Association between primary or booster COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and Omicron lineage BA.1 SARS-CoV-2 infection in people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection: A test-negative case-control analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of primary and booster vaccination in people who experienced a prior Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains unclear. The objective of this study was to estimate the effectiveness of primary (two-dose series) and booster (third dose) mRNA vaccination against Omicron (lineage BA.1) infection among people with a prior documented infection. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a test-negative case-control study of reverse transcription PCRs (RT-PCRs) analyzed with the TaqPath (Thermo Fisher Scientific) assay and recorded in the Yale New Haven Health system from November 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Overall, 11,307 cases (positive TaqPath analyzed RT-PCRs with S-gene target failure [SGTF]) and 130,041 controls (negative TaqPath analyzed RT-PCRs) were included (median age: cases: 35 years, controls: 39 years). Among cases and controls, 5.9% and 8.1% had a documented prior infection (positive SARS-CoV-2 test record ≥90 days prior to the included test), respectively. We estimated the effectiveness of primary and booster vaccination relative to SGTF-defined Omicron (lineage BA.1) variant infection using a logistic regression adjusted for date of test, age, sex, race/ethnicity, insurance, comorbidities, social venerability index, municipality, and healthcare utilization. The effectiveness of primary vaccination 14 to 149 days after the second dose was 41.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 14.1% to 59.4%, p 0.006) and 27.1% (95% CI: 18.7% to 34.6%, p < 0.001) for people with and without a documented prior infection, respectively. The effectiveness of booster vaccination (≥14 days after booster dose) was 47.1% (95% CI: 22.4% to 63.9%, p 0.001) and 54.1% (95% CI: 49.2% to 58.4%, p < 0.001) in people with and without a documented prior infection, respectively. To test whether booster vaccination reduced the risk of infection beyond that of the primary series, we compared the odds of infection among boosted (≥14 days after booster dose) and booster-eligible people (≥150 days after second dose). The odds ratio (OR) comparing boosted and booster-eligible people with a documented prior infection was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.54 to 1.16, p 0.222), whereas the OR comparing boosted and booster-eligible people without a documented prior infection was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.49 to 0.59, p < 0.001). This study's limitations include the risk of residual confounding, the use of data from a single system, and the reliance on TaqPath analyzed RT-PCR results. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that primary vaccination provided significant but limited protection against Omicron (lineage BA.1) infection among people with and without a documented prior infection. While booster vaccination was associated with additional protection against Omicron BA.1 infection in people without a documented prior infection, it was not found to be associated with additional protection among people with a documented prior infection. These findings support primary vaccination in people regardless of documented prior infection status but suggest that infection history may impact the relative benefit of booster doses.

Comparative Effectiveness of New Approaches to Improve Mortality Risk Models From Medicare Claims Data.

Importance: Risk adjustment models using claims-based data are central in evaluating health care performance. Although US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) models apply well-vetted statistical approaches, recent changes in the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) coding system and advances in computational capabilities may provide an opportunity for enhancement. Objective: To examine whether changes using already available data would enhance risk models and yield greater discrimination in hospital-level performance measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study used ICD-9-CM codes from all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary claims for hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), or pneumonia among patients 65 years and older from July 1, 2013, through September 30, 2015. Changes to current CMS mortality risk models were applied incrementally to patient-level models, and the best model was tested on hospital performance measures to model 30-day mortality. Analyses were conducted from April 19, 2018, to September 19, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was all-cause death within 30 days of hospitalization for AMI, HF, or pneumonia, examined using 3 changes to current CMS mortality risk models: (1) incorporating present on admission coding to better exclude potential complications of care, (2) separating index admission diagnoses from those of the 12-month history, and (3) using ungrouped ICD-9-CM codes. Results: There were 361 175 hospital admissions (mean [SD] age, 78.6 [8.4] years; 189 225 [52.4%] men) for AMI, 716 790 hospital admissions (mean [SD] age, 81.1 [8.4] years; 326 825 [45.6%] men) for HF, and 988 225 hospital admissions (mean [SD] age, 80.7 [8.6] years; 460 761 [46.6%] men) for pneumonia during the study; mean 30-day mortality rates were 13.8% for AMI, 12.1% for HF, and 16.1% for pneumonia. Each change to the models was associated with incremental gains in C statistics. The best model, incorporating all changes, was associated with significantly improved patient-level C statistics, from 0.720 to 0.826 for AMI, 0.685 to 0.776 for HF, and 0.715 to 0.804 for pneumonia. Compared with current CMS models, the best model produced wider predicted probabilities with better calibration and Brier scores. Hospital risk-standardized mortality rates had wider distributions, with more hospitals identified as good or bad performance outliers. Conclusions and Relevance: Incorporating present on admission coding and using ungrouped index and historical ICD-9-CM codes were associated with improved patient-level and hospital-level risk models for mortality compared with the current CMS models for all 3 conditions.

Systolic Blood Pressure Response in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) and ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes): A Possible Explanation for Discordant Trial Results.

BACKGROUND: SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) and the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) blood pressure trial used similar interventions but produced discordant results. We investigated whether differences in systolic blood pressure (SBP) response contributed to the discordant trial results. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated the distributions of SBP response during the first year for the intensive and standard treatment groups of SPRINT and ACCORD using growth mixture models. We assessed whether significant differences existed between trials in the distributions of SBP achieved at 1 year and the treatment-independent relationships of achieved SBP with risks of primary outcomes defined in each trial, heart failure, stroke, and all-cause death. We examined whether visit-to-visit variability was associated with heterogeneous treatment effects. Among the included 9027 SPRINT and 4575 ACCORD participants, the difference in mean SBP achieved between treatment groups was 15.7 mm Hg in SPRINT and 14.2 mm Hg in ACCORD, but SPRINT had significantly less between-group overlap in the achieved SBP (standard deviations of intensive and standard groups, respectively: 6.7 and 5.9 mm Hg in SPRINT versus 8.8 and 8.2 mm Hg in ACCORD; P<0.001). The relationship between achieved SBP and outcomes was consistent across trials except for stroke and all-cause death. Higher visit-to-visit variability was more common in SPRINT but without treatment-effect heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: SPRINT and ACCORD had different degrees of separation in achieved SBP between treatment groups, even as they had similar mean differences. The greater between-group overlap of achieved SBP may have contributed to the discordant trial results.

Heterogeneity in Early Responses in ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial).

Randomized trials of hypertension have seldom examined heterogeneity in response to treatments over time and the implications for cardiovascular outcomes. Understanding this heterogeneity, however, is a necessary step toward personalizing antihypertensive therapy. We applied trajectory-based modeling to data on 39 763 study participants of the ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial) to identify distinct patterns of systolic blood pressure (SBP) response to randomized medications during the first 6 months of the trial. Two trajectory patterns were identified: immediate responders (85.5%), on average, had a decreasing SBP, whereas nonimmediate responders (14.5%), on average, had an initially increasing SBP followed by a decrease. Compared with those randomized to chlorthalidone, participants randomized to amlodipine (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.31), lisinopril (odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.73-2.03), and doxazosin (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.52-1.78) had higher adjusted odds ratios associated with being a nonimmediate responder (versus immediate responder). After multivariable adjustment, nonimmediate responders had a higher hazard ratio of stroke (hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.21-1.84), combined cardiovascular disease (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.31), and heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.24-1.78) during follow-up between 6 months and 2 years. The SBP response trajectories provided superior discrimination for predicting downstream adverse cardiovascular events than classification based on difference in SBP between the first 2 measurements, SBP at 6 months, and average SBP during the first 6 months. Our findings demonstrate heterogeneity in response to antihypertensive therapies and show that chlorthalidone is associated with more favorable initial response than the other medications.