Effectiveness and Safety of an Emergency Department Code Sepsis Protocol: A Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

RATIONALE: Sepsis care delivery - including initiation of prompt, appropriate antimicrobials - remains suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: Determine direct and off-target effects of emergency department (ED) sepsis care reorganization. METHODS: This pragmatic pilot trial enrolled adult patients presenting November 2019 to February 2021 to an ED in Utah before and after implementation of a multimodal, team-based "Code Sepsis" protocol. Patients presenting to two other EDs where usual care was continued served as contemporaneous controls. The primary outcome was door-to-antimicrobial time among patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria before ED departure. Secondary and safety outcomes included all-cause 30-day mortality, antimicrobial utilization and overtreatment, and antimicrobial-associated adverse events. Multivariable regression analyses employed difference-in-differences methods to account for trends in outcomes unrelated to the studied intervention. RESULTS: Code Sepsis protocol activation (N=307) exhibited 8.5% sensitivity and 66% positive predictive value for patients meeting sepsis criteria before ED departure. Among 10,151 patients meeting sepsis criteria during the study, adjusted difference-in-differences analysis demonstrated a 13-minute (95% CI 7-19-minute) decrease in door-to-antimicrobial time associated with Code Sepsis implementation (p<0.001). Mortality and clinical safety outcomes were unchanged, but Code Sepsis implementation was associated with increased false-positive presumptive infection diagnosis among patients meeting sepsis criteria in the ED and increased antimicrobial utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a team-based protocol for rapid sepsis evaluation and treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic's first year was associated with decreased ED door-to-antimicrobial time but also increased antimicrobial utilization. Measurement of both patient-centered and off-target effects of sepsis care improvement interventions is essential to comprehensive assessment of their value. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04148989) This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Impact of COVID-19 on urgent care diagnoses and the new AXR metric.

We examined the antibiotic prescribing rate for respiratory diagnoses (AXR) before and after onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in urgent care clinics. At the onset, AXR declined substantially due to changes in case mix. Using AXR as a stewardship metric requires monitoring of changes in case mix.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Pneumonia in Urgent Care Clinics: Opportunities for Improving Care.

Background: Community-acquired pneumonia is a well-studied condition; yet, in the urgent care setting, patient characteristics and adherence to guideline-recommended care are poorly described. Within Intermountain Health, a nonprofit integrated US health care system based in Utah, more patients present to urgent care clinics (UCCs) than emergency departments (EDs) for pneumonia care. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study 1 January 2019 through 31 December 2020 in 28 UCCs within Utah. We extracted electronic health record data for patients aged ≥12 years with ICD-10 pneumonia diagnoses entered by the bedside clinician, excluding patients with preceding pneumonia within 30 days or missing vital signs. We compared UCC patients with radiographic pneumonia (n = 4689), without radiographic pneumonia (n = 1053), without chest imaging (n = 1472), and matched controls with acute cough/bronchitis (n = 15 972). Additional outcomes were 30-day mortality and the proportion of patients with ED visits or hospital admission within 7 days after the index encounter. Results: UCC patients diagnosed with pneumonia and possible/likely radiographic pneumonia by radiologist report had a mean age of 40 years and 52% were female. Almost all patients with pneumonia (93%) were treated with antibiotics, including those without radiographic confirmation. Hospital admissions and ED visits within 7 days were more common in patients with radiographic pneumonia vs patients with "unlikely" radiographs (6% vs 2% and 10% vs 6%, respectively). Observed 30-day all-cause mortality was low (0.26%). Patients diagnosed without chest imaging presented similarly to matched patients with cough/acute bronchitis. Most patients admitted to the hospital the same day after the UCC visit (84%) had an interim ED encounter. Pneumonia severity scores (pneumonia severity index, electronic CURB-65, and shock index) overestimated patient need for hospitalization. Conclusions: Most UCC patients with pneumonia were successfully treated as outpatients. Opportunities to improve care include clinical decision support for diagnosing pneumonia with radiographic confirmation and development of pneumonia severity scores tailored to the UCC.

Risk of COVID-19 Hospitalization and Protection Associated With mRNA Vaccination Among US Adults With Psychiatric Disorders.

BACKGROUND: Although psychiatric disorders have been associated with reduced immune responses to other vaccines, it remains unknown whether they influence COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE). This study evaluated risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and estimated mRNA VE stratified by psychiatric disorder status. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort analysis of the VISION Network in four US states, the rate of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalization between December 2021 and August 2022 was compared across psychiatric diagnoses and by monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination status using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Among 2,436,999 adults, 22.1% had ≥1 psychiatric disorder. The incidence of COVID-19-associated hospitalization was higher among patients with any versus no psychiatric disorder (394 vs. 156 per 100,000 person-years, p < 0.001). Any psychiatric disorder (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.27; 95% CI, 1.18-1.37) and mood (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.15-1.36), anxiety (aHR, 1.33, 95% CI, 1.22-1.45), and psychotic (aHR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.14-1.74) disorders were each significant independent predictors of hospitalization. Among patients with any psychiatric disorder, aHRs for the association between vaccination and hospitalization were 0.35 (95% CI, 0.25-0.49) after a recent second dose, 0.08 (95% CI, 0.06-0.11) after a recent third dose, and 0.33 (95% CI, 0.17-0.66) after a recent fourth dose, compared to unvaccinated patients. Corresponding VE estimates were 65%, 92%, and 67%, respectively, and were similar among patients with no psychiatric disorder (68%, 92%, and 79%). CONCLUSION: Psychiatric disorders were associated with increased risk of COVID-19-associated hospitalization. However, mRNA vaccination provided similar protection regardless of psychiatric disorder status, highlighting its benefit for individuals with psychiatric disorders.

Clinical Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Critical Outcomes Among Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19-VISION Network, 10 States, June 2021-March 2023.

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to develop with emerging variants, expanding population-level immunity, and advances in clinical care. We describe changes in the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 hospitalizations and risk factors for critical outcomes over time. METHODS: We included adults aged ≥18 years from 10 states hospitalized with COVID-19 June 2021-March 2023. We evaluated changes in demographics, clinical characteristics, and critical outcomes (intensive care unit admission and/or death) and evaluated critical outcomes risk factors (risk ratios [RRs]), stratified by COVID-19 vaccination status. RESULTS: A total of 60 488 COVID-19-associated hospitalizations were included in the analysis. Among those hospitalized, median age increased from 60 to 75 years, proportion vaccinated increased from 18.2% to 70.1%, and critical outcomes declined from 24.8% to 19.4% (all P < .001) between the Delta (June-December, 2021) and post-BA.4/BA.5 (September 2022-March 2023) periods. Hospitalization events with critical outcomes had a higher proportion of ≥4 categories of medical condition categories assessed (32.8%) compared to all hospitalizations (23.0%). Critical outcome risk factors were similar for unvaccinated and vaccinated populations; presence of ≥4 medical condition categories was most strongly associated with risk of critical outcomes regardless of vaccine status (unvaccinated: adjusted RR, 2.27 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.14-2.41]; vaccinated: adjusted RR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.56-1.92]) across periods. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who experienced critical outcomes decreased with time, and median patient age increased with time. Multimorbidity was most strongly associated with critical outcomes.

Antibiotics on Demand: Advances in Asynchronous Telemedicine Call for Increased Antibiotic Surveillance.

The rapid growth of telehealth services has brought about direct-to-consumer telemedicine platforms, enabling patients to request antibiotics online without a virtual or face-to-face consultation. While telemedicine aims to enhance accessibility, this trend raises significant concerns regarding appropriate antimicrobial use and patient safety. In this viewpoint, we share our first-hand experience with 2 direct-to-consumer platforms, where we intentionally sought inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions for nonspecific symptoms strongly indicative of a viral upper respiratory infection. Despite the lack of clear necessity, requested antibiotic prescriptions were readily transmitted to our local pharmacy following a simple monetary transaction. The effortless acquisition of patient-selected antibiotics online, devoid of personal interactions or consultations, underscores the urgent imperative for intensified antimicrobial stewardship initiatives led by state and national public health organizations in telehealth settings. By augmenting oversight and regulation, we can ensure the responsible and judicious use of antibiotics, safeguard patient well-being, and preserve the efficacy of these vital medications.

Impact of an antibiotic stewardship initiative on urgent-care respiratory prescribing across patient race, ethnicity, and language.

We conducted a post hoc analysis of an antibiotic stewardship intervention implemented across our health system's urgent-care network to determine whether there was a differential impact among patient groups. Respiratory urgent-care antibiotic prescribing decreased for all racial, ethnic, and preferred language groups, but disparities in antibiotic prescribing persisted.

Effectiveness of the Original Monovalent Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccines in Preventing Emergency Department or Urgent Care Encounters and Hospitalizations Among Adults With Disabilities: VISION Network, June 2021-September 2022.

Adults with disabilities are at increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Using data across 9 states during Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods (June 2021-September 2022), we evaluated the effectiveness of the original monovalent COVID-19 messenger RNA vaccines among 521 206 emergency department/urgent care encounters (11 471 [2%] in patients with a documented disability) and 139 548 hospitalizations (16 569 [12%] in patients with a disability) for laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 illness in adults (aged ≥18 years). Across variant periods and for the primary series or booster doses, vaccine effectiveness was similar in those with and those without a disability. These findings highlight the importance of adults with disabilities staying up to date with COVID-19 vaccinations.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines at preventing emergency department or urgent care encounters and hospitalizations among immunocompromised adults: An observational study of real-world data across 10 US states from August-December 2021.

BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised (IC) persons are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and are less protected by 1-2 COVID-19 vaccine doses than are immunocompetent (non-IC) persons. We compared vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended COVID-19 of 2-3 mRNA and 1-2 viral-vector vaccine doses between IC and non-IC adults. METHODS: Using a test-negative design among eight VISION Network sites, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) events and hospitalizations from 26 August-25 December 2021 was estimated separately among IC and non-IC adults and among specific IC condition subgroups. Vaccination status was defined using number and timing of doses. VE for each status (versus unvaccinated) was adjusted for age, geography, time, prior positive test result, and local SARS-CoV-2 circulation. RESULTS: We analyzed 8,848 ED/UC events and 18,843 hospitalizations among IC patients and 200,071 ED/UC events and 70,882 hospitalizations among non-IC patients. Among IC patients, 3-dose mRNA VE against ED/UC (73% [95% CI: 64-80]) and hospitalization (81% [95% CI: 76-86]) was lower than that among non-IC patients (ED/UC: 94% [95% CI: 93-94]; hospitalization: 96% [95% CI: 95-97]). Similar patterns were observed for viral-vector vaccines. Transplant recipients had lower VE than other IC subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: During B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance, IC adults received moderate protection against COVID-19-associated medical events from three mRNA doses, or one viral-vector dose plus a second dose of any product. However, protection was lower in IC versus non-IC patients, especially among transplant recipients, underscoring the need for additional protection among IC adults.

Number needed to vaccinate with a COVID-19 booster to prevent a COVID-19-associated hospitalization during SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 variant predominance, December 2021-February 2022, VISION Network: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: Understanding the usefulness of additional COVID-19 vaccine doses-particularly given varying disease incidence-is needed to support public health policy. We characterize the benefits of COVID-19 booster doses using number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-associated hospitalization or emergency department encounter. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of immunocompetent adults at five health systems in four U.S. states during SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 predominance (December 2021-February 2022). Included patients completed a primary mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series and were either eligible to or received a booster dose. NNV were estimated using hazard ratios for each outcome (hospitalization and emergency department encounters), with results stratified by three 25-day periods and site. Findings: 1,285,032 patients contributed 938 hospitalizations and 2076 emergency department encounters. 555,729 (43.2%) patients were aged 18-49 years, 363,299 (28.3%) 50-64 years, and 366,004 (28.5%) ≥65 years. Most patients were female (n = 765,728, 59.6%), White (n = 990,224, 77.1%), and non-Hispanic (n = 1,063,964, 82.8%). 37.2% of patients received a booster and 62.8% received only two doses. Median estimated NNV to prevent one hospitalization was 205 (range 44-615) and NNV was lower across study periods for adults aged ≥65 years (110, 46, and 88, respectively) and those with underlying medical conditions (163, 69, and 131, respectively). Median estimated NNV to prevent one emergency department encounter was 156 (range 75-592). Interpretation: The number of patients needed to receive a booster dose was highly dependent on local disease incidence, outcome severity, and patient risk factors for moderate-to-severe disease. Funding: Funding was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention though contract 75D30120C07986 to Westat, Inc. and contract 75D30120C07765 to Kaiser Foundation Hospitals.

Effect of tele-COVID rounds and a tele-stewardship intervention on antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients admitted to 17 small community hospitals.

Antibiotic stewardship interventions are urgently needed to reduce antibiotic overuse in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, particularly in small community hospitals (SCHs), who often lack access to infectious diseases (ID) and stewardship resources. We implemented multidisciplinary tele-COVID rounds plus tele-antibiotic stewardship surveillance in 17 SCHs to standardize COVID management and evaluate concurrent antibiotics for discontinuation. Antibiotic use was compared in the 4 months preintervention versus 10 months postintervention. Interrupted time-series analysis demonstrated an immediate decrease in antibiotic use by 339 days of therapy/1000 COVID-19 patient days (p < .001), and an estimated 5258 antibiotic days avoided during the postintervention period. Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different, and a significant reduction in transfers was observed following the intervention (23.3% vs. 7.8%, p < .001). A novel tele-ID and tele-stewardship intervention significantly decreased antibiotic use and transfers among COVID-19 patients at 17 SCHs, demonstrating that telehealth is a feasible way to provide ID expertise in community and rural settings.

Implementation of an Antibiotic Stewardship Initiative in a Large Urgent Care Network.

Importance: Urgent Care (UC) encounters result in more inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions than other outpatient setting. Few stewardship interventions have focused on UC. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of an antibiotic stewardship initiative to reduce antibiotic prescribing for respiratory conditions in a UC network. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study conducted in a UC network with 38 UC clinics and 1 telemedicine clinic included 493 724 total UC encounters. The study compared the antibiotic prescribing rates of all UC clinicians who encountered respiratory conditions for a 12-month baseline period (July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019) with an intervention period (July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020). A sustainability period (July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021) was added post hoc. Interventions: Stewardship interventions included (1) education for clinicians and patients, (2) electronic health record (EHR) tools, (3) a transparent clinician benchmarking dashboard, and (4) media. Occurring independently but concurrent with the interventions, a stewardship measure was introduced by UC leadership into the quality measures, including a financial incentive. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the percentage of UC encounters with an antibiotic prescription for a respiratory condition. Secondary outcomes included antibiotic prescribing when antibiotics were not indicated (tier 3 encounters) and first-line antibiotics for acute otitis media, sinusitis, and pharyngitis. Interrupted time series with binomial generalized estimating equations were used to compare periods. Results: The baseline period included 207 047 UC encounters for respiratory conditions (56.8% female; mean [SD] age, 30.0 [21.4] years; 92.0% White race); the intervention period included 183 893 UC encounters (56.4% female; mean [SD] age, 30.7 [20.8] years; 91.2% White race). Antibiotic prescribing for respiratory conditions decreased from 47.8% (baseline) to 33.3% (intervention). During the initial intervention month, a 22% reduction in antibiotic prescribing occurred (odds ratio [OR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.86). Antibiotic prescriptions decreased by 5% monthly during the intervention (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.94-0.96). Antibiotic prescribing for tier 3 encounters decreased by 47% (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44-63), and first-line antibiotic prescriptions increased by 18% (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.09-1.29) during the initial intervention month. Antibiotic prescriptions for tier 3 encounters decreased by an additional 4% each month (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98), whereas first-line antibiotic prescriptions did not change (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01). Antibiotic prescribing for respiratory conditions remained stable in the sustainability period. Conclusions and relevance: The findings of this quality improvement study indicated that a UC antibiotic stewardship initiative was associated with decreased antibiotic prescribing for respiratory conditions. This study provides a model for UC antibiotic stewardship.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccination in Children and Adolescents.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against mild to moderate and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in children and adolescents through the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 period. METHODS: Using VISION Network records from April 2021 to September 2022, we conducted a test-negative, case-control study assessing VE against COVID-19-associated emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounters and hospitalizations using logistic regression, conditioned on month and site, adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: We compared 9800 ED/UC cases with 70 232 controls, and 305 hospitalized cases with 2612 controls. During Delta, 2-dose VE against ED/UC encounters at 12 to 15 years was initially 93% (95% confidence interval 89 to 95), waning to 77% (69% to 84%) after ≥150 days. At ages 16 to 17, VE was initially 93% (86% to 97%), waning to 72% (63% to 79%) after ≥150 days. During Omicron, VE at ages 12 to 15 was initially 64% (44% to 77%), waning to 13% (3% to 23%) after ≥150 days; at ages 16 to 17 VE was 31% (10% to 47%) during days 60 to 149, waning to 7% (-8 to 20%) after 150 days. A monovalent booster increased VE to 54% (40% to 65%) at ages 12 to 15 and 46% (30% to 58%) at ages 16 to 17. At ages 5 to 11, 2-dose VE was 49% (33% to 61%) initially and 41% (29% to 51%) after 150 days. During Delta, VE against hospitalizations at ages 12 to 17 was high (>97%), and at ages 16 to 17 remained 98% (73% to 100%) beyond 150 days; during Omicron, hospitalizations were too infrequent to precisely estimate VE. CONCLUSIONS: BNT162b2 protected children and adolescents against mild to moderate and severe COVID-19. VE was lower during Omicron predominance including BA.4/BA.5, waned after dose 2 but increased after a monovalent booster. Children and adolescents should receive all recommended COVID-19 vaccinations.

A qualitative evaluation of frontline clinician perspectives toward antibiotic stewardship programs.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the perspectives of caregivers that are not part of the antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) leadership team (eg, physicians, nurses, and clinical pharmacists), but who interact with ASPs in their role as frontline healthcare workers. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured interviews. SETTING: The study was conducted in 2 large national healthcare systems including 7 hospitals in the Veterans' Health Administration and 4 hospitals in Intermountain Healthcare. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 157 participants. The current analysis includes 123 nonsteward clinicians: 47 physicians, 26 pharmacists, 29 nurses, and 21 hospital leaders. METHODS: Interviewers utilized a semistructured interview guide based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which was tailored to the participant's role in the hospital as it related to ASPs. Qualitative analysis was conducted using a codebook based on the CFIR. RESULTS: We identified 4 primary perspectives regarding ASPs. (1) Non-ASP pharmacists considered antibiotic stewardship activities to be a high priority despite the added burden to work duties: (2) Nurses acknowledged limited understanding of ASP activities or involvement with these programs; (3) Physicians criticized ASPs for their restrictions on clinical autonomy and questioned the ability of antibiotic stewards to make recommendations without the full clinical picture; And (4) hospital leaders expressed support for ASPs and recognized the unique challenges faced by non-ASP clinical staff. CONCLUSION: Further understanding these differing perspectives of ASP implementation will inform possible ways to improve ASP implementation across clinical roles.

Estimation of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness and COVID-19 Illness and Severity by Vaccination Status During Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 Sublineage Periods.

Importance: Recent SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant sublineages, including BA.4 and BA.5, may be associated with greater immune evasion and less protection against COVID-19 after vaccination. Objectives: To evaluate the estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of 2, 3, or 4 doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination among immunocompetent adults during a period of BA.4 or BA.5 predominant circulation; and to evaluate the relative severity of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients across Omicron BA.1, BA.2 or BA.2.12.1, and BA.4 or BA.5 sublineage periods. Design, Setting, and Participants: This test-negative case-control study was conducted in 10 states with data from emergency department (ED) and urgent care (UC) encounters and hospitalizations from December 16, 2021, to August 20, 2022. Participants included adults with COVID-19-like illness and molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2. Data were analyzed from August 2 to September 21, 2022. Exposures: mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes of interest were COVID-19 ED or UC encounters, hospitalizations, and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) or in-hospital death. VE associated with protection against medically attended COVID-19 was estimated, stratified by care setting and vaccine doses (2, 3, or 4 doses vs 0 doses as the reference group). Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, demographic and clinical characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were compared across sublineage periods. Results: During the BA.4 and BA.5 predominant period, there were 82 229 eligible ED and UC encounters among patients with COVID-19-like illness (median [IQR] age, 51 [33-70] years; 49 682 [60.4%] female patients), and 19 114 patients (23.2%) had test results positive for SARS-CoV-2; among 21 007 hospitalized patients (median [IQR] age, 71 [58-81] years; 11 209 [53.4%] female patients), 3583 (17.1 %) had test results positive for SARS-CoV-2. Estimated VE against hospitalization was 25% (95% CI, 17%-32%) for receipt of 2 vaccine doses at 150 days or more after receipt, 68% (95% CI, 50%-80%) for a third dose 7 to 119 days after receipt, and 36% (95% CI, 29%-42%) for a third dose 120 days or more (median [IQR], 235 [204-262] days) after receipt. Among patients aged 65 years or older who had received a fourth vaccine dose, VE was 66% (95% CI, 53%-75%) at 7 to 59 days after vaccination and 57% (95% CI, 44%-66%) at 60 days or more (median [IQR], 88 [75-105] days) after vaccination. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, ICU admission or in-hospital death occurred in 21.4% of patients during the BA.1 period vs 14.7% during the BA.4 and BA.5 period (standardized mean difference: 0.17). Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study of COVID-19 vaccines and illness, VE associated with protection against medically attended COVID-19 illness was lower with increasing time since last dose; estimated VE was higher after receipt of 1 or 2 booster doses compared with a primary series alone.

Early Estimates of Bivalent mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness in Preventing COVID-19-Associated Emergency Department or Urgent Care Encounters and Hospitalizations Among Immunocompetent Adults - VISION Network, Nine States, September-November 2022.

During June-October 2022, the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.5 sublineage accounted for most of the sequenced viral genomes in the United States, with further Omicron sublineage diversification through November 2022.* Bivalent mRNA vaccines contain an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain component plus an updated component of the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineages. On September 1, 2022, a single bivalent booster dose was recommended for adults who had completed a primary vaccination series (with or without subsequent booster doses), with the last dose administered ≥2 months earlier (1). During September 13-November 18, the VISION Network evaluated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of a bivalent mRNA booster dose (after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses) compared with 1) no previous vaccination and 2) previous receipt of 2, 3, or 4 monovalent-only mRNA vaccine doses, among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years with an emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounter or hospitalization for a COVID-19-like illness.† VE of a bivalent booster dose (after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses) against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters was 56% compared with no vaccination, 32% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose 2-4 months earlier, and 50% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose ≥11 months earlier. VE of a bivalent booster dose (after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses) against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was 59% compared with no vaccination, 42% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose 5-7 months earlier, and 48% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose ≥11 months earlier. Bivalent vaccines administered after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses were effective in preventing medically attended COVID-19 compared with no vaccination and provided additional protection compared with past monovalent vaccination only, with relative protection increasing with time since receipt of the last monovalent dose. All eligible persons should stay up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations, including receiving a bivalent booster dose. Persons should also consider taking additional precautions to avoid respiratory illness this winter season, such as masking in public indoor spaces, especially in areas where COVID-19 community levels are high.

Concordance Between Initial Presumptive and Final Adjudicated Diagnoses of Infection Among Patients Meeting Sepsis-3 Criteria in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines emphasize rapid antibiotic treatment for sepsis, but infection presence is often uncertain at initial presentation. We investigated the incidence and drivers of false-positive presumptive infection diagnosis among emergency department (ED) patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria. METHODS: For a retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized after meeting Sepsis-3 criteria (acute organ failure and suspected infection including blood cultures drawn and intravenous antimicrobials administered) in 1 of 4 EDs from 2013 to 2017, trained reviewers first identified the ED-diagnosed source of infection and adjudicated the presence and source of infection on final assessment. Reviewers subsequently adjudicated final infection probability for a randomly selected 10% subset of subjects. Risk factors for false-positive infection diagnosis and its association with 30-day mortality were evaluated using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Of 8267 patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED, 699 (8.5%) did not have an infection on final adjudication and 1488 (18.0%) patients with confirmed infections had a different source of infection diagnosed in the ED versus final adjudication (ie, initial/final source diagnosis discordance). Among the subset of patients whose final infection probability was adjudicated (n = 812), 79 (9.7%) had only "possible" infection and 77 (9.5%) were not infected. Factors associated with false-positive infection diagnosis included hypothermia, altered mental status, comorbidity burden, and an "unknown infection source" diagnosis in the ED (odds ratio: 6.39; 95% confidence interval: 5.14-7.94). False-positive infection diagnosis was not associated with 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this large multihospital study, <20% of ED patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria had no infection or only possible infection on retrospective adjudication.

Protection From COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination and Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection Against COVID-19-Associated Encounters in Adults During Delta and Omicron Predominance.

BACKGROUND: Data assessing protection conferred from COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and/or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection during Delta and Omicron predominance periods in the United States are limited. METHODS: This cohort study included persons ≥18 years who had ≥1 health care encounter across 4 health systems and had been tested for SARS-CoV-2 before 26 August 2021. COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection defined the exposure. Cox regression estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for the Delta and Omicron periods; protection was calculated as (1-HR)×100%. RESULTS: Compared to unvaccinated and previously uninfected persons, during Delta predominance, protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was high for those 2- or 3-dose vaccinated and previously infected, 3-dose vaccinated alone, and prior infection alone (range, 91%-97%, with overlapping 95% confidence intervals [CIs]); during Omicron predominance, estimates were lower (range, 77%-90%). Protection against COVID-19-associated emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounters during Delta predominance was high for those exposure groups (range, 86%-93%); during Omicron predominance, protection remained high for those 3-dose vaccinated with or without a prior infection (76%; 95% CI = 67%-83% and 71%; 95% CI = 67%-73%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and/or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection provided protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and ED/UC encounters regardless of variant. Staying up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccination still provides protection against severe COVID-19 disease, regardless of prior infection.