Prospective benchmarking of an observational analysis in the SWEDEHEART registry against the REDUCE-AMI randomized trial.

Prospective benchmarking of an observational analysis against a randomized trial increases confidence in the benchmarking process as it relies exclusively on aligning the protocol of the trial and the observational analysis, while the trials findings are unavailable. The Randomized Evaluation of Decreased Usage of Betablockers After Myocardial Infarction (REDUCE-AMI, ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03278509) trial started recruitment in September 2017 and results are expected in 2024. REDUCE-AMI aimed to estimate the effect of long-term use of beta blockers on the risk of death and myocardial following a myocardial infarction with preserved left ventricular systolic ejection fraction. We specified the protocol of a target trial as similar as possible to that of REDUCE-AMI, then emulated the target trial using observational data from Swedish healthcare registries. Had everyone followed the treatment strategy as specified in the target trial protocol, the observational analysis estimated a reduction in the 5-year risk of death or myocardial infarction of 0.8 percentage points for beta blockers compared with no beta blockers; effects ranging from an absolute reduction of 4.5 percentage points to an increase of 2.8 percentage points in the risk of death or myocardial infarction were compatible with our data under conventional statistical criteria. Once results of REDUCE-AMI are published, we will compare the results of our observational analysis against those from the trial. If this prospective benchmarking is successful, it supports the credibility of additional analyses using these observational data, which can rapidly deliver answers to questions that could not be answered by the initial trial. If benchmarking proves unsuccessful, we will conduct a "postmortem" analysis to identify the reasons for the discrepancy. Prospective benchmarking shifts the investigator focus away from an endeavour to use observational data to obtain similar results as a completed randomized trial, to a systematic attempt to align the design and analysis of the trial and the observational analysis.

Antipsychotic drugs in first-episode psychosis: A target trial emulation in the FEP-CAUSAL Collaboration.

Good adherence to antipsychotic therapy helps prevent relapses in First Episode Psychosis (FEP). We used data from the FEP-CAUSAL Collaboration, an international consortium of observational cohorts to emulate a target trial comparing antipsychotics with treatment discontinuation as the primary outcome. Other outcomes included all-cause hospitalization. We benchmarked our results to estimates from EUFEST, a randomized trial conducted in the 2000s. We included 1097 patients with a psychotic disorder and less than 2 years since psychosis onset. Inverse probability weighting was used to control for confounding. The estimated 12-month risks of discontinuation for aripiprazole, first-generation agents, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, and risperidone (95% CI) were: 61.5% (52.5-70.6), 73.5% (60.5-84.9), 76.8% (67.2-85.3), 58.4% (40.4-77.4), 76.5% (62.1-88.5), and 74.4% (67.0-81.2) respectively. Compared with aripiprazole, the 12-month risk differences (95% CI) were -15.3% (-30.0, 0.0) for olanzapine, -12.8% (-25.7, -1.0) for risperidone, and 3.0% (-21.5, 30.8) for paliperidone. The 12-month risks of hospitalization were similar between agents. Our estimates support use of aripiprazole and paliperidone as first-line therapies for FEP. Benchmarking yielded similar results for discontinuation and absolute risks of hospitalization as in the original trial, suggesting that data from the FEP-CAUSAL Collaboration data sufficed to approximately remove confounding for these clinical questions.

Three Years of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in a European Region: A Population-Based Longitudinal Assessment in Madrid Between 2020 and 2022.

Background: Our objective was to assess the health impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during 2020-2022 in the Madrid region. Methods: We included all individuals registered in the Madrid Health System Registry as of 31 December 2019, and followed them until 31 December 2022. Using a unique personal identifier, we linked the databases of primary care, hospitals, pharmacies, certified laboratories performing diagnostic tests, vaccines, and mortality. Results: Of 6 833 423 individuals, 21.4% had a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, and 1.5% had a COVID-19 hospitalization (primary diagnosis). Thirty-day mortality was 1.6% for confirmed COVID-19 (from 11.4% in first semester 2020 to 0.4% in first semester 2022). Thirty-day mortality was 10.8% for COVID-19 hospitalizations (from 14.0% in first semester 2020 to 6.0% in second semester 2022). There were 24 073 deaths within 30 days of a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. Advanced age, male sex, higher socioeconomic deprivation, and comorbidities were associated with higher mortality. Conclusions: By linking administrative and clinical databases, we characterized the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic in Madrid over 3 years. Our analysis proposes a high-level framework for comparisons of the burden of COVID-19 across areas worldwide.

Why Stating Hypotheses in Grant Applications Is Unnecessary.

This Viewpoint argues that a hypothesis-centric approach to writing grant applications is problematic and instead suggests that funding applications should be evaluated by their relevance and methodological quality rather than by qualitative assertions before the study is conducted.

Effectiveness of a bedaquiline, linezolid, clofazimine "core" for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

Rationale: Treatment outcomes may be compromised among patients with multidrug- or rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis with additional fluoroquinolone resistance. Evidence is needed to inform optimal treatment for these patients. Objectives: We compared the effectiveness of longer individualized regimens comprised of bedaquiline for 5 to 8 months, linezolid, and clofazimine to those reinforced with at least 1 third-tier drug and/or longer duration of bedaquiline. Methods: We emulated a target trial to compare the effectiveness of initiating and remaining on the core regimen to one of five regimens reinforced with (1) bedaquiline for ≥9 months, (2) bedaquiline for ≥9 months and delamanid, (3) imipenem, (4) a second-line injectable, or (5) delamanid and imipenem. We included patients in whom a fluoroquinolone was unlikely to be effective based on drug susceptibility testing and/or prior exposure. Our analysis consisted of cloning, censoring, and inverse-probability weighting to estimate the probability of successful treatment. Measurements and Main Results: Adjusted probabilities of successful treatment were high across regimens, ranging from 0.75 (95%CI:0.61, 0.89) to 0.84 (95%CI:0.76, 0.91). We found no substantial evidence that any of the reinforced regimens improved effectiveness of the core regimen, with ratios of treatment success ranging from 1.01 for regimens reinforced with bedaquiline ≥9 months (95%CI:0.79, 1.28) and bedaquiline ≥9 months plus delamanid (95%CI:0.81, 1.31) to 1.11 for regimens reinforced by a second-line injectable (95%CI:0.92, 1.39) and delamanid and imipenem (95%CI:0.90, 1.41). Conclusions: High treatment success underscores the effectiveness of regimens comprised of bedaquiline, linezolid, and clofazimine, highlighting the need for expanded access to these drugs.

Comparison of the Test-negative Design and Cohort Design With Explicit Target Trial Emulation for Evaluating COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies are used for estimating vaccine effectiveness under real-world conditions. The practical performance of two common approaches-cohort and test-negative designs-need to be compared for COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: We compared the cohort and test-negative designs to estimate the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19 outcomes using nationwide data from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Specifically, we (1) explicitly emulated a target trial using follow-up data and evaluated the potential for confounding using negative controls and benchmarking to a randomized trial, (2) performed case-control sampling of the cohort to confirm empirically that the same estimate is obtained, (3) further restricted the sampling to person-days with a test, and (4) implemented additional features of a test-negative design. We also compared their performance in limited datasets. RESULTS: Estimated BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness was similar under all four designs. Empirical results suggested limited residual confounding by healthcare-seeking behavior. Analyses in limited datasets showed evidence of residual confounding, with estimates biased downward in the cohort design and upward in the test-negative design. CONCLUSION: Vaccine effectiveness estimates under a cohort design with explicit target trial emulation and a test-negative design were similar when using rich information from the VA healthcare system, but diverged in opposite directions when using a limited dataset. In settings like ours with sufficient information on confounders and other key variables, the cohort design with explicit target trial emulation may be preferable as a principled approach that allows estimation of absolute risks and facilitates interpretation of effect estimates.

Integrase strand-transfer inhibitor use and cardiovascular events in adults with HIV: an emulation of target trials in the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration and the Antiretroviral Therapy Cohort Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: A recent observational study suggested that the risk of cardiovascular events could be higher among antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naive individuals with HIV who receive integrase strand-transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-based ART than among those who receive other ART regimens. We aimed to emulate target trials separately in ART-naive and ART-experienced individuals with HIV to examine the effect of using INSTI-based regimens versus other ART regimens on the 4-year risk of cardiovascular events. METHODS: We used routinely recorded clinical data from 12 cohorts that collected information on cardiovascular events, BMI, and blood pressure from two international consortia of cohorts of people with HIV from Europe and North America. For the target trial in individuals who had previously never used ART (ie, ART-naive), eligibility criteria were aged 18 years or older, a detectable HIV-RNA measurement while ART-naive (>50 copies per mL), and no history of a cardiovascular event or cancer. Eligibility criteria for the target trial in those with previous use of non-INSTI-based ART (ie, ART-experienced) were the same except that individuals had to have been on at least one non-INSTI-based ART regimen and be virally suppressed (≤50 copies per mL). We assessed eligibility for both trials for each person-month between January, 2013, and January, 2023, and assigned individuals to the treatment strategy that was compatible with their data. We estimated the standardised 4-year risks of cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or invasive cardiovascular procedure) via pooled logistic regression models adjusting for time and baseline covariates. In per-protocol analyses, we censored individuals if they deviated from their assigned treatment strategy for more than 2 months and weighted uncensored individuals by the inverse of their time-varying probability of remaining uncensored. The denominator of the weight was estimated via a pooled logistic model that included baseline and time-varying covariates. FINDINGS: The analysis in ART-naive individuals included 10 767 INSTI initiators and 8292 non-initiators of INSTI. There were 43 cardiovascular events in INSTI initiators (median follow-up of 29 months; IQR 15-45) and 52 in non-initiators (39 months; 18-47): standardised 4-year risks were 0·76% (95% CI 0·51 to 1·04) in INSTI initiators and 0·75% (0·54 to 0·98) in non-INSTI initiators; risk ratio 1·01 (0·57 to 1·57); risk difference 0·0089% (-0·43 to 0·36). The analysis in ART-experienced individuals included 7875 INSTI initiators and 373 965 non-initiators. There were 56 events in INSTI initiators (median follow-up 18 months; IQR 9-29) and 3103 events (808 unique) in non-INSTI initiators (26 months; 15-37) in non-initiators: standardised 4-year risks 1·41% (95% CI 0·88 to 2·03) in INSTI initiators and 1·48% (1·28 to 1·71) in non-initiators; risk ratio 0·95 (0·60 to 1·36); risk difference -0·068% (-0·60 to 0·52). INTERPRETATION: We estimated that INSTI use did not result in a clinically meaningful increase of cardiovascular events in ART-naive and ART-experienced individuals with HIV. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

Reporting of Observational Studies Explicitly Aiming to Emulate Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Observational (nonexperimental) studies that aim to emulate a randomized trial (ie, the target trial) are increasingly informing medical and policy decision-making, but it is unclear how these studies are reported in the literature. Consistent reporting is essential for quality appraisal, evidence synthesis, and translation of evidence to policy and practice. Objective: To assess the reporting of observational studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial. Evidence Review: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for observational studies published between March 2012 and October 2022 that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial of a health or medical intervention. Two reviewers double-screened and -extracted data on study characteristics, key predefined components of the target trial protocol and its emulation (eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, treatment assignment, outcome[s], follow-up, causal contrast[s], and analysis plan), and other items related to the target trial emulation. Findings: A total of 200 studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial were included. These studies included 26 subfields of medicine, and 168 (84%) were published from January 2020 to October 2022. The aim to emulate a target trial was explicit in 70 study titles (35%). Forty-three studies (22%) reported use of a published reporting guideline (eg, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology). Eighty-five studies (43%) did not describe all key items of how the target trial was emulated and 113 (57%) did not describe the protocol of the target trial and its emulation. Conclusion and Relevance: In this systematic review of 200 studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial, reporting of how the target trial was emulated was inconsistent. A reporting guideline for studies explicitly aiming to emulate a target trial may improve the reporting of the target trial protocols and other aspects of these emulation attempts.

Development of the TrAnsparent ReportinG of observational studies Emulating a Target trial (TARGET) guideline.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies are increasingly used to inform health decision-making when randomised trials are not feasible, ethical or timely. The target trial approach provides a framework to help minimise common biases in observational studies that aim to estimate the causal effect of interventions. Incomplete reporting of studies using the target trial framework limits the ability for clinicians, researchers, patients and other decision-makers to appraise, synthesise and interpret findings to inform clinical and public health practice and policy. This paper describes the methods that we will use to develop the TrAnsparent ReportinG of observational studies Emulating a Target trial (TARGET) reporting guideline. METHODS/DESIGN: The TARGET reporting guideline will be developed in five stages following recommended guidance. The first stage will identify target trial reporting practices by systematically reviewing published studies that explicitly emulated a target trial. The second stage will identify and refine items to be considered for inclusion in the TARGET guideline by consulting content experts using sequential online surveys. The third stage will prioritise and consolidate key items to be included in the TARGET guideline at an in-person consensus meeting of TARGET investigators. The fourth stage will produce and pilot-test both the TARGET guideline and explanation and elaboration document with relevant stakeholders. The fifth stage will disseminate the TARGET guideline and resources via journals, conferences and courses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the survey has been attained (HC220536). The TARGET guideline will be disseminated widely in partnership with stakeholders to maximise adoption and improve reporting of these studies.

Evaluating Model Specification When Using the Parametric G-Formula in the Presence of Censoring.

The noniterative conditional expectation (NICE) parametric g-formula can be used to estimate the causal effect of sustained treatment strategies. In addition to identifiability conditions, the validity of the NICE parametric g-formula generally requires the correct specification of models for time-varying outcomes, treatments, and confounders at each follow-up time point. An informal approach for evaluating model specification is to compare the observed distributions of the outcome, treatments, and confounders with their parametric g-formula estimates under the "natural course." In the presence of loss to follow-up, however, the observed and natural-course risks can differ even if the identifiability conditions of the parametric g-formula hold and there is no model misspecification. Here, we describe 2 approaches for evaluating model specification when using the parametric g-formula in the presence of censoring: 1) comparing factual risks estimated by the g-formula with nonparametric Kaplan-Meier estimates and 2) comparing natural-course risks estimated by inverse probability weighting with those estimated by the g-formula. We also describe how to correctly compute natural-course estimates of time-varying covariate means when using a computationally efficient g-formula algorithm. We evaluate the proposed methods via simulation and implement them to estimate the effects of dietary interventions in 2 cohort studies.

Evaluating Metformin Strategies for Cancer Prevention: A Target Trial Emulation Using Electronic Health Records.

BACKGROUND: Metformin users appear to have a substantially lower risk of cancer than nonusers in many observational studies. These inverse associations may be explained by common flaws in observational analyses that can be avoided by explicitly emulating a target trial. METHODS: We emulated target trials of metformin therapy and cancer risk using population-based linked electronic health records from the UK (2009-2016). We included individuals with diabetes, no history of cancer, no recent prescription for metformin or other glucose-lowering medication, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) <64 mmol/mol (<8.0%). Outcomes included total cancer and 4 site-specific cancers (breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate). We estimated risks using pooled logistic regression with adjustment for risk factors via inverse-probability weighting. We emulated a second target trial among individuals regardless of diabetes status. We compared our estimates with those obtained using previously applied analytic approaches. RESULTS: Among individuals with diabetes, the estimated 6-year risk differences (metformin - no metformin) were -0.2% (95% CI = -1.6%, 1.3%) in the intention-to-treat analysis and 0.0% (95% CI = -2.1%, 2.3%) in the per-protocol analysis. The corresponding estimates for all site-specific cancers were close to zero. Among individuals regardless of diabetes status, these estimates were also close to zero and more precise. By contrast, previous analytic approaches yielded estimates that appeared strongly protective. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that metformin therapy does not meaningfully influence cancer incidence. The findings highlight the importance of explicitly emulating a target trial to reduce bias in the effect estimates derived from observational analyses.

Challenges in Estimating the Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination Using Observational Data.

The COVID-19 vaccines were developed and rigorously evaluated in randomized trials during 2020. However, important questions, such as the magnitude and duration of protection, their effectiveness against new virus variants, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination, could not be answered by randomized trials and have therefore been addressed in observational studies. Analyses of observational data can be biased because of confounding and because of inadequate design that does not consider the evolution of the pandemic over time and the rapid uptake of vaccination. Emulating a hypothetical "target trial" using observational data assembled during vaccine rollouts can help manage such potential sources of bias. This article describes 2 approaches to target trial emulation. In the sequential approach, on each day, eligible persons who have not yet been vaccinated are matched to a vaccinated person. The single-trial approach sets a single baseline at the start of the rollout and considers vaccination as a time-varying variable. The nature of the confounding depends on the analysis strategy: Estimating "per-protocol" effects (accounting for vaccination of initially unvaccinated persons after baseline) may require adjustment for both baseline and "time-varying" confounders. These issues are illustrated by using observational data from 2 780 931 persons in the United Kingdom aged 70 years or older to estimate the effect of a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Addressing the issues discussed in this article should help authors of observational studies provide robust evidence to guide clinical and policy decisions.

Estimating the per-protocol effect of lithium on suicidality in a randomized trial of individuals with depression or bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: The CSP590 randomized trial was designed to estimate the effect of lithium on suicidality. After a third of the intended number of participants were enrolled, the hazard ratio of suicidality was 1.10 (95% CI: 0.77, 1.55). Based on this, the trial was stopped for futility. However, only 17% of patients adhered to the specified protocol. AIMS: The objective was to estimate the per-protocol effect of lithium on suicidality, that is, the effect of adhering to the treatment strategies as specified in the protocol. METHODS: We stopped individuals' follow-up if/when they showed evidence of nonadherence. We then conducted the analysis in the restricted sample, adjusting for prognostic factors that predict adherence via inverse probability weighting. The primary outcome was the 12-month risk of suicidality (including death from suicide, suicide attempt, interrupted attempt, hospitalization specifically to prevent suicide). RESULTS: The estimated 12-month risk of suicidality was 18.8% for lithium, and 24.3% for placebo. The risk ratio was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.43, 1.37) and the risk difference -5.5 percentage points (95% CI: -17.5, 5.5). Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: With one-third of the targeted sample size, lithium effects (compared with placebo) ranging between a 17.5% reduction and a 5.5% increase in the risk of suicidality were highly compatible with the data. Thus, a protective effect of lithium on suicidality among patients with bipolar disorder or major depressive disorder cannot be ruled out. Trials should incorporate adequate per-protocol analyses into the decision-making processes for stopping trials for futility.

Defining the role of real-world data in cancer clinical research: The position of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

The emergence of the precision medicine paradigm in oncology has led to increasing interest in the integration of real-world data (RWD) into cancer clinical research. As sources of real-world evidence (RWE), such data could potentially help address the uncertainties that surround the adoption of novel anticancer therapies into the clinic following their investigation in clinical trials. At present, RWE-generating studies which investigate antitumour interventions seem to primarily focus on collecting and analysing observational RWD, typically forgoing the use of randomisation despite its methodological benefits. This is appropriate in situations where randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are not feasible and non-randomised RWD analyses can offer valuable insights. Nevertheless, depending on how they are designed, RCTs have the potential to produce strong and actionable RWE themselves. The choice of which methodology to employ for RWD studies should be guided by the nature of the research question they are intended to answer. Here, we attempt to define some of the questions that do not necessarily require the conduct of RCTs. Moreover, we outline the strategy of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) to contribute to the generation of robust and high-quality RWE by prioritising the execution of pragmatic trials and studies set up according to the trials-within-cohorts approach. If treatment allocation cannot be left up to random chance due to practical or ethical concerns, the EORTC will consider undertaking observational RWD research based on the target trial principle. New EORTC-sponsored RCTs may also feature concurrent prospective cohorts composed of off-trial patients.

Drug Repurposing and Observational Studies: The Case of Antivirals for the Treatment of COVID-19.

Remdesivir and molnupiravir were the only 2 repurposed antivirals that were approved for emergency use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Both drugs received their emergency use authorization on the basis of a single industry-funded phase 3 trial, which was launched after evidence of in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2. In contrast, for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), little in vitro evidence was generated, no randomized trials for early treatment were done, and the drug was not considered for authorization. Yet, by the summer of 2020, observational evidence suggested a substantially lower risk for severe COVID-19 in TDF users compared with nonusers. The decision-making process for the launching of randomized trials for these 3 drugs is reviewed. Observational data in favor of TDF was systematically dismissed, even though no viable alternative explanations were proposed for the lower risk for severe COVID-19 among TDF users. Lessons learned from the TDF example during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic are described, and the use of observational clinical data to guide decisions about the launch of randomized trials during the next public health emergency is proposed. The goal is that gatekeepers of randomized trials make better use of the available observational evidence for the repurposing of drugs without commercial value.

Comparative effectiveness of BNT162b2 versus mRNA-1273 covid-19 vaccine boosting in England: matched cohort study in OpenSAFELY-TPP.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) covid-19 vaccines during the booster programme in England. DESIGN: Matched cohort study, emulating a comparative effectiveness trial. SETTING: Linked primary care, hospital, and covid-19 surveillance records available within the OpenSAFELY-TPP research platform, covering a period when the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variants were dominant. PARTICIPANTS: 3 237 918 adults who received a booster dose of either vaccine between 29 October 2021 and 25 February 2022 as part of the national booster programme in England and who received a primary course of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. INTERVENTION: Vaccination with either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 as a booster vaccine dose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recorded SARS-CoV-2 positive test, covid-19 related hospital admission, covid-19 related death, and non-covid-19 related death at 20 weeks after receipt of the booster dose. RESULTS: 1 618 959 people were matched in each vaccine group, contributing a total 64 546 391 person weeks of follow-up. The 20 week risks per 1000 for a positive SARS-CoV-2 test were 164.2 (95% confidence interval 163.3 to 165.1) for BNT162b2 and 159.9 (159.0 to 160.8) for mRNA-1273; the hazard ratio comparing mRNA-1273 with BNT162b2 was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.95 to 0.96). The 20 week risks per 1000 for hospital admission with covid-19 were 0.75 (0.71 to 0.79) for BNT162b2 and 0.65 (0.61 to 0.69) for mRNA-1273; the hazard ratio was 0.89 (0.82 to 0.95). Covid-19 related deaths were rare: the 20 week risks per 1000 were 0.028 (0.021 to 0.037) for BNT162b2 and 0.024 (0.018 to 0.033) for mRNA-1273; hazard ratio 0.83 (0.58 to 1.19). Comparative effectiveness was generally similar within subgroups defined by the primary course vaccine brand, age, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and clinical vulnerability. Relative benefit was similar when vaccines were compared separately in the delta and omicron variant eras. CONCLUSIONS: This matched observational study of adults estimated a modest benefit of booster vaccination with mRNA-1273 compared with BNT162b2 in preventing positive SARS-CoV-2 tests and hospital admission with covid-19 20 weeks after vaccination, during a period of delta followed by omicron variant dominance.