Matched vs Nonmatched Placebos in a Randomized Trial of COVID-19 Treatments.

Importance: Matched placebo interventions are complex and resource intensive. Recent evidence suggests matched placebos may not always be necessary. Previous studies have predominantly evaluated potential bias of nonmatched placebos (ie, differing on dose, frequency of administration, or formulation) in pain and mental health, but to date no systematic examination has been conducted in infectious disease. Objective: To test for differences between nonmatched and matched placebo arms with respect to clinical outcome measures across multiple therapeutics for COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a comparative effectiveness research study, a post hoc analysis was conducted of data on individual patients enrolled in a large, multiarm, platform randomized clinical trial in symptomatic adult outpatients with COVID-19 between January 15, 2021, to September 28, 2023, in which the outcomes of both matched and nonmatched placebo groups were reported. Bayesian and frequentist covariate-adjusted techniques were compared with 7 intervention-placebo pairs. Exposures: Seven matched and nonmatched placebo pairs (for a total of 7 comparisons) were evaluated throughout the primary platform trial. Comparisons were made between treatment and its associated matched (concurrent) placebo, as well as with nonmatched placebo (alone and in combination) assessed at a similar time point. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes assessed included hospitalizations, EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-level scores, and PROMIS Global-10 scores. Results: A total of 7 intervention-control pairs (N = 2684) were assessed, including 1620 (60.4%) women, with mean (SD) age, 47 (15.2) years; the most common comorbidities were obesity (41.9%) and hypertension (37.9%). In a meta-analysis with decoupled SEs, accounting for overlapping placebo patients, the overall odds ratio (OR) of nonmatched compared with matched placebo was 1.01 (95% credible interval, 0.77-1.32), with posterior probability of equivalence, defined as 0.8 ≤ OR ≤ 1.2 (a deviation from perfect equivalence ie, OR = 1, by no more than 0.2) of 85.4%, implying no significant difference. Unadjusted analysis of the event rate difference between all nonmatched and matched placebo groups did not identify any notable differences across all 7 treatment-placebo combinations assessed. Similar analysis that was conducted for patient-reported quality of life outcomes did not yield statistically significant differences. Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc study of a randomized clinical platform trial, pooling matched and nonmatched placebo patient data did not lead to inconsistencies in treatment effect estimation for any of the investigational drugs. These findings may have significant implications for future platform trials, as the use of nonmatched placebo may improve statistical power, or reduce barriers to placebo implementation.

Comparative effectiveness of second line oral antidiabetic treatments among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: emulation of a target trial using routinely collected health data.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of three commonly prescribed oral antidiabetic drugs added to metformin for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus requiring second line treatment in routine clinical practice. DESIGN: Cohort study emulating a comparative effectiveness trial (target trial). SETTING: Linked primary care, hospital, and death data in England, 2015-21. PARTICIPANTS: 75 739 adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who initiated second line oral antidiabetic treatment with a sulfonylurea, DPP-4 inhibitor, or SGLT-2 inhibitor added to metformin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was absolute change in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between baseline and one year follow-up. Secondary outcomes were change in body mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at one year and two years, change in HbA1c at two years, and time to ≥40% decline in eGFR, major adverse kidney event, hospital admission for heart failure, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and all cause mortality. Instrumental variable analysis was used to reduce the risk of confounding due to unobserved baseline measures. RESULTS: 75 739 people initiated second line oral antidiabetic treatment with sulfonylureas (n=25 693, 33.9%), DPP-4 inhibitors (n=34 464 ,45.5%), or SGLT-2 inhibitors (n=15 582, 20.6%). SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than DPP-4 inhibitors or sulfonylureas in reducing mean HbA1c values between baseline and one year. After the instrumental variable analysis, the mean differences in HbA1c change between baseline and one year were -2.5 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.7 to -1.3) for SGLT-2 inhibitors versus sulfonylureas and -3.2 mmol/mol (-4.6 to -1.8) for SGLT-2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors. SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than sulfonylureas or DPP-4 inhibitors in reducing BMI and systolic blood pressure. For some secondary endpoints, evidence for SGLT-2 inhibitors being more effective was lacking-the hazard ratio for MACE, for example, was 0.99 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.62) versus sulfonylureas and 0.91 (0.51 to 1.63) versus DPP-4 inhibitors. SGLT-2 inhibitors had reduced hazards of hospital admission for heart failure compared with DPP-4 inhibitors (0.32, 0.12 to 0.90) and sulfonylureas (0.46, 0.20 to 1.05). The hazard ratio for a ≥40% decline in eGFR indicated a protective effect versus sulfonylureas (0.42, 0.22 to 0.82), with high uncertainty in the estimated hazard ratio versus DPP-4 inhibitors (0.64, 0.29 to 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: This emulation study of a target trial found that SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than sulfonylureas or DPP-4 inhibitors in lowering mean HbA1c, BMI, and systolic blood pressure and in reducing the hazards of hospital admission for heart failure (v DPP-4 inhibitors) and kidney disease progression (v sulfonylureas), with no evidence of differences in other clinical endpoints.

Assessing the performance of physician's prescribing preference as an instrumental variable in comparative effectiveness research with moderate and small sample sizes: a simulation study.

Aim: This simulation study is to assess the utility of physician's prescribing preference (PPP) as an instrumental variable for moderate and smaller sample sizes. Materials & methods: We designed a simulation study to imitate a comparative effectiveness research under different sample sizes. We compare the performance of instrumental variable (IV) and non-IV approaches using two-stage least squares (2SLS) and ordinary least squares (OLS) methods, respectively. Further, we test the performance of different forms of proxies for PPP as an IV. Results: The percent bias of 2SLS is around approximately 20%, while the percent bias of OLS is close to 60%. The sample size is not associated with the level of bias for the PPP IV approach. Conclusion: Irrespective of sample size, the PPP IV approach leads to less biased estimates of treatment effectiveness than OLS adjusting for known confounding only. Particularly for smaller sample sizes, we recommend constructing PPP from long prescribing histories to improve statistical power.

Augmenting external control arms using Bayesian borrowing: a case study in first-line non-small cell lung cancer.

Aim: This study aimed to improve comparative effectiveness estimates and discuss challenges encountered through the application of Bayesian borrowing (BB) methods to augment an external control arm (ECA) constructed from real-world data (RWD) using historical clinical trial data in first-line non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials & methods: An ECA for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in first-line NSCLC was constructed using ConcertAI Patient360™ to assess chemotherapy with or without cetuximab, in the bevacizumab-inappropriate subpopulation. Cardinality matching was used to match patient characteristics between the treatment arm (cetuximab + chemotherapy) and ECA. Overall survival (OS) was assessed as the primary outcome using Cox proportional hazards (PH). BB was conducted using a static power prior under a Weibull PH parameterization with borrowing weights from 0.0 to 1.0 and augmentation of the ECA from a historical control trial. Results: The constructed ECA yielded a higher overall survival (OS) hazard ratio (HR) (HR = 1.53; 95% CI: 1.21-1.93) than observed in the matched population of the RCT (HR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.73-1.13). The OS HR decreased through the incorporation of BB (HR = 1.30; 95% CI: 1.08-1.54, borrowing weight = 1.0). BB was applied to augment the RCT control arm via a historical control which improved the precision of the observed HR estimate (1.03; 95% CI: 0.86-1.22, borrowing weight = 1.0), in comparison to the matched population of the RCT alone. Conclusion: In this study, the RWD ECA was unable to successfully replicate the OS estimates from the matched population of the selected RCT. The inability to replicate could be due to unmeasured confounding and variations in time-periods, follow-up and subsequent therapy. Despite these findings, we demonstrate how BB can improve precision of comparative effectiveness estimates, potentially aid as a bias assessment tool and mitigate challenges of traditional methods when appropriate external data sources are available.

A protocol for stakeholder engagement in deliver-EE: A pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial evaluating effects of meal delivery on the ability of homebound older adults to remain in the community.

BACKGROUND: Few clinical trials include a detailed protocol for stakeholder engagement in the design and execution of the clinical trial. Deliver-EE is a pragmatic clinical trial to assess how different types of home-delivered meals can affect older adults' health and well-being. We present the protocol for stakeholder engagement in this national, multi-site trial and initial findings from our efforts. METHODS: Twenty-nine participants were recruited to two stakeholder advisory panels. The "Lived Experience Perspectives" panel is defined as the clients, caregivers, and meal delivery drivers with first-hand knowledge and lived experiences with meal delivery. The "System Perspectives" panel is defined as representatives from the larger financial, clinical, regulatory, and operational environments in which meal delivery to homebound older adults operate. Together, these two groups holistically represent interested parties that coordinate the interdependent elements of meal delivery to homebound older adults in order to: 1) inform our understanding of what matters most to older adults, their families, and the larger health and social care systems; 2) provide strategies to overcome challenges conducting the study; 3) enhance dissemination and uptake of study findings; and 4) identify opportunities for future research. RESULTS: Although stakeholder partners share a common goal of using home-delivered meals as a method to improve outcomes for homebound older adults, individuals have different goals for participating as advisors in this research. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding what individual stakeholders hope to gain from their participation is critical in designing an effective engagement protocol and critical for meaningful and rigorous stakeholder engagement in clinical trials.

What is the ideal time to begin tapering opioid agonist treatment? A protocol for a retrospective population-based comparative effectiveness study in British Columbia, Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) tapering involves a gradual reduction in daily medication dose to ultimately reach a state of opioid abstinence. Due to the high risk of relapse and overdose after tapering, this practice is not recommended by clinical guidelines, however, clients may still request to taper off medication. The ideal time to initiate an OAT taper is not known. However, ethically, taper plans should acknowledge clients' preferences and autonomy but apply principles of shared informed decision-making regarding safety and efficacy. Linked population-level data capturing real-world tapering practices provide a valuable opportunity to improve existing evidence on when to contemplate starting an OAT taper. Our objective is to determine the comparative effectiveness of alternative times from OAT initiation at which a taper can be initiated, with a primary outcome of taper completion, as observed in clinical practice in British Columbia (BC), Canada. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We propose a population-level retrospective observational study with a linkage of eight provincial health administrative databases in BC, Canada (01 January 2010 to 17 March 2020). Our primary outcomes include taper completion and all-cause mortality during treatment. We propose a 'per-protocol' target trial to compare different durations to taper initiation on the likelihood of taper completion. A range of sensitivity analyses will be used to assess the heterogeneity and robustness of the results including assessment of effectiveness and safety. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol, cohort creation and analysis plan have been classified and approved as a quality improvement initiative by Providence Health Care Research Ethics Board and the Simon Fraser University Office of Research Ethics. Results will be disseminated to local advocacy groups and decision-makers, national and international clinical guideline developers, presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals electronically and in print.

An Integrated Care Pathway for depression in adolescents: protocol for a Type 1 Hybrid Effectiveness-implementation, Non-randomized, Cluster Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Our group developed an Integrated Care Pathway to facilitate the delivery of evidence-based care for adolescents experiencing depression called CARIBOU-2 (Care for Adolescents who Receive Information 'Bout OUtcomes, 2nd iteration). The core pathway components are assessment, psychoeducation, psychotherapy options, medication options, caregiver support, measurement-based care team reviews and graduation. We aim to test the clinical and implementation effectiveness of the CARIBOU-2 pathway relative to treatment-as-usual (TAU) in community mental health settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use a Type 1 Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation, Non-randomized Cluster Controlled Trial Design. Primary participants will be adolescents (planned n = 300, aged 13-18 years) with depressive symptoms, presenting to one of six community mental health agencies. All sites will begin in the TAU condition and transition to the CARIBOU-2 intervention after enrolling 25 adolescents. The primary clinical outcome is the rate of change of depressive symptoms from baseline to the 24-week endpoint using the Childhood Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R). Generalized mixed effects modelling will be conducted to compare this outcome between intervention types. Our primary hypothesis is that there will be a greater rate of reduction in depressive symptoms in the group receiving the CARIBOU-2 intervention relative to TAU over 24 weeks as per the CDRS-R. Implementation outcomes will also be examined, including clinician fidelity to the pathway and its components, and cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics board approvals have been obtained. Should our results support our hypotheses, systematic implementation of the CARIBOU-2 intervention in other community mental health agencies would be indicated.

R WE ready for reimbursement? A round up of developments in real-world evidence relating to health technology assessment: part 15.

In this latest update we discuss real-world evidence (RWE) guidance from the leading oncology professional societies, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology, and the PRINCIPLED practical guide on the design and analysis of causal RWE studies.

Healthy food delivery for type 2 diabetes management in rural clinics' patients: A comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Rural populations experience a higher prevalence of both food insecurity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) than metropolitan populations and face many challenges in accessing resources essential to optimal T2DM self-management. This study aims to address these challenges by delivering a T2DM-appropriate food box and recipes directly to rural participants' homes. METHODS: This is a comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trial including 400 English- or Spanish-speaking rural adult participants with T2DM (HbA1c ≥6.5%) experiencing food insecurity. Participants are randomly assigned to a 3-month Healthy Food Delivery Intervention (HFDI) plus one 60-min virtual consultation with a diabetes educator or consultation only. The HFDI includes a weekly food box delivery with recipes. Data are collected at pre-intervention, 3-months (post-intervention), 9-months, and 15-months. The primary outcome is change in HbA1c, with secondary measures including diet quality (Healthy Eating Index-2015, calculated from one 24-h dietary recall at each data collection time point), cardio-metabolic risk factors (i.e., blood pressure, lipids, body mass index, glucose), and patient-centered outcomes (e.g., T2DM self-efficacy, T2DM-related distress). Process evaluation data (e.g., successful food box deliveries, diabetes educator consultation attendance, intervention satisfaction) are collected during and post-intervention (3-months). A cost-effectiveness analysis based on traditional cost per quality-adjusted life year gain thresholds will be conducted to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness between HFDI plus consultation and consultation alone. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study will provide evidence regarding the effectiveness of an intervention that promotes participant adherence and improves access to healthy food. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04876053.

Effectiveness of Colonoscopy Screening vs Sigmoidoscopy Screening in Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Randomized clinical screening trials have shown that sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has largely replaced sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening, but long-term results from randomized trials on colonoscopy screening are still lacking. Objective: To estimate the additional screening benefit of colonoscopy compared with sigmoidoscopy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness simulation study pooled data on 358 204 men and women randomly assigned to sigmoidoscopy screening or usual care in 4 randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials conducted in Norway, Italy, the US, and UK with inclusion periods in the years 1993 to 2001. The primary analysis of the study was conducted from January 19 to December 30, 2021. Intervention: Invitation to endoscopic screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality. Using pooled 15-year follow-up data, colonoscopy screening effectiveness was estimated assuming that the efficacy of colonoscopy in the proximal colon was similar to that observed in the distal colon in the sigmoidoscopy screening trials. The simulation model was validated using data from Norwegian participants in a colonoscopy screening trial. Results: This analysis included 358 204 individuals (181 971 women [51%]) aged 55 to 64 years at inclusion with a median follow-up time ranging from 15 to 17 years. Compared with usual care, colonoscopy prevented an estimated 50 (95% CI, 42-58) CRC cases per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 30% incidence reduction (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.75]), and prevented an estimated 15 (95% CI, 11-19) CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 32% mortality reduction (rate ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61-0.76]). The additional benefit of colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy was 12 (95% CI, 10-14) fewer CRC cases and 4 (95% CI, 3-5) fewer CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to percentage point reductions of 6.9 (95% CI, 6.0-7.9) for CRC incidence and 7.6 (95% CI, 5.7-9.6) for CRC mortality. The number needed to switch from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy screening was 560 (95% CI, 486-661) to prevent 1 CRC case and 1611 (95% CI, 1275-2188) to prevent 1 CRC death. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this comparative effectiveness study assessing long-term follow-up after CRC screening suggest that there was an additional preventive effect on CRC incidence and mortality associated with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening, but the additional preventive effect was less than what was achieved by introducing sigmoidoscopy screening where no screening existed. The results probably represent the upper limit of what may be achieved with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening.

Introduction to target trial emulation in rehabilitation: a systematic approach to emulate a randomized controlled trial using observational data.

Rehabilitation providers and policymakers need valid evidence to make informed decisions about the healthcare needs of the population. Whenever possible, these decisions should be informed by randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, there are circumstances when evidence needs to be generated rapidly, or when RCTs are not ethical or feasible. These situations apply to studying the effects of complex interventions, including rehabilitation as defined by Cochrane Rehabilitation. Therefore, we explore using the target trial emulation framework by Hernán and colleagues to obtain valid estimates of the causal effects of rehabilitation when RCTs cannot be conducted. Target trial emulation is a framework guiding the design and analysis of non-randomized comparative effectiveness studies using observational data, by emulating a hypothetical RCT. In the context of rehabilitation, we outline steps for applying the target trial emulation framework using real world data, highlighting methodological considerations, limitations, potential mitigating strategies, and causal inference and counterfactual theory as foundational principles to estimating causal effects. Overall, we aim to strengthen methodological approaches used to estimate causal effects of rehabilitation when RCTs cannot be conducted.

Distinguishing Clinical From Statistical Significances in Contemporary Comparative Effectiveness Research.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of clinical significance reporting in contemporary comparative effectiveness research (CER). BACKGROUND: In CER, a statistically significant difference between study groups may or may not be clinically significant. Misinterpreting statistically significant results could lead to inappropriate recommendations that increase health care costs and treatment toxicity. METHODS: CER studies from 2022 issues of the Annals of Surgery , Journal of the American Medical Association , Journal of Clinical Oncology , Journal of Surgical Research , and Journal of the American College of Surgeons were systematically reviewed by 2 different investigators. The primary outcome of interest was whether the authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in the "Methods." RESULTS: Of 307 reviewed studies, 162 were clinical trials and 145 were observational studies. Authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in 26 studies (8.5%). Clinical significance was defined using clinically validated standards in 25 studies and subjectively in 1 study. Seven studies (2.3%) recommended a change in clinical decision-making, all with primary outcomes achieving statistical significance. Five (71.4%) of these studies did not have clinical significance defined in their methods. In randomized controlled trials with statistically significant results, sample size was inversely correlated with effect size ( r = -0.30, P = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary CER, most authors do not specify what they consider to be a clinically significant difference in study outcome. Most studies recommending a change in clinical decision-making did so based on statistical significance alone, and clinical significance was usually defined with clinically validated standards.

Does Early Mobilization Following Resection of Spinal Intra-Dural Pathology Increase the Risk of Cerebrospinal Fluid Leaks?-A Dual-Center Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Background and Objectives: Prolonged bed rest after the resection of spinal intradural tumors is postulated to mitigate the development of cerebrospinal fluid leaks (CSFLs), which is one of the feared postoperative complications. Nonetheless, the empirical evidence supporting this conjecture remains limited and requires further investigation. The goal of the study was to investigate whether prolonged bed rest lowers the risk of CSFL after the resection of spinal intradural tumors. The primary outcome was the rate of CSFL in each cohort. Materials and Methods: To validate this hypothesis, we conducted a comparative effectiveness research (CER) study at two distinct academic neurosurgical centers, wherein diverse postoperative treatment protocols were employed. Specifically, one center adopted a prolonged bed rest regimen lasting for three days, while the other implemented early postoperative mobilization. For statistical analysis, case-control matching was performed. Results: Out of an overall 451 cases, we matched 101 patients from each center. We analyzed clinical records and images from each case. In the bed rest center, two patients developed a CSFL (n = 2, 1.98%) compared to four patients (n = 4, 3.96%) in the early mobilization center (p = 0.683). Accordingly, CSFL development was not associated with early mobilization (OR 2.041, 95% CI 0.365-11.403; p = 0.416). Univariate and multivariate analysis identified expansion duraplasty as an independent risk factor for CSFL (OR 60.33, 95% CI: 0.015-0.447; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In this CER, we demonstrate that early mobilization following the resection of spinal intradural tumors does not confer an increased risk of the development of CSFL.

Emotional Distress Predicts Reduced Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Adherence in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE).

OBJECTIVE: We examined longitudinal associations between emotional distress (specifically, depressive symptoms and diabetes distress) and medication adherence in Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE), a large randomized controlled trial comparing four glucose-lowering medications added to metformin in adults with relatively recent-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Emotional Distress Substudy assessed medication adherence, depressive symptoms, and diabetes distress in 1,739 GRADE participants via self-completed questionnaires administered biannually up to 3 years. We examined baseline depressive symptoms and diabetes distress as predictors of medication adherence over 36 months. Bidirectional visit-to-visit relationships were also examined. Treatment satisfaction, beliefs about medication, diabetes care self-efficacy, and perceived control over diabetes were evaluated as mediators of longitudinal associations. RESULTS: At baseline, mean ± SD age of participants (56% of whom were White, 17% Hispanic/Latino, 18% Black, and 66% male) was 58.0 ± 10.2 years, diabetes duration 4.2 ± 2.8 years, HbA1c 7.5% ± 0.5%, and medication adherence 89.9% ± 11.1%. Higher baseline depressive symptoms and diabetes distress were independently associated with lower adherence over 36 months (P < 0.001). Higher depressive symptoms and diabetes distress at one visit predicted lower adherence at the subsequent 6-month visit (P < 0.0001) but not vice versa. Treatment assignment did not moderate relationships. Patient-reported concerns about diabetes medications mediated the largest percentage (11.9%-15.5%) of the longitudinal link between emotional distress and adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive symptoms and diabetes distress both predict lower adherence to glucose-lowering medications over time among adults with T2DM. Addressing emotional distress and concerns about anticipated negative effects of taking these treatments may be important to support diabetes treatment adherence.

Does Emotional Distress Predict Worse Glycemic Control Over Time? Results From the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether baseline levels of depressive symptoms and diabetes-specific distress are associated with glycemic control in Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE), a large randomized controlled trial comparing the metabolic effects of four common glucose-lowering medications when combined with metformin in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The primary and secondary outcomes were defined as an HbA1c value ≥7%, subsequently confirmed, and an HbA1c value >7.5%, subsequently confirmed, respectively. Separate Cox proportional hazards models assessed the association between baseline levels of each exposure of interest (depressive symptoms measured with the eight-item Patient Health Questionnaire and diabetes distress measured with the Diabetes Distress Scale) and the subsequent risk of metabolic outcomes. RESULTS: This substudy included 1,739 participants (56% of whom were non-Hispanic White, 18% non-Hispanic Black, 17% Hispanic, and 68% male; mean [SD] age 58.0 [10.2] years, diabetes duration 4.2 [2.8] years, and HbA1c 7.5% [0.48%]). A total of 1,157 participants reached the primary outcome, with time to event of 2.1 years on average, while 738 participants reached the secondary outcome at 3 years on average. With adjustment for sex, race/ethnicity, treatment group, baseline age, duration of T2DM, BMI, and HbA1c, there were no significant associations between the depressive symptoms or diabetes distress and the subsequent risk of the primary or secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings suggest that, at least for individuals with diabetes of relatively short duration, baseline levels of emotional distress are not associated with glycemic control over time.

Real-World Effectiveness of BNT162b2 Against Infection and Severe Diseases in Children and Adolescents.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of the BNT162b2 vaccine in pediatrics was assessed by randomized trials before the Omicron variant's emergence. The long-term durability of vaccine protection in this population during the Omicron period remains limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of BNT162b2 in preventing infection and severe diseases with various strains of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in previously uninfected children and adolescents. DESIGN: Comparative effectiveness research accounting for underreported vaccination in 3 study cohorts: adolescents (12 to 20 years) during the Delta phase and children (5 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 20 years) during the Omicron phase. SETTING: A national collaboration of pediatric health systems (PEDSnet). PARTICIPANTS: 77 392 adolescents (45 007 vaccinated) during the Delta phase and 111 539 children (50 398 vaccinated) and 56 080 adolescents (21 180 vaccinated) during the Omicron phase. INTERVENTION: First dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine versus no receipt of COVID-19 vaccine. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes of interest include documented infection, COVID-19 illness severity, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), and cardiac complications. The effectiveness was reported as (1-relative risk)*100, with confounders balanced via propensity score stratification. RESULTS: During the Delta period, the estimated effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine was 98.4% (95% CI, 98.1% to 98.7%) against documented infection among adolescents, with no statistically significant waning after receipt of the first dose. An analysis of cardiac complications did not suggest a statistically significant difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. During the Omicron period, the effectiveness against documented infection among children was estimated to be 74.3% (CI, 72.2% to 76.2%). Higher levels of effectiveness were seen against moderate or severe COVID-19 (75.5% [CI, 69.0% to 81.0%]) and ICU admission with COVID-19 (84.9% [CI, 64.8% to 93.5%]). Among adolescents, the effectiveness against documented Omicron infection was 85.5% (CI, 83.8% to 87.1%), with 84.8% (CI, 77.3% to 89.9%) against moderate or severe COVID-19, and 91.5% (CI, 69.5% to 97.6%) against ICU admission with COVID-19. The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine against the Omicron variant declined 4 months after the first dose and then stabilized. The analysis showed a lower risk for cardiac complications in the vaccinated group during the Omicron variant period. LIMITATION: Observational study design and potentially undocumented infection. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that BNT162b2 was effective for various COVID-19-related outcomes in children and adolescents during the Delta and Omicron periods, and there is some evidence of waning effectiveness over time. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.