Effectiveness of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19 Hospitalization by Age and Chronic Medical Conditions Burden Among Immunocompetent US Adults, March-August 2021.

Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalization was evaluated among immunocompetent adults (≥18 years) during March-August 2021 using a case-control design. Among 1669 hospitalized COVID-19 cases (11% fully vaccinated) and 1950 RT-PCR-negative controls (54% fully vaccinated), VE was 96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93%-98%) among patients with no chronic medical conditions and 83% (95% CI, 76%-88%) among patients with ≥ 3 categories of conditions. VE was similar between those aged 18-64 years versus ≥65 years (P > .05). VE against severe COVID-19 was very high among adults without chronic conditions and lessened with increasing comorbidity burden.

Modeling the Impacts of Clinical Influenza Testing on Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Estimates.

BACKGROUND: Test-negative design studies for evaluating influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) enroll patients with acute respiratory infection. Enrollment typically occurs before influenza status is determined, resulting in over-enrollment of influenza-negative patients. With availability of rapid and accurate molecular clinical testing, influenza status could be ascertained before enrollment, thus improving study efficiency. We estimate potential biases in VE when using clinical testing. METHODS: We simulate data assuming 60% vaccinated, 25% of those vaccinated are influenza positive, and VE of 50%. We show the effect on VE in 5 scenarios. RESULTS: Vaccine effectiveness is affected only when clinical testing preferentially targets patients based on both vaccination and influenza status. Vaccine effectiveness is overestimated by 10% if nontesting occurs in 39% of vaccinated influenza-positive patients and 24% of others. VE is also overestimated by 10% if nontesting occurs in 8% of unvaccinated influenza-positive patients and 27% of others. Vaccine effectiveness is underestimated by 10% if nontesting occurs in 32% of unvaccinated influenza-negative patients and 18% of others. CONCLUSIONS: Although differential clinical testing by vaccine receipt and influenza positivity may produce errors in estimated VE, bias in testing would have to be substantial and overall proportion of patients tested would have to be small to result in a meaningful difference in VE.

Comparison of test-negative and syndrome-negative controls in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness evaluations for preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Test-negative design (TND) studies have produced validated estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) for influenza vaccine studies. However, syndrome-negative controls have been proposed for differentiating bias and true estimates in VE evaluations for COVID-19. To understand the use of alternative control groups, we compared characteristics and VE estimates of syndrome-negative and test-negative VE controls. METHODS: Adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in 18 states March 11-August 31, 2021 were eligible for analysis. Case patients had symptomatic acute respiratory infection (ARI) and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Control groups were test-negative patients with ARI but negative SARS-CoV-2 testing, and syndrome-negative controls were without ARI and negative SARS-CoV-2 testing. Chi square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to detect differences in baseline characteristics. VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated using logistic regression comparing adjusted odds of prior mRNA vaccination between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and each control group. RESULTS: 5811 adults (2726 cases, 1696 test-negative controls, and 1389 syndrome-negative controls) were included. Control groups differed across characteristics including age, race/ethnicity, employment, previous hospitalizations, medical conditions, and immunosuppression. However, control-group-specific VE estimates were very similar. Among immunocompetent patients aged 18-64 years, VE was 93 % (95 % CI: 90-94) using syndrome-negative controls and 91 % (95 % CI: 88-93) using test-negative controls. CONCLUSIONS: Despite demographic and clinical differences between control groups, the use of either control group produced similar VE estimates across age groups and immunosuppression status. These findings support the use of test-negative controls and increase confidence in COVID-19 VE estimates produced by test-negative design studies.

Physical function impairment in survivors of critical illness in an ICU Recovery Clinic.

PURPOSE: The aims were to 1) determine feasibility of measuring physical function in our ICU Recovery Clinic (RC), 2) determine if physical function was associated with 6-month re-hospitalization and 1-year mortality and 3) compare ICU survivors' physical function to other comorbid populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We established the Wake Forest ICU RC. Patients were seen in clinic 1month following hospital discharge. Testing included the Short Form-36 questionnaire and Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). We related these measures to 6month re-hospitalizations and 1year mortality, and compared patients' functional performance with other comorbid populations. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were seen in clinic from July 2014 to June 2015; the median SPPB score was 5 (IQR 5). The median SF-36 physical component summary score was 21.8 (IQR 28.8). Mortality was 14% at 1year. Of those who did not die by 1year, 35% were readmitted to our hospital within 6months of hospital discharge. SPPB scores demonstrated a non-significant trend with both mortality (p=0.06) and readmissions (p=0.09). ICU survivors' SPPB scores were significantly lower than those of other chronically ill populations (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physical function measurement in a recovery clinic is feasible and may inform subsequent morbidity and mortality.