The Grizzly, April 12, 1994

Djibouti Represented by Ursinus • Battle Over Taxes Intensifies • Anniversary Celebration Continues • 1994 Ruby • Wellness Fair to be Held • Medieval Fest Held for Physically Challenged • Phi Beta Kappa\u27s New Inductees • USGA Responding to Student Needs • Senior Spotlight: Barbara Lampe • Bears Sweep F&M • Men\u27s Tennis Coming Together • Golf Team Undefeated • Lurie Buys Eagles • UC Frosh Assaulted by Phanatichttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1335/thumbnail.jp

A randomized controlled trial of a transdiagnostic cognitive-behavioral intervention for Afro-descendants' survivors of systemic violence in Colombia.

BackgroundExposure to violence has negative consequences on mental health. Armed-conflict in Colombia has widely affected Afro-descendants in the Pacific region. Evidence regarding effectiveness of mental health interventions is lacking in low-income settings, especially in areas with active conflict. The objective of this study is to evaluate an individualized Common Elements Treatment Approach (CETA), a transdiagnostic psychotherapy model based on Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy, for adult trauma survivors.Methods and findingsA referred sample of 521 adult Afro-descendants from Buenaventura and Quibdó, Colombia, experiencing significant sadness, suffering or fear (score>0.77 in Total Mental Health Symptoms), with history of traumatic experiences, and with associated functional impairment were randomly allocated to CETA intervention, standby group without intervention, but under monthly monitoring, or a Narrative Community-Based Group Therapy. CETA was provided by trained Lay Psychosocial Community Workers without previous mental health experience, supervised by psychologists, during 12-14 weekly, 1.5-hour sessions. Symptoms were assessed with a locally validated survey built based on the Hopkins Symptom Checklist, the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire, the PTSD CheckList-Civilian Version, a qualitative study for additional general symptoms and a gender-specific functional impairment scale. CETA was compared with the control group and the intervention effects were calculated with mixed models using intention to treat analysis. Participant completion of follow-up was 75.1% and 13.2% voluntarily withdrew. Reduction in post-traumatic stress symptoms was significant in both municipalities when comparing intervention and control groups (mean difference), with a with a moderate effect size in Buenaventura (Cohen's d  =  0.70) and a small effect size in Quibdó (d = 0.31). In Buenaventura, the intervention also had significant effects on depression (large effect size d = 1.03), anxiety (large effect size d = 0.80) and functional impairment (moderate effect size d = 0.70). In Quibdó, it had no significant effect on these outcomes. Changes in Total Mental Health Symptoms were not significant in neither city.ConclusionsThis trial suggests that CETA, can be effective in improving depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress and function among victims of systematized violence in low-income and active conflict settings. Nonetheless, the difference of effectiveness between the two cities of intervention may indicate that we cannot assume that a mental health intervention known to be effective in one setting will be effective in another, even in similar circumstances and population. This may have special importance when implementing and reproducing these types of intervention in non-controlled circumstances. Further research should address these concerns. Results can be of use by governmental decision-makers when defining mental health programs for survivors.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01856673 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01856673)

Effectiveness of a Third Dose of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines in Preventing COVID-19 Hospitalization Among Immunocompetent and Immunocompromised Adults — United States, August–December 2021

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] and mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) provide protection against infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and are highly effective against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among eligible persons who receive 2 doses (1,2). However, vaccine effectiveness (VE) among persons with immunocompromising conditions* is lower than that among immunocompetent persons (2), and VE declines after several months among all persons (3). On August 12, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a third mRNA vaccine dose as part of a primary series ≥28 days after dose 2 for persons aged ≥12 years with immunocompromising conditions, and, on November 19, 2021, as a booster dose for all adults aged ≥18 years at least 6 months after dose 2, changed to ≥5 months after dose 2 on January 3, 2022 (4,5,6). Among 2,952 adults (including 1,385 COVID-19 case-patients and 1,567 COVID-19-negative controls) hospitalized at 21 U.S. hospitals during August 19-December 15, 2021, effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was compared between adults eligible for but who had not received a third vaccine dose (1,251) and vaccine-eligible adults who received a third dose ≥7 days before illness onset (312). Among 1,875 adults without immunocompromising conditions (including 1,065 [57%] unvaccinated, 679 [36%] 2-dose recipients, and 131 [7%] 3-dose [booster] recipients), VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was higher among those who received a booster dose (97%; 95% CI = 95%-99%) compared with that among 2-dose recipients (82%; 95% CI = 77%-86%) (p <0.001). Among 1,077 adults with immunocompromising conditions (including 324 [30%] unvaccinated, 572 [53%] 2-dose recipients, and 181 [17%] 3-dose recipients), VE was higher among those who received a third dose to complete a primary series (88%; 95% CI = 81%-93%) compared with 2-dose recipients (69%; 95% CI = 57%-78%) (p <0.001). Administration of a third COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose as part of a primary series among immunocompromised adults, or as a booster dose among immunocompetent adults, provides improved protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization

Absolute and Relative Vaccine Effectiveness of Primary and Booster Series of COVID-19 Vaccines (mRNA and Adenovirus Vector) Against COVID-19 Hospitalizations in the United States, December 2021–April 2022

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are increasingly reporting relative VE (rVE) comparing a primary series plus booster doses with a primary series only. Interpretation of rVE differs from traditional studies measuring absolute VE (aVE) of a vaccine regimen against an unvaccinated referent group. We estimated aVE and rVE against COVID-19 hospitalization in primary-series plus first-booster recipients of COVID-19 vaccines.MethodsBooster-eligible immunocompetent adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in the United States during December 25, 2021-April 4, 2022 were included. In a test-negative design, logistic regression with case status as the outcome and completion of primary vaccine series or primary series plus 1 booster dose as the predictors, adjusted for potential confounders, were used to estimate aVE and rVE.ResultsA total of 2060 patients were analyzed, including 1104 COVID-19 cases and 956 controls. Relative VE against COVID-19 hospitalization in boosted mRNA vaccine recipients versus primary series only was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-74%); aVE was 81% (95% CI, 75%-86%) for boosted versus 46% (95% CI, 30%-58%) for primary. For boosted Janssen vaccine recipients versus primary series, rVE was 49% (95% CI, -9% to 76%); aVE was 62% (95% CI, 33%-79%) for boosted versus 36% (95% CI, -4% to 60%) for primary.ConclusionsVaccine booster doses increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with a primary series. Comparing rVE measures across studies can lead to flawed interpretations of the added value of a new vaccination regimen, whereas difference in aVE, when available, may be a more useful metric