Key points

The WHO Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition (TAG-CO-VAC) meets regularly to assess the impact of SARS-CoV-2 evolution on the performance of approved COVID-19 vaccines. This includes meeting in person approximately every six months to determine the implications of SARS-CoV-2 evolution on COVID-19 vaccine antigen composition and to advise WHO on whether changes are needed to the antigen composition of future COVID-19 vaccines. The twice-yearly evidence review by the TAG-CO-VAC is based on the need for continued monitoring of the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 and the kinetics and protection of vaccine-derived immunity.

In May 2023, the TAG-CO-VAC recommended the use of a monovalent XBB.1 descendent lineage, such as XBB.1.5, as the vaccine antigen. In December 2023, the TAG-CO-VAC advised retaining the use of a monovalent XBB.1 descendent lineage, such as XBB.1.5, as the vaccine antigen. Several manufacturers (using mRNA, protein-based and viral vector vaccine platforms) have developed COVID-19 vaccines with a monovalent XBB.1.5 formulation which have been approved for use by regulatory authorities and introduced into COVID-19 vaccination programmes in some countries. Previous statements from the TAG-CO-VAC can be found on the WHO website.

The TAG-CO-VAC reconvened on 15-16 April 2024 to review the genetic and antigenic evolution of SARS-CoV-2; immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 vaccination; the performance of currently approved vaccines against circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants; and the implications for COVID-19 vaccine antigen composition.

The published and unpublished evidence reviewed by the TAG-CO-VAC included: (1) SARS-CoV-2 genetic evolution with support from the WHO Technical Advisory Group on SARS-CoV-2 Virus Evolution (TAG-VE); (2) Antigenic characterization of previous and emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants using virus neutralization tests with animal antisera or human sera and further analysis of antigenic relationships using antigenic cartography; (3) Immunogenicity data on the breadth of neutralizing antibody responses elicited by currently approved vaccine antigens against circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants using animal and human sera, including modelling data; (4) Vaccine effectiveness estimates (VE) of currently approved vaccines during periods of circulation of XBB.1 and JN.1 lineages; (5) Preliminary immunogenicity data on immune responses following infection with circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants; and (6) Preliminary preclinical and clinical immunogenicity data on the performance of candidate vaccines with updated antigens shared confidentially by vaccine manufacturers with TAG-CO-VAC. Further details on the publicly available data reviewed by the TAG-CO-VAC can be found in the accompanying data annex. Unpublished and/or confidential data reviewed by the TAG-CO-VAC are not shown.

The TAG-CO-VAC acknowledges several limitations of the available data:

As of April 2024, nearly all circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants reported in publicly available databases are JN.1 derived variants. As virus evolution is expected to continue from JN.1, future formulations of COVID-19 vaccines should aim to induce enhanced neutralizing antibody responses to JN.1 and its descendent lineages. One approach recommended by TAG-CO-VAC is the use of a monovalent JN.1 lineage (GenBank: OY817255.1, GISAID: EPI_ISL_18538117, WHO Biohub: 2024-WHO-LS-001) antigen in vaccines.

The continued use of the current monovalent XBB.1.5 formulation will offer protection given the neutralizing antibody responses to early JN.1 descendent lineages, and the evidence from early rVE studies against JN.1. However, it is expected that the ability for XBB.1.5 vaccination to protect against symptomatic disease may be less robust as SARS-CoV-2 evolution continues from JN.1. Other formulations and/or platforms that achieve robust neutralizing antibody responses against currently circulating variants, particularly JN.1 descendent lineages, can also be considered.

In accordance with WHO SAGE policy, vaccination programmes should continue to use any of the WHO emergency-use listed or prequalified COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination should not be delayed in anticipation of access to vaccines with an updated composition. WHO stresses the importance of access to and equity in the use of all available COVID-19 vaccines.

Given the limitations of the evidence upon which the recommendations above are derived and the anticipated continued evolution of the virus, the TAG-CO-VAC strongly encourages generation of data on immune responses and clinical endpoints (i.e. VE) on the performance of all currently approved COVID-19 vaccines against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, and candidate vaccines with an updated antigen over time.

As previously stated, the TAG-CO-VAC continues to encourage the further development of vaccines that may improve protection against infection and reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Read more:

Statement on the antigen composition of COVID-19 vaccines - World Health Organization (WHO)

Summary

What is already known about this topic?

In September 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended updated (20232024 Formula) COVID-19 vaccination for all persons aged 6 months.

What is added by this report?

On February 28, 2024, ACIP recommended that all persons aged 65 years receive 1 additional dose of any updated (20232024 Formula) COVID-19 vaccine (i.e., Moderna, Novavax, or Pfizer-BioNTech).

What are the implications for public health practice?

Adults aged 65 years should receive an additional dose of the updated (20232024 Formula) COVID-19 vaccine to enhance their immunity and decrease the risk for severe COVID-19associated illness.

COVID-19 remains an important public health threat, despite overall decreases in COVID-19related severe disease since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19associated hospitalization rates remain higher among adults aged 65 years relative to rates in younger adults, adolescents, and children; during October 2023January 2024, 67% of all COVID-19associated hospitalizations were among persons aged 65 years. On September 12, 2023, CDCs Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended updated (20232024 Formula) COVID-19 vaccination with a monovalent XBB.1.5-derived vaccine for all persons aged 6 months to protect against severe COVID-19associated illness and death. Because SARS-CoV-2 continues to circulate throughout the year, and because of the increased risk for COVID-19related severe illness in persons aged 65 years, the protection afforded by updated vaccines against JN.1 and other currently circulating variants, and the expected waning of vaccine-conferred protection against disease, on February 28, 2024, ACIP recommended all persons aged 65 years receive 1 additional dose of the updated (20232024 Formula) COVID-19 vaccine. Implementation of these recommendations is expected to enhance immunity that might have waned and decrease the risk for severe COVID-19associated outcomes, including death, among persons aged 65 years.

Since June 2020, CDCs Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has convened 39 public meetings to review data and consider recommendations related to the use of COVID-19 vaccines (1). On September 12, 2023, ACIP recommended that all persons aged 6 months receive updated (20232024 Formula) monovalent, XBB.1.5 component (updated) COVID-19 vaccination to protect against severe COVID-19associated illness and death (2).

As of February 3, 2024, approximately 6.7 million COVID-19associated hospitalizations and 1.1 million COVID-19associated deaths had occurred in the United States (3). Although the overall risk for COVID-19associated hospitalization and death has decreased, severe illness related to COVID-19 continues to be a public health problem, especially among older adults. COVID-19associated hospitalization rates remain higher among adults aged 65 years relative to rates among younger adults, adolescents, and children. During October 2023January 2024, 67% of all COVID-19associated hospitalizations were among persons aged 65 years (4). Further, COVID-19 death rates during January 1, 2023January 31, 2024, were highest among adults aged 75 years, followed by adults aged 6574 years (5,6). Whereas approximately 98%99% of the U.S. population has measurable antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2 from infection, vaccination, or both (hybrid immunity), adults aged 65 years are less likely to have immunity resulting from infection (including immunity from infection only or hybrid immunity), compared with adults aged 3049 years and 5064 years (7). In addition, immunosenescence, the age-related decline in the functioning of the immune system, results in a less complete immune response to novel antigens and a reduced ability to develop robust immunity after infections or vaccination (8). The pool of naive T-cells diminishes with age, and this insufficient naive T-cell pool affects the ability to generate neutralizing antibody responses and cytotoxic T-cells in response to SARS-CoV-2 (9).

Thus, adults aged 65 years are more likely than are younger adults, adolescents, and children to rely upon vaccination to increase immunity that might have waned and might need more frequent vaccine doses to maintain protection. Coverage with the updated COVID-19 vaccine among adults aged 65 years was 42% as of February 3, 2024 (10,11). Adults in this age group are more concerned about COVID-19 disease and had higher confidence in COVID-19 vaccine safety and vaccine importance than did younger adults (5). A nationally representative survey conducted during November 2023January 2024 indicated that 68.4% of adults aged 65 years who had received an updated COVID-19 vaccine dose definitely would get another updated vaccine if it were recommended, 27.2% probably would or are unsure if they would get another updated vaccine, and 4.4% said they probably or definitely would not. COVID-19 vaccines are currently on the commercial market, but access-related barriers and disparities in vaccine coverage remain (5); in the absence of any recommendations for an additional dose, access to vaccine would be limited among persons unable to pay out of pocket for the vaccine.*

On February 28, 2024, ACIP voted to recommend that all persons aged 65 years receive 1 additional dose of any updated COVID-19 vaccine (i.e., Moderna, Novavax, or Pfizer-BioNTech). This recommendation was based on continuing SARS-CoV-2 circulation throughout the year, increased risk for severe illness attributable to COVID-19 in adults aged 65 years, protection provided by the updated vaccines against JN.1 and other currently circulating variants, the expected waning of SARS-CoV-2 immunity, and additional implementation considerations, including facilitating clear communication and equitable access to vaccine (5).

In 2018, ACIP adopted the Evidence to Recommendations framework to guide the development of vaccine recommendations. Since November 2023, the ACIP COVID-19 work group met seven times to discuss the current policy question, i.e., whether adults aged 65 years should receive an additional dose of updated COVID-19 vaccine. Work group membership included ACIP voting members, representatives of ACIP ex officio and liaison organizations, and scientific consultants with expertise in public health, immunology, medical specialties, and immunization safety and effectiveness. Work group discussion topics included COVID-19 disease surveillance and epidemiology; COVID-19 vaccination coverage; and the safety, effectiveness, feasibility of implementation, and cost effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. This report summarizes the ACIP recommendation for an additional dose of the updated COVID-19 vaccine for persons aged 65 years and the rationale, including evidence reviewed by the work group and presented to ACIP (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/recs/grade/covid-19-additional-dose-adults-etr.html).

No clinical trial immunogenicity data on an additional dose of the updated COVID-19 vaccines exist; however, the initial dose elicits a robust neutralizing antibody response and provides protection against JN.1 and other circulating variants (12,13). Early vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates demonstrate that updated COVID-19 vaccination provided increased protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19associated emergency department and urgent care visits and hospitalization, compared with receipt of no updated vaccine dose (12,14). Although these early VE estimates show no substantial waning, based on data on effectiveness of original and bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, waning of vaccine-conferred immunity is expected. Effectiveness of an additional dose in older adults has been demonstrated for previously recommended additional original COVID-19 vaccine doses (15). Among adults aged 50 years who were eligible to receive a second original monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster dose, VE against COVID-19associated emergency department and urgent care encounters during the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2/BA.2.12.1 period 120 days after the third dose was 32% but increased to 66% 7 days after the fourth dose. VE against COVID-19associated hospitalization 120 days after the third dose was 55% but increased to 80% 7 days after the fourth dose (15). In addition, in a large cohort of nursing home residents during circulation of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants, receipt of a second original monovalent mRNA COVID-19 booster dose 60 days earlier was 74% effective against severe COVID-19related outcomes (including hospitalization or death) and 90% effective against death, compared with receipt of a single booster dose (16).

COVID-19 vaccines have a favorable safety profile as demonstrated by robust safety surveillance during 3 years of COVID-19 vaccine use (17). Anaphylactic reactions have rarely been reported after receipt of COVID-19 vaccines (18). A rare risk for myocarditis and pericarditis exists, predominately in males aged 1239 years (19). No new safety concerns have been identified for the updated COVID-19 vaccine (5). Among adults aged 65 years, overall reactogenicity after COVID-19 vaccination is less frequent and less severe than among adolescents and younger adults (20). A statistical signal for ischemic stroke after Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was detected in the CDC Vaccine Safety Datalink among persons aged 65 years, and information about this detection has been presented at previous ACIP meetings. Ongoing efforts to evaluate the signal have not identified any clear and consistent evidence of a safety concern for ischemic stroke with bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines either when given alone or when given simultaneously with influenza vaccines (21). A recent VE study indicated that the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was 47% effective in preventing COVID-19 related thromboembolic events (ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and deep vein thrombosis) among persons aged 65 years (22).

ACIP considered whether an additional dose of updated COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged 65 years is a reasonable and efficient allocation of resources. The societal incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for an additional dose of COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged 65 years was $255,122 per quality-adjusted life year saved for the base case estimate. ICER values were sensitive to probability of hospitalizations, costs, and seasonality assumptions. Estimates of ICER values that approximate cost effectiveness for those with higher risk for COVID-19associated hospitalization, such as persons with underlying conditions or those aged 75 years, were more favorable (23).

On February 28, 2024, ACIP recommended that all persons aged 65 years receive 1 additional dose of any updated COVID-19 vaccine (i.e., Moderna, Novavax, or Pfizer-BioNTech). This additional dose should be administered 4 months after the previous dose of updated COVID-19 vaccine. For initial vaccination with Novavax COVID-19 vaccine, the 2-dose series should be completed before administration of the additional dose. Because Novavax COVID-19 vaccine is currently authorized under Emergency Use Authorization, the recommendation for the updated Novavax COVID-19 vaccine is an interim recommendation.

Persons aged 65 years who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, have completed an initial series, and have received 1 updated COVID-19 vaccine dose should receive 1 additional updated COVID-19 vaccine dose 2 months after the last dose of updated vaccine. Further additional doses may be administered, guided by the clinical judgment of a health care provider and personal preference and circumstances. Any further additional doses should be administered 2 months after the last COVID-19 vaccine dose. Additional clinical considerations, including detailed schedules and tables by age for all age groups and vaccination history for those who are or are not moderately or severely immunocompromised, are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html.

Adverse events after vaccination should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). For licensed COVID-19 vaccines administered to persons aged 12 years, reporting is encouraged for any clinically significant adverse event even when whether the vaccine caused the event is uncertain, as well as for vaccination errors. For COVID-19 vaccines given under Emergency Use Authorization, vaccination providers are required to report certain adverse events to VAERS. Additional information is available at https://vaers.hhs.gov or by telephone at 1-800-822-7967.

Karen Broder, Mary Chamberland, Demetre Daskalakis, Susan Goldstein, Aron Hall, Elisha Hall, Fiona Havers, Andrew Leidner, Pedro Moro, Sara Oliver, Ismael Ortega-Sanchez, Kadam Patel, Manisha Patel, Amanda Payne, Huong Pham, Jamison Pike, Lauren Roper, Sierra Scarbrough, Tom Shimabukuro, Benjamin Silk, John Su, Evelyn Twentyman, Eric Weintraub, David Wentworth, Melinda Wharton, Michael Whitaker, JoEllen Wolicki, Fangjun Zhou, CDC. Voting members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (in addition to listed authors): Wilbur Chen, University of Maryland School of Medicine; Sybil Cineas, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University; Camille Kotton, Harvard Medical School; James Loehr, Cayuga Family Medicine; Sarah Long, Drexel University College of Medicine. Members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group: Beth P. Bell, University of Washington; Edward Belongia, Center for Clinical Epidemiology & Population Health, Marshfield Clinic Research Institute; Henry Bernstein, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell Cohen Childrens Medical Center; Uzo Chukwuma, Indian Health Service; Paul Cieslak, Christine Hahn, Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists; Richard Dang, American Pharmacists Association; Jeffrey Duchin, Infectious Diseases Society of America; Kathy Edwards, Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Sandra Fryhofer, American Medical Association; Jason M. Goldman, American College of Physicians; Robert Hopkins, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; Michael Ison, Chris Roberts, National Institutes of Health; Lisa A. Jackson, Jennifer C. Nelson, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute; Denise Jamieson, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Jeffery Kelman, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; Kathy Kinlaw, Center for Ethics, Emory University; Alan Lam, U.S. Department of Defense; Grace M. Lee, Stanford University School of Medicine; Lucia Lee, Anuga Rastogi, Adam Spanier, Rachel Zhang, Food and Drug Administration; Valerie Marshall, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Dayna Bowen Matthew, George Washington University Law School; Preeti Mehrotra, Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America; Kathleen Neuzil, Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine; Sean OLeary, American Academy of Pediatrics; Christine Oshansky, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority; Stanley Perlman, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Iowa; Marcus Plescia, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials; Rob Schechter, National Foundation for Infectious Diseases; Kenneth Schmader, American Geriatrics Society; Peter Szilagyi, University of California, Los Angeles; H. Keipp Talbot, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; Jonathan Temte, American Academy of Family Physicians; Matthew Tunis, National Advisory Committee on Immunization Secretariat, Public Health Agency of Canada; Matt Zahn, National Association of County and City Health Officials; Nicola P. Klein, Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Cara B. Janusz, Lisa Prosser, Angela Rose, University of Michigan.

More:

Use of an Additional Updated 20232024 COVID-19 Vaccine Dose for Adults Aged 65 Years: Recommendations of ... - CDC

The COVID-19 lull in the U.S. may soon come to an end, as a new family of SARS-CoV-2 variantsnicknamed FLiRT variantsbegins to spread nationwide.

These variants are distant Omicron relatives that spun out from JN.1, the variant behind the surge in cases this past winter. Theyve been dubbed FLiRT variants based on the technical names for their mutations, one of which includes the letters F and L, and another of which includes the letters R and T.

Within the FLiRT family, one variant in particular has risen to prominence: KP.2, which accounted for about 25% of new sequenced cases during the two weeks ending Apr. 27, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Other FLiRT variants, including KP.1.1, have not become as widespread in the U.S. yet.

Researchers are still learning about the FLiRT variants, and many questions remain about how quickly theyll spread, whether theyll cause disease thats more or less severe than what weve seen previously, and how well vaccines will stand up to them. Heres what we know so far.

Despite KP.2's rise in the U.S., its too soon to tell whether the FLiRT family will be responsible for a major surge in cases, says Dr. Eric Topol, executive vice president at Scripps Research, who wrote about the FLiRT variants in a recent edition of his newsletter. For now, the amount of SARS-CoV-2 virus in U.S. wastewater remains minimal, according to the CDC, and hospitalizations and deaths have also continued to decline steadily since their recent peaks in January. At the global level, case counts rose from early to mid-April, but remain far lower than they were a few months ago.

KP.2 and its relatives will likely cause an uptick in cases, but my hunch is it wont be a big wave, Topol says. It might be a wavelet. Thats because people who were recently infected by the JN.1 variant seem to have some protection against reinfection, Topol says, and the virus hasnt mutated enough to become wildly different from previous strains. A recent study from researchers in Japan, which was posted online before being peer-reviewed, also found that KP.2 is less infectious than JN.1.

Vaccines still provide good protection against COVID-19-related hospitalization and death. But two preliminary studiesthe one from Japan and another from researchers in China, which was also posted online before being peer-reviewedsuggest the FLiRT variants may be better at dodging immune protection from vaccines than JN.1 was.

That isnt good, Topol says, especially since many people who got the most recent boosterroughly 30% of adults in the U.S. got it last fall, meaning their protection has begun to wane.

In an Apr. 26 statement, the World Health Organization recommended basing future vaccine formulations on the JN.1 lineage, since it seems the virus will continue to evolve from that variant. The most recent booster was based on an older strain, XBB.1.5.

The virus continues to evolve, but public-health advice remains the same: stay up-to-date on vaccines, test before gatherings, stay home when you're ill, and consider masking and avoiding crowded indoor areas, especially when lots of COVID-19 is going around.

More here:

What to Know About the 'FLiRT' Variants of COVID-19 - TIME

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has lifted the requirement for hospitals to report COVID-19 hospitalization data to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Effective May 1, the CDC says reporting by hospitals of COVID-19 hospital admissions, hospital capacity or hospital occupancy data is no longer a mandate.

The CDC does however still strongly recommend voluntary reporting of the data.

Any data voluntarily reported after the May 1 date will become available on May 10.

This comes as COVID hospitalizations hit a record low.

Weekly COVID hospitalizations dropped to an all-time low of 5,615 hospitalizations for the week of April 20, according to the CDC.

Comparatively, hospitalizations for coronavirus peaked during the week of Jan. 15, 2022, with 150,650 hospitalizations, CDC data shows. This came amid a surge of infections from the omicron variant.

Federal officials have been collecting COVID-19 data from hospitals since the pandemic began in March 2020.

Science and Tech

5:31 PM, Mar 15, 2024

See more here:

Hospitals no longer have to report COVID-19 hospitalization data, CDC says - 2 News Oklahoma KJRH Tulsa

The implications of such speculation are profound. If indeed these incidents are vaccine-related, who then bears the enduring burden of responsibility? Moreover, how can we trust the reliability and objectivity of those tasked with investigating these interconnections? These questions strike at the very core of the urgent need for thorough and transparent research, as well as accountability from all stakeholders involved in the development, distribution, and monitoring of vaccines.

The approval of Covishield for emergency use in early 2021, coupled with the waiver of traditional vaccine trial protocols by drug regulators, has the potential to profoundly affect public confidence in the vaccine. Or for that matter, any vaccine or medicine in the future. Such expedited measures, while aimed at swiftly delivering vital vaccines to the populace during the pandemic, raise citizenry concerns regarding consumer recourse in the event of adverse effects.

During a pandemic, the prevailing sentiment of overwhelming gratitude towards vaccines probably inadvertently overshadowed the need to conduct a fair and comprehensive assessment of potential side effects. It is all too convenient for some to attribute medical conditions solely to familial medical history and genetic predispositions, while disregarding the potential impact of vaccinations.

Any scepticism regarding vaccine safety has been met with resistance or even disdain.While vaccines undoubtedly play a crucial role in mitigating the spread of infectious diseases, including Covid-19, it is essential to maintain a balanced perspective.Acknowledging and thoroughly investigating potential side effects is not an indictment of vaccines themselves but rather a fundamental aspect of ensuring public health and safety. But where does one even start with this fundamental task?

While governments acted out of necessity to address the urgent health crisis, the focus on vaccine deployment must not overshadow the plight of individuals suffering from various side effects.While it may be theoretically untenable to hold governments solely accountable, questions arise regarding the accountability of vaccine manufacturers and distributors, entities with decades of clinical expertise and responsibility in ensuring product safety.

In medico-legal contexts, it is often tempting to dismiss adverse events as isolated incidents. However, in the case of vaccine design, where meticulous testing is paramount, the impact of Covid-19 vaccines on individuals' lives, including ongoing health challenges, cannot be disregarded. Families grappling with potential vaccine-related fatalities deserve answers and support, as do those contending with the enduring consequences of vaccine-related health issues.

In a humanitarian plea, one may ask: Is it too much to expect vaccine makers to acknowledge that testing may have been insufficient? After all, each vial of vaccine, while undoubtedly saving countless lives, may also carry the weight of families mourning lost loved ones or individuals grappling with vaccine-related health issues. But vaccines, as much as any healthcare, is a hard-nosed business. Such an expectation is a flawed contradiction to the principles of justice. At the altar of a legal framework, such expectations would need time and financial resources.

The prospect of pursuing a medico-legal case can feel daunting for families already burdened by the consequences of vaccine-related adverse events. The pharmaceutical industry, with its considerable resources and legal expertise, may seem formidable in comparison. Yet, it is essential to remember that every individual impacted by vaccine-related issues deserves to have their concerns heard and addressed with empathy and fairness. Do we have such fairness in the Indian society?

(Srinath Sridharan is a policy researcher and corporate adviser. X: @ssmumbai.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.

Link:

Covid-19 | Families grappling with vaccine-related fatalities deserve answers and support - Deccan Herald

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has lifted the requirement for hospitals to report COVID-19 hospitalization data to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Effective May 1, the CDC says reporting by hospitals of COVID-19 hospital admissions, hospital capacity or hospital occupancy data is no longer a mandate.

The CDC does however still strongly recommend voluntary reporting of the data.

Any data voluntarily reported after the May 1 date will become available on May 10.

This comes as COVID hospitalizations hit a record low.

Weekly COVID hospitalizations dropped to an all-time low of 5,615 hospitalizations for the week of April 20, according to the CDC.

Comparatively, hospitalizations for coronavirus peaked during the week of Jan. 15, 2022, with 150,650 hospitalizations, CDC data shows. This came amid a surge of infections from the omicron variant.

Federal officials have been collecting COVID-19 data from hospitals since the pandemic began in March 2020.

Science and Tech

4:31 PM, Mar 15, 2024

Continued here:

Hospitals no longer have to report COVID-19 hospitalization data, CDC says - Denver 7 Colorado News

With healthcare worker (HCW) burnout one of the most pressing issues facing US clinicians, a new study in JAMA Network Open indicates that Stress First Aid, a peer-to-peer support intervention, improved the well-being of HCWs compared with usual care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study is one of the only randomized clinical trials published on provider burnout interventions, and an editorial on the study in the same journal suggests the findings highlight that workplace interventions in health care have the potential to make meaningful reductions in burnout and potentially lead to more robust and resilient health care institutions.

The study enrolled 2,077 HCWs employed at 28 hospitals or clinics across the country from March 2021 through July 2022. Participants were divided into two groups, one that revived standard care and one that received a peer-to-peer support intervention from trained healthcare workers.

Recipients of the intervention were also taught to respond to their own and their peers stress reactions, the authors said, using seven core actions: check, coordinate, cover, calm, connect, competence, and confidence.

For every 50 HCWs trained, one "champion" at each site was selected to then learn the training and continue training new workers. The main outcomes of the study were rates of psychological distress and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

In total, 862 participants (696 women [80.7%] and 159 men [18.4%]) were from sites randomly assigned to the intervention arm, with a baseline psychological distress score of 5.86 and a baseline PTSD score of 16.11.

A total of 1,215 study participants were not treated. That group had a baseline mean psychological distress score of 5.98 and a baseline PTSD score of 16.40.

When looking at self-reported symptoms, researchers found a 4.6-point reduction (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1 to 1.0) on the 0- to 24-point psychological distress score and a 6.8-point reduction (95% CI, 13.2 to 0.3) on the 0- to 80-point PTSD symptom score, which were clinically meaningful effect sizes, the authors said.

But an intent-to-treat analyses revealed no overall treatment effect of the intervention. Furthermore, the treatment effect was seen most strongly in HCWs 30 years and younger.

"Given that we found a significant effect in younger HCWs," they wrote. "It could be helpful to focus future studies of this peer-to-peer support intervention on trainees (eg, residents and nursing trainees) to capture HCWs at a critical point in their early professional development, as the intervention was originally implemented in its first military setting to create culture change within a large system."

It could be helpful to focus future studies of this peer-to-peer support intervention on trainees .

In a commentary on the study, Anna OKelly, MD, from Harvard Medical School, and colleagues wrote that the study highlights the "importance of collegiality and mutual support in a cataclysmic crisis. On the basis of the results of their study, this may be especially meaningful for young health care workers who have yet to develop the most personally meaningful coping strategies, clinical confidence, and workplace community and networks that a longer career in health care may afford."

Continue reading here:

Peer support valuable intervention for health worker stress during COVID-19, study shows - University of Minnesota Twin Cities

On May 11, 2023, ICE released the Post Pandemic Emergency COVID-19 Guidelines and Protocols, which supersedes the Pandemic Response Requirements (PRR) 10.0 released on November 1, 2022.

On November 1, 2022, ICE released a revised version of the PRR, which includes several updates and points of clarification to the previous version of the PRR released on June 13, 2022.

On June 13, 2022, ICE released a revised version of the PRR, which includes several updates and points of clarification to the previous version of the PRR released on April 4, 2022.

On April 4, 2022, ICE released a revised version of the PRR, which includes several updates and points of clarification to the previous version of the PRR released on Oct. 19, 2021.

On October 19, 2021, ICE released a revised version of the PRR, which includes several updates and points of clarification to the previous version of the PRR released on March 18, 2021.

On March 16, 2021, ICE released a revised version of the PRR, which includes several updates and points of clarification to the previous version of the PRR released on October 27, 2020.

On October 27, 2020, ICE released a revised version of the PRR, which updated the definition of and procedures surrounding severe psychiatric illness in ICEs identification of aliens at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19; adjusted ICE procedures in notifying the detainee and his or her legal counsel within 12 hours that the detainee falls within the populations identified as potentially being at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 and/or subclasses certified in Fraihat v. ICE; added a requirement for non-dedicated ICE detention facilities to evaluate new admissions within five days of entering custody to determine if the detainee falls within the population identified as potentially at higher risk for serious illness from COVID-19; added a section on ICE procedures for handling vulnerable populations at high risk, to include performance standards for screening, testing and custody determinations, to include requiring all new arrivals into ICE detention be tested for COVID-19 within 12 hours of arrival (collection timeframe may extend to 24 hours if facility collection logistics require additional time); included updated procedures for the use of safe cleaning products, as well as reporting requirements and ICE investigations if adverse reactions to cleaning products are experienced by detainees; amended detainee transfers by discontinuing the transfer of ICE detainees except in certain circumstances, with transfers required to clear quarantine protocols and ICE Health Services Corps, and transfers for any other reasons requiring pre-approval by the local ERO Field Office Director; highlighted that extended lockdowns must not be used as a means of COVID-19 prevention practice; and established that medical isolation is operationally distinct from administrative or disciplinary segregation, or any punitive form of housing.

On September 4, 2020, ICE released a revised version of the PRR, a dynamic document that was developed in consultation with the CDC and is updated as new information becomes available and best practices emerge. This version of the PRR updates the list of COVID-19 symptoms recognized by the CDC; provides additional guidance on protocols for asymptomatic staff who have been identified as close contacts of a confirmed COVID-19 case; clarifies that whenever possible, ICE will limit transfers of both ICE detainees and non-ICE detained populations to and from other jurisdictions and facilities unless necessary for medical evaluation, medical isolation/quarantine, clinical care, extenuating security concerns, to facilitate release or removal, or to prevent overcrowding; updates isolation protocols for COVID-19 cases to incorporate the latest CDC guidance on discontinuing transmission-based precautions using a symptom-based or time-based strategy rather than a testing-based strategy; and provides additional information on testing for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected recent exposure.

On July 28, 2020, ICE released a newly revised version of the PRR, which identifies additional populations potentially at higher risk for serious illness from COVID-19; provides updated guidance on personal protective equipment (PPE); updated guidance on hygiene practices; offers additional guidance when transporting a detainee with confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19; includes direct reference to CDC guidance for individuals in medical isolation in detention facilities; and includes an updated testing section based on recently released CDC guidance.

On June 22, 2020, ICE ERO released a revised version of the PRR, which expanded the list of COVID-19 symptoms; identified additional vulnerable populations potentially at higher risk for serious illness from COVID-19; provided that if single isolation rooms are unavailable, individuals with confirmed COVID-19 should be isolated together as a cohort separate from other detainees, including those with pending test results and that suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases maintain separation of groups by common criteria; and added facility compliance measures and updated visitation protocols.

On April 10, 2020, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) released the COVID-19 Pandemic Response Requirements (PRR), a guidance document developed in consultation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that builds upon previously issued guidance. Specifically, the PRR sets forth specific mandatory requirements expected to be adopted by all detention facilities housing ICE detainees, as well as best practices for such facilities, to ensure that detainees are appropriately housed and that available mitigation measures are implemented during this unprecedented public health crisis.

Originally posted here:

ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations Post Pandemic Emergency COVID-19 Guidelines and Protocols - U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Newsroom

Back in those first days of the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020when flour was a hot commodity, hand sanitizer the new goldregistered nurse Jennifer Atkins headed to her local store to findnothing. The shelves had been stripped bare. She and one of her kids immortalized the moment with a lighthearted photoan image thats been named the winner of the Boston University Center on Emerging Infectious Diseases (CEID) Life in the Age of a Pandemic photo contest.

Open to all BU community members, the competition invited entries that caught the essence of what we have all gone through or [exemplify] your own unique experience from the last four years as it relates to the pandemic. Atkins phototitled, No toilet paper?!won her an iPad mini.

We were stunned to see completely empty shelves where there had once been abundant supplies of paper goods (toilet paper, facial tissues, and paper towels), wrote Atkins, who works at Boston Medical Centers Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, in her entry submission. This photo is my very flexible son Shay showing off the empty aisle (and nearly empty store).

While we may all be eager to consign the pandemic to history, Nahid Bhadelia, CEIDs founding director, says the photo contest was designed to help us recognizeand memorializehow it changed our world.

We tend to want to collectively forget when we have a traumatic event like the COVID-19 pandemic, says Bhadelia, a BU Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine associate professor of medicine who recently served on the White House COVID-19 Response Team. We wanted to capture these moments while theyre still fresh in our memories. Looking back now allows us to realize how much life has changed since the beginning of the pandemic.

The second-place entry was BU masters student Raina Levins (SPH25) photo of her socially distanced Northeastern University undergraduate graduation at Fenway Park. In May 2021, I felt very lucky to have a college graduation at all, Levin wrote in her submission. Students were spaced apart and each allowed only one guest. My aunt, who lives locally, was my guest of honor. While subdued, my graduation still felt festive, a reminder that we could still be together while physically distant.

As one of the judges, Bhadelia says she was struck by how personal many of the photos were and how people found joy or meaning in their everyday lives during a crisis.

The competition also had a popular choice category, with a vote open to BU faculty, staff, and students. The two winners were both PhD students: Aubrey Odom (CDS27, ENG27), for a snapshot of an isolated performer in New Yorks Central Park, and Stephanie Loo (SPH23), for a photo of a discarded mask encrusted with shells.

CEID brings experts together from a range of disciplines to help anticipate and take on global pandemicsleading research, hosting multidisciplinary events and webinars (its next one, on the H5N1 strain of avian flu, is happening on May 9), and partnering with government agencies and community organizations. But Bhadelia says the photo contest reinforces an important lesson for researchers who want to translate their work into action.

Pandemic policies need to start with individuals and communities, she says. People experience crises at a personal level. Policies that dont take that into consideration wont be effective long term.

Originally posted here:

COVID-19 Photo Contest Winners Capture Moments of Joy, Sorrow, Meaning in Crisis - Boston University

The number of food recalls issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture has increased in recent years, after a sharp decline during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Each year, the Food Safety and Service Inspection division of the USDA issues recalls for food products when problems such as foreign material, undeclared allergens and pathogens are found.

The agency only issued 31 recalls in 2020, which was a 75% decline from the previous year.

In 2023, there were 65 food recalls issued, a 40% increase from the previous year.

2015 had the most food recalls in a single year, at 150 recalls. That was the most in a single year in the past dozen years.

Type of work:

Explainer A data-driven story that provides background, definition and detail on a specific topic.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print.

John McCracken covers the industrial agriculture meat industry for Investigate Midwest. He has experience reporting at the intersection of agriculture, environmental pollution and climate change. He... More by John McCracken, Investigate Midwest

Go here to read the rest:

GRAPHIC: Food recalls on the rise post-COVID-19 - The Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting