COVID-19

A Hitchhiker's Guide to Worldwide COVID-19 Vaccinations: A Detailed Review of Monovalent and Bivalent Vaccine Schedules, COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects, and Effectiveness Against Omicron and Delta Variants

Author/s: 
Goyal, L., Zapata, M., Ajmera, K., Churasia, P., Pandit, R., Pandit, T.

For the primary prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there are currently four different vaccines available in the USA. These are Pfizer (messenger RNA [mRNA]), Moderna (mRNA), Novavax (recombinant protein), and Jansen/Johnson & Johnson (adenoviral vector). All individuals should get vaccinated, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has provided comprehensive guidelines on recommended doses, their frequency by age group, and vaccine types, all discussed in detail in this article. Vaccines are a critical and cost-effective tool for preventing the disease. Prior to receiving a vaccine, patients should get adequate counseling regarding any potential adverse effects post vaccination. Appropriate safety precautions must be taken for those more likely to experience adverse consequences. Healthcare professionals should be aware of the symptoms, indicators, and treatment of any adverse event post-vaccination. We have provided a comprehensive review of the different characteristics of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States, including their effectiveness against various variants, adverse effects, and precautions necessary for healthcare professionals and the general population. This article also briefly covers COVID-19 vaccines available worldwide, specifically their mode of action and effectiveness.

Covid-19 Vaccines — Immunity, Variants, Boosters

Author/s: 
Barouch, D. H.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic has claimed an estimated 15 million lives, including more than 1 million lives in the United States alone. The rapid development of multiple Covid-19 vaccines has been a triumph of biomedical research, and billions of vaccine doses have been administered worldwide. Challenges facing the Covid-19 vaccine field include inequitable vaccine distribution, vaccine hesitancy, waning immunity, and the emergence of highly transmissible viral variants that partially escape antibodies. This review summarizes the current state of knowledge about immune responses to Covid-19 vaccines and the importance of both humoral and cellular immunity for durable protection against severe disease.

Care of Patients With New, Continuing, or Recurring Symptoms After Acute SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Author/s: 
Laine, C., Cotton, D.

As the pandemic of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection continues, there is another pandemic that shadows it—the growing population of people who have new, continuing, or recurring symptoms long after initial infection. Many refer to this condition as “long COVID,” and the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) official name for the condition is postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC). Whatever we call it, the current limited understanding of the pathophysiology, epidemiology, and course of this condition makes caring for these patients a vexing challenge.

Association of Influenza Vaccination With Cardiovascular Risk: A Meta-analysis

Author/s: 
Behrouzi, B., Bhatt, D. L., Cannon, C. P., Vardeny, O., Lee, D. S., Solomon, S. D., Udell, J. A.

Importance: Influenza infection is associated with increased cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality. Our prior systematic review and meta-analysis hypothesized that influenza vaccination was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events.

Objective: To evaluate, via an updated meta-analysis, if seasonal influenza vaccination is associated with a lower risk of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events and assess whether the newest cardiovascular outcome trial results are consistent with prior findings.

Data sources: A previously published meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and a large 2021 cardiovascular outcome trial.

Study selection: Studies with RCTs published between 2000 and 2021 that randomized participants to either influenza vaccine or placebo/control. Eligible participants were inpatients and outpatients recruited for international multicenter RCTs and randomized to receive either influenza vaccine or placebo/control.

Data extraction and synthesis: PRISMA guidelines were followed in the extraction of study details, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Trial quality was evaluated using Cochrane criteria. Data were analyzed January 2020 and December 2021.

Main outcomes and measures: Random-effects Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were derived for a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality within 12 months of follow-up. Where available, analyses were stratified by patients with and without recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within 1 year of randomization.

Results: Six published RCTs comprising a total of 9001 patients were included (mean age, 65.5 years; 42.5% women; 52.3% with a cardiac history). Overall, influenza vaccine was associated with a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events (3.6% vs 5.4%; RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53-0.83; P < .001). A treatment interaction was detected between patients with recent ACS (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.41-0.75) and without recent ACS (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.68-1.47) (P for interaction = .02). For cardiovascular mortality, a treatment interaction was also detected between patients with recent ACS (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85) and without recent ACS (RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.84-2.50) (P for interaction = .006), while 1.7% of vaccine recipients died of cardiovascular causes compared with 2.5% of placebo or control recipients (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.42-1.30; P = .29).

Conclusions and relevance: In this study, receipt of influenza vaccination was associated with a 34% lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, and individuals with recent ACS had a 45% lower risk. Given influenza poses a threat to population health during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is integral to counsel high-risk patients on the cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination.

Olfactory Loss and Beyond: A Practical Review of Chemosensory Dysfunction

Author/s: 
Claus, L. E., Leland, E. M., Tai, K. Y., Schlosser, R. J., Kamath, V., Lane, A. P., Rowan, N. R.

Background: Our ability to smell and taste is dictated by 3 chemosensory systems with distinct physiologic mechanisms - olfaction, gustation, and chemesthesis. Although often overlooked, dysfunction of these special senses may have broad implications on multiple facets of patients' lives -including safety, nutritional status, quality of life, mental health, and even cognitive function. As "loss of smell or taste" emerged as a common symptom of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the importance of intact chemosensory function has been thrust into the spotlight. Despite the growing recognition of chemosensory dysfunction, this already highly prevalent condition will increasingly impact a larger and more diverse population, highlighting the need for improved awareness and care of these patients.

Methods: Comtemporary review of chemosensory function and assessments.

Conclusions: Although patient-reported chemosensory function measures highlight the ease of screening of chemosensory dysfunction, self-reported measures underestimate both the prevalence and degree of chemosensory dysfunction and do not adequately distinguish between olfaction, gustation, and chemesthesis. Meanwhile, psychophysical assessment tools provide opportunities for more accurate, thorough assessment of the chemosenses when appropriate. Primary care providers are uniquely situated to identify patients burdened by chemosensory dysfunction and raise patient and provider awareness about the importance of chemosensory dysfunction. Identification of chemosensory dysfunction, particularly olfactory dysfunction, may raise suspicion for many underlying medical conditions, including early detection of neurodegenerative conditions. Furthermore, identification and awareness of patients with chemosensory dysfunction may help primary care providers to identify those who may benefit from additional therapeutic and safety interventions, or consultations with specialists for more detailed evaluations and management.

COVID-19 and Pregnancy

Author/s: 
Walter, K.

Pregnant and recently pregnant individuals who become infected with the COVID-19 virus
are at high risk of requiring extra medical care.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
between January 22, 2020, and November 29, 2021, 148 327
pregnant individuals had documented infection with SARS-CoV-2
(the virus that causes COVID-19) and 241 had died of COVID-19.
Of the 121 973 pregnant people with information on hospitalization
available, 20.6% were hospitalized with COVID-19 or pregnancyrelated conditions.

Molnupiravir for Oral Treatment of Covid-19 in Nonhospitalized Patients

Author/s: 
Bernal, A. J., Gomes da Silva, M., Musungaie, D., Kovalchuk, E., Gonzalez, A., Delos Reyes, V., Martin-Quiros, A., Caraco, Y., Williams-Diaz, A., Brown, M., Du, J., Pedley, A., Assaid, C., Strizki, J., Grobler, J., Shamsuddin, H., Tipping, R., Wan, H., Paschke, A., Butterton, J., Johnson, M., De Anda, C., MOVe-OUT Study Group

Abstract
Background: New treatments are needed to reduce the risk of progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Molnupiravir is an oral, small-molecule antiviral prodrug that is active against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Methods: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with molnupiravir started within 5 days after the onset of signs or symptoms in nonhospitalized, unvaccinated adults with mild-to-moderate, laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and at least one risk factor for severe Covid-19 illness. Participants in the trial were randomly assigned to receive 800 mg of molnupiravir or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary efficacy end point was the incidence hospitalization or death at day 29; the incidence of adverse events was the primary safety end point. A planned interim analysis was performed when 50% of 1550 participants (target enrollment) had been followed through day 29.

Results: A total of 1433 participants underwent randomization; 716 were assigned to receive molnupiravir and 717 to receive placebo. With the exception of an imbalance in sex, baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The superiority of molnupiravir was demonstrated at the interim analysis; the risk of hospitalization for any cause or death through day 29 was lower with molnupiravir (28 of 385 participants [7.3%]) than with placebo (53 of 377 [14.1%]) (difference, -6.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -11.3 to -2.4; P = 0.001). In the analysis of all participants who had undergone randomization, the percentage of participants who were hospitalized or died through day 29 was lower in the molnupiravir group than in the placebo group (6.8% [48 of 709] vs. 9.7% [68 of 699]; difference, -3.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -5.9 to -0.1). Results of subgroup analyses were largely consistent with these overall results; in some subgroups, such as patients with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, those with low baseline viral load, and those with diabetes, the point estimate for the difference favored placebo. One death was reported in the molnupiravir group and 9 were reported in the placebo group through day 29. Adverse events were reported in 216 of 710 participants (30.4%) in the molnupiravir group and 231 of 701 (33.0%) in the placebo group.

Conclusions: Early treatment with molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death in at-risk, unvaccinated adults with Covid-19. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme; MOVe-OUT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04575597.).

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Essentials of Diagnosis and Management

Author/s: 
Bateman, L., Bested, A., Bonilla, H., Chheda, B., Chu, L,, Curtin, J. M., Dempsey, T. T., Dimmock, M. E., Dowell, T. G., Felsenstein, D., Kaufman, D. L., Klimas, N. G., Komaroff, A. L., Lapp, C. W., Levine, S. M., Montoya, J. G., Natelson, B. H., Peterson, D. L., Podell, R. N., Rey, I. R., Ruhoy, I. S., Vera-Nunez, M. A., Yellman, B. P.

Despite myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) affecting millions of people worldwide, many clinicians lack the knowledge to appropriately diagnose or manage ME/CFS. Unfortunately, clinical guidance has been scarce, obsolete, or potentially harmful. Consequently, up to 91% of patients in the United States remain undiagnosed, and those diagnosed often receive inappropriate treatment. These problems are of increasing importance because after acute COVID-19, a significant percentage of people remain ill for many months with an illness similar to ME/CFS. In 2015, the US National Academy of Medicine published new evidence-based clinical diagnostic criteria that have been adopted by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Furthermore, the United States and other governments as well as major health care organizations have recently withdrawn graded exercise and cognitive-behavioral therapy as the treatment of choice for patients with ME/CFS. Recently, 21 clinicians specializing in ME/CFS convened to discuss best clinical practices for adults affected by ME/CFS. This article summarizes their top recommendations for generalist and specialist health care providers based on recent scientific progress and decades of clinical experience. There are many steps that clinicians can take to improve the health, function, and quality of life of those with ME/CFS, including those in whom ME/CFS develops after COVID-19. Patients with a lingering illness that follows acute COVID-19 who do not fully meet criteria for ME/CFS may also benefit from these approaches.

Effectiveness of Mask Wearing to Control Community Spread of SARS-CoV-2

Author/s: 
Brooks, J. T., Butler, J. C.

Prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the efficacy of community mask wearing to reduce the spread of respiratory infections was controversial because there were no solid relevant data to support their use. During the pandemic, the scientific evidence has increased. Compelling data now demonstrate that community mask wearing is an effective nonpharmacologic intervention to reduce the spread of this infection, especially as source control to prevent spread from infected persons, but also as protection to reduce wearers’ exposure to infection.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on Infection Prevention for Healthcare Personnel Caring for Patients with Suspected or Known COVID-19

Author/s: 
Lynch, J. B., Davitkov, P., Anderson, D. J., Bhimraj, A., Cheng, V. C. C., Guzman-Cottrill, J., Dhindsa, J., Duggal, A., Jain, M. K., Lee, G. M., Liang, S. Y., McGeer, A., Varghese, J., Lavergne, V., Murad, M. H., Mustafa, R. A., Sultan, S., Falck-Ytter, Y., Morgan, R. L.

Background: Since its emergence in late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions like coughing and care activities like aerosol-generating procedures likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators.

Objective: Develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known COVID-19.

Methods: IDSA formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

Results: The IDSA guideline panel agreed on eight recommendations, including two updated recommendations and one new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included.

Conclusions: Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for eight specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.

Subscribe to COVID-19