Attitudes Toward COVID-19 Vaccines Among Pregnant and Recently Pregnant Individuals.

Importance: Pregnant people and infants are at high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Understanding changes in attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines among pregnant and recently pregnant people is important for public health messaging. Objective: To assess attitudinal trends regarding COVID-19 vaccines by (1) vaccination status and (2) race, ethnicity, and language among samples of pregnant and recently pregnant Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) members from 2021 to 2023. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional surveye study included pregnant or recently pregnant members of the VSD, a collaboration of 13 health care systems and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Unvaccinated, non-Hispanic Black, and Spanish-speaking members were oversampled. Wave 1 took place from October 2021 to February 2022, and wave 2 took place from November 2022 to February 2023. Data were analyzed from May 2022 to September 2023. Exposures: Self-reported or electronic health record (EHR)-derived race, ethnicity, and preferred language. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported vaccination status and attitudes toward monovalent (wave 1) or bivalent Omicron booster (wave 2) COVID-19 vaccines. Sample- and response-weighted analyses assessed attitudes by vaccination status and 3 race, ethnicity, and language groupings of interest. Results: There were 1227 respondents; all identified as female, the mean (SD) age was 31.7 (5.6) years, 356 (29.0%) identified as Black race, 555 (45.2%) identified as Hispanic ethnicity, and 445 (36.3%) preferred the Spanish language. Response rates were 43.5% for wave 1 (652 of 1500 individuals sampled) and 39.5% for wave 2 (575 of 1456 individuals sampled). Respondents were more likely than nonrespondents to be White, non-Hispanic, and vaccinated per EHR. Overall, 76.8% (95% CI, 71.5%-82.2%) reported 1 or more COVID-19 vaccinations; Spanish-speaking Hispanic respondents had the highest weighted proportion of respondents with 1 or more vaccination. Weighted estimates of somewhat or strongly agreeing that COVID-19 vaccines are safe decreased from wave 1 to 2 for respondents who reported 1 or more vaccinations (76% vs 50%; χ21 = 7.8; P < .001), non-Hispanic White respondents (72% vs 43%; χ21 = 5.4; P = .02), and Spanish-speaking Hispanic respondents (76% vs 53%; χ21 = 22.8; P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: Decreasing confidence in COVID-19 vaccine safety in a large, diverse pregnant and recently pregnant insured population is a public health concern.

Obstetric Complications and Birth Outcomes After Antenatal Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between antenatal messenger RNA (mRNA) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of individuals with singleton pregnancies with live deliveries between June 1, 2021, and January 31, 2022, with data available from eight integrated health care systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. Vaccine exposure was defined as receipt of one or two mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses (primary series) during pregnancy. Outcomes were preterm birth (PTB) before 37 weeks of gestation, small-for-gestational age (SGA) neonates, gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), gestational hypertension, and preeclampsia-eclampsia-HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelet count) syndrome. Outcomes in individuals vaccinated were compared with those in propensity-matched individuals with unexposed pregnancies. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs were estimated for PTB and SGA using a time-dependent covariate Cox model, and adjusted relative risks (aRRs) were estimated for GDM, gestational hypertension, and preeclampsia-eclampsia-HELLP syndrome using Poisson regression with robust variance. RESULTS: Among 55,591 individuals eligible for inclusion, 23,517 (42.3%) received one or two mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses during pregnancy. Receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination varied by maternal age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, and history of COVID-19. Compared with no vaccination, mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a decreased risk of PTB (rate: 6.4 [vaccinated] vs 7.7 [unvaccinated] per 100, aHR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.94). Messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with SGA (8.3 vs 7.4 per 100; aHR 1.06, 95% CI, 0.99-1.13), GDM (11.9 vs 10.6 per 100; aRR 1.00, 95% CI, 0.90-1.10), gestational hypertension (10.8 vs 9.9 per 100; aRR 1.08, 95% CI, 0.96-1.22), or preeclampsia-eclampsia-HELLP syndrome (8.9 vs 8.4 per 100; aRR 1.10, 95% CI, 0.97-1.24). CONCLUSION: Receipt of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy was not associated with an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes; this information will be helpful for patients and clinicians when considering COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy.

Characterisation and validation of lactation information from structured electronic health records for use in pharmacoepidemiological studies.

BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding information stored within electronic health records (EHR) has recently been used for pharmacoepidemiological research, however the data are primarily collected for clinical care. OBJECTIVES: To characterise breastfeeding information recorded in structured fields in EHR during infant and postpartum health care visits, and to assess the validity of lactation status based on EHR data versus maternal report at research study visits. METHODS: We assessed breastfeeding information recorded in structured fields in EHR from one health system for a subset of 211 patients who were also enrolled in a study on breast milk composition between 2014 and 2017 that required participants to exclusively breastfeed their infants until at least 1 month of age. We assessed the frequency of breastfeeding information in EHR during the first 12 months of age and compared lactation status based on EHR with maternal report at 1 and 6-month study visits (reference standard). RESULTS: The median number of breastfeeding records in the EHR per infant was six (interquartile range 3) with most observations clustering in the first few weeks of life and around well-infant visits. At the 6-month study visit, 93.8% of participants were breastfeeding and 80.1% were exclusively breastfeeding according to maternal report. Sensitivity of EHR data for identifying ever breastfeeding was at or near 100%, and sensitivity for identifying ever exclusive breastfeeding was 98.0% (95% CI: 95.0%, 99.2%). Sensitivities were 97.3% (95% CI: 93.9%, 98.9%) for identifying any breastfeeding and 94.4% (95% CI: 89.7%, 97.0%) for exclusive breastfeeding, and positive predictive values were 99.5% (95% CI: 97.0%, 99.9%) for any breastfeeding and 95.0% (95% CI: 90.4%, 97.4%) for exclusive breastfeeding. CONCLUSIONS: Breastfeeding information in structured EHR fields have the potential to accurately classify lactation status. The validity of these data should be assessed in populations with a lower breastfeeding prevalence.

Mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination: A self-controlled case series study.

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies found no-increased mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination, residual confounding bias might have impacted the findings. Using a modified self-controlled case series (SCCS) design, we assessed the risk of non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes after primary series COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: We analyzed all deaths between December 14, 2020, and August 11, 2021, among individuals from eight Vaccine Safety Datalink sites. Demographic characteristics of deaths in recipients of COVID-19 vaccines and unvaccinated individuals were reported. We conducted SCCS analyses by vaccine type and death outcomes and reported relative incidences (RI). The observation period for death spanned from the dates of emergency use authorization to the end of the study period (August 11, 2021) without censoring the observation period upon death. We pre-specified a primary risk interval of 28-day and a secondary risk interval of 14-day after each vaccination dose. Adjusting for seasonality in mortality analyses is crucial because death rates vary over time. Deaths among unvaccinated individuals were included in SCCS analyses to account for seasonality by incorporating calendar month in the models. RESULTS: For Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), RIs of non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes were below 1 and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) excluded 1 across both doses and both risk intervals. For Moderna (mRNA-1273), RI point estimates of all outcomes were below 1, although the 95 % CIs of two RI estimates included 1: cardiac-related (RI = 0.78, 95 % CI, 0.58-1.04) and non-COVID-19 cardiac-related mortality (RI = 0.80, 95 % CI, 0.60-1.08) 14 days after the second dose in individuals without pre-existing cancer and heart disease. For Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S), RIs of four cardiac-related death outcomes ranged from 0.94 to 0.98 for the 14-day risk interval, and 0.68 to 0.72 for the 28-day risk interval and 95 % CIs included 1. CONCLUSION: Using a modified SCCS design and adjusting for temporal trends, no-increased risk was found for non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes among recipients of the three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US.

Clinical Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Critical Outcomes Among Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19-VISION Network, 10 States, June 2021-March 2023.

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to develop with emerging variants, expanding population-level immunity, and advances in clinical care. We describe changes in the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 hospitalizations and risk factors for critical outcomes over time. METHODS: We included adults aged ≥18 years from 10 states hospitalized with COVID-19 June 2021-March 2023. We evaluated changes in demographics, clinical characteristics, and critical outcomes (intensive care unit admission and/or death) and evaluated critical outcomes risk factors (risk ratios [RRs]), stratified by COVID-19 vaccination status. RESULTS: A total of 60 488 COVID-19-associated hospitalizations were included in the analysis. Among those hospitalized, median age increased from 60 to 75 years, proportion vaccinated increased from 18.2% to 70.1%, and critical outcomes declined from 24.8% to 19.4% (all P < .001) between the Delta (June-December, 2021) and post-BA.4/BA.5 (September 2022-March 2023) periods. Hospitalization events with critical outcomes had a higher proportion of ≥4 categories of medical condition categories assessed (32.8%) compared to all hospitalizations (23.0%). Critical outcome risk factors were similar for unvaccinated and vaccinated populations; presence of ≥4 medical condition categories was most strongly associated with risk of critical outcomes regardless of vaccine status (unvaccinated: adjusted RR, 2.27 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.14-2.41]; vaccinated: adjusted RR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.56-1.92]) across periods. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who experienced critical outcomes decreased with time, and median patient age increased with time. Multimorbidity was most strongly associated with critical outcomes.

Impact of accounting for correlation between COVID-19 and influenza vaccination in a COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness evaluation using a test-negative design.

Test-negative-design COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies use symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals as cases and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-negative individuals as controls to evaluate COVID-19 VE. To evaluate the potential bias introduced by the correlation of COVID-19 and influenza vaccination behaviors, we assessed changes in estimates of VE of bivalent vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounters when considering influenza vaccination status or including or excluding influenza-positive controls using data from the multi-state VISION vaccine effectiveness network. Analyses included encounters during October 2022 - February 2023, a period of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza cocirculation. When considering influenza vaccination status or including or excluding influenza-positive controls, COVID-19 VE estimates were robust, with most VE estimates against COVID-19-associated hospitalization and ED/UC encounters changing less than 5 percentage points. Higher proportions of influenza-positive patients among controls, influenza vaccination coverage, or VE could impact these findings; the potential bias should continue to be assessed.

Racial and ethnic disparities in influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women in the United States: The contribution of vaccine-related attitudes.

OBJECTIVE: Racial and ethnic disparities in influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women in the United States have been documented. This study assessed the contribution of vaccine-related attitudes to coverage disparities. METHODS: Surveys were conducted following the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 influenza seasons in a US research network. Using electronic health record data to identify pregnant women, random samples were selected for surveying; non-Hispanic Black women and influenza-unvaccinated women were oversampled. Regression-based decomposition analyses were used to assess the contribution of vaccine-related attitudes to racial and ethnic differences in influenza vaccination. Data were combined across survey years, and analyses were weighted and accounted for survey design. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 41.2% (721 of 1748) for 2019-2020 and 39.3% (706 of 1798) for 2020-2021. Self-reported influenza vaccination was higher among non-Hispanic White respondents (79.4% coverage, 95% CI 73.1%-85.7%) than Hispanic (66.2% coverage, 95% CI 52.5%-79.9%) and non-Hispanic Black (55.8% coverage, 95% CI 50.2%-61.4%) respondents. For all racial and ethnic groups, a high proportion (generally >80%) reported being seen for care, recommended for influenza vaccination, and offered vaccination. In decomposition analyses, vaccine-related attitudes (e.g., worry about vaccination causing influenza; concern about vaccine safety and effectiveness) explained a statistically significant portion of the observed racial and ethnic disparities in vaccination. Maternal age, education, and health status were not significant contributors after controlling for vaccine-related attitudes. CONCLUSIONS: In a setting with relatively high influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women, racial and ethnic disparities in coverage were identified. Vaccine-related attitudes were associated with the disparities observed.

Understanding COVID-19 Health Disparities With Birth Country and Language Data.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding of COVID-19-related disparities in the U.S. is largely informed by traditional race/ethnicity categories that mask important social group differences. This analysis utilizes granular information on patients' country of birth and preferred language from a large health system to provide more nuanced insights into health disparities. METHODS: Data from patients seeking care from a large Midwestern health system between January 1, 2019 and July 31, 2021 and COVID-19-related events occurring from March 18, 2020 to July 31, 2021 were used to describe COVID-19 disparities. Statistics were performed between January 1, 2022 and March 15, 2023. Age-adjusted generalized linear models estimated RR across race/ethnicity, country of birth grouping, preferred language, and multiple stratified groups. RESULTS: The majority of the 1,114,895 patients were born in western advanced economies (58.6%). Those who were Hispanic/Latino, were born in Latin America and the Caribbean, and preferred Spanish language had highest RRs of infection and hospitalization. Black-identifying patients born in sub-Saharan African countries had a higher risk of infection than their western advanced economies counterparts. Subanalyses revealed elevated hospitalization and death risk for White-identifying patients from Eastern Europe and Central Asia and Asian-identifying patients from Southeast Asia and the Pacific. All non-English languages had a higher risk of all COVID-19 outcomes, most notably Hmong and languages from Burma/Myanmar. CONCLUSIONS: Stratifications by country of birth grouping and preferred language identified culturally distinct groups whose vulnerability to COVID-19 would have otherwise been masked by traditional racial/ethnic labels. Routine collection of these data is critical for identifying social groups at high risk and for informing linguistically and culturally relevant interventions.

Safety signal identification for COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccination using tree-based scan statistics in the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

BACKGROUND: Traditional active vaccine safety monitoring involves pre-specifying health outcomes and biologically plausible outcome-specific time windows of concern, limiting the adverse events that can be evaluated. In this study, we used tree-based scan statistics to look broadly for >60,000 possible adverse events after bivalent COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: Vaccine Safety Datalink enrollees aged ≥5 years receiving Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent COVID-19 vaccine through November 2022 were followed for 56 days post-vaccination. Incident diagnoses in inpatient or emergency department settings were analyzed for clustering within the hierarchical ICD-10-CM diagnosis code "tree" and temporally within post-vaccination follow-up. The conditional self-controlled tree-temporal scan statistic was used, conditioning on total number of cases of each diagnosis and total number of cases of any diagnosis occurring during the scanning risk window across the entire tree. P = 0.01 was the pre-specified cut-off for statistical significance. RESULTS: Analysis included 352,509 doses of Moderna and 979,189 doses of Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent vaccines. After Moderna vaccination, no statistically significant clusters were found. After Pfizer-BioNTech, there were clusters of unspecified adverse events (Days 1-3, p = 0.0001-0.0007), influenza (Days 35-56, p = 0.0001), cough (Days 44-55, p = 0.0002), and COVID-19 (Days 52-56, p = 0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: For Pfizer-BioNTech only, we detected clusters of: (1) unspecified adverse effects, as have been observed in other vaccine studies using this method, and (2) respiratory disease toward the end of follow-up. The respiratory clusters were likely due to overlap of follow-up with the spread of respiratory syncytial virus, influenza, and COVID-19, i.e., confounding by seasonality. The untargeted nature of the method and its inherent adjustment for the many diagnoses and risk intervals evaluated are unique advantages. Limitations include susceptibility to time-varying confounding, lower statistical power for assessing risks of specific outcomes than in traditional studies targeting fewer outcomes, and the possibility of missing adverse events not strongly clustered in time or within the "tree."

Medically Attended Acute Adverse Events in Pregnant People After Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Booster Vaccination.

In this multisite, observational, matched cohort study of more than 80,000 pregnant people, receipt of an mRNA monovalent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster vaccination in pregnancy was not associated with increased risk for thrombocytopenia, myocarditis, venous thromboembolism, ischemic stroke, or other serious adverse events within 21 or 42 days after booster vaccination. The mRNA monovalent COVID-19 booster in pregnancy was associated with an increased risk for medically attended malaise or fatigue within 7 days of vaccination (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 3.64, 95% CI 2.42-5.48) and lymphadenopathy or lymphadenitis within 21 days (aRR 3.25, 95% CI 1.67-6.30) or 42 days (aRR 2.18, 95% CI 1.33-3.58) of vaccination. Our findings are consistent with prior evaluations of the primary COVID-19 vaccine series and are reassuring with respect to COVID-19 booster vaccination in pregnancy.

The most common medications dispensed to lactating persons: An electronic health record-based approach.

PURPOSE: Using a novel, electronic health record (EHR)-based approach, to estimate the prevalence of prescription medication use at 2, 4, and 6 months postpartum among lactating individuals. METHODS: We utilized automated EHR data from a US health system that records infant feeding information at well-child visits. We linked mothers who received prenatal care to their infants born May 2018-June 2019, and we required infants to have ≥1 well-child visit between 31 and 90 days of life (i.e., 2-month well-child visit with a ±1 month window). Mothers were classified as lactating at the 2-month well-child visit if their infant received breast milk at the 2-month well-child visit. For subsequent well-child visits at 4 and 6 months, mothers were considered lactating if their infant was still receiving breast milk. RESULTS: We identified 6013 mothers meeting inclusion criteria, and 4158 (69.2%) were classified as lactating at the 2-month well-child visit. Among those classified as lactating, the most common medication classes dispensed around the 2-month well-child visit were oral progestin contraceptives (19.1%), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (8.8%), first generation cephalosporins (4.3%), thyroid hormones (3.5%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (3.4%), penicillinase-resistant penicillins (3.1%), topical corticosteroids (2.9%), and oral imidazole-related antifungals (2.0%). The most common medication classes were similar around the 4 and 6-month well-child visits although prevalence estimates were often lower. CONCLUSIONS: Progestin-only contraceptives, antidepressants, and antibiotics were the most dispensed medications among lactating mothers. With routine collection of breastfeeding information, mother-infant linked EHR data may overcome limitations in previous studies of medication utilization during lactation. These data should be considered for studies of medication safety during lactation given the need for human safety data.

COVID-19 Booster Vaccination in Early Pregnancy and Surveillance for Spontaneous Abortion.

Importance: Adherence to COVID-19 booster vaccine recommendations has lagged in pregnant and nonpregnant adult populations. One barrier to booster vaccination is uncertainty regarding the safety of booster doses among pregnant people. Objective: To evaluate whether there is an association between COVID-19 booster vaccination during pregnancy and spontaneous abortion. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational, case-control, surveillance study evaluated people aged 16 to 49 years with pregnancies at 6 to 19 weeks' gestation at 8 health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink from November 1, 2021, to June 12, 2022. Spontaneous abortion cases and ongoing pregnancy controls were evaluated during consecutive surveillance periods, defined by calendar time. Exposure: Primary exposure was receipt of a third messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine dose within 28 days before spontaneous abortion or index date (midpoint of surveillance period in ongoing pregnancy controls). Secondary exposures were third mRNA vaccine doses in a 42-day window or any COVID-19 booster in 28- and 42-day windows. Main Outcomes and Measures: Spontaneous abortion cases and ongoing pregnancy controls were identified from electronic health data using a validated algorithm. Cases were assigned to a single surveillance period based on pregnancy outcome date. Eligible ongoing pregnancy time was assigned to 1 or more surveillance periods as an ongoing pregnancy-period control. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with gestational age, maternal age, antenatal visits, race and ethnicity, site, and surveillance period as covariates and robust variance estimates to account for inclusion of multiple pregnancy periods per unique pregnancy. Results: Among 112 718 unique pregnancies included in the study, the mean (SD) maternal age was 30.6 (5.5) years. Pregnant individuals were Asian, non-Hispanic (15.1%); Black, non-Hispanic (7.5%); Hispanic (35.6%); White, non-Hispanic (31.2%); and of other or unknown (10.6%); and 100% were female. Across eight 28-day surveillance periods, among 270 853 ongoing pregnancy-period controls, 11 095 (4.1%) had received a third mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in a 28-day window; among 14 226 cases, 553 (3.9%) had received a third mRNA COVID-19 vaccine within 28 days of the spontaneous abortion. Receipt of a third mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was not associated with spontaneous abortion in a 28-day window (AOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86-1.03). Results were consistent when using a 42-day window (AOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.05) and for any COVID-19 booster in a 28-day (AOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86-1.02) or 42-day (AOR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.04) exposure window. Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control surveillance study, COVID-19 booster vaccination in pregnancy was not associated with spontaneous abortion. These findings support the safety of recommendations for COVID-19 booster vaccination, including in pregnant populations.

Evaluation of Preferred Language and Timing of COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake and Disease Outcomes.

Importance: Beyond traditional race and ethnicity demographic characteristics, additional discrete data variables are needed for informed health interventions in the US. Objective: To examine whether COVID-19 vaccine uptake patterns and associated disease outcomes differ among language preference groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cohort study of 851 410 individuals aged 18 years or older in a large multispecialty health system in Minnesota and western Wisconsin was conducted between December 15, 2020, and March 31, 2022. Exposure: Self-identified language preference and limited English proficiency (LEP) as measured by interpreter need were used to create subgroups using US census categories and attention to capture languages known to represent refugee groups. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was COVID-19 vaccination uptake rates and time to first vaccine. Secondary outcomes were rates of COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death. Results: Most of the 851 410 participants (women, 493 910 [58.0%]; median age, 29 [IQR, 35-64] years) were US-born English speakers; 7.5% were born in other countries, 4.0% had a language preference other than English (LPOE), and 3.0% indicated LEP as measured by interpreter need. Marked temporal clusters were observed for COVID-19 vaccination uptake, hospitalizations, and deaths associated with primary series vaccine eligibility, booster availability, and COVID-19 variants. Delayed first-dose vaccine was observed with LPOE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.82-0.84) and interpreter need (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.80-0.82) compared with those with English language preference and proficiency. Patients with LPOE were approximately twice as likely to be hospitalized (rate ratio [RR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.63-2.08) or die (RR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.65-2.69). Patients with LEP experienced even higher rates of hospitalization (RR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.73-2.25) and COVID-19-associated death (RR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.79-2.95). Outcomes varied for individual language preference groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, delayed time to first-dose vaccine was associated with increased COVID-19 hospitalization and death rates for specific LPOE and LEP groups. The findings suggest that data collection of language preference and interpreter need provides actionable health intervention information. Standardized system-level data collection, including at a national level, may improve efficient identification of social groups with disproportionate health disparities and provide key information on improving health equity in the US.

Tdap vaccination during pregnancy and risk of chorioamnionitis and related infant outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: An increased risk of chorioamnionitis in people receiving tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine during pregnancy has been reported. The importance of this association is unclear as additional study has not demonstrated increased adverse infant outcomes associated with Tdap vaccination in pregnancy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of pregnant people ages 15-49 years with singleton pregnancies ending in live birth who were members of 8 Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) sites during October 2016-September 2018. We used a time-dependent covariate Cox model with stabilized inverse probability weights applied to evaluate associations between Tdap vaccination during pregnancy and chorioamnionitis and preterm birth outcomes. We used Poisson regression with robust variance with stabilized inverse probability weights applied to evaluate the association of Tdap vaccination with adverse infant outcomes. We performed medical record reviews on a random sample of patients with ICD-10-CM-diagnosed chorioamnionitis to determine positive predictive values (PPV) of coded chorioamnionitisfor "probable clinical chorioamnionitis," "possible clinical chorioamnionitis," or "histologic chorioamnionitis." RESULTS: We included 118,211 pregnant people; 103,258 (87%) received Tdap vaccine during pregnancy; 8098 (7%) were diagnosed with chorioamnionitis. The adjusted hazard ratio for chorioamnionitis in the Tdap vaccine-exposed group compared to unexposed was 0.96 (95% CI 0.90-1.03). There was no association between Tdap vaccine and preterm birth or adverse infant outcomes associated with chorioamnionitis. Chart reviews were performed for 528 pregnant people with chorioamnionitis. The PPV for clinical (probable or possible clinical chorioamnionitis) was 48% and 59% for histologic chorioamnionitis. The PPV for the combined outcome of clinical or histologic chorioamnionitis was 81%. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Tdap vaccine exposure during pregnancy was not associated with chorioamnionitis, preterm birth, or adverse infant outcomes. ICD-10 codes for chorioamnionitis lack specificity for clinical chorioamnionitis and should be a recognized limitation when interpreting results.

Early Estimates of Bivalent mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness in Preventing COVID-19-Associated Emergency Department or Urgent Care Encounters and Hospitalizations Among Immunocompetent Adults - VISION Network, Nine States, September-November 2022.

During June-October 2022, the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.5 sublineage accounted for most of the sequenced viral genomes in the United States, with further Omicron sublineage diversification through November 2022.* Bivalent mRNA vaccines contain an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain component plus an updated component of the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineages. On September 1, 2022, a single bivalent booster dose was recommended for adults who had completed a primary vaccination series (with or without subsequent booster doses), with the last dose administered ≥2 months earlier (1). During September 13-November 18, the VISION Network evaluated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of a bivalent mRNA booster dose (after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses) compared with 1) no previous vaccination and 2) previous receipt of 2, 3, or 4 monovalent-only mRNA vaccine doses, among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years with an emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounter or hospitalization for a COVID-19-like illness.† VE of a bivalent booster dose (after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses) against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters was 56% compared with no vaccination, 32% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose 2-4 months earlier, and 50% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose ≥11 months earlier. VE of a bivalent booster dose (after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses) against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was 59% compared with no vaccination, 42% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose 5-7 months earlier, and 48% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose ≥11 months earlier. Bivalent vaccines administered after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses were effective in preventing medically attended COVID-19 compared with no vaccination and provided additional protection compared with past monovalent vaccination only, with relative protection increasing with time since receipt of the last monovalent dose. All eligible persons should stay up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations, including receiving a bivalent booster dose. Persons should also consider taking additional precautions to avoid respiratory illness this winter season, such as masking in public indoor spaces, especially in areas where COVID-19 community levels are high.

Identification of cancer chemotherapy regimens and patient cohorts in administrative claims: challenges, opportunities, and a proposed algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence is a valuable source of information in healthcare. This study describes the challenges and successes during algorithm development to identify cancer cohorts and multi-agent chemotherapy regimens from claims data to perform a comparative effectiveness analysis of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) use. METHODS: Using the Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium's Distributed Research Network, we iteratively developed and tested a de novo algorithm to accurately identify patients by cancer diagnosis, then extract chemotherapy and G-CSF administrations for a retrospective study of prophylactic G-CSF. RESULTS: After identifying patients with cancer and subsequent chemotherapy exposures, we observed only 12% of patients with cancer received chemotherapy, which is fewer than expected based on prior analyses. Therefore, we reversed the initial inclusion criteria to identify chemotherapy receipt, then prior cancer diagnosis, which increased the number of patients from 2,814 to 3,645, or 68% of patients receiving chemotherapy had diagnoses of interest. Additionally, we excluded patients with cancer diagnoses that differed from those of interest in the 183 days before the index date of G-CSF receipt, including early-stage cancers without G-CSF or chemotherapy exposure. By removing this criterion, we retained 77 patients who were previously excluded. Finally, we incorporated a 5-day window to identify all chemotherapy drugs administered (excluding oral prednisone and methotrexate, as these medications may be used for other non-malignant conditions) as patients may fill oral prescriptions days to weeks prior to infusion. This increased the number of patients with chemotherapy exposures of interest to 6,010. The final cohort of included patients, based on G-CSF exposure, increased from 420 from the initial algorithm to 886 using the final algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Medications used for multiple indications, sensitivity and specificity of administrative codes, and relative timing of medication exposure must all be evaluated to identify patient cohorts receiving chemotherapy from claims data.

COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Surveillance in Early Pregnancy in the United States: Design Factors Affecting the Association Between Vaccine and Spontaneous Abortion.

In the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), we previously reported no association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in early pregnancy and spontaneous abortion (SAB). The present study aims to understand how time since vaccine rollout or other methodological factors could affect results. Using a case-control design and generalized estimating equations, we estimated the odds ratios (ORs) of COVID-19 vaccination in the 28 days before a SAB or last date of the surveillance period (index date) in ongoing pregnancies and occurrence of SAB, across cumulative 4-week periods from December 2020 through June 2021. Using data from a single site, we evaluated alternative methodological approaches: increasing the exposure window to 42 days, modifying the index date from the last day to the midpoint of the surveillance period, and constructing a cohort design with a time-dependent exposure model. A protective effect (OR = 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.69, 0.89), observed with 3-cumulative periods ending March 8, 2021, was attenuated when surveillance extended to June 28, 2021 (OR = 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.96, 1.08). We observed a lower OR for a 42-day window compared with a 28-day window. The time-dependent model showed no association. Timing of the surveillance appears to be an important factor affecting the observed vaccine-SAB association.

Relationships Between Social Vulnerability and Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination Coverage and Vaccine Effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination coverage remains lower in communities with higher social vulnerability. Factors such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exposure risk and access to healthcare are often correlated with social vulnerability and may therefore contribute to a relationship between vulnerability and observed vaccine effectiveness (VE). Understanding whether these factors impact VE could contribute to our understanding of real-world VE. METHODS: We used electronic health record data from 7 health systems to assess vaccination coverage among patients with medically attended COVID-19-like illness. We then used a test-negative design to assess VE for 2- and 3-dose messenger RNA (mRNA) adult (≥18 years) vaccine recipients across Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) quartiles. SVI rankings were determined by geocoding patient addresses to census tracts; rankings were grouped into quartiles for analysis. RESULTS: In July 2021, primary series vaccination coverage was higher in the least vulnerable quartile than in the most vulnerable quartile (56% vs 36%, respectively). In February 2022, booster dose coverage among persons who had completed a primary series was higher in the least vulnerable quartile than in the most vulnerable quartile (43% vs 30%). VE among 2-dose and 3-dose recipients during the Delta and Omicron BA.1 periods of predominance was similar across SVI quartiles. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination coverage varied substantially by SVI. Differences in VE estimates by SVI were minimal across groups after adjusting for baseline patient factors. However, lower vaccination coverage among more socially vulnerable groups means that the burden of illness is still disproportionately borne by the most socially vulnerable populations.