RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In May 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released final guidance for blood donor eligibility that recommended the elimination of 3-month deferral for men who have sex with men (MSM) and the related deferral for women who have sex with MSM. In its place, FDA introduced an individual risk assessment policy of asking all presenting blood donors, regardless of sex or gender, if they have had a new partner or more than one sexual partner in the last 3 months and deferring those who also report anal sex (penile-anal intercourse) during this period. We modeled the possible impact of this policy on the US blood donor base. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We developed a computational model to estimate the percentage of blood donors who would be deferred under a policy of individual HIV risk assessment. The model incorporated demographic information about donors and national survey data on HIV risk behaviors and included age and sex distributions and dependencies. RESULTS: Our model estimates that approximately 1.2% of US blood donors would be deferred under the individual HIV risk assessment paradigm. DISCUSSION: The model predicts a relatively minor effect of replacing the time-based deferral for MSM with individual risk-based deferral for sexual behavior. As US blood centers implement this new policy, the effect may be mitigated by donor gains, which warrant further study. The new policy is unlikely to adversely affect the availability of blood and blood components.
Assuntos
Doadores de Sangue , Infecções por HIV , Comportamento Sexual , Humanos , Doadores de Sangue/estatística & dados numéricos , Masculino , Infecções por HIV/epidemiologia , Infecções por HIV/prevenção & controle , Feminino , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Medição de Risco , Adulto , Homossexualidade Masculina , Assunção de Riscos , Seleção do Doador , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Adolescente , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines are authorized for use in children in the United States; real-world assessment of vaccine effectiveness in children is needed. This study's objective was to estimate the effectiveness of receiving a complete primary series of monovalent BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccine in US children. METHODS: This cohort study identified children aged 5-17 years vaccinated with BNT162b2 matched with unvaccinated children. Participants and BNT162b2 vaccinations were identified in Optum and CVS Health insurance administrative claims databases linked with Immunization Information System (IIS) COVID-19 vaccination records from 16 US jurisdictions between December 11, 2020, and May 31, 2022 (end date varied by database and IIS). Vaccinated children were followed from their first BNT162b2 dose and matched to unvaccinated children on calendar date, US county of residence, and demographic and clinical factors. Censoring occurred if vaccinated children failed to receive a timely dose 2 or if unvaccinated children received any dose. Two COVID-19 outcome definitions were evaluated: COVID-19 diagnosis in any medical setting and COVID-19 diagnosis in hospitals/emergency departments (EDs). Propensity score-weighted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated with Cox proportional hazards models, and vaccine effectiveness (VE) was estimated as 1 minus HR. VE was estimated overall, within age subgroups, and within variant-specific eras. Sensitivity, negative control, and quantitative bias analyses evaluated various potential biases. RESULTS: There were 453,655 eligible vaccinated children one-to-one matched to unvaccinated comparators (mean age 12 years; 50% female). COVID-19 hospitalizations/ED visits were rare in children, regardless of vaccination status (Optum, 41.2 per 10,000 person-years; CVS Health, 44.1 per 10,000 person-years). Overall, vaccination was associated with reduced incidence of any medically diagnosed COVID-19 (meta-analyzed VE = 38% [95% CI, 36-40%]) and hospital/ED-diagnosed COVID-19 (meta-analyzed VE = 61% [95% CI, 56-65%]). VE estimates were lowest among children 5-11 years and during the Omicron-variant era. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of a complete BNT162b2 vaccine primary series was associated with overall reduced medically diagnosed COVID-19 and hospital/ED-diagnosed COVID-19 in children; observed VE estimates differed by age group and variant era. REGISTRATION: The study protocol was publicly posted on the BEST Initiative website ( https://bestinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/C19-VX-Effectiveness-Protocol_2022_508.pdf ).
Assuntos
Vacina BNT162 , COVID-19 , Eficácia de Vacinas , Humanos , Vacina BNT162/administração & dosagem , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Feminino , Masculino , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Adolescente , Eficácia de Vacinas/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos de Coortes , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
Importance: In January 2023, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Food and Drug Administration noted a safety concern for ischemic stroke among adults aged 65 years or older who received the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2; WT/OMI BA.4/BA.5 COVID-19 bivalent vaccine. Objective: To evaluate stroke risk after administration of (1) either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine, (2) either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent plus a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine on the same day (concomitant administration), and (3) a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine. Design, Setting, and Participants: Self-controlled case series including 11â¯001 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who experienced stroke after receiving either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine (among 5â¯397â¯278 vaccinated individuals). The study period was August 31, 2022, through February 4, 2023. Exposures: Receipt of (1) either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine (primary) or (2) a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (secondary). Main Outcomes and Measures: Stroke risk (nonhemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack, combined outcome of nonhemorrhagic stroke or transient ischemic attack, or hemorrhagic stroke) during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day risk window after vaccination vs the 43- to 90-day control window. Results: There were 5â¯397â¯278 Medicare beneficiaries who received either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine (median age, 74 years [IQR, 70-80 years]; 56% were women). Among the 11â¯001 beneficiaries who experienced stroke after receiving either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine, there were no statistically significant associations between either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine and the outcomes of nonhemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack, nonhemorrhagic stroke or transient ischemic attack, or hemorrhagic stroke during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day risk window vs the 43- to 90-day control window (incidence rate ratio [IRR] range, 0.72-1.12). Among the 4596 beneficiaries who experienced stroke after concomitant administration of either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine plus a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine, there was a statistically significant association between vaccination and nonhemorrhagic stroke during the 22- to 42-day risk window for the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2; WT/OMI BA.4/BA.5 COVID-19 bivalent vaccine (IRR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.01-1.42]; risk difference/100â¯000 doses, 3.13 [95% CI, 0.05-6.22]) and a statistically significant association between vaccination and transient ischemic attack during the 1- to 21-day risk window for the Moderna mRNA-1273.222 COVID-19 bivalent vaccine (IRR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.06-1.74]; risk difference/100â¯000 doses, 3.33 [95% CI, 0.46-6.20]). Among the 21â¯345 beneficiaries who experienced stroke after administration of a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine, there was a statistically significant association between vaccination and nonhemorrhagic stroke during the 22- to 42-day risk window (IRR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.02-1.17]; risk difference/100â¯000 doses, 1.65 [95% CI, 0.43-2.87]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who experienced stroke after receiving either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine, there was no evidence of a significantly elevated risk for stroke during the days immediately after vaccination.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Vacinas contra Influenza , Influenza Humana , Ataque Isquêmico Transitório , AVC Isquêmico , Acidente Vascular Cerebral , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Vacina de mRNA-1273 contra 2019-nCoV/efeitos adversos , Vacina de mRNA-1273 contra 2019-nCoV/uso terapêutico , Adjuvantes Imunológicos/efeitos adversos , Adjuvantes Imunológicos/uso terapêutico , Vacina BNT162/efeitos adversos , Vacina BNT162/uso terapêutico , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , Vacinas contra COVID-19/uso terapêutico , Acidente Vascular Cerebral Hemorrágico/induzido quimicamente , Acidente Vascular Cerebral Hemorrágico/epidemiologia , Acidente Vascular Cerebral Hemorrágico/etiologia , Vacinas contra Influenza/efeitos adversos , Vacinas contra Influenza/uso terapêutico , Ataque Isquêmico Transitório/induzido quimicamente , Ataque Isquêmico Transitório/epidemiologia , Ataque Isquêmico Transitório/etiologia , Medicare , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/epidemiologia , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/etiologia , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/prevenção & controle , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Vacinação/efeitos adversos , Vacinação/métodos , Vacinas Combinadas/efeitos adversos , Vacinas Combinadas/uso terapêutico , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./estatística & dados numéricos , United States Food and Drug Administration/estatística & dados numéricos , AVC Isquêmico/induzido quimicamente , AVC Isquêmico/epidemiologia , AVC Isquêmico/etiologia , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Idoso de 80 Anos ou maisRESUMO
Introduction: This study is part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Biologics Effectiveness and Safety (BEST) initiative, which aims to improve the FDA's postmarket surveillance capabilities by using real-world data (RWD). In the United States, using RWD for postmarket surveillance has been hindered by the inability to exchange clinical data between healthcare providers and public health organizations in an interoperable format. However, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) has recently enacted regulation requiring all healthcare providers to support seamless access, exchange, and use of electronic health information through the interoperable HL7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) standard. To leverage the recent ONC changes, BEST designed a pilot platform to query and receive the clinical information necessary to analyze suspected AEs. This study assessed the feasibility of using the RWD received through the data exchange of FHIR resources to study post-vaccination AE cases by evaluating the data volume, query response time, and data quality. Materials and methods: The study used RWD from 283 post-vaccination AE cases, which were received through the platform. We used descriptive statistics to report results and apply 322 data quality tests based on a data quality framework for EHR. Results: The volume analysis indicated the average clinical resources for a post-vaccination AE case was 983.9 for the median partner. The query response time analysis indicated that cases could be received by the platform at a median of 3 min and 30 s. The quality analysis indicated that most of the data elements and conformance requirements useful for postmarket surveillance were met. Discussion: This study describes the platform's data volume, data query response time, and data quality results from the queried postvaccination adverse event cases and identified updates to current standards to close data quality gaps.
Assuntos
Confiabilidade dos Dados , United States Food and Drug Administration , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Projetos Piloto , Vigilância de Produtos Comercializados/normas , Vigilância de Produtos Comercializados/estatística & dados numéricos , Sistemas de Notificação de Reações Adversas a Medicamentos/normas , Vacinação/efeitos adversos , Troca de Informação em Saúde/normas , Masculino , Feminino , Adulto , Fatores de Tempo , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde/normas , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , AdolescenteRESUMO
Background: Long-term care residents were among the most vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic. We estimated vaccine effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in Medicare nursing home residents aged ≥65 years during pre-Delta and high Delta periods. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study from 13 December 2020 to 20 November 2021 using Medicare claims data. Exposures included 2 and 3 doses of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. We used inverse probability weighting and Cox proportional hazards models to estimate absolute and relative vaccine effectiveness. Results: Two-dose vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related death was 69.8% (95% CI, 65.9%â73.3%) during the pre-Delta period and 55.7% (49.5%â61.1%) during the high Delta period, without adjusting for time since vaccination. We observed substantial waning of effectiveness from 65.1% (54.2%â73.5%) within 6 months from second-dose vaccination to 45.2% (30.6%â56.7%) ≥6 months after second-dose vaccination in the high Delta period. Three doses provided 88.7% (73.5%â95.2%) vaccine effectiveness against death, and the incremental benefit of 3 vs 2 doses was 74.6% (40.4%â89.2%) during high Delta. Among beneficiaries with a prior COVID-19 infection, 3-dose vaccine effectiveness for preventing death was 78.6% (50.0%â90.8%), and the additional protection of 3 vs 2 doses was 70.0% (30.1%â87.1%) during high Delta. Vaccine effectiveness estimates against less severe outcomes (eg, infection) were lower. Conclusions: This nationwide real-world study demonstrated that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines provided substantial protection against COVID-19-related death. Two-dose protection waned after 6 months. Third doses during the high Delta period provided significant additional protection for individuals with or without a prior COVID-19 infection.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: While safety of influenza vaccines is well-established, some studies have suggested potential associations between influenza vaccines and certain adverse events (AEs). This study examined the safety of the 2022-2023 influenza vaccines among U.S. adults ≥ 65 years. METHODS: A self-controlled case series compared incidence rates of anaphylaxis, encephalitis/encephalomyelitis, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), and transverse myelitis following 2022-2023 seasonal influenza vaccinations (i.e., any, high-dose or adjuvanted) in risk and control intervals among Medicare beneficiaries ≥ 65 years. We used conditional Poisson regression to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for event-dependent observation time and seasonality. Analyses also accounted for uncertainty from outcome misclassification where feasible. For AEs with any statistically significant associations, we stratified results by concomitant vaccination status. RESULTS: Among 12.7 million vaccine recipients, we observed 76 anaphylaxis, 276 encephalitis/encephalomyelitis, 134 GBS and 75 transverse myelitis cases. Only rates of anaphylaxis were elevated in risk compared to control intervals. With all adjustments, an elevated, but non-statistically significant, anaphylaxis rate was observed following any (IRR: 2.40, 95% CI: 0.96-6.03), high-dose (IRR: 2.31, 95% CI: 0.67-7.91), and adjuvanted (IRR: 3.28, 95% CI: 0.71-15.08) influenza vaccination; anaphylaxis IRRs were 2.54 (95% CI: 0.49-13.05) and 1.64 (95% CI: 0.38-7.05) for persons with and without concomitant vaccination, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of encephalitis/encephalomyelitis, GBS, or transverse myelitis were not elevated following 2022-2023 seasonal influenza vaccinations among U.S. adults ≥ 65 years. There was an increased rate of anaphylaxis following influenza vaccination that may have been influenced by concomitant vaccination.
Assuntos
Vacinas contra Influenza , Influenza Humana , Vacinação , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Anafilaxia/epidemiologia , Efeitos Colaterais e Reações Adversas Relacionados a Medicamentos/epidemiologia , Síndrome de Guillain-Barré/epidemiologia , Síndrome de Guillain-Barré/etiologia , Síndrome de Guillain-Barré/induzido quimicamente , Incidência , Vacinas contra Influenza/efeitos adversos , Vacinas contra Influenza/administração & dosagem , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Influenza Humana/epidemiologia , Medicare/estatística & dados numéricos , Mielite Transversa/epidemiologia , Mielite Transversa/etiologia , Estações do Ano , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Vacinação/efeitos adversosRESUMO
Importance: Active monitoring of health outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination provides early detection of rare outcomes that may not be identified in prelicensure trials. Objective: To conduct near-real-time monitoring of health outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination in the US pediatric population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study evaluated 21 prespecified health outcomes after exposure before early 2023 to BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, or NVX-CoV2373 ancestral monovalent COVID-19 vaccines in children aged 6 months to 17 years by applying a near-real-time monitoring framework using health care data from 3 commercial claims databases in the US (Optum [through April 2023], Carelon Research [through March 2023], and CVS Health [through February 2023]). Increased rates of each outcome after vaccination were compared with annual historical rates from January 1 to December 31, 2019, and January 1 to December 31, 2020, as well as between April 1 and December 31, 2020. Exposure: Receipt of an ancestral monovalent BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, or NVX-CoV2373 COVID-19 vaccine dose identified through administrative claims data linked with Immunization Information Systems data. Main Outcomes and Measures: Twenty-one prespecified health outcomes, of which 15 underwent sequential testing and 6 were only monitored descriptively due to lack of historical rates. Results: Among 4â¯102â¯016 vaccinated enrollees aged 6 months to 17 years, 2â¯058â¯142 (50.2%) were male and 3â¯901â¯370 (95.1%) lived in an urban area. Thirteen of 15 sequentially tested outcomes did not meet the threshold for a statistical signal. Statistical signals were detected for myocarditis or pericarditis after BNT162b2 vaccination in children aged 12 to 17 years and seizure after vaccination with BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 in children aged 2 to 4 or 5 years. However, in post hoc sensitivity analyses, a statistical signal for seizure was observed only after mRNA-1273 when 2019 background rates were selected; no statistical signal was observed when 2022 rates were selected. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of pediatric enrollees across 3 commercial health insurance databases, statistical signals detected for myocarditis or pericarditis after BNT162b2 (ages 12-17 years) were consistent with previous reports, and seizures after BNT162b2 (ages 2-4 years) and mRNA-1273 vaccinations (ages 2-5 years) should be further investigated in a robust epidemiologic study with confounding adjustment. The US Food and Drug Administration concludes that the known and potential benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the known and potential risks of COVID-19 infection.
Assuntos
Vacina de mRNA-1273 contra 2019-nCoV , Vacina BNT162 , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , Criança , Adolescente , Masculino , Pré-Escolar , Feminino , Lactente , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , Estudos de Coortes , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Increased risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) following adenovirus vector-based COVID-19 vaccinations has been identified in passive surveillance systems. TTS incidence rates (IRs) in the United States (U.S.) are needed to contextualize reports following COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: We estimated annual and monthly IRs of overall TTS, common site TTS, and unusual site TTS for adults aged 18-64 years in Carelon Research and MarketScan commercial claims (2017-Oct 2020), CVS Health and Optum commercial claims (2019-Oct 2020), and adults aged ≥ 65 years using CMS Medicare claims (2019-Oct 2020); IRs were stratified by age, sex, and race/ethnicity (CMS Medicare). RESULTS: Across data sources, annual IRs for overall TTS were similar between Jan-Dec 2019 and Jan-Oct 2020. Rates were higher in Medicare (IRs: 370.72 and 365.63 per 100,000 person-years for 2019 and 2020, respectively) than commercial data sources (MarketScan IRs: 24.21 and 24.06 per 100,000 person-years; Optum IRs: 32.60 and 31.29 per 100,000 person-years; Carelon Research IRs: 24.46 and 26.16 per 100,000 person-years; CVS Health IRs: 30.31 and 30.25 per 100,000 person-years). Across years and databases, common site TTS IRs increased with age and were higher among males. Among adults aged ≥ 65 years, the common site TTS IR was highest among non-Hispanic black adults. Annual unusual site TTS IRs ranged between 2.02 and 3.04 (commercial) and 12.49 (Medicare) per 100,000 person-years for Jan-Dec 2019; IRs ranged between 1.53 and 2.67 (commercial) and 11.57 (Medicare) per 100,000 person-years for Jan-Oct 2020. Unusual site TTS IRs were higher in males and increased with age in commercial data sources; among adults aged ≥ 65 years, IRs decreased with age and were highest among non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska native adults. CONCLUSION: TTS IRs were generally similar across years, higher for males, and increased with age. These rates may contribute to surveillance of post-vaccination TTS.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Trombocitopenia , Trombose , Adulto , Masculino , Idoso , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Medicare , Incidência , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Trombocitopenia/epidemiologia , COVID-19/epidemiologiaRESUMO
Background: Monovalent booster/additional doses of COVID-19 vaccines were first authorized in August 2021 in the United States. We evaluated the real-world effectiveness of receipt of a monovalent booster/additional dose of COVID-19 vaccine compared with receiving a primary vaccine series without a booster/additional dose. Methods: Cohorts of individuals receiving a COVID-19 booster/additional dose after receipt of a complete primary vaccine series were identified in 2 administrative insurance claims databases (Optum, CVS Health) supplemented with state immunization information system data between August 2021 and March 2022. Individuals with a complete primary series but without a booster/additional dose were one-to-one matched to boosted individuals on calendar date, geography, and clinical factors. COVID-19 diagnoses were identified in any medical setting, or specifically in hospitals/emergency departments (EDs). Propensity score-weighted hazards ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated with Cox proportional hazards models; vaccine effectiveness (VE) was estimated as 1 minus the HR by vaccine brand overall and within subgroups of variant-specific eras, immunocompromised status, and homologous/heterologous booster status. Results: Across both data sources, we identified 752,165 matched pairs for BNT162b2, 410,501 for mRNA-1273, and 11,398 for JNJ-7836735. For any medically diagnosed COVID-19, meta-analyzed VE estimates for BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and JNJ-7836735, respectively, were: BNT162b2, 54% (95% CI, 53%-56%); mRNA-1273, 58% (95% CI, 56%-59%); JNJ-7836735, 34% (95% CI, 23%-44%). For hospital/ED-diagnosed COVID-19, VE estimates ranged from 70% to 76%. VE was generally lower during the Omicron era than the Delta era and for immunocompromised individuals. There was little difference observed by homologous or heterologous booster status. Conclusion: The original, monovalent booster/additional doses were reasonably effective in real-world use among the populations for which they were indicated during the study period. Additional studies may be informative in the future as new variants emerge and new vaccines become available.Registration: The study protocol was publicly posted on the BEST Initiative website (https://bestinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/C19-VX-Effectiveness-Protocol_2022_508.pdf).
RESUMO
This case series investigates whether an increase in stroke risk occurred after influenza vaccination among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries during the influenza seasons from 2016 to 2019.