Hypertension Control During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Cohort Study Among US Veterans.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine whether disruptions in follow-up intervals contributed to hypertension control. BACKGROUND: Disruptions in health care were widespread during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified a cohort of individuals with hypertension in both prepandemic (March 2019-February 2020) and pandemic periods (March 2020-February 2022) in the Veterans Health Administration. First, we calculated follow-up intervals between the last prepandemic and first pandemic blood pressure measurement during a primary care clinic visit, and between measurements in the prepandemic period. Next, we estimated the association between the maintenance of (or achieving) hypertension control and the period using generalized estimating equations. We assessed associations between follow-up interval and control separately for periods. Finally, we evaluated the interaction between period and follow-up length. RESULTS: A total of 1,648,424 individuals met the study inclusion criteria. Among individuals with controlled hypertension, the likelihood of maintaining control was lower during the pandemic versus the prepandemic (relative risk: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.93, 0.93). Longer follow-up intervals were associated with a decreasing likelihood of maintaining controlled hypertension in both periods. Accounting for follow-up intervals, the likelihood of maintaining control was 2% lower during the pandemic versus the prepandemic. For uncontrolled hypertension, the likelihood of gaining control was modestly higher during the pandemic versus the prepandemic (relative risk: 1.01; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.01). The likelihood of gaining control decreased with follow-up length during the prepandemic but not pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, longer follow-up between measurements contributed to the lower likelihood of maintaining control. Those with uncontrolled hypertension were modestly more likely to gain control in the pandemic.

Effectiveness of Sotrovimab in Preventing COVID-19-Related Hospitalizations or Deaths Among US Veterans During Omicron BA.1.

Background: The real-world clinical effectiveness of sotrovimab in preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related hospitalization or mortality among high-risk patients diagnosed with COVID-19, particularly after the emergence of the Omicron variant, needs further research. Method: Using data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, we adopted a target trial emulation design in our study. Veterans aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with COVID-19 between December 1, 2021, and April 4, 2022, were included. Patients treated with sotrovimab (n = 2816) as part of routine clinical care were compared with all eligible but untreated patients (n = 11,250). Cox proportional hazards modeling estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for the association between receipt of sotrovimab and outcomes. Results: Most (90%) sotrovimab recipients were ≥50 years old, and 64% had ≥2 mRNA vaccine doses or ≥1 dose of Ad26.COV2. During the period that BA.1 was dominant, compared with patients not treated, sotrovimab-treated patients had a 70% lower risk of hospitalization or mortality within 30 days (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.23-0.40). During BA.2 dominance, sotrovimab-treated patients had a 71% (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.08-0.98) lower risk of 30-day COVID-19-related hospitalization, emergency room visits, or urgent care visits (defined as severe COVID-19) compared with patients not treated. Conclusions: Using national real-world data from high-risk and predominantly vaccinated veterans, administration of sotrovimab, compared with contemporary standard treatment regimens, was associated with reduced risk of 30-day COVID-19-related hospitalization or all-cause mortality during the Omicron BA.1 period.

Tixagevimab/cilgavimab for preventing COVID-19 during the Omicron surge: retrospective analysis of National Veterans Health Administration electronic data.

Little is known regarding the effectiveness of tixagevimab/cilgavimab in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated immunocompromised patients, particularly after the emergence of the Omicron variant. In this retrospective cohort study with exact matching and propensity score adjustment within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system, we selected immunocompromised veterans age ≥18 years as of 1 January 2022, receiving VA healthcare. We compared a cohort of 1,878 patients treated with at least one dose of intramuscular tixagevimab/cilgavimab to 7,014 matched controls selected from patients who met study criteria but were not treated. Patients were followed through 15 June 2022, or until death, whichever occurred earlier. The primary outcome was a composite of SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalization, and all-cause mortality. We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CI for the association between receipt of tixagevimab/cilgavimab and outcomes. Most (73%) tixagevimab/cilgavimab recipients were ≥65 years old, and 80% had ≥3 mRNA vaccine doses or two doses of Ad26.COV2. Compared to matched controls, recipients had a lower incidence of the composite COVID-19 outcome (49/1,878 [2.6%] versus 312/7,014 [4.4%]; HR 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.52), and individually SARS-CoV-2 infection (HR 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.88), COVID-19 hospitalization (HR 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10-0.59), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.32; 95% CI, 0.19-0.55). In conclusion, tixagevimab/cilgavimab was associated with lower rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 during the Omicron BA.1, BA.2, and BA.2.12.1 surge. IMPORTANCE SARS-CoV-2 remains an ongoing global health crisis that justifies continued efforts to validate and expand, when possible, knowledge on the efficacy of available vaccines and treatments. Clinical trials have been limited due to fast tracking of medications for mitigation of the COVID-19 pandemic for the general population. We present a real-world analysis, using electronic health record data, of the effectiveness of tixagevimab/cilgavimab for the prevention of COVID-19 infection in the unique population of U.S. veterans. Unlike those in the PROVENT clinical trial from which the emergency use authorization for tixagevimab/cilgavimab as a preventative treatment arose, the veterans population is highly immunocompromised and nearly 96% totally vaccinated. These demographics allowed us to analyze the effectiveness of tixagevimab/cilgavimab in preventing COVID-19 under different conditions in a more fragile population than that of the initial clinical trial.

Excess Mortality Among Patients in the Veterans Affairs Health System Compared With the Overall US Population During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a substantial increase in the rate of death in the United States. It is unclear whether those who had access to comprehensive medical care through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system had different death rates compared with the overall US population. Objective: To quantify and compare the increase in death rates during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic between individuals who received comprehensive medical care through the VA health care system and those in the general US population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study compared 10.9 million enrollees in the VA, including 6.8 million active users of VA health care (those with a visit in the last 2 years), with the general population of the US, with deaths occurring from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020. Statistical analysis was conducted from May 17, 2021, to March 15, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in rates of death from any cause during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 compared with previous years. Changes in all-cause death rates by quarter were stratified by age, sex, race and ethnicity, and region, based on individual-level data. Multilevel regression models were fit in a bayesian setting. Standardized rates were used for comparison between populations. Results: There were 10.9 million enrollees in the VA health care system and 6.8 million active users. The demographic characteristics of the VA populations were predominantly male (>85% in the VA health care system vs 49% in the general US population), older (mean [SD], 61.0 [18.2] years in the VA health care system vs 39.0 [23.1] years in the US population), and had a larger proportion of patients who were White (73% in the VA health care system vs 61% in the US population) or Black (17% in the VA health care system vs 13% in the US population). Increases in death rates were apparent across all of the adult age groups (≥25 years) in both the VA populations and the general US population. Across all of 2020, the relative increase in death rates compared with expected values was similar for VA enrollees (risk ratio [RR], 1.20 [95% CI, 1.14-1.29]), VA active users (RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.14-1.26]), and the general US population (RR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.17-1.22]). Because the prepandemic standardized mortality rates were higher in the VA populations prior to the pandemic, the absolute rates of excess mortality were higher in the VA populations. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, a comparison of excess deaths between populations suggests that active users of the VA health system had similar relative increases in mortality compared with the general US population during the first 10 months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Adverse outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection with delta and omicron variants in vaccinated versus unvaccinated US veterans: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between covid-19 vaccination types and doses with adverse outcomes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the periods of delta (B.1.617.2) and omicron (B.1.1.529) variant predominance. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: US Veterans Affairs healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (≥18 years) who are affiliated to Veterans Affairs with a first documented SARS-CoV-2 infection during the periods of delta (1 July-30 November 2021) or omicron (1 January-30 June 2022) variant predominance. The combined cohorts had a mean age of 59.4 (standard deviation 16.3) and 87% were male. INTERVENTIONS: Covid-19 vaccination with mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna)) and adenovirus vector vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson)). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stay in hospital, intensive care unit admission, use of ventilation, and mortality measured 30 days after a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: In the delta period, 95 336 patients had infections with 47.6% having at least one vaccine dose, compared with 184 653 patients in the omicron period, with 72.6% vaccinated. After adjustment for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, in the delta period, two doses of the mRNA vaccines were associated with lower odds of hospital admission (adjusted odds ratio 0.41 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.43)), intensive care unit admission (0.33 (0.31 to 0.36)), ventilation (0.27 (0.24 to 0.30)), and death (0.21 (0.19 to 0.23)), compared with no vaccination. In the omicron period, receipt of two mRNA doses were associated with lower odds of hospital admission (0.60 (0.57 to 0.63)), intensive care unit admission (0.57 (0.53 to 0.62)), ventilation (0.59 (0.51 to 0.67)), and death (0.43 (0.39 to 0.48)). Additionally, a third mRNA dose was associated with lower odds of all outcomes compared with two doses: hospital admission (0.65 (0.63 to 0.69)), intensive care unit admission (0.65 (0.59 to 0.70)), ventilation (0.70 (0.61 to 0.80)), and death (0.51 (0.46 to 0.57)). The Ad26.COV2.S vaccination was associated with better outcomes relative to no vaccination, but higher odds of hospital stay and intensive care unit admission than with two mRNA doses. BNT162b2 was generally associated with worse outcomes than mRNA-1273 (adjusted odds ratios between 0.97 and 1.42). CONCLUSIONS: In veterans with recent healthcare use and high occurrence of multimorbidity, vaccination was robustly associated with lower odds of 30 day morbidity and mortality compared with no vaccination among patients infected with covid-19. The vaccination type and number of doses had a significant association with outcomes.

The efficacy and safety of buprenorphine for the treatment of depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are common. Many patients with major depression do not achieve remission with available treatments. Buprenorphine has been raised as a potential treatment for depression as well as suicidal behavior but may pose certain risks. METHODS: A meta-analysis comparing the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of buprenorphine (or combinations such as buprenorphine/samidorphan) versus control in improving symptoms in patients with depression. Medline, Cochrane Database, PsycINFO, Excerpta Medica Database and The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched from inception through January 2, 2022. Depressive symptoms were pooled using Hedge's g with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). Tolerability, safety, suicide outcomes were summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: 11 studies (N = 1699) met inclusion criteria. Buprenorphine had a small effect on depressive symptoms (Hedges' g 0.17, 95%CI: 0.05-0.29). Results were driven by six trials of buprenorphine/samidorphan (N = 1,343, Hedges's g 0.17, 95%CI: 0.04-0.29). One study reported significant improvement in suicidal thoughts (Least Squares Mean Change: -7.1, 95%CI: -12.0 - 2.3). Most studies found buprenorphine was well-tolerated with no evidence of abuse behavior or dependency. CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine may have a small benefit for depressive symptoms. Future research should clarify the dose response relationship between buprenorphine and depression.

Clinical and Cost Benefits of Anti-Obesity Medication for US Veterans Participating in the MOVE! Weight Management Program.

Abstract This study investigated the clinical and economic impact of anti-obesity medications (AOMs; orlistat, liraglutide, phentermine/topiramate extended-release [ER], naltrexone ER/bupropion ER) among United States Veterans with obesity participating in Motivating Overweight/Obese Veterans Everywhere! (MOVE!), a government-initiated weight management program. The study population was identified from electronic medical records of the Veterans Health Administration (2010-2020). Clinical indices of obesity and health care resource utilization and costs were evaluated at 6, 12, and 24 months after the initial dispensing of an AOM in the AOM+MOVE! cohort (N = 3732, mean age 57 years, 79% male) or on the corresponding date of an inpatient or outpatient encounter in the MOVE! cohort (N = 7883, mean age 58 years, 81% male). At 6 months postindex, the AOM+MOVE! cohort had better cardiometabolic indices (eg, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, hemoglobin A1c) than the MOVE! cohort, with the trends persisting at 12 and 24 months. The AOM+MOVE! cohort was significantly more likely than the MOVE! cohort to have weight decreases of 5%-10%, 10%-15%, and >15% and lower body mass index at 6, 12, and 24 months. The AOM+MOVE! cohort also had fewer inpatient and emergency department visits than the MOVE! cohort, which was associated with lower mean total medical costs including inpatient costs. These results suggest that combining AOM treatment with the MOVE! program could yield long-term cost savings for the Veterans Affairs network and meaningful clinical improvements for Veterans with obesity.

Predictors of Incident Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Positivity in a Veteran Population.

OBJECTIVES: We explored factors related to testing positive for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to identify populations most at risk for this airborne pathogen. METHODS: Data were abstracted from the medical record database of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and from public sources. Veterans testing positive were matched in a 1:4 ratio to those at a similar timepoint and local disease burden who remained negative between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. Multivariable logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios for the association of each potential risk factor with a positive test result. RESULTS: A total of 24,843 veterans who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were matched with 99,324 controls. Cases and controls were similar in age, sex, ethnicity, and rurality, but cases were more likely to be Black, reside in low-income counties, and suffer from dementia. Multivariable analysis demonstrated highest risk for Black veterans, those with dementia or diabetes, and those living in nursing homes or high-poverty areas. Veterans living in counties likely to be more adherent to public health guidelines were at the lowest risk. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are similar to those from studies of other populations and add to that work by accounting for several important proxies for risk. In particular, this work has implications for the value of infection control measures at the population level in helping to stem widespread outbreaks of this type.

Development and Validation of a Clinical Risk Score to Predict Hospitalization Within 30 Days of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION: Early identification of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are at risk for hospitalization may help to mitigate disease burden by allowing healthcare systems to conduct sufficient resource and logistical planning in the event of case surges. We sought to develop and validate a clinical risk score that uses readily accessible information at testing to predict individualized 30-day hospitalization risk following COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS: We assembled a retrospective cohort of U.S. Veterans Health Administration patients (age ≥ 18 years) diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. We screened patient characteristics using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator logistic regression and constructed the risk score using characteristics identified as most predictive for hospitalization. Patients diagnosed before November 1, 2020, comprised the development cohort, while those diagnosed on or after November 1, 2020, comprised the validation cohort. We assessed risk score discrimination by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve and calibration using the Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) goodness-of-fit test. This study was approved by the Veteran's Institutional Review Board of Northern New England at the White River Junction Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Reference no.:1473972-1). RESULTS: The development and validation cohorts comprised 11,473 and 12,970 patients, of whom 4,465 (38.9%) and 3,669 (28.3%) were hospitalized, respectively. The independent predictors for hospitalization included in the risk score were increasing age, male sex, non-white race, Hispanic ethnicity, homelessness, nursing home/long-term care residence, unemployed or retired status, fever, fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, cough, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Model discrimination and calibration was good for the development (AUROC = 0.80; HL P-value = .05) and validation (AUROC = 0.80; HL P-value = .31) cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The prediction tool developed in this study demonstrated that it could identify patients with COVID-19 who are at risk for hospitalization. This could potentially inform clinicians and policymakers of patients who may benefit most from early treatment interventions and help healthcare systems anticipate capacity surges.

VA Big Data Science: A Model for Improved National Pandemic Response Present and Future.

Background: The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) enterprise approach to research (VA Research) has built a data-sharing framework available to all research teams within VA. Combined with robust analytic systems and tools available for investigators, VA Research has produced actionable results during the COVID-19 pandemic. Big data science techniques applied to VA's health care data demonstrate that medical research can be performed quickly and judiciously during nationwide health care emergencies. Observations: We envision a common framework of data collection, management, and surveillance implemented in partnership with other health care agencies that would capture even broader, actionable, and timely observational data on populations, while providing opportunities for enhanced collaborative research across agencies. This model should be continued and expanded through the current COVID-19 and future pandemics. Conclusions: Extending the achievements of VA Research in the COVID-19 pandemic to date, we advocate national goals of open science by working toward a synergistic national framework of anonymized, synchronized, shared health data that would provide researchers with potent tools to combat future public health crises.

Tools to Detect Risk of Death by Suicide: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: There is limited knowledge about the ability of instruments to detect risk of suicide in a range of settings. Prior reviews have not considered whether the utility of instruments depends on prior probability of risk. We performed a systematic review to determine the diagnostic accuracy of instruments to detect risk of suicide in adults using likelihood ratio analysis. This method aids evaluation of prior probabilities of risk.Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and Scopus from inception through January 19, 2021.Study Selection: We included clinical trials, observational studies, and quasi-experimental studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of instruments to detect risk of suicide in adults. There were no language restrictions.Data Extraction: Three reviewers in duplicate assessed full texts to determine eligibility and extracted data from included studies. Positive (LR+) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) and 95% CIs were calculated for each instrument.Results: Thirty studies met inclusion criteria. Most instruments showed minimal utility to detect or rule out risk of suicide, with LR+ ≤ 2.0 and LR- ≥ 0.5. A few instruments had a high utility for improving risk detection in emergency department, inpatient mental health, and prison settings when patients scored above the cutoff (LR+ > 10). For example, among patients discharged from an emergency department, the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale-Clinical Practice Screener had a LR+ of 10.3 (95% CI, 6.3-16.8) at 3-month follow-up. The clinical utility of the instruments depends on the pretest probability of suicide in the setting. Because studies spanned over 6 decades, the findings are at risk for secular trends.Discussion: We identified several instruments that may hold promise for detecting risk of suicide in emergency department, inpatient mental health, or prison settings. The utility of the instrument hinges, in part, on baseline suicide risk.Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42021285528.

Lithium in the prevention of suicide in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.

Controversy exists regarding the efficacy of lithium for suicide prevention. Except for a recent trial that enrolled over 500 patients, available trials of lithium for suicide prevention have involved small samples. It is challenging to measure suicide in a single randomised controlled trial (RCT). Adding a single large study to existing meta-analyses may provide insights into lithium's anti-suicidal effects. We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs comparing lithium with a control condition for suicide prevention. MEDLINE and other databases were searched up to 30 November 2021. Efficacy was assessed by calculating the summary Peto odds ratio (OR) and incidence rate ratio (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals. Among seven RCTs, the odds of suicide were lower among patients receiving lithium versus control (OR = 0.30, 95% CI 0.09-1.02; IRR = 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-1.05), although the findings were still not statistically significant. The role of lithium in suicide prevention remains uncertain.

Burden of influenza hospitalization among high-risk groups in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza poses a substantial clinical and economic burden in the United States and vulnerable populations, including the elderly and those with comorbidities, are at elevated risk for influenza-related medical complications. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus claims database in two stages. In Stage 1, we identified patients with evidence of medically-attended influenza during influenza seasons from October 1, 2014 to May 31, 2018 (latest available data for Stage 1) and used a multivariable logistic regression model to identify patient characteristics that predicted 30-day influenza-related hospitalization. The findings from Stage 1 informed high-risk subgroups of interest for Stage 2, where we selected cohorts of influenza patients during influenza seasons from October 1, 2014 to March 1, 2019 and used 1:1 propensity score matching to patients without influenza with similar high-risk characteristics to compare influenza-attributable rates of all-cause hospital and emergency department (ED) visits during follow-up (30-day and in the index influenza season). RESULTS: In Stage 1, more than 1.6 million influenza cases were identified, of which 18,509 (1.2%) had a hospitalization. Elderly age was associated with 9 times the odds of hospitalization (≥65 years vs. 5-17 years; OR = 9.4, 95% CI 8.8-10.1) and select comorbidities were associated with 2-3 times the odds of hospitalization. In Stage 2, elderly influenza patients with comorbidities had 3 to 7 times higher 30-day hospitalization rates compared to matched patients without influenza, including patients with congestive heart failure (41.0% vs.7.9%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (34.6% vs. 6.1%), coronary artery disease (22.8% vs. 3.8%), and late-stage chronic kidney disease (44.1% vs. 13.1%; all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of influenza-related complications is elevated in the elderly, especially those with certain underlying comorbidities, leading to excess healthcare resource utilization. Continued efforts, beyond currently available vaccines, are needed to reduce influenza burden in high-risk populations.

Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron and Delta variants in a matched test-negative case-control study among US veterans.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness of messenger RNA (mRNA) booster doses during the period of Delta and Omicron variant dominance. DESIGN: We conducted a matched test-negative case-control study to estimate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of three and two doses of mRNA vaccines against infection (regardless of symptoms) and against COVID-19-related hospitalisation and death. SETTING: Veterans Health Administration. PARTICIPANTS: We used electronic health record data from 114 640 veterans who had a SARS-CoV-2 test during November 2021-January 2022. Patients were largely 65 years or older (52%), male (88%) and non-Hispanic white (59%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: First positive result for a SARS-CoV-2 PCR or antigen test. RESULTS: Against infection, booster doses had higher estimated VE (64%, 95% CI 63 to 65) than two-dose vaccination (12%, 95% CI 10 to 15) during the Omicron period. For the Delta period, the VE against infection was 90% (95% CI 88 to 92) among boosted vaccinees, higher than the VE among two-dose vaccinees (54%, 95% CI 50 to 57). Against hospitalisation, booster dose VE was 89% (95% CI 88 to 91) during Omicron and 94% (95% CI 90 to 96) during Delta; two-dose VE was 63% (95% CI 58 to 67) during Omicron and 75% (95% CI 69 to 80) during Delta. Against death, the VE with a booster dose was 94% (95% CI 90 to 96) during Omicron and 96% (95% CI 87 to 99) during Delta. CONCLUSIONS: Among an older, mostly male, population with comorbidities, we found that an mRNA vaccine booster was highly effective against infection, hospitalisation and death. Although the effectiveness of booster vaccination against infection was moderately higher against Delta than against the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant, effectiveness against severe disease and death was similarly high against both variants.

Relative effectiveness of booster vs. 2-dose mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in the Veterans Health Administration: Self-controlled risk interval analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate relative effectiveness of the booster mRNA Covid-19 vaccination versus the 2-dose primary series for both Delta and Omicron variants with self-controlled study design. METHODS: We used the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse to identify U.S. Veterans who received the 2-dose primary mRNA Covid-19 vaccine series and a mRNA Covid-19 booster, and who had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test during the Delta (9/23/2021-11/30/2021) or Omicron (1/1/22-3/19/22) predominant period. Among them, we conducted a self-controlled risk interval (SCRI) analysis to compare odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection during a booster exposure interval versus a control interval. Exposures were a control interval (days 4-6 post-booster vaccination, presumably prior to gain of booster immunity), and booster exposure interval (days 14-16 post-booster vaccination, presumably following gain of booster immunity). Cases had a positive PCR or antigen SARS-CoV-2 test. Separately for Delta and Omicron periods, we used conditional logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (OR) of a positive test for the booster versus control interval and calculated relative effectiveness of booster versus 2-dose primary series as (1-OR)*100. The SCRI approach implicitly controlled for time-fixed confounders. RESULTS: We found 42 individuals with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test in the control interval and 14 in the booster exposure interval during the Delta period, and 141 and 70, respectively, in the Omicron period. For the booster versus 2-dose primary series, the odds of infection were 70% (95 %CI: 42%, 84%) lower during the Delta period and 54% (95 %CI: 38%, 66%) lower during Omicron. In sensitivity analyses among those with prior Covid-19 history, and age stratification, ORs were similar to the main analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Booster vaccination was more effective relative to a 2-dose primary series during the Delta and Omicron predominant periods, and the relative effectiveness was consistent across age groups.

The acute effects of azithromycin use on cardiovascular mortality as compared with amoxicillin-clavulanate in US Veterans.

PURPOSE: Azithromycin is a common first-line antibiotic for respiratory infection; however, there is conflicting evidence regarding risk of cardiovascular death. We assessed cardiovascular and noncardiovascular mortality associated with azithromycin versus amoxicillin-clavulanate among US Veterans treated for nonear-nose-throat respiratory infection ("respiratory") or ear-nose-throat infection indication. METHODS: Electronic health record data from the US Veterans Health Administration database were used to identify Veterans (30-74 years) with outpatient dispensings of oral azithromycin versus amoxicillin-clavulanate for respiratory or ear-nose-throat infection (January 01, 2000-December 31, 2014). Outcomes assessed were risk of cardiovascular death and noncardiovascular death within 1-5 and 6-10 days postdispensing. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted proportional hazards models and binomial regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and compute risk differences (RD) per million courses of therapy. Cardiac death (subset of cardiovascular death) was assessed in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: There were 629 345 azithromycin and 168 429 amoxicillin-clavulanate dispensings for respiratory indications, 143 783 azithromycin, and 203 142 amoxicillin-clavulanate dispensings for ear-nose-throat indications. For respiratory indications, azithromycin was not associated with a significantly different risk of cardiovascular death versus amoxicillin-clavulanate within 1-5 days postdispensing (HR [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.12 [0.63, 2.00]; RD [95% CI]: 11 [-43, 64] deaths/million courses of therapy). No elevated risk for azithromycin was found for ear-nose-throat indications. Pooled results for both indications via meta-analysis showed no association between antibiotics and cardiovascular mortality. There was no significant difference in risk of noncardiovascular or cardiac death between antibiotics postdispensing. CONCLUSION: Azithromycin was not associated with elevated risk of cardiovascular or noncardiovascular death versus amoxicillin-clavulanate among US Veterans.

Impact of switching to infliximab biosimilars on treatment patterns among US veterans receiving innovator infliximab.

OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment patterns of United States (US) veterans stable on innovator infliximab (IFX) who switched to an IFX biosimilar (switchers) or remained on innovator IFX (continuers). METHODS: US Veterans Healthcare Administration data (01/2012-12/2019) were used to identify adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), plaque psoriasis (PsO), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), or Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis (i.e. inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]), treated with innovator or biosimilar IFX. Index date was the first IFX biosimilar administration for switchers or a random innovator IFX administration for continuers. Patients were required to have ≥5 innovator IFX administrations during the 12 months pre-index (prevalent population). Patients with ≥12 months of observation prior to the first innovator IFX administration were analyzed as the primary population (incident population), and data were assessed from start of innovator IFX. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. Treatment patterns were evaluated post-index; continuers were censored before switching to IFX biosimilar. Discontinuation was defined as switching to another biologic (including innovator IFX) or having ≥120 days between 2 consecutive index treatment records. RESULTS: In the incident population, mean [median] duration of follow-up was 737 [796] days among switchers (N = 838) and 479 [337] days among continuers (N = 849). Compared to continuers, switchers were 2.88-times more likely to discontinue index therapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.88, p < .001) and 4.99-times more likely to switch to another innovator biologic (HR = 4.99, p < .001). Of 653 switchers switching to another innovator biologic, 594 (91.0%) switched back to innovator IFX. Results were similar among the prevalent population and RA and IBD subgroups. CONCLUSION: Patients switching from innovator to biosimilar IFX were more likely to discontinue treatment and switch to another innovator biologic (notably back to innovator IFX) than those remaining on innovator IFX; however, reasons for discontinuation and switching are unknown.

Influenza vaccine in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among elderly male veterans.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have established those elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at elevated risk for developing influenza-associated complications such as hospitalization, intensive-care admission, and death. This study sought to determine whether influenza vaccination could improve survival among elderly patients with COPD. MATERIALS/METHODS: This study included Veterans (age ≥ 65 years) diagnosed with COPD that received care at the United States Veterans Health Administration (VHA) during four influenza seasons, from 2012-2013 to 2015-2016. We linked VHA electronic medical records and Medicare administrative files to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Death Index cause of death records as well as influenza surveillance data. A multivariable time-dependent Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare rates of mortality of recipients of influenza vaccination to those who did not have records of influenza vaccination. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, comorbidities, and healthcare utilization. RESULTS: Over a span of four influenza seasons, we included 1,856,970 person-seasons of observation where 1,199,275 (65%) had a record of influenza vaccination and 657,695 (35%) did not have a record of influenza vaccination. After adjusting for comorbidities, demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, influenza vaccination was associated with reduced risk of death during the most severe periods of influenza seasons: 75% all-cause (HR = 0.25; 95% CI: 0.24-0.26), 76% respiratory causes (HR = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.21-0.26), and 82% pneumonia/influenza cause (HR = 0.18; 95% CI: 0.13-0.26). A significant part of the effect could be attributed to "healthy vaccinee" bias as reduced risk of mortality was also found during the periods when there was no influenza activity and before patients received vaccination: 30% all-cause (HR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.65-0.75), 32% respiratory causes (HR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.60-0.78), and 51% pneumonia/influenza cause (HR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.31-0.78). However, as a falsification study, we found that influenza vaccination had no impact on hospitalization due to urinary tract infection (HR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.80-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: Among elderly patients with COPD, influenza vaccination was associated with reduced risk for all-cause and cause-specific mortality.