COVID-19

What Do I Need to Know About the Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine?

Author/s: 
Jerard Z. Kneifati-Hayek, Michael A. Incze

What Is the Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine?
The pneumococcal vaccine protects against infections from a type of bacteria called pneumococcus. Pneumococcus is a common cause of pneumonia (a lung infection), as well as other serious infections. The vaccine prepares your immune system to recognize and fight pneumococcal bacteria. The vaccine is usually given through an injection into the arm. Some versions can also be inhaled. The vaccines do not contain living or dead bacteria. The pneumococcal vaccine does not protect you from other lung infections like the flu (influenza), COVID-19, RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), or other kinds of bacteria that cause pneumonia. It is still important to get your flu shot every year and other vaccines your doctor recommends, even if you already got the pneumococcal vaccine.

What Are Benefits of Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccines?
The vaccine substantially lowers your risk of hospitalization or dying from serious pneumococcal infection. Vaccination can reduce the risk of pneumonia-related deaths by almost half.

Why Is There a New Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine, and How Does It Differ From Prior Versions?
There are several types of pneumococcal bacteria that can cause pneumonia. Being vaccinated against one type of pneumococcus may not protect you from other types that could make you sick. Previous pneumococcal pneumonia vaccines like PPSV23 or PCV13 do not protect against all types of the pneumococcal bacteria that cause pneumonia. Newer vaccines were made in 2021 (PCV15 and PCV20) and 2024 (PCV21). These help to prevent infections from types of bacteria not covered by older versions.

What Are the Potential Side Effects?
Side effects are frequent but generally mild. The most common side effect is pain or redness at the site of injection. Less common side effects include fever, feeling tired, muscle ache, and headache. These are less severe than for other vaccines like flu and shingles. These effects can be treated with over-the-counter medications and generally go away within 24 to 48 hours. Life-threatening allergic reactions are extremely rare but possible. Seek immediate medical attention if you experience severe symptoms like difficulty breathing or progressive weakness after vaccination. The pneumonia vaccine cannot cause pneumonia or other bacterial illness.

Who Should Get a New Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine?
All adults 50 years and older who have not been vaccinated should receive one of the new vaccines: PCV21, PCV20, or a sequence of PCV15 followed by PPSV23. People younger than 50 years with certain health problems should also get the new vaccine. These health problems include diabetes; chronic conditions affecting the heart, lungs, liver, or kidneys; current tobacco use or heavy alcohol consumption; a weak immune system from certain health problems or medications; absence or prior removal of the spleen; and a history of spinal fluid leak or a cochlear (inner ear) implant.

Most adults who got either PPSV23 and/or PCV13 should still get a booster with one of the newer vaccines. The different pneumococcal vaccines protect against different types of bacteria. Some types of bacteria are more common in people depending on their age, health, and where they live. Talk to your doctor about which vaccine is best for you.

Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Review

Author/s: 
Valerie M Vaughn, Robert P Dickson, Jennifer K Horowit, Scott A Flanders

Importance: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) results in approximately 1.4 million emergency department visits, 740 000 hospitalizations, and 41 000 deaths in the US annually.

Observations: Community-acquired pneumonia can be diagnosed in a patient with 2 or more signs (eg, temperature >38 °C or ≤36 °C; leukocyte count <4000/μL or >10 000/μL) or symptoms (eg, new or increased cough or dyspnea) of pneumonia in conjunction with consistent radiographic findings (eg, air space density) without an alternative explanation. Up to 10% of patients with CAP are hospitalized; of those, up to 1 in 5 require intensive care. Older adults (≥65 years) and those with underlying lung disease, smoking, or immune suppression are at highest risk for CAP and complications of CAP, including sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and death. Only 38% of patients hospitalized with CAP have a pathogen identified. Of those patients, up to 40% have viruses identified as the likely cause of CAP, with Streptococcus pneumoniae identified in approximately 15% of patients with an identified etiology of the pneumonia. All patients with CAP should be tested for COVID-19 and influenza when these viruses are common in the community because their diagnosis may affect treatment (eg, antiviral therapy) and infection prevention strategies. If test results for influenza and COVID-19 are negative or when the pathogens are not likely etiologies, patients can be treated empirically to cover the most likely bacterial pathogens. When selecting empirical antibacterial therapy, clinicians should consider disease severity and evaluate the likelihood of a bacterial infection-or resistant infection-and risk of harm from overuse of antibacterial drugs. Hospitalized patients without risk factors for resistant bacteria can be treated with β-lactam/macrolide combination therapy, such as ceftriaxone combined with azithromycin, for a minimum of 3 days. Systemic corticosteroid administration within 24 hours of development of severe CAP may reduce 28-day mortality.

Conclusions: Community-acquired pneumonia is common and may result in sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or death. First-line therapy varies by disease severity and etiology. Hospitalized patients with suspected bacterial CAP and without risk factors for resistant bacteria can be treated with β-lactam/macrolide combination therapy, such as ceftriaxone combined with azithromycin, for a minimum of 3 days.

Personal protective effect of wearing surgical face masks in public spaces on self-reported respiratory symptoms in adults: pragmatic randomised superiority trial

Author/s: 
Runar Barstad Solberg, Atle Fretheim, Ingeborg Hess Elgersma, Mette Fagernes, Bjørn Gunnar Iversen, Lars G Hemkens, Christopher James Rose, Petter Elstrøm

Objective: To evaluate the personal protective effects of wearing versus not wearing surgical face masks in public spaces on self-reported respiratory symptoms over a 14 day period.

Design: Pragmatic randomised superiority trial.

Setting: Norway.

Participants: 4647 adults aged ≥18 years: 2371 were assigned to the intervention arm and 2276 to the control arm.

Interventions: Participants in the intervention arm were assigned to wear a surgical face mask in public spaces (eg, shopping centres, streets, public transport) over a 14 day period (mask wearing at home or work was not mentioned). Participants in the control arm were assigned to not wear a surgical face mask in public places.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was self-reported respiratory symptoms consistent with a respiratory infection. Secondary outcomes included self-reported and registered covid-19 infection.

Results: Between 10 February 2023 and 27 April 2023, 4647 participants were randomised of whom 4575 (2788 women (60.9%); mean age 51.0 (standard deviation 15.0) years) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis: 2313 (50.6%) in the intervention arm and 2262 (49.4%) in the control arm. 163 events (8.9%) of self-reported symptoms consistent with respiratory infection were reported in the intervention arm and 239 (12.2%) in the control arm. The marginal odds ratio was 0.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.87; P=0.001) favouring the face mask intervention. The absolute risk difference was -3.2% (95% CI -5.2% to -1.3%; P<0.001). No statistically significant effect was found on self- reported (marginal odds ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.98; P=0.82) or registered covid-19 infection (effect estimate and 95% CI not estimable owing to lack of events in the intervention arm).

Conclusion: Wearing a surgical face mask in public spaces over 14 days reduces the risk of self-reported symptoms consistent with a respiratory infection, compared with not wearing a surgical face mask.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05690516.

Olgotrelvir as a Single-Agent Treatment of Nonhospitalized Patients with Covid-19

Author/s: 
Rongmeng Jiang, Bing Han, Wanhong Xu, Xiaoying Zhang, Chunxian Peng, Qiang Dang, Wei Sun, Ling Lin

Background: Olgotrelvir is an oral antiviral with dual mechanisms of action targeting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 main protease (i.e., Mpro) and human cathepsin L. It has potential to serve as a single-agent treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19).

Methods: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olgotrelvir in 1212 nonhospitalized adult participants with mild to moderate Covid-19, irrespective of risk factors, who were randomly assigned to receive orally either 600 mg of olgotrelvir or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary and key secondary end points were time to sustained recovery of a panel of 11 Covid-19-related symptoms and the viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) load. The safety end point was incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events.

Results: The baseline characteristics of 1212 participants were similar in the two groups. In the modified intention-to-treat population (567 patients in the placebo group and 558 in the olgotrelvir group), the median time to symptom recovery was 205 hours in the olgotrelvir group versus 264 hours in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13 to 1.46; P<0.001). The least squares mean (95% CI) changes of viral RNA load from baseline were -2.20 (-2.59 to -1.81) log10 copies/ml in olgotrelvir-treated participants and -1.40 (-1.79 to -1.01) in participants receiving placebo at day 4. Skin rash (3.3%) and nausea (1.5%) were more frequent in the olgotrelvir group than in the placebo group; there were no treatment-related serious adverse events, and no deaths were reported.

Conclusions: Olgotrelvir as a single-agent treatment significantly improved symptom recovery. Adverse effects were not dose limiting. (Funded by Sorrento Therapeutics, a parent company of ACEA Therapeutics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05716425.).

Keywords 

Tilt Table Testing

Author/s: 
Chesire, W.P., Dudenkov, D.V., Munipalli, B.

A 43-year-old woman presented with a 1-year history of recurring symptoms of sudden onset of fatigue, palpitations, dyspnea, chest pain, lightheadedness, and nausea that were associated with standing and resolved with sitting. These symptoms began 1 month after mild COVID-19 infection. At presentation, while supine, blood pressure (BP) was 123/70 mm Hg and heart rate (HR) was 90/min; while seated, BP was 120/80 and HR was 93/min; after standing for 1 minute, BP was 124/80 and HR was 119/min. Physical examination results were normal. Oxygen saturation was 98% at rest while breathing room air. She had no oxygen desaturation during a 6-minute walk test but walked only 282 m (45% predicted). Complete blood cell count, morning cortisol, and thyrotropin blood levels were normal. Electrocardiogram (ECG), chest computed tomography, pulmonary function testing, methacholine challenge, bronchoscopy, echocardiography, and cardiac catheterization findings were normal. During tilt table testing, the patient experienced lightheadedness and nausea when moved from horizontal to the upright position. Results of the tilt table test are shown in the Table and Figure.

Tilt Table Testing

Author/s: 
Chesire, W.P., Dudenkov, D.V., Munipalli, B.

A 43-year-old woman presented with a 1-year history of recurring symptoms of sudden onset of fatigue, palpitations, dyspnea, chest pain, lightheadedness, and nausea that were associated with standing and resolved with sitting. These symptoms began 1 month after mild COVID-19 infection. At presentation, while supine, blood pressure (BP) was 123/70 mm Hg and heart rate (HR) was 90/min; while seated, BP was 120/80 and HR was 93/min; after standing for 1 minute, BP was 124/80 and HR was 119/min. Physical examination results were normal. Oxygen saturation was 98% at rest while breathing room air. She had no oxygen desaturation during a 6-minute walk test but walked only 282 m (45% predicted). Complete blood cell count, morning cortisol, and thyrotropin blood levels were normal. Electrocardiogram (ECG), chest computed tomography, pulmonary function testing, methacholine challenge, bronchoscopy, echocardiography, and cardiac catheterization findings were normal. During tilt table testing, the patient experienced lightheadedness and nausea when moved from horizontal to the upright position. Results of the tilt table test are shown in the Table and Figure.

Dynamics of Naturally-Acquired Immunity Against SARS-CoV-2 in Children and Adolescents

Author/s: 
Patalon, T., Saciuk, Y., Perez, G., Peretz, A., Ben-Tov, A., Gazit, S.

Background
To evaluate the duration of protection against reinfection conferred by a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and adolescents.
Methods
We applied two complementary approaches: a matched test-negative, case-control design and a retrospective cohort design. 458,959 unvaccinated individuals aged 5-18 years were included. Analyses focused on July 1 to December 13, 2021, a period of Delta variant dominance in Israel. We evaluated three SARS-CoV-2-related outcomes: documented PCR confirmed infection or reinfection, symptomatic infection or reinfection, and SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalization or death.
Findings
Overall, children and adolescents who were previously infected acquired durable protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 for at least 18 months. Importantly, no SARS-CoV-2-related deaths were recorded in either the SARS-CoV-2 naïve group or the previously infected group. Effectiveness of naturally-acquired immunity against a recurrent infection reached 89.2% (95% CI: 84.7%-92.4%) three to six months after first infection, mildly declining to 82.5% (95% CI, 79.1%-85.3%) 9-12 months after infection, with a slight non-significant waning trend up to 18 months after infection. Additionally, we found that ages 5-11 years exhibited no significant waning of naturally acquired protection throughout the outcome period, whereas waning protection in the 12-18 year-old age group was more prominent, but still mild.
Interpretation
Children and adolescents who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 remain protected to a high degree for 18 months. Further research is needed to examine naturally-acquired immunity against Omicron and newer emerging variants.

Management of chronic respiratory diseases during viral pandemics: A concise review of guidance and recommendations

Author/s: 
Sharma, P., Mishra, M., Dua, R., Saini, L. K., Sindhwani, G.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is an acute respiratory disease that can lead to respiratory failure and death. Although anticipated that patients with chronic respiratory diseases would be at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and more severe presentations of COVID-19, it is striking that these diseases appear to be underrepresented in the comorbidities reported for patients with COVID-19. The first wave of COVID-19 has taught us important lessons concerning the enormous burden on the hospitals, shortage of beds, cross infections and transmissions, which we coped together. However, with the subsequent waves of COVID-19 or any other viral pandemic, to ensure that patients with respiratory illnesses receive adequate management for their diseases while minimizing their hospital visits for their own safety. Hence, we prepared an evidence-based summary to manage outpatients and inpatients suspected or diagnosed with COPD, asthma and ILD based on the experience of the first wave of COVID-19 and recommendations by expert societies and organizations.

Antibody Response Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Implications for Immunity: A Rapid Living Review

Author/s: 
Mackey, K., Arkhipova-Jenkins, I., Armstrong, C., Gean, E., Anderson, J., Paynter, R. A., Helfand, M.

The aims of this rapid systematic review are to synthesize evidence on the prevalence, levels, and durability of the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection among adults and how antibodies correlate with protective immunity. Given the rapidly evolving evidence within this field, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Evidence-based Practice Center (AHRQ EPC) Program will maintain this report as a living review with planned ongoing literature surveillance and critical appraisal. We will provide regular report updates as additional evidence becomes available, modifying the scope of the review as new directions in SARS-CoV-2 immunity research emerge. This review was conducted in coordination with the American College of Physicians (ACP) as part of AHRQ’s standing work to provide health professional organizations and systems with evidence reviews to support the development of clinical guidance for their clinician members.

Subscribe to COVID-19