Family structure and patient survival in an African-American end-stage renal disease population: a preliminary investigation

Few studies have examined the influence of the family on the course of chronic illness in African-Americans. We explore the relationship between family structure, defined as marital status and household composition, and patient survival. Patient gender was examined as a possible moderator in this relationship. Using data from a survey of 476 African-American end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, a significant association between household composition and patient survival was found. Results from Cox proportional hazards model, controlling for patient age, indicated that patients who live in `complex' households (i.e. those with a partner and/or others) are at greater risk for shortened survival as compared to those who live alone or with a spouse/partner (pFamily structure African-Americans Survival End-stage renal disease

Qualitative insights on how adult e-cigarette users describe quantity of e-cigarettes used – PATH Study 2018

The purpose of this qualitative study was to gain a deeper understanding of how adult e-cigarette users describe quantity of e-cigarettes used. Data for this analysis came from a qualitative study of U.S. adult dual e-cigarette and cigarette users and former cigarette smokers aged 18 years and older. Eligible respondents from Wave 4 (2016–2017) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study responded to a brief web questionnaire and participated in an in-depth telephone interview (n = 112) between March and August 2018. Using the respondent’s native terminology for their e-cigarette device, interviewers asked respondents to describe in their own words the quantity of e-cigarettes used. Using NVivo software, interview transcripts were coded and analyzed to identify themes and patterns. Respondents described quantity used in three different ways: number of times and/or puffs; device-specific terms (i.e., replacement of disposable devices, cartridges/pods; use of e-liquid); and perceived equivalence to a quantity of traditional cigarettes. The most commonly reported approach across all device types and levels of device proficiency, although with varying ease and specificity, was the number of times and/or puffs taken in a day. Several respondents used multiple approaches to describe quantity. E-cigarette users use a variety of approaches to describe quantity of e-cigarette used, contributing to challenges developing standardized survey measures. The variety of approaches should be taken into consideration along with device type and other contextual factors such as device proficiency when developing survey questions

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