Expert considerations and consensus for using dogs to detect human SARS-CoV-2-infections

Funding Information: This Open Access publication was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – 491094227 “Open Access Publication Funding” and the University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation.Peer reviewe

Expert considerations and consensus for using dogs to detect human SARS-CoV-2-infections

Funding Information: This Open Access publication was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – 491094227 “Open Access Publication Funding” and the University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation.Peer reviewe

Image_1_Expert considerations and consensus for using dogs to detect human SARS-CoV-2-infections.PNG

The full text of this article can be freely accessed on the publisher's website

Políticas públicas

Amputación de extremidades superiores: caracterización epidemiológicaAnálisis comparado de las políticas de promoción de la salud entre Chile y CataluñaAnálisis de los Avisa para la toma de decisiones en políticas de saludAntecedentes de colelitiasis en pacientes que presentaron colecistitis aguda. ¿Se puede prevenir la urgencia?Asociación entre alcoholemia y traumatismos en Copiapó, 2009Automedicación en la población asistente al Cesfam de Puerto NatalesAutotoma vaginal para detección de VPH para la prevención de cáncer cervicouterino, ChileCalidad de atención programa Auge- cáncer cervicouterino: la perspectiva de los profesionalesCaracterización de los casos de traumatismo encéfalo craneano en la comuna de Til-TilConocimiento de conductores universitarios sobre la alcoholemia permitida para conducir y su equivalencia en bebidas alcohólicasDescripción de la consulta dermatológica pediátrica en el Hospital Roberto del Río (2007-2008)Elementos para un abordaje metodológico de la salud intercultural en la Región Metropolitana de SantiagoEstudio descriptivo de consultas Sapu Cesfam Angachilla, visión tras dos años de registro clínico-electrónicoEstudio descriptivo de ingresos a Conin Valdivia, una revisión de 10 años (1998-2008)Estudio descriptivo de pacientes hospitalizados por absceso y celulitis peritonsilar en el hospital de PurranqueEvaluación de la aceptabilidad y consumo de alimentos del Pacam inscritos en el Cesfam Dr. V.M.FEvaluación de la interacción de medicinas alternativas o complementarias (MAC) en dos centros APSExposición a humo de tabaco ambiental. Signos y síntomas respiratorios bajos: estudio de prevalenciaFactores relacionados con la rotación laboral de médicos en consultorios del Gran SantiagoFibrosis quística como patología GES: una mirada críticaHipersensibilidad dentinaria: comparación de diferentes alternativas terapéuticasImpacto del GES en cáncer mamario: seguimiento a 5 años en un hospital del SSMSImplementación de la política nacional de medicamentos: percepción del profesional químico farmacéuticoLa implementación de políticas públicas cambió mortalidad de los pacientes gran quemado en Chile¿La infertilidad debería ser considerada un problema de salud pública en el Perú?Modelo de monitoreo de una política de protección a la infanciaMortalidad materna en el Hospital Dr. Alfredo van Grieken Coro, Estado Falcón, Venezuela 2005-2009Objetivos de desarrollo del milenio. Modelación de la mortalidad infantil Nicaragua - Costa Rica 1978-2008Percepción de riesgo y beneficio respecto del cigarrillo y su relación con el tabaquismo adolescentePolíticas públicas y salud intercultural: la experiencia de la organización indígena Taiñ adkimnPrevalencia de atipias celulares del cuello uterino en mujeres entre 18 y 24 añosProceso de ser histerectomizada: relatos de experiencias de mujeres en un hospital público de SantiagoProceso de ser histerectomizada: relatos de experiencias de mujeres en un hospital público de SantiagoPrograma Auge y cáncer cervicouterino: calidad de atención percibida por las usuarias del programaResolución quirúrgica por patología adenoamigdalina: ¿Es la población mapuche un grupo de riesgo?Resultados de alcoholemias tanatológicas del Servicio Médico Legal de Copiapó 1999-2009Resultados de la evaluación de los objetivos sanitarios de la década 2000-2010Una mirada a los servicios de salud para adolescentes en Puente Alt

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

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