Decision-Making about COVID-19 Vaccines among Health Care Workers and Their Adolescent Children.

Health care workers promote COVID-19 vaccination for adolescent patients, and as parents, may influence their own children to get vaccinated. We conducted virtual, semi-structured qualitative interviews with vaccinated health care workers and their adolescent children to explore their decision-making process for COVID-19 vaccination. In total, 21 health care workers (physicians, nurses, and medical staff) and their adolescent children (N = 17) participated in interviews. The following three themes described parent-adolescent decision-making for COVID-19 vaccination: (1) family anticipation and hesitation about COVID-19 vaccine approval; (2) parents' or adolescents' choice: the decision maker for adolescent COVID-19 vaccination; and (3) leveraging one's vaccination status to encourage others to get vaccinated. Nurses encouraged adolescent autonomy in decisions for COVID-19 vaccination while physicians viewed vaccination as the parent's decision. Health care workers and their adolescent children used role-modeling to motivate unvaccinated peers and may model their decision-making process for adolescent COVID-19 vaccination with their own children to support their patients' and parents' vaccine decisions.

Race/Ethnicity Differences in COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake Among Nurses.

INTRODUCTION: There is evidence for relatively lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people of color in the United States. The purpose of this study was to investigate associations between race/ethnicity and COVID-19 vaccine uptake among nurses. METHODS: Nurses in Southern California (N = 1183) completed a one-time, web-based survey to assess COVID-19 vaccine perceptions and uptake. RESULTS: In all, 82.8% of respondents (N = 979) received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Identifying as East Asian was associated with 14% higher odds of COVID-19 vaccine uptake relative to identifying as White (odds ratio [OR] = 1.14/95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.06, 1.24]); identifying as Filipino was associated with 14% higher odds of uptake (OR = 1.14/95% CI = [1.08, 1.20]); and identifying as Hispanic/Latinx was associated with 6% higher odds of uptake (OR = 1.06/95% CI = [1.00, 1.12]). DISCUSSION: Although nurses and people of color have been identified as groups with low levels of COVID-19 vaccine uptake, this study found that nurses of color received the vaccine at higher levels than their White counterparts.

Effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in preventing hospital admissions and deaths in people with COVID-19: a cohort study in a large US health-care system.

BACKGROUND: In the USA, oral nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is authorised for use in patients aged 12 years or older with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who are at risk of progression to severe disease and hospitalisation. We aimed to establish the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in preventing hospital admissions and death in people with COVID-19 in an outpatient prescribing context in the USA. METHODS: In this matched observational outpatient cohort study in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California (CA, USA) health-care system, data were extracted from electronic health records of non-hospitalised patients aged 12 years or older who received a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test result (their index test) between April 8 and Oct 7, 2022, and had not received another positive test result within the preceding 90 days. We compared outcomes between people who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and those who did not receive nirmatrelvir-ritonavir by matching cases by date, age, sex, clinical status (including care received, the presence or absence of acute COVID-19 symptoms at testing, and time from symptom onset to testing), vaccination history, comorbidities, health-care seeking during the previous year, and BMI. Our primary endpoint was the estimated effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in preventing hospital admissions or death within 30 days of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. FINDINGS: 7274 nirmatrelvir-ritonavir recipients and 126 152 non-recipients with positive SARS-CoV-2 tests were included in our study. 5472 (75·2%) treatment recipients and 84 657 (67·1%) non-recipients were tested within 5 days of symptom onset. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir had an overall estimated effectiveness of 53·6% (95% CI 6·6-77·0) in preventing hospital admission or death within 30 days of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2, which increased to 79·6% (33·9-93·8) when nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was dispensed within 5 days of symptom onset. Within the subgroup of patients tested within 5 days of symptom onset and whose treatment was dispensed on the day of their test, the estimated effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was 89·6% (50·2-97·8). INTERPRETATION: In a setting with high levels of COVID-19 vaccine uptake, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir effectively reduced the risk of hospital admission or death within 30 days of a positive outpatient SARS-CoV-2 test. FUNDING: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and US National Institutes of Health.

Association of SARS-CoV-2 BA.4/BA.5 Omicron lineages with immune escape and clinical outcome.

Expansion of the SARS-CoV-2 BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants in populations with prevalent immunity from prior infection and vaccination, and associated burden of severe COVID-19, has raised concerns about epidemiologic characteristics of these lineages including their association with immune escape or severe clinical outcomes. Here we show that BA.4/BA.5 cases in a large US healthcare system had at least 55% (95% confidence interval: 43-69%) higher adjusted odds of prior documented infection than time-matched BA.2 cases, as well as 15% (9-21%) and 38% (27-49%) higher adjusted odds of having received 3 and ≥4 COVID-19 vaccine doses, respectively. However, after adjusting for differences in epidemiologic characteristics among cases with each lineage, BA.4/BA.5 infection was not associated with differential risk of emergency department presentation, hospital admission, or intensive care unit admission following an initial outpatient diagnosis. This finding held in sensitivity analyses correcting for potential exposure misclassification resulting from unascertained prior infections. Our results demonstrate that the reduced severity associated with prior (BA.1 and BA.2) Omicron lineages, relative to the Delta variant, has persisted with BA.4/BA.5, despite the association of BA.4/BA.5 with increased risk of breakthrough infection among previously vaccinated or infected individuals.

COVID-19 vaccine concerns of health care providers and ancillary staff.

A web-based survey was widely distributed between November 1st-December 27th, 2021, to health care providers and ancillary staff to assess reported COVID-19 vaccination of their children as well as their vaccine concerns. Fewer nurses and laboratory / radiology technicians reported COVID-19 vaccination of their adolescent children and intent to vaccinate their younger children compared to physicians and pharmacists, along with more frequently reported concern about anaphylaxis and infertility. Focused efforts to update ancillary staff as well as all health care providers on emerging COVID-19 vaccine safety information for children is crucial to promote strong COVID-19 vaccine recommendations. IMPACT: Nurses, laboratory technicians and radiology technicians frequently reported concern about anaphylaxis and infertility after COVID-19 vaccination despite reassuring safety data. Education of ancillary staff with emerging safety data is important to strengthen health care provider vaccine recommendations.

Reactions following Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and related healthcare encounters among 7,077 children aged 5-11 years within an integrated healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Studies combining data from digital surveys and electronic health records (EHR) can be used to conduct comprehensive assessments on COVID-19 vaccine safety. METHODS: We conducted an observational study using data from a digital survey and EHR of children aged 5-11 years vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine across Kaiser Permanente Southern California during November 4, 2021-February 28, 2022. Parents/guardians who enrolled their children were sent a 14-day survey on reactions. Survey results were combined with EHR, and medical encounters were described for children whose parents or guardians indicated seeking medical care for vaccine-related symptoms. This study describes self-reported reactions (local and systemic) and additional symptoms (chest pain, tachycardia, and pre-syncope). RESULTS: The study recruited 7,077 participants aged 5-11 years who received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Of 6,247 participants with survey responses after dose 1, 2,176 (35 %) reported at least one systemic reaction, and 1,076 (32 %) of 3,401 respondents following dose 2 reported at least one systemic reaction. Local reactions were reported less frequently following dose 2 (1,113, 33 %) than dose 1 (3,140, 50 %). The most frequently reported reactions after dose 1 were pain at the injection site (48 %), fatigue (20 %), headache (12 %), myalgia (9 %) and fever (5 %). The most frequently reported symptoms after dose 2 were also pain at the injection site (30 %), fatigue (19 %), headache (13 %), myalgia (10 %) and fever (9 %). Post-vaccination reactions occurred most frequently-one day following vaccination. Chest pain or tachycardia were reported infrequently (1 %). EHR demonstrated that parents rarely sought care for post-vaccination symptoms, and among those seeking care, the most common symptoms documented in EHR were fever and nausea, comprising<0.5 % of children. No encounters were related to myocarditis. CONCLUSION: While post-vaccination reactions to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine were common in children aged 5-11 years, our data showed that in most cases they were transient and did not require medical care.

Adolescent Self-Consent for COVID-19 Vaccination: Views of Healthcare Workers and Their Adolescent Children on Vaccination Autonomy.

PURPOSE: This study explored the perceptions of healthcare worker parents (physicians, nurses, and staff) and their adolescents (aged 12-17 years) on adolescent self-consent to COVID-19 vaccination by applying the concept of positive deviance of those already vaccinated against COVID-19. METHODS: We used a qualitative descriptive design to conduct individual, semi-structured interviews with COVID-19-vaccinated healthcare workers in Southern California and their vaccinated adolescent children. Separate interviews were conducted with parents and adolescents from November to December 2021 using digital phone conferencing software. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Thematic and constant comparative analysis techniques were used to identify relevant themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Twenty one healthcare workers (9 nurses, one nurse practitioner, one technologist, and 10 physicians) and their adolescents (N = 17) participated. Three overarching themes were identified to describe participants' perspectives about adolescent self-consent for COVID-19 vaccination: (1) Family values and practices around adolescent vaccination; (2) Differences in parent and adolescent support for vaccine self-consent laws; and (3) Parent and adolescent uncertainty on readiness for vaccine self-consent laws. Adolescents largely supported self-consent while parents supported the policy if they would be able to have a discussion with their adolescent prior to the decision. DISCUSSION: Parents and adolescents supported adolescent self-consent for COVID-19 vaccination, with the reservation that adolescents should discuss the decision alongside their parents to exercise their medical autonomy with supportive guidance. Greater adolescent involvement in making decisions and providing self-consent for healthcare, including vaccines, could prepare adolescents to have a greater sense of autonomy over their health and contribute to population health measures.

Health Care Utilization in the 6 Months Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Importance: After SARS-CoV-2 infection, many patients present with persistent symptoms for at least 6 months, collectively termed post-COVID conditions (PCC). However, the impact of PCC on health care utilization has not been well described. Objectives: To estimate COVID-19-associated excess health care utilization following acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and describe utilization for select PCCs among patients who had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results (including reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and antigen tests) compared with control patients whose results were negative. Design, Setting, and Participants: This matched retrospective cohort study included patients of all ages from 8 large integrated health care systems across the United States who completed a SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test during March 1 to November 1, 2020. Patients were matched on age, sex, race and ethnicity, site, and date of SARS-CoV-2 test and were followed-up for 6 months. Data were analyzed from March 18, 2021, to June 8, 2022. Exposure: SARS-CoV-2 infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ratios of rate ratios (RRRs) for COVID-19-associated health care utilization were calculated with a difference-in-difference analysis using Poisson regression models. RRRs were estimated overall, by health care setting, by select population characteristics, and by 44 PCCs. COVID-19-associated excess health care utilization was estimated by health care setting. Results: The final matched cohort included 127 859 patients with test results positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 127 859 patients with test results negative for SARS-CoV-2. The mean (SD) age of the study population was 41.2 (18.6) years, 68 696 patients in each group (53.7%) were female, and each group included 66 211 Hispanic patients (51.8%), 9122 non-Hispanic Asian patients (7.1%), 7983 non-Hispanic Black patients (6.2%), and 34 326 non-Hispanic White patients (26.9%). Overall, SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a 4% increase in health care utilization over 6 months (RRR, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.03-1.05]), predominantly for virtual encounters (RRR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.12-1.16]), followed by emergency department visits (RRR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.04-1.12]). COVID-19-associated utilization for 18 PCCs remained elevated 6 months from the acute stage of infection, with the largest increase in COVID-19-associated utilization observed for infectious disease sequelae (RRR, 86.00 [95% CI, 5.07-1458.33]), COVID-19 (RRR, 19.47 [95% CI, 10.47-36.22]), alopecia (RRR, 2.52 [95% CI, 2.17-2.92]), bronchitis (RRR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.62-2.12]), pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis (RRR, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.36-2.23]), and dyspnea (RRR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.61-1.86]). In total, COVID-19-associated excess health care utilization amounted to an estimated 27 217 additional medical encounters over 6 months (212.9 [95% CI, 146.5-278.4] visits per 1000 patients). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study documented an excess health care burden of PCC in the 6 months after the acute stage of infection. As health care systems evolve during a highly dynamic and ongoing global pandemic, these data provide valuable evidence to inform long-term strategic resource allocation for patients previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Safety of COVID-19 Vaccination in United States Children Ages 5 to 11 Years.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Limited postauthorization safety data for the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination among children ages 5 to 11 years are available, particularly for the adverse event myocarditis, which has been detected in adolescents and young adults. We describe adverse events observed during the first 4 months of the United States coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination program in this age group. METHODS: We analyzed data from 3 United States safety monitoring systems: v-safe, a voluntary smartphone-based system that monitors reactions and health effects; the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), the national spontaneous reporting system comanaged by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration; and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, an active surveillance system that monitors electronic health records for prespecified events, including myocarditis. RESULTS: Among 48 795 children ages 5 to 11 years enrolled in v-safe, most reported reactions were mild-to-moderate, most frequently reported the day after vaccination, and were more common after dose 2. VAERS received 7578 adverse event reports; 97% were nonserious. On review of 194 serious VAERS reports, 15 myocarditis cases were verified; 8 occurred in boys after dose 2 (reporting rate 2.2 per million doses). In the Vaccine Safety Datalink, no safety signals were detected in weekly sequential monitoring after administration of 726 820 doses. CONCLUSIONS: Safety findings for Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine from 3 United States monitoring systems in children ages 5 to 11 years show that most reported adverse events were mild and no safety signals were observed in active surveillance. VAERS reporting rates of myocarditis after dose 2 in this age group were substantially lower than those observed among adolescents ages 12 to 15 years.

Risk of myocarditis and pericarditis following BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Evidence indicates that mRNA COVID-19 vaccination is associated with risk of myocarditis and possibly pericarditis, especially in young males. It is not clear if risk differs between mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2. We assessed if risk differs using comprehensive health records on a diverse population. METHODS: Members 18-39 years of age at eight integrated healthcare-delivery systems were monitored using data updated weekly and supplemented with medical record review of myocarditis and pericarditis cases. Incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis events that occurred among vaccine recipients 0 to 7 days after either dose 1 or 2 of a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine was compared with that of vaccinated concurrent comparators who, on the same calendar day, had received their most recent dose 22 to 42 days earlier. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated by conditional Poisson regression, adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, health plan, and calendar day. Head-to-head comparison directly assessed risk following mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 during 0-7 days post-vaccination. RESULTS: From December 14, 2020 - January 15, 2022 there were 41 cases after 2,891,498 doses of BNT162b2 and 38 cases after 1,803,267 doses of mRNA-1273. Cases had similar demographic and clinical characteristics. Most were hospitalized for ≤1 day; none required intensive care. During days 0-7 after dose 2 of BNT162b2, the incidence was 14.3 (CI: 6.5-34.9) times higher than the comparison interval, amounting to 22.4 excess cases per million doses; after mRNA-1273 the incidence was 18.8 (CI: 6.7-64.9) times higher than the comparison interval, amounting to 31.2 excess cases per million doses. In head-to-head comparisons 0-7 days after either dose, risk was moderately higher after mRNA-1273 than after BNT162b2 (RR: 1.61, CI 1.02-2.54). CONCLUSIONS: Both vaccines were associated with increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in 18-39-year-olds. Risk estimates were modestly higher after mRNA-1273 than after BNT162b2.

Hospitalization and Emergency Department Encounters for COVID-19 After Paxlovid Treatment - California, December 2021-May 2022.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) is a combination protease inhibitor that blocks replication of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) and has been shown to reduce the risk for hospitalization and death among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who are at risk for progression to severe disease* (1). In December 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for early treatment with Paxlovid among persons with mild to moderate cases of COVID-19 who are at high risk for progression to severe disease (2). FDA and a small number of published case reports have documented recurrence of COVID-19 symptoms or a positive viral test result (COVID-19 rebound) 2-8 days after recovery or a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result among patients treated with Paxlovid (3-7); however, large-scale studies investigating severe illness after Paxlovid treatment are limited. This study used electronic health record (EHR) data from a large integrated health care system in California (Kaiser Permanente Southern California [KPSC]) to describe hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) encounters related to SARS-CoV-2 infections during the 5-15 days after pharmacy dispensation of a 5-day treatment course of Paxlovid. Among 5,287 persons aged ≥12 years who received Paxlovid during December 31, 2021-May 26, 2022, 73% had received ≥3 doses of COVID-19 vaccine†, and 8% were unvaccinated. During the 5-15 days after Paxlovid treatment was dispensed, six hospitalizations and 39 ED encounters considered to be related to SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified, representing <1% of all patients to whom Paxlovid treatment was dispensed during the study period. Among these 45 persons, 21 (47%) were aged ≥65 years, and 35 (78%) had at least one underlying medical condition§ (8). This study found that hospitalization or ED encounters for COVID-19 during the 5-15 days after Paxlovid treatment was dispensed for mild to moderate COVID-19 illness were rarely identified. When administered as an early-stage treatment, Paxlovid might prevent COVID-19-related hospitalization among persons with mild to moderate cases of COVID-19 who are at risk for progression to severe disease.

"Still on the Fence": A Mixed Methods Investigation of COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence Among Health Care Providers.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence of disparities in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among health care providers. The purpose of this study was to examine confidence receiving and recommending COVID-19 vaccines by health care provider type and race/ethnicity. METHODS: This mixed methods study involved a cross-sectional survey and qualitative, semi-structured interviews from March to May 2021 among a sample of physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, and pharmacists. These workers were recruited through voluntary response sampling from an integrated health system in Southern California. The primary dependent variables were (a) confidence in vaccine safety, (b) confidence in vaccine effectiveness, and (c) intent to recommend the vaccine to others. The primary independent variables were health care provider type and race/ethnicity. FINDINGS: A total of 2,948 providers completed the survey. Nurses relative to physicians were 15% less likely to perceive the COVID-19 vaccine to be safe (risk ratio [RR] = 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.83-0.87); 27% less likely to perceive the vaccine to prevent COVID-19 (RR = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.69-0.76); and 11% less likely to recommend the vaccine to others (RR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.87-0.91). Hispanic/Latinx providers were 10% less likely to perceive the vaccine to prevent COVID-19 (RR = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.83-0.98) relative to White providers. Qualitative themes included: No need for vaccine; distrusting vaccine research and roll-out; caretaking barriers; uncertainty and potential to change one's mind; framing vaccine decisions around personal beliefs. CONCLUSIONS & APPLICATION TO PRACTICE: Health care workplaces should consider interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccination among their workers, including education and mandatory vaccination policies.

Health Care Providers' Trusted Sources for Information About COVID-19 Vaccines: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Information and opinions shared by health care providers can affect patient vaccination decisions, but little is known about who health care providers themselves trust for information in the context of new COVID-19 vaccines. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to investigate which sources of information about COVID-19 vaccines are trusted by health care providers and how they communicate this information to patients. METHODS: This mixed methods study involved a one-time, web-based survey of health care providers and qualitative interviews with a subset of survey respondents. Health care providers (physicians, advanced practice providers, pharmacists, nurses) were recruited from an integrated health system in Southern California using voluntary response sampling, with follow-up interviews with providers who either accepted or declined a COVID-19 vaccine. The outcome was the type of information sources that respondents reported trusting for information about COVID-19 vaccines. Bivariate tests were used to compare trusted information sources by provider type; thematic analysis was used to explore perspectives about vaccine information and communicating with patients about vaccines. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 2948 providers, of whom 91% (n=2683) responded that they had received ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The most frequently trusted source of COVID-19 vaccine information was government agencies (n=2513, 84.2%); the least frequently trusted source was social media (n=691, 9.5%). More physicians trusted government agencies (n=1226, 93%) than nurses (n=927, 78%) or pharmacists (n=203, 78%; P<.001), and more physicians trusted their employer (n=1115, 84%) than advanced practice providers (n=95, 67%) and nurses (n=759, 64%; P=.002). Qualitative themes (n=32 participants) about trusted sources of COVID-19 vaccine information were identified: processing new COVID-19 information in a health care work context likened to a "war zone" during the pandemic and communicating information to patients. Some providers were hesitant to recommend vaccines to pregnant people and groups they perceived to be at low risk for COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians have stronger trust in government sources and their employers for information about COVID-19 vaccines compared with nurses, pharmacists, and advanced practice providers. Strategies such as role modeling, tailored messaging, or talking points with standard language may help providers to communicate accurate COVID-19 vaccine information to patients, and these strategies may also be used with providers with lower levels of trust in reputable information sources.

Surveillance for Adverse Events After COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination.

Importance: Safety surveillance of vaccines against COVID-19 is critical to ensure safety, maintain trust, and inform policy. Objectives: To monitor 23 serious outcomes weekly, using comprehensive health records on a diverse population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study represents an interim analysis of safety surveillance data from Vaccine Safety Datalink. The 10 162 227 vaccine-eligible members of 8 participating US health plans were monitored with administrative data updated weekly and supplemented with medical record review for selected outcomes from December 14, 2020, through June 26, 2021. Exposures: Receipt of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccination, with a risk interval of 21 days for individuals after vaccine dose 1 or 2 compared with an interval of 22 to 42 days for similar individuals after vaccine dose 1 or 2. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence of serious outcomes, including acute myocardial infarction, Bell palsy, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, myocarditis/pericarditis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome. Incidence of events that occurred among vaccine recipients 1 to 21 days after either dose 1 or 2 of a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine was compared with that of vaccinated concurrent comparators who, on the same calendar day, had received their most recent dose 22 to 42 days earlier. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated by Poisson regression, adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, health plan, and calendar day. For a signal, a 1-sided P < .0048 was required to keep type I error below .05 during 2 years of weekly analyses. For 4 additional outcomes, including anaphylaxis, only descriptive analyses were conducted. Results: A total of 11 845 128 doses of mRNA vaccines (57% BNT162b2; 6 175 813 first doses and 5 669 315 second doses) were administered to 6.2 million individuals (mean age, 49 years; 54% female individuals). The incidence of events per 1 000 000 person-years during the risk vs comparison intervals for ischemic stroke was 1612 vs 1781 (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87-1.08); for appendicitis, 1179 vs 1345 (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93); and for acute myocardial infarction, 935 vs 1030 (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.18). No vaccine-outcome association met the prespecified requirement for a signal. Incidence of confirmed anaphylaxis was 4.8 (95% CI, 3.2-6.9) per million doses of BNT162b2 and 5.1 (95% CI, 3.3-7.6) per million doses of mRNA-1273. Conclusions and Relevance: In interim analyses of surveillance of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, incidence of selected serious outcomes was not significantly higher 1 to 21 days postvaccination compared with 22 to 42 days postvaccination. While CIs were wide for many outcomes, surveillance is ongoing.