RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Track PCC includes five geographic surveillance sites to conduct standardized population-based surveillance to estimate and track Post-COVID Conditions (PCC) by age, sex, race/ethnicity, geographic area, severity of initial infection, and risk factors among persons with evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (based on the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologist [CSTE] case definitions for confirmed cases or laboratory-confirmed evidence of infection). METHODS: The study will estimate the incidence, prevalence, including temporal trends, and duration and severity of PCC symptoms, among children, adolescents, and adults. PCCs include a broad range of symptoms and conditions that continue or develop after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 illness. Surveillance includes both passive and active components for diverse populations in Arizona, Indiana, and Utah as well as the Bronx Borough, NY, and part of Philadelphia County, PA. Passive surveillance will utilize electronic health records and health information exchanges within each site catchment area to longitudinally follow persons with COVID-19 to estimate PCC occurring at least 30 days after acute COVID-19 illness. Active surveillance will utilize self-report of PCCs from detailed surveys of persons ages 7 years and older with evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the past 3 months. Respondents will complete follow-up surveys at 6-, 12- and 18-months post-infection. DISCUSSION: These data can help identify which groups are most affected by PCC, and what health differences among demographic groups exist, as well as indicate potential barriers to care. These additional levels of granularity can inform public health action and help direct needed clinical care for patients.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Vigilância da População , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Adolescente , Criança , Adulto , Masculino , Feminino , Vigilância da População/métodos , Síndrome de COVID-19 Pós-Aguda , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Adulto Jovem , SARS-CoV-2 , Incidência , Prevalência , Pré-Escolar , Efeitos Psicossociais da DoençaRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Long COVID encompasses a wide range of health problems that emerge, persist, or recur following acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) illness. Given that the prevalence of self-reported Long COVID is highest among U.S. adults in their prime working years, it is important to identify unmet needs and gaps in healthcare access and coverage among working-age adults. METHODS: Prevalences (95% confidence intervals [CI]) of health insurance coverage and access to care by Long COVID status were estimated among adults 18-64 years (n=18,117), accounting for survey design and weighted to the U.S. non-institutionalized population in the 2022 National Health Interview Survey. Analyses were conducted in 2023. RESULTS: Overall, 3.7% (95% CI 3.4, 4.0) of respondents were experiencing Long COVID. Adults experiencing Long COVID were less likely to report being uninsured relative to adults not experiencing Long COVID (p=0.004); however, 49.0% (95% CI 43.2, 54.7) had high deductible health plans. Adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, adults experiencing Long COVID were more likely to access healthcare compared to adults not experiencing Long COVID (p<0.01 for seeing a doctor, telemedicine appointments, ≥2 urgent care visits, ≥2 emergency department visits, and hospitalized overnight). Despite more frequent healthcare use, adults experiencing Long COVID were also more likely to abstain from and delay medical care, therapy, and prescriptions due to cost compared to adults not experiencing Long COVID (p<0.0001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: These findings may be used to inform healthcare planning for adults experiencing Long COVID and highlight the ongoing need to improve access and affordability of quality and comprehensive care.
RESUMO
Long COVID is a condition encompassing a wide range of health problems that emerge, persist, or return following COVID-19. CDC analyzed national repeat cross-sectional Household Pulse Survey data to estimate the prevalence of long COVID and significant related activity limitation among U.S. adults aged ≥18 years by age group. Data from surveys completed between June 1-13, 2022, and June 7-19, 2023, indicated that long COVID prevalence decreased from 7.5% (95% CI = 7.1-7.9) to 6.0% (95% CI = 5.7-6.3) among the overall U.S. adult population, irrespective of history of previous COVID-19, and from 18.9% (95% CI = 17.9-19.8) to 11.0% (95% CI = 10.4-11.6) among U.S. adults reporting previous COVID-19. Among both groups, prevalence decreased from June 1-13, 2022, through January 4-16, 2023, before stabilizing. When stratified by age, only adults aged <60 years experienced significant rates of decline (p<0.01). Among adults reporting previous COVID-19, prevalence decreased among those aged 30-79 years through fall or winter and then stabilized. During June 7-19, 2023, 26.4% (95% CI = 24.0-28.9) of adults with long COVID reported significant activity limitation, the prevalence of which did not change over time. These findings help guide the ongoing COVID-19 prevention efforts and planning for long COVID symptom management and future health care service needs.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Síndrome de COVID-19 Pós-Aguda , Adolescente , Adulto , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Estudos Transversais , Vigilância da População , Síndrome de COVID-19 Pós-Aguda/epidemiologia , Prevalência , Estados Unidos/epidemiologiaRESUMO
Stark, widening health and income inequalities in the United Kingdom underpin the need for increased support for low-income families to access affordable and nutritious foods. Using anonymised supermarket loyalty card transaction records, this study aimed to assess how an additional Healthy Start voucher (HSV) top-up of £2, redeemable only against fruit and vegetables (FVs), was associated with FV purchases among at-risk households. Transaction and redemption records from 150 loyalty card-holding households, living in northern England, who had engaged with the top-up scheme, were analysed to assess the potential overall population impact. Using a pre-post study design, 133 of these households' records from 2021 were compared with equivalent time periods in 2019 and 2020. Records were linked to product, customer and store data, permitting comparisons using Wilcoxon matched-pairs sign-ranked tests and relationships assessed with Spearman's Rho. These analyses demonstrated that 0.9 more portions of FV per day per household were purchased during the scheme compared to the 2019 baseline (p = 0.0017). The percentage of FV weight within total baskets also increased by 1.6 percentage points (p = 0.0242), although the proportional spend on FV did not change. During the scheme period, FV purchased was higher by 0.4 percentage points (p = 0.0012) and 1.6 percentage points (p = 0.0062) according to spend and weight, respectively, in top-up redeeming baskets compared to non-top-up redeeming baskets with at least one FV item and was associated with 5.5 more HSV 'Suggested' FV portions (p < 0.0001). The median weight of FV purchased increased from 41.83 kg in 2019 to 54.14 kg in 2021 (p = 0.0017). However, top-up vouchers were only redeemed on 9.1% of occasions where FV were purchased. In summary, this study provides novel data showing that safeguarding funds exclusively for FV can help to increase access to FV in low-income households. These results yield important insights to inform public policy aimed at levelling up health inequalities.
Assuntos
Frutas , Verduras , Humanos , Supermercados , Pobreza , RendaRESUMO
Background: Understanding the usefulness of additional COVID-19 vaccine doses-particularly given varying disease incidence-is needed to support public health policy. We characterize the benefits of COVID-19 booster doses using number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-associated hospitalization or emergency department encounter. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of immunocompetent adults at five health systems in four U.S. states during SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 predominance (December 2021-February 2022). Included patients completed a primary mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series and were either eligible to or received a booster dose. NNV were estimated using hazard ratios for each outcome (hospitalization and emergency department encounters), with results stratified by three 25-day periods and site. Findings: 1,285,032 patients contributed 938 hospitalizations and 2076 emergency department encounters. 555,729 (43.2%) patients were aged 18-49 years, 363,299 (28.3%) 50-64 years, and 366,004 (28.5%) ≥65 years. Most patients were female (n = 765,728, 59.6%), White (n = 990,224, 77.1%), and non-Hispanic (n = 1,063,964, 82.8%). 37.2% of patients received a booster and 62.8% received only two doses. Median estimated NNV to prevent one hospitalization was 205 (range 44-615) and NNV was lower across study periods for adults aged ≥65 years (110, 46, and 88, respectively) and those with underlying medical conditions (163, 69, and 131, respectively). Median estimated NNV to prevent one emergency department encounter was 156 (range 75-592). Interpretation: The number of patients needed to receive a booster dose was highly dependent on local disease incidence, outcome severity, and patient risk factors for moderate-to-severe disease. Funding: Funding was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention though contract 75D30120C07986 to Westat, Inc. and contract 75D30120C07765 to Kaiser Foundation Hospitals.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In the United States, more than 30,000 cases of mpox (formerly known as monkeypox) had occurred as of March 1, 2023, in an outbreak disproportionately affecting transgender persons and gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. In 2019, the JYNNEOS vaccine was approved for subcutaneous administration (0.5 ml per dose) to prevent mpox infection. On August 9, 2022, an emergency use authorization was issued for intradermal administration (0.1 ml per dose); however, real-world effectiveness data are limited for either route. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study based on data from Cosmos, a nationwide Epic electronic health record (EHR) database, to assess the effectiveness of JYNNEOS vaccination in preventing medically attended mpox disease among adults. Case patients had an mpox diagnosis code or positive orthopoxvirus or mpox virus laboratory result, and control patients had an incident diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection or a new or refill order for preexposure prophylaxis against HIV infection between August 15, 2022, and November 19, 2022. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated from conditional logistic-regression models, adjusted for confounders; vaccine effectiveness was calculated as (1 - odds ratio for vaccination in case patients vs. controls) × 100. RESULTS: Among 2193 case patients and 8319 control patients, 25 case patients and 335 control patients received two doses (full vaccination), among whom the estimated adjusted vaccine effectiveness was 66.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47.4 to 78.1), and 146 case patients and 1000 control patients received one dose (partial vaccination), among whom the estimated adjusted vaccine effectiveness was 35.8% (95% CI, 22.1 to 47.1). CONCLUSIONS: In this study using nationwide EHR data, patients with mpox were less likely to have received one or two doses of JYNNEOS vaccine than control patients. The findings suggest that JYNNEOS vaccine was effective in preventing mpox disease, and a two-dose series appeared to provide better protection. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Epic Research.).
Assuntos
Mpox , Eficácia de Vacinas , Adulto , Humanos , Masculino , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Infecções por HIV/epidemiologia , Infecções por HIV/prevenção & controle , Homossexualidade Masculina , Mpox/epidemiologia , Mpox/prevenção & controle , Minorias Sexuais e de Gênero/estatística & dados numéricos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Eficácia de Vacinas/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
As of March 31, 2023, more than 30,000 monkeypox (mpox) cases had been reported in the United States in an outbreak that has disproportionately affected gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender persons (1). JYNNEOS vaccine (Modified Vaccinia Ankara vaccine, Bavarian Nordic) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2019 for the prevention of smallpox and mpox via subcutaneous injection as a 2-dose series (0.5 mL per dose, administered 4 weeks apart) (2). To expand vaccine access, an Emergency Use Authorization was issued by FDA on August 9, 2022, for dose-sparing intradermal injection of JYNNEOS as a 2-dose series (0.1 mL per dose, administered 4 weeks apart) (3). Vaccination was available to persons with known or presumed exposure to a person with mpox (postexposure prophylaxis [PEP]), as well as persons at increased risk for mpox or who might benefit from vaccination (preexposure mpox prophylaxis [PrEP]) (4). Because information on JYNNEOS vaccine effectiveness (VE) is limited, a matched case-control study was conducted in 12 U.S. jurisdictions, including nine Emerging Infections Program sites and three Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity sites,§ to evaluate VE against mpox among MSM and transgender adults aged 18-49 years. During August 19, 2022-March 31, 2023, a total of 309 case-patients were matched to 608 control patients. Adjusted VE was 75.2% (95% CI = 61.2% to 84.2%) for partial vaccination (1 dose) and 85.9% (95% CI = 73.8% to 92.4%) for full vaccination (2 doses). Adjusted VE for full vaccination by subcutaneous, intradermal, and heterologous routes of administration was 88.9% (95% CI = 56.0% to 97.2%), 80.3% (95% CI = 22.9% to 95.0%), and 86.9% (95% CI = 69.1% to 94.5%), respectively. Adjusted VE for full vaccination among immunocompromised participants was 70.2% (95% CI = -37.9% to 93.6%) and among immunocompetent participants was 87.8% (95% CI = 57.5% to 96.5%). JYNNEOS is effective at reducing the risk for mpox. Because duration of protection of 1 versus 2 doses remains unknown, persons at increased risk for mpox exposure should receive the 2-dose series as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP),¶ regardless of administration route or immunocompromise status.
Assuntos
Mpox , Minorias Sexuais e de Gênero , Vacina Antivariólica , Adulto , Masculino , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Homossexualidade Masculina , Estudos de Casos e ControlesRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: We assessed BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against mild to moderate and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in children and adolescents through the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 period. METHODS: Using VISION Network records from April 2021 to September 2022, we conducted a test-negative, case-control study assessing VE against COVID-19-associated emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounters and hospitalizations using logistic regression, conditioned on month and site, adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: We compared 9800 ED/UC cases with 70 232 controls, and 305 hospitalized cases with 2612 controls. During Delta, 2-dose VE against ED/UC encounters at 12 to 15 years was initially 93% (95% confidence interval 89 to 95), waning to 77% (69% to 84%) after ≥150 days. At ages 16 to 17, VE was initially 93% (86% to 97%), waning to 72% (63% to 79%) after ≥150 days. During Omicron, VE at ages 12 to 15 was initially 64% (44% to 77%), waning to 13% (3% to 23%) after ≥150 days; at ages 16 to 17 VE was 31% (10% to 47%) during days 60 to 149, waning to 7% (-8 to 20%) after 150 days. A monovalent booster increased VE to 54% (40% to 65%) at ages 12 to 15 and 46% (30% to 58%) at ages 16 to 17. At ages 5 to 11, 2-dose VE was 49% (33% to 61%) initially and 41% (29% to 51%) after 150 days. During Delta, VE against hospitalizations at ages 12 to 17 was high (>97%), and at ages 16 to 17 remained 98% (73% to 100%) beyond 150 days; during Omicron, hospitalizations were too infrequent to precisely estimate VE. CONCLUSIONS: BNT162b2 protected children and adolescents against mild to moderate and severe COVID-19. VE was lower during Omicron predominance including BA.4/BA.5, waned after dose 2 but increased after a monovalent booster. Children and adolescents should receive all recommended COVID-19 vaccinations.
Assuntos
Vacina BNT162 , COVID-19 , Humanos , Adolescente , Criança , Pré-Escolar , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Estudos de Casos e Controles , VacinaçãoRESUMO
Background: Data are limited on influenza testing among adults with acute respiratory illness (ARI)-associated hospitalizations. We identified factors associated with influenza testing in adult ARI-associated hospitalizations across the 2016-2017 through 2019-2020 influenza seasons. Methods: Using data from 4 health systems in the United States, we identified hospitalizations that had an ARI discharge diagnosis or respiratory virus test. A hospitalization with influenza testing was based on testing performed within 14 days before through 72 hours after admission. We used random forest analysis to identify patient characteristics and influenza activity indicators that were most important in terms of their relationship to influenza testing. Results: Across 4 seasons, testing rates ranged from 14.8%-19.4% at 3 pooled sites and 60.1%-78.5% at a fourth site with different testing practices. Discharge diagnoses of pneumonia or infectious disease of noninfluenza etiology, presence of ARI signs/symptoms, hospital admission month, and influenza-like illness activity level were consistently among the variables with the greatest relative importance. Conclusions: Select ARI diagnoses and indicators of influenza activity were the most important factors associated with influenza testing among ARI-associated hospitalizations. Improved understanding of which patients are tested may enhance influenza burden estimates and allow for more timely clinical management of influenza-associated hospitalizations.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Following historically low influenza activity during the 2020-2021 season, the United States saw an increase in influenza circulating during the 2021-2022 season. Most viruses belonged to the influenza A(H3N2) 3C.2a1b 2a.2 subclade. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative case-control analysis among adults ≥18 years of age at 3 sites within the VISION Network. Encounters included emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits or hospitalizations with ≥1 acute respiratory illness (ARI) discharge diagnosis codes and molecular testing for influenza. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was calculated by comparing the odds of influenza vaccination ≥14 days before the encounter date between influenza-positive cases (type A) and influenza-negative and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-negative controls, applying inverse probability-to-be-vaccinated weights, and adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: In total, 86 732 ED/UC ARI-associated encounters (7696 [9%] cases) and 16 805 hospitalized ARI-associated encounters (649 [4%] cases) were included. VE against influenza-associated ED/UC encounters was 25% (95% confidence interval (CI), 20%-29%) and 25% (95% CI, 11%-37%) against influenza-associated hospitalizations. VE against ED/UC encounters was lower in adults ≥65 years of age (7%; 95% CI, -5% to 17%) or with immunocompromising conditions (4%; 95% CI, -45% to 36%). CONCLUSIONS: During an influenza A(H3N2)-predominant influenza season, modest VE was observed. These findings highlight the need for improved vaccines, particularly for A(H3N2) viruses that are historically associated with lower VE.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Vírus da Influenza A Subtipo H1N1 , Vacinas contra Influenza , Influenza Humana , Adulto , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Pré-Escolar , Influenza Humana/epidemiologia , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Vírus da Influenza A Subtipo H3N2 , Estações do Ano , Eficácia de Vacinas , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacinação , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Assistência Ambulatorial , Hospitais , Estudos de Casos e ControlesRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination coverage remains lower in communities with higher social vulnerability. Factors such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exposure risk and access to healthcare are often correlated with social vulnerability and may therefore contribute to a relationship between vulnerability and observed vaccine effectiveness (VE). Understanding whether these factors impact VE could contribute to our understanding of real-world VE. METHODS: We used electronic health record data from 7 health systems to assess vaccination coverage among patients with medically attended COVID-19-like illness. We then used a test-negative design to assess VE for 2- and 3-dose messenger RNA (mRNA) adult (≥18 years) vaccine recipients across Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) quartiles. SVI rankings were determined by geocoding patient addresses to census tracts; rankings were grouped into quartiles for analysis. RESULTS: In July 2021, primary series vaccination coverage was higher in the least vulnerable quartile than in the most vulnerable quartile (56% vs 36%, respectively). In February 2022, booster dose coverage among persons who had completed a primary series was higher in the least vulnerable quartile than in the most vulnerable quartile (43% vs 30%). VE among 2-dose and 3-dose recipients during the Delta and Omicron BA.1 periods of predominance was similar across SVI quartiles. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccination coverage varied substantially by SVI. Differences in VE estimates by SVI were minimal across groups after adjusting for baseline patient factors. However, lower vaccination coverage among more socially vulnerable groups means that the burden of illness is still disproportionately borne by the most socially vulnerable populations.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vulnerabilidade Social , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Cobertura Vacinal , Eficácia de VacinasRESUMO
Importance: Guidelines recommend individualized decision-making for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among adults aged 76 to 84 years, a process that includes a consideration of health state and patient preference. Objective: To determine whether a targeted patient decision aid would align older adults' screening preference with their potential to benefit from CRC screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a prespecified secondary analysis from a randomized clinical trial. Participants aged 70 to 84 years who were not up to date with screening and had an appointment within 6 weeks were purposively sampled by health state (poor, intermediate, or good) at 14 community-based primary care practices and block randomized to receive the intervention or control. Patients were recruited from March 1, 2012, to February 28, 2015, and these secondary analyses were performed from January 15 to March 1, 2022. Interventions: Patient decision aid targeted to age and sex. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of this analysis was patient preference for CRC screening. The a priori hypothesis was that the decision aid (intervention) group would reduce the proportion preferring screening among those in poor and intermediate health compared with the control group. Results: Among the 424 participants, the mean (SD) age was 76.8 (4.2) years; 248 (58.5%) of participants were women; and 333 (78.5%) were White. The proportion preferring screening in the intervention group was less than in the control group for those in the intermediate health state (34 of 76 [44.7%] vs 40 of 73 [54.8%]; absolute difference, -10.1% [95% CI, -26.0% to 5.9%]) and in the poor health state (24 of 62 [38.7%] vs 33 of 61 [54.1%]; absolute difference, -15.4% [95% CI, -32.8% to 2.0%]). These differences were not statistically significant. The proportion of those in good health who preferred screening was similar between the intervention and control groups (44 of 74 [59.5%] for intervention vs 46 of 75 [61.3%] for control; absolute difference, -1.9% [95% CI, -17.6% to 13.8%]). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this secondary analysis of a clinical trial did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in patient preferences between the health groups. Additional studies that are appropriately powered are needed to determine the effect of the decision aid on the preferences of older patients for CRC screening by health state. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01575990.
Assuntos
Neoplasias Colorretais , Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Humanos , Feminino , Idoso , Masculino , Técnicas de Apoio para a Decisão , Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Programas de Rastreamento , Preferência do PacienteRESUMO
In 2015, Tesco Express convenience stores implemented a healthy checkouts initiative; products high in fat, salt or sugar were removed from in-queue areas. We compare purchasing of less healthy foods before and after its introduction. Tesco provided store-level sales data (n = 1151) for Express stores in England over two 8-week periods, May-July 2014 and 2015. Paired t-tests examined if spending on less healthy foods (biscuits, cakes, crisps and confectionery), as a proportion of total spend, changed between 2015 and 2014. Analyses were repeated for the quantity of less healthy products sold. Compliance was measured through unannounced store visits (n = 41). Complete sales data were available for 1101 stores (96%). Mean overall spend increased in 2015 compared with 2014 (£666 079.70 [SD 406 385.00] vs. £653 786.59 [SD 447 580.77]; p < 0.001). The proportion of total spend from less healthy foods decreased in 2015 versus 2014 (8.03% [SD 2.07] vs. 8.21% [SD 2.17]; p < 0.001). Confectionery accounted for the largest proportion of less healthy product spend, showing the biggest reduction (3.91% [SD 1.16] in 2015 vs. 4.12% [SD 1.24] in 2014; p < 0.001). Results were similar for quantity of less healthy products sold. Like-for-like sales data from major supermarkets revealed spend on less healthy products rose across the UK over this period. Thirty-nine per cent of stores were fully compliant. In conclusion, following implementation of Tesco's healthier checkouts initiative, there was a small reduction in sales of less healthy foods, largely accounted for by confectionery products. These findings suggest that removal of less healthy products from checkouts might lead to healthier purchasing behaviour. However, store compliance was poor, suggesting scope for improvement.
Assuntos
Comportamento do Consumidor , Preferências Alimentares , Comércio , Alimentos , Abastecimento de AlimentosRESUMO
The efficacy of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 exceeded 90% in clinical trials that included children and adolescents aged 5-11, 12-15, and 16-17 years (1-3). Limited real-world data on 2-dose mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) in persons aged 12-17 years (referred to as adolescents in this report) have also indicated high levels of protection against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) infection and COVID-19-associated hospitalization (4-6); however, data on VE against the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant and duration of protection are limited. Pfizer-BioNTech VE data are not available for children aged 5-11 years. In partnership with CDC, the VISION Network* examined 39,217 emergency department (ED) and urgent care (UC) encounters and 1,699 hospitalizations among persons aged 5-17 years with COVID-19-like illness across 10 states during April 9, 2021-January 29, 2022,§ to estimate VE using a case-control test-negative design. Among children aged 5-11 years, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated ED and UC encounters 14-67 days after dose 2 (the longest interval after dose 2 in this age group) was 46%. Among adolescents aged 12-15 and 16-17 years, VE 14-149 days after dose 2 was 83% and 76%, respectively; VE ≥150 days after dose 2 was 38% and 46%, respectively. Among adolescents aged 16-17 years, VE increased to 86% ≥7 days after dose 3 (booster dose). VE against COVID-19-associated ED and UC encounters was substantially lower during the Omicron predominant period than the B.1.617.2 (Delta) predominant period among adolescents aged 12-17 years, with no significant protection ≥150 days after dose 2 during Omicron predominance. However, in adolescents aged 16-17 years, VE during the Omicron predominant period increased to 81% ≥7 days after a third booster dose. During the full study period, including pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron predominant periods, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalization among children aged 5-11 years was 74% 14-67 days after dose 2, with wide CIs that included zero. Among adolescents aged 12-15 and 16-17 years, VE 14-149 days after dose 2 was 92% and 94%, respectively; VE ≥150 days after dose 2 was 73% and 88%, respectively. All eligible children and adolescents should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations, including a booster dose for those aged 12-17 years.
Assuntos
Vacina BNT162/administração & dosagem , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , Eficácia de Vacinas/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Assistência Ambulatorial/estatística & dados numéricos , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Imunização Secundária , Masculino , Estados UnidosRESUMO
CDC recommends that all persons aged ≥18 years receive a single COVID-19 vaccine booster dose ≥2 months after receipt of an Ad.26.COV2.S (Janssen [Johnson & Johnson]) adenovirus vector-based primary series vaccine; a heterologous COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is preferred over a homologous (matching) Janssen vaccine for booster vaccination. This recommendation was made in light of the risks for rare but serious adverse events following receipt of a Janssen vaccine, including thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome and Guillain-Barré syndrome (1), and clinical trial data indicating similar or higher neutralizing antibody response following heterologous boosting compared with homologous boosting (2). Data on real-world vaccine effectiveness (VE) of different booster strategies following a primary Janssen vaccine dose are limited, particularly during the period of Omicron variant predominance. The VISION Network§ determined real-world VE of 1 Janssen vaccine dose and 2 alternative booster dose strategies: 1) a homologous booster (i.e., 2 Janssen doses) and 2) a heterologous mRNA booster (i.e., 1 Janssen dose/1 mRNA dose). In addition, VE of these booster strategies was compared with VE of a homologous booster following mRNA primary series vaccination (i.e., 3 mRNA doses). The study examined 80,287 emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits¶ and 25,244 hospitalizations across 10 states during December 16, 2021-March 7, 2022, when Omicron was the predominant circulating variant.** VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters was 24% after 1 Janssen dose, 54% after 2 Janssen doses, 79% after 1 Janssen/1 mRNA dose, and 83% after 3 mRNA doses. VE for the same vaccination strategies against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalizations were 31%, 67%, 78%, and 90%, respectively. All booster strategies provided higher protection than a single Janssen dose against ED/UC visits and hospitalizations during Omicron variant predominance. Vaccination with 1 Janssen/1 mRNA dose provided higher protection than did 2 Janssen doses against COVID-19-associated ED/UC visits and was comparable to protection provided by 3 mRNA doses during the first 120 days after a booster dose. However, 3 mRNA doses provided higher protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations than did other booster strategies during the same time interval since booster dose. All adults who have received mRNA vaccines for their COVID-19 primary series vaccination should receive an mRNA booster dose when eligible. Adults who received a primary Janssen vaccine dose should preferentially receive a heterologous mRNA vaccine booster dose ≥2 months later, or a homologous Janssen vaccine booster dose if mRNA vaccine is contraindicated or unavailable. Further investigation of the durability of protection afforded by different booster strategies is warranted.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Vacinas contra Influenza , Adolescente , Adulto , Assistência Ambulatorial , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Hospitalização , Humanos , Imunização Secundária , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacinas Sintéticas , Vacinas de mRNARESUMO
CDC recommends that all persons aged ≥12 years receive a booster dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine ≥5 months after completion of a primary mRNA vaccination series and that immunocompromised persons receive a third primary dose.* Waning of vaccine protection after 2 doses of mRNA vaccine has been observed during the period of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance (1-5), but little is known about durability of protection after 3 doses during periods of Delta or SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant predominance. A test-negative case-control study design using data from eight VISION Network sites§ examined vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits and hospitalizations among U.S. adults aged ≥18 years at various time points after receipt of a second or third vaccine dose during two periods: Delta variant predominance and Omicron variant predominance (i.e., periods when each variant accounted for ≥50% of sequenced isolates).¶ Persons categorized as having received 3 doses included those who received a third dose in a primary series or a booster dose after a 2 dose primary series (including the reduced-dosage Moderna booster). The VISION Network analyzed 241,204 ED/UC encounters** and 93,408 hospitalizations across 10 states during August 26, 2021-January 22, 2022. VE after receipt of both 2 and 3 doses was lower during the Omicron-predominant than during the Delta-predominant period at all time points evaluated. During both periods, VE after receipt of a third dose was higher than that after a second dose; however, VE waned with increasing time since vaccination. During the Omicron period, VE against ED/UC visits was 87% during the first 2 months after a third dose and decreased to 66% among those vaccinated 4-5 months earlier; VE against hospitalizations was 91% during the first 2 months following a third dose and decreased to 78% ≥4 months after a third dose. For both Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods, VE was generally higher for protection against hospitalizations than against ED/UC visits. All eligible persons should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations to best protect against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and ED/UC visits.
Assuntos
Assistência Ambulatorial/estatística & dados numéricos , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , Eficácia de Vacinas , Vacinas de mRNA/administração & dosagem , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Fatores de Tempo , Estados Unidos , Adulto JovemRESUMO
PURPOSE: De-implementation of low-value services among patients with limited life expectancy is challenging. Robust mortality prediction models using routinely collected health care data can enhance health care stakeholders' ability to identify populations with limited life expectancy. We developed and validated a claims-based prediction model for 5-year mortality using regularized regression methods. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries age 66 or older with an office visit and at least 12 months of pre-visit continuous Medicare A/B enrollment were identified in 2008. Five-year mortality was assessed through 2013. Secondary outcomes included 30-, 90-, and 180-day and 1-year mortality. Claims-based predictors, including comorbidities and indicators of disability, frailty, and functional impairment, were selected using regularized logistic regression, applying the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) in a random 80% training sample. Model performance was assessed and compared with the Gagne comorbidity score in the 20% validation sample. RESULTS: Overall, 183 204 (24%) individuals died. In addition to demographics, 161 indicators of comorbidity and function were included in the final model. In the validation sample, the c-statistic was 0.825 (0.823-0.828). Median-predicted probability of 5-year mortality was 14%; almost 4% of the cohort had a predicted probability greater than 80%. Compared with the Gagne score, the LASSO model led to improved 5-year mortality classification (net reclassification index = 9.9%; integrated discrimination index = 5.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Our claims-based model predicting 5-year mortality showed excellent discrimination and calibration, similar to the Gagne score model, but resulted in improved mortality classification. Regularized regression is a feasible approach for developing prediction tools that could enhance health care research and evaluation of care quality.
Assuntos
Formulário de Reclamação de Seguro/tendências , Medicare/estatística & dados numéricos , Modelos Estatísticos , Mortalidade/tendências , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Estudos de Coortes , Comorbidade , Interpretação Estatística de Dados , Pessoas com Deficiência/estatística & dados numéricos , Fragilidade/mortalidade , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , North Carolina/epidemiologia , Estados Unidos/epidemiologiaRESUMO
Introduction. Discussions of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with older adults should be individualized to maximize appropriate screening. Our aim was to describe CRC screening discussions and explore their associations with patient characteristics and screening intentions. Methods. Cross-sectional survey of 422 primary care patients aged ≥70 years and eligible for CRC screening, including open-ended questions about CRC screening discussions. Primary outcomes were the frequency with which CRC screening discussions occurred, who had those discussions, and the domains that emerged from thematic analysis of participants' brief reports of their discussions. We also examined the associations between 1) patient characteristics and whether a screening discussion occurred and 2) the domains discussed and what screening decisions were made. Results. Of 422 participants, 209 reported having discussions and 201 responded to open-ended questions about CRC discussions. In a regression analysis, several factors were associated with increased odds of having a discussion: participants' preference to pursue screening (odds ratio [OR] 2.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3, 3.9), good health (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.7, 4.8), and receipt of the decision aid (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.4, 3.2). Our thematic analysis identified five domains related to discussion content and three related to discussion process. The CRC screening-related information domain was the most commonly discussed content domain, and the timing/frequency domain was associated with increased odds of intent to pursue screening. Decision-making role, the most commonly discussed process domain, was associated with increased odds of the intent to forgo CRC screening. Conclusions and Relevance. CRC screening discussions varied by type of participant and content. Future work is needed to determine if interventions focused on specific domains alters the appropriateness of participants' colorectal cancer screening intentions.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: The purpose of this project was to: (1) develop a strategy for primary care quality measurement using an environmental scan and interviews to identify best practices and candidate measures; (2) present recommendations to facilitate successful measurement. METHODS: Following stakeholder interviews and review of existing measures, we created a three-tiered recommendation system for selecting and implementing measures. We also developed a framework for reviewing and prioritizing measures and prepared a detailed project report. RESULTS: Interviews provided a broader perspective on measuring quality, including implementing measures, measuring value, and identifying measurement gaps. Our recommendations fall into three tiers: Tier 1 measures can be implemented quickly and include clinical processes and outcomes for preventive care and disease states. Tier 2 measures require modifications to electronic health record, workflows, and/or staff preparation. Tier 3 (Strategic Vision) addresses topics that should be incorporated in the future to ensure high-quality primary care (adherence, patient activation, patient experience, teamness, staff satisfaction, and value), and infrastructure development to support ongoing quality measurement. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a quality measurement strategy is challenging and labor-intensive but is necessary to improve healthcare quality. Our work demonstrates the effort and investment required to progress quality measurement and offers recommendations for successfully undertaking this type of endeavor.