Vaccine effectiveness of CoronaVac against COVID-19 among children in Brazil during the Omicron period.

Although severe COVID-19 in children is rare, they may develop multisystem inflammatory syndrome, long-COVID and downstream effects of COVID-19, including social isolation and disruption of education. Data on the effectiveness of the CoronaVac vaccine is scarce during the Omicron period. In Brazil, children between 6 to 11 years are eligible to receive the CoronaVac vaccine. We conducted a test-negative design to estimate vaccine effectiveness using 197,958 tests from January 21, 2022, to April 15, 2022, during the Omicron dominant period in Brazil among children aged 6 to 11 years. The estimated vaccine effectiveness for symptomatic infection was 39.8% (95% CI 33.7-45.4) at ≥14 days post-second dose. For hospital admission vaccine effectiveness was 59.2% (95% CI 11.3-84.5) at ≥14 days. Two doses of CoronaVac in children during the Omicron period showed low levels of protection against symptomatic infection, and modest levels against severe illness

Vaccine effectiveness of two-dose BNT162b2 against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 among adolescents in Brazil and Scotland over time: a test-negative case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about vaccine effectiveness over time among adolescents, especially against the SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant. This study assessed the associations between time since two-dose vaccination with BNT162b2 and the occurrence of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 among adolescents in Brazil and Scotland. METHODS: We did test-negative, case-control studies in adolescents aged 12-17 years with COVID-19-related symptoms in Brazil and Scotland. We linked records of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and antigen tests to national vaccination and clinical records. We excluded tests from individuals who did not have symptoms, were vaccinated before the start of the national vaccination programme, received vaccines other than BNT162b2 or a SARS-CoV-2 booster dose of any kind, or had an interval between their first and second dose of fewer than 21 days. Additionally, we excluded negative SARS-CoV-2 tests recorded within 14 days of a previous negative test, negative tests recorded within 7 days after a positive test, any test done within 90 days after a positive test, and tests with missing sex and location information. Cases (SARS-CoV-2 test-positive adolescents) and controls (test-negative adolescents) were drawn from a sample of individuals in whom tests were collected within 10 days of symptom onset. We estimated the adjusted odds ratio and vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 for both countries and against severe COVID-19 (hospitalisation or death) for Brazil across fortnightly periods. FINDINGS: We analysed 503 776 tests from 2 948 538 adolescents in Brazil between Sept 2, 2021, and April 19, 2022, and 127 168 tests from 404 673 adolescents in Scotland between Aug 6, 2021, and April 19, 2022. Vaccine effectiveness peaked at 14-27 days after the second dose in both countries during both waves, and was significantly lower against symptomatic infection during the omicron-dominant period in Brazil (64·7% [95% CI 63·0-66·3]) and in Scotland (82·6% [80·6-84·5]), than it was in the delta-dominant period (80·7% [95% CI 77·8-83·3] in Brazil and 92·8% [85·7-96·4] in Scotland). Vaccine efficacy started to decline from 27 days after the second dose for both countries, reducing to 5·9% (95% CI 2·2-9·4) in Brazil and 50·6% (42·7-57·4) in Scotland at 98 days or more during the omicron-dominant period. In Brazil, protection against severe disease remained above 80% from 28 days after the second dose and was 82·7% (95% CI 68·8-90·4) at 98 days or more after receiving the second dose. INTERPRETATION: We found waning vaccine protection of BNT162b2 against symptomatic COVID-19 infection among adolescents in Brazil and Scotland from 27 days after the second dose. However, protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes remained high at 98 days or more after the second dose in the omicron-dominant period. Booster doses for adolescents need to be considered. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Scottish Government, Health Data Research UK BREATHE Hub, Fiocruz, Fazer o Bem Faz Bem programme, Brazilian National Research Council, and Wellcome Trust. TRANSLATION: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section

Brazilian Consensus on Photoprotection

Brazil is a country of continental dimensions with a large heterogeneity of climates and massive mixing of the population. Almost the entire national territory is located between the Equator and the Tropic of Capricorn, and the Earth axial tilt to the south certainly makes Brazil one of the countries of the world with greater extent of land in proximity to the sun. The Brazilian coastline, where most of its population lives, is more than 8,500 km long. Due to geographic characteristics and cultural trends, Brazilians are among the peoples with the highest annual exposure to the sun. Epidemiological data show a continuing increase in the incidence of nonmelanoma and melanoma skin cancers. Photoprotection can be understood as a set of measures aimed at reducing sun exposure and at preventing the development of acute and chronic actinic damage. Due to the peculiarities of Brazilian territory and culture, it would not be advisable to replicate the concepts of photoprotection from other developed countries, places with completely different climates and populations. Thus the Brazilian Society of Dermatology has developed the Brazilian Consensus on Photoprotection, the first official document on photoprotection developed in Brazil for Brazilians, with recommendations on matters involving photoprotection

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Work accidents and self-esteem of nursing professional in hospital settings

Resumo Objetivo: analizar la ocurrencia de accidentes de trabajo y la autoestima de profesionales de enfermería en ambientes hospitalarios en un municipio de Minas Gerais. Método: estudio descriptivo, analítico y transversal, desarrollado con 393 profesionales de enfermería de tres hospitales de un Municipio del sur de Minas Gerais. Para recolección de datos se utilizó la Escala de Autoestima de Rosenberg y un cuestionario de caracterización de la población y de accidente de trabajo. Para analizar los datos fueron utilizadas las pruebas de Person, Exacta de Fisher, Alfa de Cronbach, odds ratio y regresión logística. Resultados: de los profesionales investigados, 15% sufrieron accidente de trabajo y 70,2% poseía autoestima alta. Por medio del análisis, se observó que el tabaquismo, la creencia religiosa y el evento excepcional en la carrera presentaron asociación significativa con accidente de trabajo. En relación a la autoestima, la renta familiar mensual, el tiempo de actuación en la profesión y el evento excepcional en la carrera, tuvieron asociación significativa. Conclusión: factores como tabaquismo, creencia religiosa, renta familiar, tiempo de actuación en la profesión y evento excepcional en la carrera, pueden ocasionarle al profesional un accidente y/o provocar alteraciones en la autoestima, lo que puede comprometer su salud física y mental y su calidad de vida y trabajo.Objetivo: analisar a ocorrência de acidentes de trabalho e a autoestima de profissionais de enfermagem em ambientes hospitalares de um município de Minas Gerais. Método: estudo descritivo-analítico e transversal, desenvolvido com 393 profissionais de enfermagem de três hospitais de um Município do sul de Minas Gerais. Para coleta de dados utilizou-se a Escala de Autoestima de Rosenberg e um questionário de caracterização da população e de acidente de trabalho. Para análise dos dados foram utilizados os testes Qui-quadrado de Person, Exato de Fisher, Alfa de Cronbach, odds ratio e regressão logística. Resultados: dos profissionais pesquisados, 15% sofreram acidente de trabalho e 70,2% possuía autoestima alta. Por meio das análises, observou-se que o tabagismo, a crença religiosa e o evento marcante na carreira apresentaram associação significativa com acidente de trabalho. Em relação a autoestima, a renda familiar mensal, o tempo de atuação na profissão e o evento marcante na carreira tiveram associação significativa. Conclusão: fatores como tabagismo, crença religiosa, renda familiar, tempo de atuação na profissão e evento marcante na carreira podem conduzir o profissional ao acidente e/ou provocar alterações na autoestima, podendo comprometer a sua saúde física e mental e sua qualidade de vida e trabalho.Objective: to analyze the occurrence of work accidents and the self-esteem of nurses in hospitals of a municipality of Minas Gerais. Method: descriptive-analytical and cross-sectional study developed with 393 nursing professionals from three hospitals of a municipality in southern Minas Gerais. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and a questionnaire to characterize the population and work accidents were used for data collection. Data analysis was performed using Person's chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, Cronbach's alpha, odds ratio and logistic regression. Results: of the professionals studied, 15% had suffered an accident at work and 70.2% presented high self-esteem. Through the analysis, it was observed that smoking, religious belief and an outstanding event in the career were significantly associated with work accidents. In relation to self-esteem, family income, length of time working in the profession and an outstanding event in the career presented significant associations. Conclusion: factors such as smoking, religious belief, family income, length of time working in the profession and an outstanding event in the career can cause professionals to have accidents and/or cause changes in self-esteem, which can compromise their physical and mental health and their quality of life and work