Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
medRxiv ; 2024 Mar 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38585784

ABSTRACT

Background: SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has reduced hospitalization and mortality for nursing home residents (NHRs). However, emerging variants coupled with waning immunity, immunosenescence, and variability of vaccine efficacy undermine vaccine effectiveness. We therefore need to update our understanding of the immunogenicity of the most recent XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine to variant strains among NHRs. Methods: The current study focuses on a subset of participants from a longitudinal study of consented NHRs and HCWs who have received serial blood draws to assess immunogenicity with each SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose. We report data on participants who received the XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine after FDA approval in Fall 2023. NHRs were classified based on whether they had an interval SARS-CoV-2 infection between their first bivalent vaccine dose and their XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccination. Results: The sample included 61 NHRs [median age 76 (IQR 68-86), 51% female] and 28 HCWs [median age 45 (IQR 31-58), 46% female). Following XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccination, there was a robust geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in XBB.1.5-specific neutralizing antibody titers of 17.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.3, 32.4) and 11.3 (95% CI 5, 25.4) in NHRs with and without interval infection, respectively. The GMFR in HCWs was 13.6 (95% CI 8.4,22). Similarly, we noted a robust GMFR in JN.1-specific neutralizing antibody titers of 14.9 (95% CI 7.9, 28) and 6.5 (95% CI 3.3, 13.1) among NHRs with and without interval infection, and a GMFR of 11.4 (95% CI 6.2, 20.9) in HCWs. NHRs with interval SARS-CoV-2 infection had higher neutralizing antibody titers across all analyzed strains following XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccination, compared to NHRs without interval infection. Conclusion: The XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine significantly elevates Omicron-specific neutralizing antibody titers to XBB.1.5 and JN.1 strains in both NHRs and HCWs. This response was more pronounced in individuals known to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 since bivalent vaccination. Impact Statement: All authors certify that this work entitled " Broad immunogenicity to prior strains and JN.1 variant elicited by XBB.1.5 vaccination in nursing home residents " is novel. It shows that the XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine significantly elevates Omicron-specific neutralizing antibody titers in both nursing home residents and healthcare workers to XBB and BA.28.6/JN.1 strains. This work is important since JN.1 increased from less than 0.1% to 94% of COVID-19 cases from October 2023 to February 2024 in the US. This information is timely given the CDC's latest recommendation that adults age 65 and older receive a Spring 2024 XBB booster. Since the XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine produces compelling immunogenicity to the most prevalent circulating JN.1 strain in nursing home residents, our findings add important support and rationale to encourage vaccine uptake. Key Points: Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants together with waning immunity, immunosenescence, and variable vaccine efficacy reduce SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness in nursing home residents.XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccination elicited robust response in both XBB.1.5 and JN.1 neutralizing antibodies in nursing home residents and healthcare workers, although the absolute titers to JN.1 were less than titers to XBB.1.5Why does this paper matter? Among nursing home residents, the XBB.1.5 monovalent SARS-CoV-2 vaccine produces compelling immunogenicity to the JN.1 strain, which represents 94% of all COVID-19 cases in the U.S. as of February 2024.

2.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 23(12): 2031-2033, 2022 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36209889

ABSTRACT

Despite important advances in the linkage of residents' Medicare claims and Minimum Data Set (MDS) information, the data infrastructure for long-term care remains inadequate for public health surveillance and clinical research. It is widely known that the evidence base supporting treatment decisions for older nursing home residents is scant as residents are systematically excluded from clinical trials. Electronic health records (EHRs) hold the promise to improve this population's representation in clinical research, especially with the more timely and detailed clinical information available in EHRs that are lacking in claims and MDS. The COVID-19 pandemic shined a spotlight on the data gap in nursing homes. To address this need, the National Institute on Aging funded the Long-Term Care (LTC) Data Cooperative, a collaboration among providers and stakeholders in academia, government, and the private sector. The LTC Data Cooperative assembles residents' EHRs from major specialty vendors and facilitates linkage of these data with Medicare claims to create a comprehensive, longitudinal patient record. These data serve 4 key purposes: (1) health care operations and population health analytics; (2) public health surveillance; (3) observational, comparative effectiveness research; and (4) clinical research studies, including provider and patient recruitment into Phase 3 and Phase 4 randomized trials. Federally funded researchers wanting to conduct pragmatic trials can now enroll their partnering sites in this Cooperative to more easily access the clinical data needed to close the evidence gaps in LTC. Linkage to Medicare data facilitates tracking patients' long-term outcomes after being discharged back to the community. As of August 2022, nearly 1000 nursing homes have joined, feedback reports to facilities are being piloted, algorithms for identifying infections are being tested, and proposals for use of the data have been reviewed and approved. This emerging EHR system is a substantial innovation in the richness and timeliness of the data infrastructure of the nursing home population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Long-Term Care , United States , Humans , Aged , Pandemics , Medicare , Comparative Effectiveness Research
3.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 23(8): 1279-1282, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35809634

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antigen tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are sometimes discordant. We evaluated the discordance between antigen and PCR tests sampled in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) to assess the relationship of symptom presence, timing between tests, and the presence of a facility outbreak. DESIGN: Observational study using electronic health record data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Residents of 306 SNFs in 23 states, operated by 1 company. METHODS: We identified all rapid antigen and PCR tests conducted in study SNFs as of January 10, 2021, and classified whether symptoms were present and whether the facility was in outbreak at time of testing. We calculated the proportions of antigen tests with discordant follow-up PCR results conducted no more than 2 days after the antigen test. RESULTS: Of the 171,280 antigen tests in 34,437 SNF residents, 20,991 (12.3%) were followed by a PCR test within 2 days. A total of 1324 negative antigen tests were followed by a positive PCR result, representing 0.8% of all antigen tests and 6.3% of repeated antigen tests; while 337 positive antigen tests were followed by a negative PCR result, representing 0.2% of all antigen tests and 1.6% of repeated antigen tests. Discordance more often occurred when residents were symptomatic at time of antigen testing, during known facility outbreaks, and when the antigen test was compared with a PCR test done within 2 days vs 1 day. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Overall, discordance between SARS-CoV-2 antigen and PCR tests was low. Discordance was more common when the individual was symptomatic at time of antigen testing and during facility outbreaks. This suggests that a testing strategy which couples widespread use of antigen tests with clinical thresholds to conduct follow-up confirmatory PCR testing appears to perform well in SNFs, where timely and accurate SARS-CoV-2 case identification are critical.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Skilled Nursing Facilities
4.
JAMA Intern Med ; 182(3): 324-331, 2022 Mar 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35099523

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Identifying successful strategies to increase COVID-19 vaccination among skilled nursing facility (SNF) residents and staff is integral to preventing future outbreaks in a continually overwhelmed system. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a multicomponent vaccine campaign would increase vaccine rates among SNF residents and staff. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a cluster randomized trial with a rapid timeline (December 2020-March 2021) coinciding with the Pharmacy Partnership Program (PPP). It included 133 SNFs in 4 health care systems across 16 states: 63 and 70 facilities in the intervention and control arms, respectively, and participants included 7496 long-stay residents (>100 days) and 17 963 staff. INTERVENTIONS: Multicomponent interventions were introduced at the facility level that included: (1) educational material and electronic messaging for staff; (2) town hall meetings with frontline staff (nurses, nurse aides, dietary, housekeeping); (3) messaging from community leaders; (4) gifts (eg, T-shirts) with socially concerned messaging; (5) use of a specialist to facilitate consent with residents' proxies; and (6) funds for additional COVID-19 testing of staff/residents. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes of this study were the proportion of residents (from electronic medical records) and staff (from facility logs) who received a COVID-19 vaccine (any), examined as 2 separate outcomes. Mixed-effects generalized linear models with a binomial distribution were used to compare outcomes between arms, using intent-to-treat approach. Race was examined as an effect modifier in the resident outcome model. RESULTS: Most facilities were for-profit (95; 71.4%), and 1973 (26.3%) of residents were Black. Among residents, 82.5% (95% CI, 81.2%-83.7%) were vaccinated in the intervention arm, compared with 79.8% (95% CI, 78.5%-81.0%) in the usual care arm (marginal difference 0.8%; 95% CI, -1.9% to 3.7%). Among staff, 49.5% (95% CI, 48.4%-50.6%) were vaccinated in the intervention arm, compared with 47.9% (95% CI, 46.9%-48.9%) in usual care arm (marginal difference: -0.4%; 95% CI, -4.2% to 3.1%). There was no association of race with the outcome among residents. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A multicomponent vaccine campaign did not have a significant effect on vaccination rates among SNF residents or staff. Among residents, vaccination rates were high. However, half the staff remained unvaccinated despite these efforts. Vaccination campaigns to target SNF staff will likely need to use additional approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04732819.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Promotion/organization & administration , Skilled Nursing Facilities , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...