2022, stratified by age and time since vaccination. We also compared VE during BA.1/BA.2 and BA.4/BA.5 sublineage predominance. We included 11,160 cases and 62,880 tests for test-negative controls. Depending on the age group, compared to unvaccinated adults, VE was 91–98% 7–59 days after a third dose, waned to 76–87% after ≥240 days, was restored to 92–97% 7–59 days after a fourth dose, and waned to 86–89% after ≥120 days. VE was lower and declined faster during BA.4/BA.5 versus BA.1/BA.2 predominance, particularly after ≥120 days. Here we show that booster doses of monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines restored strong protection against severe outcomes for at least 3 months after vaccination. Across the entire study period, protection declined slightly over time, but waned more during BA.4/BA.5 predominance.
BackgroundMarkers of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) severity are based on measurements of forced vital capacity (FVC), diffusing capacity (DLCO) and CT. The pulmonary vessel volume (PVV) is a novel quantitative and independent prognostic structural indicator derived from automated CT analysis. The current prospective cross-sectional study investigated whether respiratory oscillometry provides complementary data to pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and is correlated with PVV.MethodsFrom September 2019 to March 2020, we enrolled 89 patients with IPF diagnosed according to international guidelines. We performed standard spectral (5–37 Hz) and novel intrabreath tracking (10 Hz) oscillometry followed by PFTs. Patients were characterised with the gender-age-physiology (GAP) score. CT images within 6 months of oscillometry were analysed in a subgroup (26 patients) using automated lung texture analysis. Correlations between PFTs, oscillometry and imaging variables were investigated using different regression models.FindingsThe cohort (29F/60M; age=71.7±7.8 years) had mild IPF (%FVC=70±17, %DLCO=62±17). Spectral oscillometry revealed normal respiratory resistance, low reactance, especially during inspiration at 5 Hz (X5in), elevated reactance area and resonance frequency. Intrabreath oscillometry identified markedly low reactance at end-inspiration (XeI). XeI and X5in strongly correlated with FVC (r2=0.499 and 0.435) while XeI was highly (p=0.004) and uniquely correlated with the GAP score. XeI and PVV exhibited the strongest structural-functional relationship (r2=0.690), which remained significant after adjusting for %FVC, %DLCO and GAP score.InterpretationXeI is an independent marker of IPF severity that offers additional information to standard PFTs. The data provide a cogent rationale for adding oscillometry in IPF assessment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.