Effectiveness of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine among U.S. Health Care Personnel.

BACKGROUND: The prioritization of U.S. health care personnel for early receipt of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), allowed for the evaluation of the effectiveness of these new vaccines in a real-world setting. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative case-control study involving health care personnel across 25 U.S. states. Cases were defined on the basis of a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen-based test for SARS-CoV-2 and at least one Covid-19-like symptom. Controls were defined on the basis of a negative PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms, and were matched to cases according to the week of the test date and site. Using conditional logistic regression with adjustment for age, race and ethnic group, underlying conditions, and exposures to persons with Covid-19, we estimated vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination (assessed 14 days after receipt of the first dose through 6 days after receipt of the second dose) and complete vaccination (assessed ≥7 days after receipt of the second dose). RESULTS: The study included 1482 case participants and 3449 control participants. Vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination was 77.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.9 to 82.7) with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 88.9% (95% CI, 78.7 to 94.2) with the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna); for complete vaccination, vaccine effectiveness was 88.8% (95% CI, 84.6 to 91.8) and 96.3% (95% CI, 91.3 to 98.4), respectively. Vaccine effectiveness was similar in subgroups defined according to age (<50 years or ≥50 years), race and ethnic group, presence of underlying conditions, and level of patient contact. Estimates of vaccine effectiveness were lower during weeks 9 through 14 than during weeks 3 through 8 after receipt of the second dose, but confidence intervals overlapped widely. CONCLUSIONS: The BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were highly effective under real-world conditions in preventing symptomatic Covid-19 in health care personnel, including those at risk for severe Covid-19 and those in racial and ethnic groups that have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).

Monocyte anisocytosis increases during multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children with cardiovascular complications.

BACKGROUND: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a life-threatening complication that can develop weeks to months after an initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. A complex, time-consuming laboratory evaluation is currently required to distinguish MIS-C from other illnesses. New assays are urgently needed early in the evaluation process to expedite MIS-C workup and initiate treatment when appropriate. This study aimed to measure the performance of a monocyte anisocytosis index, obtained on routine complete blood count (CBC), to rapidly identify subjects with MIS-C at risk for cardiac complications. METHODS: We measured monocyte anisocytosis, quantified by monocyte distribution width (MDW), in blood samples collected from children who sought medical care in a single medical center from April 2020 to October 2020 (discovery cohort). After identifying an effective MDW threshold associated with MIS-C, we tested the utility of MDW as a tier 1 assay for MIS-C at multiple institutions from October 2020 to October 2021 (validation cohort). The main outcome was the early screening of MIS-C, with a focus on children with MIS-C who displayed cardiac complications. The screening accuracy of MDW was compared to tier 1 routine laboratory tests recommended for evaluating a child for MIS-C. RESULTS: We enrolled 765 children and collected 846 blood samples for analysis. In the discovery cohort, monocyte anisocytosis, quantified as an MDW threshold of 24.0, had 100% sensitivity (95% CI 78-100%) and 80% specificity (95% CI 69-88%) for identifying MIS-C. In the validation cohort, an initial MDW greater than 24.0 maintained a 100% sensitivity (95% CI 80-100%) and monocyte anisocytosis displayed a diagnostic accuracy greater that other clinically available hematologic parameters. Monocyte anisocytosis decreased with disease resolution to values equivalent to those of healthy controls. CONCLUSIONS: Monocyte anisocytosis detected by CBC early in the clinical workup improves the identification of children with MIS-C with cardiac complications, thereby creating opportunities for improving current practice guidelines.

Interim Estimates of Vaccine Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 Vaccines Among Health Care Personnel - 33 U.S. Sites, January-March 2021.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, health care personnel (HCP) have been at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, through patient interactions and community exposure (1). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended prioritization of HCP for COVID-19 vaccination to maintain provision of critical services and reduce spread of infection in health care settings (2). Early distribution of two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) to HCP allowed assessment of the effectiveness of these vaccines in a real-world setting. A test-negative case-control study is underway to evaluate mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic illness among HCP at 33 U.S. sites across 25 U.S. states. Interim analyses indicated that the VE of a single dose (measured 14 days after the first dose through 6 days after the second dose) was 82% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 74%-87%), adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and underlying medical conditions. The adjusted VE of 2 doses (measured ≥7 days after the second dose) was 94% (95% CI = 87%-97%). VE of partial (1-dose) and complete (2-dose) vaccination in this population is comparable to that reported from clinical trials and recent observational studies, supporting the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic disease in adults, with strong 2-dose protection.

Emergency Medicine Physician Attitudes toward Anticoagulant Initiation for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Guidelines for the primary prevention of stroke recognize the emergency department as a location for physicians to identify atrial fibrillation and to initiate oral anticoagulants. Numerous studies have shown low anticoagulant prescription rates-approximately 18%-in OAC-naïve patients with atrial fibrillation discharged from the emergency department. We sought to obtain the opinions of Emergency Medicine physicians regarding anticoagulant decision-making for patients with atrial fibrillation seen in the emergency department. METHODS: 14-item paper surveys were distributed to emergency department physicians within a single hospital system. The survey consisted of single-, multi- answer and open-ended questions regarding knowledge and usage frequency of the CHA2DS2-VASc score, knowledge of anticoagulant options and reasons for why an anticoagulant was not initiated. RESULTS: 55 emergency department physicians completed the survey (overall response rate 59%). 89% (49/55) agreed the emergency department is an important location to initiate anticoagulation depending on comorbidities. A lower proportion reported ever starting a patient in the emergency department on a new anticoagulant prescription upon discharge (55% (30/55) p <.0001). The belief that a new anticoagulant prescription is the responsibility of the PCP/ Cardiologist/ Neurologist (52%; 15/29), not wanting to be held responsible in the event of a life-threatening bleeding event (41%; 12/29), and concerns about inadequate follow-up and/or lack of insurance (24%; 7/29) were the most commonly cited reasons for not starting an appropriate patient with atrial fibrillation on an anticoagulant. CONCLUSION: Emergency Medicine physicians support initiating oral anticoagulants in the ED for patients with atrial fibrillation; however, discrepancies exist between their intentions and actual practice.

The Use of Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Atrial Fibrillation is the leading cause of embolic stroke, yet less than half of high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation are on adequate stroke prevention with oral anticoagulants. Guidelines for the primary prevention of stroke recognize the emergency department as a location for physicians to identify atrial fibrillation and initiate anticoagulants. We sought to compare anticoagulant prescription rates in patients with atrial fibrillation in various provider settings to identify opportunities for improvement in cardioembolic stroke prevention. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 436 patients with atrial fibrillation presenting to the emergency department from 2014 to 2018 was performed. Baseline characteristics, stroke risk, and rates of anticoagulant prescription were compared across 3 groups: (1) patients discharged from the emergency department, (2) patients admitted under observation status, and (3) patients admitted to inpatient hospital service. RESULTS: Among 436 patients (47% women, 51% Hispanic), we identified 105 in the emergency department cohort, 131 in the observation cohort and 200 in the inpatient cohort. The average CHA2DS2-VASc score was 2.5 in the emergency department cohort, 2.6 in the observation cohort and 3.3 in the inpatient cohort. Anticoagulants were prescribed for high-risk patients (CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2) in 17.5% (7/40) of the emergency department cohort compared to 73% (38/52, P< .0001) of the observation cohort and 80% (82/103 P< .0001) of the inpatient cohort. CONCLUSION: Patients with atrial fibrillation are more likely to be prescribed anticoagulants if admitted to inpatient or under observation status compared to the emergency department.

Electronic Decision support for Improvement of Contemporary Therapy for Stroke Prevention.

BACKGROUND: Despite ample clinical trial data demonstrating that oral anticoagulation (OAC) treatment is highly effective in reducing stroke for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), OAC treatment remains underutilized in current clinical practice. Targeting hospitalist and emergency department providers with electronic decision support represents a potential quality improvement opportunity in the use of OAC medication in AF patients. METHODS: We conducted a 3-center study in which 2 sites utilized an electronic alert (EA) embedded in the electronic health record and 1 site provided usual care. The EA calculated the CHA2DS2-VASc score for clinicians. Patients were tracked following discharge from either the emergency department or hospital. We hypothesized that the EA would increase the rate of OAC use by 15% compared to usual care, with a study sample size of 360 patients. Study exclusions included severe heart valve disease, advanced renal disease, and severe dementia. The primary endpoint was OAC use at the time of hospital discharge or 30 days after hospital discharge (whichever was the last observation recorded). RESULTS: Among 309 patients included for analysis (mean age 70.2 years), the median CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.5. The frequency of OAC use at follow-up at the usual care hospital was 55.9% (95% confidence interval 47.4-67.9). At the 2 EA sites, the rate of OAC use at the last observation point was 43.9% (P = .06). Aspirin use at follow-up was similar at the usual care site and the EA sites (53.8% versus 46.3%). The rate of OAC use in patients greater than 75 years was 60.0% in the usual care site and 48.4% (P = .09) at the EA sites. CONCLUSIONS: The EA in our study was not sufficient to ameliorate therapeutic inertia in the use of OAC for stroke prevention in AF.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data from the NEOLEV1 and NEOLEV2 studies.

OBJECTIVES: To confirm that levetiracetam (LEV) demonstrates predictable pharmacokinetics(PK) at higher doses and to study the pharmacodynamics(PD) of LEV. DESIGN: Pharmacokinetic data from the NEOLEV1 and NEOLEV2 trials were analysed using a non-linear mixed effects modelling approach. A post hoc analysis of the effect of LEV on seizure burden was conducted. SETTING: Neonatal intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Term neonates with electrographically confirmed seizures. INTERVENTIONS: In NEOLEV1, neonates with seizures persisting following phenobarbital (PHB) received LEV 20 or 40 mg/kg bolus followed by 5 or 10 mg/kg maintenance dose(MD) daily. In NEOLEV2, patients received a 40 mg/kg intravenous LEV load, followed by 10 mg/kg doses 8 hourly. If seizures persisted, a further 20 mg/kg intravenous load was given. If seizures persisted, PHB was given. PK data were collected from 16 NEOLEV1 patients and 33 NEOLEV2 patients. cEEG data from 48 NEOLEV2 patients were analysed to investigate onset of action and seizure burden reduction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clearance (CL) and volume of distribution (Vd) were determined. Covariates that significantly affected LEV disposition were identified. RESULTS: Primary outcome: The median initial LEV level was 57 µg/mL (range 19-107) after the first loading dose and at least 12 µg/mL at 48 hours in all infants. CL and Vd were estimated to be 0.0538 L/hour and 0.832 L, respectively. A direct relationship between postnatal age and CL was observed. The final population pharmacokinetic(PopPK) model described the observed data well without significant biases. CL and Vd were described as CL (L/hour)=0.0538×(weight in kg/3.34)0.75×(postnatal age in days/5.5) 0.402 and Vd (L)=0.832×(weight in kg/3.34).Seizure burden reduced within 30 min of LEV administration. 28% of patients were completely seizure free after LEV. In an additional 25% of patients, seizure burden reduced by 50%. CONCLUSIONS: LEV pharmacokinetics remained predictable at higher doses. Very high-dose LEV can now be studied in neonates. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01720667.

Effectiveness of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection among U.S. Healthcare personnel, September 2022-May 2023.

BACKGROUND: Bivalent mRNA vaccines were recommended since September 2022. However, coverage with a recent vaccine dose has been limited, and there are few robust estimates of bivalent VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against COVID-19 among eligible U.S. healthcare personnel who had previously received monovalent mRNA vaccine doses. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study in 22 U.S. states, and enrolled healthcare personnel with COVID-19 (case-participants) or without COVID-19 (control-participants) during September 2022-May 2023. Participants were considered eligible for a bivalent mRNA dose if they had received 2-4 monovalent (ancestral-strain) mRNA vaccine doses, and were ≥67 days after the most recent vaccine dose. We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA dose using conditional logistic regression, accounting for matching by region and four-week calendar period. We adjusted estimates for age group, sex, race and ethnicity, educational level, underlying health conditions, community COVID-19 exposure, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and days since the last monovalent mRNA dose. RESULTS: Among 3,647 healthcare personnel, 1,528 were included as case-participants and 2,119 as control-participants. Participants received their last monovalent mRNA dose a median of 404 days previously; 1,234 (33.8%) also received a bivalent mRNA dose a median of 93 days previously. Overall, VE of a bivalent dose was 34.1% (95% CI, 22.6%-43.9%) against COVID-19 and was similar by product, days since last monovalent dose, number of prior doses, age group, and presence of underlying health conditions. However, VE declined from 54.8% (95% CI, 40.7%-65.6%) after 7-59 days to 21.6% (95% CI 5.6%-34.9%) after ≥60 days. CONCLUSIONS: Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines initially conferred approximately 55% protection against COVID-19 among U.S. healthcare personnel. However, protection waned after two months. These findings indicate moderate initial protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection by remaining up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccines.

Effectiveness of a Messenger RNA Vaccine Booster Dose Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 Among US Healthcare Personnel, October 2021-July 2022.

Background: Protection against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) can limit transmission and the risk of post-COVID conditions, and is particularly important among healthcare personnel. However, lower vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been reported since predominance of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant. Methods: We evaluated the VE of a monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) booster dose against COVID-19 from October 2021 to June 2022 among US healthcare personnel. After matching case-participants with COVID-19 to control-participants by 2-week period and site, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate the VE of a booster dose compared with completing only 2 mRNA doses >150 days previously, adjusted for multiple covariates. Results: Among 3279 case-participants and 3998 control-participants who had completed 2 mRNA doses, we estimated that the VE of a booster dose against COVID-19 declined from 86% (95% confidence interval, 81%-90%) during Delta predominance to 65% (58%-70%) during Omicron predominance. During Omicron predominance, VE declined from 73% (95% confidence interval, 67%-79%) 14-60 days after the booster dose, to 32% (4%-52%) ≥120 days after a booster dose. We found that VE was similar by age group, presence of underlying health conditions, and pregnancy status on the test date, as well as among immunocompromised participants. Conclusions: A booster dose conferred substantial protection against COVID-19 among healthcare personnel. However, VE was lower during Omicron predominance, and waning effectiveness was observed 4 months after booster dose receipt during this period. Our findings support recommendations to stay up to date on recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccines for all those eligible.

Field-deployable, rapid diagnostic testing of saliva for SARS-CoV-2.

To safely re-open economies and prevent future outbreaks, rapid, frequent, point-of-need, SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing is necessary. However, existing field-deployable COVID-19 testing methods require the use of uncomfortable swabs and trained providers in PPE, while saliva-based methods must be transported to high complexity laboratories for testing. Here, we report the development and clinical validation of High-Performance Loop-mediated isothermal Amplification (HP-LAMP), a rapid, saliva-based, SARS-CoV-2 test with a limit of detection of 1.4 copies of virus per µl of saliva and a sensitivity and specificity with clinical samples of > 96%, on par with traditional RT-PCR based methods using swabs, but can deliver results using only a single fluid transfer step and simple heat block. Testing of 120 patient samples in 40 pools comprised of 5 patient samples each with either all negative or a single positive patient sample was 100% accurate. Thus, HP-LAMP may enable rapid and accurate results in the field using saliva, without need of a high-complexity laboratory.

Levetiracetam Versus Phenobarbital for Neonatal Seizures: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are no US Food and Drug Administration-approved therapies for neonatal seizures. Phenobarbital and phenytoin frequently fail to control seizures. There are concerns about the safety of seizure medications in the developing brain. Levetiracetam has proven efficacy and an excellent safety profile in older patients; therefore, there is great interest in its use in neonates. However, randomized studies have not been performed. Our objectives were to study the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam compared with phenobarbital as a first-line treatment of neonatal seizures. METHODS: The study was a multicenter, randomized, blinded, controlled, phase IIb trial investigating the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam compared with phenobarbital as a first-line treatment for neonatal seizures of any cause. The primary outcome measure was complete seizure freedom for 24 hours, assessed by independent review of the EEGs by 2 neurophysiologists. RESULTS: Eighty percent of patients (24 of 30) randomly assigned to phenobarbital remained seizure free for 24 hours, compared with 28% of patients (15 of 53) randomly assigned to levetiracetam (P < .001; relative risk 0.35 [95% confidence interval: 0.22-0.56]; modified intention-to-treat population). A 7.5% improvement in efficacy was achieved with a dose escalation of levetiracetam from 40 to 60 mg/kg. More adverse effects were seen in subjects randomly assigned to phenobarbital (not statistically significant). CONCLUSIONS: In this phase IIb study, phenobarbital was more effective than levetiracetam for the treatment of neonatal seizures. Higher rates of adverse effects were seen with phenobarbital treatment. Higher-dose studies of levetiracetam are warranted, and definitive studies with long-term outcome measures are needed.

Assessing the Feasibility of Providing a Real-Time Response to Seizures Detected With Continuous Long-Term Neonatal Electroencephalography Monitoring.

PURPOSE: Continuous video electroencephalography (cEEG) monitoring is the recommended gold standard of care for at-risk neonates but is not available in many Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs). To conduct a randomized treatment trial of levetiracetam for the first-line treatment of neonatal seizures (the NEOLEV2 trial), we developed a monitoring infrastructure at five NICUs, implementing recent technological advancements to provide continuous video EEG monitoring and real-time response to seizure detection. Here, we report on the feasibility of providing this level of care. METHODS: Twenty-five key informant interviews were conducted with study neurologists, neonatologists, coordinators, and EEG technicians from the commercial EEG monitoring company Corticare. A general inductive approach was used to analyze these qualitative data. RESULTS: A robust infrastructure for continuous video EEG monitoring, remote review, and real-time seizure detection was established at all sites. At the time of this survey, 260 babies had been recruited and monitored for 2 to 6 days. The EEG technician review by the commercial EEG monitoring company was reassuring to families and neonatologists and led to earlier detection of seizures but did not reduce work load for neurologists. Neurologists found the automated neonatal seizure detector algorithm provided by the EEG software company Persyst useful, but the accuracy of the algorithm was not such that it could be used without review by human expert. Placement of EEG electrodes to initiate monitoring, especially after hours, remains problematic. CONCLUSIONS: Technological advancements have made it possible to provide at-risk neonates with continuous video EEG monitoring, real-time detection of and response to seizures. However, this standard of care remains unfeasible in usual clinical practice. Chief obstacles remain starting a recording and resourcing the real-time specialist review of suspect seizures.