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.

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.

Protection of Two and Three mRNA Vaccine Doses Against Severe Outcomes Among Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19-VISION Network, August 2021 to March 2022.

BACKGROUND: We assessed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination impact on illness severity among adults hospitalized with COVID-19, August 2021-March 2022. METHODS: We evaluated differences in intensive care unit (ICU) admission, in-hospital death, and length of stay among vaccinated (2 or 3 mRNA vaccine doses) versus unvaccinated patients aged ≥18 years hospitalized for ≥24 hours with COVID-19-like illness and positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) molecular testing. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) for ICU admission and death and subdistribution hazard ratios (SHR) for time to hospital discharge adjusted for age, geographic region, calendar time, and local virus circulation. RESULTS: We included 27 149 SARS-CoV-2-positive hospitalizations. During both Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods, protection against ICU admission was strongest among 3-dose vaccinees compared with unvaccinated patients (Delta OR, 0.52 [95% CI, .28-.96]; Omicron OR, 0.69 [95% CI, .54-.87]). During both periods, risk of in-hospital death was lower among vaccinated compared with unvaccinated patients but ORs overlapped across vaccination strata. We observed SHR >1 across all vaccination strata in both periods indicating faster discharge for vaccinated patients. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination was associated with lower rates of ICU admission and in-hospital death in both Delta and Omicron periods compared with being unvaccinated.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 Second Doses and Boosters for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection and SARS-CoV-2-Related Hospitalizations: A Statewide Report From the Minnesota Electronic Health Record Consortium.

Using vaccine data combined with electronic health records, we report that mRNA boosters provide greater protection than a 2-dose regimen against SARS-CoV-2 infection and related hospitalizations. The benefit of a booster was more evident in the elderly and those with comorbidities.

Receipt of COVID-19 Vaccine During Pregnancy and Preterm or Small-for-Gestational-Age at Birth - Eight Integrated Health Care Organizations, United States, December 15, 2020-July 22, 2021.

COVID-19 vaccines are recommended during pregnancy to prevent severe maternal morbidity and adverse birth outcomes; however, vaccination coverage among pregnant women has been low (1). Concerns among pregnant women regarding vaccine safety are a persistent barrier to vaccine acceptance during pregnancy. Previous studies of maternal COVID-19 vaccination and birth outcomes have been limited by small sample size (2) or lack of an unvaccinated comparison group (3). In this retrospective cohort study of live births from eight Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) health care organizations, risks for preterm birth (<37 weeks' gestation) and small-for-gestational-age (SGA) at birth (birthweight <10th percentile for gestational age) after COVID-19 vaccination (receipt of ≥1 COVID-19 vaccine doses) during pregnancy were evaluated. Risks for preterm and SGA at birth among vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant women were compared, accounting for time-dependent vaccine exposures and propensity to be vaccinated. Single-gestation pregnancies with estimated start or last menstrual period during May 17-October 24, 2020, were eligible for inclusion. Among 46,079 pregnant women with live births and gestational age available, 10,064 (21.8%) received ≥1 COVID-19 vaccine doses during pregnancy and during December 15, 2020-July 22, 2021; nearly all (9,892; 98.3%) were vaccinated during the second or third trimester. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with preterm birth (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.82-1.01). Among 40,627 live births with birthweight available, COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy was not associated with SGA at birth (aHR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.87-1.03). Results consistently showed no increased risk when stratified by mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, or by second or third trimester vaccination, compared with risk among unvaccinated pregnant women. Because of the small number of first-trimester exposures, aHRs for first-trimester vaccination could not be calculated. These data add to the evidence supporting the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. To reduce the risk for severe COVID-19-associated illness, CDC recommends COVID-19 vaccination for women who are pregnant, recently pregnant (including those who are lactating), who are trying to become pregnant now, or who might become pregnant in the future (4).

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, 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.

COVID-19 Vaccination and Non-COVID-19 Mortality Risk - Seven Integrated Health Care Organizations, United States, December 14, 2020-July 31, 2021.

By September 21, 2021, an estimated 182 million persons in the United States were fully vaccinated against COVID-19.* Clinical trials indicate that Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson; Ad.26.COV2.S) vaccines are effective and generally well tolerated (1-3). However, daily vaccination rates have declined approximately 78% since April 13, 2021†; vaccine safety concerns have contributed to vaccine hesitancy (4). A cohort study of 19,625 nursing home residents found that those who received an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) had lower all-cause mortality than did unvaccinated residents (5), but no studies comparing mortality rates within the general population of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons have been conducted. To assess mortality not associated with COVID-19 (non-COVID-19 mortality) after COVID-19 vaccination in a general population setting, a cohort study was conducted during December 2020-July 2021 among approximately 11 million persons enrolled in seven Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) sites.§ After standardizing mortality rates by age and sex, this study found that COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower non-COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons. After adjusting for demographic characteristics and VSD site, this study found that adjusted relative risk (aRR) of non-COVID-19 mortality for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38-0.44) after dose 1 and 0.34 (95% CI = 0.33-0.36) after dose 2. The aRRs of non-COVID-19 mortality for the Moderna vaccine were 0.34 (95% CI = 0.32-0.37) after dose 1 and 0.31 (95% CI = 0.30-0.33) after dose 2. The aRR after receipt of the Janssen vaccine was 0.54 (95% CI = 0.49-0.59). There is no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients. This finding reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States.

Developing algorithms for identifying major structural birth defects using automated electronic health data.

PURPOSE: Given the 2015 transition to International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnostic coding, updates to our previously published algorithms for major structural birth defects (BDs) were necessary. Aims of this study were to update, validate, and refine algorithms for identifying selected BDs, and then to use these algorithms to describe BD prevalence in the vaccine safety datalink (VSD) population. METHODS: We converted our ICD-9-CM list of selected BDs to ICD-10-CM using available crosswalks with manual review of codes. We identified, chart reviewed, and adjudicated a sample of infants in the VSD with ≥2 ICD-10-CM diagnoses for one of seven common BDs. Positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated; for BDs with suboptimal PPV, algorithms were refined. Final automated algorithms were applied to a cohort of live births delivered 10/1/2015-9/30/2017 at eight VSD sites to estimate BD prevalence. This research was approved by the HealthPartners Institutional Review Board, by all participating VSD sites, and by the CDC, with a waiver of informed consent. RESULTS: Of 573 infants with ≥2 diagnoses for a targeted BD, on adjudication, we classified 399 (69.6%) as probable cases, 31 (5.4%) as possible cases and 143 (25.0%) as not having the targeted BD. PPVs for the final BD algorithms ranged from 0.76 (hypospadias) to 1.0 (gastroschisis). Among 212 857 births over 2 years following transition to ICD-10-CM coding, prevalence for the full list of selected defects in the VSD was 1.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Algorithms can identify infants with selected BDs using automated healthcare data with reasonable accuracy. Our updated algorithms can be used in observational studies of maternal vaccine safety and may be adapted for use in other surveillance systems.

Oral corticosteroid use during pregnancy and risk of preterm birth.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the associations between oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose early and late in pregnancy and preterm birth (PTB) among women with RA. METHODS: Pregnant women in the MotherToBaby Pregnancy Studies (2003-2014) with RA (n = 528) were included in the primary analysis. Information was collected by phone interview and from medical records. We estimated risk ratios (RR) for OCS dose trajectories and other disease-related medications before gestational day 140 and hazard ratios (HR) for time-varying exposures after gestational day 139. RESULTS: PTB risk was 15.5% overall. Compared with no OCS, PTB risk was increased in high (adjusted (a)RR: 4.77 (95% CI: 2.76, 8.26)) and medium (aRR: 1.81 (95% CI: 1.10, 2.97)) cumulative OCS dose trajectories during the first 139 gestational days. The low cumulative trajectory group was associated with an increased risk of PTB that was not statistically significant (aRR: 1.38 (95% CI: 0.79, 2.38)), and DMARDs were not associated with PTB (biologic DMARDs aHR: 1.08 (95% CI: 0.70, 1.66); non-biologic DMARDs aHR: 0.87 (95% CI: 0.55, 1.38)). OCS exposure to ⩾10 mg of prednisone equivalent daily dose after gestational day 139 vs none was associated with increased PTB rate (aHR: 2.45 (95% CI: 1.32, 4.56)), whereas <10 mg was associated with a modestly increased rate of PTB that was not statistically significant (aHR: 1.18 (95% CI: 0.60, 2.30)). CONCLUSION: Higher OCS doses vs no OCS use, both earlier and later in pregnancy, were associated with an increase in PTB among women with RA.

An Analysis of Changes in Emergency Department Visits After a State Declaration During the Time of COVID-19.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In the initial period of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there has been a substantial decrease in the number of patients seeking care in the emergency department. A first step in estimating the impact of these changes is to characterize the patients, visits, and diagnoses for whom care is being delayed or deferred. METHODS: We conducted an observational study, examining demographics, visit characteristics, and diagnoses for all ED patient visits to an urban level 1 trauma center before and after a state emergency declaration and comparing them with a similar period in 2019. We estimated percent change on the basis of the ratios of before and after periods with respect to 2019 and the decline per week using Poisson regression. Finally, we evaluated whether each factor modified the change in overall ED visits. RESULTS: After the state declaration, there was a 49.3% decline in ED visits overall, 35.2% (95% confidence interval -38.4 to -31.9) as compared with 2019. Disproportionate declines were seen in visits by pediatric and older patients, women, and Medicare recipients, as well as for presentations of syncope, cerebrovascular accidents, urolithiasis, and abdominal and back pain. Significant proportional increases were seen in ED visits for upper respiratory infections, shortness of breath, and chest pain. CONCLUSION: There have been significant changes in patterns of care seeking during the COVID-19 pandemic. Declines in ED visits, especially for certain demographic groups and disease processes, should prompt efforts to understand these phenomena, encourage appropriate care seeking, and monitor for the morbidity and mortality that may result from delayed or deferred care.

The effects of financial incentives on diabetes prevention program attendance and weight loss among low-income patients: the We Can Prevent Diabetes cluster-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Penetration and participation of real life implementation of lifestyle change programs to prevent type 2 diabetes has been challenging. This is particularly so among low income individuals in the United States. The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of financial incentives on attendance and weight loss among Medicaid beneficiaries participating in the 12-month Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP). METHODS: This is a cluster-randomized controlled trial with two financial incentive study arms and an attention control study arm. Medicaid beneficiaries with prediabetes from 13 primary care clinics were randomly assigned to individually earned incentives (IND; 33 groups; n = 309), a hybrid of individual- and group-earned incentives (GRP; 30 groups; n = 259), and an attention control (AC; 30 groups; n = 279). Up to $520 in incentives could be earned for attaining attendance and weight loss goals over 12 months. Outcomes are percent weight loss from baseline, achieving 5% weight loss from baseline, and attending 75% of core and 75% of maintenance DPP sessions. Linear mixed models were used to examine weight change and attendance rates over the 16 weeks and 12 months. RESULTS: The percent weight change at 16 weeks for the IND, GRP, and AC participants were similar, at - 2.6, - 3.1%, and - 3.4%, respectively. However, participants achieving 5% weight loss in the IND, GRP, and AC groups was 21.5, 24.0% (GRP vs AC, P < 0.05), and 15.2%. Attendance at 75% of the DPP core sessions was significantly higher among IND (60.8%, P < 0.001) and GRP (64.0%, P < 0.001) participants than among AC (38.6%) participants. Despite substantial attrition over time, attendance at 75% of the DPP maintenance sessions was also significantly higher among IND (23.0%, P < 0.001) and GRP (26.1%, P < 0.001) participants than among AC (11.0%) participants. CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives can improve the proportion of Medicaid beneficiaries attending the 12-month DPP and achieving at least 5% weight loss. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02422420 ; retrospectively registered April 21, 2015.

Validation of the Pediatric Appendicitis Risk Calculator (pARC) in a Community Emergency Department Setting.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The pediatric Appendicitis Risk Calculator (pARC) is a validated clinical tool for assessing a child's probability of appendicitis. Our objective was to assess the performance of the pARC in community emergency departments (EDs) and to compare its performance with that of the Pediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS). METHODS: We conducted a prospective validation study from October 1, 2016, to April 30, 2018, in 11 community EDs serving general populations. Patients aged 5 to 20.9 years and with a chief complaint of abdominal pain and less than or equal to 5 days of right-sided or diffuse abdominal pain were eligible for study enrollment. Our primary outcome was the presence or absence of appendicitis within 7 days of the index visit. We reported performance characteristics and secondary outcomes by pARC risk strata and compared the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves of the PAS and pARC. RESULTS: We enrolled 2,089 patients with a mean age of 12.4 years, 46% of whom were male patients. Appendicitis was confirmed in 353 patients (16.9%), of whom 55 (15.6%) had perforated appendixes. Fifty-four percent of patients had very low (<5%) or low (5% to 14%) predicted risk, 43% had intermediate risk (15% to 84%), and 4% had high risk (≥85%). In the very-low- and low-risk groups, 1.4% and 3.0% of patients had appendicitis, respectively. The area under the ROC curve was 0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.87 to 0.92) for the pARC compared with 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.77 to 0.82) for the PAS. CONCLUSION: The pARC accurately assessed appendicitis risk for children aged 5 years and older in community EDs and the pARC outperformed the PAS.

Performance of the Net Reclassification Improvement for Nonnested Models and a Novel Percentile-Based Alternative.

The net reclassification improvement (NRI) is a widely used metric used to assess the relative ability of 2 risk models to distinguish between low- and high-risk individuals. However, the validity and usefulness of the NRI have been questioned. Criticism of the NRI focuses on its use comparing nested risk models, whereas in practice it is often used to compare nonnested risk models derived from distinct data sources. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the NRI in a nonnested context by using it to compare competing cardiovascular risk-prediction models. We explored the NRI's sensitivity to variations in risk categories and to the calibration of the compared models. We found that the NRI was very sensitive to changes in the definition of risk categories, especially when at least 1 model was miscalibrated. To address these shortcomings, we describe a novel alternative to the usual NRI that uses percentiles of risk instead of cutoffs based on absolute risk. This percentile-based NRI demonstrates the relative ability of 2 models to rank patient risk. It displays more stable behavior, and we recommend its use when there are no established risk categories or when models are miscalibrated.