Comparative Effectiveness of Bivalent (Original/Omicron BA.4/BA.5) COVID-19 Vaccines in Adults.

The emergence of Omicron variants coincided with declining vaccine-induced protection against SARS-CoV-2. Two bivalent mRNA vaccines, mRNA-1273.222 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 Bivalent (Pfizer-BioNTech), were developed to provide greater protection against the predominate circulating variants by including mRNA that encodes both the ancestral (original) strain and BA.4/BA.5. We estimated their relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) in preventing COVID-19-related outcomes in the US using a nationwide dataset linking primary care electronic health records and pharmacy/medical claims data. The study population (aged ≥18 years) received either vaccine between 31 August 2022 and 28 February 2023. We used propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline differences between groups. We estimated the rVE against COVID-19-related hospitalizations (primary outcome) and outpatient visits (secondary) for 1,034,538 mRNA-1273.222 and 1,670,666 BNT162b2 Bivalent vaccine recipients, with an adjusted rVE of 9.8% (95% confidence interval: 2.6-16.4%) and 5.1% (95% CI: 3.2-6.9%), respectively, for mRNA-1273.222 versus BNT162b2 Bivalent. The incremental relative effectiveness was greater among adults ≥ 65; the rVE against COVID-19-related hospitalizations and outpatient visits in these patients was 13.5% (95% CI: 5.5-20.8%) and 10.7% (8.2-13.1%), respectively. Overall, we found greater effectiveness of mRNA-1273.222 compared with the BNT162b2 Bivalent vaccine in preventing COVID-19-related hospitalizations and outpatient visits, with increased benefits in older adults.

Relative Effectiveness of BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and Ad26.COV2.S Vaccines and Homologous Boosting in Preventing COVID-19 in Adults in the US.

Background: Few head-to-head comparisons have been performed on the real-world effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster vaccines. We evaluated the relative effectiveness (rVE) of a primary series of mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S and a homologous mRNA booster against any medically attended, outpatient, and hospitalized COVID-19. Methods: A data set linking primary care electronic medical records with medical claims data was used for this retrospective cohort study of US patients age ≥18 years vaccinated with a primary series between February and October 2021 (Part 1) and a homologous mRNA booster between October 2021 and January 2022 (Part 2). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were derived from 1:1 matching adjusted across potential covariates. rVE was (1 - HRadjusted) × 100. Additional analysis was performed across regions and age groups. Results: Following adjustment, Part 1 rVE for mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2 was 23% (95% CI, 22%-25%), 23% (95% CI, 22%-25%), and 19% (95% CI, 14%-24%), while the rVE for mRNA-1273 vs Ad26.COV2.S was 50% (95% CI, 48%-51%), 50% (95% CI, 48%-52%), and 57% (95% CI, 53%-61%) against any medically attended, outpatient, and hospitalized COVID-19, respectively. The adjusted rVE in Part 2 for mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2 was 14% (95% CI, 10%-18%), 13% (95% CI, 8%-17%), and 19% (95% CI, 1%-34%) against any medically attended, outpatient, and hospitalized COVID-19, respectively. rVE against medically attended COVID-19 was higher in adults age ≥65 years (35%; 95% CI, 24%-47%) than in those age 18-64 years (13%; 95% CI, 9%-17%) after the booster. Conclusions: In this study, mRNA-1273 was more effective than BNT162b2 or Ad26.COV2.S following a primary series during the Delta-dominant period and more effective than BNT162b2 as a booster during the Omicron-dominant period.

COVID-19 is associated with higher risk of venous thrombosis, but not arterial thrombosis, compared with influenza: Insights from a large US cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is typically compared with influenza to contextualize its health risks. SARS-CoV-2 has been linked with coagulation disturbances including arterial thrombosis, leading to considerable interest in antithrombotic therapy for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the independent thromboembolic risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with influenza remains incompletely understood. We evaluated the adjusted risks of thromboembolic events after a diagnosis of COVID-19 compared with influenza in a large retrospective cohort. METHODS: We used a US-based electronic health record (EHR) dataset linked with insurance claims to identify adults diagnosed with COVID-19 between April 1, 2020 and October 31, 2020. We identified influenza patients diagnosed between October 1, 2018 and April 31, 2019. Primary outcomes [venous composite of pulmonary embolism (PE) and acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT); arterial composite of ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction (MI)] and secondary outcomes were assessed 90 days post-diagnosis. Propensity scores (PS) were calculated using demographic, clinical, and medication variables. PS-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: There were 417,975 COVID-19 patients (median age 57y, 61% women), and 345,934 influenza patients (median age 47y, 66% women). Compared with influenza, patients with COVID-19 had higher venous thromboembolic risk (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.38-1.70), but not arterial thromboembolic risk (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95-1.10). Secondary analyses demonstrated similar risk for ischemic stroke (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98-1.25) and MI (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85-1.03) and higher risk for DVT (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.19-1.56) and PE (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.57-2.10) in patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSION: In a large retrospective US cohort, COVID-19 was independently associated with higher 90-day risk for venous thrombosis, but not arterial thrombosis, as compared with influenza. These findings may inform crucial knowledge gaps regarding the specific thromboembolic risks of COVID-19.

COVID-19 is associated with higher risk of venous thrombosis, but not arterial thrombosis, compared with influenza: Insights from a large US cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is typically compared with influenza to contextualize its health risks. SARS-CoV-2 has been linked with coagulation disturbances including arterial thrombosis, leading to considerable interest in antithrombotic therapy for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the independent thromboembolic risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with influenza remains incompletely understood. We evaluated the adjusted risks of thromboembolic events after a diagnosis of COVID-19 compared with influenza in a large retrospective cohort. METHODS: We used a US-based electronic health record (EHR) dataset linked with insurance claims to identify adults diagnosed with COVID-19 between April 1, 2020 and October 31, 2020. We identified influenza patients diagnosed between October 1, 2018 and April 31, 2019. Primary outcomes [venous composite of pulmonary embolism (PE) and acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT); arterial composite of ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction (MI)] and secondary outcomes were assessed 90 days post-diagnosis. Propensity scores (PS) were calculated using demographic, clinical, and medication variables. PS-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: There were 417,975 COVID-19 patients (median age 57y, 61% women), and 345,934 influenza patients (median age 47y, 66% women). Compared with influenza, patients with COVID-19 had higher venous thromboembolic risk (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.38-1.70), but not arterial thromboembolic risk (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95-1.10). Secondary analyses demonstrated similar risk for ischemic stroke (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98-1.25) and MI (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85-1.03) and higher risk for DVT (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.19-1.56) and PE (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.57-2.10) in patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSION: In a large retrospective US cohort, COVID-19 was independently associated with higher 90-day risk for venous thrombosis, but not arterial thrombosis, as compared with influenza. These findings may inform crucial knowledge gaps regarding the specific thromboembolic risks of COVID-19.

Healthcare resource utilization associated with ivacaftor use in patients with cystic fibrosis.

OBJECTIVE: Ivacaftor was approved in 2012 to treat patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) with specific CFTR gene mutations. The objective of this analysis was to analyze the impact of ivacaftor on health resource utilization through analysis of claims data. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with CF aged ≥6 years prescribed ivacaftor between January 1, 2012 and July 31, 2014 with ≥12 months of continuous insurance coverage prior to and following the prescription were identified. All-cause and CF-specific healthcare resource utilization during the pre- and post-prescription periods and ivacaftor adherence levels were studied. RESULTS: The 79 identified patients had a mean age of 20.8 years, and 54% were female. The proportion of patients with inpatient admissions (all-cause and CF-related) was significantly higher in the pre index compared to post index period (p ≤ 0.05). Mean ivacaftor medication possession ratio was 0.8 (SD = 0.3), and 73% of patients had a medication possession ratio >0.80. LIMITATIONS: Only a small number of patients met the inclusion criteria. Additionally, claims data may contain errors or inconsistencies and cannot be used to determine if medications were taken as prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: Ivacaftor therapy was associated with significant reductions in hospitalizations along with high rates of adherence to treatment over 12 months.