Effectiveness of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine among U.S. Health Care Personnel.

BACKGROUND: The prioritization of U.S. health care personnel for early receipt of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), allowed for the evaluation of the effectiveness of these new vaccines in a real-world setting. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative case-control study involving health care personnel across 25 U.S. states. Cases were defined on the basis of a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen-based test for SARS-CoV-2 and at least one Covid-19-like symptom. Controls were defined on the basis of a negative PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms, and were matched to cases according to the week of the test date and site. Using conditional logistic regression with adjustment for age, race and ethnic group, underlying conditions, and exposures to persons with Covid-19, we estimated vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination (assessed 14 days after receipt of the first dose through 6 days after receipt of the second dose) and complete vaccination (assessed ≥7 days after receipt of the second dose). RESULTS: The study included 1482 case participants and 3449 control participants. Vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination was 77.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.9 to 82.7) with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 88.9% (95% CI, 78.7 to 94.2) with the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna); for complete vaccination, vaccine effectiveness was 88.8% (95% CI, 84.6 to 91.8) and 96.3% (95% CI, 91.3 to 98.4), respectively. Vaccine effectiveness was similar in subgroups defined according to age (<50 years or ≥50 years), race and ethnic group, presence of underlying conditions, and level of patient contact. Estimates of vaccine effectiveness were lower during weeks 9 through 14 than during weeks 3 through 8 after receipt of the second dose, but confidence intervals overlapped widely. CONCLUSIONS: The BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were highly effective under real-world conditions in preventing symptomatic Covid-19 in health care personnel, including those at risk for severe Covid-19 and those in racial and ethnic groups that have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).

Interim Estimates of Vaccine Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 Vaccines Among Health Care Personnel - 33 U.S. Sites, January-March 2021.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, health care personnel (HCP) have been at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, through patient interactions and community exposure (1). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended prioritization of HCP for COVID-19 vaccination to maintain provision of critical services and reduce spread of infection in health care settings (2). Early distribution of two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) to HCP allowed assessment of the effectiveness of these vaccines in a real-world setting. A test-negative case-control study is underway to evaluate mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic illness among HCP at 33 U.S. sites across 25 U.S. states. Interim analyses indicated that the VE of a single dose (measured 14 days after the first dose through 6 days after the second dose) was 82% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 74%-87%), adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and underlying medical conditions. The adjusted VE of 2 doses (measured ≥7 days after the second dose) was 94% (95% CI = 87%-97%). VE of partial (1-dose) and complete (2-dose) vaccination in this population is comparable to that reported from clinical trials and recent observational studies, supporting the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic disease in adults, with strong 2-dose protection.

Effectiveness of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection among U.S. Healthcare personnel, September 2022-May 2023.

BACKGROUND: Bivalent mRNA vaccines were recommended since September 2022. However, coverage with a recent vaccine dose has been limited, and there are few robust estimates of bivalent VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against COVID-19 among eligible U.S. healthcare personnel who had previously received monovalent mRNA vaccine doses. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study in 22 U.S. states, and enrolled healthcare personnel with COVID-19 (case-participants) or without COVID-19 (control-participants) during September 2022-May 2023. Participants were considered eligible for a bivalent mRNA dose if they had received 2-4 monovalent (ancestral-strain) mRNA vaccine doses, and were ≥67 days after the most recent vaccine dose. We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA dose using conditional logistic regression, accounting for matching by region and four-week calendar period. We adjusted estimates for age group, sex, race and ethnicity, educational level, underlying health conditions, community COVID-19 exposure, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and days since the last monovalent mRNA dose. RESULTS: Among 3,647 healthcare personnel, 1,528 were included as case-participants and 2,119 as control-participants. Participants received their last monovalent mRNA dose a median of 404 days previously; 1,234 (33.8%) also received a bivalent mRNA dose a median of 93 days previously. Overall, VE of a bivalent dose was 34.1% (95% CI, 22.6%-43.9%) against COVID-19 and was similar by product, days since last monovalent dose, number of prior doses, age group, and presence of underlying health conditions. However, VE declined from 54.8% (95% CI, 40.7%-65.6%) after 7-59 days to 21.6% (95% CI 5.6%-34.9%) after ≥60 days. CONCLUSIONS: Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines initially conferred approximately 55% protection against COVID-19 among U.S. healthcare personnel. However, protection waned after two months. These findings indicate moderate initial protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection by remaining up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccines.

Factors associated with the decision to receive bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccination among health care personnel.

COVID-19 vaccination is effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 complications, but uptake has been low. Our objective in this study was to compare the importance of factors reported to influence the decision to receive a bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccine among health care personnel (HCP) tested for SARS-CoV-2 between October 2022 and April 2023 in a 20-hospital vaccine effectiveness study in the United States (n = 1656). Compared with those who had not received the booster, the factors most likely to be reported to be important were concerns about contracting COVID-19 (84.0% of those who had received the bivalent booster vs. 47.5% of those who had not, difference 36.6% points (PP), 95% confidence interval [CI] 32.1 to 41.1%), spreading infection to family members (89.2% vs. 62.8%, difference 26.3 PP, 95% CI 22.3 to 30.4%), and spreading infection to colleagues at work (85.5% vs. 59.4%, difference 26.1 PP, 95% CI 21.7 to 30.5%). HCP who had received the booster more frequently cited the primary literature (61.7% vs. 31.8%, difference 29.9 PP, 95% CI 24.6 to 35.2%) and employer recommendations (48.3% vs. 29.8%, difference 18.5 PP, 95% CI 13.2 to 23.9%) as influencing their decision. This analysis provides insight into factors for targeting future vaccine messaging.

Effectiveness of a Messenger RNA Vaccine Booster Dose Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 Among US Healthcare Personnel, October 2021-July 2022.

Background: Protection against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) can limit transmission and the risk of post-COVID conditions, and is particularly important among healthcare personnel. However, lower vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been reported since predominance of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant. Methods: We evaluated the VE of a monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) booster dose against COVID-19 from October 2021 to June 2022 among US healthcare personnel. After matching case-participants with COVID-19 to control-participants by 2-week period and site, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate the VE of a booster dose compared with completing only 2 mRNA doses >150 days previously, adjusted for multiple covariates. Results: Among 3279 case-participants and 3998 control-participants who had completed 2 mRNA doses, we estimated that the VE of a booster dose against COVID-19 declined from 86% (95% confidence interval, 81%-90%) during Delta predominance to 65% (58%-70%) during Omicron predominance. During Omicron predominance, VE declined from 73% (95% confidence interval, 67%-79%) 14-60 days after the booster dose, to 32% (4%-52%) ≥120 days after a booster dose. We found that VE was similar by age group, presence of underlying health conditions, and pregnancy status on the test date, as well as among immunocompromised participants. Conclusions: A booster dose conferred substantial protection against COVID-19 among healthcare personnel. However, VE was lower during Omicron predominance, and waning effectiveness was observed 4 months after booster dose receipt during this period. Our findings support recommendations to stay up to date on recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccines for all those eligible.

Group IIA secretory phospholipase 2 independently predicts mortality and positive blood culture in emergency department sepsis patients.

OBJECTIVE: The IIA isoform of phospholipase A2 is an acute phase reactant that increases in sepsis, although data regarding its prognostic value are limited. We hypothesized that group IIA secretory phospholipase A2 (sPLA2-IIA) predicts sepsis mortality and positive cultures and sought to compare its predictive characteristics to lactate and procalcitonin. METHODS: sPLA2-IIA and procalcitonin levels were measured at enrollment in emergency department patients with early severe sepsis and compared with lactate levels. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was any positive culture with a sub-group analysis of only blood-culture positive patients. Optimum cut-point was determined using receiver operating characteristics curves. A multivariable model was developed to test the independent prognostic value of elevated sPLA2-IIA to predict mortality. RESULTS: Of the 192 patients in the cohort, 160, 153, and 158 had samples available for analysis of sPLA2-IIA, procalcitonin, and lactate, respectively. A total of 21% of patients met the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality. At a 100 ng/mL threshold for sPLA2-IIA, adjusted odds to predict mortality were 3.78 (95% confidence interval = 1.14-12.56, P = 0.03). sPLA2-IIA and procalcitonin were both elevated in culture-positive patients; however, the difference was not statistically significant. sPLA2-IIA was significantly higher in blood culture-positive patients. CONCLUSION: An elevated level of sPLA2-IIA was associated with increased mortality in sepsis patients. sPLA2-IIA levels, unlike procalcitonin, also were significantly higher in blood culture-positive patients.

Effect of Levocarnitine vs Placebo as an Adjunctive Treatment for Septic Shock: The Rapid Administration of Carnitine in Sepsis (RACE) Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Sepsis induces profound metabolic derangements, while exogenous levocarnitine mitigates metabolic dysfunction by enhancing glucose and lactate oxidation and increasing fatty acid shuttling. Previous trials in sepsis suggest beneficial effects of levocarnitine on patient-centered outcomes. Objectives: To test the hypothesis that levocarnitine reduces cumulative organ failure in patients with septic shock at 48 hours and, if present, to estimate the probability that the most efficacious dose will decrease 28-day mortality in a pivotal phase 3 clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter adaptive, randomized, blinded, dose-finding, phase 2 clinical trial (Rapid Administration of Carnitine in Sepsis [RACE]). The setting was 16 urban US medical centers. Participants were patients aged 18 years or older admitted from March 5, 2013, to February 5, 2018, with septic shock and moderate organ dysfunction. Interventions: Within 24 hours of identification, patients were assigned to 1 of the following 4 treatments: low (6 g), medium (12 g), or high (18 g) doses of levocarnitine or an equivalent volume of saline placebo administered as a 12-hour infusion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome required, first, a greater than 90% posterior probability that the most promising levocarnitine dose decreases the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at 48 hours and, second (given having met the first condition), at least a 30% predictive probability of success in reducing 28-day mortality in a subsequent traditional superiority trial to test efficacy. Results: Of the 250 enrolled participants (mean [SD] age, 61.7 [14.8] years; 56.8% male), 35, 34, and 106 patients were adaptively randomized to the low, medium, and high levocarnitine doses, respectively, while 75 patients were randomized to placebo. In the intent-to-treat analysis, the fitted mean (SD) changes in the SOFA score for the low, medium, and high levocarnitine groups were -1.27 (0.49), -1.66 (0.38), and -1.97 (0.32), respectively, vs -1.63 (0.35) in the placebo group. The posterior probability that the 18-g dose is superior to placebo was 0.78, which did not meet the a priori threshold of 0.90. Mortality at 28 days was 45.9% (34 of 74) in the placebo group compared with 43.3% (45 of 104) for the most promising levocarnitine dose (18 g). Similar findings were noted in the per-protocol analysis. Conclusions and Relevance: In this dose-finding, phase 2 adaptive randomized trial, the most efficacious dose of levocarnitine (18 g) did not meaningfully reduce cumulative organ failure at 48 hours. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01665092.

Association between persistent tachycardia and tachypnea and in-hospital mortality among non-hypotensive emergency department patients admitted to the hospital.

OBJECTIVE: Vital sign trends are used in clinical practice to assess treatment response and aid in disposition, yet quantitative data to support this practice are lacking. This study aimed to determine the prognostic value of vital sign normalization. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of adult emergency department (ED) patients admitted a single urban tertiary care hospital. A random sample of 182 days was chosen, and a manual review of all admissions was undertaken. Persistent tachycardia or tachypnea was defined as failure to decrease to a normal value in the ED. Elevated upon admission was defined as an abnormal value at the last set of vital signs documented. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: 4,878 patients were enrolled and 4.5 (±3.8) sets of vital signs were checked per patient. 1,770 patients were tachycardic and 1,499 were tachypneic. Among tachycardic patients, 941 (53%) were persistently tachycardic and 1,074 (61%) were tachycardic upon admission. Among tachypneic patients 639 (42%) were persistently tachypneic and 768 (51%) were tachypneic upon admission. Mortality was higher in patients persistently tachycardic (5.7% vs. 3.1%, P=0.008) or tachycardic upon admission (5.5% vs. 3.0%, P=0.014). Similar results were found in tachypneic patients (8.3% vs. 4.5%, P=0.003; 7.8% vs. 4.4%, P=0.006). CONCLUSION: Persistent tachycardia and tachypnea are associated with an increased risk of mortality in ED patients admitted to the hospital. Further study is necessary to determine if improved recognition or earlier interventions can affect outcomes.

Plasma syndecan-1 levels identify a cohort of patients with severe sepsis at high risk for intubation after large-volume intravenous fluid resuscitation.

PURPOSE: Sepsis damages the endothelial glycocalyx, contributing to fluid extravasation, organ injury, and death. Our goal was to determine if syndecan-1 level is associated with the risk of intubation and modifying effect of intravenous fluids (IVFs) in these patients. METHODS: Syndecan-1 was measured at enrollment in patients underdoing protocolized resuscitation for severe sepsis or septic shock. The primary outcome was difference in syndecan-1 based on subsequent intubation status, with in-hospital mortality and acute kidney injury serving as secondary outcomes. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate the effect of IVF volume on each outcome. RESULTS: Syndecan-1 was measured in 175 patients. Twenty-two percent met the primary outcome, 21% died, and 57% developed kidney injury. Syndecan-1 was nonsignificantly higher in intubated patients and was significantly higher in nonsurvivors and those with kidney injury. High syndecan-1 was defined as >240 ng/mL. The IVFs did not differ significantly between high and low syndecan-1 groups. Fluid volume was not associated with intubation in patients with a low syndecan-1 level but was associated with intubation in those with high syndecan-1 levels. CONCLUSIONS: Syndecan-1 is elevated in emergency department sepsis nonsurvivors. Patients with high syndecan-1 may represent a cohort at particular risk for intubation after large-volume fluid administration.