↑Another study has estimated that B.1.1.7 may be ~64% (32–104%) more lethal
↑ 가나The reported confidence or credible interval has a low probability, so the estimated value can only be understood as possible, not certain nor likely.
↑Another study has estimated that P.1 may be 100% (50% CrI, 70–140%) more transmissible.[D]
↑Preliminary results from a study in the Southern Region of Brazil found P.1 much more lethal for healthy young people. In groups without pre-existing conditions, the variant was found to be 490% (220–985%) more lethal for men in the 20-39 age group, 465% (190–1003%) more lethal for women in the 20-39 age group and 670% (401–1083%) for women in the 40-59 age group.
↑About 40% more transmissible than the Alpha variant.
↑Planas D, Bruel T, Grzelak L, 외. (2021년 4월 14일). “Sensitivity of infectious SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants to neutralizing antibodies”. 《Nature Medicine》 27 (5): 917–924. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01318-5. PMID33772244|pmid= 값 확인 필요 (도움말).
↑Coutinho RM, Marquitti FM, Ferreira LS, Borges ME, da Silva RL, Canton O, 외. (2021년 3월 23일). “Model-based estimation of transmissibility and reinfection of SARS-CoV-2 P.1 variant”. 《medRxiv》 (Preprint): 9. doi:10.1101/2021.03.03.21252706. 2021년 4월 29일에 확인함. The new variant was found to be about 2.6 times more transmissible (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 2.4–2.8) than previous circulating variant(s). ... Table 1: Summary of the fitted parameters and respective confidence intervals considering the entire period, November 1, 2020-January 31, 2021 maintaining the same pathogenicity of the previous variant. Parameter: Relative transmission rate for the new variant. Estimate: 2.61. 2.5%: 2.45. 97.5%: 2.76.지원되지 않는 변수 무시됨: |s2cid= (도움말)
↑ 가나Faria NR, Mellan TA, Whittaker C, Claro IM, Candido DS, Mishra S, 외. (2021년 5월 21일). “Genomics and epidemiology of the P.1 SARS-CoV-2 lineage in Manaus, Brazil”. 《Science》 372 (6544): 815–821. doi:10.1126/science.abh2644. ISSN0036-8075. PMC8139423|pmc= 값 확인 필요 (도움말). PMID33853970|pmid= 값 확인 필요 (도움말). Within this plausible region of parameter space, P.1 can be between 1.7 and 2.4 times more transmissible (50% BCI, 2.0 median, with a 99% posterior probability of being >1) than local non-P1 lineages and can evade 21 to 46% (50% BCI, 32% median, with a 95% posterior probability of being able to evade at least 10%) of protective immunity elicited by previous infection with non-P.1 lineages, corresponding to 54 to 79% (50% BCI, 68% median) cross-immunity ... We estimate that infections are 1.2 to 1.9 times more likely (50% BCI, median 1.5, 90% posterior probability of being >1) to result in mortality in the period after the emergence of P.1, compared with before, although posterior estimates of this relative risk are also correlated with inferred cross-immunity. More broadly, the recent epidemic in Manaus has strained the city’s health care system, leading to inadequate access to medical care. We therefore cannot determine whether the estimated increase in relative mortality risk is due to P.1 infection, stresses on the Manaus health care system, or both. Detailed clinical investigations of P.1 infections are needed.
↑Freitas AR, Lemos DR, Beckedorff OA, Cavalcanti LP, Siqueira AM, Mello RC, 외. (2021년 4월 19일). “The increase in the risk of severity and fatality rate of covid-19 in southern Brazil after the emergence of the Variant of Concern (VOC) SARS-CoV-2 P.1 was greater among young adults without pre-existing risk conditions” (Preprint). doi:10.1101/2021.04.13.21255281 – medRxiv 경유. Female 20 to 39 years old, with no pre-existing risk conditions, were at risk of death 5.65 times higher in February (95% CI, 2.9-11.03; p <0.0001) and in the age group of 40 and 59 years old, this risk was 7.7 times higher (95% CI, 5.01-11.83; p <0.0001) comparing with November–December. ... The heterogeneity observed between the age groups was greater when we analyzed the subgroup of the population without preexisting risk conditions where we found that the CFR in the female sex in the second wave was 1.95 times (95% CI, 1.38-2.76) the CFR of the first wave in the population over 85 years old and was 7.7 times (95% CI, 5.01-11.83; p < 0.0001) in the population between 40 and 59 years old. In the male population without previous diseases, the CFR in the second wave was 2.18 (95% CI, 1.62-2.93) times the CFR of the first wave in the population over 85 years old and 5.9 (95% CI, 3.2-10.85; p < 0, 0001) higher in the range between 20 and 39 years old.
↑Collier DA, De Marco A, Gupta RK, 외. (2021년 5월 6일). “Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 to mRNA vaccine-elicited antibodies.”. 《Nature》 (Published) 593: 136–141. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03412-7. 2021년 6월 1일에 확인함. We therefore generated pseudoviruses that carried the B.1.1.7 spike mutations with or without the additional E484K substitution and tested these against sera obtained after the first and second dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine as well as against convalescent sera. After the second vaccine dose, we observed a considerable loss of neutralizing activity for the pseudovirus with the B.1.1.7 spike mutations and E484K (Fig. 3d, e). The mean fold change for the E484K-containing B.1.1.7 spike variant was 6.7 compared with 1.9 for the B.1.1.7 variant, relative to the wild-type spike protein (Fig. 3a–c and Extended Data Fig. 5). Similarly, when we tested a panel of convalescent sera with a range of neutralization titres (Fig. 1f, g and Extended Data Fig. 5), we observed additional loss of activity against the mutant B.1.1.7 spike with E484K, with fold change of 11.4 relative to the wild-type spike protein (Fig. 3f, g and Extended Data Fig. 5).