Benefit-risk assessment of Covid-19 vaccine, MRNA (MRNA-1273) for males age 18-64 years.

Since the authorization of the Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, real-world evidence has indicated its effectiveness in preventing COVID-19 cases. However, increased cases of mRNA vaccine-associated myocarditis/pericarditis have been reported, predominantly in young adults and adolescents. The Food and Drug Administration conducted a benefit-risk assessment to inform the review of the Biologics License Application for use of the Moderna vaccine among individuals ages 18 and older. We modeled the benefit-risk per million individuals who receive two complete doses of the vaccine. Benefit endpoints were vaccine-preventable COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and deaths. The risk endpoints were vaccine-related myocarditis/pericarditis cases, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths. The analysis was conducted on the age-stratified male population due to data signals and previous work showing males to be the main risk group. We constructed six scenarios to evaluate the impact of uncertainty associated with pandemic dynamics, vaccine effectiveness (VE) against novel variants, and rates of vaccine-associated myocarditis/pericarditis cases on the model results. For our most likely scenario, we assumed the US COVID-19 incidence was for the week of December 25, 2021, with a VE of 30% against cases and 72% against hospitalization with the Omicron-dominant strain. Our source for estimating vaccine-attributable myocarditis/pericarditis rates was FDA's CBER Biologics Effectiveness and Safety (BEST) System databases. Overall, our results supported the conclusion that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh its risks. Remarkably, we predicted vaccinating one million 18-25 year-old males would prevent 82,484 cases, 4,766 hospitalizations, 1,144 ICU admissions, and 51 deaths due to COVID-19, comparing to 128 vaccine-attributable myocarditis/pericarditis cases, 110 hospitalizations, zero ICU admissions, and zero deaths. Uncertainties in the pandemic trajectory, effectiveness of vaccine against novel variants, and vaccine-attributable myocarditis/pericarditis rate are important limitations of our analysis. Also, the model does not evaluate potential long-term adverse effects due to either COVID-19 or vaccine-attributable myocarditis/pericarditis.

Safety of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccine in Children Aged 5 to 17 Years.

Importance: Active monitoring of health outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination offers early detection of rare outcomes that may not be identified in prelicensure trials. Objective: To conduct near-real-time monitoring of health outcomes following BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination in the US pediatric population aged 5 to 17 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based study was conducted under a public health surveillance mandate from the US Food and Drug Administration. Participants aged 5 to 17 years were included if they received BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination through mid 2022 and had continuous enrollment in a medical health insurance plan from the start of an outcome-specific clean window until the COVID-19 vaccination. Surveillance of 20 prespecified health outcomes was conducted in near real time within a cohort of vaccinated individuals from the earliest Emergency Use Authorization date for the BNT162b2 vaccination (December 11, 2020) and was expanded as more pediatric age groups received authorization through May and June 2022. All 20 health outcomes were monitored descriptively, 13 of which additionally underwent sequential testing. For these 13 health outcomes, the increased risk of each outcome after vaccination was compared with a historical baseline with adjustments for repeated looks at the data as well as a claims processing delay. A sequential testing approach was used, which declared a safety signal when the log likelihood ratio comparing the observed rate ratio against the null hypothesis exceeded a critical value. Exposure: Exposure was defined as receipt of a BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine dose. The primary analysis assessed primary series doses together (dose 1 + dose 2), and dose-specific secondary analyses were conducted. Follow-up time was censored for death, disenrollment, end of the outcome-specific risk window, end of the study period, or a receipt of a subsequent vaccine dose. Main Outcomes: Twenty prespecified health outcomes: 13 were assessed using sequential testing and 7 were monitored descriptively because of a lack of historical comparator data. Results: This study included 3 017 352 enrollees aged 5 to 17 years. Of the enrollees across all 3 databases, 1 510 817 (50.1%) were males, 1 506 499 (49.9%) were females, and 2 867 436 (95.0%) lived in an urban area. In the primary sequential analyses, a safety signal was observed only for myocarditis or pericarditis after primary series vaccination with BNT162b2 in the age group 12 to 17 years across all 3 databases. No safety signals were observed for the 12 other outcomes assessed using sequential testing. Conclusions and Relevance: Among 20 health outcomes that were monitored in near real time, a safety signal was identified for only myocarditis or pericarditis. Consistent with other published reports, these results provide additional evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are safe in children.

A Longitudinal Investigation of the Impact of COVID-19 on Patients With Chronic Pain.

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted unexpected changes in the healthcare system. This current longitudinal study had 2 aims: 1) describe the trajectory of pandemic-associated stressors and patient-reported health outcomes among patients receiving treatment at a tertiary pain clinic over 2 years (May 2020 to June 2022); and 2) identify vulnerable subgroups. We assessed changes in pandemic-associated stressors and patient-reported health outcome measures. The study sample included 1270 adult patients who were predominantly female (74.6%), White (66.2%), non-Hispanic (80.6%), married (66.1%), not on disability (71.2%), college-educated (59.45%), and not currently working (57.9%). We conducted linear mixed effect modeling to examine the main effect of time with controlling for a random intercept. Findings revealed a significant main effect of time for all pandemic-associated stressors except financial impact. Over time, patients reported increased proximity to COVID-19, but decreased pandemic-associated stressors. A significant improvement was also observed in pain intensity, pain catastrophizing, and PROMIS-pain interference, sleep, anxiety, anger, and depression scores. Demographic-based subgroup analyses for pandemic-associated stressors revealed that younger adults, Hispanics, Asians, and patients receiving disability compensation were vulnerable groups either during the initial visit or follow-up visits. We observed additional differential pandemic effects between groups based on participant sex, education level, and working status. In conclusion, despite unanticipated changes in pain care services during the pandemic, patients receiving pain treatments adjusted to pandemic-related stressors and improved their health status over time. As the current study observed differential pandemic impacts on patient subgroups, future studies should investigate and address the unmet needs of vulnerable subgroups. PERSPECTIVE: Over a 2-year timeframe, the pandemic did not adversely influence physical and mental health among treatment-seeking patients with chronic pain. Patients reported small but significant improvements across indices of physical and psychosocial health. Differential impacts emerged among groups based on ethnicity, age, disability status, gender, education level, and working status.

Diabetes-related major and minor amputation risk increased during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Along with significant case transmission, hospitalizations, and mortality experienced during the global Sars-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, there existed a disruption in the delivery of health care across multiple specialties. We studied the effect of the pandemic on inpatients with diabetic foot problems in a level-one trauma center in Central Ohio. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients necessitating a consultation by the foot and ankle surgery service were reviewed from the first 8 months of 2020. A total of 270 patients met the inclusion criteria and divided into pre-pandemic (n = 120) and pandemic groups (n = 150). Demographics, medical history, severity of current infection, and medical or surgical management were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The odds of undergoing any level of amputation was 10.8 times higher during the pandemic versus before the pandemic. The risk of major amputations (below-the-knee or higher) likewise increased with an odds ratio of 12.5 among all patients in the foot and ankle service during the pandemic. Of the patients undergoing any amputation, the odds for receiving a major amputation was 3.1 times higher than before the pandemic. Additionally, the severity of infections increased during the pandemic and a larger proportion of the cases were classified as emergent in the pandemic group compared to the pre-pandemic group. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of the pandemic on the health-care system has had a deleterious effect on people with diabetes-related foot problems resulting in more severe infections, more emergencies, and necessitating more amputations. When an amputation was performed, the likelihood it was a major amputation also increased.Editor's Note: This Original Article accompanies "Diabetes-Related Amputations: A Pandemic within a Pandemic," by Lee C. Rogers, DPM, Robert J. Snyder, DPM, and Warren S. Joseph, DPM, FIDSA, available at https://doi.org/10.7547/20-248.

Evaluation of association of anti-PEG antibodies with anaphylaxis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: The mechanism for anaphylaxis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination has been widely debated; understanding this serious adverse event is important for future vaccines of similar design. A mechanism proposed is type I hypersensitivity (i.e., IgE-mediated mast cell degranulation) to polyethylene glycol (PEG). Using an assay that, uniquely, had been previously assessed in patients with anaphylaxis to PEG, our objective was to compare anti-PEG IgE in serum from mRNA COVID-19 vaccine anaphylaxis case-patients and persons vaccinated without allergic reactions. Secondarily, we compared anti-PEG IgG and IgM to assess alternative mechanisms. METHODS: Selected anaphylaxis case-patients reported to U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System December 14, 2020-March 25, 2021 were invited to provide a serum sample. mRNA COVID-19 vaccine study participants with residual serum and no allergic reaction post-vaccination ("controls") were frequency matched to cases 3:1 on vaccine and dose number, sex and 10-year age category. Anti-PEG IgE was measured using a dual cytometric bead assay (DCBA). Anti-PEG IgG and IgM were measured using two different assays: DCBA and a PEGylated-polystyrene bead assay. Laboratorians were blinded to case/control status. RESULTS: All 20 case-patients were women; 17 had anaphylaxis after dose 1, 3 after dose 2. Thirteen (65 %) were hospitalized and 7 (35 %) were intubated. Time from vaccination to serum collection was longer for case-patients vs controls (post-dose 1: median 105 vs 21 days). Among Moderna recipients, anti-PEG IgE was detected in 1 of 10 (10 %) case-patients vs 8 of 30 (27 %) controls (p = 0.40); among Pfizer-BioNTech recipients, it was detected in 0 of 10 case-patients (0 %) vs 1 of 30 (3 %) controls (p >n 0.99). Anti-PEG IgE quantitative signals followed this same pattern. Neither anti-PEG IgG nor IgM was associated with case status with both assay formats. CONCLUSION: Our results support that anti-PEG IgE is not a predominant mechanism for anaphylaxis post-mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

Use of Immunization Information Systems in Ascertainment of COVID-19 Vaccinations for Claims-Based Vaccine Safety and Effectiveness Studies.

Importance: Safety and effectiveness studies of COVID-19 vaccines are being conducted using clinical data, including administrative claims. However, claims data only partially capture administered COVID-19 vaccine doses for numerous reasons, such as vaccination at sites that do not generate claims for reimbursement. Objective: To evaluate the extent to which Immunization Information Systems (IIS) data linked to claims data enhances claims-based COVID-19 vaccine capture for a commercially insured population and to estimate the magnitude of misclassification of vaccinated individuals as having unvaccinated status in the linked IIS and claims data. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used claims data from a commercial health insurance database and obtained vaccination data from IIS repositories in 11 US states. Participants were individuals younger than 65 years who resided in 1 of 11 states of interest and who were insured in health plans from December 1, 2020, through December 31, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated proportion of individuals with at least 1 dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and proportion of individuals with a completed vaccine series based on general population guidelines. Vaccination status estimates were calculated and compared using claims data alone and linked IIS and claims data. Remaining misclassification of vaccination status was assessed by comparing linked IIS and claims data estimates with estimates from external surveillance data sources (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] and state Department of Health [DOH]) and capture-recapture analysis. Results: This cohort study included 5 112 722 individuals (mean [SD] age, 33.5 [17.6] years; 2 618 098 females [51.2%]) from 11 states. Characteristics of those who received at least 1 vaccine dose and those who completed a vaccine series were similar to the overall study population. The proportion with at least 1 vaccine dose increased from 32.8% using claims data alone to 48.1% when the data were supplemented with IIS vaccination records. Vaccination estimates using linked IIS and claims data varied widely by state. The percentage of individuals who completed a vaccine series increased from 24.4% to 41.9% after the addition of IIS vaccine records and varied across states. The percentages of underrecording using linked IIS and claims data were 12.1% to 47.1% lower than those using CDC data, 9.1% to 46.9% lower than the state DOH, and 9.2% to 50.9% lower than capture-recapture analysis. Conclusion and Relevance: Results of this study suggested that supplementing COVID-19 claims records with IIS vaccination records substantially increased the number of individuals who were identified as vaccinated, yet potential underrecording remained. Improvements in reporting vaccination data to IIS infrastructures could allow frequent updates of vaccination status for all individuals and all vaccines.

The Food and Drug Administration Biologics Effectiveness and Safety Initiative Facilitates Detection of Vaccine Administrations From Unstructured Data in Medical Records Through Natural Language Processing.

Introduction: The Food and Drug Administration Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research conducts post-market surveillance of biologic products to ensure their safety and effectiveness. Studies have found that common vaccine exposures may be missing from structured data elements of electronic health records (EHRs), instead being captured in clinical notes. This impacts monitoring of adverse events following immunizations (AEFIs). For example, COVID-19 vaccines have been regularly administered outside of traditional medical settings. We developed a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm to mine unstructured clinical notes for vaccinations not captured in structured EHR data. Methods: A random sample of 1,000 influenza vaccine administrations, representing 995 unique patients, was extracted from a large U.S. EHR database. NLP techniques were used to detect administrations from the clinical notes in the training dataset [80% (N = 797) of patients]. The algorithm was applied to the validation dataset [20% (N = 198) of patients] to assess performance. Full medical charts for 28 randomly selected administration events in the validation dataset were reviewed by clinicians. The NLP algorithm was then applied across the entire dataset (N = 995) to quantify the number of additional events identified. Results: A total of 3,199 administrations were identified in the structured data and clinical notes combined. Of these, 2,740 (85.7%) were identified in the structured data, while the NLP algorithm identified 1,183 (37.0%) administrations in clinical notes; 459 were not also captured in the structured data. This represents a 16.8% increase in the identification of vaccine administrations compared to using structured data alone. The validation of 28 vaccine administrations confirmed 27 (96.4%) as "definite" vaccine administrations; 18 (64.3%) had evidence of a vaccination event in the structured data, while 10 (35.7%) were found solely in the unstructured notes. Discussion: We demonstrated the utility of an NLP algorithm to identify vaccine administrations not captured in structured EHR data. NLP techniques have the potential to improve detection of vaccine administrations not otherwise reported without increasing the analysis burden on physicians or practitioners. Future applications could include refining estimates of vaccine coverage and detecting other exposures, population characteristics, and outcomes not reliably captured in structured EHR data.

Safety of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of COVID-19 vaccines safety during pregnancy is urgently needed. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including their components and technological platforms used in other vaccines during pregnancy and animal studies to complement direct evidence. We searched literature databases from its inception to September 2021 without language restriction, COVID-19 vaccine websites, and reference lists of other systematic reviews and the included studies. Pairs of reviewers independently selected, data extracted, and assessed the risk of bias of the studies. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. (PROSPERO CRD42021234185). RESULTS: We retrieved 8,837 records from the literature search; 71 studies were included, involving 17,719,495 pregnant persons and 389 pregnant animals. Most studies (94%) were conducted in high-income countries, were cohort studies (51%), and 15% were classified as high risk of bias. We identified nine COVID-19 vaccine studies, seven involving 309,164 pregnant persons, mostly exposed to mRNA vaccines. Among non-COVID-19 vaccines, the most frequent exposures were AS03 and aluminum-based adjuvants. A meta-analysis of studies that adjusted for potential confounders showed no association with adverse outcomes, regardless of the vaccine or the trimester of vaccination. Neither the reported rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes nor reactogenicity exceeded expected background rates, which was the case for ASO3- or aluminum-adjuvanted non-COVID-19 vaccines in the proportion meta-analyses of uncontrolled studies/arms. The only exception was postpartum hemorrhage after COVID-19 vaccination (10.40%; 95% CI: 6.49-15.10%), reported by two studies; however, the comparison with non-exposed pregnant persons, available for one study, found non-statistically significant differences (adjusted OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.56-2.12). Animal studies showed consistent results with studies in pregnant persons. CONCLUSION: We found no safety concerns for currently administered COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. Additional experimental and real-world evidence could enhance vaccination coverage. Robust safety data for non-mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are still needed.

Safety, immunogenicity, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous vaccines have been evaluated and approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since pregnant persons have been excluded from most clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines, sufficient data regarding the safety of these vaccines for the pregnant person and their fetus have rarely been available at the time of product licensure. However, as COVID-19 vaccines have been deployed, data on the safety, reactogenicity, immunogenicity, and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons and neonates are becoming increasingly available. A living systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons and newborns could provide the information necessary to help guide vaccine policy decisions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We aim to conduct a living systematic review and meta-analysis based on biweekly searches of medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries to systematically identify relevant studies of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons. Pairs of reviewers will independently select, extract data, and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials, quasi-experimental studies, cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies, and case reports. Primary outcomes will be the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant persons, including neonatal outcomes. Secondary outcomes will be immunogenicity and reactogenicity. We will conduct paired meta-analyses, including prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses. We will use the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

SARS-CoV-2 control on a large urban college campus without mass testing.

OBJECTIVE: A small percentage of universities and colleges conducted mass SARS-CoV-2 testing. However, universal testing is resource-intensive, strains national testing capacity, and false negative tests can encourage unsafe behaviors. PARTICIPANTS: A large urban university campus. METHODS: Virus control centered on three pillars: mitigation, containment, and communication, with testing of symptomatic and a random subset of asymptomatic students. RESULTS: Random surveillance testing demonstrated a prevalence among asymptomatic students of 0.4% throughout the term. There were two surges in cases that were contained by enhanced mitigation and communication combined with targeted testing. Cumulative cases totaled 445 for the term, most resulting from unsafe undergraduate student behavior and among students living off-campus. A case rate of 232/10,000 undergraduates equaled or surpassed several peer institutions that conducted mass testing. CONCLUSIONS: An emphasis on behavioral mitigation and communication can control virus transmission on a large urban campus combined with a limited and targeted testing strategy.

Comparison of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes using archival medical records before and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo: a facility-based, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Little research has been conducted on the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on either birth outcomes or the ability of archival medical records to accurately capture these outcomes. Our study objective is thus to compare the prevalence of preterm birth, stillbirth, low birth weight (LBW), small for gestational age (SGA), congenital microcephaly, and neonatal bloodstream infection (NBSI) before and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). METHODS: We conducted a facility-based retrospective cohort study in which identified cases of birth outcomes were tabulated at initial screening and subcategorized according to level of diagnostic certainty using Global Alignment of Immunization Safety Assessment in pregnancy (GAIA) definitions. Documentation of any birth complications, delivery type, and maternal vaccination history were also evaluated. The prevalence of each birth outcome was compared in the pre-COVID-19 (i.e., July 2019 to February 2020) and intra-COVID-19 (i.e., March to August 2020) periods via two-sample z-test for equality of proportions. RESULTS: In total, 14,300 birth records were abstracted. Adverse birth outcomes were identified among 22.0% and 14.3% of pregnancies in the pre-COVID-19 and intra-COVID-19 periods, respectively. For stillbirth, LBW, SGA, microcephaly, and NBSI, prevalence estimates were similar across study periods. However, the prevalence of preterm birth in the intra-COVID-19 period was significantly lower than that reported during the pre-COVID-19 period (8.6% vs. 11.5%, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, the level of diagnostic certainty declined slightly across all outcomes investigated from the pre-COVID-19 to the intra-COVID-19 period. Nonetheless, diagnostic certainty was especially low for certain outcomes (i.e., stillbirth and NBSI) regardless of period; still, other outcomes, such as preterm birth and LBW, had moderate to high levels of diagnostic certainty. Results were mostly consistent when the analysis was focused on the facilities designated for COVID-19 care. CONCLUSION: This study succeeded in providing prevalence estimates for key adverse birth outcomes using GAIA criteria during the COVID-19 pandemic in Kinshasa, DRC. Furthermore, our study adds crucial real-world data to the literature surrounding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternal and neonatal services and outcomes in Africa.

Surveillance of COVID-19 vaccine safety among elderly persons aged 65 years and older.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring safety outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination is critical for understanding vaccine safety especially when used in key populations such as elderly persons age 65 years and older who can benefit greatly from vaccination. We present new findings from a nationally representative early warning system that may expand the safety knowledge base to further public trust and inform decision making on vaccine safety by government agencies, healthcare providers, interested stakeholders, and the public. METHODS: We evaluated 14 outcomes of interest following COVID-19 vaccination using the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) data covering 30,712,101 elderly persons. The CMS data from December 11, 2020 through Jan 15, 2022 included 17,411,342 COVID-19 vaccinees who received a total of 34,639,937 doses. We conducted weekly sequential testing and generated rate ratios (RR) of observed outcome rates compared to historical (or expected) rates prior to COVID-19 vaccination. FINDINGS: Four outcomes met the threshold for a statistical signal following BNT162b2 vaccination including pulmonary embolism (PE; RR = 1.54), acute myocardial infarction (AMI; RR = 1.42), disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC; RR = 1.91), and immune thrombocytopenia (ITP; RR = 1.44). After further evaluation, only the RR for PE still met the statistical threshold for a signal; however, the RRs for AMI, DIC, and ITP no longer did. No statistical signals were identified following vaccination with either the mRNA-1273 or Ad26 COV2.S vaccines. INTERPRETATION: This early warning system is the first to identify temporal associations for PE, AMI, DIC, and ITP following BNT162b2 vaccination in the elderly. Because an early warning system does not prove that the vaccines cause these outcomes, more robust epidemiologic studies with adjustment for confounding, including age and nursing home residency, are underway to further evaluate these signals. FDA strongly believes the potential benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the potential risks of COVID-19 infection.

Risk of myocarditis and pericarditis after the COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in the USA: a cohort study in claims databases.

BACKGROUND: Several passive surveillance systems reported increased risks of myocarditis or pericarditis, or both, after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, especially in young men. We used active surveillance from large health-care databases to quantify and enable the direct comparison of the risk of myocarditis or pericarditis, or both, after mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccinations. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study, examining the primary outcome of myocarditis or pericarditis, or both, identified using the International Classification of Diseases diagnosis codes, occurring 1-7 days post-vaccination, evaluated in COVID-19 mRNA vaccinees aged 18-64 years using health plan claims databases in the USA. Observed (O) incidence rates were compared with expected (E) incidence rates estimated from historical cohorts by each database. We used multivariate Poisson regression to estimate the adjusted incidence rates, specific to each brand of vaccine, and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) comparing mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2. We used meta-analyses to pool the adjusted incidence rates and IRRs across databases. FINDINGS: A total of 411 myocarditis or pericarditis, or both, events were observed among 15 148 369 people aged 18-64 years who received 16 912 716 doses of BNT162b2 and 10 631 554 doses of mRNA-1273. Among men aged 18-25 years, the pooled incidence rate was highest after the second dose, at 1·71 (95% CI 1·31 to 2·23) per 100 000 person-days for BNT162b2 and 2·17 (1·55 to 3·04) per 100 000 person-days for mRNA-1273. The pooled IRR in the head-to-head comparison of the two mRNA vaccines was 1·43 (95% CI 0·88 to 2·34), with an excess risk of 27·80 per million doses (-21·88 to 77·48) in mRNA-1273 recipients compared with BNT162b2. INTERPRETATION: An increased risk of myocarditis or pericarditis was observed after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and was highest in men aged 18-25 years after a second dose of the vaccine. However, the incidence was rare. These results do not indicate a statistically significant risk difference between mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2, but it should not be ruled out that a difference might exist. Our study results, along with the benefit-risk profile, continue to support vaccination using either of the two mRNA vaccines. FUNDING: US Food and Drug Administration.

Near real-time surveillance of safety outcomes in US COVID-19 vaccine recipients aged 12 to 64 years.

BACKGROUND: Active monitoring of safety outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination is critical to understand vaccine safety and can provide early detection of rare outcomes not identified in pre-licensure trials. We present findings from an early warning rapid surveillance system in three large commercial insurance databases including more than 16 million vaccinated individuals. METHODS: We evaluated 17 outcomes of interest following COVID-19 vaccination among individuals aged 12-64 years in Optum, HealthCore, and CVS Health databases from December 11, 2020, through January 22, 2022, January 7, 2022, and December 31, 2021, respectively. We conducted biweekly or monthly sequential testing and generated rate ratios (RR) of observed outcome rates compared to historical (or expected) rates prior to COVID-19 vaccination. FINDINGS: Among 17 outcomes evaluated, 15 did not meet the threshold for statistical signal in any of the three databases. Myocarditis/pericarditis met the statistical threshold for a signal following BNT162b2 in two of three databases (RRs: 1.83-2.47). Anaphylaxis met the statistical threshold for a signal in all three databases following BNT162b2 vaccination (RRs: 4.48-10.86) and mRNA-1273 vaccination (RRs: 7.64-12.40). DISCUSSION: Consistent with published literature, our near-real time monitoring of 17 adverse outcomes following COVID-19 vaccinations identified signals for myocarditis/pericarditis and anaphylaxis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations. The method is intended for early detection of safety signals, and results do not imply a causal effect. Results of this study should be interpreted in the context of the method's utility and limitations, and the validity of detected signals must be evaluated in fully adjusted epidemiologic studies.

Multi-center matched cohort study of convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Although frequently used in the early pandemic, data on the effectiveness of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) remain mixed. We investigated the effectiveness and safety of CCP in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in real-world practices during the first two waves of the pandemic in a multi-hospital healthcare system in Texas. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Among 11,322 hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection from July 1, 2020 to April 15, 2021, we included patients who received CCP and matched them with those who did not receive CCP within ±2 days of the transfusion date across sites within strata of sex, age groups, days and use of dexamethasone from hospital admission to the match date, and oxygen requirements 4-12 hours prior to the match date. Cox proportional hazards model estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effectiveness outcomes in a propensity score 1:1 matched cohort. Pre-defined safety outcomes were described. We included 1,245 patients each in the CCP treated and untreated groups. Oxygen support was required by 93% of patients at the baseline. The pre-defined primary effectiveness outcome of 28-day in-hospital all-cause mortality (HR = 0.85; 95%CI: 0.66,1.10) were similar between treatment groups. Sensitivity and stratified analyses found similar null results. CCP-treated patients were less likely to be discharged alive (HR = 0.82; 95%CI: 0.74, 0.91), and more likely to receive mechanical ventilation (HR = 1.48; 95%CI: 1.12, 1.96). Safety outcomes were rare and similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The findings in this large, matched cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and mostly requiring oxygen support at the time of treatment, do not support a clinical benefit in 28-day in-hospital all-cause mortality for CCP. Future studies should assess the potential benefits with specifically high-titer units in perhaps certain subgroups of patients (e.g. those with early disease or immunocompromised).

Assessment of performance characteristics of COVID-19 ICD-10-CM diagnosis code U07.1 using SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test results.

The Food and Drug Administration's Biologics Effectiveness and Safety Initiative conducts active surveillance to protect public health during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study evaluated performance of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis code U07.1 in identifying COVID-19 cases in claims compared with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid amplification test results in linked electronic health records (EHRs). Care episodes in three populations were defined using COVID-19-related diagnoses (population 1), SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test procedures (population 2), and all-cause hospitalizations (population 3) in two linked claims-EHR databases: IBM® MarketScan® Explorys® Claims-EMR Data Set (commercial) and OneFlorida Data Trust linked Medicaid-EHR. Positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Respectively, populations 1, 2, and 3 included 26,686, 26,095, and 2,564 episodes (commercial) and 29,117, 23,412, and 9,629 episodes (Florida Medicaid). The positive predictive value was >80% and the negative predictive value was >95% in each population, with the highest positive predictive value in population 3 (commercial: 91.9%; Medicaid: 93.1%). Findings did not vary substantially by patient age. Positive predictive values in populations 1 and 2 fluctuated during April-June 2020. They then stabilized in the commercial but not the Medicaid population. Negative predictive values were consistent over time in all populations and databases. Our findings indicate that U07.1 has high performance in identifying COVID-19 cases and noncases in claims databases. Performance may vary across populations and periods.

Adherence to face mask use during the COVID-19 pandemic among women seeking antenatal care in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo: a facility-based cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe face mask use among pregnant women seeking antenatal care (ANC) in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo and to identify factors associated with masking adherence in this population. DESIGN: Facility-based cross-sectional study nested within a prospective cohort study. SETTING: Random sample of 10 health facilities, including 5 primary health centers and 5 secondary facilities or hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 934 pregnant women aged 18 years or above with a gestational age of at least 32 weeks were consecutively surveyed from 17 August 2020 to 31 January 2021. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We estimated the proportions of pregnant women wearing a face mask and masking correctly (ie, over the mouth and nose), and assessed their knowledge regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Multivariable logistic regression was employed to identify factors associated with overall and correct face mask use. RESULTS: Overall, 309 (33.1%) women wore a mask during the interview after their antenatal appointments, but only 33 (10.7%) wore a mask correctly. The odds of masking and correct mask use were significantly higher among women who had their ANC visit in a facility that provided COVID-19 care. Additionally, women who experienced COVID-19-like symptoms in the past 6 months had higher odds of wearing a mask correctly compared with those reporting no recent symptoms. Although 908 (97.2%) women were aware of the COVID-19 pandemic, only 611 (67.3%) thought that COVID-19 was circulating locally in Kinshasa. CONCLUSION: Overall and correct face mask adherence levels were low among pregnant women attending ANC in Kinshasa. Our study highlights the need for improving adherence to correct face mask use in order to help control the spread of COVID-19 within Kinshasa alongside other control measures, like vaccination.

Assessing the feasibility of passive surveillance for maternal immunization safety utilizing archival medical records in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.

INTRODUCTION: Since the establishment of the Global Alignment of Immunization Safety Assessment in pregnancy (GAIA) case definitions in 2015, there has been an urgent need for field validation of pharmacovigilance feasibility in low- and middle-income countries. In this study, we assess the availability and quality of archival medical records at ten randomly selected high-traffic maternity wards in Kinshasa province, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). METHODS: A retrospective cohort of mother-child pairs was established from all recorded births taking place at study sites between July 1, 2019 to February 28, 2020 through digitization of medical records. Adverse birth outcomes and maternal vaccination status, where available and linkable, were defined according to GAIA. Basic demographic information on mothers and newborns was also tabulated; birth outcomes were assessed for both intra-site prevalence and a pooled prevalence. RESULTS: A total of 7,697 mother-newborn pair records were extracted, with 37% of infants screening positive as cases of adverse outcomes. Maternal vaccination information was linkable to 67% of those cases. In total, 51% of stillbirths, 98% of preterm births, 100% of low birthweight infants, 90% of small for gestational age infants, 100% of microcephalic infants, and 0% of neonatal bloodstream infections were classifiable according to GAIA standards following initial screening. Forty percent of case mothers had some indication of tetanus vaccination prior to delivery in their medical records, but only 26% of case mothers met some level of GAIA definition for maternal vaccination during the pregnancy of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Archival birth records from delivery centers can be feasibly utilized to screen for stillbirth and maternal tetanus vaccination, and to accurately classify preterm birth, low birthweight, small for gestational age, and congenital microcephaly. Assessment of other neonatal outcomes were limited by inconsistent postpartum infant follow-up and records keeping.

Using maternal and neonatal data collection systems for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines active safety surveillance in low- and middle-income countries: an international modified Delphi study: [version 1;peer review: 1 approved with reservations]

Background: Given that pregnant women are now included among those for receipt coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, it is important to ensure that information systems can be used (or available) for active safety surveillance, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The aim of this study was to build consensus about the use of existing maternal and neonatal data collection systems in LMICs for COVID-19 vaccines active safety surveillance, a basic set of variables, and the suitability and feasibility of including pregnant women and LMIC research networks in COVID-19 vaccines pre-licensure activities. Methods: A three-stage modified Delphi study was conducted over three months in 2020. An international multidisciplinary panel of 16 experts participated. Ratings distributions and consensus were assessed, and ratings’ rationale was analyzed. Results: The panel recommended using maternal and neonatal data collection systems for active safety surveillance in LMICs (median 9;disagreement index [DI] -0.92), but there was no consensus (median 6;DI 1.79) on the feasibility of adapting these systems. A basic set of 14 maternal, neonatal, and vaccination-related variables. Out of 16 experts, 11 supported a basic set of 14 maternal, neonatal, and vaccination-related variables for active safety surveillance. Seven experts agreed on a broader set of 26 variables.The inclusion of pregnant women for COVID-19 vaccines research (median 8;DI -0.61) was found appropriate, although there was uncertainty on its feasibility in terms of decision-makers’ acceptability (median 7;DI 10.00) and regulatory requirements (median 6;DI 0.51). There was no consensus (median 6;DI 2.35) on the feasibility of including research networks in LMICs for conducting clinical trials amongst pregnant women. Conclusions: Although there was some uncertainty regarding feasibility, experts recommended using maternal and neonatal data collection systems and agreed on a common set of variables for COVID-19 vaccines active safety surveillance in LMICs.

The impact of COVID-19 on patients with chronic pain seeking care at a tertiary pain clinic.

Empirical data on the health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic remain scarce, especially among patients with chronic pain. We conducted a cross-sectional study matched by season to examine patient-reported health symptoms among patients with chronic pain pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic onset. Survey responses were analyzed from 7535 patients during their initial visit at a tertiary pain clinic between April 2017-October 2020. Surveys included measures of pain and pain-related physical, emotional, and social function. The post-COVID-19 onset cohort included 1798 initial evaluations, and the control pre-COVID-19 cohort included 5737 initial evaluations. Patients were majority female, White/Caucasian, and middle-aged. The results indicated that pain ratings remained unchanged among patients after the pandemic onset. However, pain catastrophizing scores were elevated when COVID-19 cases peaked in July 2020. Pain interference, physical function, sleep impairment, and emotional support were improved in the post-COVID-19 cohort. Depression, anxiety, anger, and social isolation remained unchanged. Our findings provide evidence of encouraging resilience among patients seeking treatment for pain conditions in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, our findings that pain catastrophizing increased when COVID-19 cases peaked in July 2020 suggests that future monitoring and consideration of the impacts of the pandemic on patients' pain is warranted.