Post-implementation Review of the Himalaya Home Care Project for Home Isolated COVID-19 Patients in Nepal

Background: The emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in a pandemic that has significantly impacted healthcare systems at a global level. Health care facilities in Nepal, as in other low- and middle-income countries, have limited resources for the treatment and management of COVID-19 patients. Only critical cases are admitted to the hospital resulting in most patients in home isolation. Methods: Himalaya Home Care (HHC) was initiated to monitor and provide counseling to home isolated COVID-19 patients for disease prevention, control, and treatment. Counselors included one physician and four nurses. Lists of patients were obtained from district and municipal health facilities. HHC counselors called patients to provide basic counseling services. A follow-up check-in phone call was conducted 10 days later. During this second call, patients were asked about their perceptions of the HHC program. Project objects were: (1) To support treatment of home isolated persons with mild to moderate COVID-19, decrease burden of hospitalizations, and decrease risks for disease transmission; and, (2) To improve the health status of marginalized, remote, and vulnerable populations in Nepal during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Data from 5823 and 3988 patients from May 2021-February 2022 were entered in initial and follow-up forms on a REDCap database. The majority of patients who received counseling were satisfied. At follow-up, 98.4% of respondents reported that HHC prevented hospitalization, 76.5% reported they could manage their symptoms at home, and 69.5% reported that counseling helped to limit the spread of COVID-19 in their household. Conclusions: Telehealth can be an essential strategy for providing services while keeping patients and health providers safe during the COVID-19 pandemic

COVID-19 vaccination up-take in three districts of Nepal

Vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic continues to be an issue in terms of global efforts to decrease transmission rates. Despite high demand for the vaccines in Nepal, the country still contends with challenges related to vaccine accessibility, equitable vaccine distribution, and vaccine hesitancy. Study objectives were to identify: 1) up-take and intention for use of COVID-19 vaccines, 2) factors associated with vaccine up-take, and 3) trusted communication strategies about COVID-19 and the vaccines. A quantitative survey was implemented in August and September 2021 through an initiative at the Nepali Ministry of Health and Population Department of Health Services, Family Welfare Division. Data were collected from 865 respondents in three provinces (Bagmati, Lumbini, and Province 1). Ordinal multivariate logistic regression was utilized to determine relationships between vaccination status and associated factors. Overall, 62% (537) respondents were fully vaccinated and 18% (159) were partially vaccinated. Those respondents with higher education (p \u3c .001) and higher household income (p \u3c .001) were more likely vaccinated. There were also significant differences in vaccine up-take across the three provinces (p \u3c .001). Respondents who were vaccinated were significantly more likely to perceive vaccines as efficacious in terms of preventing COVID-19 (p = .004) and preventing serious outcomes (p = .010). Among both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, there was a high level of trust in information about COVID-19 vaccines provided through local health-care workers [e.g. nurses and physicians]. These results are consistent with other findings within the South Asia region. Targeted advocacy and outreach efforts are needed to support ongoing COVID-19 vaccination campaigns throughout Nepal

COVID-19 vaccination up-take in three districts of Nepal

Vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic continues to be an issue in terms of global efforts to decrease transmission rates. Despite high demand for the vaccines in Nepal, the country still contends with challenges related to vaccine accessibility, equitable vaccine distribution, and vaccine hesitancy. Study objectives were to identify: 1) up-take and intention for use of COVID-19 vaccines, 2) factors associated with vaccine up-take, and 3) trusted communication strategies about COVID-19 and the vaccines. A quantitative survey was implemented in August and September 2021 through an initiative at the Nepali Ministry of Health and Population Department of Health Services, Family Welfare Division. Data were collected from 865 respondents in three provinces (Bagmati, Lumbini, and Province 1). Ordinal multivariate logistic regression was utilized to determine relationships between vaccination status and associated factors. Overall, 62% (537) respondents were fully vaccinated and 18% (159) were partially vaccinated. Those respondents with higher education (p < .001) and higher household income (p < .001) were more likely vaccinated. There were also significant differences in vaccine up-take across the three provinces (p < .001). Respondents who were vaccinated were significantly more likely to perceive vaccines as efficacious in terms of preventing COVID-19 (p = .004) and preventing serious outcomes (p = .010). Among both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, there was a high level of trust in information about COVID-19 vaccines provided through local health-care workers [e.g. nurses and physicians]. These results are consistent with other findings within the South Asia region. Targeted advocacy and outreach efforts are needed to support ongoing COVID-19 vaccination campaigns throughout Nepal

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health