Effectiveness of a COVID-19 Additional Primary or Booster Vaccine Dose in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Nursing Home Residents During Widespread Circulation of the Omicron Variant - United States, February 14-March 27, 2022.

Nursing home residents have experienced disproportionally high levels of COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality and were prioritized for early COVID-19 vaccination (1). Following reported declines in vaccine-induced immunity after primary series vaccination, defined as receipt of 2 primary doses of an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) or 1 primary dose of Ad26.COV2 (Johnson & Johnson [Janssen]) vaccine (2), CDC recommended that all persons aged ≥12 years receive a COVID-19 booster vaccine dose.* Moderately to severely immunocompromised persons, a group that includes many nursing home residents, are also recommended to receive an additional primary COVID-19 vaccine dose.† Data on vaccine effectiveness (VE) of an additional primary or booster dose against infection with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) among nursing home residents are limited, especially against the highly transmissible B.1.1.529 and BA.2 (Omicron) variants. Weekly COVID-19 surveillance and vaccination coverage data among nursing home residents, reported by skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) to CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN)§ during February 14-March 27, 2022, when the Omicron variant accounted for >99% of sequenced isolates, were analyzed to estimate relative VE against infection for any COVID-19 additional primary or booster dose compared with primary series vaccination. After adjusting for calendar week and variability across SNFs, relative VE of a COVID-19 additional primary or booster dose was 46.9% (95% CI = 44.8%-48.9%). These findings indicate that among nursing home residents, COVID-19 additional primary or booster doses provide greater protection against Omicron variant infection than does primary series vaccination alone. All immunocompromised nursing home residents should receive an additional primary dose, and all nursing home residents should receive a booster dose, when eligible, to protect against COVID-19. Efforts to keep nursing home residents up to date with vaccination should be implemented in conjunction with other COVID-19 prevention strategies, including testing and vaccination of nursing home staff members and visitors.

Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Among Residents of Two Skilled Nursing Facilities Experiencing COVID-19 Outbreaks - Connecticut, December 2020-February 2021.

Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs), particularly those in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), have experienced disproportionately high levels of COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality and were prioritized for early COVID-19 vaccination (1,2). However, this group was not included in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, and limited postauthorization vaccine effectiveness (VE) data are available for this critical population (3). It is not known how well COVID-19 vaccines protect SNF residents, who typically are more medically frail, are older, and have more underlying medical conditions than the general population (1). In addition, immunogenicity of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was found to be lower in adults aged 65-85 years than in younger adults (4). Through the CDC Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program, SNF residents and staff members in Connecticut began receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on December 18, 2020 (5). Administration of the vaccine was conducted during several on-site pharmacy clinics. In late January 2021, the Connecticut Department of Public Health (CT DPH) identified two SNFs experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks among residents and staff members that occurred after each facility's first vaccination clinic. CT DPH, in partnership with CDC, performed electronic chart review in these facilities to obtain information on resident vaccination status and infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Partial vaccination, defined as the period from >14 days after the first dose through 7 days after the second dose, had an estimated effectiveness of 63% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 33%-79%) against SARS-CoV-2 infection (regardless of symptoms) among residents within these SNFs. This is similar to estimated effectiveness for a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adults across a range of age groups in noncongregate settings (6) and suggests that to optimize vaccine impact among this population, high coverage with the complete 2-dose series should be recommended for SNF residents and staff members.

Challenges in Surveillance for Streptococcal Toxic Shock Syndrome: Active Bacterial Core Surveillance, United States, 2014-2017.

OBJECTIVES: Routine surveillance for streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (STSS), a severe manifestation of invasive group A Streptococcus (GAS) infections, likely underestimates its true incidence. The objective of our study was to evaluate routine identification of STSS in a national surveillance system for invasive GAS infections. METHODS: Active Bacterial Core surveillance (ABCs) conducts active population-based surveillance for invasive GAS disease in selected US counties in 10 states. We categorized invasive GAS cases with a diagnosis of STSS made by a physician as STSS-physician and cases that met the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) clinical criteria for STSS based on data in the medical record as STSS-CSTE. We evaluated agreement between the 2 methods for identifying STSS and compared the estimated national incidence of STSS when applying proportions of STSS-CSTE and STSS-physician among invasive GAS cases from this study with national invasive GAS estimates for 2017. RESULTS: During 2014-2017, of 7572 invasive GAS cases in ABCs, we identified 1094 (14.4%) as STSS-CSTE and 203 (2.7%) as STSS-physician, a 5.3-fold difference. Of 1094 STSS-CSTE cases, we identified only 132 (12.1%) as STSS-physician cases. Agreement between the 2 methods for identifying STSS was low (κ = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.14-0.19). Using ABCs data, we estimated 591 cases of STSS-physician and 3618 cases of STSS-CSTE occurred nationally in 2017. CONCLUSIONS: We found a large difference in estimates of incidence of STSS when applying different surveillance methods and definitions. These results should help with better use of currently available surveillance data to estimate the incidence of STSS and to evaluate disease prevention efforts, in addition to guiding future surveillance efforts for STSS.

Epidemiology of Invasive Early-Onset and Late-Onset Group B Streptococcal Disease in the United States, 2006 to 2015: Multistate Laboratory and Population-Based Surveillance.

Importance: Invasive disease owing to group B Streptococcus (GBS) remains an important cause of illness and death among infants younger than 90 days in the United States, despite declines in early-onset disease (EOD; with onset at 0-6 days of life) that are attributed to intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP). Maternal vaccines to prevent infant GBS disease are currently under development. Objective: To describe incidence rates, case characteristics, antimicrobial resistance, and serotype distribution of EOD and late-onset disease (LOD; with onset at 7-89 days of life) in the United States from 2006 to 2015 to inform IAP guidelines and vaccine development. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study used active population-based and laboratory-based surveillance for invasive GBS disease conducted through Active Bacterial Core surveillance in selected counties of 10 states across the United States. Residents of Active Bacterial Core surveillance areas who were younger than 90 days and had invasive GBS disease in 2006 to 2015 were included. Data were analyzed from December 2017 to April 2018. Exposures: Group B Streptococcus isolated from a normally sterile site. Main Outcomes and Measures: Early-onset disease and LOD incidence rates and associated GBS serotypes and antimicrobial resistance. Results: The Active Bacterial Core surveillance program identified 1277 cases of EOD and 1387 cases of LOD. From 2006 to 2015, EOD incidence declined significantly from 0.37 to 0.23 per 1000 live births (P < .001), and LOD rates remained stable (mean, 0.31 per 1000 live births). Among the mothers of 1277 infants with EOD, 617 (48.3%) had no indications for IAP and did not receive it, and 278 (21.8%) failed to receive IAP despite having indications. Serotype data were available for 1743 of 1897 patients (91.3%) from 7 sites that collect GBS isolates. Among patients with EOD, serotypes Ia (242 [27.3%]) and III (242 [27.3%]) were most common. Among patients with LOD, serotype III was most common (481 [56.2%]), and this increased from 2006 to 2015 from 0.12 to 0.20 cases per 1000 live births (P < .001). Serotype IV caused 53 cases (6.2%) of EOD and LOD combined. The 6 most common serotypes (Ia, Ib, II, III, IV, and V) caused 881 EOD cases (99.3%) and 853 LOD cases (99.7%). No ß-lactam resistance was identified; 359 isolates (20.8%) tested showed constitutive clindamycin resistance. In 2015, an estimated 840 EOD cases and 1265 LOD cases occurred nationally. Conclusions and Relevance: The rates of LOD among US infants are now higher than EOD rates. Combined with addressing IAP implementation gaps, an effective vaccine covering the most common serotypes might further reduce EOD rates and help prevent LOD, for which there is no current public health intervention.