ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The duration and effectiveness of immunity from infection with and vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are relevant to pandemic policy interventions, including the timing of vaccine boosters. METHODS: We investigated the duration and effectiveness of immunity in a prospective cohort of asymptomatic health care workers in the United Kingdom who underwent routine polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) testing. Vaccine effectiveness (≤10 months after the first dose of vaccine) and infection-acquired immunity were assessed by comparing the time to PCR-confirmed infection in vaccinated persons with that in unvaccinated persons, stratified according to previous infection status. We used a Cox regression model with adjustment for previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status, vaccine type and dosing interval, demographic characteristics, and workplace exposure to SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Of 35,768 participants, 27% (9488) had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccine coverage was high: 95% of the participants had received two doses (78% had received BNT162b2 vaccine [Pfizer-BioNTech] with a long interval between doses, 9% BNT162b2 vaccine with a short interval between doses, and 8% ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine [AstraZeneca]). Between December 7, 2020, and September 21, 2021, a total of 2747 primary infections and 210 reinfections were observed. Among previously uninfected participants who received long-interval BNT162b2 vaccine, adjusted vaccine effectiveness decreased from 85% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72 to 92) 14 to 73 days after the second dose to 51% (95% CI, 22 to 69) at a median of 201 days (interquartile range, 197 to 205) after the second dose; this effectiveness did not differ significantly between the long-interval and short-interval BNT162b2 vaccine recipients. At 14 to 73 days after the second dose, adjusted vaccine effectiveness among ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine recipients was 58% (95% CI, 23 to 77) - considerably lower than that among BNT162b2 vaccine recipients. Infection-acquired immunity waned after 1 year in unvaccinated participants but remained consistently higher than 90% in those who were subsequently vaccinated, even in persons infected more than 18 months previously. CONCLUSIONS: Two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine were associated with high short-term protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection; this protection waned considerably after 6 months. Infection-acquired immunity boosted with vaccination remained high more than 1 year after infection. (Funded by the U.K. Health Security Agency and others; ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN11041050.).
Subject(s)
Adaptive Immunity , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adaptive Immunity/immunology , Asymptomatic Diseases , BNT162 Vaccine/therapeutic use , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/therapeutic use , Health Personnel , Humans , Prospective Studies , United Kingdom , Vaccination/methods , Vaccine EfficacyABSTRACT
Since June 2020, the SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation (SIREN) study has conducted routine PCR testing in UK healthcare workers and sequenced PCR-positive samples. SIREN detected increases in infections and reinfections and delected Omicron subvariant waves emergence contemporaneous with national surveillance. SIREN's sentinel surveillance methods can be used for variant surveillance.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Animals , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Health Personnel , Reinfection , UrodelaABSTRACT
Third doses of COVID-19 vaccines were widely deployed following the primary vaccine course waning and the emergence of the Omicron-variant. We investigated protection from third-dose vaccines and previous infection against SARS-CoV-2 infection during Delta-variant and Omicron-variant (BA.1 & BA.2) waves in our frequently PCR-tested cohort of healthcare-workers. Relative effectiveness of BNT162b2 third doses and infection-acquired immunity was assessed by comparing the time to PCR-confirmed infection in boosted participants with those with waned dose-2 protection (≥254 days after dose-2), by primary series vaccination type. Follow-up time was divided by dominant circulating variant: Delta 07 September 2021 to 30 November 2021, Omicron 13 December 2021t o 28 February 2022. We used a Cox regression model with adjustment/stratification for demographic characteristics and staff-type. We explored protection associated with vaccination, infection and both. We included 19,614 participants, 29% previously infected. There were 278 primary infections (4 per 10,000 person-days of follow-up) and 85 reinfections (0.8/10,000 person-days) during the Delta period and 2467 primary infections (43/10,000 person-days) and 881 reinfections (33/10,000) during the Omicron period. Relative Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) 0-2 months post-3rd dose (3rd dose) (3-doses BNT162b2) in the previously uninfected cohort against Delta infections was 63% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 40%-77%) and was lower (35%) against Omicron infection (95% CI 21%-47%). The relative VE of 3rd dose (heterologous BNT162b2) was greater for primary course ChAdOX1 recipients, with VE 0-2 months post-3rd dose over ≥68% higher for both variants. Third-dose protection waned rapidly against Omicron, with no significant difference between two and three BNT162b2 doses observed after 4-months. Previous infection continued to provide additional protection against Omicron (67% (CI 56%-75%) 3-6 months post-infection), but this waned to about 25% after 9-months, approximately three times lower than against Delta. Infection rates surged with Omicron emergence. Third doses of BNT162b2 vaccine provided short-term protection, with rapid waning against Omicron infections. Protection associated with infections incurred before Omicron was markedly diminished against the Omicron wave. Our findings demonstrate the complexity of an evolving pandemic with the potential emergence of immune-escape variants and the importance of continued monitoring.
Subject(s)
BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19 , Humans , Cohort Studies , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , mRNA Vaccines , Reinfection , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiologyABSTRACT
Background: The protection of fourth dose mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is relevant to current global policy decisions regarding ongoing booster roll-out. We aimed to estimate the effect of fourth dose vaccination, prior infection, and duration of PCR positivity in a highly-vaccinated and largely prior-COVID-19 infected cohort of UK healthcare workers. Methods: Participants underwent fortnightly PCR and regular antibody testing for SARS-CoV-2 and completed symptoms questionnaires. A multi-state model was used to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against infection from a fourth dose compared to a waned third dose, with protection from prior infection and duration of PCR positivity jointly estimated. Findings: 1298 infections were detected among 9560 individuals under active follow-up between September 2022 and March 2023. Compared to a waned third dose, fourth dose VE was 13.1% (95% CI 0.9 to 23.8) overall; 24.0% (95% CI 8.5 to 36.8) in the first 2 months post-vaccination, reducing to 10.3% (95% CI -11.4 to 27.8) and 1.7% (95% CI -17.0 to 17.4) at 2-4 and 4-6 months, respectively. Relative to an infection >2 years ago and controlling for vaccination, 63.6% (95% CI 46.9 to 75.0) and 29.1% (95% CI 3.8 to 43.1) greater protection against infection was estimated for an infection within the past 0-6, and 6-12 months, respectively. A fourth dose was associated with greater protection against asymptomatic infection than symptomatic infection, whilst prior infection independently provided more protection against symptomatic infection, particularly if the infection had occurred within the previous 6 months. Duration of PCR positivity was significantly lower for asymptomatic compared to symptomatic infection. Interpretation: Despite rapid waning of protection, vaccine boosters remain an important tool in responding to the dynamic COVID-19 landscape; boosting population immunity in advance of periods of anticipated pressure, such as surging infection rates or emerging variants of concern. Funding: UK Health Security Agency, Medical Research Council, NIHR HPRU Oxford, Bristol, and others.
ABSTRACT
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (primary PCI) is the preferred immediate treatment for patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction. It is however, considerably more labour-intensive than the previous standard of care and requires an immediate response from consultant-led teams to deliver best outcomes. We describe the introduction of a comprehensive primary PCI service for Northern Ireland and suggest that the process by which it was designed, piloted, commissioned and benchmarked can serve as a prototype for other high-risk, time-sensitive clinical emergency services.
Subject(s)
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/trends , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/therapy , Clinical Protocols , Electrocardiography , Emergency Medical Services/organization & administration , Health Services Administration , Humans , Northern Ireland , Time-to-TreatmentABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: With the fluctuating economic conditions and the health care reform taking place in the United States, it is critical for plastic surgeons to be aware of their financial value to health care systems. The authors evaluated surgeon productivity and economic contributions made to their hospital by the Division of Plastic Surgery. METHODS: Operative case logs for the departments of surgery, neurosurgery, and orthopedics were reviewed for fiscal year 2009. Margins, revenue, and surgeon total relative value units (a measure of productivity) were analyzed. RESULTS: Average relative value unit for all surgical specialties was 94,595, whereas that for the Division of Plastic Surgery was 54,288. Average value per surgeon for the health system was 12,149. For plastic surgery, average value per surgeon was 14,272, and the division was ranked fourth highest among all surgical services. The mean number of relative value units per case was 24.5 among all services; for plastic surgery, it was 31.2. Approximately one-third of all procedures performed by plastic surgery were in collaboration with another surgical specialty. The average net revenue for primary inpatient admissions per relative value unit was $381 for all surgical services and $222 for plastic surgery. A total of $2.2 to $3.7 million was the estimated savings for the hospital from complication salvage cases performed by the division. CONCLUSIONS: Plastic surgery contributes significantly to hospital bottom line in performing joint cases and salvaging complications. In the current economic environment, it is crucial for plastic surgeons to be fully cognizant of their positive influence and economic impact on the hospital margin.
Subject(s)
Surgery Department, Hospital/economics , Surgery, Plastic/economics , Cost Savings , Cost of Illness , Hospitalization/economics , Humans , Neoplasms/economics , Neoplasms/surgery , Philadelphia , Postoperative Complications/economics , Plastic Surgery Procedures/economics , Relative Value ScalesSubject(s)
Financial Management, Hospital/organization & administration , Hospital Administrators , Cost Control , Diffusion of Innovation , Hospitals, University/economics , Humans , Medical Errors/prevention & control , Medically Uninsured , Organizational Case Studies , Pennsylvania , Safety ManagementABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that surgeon productivity is directly related to hospital operating margin, but significant variation in margin contribution exists between specialties. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: As the independent practitioner becomes an endangered species, it is critical to better understand the surgeon's importance to a hospital's bottom line. An appreciation of surgeon contribution to hospital profitability may prove useful in negotiations relating to full-time employment or other models. METHODS: Surgeon total relative value units (RVUs), a measure of productivity, were collected from operating room (OR) logs. Annual hospital margin per specialty was provided by hospital finance. Hospital margin data were normalized by dividing by a constant such that the highest relative hospital margin (RHM) in fiscal year 2004 expressed as margin units (mu) was 1 million mu. For each specialty, data analyzed included RHM/OR HR, RHM/case, and RHM/RVU. RESULTS: Thoracic (34.55 mu/RVU) and transplant (25.13 mu/RVU) were the biggest contributors to hospital margin. Plastics (-0.57 mu/RVU), maxillofacial (1.41 mu/RVU), and gynecology (1.66 mu/RVU) contributed least to hospital margin. Relative hospital margin per OR HR for transplant slightly exceeded thoracic (275.74 mu vs 233.94 mu) at the top and plastics and maxillofacial contributed the least (-3.83 mu/OR HR vs 9.36 mu/OR HR). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons contribute significantly to hospital margin with certain specialties being more profitable than others. Payer mix, the penetration of managed care, and negotiated contracts as well as a number of other factors all have an impact on an individual hospital's margin. Surgeons should be fully cognizant of their significant influence in the marketplace.