Challenges in Estimating the Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination Using Observational Data.

The COVID-19 vaccines were developed and rigorously evaluated in randomized trials during 2020. However, important questions, such as the magnitude and duration of protection, their effectiveness against new virus variants, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination, could not be answered by randomized trials and have therefore been addressed in observational studies. Analyses of observational data can be biased because of confounding and because of inadequate design that does not consider the evolution of the pandemic over time and the rapid uptake of vaccination. Emulating a hypothetical "target trial" using observational data assembled during vaccine rollouts can help manage such potential sources of bias. This article describes 2 approaches to target trial emulation. In the sequential approach, on each day, eligible persons who have not yet been vaccinated are matched to a vaccinated person. The single-trial approach sets a single baseline at the start of the rollout and considers vaccination as a time-varying variable. The nature of the confounding depends on the analysis strategy: Estimating "per-protocol" effects (accounting for vaccination of initially unvaccinated persons after baseline) may require adjustment for both baseline and "time-varying" confounders. These issues are illustrated by using observational data from 2 780 931 persons in the United Kingdom aged 70 years or older to estimate the effect of a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Addressing the issues discussed in this article should help authors of observational studies provide robust evidence to guide clinical and policy decisions.

Target Trial Emulation: A Framework for Causal Inference From Observational Data.

This Guide to Statistics and Methods describes the use of target trial emulation to design an observational study so it preserves the advantages of a randomized clinical trial, points out the limitations of the method, and provides an example of its use.

Comparative effectiveness of BNT162b2 versus mRNA-1273 covid-19 vaccine boosting in England: matched cohort study in OpenSAFELY-TPP.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) covid-19 vaccines during the booster programme in England. DESIGN: Matched cohort study, emulating a comparative effectiveness trial. SETTING: Linked primary care, hospital, and covid-19 surveillance records available within the OpenSAFELY-TPP research platform, covering a period when the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variants were dominant. PARTICIPANTS: 3 237 918 adults who received a booster dose of either vaccine between 29 October 2021 and 25 February 2022 as part of the national booster programme in England and who received a primary course of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. INTERVENTION: Vaccination with either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 as a booster vaccine dose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recorded SARS-CoV-2 positive test, covid-19 related hospital admission, covid-19 related death, and non-covid-19 related death at 20 weeks after receipt of the booster dose. RESULTS: 1 618 959 people were matched in each vaccine group, contributing a total 64 546 391 person weeks of follow-up. The 20 week risks per 1000 for a positive SARS-CoV-2 test were 164.2 (95% confidence interval 163.3 to 165.1) for BNT162b2 and 159.9 (159.0 to 160.8) for mRNA-1273; the hazard ratio comparing mRNA-1273 with BNT162b2 was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.95 to 0.96). The 20 week risks per 1000 for hospital admission with covid-19 were 0.75 (0.71 to 0.79) for BNT162b2 and 0.65 (0.61 to 0.69) for mRNA-1273; the hazard ratio was 0.89 (0.82 to 0.95). Covid-19 related deaths were rare: the 20 week risks per 1000 were 0.028 (0.021 to 0.037) for BNT162b2 and 0.024 (0.018 to 0.033) for mRNA-1273; hazard ratio 0.83 (0.58 to 1.19). Comparative effectiveness was generally similar within subgroups defined by the primary course vaccine brand, age, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and clinical vulnerability. Relative benefit was similar when vaccines were compared separately in the delta and omicron variant eras. CONCLUSIONS: This matched observational study of adults estimated a modest benefit of booster vaccination with mRNA-1273 compared with BNT162b2 in preventing positive SARS-CoV-2 tests and hospital admission with covid-19 20 weeks after vaccination, during a period of delta followed by omicron variant dominance.

Drug Repurposing and Observational Studies: The Case of Antivirals for the Treatment of COVID-19.

Remdesivir and molnupiravir were the only 2 repurposed antivirals that were approved for emergency use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Both drugs received their emergency use authorization on the basis of a single industry-funded phase 3 trial, which was launched after evidence of in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2. In contrast, for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), little in vitro evidence was generated, no randomized trials for early treatment were done, and the drug was not considered for authorization. Yet, by the summer of 2020, observational evidence suggested a substantially lower risk for severe COVID-19 in TDF users compared with nonusers. The decision-making process for the launching of randomized trials for these 3 drugs is reviewed. Observational data in favor of TDF was systematically dismissed, even though no viable alternative explanations were proposed for the lower risk for severe COVID-19 among TDF users. Lessons learned from the TDF example during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic are described, and the use of observational clinical data to guide decisions about the launch of randomized trials during the next public health emergency is proposed. The goal is that gatekeepers of randomized trials make better use of the available observational evidence for the repurposing of drugs without commercial value.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection During the First and Second Pandemic Waves in Spain: the ENE-COVID Study.

Objectives. To describe participant characteristics associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in Spain's first 2 COVID-19 waves per the Spanish National Seroepidemiological Survey of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (ENE-COVID). Methods. A representative cohort of the noninstitutionalized Spanish population, selected through stratified 2-stage sampling, answered a questionnaire and received point-of-care testing April to June 2020 (first wave: n = 68 287); previously seronegative participants repeated the questionnaire and test November 2020 (second wave: n = 44 451). We estimated seropositivity by wave and participant characteristics, accounting for sampling weights, nonresponse, and design effects. Results. We found that 6.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.7%, 6.4%) of Spain's population was infected by June and 3.8% (95% CI = 3.5%, 4.1%) more by November 2020. Both genders were equally affected. Seroprevalence decreased with age in adults 20 years and older in the second wave; socioeconomic differences increased. Health care workers were affected at 11.1% (95% CI = 9.0%, 13.6%) and 6.1% (95% CI = 4.4%, 8.5%) in the first and second waves, respectively. Living with an infected person increased infection risk to 22.1% (95% CI = 18.9%, 25.6%) in the first and 35.0% (95% CI = 30.8%, 39.4%) in the second wave. Conclusions. ENE-COVID characterized the first 2 pandemic waves, when information from surveillance systems was incomplete. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(5):533-544. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307233).

Design and Implementation of a Nationwide Population-Based Longitudinal Survey of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Spain: The ENE-COVID Study.

Data System. The Spanish National Seroepidemiological Survey of SARS-CoV-2 (or ENE-COVID; SARS-CoV-2 [severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2] is the causative agent of COVID-19) was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Health, the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, and the Spanish National Health System. Data Collection/Processing. A stratified 2-stage probability sampling was used to select a representative cohort of the noninstitutionalized population of Spain. ENE-COVID collected longitudinal data from epidemiological questionnaires and 2 SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody tests. From April 27 to June 22, 2020, 68 287 participants (77.0% of contacted persons) received a point-of-care test and 61 095 (68.9%) also underwent a laboratory immunoassay. A second follow-up phase was conducted between November 16 and 30, 2020. Data Analysis/Dissemination. Analyses use weights to adjust for oversampling and nonresponse and account for design effects of stratification and clustering. ENE-COVID data for research purposes will be available upon request from the official study Web page. Public Health Implications. ENE-COVID, a nationwide population-based study, allowed monitoring seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 at the national and regional levels, providing accurate figures by gender, age (from babies to nonagenarians), and selected risk factors; characterizing symptomatic and asymptomatic infections; and estimating the infection fatality risk during the first pandemic wave. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(5):525-532. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307167).

Daily tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine and hydroxychloroquine for pre-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19: a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial in healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) as pre-exposure prophylaxis on COVID-19 risk. METHODS: EPICOS is a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted in Spain, Bolivia, and Venezuela. Healthcare workers with negative SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG test were randomly assigned to the following: daily TDF/FTC plus HCQ for 12 weeks, TDF/FTC plus HCQ placebo, HCQ plus TDF/FTC placebo, and TDF/FTC placebo plus HCQ placebo. Randomization was performed in groups of four. Primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19. We also studied any (symptomatic or asymptomatic) COVID-19. We compared group-specific 14-week risks via differences and ratios with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of 1002 individuals screened, 926 (92.4%) were eligible and there were 14 cases of symptomatic COVID-19: 220 were assigned to the TDF/FTC plus HCQ group (3 cases), 231 to the TDF/FTC placebo plus HCQ group (3 cases), 233 to the TDF/FTC plus HCQ placebo group (3 cases), and 223 to the double placebo group (5 cases). Compared with the double placebo group, 14-week risk ratios (95% CI) of symptomatic COVID-19 were 0.39 (0.00-1.98) for TDF + HCQ, 0.34 (0.00-2.06) for TDF, and 0.49 (0.00-2.29) for HCQ. Corresponding risk ratios of any COVID-19 were 0.51 (0.21-1.00) for TDF + HCQ, 0.81 (0.44-1.49) for TDF, and 0.73 (0.41-1.38) for HCQ. Adverse events were generally mild. DISCUSSION: The target sample size was not met. Our findings are compatible with both benefit and harm of pre-exposure prophylaxis with TDF/FTC and HCQ, alone or in combination, compared with placebo.

Effectiveness of a second dose of an mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection in individuals previously infected by other variants.

BACKGROUND: Single-dose vaccination was widely recommended in the pre-Omicron era for persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The effectiveness of a second vaccine dose in this group in the Omicron era is unknown. METHODS: We linked nationwide population registries in Spain to identify community-dwelling individuals aged 18-64, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test before single-dose mRNA vaccination (mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2). Every day between January 3 and February 6, 2022 we matched 1:1 individuals receiving a second mRNA vaccine-dose and controls on sex, age, province, first dose type and time, month of primary infection and number of previous tests. We then estimated Kaplan-Meier risks of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. We performed a similar analysis in a Delta-dominant period, between July 19 and November 30, 2021. RESULTS: In the Omicron period, estimated effectiveness (95% confidence interval) of a second dose was 62.2% (58.2, 66.4) 7 to 34 days after administration, similar across groups defined by age, sex, type of first vaccine and time since the first dose. Estimated effectiveness was 65.4% (61.1, 69.9) for mRNA-1273 and 52.0% (41.8, 63.1) for BNT162b2. Estimated effectiveness was 78.5% (67.4, 89.9), 66.1% (54.9, 77.5), and 60.2% (55.5, 64.8) when primary infection had occurred in the Delta, Alpha, and pre-Alpha periods, respectively. In the Delta period, the estimated effectiveness of a second dose was 8.8% (-55.3, 81.1). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that, over a month after administration, a second dose of mRNA vaccine increases protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection with the Omicron variant among individuals with single-dose vaccination and previously infected with another variant.

Emulating a Target Trial of Interventions Initiated During Pregnancy with Healthcare Databases: The Example of COVID-19 Vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies are often the only option to estimate effects of interventions during pregnancy. Causal inference from observational data can be conceptualized as an attempt to emulate a hypothetical pragmatic randomized trial: the target trial. OBJECTIVE: To provide a step-by-step description of how to use healthcare databases to estimate the effects of interventions initiated during pregnancy. As an example, we describe how to specify and emulate a target trial of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, but the framework can be generally applied to point and sustained strategies involving both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions. METHODS: First, we specify the protocol of a target trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of vaccination during pregnancy. Second, we describe how to use observational data to emulate each component of the protocol of the target trial. We propose different target trials for different gestational periods because the outcomes of interest vary by gestational age at exposure. We identify challenges that affect (i) the target trial and thus its observational emulation (censoring and competing events), and (ii) mostly the observational emulation (confounding, immortal time, and measurement biases). CONCLUSION: Some biases may be unavoidable in observational emulations, but others are avoidable. For instance, immortal time bias can be avoided by aligning the start of follow-up with the gestational age at the time of the intervention, as we would do in the target trial. Explicitly emulating target trials at different gestational ages can help reduce bias and improve the interpretability of effect estimates for interventions during pregnancy.

Comparative effectiveness of third doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines in US veterans.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has been effective in reducing the burden of severe disease and death from COVID-19. Third doses of mRNA-based vaccines have provided a way to address waning immunity and broaden protection against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. However, their comparative effectiveness for a range of COVID-19 outcomes across diverse populations is unknown. We emulated a target trial using electronic health records of US veterans who received a third dose of either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccines between 20 October 2021 and 8 February 2022, during a period that included Delta- and Omicron-variant waves. Eligible veterans had previously completed an mRNA vaccine primary series. We matched recipients of each vaccine in a 1:1 ratio according to recorded risk factors. Each vaccine group included 65,196 persons. The excess number of events over 16 weeks per 10,000 persons for BNT162b2 compared with mRNA-1273 was 45.4 (95% CI: 19.4, 84.7) for documented infection, 3.7 (2.2, 14.1) for symptomatic COVID-19, 10.6 (5.1, 19.7) for COVID-19 hospitalization, 2.0 (-3.1, 6.3) for COVID-19 intensive care unit admission and 0.2 (-2.2, 4.0) for COVID-19 death. After emulating a second target trial of veterans who received a third dose between 1 January and 1 March 2022, during a period restricted to Omicron-variant predominance, the excess number of events over 9 weeks per 10,000 persons for BNT162b2 compared with mRNA-1273 was 63.2 (95% CI: 15.2, 100.7) for documented infection. The 16-week risks of COVID-19 outcomes were low after a third dose of mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2, although risks were lower with mRNA-1273 than with BNT162b2, particularly for documented infection.

Incidence and Severity of COVID-19 in HIV-Positive Persons Receiving Antiretroviral Therapy : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among HIV-positive persons receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) have not been characterized in large populations. OBJECTIVE: To describe the incidence and severity of COVID-19 by nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) use among HIV-positive persons receiving ART. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: HIV clinics in 60 Spanish hospitals between 1 February and 15 April 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 77 590 HIV-positive persons receiving ART. MEASUREMENTS: Estimated risks (cumulative incidences) per 10 000 persons and 95% CIs for polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death. Risk and 95% CIs for COVID-19 diagnosis and hospital admission by use of the NRTIs tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC), tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/FTC, abacavir (ABC)/lamivudine (3TC), and others were estimated through Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 77 590 HIV-positive persons receiving ART, 236 were diagnosed with COVID-19, 151 were hospitalized, 15 were admitted to the ICU, and 20 died. The risks for COVID-19 diagnosis and hospitalization were greater in men and persons older than 70 years. The risk for COVID-19 hospitalization was 20.3 (95% CI, 15.2 to 26.7) among patients receiving TAF/FTC, 10.5 (CI, 5.6 to 17.9) among those receiving TDF/FTC, 23.4 (CI, 17.2 to 31.1) among those receiving ABC/3TC, and 20.0 (CI, 14.2 to 27.3) for those receiving other regimens. The corresponding risks for COVID-19 diagnosis were 39.1 (CI, 31.8 to 47.6), 16.9 (CI, 10.5 to 25.9), 28.3 (CI, 21.5 to 36.7), and 29.7 (CI, 22.6 to 38.4), respectively. No patient receiving TDF/FTC was admitted to the ICU or died. LIMITATION: Residual confounding by comorbid conditions cannot be completely excluded. CONCLUSION: HIV-positive patients receiving TDF/FTC have a lower risk for COVID-19 and related hospitalization than those receiving other therapies. These findings warrant further investigation in HIV preexposure prophylaxis studies and randomized trials in persons without HIV. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Instituto de Salud Carlos III and National Institutes of Health.

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 in people with HIV infection.

BACKGROUND: Effective, safe, and affordable antivirals are needed for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Several lines of research suggest that tenofovir may be effective against COVID-19, but no large-scale human studies with appropriate adjustment for comorbidities have been conducted. METHODS: We studied HIV-positive individuals on antiretroviral therapy (ART) in 2020 at 69 HIV clinics in Spain. We collected data on sociodemographics, ART, CD4+ cell count, HIV-RNA viral-load, comorbidities and the following outcomes: laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, COVID-19 hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death. We compared the 48-week risks for individuals receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC), tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/FTC, abacavir (ABC)/lamivudine (3TC), and other regimes. All estimates were adjusted for clinical and sociodemographic characteristics via inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: Of 51 558 eligible individuals, 39.6% were on TAF/FTC, 11.9% on TDF/FTC, 26.6% on ABC/3TC, 21.8% on other regimes. There were 2402 documented SARS-CoV-2 infections (425 hospitalizations, 45 ICU admissions, 37 deaths). Compared with TAF/FTC, the estimated risk ratios (RR) (95% confidence interval) of hospitalization were 0.66 (0.43, 0.91) for TDF/FTC and 1.29 (1.02, 1.58) for ABC/3TC, the RRs of ICU admission were 0.28 (0.11, 0.90) for TDF/FTC and 1.39 (0.70, 2.80) for ABC/3TC, and the RRs of death were 0.37 (0.23, 1.90) for TDF/FTC and 2.02 (0.88-6.12) for ABC/3TC. The corresponding RRs of hospitalization for TDF/FTC were 0.49 (0.24, 0.81) in individuals ≥50 years and 1.15 (0.59, 1.93) in younger individuals. DISCUSSION: Compared with other antiretrovirals, TDF/FTC lowers COVID-19 severity among HIV-positive individuals with virological control. This protective effect may be restricted to individuals aged 50 years and older.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Spain (ENE-COVID): a nationwide, population-based seroepidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Spain is one of the European countries most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Serological surveys are a valuable tool to assess the extent of the epidemic, given the existence of asymptomatic cases and little access to diagnostic tests. This nationwide population-based study aims to estimate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Spain at national and regional level. METHODS: 35 883 households were selected from municipal rolls using two-stage random sampling stratified by province and municipality size, with all residents invited to participate. From April 27 to May 11, 2020, 61 075 participants (75·1% of all contacted individuals within selected households) answered a questionnaire on history of symptoms compatible with COVID-19 and risk factors, received a point-of-care antibody test, and, if agreed, donated a blood sample for additional testing with a chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay. Prevalences of IgG antibodies were adjusted using sampling weights and post-stratification to allow for differences in non-response rates based on age group, sex, and census-tract income. Using results for both tests, we calculated a seroprevalence range maximising either specificity (positive for both tests) or sensitivity (positive for either test). FINDINGS: Seroprevalence was 5·0% (95% CI 4·7-5·4) by the point-of-care test and 4·6% (4·3-5·0) by immunoassay, with a specificity-sensitivity range of 3·7% (3·3-4·0; both tests positive) to 6·2% (5·8-6·6; either test positive), with no differences by sex and lower seroprevalence in children younger than 10 years (<3·1% by the point-of-care test). There was substantial geographical variability, with higher prevalence around Madrid (>10%) and lower in coastal areas (<3%). Seroprevalence among 195 participants with positive PCR more than 14 days before the study visit ranged from 87·6% (81·1-92·1; both tests positive) to 91·8% (86·3-95·3; either test positive). In 7273 individuals with anosmia or at least three symptoms, seroprevalence ranged from 15·3% (13·8-16·8) to 19·3% (17·7-21·0). Around a third of seropositive participants were asymptomatic, ranging from 21·9% (19·1-24·9) to 35·8% (33·1-38·5). Only 19·5% (16·3-23·2) of symptomatic participants who were seropositive by both the point-of-care test and immunoassay reported a previous PCR test. INTERPRETATION: The majority of the Spanish population is seronegative to SARS-CoV-2 infection, even in hotspot areas. Most PCR-confirmed cases have detectable antibodies, but a substantial proportion of people with symptoms compatible with COVID-19 did not have a PCR test and at least a third of infections determined by serology were asymptomatic. These results emphasise the need for maintaining public health measures to avoid a new epidemic wave. FUNDING: Spanish Ministry of Health, Institute of Health Carlos III, and Spanish National Health System.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment into randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for prevention of COVID-19 has been adversely affected by a widespread conviction that HCQ is not effective for prevention. In the absence of an updated systematic review, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials that study the effectiveness of HCQ to prevent COVID-19. METHODS: A search of PubMed, medRxiv, and clinicaltrials.gov combined with expert consultation found 11 completed randomized trials: 7 pre-exposure prophylaxis trials and 4 post-exposure prophylaxis trials. We obtained or calculated the risk ratio of COVID-19 diagnosis for assignment to HCQ versus no HCQ (either placebo or usual care) for each trial, and then pooled the risk ratio estimates. RESULTS: The pooled risk ratio estimate of the pre-exposure prophylaxis trials was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.58-0.90) when using either a fixed effect or a standard random effects approach, and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.55-0.95) when using a conservative modification of the Hartung-Knapp random effects approach. The corresponding estimates for the post-exposure prophylaxis trials were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.72-1.16) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.62-1.35). All trials found a similar rate of serious adverse effects in the HCQ and no HCQ groups. DISCUSSION: A benefit of HCQ as prophylaxis for COVID-19 cannot be ruled out based on the available evidence from randomized trials. However, the "not statistically significant" findings from early prophylaxis trials were widely interpreted as definite evidence of lack of effectiveness of HCQ. This interpretation disrupted the timely completion of the remaining trials and thus the generation of precise estimates for pandemic management before the development of vaccines.

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and coronavirus disease 2019 outcomes in men with HIV.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes by antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens among men with HIV. DESIGN: We included men with HIV on ART in the Veterans Aging Cohort Study who, between February 2020 and October 2021, were 18 years or older and had adequate virological control, CD4 + cell count, and HIV viral load measured in the previous 12 months, and no previous COVID-19 diagnosis or vaccination. METHODS: We compared the adjusted risks of documented severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, COVID-19-related hospitalization, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission by baseline ART regimen: tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/emtricitabine (FTC), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/FTC, abacavir (ABC)/lamivudine (3TC), and other. We fit pooled logistic regressions to estimate the 18-month risks standardized by demographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: Among 20 494 eligible individuals, the baseline characteristics were similar across regimens, except that TDF/FTC and TAF/FTC had lower prevalences of chronic kidney disease and estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min. Compared with TAF/FTC, the estimated 18-month risk ratio (95% confidence interval) of documented SARS-CoV-2 infection was 0.65 (0.43, 0.89) for TDF/FTC, 1.00 (0.85, 1.18) for ABC/3TC, and 0.87 (0.70, 1.04) for others. The corresponding risk ratios for COVID-19 hospitalization were 0.43 (0.07, 0.87), 1.09 (0.79, 1.48), and 1.21 (0.88, 1.62). The risk of COVID-19 ICU admission was lowest for TDF/FTC, but the estimates were imprecise. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that, in men living with HIV, TDF/FTC may protect against COVID-19-related events. Randomized trials are needed to investigate the effectiveness of TDF as prophylaxis for, and early treatment of, COVID-19 in the general population.

Thromboprophylaxis with standard-dose vs. flexible-dose heparin for hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a target trial emulation.

OBJECTIVES: To compare mortality of hospitalized COVID-19 patients under two low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) thromboprophylaxis strategies: standard dose and variable dose (standard dose increased to intermediate dose in the presence of laboratory abnormalities indicating an increased thrombosis risk). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Target trial emulation using observational data from 2,613 adults admitted with a COVID-19 diagnosis in Madrid, Spain between March 16 and April 15, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 1,284 patients were eligible. Among 503 patients without increased baseline thrombotic risk, 28-day mortality risk (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 9.0% (6.6, 11.7) under the standard dose strategy and 5.6% (3.3, 8.3) under the variable dose strategy; risk difference 3.4% (95% CI: -0.24, 6.9); mortality hazard ratio 1.61 (95% CI: 0.97, 2.89). Among 781 patients with increased baseline thrombotic risk, the 28-day mortality risk was 25.8% (22.7, 29.0) under the standard dose strategy and 18.1% (9.3, 28.9) under the intermediate dose strategy; risk difference 7.7% (95% CI: -3.5, 17.2); mortality hazard ratio 1.45 (95% CI: 0.81, 3.17). Major bleeding and LMWH-induced coagulopathy were rare under all strategies. CONCLUSION: Escalating anticoagulation intensity after signs of thrombosis risk may increase the survival of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, effect estimates were imprecise and additional studies are warranted.

Waning effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 covid-19 vaccines over six months since second dose: OpenSAFELY cohort study using linked electronic health records.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate waning of covid-19 vaccine effectiveness over six months after second dose. DESIGN: Cohort study, approved by NHS England. SETTING: Linked primary care, hospital, and covid-19 records within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database. PARTICIPANTS: Adults without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were eligible, excluding care home residents and healthcare professionals. EXPOSURES: People who had received two doses of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 (administered during the national vaccine rollout) were compared with unvaccinated people during six consecutive comparison periods, each of four weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adjusted hazard ratios for covid-19 related hospital admission, covid-19 related death, positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and non-covid-19 related death comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated people. Waning vaccine effectiveness was quantified as ratios of adjusted hazard ratios per four week period, separately for subgroups aged ≥65 years, 18-64 years and clinically vulnerable, 40-64 years, and 18-39 years. RESULTS: 1 951 866 and 3 219 349 eligible adults received two doses of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1, respectively, and 2 422 980 remained unvaccinated. Waning of vaccine effectiveness was estimated to be similar across outcomes and vaccine brands. In the ≥65 years subgroup, ratios of adjusted hazard ratios for covid-19 related hospital admission, covid-19 related death, and positive SARS-CoV-2 test ranged from 1.19 (95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.24)to 1.34 (1.09 to 1.64) per four weeks. Despite waning vaccine effectiveness, rates of covid-19 related hospital admission and death were substantially lower among vaccinated than unvaccinated adults up to 26 weeks after the second dose, with estimated vaccine effectiveness ≥80% for BNT162b2, and ≥75% for ChAdOx1. By weeks 23-26, rates of positive SARS-CoV-2 test in vaccinated people were similar to or higher than in unvaccinated people (adjusted hazard ratios up to 1.72 (1.11 to 2.68) for BNT162b2 and 1.86 (1.79 to 1.93) for ChAdOx1). CONCLUSIONS: The rate at which estimated vaccine effectiveness waned was consistent for covid-19 related hospital admission, covid-19 related death, and positive SARS-CoV-2 test and was similar across subgroups defined by age and clinical vulnerability. If sustained to outcomes of infection with the omicron variant and to booster vaccination, these findings will facilitate scheduling of booster vaccination.

Comparative effectiveness of ChAdOx1 versus BNT162b2 covid-19 vaccines in health and social care workers in England: cohort study using OpenSAFELY.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and the ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) covid-19 vaccines against infection and covid-19 disease in health and social care workers. DESIGN: Cohort study, emulating a comparative effectiveness trial, on behalf of NHS England. SETTING: Linked primary care, hospital, and covid-19 surveillance records available within the OpenSAFELY-TPP research platform, covering a period when the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant was dominant. PARTICIPANTS: 317 341 health and social care workers vaccinated between 4 January and 28 February 2021, registered with a general practice using the TPP SystmOne clinical information system in England, and not clinically extremely vulnerable. INTERVENTIONS: Vaccination with either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 administered as part of the national covid-19 vaccine roll-out. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recorded SARS-CoV-2 positive test, or covid-19 related attendance at an accident and emergency (A&E) department or hospital admission occurring within 20 weeks of receipt of the first vaccine dose. RESULTS: Over the duration of 118 771 person-years of follow-up there were 6962 positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, 282 covid-19 related A&E attendances, and 166 covid-19 related hospital admissions. The cumulative incidence of each outcome was similar for both vaccines during the first 20 weeks after vaccination. The cumulative incidence of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection 20 weeks after first-dose vaccination with BNT162b2 was 21.7 per 1000 people (95% confidence interval 20.9 to 22.4) and with ChAdOx1 was 23.7 (21.8 to 25.6), representing a difference of 2.04 per 1000 people (0.04 to 4.04). The difference in the cumulative incidence per 1000 people of covid-19 related A&E attendance at 20 weeks was 0.06 per 1000 people (95% CI -0.31 to 0.43). For covid-19 related hospital admission, this difference was 0.11 per 1000 people (-0.22 to 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of healthcare workers where we would not anticipate vaccine type to be related to health status, we found no substantial differences in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or covid-19 disease up to 20 weeks after vaccination. Incidence dropped sharply at 3-4 weeks after vaccination, and there were few covid-19 related hospital attendance and admission events after this period. This is in line with expected onset of vaccine induced immunity and suggests strong protection against Alpha variant covid-19 disease for both vaccines in this relatively young and healthy population of healthcare workers.

Effectiveness of mRNA vaccine boosters against infection with the SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant in Spain: a nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of SARS-CoV-2 has increased capacity to elude immunity and cause breakthrough infections. The aim of this study was to estimate the effectiveness of mRNA-based vaccine boosters (third dose) against infection with the omicron variant by age, sex, time since complete vaccination, type of primary vaccine, and type of booster. METHODS: In this nationwide cohort study, we linked data from three nationwide population registries in Spain (Vaccination Registry, Laboratory Results Registry, and National Health System registry) to select community-dwelling individuals aged 40 years or older, who completed their primary vaccine schedule at least 3 months before the start of follow-up, and had not tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 since the start of the pandemic. On each day between Jan 3, and Feb 6, 2022, we matched individuals who received a booster mRNA vaccine and controls of the same sex, age group, postal code, type of vaccine, time since primary vaccination, and number of previous tests. We estimated risk of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared groups using risk ratios (RR) and risk differences. Vaccine effectiveness was calculated as one minus RR. FINDINGS: Between Jan 3, and Feb 6, 2022, 3 111 159 matched pairs were included in our study. Overall, the estimated effectiveness from day 7 to 34 after a booster was 51·3% (95% CI 50·2-52·4). Estimated effectiveness was 52·5% (51·3-53·7) for an mRNA-1273 booster and 46·2% (43·5-48·7) for a BNT162b2 booster. Effectiveness was 58·6% (55·5-61·6) if primary vaccination had been with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca), 55·3% (52·3-58·2) with mRNA-1273 (Moderna), 49·7% (48·3-51·1) with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), and 48·0% (42·5-53·7) with Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen). Estimated effectiveness was 43·6% (40·0-47·1) when the booster was administered between 151 days and 180 days after complete vaccination and 52·2% (51·0-53·3) if administered more than 180 days after primary scheduled completion. INTERPRETATION: Booster mRNA vaccine-doses were moderately effective in preventing infection with the omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 for over a month after administration, which indicates their suitability as a strategy to limit the health effects of COVID-19 in periods of omicron variant domination. Estimated effectiveness was higher for mRNA-1273 compared with BNT162b2 and increased with time between completed primary vaccination and booster. FUNDING: None.