Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 58
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 78(2): 338-348, 2024 02 17.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37633258

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , Adolescente , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Hospitalización , Inmunidad Colectiva , Factores de Riesgo
2.
J Infect Dis ; 227(12): 1348-1363, 2023 06 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36806690

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Data assessing protection conferred from COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and/or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection during Delta and Omicron predominance periods in the United States are limited. METHODS: This cohort study included persons ≥18 years who had ≥1 health care encounter across 4 health systems and had been tested for SARS-CoV-2 before 26 August 2021. COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection defined the exposure. Cox regression estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for the Delta and Omicron periods; protection was calculated as (1-HR)×100%. RESULTS: Compared to unvaccinated and previously uninfected persons, during Delta predominance, protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was high for those 2- or 3-dose vaccinated and previously infected, 3-dose vaccinated alone, and prior infection alone (range, 91%-97%, with overlapping 95% confidence intervals [CIs]); during Omicron predominance, estimates were lower (range, 77%-90%). Protection against COVID-19-associated emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounters during Delta predominance was high for those exposure groups (range, 86%-93%); during Omicron predominance, protection remained high for those 3-dose vaccinated with or without a prior infection (76%; 95% CI = 67%-83% and 71%; 95% CI = 67%-73%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and/or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection provided protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and ED/UC encounters regardless of variant. Staying up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccination still provides protection against severe COVID-19 disease, regardless of prior infection.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , Adulto , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Estudios de Cohortes , Vacunación , ARN Mensajero/genética
3.
Clin Infect Dis ; 76(3): e1168-e1176, 2023 02 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36031405

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Antibody responses to non-egg-based standard-dose cell-culture influenza vaccine (containing 15 µg hemagglutinin [HA]/component) and recombinant vaccine (containing 45 µg HA/component) during consecutive seasons have not been studied in the United States. METHODS: In a randomized trial of immunogenicity of quadrivalent influenza vaccines among healthcare personnel (HCP) aged 18-64 years over 2 consecutive seasons, HCP who received recombinant-HA influenza vaccine (RIV) or cell culture-based inactivated influenza vaccine (ccIIV) during the first season (year 1) were re-randomized the second season of 2019-2020 (year 2 [Y2]) to receive ccIIV or RIV, resulting in 4 ccIIV/RIV combinations. In Y2, hemagglutination inhibition antibody titers against reference cell-grown vaccine viruses were compared in each ccIIV/RIV group with titers among HCP randomized both seasons to receive egg-based, standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) using geometric mean titer (GMT) ratios of Y2 post-vaccination titers. RESULTS: Y2 data from 414 HCP were analyzed per protocol. Compared with 60 IIV/IIV recipients, 74 RIV/RIV and 106 ccIIV/RIV recipients showed significantly elevated GMT ratios (Bonferroni corrected P < .007) against all components except A(H3N2). Post-vaccination GMT ratios for ccIIV/ccIIV and RIV/ccIIV were not significantly elevated compared with IIV/IIV except for RIV/ccIIV against A(H1N1)pdm09. CONCLUSIONS: In adult HCP, receipt of RIV in 2 consecutive seasons or the second season was more immunogenic than consecutive egg-based IIV for 3 of the 4 components of quadrivalent vaccine. Immunogenicity of ccIIV/ccIIV was similar to that of IIV/IIV. Differences in HA antigen content may play a role in immunogenicity of influenza vaccination in consecutive seasons. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03722589.


Asunto(s)
Subtipo H1N1 del Virus de la Influenza A , Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Vacuna contra Viruela , Adulto , Humanos , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Técnicas de Cultivo de Célula , Atención a la Salud , Pruebas de Inhibición de Hemaglutinación , Subtipo H3N2 del Virus de la Influenza A , Estados Unidos , Vacunación , Vacunas Combinadas , Vacunas de Productos Inactivados , Vacunas Sintéticas
4.
Clin Infect Dis ; 76(11): 1980-1988, 2023 06 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36694363

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Current understanding of severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections in adults is limited by clinical underrecognition. We compared the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of RSV infections vs influenza in adults hospitalized with acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs) in a prospective national surveillance network. METHODS: Hospitalized adults who met a standardized ARI case definition were prospectively enrolled across 3 respiratory seasons from hospitals participating across all sites of the US Hospitalized Adult Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network (2016-2019). All participants were tested for RSV and influenza using real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction assay. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test associations between laboratory-confirmed infection and characteristics and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Among 10 311 hospitalized adults, 6% tested positive for RSV (n = 622), 18.8% for influenza (n = 1940), and 75.1% negative for RSV and influenza (n = 7749). Congestive heart failure (CHF) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was more frequent with RSV than influenza (CHF: 37.3% vs 28.8%, P < .0001; COPD: 47.6% vs 35.8%, P < .0001). Patients with RSV more frequently had longer admissions (odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.80) for stays >1 week) and mechanical ventilation (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.09-1.93) compared with influenza but not compared with the influenza-negative group (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, .82-1.28 and OR, 1.17; 95% CI, .91-1.49, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of RSV across 3 seasons was considerable. Our findings suggest that those with RSV have worse outcomes compared with influenza and frequently have cardiopulmonary conditions. This study informs future vaccination strategies and underscores a need for RSV surveillance among adults with severe ARI.


Asunto(s)
Insuficiencia Cardíaca , Gripe Humana , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica , Infecciones por Virus Sincitial Respiratorio , Virus Sincitial Respiratorio Humano , Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio , Humanos , Adulto , Gripe Humana/complicaciones , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Estudios Prospectivos , Prevalencia , Infecciones por Virus Sincitial Respiratorio/epidemiología , Infecciones por Virus Sincitial Respiratorio/complicaciones , Hospitalización , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/complicaciones , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/complicaciones , Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio/epidemiología
5.
Clin Infect Dis ; 76(9): 1615-1625, 2023 05 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36611252

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vulnerabilidad Social , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Cobertura de Vacunación , Eficacia de las Vacunas
6.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 71(53): 1637-1646, 2023 Mar 17.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36921274

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , Adulto , Adolescente , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Hospitalización , ARN Mensajero , Vacunas Combinadas
7.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(8): 1329-1337, 2022 04 28.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34320171

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Evidence for vaccine effectiveness (VE) against influenza-associated pneumonia has varied by season, location, and strain. We estimate VE against hospitalization for radiographically identified influenza-associated pneumonia during 2015-2016 to 2017-2018 seasons in the US Hospitalized Adult Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network (HAIVEN). METHODS: Among adults aged ≥18 years admitted to 10 US hospitals for acute respiratory illness (ARI), clinician-investigators used keywords from reports of chest imaging performed during 3 days around hospital admission to assign a diagnosis of "definite/probable pneumonia." We used a test-negative design to estimate VE against hospitalization for radiographically identified laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated pneumonia, comparing reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction-confirmed influenza cases with test-negative subjects. Influenza vaccination status was documented in immunization records or self-reported, including date and location. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to adjust for age, site, season, calendar-time, and other factors. RESULTS: Of 4843 adults hospitalized with ARI included in the primary analysis, 266 (5.5%) had "definite/probable pneumonia" and confirmed influenza. Adjusted VE against hospitalization for any radiographically confirmed influenza-associated pneumonia was 38% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17-53%); by type/subtype, it was 74% (95% CI, 52-87%) influenza A (H1N1)pdm09, 25% (95% CI, -15% to 50%) A (H3N2), and 23% (95% CI, -32% to 54%) influenza B. Adjusted VE against intensive care for any influenza was 57% (95% CI, 19-77%). CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccination was modestly effective among adults in preventing hospitalizations and the need for intensive care associated with influenza pneumonia. VE was significantly higher against A (H1N1)pdm09 and was low against A (H3N2) and B.


Asunto(s)
Subtipo H1N1 del Virus de la Influenza A , Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Neumonía , Adolescente , Adulto , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Hospitalización , Humanos , Subtipo H3N2 del Virus de la Influenza A , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Neumonía/epidemiología , Neumonía/prevención & control , Estaciones del Año , Vacunación , Eficacia de las Vacunas
8.
Am J Epidemiol ; 191(3): 465-471, 2022 02 19.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34274963

RESUMEN

Intraseason timing of influenza infection among persons of different ages could reflect relative contributions to propagation of seasonal epidemics and has not been examined among ambulatory patients. Using data from the US Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network, we calculated risk ratios derived from comparing weekly numbers of influenza cases prepeak with those postpeak during the 2010-2011 through 2018-2019 influenza seasons. We sought to determine age-specific differences during the ascent versus descent of an influenza season by influenza virus type and subtype. We estimated 95% credible intervals around the risk ratios using Bayesian joint posterior sampling of weekly cases. Our population consisted of ambulatory patients with laboratory-confirmed influenza who enrolled in an influenza vaccine effectiveness study at 5 US sites during 9 influenza seasons after the 2009 influenza A virus subtype H1N1 (H1N1) pandemic. We observed that young children aged <5 years tended to more often be infected with H1N1 during the prepeak period, while adults aged ≥65 years tended to more often be infected with H1N1 during the postpeak period. However, for influenza A virus subtype H3N2, children aged <5 years were more often infected during the postpeak period. These results may reflect a contribution of different age groups to seasonal spread, which may differ by influenza virus type and subtype.


Asunto(s)
Subtipo H1N1 del Virus de la Influenza A , Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Adulto , Teorema de Bayes , Niño , Preescolar , Humanos , Subtipo H3N2 del Virus de la Influenza A , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Estaciones del Año , Vacunación , Eficacia de las Vacunas
9.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 71(29): 931-939, 2022 Jul 22.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35862287

RESUMEN

The Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was first identified in the United States in November 2021, with the BA.1 sublineage (including BA.1.1) causing the largest surge in COVID-19 cases to date. Omicron sublineages BA.2 and BA.2.12.1 emerged later and by late April 2022, accounted for most cases.* Estimates of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) can be reduced by newly emerging variants or sublineages that evade vaccine-induced immunity (1), protection from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in unvaccinated persons (2), or increasing time since vaccination (3). Real-world data comparing VE during the periods when the BA.1 and BA.2/BA.2.12.1 predominated (BA.1 period and BA.2/BA.2.12.1 period, respectively) are limited. The VISION network† examined 214,487 emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits and 58,782 hospitalizations with a COVID-19-like illness§ diagnosis among 10 states during December 18, 2021-June 10, 2022, to evaluate VE of 2, 3, and 4 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) compared with no vaccination among adults without immunocompromising conditions. VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization 7-119 days and ≥120 days after receipt of dose 3 was 92% (95% CI = 91%-93%) and 85% (95% CI = 81%-89%), respectively, during the BA.1 period, compared with 69% (95% CI = 58%-76%) and 52% (95% CI = 44%-59%), respectively, during the BA.2/BA.2.12.1 period. Patterns were similar for ED/UC encounters. Among adults aged ≥50 years, VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization ≥120 days after receipt of dose 3 was 55% (95% CI = 46%-62%) and ≥7 days (median = 27 days) after a fourth dose was 80% (95% CI = 71%-85%) during BA.2/BA.2.12.1 predominance. Immunocompetent persons should receive recommended COVID-19 booster doses to prevent moderate to severe COVID-19, including a first booster dose for all eligible persons and second booster dose for adults aged ≥50 years at least 4 months after an initial booster dose. Booster doses should be obtained immediately when persons become eligible.¶.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Adulto , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Vacunas Sintéticas , Vacunas de ARNm
10.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 71(9): 352-358, 2022 Mar 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35239634

RESUMEN

The efficacy of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 exceeded 90% in clinical trials that included children and adolescents aged 5-11, 12-15, and 16-17 years (1-3). Limited real-world data on 2-dose mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) in persons aged 12-17 years (referred to as adolescents in this report) have also indicated high levels of protection against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) infection and COVID-19-associated hospitalization (4-6); however, data on VE against the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant and duration of protection are limited. Pfizer-BioNTech VE data are not available for children aged 5-11 years. In partnership with CDC, the VISION Network* examined 39,217 emergency department (ED) and urgent care (UC) encounters and 1,699 hospitalizations† among persons aged 5-17 years with COVID-19-like illness across 10 states during April 9, 2021-January 29, 2022,§ to estimate VE using a case-control test-negative design. Among children aged 5-11 years, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated ED and UC encounters 14-67 days after dose 2 (the longest interval after dose 2 in this age group) was 46%. Among adolescents aged 12-15 and 16-17 years, VE 14-149 days after dose 2 was 83% and 76%, respectively; VE ≥150 days after dose 2 was 38% and 46%, respectively. Among adolescents aged 16-17 years, VE increased to 86% ≥7 days after dose 3 (booster dose). VE against COVID-19-associated ED and UC encounters was substantially lower during the Omicron predominant period than the B.1.617.2 (Delta) predominant period among adolescents aged 12-17 years, with no significant protection ≥150 days after dose 2 during Omicron predominance. However, in adolescents aged 16-17 years, VE during the Omicron predominant period increased to 81% ≥7 days after a third booster dose. During the full study period, including pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron predominant periods, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalization among children aged 5-11 years was 74% 14-67 days after dose 2, with wide CIs that included zero. Among adolescents aged 12-15 and 16-17 years, VE 14-149 days after dose 2 was 92% and 94%, respectively; VE ≥150 days after dose 2 was 73% and 88%, respectively. All eligible children and adolescents should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations, including a booster dose for those aged 12-17 years.


Asunto(s)
Vacuna BNT162/administración & dosificación , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Eficacia de las Vacunas/estadística & datos numéricos , Adolescente , Atención Ambulatoria/estadística & datos numéricos , Niño , Preescolar , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Inmunización Secundaria , Masculino , Estados Unidos
11.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 71(7): 255-263, 2022 Feb 18.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35176007

RESUMEN

CDC recommends that all persons aged ≥12 years receive a booster dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine ≥5 months after completion of a primary mRNA vaccination series and that immunocompromised persons receive a third primary dose.* Waning of vaccine protection after 2 doses of mRNA vaccine has been observed during the period of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance† (1-5), but little is known about durability of protection after 3 doses during periods of Delta or SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant predominance. A test-negative case-control study design using data from eight VISION Network sites§ examined vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits and hospitalizations among U.S. adults aged ≥18 years at various time points after receipt of a second or third vaccine dose during two periods: Delta variant predominance and Omicron variant predominance (i.e., periods when each variant accounted for ≥50% of sequenced isolates).¶ Persons categorized as having received 3 doses included those who received a third dose in a primary series or a booster dose after a 2 dose primary series (including the reduced-dosage Moderna booster). The VISION Network analyzed 241,204 ED/UC encounters** and 93,408 hospitalizations across 10 states during August 26, 2021-January 22, 2022. VE after receipt of both 2 and 3 doses was lower during the Omicron-predominant than during the Delta-predominant period at all time points evaluated. During both periods, VE after receipt of a third dose was higher than that after a second dose; however, VE waned with increasing time since vaccination. During the Omicron period, VE against ED/UC visits was 87% during the first 2 months after a third dose and decreased to 66% among those vaccinated 4-5 months earlier; VE against hospitalizations was 91% during the first 2 months following a third dose and decreased to 78% ≥4 months after a third dose. For both Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods, VE was generally higher for protection against hospitalizations than against ED/UC visits. All eligible persons should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations to best protect against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and ED/UC visits.


Asunto(s)
Atención Ambulatoria/estadística & datos numéricos , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , COVID-19/prevención & control , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Vacunas de ARNm/administración & dosificación , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Factores de Tiempo , Estados Unidos , Adulto Joven
12.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 71(42): 1335-1342, 2022 Oct 21.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36264840

RESUMEN

Persons with moderate-to-severe immunocompromising conditions might have reduced protection after COVID-19 vaccination, compared with persons without immunocompromising conditions (1-3). On August 13, 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that adults with immunocompromising conditions receive an expanded primary series of 3 doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. ACIP followed with recommendations on September 23, 2021, for a fourth (booster) dose and on September 1, 2022, for a new bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster dose, containing components of the BA.4 and BA.5 sublineages of the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant (4). Data on vaccine effectiveness (VE) of monovalent COVID-19 vaccines among persons with immunocompromising conditions since the emergence of the Omicron variant in December 2021 are limited. In the multistate VISION Network,§ monovalent 2-, 3-, and 4-dose mRNA VE against COVID-19-related hospitalization were estimated among adults with immunocompromising conditions¶ hospitalized with COVID-19-like illness,** using a test-negative design comparing odds of previous vaccination among persons with a positive or negative molecular test result (case-patients and control-patients) for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). During December 16, 2021-August 20, 2022, among SARS-CoV-2 test-positive case-patients, 1,815 (36.3%), 1,387 (27.7%), 1,552 (31.0%), and 251 (5.0%) received 0, 2, 3, and 4 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses, respectively. Among test-negative control-patients during this period, 6,928 (23.7%), 7,411 (25.4%), 12,734 (43.6%), and 2,142 (7.3%) received these respective doses. Overall, VE against COVID-19-related hospitalization among adults with immunocompromising conditions hospitalized for COVID-like illness during Omicron predominance was 36% ≥14 days after dose 2, 69% 7-89 days after dose 3, and 44% ≥90 days after dose 3. Restricting the analysis to later periods when Omicron sublineages BA.2/BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 were predominant and 3-dose recipients were eligible to receive a fourth dose, VE was 32% ≥90 days after dose 3 and 43% ≥7 days after dose 4. Protection offered by vaccination among persons with immunocompromising conditions during Omicron predominance was moderate even after a 3-dose monovalent primary series or booster dose. Given the incomplete protection against hospitalization afforded by monovalent COVID-19 vaccines, persons with immunocompromising conditions might benefit from updated bivalent vaccine booster doses that target recently circulating Omicron sublineages, in line with ACIP recommendations. Further, additional protective recommendations for persons with immunocompromising conditions, including the use of prophylactic antibody therapy, early access to and use of antivirals, and enhanced nonpharmaceutical interventions such as well-fitting masks or respirators, should also be considered.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Antivirales , Hospitalización , Vacunas Combinadas , ARN Mensajero , Vacunas de ARNm
13.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 71(4): 139-145, 2022 Jan 21.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35085224

RESUMEN

Estimates of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) have declined in recent months (1,2) because of waning vaccine induced immunity over time,* possible increased immune evasion by SARS-CoV-2 variants (3), or a combination of these and other factors. CDC recommends that all persons aged ≥12 years receive a third dose (booster) of an mRNA vaccine ≥5 months after receipt of the second mRNA vaccine dose and that immunocompromised individuals receive a third primary dose.† A third dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccine increases neutralizing antibody levels (4), and three recent studies from Israel have shown improved effectiveness of a third dose in preventing COVID-19 associated with infections with the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant (5-7). Yet, data are limited on the real-world effectiveness of third doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in the United States, especially since the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant became predominant in mid-December 2021. The VISION Network§ examined VE by analyzing 222,772 encounters from 383 emergency departments (EDs) and urgent care (UC) clinics and 87,904 hospitalizations from 259 hospitals among adults aged ≥18 years across 10 states from August 26, 2021¶ to January 5, 2022. Analyses were stratified by the period before and after the Omicron variant became the predominant strain (>50% of sequenced viruses) at each study site. During the period of Delta predominance across study sites in the United States (August-mid-December 2021), VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated ED and UC encounters was 86% 14-179 days after dose 2, 76% ≥180 days after dose 2, and 94% ≥14 days after dose 3. Estimates of VE for the same intervals after vaccination during Omicron variant predominance were 52%, 38%, and 82%, respectively. During the period of Delta variant predominance, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was 90% 14-179 days after dose 2, 81% ≥180 days after dose 2, and 94% ≥14 days after dose 3. During Omicron variant predominance, VE estimates for the same intervals after vaccination were 81%, 57%, and 90%, respectively. The highest estimates of VE against COVID-19-associated ED and UC encounters or hospitalizations during both Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods were among adults who received a third dose of mRNA vaccine. All unvaccinated persons should get vaccinated as soon as possible. All adults who have received mRNA vaccines during their primary COVID-19 vaccination series should receive a third dose when eligible, and eligible persons should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccinations.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , COVID-19/prevención & control , Inmunización Secundaria , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Eficacia de las Vacunas/estadística & datos numéricos , Vacunas de ARNm/administración & dosificación , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Atención Ambulatoria/estadística & datos numéricos , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
14.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 71(5152): 1616-1624, 2022 Dec 30.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36580430

RESUMEN

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, 31% 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 57% compared with no vaccination, 38% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose 5-7 months earlier, and 45% 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.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , Adulto , Adolescente , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Hospitalización , ARN Mensajero , Vacunas Combinadas
15.
J Infect Dis ; 223(12): 2062-2071, 2021 06 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33140094

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 influenza seasons were notable for the high number of hospitalizations for influenza A(H3N2) despite vaccine and circulating strain match. METHODS: We evaluated vaccine effectiveness (VE) against hospitalization in the test-negative HAIVEN study. Nasal-throat swabs were tested by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for influenza and VE was determined based on odds of vaccination by generalized estimating equations. Vaccine-specific antibody was measured in a subset of enrollees. RESULTS: A total of 6129 adults were enrolled from 10 hospitals. Adjusted VE against A(H3N2) was 22.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.3% to 35.0%), pooled across both years and 49.4% (95% CI, 34.3% to 61.1%) against B/Yamagata. In 2017-2018, the A(H3N2) VE point estimate for the cell-based vaccine was 43.0% (95% CI, -36.3% to 76.1%; 56 vaccine recipients) compared to 24.0% (95% CI, 3.9% to 39.9%) for egg-based vaccines. Among 643 with serology data, hemagglutinin antibodies against the egg-based A(H3N2) vaccine strain were increased in influenza-negative individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Low VE for the A/Hong Kong/4801/2014 vaccine virus in both A(H3N2) seasons emphasizes concerns for continued changes in H3N2 antigenic epitopes, including changes that may impact glycosylation and ultimately reduce VE.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Adulto , Anticuerpos Antivirales/sangre , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Hospitalización , Humanos , Subtipo H3N2 del Virus de la Influenza A , Virus de la Influenza B , Vacunas contra la Influenza/inmunología , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Estaciones del Año , Vacunación
16.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(12): 2240-2247, 2021 12 16.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34050659

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is frequently compared with influenza. The Hospitalized Adult Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network (HAIVEN) conducts studies on the etiology and characteristics of U.S. hospitalized adults with influenza. It began enrolling patients with COVID-19 hospitalizations in March 2020. Patients with influenza were compared with those with COVID-19 in the first months of the U.S. epidemic. METHODS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years admitted to hospitals in 4 sites with acute respiratory illness were tested by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction for influenza and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus causing COVID-19. Demographic and illness characteristics were collected for influenza illnesses during 3 seasons 2016-2019. Similar data were collected on COVID-19 cases admitted before June 19, 2020. RESULTS: Age groups hospitalized with COVID-19 (n = 914) were similar to those admitted with influenza (n = 1937); 80% of patients with influenza and 75% of patients with COVID-19 were aged ≥50 years. Deaths from COVID-19 that occurred in younger patients were less often related to underlying conditions. White non-Hispanic persons were overrepresented in influenza (64%) compared with COVID-19 hospitalizations (37%). Greater severity and complications occurred with COVID-19 including more ICU admissions (AOR = 15.3 [95% CI: 11.6, 20.3]), ventilator use (AOR = 15.6 [95% CI: 10.7, 22.8]), 7 additional days of hospital stay in those discharged alive, and death during hospitalization (AOR = 19.8 [95% CI: 12.0, 32.7]). CONCLUSIONS: While COVID-19 can cause a respiratory illness like influenza, it is associated with significantly greater severity of illness, longer hospital stays, and higher in-hospital deaths.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Gripe Humana , Adulto , Demografía , Humanos , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , SARS-CoV-2 , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Eficacia de las Vacunas
17.
Clin Infect Dis ; 72(7): 1147-1157, 2021 04 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32006430

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Since 2013, quadrivalent influenza vaccines containing 2 B viruses gradually replaced trivalent vaccines in the United States. We compared the vaccine effectiveness of quadrivalent to trivalent inactivated vaccines (IIV4 to IIV3, respectively) against illness due to influenza B during the transition, when IIV4 use increased rapidly. METHODS: The US Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness (Flu VE) Network analyzed 25 019 of 42 600 outpatients aged ≥6 months who enrolled within 7 days of illness onset during 6 seasons from 2011-2012. Upper respiratory specimens were tested for the influenza virus type and B lineage. Using logistic regression, we estimated IIV4 or IIV3 effectiveness by comparing the odds of an influenza B infection overall and the odds of B lineage among vaccinated versus unvaccinated participants. Over 4 seasons from 2013-2014, we compared the relative odds of an influenza B infection among IIV4 versus IIV3 recipients. RESULTS: Trivalent vaccines included the predominantly circulating B lineage in 4 of 6 seasons. During 4 influenza seasons when both IIV4 and IIV3 were widely used, the overall effectiveness against any influenza B was 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45-59) for IIV4 versus 45% (95% CI, 34-54) for IIV3. IIV4 was more effective than IIV3 against the B lineage not included in IIV3, but comparative effectiveness against illnesses related to any influenza B favored neither vaccine valency. CONCLUSIONS: The uptake of quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccines was not associated with increased protection against any influenza B illness, despite the higher effectiveness of quadrivalent vaccines against the added B virus lineage. Public health impact and cost-benefit analyses are needed globally.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Anciano , Humanos , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Estaciones del Año , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Vacunación , Vacunas Combinadas , Vacunas de Productos Inactivados
18.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(3): 386-392, 2021 08 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32270198

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Demonstration of influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against hospitalized illness in addition to milder outpatient illness may strengthen vaccination messaging. Our objective was to compare patient characteristics and VE between United States (US) inpatient and outpatient VE networks. METHODS: We tested adults with acute respiratory illness (ARI) for influenza within 1 outpatient-based and 1 hospital-based VE network from 2015 through 2018. We compared age, sex, and high-risk conditions. The test-negative design was used to compare vaccination odds in influenza-positive cases vs influenza-negative controls. We estimated VE using logistic regression adjusting for site, age, sex, race/ethnicity, peak influenza activity, time to testing from, season (overall VE), and underlying conditions. VE differences (ΔVE) were assessed with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) determined through bootstrapping with significance defined as excluding the null. RESULTS: The networks enrolled 14 573 (4144 influenza-positive) outpatients and 6769 (1452 influenza-positive) inpatients. Inpatients were older (median, 62 years vs 49 years) and had more high-risk conditions (median, 4 vs 1). Overall VE across seasons was 31% (95% CI, 26%-37%) among outpatients and 36% (95% CI, 27%-44%) among inpatients. Strain-specific VE (95% CI) among outpatients vs inpatients was 37% (25%-47%) vs 53% (37%-64%) against H1N1pdm09; 19% (9%-27%) vs 23% (8%-35%) against H3N2; and 46% (38%-53%) vs 46% (31%-58%) against B viruses. ΔVE was not significant for any comparison across all sites. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatients and outpatients with ARI represent distinct populations. Despite comparatively poor health among inpatients, influenza vaccination was effective in preventing influenza-associated hospitalizations.


Asunto(s)
Subtipo H1N1 del Virus de la Influenza A , Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Adulto , Humanos , Subtipo H3N2 del Virus de la Influenza A , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Pacientes Internos , Pacientes Ambulatorios , Estaciones del Año , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Vacunación
19.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(11): 1973-1981, 2021 12 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34245243

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: RIV4 and cell-culture based inactivated influenza vaccine (ccIIV4) have not been compared to egg-based IIV4 in healthcare personnel, a population with frequent influenza vaccination that may blunt vaccine immune responses over time. We conducted a randomized trial among healthcare personnel (HCP) aged 18-64 years to compare humoral immune responses to ccIIV4 and RIV4 to IIV4. METHODS: During the 2018-2019 season, participants were randomized to receive ccIIV4, RIV4, or IIV4 and had serum samples collected prevaccination, 1 and 6 months postvaccination. Serum samples were tested by hemagglutination inhibition (HI) for influenza A/H1N1, B/Yamagata, and B/Victoria and microneutralization (MN) for A/H3N2 against cell-grown vaccine reference viruses. Primary outcomes at 1 month were seroconversion rate (SCR), geometric mean titers (GMT), GMT ratio, and mean fold rise (MFR) in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: In total, 727 participants were included (283 ccIIV4, 202 RIV4, and 242 IIV4). At 1 month, responses to ccIIV4 were similar to IIV4 by SCR, GMT, GMT ratio, and MFR. RIV4 induced higher SCRs, GMTs, and MFRs than IIV4 against A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B/Yamagata. The GMT ratio of RIV4 to egg-based vaccines was 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-1.9) for A/H1N1, 3.0 (95% CI: 2.4-3.7) for A/H3N2, 1.1 (95% CI: .9-1.4) for B/Yamagata, and 1.1 (95% CI: .9-1.3) for B/Victoria. At 6 months, ccIIV4 recipients had similar GMTs to IIV4, whereas RIV4 recipients had higher GMTs against A/H3N2 and B/Yamagata. CONCLUSIONS: RIV4 resulted in improved antibody responses by HI and MN compared to egg-based vaccines against 3 of 4 cell-grown vaccine strains 1 month postvaccination, suggesting a possible additional benefit from RIV4. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03722589.


Asunto(s)
Subtipo H1N1 del Virus de la Influenza A , Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Técnicas de Cultivo de Célula , Atención a la Salud , Pruebas de Inhibición de Hemaglutinación , Humanos , Inmunogenicidad Vacunal , Subtipo H3N2 del Virus de la Influenza A , Virus de la Influenza B , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Vacunas de Productos Inactivados
20.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(44): 1539-1544, 2021 Nov 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34735425

RESUMEN

Previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) or COVID-19 vaccination can provide immunity and protection from subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness. CDC used data from the VISION Network* to examine hospitalizations in adults with COVID-19-like illness and compared the odds of receiving a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, and thus having laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, between unvaccinated patients with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection occurring 90-179 days before COVID-19-like illness hospitalization, and patients who were fully vaccinated with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine 90-179 days before hospitalization with no previous documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hospitalized adults aged ≥18 years with COVID-19-like illness were included if they had received testing at least twice: once associated with a COVID-19-like illness hospitalization during January-September 2021 and at least once earlier (since February 1, 2020, and ≥14 days before that hospitalization). Among COVID-19-like illness hospitalizations in persons whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90-179 days earlier, the odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (adjusted for sociodemographic and health characteristics) among unvaccinated, previously infected adults were higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine with no previous documented infection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 5.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.75-10.99). These findings suggest that among hospitalized adults with COVID-19-like illness whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90-179 days earlier, vaccine-induced immunity was more protective than infection-induced immunity against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/inmunología , SARS-CoV-2/aislamiento & purificación , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , COVID-19/terapia , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/inmunología , Femenino , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Laboratorios , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Vacunas Sintéticas/administración & dosificación , Vacunas Sintéticas/inmunología , Adulto Joven , Vacunas de ARNm
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA