Safety Monitoring of Bivalent COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Booster Doses Among Persons Aged ≥12 Years - United States, August 31-October 23, 2022.

On August 31, 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized bivalent formulations of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccines; these vaccines include mRNA encoding the spike protein from the original (ancestral) strain of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) and from the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variants BA.4 and BA.5 (BA.4/BA.5). These bivalent mRNA vaccines were authorized for use as a single booster dose ≥2 months after completion of primary series or monovalent booster vaccination; Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent booster was authorized for persons aged ≥12 years and Moderna for adults aged ≥18 years.*,† On September 1, 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that all persons aged ≥12 years receive an age-appropriate bivalent mRNA booster dose.§ To characterize the safety of bivalent mRNA booster doses, CDC reviewed adverse events and health impacts reported after receipt of bivalent Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna booster doses during August 31-October 23, 2022, to v-safe,¶ a voluntary smartphone-based U.S. safety surveillance system established by CDC to monitor adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination, and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS),** a U.S. passive vaccine safety surveillance system managed by CDC and FDA (1). During August 31-October 23, 2022, approximately 14.4 million persons aged ≥12 years received a bivalent Pfizer-BioNTech booster dose, and 8.2 million adults aged ≥18 years received a bivalent Moderna booster dose.†† Among the 211,959 registrants aged ≥12 years who reported receiving a bivalent booster dose to v-safe, injection site and systemic reactions were frequently reported in the week after vaccination (60.8% and 54.8%, respectively); fewer than 1% of v-safe registrants reported receiving medical care. VAERS received 5,542 reports of adverse events after bivalent booster vaccination among persons aged ≥12 years; 95.5% of reports were nonserious and 4.5% were serious events. Health care providers and patients can be reassured that adverse events reported after a bivalent booster dose are consistent with those reported after monovalent doses. Health impacts after COVID-19 vaccination are less frequent and less severe than those associated with COVID-19 illness (2).

Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Second Booster Doses Among Adults Aged ≥50 Years - United States, March 29, 2022-July 10, 2022.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that all persons aged ≥5 years receive 1 booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine after completion of their primary series.* On March 29, 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized a second mRNA booster dose ≥4 months after receipt of a first booster dose for adults aged ≥50 years and persons aged ≥12 years with moderate to severe immunocompromise (1,2). To characterize the safety of a second mRNA booster dose among persons aged ≥50 years, CDC reviewed adverse events and health impact assessments reported to v-safe and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after receipt of a second mRNA booster dose during March 29-July 10, 2022. V-safe is a voluntary smartphone-based U.S. active surveillance system that monitors adverse events occurring after COVID-19 vaccination. VAERS is a U.S. passive surveillance system for monitoring adverse events after vaccination, managed by CDC and FDA (3). During March 29-July 10, 2022, approximately 16.8 million persons in the United States aged ≥50 years received a fourth dose.† Among 286,380 v-safe registrants aged ≥50 years who reported receiving a second booster of an mRNA vaccine, 86.9% received vaccines from the same manufacturer for all 4 doses (i.e., homologous vaccination). Among registrants who reported homologous vaccination, injection site and systemic reactions were less frequent after the second booster dose than after the first booster dose. VAERS received 8,515 reports of adverse events after second mRNA booster doses among adults aged ≥50 years, including 8,073 (94.8%) nonserious and 442 (5.1%) serious events. CDC recommends that health care providers and patients be advised that local and systemic reactions are expected after a second booster dose, and that serious adverse events are uncommon.

Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Doses Among Adults - United States, September 22, 2021-February 6, 2022.

During September 22, 2021-February 6, 2022, approximately 82.6 million U.S. residents aged ≥18 years received a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose.* The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized a booster dose of either the same product administered for the primary series (homologous) or a booster dose that differs from the product administered for the primary series (heterologous). These booster authorizations apply to all three COVID-19 vaccines used in the United States (1-3).† The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended preferential use of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273 [Moderna] or BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech]) for a booster, even for persons who received the Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen [Johnson & Johnson]) COVID-19 vaccine for their single-dose primary series.§ To characterize the safety of COVID-19 vaccine boosters among persons aged ≥18 years during September 22, 2021-February 6, 2022, CDC reviewed adverse events and health impact assessments following receipt of a booster that were reported to v-safe, a voluntary smartphone-based safety surveillance system for adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination, and adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive vaccine safety surveillance system managed by CDC and FDA. Among 721,562 v-safe registrants aged ≥18 years who reported receiving a booster, 88.8% received homologous COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Among registrants who reported a homologous COVID-19 mRNA booster dose, systemic reactions were less frequent following the booster (58.4% [Pfizer-BioNTech] and 64.4% [Moderna], respectively) than were those following dose 2 (66.7% and 78.4%, respectively). The adjusted odds of reporting a systemic reaction were higher following a Moderna COVID-19 vaccine booster, irrespective of the vaccine received for the primary series. VAERS has received 39,286 reports of adverse events after a COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination for adults aged ≥18 years, including 36,282 (92.4%) nonserious and 3,004 (7.6%) serious events. Vaccination providers should educate patients that local and systemic reactions are expected following a homologous COVID-19 mRNA vaccine booster; however, these reactions appear less common than those following dose 2 of an mRNA-based vaccine. CDC and FDA will continue to monitor vaccine safety and provide data to guide vaccine recommendations and protect public health.

A brief educational intervention may increase public acceptance of emergency research without consent.

OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that knowing the regulations regarding emergency research without consent would increase public support for this type of research. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial. Consecutive patients presenting during eight 24-h periods received one of two interviews; the intervention interview included an educational paragraph. RESULTS: There were 473 (74% of eligible) patients who participated: 51% (95% confidence interval [CI] 46-55) were willing to be enrolled in a study using exception to informed consent; 84% (95% CI 80-87) believed that current therapy for cardiac arrest offers ≥ 50% chance of full recovery, and these patients were less willing to enroll (odds ratio [OR] 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.9). The educational intervention increased willingness to enroll (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.6, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: A brief educational intervention had only a modest effect on willingness to participate in emergency research without consent. It may be more important to educate patients on the shortcomings of current therapy than on the ethical and regulatory justifications for such research.

Improved care of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in two academic emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: Although several chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) practice guidelines have been published, there is sparse data on the actual emergency department (ED) management of acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD). AIMS: Our objectives were to examine concordance of ED care of AECOPD in older patients with guideline recommendations and to evaluate whether concordance has improved over time in two academic EDs. METHODS: Data were obtained from two cohort studies on AECOPD performed in two academic EDs during two different time periods, 2000 and 2005-2006. Both studies included ED patients, aged 55 and older, who presented with AECOPD, and cases were confirmed by emergency physicians. Data on ED management and disposition were obtained from chart review for both cohorts. RESULTS: The analysis included 272 patients: 72 in the 2000 database and 200 in the 2005-2006 database. The mean age of the patients was 72 years; 50% were women and 80% white. In 2005-2006, overall concordance with guideline recommendations was high (for chest radiography, pulse oximetry, bronchodilators, all >/= 90%), except for arterial blood gas testing (7% among the admitted) and discharge medication with systemic corticosteroids (42%). Compared to the 2000 data, the use of systemic corticosteroids in the ED improved from 53 to 77% [absolute improvement: 24%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 11-37%], and the use of antibiotics among the patients with respiratory infection symptoms improved from 56 to 78% (absolute improvement: 22%, 95% CI: 6-38%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall concordance with guideline-recommended care for AECOPD was high in two academic EDs, and some emergency treatments have improved over time.

Positive predictive value of ICD-9-CM codes to detect acute exacerbation of COPD in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Accurate identification of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) visits by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes will help organizations monitor quality of care for this common condition. A study was undertaken to validate ICD-9-CM coding for accurate identification of AECOPD visits. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study at two academic emergency departments (EDs) from July 2005 to June 2006, ICD-9-CM codes 491.2x (obstructive chronic bronchitis), 492.8 (other emphysema), and 496 (chronic airway obstruction, not elsewhere classified) in the principal diagnosis field were used to identify AECOPD visits. A random sample of 100 visits by patients age > or = 55 years of age was selected at each institution, and cases were confirmed by chart review consensus by two emergency physicians. The case definition for AECOPD was current respiratory infection, change in cough, or change in sputum in a patient with physician-diagnosed COPD. RESULTS: On the basis of the selection criteria, 644 eligible visits were identified during the study period, and detailed chart review was performed for 200 randomly selected visits. Patients had a median age of 71 years, 50% were female, and 79% were white. Some 193 (97%) of the visits were confirmed to meet the case definition for AECOPD. Most cases were identified with the code 491.2x. All but one of the false positives were coded as 496, presumably because of lack of another billable diagnosis for these visits. DISCUSSION: In the first known chart validation of ICD-9-CM codes for identification of AECOPD visits, the proposed ICD-9-CM codes accurately identified cases of AECOPD in the ED. The study contributed to the use of these codes in the National Committee for Quality Assurance's new quality indicator for management of AECOPD.

Validation of ICD-9-CM coding algorithm for improved identification of hypoglycemia visits.

BACKGROUND: Accurate identification of hypoglycemia cases by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes will help to describe epidemiology, monitor trends, and propose interventions for this important complication in patients with diabetes. Prior hypoglycemia studies utilized incomplete search strategies and may be methodologically flawed. We sought to validate a new ICD-9-CM coding algorithm for accurate identification of hypoglycemia visits. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study using a structured medical record review at three academic emergency departments from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006. We prospectively derived a coding algorithm to identify hypoglycemia visits using ICD-9-CM codes (250.3, 250.8, 251.0, 251.1, 251.2, 270.3, 775.0, 775.6, and 962.3). We confirmed hypoglycemia cases by chart review identified by candidate ICD-9-CM codes during the study period. The case definition for hypoglycemia was documented blood glucose 3.9 mmol/l or emergency physician charted diagnosis of hypoglycemia. We evaluated individual components and calculated the positive predictive value. RESULTS: We reviewed 636 charts identified by the candidate ICD-9-CM codes and confirmed 436 (64%) cases of hypoglycemia by chart review. Diabetes with other specified manifestations (250.8), often excluded in prior hypoglycemia analyses, identified 83% of hypoglycemia visits, and unspecified hypoglycemia (251.2) identified 13% of hypoglycemia visits. The absence of any predetermined co-diagnosis codes improved the positive predictive value of code 250.8 from 62% to 92%, while excluding only 10 (2%) true hypoglycemia visits. Although prior analyses included only the first-listed ICD-9 code, more than one-quarter of identified hypoglycemia visits were outside this primary diagnosis field. Overall, the proposed algorithm had 89% positive predictive value (95% confidence interval, 86-92) for detecting hypoglycemia visits. CONCLUSION: The proposed algorithm improves on prior strategies to identify hypoglycemia visits in administrative data sets and will enhance the ability to study the epidemiology and design interventions for this important complication of diabetes care.