Real-world Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Among US Nursing Home Residents Aged ≥65 Years in the Pre-Delta and High Delta Periods.

Background: Long-term care residents were among the most vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic. We estimated vaccine effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in Medicare nursing home residents aged ≥65 years during pre-Delta and high Delta periods. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study from 13 December 2020 to 20 November 2021 using Medicare claims data. Exposures included 2 and 3 doses of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. We used inverse probability weighting and Cox proportional hazards models to estimate absolute and relative vaccine effectiveness. Results: Two-dose vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related death was 69.8% (95% CI, 65.9%‒73.3%) during the pre-Delta period and 55.7% (49.5%‒61.1%) during the high Delta period, without adjusting for time since vaccination. We observed substantial waning of effectiveness from 65.1% (54.2%‒73.5%) within 6 months from second-dose vaccination to 45.2% (30.6%‒56.7%) ≥6 months after second-dose vaccination in the high Delta period. Three doses provided 88.7% (73.5%‒95.2%) vaccine effectiveness against death, and the incremental benefit of 3 vs 2 doses was 74.6% (40.4%‒89.2%) during high Delta. Among beneficiaries with a prior COVID-19 infection, 3-dose vaccine effectiveness for preventing death was 78.6% (50.0%‒90.8%), and the additional protection of 3 vs 2 doses was 70.0% (30.1%‒87.1%) during high Delta. Vaccine effectiveness estimates against less severe outcomes (eg, infection) were lower. Conclusions: This nationwide real-world study demonstrated that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines provided substantial protection against COVID-19-related death. Two-dose protection waned after 6 months. Third doses during the high Delta period provided significant additional protection for individuals with or without a prior COVID-19 infection.

The role of real-world evidence for regulatory and public health decision-making for Accelerated Vaccine Deployment- a meeting report.

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the need for rapid evidence generation to inform public health decisions beyond the limitations of conventional clinical trials. This report summarises presentations and discussions from a conference on the role of Real-World Evidence (RWE) in expediting vaccine deployment. Attended by regulatory bodies, public health entities, and industry experts, the gathering was a collaborative exchange of experiences and recommendations for leveraging RWE for vaccine deployment. RWE proved instrumental in refining decision-making processes to optimise dosing regimens, enhance guidance on target populations, and steer vaccination strategies against emerging variants. Participants felt that RWE was successfully integrated into lifecycle management, encompassing boosters and safety considerations. However, challenges emerged, prompting a call for improvements in data quality, standardisation, and availability, acknowledging the variability and potential inaccuracies in data across diverse healthcare systems. Regulatory transparency should also be prioritised to foster public trust, and improved collaborations with governments are needed to streamline data collection and navigate data privacy regulations. Moreover, building and sustaining resources, expertise, and infrastructure in LMICs emerged as imperative for RWE-generating capabilities. Continued stakeholder collaboration and securing adequate funding emerged as vital pillars for advancing the use of RWE in shaping responsive and effective public health strategies.

Autoimmune hepatitis: Brighton Collaboration case definition and guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunisation safety data.

This report introduces a Brighton Collaboration (BC) case definition for autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), which has been classified as a priority adverse event of special interest (AESI), as there were possible cases seen following COVID-19 vaccination. The case definition was developed by a group of subject matter and BC process experts to facilitate safety data comparability across pre- and post-licensure clinical trials, as well as pharmacovigilance activities in multiple settings with diverse resources and healthcare access. The usual BC case definition development process was followed in an expedited manner, and took two months to complete, including finalising the manuscript for publication, instead of the usual 1 year development time. It includes a systematic review of the literature and an expert consensus to define levels of diagnostic certainty for AIH, and provides specific guidelines for data collection and analysis. Histology, serological and biochemical tests and exclusion of alternate diagnosis were considered necessary to define the levels of certainty (definitive, probable and possible). AEFI reports of suspected AIH were independently classified by the WG members to test its useability and these classifications were used to finalise the case definition. The document underwent peer review by external AIH experts and a Reference Group of vaccine safety stakeholders in high-, low- and middle-income countries to ensure case definition useability, applicability, and scientific integrity. The expedited process can be replicated for development of other standardised case definitions for priority AESIs for endemics and epidemics. While applicable to cases reported following immunisation, the case definition is independent of lapsed time following vaccination and, as such, can also be used to determine background incidence for vaccinated and unvaccinated control groups in studies of causal association. While use of this case definition is also appropriate for the study of safety of other products including drugs, it is not meant to guide clinical case management.

Benefit-risk assessment of vaccines.

Benefit-risk assessment (BRA) is critical for decision-making throughout the vaccine life cycle. It requires scientific assessment of evidence to make an informed judgment on whether the vaccine has a favourable benefit-risk profile i.e. the benefits of the vaccine outweigh its risks for use in its intended indication. The assessment must also consider data gaps and uncertainties, using sensitivity analyses to show the impact of these uncertainties in the assessment. The BRA field has advanced considerably over the past years, including the use of structured BRA frameworks, quantitative BRA models and use of the patient experience data. Analytical tools and procedures to standardize BRA implementation have become increasingly important. A Benefit-Risk Assessment Module has been prepared to enable the planning, assessment, and communication of relevant BRA information via a structured B-R framework. The module can help facilitate the conduct and communication of defensible BRAs by vaccine developers, funders, regulators and policy makers in high, middle or low-income countries, both for regulatory submissions and in public health responses to infectious diseases, including for epidemics.

The Brighton collaboration standardized module for vaccine benefit-risk assessment.

Vaccine Benefit-Risk (B-R) assessment consists of evaluating the benefits and risks of a vaccine and making a judgment whether the expected key benefits outweigh the potential key risks associated with its expected use. B-R supports regulatory and public health decision-making throughout the vaccine's lifecycle. In August 2021, the Brighton Collaboration's Benefit-Risk Assessment of VAccines by TechnolOgy (BRAVATO) Benefit-Risk Assessment Module working group was established to develop a standard module to support the planning, conduct and evaluation of structured B-R assessments for vaccines from different platforms, based on data from clinical trials, post-marketing studies and real-world evidence. It enables sharing of relevant information via value trees, effects tables and graphical depictions of B-R trade-offs. It is intended to support vaccine developers, funders, regulators and policy makers in high-, middle- or low-income countries to help inform decision-making and facilitate transparent communication concerning development, licensure, deployment and other lifecycle decisions.

Risk of Severe COVID-19 in Prevalent Users of Alpha-1 Adrenergic Receptor Antagonists: A National Case-Control Study of Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Alpha-1 adrenergic receptor antagonists prevent cytokine storm in mouse sepsis models. This led to the hypothesis that alpha-1 blockers may prevent severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is characterized by hypercytokinemia and progressive respiratory failure. METHODS: We performed an observational case-control study in male Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, with or without benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and treated with alpha-1 receptor blockers or 5-alpha reductase inhibitors. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated for outcomes of uncomplicated and severe COVID-19 hospitalization (intensive care unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death). RESULTS: There were 20,963 cases of hospitalized COVID-19 matched to 101,161 controls on calendar date and neighborhood of residence. In the primary analysis (males with BPH), there was no difference in risk of uncomplicated COVID-19 hospitalization (aOR 1.08, 95% CI 0.996-1.17) or hospitalization with severe complications (aOR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88-1.08). In the secondary analysis (males with or without BPH), the corresponding aORs were 1.02 (95% CI, 0.96-1.09) (uncomplicated) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.91-1.07) (complicated), respectively. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. Of note, there was no difference in risk of severe COVID-19 hospitalization when comparing non-selective vs selective alpha-1 blocker use (aOR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86-1.10), higher- vs lower-dose alpha-1 blocker use (aOR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86-1.08), or current vs remote alpha-1 blocker use (aOR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: Prevalent use of alpha-1 receptor blockers was not associated with a protective or harmful effect on risk of uncomplicated or severe hospitalized COVID-19.

Anosmia: Brighton Collaboration case definition and guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data.

This is a Brighton Collaboration case definition of anosmia to be used in the evaluation of adverse events following immunization, and for epidemiologic studies for the assessment of background incidence or hypothesis testing. The case definition was developed by a group of experts convened by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) in the context of active development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. The case definition format of the Brighton Collaboration was followed to develop a consensus definition and defined levels of certainty, after an exhaustive review of the literature and expert consultation. The document underwent peer review by the Brighton Collaboration Network and by two expert reviewers prior to submission.

Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron and Delta variants in a matched test-negative case-control study among US veterans.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness of messenger RNA (mRNA) booster doses during the period of Delta and Omicron variant dominance. DESIGN: We conducted a matched test-negative case-control study to estimate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of three and two doses of mRNA vaccines against infection (regardless of symptoms) and against COVID-19-related hospitalisation and death. SETTING: Veterans Health Administration. PARTICIPANTS: We used electronic health record data from 114 640 veterans who had a SARS-CoV-2 test during November 2021-January 2022. Patients were largely 65 years or older (52%), male (88%) and non-Hispanic white (59%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: First positive result for a SARS-CoV-2 PCR or antigen test. RESULTS: Against infection, booster doses had higher estimated VE (64%, 95% CI 63 to 65) than two-dose vaccination (12%, 95% CI 10 to 15) during the Omicron period. For the Delta period, the VE against infection was 90% (95% CI 88 to 92) among boosted vaccinees, higher than the VE among two-dose vaccinees (54%, 95% CI 50 to 57). Against hospitalisation, booster dose VE was 89% (95% CI 88 to 91) during Omicron and 94% (95% CI 90 to 96) during Delta; two-dose VE was 63% (95% CI 58 to 67) during Omicron and 75% (95% CI 69 to 80) during Delta. Against death, the VE with a booster dose was 94% (95% CI 90 to 96) during Omicron and 96% (95% CI 87 to 99) during Delta. CONCLUSIONS: Among an older, mostly male, population with comorbidities, we found that an mRNA vaccine booster was highly effective against infection, hospitalisation and death. Although the effectiveness of booster vaccination against infection was moderately higher against Delta than against the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant, effectiveness against severe disease and death was similarly high against both variants.

Relative effectiveness of booster vs. 2-dose mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in the Veterans Health Administration: Self-controlled risk interval analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate relative effectiveness of the booster mRNA Covid-19 vaccination versus the 2-dose primary series for both Delta and Omicron variants with self-controlled study design. METHODS: We used the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse to identify U.S. Veterans who received the 2-dose primary mRNA Covid-19 vaccine series and a mRNA Covid-19 booster, and who had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test during the Delta (9/23/2021-11/30/2021) or Omicron (1/1/22-3/19/22) predominant period. Among them, we conducted a self-controlled risk interval (SCRI) analysis to compare odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection during a booster exposure interval versus a control interval. Exposures were a control interval (days 4-6 post-booster vaccination, presumably prior to gain of booster immunity), and booster exposure interval (days 14-16 post-booster vaccination, presumably following gain of booster immunity). Cases had a positive PCR or antigen SARS-CoV-2 test. Separately for Delta and Omicron periods, we used conditional logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (OR) of a positive test for the booster versus control interval and calculated relative effectiveness of booster versus 2-dose primary series as (1-OR)*100. The SCRI approach implicitly controlled for time-fixed confounders. RESULTS: We found 42 individuals with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test in the control interval and 14 in the booster exposure interval during the Delta period, and 141 and 70, respectively, in the Omicron period. For the booster versus 2-dose primary series, the odds of infection were 70% (95 %CI: 42%, 84%) lower during the Delta period and 54% (95 %CI: 38%, 66%) lower during Omicron. In sensitivity analyses among those with prior Covid-19 history, and age stratification, ORs were similar to the main analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Booster vaccination was more effective relative to a 2-dose primary series during the Delta and Omicron predominant periods, and the relative effectiveness was consistent across age groups.

Risk Factors for COVID-19 Deaths Among Elderly Nursing Home Medicare Beneficiaries in the Prevaccine Period.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated prevaccine pandemic period COVID-19 death risk factors among nursing home (NH) residents. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study covering Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged ≥65 years residing in US NHs, we estimated adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) using multivariate Cox proportional hazards regressions. RESULTS: Among 608251 elderly NH residents, 57398 (9.4%) died of COVID-19-related illness 1 April to 22 December 2020; 46.9% (26893) of these deaths occurred without prior COVID-19 hospitalizations. We observed a consistently increasing age trend for COVID-19 deaths. Racial/ethnic minorities shared similarly high risk of NH COVID-19 deaths with whites. NH facility characteristics for-profit ownership and low health inspection ratings were associated with higher death risk. Resident characteristics (male [HR, 1.69], end-stage renal disease [HR, 1.42], cognitive impairment [HR, 1.34], and immunocompromised status [HR, 1.20]) were death risk factors. Other individual-level characteristics were less predictive of death than in community-dwelling population. CONCLUSIONS: Low NH health inspection ratings and private ownership contributed to COVID-19 death risks. Nearly half of NH COVID-19 deaths occurred without prior COVID-19 hospitalization and older residents were less likely to get hospitalized with COVID-19. No substantial differences were observed by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status for NH COVID-19 deaths.

Coverage and Estimated Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Among US Veterans.

Importance: Effectiveness of mRNA vaccinations in a diverse older population with high comorbidity is unknown. Objectives: To describe the scope of the COVID-19 vaccination rollout among US veterans, and to estimate mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) as measured by rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This matched test-negative case-control study was conducted using SARS-CoV-2 test results at Veterans Health Administration sites from December 14, 2020, to March 14, 2021. Vaccine coverage was estimated for all veterans. VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospitalization and death were estimated using electronic health records from veterans who routinely sought care at a VHA facility and had a test result positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cases) or negative for SARS-CoV-2 (controls). Cases and controls were matched on time of test and geographic region. Data were analyzed from May to July 2021. Exposures: Vaccination status, defined as unvaccinated, partially vaccinated (≥14 days after first dose until second dose), or fully vaccinated (≥14 days after second dose), at time of test. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome of interest was a positive result for SARS-CoV-2 on a polymerase chain reaction or antigen test. Secondary outcomes included COVID-19-related hospitalization and death, defined by discharge data and proximity of event to positive test result. VE was estimated from odds ratios for SARS-CoV-2 infection with 95% CIs. Results: Among 6 647 733 veterans included (3 350 373 veterans [50%] aged ≥65 years; 6 014 798 [90%] men and 632 935 [10%] women; 461 645 Hispanic veterans of any race [7%], 1 102 471 non-Hispanic Black veterans [17%], and 4 361 621 non-Hispanic White veterans [66%]), 1 363 180 (21%) received at least 1 COVID-19 vaccination by March 7, 2021. In this period, during which the share of SARS-CoV-2 variants Alpha, Epsilon, and Iota had started to increase in the US, estimates of COVID-19 VE against infection, regardless of symptoms, was 95% (95% CI, 93%-96%) for full vaccination and 64% (95% CI, 59%-68%) for partial vaccination. Estimated VE against COVID-19-related hospitalization for full vaccination was 91% (95% CI 83%-95%); there were no deaths among veterans who were fully vaccinated. VE against infection was similar across subpopulations (non-Hispanic Black, 94% [95% CI, 88%-97%]; Hispanic [any race], 83% [95% CI, 45%-95%]; non-Hispanic White, 92% [95% CI 88%-94%]; rural, 94% [95% CI, 89%-96%]; urban, 93% 95% CI, 89%-95%]). Conclusions and Relevance: For veterans of all racial and ethnic subgroups living in urban or rural areas, mRNA vaccination was associated with substantially decreased risk of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization, with no deaths among fully vaccinated veterans.

Risk of Covid-19-Related Hospitalization and More Severe Outcomes in Medicare Beneficiaries Treated with Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors for Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: There are theoretical concerns that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) could increase the risk of severe Covid-19. OBJECTIVE: To determine if ACEIs and ARBs are associated with an increased risk of Covid-19 hospitalization overall, or hospitalization involving intensive care unit (ICU) admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death. DESIGN: Observational case-control study. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 66 years with hypertension, treated with ACEIs, ARBs, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), or thiazide diuretics. MAIN MEASURES: Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the outcomes of Covid-19 hospitalization, or hospitalization involving ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death. RESULTS: A total of 35,300 cases of hospitalized Covid-19 were matched to 228,228 controls on calendar date and neighborhood of residence. The median age of cases was 79 years, 57.4% were female, and the median duration of hospitalization was 8 days (interquartile range 5-12). ACEIs and ARBs were associated with a slight reduction in Covid-19 hospitalization risk compared with treatment with other first-line antihypertensives (OR for ACEIs 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.98; OR for ARBs 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.97). Similar results were obtained for hospitalizations involving ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death. There were no meaningful differences in risk for ACEIs compared with ARBs. In an analysis restricted to monotherapy with a first-line agent, CCBs were associated with a small increased risk of Covid-19 hospitalization compared with ACEIs (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.04-1.14), ARBs (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.15), or thiazide diuretics (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: ACEIs and ARBs were not associated with an increased risk of Covid-19 hospitalization or with hospitalization involving ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death. The finding of a small increased risk of Covid-19 hospitalization with CCBs was unexpected and could be due to residual confounding.

Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (Shingrix): Real-World Effectiveness in the First 2 Years Post-Licensure.

BACKGROUND: Shingrix (recombinant zoster vaccine) was licensed to prevent herpes zoster, dispensed as 2 doses given 2-6 months apart among adults aged ≥50 years. Clinical trials yielded efficacy of >90% for confirmed herpes zoster, but post-market performance has not been evaluated. Efficacy of a single dose and a delayed second dose and efficacy among persons with autoimmune or immunosuppressive conditions have not been studied. We aimed to assess post-market vaccine effectiveness of Shingrix. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study among Medicare Part D community-dwelling beneficiaries aged >65 years. Herpes zoster was identified using a medical office visit diagnosis with treatment, and postherpetic neuralgia was identified using a validated algorithm. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to improve cohort balance and marginal structural models to estimate hazard ratios. RESULTS: We found a vaccine effectiveness of 70.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.6-71.5) and 56.9% (95% CI, 55.0-58.8) for 2 and 1 doses, respectively. The 2-dose vaccine effectiveness was not significantly lower for beneficiaries aged >80 years, for second doses received at ≥180 days, or for individuals with autoimmune conditions. The vaccine was also effective among individuals with immunosuppressive conditions. Two-dose vaccine effectiveness against postherpetic neuralgia was 76.0% (95% CI, 68.4-81.8). CONCLUSIONS: This large real-world observational study of the effectiveness of Shingrix demonstrates the benefit of completing the 2-dose regimen. Second doses administered beyond the recommended 6 months did not impair effectiveness. Our effectiveness estimates were lower than the clinical trials estimates, likely due to differences in outcome specificity.

Comparative Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccines Among US Medicare Beneficiaries Ages 65 Years and Older During the 2019-2020 Season.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 50 000 influenza-associated deaths occur annually in the United States, overwhelmingly among individuals aged ≥65 years. Although vaccination is the primary prevention tool, investigations have shown low vaccine effectiveness (VE) in recent years, particularly among the elderly. We analyzed the relative VE (RVE) of all influenza vaccines among Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years to prevent influenza hospital encounters during the 2019-2020 season. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using Poisson regression and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Exposures included egg-based high-dose trivalent (HD-IIV3), egg-based adjuvanted trivalent (aIIV3), egg-based standard dose (SD) quadrivalent (IIV4), cell-based SD quadrivalent (cIIV4), and recombinant quadrivalent (RIV4) influenza vaccines. RESULTS: We studied 12.7 million vaccinated beneficiaries. Following IPTW, cohorts were well balanced for all covariates and health-seeking behavior indicators. In the adjusted analysis, RIV4 (RVE, 13.3%; 95% CI, 7.4-18.9%), aIIV3 (RVE, 8.2%; 95% CI, 4.2-12.0%), and HD-IIV3 (RVE, 6.8%; 95% CI, 3.3-10.1%) were significantly more effective in preventing hospital encounters than the reference egg-based SD IIV4, while cIIV4 was not significantly more effective than IIV4 (RVE, 2.8%; 95% CI, -2.8%, 8.2%). Our results were consistent across all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this influenza B-Victoria and A(H1N1)-dominated season, RIV4 was moderately more effective than other vaccines, while HD-IIV3 and aIIV3 were more effective than the IIV4 vaccines, highlighting the contributions of antigen amount and adjuvant use to VE. Egg adaptation likely did not substantially affect our RVE evaluation. Our findings, specific to the 2019-2020 season, should be evaluated in other studies using virological case confirmation.

Natural History of Coronavirus Disease 2019: Risk Factors for Hospitalizations and Deaths Among >26 Million US Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: The current study was performed to evaluate risk factors for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries during the pandemic's early phase. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study covering Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, we separated out elderly residents in nursing homes (NHs) and those with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) from the primary study population of individuals age ≥65 years. Outcomes included COVID-19 hospital encounters and COVID-19-associated deaths. We estimated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) using logistic regression. RESULTS: We analyzed 25 333 329 elderly non-NH beneficiaries without ESRD, 653 966 elderly NH residents, and 292 302 patients with ESRD. COVID-related death rates (per 10 000) were much higher among elderly NH residents (275.7) and patients with ESRD (60.8) than in the primary study population (5.0). Regression-adjusted clinical predictors of death among the primary population included immunocompromised status (OR, 1.43), frailty index conditions such as cognitive impairment (3.16), and other comorbid conditions, including congestive heart failure (1.30). Demographic-related risk factors included male sex (OR, 1.77), older age (3.09 for 80- vs 65-year-olds), Medicaid dual-eligibility status (2.17), and racial/ethnic minority. Compared with whites, ORs were higher for blacks (2.47), Hispanics (3.11), and Native Americans (5.82). Results for COVID-19 hospital encounters were consistent. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty, comorbid conditions, and race/ethnicity were strong risk factors for COVID-19 hospitalization and death among the US elderly.

Relative Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccines Among the United States Elderly, 2018-2019.

BACKGROUND: Studies among individuals ages ≥65 years have found a moderately higher relative vaccine effectiveness (RVE) for the high-dose (HD) influenza vaccine compared with standard-dose (SD) products for most seasons. Studies during the A(H3N2)-dominated 2017-2018 season showed slightly higher RVE for the cell-cultured vaccine compared with SD egg-based vaccines. We investigated the RVE of influenza vaccines among Medicare beneficiaries ages ≥65 years during the 2018-2019 season. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using inverse probability of treatment weighting and Poisson regression to evaluate RVE in preventing influenza hospital encounters. RESULTS: Among 12 777 214 beneficiaries, the egg-based adjuvanted (RVE, 7.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9%-11.4%) and HD (RVE, 4.9%; 95% CI, 1.7%-8.1%) vaccines were marginally more effective than the egg-based quadrivalent vaccines. The cell-cultured quadrivalent vaccine was not significantly more effective than the egg-based quadrivalent vaccine (RVE, 2.5%; 95% CI, -2.4% to 7.3%). CONCLUSIONS: We did not find major effectiveness differences between licensed vaccines used among the elderly during the 2018-2019 season. Consistent with prior research, we found that the egg-based adjuvanted and HD vaccines were slightly more effective than the egg-based quadrivalent vaccines.

Surveillance for Guillain-Barré syndrome after 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 influenza vaccination of Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a serious acute demyelinating disease, an increased risk of which was found after the 1976 swine flu vaccinations. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in collaboration with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, has been conducting active surveillance for GBS after influenza vaccinations of Medicare Fee-For-Service beneficiaries since 2009. METHODS: We conducted active surveillance for GBS claims in the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 influenza seasons using the Updating Sequential Probability Ratio Test (USPRT) to monitor for signals of GBS risk. We performed self-controlled risk interval (SCRI) analyses at the end of both seasons, including chart confirmation in the 2015-2016 season, to estimate the odds ratio of GBS risk. We used 1-42 and 8-21 days post-vaccination as primary and secondary risk windows, respectively, and 43-84 days post-vaccination as the control window. RESULTS: Over 13 million beneficiaries were vaccinated in each season. USPRT found a low magnitude signal for GBS in both seasons. SCRI analyses did not find excess GBS risk following any influenza vaccine for days 1-42 post-vaccination in either season. In the 2015-2016 season, for the 8-21 day window, our chart-confirmation showed an attributable GBS risk of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.16, 1.49) and 1.68 (95% CI: 0.69, 2.41) cases per million vaccinees after all seasonal and high dose (HD) vaccines, respectively, an elevated GBS risk for beneficiaries aged ≥75 years following all seasonal vaccines (OR: 2.25; 95% CI: 1.15, 4.39) and HD vaccine (OR: 3.67, 95% CI: 1.52, 8.85), and an elevated GBS risk for males who received seasonal vaccines (OR: 2.18; 95% CI: 1.15, 4.15) and HD vaccine (OR: 3.33; 95% CI: 1.35, 8.20). The finding of elevated GBS risk with advancing age and in males is consistent with literature; however, a distinction between HD and SD was a new finding. In the 2016-17 season, for the 8-21 day window, attributed cases showed an attributable GBS risk of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.03, 1.61) and 1.11 (95% CI: 0.00, 2.01) cases per million vaccinees after all seasonal and HD vaccines, respectively. We found no excess GBS risk for standard dose vaccines in the 8-21 day window in either season. CONCLUSIONS: Our primary analysis finding of no excess GBS risk during both seasons was reassuring. The slightly elevated GBS risk, although in the expected range, in the 8-21 day window after all seasonal and high dose vaccines, but not after standard dose vaccines is hypothesis-generating because the difference may be due to vaccine factors such as antigen amount or strains in various seasons or due to host factors.