Low antibody levels associated with significantly increased rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a highly vaccinated population from the US National Basketball Association.

SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels may serve as a correlate for immunity and could inform optimal booster timing. The relationship between antibody levels and protection from infection was evaluated in vaccinated individuals from the US National Basketball Association who had antibody levels measured at a single time point from September 12, 2021, to December 31, 2021. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risk of infection within 90 days of serologic testing by antibody level (<250, 250-800, and >800 AU/mL1 ), adjusting for age, time since last vaccine dose, and history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Individuals were censored on date of booster receipt. The analytic cohort comprised 2323 individuals and was 78.2% male, 68.1% aged ≤40 years, and 56.4% vaccinated (primary series) with the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine. Among the 2248 (96.8%) individuals not yet boosted at antibody testing, 77% completed their primary vaccine series 4-6 months before testing and the median (interquartile range) antibody level was 293.5 (interquartile range: 121.0-740.5) AU/mL. Those with levels <250 AU/mL (adj hazard ratio [HR]: 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5-3.7) and 250-800 AU/mL (adj HR: 1.5; 95% CI: 0.98-2.4) had greater infection risk compared to those with levels >800 AU/mL. Antibody levels could inform individual COVID-19 risk and booster scheduling.

COVID-19 Vaccinations in Pregnancy: Comparative Evaluation of Acute Side Effects and Self-Reported Impact on Quality of Life between Pregnant and Nonpregnant Women in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the acute side effects experienced by pregnant women who received a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine in the United States and to compare their experience to nonpregnant women of similar age. STUDY DESIGN: Adults who received a COVID-19 vaccine in the United States were invited via social media to enroll in an online, longitudinal, community-based registry ( www.helpstopCOVID19.com ). Participants self-reported pregnancy status, vaccination dates, manufacturer, acute side effects, impact on work and self-care, medical consultation, and hospitalization. This analysis was restricted to women aged 20 to 39 at the time of vaccination. Side effects reported by pregnant women were compared to those reported by nonpregnant women. RESULTS: This analysis included 946 pregnant women, with 572 (60%) receiving at least one dose of Pfizer, 321 (34%) Moderna, and 53 (6%) J&J, and 1,178 nonpregnant women. Demographic and medical history were similar across manufacturers for both cohorts.Overall, pregnant women reported similar side effects as nonpregnant women, with the most common being injection site reactions (83 vs. 87%), fatigue (72 vs.78%), and headache (45 vs. 59%). Pregnant women reported fewer side effects (median: 3 vs. 4, respectively). In both cohorts, very few reported seeking medical care (<5%) or being hospitalized (<0.3%) after vaccination. Fewer pregnant women reported working less after vaccination than nonpregnant women (32 vs. 40%) or trouble with self-care (32 vs. 46%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Pregnant women reported similar COVID-19 vaccine side effects as nonpregnant women, although fewer total side effects; pregnant women judged these side effects to have less impact on work and self-care. While these results do not address pregnancy outcomes or long-term effects, findings about acute side effects and impact offer reassurance for all three vaccines in terms of tolerability. KEY POINTS: · COVID vaccines were well tolerated by pregnant women.. · Pregnant women reported fewer total side effects.. · Pregnant women reported less impact on work and self-care..

Optimizing SARS-CoV-2 Surveillance in the United States: Insights From the National Football League Occupational Health Program.

BACKGROUND: Evidence to understand effective strategies for surveillance and early detection of SARS-CoV-2 is limited. OBJECTIVE: To describe the results of a rigorous, large-scale COVID-19 testing and monitoring program. DESIGN: The U.S. National Football League (NFL) and the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) instituted a large-scale COVID-19 monitoring program involving daily testing using 2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) platforms (Roche cobas and Thermo Fisher QuantStudio), a transcription-mediated amplification platform (Hologic Panther), and an antigen point-of-care (aPOC) test (Quidel Sofia). SETTING: 32 NFL clubs in 24 states during the 2020 NFL season. PARTICIPANTS: NFL players and staff. MEASUREMENTS: SARS-CoV-2 test results were described in the context of medically adjudicated status. Cycle threshold (Ct) values are reported when available. RESULTS: A total of 632 370 tests administered across 11 668 persons identified 270 (2.4%) COVID-19 cases from 1 August to 14 November 2020. Positive predictive values ranged from 73.0% to 82.0% across the RT-PCR platforms. High Ct values (33 to 37) often indicated early infection. For the first positive result, the median Ct value was 32.77 (interquartile range, 30.02 to 34.72) and 22% of Ct values were above 35. Among adjudicated COVID-19 cases tested with aPOC, 42.3% had a negative result. Positive concordance between aPOC test result and adjudicated case status increased as viral load increased. LIMITATIONS: Platforms varied by laboratory, and test variability may reflect procedural differences. CONCLUSION: Routine RT-PCR testing allowed early detection of infection. Cycle threshold values provided a useful guidepost for understanding results, with high values often indicating early infection. Antigen POC testing was unable to reliably rule out COVID-19 early in infection. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The NFL and the NFLPA.

Ankle Sprains in the National Basketball Association, 2013-2014 Through 2016-2017.

BACKGROUND: Ankle sprains are one of the most common injuries in basketball. Despite this, the incidence and setting of ankle sprains among elite basketball players are not well described. PURPOSE: To describe the epidemiology of ankle sprains among National Basketball Association (NBA) players. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: All players on an NBA roster for ≥1 NBA game (preseason, regular season, or playoffs) during the 2013-14 through 2016-17 seasons were included. Data were collected with the NBA electronic medical record system. All NBA teams used the electronic medical record continuously throughout the study period to record comprehensive injury data, including onset, mechanism, setting, type, and time lost. Game incidence rates were calculated per 1000 player-games and per 10,000 player-minutes of participation, stratified by demographic and playing characteristics. RESULTS: There were 796 ankle sprains among 389 players and 2341 unique NBA player-seasons reported in the league from 2013-14 through 2016-17. The overall single-season risk of ankle sprain was 25.8% (95% CI, 23.9%-28.0%). The majority of ankle sprains occurred in games (n = 565, 71.0%) and involved a contact mechanism of injury (n = 567, 71.2%). Most ankle sprains were lateral (n = 638, 80.2%). The incidence of ankle sprain among players with a history of prior ankle sprain in the past year was 1.41 times (95% CI, 1.13-1.74) the incidence of those without a history of ankle sprain in the past year (P = .002). Fifty-six percent of ankle sprains did not result in any NBA games missed (n = 443); among those that did, players missed a median of 2 games (interquartile range, 1-4) resulting in a cumulative total of 1467 missed player-games over the 4-season study period. CONCLUSION: Ankle sprains affect approximately 26% of NBA players on average each season and account for a large number of missed NBA games in aggregate. Younger players and players with a history of ankle sprain have elevated rates of incident ankle sprains in games, highlighting the potential benefit for integrating injury prevention programs into the management of initial sprains. Research on basketball- and ankle-specific injury prevention strategies could provide benefits.

Comparative Effectiveness of Oxaliplatin Versus 5-flourouricil in Older Adults: An Instrumental Variable Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin was rapidly adopted for treatment of stage III colon cancer after FDA approval in November 2004, thus providing an opportunity to use calendar time as an instrumental variable in nonexperimental comparative effectiveness research. Assuming instrument validity, instrumental variable analyses account for unmeasured confounding and are particularly valuable in sub-populations of unresolved effectiveness, such as older individuals. METHODS: We examined stage III colon cancer patients ages 65+ years initiating chemotherapy between 2003 and 2008 using US population-based cancer registry data linked with Medicare claims (N = 3,660). Risk differences for all-cause mortality were derived from Kaplan-Meier survival curves. We examined instrumental variable strength and compared risk differences with propensity score estimates. RESULTS: Calendar time greatly affected oxaliplatin receipt. The calendar time instrument compared patients treated from January 2003 through September 2004 (N = 1,449) with those treated from March 2005 through May 2007 (N = 1,432), resulting in 54% compliance. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year local average treatment effect of the risk differences per 100 patients in the "compliers" (95% confidence intervals) were -4.6 (-8.2, -0.44), -6.3 (-12, -0.16), and -9.2 (-15, -2.5), respectively. Corresponding propensity score-matched results were -1.9 (-4.0, 0.2), -3.4 (-6.2, -0.05), and -4.3 (-7.5, -0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Instrumental variable and propensity score analyses both indicate better survival among patients treated with oxaliplatin. As these results are based on different populations and assumptions, the instrumental variable analysis adds to evidence of oxaliplatin's effectiveness in older adults, who bear the greatest burden of colon cancer yet were underrepresented in clinical trials. In nonexperimental comparative effectiveness research of rapidly emerging therapies, the potential to use calendar time as an instrumental variable is worth consideration.

Calendar time-specific propensity scores and comparative effectiveness research for stage III colon cancer chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Nonexperimental studies of treatment effectiveness provide an important complement to randomized trials by including heterogeneous populations. Propensity scores (PSs) are common in these studies but may not adequately capture changes in channeling experienced by innovative treatments. We use calendar time-specific (CTS) PSs to examine the effect of oxaliplatin during dissemination from off-label to widespread use. METHODS: Stage III colon cancer patients aged 65+ years initiating chemotherapy between 2003 and 2006 were examined using cancer registry data linked with Medicare claims. Two PS approaches for receipt of oxaliplatin versus 5-flourouricil were constructed using logistic models with key components of age, sex, substage, grade, census-level income, and comorbidities: (i) a conventional, year-adjusted PS and (ii) a CTS PS constructed and matched separately within 1-year intervals, then combined. We compared PS-matched hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality using Cox models. RESULTS: Oxaliplatin use increased significantly; 8% (n = 86) of patients received it in the first time period versus 52% (n = 386) in the last. Channeling by comorbidities, income, and age appeared to change over time. The CTS PS improved covariate balance within calendar time strata and yielded an attenuated estimated benefit of oxaliplatin (HR = 0.75) compared with the conventional PS (HR = 0.69). CONCLUSION: In settings where prescribing patterns have changed and calendar time acts as a confounder, a CTS PS can characterize changes in treatment choices and estimating separate PSs within specific calendar time periods may result in enhanced confounding control. To increase validity of comparative effectiveness research, researchers should carefully consider drug lifecycles and effects of innovative treatment dissemination over time.

Costing human rights and community support interventions as a part of universal access to HIV treatment and care in a Southern African setting.

Expanding access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) has both individual health benefits and potential to decrease HIV incidence. Ensuring access to HIV services is a significant human rights issue and successful programmes require adequate human rights protections and community support. However, the cost of specific human rights and community support interventions for equitable, sustainable and non-discriminatory access to ART are not well described. Human rights and community support interventions were identified using the literature and through consultations with experts. Specific costs were then determined for these health sector interventions. Population and epidemic data were provided through the Statistics South Africa 2009 national mid-year estimates. Costs of scale up of HIV prevention and treatment were taken from recently published estimates. Interventions addressed access to services, minimising stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV, confidentiality, informed consent and counselling quality. Integrated HIV programme interventions included training for counsellors, 'Know Your Rights' information desks, outreach campaigns for most at risk populations, and adherence support. Complementary measures included post-service interviews, human rights abuse monitoring, transportation costs, legal assistance, and funding for human rights and community support organisations. Other essential non-health sector interventions were identified but not included in the costing framework. The annual costs for the human rights and community support interventions are United States (US) $63.8 million (US $1.22 per capita), representing 1.5% of total health sector HIV programme costs. Respect for human rights and community engagement can be understood both as an obligation of expanded ART programmes and as a critically important factor in their success. Basic rights-based and community support interventions constitute only a small percentage of overall programmes costs. ART programs should consider measuring the cost and impact of human rights and community support interventions as key aspects of successful programme expansion.